The fact that Charles Koch is comfortable with Hillary as president says it all. The Clintons have deliberately killed the Democratic Party of FDR and MLK (despite the ease with which they have bamboozled black voters for decades), and turned it into the Republican Lite party that is basically just Republicanism with abortion rights. Hard to see how even Hillary can con Americans into believing she has anything at all in common with Bernie.
28
Jimmy Carter just did an interview where he was very firm about our country being in an oligarchy. This coincides with Sander's views.
19
Bernie Sanders has disingenuously run our Democratic Party ticket into the ground, taking longstanding democratic issues to claim as his own, and then fracturing our party. He and some of his more obnoxious supporters have broken us, possibly beyond repair, with false allegations about Secretary Clinton, all claims to his own ideological purity aside.
Today, I received another of six high-gloss and un-recyclable mailers from Mr. Sanders with a photo of a blond-haired child drinking a glass of water. One quote: "Only one candidate is looking out for her." Seriously, Mr. Sanders?
Bernie Sanders has stood on the side of gun manufacturers. He is spending his donors hard-earned money to mendaciously impugn the integrity of Secretary Clinton with 8 by 10 color glossies. Mrs. Clinton has spent her life in public service, not, as Mr. Sanders tediously claims, in the pockets of Wall Street. There has been no quid pro quo. The record is clear on this, yet he continues to make allegations, which he knows are false. The two candidates voted together in Congress 94 percent of the time.
So a question. Why on earth should Secretary Clinton "Feel the Bern."
mlouisemarkle
State College PA
Today, I received another of six high-gloss and un-recyclable mailers from Mr. Sanders with a photo of a blond-haired child drinking a glass of water. One quote: "Only one candidate is looking out for her." Seriously, Mr. Sanders?
Bernie Sanders has stood on the side of gun manufacturers. He is spending his donors hard-earned money to mendaciously impugn the integrity of Secretary Clinton with 8 by 10 color glossies. Mrs. Clinton has spent her life in public service, not, as Mr. Sanders tediously claims, in the pockets of Wall Street. There has been no quid pro quo. The record is clear on this, yet he continues to make allegations, which he knows are false. The two candidates voted together in Congress 94 percent of the time.
So a question. Why on earth should Secretary Clinton "Feel the Bern."
mlouisemarkle
State College PA
16
For those folks insisting they'll never vote for Clinton: have you ever lived somewhere where the moderate Democrat defeated the conservative Republican in an election and seen how huge that was? They bring in great people and make positive changes. Have you ever lived somewhere where the conservative Republican defeated the moderate Democrat, and what terrible, lasting consequences there were?
Think your bad thoughts about Hillary and feel your Bern. Hold onto your principals. But please please please grow up.
Think your bad thoughts about Hillary and feel your Bern. Hold onto your principals. But please please please grow up.
12
The choice in almost every election is about the
lesser of 2 evils. I would hope that a majority of Americans,
i.e. those w/o reptilian brain synapses, would come to this
obvious conclusion, and do the right thing for our world.
Ideological purity and perfection only occur in N. Korea,
Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., etc.
My kids adore Bernie, but they're oblivious to the republican alternatives
lesser of 2 evils. I would hope that a majority of Americans,
i.e. those w/o reptilian brain synapses, would come to this
obvious conclusion, and do the right thing for our world.
Ideological purity and perfection only occur in N. Korea,
Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., etc.
My kids adore Bernie, but they're oblivious to the republican alternatives
5
I don't know how old Adam Nagourney is, but perhaps he should stop relying on Wikipedia for historical fact. The threats to spike the Chicago water supply and seduce delegates's wives were made tongue in cheek by the Yippies, along with nominating a pig. The Yippies hardly supported McCarthy, never supported a candidate and derided Clean for Gene supporters. I don't think anyone but Daley took these threats seriously. Comparing that to today's division is amusing, but hardly informative or part of a serious analysis.
12
Trashing Hillary and the DNC until words fail will not broaden the base of Sanders. He attracts white liberals, especially young white liberals. That is a very good sign for the future Bernie is the most progressive candidate in decades. But he is not Obama, who is a brilliant charismatic orator, and he does not attract the minority vote. Two essentials for a newcomer to national politics like Bernie. This is the reality in this right-of-center nation.
Hillary has many obvious flaws and has made many mistakes but If bridges to party unity are destroyed by those who fail to understand US politics for what they are, then they will be to blame for a complete right wing coup, ending any hope for a future Bernie Sanders...forever. It is that serious.
Hillary has many obvious flaws and has made many mistakes but If bridges to party unity are destroyed by those who fail to understand US politics for what they are, then they will be to blame for a complete right wing coup, ending any hope for a future Bernie Sanders...forever. It is that serious.
6
Hillary is a stooge of her perception and the establishment. She seems to operate more for the good of Hillary than for the good of the country. When I watch and listen to her she reeks of insincerity. It darts across her face and permeates her countenance with false smiles and fake laughter. Please, not Hillary. Nothing good will ever come of it or her, but the same old, same old, in a time when we face huge problems (I know we always face huge problems) but to paraphrase Bernie this time they are immense and overflowing. Our systems will not keep up unless we have bright visionary leaders--not wonks like Hillary, but visionaries. Hillary is burdened by the politics of self and the politics of the perceived-possible. Neither of these will be adequate for the future shifts that are before us. If Hillary is the candidate Democrats need to stay home so that in four years we may get someone better.
14
I swore to myself that I would never vote for someone who supported invading Iraq. I've stuck to that vow and intend to do so again this November. If my ballot doesn't provide for writing in Bernie Sanders, I'll leave that part blank. I'm sick and tired of the extortionist manipulation of the electorate: you can't have your candidate but if you don't vote for the corporatist, you'll be stuck with the fascist. If we have to create a new party to turn this sorry ship of state toward a progressively liberal course that serves the people rather than the greedy gnomes now pilfering our Treasury while the infrastructure crumbles, so be it.
20
In this column's comments and ever so many that I have read over the years, I see reassuring evidence that the irrational left is exchangeable with the irrational right. I saves me from having to conclude that large swaths of humanity are actively in league with the devil. Better to be commonly, perhaps fatally, flawed than selectively, but existentially, evil. It gives us common cause.
2
Dismantling both parties is what's important. Clinton feeling the Bern is meaningless.
10
I am a democrat but its interesting to be in a party with a pack of hypocrites. Reading comments here in the NYT during the NY primary the independents were basically told to get lost - its a closed primary, you knew the rules, blah blah blah... should HRC get the nomination you all will be crying for these same votes. I hope the NY independents in particular return the favor.
16
The most dangerous people in our country are uncompromising ideological purists, both on the right and on the left.
10
How can Democrats NOT unite in the face of a possible President Trump, or even worse, President Cruz?
10
Supreme Court. Vote Democrat. That is all!
9
How can she not pivot more center in this election? When you think of all the moderate Republicans horrified at their choices vs. the amount of liberal disaffected vs. the enormous question mark of the unregistered general populace.
Its a spreadsheet fetishist's dream!
Its a spreadsheet fetishist's dream!
Exasperating. Even if you want to take your Bernie ball and go home, get to the polls and vote in the congressional elections! If Bernie's followers really want change, and not just the gratification of feeling pure, they actually have to participate in the sausage-making of governance. Not only is this political reality. You don't get to disrespect the millions of people with different party affiliations and worldviews with whom you disagree and just shove your agendas down their throats--unless you want to let them do the same to you. You have to work hard at coming up with arguments and actual, feasible, detailed programs to implement dreams, ones that share some common ground with the Other Guys. This is a lot harder than sulking.
8
I am a Bernie supporter. He has earned my vote by earnestly standing up for the ideas and ideals that I have always associated with liberalism. If the democratic party, and Clinton, want my vote in Nov., then let's see an equally earnest commitment to some of those same liberal ideals. I am tired of double speak and excuses. It's not good enough that we dance with money and influence because the "other side" is doing it too (latest argument for high dollar fund raisers). Dump the PACs and put your trust in the people you claim to fight for. Short of real action (not lawyer-like double speak) toward a renewed liberalism, in the spirit of the Sander's message, and I will not be inspired. I suspect many of my fellow Bernie supports are looking, waiting, for the same.
13
Best comment-- Naomi from New England. Right on, girl!!!
There is a new generation of voters coming of age and Sanders most effectively bridges the generation gap. 48% of ALL registered voters identify as Independent, so it's not a two party system anymore. That's what I would expect the Times to be reporting if they weren't so bia$ed. That's why people are fighting for representation via open elections in NY and elsewhere. The two-party system is inherently violent. Dualistic thinking (red/blue) is a dead end. What's happening is a paradigm shift - that's why the Sanders movement is not just a bunch of brats having a tantrum. He is the only candidate for the Environment and a fine representative for women's rights. He is already bringing the changes we need. I'm not going to stop supporting him.
15
For those of us who want to see the Clinton Political Machine thoroughly discredited, dismantled, and ultimately disconnected from the party ... once and for all ... it's impossible to imagine unification.
14
To all the ardent Bernie supporters I'm reading from in these comments, are you all out there fighting for the candidate we all so want? As long as there's a chance, no matter how meager, I'm not giving up. It will be unpalatable and very hard to decide between the Republicans who never owed me a thing and the Dem party that I used to trust (at least more than the Republicans).
It's not just Hillary that so turns me off; it's how the Dem machinery allowed her to manipulate, behind public eyes, all likely competitors before the primary season. It just stinks of high corruption. So please, fight for Bernie as though you life depends on it (and it just might).
It's not just Hillary that so turns me off; it's how the Dem machinery allowed her to manipulate, behind public eyes, all likely competitors before the primary season. It just stinks of high corruption. So please, fight for Bernie as though you life depends on it (and it just might).
9
Apples and Oranges. What happened in past Democratic contests isn't releveant because Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat and neither are his supporters. Independents obviously don't care if they tear apart the Democratic party.
5
25% of Sanders supporters say they won't defect to the dark side (to Clinton). Assuming half do defect ("Holding their nose to vote," one Clinton manager called it.), Assuming she already has 60% of the Democrats. She needs the 40% who are with Sanders. If we assume the vote is 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans, then 25% of the Sanders vote is 10% of the Democrats. She loses 40/60 against Trump. Even if half the Sanders supporters defect to Clinton, she loses 45/55.
Talk about math, as the Clinton campaign (Oh, coronation committee --- sorry!), Clinton must win 80-90% of the Sanders supporters to win. As it is, I think 25% is optimistic considering that it comes from the Clinton campaign on Real Clear Politics.
Talk about math, as the Clinton campaign (Oh, coronation committee --- sorry!), Clinton must win 80-90% of the Sanders supporters to win. As it is, I think 25% is optimistic considering that it comes from the Clinton campaign on Real Clear Politics.
7
I don't really agree with much of this combination governing between neo-liberals and neo-cons. Neo-liberalism by itself isn't my natural disposition.
I was born in 1949 and in my childhood to age 11 I truly loved Eisenhower.
However, in 1960 JFK was elected and something just glowed in side me and I was so proud to be an American and that he was President. I read his Profiles in Courage, was thrilled with his moon speech, "we choose to do these things because they are hard".
My parents were Republican's but when JFK became President I was a Democrat right away and have never swayed.
Obama was thrilling in his first two years but the fight went out of him and so did traditional core beliefs of Democrats that stem from FDR, JFK, and LBJ with civil rights passage and war on poverty that died because of his bad decisions to escalate the war. At college in the late sixties I use to walk around telling my classmates that LBJ was trying to kill me!
Sanders has reawakened my youthful glow that rightful sharing of democracy and capitalism is still active. I love the man for this.
But if Clinton becomes the nominee and I know she does not represent true liberal traditions and as most Democrats in Congress has gone along with the power of the capitalists. I'll vote for her.
Why because not voting for her would be like shooting myself in both feet at the same time and I would be crippling myself with giving the GOP their opportunity to control all three branches.
No No No
I was born in 1949 and in my childhood to age 11 I truly loved Eisenhower.
However, in 1960 JFK was elected and something just glowed in side me and I was so proud to be an American and that he was President. I read his Profiles in Courage, was thrilled with his moon speech, "we choose to do these things because they are hard".
My parents were Republican's but when JFK became President I was a Democrat right away and have never swayed.
Obama was thrilling in his first two years but the fight went out of him and so did traditional core beliefs of Democrats that stem from FDR, JFK, and LBJ with civil rights passage and war on poverty that died because of his bad decisions to escalate the war. At college in the late sixties I use to walk around telling my classmates that LBJ was trying to kill me!
Sanders has reawakened my youthful glow that rightful sharing of democracy and capitalism is still active. I love the man for this.
But if Clinton becomes the nominee and I know she does not represent true liberal traditions and as most Democrats in Congress has gone along with the power of the capitalists. I'll vote for her.
Why because not voting for her would be like shooting myself in both feet at the same time and I would be crippling myself with giving the GOP their opportunity to control all three branches.
No No No
5
These excellent historical illustrations point to the key for Clinton. She must point out to the Sanders contingent that she is for what he is for but that she will pursue those ideals in a manner that allows for their eventual success. She is for universal health care, but will accomplish in incremental changes to Obamacare. She is for the reduction of the power of the banks, making education available to all, equalizing wealth, etc., but she vows to do all these things in accomplishable increments. If she sincerely commits to all that, the Sanders vote will get behind her.
3
The real problem is that Hillary is not a unifier. Never has been, never will be. It has been a problem for her in the primary and will be in the general election. It is a reality. That's why we need Bernie.
11
If we were talking about a country like Brazil or any other country that has a relatively strong organized working class and a real left-wing party, I would agree with the "back Hillary Clinton now to advance later" thesis ("one step back now, two steps forward tomorrow").
But since we are talking about the USA - the most rigged representative democracy, where there's no real left-wing party with realistic chances of winning and where the politicians are most dominated by a behind-the-curtains elite - I don't agree with it. Hillary is a conservative under progressive clothes, the American people has nothing to gain with her in presidency (apart from the post-modern/second-wave feminist fetish of electing the first female president). In terms of foreign policy, she is more conservative than Donald Trump.
I think there's a material base for the so-called "political revolution" Bernie Sanders has been calling for. Polls after polls show there's a universal political agenda that unites the vast majority of the American population (both Republicans and Democrats, from the Deep South to New England). The majority thinks the system is rigged, the majority wants universal healthcare, free tuitions, infrastructure investments, breaking the big banks also has majority popular support.
It's up to Bernie Sanders supporters to do an analysis of this process, the rights and wrongs, organize (tactics and strategy) and prepare an agenda of mobilization in the short and medium terms.
But since we are talking about the USA - the most rigged representative democracy, where there's no real left-wing party with realistic chances of winning and where the politicians are most dominated by a behind-the-curtains elite - I don't agree with it. Hillary is a conservative under progressive clothes, the American people has nothing to gain with her in presidency (apart from the post-modern/second-wave feminist fetish of electing the first female president). In terms of foreign policy, she is more conservative than Donald Trump.
I think there's a material base for the so-called "political revolution" Bernie Sanders has been calling for. Polls after polls show there's a universal political agenda that unites the vast majority of the American population (both Republicans and Democrats, from the Deep South to New England). The majority thinks the system is rigged, the majority wants universal healthcare, free tuitions, infrastructure investments, breaking the big banks also has majority popular support.
It's up to Bernie Sanders supporters to do an analysis of this process, the rights and wrongs, organize (tactics and strategy) and prepare an agenda of mobilization in the short and medium terms.
7
When we continue to vote for the lesser of evils, why should they offer us the good?
9
As a fervent Sanders supporter and multiple small contributor like many here, IF Hillary is coronated as the Republican lite candidate, I'll hold my nose and vote for her, but also start organizing to make her a one term Presidrnt and look for someone to primary her from the left in 2020 if she doesn't have the good sense to retire at 72.
1
I am a Bernie contributor and an HRC supporter. To all Bernie supporters, I ask that you vote for HRC. Otherwise you will be playing the same role that Nader supporters did in Bush v Gore. Today nobody can tell me that we were better off with Shrub as the President - Gore should have been the winner. It did not help that Nader took votes away. It only helped Bush. So my fellow Bernie supporters the Nation needs you to head off a fascist threat. Don't sit on the sidelines. don't vote for Trump. Vote for HRC and we all will be better off for it.
5
Why didn't the pollsters ask if Clinton supporters would vote for Sanders if he were the nominee? I'd genuinely like to know.
13
Revolutions succeed when the troops work in the trenches over long periods of time. They do not go home after the first battle is lost. I hope that Bernie Sanders reminds his passionate supporters of this and urges them to fully support a Clinton candidacy. Sanders also must urge his supporters to run for local offices, again and again if necessary, to propel the ideas they love up through the land. Both of these actions will be a "Bern" they can be proud of.
6
The "Democratic" Party never considered to give any real opportunity to Sanders, it has always just wanted to use Sanders to attract the 40+% Independents like me, but their dishonesty has caused me and my wife to now tell you that we will first support anybody else but corporate Hillary Clinton.
12
I hope that Sanders does the right thing and works to unite the party if Clinton gets the nomination. I liked Sanders right up until the point where he said that Hillary Clinton isn't qualified to be president. Because for all his vague talk of "political revolution", you know what's approximately the least revolutionary thing ever? An older white guy proclaiming that the vastly more qualified woman vying for the same job somehow "isn't qualified." When Republicans make statements like that, we call it a dog whistle.
4
In response to Socrates:
Well, unfortunately that's not all. Maybe a personal bleach cleansing would figuratively help you feel a bit better about yourself, but what about the rising deaths (civilian as well as combatant) of the endless wars? What about the future-less unemployed and ever-increasing life-long servitude of in-debt college graduates? What about the continued cutting down of young black men on the streets by too many cops of America? What about the devastations of climate change and extreme weather due to continued human folly? What about the ever-more frequent frequent earthquakes and the tainting of our water sources due to continued fracking? And what about the breath-taking and massive theft of every bit of national wealth by what in any other situation would be called an economic coup d' etat?
Tell me, Socrates, should we all simply deny the writing on the wall and drink the bleach cool-aid?
Well, unfortunately that's not all. Maybe a personal bleach cleansing would figuratively help you feel a bit better about yourself, but what about the rising deaths (civilian as well as combatant) of the endless wars? What about the future-less unemployed and ever-increasing life-long servitude of in-debt college graduates? What about the continued cutting down of young black men on the streets by too many cops of America? What about the devastations of climate change and extreme weather due to continued human folly? What about the ever-more frequent frequent earthquakes and the tainting of our water sources due to continued fracking? And what about the breath-taking and massive theft of every bit of national wealth by what in any other situation would be called an economic coup d' etat?
Tell me, Socrates, should we all simply deny the writing on the wall and drink the bleach cool-aid?
6
By the way, your graphic is priceless. Voters trudging from a bleak gray silhouette of Bernie's face to a bleak gray silhouette of Hillary's face. It's the sort of hypnotizing propaganda you might see on the tele-screen in George Orwell's 1984. Nice job!
7
As a Bernie supporter I will surely vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. But there are plenty of Bernie supporters, mostly young people, who normally don't vote, and who will revert to their non-voting ways if he is not the candidate.
2
Has it occurred to anyone that many of us who voted for Clinton in the primaries truly support her platform and policy positions, and don't *want* her to "feel the Bern"?
4
It's now a source of amusement to read the Comments section on any article dealing with Clinton because you can be sure there will always be waves upon waves of Sanderites repeating years and years of GOP slander. Their man is losing and they're crying in their soup.
After 25 years, you'd think there'd be something that would stick to Clinton. Nope, there isn't. People here write about "flip flops" (which ones?), "dirty tricks" (which ones), and on and on. Never any proof, merely a repetition of GOP-inspired arsenal of lies (also repeated, and repeated, and repeated) over the past 25 years.
Why the hate-on for Clinton? She's been vetted. No smoking guns and some of the vituperation stems from what can be rightly called conspiracy theories. Speeches to big biz? You'd think by now someone would have leaked something damning, like Romney's "47%". Nope.
So why? It can only be that power, and the quest for it, remains unseemly for a woman, a position held by some Dem men and women alike. Clinton is an excellent candidate, and very much human like all of us.
Heather Mallick, of the Toronto Star, now and then writes in her column, when touching on women's issues, "Never forget how much you [women] are hated." And she knows that this doesn't exclude those on the left who don't want to look closely into the dark corners of their psyche.
Hillary Clinton will overcome you too.
After 25 years, you'd think there'd be something that would stick to Clinton. Nope, there isn't. People here write about "flip flops" (which ones?), "dirty tricks" (which ones), and on and on. Never any proof, merely a repetition of GOP-inspired arsenal of lies (also repeated, and repeated, and repeated) over the past 25 years.
Why the hate-on for Clinton? She's been vetted. No smoking guns and some of the vituperation stems from what can be rightly called conspiracy theories. Speeches to big biz? You'd think by now someone would have leaked something damning, like Romney's "47%". Nope.
So why? It can only be that power, and the quest for it, remains unseemly for a woman, a position held by some Dem men and women alike. Clinton is an excellent candidate, and very much human like all of us.
Heather Mallick, of the Toronto Star, now and then writes in her column, when touching on women's issues, "Never forget how much you [women] are hated." And she knows that this doesn't exclude those on the left who don't want to look closely into the dark corners of their psyche.
Hillary Clinton will overcome you too.
9
I might have supported Bernie anyway, but my main motivator is a dislike and distrust of Hillary's hawkish ways, and her feeling of entitlement which leads her into making poor decisions based more on defense of herself than the good of the party or the country. She's always a day late and a dollar short, late to the party, not a leader of persons.
14
So basically the conclusion of this article was that the reason for "unity" may just lie in Hillary being reduced to the "Anybody but Trump/Cruz" candidate. This isn't much to create enthusiasm among the electorate, only fear. And then what of the majority of the electorate who have the impression that Hillary is untrustworthy? That impression isn't anything new, but something that has been felt by voters over the decades of exposure to her.
If the Democratic party is unable to "unite" a large part of the blame needs to be laid at the feet of the DNC for forcing Hillary on us as the nominee.
If the Democratic party is unable to "unite" a large part of the blame needs to be laid at the feet of the DNC for forcing Hillary on us as the nominee.
9
OK, I think I am about to give up.
I just read who exactly are those "super-delegates" who can, for all intent and purposes, bypass the popular vote and decide who is going to be the candidate to represent the party. The description I read: "These are party leaders and elected officials". So we now have a system that ask people to vote, and then, ignores their vote. Unbelievable!! And I thought my vote counted for something. But now, it doesn't. Spending so much time keeping track of what politicians do so as to make the right choice is clearly not worth it in the current system. This is NOT democracy! I am so disgusted with the whole affair.
I just read who exactly are those "super-delegates" who can, for all intent and purposes, bypass the popular vote and decide who is going to be the candidate to represent the party. The description I read: "These are party leaders and elected officials". So we now have a system that ask people to vote, and then, ignores their vote. Unbelievable!! And I thought my vote counted for something. But now, it doesn't. Spending so much time keeping track of what politicians do so as to make the right choice is clearly not worth it in the current system. This is NOT democracy! I am so disgusted with the whole affair.
10
A better question might be, "Can Bernie's supporters feel the Clinton?" And the answer is that we have already felt "the Clinton," and it feels inauthentic. There is a reason that Clinton's net unfavorability ratings are second only to Donald Trump's and even worse than Ted Cruz's. Voters sense that Clinton's bid for the White house is more about her than it is about them. It's about Hillary; it's always been about Hillary, and voters don't like it.
For Bernie's supporters -- who, after a lifetime of alienation and cynicism, have finally experienced a candidate who puts compassion ahead of politics, people ahead of himself, and who actually walks his talk about campaign finance reform -- settling for Clinton is especially hard. She represents everything we reject about the politics we grew up with. And having once felt the Bern -- and having seen that it is politically viable -- we are not likely to settle for anything less, ever again. For us, there is no going back to the kind of politics that Clinton represents. A revolution has started, the Force has awakened, and the Establishment is afraid.
For Bernie's supporters -- who, after a lifetime of alienation and cynicism, have finally experienced a candidate who puts compassion ahead of politics, people ahead of himself, and who actually walks his talk about campaign finance reform -- settling for Clinton is especially hard. She represents everything we reject about the politics we grew up with. And having once felt the Bern -- and having seen that it is politically viable -- we are not likely to settle for anything less, ever again. For us, there is no going back to the kind of politics that Clinton represents. A revolution has started, the Force has awakened, and the Establishment is afraid.
13
I think it's too early to run articles like this. Wait till the contest is over. Give the Sanders supporters their chance to see this process through as far as it goes. Even then, many of us will need to be time to adjust to the establishment candidate Hillary as our best hope for a time that requires so much more.
In Washington state, we're still winnowing down the vast number of people who want to be Bernie delegates as we go from the precinct level through the legislative district level and then the state level. Idealistic people, many of them young, are playing their role in trying to make a difference. Around 80% of the delegates from our state will go to Bernie. I am one of many Washingtonians who still have a ways to go before turning to the distasteful thought of settling for less.
In Washington state, we're still winnowing down the vast number of people who want to be Bernie delegates as we go from the precinct level through the legislative district level and then the state level. Idealistic people, many of them young, are playing their role in trying to make a difference. Around 80% of the delegates from our state will go to Bernie. I am one of many Washingtonians who still have a ways to go before turning to the distasteful thought of settling for less.
10
You're counting Sanders out, and telling people to support Clinton, far too soon. That, and we are free to decide--thoughtfully, decisively, and ideally without derision-- to vote for someone other than Clinton if she wins the nomination.
10
If Hillary is the nominee, Sanders supporters will have to choose between two Republicans in disguise - Clinton and Trump.
7
Hillary can not feel the Bern. She can feel the money she gets from her sponsors. And there are no doubts that they are not about feeling the Bern, but feeling the profits from their own affairs
7
The long-term solution is to break the chain of the two ruling parties, both of which support a neoliberal political economy and the military industrial complex. I changed my party membership from Green to Democrat in order to vote for Bernie in the NY primary. If Hillary wins the nomination, I plan to vote for Jill Stein. I'm in a blue state, so there is less risk of the spoiler effect. If I were in a swing state, I might have a different tactic.
2
I am 66, hardly a first time voter. "Disgruntled"? Are you kidding? In all my years I have never seen such outrageous, indescribable propaganda, manipulation and dirty tricks as I see coming from the power elite. I too, have been thinking about 1968, which I remember more accurately than Mr. Nagourney.
To quote:
"Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'".
(With many thanks to BOB DYLAN).
To quote:
"Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'".
(With many thanks to BOB DYLAN).
7
"To all the people who supported Senator Sanders, I believe there is much more that unites us than divides us."
First off I am not done supporting Senator Sanders!
And this quote is just another example of how you are out of touch with his supporters. One can believe that there is more that unites all one wants-your saying this changes not a thing.This is where you are not in touch with voters.You say a lot of what you think people want you to say, yet you have no gumption or any real policy to stand on.What is your policy platform Hillary? You do not have one...$15 hr. minimum wage? TPP? as examples.
Twenty four % of Supporters for Sen Sanders, maybe younger voters,but they are the future.If you need or want their support one really needs to make some of Bernie Sanders policies a policy.
PS Will be shocked if Elizabeth Warren would ever be your VP.
First off I am not done supporting Senator Sanders!
And this quote is just another example of how you are out of touch with his supporters. One can believe that there is more that unites all one wants-your saying this changes not a thing.This is where you are not in touch with voters.You say a lot of what you think people want you to say, yet you have no gumption or any real policy to stand on.What is your policy platform Hillary? You do not have one...$15 hr. minimum wage? TPP? as examples.
Twenty four % of Supporters for Sen Sanders, maybe younger voters,but they are the future.If you need or want their support one really needs to make some of Bernie Sanders policies a policy.
PS Will be shocked if Elizabeth Warren would ever be your VP.
9
These foregone conclusions from the Times's and HIllary supporters are getting tiresome.
"But there may be limits to what Mrs. Clinton herself can do to earn the support of his voters."
There are significant limits, indeed, and Mrs. Clinton would be wise to accept an invitation from Senator Sanders to become his running mate.
Touché.
"But there may be limits to what Mrs. Clinton herself can do to earn the support of his voters."
There are significant limits, indeed, and Mrs. Clinton would be wise to accept an invitation from Senator Sanders to become his running mate.
Touché.
7
It's amazing how people are able to read my mind. In the future, should her highness be the nominee and onto victory as president, I will cheer for her and even help to re-elect her. So how old was I when I knew there was no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny? It's not the same.
I hate war-mongers. I hate liars. I hate candidates who steal the issues other candidates bring forth. I hate Hillary Clinton and that is it for now and forever. I will never vote for her and will write in my candidate who has my morals. that is Bernie.
I hate war-mongers. I hate liars. I hate candidates who steal the issues other candidates bring forth. I hate Hillary Clinton and that is it for now and forever. I will never vote for her and will write in my candidate who has my morals. that is Bernie.
9
"...there is nothing selfish about voting your values instead of the lesser of evils." Yes there is, if voting your values in 2016 is so narrowly defined that it means handing Republicans the keys to the national car so they can drive the country into the ditch again; so they can dismantle or substantially weaken 80 years of hard fought progressive gains; so they can install another Justice Scalia in the SCOTUS, ensuring giant leaps backwards for women's and many others' rights. Voting your values means understanding the likely real-world consequences of your vote and voting smart in support of your and your community's best long-term interests.
2
If there were open primaries, the delagate count would be very different. Hillary would by now be conceding to Bernie and we could all go to the beach since Bernie will wipe the floor with any clown the Grand Old Prevaricators put on the ballot. Check the polls; The independents support Bernie in a big way.
If Hillary wants to unify the party, she had best get on the Sanders agenda. That's what the voters are demanding. Not republican lite.
If Hillary wants to unify the party, she had best get on the Sanders agenda. That's what the voters are demanding. Not republican lite.
6
Hillary and Hillary Supporters remember what happened to Al Gore and John Kerry. The Swift Boating style of the Right, yes I know Swift Boating wasn't around for Al Gore, I'm using the analogy for both.
But this time the gloves are off. The licentious innuendo that Sanders has used from the earliest of days during his campaign is going to be met with a 'shove back' this time. First time-Shame on you, Second time, It ain't gong to happen again.
Sanders thought he could just start accusing Hillary of that silly "six figure" speaking fee's nonsense. Her making promises to Wall Street for that kind of money-well, you can impress your young, impressionable Student Loan Debt Millennial audiences with all that yammering, but the voters of New York showed you what to expect in New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and California. Sanders will get West Virginia, Oregon with it's gun owner populations. Just like that string of victories out west. By the way, those six states Sanders won out west barely matched what Hillary picked up-the primary delegates-in one State-One------Florida.
Stick a fork in the over-cooked sanders' campaign-it's done.
But this time the gloves are off. The licentious innuendo that Sanders has used from the earliest of days during his campaign is going to be met with a 'shove back' this time. First time-Shame on you, Second time, It ain't gong to happen again.
Sanders thought he could just start accusing Hillary of that silly "six figure" speaking fee's nonsense. Her making promises to Wall Street for that kind of money-well, you can impress your young, impressionable Student Loan Debt Millennial audiences with all that yammering, but the voters of New York showed you what to expect in New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and California. Sanders will get West Virginia, Oregon with it's gun owner populations. Just like that string of victories out west. By the way, those six states Sanders won out west barely matched what Hillary picked up-the primary delegates-in one State-One------Florida.
Stick a fork in the over-cooked sanders' campaign-it's done.
3
"I was every bit as radical as Sanders when I was a college student in the 1960s...probably more so".
To whom it may concern,
I'm 60, participated in a 1969 Berkeley anti-war demonstration with Reagan's National Guard cracking heads (at 14 yrs).
Our generation has failed miserably on the environment, our constant wars, racism, and our democracy stifling wealth disparity.
I think it is well past time for anoraks like yourself to admit failure and do the right thing by recusing yourself. You have little constructive to add to the debate..
To whom it may concern,
I'm 60, participated in a 1969 Berkeley anti-war demonstration with Reagan's National Guard cracking heads (at 14 yrs).
Our generation has failed miserably on the environment, our constant wars, racism, and our democracy stifling wealth disparity.
I think it is well past time for anoraks like yourself to admit failure and do the right thing by recusing yourself. You have little constructive to add to the debate..
4
The Clintons' political strategy since they hit the national scene has been to move the Democratic Party to the right and rely on the fact that the party's left will vote for them as "the lesser of two evils." It will keep working until enough voters in "the democratic wing of the Democratic Party" refuse to be the suckers the Wall Street Democrats count on them to be.
9
Change takes time. With our country split nearly 50-50 during most elections, we won't get anywhere with a hyped-up cry for a "REVOLUTION!" that the other 50% is against. Our best shot is a moderate with bipartisan skills to keep things moving forward.
3
Let's see: A vote for Hillary Clinton maintains the status quo ante. But if I stay home on Election Day and stew in my own self-righteousness, then the status quo ante will be finally and irrevocably overturned. Now, I get it!
1
Today's paper: Hillary Clinton warns voters about Trump's "evolving image".
Hillarious
Hillarious
9
“I think the Democratic Party needs to be worried,” Ms. Southwell added.
Yes, they should. The above quote is an understatement.
Yes, they should. The above quote is an understatement.
11
It seems to me that the onus is on Bernie Sanders to help to find common ground between himself and Hillary Clinton. Clearly, Clinton has to show herself willing, but Sanders has to make important steps to find common ground--which means some compromise--to help the Democrats to win in November. But can Sanders stop being an absolutist enough to find a way to this, or will he insist that Clinton adopt his positions wholesale as the price of an endorsement? Where this is concerned, you might consider how little he has done in Congress except remain pure. Not promising!
2
what a pathetic state of affairs, put the Clintons back in the White House or else.
9
How do you go about "restoring party unity" when the differences between the candidates are so fundamental?
How does a person who opposes America's unending wars, wars that wreak havoc on both the war-wagers and the war-targets, bury her own conscience for the sake of party unity?
How does a person unalterably opposed to the effect big money has had and is having on governance suddenly switch from Bernie to Hillary?
How does a person embrace a candidate she sees as entirely untrustworthy?
Some other issues may be mutable, but these are not. My guess is that a lot of folks will find it impossible to climb onto the "party unity" bandwagon.
How does a person who opposes America's unending wars, wars that wreak havoc on both the war-wagers and the war-targets, bury her own conscience for the sake of party unity?
How does a person unalterably opposed to the effect big money has had and is having on governance suddenly switch from Bernie to Hillary?
How does a person embrace a candidate she sees as entirely untrustworthy?
Some other issues may be mutable, but these are not. My guess is that a lot of folks will find it impossible to climb onto the "party unity" bandwagon.
8
What I find immature and at times downright stupid about Presidential elections is that they are nit about policy issues but candidates' personalities. What I see in Bernie supporters are people who overwhelmingly vote for personality, while blind to the actual steering of policies that will determine the future. If only they would wake up to the real world--niw THAT would be revolutionary!
2
Sanders
Is
Finished
Enough already
Is
Finished
Enough already
2
A lot of the negative Hillary stuff comes from "American Crossroads—founded by former Bush adviser Karl Rove—and several other conservative-backed super PACs have spent the last month intentionally fueling the Bern, but their zeal has more to do with an effort to weaken Hillary Clinton, whom they still see as the likely Democratic nominee and harder to defeat in the general". election.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/23/bernie-sanders-s-conser...
2
It's become obvious that the argument about who gets to appoint new Justices of the Supreme Court as a reason to support Hillary if she is the nominee is totally irrelevant to the Bernie partisans. I believe that their goal is to make this country as retrograde as is possible so as to further the possibility of a glorious revolution championed by Bernie, themselves, and of course Bernie's erstwhile, rural Vermont gun aficionados. What's it to them if abortion and gay rights vanish overnight? What's really important is that Hillary is an "incrementalist" and therefore evil beyond belief.
2
As a staunch Bernie advocate - Hillary Clinton personifies everything Bernie is not and why I would "trust" John Kasich over her everyday. Hillary Clinton chose to be the person she is. No one should be forced and or threatened to support and vote for her. If she loses the race it is
all the faults of her own and the Bernie advocates bear no responsibility. Pricisely how these folks get elected. People need to stand their ground and embrace their morals and principles.
all the faults of her own and the Bernie advocates bear no responsibility. Pricisely how these folks get elected. People need to stand their ground and embrace their morals and principles.
9
Sorry, I can't hear you. I'm still listening to Senator Bernie Sanders, and I will until Philadelphia.
11
It's obvious Hillary has to listen to the issues Bernie is proposing, because she was once a rebel too. How can she hear what Bernie supporters are attracted to, address this movement and make a dance out of it? I believe she needs to weave these grass roots ideas into her platform, and working with Republicans, enact fairness.
2
I voted for Gore in 2000, not because I loved him so much, although I liked him a lot more than Clinton, but because I thought Nadar would split the vote and GW Bush was too dangerous. Part of the reason Gore lost in '00 was because of Nadar, and we had 8 years of horror. That said, I won't do that again this election should Bernie not win the nomination. I'll be voting for Jill Stein. The days of me voting for the lesser of two evils is over. The Dems are so cautious and so overly pragmatic and their inability to get over 1972 and 1984 has shot them in the foot for too long now. They need to hear a voice of opposition and protest about where the party is heading and how it's behaving.
7
When asked recently if he would support Mrs. Clinton as the nominee, he replied "it depends on what her platform is."
That's the key factor for me, too. If Mrs. Clinton, who no likes and no one trusts, commits in a very public way to the key positions that have fueled Bernie's campaign, then I will hold my nose and vote for her in November.
If she doesn't, them, oh well. . .
That's the key factor for me, too. If Mrs. Clinton, who no likes and no one trusts, commits in a very public way to the key positions that have fueled Bernie's campaign, then I will hold my nose and vote for her in November.
If she doesn't, them, oh well. . .
4
"Can Clinton feel the Bern?"
If Clinton is a smart politician, she will. Within the Democratic Party, and among Democratic leaning Independents:
Sanders supporters like his policy prescriptions. Sanders opponents don't like Sanders. They don't dislike his policy prescriptions so much as believe they are unrealistic, i.e., they "go too far."
Clinton supporters like Clinton. They cannot be too excited about her policy prescriptions, because they are largely status quo. Clinton opponents don't particularly like Clinton, but they are mostly not happy with some of her prior judgements, and don't think her status quo, incrementalist policy prescriptions are adequate. They are also un-happy with her foreign policy, decidedly more neo-con than Obama-esque.
If Clinton wants to be President, she has a better chance of being elected if she moves further towards Sanders' prescriptions, in fact, as close as she can to doing so. Her donors might squirm, but her electorate supporters will not abandon her.
It's up to a candidate to get elected, or not, to appeal to voters, or not. Ralph Nader did not sink Al Gore. Al Gore sank Al Gore (By running away from the then-popular Bill Clinton), with some help from Jeb!, Katherine Harris, and Antonin Scalia.
If Hillary Clinton loses, it's on her. She has all the right political tools in place, the support of the media, the support of donors. She can have all the Sanders supporters she wants - if she's a smart politician, and adapts. Or not.
If Clinton is a smart politician, she will. Within the Democratic Party, and among Democratic leaning Independents:
Sanders supporters like his policy prescriptions. Sanders opponents don't like Sanders. They don't dislike his policy prescriptions so much as believe they are unrealistic, i.e., they "go too far."
Clinton supporters like Clinton. They cannot be too excited about her policy prescriptions, because they are largely status quo. Clinton opponents don't particularly like Clinton, but they are mostly not happy with some of her prior judgements, and don't think her status quo, incrementalist policy prescriptions are adequate. They are also un-happy with her foreign policy, decidedly more neo-con than Obama-esque.
If Clinton wants to be President, she has a better chance of being elected if she moves further towards Sanders' prescriptions, in fact, as close as she can to doing so. Her donors might squirm, but her electorate supporters will not abandon her.
It's up to a candidate to get elected, or not, to appeal to voters, or not. Ralph Nader did not sink Al Gore. Al Gore sank Al Gore (By running away from the then-popular Bill Clinton), with some help from Jeb!, Katherine Harris, and Antonin Scalia.
If Hillary Clinton loses, it's on her. She has all the right political tools in place, the support of the media, the support of donors. She can have all the Sanders supporters she wants - if she's a smart politician, and adapts. Or not.
4
Hillary Clinton needs to run two ads this fall, over and over and over and over . . .
One is titled THIS IS TRUMPS AMERICA, with video of all that violence and sucker-punching during Trump rallies.
And the other is a loop of Bernie Sanders saying, "Either Sec. Clinton or I are far better options for the White House than a Donald Trump presidency."
McCarthy supporters might not have seen it that way in 1968, which is why we ended up with Nixon. Dean supporters might not have seen it that way in 2004, which is why we reelected W. That might be a good third ad campaign.
One is titled THIS IS TRUMPS AMERICA, with video of all that violence and sucker-punching during Trump rallies.
And the other is a loop of Bernie Sanders saying, "Either Sec. Clinton or I are far better options for the White House than a Donald Trump presidency."
McCarthy supporters might not have seen it that way in 1968, which is why we ended up with Nixon. Dean supporters might not have seen it that way in 2004, which is why we reelected W. That might be a good third ad campaign.
2
There's too much on the line to allow a republican president, so I'm going to vote democrat across the ticket. Sanders appealed to my sense of integrity for a president, so I was willing to overlook his lightweight policy positions even though I supported most of them.
The easiest path for Clinton to capture sanders voters is to come clean with those Wall Street transcripts, which she has so far let only one eek out about promoting women entrepreneurs. She needs to let the public see them all, because she knows government officials are barred from accepting money for speeches, so there was only a narrow window for her to cash in on. Again with the clintons it is the appearance of conflicts of interest which drives their public perception of trustworthiness to such historic lows, and their attempts to address them are at best half hearted.
I'd be much happier if she chose a dove as vp to talk her down from whatever ledge she climbs on foreign policy wise, but that's not likely to happen. Let's hope the next eight years aren't dominated by foreign affairs in pointless wars.
She has put forth a progressive agenda on her website; it remains to be seen how much of that agenda will be realized during her presidency. At least it's a start.
The easiest path for Clinton to capture sanders voters is to come clean with those Wall Street transcripts, which she has so far let only one eek out about promoting women entrepreneurs. She needs to let the public see them all, because she knows government officials are barred from accepting money for speeches, so there was only a narrow window for her to cash in on. Again with the clintons it is the appearance of conflicts of interest which drives their public perception of trustworthiness to such historic lows, and their attempts to address them are at best half hearted.
I'd be much happier if she chose a dove as vp to talk her down from whatever ledge she climbs on foreign policy wise, but that's not likely to happen. Let's hope the next eight years aren't dominated by foreign affairs in pointless wars.
She has put forth a progressive agenda on her website; it remains to be seen how much of that agenda will be realized during her presidency. At least it's a start.
1
Yeah. Good luck with that ....
1
The facts of this primary season contradict the narrative of a divided party. Instead, Sanders has led a failed, insurgent campaign against the Democratic party.
His wins in open primaries depend on a constituency -- affluent, white men -- unlikely to vote for Democratic candidates in the general. 15-25% of his voters in Wisconsin, voted for the conservative Republican in a down ticket state Supreme Court race; indicating their support for Sanders or any Democrat is unlikely in November.
In primaries where the voters are representative of Democrat's general elections constituencies, Clinton wins by significant margins.
His strongest supporters are unmarried, white men. She wins women, married and unmarried, and minorities, men and women, by large margins. She wins all economic levels, especially among those with household incomes below $50,000 and above $100,000. Much is made of Bernie's much greater support among 17-24 year olds, but they aren't a huge part of the electorate. Her strong support among unmarried women indicates the assumption she isn't attracting younger women has been overstated.
Sanders has run a personal, negative campaign. It's been destructive to the party as well as Clinton. He hasn't brought young people into the party, or made a positive argument for the party and its progressive accomplishments despite string conservative opposition. Instead, he stokes distrust and fosters cynicism.
His wins in open primaries depend on a constituency -- affluent, white men -- unlikely to vote for Democratic candidates in the general. 15-25% of his voters in Wisconsin, voted for the conservative Republican in a down ticket state Supreme Court race; indicating their support for Sanders or any Democrat is unlikely in November.
In primaries where the voters are representative of Democrat's general elections constituencies, Clinton wins by significant margins.
His strongest supporters are unmarried, white men. She wins women, married and unmarried, and minorities, men and women, by large margins. She wins all economic levels, especially among those with household incomes below $50,000 and above $100,000. Much is made of Bernie's much greater support among 17-24 year olds, but they aren't a huge part of the electorate. Her strong support among unmarried women indicates the assumption she isn't attracting younger women has been overstated.
Sanders has run a personal, negative campaign. It's been destructive to the party as well as Clinton. He hasn't brought young people into the party, or made a positive argument for the party and its progressive accomplishments despite string conservative opposition. Instead, he stokes distrust and fosters cynicism.
2
Feeling completely unenthusiastic at the prospect of another Clinton in the White House.
6
"Can Clinton Feel the Bern?"
It's not clear that Clinton can feel much of anything beyond the desire for power. But there's no doubt she'll make an earnest effort at Feeling the Bern, to exactly the degree she calculates it will help her.
We've all experienced people who always think they know best, who show no particular interest in us, who dismiss and ignore our concerns and grievances, who do nothing for us, but who scare us with what other people will do to us, who insist they're our ally even as they do the opposite of what we request, who tell us why our requests are impossible and explain why we can't do better, and who still except us to support and work for their goals. Many of them "feel" us the second they need something.
When we deal with these people in our everyday lives, we don't tolerate their behavior indefinitely. We certainly don't drop our concerns and always go along with them in the end because of self-serving appeals to "unity." Eventually, if we can find the backbone to do it, we make it clear that they aren't entitled to our aid, that if we don't go along with something it's because we have our own goals and ideas.
When will Democratic voters find the collective backbone to stop voting for lesser evils and to demand candidates that reflect their values?
It's not clear that Clinton can feel much of anything beyond the desire for power. But there's no doubt she'll make an earnest effort at Feeling the Bern, to exactly the degree she calculates it will help her.
We've all experienced people who always think they know best, who show no particular interest in us, who dismiss and ignore our concerns and grievances, who do nothing for us, but who scare us with what other people will do to us, who insist they're our ally even as they do the opposite of what we request, who tell us why our requests are impossible and explain why we can't do better, and who still except us to support and work for their goals. Many of them "feel" us the second they need something.
When we deal with these people in our everyday lives, we don't tolerate their behavior indefinitely. We certainly don't drop our concerns and always go along with them in the end because of self-serving appeals to "unity." Eventually, if we can find the backbone to do it, we make it clear that they aren't entitled to our aid, that if we don't go along with something it's because we have our own goals and ideas.
When will Democratic voters find the collective backbone to stop voting for lesser evils and to demand candidates that reflect their values?
5
lalalaLiz posted previously: “… with a Clinton defeat in 2016 followed by four years of Trump, the DNC ... will have no choice but to put forward an actual progressive for 2020…” 1. Candidates for the Democratic Party nomination for the 2016 elections have been, alphabetically: Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Lawrence Lessig, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders and James Webb. The DNC did not “put forward” any of them. Each made a personal decision to run, and, so far, it is the people who have been voting in primaries and caucuses to express their preferences. 2. Should the DNC “put forward an actual progressive for 2020,” would it have to scrap the primaries and the caucuses? 3. What say would ordinary Democrats have in a system that lets the DNC “to put forward an actual progressive” candidate in 2020? 4. The lady adds that “…if Trump or another Republican wins, we can try to do damage control by blocking them from having a GOP-controlled House and Senate that would help them pass legislation. “ Wouldn’t it be infinitely better to prevent the “damage” from occurring in the first place, rather than allowing it to occur, and then working – possibly foolhardily – to do damage control?
1
A vote for HRC is a vote for more war.
10
I would remind Bernie supporters that Nader brought us Bush and all that ensued. Do you want Bernie to be known as the one who brought us Trump or Cruz? Hilary surely has warts, but as my dad used to say, perfect is the enemy of good.
5
Trashing Hillary and the DNC until words fail will not broaden the base of Sanders. He attracts white liberals, especially young white liberals. That is a very good sign for the future Bernie is the most progressive candidate in decades. But he is not Obama, who is a brilliant charismatic orator, and he does not attract the minority vote. Two essentials for a newcomer to national politics like Bernie. This is the reality in this right-of-center nation.
Hillary has many obvious flaws and has made many mistakes but If bridges to party unity are destroyed by those who fail to understand US politics for what they are, then they will be to blame for a complete right wing coup, ending any hope for a future Bernie Sanders...forever. It is that serious.
Hillary has many obvious flaws and has made many mistakes but If bridges to party unity are destroyed by those who fail to understand US politics for what they are, then they will be to blame for a complete right wing coup, ending any hope for a future Bernie Sanders...forever. It is that serious.
5
I'm a 72 year old man who has voted in every presidential election since 1964. I'm frankly amazed at the tenor of comments to this article that absolutely preclude voting for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the nominee for the Democratic party in 2016. REALLY... ? So you would have no problems with a President Trump or a President Cruz selecting two or more of the next nominees to the Supreme Court and a Republican dominated Senate and Legislature running roughshod over any semblance of a woman's right to choose, etc.?
Truly, your purity is amazing... and pathetic.
Truly, your purity is amazing... and pathetic.
8
Explain how it's a democracy when we get to choose from two pre-selected candidates? Let's end closed voting. Let's end two party rule. Let's end dynasties.
8
I am having a hard time reading through these comments. Hillary Clinton has worked for years for children and women's issues. She voted very closely to Bernie Sanders while a senator. To read through the comments,he is the most perfect person ever,and she is more evil than Hitler,Saddam,a d Stalin combined. I think they are both human,both flawed in some ways,wonderful in others. At the end of the day,the one that got their message across to the most voters will earn the nomination. Either is a better choice than the republican candidates.
6
Two videos about the $15 minimum wage issue in the Democratic primary:
Clinton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfrCwH8jgzA
The video shows that essentially Clinton has no position on the minimum wage. Basically she says she will sign whatever bill congress passes.
So I imagine if the congress passed a bill to *lower* the minimum wage she would sign that too.
Sanders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVgQT92_6iU
In the same interview Sanders perfectly encapsulates the difference between him and Clinton.
He has a vision for the future of the country on the minimum wage and various other issues, and wants to lead the fight to achieve that vision.
Clinton has no vision and seems to consider the role of the president as simply there to sign the bills that congress passes.
Is this who we want to be president? C’mon people, wake up!!!!
Clinton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfrCwH8jgzA
The video shows that essentially Clinton has no position on the minimum wage. Basically she says she will sign whatever bill congress passes.
So I imagine if the congress passed a bill to *lower* the minimum wage she would sign that too.
Sanders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVgQT92_6iU
In the same interview Sanders perfectly encapsulates the difference between him and Clinton.
He has a vision for the future of the country on the minimum wage and various other issues, and wants to lead the fight to achieve that vision.
Clinton has no vision and seems to consider the role of the president as simply there to sign the bills that congress passes.
Is this who we want to be president? C’mon people, wake up!!!!
7
Suggestions on uniting the Democratic Party:
-Prominent speaking role for Sanders at the convention, both before and after Clinton is nominated. In the after nomination speech, Sanders urges party unity. This is dependent on:
*-Inclusion of significant Sanders asks in the Democratic platform. Sanders to endorse these positions at the convention and throughout the campaign. This is crucial to obtaining support from Sanders and his supporters.*
-Clinton unity meeting with Sanders immediately following her nomination. Mutual unity news conference, in which Sanders endorses the Democratic ticket.
-Inclusion of Sanders in the general election campaign: unity rallies featuring Clinton and Sanders, or Sanders and the Clinton VEEP.
-Consider using Sanders' America commercial in the general election campaign, cutting in photos of Clinton and Sanders.
-Media appearances by Sanders during the campaign, asking his supporters to feel the Bern and vote Democratic, and to donate $27 to the Democratic Party.
-Prominent speaking role for Sanders at the convention, both before and after Clinton is nominated. In the after nomination speech, Sanders urges party unity. This is dependent on:
*-Inclusion of significant Sanders asks in the Democratic platform. Sanders to endorse these positions at the convention and throughout the campaign. This is crucial to obtaining support from Sanders and his supporters.*
-Clinton unity meeting with Sanders immediately following her nomination. Mutual unity news conference, in which Sanders endorses the Democratic ticket.
-Inclusion of Sanders in the general election campaign: unity rallies featuring Clinton and Sanders, or Sanders and the Clinton VEEP.
-Consider using Sanders' America commercial in the general election campaign, cutting in photos of Clinton and Sanders.
-Media appearances by Sanders during the campaign, asking his supporters to feel the Bern and vote Democratic, and to donate $27 to the Democratic Party.
2
I am a long term registered democrat and I find the prospect of voting for Clinton to be very depressing. We do not need a neo-liberal as president. Nor do we need more Clinton drama, which we all know will come within months of her being elected. I may vote for Clinton but it I do it will be with grave misgivings and deep resentment at having her forced on the electorate by the Democratic machine. Bernie was the only one who dared to run seriously against Clinton. Everyone else deferred. If Clinton and the Democratic machine take voters like me for granted and/or dismiss Bernie supporters as all young and inexperienced they are making a big mistake. Clinton had better be prepared to lay out why we should trust her to do what is best for the middle class. If she doesn't I may stay home on election day.
11
Unifying behind this candidate, could cost Democrats the election. We'll need all the votes we can get, and most Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and those 40% of all voters who are independents--want to get Big Money out of politics. But Clinton is the queen of Big Money. An unprecedented $150 million went directly to them, not into campaigns (or their foundation). The DNC is gambling that the investigations by the State Department will take too long; that the media won't talk about it. That Americans won't mind.
But. Millions of voters do mind. Nationwide, Clinton has -24 points unfavorability. She's almost tied by the unknown Sanders. With only a few months of campaigning, and almost no media coverage of her problems, Clinton is already very weak.
What will happen in the general election, under the Republican machine? They'll blast her $150 million. The money Bill took from foreign countries and corporations while she was Secretary of State. The millions she took from lobbyists and corporations in banking, private-prison, healthcare, fossil fuels, etc. just before the election.
By the general election, it will be obvious that Clinton stands for Big Money, and that her "pragmatism" will not help her in Congress. They'll keep her tied up in inquiries and investigations.
Can that candidate win? Can she drive the enthusiasm needed to take back seats in the House and Senate? It looks like a mighty big risk.
But. Millions of voters do mind. Nationwide, Clinton has -24 points unfavorability. She's almost tied by the unknown Sanders. With only a few months of campaigning, and almost no media coverage of her problems, Clinton is already very weak.
What will happen in the general election, under the Republican machine? They'll blast her $150 million. The money Bill took from foreign countries and corporations while she was Secretary of State. The millions she took from lobbyists and corporations in banking, private-prison, healthcare, fossil fuels, etc. just before the election.
By the general election, it will be obvious that Clinton stands for Big Money, and that her "pragmatism" will not help her in Congress. They'll keep her tied up in inquiries and investigations.
Can that candidate win? Can she drive the enthusiasm needed to take back seats in the House and Senate? It looks like a mighty big risk.
13
"... almost no media coverage of her problems." You can't be serious! One of Hilary's "strengths" is that her problems have been splashed over every media outlet conceivable for years; defended in congressional hearings and legal depositions. We already know all her "problems" intimately unlike those of other candidates yet to see the light of day.
1
I finally figured out this "neoliberalism" thing -- it's not an actual philosophy that anyone claims to follow or wants to follow.
It's the insult that purists throw at liberal politicians to justify their own inaction in not supporting liberals and progressives in down-ballot races and off-year elections. Progressive ideologues pop up very passionately and erratically, but then expect to run the table. Doesn't work that way. Conservatives dominate because they SHOW UP. Neoliberalism is what you get when liberals try to fight back without your support.
If you want your politicians to reflect your ideas, show them you have their back; otherwise, they'll find a constituency that does. With Bernie, did you stop donating to punish him for losing a primary? No -- you backed him up with more, and will keep doing it so he can fight on. If Obama had you in 2010 and 2014, maybe we'd have the supermajorities now needed to accomplish anything progressive. Dropping out after two years ties his hands for the next two.
Power comes ONLY from participation. No one hears you if you sit out or vote protest candidates. You're not punishing the party; you're punishing the rest of us. If you want the political axis to bend left,,then show up, vote, organize, take effective action at every election, every level, show Democratic officeholders that progressives are the team, they contribute, they can be counted on. That's where power is.
It's the insult that purists throw at liberal politicians to justify their own inaction in not supporting liberals and progressives in down-ballot races and off-year elections. Progressive ideologues pop up very passionately and erratically, but then expect to run the table. Doesn't work that way. Conservatives dominate because they SHOW UP. Neoliberalism is what you get when liberals try to fight back without your support.
If you want your politicians to reflect your ideas, show them you have their back; otherwise, they'll find a constituency that does. With Bernie, did you stop donating to punish him for losing a primary? No -- you backed him up with more, and will keep doing it so he can fight on. If Obama had you in 2010 and 2014, maybe we'd have the supermajorities now needed to accomplish anything progressive. Dropping out after two years ties his hands for the next two.
Power comes ONLY from participation. No one hears you if you sit out or vote protest candidates. You're not punishing the party; you're punishing the rest of us. If you want the political axis to bend left,,then show up, vote, organize, take effective action at every election, every level, show Democratic officeholders that progressives are the team, they contribute, they can be counted on. That's where power is.
13
The rhinoceros in the room (we'll leave the GOP its elephant) is the stranglehold the two-party system has on on our society. We are too often reduced to a choice between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, with a big ol' helpin' of the status quo on the side. When nothing changes, politics becomes the heart and soul of conservatism, with nary a hair's breadth difference between the major parties' policies (let's ask the 'Gold Star' mothers whose eight years of war they liked least. Ask yourself whose potholes you'd rather dodge.). Why? Because each party has too much too lose and therefore a great interest in acquiring and maintaining power, i.e. the status quo. New ideas are anathema to such a system. 'American exceptionalism,' my Aunt Fanny.
19
The decision for Democrats is simple: Will the Party stand for Big Money? Or will it stand for those Democrats (and most Americans) who want Big Money out of politics? So far, the Party is throwing away voters, and threatening the general election, by being on the wrong side of the fence.
13
The problem is, this isn't a flavor of ice cream argument. The Dem Party and the DNC have not yet accepted that many see Hillary as an immoral choice, as the epitomee of what is wrong with this country. The Clintons have been on the wrong side of history, and too often at the heart of legislation that is the heart of problems we are facing today, whether the Iraq War and her alliance with the Israel war agenda, the deregulation of Wall Street that led to the recession, the media deregulation that let to the corporate pushers we have today, or the incarceration system that targets blacks for profit. The Clintons had a hand in it all, and they have profited well from it, with over $3 billion to their foundation, and personal income over $150 million.
This isn't a flavor if ice cream issue, a question of whether or not she inspires. For people who understand this, as many Bernie supporters do, voting for Hillary, for her war agenda, goes against personal principles and morals. She hasn't won yet, and if she does, many of us will be looking for an alternative.
This isn't a flavor if ice cream issue, a question of whether or not she inspires. For people who understand this, as many Bernie supporters do, voting for Hillary, for her war agenda, goes against personal principles and morals. She hasn't won yet, and if she does, many of us will be looking for an alternative.
26
The race couldn't be any closer. He has won more states than her and is behind a mere 200 delegates, pulling much stronger in the states that count in the general. It could switch in his favor so easily. Stop listening to MSM hacks. He IS by far the strongest candidate with the Independents backing him 70% to her 30%. They make up 48% of the electorate!
She and Bill have their "Foundation", the Clinton Global Initiative and God knows what else, apparently to be used to pander loose change from the crazy wealth (thanks to Bill's deregulation!) of their corporate constituents. They should do whatever "good" in the world they can in that network and let Bernie get busy with restoring a much improved management of our tax revenue to finally benefit the people! The path to victory is ours. #KeepBerning
She and Bill have their "Foundation", the Clinton Global Initiative and God knows what else, apparently to be used to pander loose change from the crazy wealth (thanks to Bill's deregulation!) of their corporate constituents. They should do whatever "good" in the world they can in that network and let Bernie get busy with restoring a much improved management of our tax revenue to finally benefit the people! The path to victory is ours. #KeepBerning
20
Bernie has won 17 of the contests so far, Hillary has taken 21. She's up by well over two million in the popular vote count. Her delegate lead is about 250 and likely to grow with each passing week. He's "polling much stronger than the states that count in the general?" What does that even mean. All the states count in the general. Are you saying that because he's won more of the deep blue states that that's worth something? Those states are going blue no matter what. Are you talking about swing states? Hillary took OH, FL, VA by large margins, and stands to do the same in PA on Tuesday. Are you sure Bernie is the stronger candidate? Because reality tells me a different story.
