I am voting for Bernie but can't stand some of Bernies supporters.

[Amelia]

Why do you say they “prematurely” threw their support behind Clinton?

Usually a candidate starts the Joint Victory Fund when they know they're going to be the nominee -- that is, when primary voters have actually had a chance to weigh in. In order to be able to double the amount of money that they could bring in from big donors, Clinton came up with a scheme to start the Victory Fund a year early so she could have two years worth of donations. She got more than 30 of the states' Democratic committees to agree to take part in this with her.

And then there was the matter of the superdelegates, where so many signed on with Hillary in 2015 that she was 20% of the way to the nomination without a single average citizen voting. That gave her such a numerical advantage that the media didn't see any potential there to create a horse race drama to drive up ratings, so they turned their attention away from Democrats over to ... Trump. Against the odds, Bernie did give them the horserace, but it was too little too late since the lack of the horserace narrative early on reinforced the idea that Hillary was the "electable" one on the Democratic side and made the media look to Trump and the Republicans for most of the drama.

The Democratic campaign machine getting into the sack with Hillary so far in advance of the primaries helped Trump because among the many things the Democratic leaders missed was that they needed to have something to give the media to keep the media talking about Democrats instead of about the GOP flavor of the day ... which turned out to be Trump, Trump and more Trump.

And again, if so many of the money sources didn't sign on with Hillary so early, more Democratic candidates would have likely thrown their hat in the ring. So when the Democratic leadership finally got their heads out of their ass and looked around and saw how disliked Hillary was and how she screwed them by not clearing up the FBI investigation before jumping into the race, the leadership and voters such as you would have had more people to consider than just careless Hillary and the old Socialist.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Usually a candidate starts the Joint Victory Fund when they know they're going to be the nominee -- that is, when primary voters have actually had a chance to weigh in. In order to be able to double the amount of money that they could bring in from big donors, Clinton came up with a scheme to start the Victory Fund a year early so she could have two years worth of donations. She got more than 30 of the states' Democratic committees to agree to take part in this with her.

And then there was the matter of the superdelegates, where so many signed on with Hillary in 2015 that she was 20% of the way to the nomination without a single average citizen voting. That gave her such a numerical advantage that the media didn't see any potential there to create a horse race drama to drive up ratings, so they turned their attention away from Democrats over to ... Trump. Against the odds, Bernie did give them the horserace, but it was too little too late since the lack of the horserace narrative early on reinforced the idea that Hillary was the "electable" one on the Democratic side and made the media look to Trump and the Republicans for most of the drama.

The Democratic campaign machine getting into the sack with Hillary so far in advance of the primaries helped Trump because among the many things the Democratic leaders missed was that they needed to have something to give the media to keep the media talking about Democrats instead of about the GOP flavor of the day ... which turned out to be Trump, Trump and more Trump.

And again, if so many of the money sources didn't sign on with Hillary so early, more Democratic candidates would have likely thrown their hat in the ring. So when the Democratic leadership finally got their heads out of their ass and looked around and saw how disliked Hillary was and how she screwed them by not clearing up the FBI investigation before jumping into the race, the leadership and voters such as you would have had more people to consider than just careless Hillary and the old Socialist.

In hindsight it may have been a mistake for the party to get behind Clinton so quickly.

But on principle alone I refuse to consider indulging in the media’s obsession with horse races, I want a unified party supporting their candidate.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Who may that be? And please dont say michelle obama. Or aoc.

Michelle Obama indeed.

(AOC ain't going anywhere.)

But MO won't run because Barry; "mile Eggo Sea!"

So Trump til 2025.

 

[3leftsdoo]

In other words these same people are probably going to vote for Trump again and their "Bernie mania" is just a sham or even a goof. That is a serious problem given Bernie's already low polling numbers, who's to say they would even really vote for him if he was on the ballot? Sorry but Bernie has not even been vetted by the Republicans and they are quietly hoping he will be the one to run against Trump so they can use all the dirt they have been gathering. That alone makes him a risky choice against an incumbent. This election is ours to lose and expecting midwesterners and independents to vote for a "socialist" is asking for trouble.

MObama or go home.

No one else has a chance.

But Barry's >precious< Lego Sea prevents her running.

 

[KevinKohler]

In hindsight it may have been a mistake for the party to get behind Clinton so quickly.

But on principle alone I refuse to consider indulging in the media’s obsession with horse races, I want a unified party supporting their candidate.