Look, it's great that you support your candidate so strongly. But kristin lee, you're just making stuff up here. Basically everything you wrote is entirely detached from reality.
Look, it's great that you support your candidate so strongly. But kristin lee, you're just making stuff up here. Basically everything you wrote is entirely detached from reality.
1
Are all of the diehard Bernie supporters also equally upset with President Obama whose campaign was funded by a combination of big money and smaller contributions like Hillary's campaign?. If Clinton gets the nomination and the President campaigns vigorously for her, will you consider him a sellout?
5
And Obama's big money supporters got their money's worth, did they not? Yep, i think he's a sellout.
But there's still a difference - afaik, Obama didn't become personally enriched by his big donors before he ran for president. No doubt that will come afterwards, but whatever he does, it won't be running for president again. Clinton, on the other hand, knew well that she would be.
But there's still a difference - afaik, Obama didn't become personally enriched by his big donors before he ran for president. No doubt that will come afterwards, but whatever he does, it won't be running for president again. Clinton, on the other hand, knew well that she would be.
1
Earlier this week the NYT had a discussion piece with pro-and-con articles on whether or not to discontinue the readers' comments section, due to a perceived takeover of these sections by "trolls", with many of the "troll' posts being coordinated by various candidates and causes.
This discussion thread only serves to bolster the arguments of those who feel it is time to discontinue reader comments. As several commenters have noted below, there is absolutely no question that there is an organized anti-Hillary troll attack going on here, not all of which is coming from legitimate Sanders supporters.
Through the Sanders candidacy, the GOP is being handed a free avenue of attack on the Clintons. In the Times' defense, there is little it can do to stop these attacks.
However, for those of us interested in an honest discussion of issues, it is disconcerting to always have to wade through so many repetitive, manufactured comments in order to find those few comments that contain original, independent thinking.
It's getting to the point where it is no longer worth the effort to do so.
This discussion thread only serves to bolster the arguments of those who feel it is time to discontinue reader comments. As several commenters have noted below, there is absolutely no question that there is an organized anti-Hillary troll attack going on here, not all of which is coming from legitimate Sanders supporters.
Through the Sanders candidacy, the GOP is being handed a free avenue of attack on the Clintons. In the Times' defense, there is little it can do to stop these attacks.
However, for those of us interested in an honest discussion of issues, it is disconcerting to always have to wade through so many repetitive, manufactured comments in order to find those few comments that contain original, independent thinking.
It's getting to the point where it is no longer worth the effort to do so.
9
John,
Your contention of Rove-backed trolls is hard to prove.
Many of the more popular Sanders commenters were posting in this paper's The Caucus Blog that started in 2006. You shall find many of the same "trolls" speaking up on other subjects.. You will find me in the comment sections concerning the Syrian Refugees, race, war, etc.
Your contention of Rove-backed trolls is hard to prove.
Many of the more popular Sanders commenters were posting in this paper's The Caucus Blog that started in 2006. You shall find many of the same "trolls" speaking up on other subjects.. You will find me in the comment sections concerning the Syrian Refugees, race, war, etc.
2
What the primary season has demonstrated is that politics in this country are, first and foremost, partisan. The Sanders supporters should not be expected to suddenly fall into line behind Clinton. If anything, the primaries stink to high heaven of cronyism and pre-ordained results. I would not be surprised if the people who were here for Bernie leave, their hopes for a fair future crushed. Maybe the dissolution of both major parties would be a good thing for everyone.
15
The potential Supreme Court nominations.
Period.
That is the one, single, ONLY reason I would step into the polling booth and cast a vote for a person that I personally find loathsome.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is no more fit to be president than a random pick from the phone book, no matter what the Times Editorial Board thinks. Aside from the starry-eyed Clintophiles, and party hacks like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she inspires virtually no one.
She leads from a position of Wonk.
She is a liar and a manipulator on a massive scale.
She is the consummate political weathervane, and has shown many times that she is for sale to the highest bidder.
She is the Senator from the great state of Goldman-Sachs.
If it were not for the fact that I fear the Supreme Court nominations generated by the vipers nest of the GOP more than I fear the ones nominated by the Democratic viper, I'd sit this election out.
The American electoral process has never been so blatantly exposed as it has been in this cycle.
Hail the Oligarchs.
Period.
That is the one, single, ONLY reason I would step into the polling booth and cast a vote for a person that I personally find loathsome.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is no more fit to be president than a random pick from the phone book, no matter what the Times Editorial Board thinks. Aside from the starry-eyed Clintophiles, and party hacks like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she inspires virtually no one.
She leads from a position of Wonk.
She is a liar and a manipulator on a massive scale.
She is the consummate political weathervane, and has shown many times that she is for sale to the highest bidder.
She is the Senator from the great state of Goldman-Sachs.
If it were not for the fact that I fear the Supreme Court nominations generated by the vipers nest of the GOP more than I fear the ones nominated by the Democratic viper, I'd sit this election out.
The American electoral process has never been so blatantly exposed as it has been in this cycle.
Hail the Oligarchs.
21
I marvel at the amount of criticism HRC gets, right down to her wardrobe, while those who spend their career doing nothing get criticized for nothing.
For instance, HRC is criticized for supporting fracking technology.
It is easy just to say no, you get little criticism for that position, but more difficult to explain why it makes sense as a transitional energy source.
Fracking has made the US energy independent for the first time in 4 decades.
It has helped transitioned the US from coal and oil to cleaner natural gas and liquids as a bridge to better clean renewable energy technology.
Oil prices that reached the highest inflation-adjusted level ever under Bush-Cheney - even higher than under the 70s OPEC embargoes - have collapsed by some 80%.
The drop in energy prices significantly improves disposable income for the middle class.
Energy independence reduces the strategic importance of the Middle East and the endless intractable wars that the US and her allies have been involved in there.
Lower oil prices reduce the income going to fund terrorism.
Yes, it is easier just to say no to fracking because there are risks to fracking.
It is easier to do nothing and maintain the status quo. No criticism there.
HRC's sensible position is to make fracking less risky, but that does't resonate
well in a sound bite.
People who do nothing sure get a free pass for doing nothing.
For instance, HRC is criticized for supporting fracking technology.
It is easy just to say no, you get little criticism for that position, but more difficult to explain why it makes sense as a transitional energy source.
Fracking has made the US energy independent for the first time in 4 decades.
It has helped transitioned the US from coal and oil to cleaner natural gas and liquids as a bridge to better clean renewable energy technology.
Oil prices that reached the highest inflation-adjusted level ever under Bush-Cheney - even higher than under the 70s OPEC embargoes - have collapsed by some 80%.
The drop in energy prices significantly improves disposable income for the middle class.
Energy independence reduces the strategic importance of the Middle East and the endless intractable wars that the US and her allies have been involved in there.
Lower oil prices reduce the income going to fund terrorism.
Yes, it is easier just to say no to fracking because there are risks to fracking.
It is easier to do nothing and maintain the status quo. No criticism there.
HRC's sensible position is to make fracking less risky, but that does't resonate
well in a sound bite.
People who do nothing sure get a free pass for doing nothing.
19
Is it any accident that Reuters reports today that Clinton is the Koch brothers favorite candidate?
1
Give it a few months. The Bernie supporters vowing never to vote for Clinton will eventually come to the realization that Hillary's tendency to bend to public opinion could be used in their favor, unlike Trump's likelihood to tell them to take a long walk off a short pier.
7
Nah they're more likely to just not vote.
6
This may be the Hillary-camp's mantra, but believe it seriously underestimates how strongly people feel about her record and her political positions.
4
ultra,
this 60yr old Democrat foot-soldier says:
When Hell Freezes Over.
I could never vote for an admirer of Kissinger.
I knew to many refugees from his murderess Operation Condor.
Also, Hillary's clever work in Honduras shall never pass the smell test.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/04/hypocrisy-surrounds-the-of-...
this 60yr old Democrat foot-soldier says:
When Hell Freezes Over.
I could never vote for an admirer of Kissinger.
I knew to many refugees from his murderess Operation Condor.
Also, Hillary's clever work in Honduras shall never pass the smell test.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/04/hypocrisy-surrounds-the-of-...
6
I'm a passionate Bernie supporter who will swallow my upset if he loses the nomination and vote for her. That is not the case with many of my friends. I was with two guys last night who like Bernie and can't stand Hillary. They have not been so engaged in the campaign as I.. they haven't canvassed or phone banked for Bernie as I have. Yet, they say they say Bernie is their first choice. If he can't get the nomination...they would rather vote for Trump than Hillary. The road forward is unclear...
5
As a former Nader supporter since 1996, I've come to dislike Sanders. He never explains how he will reform America. We know what he envisions, but how is a different ballgame.
By not leveling with his supporters, Sanders spins beautiful wishes without instructions. That's disrespectful.
By not leveling with his supporters, Sanders spins beautiful wishes without instructions. That's disrespectful.
15
David,
You must have had to drop all your ideals to come to that "courageous" decision.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/clintons-carbon-corruption-why-hillary-...
You must have had to drop all your ideals to come to that "courageous" decision.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/clintons-carbon-corruption-why-hillary-...
2
Nader never explained how he was going to reform the country. You can't reasonably criticize Bernie for this if you supported Nadar.
1
This year probably marks the end of the Democratic party.
Back in 2008, with the splintering of the GOP into establishment and Tea Party, there was a lesson for all to see. The GOP couldn't quite capture their magic, they wouldn't be silenced, or brainwashed into belief without proof. So, the Tea Party ran it's own candidates. The establishment GOP responded by blocking Tea Party candidates by immoral means. ("Legal has nothing to do with moral," a lawyer explained to me.) The Tea Party responded by using the GOP to run its own candidates.
The difference between that split and what will happen in the Democratic party is that the plutocrats back the establishment. The splinter group can't rely on the Koch brothers. But, split we must. If we must, we shall use the powers of Anonymous and other secretive, outlawed organizations to expose the establishment DNC for what they are. This is a call to arms.
Back in 2008, with the splintering of the GOP into establishment and Tea Party, there was a lesson for all to see. The GOP couldn't quite capture their magic, they wouldn't be silenced, or brainwashed into belief without proof. So, the Tea Party ran it's own candidates. The establishment GOP responded by blocking Tea Party candidates by immoral means. ("Legal has nothing to do with moral," a lawyer explained to me.) The Tea Party responded by using the GOP to run its own candidates.
The difference between that split and what will happen in the Democratic party is that the plutocrats back the establishment. The splinter group can't rely on the Koch brothers. But, split we must. If we must, we shall use the powers of Anonymous and other secretive, outlawed organizations to expose the establishment DNC for what they are. This is a call to arms.
11
Bernie Sander's and Hillary Clinton's political platforms are quite different. Of course Hillary Clinton tried to close the gap between the two platforms, but that is something the voters have a difficulty to accept because of her very public record.
So it's up to Bernie Sanders to support Hillary Clinton, or not.
The difficult question is: what kind of justification he has to do so?
Them New York Times suggested only one until now: that he is a "Democrat" so he have to support Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately that is a rational the voters won't buy. Since this is about Bernie Sanders, not them.
The other predictable justification: because Donald Trump is the - Democratic equivalent of the - "Antichrist".
Only the Sanders campaign is based on issues. The voters follow Bernie Sanders because of issues. Not because of the siege mentality generated by the party system.
So it's up to Bernie Sanders to support Hillary Clinton, or not.
The difficult question is: what kind of justification he has to do so?
Them New York Times suggested only one until now: that he is a "Democrat" so he have to support Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately that is a rational the voters won't buy. Since this is about Bernie Sanders, not them.
The other predictable justification: because Donald Trump is the - Democratic equivalent of the - "Antichrist".
Only the Sanders campaign is based on issues. The voters follow Bernie Sanders because of issues. Not because of the siege mentality generated by the party system.
12
ECSTATIC/PRAGMATIC
Oh, the “Bernie or Bust” crowd might have to get real.
Yes, your guy is a gutsy, progressive ideal—
He discusses the issues, not Hillary’s emails,
Or Benghazi or Bill’s little problems with females.
But on numerous issues important today,
You are closer to Clinton than what you might say
For example, you’re likely to show your support
For the same type of jurists to serve on the Court,
And you favor affordable care for one’s health
Irrespective of prior conditions or wealth,
And reducing the N.R.A.’s powerful hold
On the cowards who vote to keep guns uncontrolled,
And a workable plan to address immigration,
Not a Mexican wall and incessant damnation
So if Clinton’s the winner of delegate math,
Please do not run away in a self-righteous wrath.
You do not need to rally or cheer her out loud,
But you’re closer to her than the G.O.P. crowd.
So although there is value in being ecstatic,
In November consider a switch to pragmatic,
And acknowledge she’s better than Donald or Cruz.
Hold your pride, hold your nose, but do NOT let her lose.
Oh, the “Bernie or Bust” crowd might have to get real.
Yes, your guy is a gutsy, progressive ideal—
He discusses the issues, not Hillary’s emails,
Or Benghazi or Bill’s little problems with females.
But on numerous issues important today,
You are closer to Clinton than what you might say
For example, you’re likely to show your support
For the same type of jurists to serve on the Court,
And you favor affordable care for one’s health
Irrespective of prior conditions or wealth,
And reducing the N.R.A.’s powerful hold
On the cowards who vote to keep guns uncontrolled,
And a workable plan to address immigration,
Not a Mexican wall and incessant damnation
So if Clinton’s the winner of delegate math,
Please do not run away in a self-righteous wrath.
You do not need to rally or cheer her out loud,
But you’re closer to her than the G.O.P. crowd.
So although there is value in being ecstatic,
In November consider a switch to pragmatic,
And acknowledge she’s better than Donald or Cruz.
Hold your pride, hold your nose, but do NOT let her lose.
16
The sad thing about the Bernie or nobody die-hards is that they could ensure that all 3 branches of government will be Republican and Scalia will replaced by another Scalia. When you are a grownup, you know that there are times when you can't get 100% of what you want. It is amazing how the far right and the far left are unable to connect the dots and make rational choices.
10
The US has embarrassing low voter turnout. Bernie is energizing a group of people who don't normally vote - mainly young. Many of these people will revert to their non-voting ways if he is not the candidate.
3
The "Bernie or Bust" crowd is selfish and incredibly naïve. The damage that a Cruz or Trump president can do will impact us for generations.
10
This is no time for taking your marbles home and walking away.
If the battle is lost to the Republicans there shall be a descent into the bottomless pit of fascism with all three branches of government in the hands of Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and the Freedom Caucus. There will be no way back..not ever.
"Praise be to Nero's Neptune, the Titanic sails at dawn
Everybody's shouting, "Which side are you on?!"
- Bob Dylan
If the battle is lost to the Republicans there shall be a descent into the bottomless pit of fascism with all three branches of government in the hands of Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and the Freedom Caucus. There will be no way back..not ever.
"Praise be to Nero's Neptune, the Titanic sails at dawn
Everybody's shouting, "Which side are you on?!"
- Bob Dylan
7
Hillary Clinton has come out for ending the embargo against Cuba. However, during the Miami debate (with a large audience of Cubans in Miami who do not support that position) she remained silent after Senator Sanders stated that he was in favor of ending the embargo. Typical Clinton style; wants to be everything to everyone and changes like a chameleon, depending on the audience.
I did not trust her in 2008 and do not trust her now.
I did not trust her in 2008 and do not trust her now.
23
Senator Sanders has the soul of an FDR Democrat.
HRC has the soul of an accountant.
Senator Sanders entered politics to do good.
HRC (and WJC...) entered politics to do good and has certainly done well.
The DNC ("We triangulate.") has forgotten what Democrats stand for. And for whom.
Were I the same age I first voted in a presidential election (LBJ v Goldwater), I would have problems voting for HRC. She is neither the future nor the representative I would want...
HRC has the soul of an accountant.
Senator Sanders entered politics to do good.
HRC (and WJC...) entered politics to do good and has certainly done well.
The DNC ("We triangulate.") has forgotten what Democrats stand for. And for whom.
Were I the same age I first voted in a presidential election (LBJ v Goldwater), I would have problems voting for HRC. She is neither the future nor the representative I would want...
16
Every single Bernie Sanders supporter I know, without exception is in at least two of the following categories: mentally ill; single; childless; jobless; poor; under thirty.
This is not the demographic that represents America or should be running it. This is not the demographic of rational, responsible thinkers.
This is not the demographic that represents America or should be running it. This is not the demographic of rational, responsible thinkers.
4
Hey JR! Guess what? You just described the majority of Americans. BTW, we prefer "child free."
4
Well, I guess I'm jobless, since I retired from a successful professional career last year. And, I have been called crazy on occasion by my wife and children, but not yet mentally ill. I am far from poor and 30 is so long ago I can't remember it ( or often much else). But, I am indeed proud to support Bernie. As for those who say he has not told how he would support his program of free public education, I believe he said he would do it with a very small tax on Wall Street trades which would raise a large amount of money. I believe him. As for Hillary and Debbie, I would be happy to see them leave the public stage. But, if,as appears probable, the big H wins, I will indeed vote for her over any of the 17 Republican nominees, no matter who. Facts and programs people. They mean something.
2
I'm 63, married, have children, retired with an income in top 10 percent. Every- one I know who's a Berine supporter fits my demo. I guess anticdotal stories really don't tell the complete story.
2
What's the over/under on the Clintons being billionaires, instead of multimillionaires, by the time HRC leaves office?
8
If Clinton wins the nomination she will have won a Pyrrhic victory in the process destroying the Democratic Party.
Slandering Sanders, the only true democrat in this race, was a very bad idea because it alerted everyone what kind of Democrat Clinton is. She is not a democratic Democrat but a shill for big corporations, ready to go to war to trade blood for oil, a recent convert to opposing fracking and offshore drilling not to be trusted.
Lets hope Sanders overcomes Clinton's dirty campaigning. It is the only way to prevent a Trump presidency. Clinton is the one unelectable candidate running for the Democratic nomination.
Slandering Sanders, the only true democrat in this race, was a very bad idea because it alerted everyone what kind of Democrat Clinton is. She is not a democratic Democrat but a shill for big corporations, ready to go to war to trade blood for oil, a recent convert to opposing fracking and offshore drilling not to be trusted.
Lets hope Sanders overcomes Clinton's dirty campaigning. It is the only way to prevent a Trump presidency. Clinton is the one unelectable candidate running for the Democratic nomination.
26
Most of us Sanders supporters will swallow our bile and vote for Hillary, knowing that she is highly likely to backpedal on her belatedly expressed concerns for Wall Street reform. After all, in comparison to any GOP candidate she is indeed the lesser of the evils. Indeed, it's unimaginable that any Sanders supporters - regardless of their race, gender or age - would cross over to support a GOP candidate. That just makes no sense whatsoever, like asserting that because I can't vote for Saint Sanders, I'm going to vote instead for the Devil in the GOP. Trump will not magically acquire support from Bernie Bros. Not going to happen.
3
Please let it be known that this comment section is being moderated to remove any comments critical of Clinton or directly responding to points made by Clinton supporters.
18
Are you kidding me? Have you actually READ through the comments? Good grief...
2
Independents are roughly 40% of the population. Sanders would win one third of the Democrats if not more. He's not a fringe candidate with no money or solid national organization like Ralph Nader was. He could win as an Independent. Considering how the New York and Arizona vote were rigged. He has every right to go off on his own and win as an Independent. #BernieorBust or Trump.
I'm not voting of anyone who puts their wallet over mine...and seeing how several of my jobs have been outsourced to Asia...I might as well move to Asia myself to live a normal middle class life were I'm not working 12 hours a day freaked out how I'm going to pay for rent, medical and food.
I'm not voting of anyone who puts their wallet over mine...and seeing how several of my jobs have been outsourced to Asia...I might as well move to Asia myself to live a normal middle class life were I'm not working 12 hours a day freaked out how I'm going to pay for rent, medical and food.
23
You know, after reading these comments, I really, really, really fear for our country. People who would vote or not vote against their own best interests are making me want to heave. If the berniebots don't wake up, they'll wake up to trump, cruz and 3 more scullia's on the supreme court. Think people. Don't do what the rethugniklans want you to do, don't sit it out. Anything, anyone, anywhere is better than a rethugniklan in the white house.
10
Response to Rich from Tucson.
I believe you have totally misread FDR. It is true that FDR really didn't create the mechanisms of the New Deal.
The new deal began after the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in Manhattan.
Al Smith became the leading writer of Democratic Legislation in Albany. Coupled with a four year investigation of working conditions in the state the legislature passed scores of laws were passed mandating safety conditions in the work area, total hours of work, childhood labor laws.
This expanded into tenement laws that mandated in door plumbing, widows and building safety standards.
New York City began setting up public services in safety nets and health care developing one of the best systems in the world at that time.
As Governor FDR became intimately familiar with these laws and when elected president, brought many of the founders of this legislation with him to Washing. This included Frances Perkins vital in the push and development of the NY laws as his Secretary of Labor.
The NY laws were the first of its kind in the country and FCR passed this concept to the Country as his New Deal.
These were radical ideas made necessity because of the outlandishnrss of capitalism and housing rentals of the private sector. Unions were not strong enough to mandate the changes. The State of NY government could and did.
I believe you have totally misread FDR. It is true that FDR really didn't create the mechanisms of the New Deal.
The new deal began after the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in Manhattan.
Al Smith became the leading writer of Democratic Legislation in Albany. Coupled with a four year investigation of working conditions in the state the legislature passed scores of laws were passed mandating safety conditions in the work area, total hours of work, childhood labor laws.
This expanded into tenement laws that mandated in door plumbing, widows and building safety standards.
New York City began setting up public services in safety nets and health care developing one of the best systems in the world at that time.
As Governor FDR became intimately familiar with these laws and when elected president, brought many of the founders of this legislation with him to Washing. This included Frances Perkins vital in the push and development of the NY laws as his Secretary of Labor.
The NY laws were the first of its kind in the country and FCR passed this concept to the Country as his New Deal.
These were radical ideas made necessity because of the outlandishnrss of capitalism and housing rentals of the private sector. Unions were not strong enough to mandate the changes. The State of NY government could and did.
7
The insinuation here is that young voters not getting their way will forever be traumatized and not be motivated to vote in future elections? LoL. This is what happens when you coddle a generation. Don't forget, their kids will be even denser.
7
If Bernie is not VP, I vote for Trump.
6
A frightening example of someone not understanding the big picture. YI, I would urge you to broaden your horizons before you vote.
1
Independent, middle-aged, female voter here. The DNC has seriously miscalculated the sentiment of voters this election cycle. They've put up a duplicitous, neoliberal candidate who is tone-deaf to the realities of citizens living in "fly-over" states. The candidate and her backers have the gall to perpetuate Hollywood-hosted campaign parties costing in the range of $350k/per couple, with an entry fee of $35K. Their candidate also will not release transcripts of speeches given to Wall Street financiers to the tune of $250K per speech. Does the DNC or the candidate not understand that most people make a fraction of that $ for a YEAR'S worth of busting their butts?! Then their candidate has the hubris to make excuses for her lack of transparency. A farce.
This has nothing to do with "Feeling the Bern," except that Mr. Sanders has woken a sleeping giant of citizens who know that their interests haven't been served by the Democratic party, but rather that both parties serve Financial, Transnational Corporate, and Militaristic Interests; and all are intertwined and sustain each other. Ms. Southwell is correct that the Democratic Party needs to be worried. But her assessment is off. The DNC should be very worried that it's not just those "naive" youngsters who are averse to voting for their candidate. It's also "oldsters" like myself who have lived long enough to see the damage wrought by neoliberalism and candidates like Mrs. Clinton. Time to let the self-serving system break.
This has nothing to do with "Feeling the Bern," except that Mr. Sanders has woken a sleeping giant of citizens who know that their interests haven't been served by the Democratic party, but rather that both parties serve Financial, Transnational Corporate, and Militaristic Interests; and all are intertwined and sustain each other. Ms. Southwell is correct that the Democratic Party needs to be worried. But her assessment is off. The DNC should be very worried that it's not just those "naive" youngsters who are averse to voting for their candidate. It's also "oldsters" like myself who have lived long enough to see the damage wrought by neoliberalism and candidates like Mrs. Clinton. Time to let the self-serving system break.
36
I’m both amused yet a bit disgusted by the childish naiveté and pique expressed by many Bernie supporters who say they won’t vote for Hillary if she’s the nominee. I like both HC and BS, each has their strengths and appeal. Either is a far superior choice for POTUS than what the GOP is offering.
So people, get over yourselves and vote for the Democrat come November, who IMO will be a far better option than whatever the other side will try foisting on our Nation.
So people, get over yourselves and vote for the Democrat come November, who IMO will be a far better option than whatever the other side will try foisting on our Nation.
46
Liz, its a process. people go through stages in making up their minds. Its too early to say anything, we are not even in May yet...
4
I agree. Stop the tantrums. We don't always get the candidate of our choice.
10
I'm amused and disgusted at the naivete exhibited by Clinton supporters who assume that independents flocking to Sanders ought to support a candidate who does not speak to their concerns.
Statements like yours are frighteningly Orwellian. People deserve the right to make their own decision, and it's at once arrogant, smug, and condescending to assume that you have the right to determine the method by which another ostensibly free citizen should cast his or her vote.
Statements like yours are frighteningly Orwellian. People deserve the right to make their own decision, and it's at once arrogant, smug, and condescending to assume that you have the right to determine the method by which another ostensibly free citizen should cast his or her vote.
25
Note to the Hillary campaign: fuggetaboutit.
You chose to poison the well thinking you could "unify the party later". You lied and distorted. You changed positions for convenience, not conviction. You whined that every detractor was a misogynist. You said young voters just "wanted free stuff". You insulted both the experience and the integrity of your opponent. You ran - and will no doubt continue to run - a dirty, mudslinging campaign.
Live with the results.
You chose to poison the well thinking you could "unify the party later". You lied and distorted. You changed positions for convenience, not conviction. You whined that every detractor was a misogynist. You said young voters just "wanted free stuff". You insulted both the experience and the integrity of your opponent. You ran - and will no doubt continue to run - a dirty, mudslinging campaign.
Live with the results.
59
Would those be the results where she is winning the popular vote?
7
@Nora01,
I'm still trying to absorb the "unify the party later" idea. Voters aren't puppets to be manipulated.
4-23-16@4:25 pm
I'm still trying to absorb the "unify the party later" idea. Voters aren't puppets to be manipulated.
4-23-16@4:25 pm
8
No she didn't. Posts like these make me think Republicans are posting divisive comments because their only hope of winning is splitting the Democratic Party. Democrats - don't give them the satisfaction.
1
I just went to a Sanders rally in PA. I will vote for him next Tuesday. He is inspirational and rational unlike many of his followers who are posting utter naive nonsense about Hillary.
41
I will be proud to vote for a woman President after some 240 years. She is the most qualified candidate from either party by far.
It is no surprise that a woman candidate has to be miles better than her male counterparts to get the nod when women haven't even had the right to vote for 100 years.
Elections are always hard fought and the healing process takes time, but if anyone really has a problem knowing who to vote for in this election against a possible Republican candidate like Trump or Cruz, I just shake my head.
HRC has earned over 2.5 million votes over Bernie, and well over a million more than Trump or any other Republican candidate.
Her policies are progressive, her knowledge of the issues is deep and her solutions are pragmatic and sensible.
It is no surprise that a woman candidate has to be miles better than her male counterparts to get the nod when women haven't even had the right to vote for 100 years.
Elections are always hard fought and the healing process takes time, but if anyone really has a problem knowing who to vote for in this election against a possible Republican candidate like Trump or Cruz, I just shake my head.
HRC has earned over 2.5 million votes over Bernie, and well over a million more than Trump or any other Republican candidate.
Her policies are progressive, her knowledge of the issues is deep and her solutions are pragmatic and sensible.
57
Well said, David Parsons. Thank you.
18
Two words: Maggie Thatcher.
There are more differences within the sexes than between them.
My vote is based on a candidate's stance on issues, not on a candidate' gender.
There are more differences within the sexes than between them.
My vote is based on a candidate's stance on issues, not on a candidate' gender.
17
Very little of this is correct.
"Qualified" isn't adequately defined. She has held multiple positions, but in each, has either failed at her primary effort or advocated for stances that led us into horrific foreign policy situations.
A 2.5 million vote lead is profoundly misleading statement, as caucus turnouts are not scaled properly in that analysis.
What few of her policies are progressive have been merely borrowed from her competitor's campaign.
If you pay close attention to her statements with regard to domestic (or foreign, to a lesser degree) policy, you will note that she offers a negligible amount of information regarding details or how exactly she will accomplish anything. Save social security? Yes, but don't commit to raising the cap on paying in! Make college affordable? Yes, but offer precisely zero changes from the current system of federal loans.
Her hiring of Brock has opened the GOP playbook of "accuse one's opponents of something as you do precisely that yourself" and her accusations of "tone" and a lack of specificity are best responded to with a large mirror pointed directly back at her campaign.
"Qualified" isn't adequately defined. She has held multiple positions, but in each, has either failed at her primary effort or advocated for stances that led us into horrific foreign policy situations.
A 2.5 million vote lead is profoundly misleading statement, as caucus turnouts are not scaled properly in that analysis.
What few of her policies are progressive have been merely borrowed from her competitor's campaign.
If you pay close attention to her statements with regard to domestic (or foreign, to a lesser degree) policy, you will note that she offers a negligible amount of information regarding details or how exactly she will accomplish anything. Save social security? Yes, but don't commit to raising the cap on paying in! Make college affordable? Yes, but offer precisely zero changes from the current system of federal loans.
Her hiring of Brock has opened the GOP playbook of "accuse one's opponents of something as you do precisely that yourself" and her accusations of "tone" and a lack of specificity are best responded to with a large mirror pointed directly back at her campaign.
22
The neo-liberalism of Clinton and the party and coupled with Obama's almost total blockage by the GOP should have alerted Clinton and the party by 2013 that their current economic, social safety net policies and falling back on the only half effective policies of Obama Care, needed a major readjustment long before Sanders arrived.
Sanders put his thumb in the gaping hole in the neo-liberal dam that was bursting all about them.
The neo-liberals and Obama became complacent needing to offer legislation showing their concern of the middle class on down even if it got totally blocked by the GOP. They should have been advertising, getting on interview radio and TV to back their move to the center left and continued it for the intervening years to the present. It is the neo-liberals that have split the Dems.
They failed to have the courage to support fairness to the middle class on down in their economic policies.
And now it is all out in the open of their moral and political failure to do so.
Sanders put his thumb in the gaping hole in the neo-liberal dam that was bursting all about them.
The neo-liberals and Obama became complacent needing to offer legislation showing their concern of the middle class on down even if it got totally blocked by the GOP. They should have been advertising, getting on interview radio and TV to back their move to the center left and continued it for the intervening years to the present. It is the neo-liberals that have split the Dems.
They failed to have the courage to support fairness to the middle class on down in their economic policies.
And now it is all out in the open of their moral and political failure to do so.
38
To everyone commenting how silly it is for Bernie supporters not to support Hillary - it works both ways. I wouldn't vote for Sanders in a million years - I think the guy is a lunatic - but will gladly vote for HRC.
16
This Democrat is ready to join the 40% of Americans who are Independents and I will therefore vote for Jill Stein; I hope Senator Sanders will join Stein and become her Vice President.
Enough with the D and R fight.
Enough with the D and R fight.
27
And people who thought like that in 2000 gave us Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court and the Citizens United decision.
In dramatic contrast, Bill Clinton appointed RBG to the Supreme Court
In dramatic contrast, Bill Clinton appointed RBG to the Supreme Court
21
BERN & HILLARY Who knows their backstory? I find it implausible that two such highly-intelligent, constructive rivals have decided to go it alone rather than finding ways to bring the party together. The Democrats recently has split along the lines of age groups. I think it highly unlikely that Bernie will refuse to accept the end of his campaign and then go the next step to unite the younger voters with other Democrats. The notion that he will engage in a scorched earth campaign goes against his character, as he has demonstrated so much positive energy. Hillary I am certain realizes that she must engage younger voters. She is savvy enough to find a way invite them to join her, to embrace youth leaders and to listen to their priorities and concerns. After all, when was the last time that the claims that the boogy man was knocking down the door so clear and present as now. If Hillary and Bernie really want to send Trump off somewhere to "act" presidential (he's only escalated his buffoonery now), so the stage will be set to move forward and bring fairness and justice back to the US, especially the middle and working classes that have been savaged and disenfranchised since 1980. The alternative would be to join the Trumpster and the Cruzmaster in rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Better to say RIP GOP and rebuild posthaste.
4
Not a chance!!
Dare she take on Wall Street and all that Investment wealth among her donors?
Dare she talk about taking Obamacare to the next step and a single payer, health care access and pull the rug out from under the Health Industry and its bloated investors?
Dare she talk about eliminating the need for student loans and debt with free public college education and send a sympathy card to the loan industry and again, its investors?
Dare she turn down more Defense business behind a US military presence in the Middle East quagmire that started in 1990 and that Bill Clinton kept going with the sanctions and no-fly zones?
Not a chance!!
Dare she take on Wall Street and all that Investment wealth among her donors?
Dare she talk about taking Obamacare to the next step and a single payer, health care access and pull the rug out from under the Health Industry and its bloated investors?
Dare she talk about eliminating the need for student loans and debt with free public college education and send a sympathy card to the loan industry and again, its investors?
Dare she turn down more Defense business behind a US military presence in the Middle East quagmire that started in 1990 and that Bill Clinton kept going with the sanctions and no-fly zones?
Not a chance!!
42
@Lynn:
Hillary's written plans are fine, but there's no evidence that she will actually follow through. I remember quite clearly how quickly she and Bill dropped universal health care when the Republicans opposed it, and this had been the signature issue of Bill's campaign.
Hillary's written plans are fine, but there's no evidence that she will actually follow through. I remember quite clearly how quickly she and Bill dropped universal health care when the Republicans opposed it, and this had been the signature issue of Bill's campaign.
5
She did dare...
1
Campaign reporting has been focused on personalities, innuendos, and slogans.
Voters should at least read policy proposals before d coding what to do:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Voters should at least read policy proposals before d coding what to do:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
8
No point in reading her proposals, written to try to make her look like she really has the interests of the people in mind. As Catullus said, her words may "just as well be written on the wind".
20
@Lynn,
It's unclear to me which voters you had in mind apropos what voters should do. Unless a few scattered voices gave you the impression that no one else has gone to the campaign sites? I've seen Hillary's website. I've seen Bernie's. I've seen the GOP's, even Trump's which I felt had to be seen and heard to be believed. I went to them all, months ago. The websites are an important starting point, of course. But for me and my voting decision, there's more to it than that. Quite a bit more.
I voted for Sanders.
4-23-16@9:35 pm
It's unclear to me which voters you had in mind apropos what voters should do. Unless a few scattered voices gave you the impression that no one else has gone to the campaign sites? I've seen Hillary's website. I've seen Bernie's. I've seen the GOP's, even Trump's which I felt had to be seen and heard to be believed. I went to them all, months ago. The websites are an important starting point, of course. But for me and my voting decision, there's more to it than that. Quite a bit more.
I voted for Sanders.
4-23-16@9:35 pm
4
3
Ms. Clinton can play act at moving to the left all she wants during the campaign, but we know that if elected she will revert to her consistent support for the bankers and others of the rich ruling class. Nothing that Mr. Sanders could say or do could change that reality, and we knew this independently of anything to do with his campaign. The record of the Clintons and their notion of the "new" Democrats has been to moved that party to the right consistently, and acceptance of that pretense requires naivety. In this, they have been the mirror of the "new" Labour Party in the UK under Mr. Blair and Mr. Brown, and observe how that has unraveled that party. So long as Ms. Clinton and her ilk are running the show among the Democrats, there is no sense in supporting them. The Clinton Democrats and the Republicans are equally bought and owned by the big monied interests. That's not to say there are no differences between the two parties, but despite their differences, both cater to Wall Street and the others among the rich and powerful.
By the way, Mr. Nagourney should know better than to confuse the comedy routine of Abby Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and the other Yippies with the supporters of Eugene McCarthy in 1968. The two groups never had much of anything in common with one another, and the notion of seducing the wives of the leading Democrats and dosing the country with acid was mere theater of the Yippie sort.
By the way, Mr. Nagourney should know better than to confuse the comedy routine of Abby Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and the other Yippies with the supporters of Eugene McCarthy in 1968. The two groups never had much of anything in common with one another, and the notion of seducing the wives of the leading Democrats and dosing the country with acid was mere theater of the Yippie sort.
31
Pointing the finger and screaming for Bernie's supporters to do the right thing does not make it so. Do your job, Democratic Party, and figure this out!
36
@The Buddy,
THANK YOU!
4-23-16@4:26 pm
THANK YOU!
4-23-16@4:26 pm
4
@The Buddy,
In case I didn't get this in before, I'm glad you spoke. The burden of responsibility is Hillary's and the DNC's not the Sanders voters who've refused them.
4-23-16@10:36 pm
In case I didn't get this in before, I'm glad you spoke. The burden of responsibility is Hillary's and the DNC's not the Sanders voters who've refused them.
4-23-16@10:36 pm
2
Joe Biden, Robert Reich, Bernie Sanders - all men who have been in OUR government their whole lives now calling for "revolution". Why? Because THEY allowed the takeover of OUR government by monied interests. They are no better than grandstand sports parents who want their children to excel where they didn't. It is time for a WOMAN, who is the MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE WITH THE MOST NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL CAPITAL - Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton - to be OUR next President of the United States. It is time to elect other qualified WOMEN to offices at all levels across America. It is time for GENDER BALANCE in America.
13
I'll bet you'd vote for Sarah Pailin if Hillary weren't in this election but Sarah was.
13
@njglea,
I was lucky to see Robert Reich at my local library at a screening of Inequality for All. He signed my book and offered his condolences for the loss of my beloved sister. I admire him. He endorsed Sanders. Sanders wants things that might have helped my sister who had cancer and another serious medical problem.
I haven't said no to Hillary--yet. But your swipe at Reich doesn't encourage me to. If anything, it's almost discouraging.
4-23-16@4:37 pm
I was lucky to see Robert Reich at my local library at a screening of Inequality for All. He signed my book and offered his condolences for the loss of my beloved sister. I admire him. He endorsed Sanders. Sanders wants things that might have helped my sister who had cancer and another serious medical problem.
I haven't said no to Hillary--yet. But your swipe at Reich doesn't encourage me to. If anything, it's almost discouraging.
4-23-16@4:37 pm
5
lol. She is NOT the MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE, etc., NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU SHOUT IT.
10
The Clinton supporters say that it is Bernie Sanders' responsibility to turn his voters over to her in order to unify the party.
Most Sanders voters feel that it is her responsibility to win them over, should she get the nomination, by acknowledging their ideals and views, and vowing to accommodate them as part of her unified campaign.
It would be different if Mrs. Clinton actually stood for something and had principled views of her own, but she hasn't exhibited such qualities over the years. She is a hawk, and most Democrats want peace. She is a firm supporter of the status quo regarding our treatment of Wall St. She has supported fracking in spite of our obvious need to make major changes in energy policy and address climate change. She has benefited from large donors, SuperPAC's and SuperDelegates and our need to change campaign finance laws and the way the Democratic party no longer supports democracy at the polls. Hillary was slow to come around to LGBT issues, because she always waits to see which way the wind is blowing.
The wind is blowing to the left, Hillary. In order to unite this party, you need to change that arrow in your logo from pointing to the right to pointing to the left. You need to change your campaign slogan from "I'm With Her" to "I Am With All of You".
I just don't think she has this in her.
Most Sanders voters feel that it is her responsibility to win them over, should she get the nomination, by acknowledging their ideals and views, and vowing to accommodate them as part of her unified campaign.
It would be different if Mrs. Clinton actually stood for something and had principled views of her own, but she hasn't exhibited such qualities over the years. She is a hawk, and most Democrats want peace. She is a firm supporter of the status quo regarding our treatment of Wall St. She has supported fracking in spite of our obvious need to make major changes in energy policy and address climate change. She has benefited from large donors, SuperPAC's and SuperDelegates and our need to change campaign finance laws and the way the Democratic party no longer supports democracy at the polls. Hillary was slow to come around to LGBT issues, because she always waits to see which way the wind is blowing.
The wind is blowing to the left, Hillary. In order to unite this party, you need to change that arrow in your logo from pointing to the right to pointing to the left. You need to change your campaign slogan from "I'm With Her" to "I Am With All of You".
I just don't think she has this in her.
51
I keep wondering what happened in 8 years? In 2008, Hillary won all of NY State's up-state counties but lost all of them this election. Is it her stance on fracking?
5
Job losses, population exodus. Have a look at the primary maps of some of the other states - Massachusetts, Michican, Wisconsin, Illinois. Same pattern - Clinton took the populated urban areas, Sanders took the lion's share of the rest of the more rural parts of the states (geographically, but lower in population.)
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765644815/Upstate-NY-struggles-as-mor...
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765644815/Upstate-NY-struggles-as-mor...
If Mrs. Clinton is to get any Bernie voters she'd better reconsider releasing the Goldman transcripts. We're not interested in what Kasich, or Cruz, or Trump said. Cruz and Trump have already "stripped" in public and Kasich says he's not got transcripts. HRC, in speaking to Goldman and other fat cats, was speaking to "her community", those who staffed the Clinton White House, those who forked over the money. That she won't disclose compels the inference that they are so unfavorable as to cost her the nomination.
47
Amen. Bernie releases all his speaking transcripts in each rally, with a flourish. Noting here nothing there, poof gone.
12
The other aspect of her digging in her heels about releasing the transcripts is this: What kind of White House would she run? One where the doors were locked and the shades drawn. She is the anti-transparency candidate. She works in secret and parses every word. She used a private server to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act, as did the people from the Bush Administration.
Given that, you expect me to trust her?
Given that, you expect me to trust her?
12
If she did release anything, who knows if we would be getting the originals or some carefully sanitized version?
11
What is HRC's reason for running? Her narrative, as best I can understand it, is best encapsulated as "it's my turn!". Well that's not good enough for me. I live in the blood red state of LA and it will most likely go Trump in the general so my vote doesn't really count. In that position I'll vote for Jill Stein.
35
The Clintons want total control. They already own the democrtatic party, they even hold Mr Obama hostage (not Joe Biden or Tulsi Gabbard).
16
The press doesn't cover it, but here are her reasons for running
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
6
Her platform is on her website.
The main problem I see is that when Hillary Clinton realized Senator Sanders was an authentic voice on income inequality. She couldn’t familiarize herself there was a gap between the rich and the poor; that the American people were the victims of income inequality. After a real tight race in Iowa, she decided to change her issues of national importance to sound similar of her opponent. From thereon, she became an untrustworthy presidential candidate to Sander’s supporters because that wasn’t her initial political posture – they didn’t believe on her promises; that it was just a way to get people to vote for her.
And now, the Democratic Party is being confronted with an awful high bar to meet. Contrary to their expectations, Bernie has emerged as the favorite amongst millions of people interested in their future; dedicated to his cause with the belief he’s the real deal.
Definitely, Hillary Clinton will become the Democratic presidential candidate but with a hard task ahead at Bernie’s support as well as of the millions of people supporting his platform. Whether the Democratic Party is ready to implement some of Bernie’s values into its platform in order to earn the vote of his supporters is unforeseeable.
And now, the Democratic Party is being confronted with an awful high bar to meet. Contrary to their expectations, Bernie has emerged as the favorite amongst millions of people interested in their future; dedicated to his cause with the belief he’s the real deal.
Definitely, Hillary Clinton will become the Democratic presidential candidate but with a hard task ahead at Bernie’s support as well as of the millions of people supporting his platform. Whether the Democratic Party is ready to implement some of Bernie’s values into its platform in order to earn the vote of his supporters is unforeseeable.
18
They can put his ideas in the party platform; however, that does not mean they will be implemented following the election. That is the situation. Hillary and DNC are disingenuous. I do not trust them.
11
"It's not over until the fat lady sings" is MY motto. I want to see this go all the way. To concede is foolish. Who knows where things will go, Bernie is not that far behind in delegates and in a democracy we are SUPPOSED TO HAVE CHOICE. RIGHT? So, let's not force this to a close before it is over. We paid our dine, now let is see the movie.
33
I will definitely vote for whomever is on the democratic ticket, there is absolutely no way I could justify chancing the next two supreme court nominations coming from the republicans. Sorry. I honestly don't see how anyone else can chance that happening, especially progressives. I see a lot of VERY myopic BernieBros/Bernie or Bust posts.
15
@Max,
I'm not in the Bernie or Bust camp. Your last sentence reminds me that everyone sees things their own way, which is their right. That includes the
Bernie or Bust camp.
4-23-16@9:53 pm
I'm not in the Bernie or Bust camp. Your last sentence reminds me that everyone sees things their own way, which is their right. That includes the
Bernie or Bust camp.
4-23-16@9:53 pm
3
I have voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1968. Candidates of both parties generally loose due to a less than interesting personality. That is, an inability to rally people & generate enthusiasm. Consider Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, Nixon, Ford, Romney (Mitt). Regardless of their intellect and other individual favorable characteristics, they are all the same - not interesting or likeable.
This is exactly Hillary's problem. Furthermore, despite her temporary lean to the left due to the Sanders campaign, Hillary is a military hawk, no different than any on the right. While I'm not a millenial, I can't see any difference between Hullary & the remaining choices from the right.
Finally, this time it is different. The environmental, economic and social consequences of a Clinton or Republican administration over the next 4 years will be disastrous. That's why many of us Sandrrs supporters will pass on the ballot box this November. There is no choice of any value.
This is exactly Hillary's problem. Furthermore, despite her temporary lean to the left due to the Sanders campaign, Hillary is a military hawk, no different than any on the right. While I'm not a millenial, I can't see any difference between Hullary & the remaining choices from the right.
Finally, this time it is different. The environmental, economic and social consequences of a Clinton or Republican administration over the next 4 years will be disastrous. That's why many of us Sandrrs supporters will pass on the ballot box this November. There is no choice of any value.
27
Being a grown up means pulling back to see the bigger picture. I am for Bernie now fully because the Dems have become sclerotic and co-opted (as do all human enterprises) and Bernie is the prophet of our time. But, I will not hesitate to vote for Hillary if (when) she wins the nomination. Are you kidding me? It is so much bigger than Bernie or Hillary...it is SCOTUS, it is Obamacare and its follow on, it is every budget slashing government strangling ideological oligarchy-driven move that will be visited upon us. It is all the vastly important "down-ballot" contests to elect democrats to the Congress. No contest... I don't have the right to pout and not vote if (when) Bernie doesn't win. His message has been heard...and it will resound long after the election. Thank you Bernie.
I'm voting for the Democratic nominee!!
I'm voting for the Democratic nominee!!
18
Sallie, As a Clinton supporter that is all I would ask for and in exchange promise to do the same and vote Sanders if he is the nominee. You are right. This his bigger than Bernie or Hillary. So much bigger.
3
@Sallie McKenna,
I agree. The bigger picture's always important. I gather some of the people with whom I spoken feel the same way and that's why a number of them won't vote for Clinton. You're right. This is much bigger than Hillary or Bernie. In some ways, Bernie's the vessel. for me and a lot of others, regardless of who gets the nod, things have changed--for good and for the better.
4-23-16@10:01 pm
I agree. The bigger picture's always important. I gather some of the people with whom I spoken feel the same way and that's why a number of them won't vote for Clinton. You're right. This is much bigger than Hillary or Bernie. In some ways, Bernie's the vessel. for me and a lot of others, regardless of who gets the nod, things have changed--for good and for the better.
4-23-16@10:01 pm
1
Although running for the Democratic nomination, Sanders is not a Democrat. I wonder if many of his young, first-time voting supporters would think of themselves as Democrats.
While the Democratic party is happy to ally itself with labor and working people, for much of the 20th century and up to the present day it has been solidly a part of the neoliberal Washington consensus. The Democrats have long been willing to accept more radical-left perspectives among its ranks, but only so long as the more moderate elites maintain control.
Part of the reality of our electoral system is that it produces a two-party system which has historically promoted more moderate outcomes. But, as people only now seem to be realizing, the parties themselves are elite institutions jealous of their power. It is difficult to see how this might change.
There seems to be more interest now than at any time over the past 100 years in rethinking our party system. The numbers of dissatisfied Democrats and Republicans are at historic levels, and for many of these people, the essential basis of their complaint--an insufficiently democratic political system--is the same. Whether this leads to a new political party is anyone's guess. But given the way our system works, especially in the Citizens United era, chances are good that it will turn out to be more of the same. To get better representation a more fundamental change to the system (e.g., a shift to a parliamentary model) is necessary.
While the Democratic party is happy to ally itself with labor and working people, for much of the 20th century and up to the present day it has been solidly a part of the neoliberal Washington consensus. The Democrats have long been willing to accept more radical-left perspectives among its ranks, but only so long as the more moderate elites maintain control.
Part of the reality of our electoral system is that it produces a two-party system which has historically promoted more moderate outcomes. But, as people only now seem to be realizing, the parties themselves are elite institutions jealous of their power. It is difficult to see how this might change.
There seems to be more interest now than at any time over the past 100 years in rethinking our party system. The numbers of dissatisfied Democrats and Republicans are at historic levels, and for many of these people, the essential basis of their complaint--an insufficiently democratic political system--is the same. Whether this leads to a new political party is anyone's guess. But given the way our system works, especially in the Citizens United era, chances are good that it will turn out to be more of the same. To get better representation a more fundamental change to the system (e.g., a shift to a parliamentary model) is necessary.
13
This Democrat is ready to join the 40% of Americans who are Independents and I will therefore vote for Jill Stein; I hope Senator Sanders will join Stein and become her Vice President.
Enough with the D and R fight.
Enough with the D and R fight.
20
What party unity?
The majority of Sanders are supporters are independents. You know, the ones that aren't permitted to vote in the closed Democratic primaries for our candidate who is running as a Democrat.
Yet you want us to consider ourselves Democratic party voters once the general election comes around.
The majority of Sanders are supporters are independents. You know, the ones that aren't permitted to vote in the closed Democratic primaries for our candidate who is running as a Democrat.
Yet you want us to consider ourselves Democratic party voters once the general election comes around.
39
It is ridiculous to say that the election is closed to independents. There is no loyalty test to vote-- all you have to do is check a box that Then allows you to vote in the Democratic primary
In fact, you can even run as a candidate in the democratic primary, like, for example, Bernie Sanders, I-VT
In fact, you can even run as a candidate in the democratic primary, like, for example, Bernie Sanders, I-VT
9
In New York, Independents would have had to "check a box" to change party affiliation last October, before any debates had even aired. That absurdly early deadline passed before most voters had even heard of Bernie Sanders. So effectively the primary was closed to Independents in New York.
Many other states permit party registration changes up through election day, and in those states, Independents have voted overwhelmingly for Sanders.
Many other states permit party registration changes up through election day, and in those states, Independents have voted overwhelmingly for Sanders.
6
@anne there is nothing new about the rule requiring one to change parties months before an election. It has been the rule in New York for decades. Its purpose is to shut independents out of the primaries of parties they haven't seen fit to support so far.
New York has a closed primary, and it is limited to actual party members. If you are a Democrat, you're a Democrat six months before the election, not on your way into the booth, and same with Republicans. Democrats choose the Democrat, Republicans choose the Republican. It's their nomination, after all, and it should be made by party members. Otherwise, members of either party could swarm to the other primary and vote for whichever opposition candidate they deem least likely to win the general, to better the odds of their own candidate. This is exactly what happened in Michigan in 2008, when Democrats crossed over to the Republican primary to hurt Romney by voting for Santorum.
This lifelong Democrat registered as unaffiliated just before the 2012 election, after four increasingly nauseating years of watching Barack Obama chasing the approval of independents and Republicans while ignoring people like me. Here in the Garden State I can choose a party on primary day. I can register as a Republican, God help me, vote for whoever scares me the least. My vote will, unfairly, count just as much as my lifelong GOP neighbor. And just hope that my fingers aren't singed to the bone when I reach for the lever.
New York has a closed primary, and it is limited to actual party members. If you are a Democrat, you're a Democrat six months before the election, not on your way into the booth, and same with Republicans. Democrats choose the Democrat, Republicans choose the Republican. It's their nomination, after all, and it should be made by party members. Otherwise, members of either party could swarm to the other primary and vote for whichever opposition candidate they deem least likely to win the general, to better the odds of their own candidate. This is exactly what happened in Michigan in 2008, when Democrats crossed over to the Republican primary to hurt Romney by voting for Santorum.
This lifelong Democrat registered as unaffiliated just before the 2012 election, after four increasingly nauseating years of watching Barack Obama chasing the approval of independents and Republicans while ignoring people like me. Here in the Garden State I can choose a party on primary day. I can register as a Republican, God help me, vote for whoever scares me the least. My vote will, unfairly, count just as much as my lifelong GOP neighbor. And just hope that my fingers aren't singed to the bone when I reach for the lever.
1
Wow. Judging from the statements of the Sanders supporters here, Sanders' campaign is ready to do grave damage to the progressive cause for decades to come. They all say they'd prefer to let Trump or Cruz take over - with help of a Republican-controlled Congress and Supreme Court.
The Sanders camp apparently thinks it's fine to let Cruz or Trump destroy all that Obama has accomplished - which is a huge amount, even though the media doesn't tell us about it - just because Sanders has not won enough votes and has taken his frustration out on his winning opponent by throwing at her the same kind of baseless personal attacks as the Republicans have for years. Clinton's and Sanders' policies are the SAME.
But these sore-loser Sanders die-hards apparently want to wreck the country and take it back a century by empowering Republicans. Sanders himself, if he understood what is being said in his name, would be ashamed.
The Sanders camp apparently thinks it's fine to let Cruz or Trump destroy all that Obama has accomplished - which is a huge amount, even though the media doesn't tell us about it - just because Sanders has not won enough votes and has taken his frustration out on his winning opponent by throwing at her the same kind of baseless personal attacks as the Republicans have for years. Clinton's and Sanders' policies are the SAME.
But these sore-loser Sanders die-hards apparently want to wreck the country and take it back a century by empowering Republicans. Sanders himself, if he understood what is being said in his name, would be ashamed.
24
That's right! Guilt trip them in to it. That always works so well. Call people names. Treat them with disrespect and the little buggers will get in line! They so enjoy being talked down to.
16
Nope, HRC would do more damage to the Progressive cause
If she loses, then a real progressive can be elected in 2020
If she loses, then a real progressive can be elected in 2020
2
The biased reporting that has pervaded this primary season will taint the New York Times long after the election is over. It is shocking that the Grey Lady has become a tool of the 1%, but there we are. I can barely read the articles any more, it is literally painful.
37
Yes, I plan to terminate my subscription soon. I can't trust them to be objective about this race, so I can't trust them to be objective about anything else, either.
15
Hillary "feel the bern?" No. Pretend to? Sure, of course!
If it looks like it would be to her advantage, she will provide us with an Oscar performance, all the way up to the election. She might even get a pair of eyeglasses.
If it looks like it would be to her advantage, she will provide us with an Oscar performance, all the way up to the election. She might even get a pair of eyeglasses.
26
The answer in one word -No. Unless authenticity and honesty can be brought and applied retroactively.
After her Iraq War vote, militarist views, and voicing her resolute opposition to my right to marry the man I have been with since 1981, I vowed never to waste a vote on a Clinton again. Yes, Clinton supporters in 2008 eventually moved over to Obama- a fresh face with little history to erase. Clinton comes wears her history, no matter how hard she tries to triangulate it.
Clinton will win the Presidency on the total disaster the GOP field is this year, and after the Democratic minions scare us half to death with whomever is the GOP bogeyman candidate. There will be little enthusiasm, and many will regret their decision after she starts her very own war.
After her Iraq War vote, militarist views, and voicing her resolute opposition to my right to marry the man I have been with since 1981, I vowed never to waste a vote on a Clinton again. Yes, Clinton supporters in 2008 eventually moved over to Obama- a fresh face with little history to erase. Clinton comes wears her history, no matter how hard she tries to triangulate it.
Clinton will win the Presidency on the total disaster the GOP field is this year, and after the Democratic minions scare us half to death with whomever is the GOP bogeyman candidate. There will be little enthusiasm, and many will regret their decision after she starts her very own war.
27
The Democratic Party-- Let the media and Republicans change it to "democrat Party without a whimper. Let the Republicans and the media spin the IRS "scandal" without defending the fact the IRS was doing it's job. Signed off all the lousy trade agreements, tax cuts for the rich and the Iraq war. Obamacare without a public option. No spine on gun control. Blanche Congresswoman Walmart Lincoln slipping a big estate tax gift to her donors. No national calls to audit the biggest source of waste, fraud and abuse, the Pentagon, groveling before Israel.....Gee whiz...what a model of courage and conviction!
11
Bernie could come to my house personally and ask me to vote for Clinton in the general election. I WOULD NEVER! Not for anything. Looks like I will be voting for Dr. Jill Stein, happily.
29
The people who feel that voting for Hillary somehow violates their high moral standard should consider the ones who will suffer the most from their attitude.
The social programs that will be cut will impact the most vulnerable in our country. Then of course the most damaging of all, a conservative majority in the Supreme Court. Stay home home with your nose stuck in the air, you won't be the ones who suffer because you're too good to vote for Clinton.
So much for your grand vision and hope for a better future.
The social programs that will be cut will impact the most vulnerable in our country. Then of course the most damaging of all, a conservative majority in the Supreme Court. Stay home home with your nose stuck in the air, you won't be the ones who suffer because you're too good to vote for Clinton.
So much for your grand vision and hope for a better future.
12
The Clintons ended "Welfare as we know it" and you want ME to believe she gives two cents about people living in poverty?
Watch the interview between Warren and Bill Moyers on Hillary's about face on the bankruptcy bill. Hillary does what she thinks is good for Hillary. Period.
Watch the interview between Warren and Bill Moyers on Hillary's about face on the bankruptcy bill. Hillary does what she thinks is good for Hillary. Period.
12
WE will not vote or in any way support corrupt HiLLARY, a consummate ddisgrace
23
For me, voting for elected office is like hiring. I don't expect the people i hire to always agree with me. i don't expect to like them and don't care if they like me. competence, work ethic and desire to improve are givens. but the one thing i won't compromise on is integrity. after voting for bill clinton on policy grounds, i came to regret it because of his character flaws. as minnesota gov, jesse ventura was politically incorrect, but intellegent, hard working, and had tremendous integrity. no regrets for supporting ventura. if i recall, Drucker said something like "character and integrity won't get the job done, but their absence ruins everything." That is why i support Sanders.
23
It's the economy Hillary. The disconnect between the establishment elite Democrats and their media pals and the rest of the country is astonishing - even now, in the context of the rise of the anti-establishment outsiders in the persons of Trump and Sanders. Painting half of the Democrat Party's registered voters as animated young people is a swing and a miss, and expecting us to go along with her neocon pro-Wall Street candidacy because the other option is allegedly worse, isn't much of a sales pitch. I've voted for every Democrat candidate for President since the 80s, but if Clinton is the nominee, I'll just vote the down ticket races - she's not a Democrat in my book as her actions speak far louder than her "evolving" words.
25
From this article's animated graphic, it appears we have been given our marching orders to move to the right with HCR.
Call me "old-fashioned" but I'm more of an FDR democrat like Bernie. And the nominating process is not over yet.
Call me "old-fashioned" but I'm more of an FDR democrat like Bernie. And the nominating process is not over yet.
32
Anyone, of any political stripe, pondering running as Clinton's VP should consider a four year internship in Siberia as preferable.
16
What would it take to bring the young and left on board the Hillary express? A convention speaking role for Bernie and convention planks will help, but I don't think that keeps the Bernie supporter energized. He is too old to be Clinton's V.P. But... Bernie was really not the choice of the young or the Dem left, they just gravitated to him, because he was the only progressive in the race (apart from the old-time feminist issues of 20-40 years ago, Hillary really isn't progressive on anything else). The first choice of the Dem left and the young never-voted-befores was Senator Warren. Not the ideal gender/geographical/ethnic balance Clinton wanted a year ago, but I suspect the only V.P. choice who can unite the party. Senator Warren isn't going to simply sign on as a figurehead 'name', she'd need a promise that she would be a very active V.P. to the extent that Biden and Cheney have been, not the smaller role that President Clinton gave to Al Gore or that V.P.s have traditionally been given. I think that's the price. Is Clinton willing to pay it?