2016 Democratic National Committee email leak - Wikipedia

Bit more than just that.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Don't get me started on Green party "spoilers" Nader and Stein have done their share for the GOP for sure but at least everyone knows they are throwing away their votes every election. The Democratic party depended on Bernie to keep his flock in line and they failed him. Not that he did not try. I do agree that we need to move on. Unity is more important than anything now.eace

How DARE people not vote for whatever ridiculous/criminal Democrat is forced upon them!

There oughta be a law!!!!

:donkeyfla

 

[Amelia]

In hindsight it may have been a mistake for the party to get behind Clinton so quickly.

But on principle alone I refuse to consider indulging in the media’s obsession with horse races, I want a unified party supporting their candidate.

I still ask at what point is the party supposed to unify behind one candidate. Nothing wrong with a spirited fight on the way to picking "their candidate".

And I still maintain that after Hillary won the nomination, Bernie worked at least as hard as she did to try to get voters behind her in my state at least, which was a pivotal state.

But I hit "like" because I appreciate the civil discussion. Thank you.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I still ask at what point is the party supposed to unify behind one candidate. Nothing wrong with a spirited fight on the way to picking "their candidate".

And I still maintain that Bernie worked at least as hard as Hillary did to try to get voters behind Hillary in my state at least, which was a pivotal state.

But I hit "like" because I appreciate the civil discussion. Thank you.

Ultimately I follow the “The party decides” school of political thought.

 

[Amelia]

Ultimately I follow the “The party decides” school of political thought.

Again "like" just to thank you for the discussion. I won't push my luck now!

This time around I'll vote for whomever the party chooses. Even though I'm not a Democrat I'll vote for whomever they choose. No matter what.

 

[Obscurity]

Michelle Obama indeed.

(AOC ain't going anywhere.)

But MO won't run because Barry; "mile Eggo Sea!"

So Trump til 2025.

I dont think the country can withstand 4 more years of trump.

 

[OlNate]

You seem to be having this same conversation in Canada but, I guess if you're fine with it, we here in the US should be also.

Are Justin Trudeau’s “Media Bail-Outs” An Incremental Step Toward Communism? | Cultural Action Party of Canada

Personally, I see it encroaching and am not fine with it.

lol...Cultural Action Party of Canada...

Cultural Action Party – Violent Transnational Social Movement Research Project

Canada has always been relatively socialist - even our conservatives (true Canadian conservatives, not the kind of filth you've quoted here) are left of your conservatives. What you are seeing are the kind of assholes that typically get ignored being emboldened by what is happening south of the border...essentially, they're a bunch of wannabes. I wouldn't take your political reading of Canada from these folks.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Bernie and Busters make up about 8% of the total democratic voter base, according to 538.

Does anyone else feel this way about these rabid Bernie fans?

[/url]

I am not voting for Bernie (unless he ends up being the one who will face Trump in which case I'll pick him as the lesser evil), and I can't stand Bernie and most Bernie supporters.

Bernie or Busters are some of the most stupid people in the whole political spectrum. They don't realize that they shoot themselves in the foot by empowering, by their omission or by joining the enemy out of spite, the very rabid adversaries of all of Bernie's ideals and proposals.

For example, by being one of the factors contributing to Trump's victory, Bernie or Busters earned a much more conservative Supreme Court, which will be nicely equipped for a generation to crush the Bernie or Busters' dreams.

Bunch of immature, naive, and moronic people.

 

[GreatNews2night]

He has a complicated relationship with a party of which he is not a member . He is not a Democrat any longer than it takes to get what he wants, then he ditches the party to be independent while retaining several of the perks with a promise to vote with them on procedural votes. Its a symbiotic relationship. He is not 'more of a Democrat' than other Dems, unless the only Democrats that you are willing to recognize, are progressive ones. The difference between you and me, is I let people decide whether they are or not. You decide for them. He has decided he wants to remain independent. So I consider him an independent with democratic socialist leanings. I will vote for him if he becomes our party's nominee, but I will not vote for him when there are viable, electable and capable Democrats to vote for.

I am not hung up on which wing of the party they represent. I want both wings well represented through at least Super-Tuesday so my party can make a real choice this time. I want him to stay in the race. I want him to press forward with his anti-corporate socialist leaning income re-distributing message, because its good for the country to here from him, but I'd rather pick Harris or Warren to represent the progressive wing or the party, because I don't think they are Dems of convenience. He'll probably switch back to independent within days after winning that General election. Its what he does.