4
Warren is too strong in her own right for Hillary to ever feel comfortable with her. She will fear being overshadowed by Warren the same way she has always been overshadowed by Bill.
9
Warren was the natural pick for both Progressives and most mainstream Democrats. She's much more electable than either Sanders or Clinton. But I'm sure she saw no way to compete against the Clintons and their control of the party. If Hillary had cared at all about the Democratic Party, rather than her own personal career, she would have encouraged Warren to run.
2
Sanders's supporters, unfortunately, seem as obtuse as Sanders himself. He surely knows he is not going to win the nomination, but he goes on unrelentingly because he loves the adulation of the big crowds of young people, who not very diverse and mainly male. He is aggrandized and feels the Bern himself. But if Hillary Clinton and the Democrats suffer a narrow defeat in November, Sanders will be a pariah when he shows up in the Senate after the elections, and most likely, he will have to announce that he will not seek re-election to the Senate the next time. So, unless Sanders changes his tune, he will be another Ralph Nadar, totally ignored by history.
11
Please, please more insults. They are working so well. There must be someone who will be won over. Just hurl a few more.
11
Senator Sanders isn't a Democrat and a good portion of his supporters aren't either. For me, and for them, "party unity" is irrelevant. I am not a Republican, but the last time I voted for a Democrat presidential candidate was forty years ago. For me, Secretary Clinton will not be the one to break this pattern. I don't see her as the next best candidate. I see her as more of the same. From my observations and conversations with younger Sanders supporters, I don't think I am alone by a long shot.
21
We are not coming to you, HRC, you must come to us. You only look like a Democrat because your two main opponents look like lunatics. Be more like FDR and LBJ and less like Bill on social issues.
14
It's time for Bernie to show some statesmanship and stand aside. He needs to help Hillary win over the die-hard Bernie supporters for the good of everyone - for the good of the nation - in November.
5
Do you mean in the way that Hillary "stood aside" in 2008? Got it.
10
In a recent NYT discussion it was proposed to abandon readers comments because of extensive "trolling". After reading so many comments today that are clearly pro-Trump made by fake Bernie supporters, this proposal may make sense. No one who is not a right winger at heart would propose backing Trump even out of childish revenge.
10
I agree with you on this. Many liberal websites are being plagued by paid "dollar-a-post" GOP trolls with Sanders "sock puppet" handles. Whatever its merits, the Sanders campaign has provided a free avenue of attack on Hillary.
2
I personally wouldn't vote for Trump, but I assure you these posts are not coming from trolls. There is overlap in that both candidates oppose establishment support of trade policies which have devastated the middle class.
4
It nauseates me that every time I log into the Times "front page" I have to see a headline that says I am with her. NO I am not and NEVER will be with her. Here in Pennsylvania we are trying to give Bernie some funds and votes, but her machine continues to define the (false) debate for this primary. I made the decision in 2008 to finally stop voting against my own interests. As a "born-again" democrat in 2008 I can not vote for another republican. EVER! She is incapable of feeling any "burn." I look forward to the 3rd party challenge in November. It certain it will come. Sometimes I think Trump is more interested in his (deeply misguided) constituents than HRC is even capable of being.
21
I feel the same way. Also about the prominent photographs. My finger is sore from hitting the scroll button so much.
3
"...at a Democratic convention marked by violence on the streets and protests in the hall..."
What a MISREPRESENTATION of the FACTS! I was there.... the violence was stoked by the police and national guard unleashed by Mayor Daly upon the protesters the vast majority of whom were demonstrating non-violently, and this was done with the full acquiescence of Hubert HUMPHREY as he watched from the windows above. Talk about History Revised.......
What a MISREPRESENTATION of the FACTS! I was there.... the violence was stoked by the police and national guard unleashed by Mayor Daly upon the protesters the vast majority of whom were demonstrating non-violently, and this was done with the full acquiescence of Hubert HUMPHREY as he watched from the windows above. Talk about History Revised.......
16
On the one hand you say that Bernie brought in many people who would not have been interested in the first place,then you say HRC should expect their vote?
She can expect my vote and that of my 89 yo mother, both of us supported Bernie but we would never cross over to vote for trump or Cruz or not vote. But there are the many younger folk who voted for Bernie who I cannot speak for and I do worry about them voting for Trump or not voting at all.
That whole issue has been a point the primaries you have failed to investigate.
As Trump moves a bit left---he just said reasonable things about the transgender issue,for instance--he will garner some of those Bernie voters. He is not as crazy as he sounds and most people know that since he has been around as long as HRC has been in the public eye. If he is their nominee, and if he becomes a disciplined campaigner as I think he is capable of, he may actually give her trouble in some places. I wrote before,he could win New Hampshire and in so doing win it all as in Bush v Gore 2000.
She can expect my vote and that of my 89 yo mother, both of us supported Bernie but we would never cross over to vote for trump or Cruz or not vote. But there are the many younger folk who voted for Bernie who I cannot speak for and I do worry about them voting for Trump or not voting at all.
That whole issue has been a point the primaries you have failed to investigate.
As Trump moves a bit left---he just said reasonable things about the transgender issue,for instance--he will garner some of those Bernie voters. He is not as crazy as he sounds and most people know that since he has been around as long as HRC has been in the public eye. If he is their nominee, and if he becomes a disciplined campaigner as I think he is capable of, he may actually give her trouble in some places. I wrote before,he could win New Hampshire and in so doing win it all as in Bush v Gore 2000.
3
It is hard to imagine that Mr. Sanders will be like Republicans, who would rather see the country destroyed rather than compromise.
In fact, Mr. Sanders would be a great Senator majority leader should Democrats re-take the Senate...and both Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton know this.
In fact, Mr. Sanders would be a great Senator majority leader should Democrats re-take the Senate...and both Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton know this.
5
Hillary Clinton is “stealing” the Democratic Party nomination from Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders said on Tuesday night following the vote: “Almost 30% of the eligible voters, some 3 million New Yorkers were unable to vote today because they had registered as Independents, not Democrats or Republicans, and that makes no sense to me at all. People should have the right to participate in a primary and vote for their candidate for President of the United States.”
New York City Comptroller, Scott Stringer, wrote recently in “Barriers to the Ballot: Voting Reform in New York City” (April, 2016):
“[O]ur analysis shows that the Empire State’s voting rules tend to impose barriers to exercising the franchise. In fact, New York is one of only a handful of states to lack alternative poll access, expedited registration, and increased primary access (open primaries, extended deadline for party registration).”
In California, citizens may register to vote or update her or his political party association by May 23 for the primary set for June 7. This is a difference of 15 days. An Independent voter can even re-register as No Party Preference to be able to vote for Bernie. New York’s deadline for switching party registration was Oct. 9, 2015, or 193 days before the primary.
In fairness, the Democratic Primary in New York should be re-run with the 3 million New Yorkers who were unable to vote last Tuesday added to the state's rolls.
I will be a Sanders supporter to the very end!
Bernie Sanders said on Tuesday night following the vote: “Almost 30% of the eligible voters, some 3 million New Yorkers were unable to vote today because they had registered as Independents, not Democrats or Republicans, and that makes no sense to me at all. People should have the right to participate in a primary and vote for their candidate for President of the United States.”
New York City Comptroller, Scott Stringer, wrote recently in “Barriers to the Ballot: Voting Reform in New York City” (April, 2016):
“[O]ur analysis shows that the Empire State’s voting rules tend to impose barriers to exercising the franchise. In fact, New York is one of only a handful of states to lack alternative poll access, expedited registration, and increased primary access (open primaries, extended deadline for party registration).”
In California, citizens may register to vote or update her or his political party association by May 23 for the primary set for June 7. This is a difference of 15 days. An Independent voter can even re-register as No Party Preference to be able to vote for Bernie. New York’s deadline for switching party registration was Oct. 9, 2015, or 193 days before the primary.
In fairness, the Democratic Primary in New York should be re-run with the 3 million New Yorkers who were unable to vote last Tuesday added to the state's rolls.
I will be a Sanders supporter to the very end!
21
David,
I fully understand your disappointment over Mr. Sanders not winning NY. However, the sole purpose of the State Primaries is to allow each viable party to put forth its best candidate for the general election. The GOP, DEMOS, and the Independent parties each had candidates on the ballot. If those persons registered for the Independent Party did not want to vote for their party's candidate, then they should have re-registered as members of the Democratic Party in order to vote for Mr. Sanders. Really very simple. What I see as the problem in NY was about timing. Mr. Sanders had been relatively unknown until very recently, and voter awareness and interest in his candidacy didn't really get on NY voters' radar until after the deadline for changing "Party Affiliation". Perhaps unfortunate for Mr. Sanders, but "fair" none the less.
I fully understand your disappointment over Mr. Sanders not winning NY. However, the sole purpose of the State Primaries is to allow each viable party to put forth its best candidate for the general election. The GOP, DEMOS, and the Independent parties each had candidates on the ballot. If those persons registered for the Independent Party did not want to vote for their party's candidate, then they should have re-registered as members of the Democratic Party in order to vote for Mr. Sanders. Really very simple. What I see as the problem in NY was about timing. Mr. Sanders had been relatively unknown until very recently, and voter awareness and interest in his candidacy didn't really get on NY voters' radar until after the deadline for changing "Party Affiliation". Perhaps unfortunate for Mr. Sanders, but "fair" none the less.
3
If Hillary Clinton wants to unify the Democratic Party before the general election she needs to embrace some real policy changes and significant gestures. She would have to embrace some of Bernie Sander's economic populism and signal she really meant to be less tied to Wall Street and big money. Perhaps the best way to do this would be to select Elizabeth Warren as VP even though Hillary's relationship with her is reportedly chilly and Hillary seems to prefer not to have others around her who challenge her.
President Obama showed remarkable political skill and grace in welcoming Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bob Gates and others (including Republicans) into his Administration, trying to govern with and for all Americans. Although he failed to pick better economic advisors (too many Clintonistas such as Summers) and many Republicans turned their backs he did unify the party. Can Hillary do as well? Or will ego, insecurities and ties to the wealthy keep her and Bernie's legions apart?
President Obama showed remarkable political skill and grace in welcoming Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bob Gates and others (including Republicans) into his Administration, trying to govern with and for all Americans. Although he failed to pick better economic advisors (too many Clintonistas such as Summers) and many Republicans turned their backs he did unify the party. Can Hillary do as well? Or will ego, insecurities and ties to the wealthy keep her and Bernie's legions apart?
7
Howard Dean went on to successfully lead the DNC in taking back both houses of Congress in 2006 with his "50-state strategy." What is Bernie Sanders doing down-ballot? He has gone from a candidate who brought up important issues of inequality and elite control of politics, to becoming tantalizingly close to being the Democratic Party nominee. However, he has no clear route to the nomination--superdelegates would only back a candidate who wins the majority of pledged delegates, and Sanders will not come close to that majority. He needs to go back to being an issues candidate, inspiring and supporting other candidates for public office on the local, state, and national level in order to continue to move an eventual Clinton presidency to act on inequality and money-in-politics. I would not expect him to lead the DNC after a Clinton victory, but his actions now need to look beyond 2016. And, of course, Clinton would do well to give him that primetime slot at the convention and name him as Labor Secretary.
44
Bernie is supporting other progressives down ballot. I have contributed to them. Emily's list, supporter of Clinton, notified one of these progressive women (Lucy Flores, Nevada) that they will no longer support her although they have in the past.
See, Hillary gets even.
See, Hillary gets even.
5
Clinton disagrees with everything Sanders stands for. It's no secret. Her rhetoric may change but her actions are corporatist to the nines. She isn't going to include Sanders in anything nor will her corporatist polices change. If you want change you have to vote for Bernie...unlike Obama and Clinton he means it!
7
Too bad Howard then became a talking head sellout
1
If Hillary wins the nod and goes on to lose the general election she will have the media, pundit class and the DNC to thank. Anyone paying attention has clearly witnessed the thinly veiled attempt by those aforementioned to marginalize Bernie while calcifying Hillary at almost every turn. It is disgusting and pathetic. I will not allow my choices to be taken from nor dictated to me. I voted enthusiastically for change in 08 and 12. It did not come, partially because we had a leader more concerned with governing from the center than forwarding the platform he ran on. No more I say. Give us Bernie or you can fin for yourselves DNC. The same way we progressives have had to do for the last several decades beginning with the last Clinton that held the oval office.
15
It feels like their is fraud going on here. Lots of people claiming to be BS supporting saying they'll never vote HC. I think a lot of them are Trump supporters stirring up trouble. Don't fall for it. It is an organized effort.
7
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've never been a Trump fan, and I've been a Dem since 2001
The only fraud is the Democrats trying to foist HRC on us
The only fraud is the Democrats trying to foist HRC on us
18
No we are NOT Trump supporters. We support a better world and Hillary is corrupt, untrustworthy, immoral. She only cares about herself. I want a President who cares about the country first.
17
A Trump-Clinton general election would be a "Vote Against [the other]" marathon given the negatives of each. Republicans seem to have a stronger record than Democrats of Voting Against, so Clinton as an establishment nominee in an anti-establishment year could lose in November.
A progressive platform and VP nominee might be enough to keep Sanders voters on board, but a public pledge by Clinton to be a one-term president could serve as insurance.
Sanders for months has polled as the much stronger general election candidate -- positive favorables, anti-establishment -- who could bring enough voters to the polls to regain Democratic control of the Senate. Hillary, do the right thing!
A progressive platform and VP nominee might be enough to keep Sanders voters on board, but a public pledge by Clinton to be a one-term president could serve as insurance.
Sanders for months has polled as the much stronger general election candidate -- positive favorables, anti-establishment -- who could bring enough voters to the polls to regain Democratic control of the Senate. Hillary, do the right thing!
36
Sorry I don`t feel the Bern so why should Hillary Clinton fit to be the President of this free World who is ahead in polls, votes, delegates feel it.
2
Because is truly the conscience of liberals and democrats. The Clintons took us way right of what democrats are meant to be, aspirational, inspirational, rational, think big, dream big, we can do it -- spirits. The Clintons are whiny we can't do this, the Republicans won't let us, truth is they are so beholden to big money, IT will not allow them....Bernie is free, he is not beholden to big money, his campaign is of the people, by the people and FOR the people.
2
The Bernie campaign has already done half of Trump's (or Cruz's) work against Hillary. They've slandered her, often insinuating falsities, and publicized all the smears eagerly and unceasingly. I used to like Bernie more than I do now - I think he's changed.
8
Sanders may endorse Clinton, but his supporters won't follow. There is such a wide gulf between Sanders and Clinton, she just won't get the support or votes from a big chunk of them. She is delusional if she thinks otherwise. If Sanders does not run third party, which he should, his supporters will go there anyway. Jill Stein of the Green Party will get their votes. The voting irregularities and the super delegates have turned off a lot of people to what many now see as a corrupt Democratic Party and a it's corrupt favorite, Hillary Clinton. If Sanders does not run, Hillary is so unpopular, she will hand the election over to Trump.
59
As the revered Bard whose death anniversary we are noting today would say
- Me thinks that thou protests too much.
- Me thinks that thou protests too much.
3
And Trump know this. He will blow away HRC in a head to head election. The battle of the unlikables!
And I am a Bernie guy, not a Trump supporter. I would vote for democrats except HRC, where I will write in Bernie. The only candidate in the race who believes in government by & for the people.
And I am a Bernie guy, not a Trump supporter. I would vote for democrats except HRC, where I will write in Bernie. The only candidate in the race who believes in government by & for the people.
4
The question is what does Trump need to do to get the disaffected Democrats to go to the polls to vote for him.
Trump took an unambiguous position that the Iraq War was wrong, even tried to pretend he had said this before the war started. While Donald Trump said he won't rule out nuking ISIS, he is less likely to start a new war. Hillary needs to do a lot of heavy lifting to reassure us that she will be better than Trump on war, not easy but doable.
Donald Trump hated wind farms — until an Iowa voter asked. "It's an amazing thing when you think -- you know, where they can, out of nowhere, out of the wind, they make energy." Trump said.
On the surface Trump is anti-clean-renewables and Clinton is for "Half a billion solar panels in first 4 years". But solar is less efficient than wind in bringing down the dirty fossil fuel economy. One wonders if it is an empty Hillary talking point since the details of her proposal has fundged math and it does not add up.
Trump is a loose cannon and if he sees an advantage and an opening he is more likely to bring down the fossil fuel economy. Clinton is more reliable to serve vested interests tied to drilling and fracking than Tramp. Again the loose cannon quality of Trump maybe a better bet. Clinton maybe able to earn our vote if she breaks clean from decades of serving fossil fuel interests. Is it doable? who knows.
Bottom line if is up to Hillary and Hillary alone if Bernie's supporters do not go to the polls for Trump.
Trump took an unambiguous position that the Iraq War was wrong, even tried to pretend he had said this before the war started. While Donald Trump said he won't rule out nuking ISIS, he is less likely to start a new war. Hillary needs to do a lot of heavy lifting to reassure us that she will be better than Trump on war, not easy but doable.
Donald Trump hated wind farms — until an Iowa voter asked. "It's an amazing thing when you think -- you know, where they can, out of nowhere, out of the wind, they make energy." Trump said.
On the surface Trump is anti-clean-renewables and Clinton is for "Half a billion solar panels in first 4 years". But solar is less efficient than wind in bringing down the dirty fossil fuel economy. One wonders if it is an empty Hillary talking point since the details of her proposal has fundged math and it does not add up.
Trump is a loose cannon and if he sees an advantage and an opening he is more likely to bring down the fossil fuel economy. Clinton is more reliable to serve vested interests tied to drilling and fracking than Tramp. Again the loose cannon quality of Trump maybe a better bet. Clinton maybe able to earn our vote if she breaks clean from decades of serving fossil fuel interests. Is it doable? who knows.
Bottom line if is up to Hillary and Hillary alone if Bernie's supporters do not go to the polls for Trump.
1
@Eli,
I honestly never considered voting for Trump. That's not going to change. I began, like many, thinking I'd vote for Hillary until I began learning more about her and Bernie. Bernie earned my vote and my support as a volunteer and donor (less than $27, my budget's tight).
Could you please go into more detail or give me the source for your info on what you've described as faulty math? As you probably know, Hillary said Bernie's numbers don't add up and you're saying her's don't. I'd like to know what you mean, please.
4-23-16@11:36 am
I honestly never considered voting for Trump. That's not going to change. I began, like many, thinking I'd vote for Hillary until I began learning more about her and Bernie. Bernie earned my vote and my support as a volunteer and donor (less than $27, my budget's tight).
Could you please go into more detail or give me the source for your info on what you've described as faulty math? As you probably know, Hillary said Bernie's numbers don't add up and you're saying her's don't. I'd like to know what you mean, please.
4-23-16@11:36 am
3
As I've said before: She releases the transcripts, she gets my vote. What's so hard about that? The NYT Editorial Board even called on her to do it.
7
Clinton vigorously opposes Citizens v. United. However, the law is in place and she will accept corporate funding, the same way Obama did. If you want to guarantee unlimited money in politics for the rest of your life, then don't vote and risk a Trump or Cruz presidency. This wide gap between Clinton and Sanders is fiction, spun by a Bernie, a lifelong and wily politician.
8
No, its not
HRC admits to being a conservative at heart (a former Goldwater girl)
She's only pretending to be "progressive" for the primary, she'll dump it once she gets the nomination
HRC admits to being a conservative at heart (a former Goldwater girl)
She's only pretending to be "progressive" for the primary, she'll dump it once she gets the nomination
6
I'm having a hard time buying into your baseless supposition that Clinton will suddenly bite the hand that feeds her. Her economic team and recent history belie her empty words with regard to "vigorously opposing" Citizens United. The Clintons have made $30,000,000 in the last 16 months, not because they invented anything or even won the lottery, but because they sell influence - openly and quasi-legally. She also is the biggest hawk still in the race on either side. The only reason I'd consider supporting her is because of a Supreme Court nomination, but I'm afraid that's not enough of a reason for me. I'd rather hope for a one term one SCOTUS nominee President from the GOP to get someone who's not a Wall Street neocon in the White House for a long overdue change.
10
Riiiiiight. So, by your logic, she'd stop being progressive when she get the nomination, ensuring only a 4 year run as POTUS.
Many of your post's arguments use shoddy logic, but this is probably the dumbest.
Many of your post's arguments use shoddy logic, but this is probably the dumbest.
Bernie is over inflating this notion that he is the only one that can beat Donald Trump in Nov. Polls this far out from election day are certainly going to tighten or they can even reverse. If Bernie has not been able to pull ahead of Hillary by June 7, he needs to do the right thing and bow out to unite the party. Here is where I am a little suspect. Bernie only conveniently became a Democrat to run for president. If that doesn't work out for him I am afraid he will likely revert to his "independent" self-serving self.
54
Ah, the Hillary purity test is the rationale? Sounds very Republican to me. Look how that has worked out for them. They are like a puddle after a quick shower on a hot day drying up from the edges. Soon, there will be nothing.
Hey, if the DNC wants to follow suit, so be it.
Hey, if the DNC wants to follow suit, so be it.
2
I don't understand why this comment is a 'NYT Pick'. It doesn't at all address the issue of whether Sanders supporters will ever vote for Clinton. There is a real rift that Clinton's "lackluster presence" will not bridge.
4
I keep wondering if the people who absolutely will not vote for whoever if they are their party's candidate think that their refusal means no one will get elected.
News flash: SOMEONE is going to be elected president come November. Your choice will not be between your perfect candidate and no one; it will be between someone flawed and someone completely antithetical to everything you believe in. Will refusing to vote for an imperfect candidate really make everything OK for you, if someone truly awful gets elected instead?
"Politics is the art of the possible". And sometimes that means you just have to vote for the best of what is on offer - even if it isn't what you really want.
News flash: SOMEONE is going to be elected president come November. Your choice will not be between your perfect candidate and no one; it will be between someone flawed and someone completely antithetical to everything you believe in. Will refusing to vote for an imperfect candidate really make everything OK for you, if someone truly awful gets elected instead?
"Politics is the art of the possible". And sometimes that means you just have to vote for the best of what is on offer - even if it isn't what you really want.
98
I survived Reagan and both Bush's, I can live through 4 years of Trump.
By 2020, we could get a good candidate in the WH, maybe Tulsi or Keith
By 2020, we could get a good candidate in the WH, maybe Tulsi or Keith
6
Avinash -- it won't matter who your candidate is in 2020 because by then you will have a durable and solidly conservative Supreme Court that will block any progressive agenda your ideal candidate puts forward, especially when it comes to corporate money and influence.
4
Except it won't be "just 4 years of Trump" if he's able to push the next two supreme court justices through...you'll feel that for decades. Here's a tip, if the republicans win the GE, you can kiss any progressive leaning supreme court good-bye.
You do know supreme court justices don't have terms, right? Feel THAT "bern"...
You do know supreme court justices don't have terms, right? Feel THAT "bern"...
5
Even if Hillary Clinton professes the love for progressive supporters of Senator Sanders, who on earth will believe a person who will say anything to get elected.
She is on a campaign to accuse Senator Sanders of murders related to gun violence in Ct. so, what is next with this woman.
Deceive, deceive, then win.
She is on a campaign to accuse Senator Sanders of murders related to gun violence in Ct. so, what is next with this woman.
Deceive, deceive, then win.
17
I've been a Hillary supporter all along, even though I love Bernie's message better. I don't think Bernie's realistic but I don't think there's any mistaking that he's pulled Hillary in the direction America should go. I'll vote for her because I think she has a better grasp on the nuances of governing, from Wall Street to SCOTUS to foreign affairs. Still, I hope Bernie keeps campaigning, hammering away at his message without attacking Hillary. There's no mistaking that ordinary working Americans are fed up with seeing how the game is rigged too heavily in favor of the rich. Even a few Republicans might have the sense to realize they had better do something about inequality because they've lost their working class base to an obnoxious demagogue who's shattered their party.
4
HRC will abandon all these positions once the Nomination is done, she'll tack so far to the right you'll think she's Ted Cruz (she admits she's a conservative and proud to be a Goldwater Girl)
10
Wrong. Clearly wrong. I wish NYT had a BernieBro filter, because you're CLEARLY one of them.
2
When I was young and immature I used to take pride in voting for losing candidates.
7
You still do if you vote for HRC.
6
At a time when many citizens dislike both the Democrats and the Republicans for all the years they have corrupted our politics, and at a time when we have so many who therefore are unaffiliated with either party, is this not the moment to launch a successful third party initiative and nominate candidates that we can respect, candidates who will address the serious challenges we must face? For too long, we've been manipulated, told to hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two evils. Why should we continue to do this? Let's stand up and say we're tired of your manipulations, we'll find a better way.
42
You might be surprised to remember that Hillary was a republican at one time. She's a fiscal conservative but civil rights activist. That makes her an independent. She simply registered Democrat.
Nothing changes if NoThing changes. Of course Clinton would be better in most respects than Trump. Bernie Sanders, however, would be superior to both, if what he espouses on the trail (which I believe he believes) is followed up by him with ingenuous action (even irrespective of what Congress does or does not do).
#FeeltheBern
#FeeltheBern
10
Operative word is "most" though "many" is more accurate. Not obvious who is more likely to start a war for example. Or is in the pocket of corporations.
3
There is only one person running to be President of the United States of America who is a democrat and it's not him.
7
The Clintons have subverted, weakened and destroyed what it meant to be a Democrat - they are not Democrats, they are elitist Wall Street neocons. Accepting the notion that having a (D) by your name makes you righteous is ludicrous and if that's all you've got for a sales pitch in light of reality, it's weak tea I'm afraid.
12
Mrs. Clinton is a political machine with no soul. Her hollow words are crafted for the impact of the moment. She would have no political legs of it were not for Bill Clinton. Together, and separately, they twist the truth beyond comprehension. The depth of the cash roots and probable corruption surrounding the Clinton Foundation, worldwide, will not be known in their life time. Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are owned. Inasmuch, she is the polar opposite of Mr. Sanders. His message is founded in the truth of his long-standing beliefs and ideals. He has a soul. His words have the depth of unwavering conviction. He has political legs because he has a message and a conscience. That message cannot morph into Clinton-speak. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are oil and water. Mrs. Clinton does not get it but the voters do. She represents the establishment status quo that the ground-swell of Mr. Sander’s and Mr. Trump’s supporters loathe. Should she avoid the FBI investigation and stay on the trail, the loathing felt by Mr. Sanders’ supporters may very well transfer to Mr. Trump. Change is in the air and the winds are blowing away from Mrs. Clinton.
10
The central problem of the Democratic party is that the Republicans control Congress, and there is no likelihood that Democrats can regain it this election cycle (only the most ardent Democratic optimists think the Democrats can retake the House).
What does "Feel the Bern" mean given that almost-certain reality?
The major problems are two-fold:
* surviving through it, basically by doing the Obama rope-a-dope, which is getting easier and easier as the House Republicans increasingly fight among themselves) -- but there are problems mounting that cannot be dealt with this way.
* electing Democrats ... or if they weren't as improbable as pink unicorns, moderate Republicans.
My big beef with Bernie's campaign and partisans is that they seemed completely irrational about what it would take to actually make any of Bernie's big ideas happen -- seemingly none of them passed 8th-grade history and civics?
The big issue here isn't whether HRC can "feel the Bern" -- frankly what's the point? Would it make Bernie's people happier if HRC said -- "gee, Bernie's ideas are really great, I'll remind you about them every day ... reminding you that not a one of them are going to happen until the Democrats have 60 really progressive senators (no Joe Lieberman's) and a committed working majority in the House?
The issue is whether Bernie's supporters are willing to do the work it is going to take, have the patience and the stamina to actually WORK for change?
What does "Feel the Bern" mean given that almost-certain reality?
The major problems are two-fold:
* surviving through it, basically by doing the Obama rope-a-dope, which is getting easier and easier as the House Republicans increasingly fight among themselves) -- but there are problems mounting that cannot be dealt with this way.
* electing Democrats ... or if they weren't as improbable as pink unicorns, moderate Republicans.
My big beef with Bernie's campaign and partisans is that they seemed completely irrational about what it would take to actually make any of Bernie's big ideas happen -- seemingly none of them passed 8th-grade history and civics?
The big issue here isn't whether HRC can "feel the Bern" -- frankly what's the point? Would it make Bernie's people happier if HRC said -- "gee, Bernie's ideas are really great, I'll remind you about them every day ... reminding you that not a one of them are going to happen until the Democrats have 60 really progressive senators (no Joe Lieberman's) and a committed working majority in the House?
The issue is whether Bernie's supporters are willing to do the work it is going to take, have the patience and the stamina to actually WORK for change?
4
Your argument is seriously flawed
Polls show that Bernie not only wins in a landslide over the GOP, he expands the map and brings in voters who have abandoned the Democratic party.
Bernie would have a chance of retaking Congress, HRC has no chance (she might not even retake the Senate).
Bernie possibly could have the legislative majorities he needs to push his plans through.
Polls show that Bernie not only wins in a landslide over the GOP, he expands the map and brings in voters who have abandoned the Democratic party.
Bernie would have a chance of retaking Congress, HRC has no chance (she might not even retake the Senate).
Bernie possibly could have the legislative majorities he needs to push his plans through.
9
Your argument is "look at the polls" when most polls are created to sell a narrative? lol
You do realize that the polls on the right have been showing a vastly different outcome than the polls on the left? I question where your "polls" come from.
Bernie is not going to take back Congress. In fact, he'd make a terrible POTUS because he's neither democrat or republican. He's never helped fund raise for either side, so why would either side take him seriously on his extreme left wing (I mean progressive) proposals? Hint: the won't. Bernie will be a lame duck president for 4 years before someone comes along and wins the next GE. This is, of course, if he gets the nomination. He'll most likely not, and run for the green party. This will, of course, ensure a republican victory. Then all the berniebros can sit home feeling smug while they watch planned parenthood be dismantled, gay and trans rights being trampled, minimum wage stay the same.
But, you voted with your "values" so you should feel smug. Cleary your "values" can't see the bigger picture, but who cares! Hillary didn't win!
*eye roll*
You do realize that the polls on the right have been showing a vastly different outcome than the polls on the left? I question where your "polls" come from.
Bernie is not going to take back Congress. In fact, he'd make a terrible POTUS because he's neither democrat or republican. He's never helped fund raise for either side, so why would either side take him seriously on his extreme left wing (I mean progressive) proposals? Hint: the won't. Bernie will be a lame duck president for 4 years before someone comes along and wins the next GE. This is, of course, if he gets the nomination. He'll most likely not, and run for the green party. This will, of course, ensure a republican victory. Then all the berniebros can sit home feeling smug while they watch planned parenthood be dismantled, gay and trans rights being trampled, minimum wage stay the same.
But, you voted with your "values" so you should feel smug. Cleary your "values" can't see the bigger picture, but who cares! Hillary didn't win!
*eye roll*
4
I am to the left of Hillary, closer to Bernie, but I really do not like that phrase "Feel the Bern." It seems overly aggressive and ill thought out, as one could interpret it to mean the country will feel burned by him if he's elected. I have spent my political life trying to push Hillary towards common sense and learning from history on drug policy. Now that she's finally starting to move in the right direction, I'm hoping she'll see the ongoing popularity of Sanders as a public appeal to keep going that way.
2
She won't, she's like Romney, a serial flip-flopper
As soon as she gets the nomination her conservative Goldwater girl roots will be revealed
As soon as she gets the nomination her conservative Goldwater girl roots will be revealed
11
I question anyone who thinks evolving opinions are somehow worse than NEVER changing your viewpoint on something.
The only time one should use flip flopper as a pejorative, is if someone wasn't for something, then was for it, and then decided they weren't again. That's a flip flopper. Not someone who felt one way about something, and then came around to feeling differently about it. That's not a flip flopper, that's an evolved opinion. Most people with a normal to high IQ have this ability, and it should be applauded...not used as some kind of attack. If you feel you need to do this to convince other people not to vote for her, then you're a sad individual...lol
The only time one should use flip flopper as a pejorative, is if someone wasn't for something, then was for it, and then decided they weren't again. That's a flip flopper. Not someone who felt one way about something, and then came around to feeling differently about it. That's not a flip flopper, that's an evolved opinion. Most people with a normal to high IQ have this ability, and it should be applauded...not used as some kind of attack. If you feel you need to do this to convince other people not to vote for her, then you're a sad individual...lol
5
I think Bernie's pride got burned in NY, and after Biden's gracious pep talk, it looks like it only emboldened him to beat his chest harder and go down as a martyr instead of as the altruistic leader he posed as.
6
Better to wound the beast as you go down than to do nothing.
3
The working folk of this country are losing ground to pro-big business, neoliberal, interventionists policies. The planet is losing ground (literally) to the same, all of which Hillary represents. The threat of a Republican is no longer enough to make informed folks hold their noses and vote for the establishment candidate. I lived through Reagan and Bush. I will survive the debacle of Trump, if it comes to that. However, none of our grandchildren will survive if we don't take a stand and say enough is enough. So, I will say "No" to Hillary. As one commentator said, "The lesser of two evils is still evil." Amen to that.
11
Well said. Guess what folks, we're a strong country and we're going to survive Trump! I'm already reconciling myself to the idea. Not because little ol' me won't vote for Hillary but because she's so flawed he's going to thrash her and people are going to eat it up. If you want to blame someone, blame the DNC, but no one really cares who you blame.
1
You didn't let me vote in the primary why would I ever vote for Hillary in a General Election. Bernie gets my write in. As for the other candidates whoever has earned their vote gets mine - whatever party they may be.
Will never be a Democrat NOW!!! And I'm a Female Baby Boomer.
Will never be a Democrat NOW!!! And I'm a Female Baby Boomer.
14
There is no Unity, #BernieorBust
If the Democrats nominate HRC, then I'm out (been a Dem since 2001, bu no more if HRC wins)
Green Party platform seems very similar to Bernie's, I think it's time to work on building a viable third party
If the Democrats nominate HRC, then I'm out (been a Dem since 2001, bu no more if HRC wins)
Green Party platform seems very similar to Bernie's, I think it's time to work on building a viable third party
14
That won't happen unless Citizen's United is out of the picture. They won't be out of the picture as long as republican is in office.
So yes, you should definitely hope that Bernie goes the green party platform, so a republican victory is ensured. That way Citizen's United never goes away, and a progressive like Bernie is never elected into office. *thumbs up*
So yes, you should definitely hope that Bernie goes the green party platform, so a republican victory is ensured. That way Citizen's United never goes away, and a progressive like Bernie is never elected into office. *thumbs up*
4
I hope Bernie keeps on, but doesn't do or say anything that would unnecessarily damage Hillary's chances if she goes on to the nomination. Because we now effectively live in a plutocracy (especially since the Citizens United decision) where big money controls the media and lobbyists and therefore politics and therefore government, we often don't have the luxury of voting for the best person -- we have to choose from the limited selection the Oligarchy provides us, and if we're responsible & realistic we should vote for the least bad person.
Remember in WWII, we supported Stalin against the greater threat of Hitler. And come to think of it, if he was running for president, I might support Stalin over Cruz and Trump in this situation too!
Remember in WWII, we supported Stalin against the greater threat of Hitler. And come to think of it, if he was running for president, I might support Stalin over Cruz and Trump in this situation too!
3
Nope, he should Damage her as Much as possible
Maybe then we can get a woman worthy of the role in 2020
Tulsi sounds great, she's a Bernie supporter and a Heroic Vet
Maybe then we can get a woman worthy of the role in 2020
Tulsi sounds great, she's a Bernie supporter and a Heroic Vet
5
This one is on the DNC, for forcing a candidate as flawed as Hillary Clinton on us and insisting that she is our only choice. I'm not naive enough to believe all of the conspiracy theories that have been swirling around her for years, and she is "qualified" enough ("You're likeable enough, Hillary"...haha), but she is NOT a great candidate and her staunchest supporters are a little delusional for thinking so. Aside from her apparent ties to special interests, she has shown some horrible judgement (emails come to mind, for one example). And keep in mind that this is her FOURTH presidential campaign....2 for her husband and now 2 for herself. This should be a cakewalk for her, if she was really the best candidate! She knows how to work the system and take advantage of every opportunity, and yet she is STILL struggling against a 74-year-old Democratic Socialist and has the second highest unfavorability record of any candidate ever. I have serious doubts that she can be effective as president with all of that hanging over her head. So no, I won't be voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of who the Republican candidate is. Threatening Sanders supporters with a Trump or Cruz presidency if they don't fall in line is fear mongering, at best. And this type of article that assumes that I should automatically switch my vote to her to support the Democratic party just strengthens my resolve. I plan to vote for the person that I feel is the best candidate, and that won't be Hillary.
67
Realistically, standing opposite Clinton there will be Cruz or Trump. How is either of them best at anything?
4
Bernie isn't new at this, he knows how to work the system just as well. Not sure why you think Hillary has some kind of insider insight, when Bernie has been just as much part of the "establishment" that everyone who supports him is railing against.
No one is threatening the Sanders supporters with a Trump or Cruz presidency. It's an almost guarantee it'll happen if the Sanders supporters splinter off in hissy fit. The republicans, as history shows, will energize behind whomever is the republican nominee. Even if they don't like the candidate. So no, that isn't a threat. It's literally a guarantee.
No one is threatening the Sanders supporters with a Trump or Cruz presidency. It's an almost guarantee it'll happen if the Sanders supporters splinter off in hissy fit. The republicans, as history shows, will energize behind whomever is the republican nominee. Even if they don't like the candidate. So no, that isn't a threat. It's literally a guarantee.
3
"This one is on the DNC, for forcing a candidate as flawed as Hillary Clinton on us and insisting that she is our only choice."
I am not the DNC. More than 10 million people have voted for Clinton in the primaries; they're not the DNC either. Face it, the "us" you refer to (otherwise known in the real world as Sanders supporters) are losing in the battle over primary voters.
You don't seem to understand how a democracy works. No one is "forcing" Clinton on you. Clinton has simply attracted more votes than Sanders. There's no shame in that.
But please stop with the victimization narrative that this is all being done to you. Clinton supporters are voters, too and no one is forcing anything on you.
I am not the DNC. More than 10 million people have voted for Clinton in the primaries; they're not the DNC either. Face it, the "us" you refer to (otherwise known in the real world as Sanders supporters) are losing in the battle over primary voters.
You don't seem to understand how a democracy works. No one is "forcing" Clinton on you. Clinton has simply attracted more votes than Sanders. There's no shame in that.
But please stop with the victimization narrative that this is all being done to you. Clinton supporters are voters, too and no one is forcing anything on you.
1
This author, like the Times coverage through the campaign, misses the point that it is about Issues not the man as Bernie himself has said. Sec. Clinton belongs to the establishment, that word Clinton’s supporters hate to hear, and she is not expected to change, so some will vote for her to see a woman president, some for fear of tilt in supreme court, and many will hold there vote for a better day or a new party.
As Sanders' hero, the socialist leader Eugene V. Debs, often said, it's better to vote for something you want and not get it, than to vote for something you don't want and get that.
As Sanders' hero, the socialist leader Eugene V. Debs, often said, it's better to vote for something you want and not get it, than to vote for something you don't want and get that.
14
If Sanders supporters really care about corporate money and influence in politics, the rational thing to do is to make sure that the next Supreme Court justice is appointed by a Democratic President, whether that is Clinton or Sanders. Because if it's a Republican appointing the next Supreme Court justice, that ensures that Citizens United remains the law of the land, likely for many, many years and possibly permanently, and progressives can then forget about ever hoping to limit corporate spending and influence. And that's just campaign finance. I assume Sanders supporters also care about climate change, restrictive voting laws, forced closings of abortion clinics, the vitality of unions, and so-called religious liberty laws permitting discrimination against gays and lesbians -- all of which are on the line in this election with a Supreme Court vacancy.
5
All of which is true AND it's Clinton's responsiblity to reach out if she wants to authentically restore unity.
4
I like Sanders and what he stands for and I voted for him in the primary. Realty is raising it's ugly head and yes we can expect Hillary to be the nominee. No matter how bad Hillary seems and I disagree with many of her policies - the alternate "Trump or Cruz" is far worst, especially with an aging Supreme Court.
Of course I am going to vote for her.
Of course I am going to vote for her.
4
I could never vote for her, she's corrupt and dishonest and will abandon the progressive stances ASAP.
If the Dems go with her, I'm done with them
If the Dems go with her, I'm done with them
5
So you would rather give the election to a guy like Trump or even worst a guy like Cruz and allow either of them to pack the Supreme Court with extreme far right judges? That's just stupid.
4
HRC will pack them with people no better, she's not a progressive, she's a conservative at heart, a Goldwater girl.
Cruz isn't going to be President, and Trump isn't a conservative, so I'm not worried
Cruz isn't going to be President, and Trump isn't a conservative, so I'm not worried
5
Oh dear. The lack of rational thought, mindless repetition of unsubstantiated vague smears, and the utter blitheness of real-world consequences in some of these postings make me think that indeed, some Bernie supporters SHOULD vote for Trump. He's their kind of guy.
6
I live in New York. We have two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor. On Tuesday Hillary Clinton received more votes than all three of the Republican candidates combined. My vote counted in the primary. Come November, unless you're in a swing state, you can vote for who you want, without effecting the outcome of the election.
4
Lets us Bernie supporters HRC gets indicted or there is more than just smoke in the Panama Papers.
Otherwise its 4/8 years of the Goldwater Girl turned Goldman Sachs woman.
Otherwise its 4/8 years of the Goldwater Girl turned Goldman Sachs woman.
8
Unlike the previous examples cited by Mr. Nagourney (with the possible exception of Jesse Jackson), the Sanders situation is unique in that Sanders is not a Democrat. He has no organic connection to the party and no future need or incentive to cooperate with the party.
In fact, I think his endgame is to take all the money he earned in the primaries and create a permanent third party. This is reflected by his continuing refusal to give even one penny of the millions he has raised to help the state and local parties and down-ballot Democratic candidates.
Regarding his supporters, they are basically comprised of two groups. The first are real Democrats from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party, who naively believed Sanders' initial claim that he was simply trying to expand the party leftward and open it up to new ideas and bring in new voters. As Hillary's nomination becomes inevitable, these Warrenites will recognize the reality and slowly return to the Hillary camp.
More ominous is the second Sanders group, which, reflecting Sanders' own background, consists of an eclectic collection of far-left splinter groups, who never had any intention for voting for any Democrat under any circumstance. For example, these are people who back the Green Party, Greenpeace, the Occupy movement, Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, Lyndon Larouche, Angela Davis, anti-WTO, etc.
It is a waste of time for the party to try to attract this group. It should instead focus on the Warren Democrats.
In fact, I think his endgame is to take all the money he earned in the primaries and create a permanent third party. This is reflected by his continuing refusal to give even one penny of the millions he has raised to help the state and local parties and down-ballot Democratic candidates.
Regarding his supporters, they are basically comprised of two groups. The first are real Democrats from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party, who naively believed Sanders' initial claim that he was simply trying to expand the party leftward and open it up to new ideas and bring in new voters. As Hillary's nomination becomes inevitable, these Warrenites will recognize the reality and slowly return to the Hillary camp.
More ominous is the second Sanders group, which, reflecting Sanders' own background, consists of an eclectic collection of far-left splinter groups, who never had any intention for voting for any Democrat under any circumstance. For example, these are people who back the Green Party, Greenpeace, the Occupy movement, Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, Lyndon Larouche, Angela Davis, anti-WTO, etc.
It is a waste of time for the party to try to attract this group. It should instead focus on the Warren Democrats.
3
I guess I'm one of those Warren Democrats then, been a Dem since 2001, and guess what I'm not ever voting for HRC, so you can forget about us gravitating back to her.
Heck I'm ready to bolt the party and go green, Jill Stein is the only woman in the race qualified to be President
Heck I'm ready to bolt the party and go green, Jill Stein is the only woman in the race qualified to be President
4
Thanks for making my point for me. In retrospect, Bernie may have been better off running on a Socialist-Green party ticket with Jill Stein, instead of as a Democrat, but then again he never would have raised all the money he has if he had gone third party.
2
This is an excellent observation, actually.
1
Hillary is awesome! She's strong, smart and knows how to fight republicans. She is scary to the male powers that be and the misogyny flows from all sides. And to those who refer to her "coronation" - you can't ignore the numbers, she has simply gotten more votes than Sanders.
Anyone who reads this paper should know that Adam Nagourney loves to antagonize the left, he's been doing it for years. Let's leave this comment section open so the bitterness of the Sanders folks can flow unabated. This is Mr. Nagourney's M.O.
Anyone who reads this paper should know that Adam Nagourney loves to antagonize the left, he's been doing it for years. Let's leave this comment section open so the bitterness of the Sanders folks can flow unabated. This is Mr. Nagourney's M.O.
8
I'll be voting for the woman qualified to be President, Jill Stein
4
The question I, a 75-year old diehard, progressive Bernie supporter face is: Is the "lesser of two evils" still evil? The more I learn about Hillary, especially her ultra-right hawkish foreign policy views that have destabilized nations from Honduras (supporting death squads) to Libya (supporting regime change) including multi-million dollar sales of assault weapons just like those used in Newtown, the more I realize she may be even further to right on disastrous military adventurism than the Republicans! It's truly frightening, especially as she tries to cloak herself in the mantle of Obama's legitimate heir and an expert on foreign policy. Right now I'm paralyzed by fear that whether it's "heads or tails" America will be the big loser this fall.
7
Lol, you are not a 75-year old diehard progressive. This reads like a typical cut and paste "concerned troll" posting. Literally no 75 year old is going to create such a deeply concerned, but very specific, post.
2
Thanks for the compliment even if it's a bit back-handed.
3
I was there: Humphrey lost because he was a Hawk, period. McCarthy (or RFK) would have been far stronger candidates and, w/good choices of V-P, most likely would have prevailed.
The enemy of the good is the perfect and Democrats should stop the egotistical, "If my candidate doesn't get the nomination, I'm taking my football and going home."
Funny in a Peanuts cartoon, not so much in real life.
Unless, of course, one favors worsening dysfunction regarding key issues such as women's rights and immigration. And a return to the "boots on the ground" Mideast "solutions" of the Bush cadre. And another return: gigantic deficits caused by previously unheard of tax cuts for the rich. And a Supreme Court that would be poised to continue the Roberts' court string of horrible decisions, such as Citizens United.
The so-called media needs to stop fanning the flames of this insanity of "the pouting, 'I'm staying home!,' voter.
The enemy of the good is the perfect and Democrats should stop the egotistical, "If my candidate doesn't get the nomination, I'm taking my football and going home."
Funny in a Peanuts cartoon, not so much in real life.
Unless, of course, one favors worsening dysfunction regarding key issues such as women's rights and immigration. And a return to the "boots on the ground" Mideast "solutions" of the Bush cadre. And another return: gigantic deficits caused by previously unheard of tax cuts for the rich. And a Supreme Court that would be poised to continue the Roberts' court string of horrible decisions, such as Citizens United.
The so-called media needs to stop fanning the flames of this insanity of "the pouting, 'I'm staying home!,' voter.
3
“To all the people who supported Senator Sanders, I believe there is much more that unites us than divides us,” she said.
Yes, she'll have to do a lot better than that!
Yes, she'll have to do a lot better than that!
5
Wait a minute Adam. Are not I seeing/reading things about voter fraud perpetrated by the Clinton campaign with the New York primary? I swear I saw something about that, just yesterday, and HRC's admission that she even though she has won two out of the last ten caucuses and/or primaries both are under investigation for major election irregularities. Oh that admission of voter irregularities was from that hysterical Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stach, or was I dreaming? Oh, I am so confused by it all.
3
What complicates the task this time around is that so many Sanders supporters do not identify as Democrats, and have even expressed disdain for the Democratic Party and its traditions and institutions. In a sense, Sanders's task will be not only to persuade his followers to support Clinton during this election, but to support the Democratic Party at every level in 2016, as well as in 2018 and beyond. This may be particularly difficult for a candidate who has distanced himself from the party throughout his entire career.
Incidentally: the graphic by Eiko Ojala accompanying the online version of this article is stupendous.
Incidentally: the graphic by Eiko Ojala accompanying the online version of this article is stupendous.
3
I identify as Democrat, and I now disdain the party
If Bernie loses the nom, I'm leaving the party.
If Bernie loses the nom, I'm leaving the party.
5
Seconding your comment on the graphic by Eiko Ojala.
I'm not voting for any shill of the .1% ever again. This lifelong Democrat believes that if the corporate cronies in the Democratic party cannot let us have a candidate for the people, they are going to have to learn that it's over for them - - the hard way.
I turn to Eastwood's 'Unforgiven' to paraphrase the beat down Hillary is going to take to convey what they need to understand:
"[kicking English Bob] I guess you think I'm kicking you, Hillary. But it ain't so. What I'm doing is talking, you hear? I'm talking to all those villains down there on Wall Street. I'm talking to all those villains in Washington. And all those villains and corporate tax cheats there in Silicon Valley. And what I'm saying is there ain't no whore's gold. And if there was, how they wouldn't want to come looking for it anyhow."
I turn to Eastwood's 'Unforgiven' to paraphrase the beat down Hillary is going to take to convey what they need to understand:
"[kicking English Bob] I guess you think I'm kicking you, Hillary. But it ain't so. What I'm doing is talking, you hear? I'm talking to all those villains down there on Wall Street. I'm talking to all those villains in Washington. And all those villains and corporate tax cheats there in Silicon Valley. And what I'm saying is there ain't no whore's gold. And if there was, how they wouldn't want to come looking for it anyhow."
6
Clearly she is a candidate for the people, if she is getting more general support from the public. She's just not YOUR candidate.
1
I hope Hillary and her advisers will read this analysis before picking a running mate. I was concerned by a passage in today's running mate selection article on how she doesn't really have to pick a progressive running mate since Bernie's supporters will vote for her anyway according to polling. This editorial makes more sense to me.
1
First, a personal disclosure: I do not see Bernie is a socialist as the word is properly used, despite so labeling himself. For those who insist on labels, I think he -- and I -- might be roughly described as FDR Democrats (although my initial registration was as an Independent, before that was in vogue). Over the years after FDR I have supported such as Gene McCarthy and George McGovern (along with many others, of course), so I'm not unfamiliar either with underdogery or considered idealism.
But. second, and that said, there must always be room for considered pragmatism when conditions call for it. I contend that the upcoming election defines one of those times. For followers of Bernie or Hillary not to support the other in November, thereby playing a Nader and enhancing the prospects of what appears to be a demonstrably unsuited and clearly regressive Republican candidate, strikes me as more than self-defeating -- it's masochism. One of many reasons, for example, is the pending Supreme Court appointment.
In short, many of life's decisions are about probabilities, in this case about which of two options is likely to be the better one, even if imperfect. I suggest considering seriously the likely results of a "wrong" choice or of avoiding choice altogether.
But. second, and that said, there must always be room for considered pragmatism when conditions call for it. I contend that the upcoming election defines one of those times. For followers of Bernie or Hillary not to support the other in November, thereby playing a Nader and enhancing the prospects of what appears to be a demonstrably unsuited and clearly regressive Republican candidate, strikes me as more than self-defeating -- it's masochism. One of many reasons, for example, is the pending Supreme Court appointment.
In short, many of life's decisions are about probabilities, in this case about which of two options is likely to be the better one, even if imperfect. I suggest considering seriously the likely results of a "wrong" choice or of avoiding choice altogether.
4
This is really technical response to something I consider to be really simple.: What defines a leader?
It is NOT because you got elected. What defines leaders (especially ones that are REMEMBERED) are the ones that identify the problems of their age and ACTUALLY WORK TO FIX THEM. No one gets points in history for "keeping the world on life support".
My advice is that the Democratic Party better get with the program. There are real problems in the country and the solutions that have been tried over the past 20 years have NOT worked. In some cases, the solutions were even WORSE than the original problem.
Only someone who is surrounded by or blinded by extreme wealth cannot know this. This idea that the Party is more important than solving the nation's problem sounds more like Leninism or Maoism.
Excuse me if I think that BOTH parties are not doing their jobs.
It is NOT because you got elected. What defines leaders (especially ones that are REMEMBERED) are the ones that identify the problems of their age and ACTUALLY WORK TO FIX THEM. No one gets points in history for "keeping the world on life support".
My advice is that the Democratic Party better get with the program. There are real problems in the country and the solutions that have been tried over the past 20 years have NOT worked. In some cases, the solutions were even WORSE than the original problem.
Only someone who is surrounded by or blinded by extreme wealth cannot know this. This idea that the Party is more important than solving the nation's problem sounds more like Leninism or Maoism.
Excuse me if I think that BOTH parties are not doing their jobs.
5
When I watched the Crash of 2008 play out because of corporate and governmental collusion in engineering a financial bubble that nearly brought us to our knees, I was personally worried for my retirement funds while being oddly optimistic about future reform. After all, didn't this disprove "trickle-down economics" and highlight the corruption of our financial and political systems? Surely, things will change.
Some things did change and slowly improve, but nobody went to jail because of their criminal manipulation of our markets. They were fined $billions on thefts of $trillions. Clearly, the special interests had long arms into the Obama Administration. Legal bribery was clearly not a crime.
Now I'm faced with either voting for Trump or Cruz, or Hillary Clinton, or not voting. Voting for Hillary would be obvious, one would think. But with Hillary's history of soliciting and receiving $millions from Wall Street, big banks, corporations, and special interests for "rubber chicken" speeches, her own charitable foundation, and her political campaigns, I just don't see how I can vote for her. And neither can my wife who is not as interested in politics as I am and who's default mechanism almost automatically favors women.
These are deep concerns for us, and Hillary's response to charges of bribery and corruption is "Prove it!" Her response to "obscene" amounts of money from special interest is "So what?"
She's taking money from the Devil and flaunting it.
Some things did change and slowly improve, but nobody went to jail because of their criminal manipulation of our markets. They were fined $billions on thefts of $trillions. Clearly, the special interests had long arms into the Obama Administration. Legal bribery was clearly not a crime.
Now I'm faced with either voting for Trump or Cruz, or Hillary Clinton, or not voting. Voting for Hillary would be obvious, one would think. But with Hillary's history of soliciting and receiving $millions from Wall Street, big banks, corporations, and special interests for "rubber chicken" speeches, her own charitable foundation, and her political campaigns, I just don't see how I can vote for her. And neither can my wife who is not as interested in politics as I am and who's default mechanism almost automatically favors women.
These are deep concerns for us, and Hillary's response to charges of bribery and corruption is "Prove it!" Her response to "obscene" amounts of money from special interest is "So what?"
She's taking money from the Devil and flaunting it.
8
Al, so accepting donations from big banks is all that matters, women's rights the environment and Supreme Court picks are irrelevant? Really?
3
Social justice and environmental depredations are not separate from economic injustice. Slaves were not mistreated just because they were Black. They were mistreated in order to make them passive beasts of burden for economic exploitation. Our environment is raped for profit.
Accepting donations, or payment, from big banks is agreeing to allow them to have their way with disenfranchised people and the planet. Its not ok to be corrupt and to accept bribery.
Accepting donations, or payment, from big banks is agreeing to allow them to have their way with disenfranchised people and the planet. Its not ok to be corrupt and to accept bribery.
6
Well, unless there is *actual* evidence of bribery (there's not)...I guess we can all chalk this up to conspiracy.
1
When the math becomes irrefutable hopefully Bernie will be supportive of Hillary. However, if he wants to stay relevant and further his cause he could direct his energy and amazing fundraising prowess to senate and house races helping to regain control of congress and create an environment in which progressive ideas can become law.
2
We need a multi-party system with a coalition running Congress. This is how the moderates in other countries get decent results.
Not coming soon to the USA.
Not coming soon to the USA.
1
When I first began reading these Bernie-Hillary comments on the NYT (and on just about every other site), I felt it was over for Hillary. The entire internet was flooded with commenters trashing and hating her to the extreme. In fact, it made me doubt my own feelings and I went back to carefully reassess them both. And although, after every debate, town hall, and interview, I kept finding her to be the obviously far better candidate, given the extreme vitriol and disdain found on these boards, I assumed she had no chance. To my surprise, by the results of the primaries, most voters seem to feel as I do. I guess they are not storming the comments sections but doing other, normal, things, or perhaps, they have simply given up.
82
It needs to be pointed out that you have said nothing of policy. Only the candidate. Clearly a lot of people are willing to vote for something they think will win regardless of policy. They have you exactly where they want you.
5
So many Clinton supporters point out that a seat on the Supreme Court is at stake in the next election, and that we must have a Democratic president to make the next appointment. In the last debate, Clinton stated that she would retain Judge Merrick (President Obama's current nominee) as her nominee, while Sanders said he would choose someone else. Do Democrats really want Judge Merrick, about whom this paper said:
"He has repeatedly voted against detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and he joined in a decision after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United that gave rise to “super PACs.”
I do not want any justice on the SCOTUS who will not vote to overturn Citizens United. But it appears that Hillary, who has those yuuuge super PACs, will be fine with the status quo in campaign financing.
"He has repeatedly voted against detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and he joined in a decision after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United that gave rise to “super PACs.”
I do not want any justice on the SCOTUS who will not vote to overturn Citizens United. But it appears that Hillary, who has those yuuuge super PACs, will be fine with the status quo in campaign financing.
4
Re Citizens United, lower court judges such as Garland are obligated to follow Supreme Court precedent; the don't have the freedom to disregard it. Thus, an opinion by Garland as an appellate judge applying Supreme Court precedent is not necessarily indicative of how a judge would decide if on the Supreme Court himself. Keep in mind that President Obama, who chose Garland, very much wants Citizens United to be overturned.
2
Shortened version: I don't understand how being a lower court judge works.
1
From a historical perspective, the most significant story in this article was Kennedy's primary challenge to Carter in 1980, which paved the way for the "Reagan Revolution" and all the mayhem it has spawned.
Clinton, assuming she holds on for the nomination, may swing back to the right, but she would be wise to squarely address Sanders's core issues. They are not going away.
Clinton, assuming she holds on for the nomination, may swing back to the right, but she would be wise to squarely address Sanders's core issues. They are not going away.
3
i am going to vote for HRC, and was going to do so once I found out about the politics of Sanders before he turned 40. His past as a leader of a fringe Marxist party...the Socialist Workers Party...will make him unelectable in the general election... if he ever gets the nomination. The polls today do not reflect the awareness by more than tiny group of Americans of this past, including his stint as an SWP Elector in 1980. If the SWP candidate had carried Vermont BS would have cast a vote for him in the Electoral College.
Tens of millions of dollars of Koch Brothers money will be spent on ads making every sentient American aware of his affiliation with the SWP, a party that wanted to completely defund our national defense and expressed solidarity with the government of the Iranian ayatollahs while Americans were being held hostage in our Iranian embassy. The same working class whites who voted for him in the primary will vote for Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or whoever is nominated by the GOP.
I don't like all of Hillary's history either, but she has been under fire from Republicans for three decades, and she is still standing. She is electable. Sanders has gotten a free pass on his past by Republicans (and the media,) but that would end if he ever gets nominated. Nominating Sanders is equivalent to electing a Republican. Supporting Sanders is a de facto support for at least four years of a government that will do its best to turn the clock back to the nineteenth century.
Tens of millions of dollars of Koch Brothers money will be spent on ads making every sentient American aware of his affiliation with the SWP, a party that wanted to completely defund our national defense and expressed solidarity with the government of the Iranian ayatollahs while Americans were being held hostage in our Iranian embassy. The same working class whites who voted for him in the primary will vote for Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or whoever is nominated by the GOP.
I don't like all of Hillary's history either, but she has been under fire from Republicans for three decades, and she is still standing. She is electable. Sanders has gotten a free pass on his past by Republicans (and the media,) but that would end if he ever gets nominated. Nominating Sanders is equivalent to electing a Republican. Supporting Sanders is a de facto support for at least four years of a government that will do its best to turn the clock back to the nineteenth century.
9
Reap what you sow.
If the Democratic Party hadn't forced an agenda, the gap might be easier to close. I'm guessing the decision to appoint Clinton as nominee (and a cabinet position to boot) was the cost of her support in 2008. That's a very high asking price.
Unfortunately for Democrats, the only thing that can save Clinton's campaign in 2016 is the other side being more disliked than Clinton. It'll be difficult to pass muster although Republicans are trying.
Good luck with that. Can't say you weren't warned.
If the Democratic Party hadn't forced an agenda, the gap might be easier to close. I'm guessing the decision to appoint Clinton as nominee (and a cabinet position to boot) was the cost of her support in 2008. That's a very high asking price.
Unfortunately for Democrats, the only thing that can save Clinton's campaign in 2016 is the other side being more disliked than Clinton. It'll be difficult to pass muster although Republicans are trying.
Good luck with that. Can't say you weren't warned.
7
Party unity implies that the party is united in goals, strategies, beliefs and ideology which of course is far from the truth. Fact is people have different world views and it is not possible to classify people into two political parties particularly when both parties are so inextricably linked to the wealthy. The January Gallup Poll seen here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-n...
bares this out. The main takeaway is that 42% of the electorate do not consider themselves either a Republican or Democrat. Obviously, most lean left or right and all share some issues in common with each party.
It seems both presumptuous and offensive that Democrats believe that independents who supported Sanders should unite around the Democratic nominee. It is particularly offensive given that independents do not have a voice in the Democratic Party and often are excluded from voting in primaries and not allowed to caucus. Finally, there is no case that can be made that the Democratic Party supported Bernie and Hillary equally.
I, for one, would like to see the end to the corrupt political duopoly in America - a duopoly that quite conveniently serves the best interests of the wealthiest 1% in America and has done so at a great disservice to the vast majority of American citizens. It is easy to demonize Republicans, but impossible to defend Democrats which is to say that most of us get the short end of the stick every time.
bares this out. The main takeaway is that 42% of the electorate do not consider themselves either a Republican or Democrat. Obviously, most lean left or right and all share some issues in common with each party.
It seems both presumptuous and offensive that Democrats believe that independents who supported Sanders should unite around the Democratic nominee. It is particularly offensive given that independents do not have a voice in the Democratic Party and often are excluded from voting in primaries and not allowed to caucus. Finally, there is no case that can be made that the Democratic Party supported Bernie and Hillary equally.
I, for one, would like to see the end to the corrupt political duopoly in America - a duopoly that quite conveniently serves the best interests of the wealthiest 1% in America and has done so at a great disservice to the vast majority of American citizens. It is easy to demonize Republicans, but impossible to defend Democrats which is to say that most of us get the short end of the stick every time.
8
It's up to the voters to unite and support the candidate. the election is in the hands of each of us. Remember 2000.
2
Two words, Bernie Bros: Supreme Court.
4
I saw this as an NYT pick...
"So if you're in a "safe" Democratic state (say NY or CA), where Hillary doesn't need your vote, you'll stay home. Hillary may not miss you, but some down-ballot Democrat running in a tough race may wish you'd showed up"
Nobody who said they would prefer not to vote Clinton as the lesser of two evils said they would not vote for down-ballot Democrats. I plan to vote for them all, but leave the presidential box unselected.
And Nader did not cause Gore to lose to Bush in 2008. Gore lost because by association he had to carry the damaged luggage from the Clinton Administration...
"So if you're in a "safe" Democratic state (say NY or CA), where Hillary doesn't need your vote, you'll stay home. Hillary may not miss you, but some down-ballot Democrat running in a tough race may wish you'd showed up"
Nobody who said they would prefer not to vote Clinton as the lesser of two evils said they would not vote for down-ballot Democrats. I plan to vote for them all, but leave the presidential box unselected.
And Nader did not cause Gore to lose to Bush in 2008. Gore lost because by association he had to carry the damaged luggage from the Clinton Administration...
3
It's HRC or Trump who the GOP are afraid will create world war, or Cruz, who they say they could murder on the senate floor and no one could convict you. It's a choice. There is no perfect. It's who chooses next SCOTUS. Who is most likely to advance your interests. Taking your cookies and going home hurts the poor and disenfranchised. So basically, get over yourself. It's not just about your needs. Isn't that the socialist way?
1
After reading these comments one would think Mrs. Clinton ought to be tarred and feathered, thrown in jail, and then, just for good measure, hung. News flash: no one is 100% perfect 24/7 over a lifetime in public office.
Those of you staying home on Election Day if she is the nominee best not complain when the Supreme Court veers sharply right if Trump or Cruz is elected.
Those of you staying home on Election Day if she is the nominee best not complain when the Supreme Court veers sharply right if Trump or Cruz is elected.
4
How can those of us outside the Bernie Bubble not look at these spiteful remarks about Hillary Clinton and realize there is something peculiar about their protestations? I believe they were convinced if Bernie Sanders could get elected they would get free State College Educations and those drowning in Student Loan Debt could look forward to getting that debt forgiven. And it would explain their rabid campaign donations of $30.
And Sanders comes across as being a bit predatory as he worked over these rally-crowds. Asking them who had Student Loan Debt, to yell out how much, with the crowd going nuts in the process. It borders on being kind of a bizarre way to get elected. So contrived and especially garnering the monetary support from those who really can't afford it to begin with.
And Sanders comes across as being a bit predatory as he worked over these rally-crowds. Asking them who had Student Loan Debt, to yell out how much, with the crowd going nuts in the process. It borders on being kind of a bizarre way to get elected. So contrived and especially garnering the monetary support from those who really can't afford it to begin with.
1
After reading these comments one would think Mrs. Clinton ought to be tarred and feathered, thrown in jail, and then, just for good measure, hung.
HJS, I feel the same way reading the reflexive Bernie Bro comments--and there are a lot of those. The media bears much of the responsibility for this. If the primary coverage focused on the issues, the comments would focus on the issues--and not on one-upping, which serves no one.
HJS, I feel the same way reading the reflexive Bernie Bro comments--and there are a lot of those. The media bears much of the responsibility for this. If the primary coverage focused on the issues, the comments would focus on the issues--and not on one-upping, which serves no one.
The Hillary supporters aren't anywhere near what the BernieBros/Bernie or Bust commentator are posting. They're more willing to let the world 'bern' by handing the GE over to the right if Sanders isn't the automatic party nominee...
Which is confusing, and makes me question their values/motivations.
Which is confusing, and makes me question their values/motivations.
This article outlines is a realistic approach to what the Clinton campaign needs to internalize, and bring forward in the general election and beyond.
I would admonish Sanders' supporters to recognize that having Clinton as President is far better for them than a Trump or Cruz Presidency. They must REJECT the temptation to continue with a NADER SPOILER SYNDROME with Bernie. Nader's refusal to drop his candidacy in 2000 enabled GWB to become POTUS. Ralph believed promoting his principles weas more important than winning the White House. While heroic, the fleeting romance of principle trumping pragmatism will cost the Dems the White House just as it did in 2000. At the end of the day, were Nader's principles more important given the aftermath of the Bush Presidency? Let's not forget what that perpetrated - a complete global financial collapse, the Iraq War, the Occupy Wall St. movement, etc.
So, I would admonish all Sanders' supporter to think this through: are Bernie's principles more important than winning the White House?
I would admonish Sanders' supporters to recognize that having Clinton as President is far better for them than a Trump or Cruz Presidency. They must REJECT the temptation to continue with a NADER SPOILER SYNDROME with Bernie. Nader's refusal to drop his candidacy in 2000 enabled GWB to become POTUS. Ralph believed promoting his principles weas more important than winning the White House. While heroic, the fleeting romance of principle trumping pragmatism will cost the Dems the White House just as it did in 2000. At the end of the day, were Nader's principles more important given the aftermath of the Bush Presidency? Let's not forget what that perpetrated - a complete global financial collapse, the Iraq War, the Occupy Wall St. movement, etc.
So, I would admonish all Sanders' supporter to think this through: are Bernie's principles more important than winning the White House?
2
Can't the Bernie supporters who loathe Hillary just simply not vote, or vote for Jill Stein, or whatever? As their comments have lots more to do with their hatred of Hillary than with arguments for Bernie's actual program, why this interminable need on their part to parade their supposedly higher moral values for our delectation?
1
I seriously can't believe that progressive voters can possibly be posting all this slime about Hillary (our future nominee) and upvoting those comments. Progressives might as well just get on their knees to the 1% now and lick their boots.
5
The question is not whether Hillary Clinton can reunite the Democratic Party, but whether Hillary Clinton can embrace and seduce the non-Democratic supporters of Bernie Sanders. With Trump beginning to sound less like a crazy former reality show host and more like a person who could provide a reasonable path forward that is not REALLY Republican, she could united Democrats until she's blue in the face and still lose the Presidency.
4
People always write about whether Sanders supporters will support Hillary, I assume because he has no shot at winning. I can tell you, as a lifelong, hard core Democrat, I would have trouble pulling the lever for Sanders. His self righteous, self appointed paragon of "honesty" is offensive and unearned. He slams Hillary for voting for the crime bill when he too supported it, not once but twice, and the first version did not have the "sweeteners" in it he frequently uses to justify his vote. True, he didn't call criminals "predators" then, he called them "sociopaths" He accuses Hillary of being influenced by fees for speeches. Please tell me when she had the opportunity to be influenced? Sanders' execrable campaign manager keeps citing her vote for the bank bail out bill. Well she was the Senator from New York at the time but her speaking fees were made after she left the Senate and after she left the State Department. Just when is she supposed to have been influenced by these fees? The innuendo and character assassination is expected of the republicans, not worthy of true Democrats, but so expected from vain-glorious has-beens whose legislative accomplishments largely consist of post office namings, bills that reside one rung above day naming at the bottom of legislative ladder. If he is so capable of change, why hasn't he done anything in the last therty years or so? He is the opposite of honest and ineffective as well.
2
Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton is an ancient hoary horrid harridan mistress of mass incarceration, welfare deformation, corporate plutocrat welfare oligarchy and war mongering military-industrial complex misadventure beholden to Wall Street, Tel Aviv, Cairo, Bangkok, London, Paris, Berlin, Islamabad and Riyadh.
Miss Hillary has no principles nor honor nor courage nor truth nor humility nor empathy beyond her ugly unflattering naked personal quest for money and power.
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton and Donald John Trump are fraternal twins on the most significant substantive socioeconomic political educational issues. Two rusty corroded sides of the same coin.
There is no Bern that Hillary can feel nor inspire. Hillary is a significantly lesser personal and political talent than Bill or Barack. Hillary is no Elizabeth Warren nor Shirley Chisolm nor Barbara Jordan nor Ella Baker nor Fannie Lou Hamer nor Rosa Parks nor Carol Mosely-Braun.
I am only and all in for the liberal progressive Democratic vision of Brooklyn born Bernie Sanders. And I am a black grandfather retired professional corporate executive born, raised and educated on the South Side of Chicago.
Miss Hillary has no principles nor honor nor courage nor truth nor humility nor empathy beyond her ugly unflattering naked personal quest for money and power.
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton and Donald John Trump are fraternal twins on the most significant substantive socioeconomic political educational issues. Two rusty corroded sides of the same coin.
There is no Bern that Hillary can feel nor inspire. Hillary is a significantly lesser personal and political talent than Bill or Barack. Hillary is no Elizabeth Warren nor Shirley Chisolm nor Barbara Jordan nor Ella Baker nor Fannie Lou Hamer nor Rosa Parks nor Carol Mosely-Braun.
I am only and all in for the liberal progressive Democratic vision of Brooklyn born Bernie Sanders. And I am a black grandfather retired professional corporate executive born, raised and educated on the South Side of Chicago.
6
" And I am a black grandfather retired professional corporate executive born, raised and educated on the South Side of Chicago."
So what? Is this supposed to be an argument why the future of mankind depends on electing Sanders?
So what? Is this supposed to be an argument why the future of mankind depends on electing Sanders?
1
@ Mike Halpern
Mankind is not my concern nor under my power. I can only vote once in Illinois during the American presidential fall general election.
The stereotype of a Bernie supporter is young and white and inexperienced and impractically idealistic. I am none of those things.
Race and color are always at the root of any American socioeconomic political educational dispute. Barack Obama is neither half-white by biological nature nor all white by cultural nurture. I am also African Methodist Episcopal by faith.
I would much prefer Elizabeth Warren or Deval Patrick of your state over Hillary.
So what is your racially colored ethnic sectarian argument for the return of Scheme Clinton to plunder and pillage again?
Mankind is not my concern nor under my power. I can only vote once in Illinois during the American presidential fall general election.
The stereotype of a Bernie supporter is young and white and inexperienced and impractically idealistic. I am none of those things.
Race and color are always at the root of any American socioeconomic political educational dispute. Barack Obama is neither half-white by biological nature nor all white by cultural nurture. I am also African Methodist Episcopal by faith.
I would much prefer Elizabeth Warren or Deval Patrick of your state over Hillary.
So what is your racially colored ethnic sectarian argument for the return of Scheme Clinton to plunder and pillage again?
5
c/o blackmamba
"So what is your racially colored ethnic sectarian argument for the return of Scheme Clinton to plunder and pillage again?"
I always wondered if blacks could be as vilely racist as whites. Now, thanks to your comment, at least I know one case where that's true.
"So what is your racially colored ethnic sectarian argument for the return of Scheme Clinton to plunder and pillage again?"
I always wondered if blacks could be as vilely racist as whites. Now, thanks to your comment, at least I know one case where that's true.
1
The so called "angry votes" that went for Nader and gave way to the wonder years of mr Bush back in 2000, seem to have found fertile ground for a comeback. Granted, many of the comments here are just GOPers in disguise trying to move the needle in their favor, also, a number of the kidnappers turned fanatics of the so called "revolution" (PinkCode, Moveon, Black Lives Matter and others). If you think Bush years were hell on earth, wait for a Cruz or Trump administration, your kids will savor the fruits of your blind hatred for sec. Clinton and your angry vote.
4
The reader comments on other columns (e.g., today's Syria piece) are full of Sanders supporters who have apparently fallen victim to Clinton Derangement Syndrome. They are doing Karl Rove's work, whether he pays them or not. The poison was there before the candidate himself started channeling it, but with Sanders himself attacking her, this has developed into an extremely divisive fight. I know some good liberals I used to respect who are threatening to stay home if she wins the primary. It's Bernie or Bust for too many of them.
4
"Clinton Derangement Syndrome"? Cute but the animosity towards Clinton (or even Clintons plural) predates the Sanders campaign. This primary simply revives a long endured sour-taste about the nature of our political order.
I guess you could consider the ailment chronic.
I guess you could consider the ailment chronic.
3
Absolutely right, Andy. For me, her ship sailed back in the mid-1990s. I'm old enough and smart enough to know better than to buy a pig in a poke.
The Sanders' supporters backlash against Clinton has nothing to do with her policy positions or ideas, it's personal. Years of Republican bashing, half truths and downright lies have taken hold among those supporters who are now willing to believe any outrageous claim that either Sanders himself or the Republicans can make. This would not be happening if any other candidate was opposing Sanders. Love her or hate her, however, the people who have participated in the primary process have spoken. Clinton is ahead in pledged delegates and in the popular vote by very wide margins. Those who refuse to support her if she is the nominee are putting ideological purity above practicality and disregarding the consequences. Try to imagine what this country would be like under President Cruz and a Republican controlled congress -- maybe Clinton, with all of her baggage, doesn't look so bad after all.
2
If Secretary Clinton is smart, and she appears to be, she will voluntarily feel the Bern. If Senator Sanders wants to continue the political revolution beyond the convention, he will help her do so.
To quote the sage advice of Mick Jagger "You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you might find-You get what you need"
To quote the sage advice of Mick Jagger "You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you might find-You get what you need"
1
If HRC was facing a reasonable GOP candidate, the issue of uniting the Democratic party would be important.
But as the GOP has gone bat guano crazy, in the words of Lindsay Graham, I seriously doubt that this will be a problem.
Sanders's supporters will vote for HRC because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. Just like I would have voted for Sanders (albeit with an airline sickness bag in hand) had he won the nomination.
But as the GOP has gone bat guano crazy, in the words of Lindsay Graham, I seriously doubt that this will be a problem.
Sanders's supporters will vote for HRC because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. Just like I would have voted for Sanders (albeit with an airline sickness bag in hand) had he won the nomination.
1
The best way to beging unification is after next Tuesday’s voting is for Clinton and Sanders to direct their fire exclusively at the real menace to this country which is a Republican controlled federal government.
Our freedom, democracy and security are at stake and if voters stay home in 2016 as they did in 2010 we’ll all be under the jackboot of a plutocratic-evangelical police state which will end only by a military intervention. Worst case scenario? Maybe, but why take the chance. Just look at the damage these radical ideologues who want their way at any cost have already done since 2009.
Our freedom, democracy and security are at stake and if voters stay home in 2016 as they did in 2010 we’ll all be under the jackboot of a plutocratic-evangelical police state which will end only by a military intervention. Worst case scenario? Maybe, but why take the chance. Just look at the damage these radical ideologues who want their way at any cost have already done since 2009.
2
No, she can't and I wouldn't like her to. Actually, she's been feeling Burned by Sanders' since the early debates, by his attacks on her character through false innuendo.
So, let's call this Bernie Thing for what it is, OK?
He came up with a scheme for a run to get the Democratic Nod for the Presidency, and he based it on personal attacks on his main opposition, Hillary Clinton. Once he had the Millennials he slimed Hillary through lascivious innuendo, contrived notions to get voters to believe Hillary Clinton is the re-incarnate head of Medusa.
He took notions he could associate with the same Wall Street Banks he'd been decrying for predatory loan practices, and started associating them with Hillary and then, VIOLA!- vicariously blaming her for their Student Loan Debt woes. And they have hated her ever since. Soon, these same Millennials who didn't know Bernie Sanders from Colonel Sanders a year age started to pile on. And BLINDLY, they haven't stopped.
He was speaking to a naive, impressionable audience and he knew they'd fall for the bait. And once he got these student to attend his rallies, the rest followed, those of all ages offended the most by George W. Bush's failed policies. He started to promise Free College Educations and forgiving them all their Student Loan Debt. And that opened the flood gates.
He's cagey. He even got the gun owners to buy in by supporting Gun Manufacturers on a couple of issues. Half his state own guns and is why he won big out west.
So, let's call this Bernie Thing for what it is, OK?
He came up with a scheme for a run to get the Democratic Nod for the Presidency, and he based it on personal attacks on his main opposition, Hillary Clinton. Once he had the Millennials he slimed Hillary through lascivious innuendo, contrived notions to get voters to believe Hillary Clinton is the re-incarnate head of Medusa.
He took notions he could associate with the same Wall Street Banks he'd been decrying for predatory loan practices, and started associating them with Hillary and then, VIOLA!- vicariously blaming her for their Student Loan Debt woes. And they have hated her ever since. Soon, these same Millennials who didn't know Bernie Sanders from Colonel Sanders a year age started to pile on. And BLINDLY, they haven't stopped.
He was speaking to a naive, impressionable audience and he knew they'd fall for the bait. And once he got these student to attend his rallies, the rest followed, those of all ages offended the most by George W. Bush's failed policies. He started to promise Free College Educations and forgiving them all their Student Loan Debt. And that opened the flood gates.
He's cagey. He even got the gun owners to buy in by supporting Gun Manufacturers on a couple of issues. Half his state own guns and is why he won big out west.
2
For Bernie supporters who cannot see themselves supporting Secretary Clinton, I give you Donald and Melania Trump. Maybe you can get a job building his "huge!" wall to keep Mexicans out of our country. Or possibly you can help women find abortions in back alleys. Oh, and there's always the military. There will be lots of wars starting with China and Russia. After all, draft dodgers have to prove their masculinity by bombing others. Enjoy!
3
The Republicans have 'Lyin' Ted.' Hillary Supporters have smart, intuitive
Honest Ed. Thanks for the inciteful Comment.
Honest Ed. Thanks for the inciteful Comment.
I am a Sanders supporter who will vote for Secretary Clinton in the general election.
She could help that become a more enthusiastic vote as opposed to a grudging vote by learning why people support Senator Sanders. Namely, it's about the corruption, stupid. Not that Secretary Clinton is an extraordinary example of corruption. She is not. However, she is stuck thoroughly in big donor politics that is literally drowning our democracy at every level of the system. It isn't about overt bribery - it is about corporate and donor class cash buying access and the ability to tilt policy and the policy makers in their favor. Barack Obama had an opportunity to appoint an overseer at Treasury who would be a real sheriff, but instead we got Robert Rubin clones. We'll get the same from Secretary Clinton, and her campaign has obfuscated the point entirely: I am not looking for examples of switched votes. I am looking for examples of who has her ear, and she's already said outright that she won't rule out yet another Wall Street insider at Treasury.
Yes, Secretary Clinton is enormously better than either Senator Cruz or Mr. Trump. That's a very low bar. I will vote enthusiastically for a Democrat who can truly confront the corruption of our entire system because I hope my children can see a country that begins to make itself a better place for regular people. I will vote grudgingly for a Democrat who cannot because I don't believe in suicide.
She could help that become a more enthusiastic vote as opposed to a grudging vote by learning why people support Senator Sanders. Namely, it's about the corruption, stupid. Not that Secretary Clinton is an extraordinary example of corruption. She is not. However, she is stuck thoroughly in big donor politics that is literally drowning our democracy at every level of the system. It isn't about overt bribery - it is about corporate and donor class cash buying access and the ability to tilt policy and the policy makers in their favor. Barack Obama had an opportunity to appoint an overseer at Treasury who would be a real sheriff, but instead we got Robert Rubin clones. We'll get the same from Secretary Clinton, and her campaign has obfuscated the point entirely: I am not looking for examples of switched votes. I am looking for examples of who has her ear, and she's already said outright that she won't rule out yet another Wall Street insider at Treasury.
Yes, Secretary Clinton is enormously better than either Senator Cruz or Mr. Trump. That's a very low bar. I will vote enthusiastically for a Democrat who can truly confront the corruption of our entire system because I hope my children can see a country that begins to make itself a better place for regular people. I will vote grudgingly for a Democrat who cannot because I don't believe in suicide.
4
To those Sanders supporters who'll not vote for Clinton should she get the nomination: Are you nuts? Are you willing to stay home or vote for a third party candidate and risk a Trump or Cruz presidency? Do you remember the election of 2000 or are your memories that short?
2
My memory's long enough to remember 1992-2000, thanks. That's what brought us the election of 2000. Not buying the pig in a poke, sorry.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for Wasserman-Schultz, the DNC/DLC, and establishment politics as usual. That I will not do. I have done it before, and regretted it. Not this time. It is time for the Democratic Party establishment to face the consequences of its actions, and if those consequences include a President Trump, so be it. When the party returns to its progressive FDR roots, I will return to the party. Not until then.
6
Too many comments include threats to stay home if HRC is the nominee. Every eligible voter who wants change must show up and support the candidates who reflect their values down the ballot. Obama was handcuffed by Republicans and Conservative Democrats. When the right presidential candidate is elected he/she will also be handcuffed unless the right people are already in office.
4
"That said, he added that the mere prospect of a Trump or Cruz in the White House might do more to unify the Democratic Party than anything Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Sanders could do."
Bernie supporter here - 64 year old white guy Texan. I find it hard to vote for HRC, but I haven't decided yet, as I still hope for a Bernie nomination. Bernie will have a lot to say about how his supporters go.
One thing for sure, I am getting very tired of having to vote against candidates (Trump/Cruz) rather than for candidates (Bernie).
Bernie supporter here - 64 year old white guy Texan. I find it hard to vote for HRC, but I haven't decided yet, as I still hope for a Bernie nomination. Bernie will have a lot to say about how his supporters go.
One thing for sure, I am getting very tired of having to vote against candidates (Trump/Cruz) rather than for candidates (Bernie).
2
Your analysis is fatally flawed. Goldwater lost in 1964 because he was a weak candidate. Humphrey lost in 1968 because he was a weak candidate. Hillary Clinton is in great danger of losing because she is a weak candidate.
Goldwater was running against Johnson, at the time a popular sitting president. Goldwater's policies did not reflect the values either of World War II veterans entering middle age, or of the baby boomers nearing voting age. Goldwater was on the wrong side of the civil rights struggle.
Humphrey was the consensus candidate of the Democratic Party bent on endorsing the Vietnam war. The voters realized that Vietnam was a failed war. The baby boomers were now voters. Many had repudiated the Vietnam war and they were alienated by the party's endorsement of the war and by the conduct of the FBI, the CIA and other agencies that investigated anti-war activists and branded anti-war activists as traitors. The majority realized that the Vietnam war was a failure and wanted a president who would find a way to end that war honorably. Humphrey's could not win the support of either bloc.
Hillary Clinton is weak because she endorses the role of big donors and the corporatist policies that have weakened the economy. A large majority of voters, particularly young voters, reject those policies and want a president committed to ending them. That makes her a weak candidate likely to lose.
Goldwater was running against Johnson, at the time a popular sitting president. Goldwater's policies did not reflect the values either of World War II veterans entering middle age, or of the baby boomers nearing voting age. Goldwater was on the wrong side of the civil rights struggle.
Humphrey was the consensus candidate of the Democratic Party bent on endorsing the Vietnam war. The voters realized that Vietnam was a failed war. The baby boomers were now voters. Many had repudiated the Vietnam war and they were alienated by the party's endorsement of the war and by the conduct of the FBI, the CIA and other agencies that investigated anti-war activists and branded anti-war activists as traitors. The majority realized that the Vietnam war was a failure and wanted a president who would find a way to end that war honorably. Humphrey's could not win the support of either bloc.
Hillary Clinton is weak because she endorses the role of big donors and the corporatist policies that have weakened the economy. A large majority of voters, particularly young voters, reject those policies and want a president committed to ending them. That makes her a weak candidate likely to lose.
8
Hillary Clinton is “stealing” the Democratic Party nomination from Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders said on Tuesday night following the vote: “Almost 30% of the eligible voters, some 3 million New Yorkers were unable to vote today because they had registered as Independents, not Democrats or Republicans, and that makes no sense to me at all. People should have the right to participate in a primary and vote for their candidate for President of the United States.”
New York City Comptroller, Scott Stringer, wrote recently in “Barriers to the Ballot: Voting Reform in New York City” (April, 2016):
“[O]ur analysis shows that the Empire State’s voting rules tend to impose barriers to exercising the franchise. In fact, New York is one of only a handful of states to lack alternative poll access, expedited registration, and increased primary access (open primaries, extended deadline for party registration).”
In California, citizens may register to vote or update her or his political party association by May 23 for the primary set for June 7. This is a difference of 15 days. An Independent voter can even re-register as No Party Preference to be able to vote for Bernie. New York’s deadline for switching party registration was Oct. 9, 2015, or 193 days before the primary.
In fairness, the Democratic Primary in New York should be re-run with the 3 million New Yorkers who were unable to vote last Tuesday added to the state's rolls.
I will be a Bernie Sanders supporter to the very end!
Bernie Sanders said on Tuesday night following the vote: “Almost 30% of the eligible voters, some 3 million New Yorkers were unable to vote today because they had registered as Independents, not Democrats or Republicans, and that makes no sense to me at all. People should have the right to participate in a primary and vote for their candidate for President of the United States.”
New York City Comptroller, Scott Stringer, wrote recently in “Barriers to the Ballot: Voting Reform in New York City” (April, 2016):
“[O]ur analysis shows that the Empire State’s voting rules tend to impose barriers to exercising the franchise. In fact, New York is one of only a handful of states to lack alternative poll access, expedited registration, and increased primary access (open primaries, extended deadline for party registration).”
In California, citizens may register to vote or update her or his political party association by May 23 for the primary set for June 7. This is a difference of 15 days. An Independent voter can even re-register as No Party Preference to be able to vote for Bernie. New York’s deadline for switching party registration was Oct. 9, 2015, or 193 days before the primary.
In fairness, the Democratic Primary in New York should be re-run with the 3 million New Yorkers who were unable to vote last Tuesday added to the state's rolls.
I will be a Bernie Sanders supporter to the very end!
7
Adam, you obviously missed reading the following Times piece showing why so many voters are frightened of Hillary Clinton, don't trust her and, therefore, have no intention of voting for her:
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-...
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-...
5
This was one of the main reasons for voting for Sanders, the prospect that he would energize new voters and capture the disgruntled who might tend toward the Republicans. His long coat tails would also help down ballot, and give him the greater chance of effecting policy.
6
With Independents ...left out of the New York primary....those whose votes
would have allowed Bernie to win the Democratic Party primary...this huge
block of supporters for Bernie...like myself are even angrier than ever that
we...are penalized for NOT liking Hillary Clinton...our vote for Bernie is
stifled by New York Democratic primary...which is closed..
No wonder those whose votes wont be counted want Bernie to continue the race......yes the voters are left our...not only by Wall Street Super Pacs supporting Hillary Clinton...but by the Democratic Party...
Do we need change....
Well....stop and think why the Colonists formed a group that fought the
rule of the British...due to lack of representation...this was the American
Revolution....
Mr. Egan...this is the exact same...cause that Bernie Sanders is talking about.
We the people are not allowed to have our votes counted....just the same
cause that the Colonists had in the 18th century....
Please state the obvious....cause for discontent..we do not have the vote
Mr. Egan...and we are going to have another revolution against the .01 percent who are controlling our republic...DO YOU UNDERSTAND...this is
real...not theory ....talk to the young people and old people and those who
are dropped from the voting roles...WE want our country back...
We are NOT going to vote for the "Clintons in The White House"....
NEVER...!!!
We will write in our votes...we are disenfranchised by Citizens United and
crooked party politics...
would have allowed Bernie to win the Democratic Party primary...this huge
block of supporters for Bernie...like myself are even angrier than ever that
we...are penalized for NOT liking Hillary Clinton...our vote for Bernie is
stifled by New York Democratic primary...which is closed..
No wonder those whose votes wont be counted want Bernie to continue the race......yes the voters are left our...not only by Wall Street Super Pacs supporting Hillary Clinton...but by the Democratic Party...
Do we need change....
Well....stop and think why the Colonists formed a group that fought the
rule of the British...due to lack of representation...this was the American
Revolution....
Mr. Egan...this is the exact same...cause that Bernie Sanders is talking about.
We the people are not allowed to have our votes counted....just the same
cause that the Colonists had in the 18th century....
Please state the obvious....cause for discontent..we do not have the vote
Mr. Egan...and we are going to have another revolution against the .01 percent who are controlling our republic...DO YOU UNDERSTAND...this is
real...not theory ....talk to the young people and old people and those who
are dropped from the voting roles...WE want our country back...
We are NOT going to vote for the "Clintons in The White House"....
NEVER...!!!
We will write in our votes...we are disenfranchised by Citizens United and
crooked party politics...
7
The ONLY reason I will reluctantly support Ms. Clinton should she get the nomination is my memory of the 1980 election. The split in the Democratic party that year--- the result of Ted Kennedy's misguided effort to unseat an incumbent Democrat president and his failure to actively campaign for his re-election--- resulted in the election of Ronald Reagan. I live in a purple state and if I stay home despite my misgivings I could contribute to the election of a President who will make Reagan look like a thoughtful liberal.
1
Let's not forget about the debacle of 2000. Bernie 's starry eyed supporters of 2016 remind me of Ralph Nader 's starry eyed supporters of 2000. Do we really want to go down that road again? It didn't end well.
Let's not forget that if we didn't have the Clinton 1.0 shenanigans, we wouldn't have had GWB. No thanks.
The ball is in Bernie's court. Is he really a change agent, or an ego-driven cultist?
I'm pulling for the former, 'Bros' and Sis's....
When you're winning at a casino, get up and take your gains.....
When you get greedy you're certain to go BUST!
I'm pulling for the former, 'Bros' and Sis's....
When you're winning at a casino, get up and take your gains.....
When you get greedy you're certain to go BUST!
4
I get just a little tired of hearing that Bernie's supports are the young and men.
I am an elderly, white, female voter and a life long Democrat. Many of my white, elderly female, are also Democrats.
We are tired of establishment politics. We are tired of Hillary. She is one of the 1%, she is a war monger, she is only interested in herself, in becoming the first female president, interested in accumulating more wealth and power. Regardless of what she says she is NOT interested in the interests of the 99%. We are ready for real change. Obama started that change.
Bernie may not have received as many votes as Hillary but that is only because in the beginning the media totally ignored Bernie as irrelevant.
I have several choices as do my elderly female friends. Not vote, write in a name, vote for the Republican or vote for Hillary. I have already eliminated one of those choices. I WILL NOT be voting for Hillary. Change does not occur by voting for the same old, same old or by voting for someone who says one thing today and the opposite tomorrow. She will fall right back into her Republican lite positions if she should get elected. Might as well have the real Republican. She wants a winner for her VEEP. If she wants a winner she should drop out of the race. It would be best for the country. Experience (whatever she may have) is not helpful if it is the same old same old and does not represent change.
I am an elderly, white, female voter and a life long Democrat. Many of my white, elderly female, are also Democrats.
We are tired of establishment politics. We are tired of Hillary. She is one of the 1%, she is a war monger, she is only interested in herself, in becoming the first female president, interested in accumulating more wealth and power. Regardless of what she says she is NOT interested in the interests of the 99%. We are ready for real change. Obama started that change.
Bernie may not have received as many votes as Hillary but that is only because in the beginning the media totally ignored Bernie as irrelevant.
I have several choices as do my elderly female friends. Not vote, write in a name, vote for the Republican or vote for Hillary. I have already eliminated one of those choices. I WILL NOT be voting for Hillary. Change does not occur by voting for the same old, same old or by voting for someone who says one thing today and the opposite tomorrow. She will fall right back into her Republican lite positions if she should get elected. Might as well have the real Republican. She wants a winner for her VEEP. If she wants a winner she should drop out of the race. It would be best for the country. Experience (whatever she may have) is not helpful if it is the same old same old and does not represent change.
7
So David Axelrod thought that Clinton's reconciliation was relatively easy? No, it wasn't. That race was much closer than this one, and she had the popular vote. It was pretty stunning that she was willing to throw in the towel for party unity.
And I am getting tired of Bernie Bros' purity test. If Bernie truly wants a revolution, he and his supporters should be doing down-ticket work, particularly fund raising. Without Congressional support, Bernie's ideas will go nowhere.
So quit whining and get out the vote.
And I am getting tired of Bernie Bros' purity test. If Bernie truly wants a revolution, he and his supporters should be doing down-ticket work, particularly fund raising. Without Congressional support, Bernie's ideas will go nowhere.
So quit whining and get out the vote.
4
Bernie supporters whine and complain incessantly about Hillary Clinton making those speeches for Goldman Sachs for an obscene amount of money. Yet Bernie continues to rake in an obscene amount of cash thanks of all those naïve college kids who think he's going to give them free stuff. Bernie is beginning to remind me of a school yard bully taking lunch money from his cowed classmates. In addition Bernie Sanders is not a real Democrat. Why doesn't anyone else see what's so obvious--Sanders had been an Independent for decades and only recently rediscovered his Democratic roots just in time to run against Hillary Clinton ?? Oh Hillary is feeling the Bern alright because she's seen this nightmare before when another stealth spoiler candidate became president instead of her.
3
I'm a Bernie supporter, but if the choice is Trump versus Clinton, I'll take Trump. While Trump might easily blunder the U.S. into combat, Clinton has shown she doesn't need any justification at all to launch splendid little wars. Just consider her Senate vote for a war of aggression against Iraq or her unbridled advocacy for "regime change" in Libya while secretary of state. In neither case did she consider what would happen after the U.S. inevitably won the first battles. If that sort of thinking makes Hillary the smartest person in the room, then let's give stupidity a chance.
4
I think Hillary is FAR underestimating the loyalty to Bernie we have. So is the NYT for that matter. This in the article: "Of no less concern are the white male voters who favor Mr. Sanders and who might be a prime target for the Republicans." BINGO. That's me and I'm not alone. I (we) don't want the same old same old. Hillary cheats her way to the democratic nomination. I either write in Bernie or vote for Trump, basically the same thing. Hillary is about to cost this country DEARLY, she needs to step out of the way. Bernie has a much better chance of beating Trump.
7
Re party disunity, one should not forget TED KENNEDY's effort to undermine Carter's re election efforts in 1980. Kennedy even went so far as to snub him on stage at the Democratic Party convention in New York ..Unforgivable, all the moreso since when asked in an interview with Roger MUDD for one of the networks,why he was running, Kennedy could not provide an answer. This of course was post CHAPPAQUIDICK, when Kennedy,instead of risking his own life to save that of his girlfriend who was drowning, scrambled ashore and made haste to call, not the police,but his attorney. Nothing honorable about Ted Kennedy, or his attempts to undermine Carter's re election bid. Recall campaign rally in SF in 1980, where Willy Brown, the popular mayor spoke--"right on Willie"said someone in the crowd.Kennedy followed him, and the crowd, expecting a stem winder, listened with disappointment to one of the worst speeches I have ever heard.The chagrin on their faces was evident, and the collective letdown was almost palpable.
1
The cold truth is that a progressive vision can never gain traction if the White House & Congress are in GOP hands. Every bit of progressive legislation Obama pushed through came during the first 2 years of his Presidency, when the House was Democratic.
Naderites refuse to acknowledge that there WAS a difference between Dubya and Gore; in their embittered skewed parallel universe view of history, they excoriate Gore for his “sloppy” campaign...a campaign that produced a higher popular vote than Bush's and would have--butterfly ballot notwithstanding--resulted in a higher electoral vote because the number of Nader voters in FL far exceeded the spurious Bush margin of victory. (And the TN of 2000 was no longer the TN Gore represented in 1988).
Ultra-progressives sit on their hands or vote third-party at the top of the ticket in Presidential years, and then in both Presidential and midterm years ignore the even more important downballot and state & local offices--where the real, lasting damage has been done since 2010. The 2010 state legislatures drew the Cong. district lines with which we’re stuck until 2022. State legislatures gave us ALEC union-busting, voter-suppressing, abortion-restricting, LGBT-oppressing pro-corporate laws. We have the progressives who support only their standard-bearers, skip the rest of the ballot, and stay home during the midterms to thank for that. Face it: incremental change beats no change--and no change is what we’ll get w/o party unity.
Naderites refuse to acknowledge that there WAS a difference between Dubya and Gore; in their embittered skewed parallel universe view of history, they excoriate Gore for his “sloppy” campaign...a campaign that produced a higher popular vote than Bush's and would have--butterfly ballot notwithstanding--resulted in a higher electoral vote because the number of Nader voters in FL far exceeded the spurious Bush margin of victory. (And the TN of 2000 was no longer the TN Gore represented in 1988).
Ultra-progressives sit on their hands or vote third-party at the top of the ticket in Presidential years, and then in both Presidential and midterm years ignore the even more important downballot and state & local offices--where the real, lasting damage has been done since 2010. The 2010 state legislatures drew the Cong. district lines with which we’re stuck until 2022. State legislatures gave us ALEC union-busting, voter-suppressing, abortion-restricting, LGBT-oppressing pro-corporate laws. We have the progressives who support only their standard-bearers, skip the rest of the ballot, and stay home during the midterms to thank for that. Face it: incremental change beats no change--and no change is what we’ll get w/o party unity.
3
if HRC wants to unify the party she must address the money issue. Release the speeches and explain how she will regain her attachment to the values and struggles of those who work for a living. She has lived in the bubble of the ultra wealthy for too long. When you lie down with dogs you get fleas.
4
I mean I dunno about you but I was always planning to vote Stein whether Bernie won the nomination or not. The democrats are a center-right party, and it's not surprising they so vehemently rejected someone as mildly left as Sanders, and it's doubly no surprise that their best argument for election is "look out for the boogeyman in the closet." If the Hillary wants my vote, she needs to work for it by offering platforms I'm interested in and it's highly unlikely that she will and throughout the primary her attitude re: Sander's leftism doesn't hearten me toward some kind of future reconciliation other than some sort of lukewarm patronizing "yes we know you wanted the shiny toys and we don't blame you for it but abuelita clinton is here to rescue you from yourself" stuff.
I feel fairly confident that if Hillary adopted a platform you would accept she would not get elected.
From the comments and the 'recommends' it seems to me that the majority of Hillary Clinton supporters would vote for Bernie Sanders if won the nomination but the majority of his supporters wouldn't vote for her.
Sanders supporters, who generally appear to believe they have the moral high ground, are saying that this means Sanders is the better candidate, but it doesn't mean that at all: it means that Clinton supporters understand what's at stake and are not willing to sacrifice their country.
What's at stake is the middle class, the very poor, human rights in practically every category, a GOP-skewed Supreme Court, and internationally, America going back to the world despising it. I think about Susan Sarandon saying, from the comfort of her million dollar home and life in LA, that if Bernie loses the nomination she would welcome a GOP president and Congress because then everything would fall apart.
And who would be hurt the most? Obviously not Susan Sarandon. How is anybody going to undo the damage of a skewed Supreme Court?
What kind of moral high ground is that? Bernie and Jane Sanders have said explicitly that they will support Hillary Clinton. It's weird: his supporters, who adulate him, think they know better than him. It will break his heart if a GOP candidate wins, or if the chance of Congress changing hands is destroyed by his own supporters.
Sanders supporters, who generally appear to believe they have the moral high ground, are saying that this means Sanders is the better candidate, but it doesn't mean that at all: it means that Clinton supporters understand what's at stake and are not willing to sacrifice their country.
What's at stake is the middle class, the very poor, human rights in practically every category, a GOP-skewed Supreme Court, and internationally, America going back to the world despising it. I think about Susan Sarandon saying, from the comfort of her million dollar home and life in LA, that if Bernie loses the nomination she would welcome a GOP president and Congress because then everything would fall apart.
And who would be hurt the most? Obviously not Susan Sarandon. How is anybody going to undo the damage of a skewed Supreme Court?
What kind of moral high ground is that? Bernie and Jane Sanders have said explicitly that they will support Hillary Clinton. It's weird: his supporters, who adulate him, think they know better than him. It will break his heart if a GOP candidate wins, or if the chance of Congress changing hands is destroyed by his own supporters.
7
Hillary has xplaining to do and reassuring, no more blood for oil, no more getting in bed with corporate interests, never going back to fracking, and oil drilling.
She can do it. Bernie is already on board for decades, like a true democrat he is.
She can do it. Bernie is already on board for decades, like a true democrat he is.
2
I do not agree with your opinion that from the comments it's apparent that the majority of Clinton's supporters would vote for Sanders if the situation were reversed. Not at all. You have no basis from these comments to make that claim.
1
Bernie should free his followers, advising them that the fight for Democratic Socialism must go on and to challenge Hillary when she is president every time she enables republican policy. Bernie should also get out of the Democratic Party which has abandoned progressive thought and policy and set up to start an Indeprndent Democratic Socialism Party of his own. Whatever, do not support Hillary as she continues to enable and stumble her way along.
2
It has come to this.
We need a 3rd party.
Trump is beyond ridiculous. Hillary is ridiculously 15 years behind our needs.
Bernie Sanders, please run as a 3rd party candidate so we can have an actual human being as our president.
Today is the day. Today is the moment. Are we content with the sad record of our current president? He squandered so much and now proclaims success amid disgraceful greed and poverty. "yes we can!.... no he didn't"
Just because our President lost his voice and gave up does that mean the poor and exploited should continue in their silent slavery?... No! If the "Democratic" party will not field a honest candidate, we need to enlist someone who has our interests at heart.
Mr. Sanders, please give us the opportunity to vote for you for President. you are the only real person running and I would truly value the chance to show my children what it means to be a real citizen.
My 14 year old daughter can easily see through the HRC's lies.
To this end, I beseech Bernie Sanders to run as a third option. Hillary is basically a moderate Republican. She should get an advertising contract with CoverGirl because her lip service is truly monumental. She will say anything and ignore anything to get elected. my daughter is disgusted.
We would rather vote honestly than vote for Hillary.
We need a 3rd party.
Trump is beyond ridiculous. Hillary is ridiculously 15 years behind our needs.
Bernie Sanders, please run as a 3rd party candidate so we can have an actual human being as our president.
Today is the day. Today is the moment. Are we content with the sad record of our current president? He squandered so much and now proclaims success amid disgraceful greed and poverty. "yes we can!.... no he didn't"
Just because our President lost his voice and gave up does that mean the poor and exploited should continue in their silent slavery?... No! If the "Democratic" party will not field a honest candidate, we need to enlist someone who has our interests at heart.
Mr. Sanders, please give us the opportunity to vote for you for President. you are the only real person running and I would truly value the chance to show my children what it means to be a real citizen.
My 14 year old daughter can easily see through the HRC's lies.
To this end, I beseech Bernie Sanders to run as a third option. Hillary is basically a moderate Republican. She should get an advertising contract with CoverGirl because her lip service is truly monumental. She will say anything and ignore anything to get elected. my daughter is disgusted.
We would rather vote honestly than vote for Hillary.
4
To those who will "never vote" for Hillary Clinton because we "all know" what she's done, etc. etc. etc., and who are genuinely worried, I simply suggest, do some of your own research. Pursue some unbiased sources. That means not Republican sources, not rumors generated on Fox, not those perpetuated or embellished by political opponents. You might be pleasantly surprised to rediscover how hard she has fought for health care—before it was fashionable and when it was almost impossible to win even among democrats. You might be pleased to see her record on women's rights, at home and internationally. Pick a subject; research for yourself. And you might, even, become rather annoyed that in the heat of an electoral campaign, a thoroughly competent woman has been demonized. Hillary . . . may not actually be the person she is depicted as being.
6
Oh please. I don't get my information from Fox, Republican sources, or for that matter, the tooth ferry. My information--and the opinion based on it--comes from having been a functioning adult human during the 1990s. No "rediscovery" necessary. I well remember that she didn't fight hard enough for her Rube Goldberg-esque (which still included private insurance companies) to actually get anywhere with it. But I guess being able to put "fought for" on her resume is what counts. And how are the women of Saudi Arabia doing, btw?
Bernie certainly lacks the foreign policy experience of Hillary and she the long time experience and connection with the needs of the masses. And they both seem to ignore that it is not the Executive Office that passes the laws that both are promising the voters. Which is why it is positively necessary to have Democrats in the majority in both Houses of Congress and merely voting either or both into office will not save our Nation. Frankly I propose She as President and he as VP for maximum strength. Then quit opposing each other and wasting money time and effort but instead combine funds and supporters obtain a new Democrat to run opposite each running Republican prior to the June deadline, being every Representative and one third of the Senators (picking up the rest of the Senators as their term expires in '18 and '20) . This must be successfully accomplished or all is lost therefore all stops must be pulled out and every dollar obtained and spent. AND to bring this about for certain I refer to the use of the millions of mid-eastern refuges to be placed in the hundreds of NATO military bases to be trained into fighting forces and sent back to their homeland with guns, tank, planes, drones,etc while the remainder of them being otherwise used in that war effort of the Arab/Muslim world doing their own fighting w/o US ground troops as Obama has pledged!!!
1
Hillary's voters had no problem supporting Obama after the 2008 primary because, politically, the two candidates were almost identical. This is not the case with Sanders. He differs substantially from Hillary in both his positions and world-view.
5
Bernie has a lot more in common with Hillary than any republican. Listen to what they are promising.
1
What amazes me is how many people think this is about them, and not about the future of the country and of the rest of the world.
107
No. It's actually my concern for my grandkids and every one else's grandkids that motivates my vote for Sanders, the only candidate with a consistent position on global warming and who has not taken money from fossil fuel interests. Bernie recognizes that if we don't see global warming as problem #1 by the time its effects are seen governments--ours especially--will have to suspend democracy to rule by decree to force people to deal with it. So.. for the future of the democracy of our country and the future of democracy elsewhere in the world, vote for Sanders in the PA primary.
5
Hillary could have thought of that before she started the character assassinations. She made her bed, as far as I am concerned.
2
What amazes me is the number of people who automatically think the sun won't rise again tomorrow if *their* choice isn't the nominee/winner.
Or more to the point...a majority of voters in the general election do not like Mrs. Clinton and by "not like" I mean despise. The democratic party just Gored itself again as the party leaders cannot fathom why most of us don't like their handpicked candidate and deny that it matters. In most polls, she beats no one in the general election(including Sanders) and has very little chance to change that. The fact is, the independents that go for Trump and Sanders see Clinton as the poster child for everything that is wrong with politics...and they aren't wrong.
5
I am 62 years old and have only voted democratic. To say it politely Hilary Clinton has been on the wrong side of too many issues to earn my vote. If she is nominated I will stay home in November.
5
I'll still vote for Bernie. I'll write-in his name if I have to. I used to consider myself a strong democrat, but the way the DNC has run Hillary down our throat and even changed rules in February so she could make more money is disgusting. I've seen things across the country where the DNC has been corrupt just to ensure Hillary gets the nomination. I think its time they learn a lesson. They're as bad as the GOP now. I don't care if Bernie is a "new" democrat. He's more of a democrat then the party establishment heads now.
4
So Adam Nagourney believes that Ronald Reagan's supporters voted for Jimmy Carter and people who backed Eugene McCarthy or Bobby Kennedy voted for Nixon. He also appears to believe that Sanders voters are going to vote for Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.
If he has a shred of data that supports these ridiculous assertions, I'm sure we'd all love to see it, but don't bother looking because there is no such data.
And then there is this gem. Clinton is "lackluster." Since more people have voted for her than for Sanders, I would conclude that she is inspiring more voters, but Adam Nagourney believes otherwise.
If he has a shred of data that supports these ridiculous assertions, I'm sure we'd all love to see it, but don't bother looking because there is no such data.
And then there is this gem. Clinton is "lackluster." Since more people have voted for her than for Sanders, I would conclude that she is inspiring more voters, but Adam Nagourney believes otherwise.
3
The elephant in the room is that the party is the problem. You cannot lie and cheat and then expect me to "fall in line." Case in point; name one country that we have a better relationship with since HRC has been SecState. I will not vote for her ever.
4
What is bizarre to me is that establishment Democrats still seem to honestly believe that the most centrist, establishment Democrat is most electable. The past 50 years demonstrate otherwise.
Obama was anti-establishment. He won. Kerry and Gore and Dukakis defeated anti-establishment Democratic candidates, and they lost.
Savvy Democrats need to own up to the fact that in order to win, they need to energize an anti-establishment group of unreliable voters.
Republicans have made peace with the fact that unless they blow racist dog-whistles and fear-monger the Democratic nominee, they won't energize sufficient numbers to win elections. So they do it, time and again.
Anti-establishment hope & changers who voted for Obama are gnashing their teeth with disappointment. Well boo-hoo. Guess what? Your votes were needed to win in November, and the Democrats nominated someone you fell for. Hallelujah!
Racist bible-thumping homophobes are always complaining that elected Republicans don't deliver white-supremacist Christian shariah law like they promised. Again, Boo-Hoo! Your votes were needed to win in November, and so Republicans do what they need to do to get you to the polls.
This year, Democrats are in serious danger of nominating someone who - like the losers of elections past - is so concerned with her reputation as a very serious person, that she won't activate the anti-establishment slice of a winning Democratic coalition. We can only hope Trump is so inept.
Obama was anti-establishment. He won. Kerry and Gore and Dukakis defeated anti-establishment Democratic candidates, and they lost.
Savvy Democrats need to own up to the fact that in order to win, they need to energize an anti-establishment group of unreliable voters.
Republicans have made peace with the fact that unless they blow racist dog-whistles and fear-monger the Democratic nominee, they won't energize sufficient numbers to win elections. So they do it, time and again.
Anti-establishment hope & changers who voted for Obama are gnashing their teeth with disappointment. Well boo-hoo. Guess what? Your votes were needed to win in November, and the Democrats nominated someone you fell for. Hallelujah!
Racist bible-thumping homophobes are always complaining that elected Republicans don't deliver white-supremacist Christian shariah law like they promised. Again, Boo-Hoo! Your votes were needed to win in November, and so Republicans do what they need to do to get you to the polls.
This year, Democrats are in serious danger of nominating someone who - like the losers of elections past - is so concerned with her reputation as a very serious person, that she won't activate the anti-establishment slice of a winning Democratic coalition. We can only hope Trump is so inept.
4
It looks like the Republicans have a chance to pull the Presidency out again, with the help of Bernie Sanders and his minions. The Republicans have spent 30 years attacking Hillary with their phony "scandals" and partisan, political investigations. Most recently, it has been the Benghazi hearings and "emailgate". Nevermind that she spent 11 hours making the Republican inquisitors look like monkeys, if you throw enough mud, some of it will stick in the minds of some people. On the other side, we have Bernie and his Bots calling Hillary corrupt for giving speeches like many politicians do when they are out of office and for taking campaign contributions, which everyone but Bernie does. President Obama is also corrupt by Bernie's standards. Everyone is, except for Bernie. If Hillary had released only the current years tax returns, the Bots would be correcting complaining about it, but Bernie gets a pass. What is in the prior tax returns that he is hiding? Bernie's dirty little campaign has convinced the Bots that Hillary is the devil and there's no difference between her and Republicans. Actual facts don't matter to the Bots. They think Bernie is the tooth fairy and his mythical revolution will give them free college and free healthcare. Just keep sending him another $27. He'll tell you where the money is going later, when he releases his tax returns.
3
Forty percent of Americans are Independents. The Independents who have voted in the Democratic primaries so far have overwhelmingly chosen Sanders over Clinton. They have no allegiance to the Democratic Party, so it's not a foregone conclusion that they will be voting for Hillary if she becomes the nominee.
6
Kind of surprised that a veteran journalist like Mr. Nagourney would mention Humphrey in 1968. First of all, he didn't run in any of the primaries so there was a great deal of anger about that amongst Kennedy and McCarthy supporters. And whatever fault for not uniting the party was Humphrey's fault. If he had split with LBJ on the Vietnam War earlier in the campaign instead of waiting till the last weeks, he certainly would have won.
And as a Sanders supporter, I can't think of any thing Clinton could do or say that would get me to support her. She has repeatedly insulted my intelligence telling me things that she knew weren't true about Sanders. And if gun control was so important to her, where was her opposition to appointing Gillibrand, who had a worse record on the issue than Sanders when she was in the House, to the Senate.
And she doesn't trust me enough to read those transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches. If somebody is hiding something that would seem to be unimportant, it makes you wonder what it is.
And after Trump beats Clinton, which I believe is quite likely, the rulers of the Democratic Party will no doubt blame Sanders instead of themselves for giving the nomination to such a damaged candidate.
And as a Sanders supporter, I can't think of any thing Clinton could do or say that would get me to support her. She has repeatedly insulted my intelligence telling me things that she knew weren't true about Sanders. And if gun control was so important to her, where was her opposition to appointing Gillibrand, who had a worse record on the issue than Sanders when she was in the House, to the Senate.
And she doesn't trust me enough to read those transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches. If somebody is hiding something that would seem to be unimportant, it makes you wonder what it is.
And after Trump beats Clinton, which I believe is quite likely, the rulers of the Democratic Party will no doubt blame Sanders instead of themselves for giving the nomination to such a damaged candidate.
4
Appreciate your clarification of the 1968 election. Tired of the revisionist history. Thank you.
When all is said and done the most acceptable and final outcome of the two dynamic campaigns of Clinton and Sanders should produce a Democratic ticket as described below:
Hillary and Bernie as VP.
or
Bernie and Hillary as VP.
Either outcome represents the strongest ticket possible.
It allows the supporters of each candidate to back their candidate one way or the other and the Party wins as a whole.
Democrats will support either one of these two outcomes and it is to be hoped that Independents will do so as well.
Solidarity is the winning strategy.
Either way the above final result will be unbeatable in the general election.
Hillary and Bernie as VP.
or
Bernie and Hillary as VP.
Either outcome represents the strongest ticket possible.
It allows the supporters of each candidate to back their candidate one way or the other and the Party wins as a whole.
Democrats will support either one of these two outcomes and it is to be hoped that Independents will do so as well.
Solidarity is the winning strategy.
Either way the above final result will be unbeatable in the general election.
1
Maybe the way to get republicans and democrats to work together is to elect Trump. It would serve both parties right
1
Mrs. Clinton should also be mindful of the challenges dividing the Democratic Party. Although the challenges do not seem to affect her nomination in the primary, thanks to her super Delegates. They are fracturing the party and more likely to cost her the presidency in the general election. Bernie Sanders and his backers do not intend to disappear after the primaries. They are likely to stay home or vote for the presidential candidate in the general election.
2
I'll give a five word program for reconciliation with the Bernie Supporters.
Sherrod Brown for Vice President.
Sherrod Brown for Vice President.
2
It must be that none of the "I'll Never Vote For Hillary" people are dependent on the ACA for health insurance, or care about the millions who will lose their health insurance when a Republican President and Congress repeal the ACA and replace it with nothing. Must be nice to be totally unaffected by one's pious purity.
4
I don't think Sanders could bring many of his supporters if he wanted to. The last serious left wing run for the presidency was Nader's. When the Republicans won that time many Democrats blamed him. Sander's bid is an attempt to win from within the two party system. If he loses I think a lot of left wing voters would prefer to risk a Republican now in the hopes of a future, more ideologically pure liberal party, to vote for. The Democratic party establishment just doesn't seem to understand that many of their own base have responded to the Republican shift to the right with their own shift to the left and honestly don't see much practical difference between Clinton and the Republicans.
2
"Bernie can fritter away his campaign $millions on the presidential road show to oblivion, or make a real difference by withdrawing soon with a substantial unspent war chest to donate to elect down-ticket Democrats."
And Hillary could have done the same thing in 2008. Instead, she kept her "campaign $millions" for herself by remaining in the race for months after it was clear Obama had beat her. Tough luck for those "down-ticket Democrats" in 2008. Hillary didn't care about them back then. Now she does, of course: she thinks Bernie should drop out and give all of his money to them.
And Hillary could have done the same thing in 2008. Instead, she kept her "campaign $millions" for herself by remaining in the race for months after it was clear Obama had beat her. Tough luck for those "down-ticket Democrats" in 2008. Hillary didn't care about them back then. Now she does, of course: she thinks Bernie should drop out and give all of his money to them.
3
Dear Bernie Supporters, the disagreement here is more in practicality than ideas, but implementation is what counts in the end. Look at the current makeup of the house, the senate, governorships, state assemblies. Look at the entrenched opposition and endless house votes against the ACA (not perfect but has helped so many). The revolution-or-I-go-home strategy doesn't work -- the first step is to change those numbers, the fundamental problem for any president. Bernie is a lone voice in the senate, that has to change. If you want to make a difference, my suggestion is vote for Hillary and vote left on down ballot candidates this election. And... vote in 2018.
4
Six months running, Bernie Sanders has outpolled Hillary Clinton against all GOP candidates in potential general election match ups.
Logically, a primary vote for Hillary is more likely to be a vote for the GOP.
On behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters everywhere, I urge Hillary Clinton to drop out right now, for the good of the Democrat Party!
Logically, a primary vote for Hillary is more likely to be a vote for the GOP.
On behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters everywhere, I urge Hillary Clinton to drop out right now, for the good of the Democrat Party!
4
If Hillary wants to unite the party, a good first step would be to put out at least some of her transcripts of speeches to Wall Street to prove that she is tough on Wall Street. According to the contracts for speeches that have been made public, she had a stenographer record her every word (at a cost to the speech recipients of $1250 per speech) and she owns the copyright for the speeches. No legal impediment stops her from making public the transcripts that she demanded be made.
No proof, no vote. Simple enough.
No proof, no vote. Simple enough.
4
Another war-monger in the White House? No way.
Another NAFTA? No way.
Another Wall Street tool? No way.
Anyone who thinks Clinton is serious about 15 an hour and opposing the TPP is dreamin'.
Another NAFTA? No way.
Another Wall Street tool? No way.
Anyone who thinks Clinton is serious about 15 an hour and opposing the TPP is dreamin'.
3
I am a Sanders supporter, and I will never vote for Hillary Clinton because of her foreign policy views. She is a neocon, cut from the same cloth as those in the Bush administration who brought us the Iraq war. Hillary, of course, voted for the Iraq war, and she engineered the Libyan coup, both of which resulted in power vacuums currently being exploited by ISIS. Moreover, she stands with the far right in Israel, including Benjamin Netanyahu, as she has repeatedly made clear including in her AIPAC speech last month. There is no way that she would have defied Mr. Netanyahu to push for the groundbreaking Iran deal, as President Obama did last year. Her domestic policies are actually not that bad, but on foreign policy, I fear that as president she would get us entangled in more expensive and counterproductive wars and interventions in the Middle East, almost certainly in Syria and possibly in Iran. Donald Trump, ironically, seems like something of an isolationist, and it's at least possible that he would be the lesser evil on foreign policy as compared to Hillary Clinton, though he would be far worse on domestic policy. So, given the Clinton-Trump choice in November, I will probably opt to sit this one out.
5
Oh, California! Today's poll shows Sanders within 2 points of Clinton. No matter how much Clinton wants Sanders to disappear, this race just can't be called yet. We have states turning purple/red/blue; we have investigations; and we have to get it into our heads that 40% of all voters are independents--we need them. We have to air these candidates' problems and get them sorted out, before they hit the Republican machine. Most of all, we have to show these candidates and their ideas to every voter who might be persuaded to vote Democrat, and see what it will take to win their support. That's the only way to get a realistic picture of what the Democratic Party should become, to shape itself into the party that can win this Presidency, take seats back in the Congress, and be a strong force for the future.
3
Stunningly dishonest, repeating the smears that were Clinton's chosen tactics and embraced at the NYT?
White male voters?
Those not elgible for medicare seem to prefer Sanders, including women.
But part of the smear Sanders campaign was racism, since, flagrant dishonesty works.
How sophisticated.
Fools don't know how to bow down when they are smeared and serve their rightful master whose smearing makes them the master. Insult them some more. That will do the trick.
White male voters?
Those not elgible for medicare seem to prefer Sanders, including women.
But part of the smear Sanders campaign was racism, since, flagrant dishonesty works.
How sophisticated.
Fools don't know how to bow down when they are smeared and serve their rightful master whose smearing makes them the master. Insult them some more. That will do the trick.
1
Lived in Sweden when we had a Communist Party. The Communists sounded always like Bernie Sanders. Everything was the fault of the big banks, the private sector and the rich. They promised like Sanders a lot which would never materialize but appeal to people because it seemed that they offered an easy fix. Luckily they never came to real power and I hope for America that Sanders never become candidate for the Democrats or even worse the President of the United States of America.
4
I'm voting for the upstart FBI and against the establishment Justice Department.
2
What many HRC supporters are missing is that a Trump presidency is a win for Progressives. His administration will be so bad and misguided that even more voter will become radicalized and move to the left. A HRC win would just delay that process. I'm will write-in Bernie and wait 4 years for another chance to vote for a progressive candidate. I hope it's Elizabeth Warren.
3
Yes. They're going to keep on missing this though. Things need to get worse.
Incredible, after news of voter purging in NY, the push to accept HRC as done-deal for nominee. It ain't over.
Money has corrupted our politics. War is the biggest part of our economy.HRC is ok with that, will make tweaks here and there--incrementally.
No way can I vote for her. Possibly I'd vote for Trump--at least he isn't bought and paid for. Would be 1st GOP vote in 56 yrs of voting.
The two parties have shown what they're about, and media too: keeping the gravy train flowing.
Keep fighting, Bernie. We need you more than ever.
Money has corrupted our politics. War is the biggest part of our economy.HRC is ok with that, will make tweaks here and there--incrementally.
No way can I vote for her. Possibly I'd vote for Trump--at least he isn't bought and paid for. Would be 1st GOP vote in 56 yrs of voting.
The two parties have shown what they're about, and media too: keeping the gravy train flowing.
Keep fighting, Bernie. We need you more than ever.
4
If it comes down to it, this Sanders supporter will vote for Jill Stein.
5
I was never going to vote for Hillary Clinton long before I began supporting Bernie Sanders. She's only ahead in delegate count because the mainstream media and Democratic Party establishment intended 2016 to be her coronation. If Bernie had gotten the attention a year ago that he's getting, now, he would be ahead of her in pledged delegates. If we had open primaries, as we should have, Bernie would be WAY ahead in pledged delegates.
There is no way for Clinton to bring the Sanders followers into the fold. It's the "fold" we're against. The Democratic Party needs to renew itself and move forward, or the forward movement will go on without it.
There is no way for Clinton to bring the Sanders followers into the fold. It's the "fold" we're against. The Democratic Party needs to renew itself and move forward, or the forward movement will go on without it.
3
Why is the progressive left helping the elite to elect Hillary Clinton? Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Undersecretary of the Treasury under Reagan, wants to know what the heck is wrong with all of you supporting another Clinton for President.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/04/21/why-is-the-progressive-left-h...
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/04/21/why-is-the-progressive-left-h...
2
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:
>Refuses to accept responsibility during his tenure working for Ronald Reagan for supporting Reaganomics and the resulting Deregulation FreeFall.
>Questions whether the Sandy Hook Slaughter even took place.
>Believes France's 'Charlie Hebdo' Massacre was perpetrated by the United States, in retaliation for their anti-west initiatives.
Need I continue?
>Refuses to accept responsibility during his tenure working for Ronald Reagan for supporting Reaganomics and the resulting Deregulation FreeFall.
>Questions whether the Sandy Hook Slaughter even took place.
>Believes France's 'Charlie Hebdo' Massacre was perpetrated by the United States, in retaliation for their anti-west initiatives.
Need I continue?
1
It's too early to get all worked up about things that haven't happened yet. Let the voters have their say. Let the candidates work through the campaign--that's the job that they have chosen. Air those candidates' problems now, so the eventual nominee will be ready for the general election. And in this election, hold onto your hats. We've got investigations, unheard-of demographic alliances, states turning blue/red/purple, and 40% of all voters are independents. Anything can happen.
24
Let all 50 states vote. Let Bernie run all the way to the convention. Those calling him to leave, please BACK OFF.
3
I am voting for a Democrat in the general election.
After experiencing firsthand the damage Right Wing policies can cause, there is no way I am voting for any Republican.
After experiencing firsthand the damage Right Wing policies can cause, there is no way I am voting for any Republican.
5
Sanders is a good educator. He needs to forcefully explain to his supporters that he didn't think Clinton herself was corrupt, but that nearly every other candidate in history had been part of a system where moneyed interests funded campaigns. So she is participating in that system while it exists and while Republicans are doing the same. This is not disqualifying. AND she has vowed to change it, not least by nominating Supreme Court justices that will help overturn the Citizens United decision.
He can say that he has disagreements here and there, but that an examination of her overall record shows integrity.
He can say that he has disagreements here and there, but that an examination of her overall record shows integrity.
3
Even were Hillary to pivot towards Sanders and embrace the issues he and his campaign represent, it would be exceedingly difficult for many Sanders supporters, including this one, to see it as anything other than a cynical ploy to help her win in November. She has zero credibility as an economic populist.
4
I was struck by the fact that you dutifully cited the numbers of backers of Sanders, Cruz, and Trump who said they would not vote if their candidate was not the nominee of their party. However you failed to cite the number of Clinton backers who say they will not vote for Sanders if he is the Democratic nominee. Ignoring this (yet another) example of NYT Hillary bias, my gut feel is that the poll would have shown a higher percentage Hillary supporters will vote for Sanders were he the eventual nominee. If this hypothesis is true HRC should consider dropping out for the good of the party.
1
Yes, because Hillary voters are sensible realists.
The problem with "healing" the Democratic Party is that it is not worth healing. The Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, represents everything that''s wrong with the US electoral system and therefore with American democracy. I'd rather have a brand new "pro-people" party. even if it were called the "Proletariat Party". Let's start over from scratch and get rid of insiders who are bought with corporate donations for campaign funds.
68
We already have these parties. Listed below are some of the left-wing alternatives to the Democratic Party. You are welcome to join any of them.
They will never elect a POTUS or a Senator or a Congressman or a Governor. They are unlikely to ever elect a State Representative or a Mayor. Maybe a city councilman in Berkeley or Burlington. That's about it.
If you want to affect real change, you have to play with the big boys, which means you have to play by big boy rules. Otherwise, you can be ideologically pure and utterly powerless.
Parties you can join:
Communist Party USA
Freedom Socialist Party
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Peace and Freedom Party
Justice Party USA
Socialist Action
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Alternative
Socialist Party USA
Socialist Workers Party
Workers World Party
Working Families Party
They will never elect a POTUS or a Senator or a Congressman or a Governor. They are unlikely to ever elect a State Representative or a Mayor. Maybe a city councilman in Berkeley or Burlington. That's about it.
If you want to affect real change, you have to play with the big boys, which means you have to play by big boy rules. Otherwise, you can be ideologically pure and utterly powerless.
Parties you can join:
Communist Party USA
Freedom Socialist Party
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Peace and Freedom Party
Justice Party USA
Socialist Action
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Alternative
Socialist Party USA
Socialist Workers Party
Workers World Party
Working Families Party
1
The trouble with your position is...
Never
Going
To Happen.
And while you sit at home not voting because you are in a snit, the Right Wing increasingly takes advantage of you and takes over.
You want to see things change? Get off your duff, get out there and VOTE.
Never
Going
To Happen.
And while you sit at home not voting because you are in a snit, the Right Wing increasingly takes advantage of you and takes over.
You want to see things change? Get off your duff, get out there and VOTE.
1
"I'd rather have a brand new "pro-people" party."
Q. Is this a good idea? A. Yes!
Q. Will it happen before the 2016 presidential elections? A. No.
Q. Does that matter? A. Well...
Q. Is this a good idea? A. Yes!
Q. Will it happen before the 2016 presidential elections? A. No.
Q. Does that matter? A. Well...
2
If you want to know who you're voting for you should read as much as you can about his time in office, such as when he was chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. It's a testament to his leadership ability. Not a very good one and there aren't many other examples, but nobody's perfect.
Not voting for Hillary. No matter what. Not a yellow dog democrat.
3
How can I vote for the Clintons ? It would be like voting for Henry Kissinger .
The Clintons are so YESTERDAY.....Senator Sanders is the FUTURE AMERICA WANTS AND NEEDS AND HOPES FOR.....".....the hope still lives...."
The Clintons are so YESTERDAY.....Senator Sanders is the FUTURE AMERICA WANTS AND NEEDS AND HOPES FOR.....".....the hope still lives...."
2
It seems like the election will be between Luca Brasi and Tom Hagen. Brasi is an out and out goon, but Tom Hagen is no less dangerous -- he kills with legal motions and appeals instead of garrottes and knives. And they both work for the same Godfather, Vito Corleone.
Many here argue that the choice is simple - vote Hillary or else... It's called blackmail, pure and simple, and her campaign is essentially based on it. But it is not that simple actually, there is another option: let a republican president be elected, and yes let things degrade further in the next four years (but not much further than under HC's fearsome leadership) and send a strong message to the establishment democrats that they should not treat their base as mindless sheep and insult their intelligence, but show some respect, so that the next time around - in 2019-20, there is a real choice instead of this pathetic coronation of a power-hungry egomaniac.
3
Im sorry; I blame Sanders for the hostility. He keeps up the negative insuations, he keeps dismissing voters who disagree with him like the South and Black voters. He keeps trying to deligitimize the process. If he eants to be Ralph Nader than so be it. I resent the idea of us having to tie ourselves into nots becuse he wants go be a problem child. He has a history of alienating his natural allies and thats definitely whtas hes done to me. Im sick of the holier than thou attitude.
2
The first eight years of the Clinton co-presidency were embarrassing enough. There's no way I'm going to vote that fiasco back into office.
5
This could really backfire:
"Like most rational Sanders voters, I will vote for Clinton if in my state it looks like she needs the vote. And if she doesn't, I won't vote for her."
So if you're in a "safe" Democratic state (say NY or CA), where Hillary doesn't need your vote, you'll stay home. Hillary may not miss you, but some down-ballot Democrat running in a tough race may wish you'd showed up.
"Like most rational Sanders voters, I will vote for Clinton if in my state it looks like she needs the vote. And if she doesn't, I won't vote for her."
So if you're in a "safe" Democratic state (say NY or CA), where Hillary doesn't need your vote, you'll stay home. Hillary may not miss you, but some down-ballot Democrat running in a tough race may wish you'd showed up.
117
Terrific observation.
1
How about if they turn out for those down ballot candidates who supported Sanders.
And there is no requirement that when you vote you have to vote in every race on the ballot.
And there is no requirement that when you vote you have to vote in every race on the ballot.
3
You do realize that you can show up and vote in other races, and just leave the Presidential race box blank, right?
3
Better to ask at this point whether she can sense that Americans are deeply dissatisfied with how our country is governed, and how she would govern differently and more effectively as president. Bernie Sanders has presented his own narrow view of greatly enhanced regulation, a far more expropriative tax regime and even with all the added revenue, a domestic agenda that would still use debt to emphasize government as the central medium for guiding our development as a nation and people. I suppose that's one way to skin a cat, but it's ONLY one way to seek to address American dissatisfaction with its government.
Adam's question assumes that Hillary's only option is to channel Bernie, and that's a profoundly invalid premise.
She needs to acknowledge a dissatisfaction that crosses parties and articulate a set of principles and programs that have enough of a chance to succeed within divided government and ideologically polarized politics that people can see light at the end of the tunnel -- better, more secure jobs, economic hope for our young, a tax structure that doesn't destroy the individual, a more environmentally sustainable planet, a renewed positive American influence in the world and a renewed confidence in our destiny.
We should note that while all of this is necessary to unite both her party and the entire American electorate, the "Bern's" vision encompasses only a small part of that vision; and in the end would fail at its objectives for its smallness.
Adam's question assumes that Hillary's only option is to channel Bernie, and that's a profoundly invalid premise.
She needs to acknowledge a dissatisfaction that crosses parties and articulate a set of principles and programs that have enough of a chance to succeed within divided government and ideologically polarized politics that people can see light at the end of the tunnel -- better, more secure jobs, economic hope for our young, a tax structure that doesn't destroy the individual, a more environmentally sustainable planet, a renewed positive American influence in the world and a renewed confidence in our destiny.
We should note that while all of this is necessary to unite both her party and the entire American electorate, the "Bern's" vision encompasses only a small part of that vision; and in the end would fail at its objectives for its smallness.
1
Once Clinton is nominated the dynamics change completely as indeed they will change completely on the Republican side. Should Donald or Cruz be nominated they will be immediately hailed as the light of the world by most Republicans. The paranoid and angry protestations below of the more nihilistic Bernie Bros can largely be ignored. A minute number are probably stupid enough to ignore the implications of a Cruz or Trump presidency but the majority are going to recognize reality and act accordingly.
5
If you are a Sanders supporter & know Hillary- the real Hillary, not the candidate- you do not trust anything that comes out of her mouth. She triangulates just like Bill to blunt real Progressives then runs to the right after getting elected.
Remember the Peanuts Comics gag where Lucy promises Charlie Brown she will hold the football this time so he can kick it only to punk him & pull it away at the last moment. That is what the Clintons- both & their acolytes- have been doing to the base of the Democratic Party & is precisely why we do not trust her.
We know Hillary is a Wall Street friendly, War Hawk that supports the very NeoLiberal Economics that have hollowed out or economy & devastated our heartland. She is taking money from the for-profit prison industry even as she courts the peoples of color most impacted by the policies that enable them. She takes money from Wall Street & not just for speeches- each of which paid more than Senator Sanders gets as salary from "We The People". She claims to be a supporter of unions, but has never walked a picket line & served as a Board Member of Wal-Mart, the most Union hostile company in America.
Why exactly did the executive boards of the AFT & NEA endorse a candidate that takes money from Alice Walton Evan as the Walton Family Foundation pushes the privatization of public education in America?
Exactly how much evidence that she is a Republican in drag do voters need to see before they stop believing her empty claims?
Remember the Peanuts Comics gag where Lucy promises Charlie Brown she will hold the football this time so he can kick it only to punk him & pull it away at the last moment. That is what the Clintons- both & their acolytes- have been doing to the base of the Democratic Party & is precisely why we do not trust her.
We know Hillary is a Wall Street friendly, War Hawk that supports the very NeoLiberal Economics that have hollowed out or economy & devastated our heartland. She is taking money from the for-profit prison industry even as she courts the peoples of color most impacted by the policies that enable them. She takes money from Wall Street & not just for speeches- each of which paid more than Senator Sanders gets as salary from "We The People". She claims to be a supporter of unions, but has never walked a picket line & served as a Board Member of Wal-Mart, the most Union hostile company in America.
Why exactly did the executive boards of the AFT & NEA endorse a candidate that takes money from Alice Walton Evan as the Walton Family Foundation pushes the privatization of public education in America?
Exactly how much evidence that she is a Republican in drag do voters need to see before they stop believing her empty claims?
6
My goodness the New York Times' collective pants are on fire right after the NY primary election this Tuesday to declare Hillary the BIG winner and to urge Bernie to get out of the race asap. There are still primaries yet to come in 21 states and the District of Columbia. It's not over 'til it is over--it all ends on June 14 (Flag Day) Back off and give the 21 states their say.
That said, Nagourney is right, the Democratic Party must quickly mend fences and play nice with each other DURING and AFTER the Democratic Convention--that is partly what the Convention is for. No time for gloating by the winner, and no time for petulance by the loser and the loser's avid supporters.
No refusing to go to the polls and vote (hold your nose if you must) unless you want to put up with President Trump or President Cruz, armed with his Republican Congress and the opportunity to appoint someone worse than Scalia or Thomas to the Supreme Court.
But if we think the rifts within each party are rancorous these days, wait until after the November 2016 election, because those on the losing side are not going to go gently into that good night. Me included, if the Republicans win.
In my long lifetime, I don't think the stakes have ever been higher when it comes to whether a Democrat or a Republican wins the 2016 presidential election.
That said, Nagourney is right, the Democratic Party must quickly mend fences and play nice with each other DURING and AFTER the Democratic Convention--that is partly what the Convention is for. No time for gloating by the winner, and no time for petulance by the loser and the loser's avid supporters.
No refusing to go to the polls and vote (hold your nose if you must) unless you want to put up with President Trump or President Cruz, armed with his Republican Congress and the opportunity to appoint someone worse than Scalia or Thomas to the Supreme Court.
But if we think the rifts within each party are rancorous these days, wait until after the November 2016 election, because those on the losing side are not going to go gently into that good night. Me included, if the Republicans win.
In my long lifetime, I don't think the stakes have ever been higher when it comes to whether a Democrat or a Republican wins the 2016 presidential election.
2
One thing Hillary could do to bring Bernie supporters around is to agree to run her campaign as Bernie did with nonsuperacs and corporate money. At one time people would have tittered, but Bernie showed it can be done. As it is he came close. Imagine what he could have accomplished with the nwme recognition of Hillary Clinton.
Effective immediately, Mr. Sanders should stop the attacks on Mrs. Clinton and refocus entirely on Donald Trump and the Republican Party. Assuming Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination which looks inevitable at this point, it would be incumbent on Mr. Sanders to convince as many of his faithful to support Mrs Clinton and the Democratic Party vs not voting at all. First time voters or not, life rarely meets all of our expectations all the time. If Mr Sanders has to award "I Am A Good Citizen" certificates for casting a vote for Mrs. Clinton, to his young, coddled generation of supporters unaccustomed to not getting their way, start the presses now. Since Mrs. Clinton has provided more steak than sizzle in her campaign, the onus mostly lies with Bernie to bring some of that sizzle to the idea of a President Hillary in the minds of his supporters by convincing them that both he and Mrs. Clinton are more closely united on many issues than divided.
2
Bernie: I thought that you created a movement inspired on what's best for the country and its people. But things are not static, nor in isolation. Others are out there with their ideas, experience and plans too. And suddenly one of them (Hillary) seems to be making sense and resonating with a few more folks than you do, in the party you have chosen to adhere to (Dem.). This is the US and its people speaking.
If you care about the country, you should see how to make you and your troops fit and support the direction that most folks are taking, in the vessel you joined (again Dem. party). Turning against would mean undermining people’s choice. I hope you want to be remembered as a valiant leader, who changed and supported the majority when the time came, and not a cultish idol of a few, who faded away.
If you care about the country, you should see how to make you and your troops fit and support the direction that most folks are taking, in the vessel you joined (again Dem. party). Turning against would mean undermining people’s choice. I hope you want to be remembered as a valiant leader, who changed and supported the majority when the time came, and not a cultish idol of a few, who faded away.
6
Bernie is an honest man and I'd think he'd make the point in helping the deems in Nov. I could see Hillary appointing Bernie to a cabinet appt. such as Sec. of Health and Human Services. This is a big competent in his campaign and he'd be perfect to over see health care in the US.
2
As a Progressive Democrat, I feel like a man without a Party. Ever since the Democratic Party became Republican Lite, I've held my nose at election time.
But this year I'm leaving the Reservation--I'd rather vote for a yellow dog than another Democratic Party insider. I'm ready to jam a crowbar in the works rather than elect the same old same old, and watch the Country continue to circle the drain.
As the article on the exponential increase in suicide rates, in today's issue of the Times, makes clear, we cannot afford to continue coasting while people's lives fall apart!
If the Party machine manages to succeed in denying Sanders the nomination, through a combination of dirty tricks (remember the Saturday night debates?) and a corporate media blackout and disinformation campaign, I'll either stay home, write Sanders in, vote for a third party candidate, or vote for Trump--anything to break the strangle hold of two ossified Parties that no longer have the People's interests at heart.
If we're going down, I'd rather go down with a bang than a whimper! Screw trickle UP economics!
But this year I'm leaving the Reservation--I'd rather vote for a yellow dog than another Democratic Party insider. I'm ready to jam a crowbar in the works rather than elect the same old same old, and watch the Country continue to circle the drain.
As the article on the exponential increase in suicide rates, in today's issue of the Times, makes clear, we cannot afford to continue coasting while people's lives fall apart!
If the Party machine manages to succeed in denying Sanders the nomination, through a combination of dirty tricks (remember the Saturday night debates?) and a corporate media blackout and disinformation campaign, I'll either stay home, write Sanders in, vote for a third party candidate, or vote for Trump--anything to break the strangle hold of two ossified Parties that no longer have the People's interests at heart.
If we're going down, I'd rather go down with a bang than a whimper! Screw trickle UP economics!
2
I cannot for the life of me understand why any Sanders supporter would not vote for Clinton or, worse, vote for Trump. As Sanders has said, either one of the Democrats would be 100 times better than any of the Republican candidates.
It makes no sense to not choose the candidate who is most closely aligned with Sanders. If Trump or Cruz are elected - or any other Republican - the damage they could do could be enormous.
Not voting for Clinton is insane.
It makes no sense to not choose the candidate who is most closely aligned with Sanders. If Trump or Cruz are elected - or any other Republican - the damage they could do could be enormous.
Not voting for Clinton is insane.
4
Well maybe you'll understand when the election is over.
There's another reason the reconciliation was relatively easy in 2008 - the grace and graciousness of Hillary Clinton, coupled with her absolute commitment to progressive values, so that she is willing to support whoever can carry them forward. Then, it was Obama. Now, it's her.
I haven't seen anything that convinces me that Senator Sanders is in the same mold. He has been running a nasty campaign for months, and vows to continue to do so, even when someone like Trump thanks him for adopting the R smear playlist and doing their work for them. He's only helping the few down-ticket candidates with whom he has struck a deal, and that only very lately. He is clearly willing to change his tune on delegates, superdelegates, the popular vote, etc, to whichever stance will benefit himself. In the past, he has shown himself more than willing to sacrifice progress on the altar of his supposed purity.
My observation is that his ego is simply too big for him to do anything but keep on taking money, giving his angry stump speech, and playing to his adoring, protective, uncritical fan base.
I hope I'm wrong.
I haven't seen anything that convinces me that Senator Sanders is in the same mold. He has been running a nasty campaign for months, and vows to continue to do so, even when someone like Trump thanks him for adopting the R smear playlist and doing their work for them. He's only helping the few down-ticket candidates with whom he has struck a deal, and that only very lately. He is clearly willing to change his tune on delegates, superdelegates, the popular vote, etc, to whichever stance will benefit himself. In the past, he has shown himself more than willing to sacrifice progress on the altar of his supposed purity.
My observation is that his ego is simply too big for him to do anything but keep on taking money, giving his angry stump speech, and playing to his adoring, protective, uncritical fan base.
I hope I'm wrong.
7
How presumptuous of Queen Hillary and King Donald to either implicitly or explicitly urge Sanders, Cruz, and Kasich to exit the race! By so doing, the frontrunners are telling those who do not support them that their opinions do not count, that they should not freely cast their votes for the opposition candidates. How hypocritical! How insulting to the rest of us!
1
I left the Democratic party and became an Independent because of Hillary and her campaign. Hillary says she will work hard to win the votes of the Bernie supporters. Really? Starting when? I'm certainly not moving to the right to meet her or her establishment supporters.
4
Mrs. Clinton and her unstoppable machine is center-right status quo soul-draining experience that neither wants to inspire or conform to a progressive stance. She and her husband will always remain an untouchable, exclusive camp that is more ambitious than idealistic. To Mrs, Clinton, I saw congrats on your inevitability. To all her supporters and "firewall", I say "you get what you pay for".
3
There is no one more arrogant than Hillary Clinton. There is no one more disdainful of the law than Hillary Clinton. There is no one more insulated from the average person than Hillary Clinton. There is no one less trustworthy than Hillary Clinton. And, there is no one more conditioned to support the establishment and business as usual than Hillary Clinton. I was once fooled by Hillary's husband, there is no way I would ever support her. She epitomizes all that is wrong with our political system
4
"Mrs. Clinton posted a double-digit victory over Mr. Sanders in New York on Tuesday"
In reality the NY primary was a serious embarrassment for Hillary. Look at the final election map:
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york
NY is Hillary's "home" state, politically. She was always expected to win. And yet the media are treating this as some sort of turning point.
The fact that Bernie won every county outside the major metropolitan areas, shows you just how weak Hillary is.
The media keeps telling me that Sanders' plans are unrealistic, and that he won't be able to get anything done in this congress.
Well, I don't know about that. But I do know that Sanders will not compromise with Republicans on healthcare, social security, financial regulation, etc. etc. Hillary will, or at least she's more likely to.
That's why I'm voting for Sanders.
In reality the NY primary was a serious embarrassment for Hillary. Look at the final election map:
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york
NY is Hillary's "home" state, politically. She was always expected to win. And yet the media are treating this as some sort of turning point.
The fact that Bernie won every county outside the major metropolitan areas, shows you just how weak Hillary is.
The media keeps telling me that Sanders' plans are unrealistic, and that he won't be able to get anything done in this congress.
Well, I don't know about that. But I do know that Sanders will not compromise with Republicans on healthcare, social security, financial regulation, etc. etc. Hillary will, or at least she's more likely to.
That's why I'm voting for Sanders.
5
Hillary Clinton is “stealing” the Democratic Party nomination from Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders said on Tuesday night following the vote: “Almost 30% of the eligible voters, some 3 million New Yorkers were unable to vote today because they had registered as Independents, not Democrats or Republicans, and that makes no sense to me at all. People should have the right to participate in a primary and vote for their candidate for President of the United States.”
New York City Comptroller, Scott Stringer, wrote recently in “Barriers to the Ballot: Voting Reform in New York City” (April, 2016):
“[O]ur analysis shows that the Empire State’s voting rules tend to impose barriers to exercising the franchise. In fact, New York is one of only a handful of states to lack alternative poll access, expedited registration, and increased primary access (open primaries, extended deadline for party registration).”
In California, citizens may register to vote or update her or his political party association by May 23 for the primary set for June 7. This is a difference of 15 days. An Independent voter can even re-register as No Party Preference to be able to vote for Bernie. New York’s deadline for switching party registration was Oct. 9, 2015, or 193 days before the primary.
In fairness, the Democratic Primary in New York should be re-run with the 3 million New Yorkers who were unable to vote last Tuesday added to the state's rolls.
I will be a Bernie Sanders supporter to the very end!
Bernie Sanders said on Tuesday night following the vote: “Almost 30% of the eligible voters, some 3 million New Yorkers were unable to vote today because they had registered as Independents, not Democrats or Republicans, and that makes no sense to me at all. People should have the right to participate in a primary and vote for their candidate for President of the United States.”
New York City Comptroller, Scott Stringer, wrote recently in “Barriers to the Ballot: Voting Reform in New York City” (April, 2016):
“[O]ur analysis shows that the Empire State’s voting rules tend to impose barriers to exercising the franchise. In fact, New York is one of only a handful of states to lack alternative poll access, expedited registration, and increased primary access (open primaries, extended deadline for party registration).”
In California, citizens may register to vote or update her or his political party association by May 23 for the primary set for June 7. This is a difference of 15 days. An Independent voter can even re-register as No Party Preference to be able to vote for Bernie. New York’s deadline for switching party registration was Oct. 9, 2015, or 193 days before the primary.
In fairness, the Democratic Primary in New York should be re-run with the 3 million New Yorkers who were unable to vote last Tuesday added to the state's rolls.
I will be a Bernie Sanders supporter to the very end!
5
The front-runner ALWAYS demands "unity" – which means "All of my opponents should drop out so I can start tacking toward the middle and pick up some of those swing votes."
That was Obama in 2008, and his backers were indignant because Hillary ignored their plea to withdraw. She stayed in for several months after it was clear Obama had whupped her.
The tables have turned. Now it's Hillary telling Bernie it's time to "unify." I can just imagine Obama chuckling at the irony.
That was Obama in 2008, and his backers were indignant because Hillary ignored their plea to withdraw. She stayed in for several months after it was clear Obama had whupped her.
The tables have turned. Now it's Hillary telling Bernie it's time to "unify." I can just imagine Obama chuckling at the irony.
2
@MyThreeCents
San Francisco
The contest was much narrower. At the end of it Obama only beat Clinton by about 50 delegates. Right now Clinton is ahead by about 250 pledged delegates, a total likely to grow next Tuesday, and if you include the Supers it's around 740 delegates. There isn't the slightest chance Sanders is going to overtake her. And once Obama had been nominated Clinton promptly fell in behind him and he in due course selected her as SoS. Contrast this amity and maturity with the rancor and denial of reality that permeates the Sanders campaign..
San Francisco
The contest was much narrower. At the end of it Obama only beat Clinton by about 50 delegates. Right now Clinton is ahead by about 250 pledged delegates, a total likely to grow next Tuesday, and if you include the Supers it's around 740 delegates. There isn't the slightest chance Sanders is going to overtake her. And once Obama had been nominated Clinton promptly fell in behind him and he in due course selected her as SoS. Contrast this amity and maturity with the rancor and denial of reality that permeates the Sanders campaign..
6
Sanders supporters are not stupid.
Scalia-dead
Kennedy-79
Ginsberg-83
Breyer-77
All will likely be replaced by the next administration.
Roberts, Alito, and Thomas have decades left on the bench.
If the new appointees are as young as Roberts was when confirmed, these first-time voters, now around 20, will quite possibly be older than Prince when the next opportunity to shuffle the deck comes around.
Scalia-dead
Kennedy-79
Ginsberg-83
Breyer-77
All will likely be replaced by the next administration.
Roberts, Alito, and Thomas have decades left on the bench.
If the new appointees are as young as Roberts was when confirmed, these first-time voters, now around 20, will quite possibly be older than Prince when the next opportunity to shuffle the deck comes around.
5
You're not stupid, just naive, and impressionable and drowning in Student Loan Debt. You will follow this Pied Piper down his version of the Yellow Brick Road because you believe you must. What you haven't figured out yet, but you will, is that he is bilking you out of all those $30 campaign donations you keep rushing to make because he knows you're getting a rush every time you send him Money. He's a predator. He's using you to allow him to deny using corporate money.
He's been doing things like this his entire political career. He went after the gun owners in Vermont or he'd never had gotten elected even once. Practically half that state are toting guns. He voted against the Brady Bill just to be able to toss them a bone. Then came the worst:
Mother Jones January, 2016
"How Bernie Sanders Helped Derail a Promising legal Fight Against Gun Violence."
And he's never looked back. To this day, the NRA, the Gun Lobby, and Gun Manufacturers thanks him publicly for his support on these issues, 'waiting periods and voting against Legislation to allow Law Suits against Gun Manufacturers when someone is killed by a firearm.' Gun Manufacturers are the only business in the United States who cannot be sued for not taking responsibility when someone is adversely affected by the use of their product. Thanks Bernie Sanders, for putting your getting elected over protecting the Common Good.!
.e's got you believing are the answer to all your troubles.
He's been doing things like this his entire political career. He went after the gun owners in Vermont or he'd never had gotten elected even once. Practically half that state are toting guns. He voted against the Brady Bill just to be able to toss them a bone. Then came the worst:
Mother Jones January, 2016
"How Bernie Sanders Helped Derail a Promising legal Fight Against Gun Violence."
And he's never looked back. To this day, the NRA, the Gun Lobby, and Gun Manufacturers thanks him publicly for his support on these issues, 'waiting periods and voting against Legislation to allow Law Suits against Gun Manufacturers when someone is killed by a firearm.' Gun Manufacturers are the only business in the United States who cannot be sued for not taking responsibility when someone is adversely affected by the use of their product. Thanks Bernie Sanders, for putting your getting elected over protecting the Common Good.!
.e's got you believing are the answer to all your troubles.
1
So I guess the guys wanting to spike drinking water with LSD and seduce wives and daughters would be the bad guys here? Real objective reporting here.... Funny, no mention of Daley's baton wielding cops. I was a kid in Chicago then. Many reasonable people were inclined to Dump the Hump.
As far as getting Bernie supporters to "fall in line", as Hillary put it, it ain't gonna happen. Though Hillary did this, Bernie is not going to use his constituency and his (nonexistent) Washington connections to get himself a choice cabinet position, like she (and Bill) clearly did with Obama.
As far as getting Bernie supporters to "fall in line", as Hillary put it, it ain't gonna happen. Though Hillary did this, Bernie is not going to use his constituency and his (nonexistent) Washington connections to get himself a choice cabinet position, like she (and Bill) clearly did with Obama.
5
Hillary Clinton is “stealing” the Democratic Party nomination from Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders said on Tuesday night following the vote: “Almost 30% of the eligible voters, some 3 million New Yorkers were unable to vote today because they had registered as Independents, not Democrats or Republicans, and that makes no sense to me at all. People should have the right to participate in a primary and vote for their candidate for President of the United States.”
New York City Comptroller, Scott Stringer, wrote recently in “Barriers to the Ballot: Voting Reform in New York City” (April, 2016):
“[O]ur analysis shows that the Empire State’s voting rule tend to impose barriers to exercising the franchise. In fact, New York is one of only a handful of states to lack alternative poll access, expedited registration, and increased primary access (open primaries, extended deadline for party registration).”
In California, citizens may register to vote or update her or his political party association by May 23 for the primary set for June 7. This is a difference of 15 days. An Independent voter can even re-register as No Party Preference to be able to vote for Bernie. New York’s deadline for switching party registration was Oct. 9, 2015, or 193 days before the primary.
In fairness, I think the Democratic Primary in New York should be re-run with the 3 million New Yorkers who were unable to vote last today added to the state's rolls.
I will be a Sanders supporter to the very end!
Bernie Sanders said on Tuesday night following the vote: “Almost 30% of the eligible voters, some 3 million New Yorkers were unable to vote today because they had registered as Independents, not Democrats or Republicans, and that makes no sense to me at all. People should have the right to participate in a primary and vote for their candidate for President of the United States.”
New York City Comptroller, Scott Stringer, wrote recently in “Barriers to the Ballot: Voting Reform in New York City” (April, 2016):
“[O]ur analysis shows that the Empire State’s voting rule tend to impose barriers to exercising the franchise. In fact, New York is one of only a handful of states to lack alternative poll access, expedited registration, and increased primary access (open primaries, extended deadline for party registration).”
In California, citizens may register to vote or update her or his political party association by May 23 for the primary set for June 7. This is a difference of 15 days. An Independent voter can even re-register as No Party Preference to be able to vote for Bernie. New York’s deadline for switching party registration was Oct. 9, 2015, or 193 days before the primary.
In fairness, I think the Democratic Primary in New York should be re-run with the 3 million New Yorkers who were unable to vote last today added to the state's rolls.
I will be a Sanders supporter to the very end!
7
Agreed. The Democratic party is corrupt to the core right now. Requiring people to declare a part to vote in the primary is an outrageous, anti-democratic policy and provides a very good reason for people to reject the party that operates this way.
They need to clean up their party or they will probably lose.
They need to clean up their party or they will probably lose.
3
On the one hand, we have a candidate who's campaign is principally being supported by moneyed interests.
On the other hand, we have a candidate who's campaign is principally being supported by people who want an end to the rule of moneyed interests.
The only Sanders supporters who will be voting for HRC in November are those who are more afraid of the alternative. We don't need an 1,800 word essay to tell us that.
On the other hand, we have a candidate who's campaign is principally being supported by people who want an end to the rule of moneyed interests.
The only Sanders supporters who will be voting for HRC in November are those who are more afraid of the alternative. We don't need an 1,800 word essay to tell us that.
3
The obvious solution is for Hillary to choose Bern as her running mate. He's not qualified for the office of Veep, but that's a minor concern.
I always vote for centrist Democrats when I have to. Fortunately I live in California, so I don't have to. To be clear, I don't and won't donate money nor time for centrist politicians like the Clintons or Obama. The Democratic Party machine has done everything they could to stop Bernie and assist Hillary. The price they pay is the loss of support for the party nominee. Look at 1972 where because of democratic reforms in the Democratic Party nominating rules, McGovern won the nomination and was neglected by the Democratic Party machine, or worse. George Meany, head of the AFL-CIO, cut a deal with Nixon!
The party apparatus maintains its allegiance to Wall Street and big business and that is why it will run another Clinton for president.
The party apparatus maintains its allegiance to Wall Street and big business and that is why it will run another Clinton for president.
2
Dear Bernie Supporters:
Enjoy 8 years of President Trump!!!
Enjoy 8 years of President Trump!!!
2
Don't blame Sanders supporters for the decision to run HRC, a person who is deeply flawed and barely distinguishable from her friend Donald.
4
Look at the Bernie supporters. I mean, seriously consider who means to cast a Sanders vote. Whatever happens at the convention, like Bernie perchance loses to Hillary, could a Sanders guy ever switch to anyone whose mother's milk is pure, unadulterated, unforgiving capitalism? Can anyone seriously believe those guys will ever put their X in the befuddled bumbler's box?
"Oh gee," the shattered and disheartened weep into their hankies, muttering to themselves, "I guess I'm a #Trumpista after all."
Come on, it ain't going to happen. Even if you're right. Even if they are too staunchly self-righteous to bend their knees to their default queen. Even if a company owned by Trump arrives to repair their sabotaged air-conditioning. The greens, the socialists, the nongovernmentalists, the vegetarians -- even the Trotskyites -- will be a more acceptable line on the ballot for the Bernie losers than could it ever be the space that Donald Trump carved out for himself.
"Oh gee," the shattered and disheartened weep into their hankies, muttering to themselves, "I guess I'm a #Trumpista after all."
Come on, it ain't going to happen. Even if you're right. Even if they are too staunchly self-righteous to bend their knees to their default queen. Even if a company owned by Trump arrives to repair their sabotaged air-conditioning. The greens, the socialists, the nongovernmentalists, the vegetarians -- even the Trotskyites -- will be a more acceptable line on the ballot for the Bernie losers than could it ever be the space that Donald Trump carved out for himself.
1
We Democrats seem to have the singularly troublesome problem of cutting off our nose to spite our face.
No wonder Republicans have won so many presidencies in the last fifty years - and why the country continues to lean too far to the right.
No wonder Republicans have won so many presidencies in the last fifty years - and why the country continues to lean too far to the right.
4
After the Republicans suffered one of the worst defeats in U.S. history in 1964, they didn't say we have to move more to the center. Instead they went more to the right.
When the Democrats suffered less of a defeat in 1972 they said we have to move more to the right.
Perhaps if the Democrats had stayed true to their history of progressive causes they would have done better.
When the Democrats suffered less of a defeat in 1972 they said we have to move more to the right.
Perhaps if the Democrats had stayed true to their history of progressive causes they would have done better.
4
Bernie Sanders notwithstanding, Hillary Clinton's ties to Wall Street are at odds with the principle that government should be transparent and accountable to the people -- the "demos" that defines what it means to be a small-d "democrat." Unfortunately, the Big-D Democrats play to a base of corporate donors and single-issue groups. Their message is that There Is No Alternative to a Neoliberal framework that embraces cosmopolitan "cultural" values that appeal to the highly educated and highly paid. The rage against Sanders' supporters has been a bit breath-taking lately. The message seems to be that small-d democrats have no place in the Democratic Party. That's not where Hillary Clinton should be positioning herself seven months out from a general election that will not be decided in New York City.
3
Let's be clear here. This is not a fractured Party. Bernie Sanders is not a long standing member of the Democratic Party and may not be any kind of a member of the Democratic Party. Many of his supporters are also not members of the Democratic Party, though they may vote for Democrats when it suits them. And this nomination is not going down to the wire. For those who don't think it is resolved already, it will certainly be resolved after next Tuesday. The fractured Party is the GOP. And the chances of Humpty Dumpty putting it back together again before November are slim and none.
4
I'm a Bernie supporter, but if the choice is Trump versus Clinton, I'll take Trump. While Trump might easily blunder the U.S. into combat, Clinton has shown she doesn't need any justification at all to launch splendid little wars. Just consider her Senate vote for a war of aggression against Iraq or her unbridled advocacy for "regime change" in Libya while secretary of state. In neither case did she consider what would come next after the U.S. inevitably won the first battles. If that sort of thinking makes Hillary the smartest person in the room, then let's give stupidity a chance.
6
Would you have blamed her for the blood bath that would have occurred in Benghazi if all of our European allies as well as the US and several gulf states had not intervened to topple Khadaffi?, Do you also criticize the President the Secretary of Defense and the NATO high command for not putting troops on the ground on Libya, or is this another last ditch Bernie bash at Clinton? If you would put the nation at peril with Trump, you have a strange view of the world.
They should be worried.
The problem, honestly, is with the front runner right now, Hillary.
She's not a good candidate; she's flawed, and she's eminently assailable, and not only by the Right - she is also assailable on the Left, as her opponent, Sanders, has shown time and time again.
Sanders, by comparison, is pristine, and an eminently MORAL candidate - perhaps THE most moral of all the candidates running in either party. Efforts, including some tacitly promoted by this paper, to color Sanders aren't really on point. It is HILLARY who is by far the more problematic candidate, not just for the dems, but for the country as well.
I can certainly tell you that I would vote for anyone - including Bozo the Clown - were he the democratic party nominee, because to me, the one issue that overrides any single other consideration is securing the Supreme Court with at least a bunch of moderate judges - which you won't see if a Republican gets into the presidency - if that happens, that Court will be lost to the country for perhaps an entire generation - and we have all seen what has happened when right wing idealogues are allowed to decide what is constitutional, and what is not.
But I won't support Hillary in any single other way, than to cast my ballot for her while firmly holding my nose. She's not a good candidate - she's not good for the country.
Let her get her money and her volunteers from Clooney, Goldman, etc. She certainly won't get anything else from me.
The problem, honestly, is with the front runner right now, Hillary.
She's not a good candidate; she's flawed, and she's eminently assailable, and not only by the Right - she is also assailable on the Left, as her opponent, Sanders, has shown time and time again.
Sanders, by comparison, is pristine, and an eminently MORAL candidate - perhaps THE most moral of all the candidates running in either party. Efforts, including some tacitly promoted by this paper, to color Sanders aren't really on point. It is HILLARY who is by far the more problematic candidate, not just for the dems, but for the country as well.
I can certainly tell you that I would vote for anyone - including Bozo the Clown - were he the democratic party nominee, because to me, the one issue that overrides any single other consideration is securing the Supreme Court with at least a bunch of moderate judges - which you won't see if a Republican gets into the presidency - if that happens, that Court will be lost to the country for perhaps an entire generation - and we have all seen what has happened when right wing idealogues are allowed to decide what is constitutional, and what is not.
But I won't support Hillary in any single other way, than to cast my ballot for her while firmly holding my nose. She's not a good candidate - she's not good for the country.
Let her get her money and her volunteers from Clooney, Goldman, etc. She certainly won't get anything else from me.
1
Why do Sanders' supporters so easily forget that he and Hillary agree on 95% of the issues and that he said he would vote for her himself if she got the nomination ? Have some perspective, please, for the sake of the next 4 years.
4
The results are in. The Democratic Party is officially divided.
The direct result of a candidate who not only isn't a registered Democrat, but who doesn't hesitate to malign the DNC and it's voters as: "elite"/"evil" "establishment" or "corporate" -- the list is endless, ruthless, and more often than not, untrue because there are also millions of everyday, hard-working Americans who are not part of the dreaded 1% in the Democratic Party.
If Sanders' message is to highlight socioeconomic inequality in this country. He has done so. But he has also set off a raging class war, while relentlessly impugning the other Party candidate with remarks of a most personal nature; and this tendency has become all too commonplace in the comments posted by his supporters.
While this negative trend might garner him praise within the ranks of his dedicated followers, it has also detracted from his original message, and has disenfranchised many who find it unnecessary.
And unless Hillary Clinton, "lying"/"unlikable"/"monster" that she is being called, is made of Asbestos -- she is also "Feeling the Bern".
For love of country, I cannot and will not vote for whatever Republican is chosen as the Presidential nominee.
At the same time I fear what the Democratic Party has become.
The direct result of a candidate who not only isn't a registered Democrat, but who doesn't hesitate to malign the DNC and it's voters as: "elite"/"evil" "establishment" or "corporate" -- the list is endless, ruthless, and more often than not, untrue because there are also millions of everyday, hard-working Americans who are not part of the dreaded 1% in the Democratic Party.
If Sanders' message is to highlight socioeconomic inequality in this country. He has done so. But he has also set off a raging class war, while relentlessly impugning the other Party candidate with remarks of a most personal nature; and this tendency has become all too commonplace in the comments posted by his supporters.
While this negative trend might garner him praise within the ranks of his dedicated followers, it has also detracted from his original message, and has disenfranchised many who find it unnecessary.
And unless Hillary Clinton, "lying"/"unlikable"/"monster" that she is being called, is made of Asbestos -- she is also "Feeling the Bern".
For love of country, I cannot and will not vote for whatever Republican is chosen as the Presidential nominee.
At the same time I fear what the Democratic Party has become.
2
If politics were a trial allegations not proven beyond a reasonable doubt must be ignored. But voters decide based on the record and their judgment. The record shows that Clinton triangulates and panders. It's not realistic to think a million plus in speaking fees went to a candidate planning campaign finance reform and a better deal for workers. Clinton is trusted by Big Money based on her record. If you believe money in politics influences people strongly via propaganda Clinton is bad news. If you conclude from her record that she's a hawk that is very troubling because Iraq was an even bigger disaster than the Bush tax cuts. Is Clinton really the least evil?
It took the Iraq disaster and an economic meltdown to return the House and Senate to Democrats - who promptly lost the House, then the Senate. The DNC is fatally ineffective at countering GOP ideology. Democrats let the GOP frame the issues and cement themselves into power at the state level. The DNC abandoned it's traditional constituency of workers and threw unions under the bus. Sanders' left wing movement cannot be incorporated into neoliberal economic policy, which is anti labor and anti tax.
Be "grown up" and give up? Or play a long game: give up on the Democratic party. "Clintonism" will lead to disaster, making real change possible. The NY Times is pushing me to the long view in spite of the awful short term suffereing.
It took the Iraq disaster and an economic meltdown to return the House and Senate to Democrats - who promptly lost the House, then the Senate. The DNC is fatally ineffective at countering GOP ideology. Democrats let the GOP frame the issues and cement themselves into power at the state level. The DNC abandoned it's traditional constituency of workers and threw unions under the bus. Sanders' left wing movement cannot be incorporated into neoliberal economic policy, which is anti labor and anti tax.
Be "grown up" and give up? Or play a long game: give up on the Democratic party. "Clintonism" will lead to disaster, making real change possible. The NY Times is pushing me to the long view in spite of the awful short term suffereing.
3
Why would a progressive Sanders supporter cross party lines and vote for Hillary Clinton?
4
If Bernie's people were to support Clinton, then where would the impetus be for the DNC to change its evil ways? At least a Republican victory would possibly send a wake up call to Wasserman-Schultz!
5
As an independent that wants change, I don't care if it's a Democrat that delivers it or not. I have not felt embraced by HC. I do not feel that she is feeling the Bern and doesn't seem to care what 40 plus percent of her potential voters want. Bernie's movement is so grand, so important to the world and to the US that here, we talk about it in biblical terms. He is either heralding a second coming or is it. Many missed it the first time and HC and her supporters are on the wrong side of history this time. Besides, If she doesn't release her wall street speeches, many of us independents will just vote for Trump; at that point I would consider him more trustworthy. And he at least says he wants change. How about a Sanders Trump independent ticket folks!
3
Apples and Oranges.
In 1968 the issue was McCarthy's opposition to and Humphrey's support for the Vietnam war.
I don't think we'll see demonstrators backing either candidate threatening to "spike Chicago’s water system with L.S.D. and enlist a squad of virile men to seduce the wives and daughters of delegates" over the difference between a $12.50 and a $15.00 minimum wage.
In 1968 the issue was McCarthy's opposition to and Humphrey's support for the Vietnam war.
I don't think we'll see demonstrators backing either candidate threatening to "spike Chicago’s water system with L.S.D. and enlist a squad of virile men to seduce the wives and daughters of delegates" over the difference between a $12.50 and a $15.00 minimum wage.
3
Voting for Hillary is equivalent to voting for the Republican candidate who ever it turns out to be.
2
"I don't belong to any organized political party. I am a Democrat." Will Rogers
My first vote for a presidential candidate was in the 1960 election. I will be voting True Blue no matter who.
My first vote for a presidential candidate was in the 1960 election. I will be voting True Blue no matter who.
5
If Hilary Clinton gets the nomination, I pledge to vote Trump.
Do the Democrat delegates not realize that an entire generation has been robbed of the American Dream? BS is the only candidate that acknowledges this. Trump is called the Nuclear Option and we support him because we have nothing to lose.
Do the Democrat delegates not realize that an entire generation has been robbed of the American Dream? BS is the only candidate that acknowledges this. Trump is called the Nuclear Option and we support him because we have nothing to lose.
4
Robin's distress, and those of other commenters, which is real, shows why Hillary Clinton should not make too much of an effort to appease a fraction of the Sanders voters. They will vote for Trump or stay at home.
Their distress reflects the fact that wages have remained stagnant for the past 30 years: evidence that American progress has stalled and an ever-increasing middle class was just a happy accident and not a permanent fact in American history.
The problem of getting the middle class to grow again is a challenging one, but I doubt that Bernie Sanders has the solution. It requires a multi-pronged effort to improve education at every level, to develop apprentice programs with industry, to raise middle class taxes somewhat, to renegotiate trade arrangement which are both conducive to trade but also favor workers with new job opportunities and retraining. This will not happen in one or even two presidential terms.
Hillary Clinton, with her deep knowledge and interest in policy and her experience and knowledge of how legislation is crafted would seem to be just the right person to lead the effort
Their distress reflects the fact that wages have remained stagnant for the past 30 years: evidence that American progress has stalled and an ever-increasing middle class was just a happy accident and not a permanent fact in American history.
The problem of getting the middle class to grow again is a challenging one, but I doubt that Bernie Sanders has the solution. It requires a multi-pronged effort to improve education at every level, to develop apprentice programs with industry, to raise middle class taxes somewhat, to renegotiate trade arrangement which are both conducive to trade but also favor workers with new job opportunities and retraining. This will not happen in one or even two presidential terms.
Hillary Clinton, with her deep knowledge and interest in policy and her experience and knowledge of how legislation is crafted would seem to be just the right person to lead the effort
1
The distortions in this article start in the very first paragraph, where Nagourney depicts leftist anti-war demonstrators as both belligerent and foolish. He does not understand that the central crime of the 1968 Democratic convention was a crime committed by the right. The story is simple: In the Democratic primaries, about 90 of the votes cast were for either Bobby Kennedy or Eugene Mc Carthy, both of whom opposed the war in Vietnam. However, the nomination of the party went to Hubert Humphrey who supported the Vietnam war. Very simply, the party apparatus was controlled by President Johnson, the architect and manager of our bloody debacle in South East Asia; he called the shots and he summarily dismissed the results of the primaries like bulldozers running over the mud huts of peasants in Vietnam. If the Left committed illegal or improper acts in Chicago, they were not only thoroughly permissible; there should have been more hell-raising and rebellion.
Nagourney also uses his skill in journalistic obfuscation to suggest that neither Sanders nor his supporters are loyal to the Democratic Party. He omits the fact that Sanders has caucused with the Democrats throughout his years in Congress and that Sanders has raised money for Democratic candidates. Nagourney, tellingly, ignores the dual loyalties of so many of Sanders' fellow Democrats, such as Clintonite neo liberals who are loyal to GOP principles.
Feel the Bern
Nagourney also uses his skill in journalistic obfuscation to suggest that neither Sanders nor his supporters are loyal to the Democratic Party. He omits the fact that Sanders has caucused with the Democrats throughout his years in Congress and that Sanders has raised money for Democratic candidates. Nagourney, tellingly, ignores the dual loyalties of so many of Sanders' fellow Democrats, such as Clintonite neo liberals who are loyal to GOP principles.
Feel the Bern
3
Mr. Gottfried's comments are so vivid that they brought me back to the television I set I was watching when the cops were beating the demonstrators outside of the Conrad Hilton hotel in the summer of 1968. Great reporting. However, with the passage of 48 years, we should have a clearer perspective on those unhappy days. Robert Kennedy was murdered, and Eugene McCarthy was not a conventional politician. He said something like politics is like football. You have to be smart enough to understand the game but dumb enough to think it's important.
At any rate, Hubert Humphrey was talented and a master legislator. But he wasn't charismatic. My father was so angry that in the end he voted for Dick Gregory. I am sure others did the same: What did we get? Richard Nixon.
At any rate, Hubert Humphrey was talented and a master legislator. But he wasn't charismatic. My father was so angry that in the end he voted for Dick Gregory. I am sure others did the same: What did we get? Richard Nixon.
Clinton supporter asks Sanders supporter why person does not support Clinton.
Person tells them.
Clinton supporter says, "No, that's not it."
Person tells them.
Clinton supporter says, "No, that's not it."
8
As a Democrat, I believe that it is just as important to elect a Democratic House and Senate as well as a Democratic President. Hillary Clinton can make significant gestures to the Sanders voters, by offering the VP to a democratic populist such as Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Howard Dean, Jennifer Granholm or Bill de Blasio. She could also propose detailed policies to make Obamacare less expensive and more affordable to those who cannot afford the premia. She might even propose raising middle-class taxes to some extent and to renegotiating our trade agreements to favor working and middle-class Americans. However, she cannot move too far to the left. She will never conciliate a fraction of Sanders voters, some of whom may vote for Donald Trump. Offsetting that is the prospect that some mainstream Republicans who are comfortable with her views on continuing our engagement with the world, may prefer to vote for her.
1
It 's sentiments expressed in this article that I’m creating a website Why this Democrat Will Never Vote for Hillary will be published this week. (www.no2hillary.com). The admittedly quixotic hope is to gather enough votes to help influence Super Delegates to support Bernie.
For one thing, the evidence seems to give him a greater chance of winning. ; Polls show him doing better than Hillary against the possible Republican candidates. The disparity between his support from Democrats and the populace can be seen in the exit polls of the open Michigan Primary. Independents greatly prefer him They're the most important constituency in a ny Presidential election. Having no allegiance to either party, they're the only votes up for grabs.
Bernie's populism accords with the mood of the times. Republicans who like Trump's policies but not him, or those angry if his candidacy is denied, would be drawn to Bernie. He won't get all his policies passed, but at least he'll be going in the right direction.
Hillary runs a terrible campaign, invariably starting with huge superiority in money, organization, name recognition, and Party support, then steadily losing ground.Her judgment's abysmal. She's reversed opinion on most policies she advocated. She had none of the diplomatic breakthoughs of most Secreataries of state.Experience was no help her in Libya. Her biggest legislative issue was a failure. Cconstant investigations, concerns about money--she'd be a very vulnerable candidate.
For one thing, the evidence seems to give him a greater chance of winning. ; Polls show him doing better than Hillary against the possible Republican candidates. The disparity between his support from Democrats and the populace can be seen in the exit polls of the open Michigan Primary. Independents greatly prefer him They're the most important constituency in a ny Presidential election. Having no allegiance to either party, they're the only votes up for grabs.
Bernie's populism accords with the mood of the times. Republicans who like Trump's policies but not him, or those angry if his candidacy is denied, would be drawn to Bernie. He won't get all his policies passed, but at least he'll be going in the right direction.
Hillary runs a terrible campaign, invariably starting with huge superiority in money, organization, name recognition, and Party support, then steadily losing ground.Her judgment's abysmal. She's reversed opinion on most policies she advocated. She had none of the diplomatic breakthoughs of most Secreataries of state.Experience was no help her in Libya. Her biggest legislative issue was a failure. Cconstant investigations, concerns about money--she'd be a very vulnerable candidate.
5
I caucused for over 9 1/2 hrs on Sunday here in Seattle. It was very eye opening. The disrespect/distrust from both sides was glaring. Clinton's supporters were rude amd condescending, while Sander's supporters were disrespectful and extremely frustrated. I sat amoung 20 women of all background and ages, all Sander's supporters and every single one them will not vote for Clinton. They all said they will write Sander's name in when November comes. It doesn't matter to them if the Supreme Court goes since Clinton is going to appoint more judges who will side with Big Businesses, the fossil fuel industry and rule Corps can by elections. Many feel that Sander's is the last hope to keep the worst predictions of climate change from coming true, Hilary will frack the country. The repulsion from Clinton is foundational, for many it goes against their very core issues.
She and her supporters have a very long road to get Sander's voters and it just doesn't seem like they want to drive it. Clinton and her supporters have misstepped to such a degree I worry that the Dems have just lost a generation of voters.
She and her supporters have a very long road to get Sander's voters and it just doesn't seem like they want to drive it. Clinton and her supporters have misstepped to such a degree I worry that the Dems have just lost a generation of voters.
9
One real problem not mentioned is that the masters of triangulation feel that once they have people over a barrel they have it made. Nickolas Kristoff once wrote about the execution of Ricky Ray Rector : That was painful for many liberals, who cringed when Clinton interrupted campaigning in the 1992 primary to burnish his law-and-order credentials by overseeing the execution of a mentally impaired murderer. But it was, on balance, less painful than losing again.
Well clearly not everyone is so compliant this time around. How this plays out is anyone's guess. But a Clinton lurch to the right in the general election might have far greater consequences than she had bargained for.
Well clearly not everyone is so compliant this time around. How this plays out is anyone's guess. But a Clinton lurch to the right in the general election might have far greater consequences than she had bargained for.
8
Some readers say they'll vote for the Green Party candidate; others say Bernie should run as an independent.
All bad ideas for Democrats.
If Nader hadn't been on the Florida ballot (taking votes away from Gore), Gore might have been President. While I've always thought of Al Gore as a lightweight, the key fact remains that even a little vote-splitting (Nader didn't get many votes) was enough for Bush to beat him in Florida – and Florida, as we learned, was the whole ball game that year.
If you're a Democratic voter, you need to keep in mind that a vote for the Green Party, or a vote for Bernie running as an independent, amounts to a vote for the Republican candidate. 100% of a state's electoral votes go to whichever candidate gets the most votes in that state, even if that's less than 50%. In 1992, Bill Clinton got 370 electoral votes (out of 538) with only 43% of the popular vote.
The Electoral College may be terribly unfair (though one does wonder what high school debating teams would have left to talk about if they ever did away with it). Like it or not, though, the Electoral College system is in place, and voting for the Green Party, or for Bernie as an independent, but would be very unwise unless you want the Republicans to win.
All bad ideas for Democrats.
If Nader hadn't been on the Florida ballot (taking votes away from Gore), Gore might have been President. While I've always thought of Al Gore as a lightweight, the key fact remains that even a little vote-splitting (Nader didn't get many votes) was enough for Bush to beat him in Florida – and Florida, as we learned, was the whole ball game that year.
If you're a Democratic voter, you need to keep in mind that a vote for the Green Party, or a vote for Bernie running as an independent, amounts to a vote for the Republican candidate. 100% of a state's electoral votes go to whichever candidate gets the most votes in that state, even if that's less than 50%. In 1992, Bill Clinton got 370 electoral votes (out of 538) with only 43% of the popular vote.
The Electoral College may be terribly unfair (though one does wonder what high school debating teams would have left to talk about if they ever did away with it). Like it or not, though, the Electoral College system is in place, and voting for the Green Party, or for Bernie as an independent, but would be very unwise unless you want the Republicans to win.
1
To help in the general election, the Democratic party needs to rethink the wisdom of closed primaries in those states that have them. The goal of the primary process is to choose the best candidate for the general election, but due to closed primaries, they don't know who the best candidate truly is and may end up electing the weaker of the two. Preventing independents from voting might also make them less likely to vote in the general election, especially if their preferred candidate did not win the nomination.
4
What this discussion misses entirely - many of us who voted for Sanders are no longer in "the party" that is to be unified. I left the Democrats, or rather, they left me with their rightward lurch. This year there happens to be a candidate whom I support, and because of the truly ridiculous system we have, where two parties, each of which represents less than 30% of the electorate, picks the candidates, I'm playing along right now.
But I'm not a Democrat, and I feel no compulsion to be "unified" into some party of which I'm not a part. I don't support Clinton. She wasn't my candidate in 2008, and isn't now, either. Suggesting that the ~46% of us who are Independents will somehow fall in line after the primaries, for either party - no. If those parties represented us, we'd be in them already. The fact that we're not speaks volumes. The parties best listen.
But I'm not a Democrat, and I feel no compulsion to be "unified" into some party of which I'm not a part. I don't support Clinton. She wasn't my candidate in 2008, and isn't now, either. Suggesting that the ~46% of us who are Independents will somehow fall in line after the primaries, for either party - no. If those parties represented us, we'd be in them already. The fact that we're not speaks volumes. The parties best listen.
11
It is as if we are all looking at the same thing through two different prisms. Trump's success appears to be almost exclusively due to his not-part-of-the-establishment perch. Despite his outrageous conduct, he has defied every prediction. This bespeaks an enormous sea change in voter frustration. Those who look at this situation through the prism of the Democrat establishment see only their "inevitable" candidate, qualified and experienced, and can't see the iceberg ahead. Bernie has transformed me, a 64 year old white male, from a skeptic to a believer. Sure, if I have no other choice, I will vote for Hillary, but I do not see her as the slam-dunk that so many establishment Democrats do.
5
I believe the DNC has a dilemma on it's hands. If Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination, it will be incumbent on her, not Sanders, to unite the party. She will not win the general without his supporters. Mr. Sanders can endorse her, but that doesn't mean millions of voters will suddenly embrace her. Clinton will have to make assurances to Sanders supporters that she will sanction his policies, in part or in whole, before millions of voters will come on board.
This means Clinton would be forced to move to the left after the convention, not back to center-right where she and the DNC long to return, or simply to the center where it's traditionally more comfortable in the general. Moving to the center loses Sanders supporters; moving left is not only unpalatable to them, it may be a losing strategy against the Republicans.
See? Dilemma. What-to-do, what-to-do, what-to-do...
This means Clinton would be forced to move to the left after the convention, not back to center-right where she and the DNC long to return, or simply to the center where it's traditionally more comfortable in the general. Moving to the center loses Sanders supporters; moving left is not only unpalatable to them, it may be a losing strategy against the Republicans.
See? Dilemma. What-to-do, what-to-do, what-to-do...
4
The only Bernie's who won 't support Hillary are those drowning in Student Loan Debt and those who were lured to Sanders once he started mentioning Free College Education. The rest are like me and will act like adults and not spoiled children who are leaving and taking their balls and jump ropes, or video games home with them because they can't get their way. You Millennials need to grow up and smell your future. You let a Republican get in office and you are doomed. You think things are bad for you right now, you'll get another repeat of George W. Bush and then hold on.
1
"You Millennials need to grow up and smell your future."
I'm 58 and a registered Democrat for 40 years. And female. Maybe, just maybe, you've been listening to the wrong sources.
I'm 58 and a registered Democrat for 40 years. And female. Maybe, just maybe, you've been listening to the wrong sources.
4
This election is a bit different from 1964 Democratic nomination--I lived through it. Here we have Senator Elizabeth Warren effect. She is loved by ultra-- progressives more than Sanders. IMO, here is what is going to happen after next week:
Based on the latest polls, next Tuesday Secretary Clinton will sweep all 4 primaries. Therefore, it will become crystal clear to everyone that Senator Sanders will not be the nominee. And thus, he will either have to gracefully exit the race and support Secretary Clinton or he will be given a strong signal from the White House to do the right thing. If this does not work, President Obama or, preferably, Vice President Biden will call Senator Warren to the WH and ask her to first talk to Senator Sanders and explain to him the reality that the race is over and it's time to get behind the eventual nominee i.e. Secretary Clinton. Otherwise, Senator Warren should come out and strongly support and endorse Secretary Clinton. Which, at this point, unfortunately, Senator Sanders will become irrelevant. BTW, Senator Warren needs to do the right thing if she has any future political aspirations--which she does. She owes this to her party. Our country can not afford Trump or Cruz presidency at this crucial period!
Based on the latest polls, next Tuesday Secretary Clinton will sweep all 4 primaries. Therefore, it will become crystal clear to everyone that Senator Sanders will not be the nominee. And thus, he will either have to gracefully exit the race and support Secretary Clinton or he will be given a strong signal from the White House to do the right thing. If this does not work, President Obama or, preferably, Vice President Biden will call Senator Warren to the WH and ask her to first talk to Senator Sanders and explain to him the reality that the race is over and it's time to get behind the eventual nominee i.e. Secretary Clinton. Otherwise, Senator Warren should come out and strongly support and endorse Secretary Clinton. Which, at this point, unfortunately, Senator Sanders will become irrelevant. BTW, Senator Warren needs to do the right thing if she has any future political aspirations--which she does. She owes this to her party. Our country can not afford Trump or Cruz presidency at this crucial period!
5
I'm a Latino immigrant, presently a USA citizen in my 60's and a USA trained physician. I have experience much of what the USA has to offer in both the positive and negative aspects of life. Having lived through Mr. Clinton's presidency and observed Mrs. Clinton in action I can not and will not vote for her. I see Mr. Sanders as trying to open a new door to the way things have been done in this country and even though I'm "old" my age does not preclude me from desiring a new beginning for this great nation of ours. I"m not surprised that so many of our young citizens have embraced the Burn for his ideas represent real and substantial change while Mrs. Clinton is just part of the "OLD GUARD". We still have a long way to go into really turning our Democracy in to the one citizen one vote we hope to have, since so many of us are denied their constitutional right to vote by the Democratic and Republican parties. The primaries are not democratic nor really the elections. We, as a people do not choose who we would like to elect, the choices are made for us. Lets have a real democracy and get rid of some of these old ways and give all a real chance to have a one vote per citizen voice into our future. Have mercy!!
7
The fact that many voters find the thought of either a
Trump or Cruz presidency impossible to tolerate should do much to reinforce party loyalty, especially if Sen. Sanders supports the Secretary, In a primary based mostly on differing suggestions on how to confront common problems, ignoring the effort to unite the voters behind a candidate who, at least, agrees with the definition of these problems, is really not a choice but a necessity.
Trump or Cruz presidency impossible to tolerate should do much to reinforce party loyalty, especially if Sen. Sanders supports the Secretary, In a primary based mostly on differing suggestions on how to confront common problems, ignoring the effort to unite the voters behind a candidate who, at least, agrees with the definition of these problems, is really not a choice but a necessity.
Misleading overstatement:
"Ideological purity is not going to mean a hill of beans to the women forced to give birth after the right wing completes its takeover..."
If Roe v. Wade were reversed, that would mean a great deal less than this comment suggests.
It would mean ONLY that the US Constitution does not prohibit a state from prohibiting abortion. Each state would be allowed to decide for itself. Some states undoubtedly would outlaw abortion (TX, for example). Other states undoubtedly would declare abortion an inalienable right under the state's constitution (NY and CA, for example). Regardless of a state's position, no state would be allowed to prevent a woman from traveling from a "no abortions" state to an "abortions OK" state to have an abortion, and then returning to her "no abortions" state with no legal penalties – the US Constitution would continue to prohibit any such restrictions.
In short, no woman would be "forced" to bear a child. To be sure, if she wants to end her pregnancy, she might need to travel to another state to do that. Donors who now give large sums to ensure that Roe v. Wade is not reversed could donate instead to "travel funds" so that any such pregnant woman could afford the trip and the abortion.
And people who live in states that strongly oppose abortion would be able to make "no abortions" the law of their state. Personally, I favor abortion, but I strongly disfavor forcing my personal views on people who very strongly disagree.
"Ideological purity is not going to mean a hill of beans to the women forced to give birth after the right wing completes its takeover..."
If Roe v. Wade were reversed, that would mean a great deal less than this comment suggests.
It would mean ONLY that the US Constitution does not prohibit a state from prohibiting abortion. Each state would be allowed to decide for itself. Some states undoubtedly would outlaw abortion (TX, for example). Other states undoubtedly would declare abortion an inalienable right under the state's constitution (NY and CA, for example). Regardless of a state's position, no state would be allowed to prevent a woman from traveling from a "no abortions" state to an "abortions OK" state to have an abortion, and then returning to her "no abortions" state with no legal penalties – the US Constitution would continue to prohibit any such restrictions.
In short, no woman would be "forced" to bear a child. To be sure, if she wants to end her pregnancy, she might need to travel to another state to do that. Donors who now give large sums to ensure that Roe v. Wade is not reversed could donate instead to "travel funds" so that any such pregnant woman could afford the trip and the abortion.
And people who live in states that strongly oppose abortion would be able to make "no abortions" the law of their state. Personally, I favor abortion, but I strongly disfavor forcing my personal views on people who very strongly disagree.
2
“Many of these Sanders voters are first-time voters. They are the ones who will feel the kind of psychological aspects of this, the sense of disgruntlement, and stay home.”
I am very far from that category, but I suspect that most of Bernie’s supporters are like me: independent, and anti-ideology. I recently registered as a Democrat for only one reason: to vote for Sanders in the primary. Hillary should worry about independents, not real Democrats.
Only a desperate Hillary supporter would write “If Mr. Sanders ends up with a campaign debt, Mrs. Clinton can also promise to help pay it off, as President Obama did for her back in 2008.” Clearly, Sanders’ campaign will not end up in debt.
“Slipping back to the center in preparation for a general election battle, which is something Mrs. Clinton would presumably like to do, might complicate the effort to appeal to Mr. Sanders’s voters, who are already wary of the former first lady.” Wary? That is a *yuge* understatement.
Most independents do not like Hillary for many reasons. She is too conservative on trade, budgets, and military interventions, and she is neither honest nor trustworthy.
In the final analysis, the experts need to remind themselves that voters will vote for the best candidate in their minds, and most voters are not politicians.
4/23 @ 5 am
I am very far from that category, but I suspect that most of Bernie’s supporters are like me: independent, and anti-ideology. I recently registered as a Democrat for only one reason: to vote for Sanders in the primary. Hillary should worry about independents, not real Democrats.
Only a desperate Hillary supporter would write “If Mr. Sanders ends up with a campaign debt, Mrs. Clinton can also promise to help pay it off, as President Obama did for her back in 2008.” Clearly, Sanders’ campaign will not end up in debt.
“Slipping back to the center in preparation for a general election battle, which is something Mrs. Clinton would presumably like to do, might complicate the effort to appeal to Mr. Sanders’s voters, who are already wary of the former first lady.” Wary? That is a *yuge* understatement.
Most independents do not like Hillary for many reasons. She is too conservative on trade, budgets, and military interventions, and she is neither honest nor trustworthy.
In the final analysis, the experts need to remind themselves that voters will vote for the best candidate in their minds, and most voters are not politicians.
4/23 @ 5 am
8
@Timothy Bal,
You're right. The writer did suggest that Clinton offer to pay Sanders campaign debts, if necessary. That's rather funny. Would she use money from the Clinton Foundation to do it?
4-23-16@8:30 am
You're right. The writer did suggest that Clinton offer to pay Sanders campaign debts, if necessary. That's rather funny. Would she use money from the Clinton Foundation to do it?
4-23-16@8:30 am
2
@Timothy Bal,
I realized I'm not sure what you mean by real Democrats. I'm a registered Dem who voted for Sanders in my state's primary.
4-23-16@10:45 am
I realized I'm not sure what you mean by real Democrats. I'm a registered Dem who voted for Sanders in my state's primary.
4-23-16@10:45 am
2
@ Lady Scorpio: I only meant that Hillary, at this point, needs to be more concerned with independents than with Democrats; folks like me are not real Dems; I registered as Dem just so I can vote in the closed NJ primary next month.
4/24 @10:38 am
4/24 @10:38 am
I believe Nagourney, along with virtually every other political pundit, has misread Hillary Clinton's campaigning style, how she comes across to voters, and what is going to happen in November.
Clinton is extremely good at relating to voters in small groups, at the retail-politics level, and has spent her campaign funds wisely in amassing her outsize vote totals. She has built a broad coalition, far broader than that relied upon by Sanders (or, for that matter, Trump). At the same time, voters have become much more discerning regarding the stories told about her by both political opponents (D and R) and the press, and are starting to push back on her behalf.
All of this -- combined with her own political skills -- puts her in a unique position vis-a-vis both Sanders (now) and Trump (later). She knows that, ultimately, she will be elected by the women of America, combined with voters of color (and a good-enough percentage of white men). And she knows that she cannot be stopped. Her election really is going to happen.
So Bernie Sanders can support her or not; Donald Trump can do his best to demean her. It will not matter. Not only is she going to be President, but she is going to preside over the resurgence of a truly liberal Democratic party.
Such is her importance, and such is her power. And needless to say, #ImWithHer.
- Karen F
Clinton is extremely good at relating to voters in small groups, at the retail-politics level, and has spent her campaign funds wisely in amassing her outsize vote totals. She has built a broad coalition, far broader than that relied upon by Sanders (or, for that matter, Trump). At the same time, voters have become much more discerning regarding the stories told about her by both political opponents (D and R) and the press, and are starting to push back on her behalf.
All of this -- combined with her own political skills -- puts her in a unique position vis-a-vis both Sanders (now) and Trump (later). She knows that, ultimately, she will be elected by the women of America, combined with voters of color (and a good-enough percentage of white men). And she knows that she cannot be stopped. Her election really is going to happen.
So Bernie Sanders can support her or not; Donald Trump can do his best to demean her. It will not matter. Not only is she going to be President, but she is going to preside over the resurgence of a truly liberal Democratic party.
Such is her importance, and such is her power. And needless to say, #ImWithHer.
- Karen F
2
Her superpac thanks you for your service.
2
@ Barry F,
Your comment sounds like a press release. You make assumptions with it, too.
People of color support her and women? Like a number of other people, I'm in both categories as a Black woman. I volunteer for Sanders.
She's going to preside over the resurgence of a truly liberal Democratic party? You don't actually know that. Please don't confuse enthusiasm with an ability to predict the future. Sanders can support her or not? It sounds as if you're on the cusp of saying that Hillary doesn't need voters who prefer Sanders. That's rather different from another who took it upon himself to remind everyone of Nader. Please continue to push Hillary if it makes you happy.
4-23-16@8:26 am
Your comment sounds like a press release. You make assumptions with it, too.
People of color support her and women? Like a number of other people, I'm in both categories as a Black woman. I volunteer for Sanders.
She's going to preside over the resurgence of a truly liberal Democratic party? You don't actually know that. Please don't confuse enthusiasm with an ability to predict the future. Sanders can support her or not? It sounds as if you're on the cusp of saying that Hillary doesn't need voters who prefer Sanders. That's rather different from another who took it upon himself to remind everyone of Nader. Please continue to push Hillary if it makes you happy.
4-23-16@8:26 am
4
This election is coming down to a choice between a breakfast of corn flakes and rat poison. It's the easiest call I've ever made.
Bernie supporters should simply consider how much different and better the world would be if Al Gore had become President. Please remember how Ralph Nader's supporters enabled a corrupt system to seat a marginally defeated George Bush and the septic worm Cheney in the Oval Office.
Hillary is not evil. She's simply less than ideal. Trump is evil. Cruz is evil.
Bernie supporters should simply consider how much different and better the world would be if Al Gore had become President. Please remember how Ralph Nader's supporters enabled a corrupt system to seat a marginally defeated George Bush and the septic worm Cheney in the Oval Office.
Hillary is not evil. She's simply less than ideal. Trump is evil. Cruz is evil.
7
@Mike Marks,
Should simply consider.. Hillary's not evil. What I consider is you're another Clinton voter who doesn't seem to grasp a few concepts: Sanders voters are individuals, we don't all think the same way; Some of us remember Nader, the history lesson is gratuitous; you overstep when you tell others what they should do. The last, in particular is a very bad move for someone like me who hasn't yet said "no" to Hillary.
Btw, while I've never called her evil. I do have problems with some of her prior associations that give me pause, as a Black woman. You don't think she's evil? Fine. A lot of others do. I wonder if you've considered that evil, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.
4-23-16@8:10 am
Should simply consider.. Hillary's not evil. What I consider is you're another Clinton voter who doesn't seem to grasp a few concepts: Sanders voters are individuals, we don't all think the same way; Some of us remember Nader, the history lesson is gratuitous; you overstep when you tell others what they should do. The last, in particular is a very bad move for someone like me who hasn't yet said "no" to Hillary.
Btw, while I've never called her evil. I do have problems with some of her prior associations that give me pause, as a Black woman. You don't think she's evil? Fine. A lot of others do. I wonder if you've considered that evil, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.
4-23-16@8:10 am
2
Hillary is rat poison labeled as corn flakes. Think of her vote for the Iraq war, intervention in Libya, support for DOMA, trade agreements, death penalty, etc.
Clinton supporter's frequent references to Nader are tiresome. Nader was not the problem. The problem is a Democratic Party that consistently nominates DINO's rather than true progressive Democrats.
Clinton supporter's frequent references to Nader are tiresome. Nader was not the problem. The problem is a Democratic Party that consistently nominates DINO's rather than true progressive Democrats.
5
If Sanders truly believes that corporate and billionaire money irredeemably corrupts the American political system and that Secretary Clinton is a creature of that system (and she definitely is), then he should never support her. He should not take his fight to the convention, because it would be a quixotic endeavor. The Democrats were never going to give him the nomination and will never give him the nomination (even if Clinton is indicted).
Sanders should work out a deal with the Green Party for their nomination and continue his campaign into the general election. He will have the money and the base of voters to make a run for it.
The complaint will be that he will be throwing the election to the Republicans and probably Donald Trump, but that is far from clear. The Republicans are also likely split whether Trump is the nominee or not. We would likely end up with a four candidate race and it is up in the air as to who would be favored, and besides, again, if your truly believe that you must drive corporate money from the process to make a difference, then Clinton is as bad as the Republicans. To say otherwise would be to admit that corporate money is nor really all that corrupting.
Sanders should work out a deal with the Green Party for their nomination and continue his campaign into the general election. He will have the money and the base of voters to make a run for it.
The complaint will be that he will be throwing the election to the Republicans and probably Donald Trump, but that is far from clear. The Republicans are also likely split whether Trump is the nominee or not. We would likely end up with a four candidate race and it is up in the air as to who would be favored, and besides, again, if your truly believe that you must drive corporate money from the process to make a difference, then Clinton is as bad as the Republicans. To say otherwise would be to admit that corporate money is nor really all that corrupting.
47
Being Jill Stein's VP running mate is a very interesting idea.
I would love to see Bernie run as a third party candidate. There are millions of voters in both camps who hate their party's candidate, who respond with "none of the above" when asked how they like Trump, Hillary and Cruz.
If Bernie, who is much better liked by far, ran as a Green, perhaps we could crack the whole rotten mess wide open and let the maggots crawl away.
If Bernie, who is much better liked by far, ran as a Green, perhaps we could crack the whole rotten mess wide open and let the maggots crawl away.
1
And just like Ralph Nader before him, Bernie can ensure the country gets the next George W Bush in the form of Trump or Cruz. I don't know about you, but I'm really looking forward to the next global financial collapse, Middle East impromptu war and becoming permanently mired in the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Election 2016 - Bernie Sanders and The Trouble with Unintended Consequences
Election 2016 - Bernie Sanders and The Trouble with Unintended Consequences
I will support Hillary Clinton only when Senator Sanders says to support Hillary Clinton. I believe that Senator Sanders would make a thousand times better President than Hillary Clinton ever will. Senator Sanders is a proper visionary and that is what is needed by this nation and the world at this time in history.
But Senator Sanders said early on that he would support Hillary Clinton if she won the Democratic Party nomination for President because either she or he would make a much better President than anyone that the Republicans could put forward (words to that effect). I believed and agreed with Senator when he first said and then later repeated those words. When and if Senator Sanders says that it is time to support Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States, I will do so. And, I will not do so until that moment. And, I will do so then only because any Republican alternative for President is so much worse.
But Senator Sanders said early on that he would support Hillary Clinton if she won the Democratic Party nomination for President because either she or he would make a much better President than anyone that the Republicans could put forward (words to that effect). I believed and agreed with Senator when he first said and then later repeated those words. When and if Senator Sanders says that it is time to support Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States, I will do so. And, I will not do so until that moment. And, I will do so then only because any Republican alternative for President is so much worse.
55
"I will support Hillary Clinton only when Senator Sanders says to support Hillary Clinton."
Yes, of course. History is replete with examples of individuals waiting for the Leader to decide for them. And still they say the Bernie Movement isn't a cult.
Yes, of course. History is replete with examples of individuals waiting for the Leader to decide for them. And still they say the Bernie Movement isn't a cult.
3
I'm curious: as Senator Sanders has already said that at least twice, by your reckoning, why do you need him to say it again before you will commit to voting for Sec. Clinton?
3
Because our leader hasn't given on attaining the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.
2
I seriously hope that many of the posters on this thread are just trolls, because if they can't see the difference in Hillary nominating another Ruth Ginsburg (and actually replacing her) vs. Trump putting another Alioto or Thomas on the Supreme Court I don't really know what to say.
While there is a lot of Sturm und Drang the reality is that in their views Clinton and Sanders are similar. The only real policy differences is Sanders has been pro-gun (the result of him being from VT, my guess is in office there would be no real differences) and Hillary being more willing to use military force for humanitarian reasons abroad, while Sanders was a conscientious objector personally, and has been unwilling to use military force with one exception (Bill Clinton's Kosovo bombing of Serbia). But again, both are well to the left of Trump or Cruz.
The other main difference is an approach to politics. Clinton has worked her entire life for other Democratic Candidates, and that includes raising money. She is for overturning Citizen's United (and that will happen if Scalia's seat is filled by a democrat) but until it is she see the need for money to fight elections, the other option is unilateral surrender to what will be $5-10B in Republican Spending this fall. Sanders - from a small state, with cheap media, has a different view.
But both would push for a major overhaul in our broken campaign finance system, as would any democrat.
While there is a lot of Sturm und Drang the reality is that in their views Clinton and Sanders are similar. The only real policy differences is Sanders has been pro-gun (the result of him being from VT, my guess is in office there would be no real differences) and Hillary being more willing to use military force for humanitarian reasons abroad, while Sanders was a conscientious objector personally, and has been unwilling to use military force with one exception (Bill Clinton's Kosovo bombing of Serbia). But again, both are well to the left of Trump or Cruz.
The other main difference is an approach to politics. Clinton has worked her entire life for other Democratic Candidates, and that includes raising money. She is for overturning Citizen's United (and that will happen if Scalia's seat is filled by a democrat) but until it is she see the need for money to fight elections, the other option is unilateral surrender to what will be $5-10B in Republican Spending this fall. Sanders - from a small state, with cheap media, has a different view.
But both would push for a major overhaul in our broken campaign finance system, as would any democrat.
161
If Hillary is elected, it will be because of our broken campaign finance system. Very unlikely that she will work to change it.
4
The supreme court argument is becoming old and tired. Bernie too will nominate the best of the best, why only Hillary, is beyond us. Bernie consistently beats Trump by double digits in all national polls.
2
If you believe that "Hillary has worked her whole life for other Democrats" for altruistic motives, you are sorely mistaken. The Clinton's are great at fund raising, and it is how they maintain control of the DNC. She also kept a list of people who didn't support her in 2008. They are on her hit list and can effect the committee appointments and perks other Dems get. There is a BIG ulterior motive: control. So, don't canonize her just yet.
2
I have an issue with the stance that a lot of supporters of the front-runner take in this situation. Namely, the claim that to vote for the party's eventual nominee is the only rational choice and that to do otherwise would be to put one's subjective and emotional concerns over the objective and practical ones of the entire society and would thus be selfish or wrongheaded.
This claim is supported by such arguments as "X would end up president and do bad things to real people. How can you put your own principles before the lives of real people?" This is short-sighted. We could just as easily take the scenario a step further: those people who have bad things done to them (and others) decide as a result of X's actions and the outcomes to make real and serious changes to our society which result in much better lives for generations (despite people having suffered under X). This approach is sometimes called 'accelerationism' and is often derided as possible only from a privileged point of view (others may suffer but I'll get a better deal in the end). This comment tries to push back against that understanding. Indeed, many who endorse it are the very people who would suffer immediately but they justify this by thinking of future generations.
For those of us who understand that hierarchy (race gender political economic) is the source of almost all human suffering, Clinton is dangerous because she would make the State Form slightly more appealing to some and weaken resistance (A).
This claim is supported by such arguments as "X would end up president and do bad things to real people. How can you put your own principles before the lives of real people?" This is short-sighted. We could just as easily take the scenario a step further: those people who have bad things done to them (and others) decide as a result of X's actions and the outcomes to make real and serious changes to our society which result in much better lives for generations (despite people having suffered under X). This approach is sometimes called 'accelerationism' and is often derided as possible only from a privileged point of view (others may suffer but I'll get a better deal in the end). This comment tries to push back against that understanding. Indeed, many who endorse it are the very people who would suffer immediately but they justify this by thinking of future generations.
For those of us who understand that hierarchy (race gender political economic) is the source of almost all human suffering, Clinton is dangerous because she would make the State Form slightly more appealing to some and weaken resistance (A).
37
I may well be accused of succumbing to Godwin's law here but: this is quite *literally* an argument that was made by Communists against making a united front with Social Democrats, which in turn helped the Nazis consolidate power against a divided left (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism).
Yes, there are many differences on all sides, I readily admit (Bernie≠communist, Trump≠Hitler, etc.). However, what seems naïve is this: "those people who have bad things done to them (and others) decide as a result of X's actions and the outcomes to make real and serious changes to our society which result in much better lives for generations." Again, German Communists claimed precisely this with the slogan: "After Hitler, Our Turn!" When I see this argument, my question is: can those who make it produce a single example of this (ultra-rightist gov't coming to power instead of moderate leftist gov't, paving way for stronger leftist gov't) ever actually happening in history? I can think of plenty of counter-examples of ultra-rightist gov'ts *not* ushering in shining eras of progressive hegemony. Even recent US history provides a good one: 2000 era Naderites may well have made accelerationist arguments. Gore lost, partly courtesy of them, and the result was 8 years of W, followed by 8 years of Gore-like centrist Obama + rightist congress. How many more years of rightist and quasi-rightist rule do we have to wait out until the glorious people's uprising finally comes?
Yes, there are many differences on all sides, I readily admit (Bernie≠communist, Trump≠Hitler, etc.). However, what seems naïve is this: "those people who have bad things done to them (and others) decide as a result of X's actions and the outcomes to make real and serious changes to our society which result in much better lives for generations." Again, German Communists claimed precisely this with the slogan: "After Hitler, Our Turn!" When I see this argument, my question is: can those who make it produce a single example of this (ultra-rightist gov't coming to power instead of moderate leftist gov't, paving way for stronger leftist gov't) ever actually happening in history? I can think of plenty of counter-examples of ultra-rightist gov'ts *not* ushering in shining eras of progressive hegemony. Even recent US history provides a good one: 2000 era Naderites may well have made accelerationist arguments. Gore lost, partly courtesy of them, and the result was 8 years of W, followed by 8 years of Gore-like centrist Obama + rightist congress. How many more years of rightist and quasi-rightist rule do we have to wait out until the glorious people's uprising finally comes?
We will not escape hierarchy under Bernie, nor will America anytime soon.
So, your "push back" is: "indeed, many who endorse accelerationism are minority/women"? Since when is "many", "most"?
Seeing how Bernie's support comes mostly from white or young or educated folks... and Hillary draws bigger support from women and minorities--
I don't see how you can argue that the "Accelerationist" argument is not coming from a disproportionately privileged group.
Just as there are black Republicans, there are black Sanders supporters-- but this does not enable them to speak for the massive bloc of black voters picking Hillary.
Seeing how Bernie's support comes mostly from white or young or educated folks... and Hillary draws bigger support from women and minorities--
I don't see how you can argue that the "Accelerationist" argument is not coming from a disproportionately privileged group.
Just as there are black Republicans, there are black Sanders supporters-- but this does not enable them to speak for the massive bloc of black voters picking Hillary.
There are still many more votes to come.
All those saying Senator Sanders should stop now because it's almost mathematically impossible, should realize that Clinton also needs a majority of pledged delegates to be the nominee...that's about 60% of what's left.
Maybe these folks think they should stop paying their mortgages or car installments because they are "mostly" paid for, and see how that logic works.
Also, so much concern that Sanders may reveal something about Clinton that would damage her in the general? Really...is there something you are worried might get out? Like the transcripts? Or the private government-evading email server? Of which 30,000 "personal" emails were already removed before the server was turned over. Nothing worth keeping? Have any of you wiped out all of your emails?
And for the people who keep harping and claiming that Sanders has been nasty and not keeping his word that he would run a respectful campaign (even though Clinton has not), know this...regarding whether money influences Clinton...it already has as stated in Elizabeth Warren's book where she writes about the Clinton change of heart on the Bankruptcy bill. It's just that Sanders does not wish to bring Warren into this conversation out of respect. But the truth is there...look it up.
All those saying Senator Sanders should stop now because it's almost mathematically impossible, should realize that Clinton also needs a majority of pledged delegates to be the nominee...that's about 60% of what's left.
Maybe these folks think they should stop paying their mortgages or car installments because they are "mostly" paid for, and see how that logic works.
Also, so much concern that Sanders may reveal something about Clinton that would damage her in the general? Really...is there something you are worried might get out? Like the transcripts? Or the private government-evading email server? Of which 30,000 "personal" emails were already removed before the server was turned over. Nothing worth keeping? Have any of you wiped out all of your emails?
And for the people who keep harping and claiming that Sanders has been nasty and not keeping his word that he would run a respectful campaign (even though Clinton has not), know this...regarding whether money influences Clinton...it already has as stated in Elizabeth Warren's book where she writes about the Clinton change of heart on the Bankruptcy bill. It's just that Sanders does not wish to bring Warren into this conversation out of respect. But the truth is there...look it up.
5
The argument that Hillary is the lesser of two evils and thus should be supported just does not resonate much with me. Yes, a republican president can do a tremendous amount of damage during the four years and even longer damage through the Supreme Court.
I liked Hillary enough 8 years ago, now not so much. Our Constitution's preamble does not include the phrase "in order to form a less imperfect Union," but rather "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union.."
I do not know for whom, or if, I'm going to vote in November. Now my focus is helping Bernie get his message out and get as many delegates as possible, and to support those politicians who have supported him.
I fear time is running out on incremental change, especially on the environment and I fear War Hawk Hillary and our crumbling infrastructure, schools and legal system.
Bernie has helped me to see this country’s rigged political process more clearly. I am grateful.
I liked Hillary enough 8 years ago, now not so much. Our Constitution's preamble does not include the phrase "in order to form a less imperfect Union," but rather "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union.."
I do not know for whom, or if, I'm going to vote in November. Now my focus is helping Bernie get his message out and get as many delegates as possible, and to support those politicians who have supported him.
I fear time is running out on incremental change, especially on the environment and I fear War Hawk Hillary and our crumbling infrastructure, schools and legal system.
Bernie has helped me to see this country’s rigged political process more clearly. I am grateful.
47
Beautiful! Couldn't be said better. BERNIE.
1
It is essential that Sen. Sanders'supporters get out and vote for Sec. Clinton if she is the nominee and vice-versa. If the party is not unified, the Rs MIGHT possibly win, which would be a disaster for the country. I am certain that, should Sanders be nominated, Clinton will advise her supporters to vote for him, will campaign for him, and even raise money for him. I hope that he would do the same for her.
No presidential candidate is perfect; all have some baggage, but boycotting an election is a poor answer to your dilemma. Good luck to you!
No presidential candidate is perfect; all have some baggage, but boycotting an election is a poor answer to your dilemma. Good luck to you!
"A republican president can do a tremendous amount of damage in four years" ... If only that we're all. Are you old enough to remember November 1999? Ah well, we thought, four years --- how bad can it be?
Well, look at the Middle East now. And imagine what it will probably be like in 10, 20, 30 years from now. Sure, President Obama has made mistakes there, and so has Hillary Clinton. But the presidency of George Bush caused the mess we have now.
So it's not four years, it's forever. Quit dithering about your feelings and think about your country and the rest of the world, and act like a responsible citizen.
Well, look at the Middle East now. And imagine what it will probably be like in 10, 20, 30 years from now. Sure, President Obama has made mistakes there, and so has Hillary Clinton. But the presidency of George Bush caused the mess we have now.
So it's not four years, it's forever. Quit dithering about your feelings and think about your country and the rest of the world, and act like a responsible citizen.
The Bernie Bros have made a mark. Google "bernie bros" and see 24 million leads, including the Urban Dictionary. On the front page of leads, you'll see stuff like: "Bernie Sanders’ campaign is trying to rein in his unruly online men," (sure they are) and "The bros who love Bernie Sanders have become a sexist mob". (True.)
For a funny one, see "The Bernie Bro Code" in The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/the-bernie-bro-code
For a funny one, see "The Bernie Bro Code" in The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/the-bernie-bro-code
5
@Pecan
You're exactly right. They've left nothing but a silly, forgettable mark.
You're exactly right. They've left nothing but a silly, forgettable mark.
@Pecan,
I went to the link. How underwhelming. Is that really the best you can do? Your ideas of what Bernie's voters are actually like are narrow and willfully limited.
4-23-16@12:26 am
I went to the link. How underwhelming. Is that really the best you can do? Your ideas of what Bernie's voters are actually like are narrow and willfully limited.
4-23-16@12:26 am
2
I live in one of the two most supportive Bernie cities in the US, Oakland, CA. The other,San Francisco, is just across the Bay and I am there weekly. I hang out with Bernie supporters several times a week. I have never met a "Bernie Bro." Bernie supporters can get excited but we are never mean or snide. We leave that to the Hillarybots.
2
Those juveniles who will vote for Trump out of revenge for not getting their way are insult to everything Bernie stands for. It means they really have no concept of what is at stake or they just don't care.
29
Oh, we know what is at stake. What is at stake is taking back Obama's change agenda and regressing back to the same old same old. And that is exactly what Hillary will do.
The party establishment needs to understand that they represent the people and not their own selfish, powerful interests. Sometimes it takes a loss for the likes of Debbie Wasserman whatever to learn that.
The followers of Bernie Sanders understand that it makes little difference if we vote for Hillary or whoever the Republican is. Hillary is Republican lite.
The party establishment needs to understand that they represent the people and not their own selfish, powerful interests. Sometimes it takes a loss for the likes of Debbie Wasserman whatever to learn that.
The followers of Bernie Sanders understand that it makes little difference if we vote for Hillary or whoever the Republican is. Hillary is Republican lite.
2
I know that Sanders is opposed to "income inequality" (he says so at least 20 times at every speech); but I really don't know precisely what he means. Does he oppose all income inequality (i.e. that as a matter of principle all compensation for all people should be exactly equal or the same)??? Is it merely a matter of "degree" (wage differentials are appropriate but there should not be "excessive' differential)? If so how does he define "excessive" and how would be apply it to all American wage earners, including the plutocrats. It is not my intent here to deny that the present, historically record high concentration of wealth including the obscene compensation paid to the "winners" in the financial sector, is a cancer on the health of our republic. I believe that it is. However, I believe that dealing with this cancer requires the skill of a political surgeon. It cannot be accomplished with the gross slogans of a butcher. The problem of wealth inequality and compensation inequality are matters of degree; it is not entirely clear (despite the broad insinuendo of the Sanders campaign) that there is demonstrable disagreement between the candidates in their determination of what degree of inequality is detrimental to our political health.
11
I suspect you're young -- good for you if I'm right about that. Either way, you're wise to recognize that "income equality" involves mostly shades of gray. Bernie indeed is vague. For example, should night-time cleaning people make as much as the CEO? Bernie doesn't say, but I think most of us would agree the CEO should get more.
But how much more?
I've been practicing law for 40 years, which has resulted in a lot of shocking acknowledgements. But one more than others: When the compensation of a large corporation's CEO is being set, the decision-makers typically will be the "independent" directors on the board. Some of those "independent" directors will themselves be CEOs of other large corporations, and they'll be well aware that their own compensation arrangement will be up for review in the future. The board inevitably will direct some young MBA types to compile information on compensation paid to CEOs of comparable companies. That report will largely inform their decision, though a thumb-on-the-scale factor will be the natural desire of a company to ensure that its CEO is not paid less than competitors' CEOs. That will boost the CEO's pay package, of course, and his boosted pay package will be cited later in other corporations' compensation reports to their boards, who in turn will want to ensure that their CEO receives higher compensation than the other guys. And so on. Rarely if ever will the board's decision have much to do with how well the CEO performs.
But how much more?
I've been practicing law for 40 years, which has resulted in a lot of shocking acknowledgements. But one more than others: When the compensation of a large corporation's CEO is being set, the decision-makers typically will be the "independent" directors on the board. Some of those "independent" directors will themselves be CEOs of other large corporations, and they'll be well aware that their own compensation arrangement will be up for review in the future. The board inevitably will direct some young MBA types to compile information on compensation paid to CEOs of comparable companies. That report will largely inform their decision, though a thumb-on-the-scale factor will be the natural desire of a company to ensure that its CEO is not paid less than competitors' CEOs. That will boost the CEO's pay package, of course, and his boosted pay package will be cited later in other corporations' compensation reports to their boards, who in turn will want to ensure that their CEO receives higher compensation than the other guys. And so on. Rarely if ever will the board's decision have much to do with how well the CEO performs.
1
@Regardless who gets the Dem nod, I've never really felt "income inequality" really captures the problem. To me, "unfairness" is more precise and does a better job of getting to the marrow of the issue.
4-23-16@12:29 am
4-23-16@12:29 am
2
Wealth inequality in America is explained very well in this video. It's not about eliminating inequality, it's about reducing it to a less shocking contrast.
http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM
http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM
1
Today the Times reports that Republican donors are reluctant to support down-ticket Republican candidates this year.
Bernie can fritter away his campaign $millions on the presidential road show to oblivion, or make a real difference by withdrawing soon with a substantial unspent war chest to donate to elect down-ticket Democrats.
Bernie can fritter away his campaign $millions on the presidential road show to oblivion, or make a real difference by withdrawing soon with a substantial unspent war chest to donate to elect down-ticket Democrats.
19
@Steve Bolger,
Please remember to consider the people waiting to vote in other states. I thought they had a right to be heard, too.
4-23-16@12:31 am
Please remember to consider the people waiting to vote in other states. I thought they had a right to be heard, too.
4-23-16@12:31 am
3
While I haven't refused to vote for Hillary, I read the quote from Howard Dean "what I wanted them to do" and started to chuckle. Anyone who knows me will tell you-- on gp's-- ordering me is not the way to get what you want from me. I'm not in the military. I've never jumped when anyone's said to and I'm not about start now.
4-22-16@5:12 pm
4-22-16@5:12 pm
12
I agree with you but I'm afraid the orders and threats have begun already and aren't going to let up. They (Clinton supporters) are clearly outraged that we just don't fall in line, partly because they never understood what the big fuss was all about in the first place.
3
This article states the case backwards.
Clinton has already made overtures in her last victory speech. What did we get from Sanders: a short grumpy statement that he thinks he'll win a goodly number of this coming Tuesday's primaries. We'll see.
He has asserted his moral superiority so vehemently (a superiority, by the way, I question deeply--who could have supported the brutally oppressive Castro regime in 1980 or played footsie with the Russians in the era of the gulag) and attacked Clinton so viciously, that I wonder whether he'll chart a prudent course. That prudent course would be to help get Clinton elected. Because he has a much greater chance of passing any part of his own program in the Senate if she wins big and brings downticket candidates with her.
But Sanders doesn't strike me as the kind of politician to accept half a loaf. To him it's either totally right or totally wrong. That alone disqualifies him to be a POTUS who must compromise to reach his or her goals. (My, the use of the feminine pronoun feels "revolutionary" in this context).
Clinton has already made overtures in her last victory speech. What did we get from Sanders: a short grumpy statement that he thinks he'll win a goodly number of this coming Tuesday's primaries. We'll see.
He has asserted his moral superiority so vehemently (a superiority, by the way, I question deeply--who could have supported the brutally oppressive Castro regime in 1980 or played footsie with the Russians in the era of the gulag) and attacked Clinton so viciously, that I wonder whether he'll chart a prudent course. That prudent course would be to help get Clinton elected. Because he has a much greater chance of passing any part of his own program in the Senate if she wins big and brings downticket candidates with her.
But Sanders doesn't strike me as the kind of politician to accept half a loaf. To him it's either totally right or totally wrong. That alone disqualifies him to be a POTUS who must compromise to reach his or her goals. (My, the use of the feminine pronoun feels "revolutionary" in this context).
20
You are trying to tell us that the man nicknamed "The Amendment King" in the Senate does not know how to cooperate. Well, that dog won't hunt. What else ya got?
2
I want Sanders to be elected President, but even if Hillary is somehow elected president, Sanders should formally start an independent "New Wing" (the little birdie, remember?) of the Democratic Party to operate outside the discredited DNC, ready to directly challenge any candidate who takes Wall Street or PAC money.
And be ready to primary her in 2020. We could even call the movement "2020 Hindsight" ! Yeah!
And be ready to primary her in 2020. We could even call the movement "2020 Hindsight" ! Yeah!
29
@Daisy,
How could I forget that darling little birdie? My cute bespeckled feathered friend is taped outside the front door of my apt. That's it! "2020 Hindsight"!
Double yeah!! ; )
4-23-16@12:37 am
How could I forget that darling little birdie? My cute bespeckled feathered friend is taped outside the front door of my apt. That's it! "2020 Hindsight"!
Double yeah!! ; )
4-23-16@12:37 am
2
I second the motion. Forget the Democrats and the DNC. We need a third-party.
Starts shallow but wide like a bath tub filling. Local elections in many states with a unified purpose. Let's put the touch-button issues aside and fix our government.
Starts shallow but wide like a bath tub filling. Local elections in many states with a unified purpose. Let's put the touch-button issues aside and fix our government.
2
After doing research on Bill Clinton and his presidency I finally understand just how much damage he did to the Democratic party and the ideals I thought it stood for. I was working so hard in the 1990's I didn't have time to pay enough attention, but I'm paying attention now. I can't possibly vote for Hillary. I'll vote, I'm 64 and have always voted in every election, but I'll write in Bernie's name for President. I'm sad and worried and not just about Donald Trump. His angry fans aren't going anywhere after the election, no matter who wins, neither are the millions of young voters who were drawn to Bernie Sanders. Our country has become unrecognizable with one's net worth being the only important metric. This isn't my America.
41
What damage did he do in your mind? I thought he was a pretty darn good president for the times, especially coming into the mess he had to endure from 12 years of Republican rule.
There's an interesting AP review of HRC's speeches since 2013, which the Times hasn't seen "fit to print". lol
Included in the review are some of Clinton's requirements (such as transportation on a private jet (a Gulfstream preferred,) lodging in Presidential Suite, 1000 dollars a day for a stenographer etc.)
If this information came out on Mr. Trump , I believe the Times would have it on the front page. I'm not a Trump supporter( even though he's more progressive on some issues than Clinton). It's just that the preference of the NYT for Clinton is so heavy handed.
HRC " She's workig hard for you" (and being very well paid to do it.)
Included in the review are some of Clinton's requirements (such as transportation on a private jet (a Gulfstream preferred,) lodging in Presidential Suite, 1000 dollars a day for a stenographer etc.)
If this information came out on Mr. Trump , I believe the Times would have it on the front page. I'm not a Trump supporter( even though he's more progressive on some issues than Clinton). It's just that the preference of the NYT for Clinton is so heavy handed.
HRC " She's workig hard for you" (and being very well paid to do it.)
42
I love the Hillary sign, with the big horizontal arrow pointing RIGHT. At least the sign is an honest expression of her views.
3
I'm actually waiting for the times to analyze how many $27 contributions it takes to charter a 767 to take 9 friends and family to Rome for a few days.
Are you being ironic? If not, that's pretty weak even for a supporter of the "Great Panderer".
I think that Bernie Sanders supporters need to come to grips with the fact that their man just came up short.
Speaking of behaving like an "elderly statesman", Bernie will cement that reputation if he learns something about how to lose...from Hillary, of all people. After she lost to Barack Obama in 2008 following a tough, often bruising, nomination contest, Hillary turned around and endorsed him and then vigorously campaigned for him. After he won, they buried the hatchet, smoked the peace pipe, and he made her one of his closest associates and the nation's top diplomat.
That is class all around... from the victor and the vanquished. Clinton does not need to feel the Bern; they should feel each other and move on.
Speaking of behaving like an "elderly statesman", Bernie will cement that reputation if he learns something about how to lose...from Hillary, of all people. After she lost to Barack Obama in 2008 following a tough, often bruising, nomination contest, Hillary turned around and endorsed him and then vigorously campaigned for him. After he won, they buried the hatchet, smoked the peace pipe, and he made her one of his closest associates and the nation's top diplomat.
That is class all around... from the victor and the vanquished. Clinton does not need to feel the Bern; they should feel each other and move on.
17
Please do not let wishful thinking cloud your knowledge of the facts.
Hillary did not drop out that quietly. She made some very controversial insinuations about RFK's assassination before the convention and so on. She endorsed and vigorously campaigned for him in return for his raising funds to pay of her $11M or so of campaign debt, but she and Bill did campaign, and that is one way they kept their hold on the Democratic party machine still strong.
She was not his closest associate or one of - she complains constantly in her emails about being left out of the WH discussions on various things. Not to be too negative on her, but please feel free to look at Obama's list of foreign policy priorities and see how many he accomplished and who was the Secy of State. You will be surprised to find John Kerry featuring in most of the successes. HRC was skeptical of overtures to Iran and Cuba since they would also affect her Presidential run.
People obviously can like and support whomever we want, but please let us be clear-eyed about our choices. We deluded ourselves (as a nation) about Bush and we have been delusional in our choice of Congressmembers and Senators the last 20 years. You can grind the machine only for so long before it wears out in critical parts and has a catastrophic failure. The average American is smart and decent enough, but we indulge in too much wishful thinking and ideological bias to make the most of those smarts and decency. Good luck.
Hillary did not drop out that quietly. She made some very controversial insinuations about RFK's assassination before the convention and so on. She endorsed and vigorously campaigned for him in return for his raising funds to pay of her $11M or so of campaign debt, but she and Bill did campaign, and that is one way they kept their hold on the Democratic party machine still strong.
She was not his closest associate or one of - she complains constantly in her emails about being left out of the WH discussions on various things. Not to be too negative on her, but please feel free to look at Obama's list of foreign policy priorities and see how many he accomplished and who was the Secy of State. You will be surprised to find John Kerry featuring in most of the successes. HRC was skeptical of overtures to Iran and Cuba since they would also affect her Presidential run.
People obviously can like and support whomever we want, but please let us be clear-eyed about our choices. We deluded ourselves (as a nation) about Bush and we have been delusional in our choice of Congressmembers and Senators the last 20 years. You can grind the machine only for so long before it wears out in critical parts and has a catastrophic failure. The average American is smart and decent enough, but we indulge in too much wishful thinking and ideological bias to make the most of those smarts and decency. Good luck.
2
We do not care what you think. Bernie is a legitimate contender for the Democratic Presidential nomination. If he wasn't they would have stopped him last July. He told us that he would stay in through the convention. That's all we ask and all we want (and no cheating at the polls.) Don't you want to find out who the real people's choice is?
2
"The fact that their man came up short". Explain to me then, why Bernie has amassed more money than Hillary and that most of Hiillary's money has come from the 1%?
Bernie came up short because the media refused to give him any press or gave him negative press for months. Bernie came up short because the media considered him irrelevant.
Bernie has made a dramatic come from behind without the help of the media.
And in some states ie New York, it looks like there may have been some snarky voting results in at least one part of New York.
Bernie came up short because the media refused to give him any press or gave him negative press for months. Bernie came up short because the media considered him irrelevant.
Bernie has made a dramatic come from behind without the help of the media.
And in some states ie New York, it looks like there may have been some snarky voting results in at least one part of New York.
2
I'd consider voting for Clinton if all signs of possible election fraud are investigated thoroughly first. Right now we have multiple states where the exit polls have not matched the final tally, most recently in NY, where exit polls had Clinton at 52% and Sanders 48%. In addition, there have been numerous credible reports of voters left disenfranchised by unexplained changes to their party registration or who were completely missing from voter rolls in Arizona and New York.
"Around the world, exit polls have been used to verify the integrity of elections. The United States has funded exit polls in Eastern Europe to detect fraud. Discrepancies between exit polls and the official vote count have been used to successfully overturn election results in Ukraine, Serbia, and Georgia." http://electiondefensealliance.org/frequently_asked_questions_about_exit...
Arizona's Yavapai County Daily Courier exit poll showed Bernie leading 63–37%, but somehow Hillary won the county 54–43%:
http://dcourier.com/news/2016/mar/22/courier-exit-polling-shows-cruz-lea...
"Around the world, exit polls have been used to verify the integrity of elections. The United States has funded exit polls in Eastern Europe to detect fraud. Discrepancies between exit polls and the official vote count have been used to successfully overturn election results in Ukraine, Serbia, and Georgia." http://electiondefensealliance.org/frequently_asked_questions_about_exit...
Arizona's Yavapai County Daily Courier exit poll showed Bernie leading 63–37%, but somehow Hillary won the county 54–43%:
http://dcourier.com/news/2016/mar/22/courier-exit-polling-shows-cruz-lea...
34
Suppress the Sanders' voters in the primary, then demand that they vote in the general for the party that suppressed their vote? Insanity. Maybe Clinton thinks she can get away with it, if only because she has gotten away with so much already.
46
WHO suppressed the vote in the primaries?
Last I saw, all democrats were affected. Unless voters were asked at the door who they were voting for, and then denied entry because of it, how did this disadvantage one candidate or the other?
A tiny bit of non-paranoid analysis would be helpful.
Last I saw, all democrats were affected. Unless voters were asked at the door who they were voting for, and then denied entry because of it, how did this disadvantage one candidate or the other?
A tiny bit of non-paranoid analysis would be helpful.
No, I do not think there is enough space to list the details.
1
You pundits don't seem to understand: It's this WE, that is people like me are sick and tired of '...voting for the lesser of two evils.' and there are A WHOLE LOT OF US. Of all ages. Especially in the Democratic Party.
41
Nagourney completely omits the bitter circumstances surrounding 1968 that make it an utterly inapt comparison, including the assassinations of MLK and RFK, and the presence of Humphrey, who in 1948, as Mayor of Minneapolis, proposed the Democratic Party's first Civil Rights Policy Platform Plank. In 1948, it caused Strom Thurmond to break away and run as a "Dixiecrat." In 1968, it impelled George Wallace's independent run, the last Independent to win Electoral Votes.
There is simply no comparison between the near civil war fragmentation of the Democrats in 68 to now. In comparison, Hillary and Bernie ARE pkaying beanbag. And the disagreements between Hillary and Bernie pale compared to the Republicans, who devoted a large portion of a Presidential debate to elliptically argue about penis size.
There is simply no comparison between the near civil war fragmentation of the Democrats in 68 to now. In comparison, Hillary and Bernie ARE pkaying beanbag. And the disagreements between Hillary and Bernie pale compared to the Republicans, who devoted a large portion of a Presidential debate to elliptically argue about penis size.
8
The Democratic party rigged the primary process from the get go to make sure that there will be no genuine contender against Hillary. Much to the chagrin of the establishment, Bernie caught the imagination and spoke to the aspirations and fears of a large number of democrats and independents. No, he is not a perfect candidate nor are all his plans immediately achievable, but in the minds of his supporters, he is far better than the alternative. In their eyes, not only is she tainted, but this projected win is tainted. This was not a fair contest. As designed by the establishment, he lost the closed primaries.
She won more states that are unwinnable in the general than he did. The establishment's media worked to pull him down.
If there were a half-way decent candidate on the other side, this election would be a foregone conclusion. Given that so much is at stake across the board (Trump/Cruz, slots in the supreme court and elsewhere, a possible reversal in congress), the question is, what is Clinton willing to do to advance the aspirations of this large segment of progressive democratic and independent voters without whose support she cannot win in November. Lofty rhetoric does not cut it. The ball is in Hillary's court.
She won more states that are unwinnable in the general than he did. The establishment's media worked to pull him down.
If there were a half-way decent candidate on the other side, this election would be a foregone conclusion. Given that so much is at stake across the board (Trump/Cruz, slots in the supreme court and elsewhere, a possible reversal in congress), the question is, what is Clinton willing to do to advance the aspirations of this large segment of progressive democratic and independent voters without whose support she cannot win in November. Lofty rhetoric does not cut it. The ball is in Hillary's court.
35
@Bob,
It's interesting to see Hillary's inability to win w/out voters like me (and you? I didn't want to assume). I read several comments from Clinton voters, months ago, which said Clinton doesn't need votes from any Sanders voters should she get the nod. Sometimes I wonder. Kinda like donating to her campaign, which I've never done. I could be wrong, but I've been given the impression that money is at the top of the list of things she doesn't need.
As for voting for her, she's said how many zillion votes she has already. Yeah, i know this isn't the general yet. But with the way she comes across, I begin to wonder if she would actually need my help in Nov, potentially.
4-23-16@12:50 am
It's interesting to see Hillary's inability to win w/out voters like me (and you? I didn't want to assume). I read several comments from Clinton voters, months ago, which said Clinton doesn't need votes from any Sanders voters should she get the nod. Sometimes I wonder. Kinda like donating to her campaign, which I've never done. I could be wrong, but I've been given the impression that money is at the top of the list of things she doesn't need.
As for voting for her, she's said how many zillion votes she has already. Yeah, i know this isn't the general yet. But with the way she comes across, I begin to wonder if she would actually need my help in Nov, potentially.
4-23-16@12:50 am
2
For the good of his beloved Nation Bernie must see the light and be willing to take the VP. He also needs to be given more power in that slot similar to Cheney and be able to wield whip to keep fellow Congress members in line to passing the needed laws and holding the various powers chairmanships, finances, etc AND not to forget the all out war to defeat each and every Republican running for office which should be made easier by the war effort being now advanced by using the Arab/Muslim refuges as the newly trained at NATO bases being prepared to return home with guns, tanks,etc with planes and drones overhead to terrorize the terrorists for a change !!!
Bernie need to start feeling some #I'mWithHer
He can't hold Hillary hostage
Bernie can't blackmail Hillary
She won...he lost
#VotesCountRalliesDon't
#VotersAreJustNotIntoBernie
He can't hold Hillary hostage
Bernie can't blackmail Hillary
She won...he lost
#VotesCountRalliesDon't
#VotersAreJustNotIntoBernie
8
He's not holding anyone hostage. His supporters aren't all the same. Whether Bernie was in this race or not I would never have voted for Hillary. Many of his supporters are new voters because of him. Why vote for a party whose leader doesn't believe what we believe in?
2
Randy, we have all been held hostage by the Clintons. Don't you see? They are the most powerful, most hyper connected couple in the whole world and they will stop at nothing, they want to be even more powerful. If America is a true democracy (it has been leaning oligarchy for decades now), it will stop and prevent the Clintons from accumulating even more power and wealth because that is what a democracy of checks and balances are supposed to do.
2
Who promised #BernieOrBusters democracy meant choosing among perfect candidates? Where do they get this idea that they are not responsible for damage done by non-participation? Given that there is at least a little evil in even the best of us, democracy is by definition choosing between lesser and greater evils. That we've made progress on a number of fronts in your lifetime is due to the fact that enough good people didn't take their ball and go home because they didn't get everything that they want.
4
To a lot of people, Clinton *is* the greater evil. No thanks. Not ever. I lived through the '90s--I know exactly what I'd be getting.
2
Senator Sanders will not be the Democratic nominee in 2016 and that will be a disappointment for those who have so passionately supported him. He is a decent man with some good ideas. If you support him, however, you should be alarmed by the prospect of a Republican victory, because the two likely nominees are about as far from you ideologically as is possible.
I am old and secure enough to not be directly affected by the results of a Republican presidency in 2016, in the name of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. They can't hurt me too badly. But I hope I'm around to witness the anger and hear the gnashing of teeth of any Democrats who, by their inaction, will have enabled such a Republican victory. The consequences will be felt for decades, and they will be extremely unpleasant for those who consider themselves liberal, progressive, enlightened, tolerant, or even just moderate.
Look, SOMEBODY is going to be elected President in November. So ask yourselves, "Did I do all this just to make waves, or do I genuinely want to make change?" If you hope to see at least SOME progress in the direction of Senator Sanders' issues, you should work even harder for Senator Clinton in the Fall than you have for your man. If, on the other hand, you're just in this to make waves, stay home on election day. But don't complain next year when the country veers sharply away from the issues that are important to you, because you did it to yourself.
I am old and secure enough to not be directly affected by the results of a Republican presidency in 2016, in the name of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. They can't hurt me too badly. But I hope I'm around to witness the anger and hear the gnashing of teeth of any Democrats who, by their inaction, will have enabled such a Republican victory. The consequences will be felt for decades, and they will be extremely unpleasant for those who consider themselves liberal, progressive, enlightened, tolerant, or even just moderate.
Look, SOMEBODY is going to be elected President in November. So ask yourselves, "Did I do all this just to make waves, or do I genuinely want to make change?" If you hope to see at least SOME progress in the direction of Senator Sanders' issues, you should work even harder for Senator Clinton in the Fall than you have for your man. If, on the other hand, you're just in this to make waves, stay home on election day. But don't complain next year when the country veers sharply away from the issues that are important to you, because you did it to yourself.
26
Just wow. I have been hearing this meritless argument for decades now.
2
Democrats will lose with Hillary. Not because Bernie himself or Bernie supporters will not campaign for her, but because America has had enough of the Clintons just like they had enough of the Bushes.
37
After her conduct on Tuesday this Sanders supporter will campaign against her. She's been stealing so long she thinks it's a good thing
ABC
ABC
2
Secretary Clinton only makes one blunder after another. There is absolutely no reason to vote for this person. If being the lesser evil is a reason, I don't think we are in a functioning democracy.
35
Clinton's position on capital punishment is nonsensical and morally reprehensible. If she maintains her position, I won't vote for her in November: I'll write in my candidate of choice or I won't vote. Reductively call me a single-issue voter. That's fine. Capital punishment—state-sanctioned killing, killing in Americans' name—is not just any single issue.
You're either for or against capital punishment: you don't get to carve out space for federal capital punishment while "hoping" the Supreme Court sees to it States abolish it or meet high standards of evidentiary proof and proof of effective assistance of counsel. Please. That she wants to reserve state-sanctioned killing for federal use says everything I need to know about how she would govern and how shallow her talk of white privilege is. Eighty percent of the cases submitted by federal prosecutors for death penalty review between 1995 and 2000 involved racial minorities as defendants. See here for the report her husband ordered: https://www.justice.gov/dag/survey-federal-death-penalty-system
You're either for or against capital punishment: you don't get to carve out space for federal capital punishment while "hoping" the Supreme Court sees to it States abolish it or meet high standards of evidentiary proof and proof of effective assistance of counsel. Please. That she wants to reserve state-sanctioned killing for federal use says everything I need to know about how she would govern and how shallow her talk of white privilege is. Eighty percent of the cases submitted by federal prosecutors for death penalty review between 1995 and 2000 involved racial minorities as defendants. See here for the report her husband ordered: https://www.justice.gov/dag/survey-federal-death-penalty-system
18
Long before Sanders announced as a candidate an overwhelming number of voters made it clear that they did not want another Bush or Clinton. Both Bush & Clinton believed by controlling fund raising they could ignore the voters & proceeded to attempt to lock up the nomination. Bush failed first but too many Dems got scared off thinking they couldn't finance a campaign & so we may be stuck with Hillary
So here is the point for Hillary supporters who claim that all voters should be concerned if the Rs win & that it is so important that Hillary is a woman; you are the ones creating this predicament. How many times do you need to hear that Hillary has high unfavorables before it sinks in that nominating Hillary may lose the general election? Hillary has proved she can't reduce her unfavorables & it will only get worse in the general election. You, the Hillary supporters are blind to the problem
If having a D in the White House is really what is important to you & Hillary shares your values, then have Hillary step aside for a D that can win or is this election all about Hillary. I would be happy to vote for a real D & there are Dems who are women who would be able to get the support of the independents needed to win the election, like Elizabeth Warren, because we know they share our values & are not just in it for themselves, which is why we didn't want another Clinton or Bush in the first place
So here is the point for Hillary supporters who claim that all voters should be concerned if the Rs win & that it is so important that Hillary is a woman; you are the ones creating this predicament. How many times do you need to hear that Hillary has high unfavorables before it sinks in that nominating Hillary may lose the general election? Hillary has proved she can't reduce her unfavorables & it will only get worse in the general election. You, the Hillary supporters are blind to the problem
If having a D in the White House is really what is important to you & Hillary shares your values, then have Hillary step aside for a D that can win or is this election all about Hillary. I would be happy to vote for a real D & there are Dems who are women who would be able to get the support of the independents needed to win the election, like Elizabeth Warren, because we know they share our values & are not just in it for themselves, which is why we didn't want another Clinton or Bush in the first place
51
Yet Clinton got the most votes.
The only people who said "No more Bushes. No more Clintons" were phony Republicans who were willing to sacrifice Bush in order to stop Hillary.
Now these same phony Republicans are faking the Bern.
The only people who said "No more Bushes. No more Clintons" were phony Republicans who were willing to sacrifice Bush in order to stop Hillary.
Now these same phony Republicans are faking the Bern.
The elite machine Democrats are determined to commit suicide by Hillary.
1
Bernie Sanders isn't a real Democrat. He's been a fervid Independent his whole political life. He only joined the Democratic Party so he could run for president. He doesn't even know all the voting procedures, which is why he didn't warn his NY Independent supporters long ago that they had to register as Democrats to be able to vote for him. As for Elizabeth Warren, you can't vote for somebody who doesn't want to be president and has refused to put herself forward as a candidate.
As a 62-year old Progressive female, I find Hope Green's anti-Hilary comment chilling. What has progressive politics come to, if it leads to this. Don't you remember Ralph Nadar? Great guy, wrong job.
15
This campaign is nothing like Ralph Nader's campaign. Nader never got over 5% in any state. Bernie is the candidate with the vision to turn America back into a functioning society. Suicide rates are up 30% in the last decade. Hillary isn't worried about that. She's worried about being asked to play dodge ball with the cool kids.
2
The idea that you people think we're doing this out of spite or disgruntlement is inane. The fact of the matter is that some people genuinely cannot vote for a candidate that they can't support. I can't support Clinton, I can't support any of the GOP, so I'm throwing my weight behind a third party.
Will it amount to nothing? Probably. Will it be the deciding factor of who becomes president? Maybe, maybe not. However, I'm voting for who I believe is the best choice of all the choices given, and considering some aspects of Clinton, especially her foreign policy, I can't sincerely vote for her with a clear conscience.
Respect the idea that people are not bound to these two parties, and give us a break before you make assumptions about our character.
Will it amount to nothing? Probably. Will it be the deciding factor of who becomes president? Maybe, maybe not. However, I'm voting for who I believe is the best choice of all the choices given, and considering some aspects of Clinton, especially her foreign policy, I can't sincerely vote for her with a clear conscience.
Respect the idea that people are not bound to these two parties, and give us a break before you make assumptions about our character.
45
Hillary has taken $2.9 million for speeches to Wall Street, Bankers, and Corporations. Her Hillary Victory Fund has laundered millions though the DNC and into Hillary's campaign. Hillary Clinton represents the Wall Street, Banksters, and Corporate tax dodgers.
Hillary's presidency would be a rerun of Bill Clinton's sellout "third way" that abandoned traditional progressive Democratic values for personal wealth and power. Her term as Secretary of State coincided with millions of anonymous donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Will Bernie's supporters support Hillary's candidacy, NO! Voting for either Donald or Ted will be the poison pill that takes down the Republican party which has already proven the cannot govern. Two years of Republican rule will lead to Democratic landslides in the 2018 Congressional elections and in 2020 when a NEW Progressive Democratic Party regains the White House.
An additional benefit would be a regime change at the DNC replacing the Clinton Cabal with a traditional Progressive Democratic party as Burnie Sander's 2016 Legacy.
Hillary's presidency would be a rerun of Bill Clinton's sellout "third way" that abandoned traditional progressive Democratic values for personal wealth and power. Her term as Secretary of State coincided with millions of anonymous donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Will Bernie's supporters support Hillary's candidacy, NO! Voting for either Donald or Ted will be the poison pill that takes down the Republican party which has already proven the cannot govern. Two years of Republican rule will lead to Democratic landslides in the 2018 Congressional elections and in 2020 when a NEW Progressive Democratic Party regains the White House.
An additional benefit would be a regime change at the DNC replacing the Clinton Cabal with a traditional Progressive Democratic party as Burnie Sander's 2016 Legacy.
30
Trump has taken hundreds of millions from the Saudis. I'll take Hillary.
Two years of a fully Republican government may produce enough voter suppression laws to prevent a progressive victory for two generations.
Hillary has given millions to down ballot races; she joined George Clooney in an even bigger effort for Dems running downstream. Bernie Sanders has collected millions in a race which he cannot win. What does he propose to do with his campaign war chest?
Sanders, the ideas he trumpets, and the enthused youth are the only hope for the Democratic party--A party that is almost unrecognizable from the one I first voted for in 1972. There is no hope with Hillary who will continue her version of the party as a centrist neo-liberal party of warmongering regime change elitist revolving door wonks who support baby steps incremental change. The problems facing our society are too great for this. You might as well just kill the party and hope it returns as something better in 2020. Americas future with this Democratic party is dismal. It will never improve if the nation elects Hillary.
29
You voted for McGovern in 1972 and gave Nixon a landslide win which also helped elect many conservatives? Didn't that experience teach you anything?
In retrospect it taught that when you have it bad as in Richard Nixon..just wait what might happen you could get Hillary who is considerably more conservative than NIxon..Bill Clinton killed the democrats not McGovern.
1
Remember the righteous Nader supporters who put Bush in the White House? Welcome to the next generation.
19
Nice try, Clinton, but two inconvenient truths derail your urban myth:
First, in Florida, Pat Buchanan polled more votes than Nader did, and hardly any of those would have helped Gore in the absence of the little candidates.
Second, Gore was such an uncompelling candidate that he failed to carry his home state of Tennessee. Tennessee would have won for Gore even without Florida. And Tennessee had sent both Gore and his father to the $enate.
First, in Florida, Pat Buchanan polled more votes than Nader did, and hardly any of those would have helped Gore in the absence of the little candidates.
Second, Gore was such an uncompelling candidate that he failed to carry his home state of Tennessee. Tennessee would have won for Gore even without Florida. And Tennessee had sent both Gore and his father to the $enate.
4
Here is a detailed explanation of the 2000 Gore- Nader-Florida vote on the very partisan Dem site dailykos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
And here, despite all the evidence about that Nader-Gore Florida vote listed on the Kos site, is the best interpretation of the way Dems still handle the facts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9VMY8X9rU8
And here, despite all the evidence about that Nader-Gore Florida vote listed on the Kos site, is the best interpretation of the way Dems still handle the facts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9VMY8X9rU8
Bernie can beat Trump by a wider margin than Hillary can. She is within the margin of error. You want to risk that? This primary and Ralph Nader's candidacy are nothing like each other. What else ya got?
2
The differences between Sen Sanders and Mrs Clinton are vast and incompatible. Hillary is a Wall Street-pandering War Hawk. Sen. Sanders is carrying the torch for a movement of young and old- the tens of millions of Americans who recognize that we are living in a rigged economic and political system that is eroding the core fabric of this great country. The Clinton Political Machine has turned the Dems into Republican lite and should Mrs Clinton win the nomination there will be no 'holding the nose' and voting for her. Those days are over. There are options, including abstention... which in itself is a bold statement that we will not accept a corporatist War Hawk to be jammed down our throats. No more.
Given the chicanery witnessed in this electoral cycle, Bernie and like-minded progressives should form a Third Party. After all, some 40 percent of registered voters are independents and many would welcome a political home.
Given the chicanery witnessed in this electoral cycle, Bernie and like-minded progressives should form a Third Party. After all, some 40 percent of registered voters are independents and many would welcome a political home.
39
If Bernie doesn't clinch the nomination, I will go back to my Green Party and vote for Jill Stein. My vote doesn't matter much anyways, CA will always vote Blue. I doubt I'm not the only one who is doing this, vote for who you believe in, not for the lesser of two evils.
33
I fervently support Bernie Sanders. Should (Dog forfend) Clinton be the nominee, I will under NO CIRCUMSTANCES hold my nose and vote for her, not even were she to morph before my very eyes SNL-style into Bernie; nor will I "stay home." It's still a long way to November and no one yet knows for a certainty what the ballot will look like, but if Hillary Clinton's name is on it, I might for the first time in the entire half century of doing my civic duty at the polls for every city, county, state, and federal election, vote for a—I can hardly bring myself to type the word—Republican.
20
I actually don't think the choice is simple for a lot of Bernie supporters, myself one of them. While I will vote for Hillary if I need to (I highly doubt California would go Red in a presidential election, but ya never know), the choice is a false one. Bernie is pulling in millions of voters who have not voted before. And remember, only 57% of the eligible population voted in the 2012 election, a shockingly low number compared to other democracies. I also think the stuff being put out about Nader costing Gore the election is hogwash. Progressives like myself have been pushed out the party by folks like Gore, Clinton, and all the other Democratic Leadership Council candidates, of which Hillary is definitely one. Seriously, Gore's campaign was horrible, so bad he couldn't win his home state of Tennessee, which would have cost him the election. And only 50% of the eligible population voted in 2000, having nothing to do with any votes for Nader. If the Democrats don't want to accommodate voters like me, it is unfair to expect these voters to simply hold their noses and vote for someone who doesn't espouse their values. By all means, I think EVERYONE should vote, but there is nothing selfish about voting your values instead of the lesser of evils.
158
If Gore was such a weak candidate why was it necessary for the Supreme Court to basically steal the election? It was close and the Nader votes made the difference.
4
This DLC cancer has spread. Look at the CA Dem candidates for Senate. I bet Kamala Harris in CA is one of them (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/california-attorney-general-break..., though I have not followed all her actions. DiFi will only leave the senate when she is carried out on a stretcher and she's a DINO. We have to stop electing them locally first and then stop sending them to Washington.
I want to vote for Pols who don't instinctively head to big money for campaign financing and be "Borged" (my word but Startrek ref, sorry -absorbed by Big money in this case) by them during their political life. Bernie showed that he can do it from small donations. Before someone brands me a bleeding heart Socialist, I am an entrepreneur who wants a re-balancing of power in State and Federal Government. If we continue on this path we'll become a banana republic like Guatemala and Honduras.
I will not vote for Hillary under any condition, her flaws are too numerous to state here and I've done it ad nauseum in previous comments. we need someone to take apart the Democratic Party and rebuild it like The Donal is doing with the Republican party. You know...I am starting to get used to him...free entertainment for the next four years? Meanwhile, Feel The Bern!
I want to vote for Pols who don't instinctively head to big money for campaign financing and be "Borged" (my word but Startrek ref, sorry -absorbed by Big money in this case) by them during their political life. Bernie showed that he can do it from small donations. Before someone brands me a bleeding heart Socialist, I am an entrepreneur who wants a re-balancing of power in State and Federal Government. If we continue on this path we'll become a banana republic like Guatemala and Honduras.
I will not vote for Hillary under any condition, her flaws are too numerous to state here and I've done it ad nauseum in previous comments. we need someone to take apart the Democratic Party and rebuild it like The Donal is doing with the Republican party. You know...I am starting to get used to him...free entertainment for the next four years? Meanwhile, Feel The Bern!
1
Please!
The only equality Hillary will bring your daughters the equal chance to die fighting a war on behalf of her donors.
Liberals who tell women that Republicans will take away our contraception are as bad as those who said Obama would take away your guns
The only equality Hillary will bring your daughters the equal chance to die fighting a war on behalf of her donors.
Liberals who tell women that Republicans will take away our contraception are as bad as those who said Obama would take away your guns
2
Most of these comments are exactly as I thought they would be. I have my doubts about HRC, but there are several things that are important to me that Hillary will not do. She will not destroy my social security or Medicare. She must listen to us if she is ever to be reelected. She will not nominate another Justice Scalia to the SCOTUS. She will be on the side of rights for women. She will stand up to Republican obstructionism and take no guff as she did in the Libyan hearings. You may hate her passionately, stay home, as Nader supporters did to Al Gore in 2000, but this would be casting a vote against your own interests as we shout Republican voters have done against President Obama.
339
What makes you so sure she won't destroy Social Security? Her husband and Newt Gingrich were all set to announce a plan to privatize it, when said plan got derailed by the breaking of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
39
Hillary is not some clone of her husband from 20 years ago. She has a mind of her own, perfectly able to adjust to the reality of today's world. What is this business about expecting a woman running for office to reflect a past that was her husband's (if it is even true)? I don't remember Republicans worrying that Reagan was going to use Nancy's astrologer to guide his decisions. Times change and people evolve. Hillary has been a progressive - probably at times a frustrated progressive - for all her adult life. The implication that her administration would simply mirror her husband's is beyond sexist.
3
And considering she says now she was tricked into voting for a needless war, how do you know she won't do it again? Saying I'm sorry doesn't cut it for such a serious mistake.
1
I've watched a slow-motion right-wing coup occur over decades, and it's nearly complete. Bernie is offering the opportunity for a national reboot that is our best chance restore a government for the people, by the people. Incremental change means one step forward, maybe two steps back until we back right over a cliff.
However, I have daughters and nieces who are of reproductive age, and refusing to vote for Clinton increases the chances that these young women will have little to no say over their reproductive capacity if the Republicans win the White House.
Think long-term here, people. The next president gets to appoint judges to SCOTUS. Ideological purity is not going to mean a hill of beans to the women forced to give birth after the right wing completes its takeover and relegates the female half of the population to second class status.
However, I have daughters and nieces who are of reproductive age, and refusing to vote for Clinton increases the chances that these young women will have little to no say over their reproductive capacity if the Republicans win the White House.
Think long-term here, people. The next president gets to appoint judges to SCOTUS. Ideological purity is not going to mean a hill of beans to the women forced to give birth after the right wing completes its takeover and relegates the female half of the population to second class status.
289
Supporting Hillary is "long-term" thinking? Who'd have guessed, eh? Bernie's supporters would argue just the opposite.
25
Hillary is only a feminist when she feels like it. Bernie's been a feminist his whole career. I would take my chances on a sure thing. And I am. GO BERNIE GO.
2
"However, I have daughters and nieces who are of reproductive age, and refusing to vote for Clinton increases the chances that these young women will have little to no say over their reproductive capacity if the Republicans win the White House."
Here's your solution. Teach them to be smart about birth control. I'd expect it's much less emotional to use contraception, then terminate a fetus.
Here's your solution. Teach them to be smart about birth control. I'd expect it's much less emotional to use contraception, then terminate a fetus.
1
I can't see how not voting for Hilary will support any of the ideals the Sanders supporters have been pursuing. If they don't support Hilary then they will have only themselves to blame for the implementation of republican policies that we all reject. I understand all of the issues with Hilary but she will be much better than any republican candidate
19
That's right, Sanders supporters are to blame for Clinton voting for the Iraq War, doing an about face on the Pacific Trade Deal, and not releasing those Goldman Sachs transcripts among other things.
2
“I do not want to be responsible for electing some right-wing Republican to be president of the United States.” -- Bernie Sanders, July 2015, on whether he would run as an independent if he loses the nomination to Clinton.
"We will need to come together in a few months and unite this party and this nation, because the right-wing Republicans we opposed must not be allowed to gain the presidency." -- Bernie Sanders, 2/8/16
"On her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day." -- Bernie Sanders, November, 2015
I'm a Hillary supporters, but I take Sen. Sanders at his word. I fully expect him to endorse Hillary if she wins the nomination, and to campaign for her in the fall. What's in it for him? Certainly a cabinet position translating to more REAL power than a Socialist has ever wielded in the U.S. political system.
"We will need to come together in a few months and unite this party and this nation, because the right-wing Republicans we opposed must not be allowed to gain the presidency." -- Bernie Sanders, 2/8/16
"On her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day." -- Bernie Sanders, November, 2015
I'm a Hillary supporters, but I take Sen. Sanders at his word. I fully expect him to endorse Hillary if she wins the nomination, and to campaign for her in the fall. What's in it for him? Certainly a cabinet position translating to more REAL power than a Socialist has ever wielded in the U.S. political system.
19
There are only three cabinet positions of any importance: State, Defense, and Justice and let's face it Sanders isn't going to get any of those.
And considering that no one even bothers to read the party platforms anymore and the candidates generally choose to complete ignore them, allowing Sanders input on it is giving him nothing.
He can't even get Clinton to release those Goldman Sachs transcripts so what's she going to do for him?
And considering that no one even bothers to read the party platforms anymore and the candidates generally choose to complete ignore them, allowing Sanders input on it is giving him nothing.
He can't even get Clinton to release those Goldman Sachs transcripts so what's she going to do for him?
2
I also will never vote for Clinton whatever the choices are. Would be nice if someone from the DNC was reading these comments, even better, Hillary herself.... A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T WANT YOU. Go away.
21
Obviously a whole lot of people DO want Hillary, judging by her being far ahead in the primaries.
15
A lot people do not want an old man shouting "get off my lawn" either. He has been in the Senate for 26 years, and is known as the Amendment King. He has never been to Europe, met with foreign leaders, has no foreign policy, and did not know where Syria is. It is not 1950; it is a new century with a huge gap in the historical memory bank of these kids.
I think that Bernie will stay in the race and continue to push
Hillary to the left (where she belongs.)
If he doesn't get the nomination, at least
he will have succeeded in this ( and ultimately,
will give her his endorsement.)
Hillary to the left (where she belongs.)
If he doesn't get the nomination, at least
he will have succeeded in this ( and ultimately,
will give her his endorsement.)
10
I fear the young Bernie supporters who have energized his campaign stops, simply won't bother to campaign for her or vote, if Bernie isn't on the ticket.
They just see Clinton as same-old Republican light. They will go off and spend the day hiking, or biking (if it isn't too cold).
They don't see HRC as an agent of change.
They just see Clinton as same-old Republican light. They will go off and spend the day hiking, or biking (if it isn't too cold).
They don't see HRC as an agent of change.
11
One, It just isn't young voters that will stay home.
Two, Hillary is NOT an agent of change. And that is what's wrong with Hillary.
Two, Hillary is NOT an agent of change. And that is what's wrong with Hillary.
2
Where were these loyal Dems at the mid-terms when they also stayed home in a snit and gave the House to the Republicans. Is this more of the "it's all about me" generation? Good thing they weren't around when WWII started.
Chris, it's not all about the "me" generation. I was around when WWII started and ended. I voted in the mid terms. If anyone fits into the "me" generation, whatever that is," Hillarry is at the top of the list. Me this, Me that. And I will vote in this election, for the Democratic female who is running for senator against an incumbent and the Democratic male who is running for congress against the incumbent representative.
However, this life long aged female Democrat who has been around the political block for years WILL NOT vote for Queen Hillary.
However, this life long aged female Democrat who has been around the political block for years WILL NOT vote for Queen Hillary.
1
I remain perplexed that folks like Mr. Nagourney and the other political commentators fail to mention that President Obama has very clearly stated that once the Democratic nominee is selected that he will vigorously campaign to see the nominee is elected. If it is HC as it now appears, There is no better person to bring younger voters on board. Speak up pundits. What will the effect of the President be on the campaign or is it more fun to simply rehash the Bernie question?
7
I've only ever supporter Sanders to spite the democrat's cramming of Clinton down our throats and suppressing a primary that could have contained many more unique runners. I've always knew that Sanders would not be the nominee but at least could bring a little bit of challenge to Clinton before the general. In away I guess this could be seen as actually helping Clinton instead of letting her walk through to the general without any real competition and perhaps a sense of complacency. Either or, I don't plan on voting for Clinton in the general. I may or may not vote; I plan on voting in the primary but his is merely for the purpose of the more local stuff. The general..if I do vote it'll be for a libertarian probably. I won't vote for Clinton. If for whatever reason Clinton supporters or Clinton's campaign annoys me enough I may vote for Trump (or whomever the Republican candidate is) out of spite.
14
The problem is that the Democratic Party no longer speaks for the average American, but now speaks solely for the top 10% (I'm including upper class professionals) NAFTA was a disaster for Americans, and this fact has been virtually IGNORED by Hillary Cllnton et al. The Iraq War, likewise, a disaster -- and IGNORED by the Democrats.
Too bad the DNC couldn't come up with a better candidate- -but it was "Hillary' turn." Oh, and she's a woman. Sorry, that is not good enough for me.
Too bad the DNC couldn't come up with a better candidate- -but it was "Hillary' turn." Oh, and she's a woman. Sorry, that is not good enough for me.
40
I understand the anger over NAFTA and other trade deals from those who actually lost manufacturing jobs, just as I understand the anger of coal miners in response to concerns with global warming. (there are real costs borne asymmetrically for all political choices) But it is also true that the American middle class (most Bernie supporters including the young ) have had the benefit of living in unprecedented material luxury by having the ability to purchase goods made by foreign "cheap labor" ; e.g the clothing made in Thailand, the computer parts manufactured in China, the electronics made in Korea etc etc. The Walmart phenomenon is testament to the benefits received by the American middle class; I see no inclination on the part of the Bernie supporters, the Trump supporters, or for that matter an significant segment of the American populace to renounce the benefits of these deals and to adopt a more spartan life-style.
1
If you think NAFTA was a disaster for America, take a history lesson.
America is in FAR better shape than it was in 1992. By every metric. Wake up already.
America is in FAR better shape than it was in 1992. By every metric. Wake up already.
As an almost 60 yr old female Bernie supporter, there is nothing that Hillary can do that would get my vote. I've decided to go from long time Dem to Ind after my state's primary. I've had enough of settling for the lesser of two bad candidates and doing just that gives you more of the same. . insanity! I will write Bernie in if needed or vote green party. I can't vote for someone who epitomizes what I'm fighting against. The DNC does not need my support, they have all the support of special interests and so does Hillary.
195
hear, hear
12
Well the daughters of America need us - so if you're a woman who cares about women please don't throw your vote to the Republicans. I understand this issue hasn't gotten much traction since Hillary is the only one who brings it up and she is hated. When she brings it up she is reviled and accused of playing the gender card. But why isn't the war on women central to Bernie's agenda? Do you see what they are doing? Every day a clinic closes or a law is changed that can affect a woman's life. I don't understand your hate because I think it should be toward the Republicans, but honestly please think about all our girls - and boys for that matter. They will be denied sex education. It affects families. It affects everyone!
As an almost 60 yr old female Bernie supporter, there is nothing that Hillary can do that would get my vote.
Even making Elizabeth Warren her running mate?
Even making Elizabeth Warren her running mate?
Whatever rancor that survives the eventual nomination of Hillary Clinton will be exceeded tenfold by the apocalyptic meltdown experienced by the Republicans in Cleveland.
Don't worry Goldman Sachs and Citibank, your tool couldn't possibly blow it now.
Don't worry Goldman Sachs and Citibank, your tool couldn't possibly blow it now.
5
Very few commentators (and least of all, the DNC) seem able to admit to themselves that many Sanders supporters and other independents will be willing to give Trump a look if Clinton is nominated. Trump himself does seem aware of this, as he is in the process of pivoting to a more restrained, scripted presentation of himself. The notion (or fervent hope) that all these non-Clinton Democrats and independents will automatically vote for Clinton, albeit with clothespins firmly gripping their noses shut, rather than even consider Trump, is not based in reality. It's closer to reality if Cruz somehow winds up the GOP nominee, but the chances of that are vanishingly tiny.
11
Trump is a fraud and any Bernie supporter who supports him will be in for a big surprise.
They'll be the first ones he sends down to the labor camps to build the wall.
They'll be the first ones he sends down to the labor camps to build the wall.
The text of the article was unnecessary. The headline alone was enough to bring out the New Naderites pledging to sit home. Many, many Clinton supporters just don't post here anymore.
8
I'm a registered Democrat, not a millennial. I'm not a Bernie bro,. I love Bernie though because he's honest. I'm an African-American woman who is reading Dark Money by Jane Mayer.
The way she yelled at the Greenpeace activist was disgusting and then she blamed Bernie's campaign because they asked about the fossil fuel companies fueling her campaign / Super Pac.
No one will ever get me to vote for Hillary. No one. Not ever.
I will vote for Trump before Hillary. That's a promise.
The way she yelled at the Greenpeace activist was disgusting and then she blamed Bernie's campaign because they asked about the fossil fuel companies fueling her campaign / Super Pac.
No one will ever get me to vote for Hillary. No one. Not ever.
I will vote for Trump before Hillary. That's a promise.
22
If you would vote for Trump, you are not a Democrat. Disgruntled and unsure of which Party you belong to, maybe. But, not a Democrat. We have two major Parties which are capable of putting someone in the White House. Take your pick, or stay home and pout.
There never was party unity to restore. Bernie represented a vast number of people left out of politics, whom the Democrats ignored. Hillary represents the people who left them out and ignored them.
Bernie is a vast group of voters who felt used and left out for years.
Hillary is the machine and its big donors that used them then ignored their needs.
They were never united. There is nothing to "restore."
If Hillary wanted to appeal to them, she would need Bernie and what Bernie says. She doesn't want that. She just wants to use their votes and ignore them again.
If Hillary was to represent them, she would need to confront her donors. She would need to get new ideas of economics. She would not be able to do all the wars she is determined to do.
She would need J-Street and would need to turn away from AIPAC. She would need Chas Freeman and to turn away from the Kagans.
She won't. She does not want to. She does not want unity.
Bernie is a vast group of voters who felt used and left out for years.
Hillary is the machine and its big donors that used them then ignored their needs.
They were never united. There is nothing to "restore."
If Hillary wanted to appeal to them, she would need Bernie and what Bernie says. She doesn't want that. She just wants to use their votes and ignore them again.
If Hillary was to represent them, she would need to confront her donors. She would need to get new ideas of economics. She would not be able to do all the wars she is determined to do.
She would need J-Street and would need to turn away from AIPAC. She would need Chas Freeman and to turn away from the Kagans.
She won't. She does not want to. She does not want unity.
54
Thank you immensely, Mr. Thomason.
I wonder what Howard Zinn would suggest in this moment?
I wonder what Howard Zinn would suggest in this moment?
15
Thomason, in a a few short paragraphs you nail it spot on. What more can be said; there is no way that we can cast a vote for Clinton. Thanks.
3
She would also need to somehow completely erase the years 1992-2000 from our memories.
2
It is one of those strange ironies of democracy that the voters are supposed to change their viewpoints to match those of the candidates rather than vice versa.
So if I oppose money controlling politics, why should I support a candidate who has taken hundreds of millions from special interests?
If I oppose the neocons and all they represent in foreign policy, why should I support a candidate who is aligned with them?
We are supposed to vote for a candidate who represents our beliefs and interests, not against a candidate who we dislike even more.
Hillary needs to change and I doubt that is ever going to happen.
So if I oppose money controlling politics, why should I support a candidate who has taken hundreds of millions from special interests?
If I oppose the neocons and all they represent in foreign policy, why should I support a candidate who is aligned with them?
We are supposed to vote for a candidate who represents our beliefs and interests, not against a candidate who we dislike even more.
Hillary needs to change and I doubt that is ever going to happen.
175
You should support that candidate in order to prevent the alternative which is much worse. That is the only rational decision unfortunately.
If you're looking for a candidate who perfectly reflects your beliefs and interests, you probably will never find one unless you run for office yourself.
Candidates are almost always a mixture of stuff you like and stuff you don't (except for the ones whom you don't like at all -- are you listening, Mr. Manhattan real estate mogul supreme?). Oh, I guess they're like your friends and family, who are also such mixtures. They're all human beings. So if you mostly like them (especially when compared with their opponents), just vote for them, for Pete's sake.
I personally like Bernie a lot more than Hillary, but I readily concede that he has his faults too, like other human beings. So I'll vote for either one in November. I'm someone who has never in my life voted for a Republican, and I'm not about to change.
Candidates are almost always a mixture of stuff you like and stuff you don't (except for the ones whom you don't like at all -- are you listening, Mr. Manhattan real estate mogul supreme?). Oh, I guess they're like your friends and family, who are also such mixtures. They're all human beings. So if you mostly like them (especially when compared with their opponents), just vote for them, for Pete's sake.
I personally like Bernie a lot more than Hillary, but I readily concede that he has his faults too, like other human beings. So I'll vote for either one in November. I'm someone who has never in my life voted for a Republican, and I'm not about to change.
75
Didn't Bernie vote to exempt arms manufacturers from any liability? And, doesn't he support the expensive, feckless project known as the F35? And, where are his complete tax returns? His wife does his taxes and doesn't keep real records? Amazing. Finally, what has he accomplished in his 26 years in the Senate? What has he done to earn the Presidency? Hillary Clinton has been a First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. She has championed women's rights since Bill was in the White House; she supported CHIPS; she supported medical care for first responders after 9/11, and made it happen. She has donated millions to elect Democrats with her campaign funds. She has a long and honorable history of public service. I do not want Bernie Sanders in the White House; he is not qualified to be President.
4
The Clinton group is like a bunch of co-workers who ignore you or are mean to you most of the time, then demand that you volunteer to help on an important project.
They tell you that if you don't help and the project fails, everyone will lose with jobs and it will be your fault.
They tell you that if you don't help and the project fails, everyone will lose with jobs and it will be your fault.
243
"... it will be your fault."
That appears to be the standard operating procedure of the Clinton campaign - blame everyone else but themselves.
They blame everyone else for driving in the wrong direction, not realizing they are the ones going the wrong way down a one-way street !
Crime-bill : Threw Bill under the bus, saying he was the one who passed it.
Speaking scripts: Said everyone else was to blame for not releasing theirs. And, Bernie for not releasing his taxes.
Libya: Blamed Obama, saying the president was responsible for the mess,
.. and it goes on.
That appears to be the standard operating procedure of the Clinton campaign - blame everyone else but themselves.
They blame everyone else for driving in the wrong direction, not realizing they are the ones going the wrong way down a one-way street !
Crime-bill : Threw Bill under the bus, saying he was the one who passed it.
Speaking scripts: Said everyone else was to blame for not releasing theirs. And, Bernie for not releasing his taxes.
Libya: Blamed Obama, saying the president was responsible for the mess,
.. and it goes on.
2
Perfect! And once the project is over, you are again relegated to non-existence.
3
Wow, sorry you have such a terrible job.
But comparing your country to your factory is a bit of a stretch. You should not base your vote on comments by invisible and nameless strangers. People who claim to be supporters of Old Bernie, e.g., might be Republicans, doing what they can to sway the gullible.
But comparing your country to your factory is a bit of a stretch. You should not base your vote on comments by invisible and nameless strangers. People who claim to be supporters of Old Bernie, e.g., might be Republicans, doing what they can to sway the gullible.
This is more trouble-making by the media, maybe to discredit Bernie though his followers. As a Bernie supporter, I haven't talked to one who would not vote for Hillary in November, despite the rumblings to the contrary among diehards among internet commenters. It would be political suicide not to vote Democratic all the way to the top of the ticket, and Bernie said at the start that he would support any Democratic nominee.
There was similar talk about and among Hillary's people in '08 (PUMA - Party Unity My A**), but that disappeared once Barack Obama clinched the nomination.
Of course I have reservations about Hillary, but they are nothing compared with disgust at not only the remaining Republican candidates but also the sheer bloody-mindedness and misanthropy of their entire party that go back years, but especially to January 2009.
There was similar talk about and among Hillary's people in '08 (PUMA - Party Unity My A**), but that disappeared once Barack Obama clinched the nomination.
Of course I have reservations about Hillary, but they are nothing compared with disgust at not only the remaining Republican candidates but also the sheer bloody-mindedness and misanthropy of their entire party that go back years, but especially to January 2009.
75
Here's one Bernie supporter who won't vot for Hill, if she's nominated, if she doesn't select Bernie as her running mate.
1
Here in Ithaca, NY we're surrounded by Sanders-loving Hillary haters who are over the top in their refusals to vote for Clinton... period. I voted for Sanders in the primary but will gladly vote for Clinton in the general. Hopefully there won't be too many Bernie or bust voters in states that matter.
@mancuroc,
...this the exact opposite of the 2008 election.
...if you haven't talked to a Bernie supporter who would not vote for Hillary, you are living in an alternate universe!
...this the exact opposite of the 2008 election.
...if you haven't talked to a Bernie supporter who would not vote for Hillary, you are living in an alternate universe!
1
The thing that come through in every speech and every debate is that HC wants to be president - not that she wants to help America and Americans. There are millions of Americans who never got their share of the American pie. But HC wouldn't understand that when she is taking handouts from big corporations.
By the way, "Feel the Bern?" I think she doesn't feel anything.
By the way, "Feel the Bern?" I think she doesn't feel anything.
206
If you want to vote for someone who needs to be prodded into office with a pitchfork, you don't have a pony in this race.
1
But it"s her turn!!! She is entitled. How do you not know this?
2
This is simply not true. Hillary and Bernie agree on 95% of the issues, and she has worked successfully for many years for the disenfranchised. Bernie himself said he'd vote for her if she gets the nomination.
Reading a number of these comments by fellow Democrats is incredibly dismaying and depressing. I voted for Bernie, but will enthusiastically support Hillary if she is the nominee. I can't understand why any Democrat would choose to help elect a Trump or a Cruz over Hillary (or any Democrat for that matter). All Democrats only need to answer one simple question with potentially decades of impact....who is going to replace Justice Scalia?
117
For the past two and a half decades, the corporatist DLC/Third Way/New Democrats wing of the Democratic Party has employed a strategy, during presidential primaries, of invoking fear of the Republican bogeyman as a means of forcing Democratic voters to accept Republican-Lite candidates as their party's nominee. And, so far as winning presidential elections is concerned, that strategy has largely been successful (it would have been entirely successful had not the Supreme Court intervened in 2000). But even as it may have helped the party win presidential elections, it also managed to alienate altogether from politics major portions of the party's base, most especially labor. The result, the 2006 midterms notwithstanding, has been a steady erosion of Democratic seats in Congress, in Democratic governorships, and in Democratic seats in state houses across the country. And at a certain point, that erosion rendered winning the White House a pretty hollow victory, as these last eight years have clearly demonstrated.
Do I want to see a Trump or Cruz, or indeed any Republican in the White House? Of course not. But if winning the White House comes at a cost of ever-diminished progressive influence on the economic front and perpetuation of our imperial, interventionist military policy, then I have to conclude it simply isn't worth it.
Do I want to see a Trump or Cruz, or indeed any Republican in the White House? Of course not. But if winning the White House comes at a cost of ever-diminished progressive influence on the economic front and perpetuation of our imperial, interventionist military policy, then I have to conclude it simply isn't worth it.
8
I"ll tell you why. my generatoiin has nothing to lose. The democrat party supports a status quo that has cheated my generation out of the American Dream. I dont have a chance under the current conditions. I pledge to vote for trump because he will blow things up and give us a chance to rebuild the political process the right way after he destroys the political system.
1
Then perhaps Hillary is the wrong choice for Democrats to make.
Perhaps you should take a look at your hometown newspaper's, the Boston Globe's, satirical fake of a friend by page in a year if Trump were elected. Distressingly, it's not too far off. So you prefer that the country essentially serlf-destruct rather than vote for Hillary Clinton. No one is absolutely pure. Not even Sanders. He said at the start he would not run a negative campaign. Well, that has changed. Clinton did not call him unqualified. She said he didn't seem prepared for the interview. Sanders is the one who called Clinton unqualified -- not based on her experience or skills but I because she had given speeches to Wall Street executives. And he chatises her for voting for the Iraq war (as did just about all of his colleagues) and also for the crime bill President Bill Clinton signed (I suppose this is a variation on "the sins of the father"). He conviently skates over the fact that he voted for it. Isn't he holding Secretary Clinton to higher standard than to which he holds himself? Sanders does have many good ideas but no hope of realizing them unless Democrats gain control of not just the presidency but also the Senate and one can hope the House.
59
Hillary called her vote on the Iraq invasion a mistake? a mistake, Hillary along with all the others who voted for the invasion including the Bush criminals have responsibility for for the hundreds of thousands of human deaths and the tens of thousands of deaths of women and children, A MISTAKE? 23 senators did not vote for the invasion including one Republican, Hillary is the only democratic candidate for president who caused this great tragedy A MISTAKE ? WAKE UP
1
Sanders went negative only after repeated attacks by Team Clinton. Sanders could have easily attacked her on the emails, it's still an unanswered issue.
1
Amen
There is one divide between Clinton and Sanders that I have a hard time seeing past--campaign finance reform. I consider this issue critical, and Sanders has made a great, even heroic, effort to draw attention to the problem--with terrific assistance from all the people who sent him small amounts of money.
We have to get the money out of politics. Until we do it will be virtually impossible to obtain many other reforms that we truly need--in closing the income gap, bringing American militarism under control, taking strong steps toward combating global warming, putting an end to the privatized prisons, getting criminal justice reform, and on and on. As it is now, it's almost impossible to make any movement on those issues while our representatives in Washington, including the president, are being paid off by corporate and banking interests.
On campaign finance reform, Hillary Clinton is no closer to being on the right side of this issue than Cruz, Kasich, Jeb, or any Republican, except maybe Trump, but who knows where Trump really stands?
I don't know if this will keep me from voting for Hillary, but it is something I'm thinking about real hard.
We have to get the money out of politics. Until we do it will be virtually impossible to obtain many other reforms that we truly need--in closing the income gap, bringing American militarism under control, taking strong steps toward combating global warming, putting an end to the privatized prisons, getting criminal justice reform, and on and on. As it is now, it's almost impossible to make any movement on those issues while our representatives in Washington, including the president, are being paid off by corporate and banking interests.
On campaign finance reform, Hillary Clinton is no closer to being on the right side of this issue than Cruz, Kasich, Jeb, or any Republican, except maybe Trump, but who knows where Trump really stands?
I don't know if this will keep me from voting for Hillary, but it is something I'm thinking about real hard.
71
The quickest way to defeating Citizens United is to change the makeup of the Supreme Court which would happen under Clinton or Sanders.
3
I agree that campaign finance reform should be a very important issue for all Democrats up and down the ballot. But please remember that the most recent huge expansion of money in politics - - corporations are people and money is speech - - was brought about by a Supreme Court decision - Citizens United - decided by the votes of the Justices appointed by Republican Presidents. Do you want more of them or fewer? If more, vote Republican or refuse to vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party. If fewer, vote for the nominee of the Democrats. If it is Bernie, I will be happy to vote for him. Remember that Citizens United can only be changed by an amendment to the Constitution or by a reversal of the decision by the Supreme Court. So the appropriate question for the Democratic candidate would be: will you nominate people for the Supreme Court who think Citizens United was wrongly decided? That's the only influence the President can have on the matter and such a nominee would have to be confirmed by the Senate - - now controlled by Republicans. That's why voting and voting for Democrats up and down the ballot is essential on this and many other issues.
No one is benefiting more from campaign money than Sanders is this season. He keeps preaching how bad it is for politics, but he seems to blow throug it like crazy.
Frankly, I am pragmatic about the money in politics, and right now it is what it is. My complaint is Sanders' hypocrisy about it. He is outsepnding Clinton 2 to 1.
It is pretty obvious Bernie's "message" is out there...and it is loud and clear -" do what I say, not what I do."
And no, it does not matter to me where the money is coming from. For all I care the Koch boys are getting people to send in $27 to Bernie. The origins are immaterial to me.
I do not even care if anyone tries to buy an election with advertising....I only care that Bernie is a liar and hypocrite.
Frankly, I am pragmatic about the money in politics, and right now it is what it is. My complaint is Sanders' hypocrisy about it. He is outsepnding Clinton 2 to 1.
It is pretty obvious Bernie's "message" is out there...and it is loud and clear -" do what I say, not what I do."
And no, it does not matter to me where the money is coming from. For all I care the Koch boys are getting people to send in $27 to Bernie. The origins are immaterial to me.
I do not even care if anyone tries to buy an election with advertising....I only care that Bernie is a liar and hypocrite.
If Hillary doesn't feel the Bern in a great big public forum by convention time, then I will stay home for the first time in a long life. Many Bernie supporters have no affection or loyalty whatsoever to the Democratic party. Both they and Republicans have hijacked the primary process to protect their insiders, and we Bernie folks are disgusted by all of it. We have passion for Bernie because he's Bernie, because of the true change he stands for, and we believe Hillary is not only a phony but that she staunchly insists on no real change at all and will in fact make sure her wealthy fellows have nothing to worry about. So I probably won't vote, not because I'm pouting, but because I cannot in good conscience vote for either Clinton or Trump.
128
What do you have loyalty to? A political change or revolution does not depend on one candidate or even a single election cycle. The only way it can ever happen is to work hard and support like minded candidates up and down the ballot. It is time for Sanders to engage in that effort, and if you are really serious, if you are not a millennial wedded to instant gratification, you will do that too.
51
And the revolution can start by writing in Bernie, whether he is the nominee or not. Millions of Dems and Independents are going to do this anyway, regardless of the party's herding us towards a spurious "unity." 8 more years of neoliberalism, whether under a Democrat or Republican, will finish off whatever good is left in this country.
Feel the Bern!
Feel the Bern!
7
And that makes so much sense, because I am sure that you are absolutely in love with Donald Trump.
1
Its like what my grandmother used to say about widowers pain: it's like hiting your funny bone, the pain is sharp but quickly forgotten. Give 'em time.
10
I don't think a Hillary's Presidency will help us commoners any more than a Trump one. So, I won't vote for her and contribute to her defeat.
1
In all good conscience, I just can not bring myself to vote for that woman, Hillary Clinton. I do not trust her, I do not like her, and I believe she cares more about herself than she does about this country. Unfortunately, I don't see how Bernie Sanders will be able to beat her. Even though he has the heart of a lion, Hillary is simply more skilled and polished and has the backing of big money, big power and big political guns. It is now her turn in the barrel to win since she lost the last time to President Obama. It is difficult to believe that the fix is NOT in for her to be the Democratic candidate for POTUS.
I am still hoping Bernie can turn this around, but it is like a toy Tonka truck competing against an 18 wheeler Mack truck with screeching and shrill-like breaks to boot. I can not help but think that the only thing Hillary Clinton is feeling is annoyance that she has not sewn up the nomination yet.
176
It's not all big money, big power and big political guns, you know. It's also the fact that more people -- about 3 million more, so far -- want her more than him.
6
It amazes me how sexist some progressive men and women allow themselves to be.
Have those who refuse to vote for Ms. Clinton because they don't like her never worked with someone who helped their company or organization succeed despite the fact that they are personally not likable? Do all those millions who don't like her (I read nothing about her policies in the post by Ms. Keller) work only with people they think highly of on a personal level? We're never going to have Hillary, Bernie, Donald, Ted or John over for a barbecue. We're not going to share beers with them. If we don't want to watch them on TV for four years, we can click to another of the 150 channels we can choose from when they pop up in front of our faces. Now, could we ask who knows better how to be the Chief Executive of the United States of America and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces?
The Democrat Party establishment clearly takes millions of us for granted in thinking we'll vote for any ol' Democrat given the Repub opponent is a bum (Trump or Cruz) in November. But the Dem Party apparatchiks are wrong. That's a cynical scam I'm unwilling to succumb to. I've voted Green Party in November before, and I can do it again.
151
Ralph Nader
31
Gore couldn't even carry his home state. Gore refused to push the issue of voter suppression in Florida. Nope--it wasn't Nader's fault, but Gore's.
Propaganda from the party elite who want to make sure nothing ever changes. Money in politics is good. Endless war is good. Neocons supporting our candidate is good.
Nope. This one is on the Democratic party for pushing a flawed candidate. If I wanted to vote for a Republican I would vote for a Republican.
Propaganda from the party elite who want to make sure nothing ever changes. Money in politics is good. Endless war is good. Neocons supporting our candidate is good.
Nope. This one is on the Democratic party for pushing a flawed candidate. If I wanted to vote for a Republican I would vote for a Republican.
58
And that helped do what exactly?
2
Naming a bona fide progressive VP associated with the left wing of the party would be a big step, suggesting that when the Clinton era ends (as thankfully it will), the future of the party will be open. It would also be wise to be "counter-intuitive" about the general election. Don't swing to the right to peel off a few more votes in the middle. For one thing, hostility to Secretary Clinton is so great among Republicans and independents that she'd win fewer votes on the right than she'd alienate on the left. For another, the outcome of the Republican convention may leave some Republicans with nowhere else to go: they made their mess, now let them come to Clinton, she need not budge. I'd double down on mobilizing Sanders' supporters and all potential Democratic voters (particularly with the sort of candidates the Republicans are considering): deepening her appeal will be more effective than trying to broaden it with a rightward lurch. That doesn't necessarily mean embracing Sanders' policies, just greater boldness with her own, and a clearer articulation about what sort of vision lies behind all of those policy prescriptions and micro-plans. Of course, I surely expect that once Senator Sanders pesky challenge has been dispatched, Secretary Clinton will set aside the gun issue for a general election and return to the Annie Oakley posture of 2008.
24
Good advice. I hope that idiot Mook is reading it.
The snowball in hell of Hillary not thinking she can pick up disgruntled Republicans by shifting to the right while taking the left for granted is just what this Times article is priming us to get ready to accept.
I won't accept it. I know a number of Sanders supporters who won't support Hillary Clinton and her sold-out-to-Wall Street war mongering.
Better four more years of pain and suffering to educate us masses about what does and doesn't work than the Hillary band-aid on the gushing artery. People in Kansas are starting to wake up to the nightmare of Brownback as Voodoo Economics wreaks its violent destruction in every sphere, bringing reality home. The time to compromise with it, as the Democrats have been doing since the 80s, is gone; the time to fight it tooth and nail is now.
I won't accept it. I know a number of Sanders supporters who won't support Hillary Clinton and her sold-out-to-Wall Street war mongering.
Better four more years of pain and suffering to educate us masses about what does and doesn't work than the Hillary band-aid on the gushing artery. People in Kansas are starting to wake up to the nightmare of Brownback as Voodoo Economics wreaks its violent destruction in every sphere, bringing reality home. The time to compromise with it, as the Democrats have been doing since the 80s, is gone; the time to fight it tooth and nail is now.
3
Hillary is the ANNIE OAKLEY in sheeps clothing, one toe nail of Bernie has more integrity than the whole of Hillary's lifetime of deception
2
Bernie or Busters aren't going to sit out. It's Trump. They don't care; they're Sarandon-ish - burn everything down-I'll be fine!
Trump & Sanders are just alike to them, isn't that funny: Who is the Birther-in-Chief who claims the President wasn't born here? Who had to think about it before he said "I disavow" an endorsement from the KKK's David Duke? Who claimed that his supporters who beat up a Latino rally protestor were merely "passionate"? Who said that when a black protestor was hit at a rally that "maybe he should have been roughed up"? Who said to the Jewish Republican Coalition in a speech: "I’m a negotiator, like you folks"...Is there anyone who doesn’t negotiate deals in this room?...You’re not going to support me, because I don’t want your money...You want to control your own politician." Louis Farrakhan loved that: "Not that I’m for Mr. Trump, but I like what I’m looking at."
Duke and Farrakhan: Donald Trump, the Uniter!
"According to new data from the American National Elections Studies 2016 pilot survey, 45% of Trump supporters believe the word "violent" describes black people in the United States either extremely well or very well...The stereotypes do not stop at violence, however: 38% of Trump supporters agreed that "lazy" describes black people either "extremely well" or "very well." About a quarter of Republicans and less than one-fifth of Democrats espoused the same belief."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/almost-half-donald-trumps-supporters-15230092...
Trump & Sanders are just alike to them, isn't that funny: Who is the Birther-in-Chief who claims the President wasn't born here? Who had to think about it before he said "I disavow" an endorsement from the KKK's David Duke? Who claimed that his supporters who beat up a Latino rally protestor were merely "passionate"? Who said that when a black protestor was hit at a rally that "maybe he should have been roughed up"? Who said to the Jewish Republican Coalition in a speech: "I’m a negotiator, like you folks"...Is there anyone who doesn’t negotiate deals in this room?...You’re not going to support me, because I don’t want your money...You want to control your own politician." Louis Farrakhan loved that: "Not that I’m for Mr. Trump, but I like what I’m looking at."
Duke and Farrakhan: Donald Trump, the Uniter!
"According to new data from the American National Elections Studies 2016 pilot survey, 45% of Trump supporters believe the word "violent" describes black people in the United States either extremely well or very well...The stereotypes do not stop at violence, however: 38% of Trump supporters agreed that "lazy" describes black people either "extremely well" or "very well." About a quarter of Republicans and less than one-fifth of Democrats espoused the same belief."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/almost-half-donald-trumps-supporters-15230092...
27
Actually Hillary's 2008 campaign's release of Obama in a turban was the birther originator and her cozy photos with David Duke. Oh how we forget or is it willful ignorance!
8
Who alluded to Bobby Kennedy's 1968 assassination as a reason for not ending her primary challenge against Obama in 2008? She stayed in the race until the bitter end and now has the gall to insist Bernie is hurting her, Bernie needs to end his run NOW.
2
Ericka,
Funny.?! It was HRC in her bid for the White House that started the Birther issue.
Sanders has already said he'd back Clinton in the General. Also the reason for running as a Dem.
HIs voters...maybe, maybe not.
But I got to tell you, you and your ilk do make it tough to hold ones nose, AGAIN!, for a candidate that will throw us and our ideals out the window in a heart beat. Just as Obama did. Just as Clinton before did.
For a party that needs us, ie. 42% registered Independents, Lib. Progressives, Greens to win. You sure don't make it easy.
Settle for Hillary 2016
The Americant do spirit!
Funny.?! It was HRC in her bid for the White House that started the Birther issue.
Sanders has already said he'd back Clinton in the General. Also the reason for running as a Dem.
HIs voters...maybe, maybe not.
But I got to tell you, you and your ilk do make it tough to hold ones nose, AGAIN!, for a candidate that will throw us and our ideals out the window in a heart beat. Just as Obama did. Just as Clinton before did.
For a party that needs us, ie. 42% registered Independents, Lib. Progressives, Greens to win. You sure don't make it easy.
Settle for Hillary 2016
The Americant do spirit!
2
Good conventional analysis based on wrong and obsolete assumptions.
Nagourney seems to think this election is about Democrats vs Republicans. And that Sanders supporters are Demcrats and should not want to tear down the party.
Note:
- Independents, Democrats, and Republicans comprise 42%, 31%, and 25% of the electorate (Gallup 1/14)
- A major peer reviewed study from Princeton determined that we've been living in an oligiarchy, not a democracy, for decades (google: 'princeton page study'). We are ruled by and for the 0.1%.
Trump is not a Republican and Sanders is not a Democrat - they're Independents and are both using the two "major" parties as a vehicle.
The goal of both and their supporters is to tear down the DNC/RNC Establishment that has been Hoovering our pockets for decades, which then goes into their off-shore accounts.
The difference between the Demo vs Repub Establishments is that the Democrats throw back 20% so we won't catch onto the scam, the Republicans keep every penny. Sandanistas actively want the destruction of the DNC Establishment 0.1%. And why not?
Sandanistas despise Slick Hilly's long trail of sleaze and will write in Sanders or vote for Trump. By the way, why almost no coverage in the NYT about Clinton's FBI criminal investigation??
So Trump wins.
In four years we win as Trump flames out (but weakens the 0.1% scamsters) - then Jill Stein, Liz Warren, and many more take over. The Revolution has started and it's looking good!
Nagourney seems to think this election is about Democrats vs Republicans. And that Sanders supporters are Demcrats and should not want to tear down the party.
Note:
- Independents, Democrats, and Republicans comprise 42%, 31%, and 25% of the electorate (Gallup 1/14)
- A major peer reviewed study from Princeton determined that we've been living in an oligiarchy, not a democracy, for decades (google: 'princeton page study'). We are ruled by and for the 0.1%.
Trump is not a Republican and Sanders is not a Democrat - they're Independents and are both using the two "major" parties as a vehicle.
The goal of both and their supporters is to tear down the DNC/RNC Establishment that has been Hoovering our pockets for decades, which then goes into their off-shore accounts.
The difference between the Demo vs Repub Establishments is that the Democrats throw back 20% so we won't catch onto the scam, the Republicans keep every penny. Sandanistas actively want the destruction of the DNC Establishment 0.1%. And why not?
Sandanistas despise Slick Hilly's long trail of sleaze and will write in Sanders or vote for Trump. By the way, why almost no coverage in the NYT about Clinton's FBI criminal investigation??
So Trump wins.
In four years we win as Trump flames out (but weakens the 0.1% scamsters) - then Jill Stein, Liz Warren, and many more take over. The Revolution has started and it's looking good!
80
You need to read more about revolutions to think they usually serve the people. Most of them flame out and end up putting dictators in power. Remember the Arab Spring, The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, The Communist Revolution in China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, most of them in Latin America and any number of them in Africa.
It is a rare day when a revolution ends up well for the people, and then it takes decades. In France it took 100 years. Or more time than incremental change. So why not just incremental and save all the dying and starving and death?
It is a rare day when a revolution ends up well for the people, and then it takes decades. In France it took 100 years. Or more time than incremental change. So why not just incremental and save all the dying and starving and death?
35
Let's remember the American revolution! Part two is coming soon.
1
Insanity to wish for Trump so some "revolution" can follow.
4
Sanders can be lauded for passionately exciting a phalanx a people on the issues at stake this election season. Somehow Clinton will need to sell them on the fact that she's fought, more or less, for the very same issues much harder than Sanders ever had.
33
The fact is, she hasn't fought for those issues-she just pretended to.
7
She won't be able to that without lying through her teeth.
1
Key word as always with Hillary-- sell.
1
I don't see how Sanders supporters can claim that staying home is taking the high road when the alternatives promise to repeal ACA, turn back the rights of GLBTs, undo Mr. Obama's diplomacy with Iran and start war, gut social security, empower law enforcement to further disregard the rights of people of color and deny abortion even to victims of rape and incest. Doesn't sound like the high road to me.
102
A Republican president would most likely also undermine or undo the global climate change agreement being signed today. It may well be our last chance to take serious action -- and it needs to be strengthened, not destroyed. Both Bernie and Hillary have vowed to support and build upon it.
3
@Anon,
...the alternative to taking the 'high road' is striking a Faustian bargain.
...the alternative to taking the 'high road' is striking a Faustian bargain.
This Sanders supporter will show up to vote for Hillary, to paraphrase a Times motto, "without fail or fervor." But you can't make me happy about the prospect.
And my view is that it's incumbent upon her to be the uniter to bind up the wounds and court Sanders supporters. Her campaign is toast without us. And blaming Sanders supporters because a candidate is uncompelling is, well, uncompelling.
And my view is that it's incumbent upon her to be the uniter to bind up the wounds and court Sanders supporters. Her campaign is toast without us. And blaming Sanders supporters because a candidate is uncompelling is, well, uncompelling.
4
Clinton bought this nomination fair and square. Her Victory campaign put state party leaders and superdelegates on the fiscal hook and the DNC has been little more than a PR machine for her campaign. This was years in the making in order to ensure an airtight outcome at the convention. The only hitch is that voters aren't particularly supportive of being bought - but nothing a little marketing can't fix. Buy Hillary - 2016!
92
So New York's voters were bought? Show a little respect for people who disagree with you. Bernie has gotten plenty of favorable publicity, more than enough to make him a contender. He's losing because he couldn't quite manage to persuade a majority of Democrats to support him over Hillary. That's all.
2
Hmmmmm, than why is she so far ahead?
1
Her nickname should be "Anybody's"
This election cycle can't be compared to any other. Sure, the pundits can look back at McCarthy or McGovern; but those candidates ran for office at a time when most of the electorate believed that the system worked; that it would continue to work; and that any changes were really about a little tweaking.
Today's electorate reflects an impulse that the system has failed and that social and economic security is threatened. The current impulse has been gaining momentum for nearly a generation. It's now racing towards something. Where and what that something will be is the question.
Today's electorate reflects an impulse that the system has failed and that social and economic security is threatened. The current impulse has been gaining momentum for nearly a generation. It's now racing towards something. Where and what that something will be is the question.
54
Bill, you should bone up on your history.
@Bill,
✔︎✔︎✔︎ you hit the bull's eye, that is the question! — as the Bard said.
✔︎✔︎✔︎ you hit the bull's eye, that is the question! — as the Bard said.
1
Those who would rather sit on their hands instead of voting are selfish. In all of my years voting, I have only ever felt I was voting for the lesser of two evils. The utopian view that some seem to have on both sides of the aisle need to wake up and enter reality. For the 24% Bernie supporters who would rather sit at home rather than vote for HRC, I can't quite grasp how you would rather pout like children having their favorite toy taken away and risk the likes of Ted Cruz or Trump being elected. You should really be ashamed of yourselves and realize how lucky you are to have the right to vote. Thousands upon thousands have died around the world fighting for the right to vote and still fight.
67
We're not voting for the status quo. Full stop.
3
They have the right to vote in Singapore too, for whichever candidate the Machine puts up, same as here.
2
I guess we are children because we believe it is time to reject the black hole of plutocracy into which people like the Clintons have driven us. At some point, someone or some group of idealists and dreamers must stand up to this shameful robbery of our democracy. To all of you who are willing to accept this in the name of pragmatism, I pity you. We can and should do better, we are Americans. Nominate Bernie while there is still time. Do not give in to the politics of fear and caution.
3
People, be reasonable. It's a two party system. The vast majority of the time, we vote against, not for. I voted for Bernie in the primaries, and will vote for Hillary in the general. You should remember Nader/Dubya and do the same or risk being stuck with President Cruz or President Trump. These are your choices.
72
Gore didn't lose to Bush because of Nader.
He lost because he was saddled with the baggage from the scandal, corruption and lack of integrity of the Clinton Administration.
"I did not have sex with that woman"
He lost because he was saddled with the baggage from the scandal, corruption and lack of integrity of the Clinton Administration.
"I did not have sex with that woman"
I do remember Nader/Bush. Give it a rest: http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
Peki, That Nader cost Gore is pure urban myth. The inconvenient truths are two. First, in Florida, Pat Buchanan polled more votes than Nader did. How many of those would have been with Gore? Not many.
Second, Florida would have been a goofy subplot out of a Carl Hiaasen novel had Gore been able to carry his home state of Tennessee, which had sent both Gore and his father to the $enate.
Looking for excuse- rationalizations for underperforming candidacies is a fool's errand. Why do I think Hillary partisans are preparing for the worst in the general election?
Second, Florida would have been a goofy subplot out of a Carl Hiaasen novel had Gore been able to carry his home state of Tennessee, which had sent both Gore and his father to the $enate.
Looking for excuse- rationalizations for underperforming candidacies is a fool's errand. Why do I think Hillary partisans are preparing for the worst in the general election?
3
If I cannot vote for Bernie in November, I will vote against the Republican candidate. No question about it.
72
A vote for the Green Party is a vote against the Republicans. You do have a choice.
3
A mistake, I think. A vote for the Clintons is a vote for the corrupt status quo.
1
"If I cannot vote for Bernie in November, I will vote against the Republican candidate."
In other words, you'll vote for Hillary.
In other words, you'll vote for Hillary.
If Bernie gets the nomination, all Hillary supporters must unite behind Bernie.
If Hillary gets the nomination, all Bernie supporters must unite behind Hillary.
It's just that simple.
If Hillary gets the nomination, all Bernie supporters must unite behind Hillary.
It's just that simple.
86
It's more likely that Bernie supporters will support HRC over Trump, but HRC supporters have more in common with Trump.
This Bernie supporter is with Hillary, without fail or fervor.
1
"If Hillary gets the nomination, all Bernie supporters must unite behind Hillary.
It's just that simple."
Not quite that simple! How magnanimous of a Hillary supporter to say, knowing full well that the fix is in for her. I can imagine the attitude, if the DNC had done everything in its power to thwart her, like they have done to Sanders.
It's just that simple."
Not quite that simple! How magnanimous of a Hillary supporter to say, knowing full well that the fix is in for her. I can imagine the attitude, if the DNC had done everything in its power to thwart her, like they have done to Sanders.
1
The choice is simple. Support the party nominee and congressional candidates, or allow the country to rapidly lurch in the polar opposite direction of Bernie's philosophy of governing. Anyone who is truly "principled" should be far more concerned about the country as a whole, than not getting to elect their dream nominee.
65
Actually Sanders beats Trump and Cruz by a far greater margin than Clinton in a General Election match-up. SA53%/TR38%, SA51%/CR40% vs. CL49%/TR40%, CL45%/CR43% (realclearpolitics data).
Note the coin-toss margin of Clinton vs Cruz. And Trump ads would destroy Clinton in the General due to her long long long list of sleaze, pandering, investigations, and abysmal judgment. Many Clinton supporters say they will vote while holding their noses.
Now many Clintonistas say that Clinton has been through the ringer and survived. Well, she could not win the nomination against Obama and never faced the Republican attack machine in the General. She ran an incompetent campaign.
But more importantly, the unthinking idea that she survived the attacks and is immune is 100% wrong. Everything in her past is still there and will have a new improved life now. It does not just go away. Slime doesn't lose strength with time. And it absolutely is not merely a "Republican conspiracy".
Here's a preview: (google them) Travelgate, Pardongate, Whitewater, IRAQ vote, Syria, Libya, cattle futures scandal, lying about getting sniped at, no major negotiations or doctrine as Secretary, nothing as Senator, the Hillarycare debacle, using the IRS for her Hitlist, Humagate, Clinton Foundation pay-for favors, Filegate, Swedish slush fund, the Lincoln bedroom rentals, Big money pandering, FBI criminal investigation, etc...
Had enough?
If you want principled, Sanders is your guy.
Note the coin-toss margin of Clinton vs Cruz. And Trump ads would destroy Clinton in the General due to her long long long list of sleaze, pandering, investigations, and abysmal judgment. Many Clinton supporters say they will vote while holding their noses.
Now many Clintonistas say that Clinton has been through the ringer and survived. Well, she could not win the nomination against Obama and never faced the Republican attack machine in the General. She ran an incompetent campaign.
But more importantly, the unthinking idea that she survived the attacks and is immune is 100% wrong. Everything in her past is still there and will have a new improved life now. It does not just go away. Slime doesn't lose strength with time. And it absolutely is not merely a "Republican conspiracy".
Here's a preview: (google them) Travelgate, Pardongate, Whitewater, IRAQ vote, Syria, Libya, cattle futures scandal, lying about getting sniped at, no major negotiations or doctrine as Secretary, nothing as Senator, the Hillarycare debacle, using the IRS for her Hitlist, Humagate, Clinton Foundation pay-for favors, Filegate, Swedish slush fund, the Lincoln bedroom rentals, Big money pandering, FBI criminal investigation, etc...
Had enough?
If you want principled, Sanders is your guy.
1
You misinterpret the resolve of those of us who will not be cowed into voting for Hillary under any circumstances.
It's time to break up the stranglehold of BOTH Party machines, under which this Government has become increasingly dysfunctional! The Republicans are openly contemptuous of the best interests of the American People; Democrat insiders are just a little more subtle about it.
If we have to vote for a third party--or even a "Republican" Populist--in order to restore a true two-party system, so be it.
It's time for the revolution--whether Bernie leads it, or the People have to do it themselves. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the same old unindicted co-conspirators who've gotten us INTO this mess. And if the only way this revolution can be accomplished is on the ashes of what preceded it, so be it.
It might be that such a political revolution would be a little more organized and genteel under Bernie's leadership...but if the DNC and the corporate media insist on a coronation, rather than a fair election, then A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall. A little later than Dylan foresaw, perhaps...but better late than never.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for Never!
It's time to break up the stranglehold of BOTH Party machines, under which this Government has become increasingly dysfunctional! The Republicans are openly contemptuous of the best interests of the American People; Democrat insiders are just a little more subtle about it.
If we have to vote for a third party--or even a "Republican" Populist--in order to restore a true two-party system, so be it.
It's time for the revolution--whether Bernie leads it, or the People have to do it themselves. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the same old unindicted co-conspirators who've gotten us INTO this mess. And if the only way this revolution can be accomplished is on the ashes of what preceded it, so be it.
It might be that such a political revolution would be a little more organized and genteel under Bernie's leadership...but if the DNC and the corporate media insist on a coronation, rather than a fair election, then A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall. A little later than Dylan foresaw, perhaps...but better late than never.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for Never!
Hillary Clinton and her supporters have been denigrating Sanders' ideas and letting us know, repeatedly, that progressive ideas will never be acted upon by the DINO Democrats who now control what used to be the working man's party,and now you expect us to vote for Hillary? We should accept the "No we can't" mantra?
44
"She could also include planks in the Democratic Party platform that incorporate Mr. Sanders’s positions."
What a charming afterthought, Mr. Nagourney. You pundits just don't seem to get it. Bernie Sanders is not interested in becoming a photo-opt campaign fixture for Mrs. Clinton.
What a charming afterthought, Mr. Nagourney. You pundits just don't seem to get it. Bernie Sanders is not interested in becoming a photo-opt campaign fixture for Mrs. Clinton.
15
So many petulant children posting here today! One wonders how they gained such a command of Fox News talking points.
26
Keep on with the vilification of Bernie supporters and see what happens...
4
There you HRC guys go again: do you really think you are going to persuade independents and social democrats to vote for your candidate by insulting us? As a political strategy, it's laughable!
4
"One wonders how they gained such a command of Fox News talking points."
No need for Fox; just 20 years of watching the Clinton Cartel in action. That should be enough for any rational thinking person.
No need for Fox; just 20 years of watching the Clinton Cartel in action. That should be enough for any rational thinking person.
4
It's too soon to ask a Bernie supporter the question. There are primaries to vote for him in, rallies to attend. Let the process play out and give everyone a chance to support the candidate they desire. Hillary stayed in until the very end, Bernie should too.
48
Hear, hear. This is premature.
2
Thank you. This is the first post I've seen here, aimed at Bernie fans, that is not patronizing, condescending, accusatory, dismissive, judgmental, passive-aggressive or shaming!
This nomination process is nowhere near over, however annoying that fact may be to Hillary fans. But if the Party machine manages to COMPELL the nomination for her, they don't have a PRAYER of winning the election without Independents--who significantly outnumber the membership of either Party.
If you truly want to win the election, not just the nomination, I can tell you how: start being less patronizing, condescending, accusatory, dismissive, judgemental, passive-aggressive or shaming toward those you disagree with! Try to UNDERSTAND them, rather than condemn them!
In a democracy, votes must be WON; they cannot be coerced!
This nomination process is nowhere near over, however annoying that fact may be to Hillary fans. But if the Party machine manages to COMPELL the nomination for her, they don't have a PRAYER of winning the election without Independents--who significantly outnumber the membership of either Party.
If you truly want to win the election, not just the nomination, I can tell you how: start being less patronizing, condescending, accusatory, dismissive, judgemental, passive-aggressive or shaming toward those you disagree with! Try to UNDERSTAND them, rather than condemn them!
In a democracy, votes must be WON; they cannot be coerced!
1
I seem to be in the minority here, but I'm here to say I will wholeheartedly support Clinton in the general election. I've been a social democrat since at least 2003 and never thought I'd have the opportunity to vote for one, so I'm looking forward to casting my vote for Sanders this Tuesday in Pennsylvania regardless. But I've lost a Facebook friend - not for anything pro-Sanders or anti-Clinton I posted, but for pushing back on anti-Sanders nonsense (from the chair of my town's Democratic committee no less!). Sanders inspired me and showed us we don't need big money in politics. He's given me hope that a social democrat may one day occupy the highest office in the United States. Despite my disappointment, I will certainly vote for her. How can you not? The alternative is either Trump or Cruz. I'll take 'mediocre' over 'beyond terrible' any day of the week. What's wrong with the rest of the Sanders supporters?
40
Why would anyone not vote in a presidential election? How un-American can one get?
47
A lot of us couldn't vote in the primaries in NYC because they wiped us off the voter rolls or changed our registration. Now how un American is THAT?
7
Why must I vote for HRC if my preferred candidate (Sanders) isn't the nominee? I'm not voting for a Party, I'm voting for the President. Do you favor the intransigence of the Republican Party having blocked all Obama initiatives these past 8 years? And yet, now you're chastising me to toe the Party line?
I will vote. If Clinton has the nomination, I will write in Bernie Sanders. Don't bother trying to persuade me otherwise. I have agonized over the decision long enough, as have many of my fellow life long Democrats. Enough is enough.
1
I am sick and tired of the sanctimony of many of Sander's supporters. Bernie Sanders is a politician, and a good one at that, especically considering his "baggage" as a social democrat, from a small state like Vermont, and his age. Hillary Clinton is also a politician, and a good one at that, especially considering her "baggage" as a women of a certain age in a country that has shamefully never elected a woman as president. If you're looking for someone or something to beleive in, stop into the local religious insitution of your choice. Otherwise, Democrats should be grateful that they have two excellent choices, "baggage" aside. And if you're not a Democrat, why are you so keen on Bernie Sanders, who his handlers have claimed intends to remain a Democrat for the remainder of his political life?
72
Bernie supports are keen to restoring the Democratic party to it's working-class roots. The Democratic party has lost it way.
6
Bosh. We Sanders supporters aren't sanctimonious. We do not think Hillary Clinton is the kind of person we need as President right now. She's a technocrat who wants to study and improve what we have now and make as few changes as she can get away with. We need a person who has his eyes open about the realities of life for Americans and the rest of the world. Hillary's eyes are squeezed shut by the weight of all that special interest money.
Bernie was never a Democrat; he has joined that Party in order to run for the Presidency. He has done nothing for the Democratic Party; he is a free loader.
I'm a Sanders supporter, but if Clinton wins the nomination, I'll vote for her. But voting for Hillary will probably be my last vote for Democrats and Republicans. I desperately want a Progressive Party in Congress, as I feel the Tea Party and/or Trump supporters will make their own party, or maybe even the Libertarians will win a seat. The Democrats (which I currently support) have become too centrist after Reagan, and the Republicans, well... We all know they've fallen off the deep end. So if anyone feels how I feel, we all need to take a step of bravery and support for what you believe in, not the next best option. Let's end this two party madness, and let all our voices be heard.
23
More incrementalism, you might as well wait forever. Unless you start now, nothing will happen.
1
This essay is based on the assumption that Sanders and Clinton don't disagree that much and that Sanders supporters have far more in common with Clinton supporters than they do with Trump supporters. Both assumptions are false. Sanders and Trump both oppose TPP; Clinton supports it even though she now claims she doesn't (who would believe her??). Trump and Sanders have run campaigns based either on self-funding or on small donations; Clinton has courted the .1 percent and special interests. These are some of the most significant issues for voters; but The New York Times seems to be unaware. The words "Democrat" and "Republican" just don't mean what they used to. The Democratic Party used to be the party of Labor. I don't know what it is anymore.
45
Are sanders supporters for defunding planned parenthood? Building a wall? Keeping Muslims out of the country? Deporting 11 million undocumented workers? Because that's part of the Trump package.
2
How much money did "W" borrow from China to finance his Iraq war? And the TPP is part of a larger bargain. It will succeed with or without us. Five allies have signed on to this. Allies have signed on to the Iran deal. Enough of this destructive burn it down Sanders feckless march to nowhere.
Hillary and Bill Clinton are corrupt. They represent perfectly the other wing of this government of, by, and for oligarchs. Their wing talks a better game when it's convenient, but with Hillary nothing will really change. The thought that she-- and especially he-- may return to the White House for eight years is intolerable to me. Already Bill Clinton is much too involved in current presidential politics. Some of his recent speeches show that he is running for re-election through his wife.
Hillary Clinton may feel a different kind of burn this November, should she be the nominee. This 68-years-old lifelong Democrat will not vote for her, nor will countless other Sanders supporters. With Hillary Clinton we know exactly what we'll be getting, from kid-gloves treatment of the banks to the next Neo-con escapade to the next job-destroying trade pact. Trump, on the other hand could be a disaster or someone who finally cleans house so we can focus on this country and all its people.
Hillary Clinton may feel a different kind of burn this November, should she be the nominee. This 68-years-old lifelong Democrat will not vote for her, nor will countless other Sanders supporters. With Hillary Clinton we know exactly what we'll be getting, from kid-gloves treatment of the banks to the next Neo-con escapade to the next job-destroying trade pact. Trump, on the other hand could be a disaster or someone who finally cleans house so we can focus on this country and all its people.
43
Good Luck with the GOP takeover of all branches of government. You will definitely feel the burn.
7
This was exactly the same argument made by the left in Weimar Germany--it didn't work out as they expected.
6
IMO this all depends on whether Bernie's backers want his ideas to be enacted into law. None of Nader's ideas were enacted into law, even after he helped Bush win with his moronic campaign.
22
Nader is a good man but his timing was off. He fought the good fight and made a crack in the ceiling - you gotta try. Jesus did not do so well either, but at least he tried.
Sanders has the right timing - Clinton, by the way, is stale bread. Sanders is fighting the good fight against huge odds and sure has not been profiting by it with a net worth of only $500K after 30 years in Congress; now that's integrity!
Meanwhile Slick Hilly made $11.5 million just last year cultivating the 0.1%.
If Sanders does not win (he will if Slick Hilly makes false statements in her FBI interview - this is what put Martha Steward away), he will have at least thrown a big hammer into the machine.
And Sanders programs will get enacted down the road as Independents take over the electorate (actually we're now larger than either "major" party). All revolutions take time and the underlying causes (the 0.1%) will not go away unless we take away their concentrations of power.
As Sanders said at the beginning of his campaign - don't underestimate him.
What Clintonistas do not have the vision to realize is that this is just one election in a campaign by Independents to disenfranchise the 0.1% Could take 100 years. We have the money, intelligence, energy, motivation, leadership, timing, and the numbers to make it happen. We have right on our side. Don't underestimate us.
Sanders has the right timing - Clinton, by the way, is stale bread. Sanders is fighting the good fight against huge odds and sure has not been profiting by it with a net worth of only $500K after 30 years in Congress; now that's integrity!
Meanwhile Slick Hilly made $11.5 million just last year cultivating the 0.1%.
If Sanders does not win (he will if Slick Hilly makes false statements in her FBI interview - this is what put Martha Steward away), he will have at least thrown a big hammer into the machine.
And Sanders programs will get enacted down the road as Independents take over the electorate (actually we're now larger than either "major" party). All revolutions take time and the underlying causes (the 0.1%) will not go away unless we take away their concentrations of power.
As Sanders said at the beginning of his campaign - don't underestimate him.
What Clintonistas do not have the vision to realize is that this is just one election in a campaign by Independents to disenfranchise the 0.1% Could take 100 years. We have the money, intelligence, energy, motivation, leadership, timing, and the numbers to make it happen. We have right on our side. Don't underestimate us.
1
Registered Democrats are not Hillary's problem - they will vote for her. Unfortunately, she can't win the election based just with them. She needs independent voters and she doesn't have them and most likely never will. I left the Democratic party in 1968 over my disgust for their support of the Vietnam war and the thousands of casualties it produced to become an Independent and have never looked back. Like Sanders, I reliably vote Democratic. But not this time. Hillary is the status quo that has gutted the middle class, lead by her husband with NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. If this is getting things done, I'll pass on both her and the condescention that comes with her.
48
Again, "pass on her" means letting Trump or Cruz take over the country, with terrible and lasting consequences for America, the world, and our environment. Much more suffering will result, every progressive hope you might have will be 1000 times harder to achieve.
3
Obama promised to sit down with the leaders of Canada and Mexico and re-negotiate NAFTA - it never happened. We can expect the same absence of loyalty to the voters, in preference to campaign donors if Clinton does become our president.
1
Like most rational Sanders voters, I will vote for Clinton if in my state it looks like she needs the vote. And if she doesn't, I won't vote for her.
12
California is a Blue State; I will vote for Hillary Clinton, as I did for Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton will carry California with or without your vote.
If Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic candidate then I think Donald Trump is a better choice than Hillary Clinton. Washington is in dire need of disruption and some fresh ideas. And if it's not Brnie Sanders' positive disruption than Donald Trump's mostly negative disruption is still better than Hillary Clinton's status quo.
35
I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that disruption is for the better.
5
To knowingly wish "negative disruption" on America and the world is crazy.
2
Why is negative disruption better than the status quo?
It is not over 'til it is over. The well reported double digit victory in NY would have never happened if NY had permitted Independents to vote. The map of returns for NY shows that the Sanders campaign was very effective in the moderate to low income areas of the State. Mrs. C's strength came from the traditional higher income democratic areas of NY.
I assume you can see there is benefit to including California and the sunset coast in the American democracy.
I really don't think there is much daylight between Sanders and Clinton. She has adopted his ideas but has failed to acknowledge the author. Of course that is vexing to Mr. Sanders, it would be to anyone.
I think they both are qualified and both should start admitting it. The country is facing a number of serious challenges with the number one challenge being global warming and this challenge will be very disruptive if it is not handled well. I send my comments to both campaigns because I want them both to continue to keep American focused on the serious economic, environmental and social problems of our time.
The economy is not performing well, and most American's feel the pain, especially our young ones and our middle class, what is left of it. Why else would we being seeing the very high suicide and drug overdose rates.
Mrs. C has strong negatives in national polling and needs to reveal her inner compassion and honesty to build her authentic score. Teamwork could begin at the last primary.
I assume you can see there is benefit to including California and the sunset coast in the American democracy.
I really don't think there is much daylight between Sanders and Clinton. She has adopted his ideas but has failed to acknowledge the author. Of course that is vexing to Mr. Sanders, it would be to anyone.
I think they both are qualified and both should start admitting it. The country is facing a number of serious challenges with the number one challenge being global warming and this challenge will be very disruptive if it is not handled well. I send my comments to both campaigns because I want them both to continue to keep American focused on the serious economic, environmental and social problems of our time.
The economy is not performing well, and most American's feel the pain, especially our young ones and our middle class, what is left of it. Why else would we being seeing the very high suicide and drug overdose rates.
Mrs. C has strong negatives in national polling and needs to reveal her inner compassion and honesty to build her authentic score. Teamwork could begin at the last primary.
6
Hillary's inner compassion and honesty! LOL!
She is a crook,warmonger and worshipper of Almighty dollar.
She is a crook,warmonger and worshipper of Almighty dollar.
2
I think there's a straightforward answer: she should run with Elizabeth Warren as her VP nominee. Can you imagine the excitement of her sharing the ticket with a liberal icon, as well as having two women on the ballot together? I know I would be more excited to vote for her...
10
Elizabeth Warren is an excellent suggestion as VP, if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination. That would give Sanders supporters some hope that we're moving in the right direction, for the long run.
It also gives the Democratic Party a good backup plan for 2020.
Warren has already shown her willingness to go after Mitch McConnell on the Senate's Supreme Court malfeasance. As VP nominee, she could really hammer on that issue all the way up to November 2nd.
It also gives the Democratic Party a good backup plan for 2020.
Warren has already shown her willingness to go after Mitch McConnell on the Senate's Supreme Court malfeasance. As VP nominee, she could really hammer on that issue all the way up to November 2nd.
1
Elizabeth Warren will never run with her.
I seriously doubt Hillary would choose someone who would outshine her the way Warren does. Also, it's pretty well-known by this point that they don't like each other.
1
If they stay home only to enable a GOP president, they will effectively send their generation into a death spiral.
Remember that every reform movement in the past 125 years has been because of Democrats.
History Matters!
Remember that every reform movement in the past 125 years has been because of Democrats.
History Matters!
29
They figure if we survived Reagan for 8 years we could survive Trump or Cruz for 4. Let's see the death count on this when the GOP government start imposing their archaic style of government on its citizens.
5
Yes History matters, including Clinton's. I'd say Iraq was a death spiral for many. . .
2
Those reform movements did not come from the Democrats. We the people pushed them to change. Nothing ever happens until we march in the streets or set up Hoovervilles or sit down in our factories or boycott bus systems. Malcolm X said it best. When someone told him that the Democratic Party couldn't do X because of the Dixiecrats, he replied, "Democrats ARE Dixiecrats."
1
As an Independent who changed to Dem to vote for Sanders, my group represents a desire to change from the old style Chicago-Mayor Daley politics to a new, clean and honest style. That means Hillary will have to come clean and publish at least one of her Goldman Sachs speeches and cut her ties with Wall Street if she expects support from Independents. If Sanders loses the Dem nod, there may be a movement to write him in. If Clinton can't make the changes in time, she, and the country, will have to suffer the consequences. Maybe we need a good 4 years of Trump to wake up the Wall Street Dems to the new reality.
30
Do you have a clue about how damaging 4 -- or 8 -- years of Trump or Cruz would be? Supreme Court appts that will tilt the court rightwing for decades. Undoing or underming the global climate change agreement being signed today.
That's just the beginning -- they've promised many more. Woman's right to choose, minimum wage, deporting millions, dismantling environmental regulations, the list goes on and on.
That's just the beginning -- they've promised many more. Woman's right to choose, minimum wage, deporting millions, dismantling environmental regulations, the list goes on and on.
4
A good four years of Trump, and then what? Maybe we won't even get four years with Trump, what with his impulse control disorder, his sweaty fingers on the nuclear buttons, and his overall thuggery. Or maybe we'll get four years of Cruz, who is looking to become our first popularly elected ayatollah.
But have it your way. Write Bernie in, or better yet stay home in November. Just don't complain if the GOP wins this election. Because the stakes this year are impossibly high, and non-voters will bear even more responsibility than those who bother to turn out.
But have it your way. Write Bernie in, or better yet stay home in November. Just don't complain if the GOP wins this election. Because the stakes this year are impossibly high, and non-voters will bear even more responsibility than those who bother to turn out.
Yeah, 4 years of Trump whose tax plans favor the rich and will explode the deficit. That'll just the "shake up things" the country needs.
1
Hillary Clinton needs to pick a young and dynamic VP running mate who really feels the Bern.
7
and what would she do with the young and dynamic VP's Bernie policies, that she says "Can't" be done. . .absolutely nothing. . .only to get votes as she does now and did in 2008. Just ask Obama. . .she will say anything (and I add do anything) to get elected. Trustworthy? I wouldn't fall for it!
3
"Hillary Clinton needs to pick a young and dynamic VP running mate who really feels the Bern.
They would also have to be amoral and without a conscious!
They would also have to be amoral and without a conscious!
Let us remember that one of the major reasons McCarthy supporters sat on their hands when Hubert Humphrey was chosen to run against Richard Nixon in 1968 was the unspeakably vicious behavior of Chicago Mayor Daley, who unleashed his police on McCarthy delegates and staff and made a shambles of any notion that Humphrey's nomination reflected the Democrats' will. The bitterness caused by Daley's actions lasted well into the fall and for many, rubbed off on Humphrey, a decent man who happened to be the beneficiary of Daley's thuggery.
18
The problem for Bernie supporters is not that he is too old to run again (unlike other candidacies it's a Movement not a cult) or lingering disgruntlement at losing, it's simply that Hillary is not true progressive and we don't believe that "slow and steady" wins anymore.
We voted for Obama because we wanted change. Hillary did not offer change in 2008 and still doesn't. We don't want a neoconservative foreign policy and neoliberal economic policy. We want an end to Republican obstructionism. Our fear is in Hillary's desire to govern she will make horrible deals with Republicans. The appeal of the "political revolution" was getting people to vote and participate to elect true progressives at all levels of government. It wasn't just tapping into discontent like the Tea Party or Trump, but channeling in into positive energy for positive results. Hillary needs to stand for a livable wage, affordable college (for a free marketer she doesn't understand how free state colleges would force the privates to lower rates), ending the influence of wealth on our political system and of banks and Wall Street on our economy, ending the concentration of wealth at the top.
The 1990's are over. What worked and was needed then don't apply anymore. Hillary needs to see that. No more Third Way or Triangulation. Bernie voters will form a new coalition possible built on the greatness of the New Deal and the Great Society, and want to keep building. We don't see anything from Hillary.
We voted for Obama because we wanted change. Hillary did not offer change in 2008 and still doesn't. We don't want a neoconservative foreign policy and neoliberal economic policy. We want an end to Republican obstructionism. Our fear is in Hillary's desire to govern she will make horrible deals with Republicans. The appeal of the "political revolution" was getting people to vote and participate to elect true progressives at all levels of government. It wasn't just tapping into discontent like the Tea Party or Trump, but channeling in into positive energy for positive results. Hillary needs to stand for a livable wage, affordable college (for a free marketer she doesn't understand how free state colleges would force the privates to lower rates), ending the influence of wealth on our political system and of banks and Wall Street on our economy, ending the concentration of wealth at the top.
The 1990's are over. What worked and was needed then don't apply anymore. Hillary needs to see that. No more Third Way or Triangulation. Bernie voters will form a new coalition possible built on the greatness of the New Deal and the Great Society, and want to keep building. We don't see anything from Hillary.
29
Well stated. I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary if necessary in November, but will keep working at other levels to promote a progressive platform.
"Blue dog" Democrats and the DNC have been selling us short for far too long.
"Blue dog" Democrats and the DNC have been selling us short for far too long.
2
There's one way Hillary Clinton will get a lot of Sanders voters - by doing a 180 degree turn and abandoning her support for those bad trade agreements and worse work visa programs (Such as H-1B) that have decimated America's middle class. She also should push for Euro Zone-style wage-hours legislation that puts pay on an hourly (based on up to 40 hours per week) basis for ALL positions - thereby ending the abuse known as 'exempt employment' subject to a yearly salary, which makes it pay for employers to keep their wage slaves on 24/7/365 call and even penalise them for taking vacation and sick time. Oh, and using social media and even charge card purchases to evaluate job applicants? Off-limits over there.
What we need is a president of all the people, not just a servant to Big Brother. Enough already!
What we need is a president of all the people, not just a servant to Big Brother. Enough already!
12
I'm 63 and a lifelong Democrat. Between Hillary's enthusiasm for disastrous military interventions, non-interest in universal health care or a real attempt to help with student loan debt - and her profound greed gobbling up Wall Street fees just before announcing a run for president - I can't vote for her.
I don't see her as fit to be president.
I may vote for the Green Party, I may for the first time in my life not vote.
And don't lecture me about the Supreme Court. I care about that alot. But the DNC needed to come up with a reasonable, and uncorrupted candidate, someone fit to be president. They didn't. If she loses, the greedy, corrupt, blind DNC owns this defeat.
I don't see her as fit to be president.
I may vote for the Green Party, I may for the first time in my life not vote.
And don't lecture me about the Supreme Court. I care about that alot. But the DNC needed to come up with a reasonable, and uncorrupted candidate, someone fit to be president. They didn't. If she loses, the greedy, corrupt, blind DNC owns this defeat.
49
Sorry those whose candidate lost and were too pure to do what is the best interest of the country will own the defeat.
5
No, actually we will all end up "owning this defeat." Unless you plan on moving to Canada.
1
Um. Hillary has been a lifelong supporter of universal health care. But she knows better than most its chances of passing, and so do you if you remember.
Bernie voted FOR military intervention in Libya.
Bernie voted against the Brady Bill.
Bernie voted for (3 times, both before and after it included the assault weapons ban), and campaigned on his support for, the crime bill, he said "deeply sociopathic people" needed to be "put away."
Bernie has attended, and at least once hosted, DNC fundraisers w lobbyists and "Wall Street" and then received hundreds of thousands from the DNC to support his election campaigns.
By your standards, how can you possibly support him?
Bernie voted FOR military intervention in Libya.
Bernie voted against the Brady Bill.
Bernie voted for (3 times, both before and after it included the assault weapons ban), and campaigned on his support for, the crime bill, he said "deeply sociopathic people" needed to be "put away."
Bernie has attended, and at least once hosted, DNC fundraisers w lobbyists and "Wall Street" and then received hundreds of thousands from the DNC to support his election campaigns.
By your standards, how can you possibly support him?
Maybe, but we'd need to hear more Hillary on her stance on fiscal policy: the fact is the government has mostly sat on their hands during the recovery phase and depended on the Fed to carry out the duties through its discount rate. We've now had 0% rate for quite a long time with no sizeable contribution from public investment. I looked at Hillary's website and her proposal of an infrastructural bank funded via private and public investment does not specify how much public investment is proposed and worse, it reminds me all too much of the Frannie/Freddie debacle that is dependent on market mechanisms. As you saw with mortgages, the upside was great but the downside was ugly. How will this mechanism be different? My background is economics but I also have doubts of market fundamentalism. Her worrying aloud about growing the federal government is equally worrisome as she often sounds like someone who believes in 'sound money' of the Austrian school of economics.
That, or she could just go ahead and release those transcripts to simplify things. It'd be foolhardy after all for someone to expect you to do them a favor without considering what the other side wants.
That, or she could just go ahead and release those transcripts to simplify things. It'd be foolhardy after all for someone to expect you to do them a favor without considering what the other side wants.
6
I think the deal is that she releases her transcripts when Bernie releases all his complete tax returns, as she has done. How about that deal?
Virtue, or lack thereof, is in the eye of the beholder. Both Bernie and Hillary are flawed human beings – just like the rest of us.
But I believe that Hillary has a better chance of getting something done.
I see her ties to the wealthy and powerful as a net positive for the country, and for her ability to govern. It gives her influence to bring the elites along. When a new president calls and asks for your help, it's hard to say, "No."
I see little difference between Sanders and Trump. They both pander to disenfranchised whites. Both employ a scapegoat to channel their followers' anger, and to draw attention away from the hollowness of their promises. For BS, the scapegoat is "big banks;" for DT, it is immigrants.
How hollow are Sanders' promises? Take his signature issue, breaking up the big banks. As The Times reported recently, the big banks are effectively breaking themselves up, under pressure from regulators acting under Dodd-Frank. http://tinyurl.com/znuzqcu
Hillary is correct in her thoughtful analysis of this issue. Sanders is merely offering his followers the devil they need.
But I believe that Hillary has a better chance of getting something done.
I see her ties to the wealthy and powerful as a net positive for the country, and for her ability to govern. It gives her influence to bring the elites along. When a new president calls and asks for your help, it's hard to say, "No."
I see little difference between Sanders and Trump. They both pander to disenfranchised whites. Both employ a scapegoat to channel their followers' anger, and to draw attention away from the hollowness of their promises. For BS, the scapegoat is "big banks;" for DT, it is immigrants.
How hollow are Sanders' promises? Take his signature issue, breaking up the big banks. As The Times reported recently, the big banks are effectively breaking themselves up, under pressure from regulators acting under Dodd-Frank. http://tinyurl.com/znuzqcu
Hillary is correct in her thoughtful analysis of this issue. Sanders is merely offering his followers the devil they need.
39
Great. Here is the bald faced argument that Hillary Clinton is corrupt as the others, so she can stand up to them. At least you are honest about it. But the position is still utter anathema to me.
1
@ Rob Cohen: "Sanders and Hillary are flawed human beings - just like the rest of us". Are you implying that they're equally flawed?
If you take the time to research, Clinton is much more flawed than the rest of us and Sanders is a better person than most of us.
The only flaw I can come up with for Sanders is that he makes air quotes much too often and that he's "rumpled".
Now Clinton, her trail of sleaze goes back years. Travelgate, Pardongate, Whitewater, IRAQ vote, Syria, Libya, cattle futures scandal, lying about getting sniped at, no major negotiations or doctrine as Secretary, nothing as Senator, the Hillarycare debacle, using the IRS for her Hitlist, Humagate, Clinton Foundation pay-for favors, Filegate, Swedish slush fund, the Lincoln bedroom rentals, Wall Street pandering, transcripts, Big Oil pandering, Big Pharma pandering, FBI criminal investigation. Much more but I'm running out of ink.
So you're saying that Clinton, because she has the ear and funding of the 0.1%, is more likely to get things done?? Seriously? Sorry to call you naive but They'll Be Telling Her What To Do!
And don't you know that Sanders is a get-it-done kinda guy. McCain said, "Bernie is results-oriented." And why is he known as the "Amendment King"? Google 'alternet bernie' to see his long long list of accomplishments.
Breaking up the banks will degrade the 0.1% concentration of power. A smart strategic move!
Pay for his programs? Redistribute 5% of the bloated defense budget.
If you take the time to research, Clinton is much more flawed than the rest of us and Sanders is a better person than most of us.
The only flaw I can come up with for Sanders is that he makes air quotes much too often and that he's "rumpled".
Now Clinton, her trail of sleaze goes back years. Travelgate, Pardongate, Whitewater, IRAQ vote, Syria, Libya, cattle futures scandal, lying about getting sniped at, no major negotiations or doctrine as Secretary, nothing as Senator, the Hillarycare debacle, using the IRS for her Hitlist, Humagate, Clinton Foundation pay-for favors, Filegate, Swedish slush fund, the Lincoln bedroom rentals, Wall Street pandering, transcripts, Big Oil pandering, Big Pharma pandering, FBI criminal investigation. Much more but I'm running out of ink.
So you're saying that Clinton, because she has the ear and funding of the 0.1%, is more likely to get things done?? Seriously? Sorry to call you naive but They'll Be Telling Her What To Do!
And don't you know that Sanders is a get-it-done kinda guy. McCain said, "Bernie is results-oriented." And why is he known as the "Amendment King"? Google 'alternet bernie' to see his long long list of accomplishments.
Breaking up the banks will degrade the 0.1% concentration of power. A smart strategic move!
Pay for his programs? Redistribute 5% of the bloated defense budget.
1
It amazes me that all these “Never Hillary” people apparently have no idea how elitist they sound. Millions of people in this country rely on the programs all these “corrupt” Democrats have fought for for 80 years. Who cares if the 12-year-old raped and impregnated is forced to bear her rapist's child? Who cares if LGBT people can't use a public toilet? Who cares if voting for Democrat in a red state becomes virtually impossible or that the single mother working two jobs can't get food assistance? The revolution began long ago friends, launched by the Republicans and they're winning. The last battle is for the White House. But what do “Never Hillary” folks care? They have their principles. And—just guessing—their 401Ks.
63
Well said. Thank you for the much-needed perspective.
6
Exactly. The Bernie fanatics don't care. They'll just go back to their coffee shops in Bushwick and Williamsburg and call it a day.
1
Exactly. The alternative is unacceptable.
I am 63, a supporter of Bernie Sanders. To those in the Hilary camp accusing Sanders of fraud by taking donations without a path to the nomination; I don't care if Bernie Sanders lights my money on fire, I believe it is the best money I ever spent. After defending spineless Dems who have allowed themselves to be dragged to the right, after watching those same Dems run away from Obamacare and other achievements every mid-term, I'm now being told by Frank, Boxer and a host of other pols and pundits to get in line. I've never been so insulted by the garbage coming from the media and the Hillary camp. If it is business as usual, lesser of two evils election, I will be forced to vote for Hillary and the go along to get along cowards that is today's Democratic Party but my support for the party as a whole will end there. And we'll get eight years of obstruction, phony scandals, divisiveness and nothing done.
38
Phony scandals have evidently already affected you.
7
It may startle you to learn that the Obamacare and all the other "achievements" reflected concerted efforts of the Democratic Party (unlike Bernie it is Hillary Clinton who has campaigned on support of the Obama presidency)
2
Thank you for your passion and unwillingness to get in line which is not required. It is up to you if you vote or not. For me I would rather see eight more years of obstruction which would probably happen under Sanders or Sanders in any case. But giving the Republicans total control of our government in this election terrifies me to the point where I would probably leave the country.
1
HRC has always reached out to Sanders Supporters because the battle is not only for the future of democracy under a GOP Congress, SCOTUS and Executive branch but also for the next generations to come.
If you are white and young, this might not matter to you. But any POC, marginalized base or even the elderly has reason to fear that the GOP agenda is to focus on their own base, the .1% and Big Business. If you fear Wall St under HRC who is focused on who she represents then be very afraid of a Wall St under the GOP. Everything deregulated, taxes lowered for the rich and Social Security privatized. It's fine to voice your disgust at Wall St. But to allow the GOP takeover, then your future Idiocracy is on your own.
If you are white and young, this might not matter to you. But any POC, marginalized base or even the elderly has reason to fear that the GOP agenda is to focus on their own base, the .1% and Big Business. If you fear Wall St under HRC who is focused on who she represents then be very afraid of a Wall St under the GOP. Everything deregulated, taxes lowered for the rich and Social Security privatized. It's fine to voice your disgust at Wall St. But to allow the GOP takeover, then your future Idiocracy is on your own.
25
Hillary and Bill Clinton have insulted and spoken down to Sanders' supporters over and over and now unity and a vote is expected? Bernie supporters are not "kids" and many of us are over 50. The disgust isn't only at Wall Street but at the DNC and Hillary's own actions.
4
It appears that many of the Sanders followers are determined to make a run for the Donald Trump lemming cliff forgetting that a Republican victory will carry with it the danger that all the great accomplishments of Barack Obama will be repealed and the Supreme Court will be stocked with right wing ideologues pushing this country down by 30 years or more on the social, moral and progressive scale.
Is this petty and incongruous anger worth the price that will have to be paid if the Republicans win? Is HRC such a monster to warrant a wholesale cutting off the nose to spite the face? Is it possible that Mr. Sanders’ wrathful and acrid rhetoric has put the seed into this soil of antagonism, animosity and fury, creating a torched earth scenario to have everything torn down that so many good people have worked so hard to build?
Please say it isn't so.
Is this petty and incongruous anger worth the price that will have to be paid if the Republicans win? Is HRC such a monster to warrant a wholesale cutting off the nose to spite the face? Is it possible that Mr. Sanders’ wrathful and acrid rhetoric has put the seed into this soil of antagonism, animosity and fury, creating a torched earth scenario to have everything torn down that so many good people have worked so hard to build?
Please say it isn't so.
27
Better an anarchic conflagration with Trump from which ashes a phoenix emerges than to continue with the same ol' manipulation and control by a very small oligarchy of the uber-riche.
3
"Please say it isn't so."
Sorry to inform you, it is so!
Sorry to inform you, it is so!
1
Really? How did the House turn Republican? Do we want a repeat of that fiasco?
Sanders supporters are anti-establishment. I bet the majority will vote for trump. I doubt many will vote for Clinton, who represents what they loathe.
24
Well, that will simply mean that they really did not care about ANY of Bernie's ideals - since Trump is the anti-Bernie when it comes to policy goals.
22
Obviously, Peg, you haven't looked at either of their agendas. Ignore Trump's bombastic nature, bullying, and megalomania (which he shares with Clinton) and you'll see he shares much with Sanders.
1
I am a Hillary Clinton supporter who will cast my vote for Bernie Sanders if he is the nominee. This year, of all years, is not the time for staying home in a fit of pique. We need to elect another Democrat if we are to have any hope of this country not losing its soul. Period.
45
What Bernie represents is good for all of us. That's why it easy to vote for him if Clinton is not the nominee.
Clinton on the other hand has a lot of baggage...and lots of corporate sponsorship. It's willful blindness to imagine there would be no influence on their behalf. That's why it's hard to pull the lever for Clinton.
Clinton on the other hand has a lot of baggage...and lots of corporate sponsorship. It's willful blindness to imagine there would be no influence on their behalf. That's why it's hard to pull the lever for Clinton.
1
First of all, you're calling this race before it's over. Second, some of us were never Hillary supporters and never could be, despite who her rival might be. I'm a Democrat who cannot and will not support Clinton. She will have a hard time getting any true progressives to support her because she is so antithetical to everything we want. I will vote for anyone but Hillary. If the Democratic Party doesn't like this, they should have considered this way back when Biden might have run. I could have voted for him, supported him, as an alternative to Bernie. But not Hillary. I'm with Trump, the other anti-political party person running. Unless Bernie prevails, which he might, if superdelegates get behind him. The Democratic Party has not done so much for the working class and poor in the last several decades that I'm willing to vote against my conscience for them.
21
Voting for Trump would be a disaster! He is against Planned Parenthood, he wants to punish women, he cannot tolerate disagreement, he doesn't know foreign policy, he admires Putin, he has failed in business and marriage, he is unpredictable, he vows to put a Scalia type judge in the Supreme Court...
I do't think Bernie Sanders would like this at all.
I do't think Bernie Sanders would like this at all.
6
" If the Democratic Party doesn't like this, they should have considered this way back when Biden might have run."
Joe Biden chose not to run—in part because of the death of his son. Don't blame the Democratic party or Hillary for that.
If Clinton is "antithetical to everything" so-called progressives want, what is Trump? What is a progressive, for that matter? Other than both being "anti-establishment" (which is in itself highly debatable) and stoking populist fires, Bernie and Trump are polar opposites when it comes to economic reform, foreign policy, immigration and social issues.
This is a serious question, by the way. I'm baffled how a Bernie supporter who champions his message of economic reform and "break up the big banks" and death to Wall Street can be on board with Trump, who is a 1-percenter (just like Hillary) and who has publicly announced that Wall Streeters like Carl Icahn will be key members of his government.
Joe Biden chose not to run—in part because of the death of his son. Don't blame the Democratic party or Hillary for that.
If Clinton is "antithetical to everything" so-called progressives want, what is Trump? What is a progressive, for that matter? Other than both being "anti-establishment" (which is in itself highly debatable) and stoking populist fires, Bernie and Trump are polar opposites when it comes to economic reform, foreign policy, immigration and social issues.
This is a serious question, by the way. I'm baffled how a Bernie supporter who champions his message of economic reform and "break up the big banks" and death to Wall Street can be on board with Trump, who is a 1-percenter (just like Hillary) and who has publicly announced that Wall Streeters like Carl Icahn will be key members of his government.
2
I guess your conscience would better served by having either Trump or Cruz win the White House. Well, good on you! Wouldn't want you to sully your conscience by having to deal with reality. I'm there's a lovely mountaintop somewhere you'd like to sit on for the next four years while the rest of us have to deal with a very ugly reality.
November's six months away and there will be plenty of time to cool off and make the only sane decision possible. What is conscience worth if it ends up harming others, especially the most vulnerable among us?
10
And how long do you think it will take before Hillary starts another war? Policies that aid only the 1% hurt all of us -- and HIllary is Wall Street's babe.
3
@Judith,
The only sane decision? Pardon, but I thought that was for each person to decide for himself or herself.
4-22-16@5:01 pm
The only sane decision? Pardon, but I thought that was for each person to decide for himself or herself.
4-22-16@5:01 pm
2
Hillary or Bernie? It is a false choice.
The real choice and the most consequential choice is - A Democrat or someone else?
That answer should be easy and simple. Without a Bernie or Hillary in White House, a disaster awaits for all of us - women's health, voting rights, LGBT rights, environment, Supreme Court, criminal justice, gun control, minimum wage, taxes for the 1%, and all other major issues that matter to most of us.
The real choice and the most consequential choice is - A Democrat or someone else?
That answer should be easy and simple. Without a Bernie or Hillary in White House, a disaster awaits for all of us - women's health, voting rights, LGBT rights, environment, Supreme Court, criminal justice, gun control, minimum wage, taxes for the 1%, and all other major issues that matter to most of us.
23
With HIllary in the White House it will simply be more of the same: more jobs outsourced to Asia; more wars, more fracking, more poverty;
She will only nominate a corporatist to the Supreme Court; she will never nominate anyone who has any interest in serving anyone other than the 1%.
She will only nominate a corporatist to the Supreme Court; she will never nominate anyone who has any interest in serving anyone other than the 1%.
4
... and you still dream this given that Hillary approved, in 2003, of starting the Bush War against Iraq and Afghanistan, approved the TTP, and is the defacto head of the Clinton Foundation that enables surreptitious weapons and 0-value "pharmaceuticals' sales around the world?
What makes you this Her Royal will not waiver and buckle for the right price on any of the issues you mention?
What makes you this Her Royal will not waiver and buckle for the right price on any of the issues you mention?
3
The Democratic Party elite has somehow never realized that they are Republican Lite. Are they really that thick? Or maybe they just don't want to say it out loud. It leaks out sometimes, such as when Immanuel said progressives were 'retarded'. At last: raw, elitist Republican Lite attitude. Right back at ya, Rahm. And your neocon pals.
I am sick of Republican Lite. Sanders represents an opportunity to vote for an actual progressive who has a chance at the presidency. I've waited since 1981 for this moment.
I am sick of Republican Lite. Sanders represents an opportunity to vote for an actual progressive who has a chance at the presidency. I've waited since 1981 for this moment.
35
Has anyone considered that some Sanders supporters may consider voting for Trump if it comes down to Trump/Clinton election? A lot of people don't want more of the same and Clinton is nothing more than a middle of the road Republican. The one thing you can be said for Trump is that he is offering anything but more of the same and that to some Sanders supporters may be appealing.
12
As a Bernie Sanders supporter and activist, I spent the weekend in Plattsburgh, NY campaigning for him. I canvassed and then spent several hours on the picket line with striking Verizon workers. During that time, the conversation inevitably strayed to what would happen if Clinton won the nomination. The strikers were all avid Bernie supporters. Four of them told me--with considerable anguish--that they could never vote for Hillary and would in all probability vote for Trump. They explained their rationale, stating that they know for certain that Hillary, based on her track record, will sell them down the river. But they don't know that Trump will do that. While horrified about the idea of voting for Trump, I had to concede that they had a point. I suggest that Americans who have yet to vote in the remaining primaries take heed. A Clinton nomination will depress voter turnout. A Bernie nomination will maximize the turnout. Wake up.
1
Trump and the RNC are well aware of Old Bernie's followers' hatred of Hillary.
That's why they've said nothing against Old Bernie, although their oppo research has opened up his past (and Jane's past) to them. They know Old Bernie's bros who find the energy to vote in November will vote for Donald J. Trump.
That's why they've said nothing against Old Bernie, although their oppo research has opened up his past (and Jane's past) to them. They know Old Bernie's bros who find the energy to vote in November will vote for Donald J. Trump.
Right you are - plus both Trump and Sanders are against the idiocy of War, and that's big. That there is enough to vote Trump over Clinton. We haven't been living in a democracy for decades according to the Princeton Page Study; we need someone who will creatively (Sanders) disenfranchise the ruling 0.1% or destructively (Trump) do the job that is past due.
We won't accept more status quo from either Establishment party.
We won't accept more status quo from either Establishment party.
1
The main problem is that Sanders is just simply hypocritical, directing his anger in extreme and odious ways against Hillary, while giving others a YUGE pass.
Sanders just recently met with a prominent figure who happens to be the Head of the most Secretive Bank in the World (associated with bribery, money laundering and various other crimes including murder), leads another organization with enormous sex scandals (many of its members have engaged in child abuse and pedophilia over the years), and he himself has physically attacked and hurt others (formerly working as a bouncer). Sanders not only was silent about all of the above, but highly complimentary, praising the role this individual is playing throughout the world, etc.
So...the Pope gets a pass no matter what has happened in the past while Hillary must be damned forever.
It's time to move on Senator Sanders.
Sanders just recently met with a prominent figure who happens to be the Head of the most Secretive Bank in the World (associated with bribery, money laundering and various other crimes including murder), leads another organization with enormous sex scandals (many of its members have engaged in child abuse and pedophilia over the years), and he himself has physically attacked and hurt others (formerly working as a bouncer). Sanders not only was silent about all of the above, but highly complimentary, praising the role this individual is playing throughout the world, etc.
So...the Pope gets a pass no matter what has happened in the past while Hillary must be damned forever.
It's time to move on Senator Sanders.
22
And Clinton is so ethical? I don't think we have even gotten to the bottom of some her nasty relationships certain organizations, much of it dome through her foundation.
1
I believe the Pope isn't running for President of the United States. There is such a long laundry list of why not to vote for Hillary and I'm too much of a lady to bring up sex scandals, defending rapists and laughing for getting them off. Oops, sorry!
Actually the current Pope is quite a good guy. I bet they had a lot to talk about!
1
Both Democratic candidates are politically pragmatic when it comes down to it.
There is no need to worry about the candidates doing their part during the election once the nomination process is over.
There is no need to worry about the candidates doing their part during the election once the nomination process is over.
3
"That said, [Alexrod] added that the mere prospect of a Trump or Cruz in the White House might do more to unify the Democratic Party than anything Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Sanders could do. 'In 2008, the healing began very quickly, the coming together was surprisingly easy. And I suspect that will happen here.'"
Yes, but some Sanders supporters are actually now not vowing to stay home or write-in Bernie, but to vote for Trump — VOTE FOR TRUMP! — in November if it comes down to Trump vs. Clinton.
It boggles the mind that anyone who supports Sanders — no matter how badly he or she is hurting — could consider giving all three branches of government to the GOP. Think this will improve your lot in life? Well, think again!
As 19th-century con man P. T. Barnum is reputed to have said, "A sucker is born every minute." And Trump is the biggest con man of our era.
Don't be a sucker and fall for Trump's con. You might not get everything you want from a Clinton presidency, but half of something is better than all of nothing.
Yes, but some Sanders supporters are actually now not vowing to stay home or write-in Bernie, but to vote for Trump — VOTE FOR TRUMP! — in November if it comes down to Trump vs. Clinton.
It boggles the mind that anyone who supports Sanders — no matter how badly he or she is hurting — could consider giving all three branches of government to the GOP. Think this will improve your lot in life? Well, think again!
As 19th-century con man P. T. Barnum is reputed to have said, "A sucker is born every minute." And Trump is the biggest con man of our era.
Don't be a sucker and fall for Trump's con. You might not get everything you want from a Clinton presidency, but half of something is better than all of nothing.
17
While I have considered Sanders to be our (almost) last best hope to avoid political violence and a second Civil War, if he loses out on the delegate total I will reluctantly support Clinton. Bernie has injected more of what is needed into this campaign that I actually thought possible at its onset, and it remains to be seen how his positions and the energy of the people behind them, could still greatly influence the next administration (via VP choice, support of down-ticket individuals, and so on).
To give up now and to walk away is not only childish -- what happens in U.S. politics is rarely pure and we are almost always voting for that mythical lesser of 2 evils-- but downright stupid. You want true fighting in the streets in a fascist milieu?: than stay home.
To give up now and to walk away is not only childish -- what happens in U.S. politics is rarely pure and we are almost always voting for that mythical lesser of 2 evils-- but downright stupid. You want true fighting in the streets in a fascist milieu?: than stay home.
10
I see and listen to Sanders and all I see and hear is a bitter, frustrated, disheveled old man who spits when he talks.
Bernie's bros are again out in force. Many have become delusional, saying Hillary is just like a Republican. It's the same tune that Ralph Nader sang when he threw the election to Bush, with the help of the Republicans on the Supreme Court. If you think Hillary and whatever crazy Republican is nominated are Tweedledee and Tweedledum, don't turn out for Hillary and you'll find out, like we did in 2000. Tweedledee Bush gave us Roberts and Alito, which gave us Citizens United, a rewriting of the 2nd Amendment out of thin air, a gutting of the voters rights law, corporations are people with religious rights, and money is speech. A Republican will nominate 2 or 3 Scalias to the Supreme Court, and you can say goodbye to any chance of overturning Citizens United, which Bernie says is his main objective, for at least a generation. It will also lead to a reversal of Roe v. Wade and a repeal of the ACA and Dodd-Frank. Forget a minimum wage hike of any kind, mush less $15 an hour. More union busting and less domestic spending, A huge increase in military spending. The fantasy revolution will be wiped out. I used to try to reason with Bernie's bros with facts, but no more. Drink some more Bernie kool-aid and send him another $27. It will be another 8 years of a Republican nightmare like Reagan and Bush, and we are still paying a very high price for them.
25
PLease, people! Bernie Sanders is not Ralph Nader. You said it yourself: The Supreme Court and Gov. Jeb Bush pushed it in that direction. Remember that Al Gore actually won the general election.
All this name calling fromm the supposedly more reasonable Clinton supporters does not reflect well and will not won anyone over. You sound just as hysterical and intolerant. You really are not any better, and you are supposed to be the grown-ups in the room? Bernie bros are young, and prone to passion , and, yes, even arrogance. What is your excuse?
All this name calling fromm the supposedly more reasonable Clinton supporters does not reflect well and will not won anyone over. You sound just as hysterical and intolerant. You really are not any better, and you are supposed to be the grown-ups in the room? Bernie bros are young, and prone to passion , and, yes, even arrogance. What is your excuse?
1
I voted for Clinton when it mattered, when she should have won. A lot has happened since then. I'm no longer interested in her as a candidate; she truly does not represent my views. My not voting won't make any difference at all.
I began my voting career voting in opposition years ago and I'm sick of it.
I began my voting career voting in opposition years ago and I'm sick of it.
15
Oh, how I wish many of us hadn't spurned Hubert Humphrey in 1968 after Eugene McCarthy was shut out. Like many young, anti-war protesters, I stayed home on election day, thinking I'd rather Nixon won than LBJ's lapdog Humphrey.
But that was a foolish, short-sighted response. Nixon's election led to the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands American boys in Vietnam and to that of hundred of thousands of innocent civilians all across Southeast Asia.
Bernie supporters: please follow Bill Maher's advice. If they're out of the meal you prefer, eat the chicken. Vote for Hillary.
But that was a foolish, short-sighted response. Nixon's election led to the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands American boys in Vietnam and to that of hundred of thousands of innocent civilians all across Southeast Asia.
Bernie supporters: please follow Bill Maher's advice. If they're out of the meal you prefer, eat the chicken. Vote for Hillary.
29
But if I am given a choice of meatloaf with worms or chicken with maggots, I will refuse both.
1
Re 1968: I was a Eugene McCarthy supporter, too. I held my nose and voted for Humphrey in November. But I wonder how different a Humphrey presidency would actually have been from that of Richard Nixon. Humphrey was one of LBJ's cheerleaders after all.
1
I have read many comments from Sanders's supporters who say (a) they would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances or (b) they would vote for her only if she were to adopt Bernie's platform. Don't they realize that the best (which they believe Bernie is) is the enemy of the good (which they don't think Hillary is)? If they say or think there is no or little difference between Hillary and the Republicans, they are--what's the right word?--fools (not idiots, but capable of acts of folly) or people with little sense of history. If Hillary wins the nomination, it is she, not Trump or Cruz or Kasich or any of those bozos, who will nominate the next Supreme Court justice and perhaps the next after the next, not to mention judges for federal appellate courts who will be next in line for the Supremes. Whether or not they want a Supreme like Scalia. that's what they'll get. Whether or not they want a Prez who shares the views or who has a lot in common with McConnell or Ryan, that's what they'll get. While they may deserve him, the rest of us Democrats, who are more politically realistic, do not. When McGovern was nominated, I was delighted. When he lost, I realized my folly in supporting him. Although I voted for Hillary in my state's primary, I am prepared to vote for Bernie if his is the nominee. Remember what Bernie himself said: Hillary on her worst days is better than any of the Republicans.
18
The Supreme Court choice is the only reason I would even consider voting for Hillary Clinton. And, yes, it is an important one. I think that point needs to be emphasized to all those Sanders followers who intend to sit this out: none of the 17 candidates who ran as a Republican are worth voting for, not even Trump.
3
Calling people fools will not endear them to you. I read as much name calling, and insults coming from the Clinton camp as from Sanders'.
Not exactly taking the high road in you frustration. I think both sides should spend the next few months explaining why we must have a Democrat in the White House: Supreme Court nominee.
Not exactly taking the high road in you frustration. I think both sides should spend the next few months explaining why we must have a Democrat in the White House: Supreme Court nominee.
1
That's not much of a recommendation.
I strongly suspect some of Bernie Sanders' supporters will sit this one out.
Since President Obama was elected, polls have shown that each year a majority of the American people say the country is "headed in the wrong direction". Some, I'm sure, want a more conservative, Republican approach; others want a more "New Deal" approach or the kind of policies like Social Security that Bernie Sanders has championed. All share in these programs; all benefit.
At a time when post recession financial distress has continued to dominate many American's lives,leading to a surge in suicides among those Americans we seem to have forgotten, I just don't see a surge in support for Hillary Clinton from those rallying to Bernie Sanders and his inclusive message.
She's not inclusive; she is too programmed and insincere; too dependent on appealing to different segments of what she perceives, based on data, to be her core coalition and her path to an electoral college victory. And, she has too much baggage; too many ethical lapses.
Since President Obama was elected, polls have shown that each year a majority of the American people say the country is "headed in the wrong direction". Some, I'm sure, want a more conservative, Republican approach; others want a more "New Deal" approach or the kind of policies like Social Security that Bernie Sanders has championed. All share in these programs; all benefit.
At a time when post recession financial distress has continued to dominate many American's lives,leading to a surge in suicides among those Americans we seem to have forgotten, I just don't see a surge in support for Hillary Clinton from those rallying to Bernie Sanders and his inclusive message.
She's not inclusive; she is too programmed and insincere; too dependent on appealing to different segments of what she perceives, based on data, to be her core coalition and her path to an electoral college victory. And, she has too much baggage; too many ethical lapses.
20
Ms. Clinton can offer Mr Sanders much more than trying to buy him off.
She can meet him on the issues he raised and deal with them
Releasing the content of her speeches to Goldman Sachs, and to return the money, would go a long way to assure Sander supporters that she is not a candidate bought by the financial establishment.
She can meet him on the issues he raised and deal with them
Releasing the content of her speeches to Goldman Sachs, and to return the money, would go a long way to assure Sander supporters that she is not a candidate bought by the financial establishment.
27
Since these were often large events with other speakers, like Elon Musk at the one in Phoenix, and dealt with issues of the economy and innovation and growth, people have been commenting about the speeches here and there, but they often do not remember too much about her statements made at the events.
She made like 91 speeches between 2013 and 2015 and her average fee was 225,000. Only 3 of the speeches were at Goldman events and less than 10% of the money she made was from speeches at Banks, etc.
Most were at other organizations.
None of the paid speeches she gave were while she was holding office.
This is why Bernie can never provide an example of influence while she was in office - there were no paid speeches then.
So, is Bernie going to claim she is beholding to the majority of non-Wall street organizations she gave speeches at too?
om/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/index.html?iid=SF_LN
She made like 91 speeches between 2013 and 2015 and her average fee was 225,000. Only 3 of the speeches were at Goldman events and less than 10% of the money she made was from speeches at Banks, etc.
Most were at other organizations.
None of the paid speeches she gave were while she was holding office.
This is why Bernie can never provide an example of influence while she was in office - there were no paid speeches then.
So, is Bernie going to claim she is beholding to the majority of non-Wall street organizations she gave speeches at too?
om/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/index.html?iid=SF_LN
15
Also she spoke outside of Tucson, not Phoenix sorry and she gave 92 speeches not 91
1
It is time for the 2 party system to die. Bernie should run as a 3rd party candidate and someone else should run as a 4th party candidate. The voters should have a full spectrum of options.
16
If you could travel to AD 2000 in a time machine, would you try to convince Ralph Nader not to run? Or would you idly sit by as he (unwittingly) ushered in 8 years of W and Cheney?
This year, the voters have had the full spectrum of options -- during the primaries.
This year, the voters have had the full spectrum of options -- during the primaries.
3
Through the Presidency into the House for the decision. You are sure to get the craziest right-winger around.
1
"... the mere prospect of a Trump or Cruz in the White House might do more to unify the Democratic Party than anything Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Sanders could do."
Yes, that would unite the Democratic Party and those voters who see themselves as Democrats. But the younger Sanders supporters do not so identify themselves, and do not see any daylight between the histories, philosophies, and agendas of the two major parties.
That segment will generally abandon the election, and only a brilliant social media campaign will persuade them to do their duty.
Yes, that would unite the Democratic Party and those voters who see themselves as Democrats. But the younger Sanders supporters do not so identify themselves, and do not see any daylight between the histories, philosophies, and agendas of the two major parties.
That segment will generally abandon the election, and only a brilliant social media campaign will persuade them to do their duty.
7
We have no duty to vote for the candidate of one of your parties, none, so those hoping to 'unite' the party had best get it in gear. They have some explaining to do.
2
As a citizen of this country, you indeed have a duty to vote, even if for a write-in candidate of your own choosing. In addition to the Presidential race, there are many more very important selections to make on the ballot.
If you are riled up enough to respond with a defiant comment, you probably are not content to let others make the very important decisions about America's direction in your absence.
If you are riled up enough to respond with a defiant comment, you probably are not content to let others make the very important decisions about America's direction in your absence.
1
BTW - didn't Eugene McCarthy win most of the primaries but party bosses gave the nomination to Hubert Humphrey?