Well said, but winning what general election? Bernie Sanders is a born loser. He won't win anything. He won't even be the nominee, again; much less, winning the general election.
The opportunistic hypocrite who only becomes a Democrat when it's convenient, will lose this time even worse than he lost in 2016.

 

[Surrealistik]

I am not voting for Bernie (unless he ends up being the one who will face Trump in which case I'll pick him as the lesser evil), and I can't stand Bernie and most Bernie supporters.

Bernie or Busters are some of the most stupid people in the whole political spectrum. They don't realize that they shoot themselves in the foot by empowering, by their omission or by joining the enemy out of spite, the very rabid adversaries of all of Bernie's ideals and proposals.

For example, by being one of the factors contributing to Trump's victory, Bernie or Busters earned a much more conservative Supreme Court, which will be nicely equipped for a generation to crush the Bernie or Busters' dreams.

Bunch of immature, naive, and moronic people.

It should be noted that a solid majority of defecting Bernie voters (about 60%) had tenuous or no ties to the Democratic party in the first place, and either had a very weak Democratic lean (around 5%) were independents or had a republican lean (the remaining 55%). Another 35% or so had a middling or weak Democrat lean. That means a mere 10% were people who could be said to have betrayed their convictions, and even then they probably did it on the basis of disgust with the corrupt political process and want of an outsider (though IMO, there are few picks worse than Trump to demonstrate such displeasure with).

Of those that did not vote at all, less than 40% had a strong Democrat lean.

In general, it seemed that a strong majority of 'Bernie or Busts' and Trump converts were not really aligned with the Dems in the first place, and had no particular allegiance to them. I suspect then that the appeal was predicated primarily on his character (at least for those who didn't outright defect) and populist and outsider nature of his candidacy rather than specific policy points.

 

[btthegreat]

Well said, but winning what general election? Bernie Sanders is a born loser. He won't win anything. He won't even be the nominee, again; much less, winning the general election.
The opportunistic hypocrite who only becomes a Democrat when it's convenient, will lose this time even worse than he lost in 2016.

Now here's the other side. I don't think when he first ran, he gave himself any chance at all. He ran to get heard. As yourself how much air time has Jill Stein got, preaching virtually the same message for 8 years through two election cycles, sitting in her party as its nominee, waiting for ANYONE to listen? Now if you are Sanders, and you want to tell the American people about those Democratic Socialist ideas that Europe has been hearing about for 30 years, what the hell else can you do? Media will not cover third party candidate or their platforms or their ideas, whether they are libertarian, Constitutional party, or the Green Party. Both major parties have done everything in their power to deny these candidates any access to the debates. If you are Sanders, the only way to get to the American people, is to become a member of the Democratic Party, file for office and present those policies and ideas in the primary debates. It was the only logical option for him.

And I believe, we as a party and the American people gained from hearing his far left progressive message, just as I think the American people would benefit from hearing more about the Libertarian platform and that is what Paul was trying to do as a nominee for the GOP. I never saw Sanders as a 'spoiler' . I saw him as providing a new generation, the opportunity to hear the closest thing to socialist platform that they may ever be exposed to, and it is fundamentally different from traditional liberalism of Obama or Clinton or Kerry, or Dukakis. I'd argue that Sanders opportunism, provided us all with a great opportunity to hear far left wing ideology and maybe, just maybe take an idea or two to heart.

As for electability. I agree with you he was never going to get much traction in a general election. The moment the GOP loaded up their big cannons with pinko commie talk, he was toast.

 

[GreatNews2night]

In general, it seemed that a strong majority of 'Bernie or Busts' and Trump converts were not really aligned with the Dems in the first place, and had no particular allegiance to them. I suspect then that the appeal was predicated primarily on his character (at least for those who didn't outright defect) and populist and outsider nature of his candidacy rather than specific policy points.

Regardless, the election was so close, with Trump's electoral college victory resulting from a total of under 80,000 votes in three states, that ANY small percentage of true betrayers of their own convictions (the other poster quoted 10%) was still a HUGE factor in Trump's victory. QED.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Now here's the other side. I don't think when he first ran, he gave himself any chance at all. He ran to get heard. As yourself how much air time has Jill Stein got, preaching virtually the same message for 8 years through two election cycles, sitting in her party as its nominee, waiting for ANYONE to listen? Now if you are Sanders, and you want to tell the American people about those Democratic Socialist ideas that Europe has been hearing about for 30 years, what the hell else can you do? Media will not cover third party candidate or their platforms or their ideas, whether they are libertarian, Constitutional party, or the Green Party. Both major parties have done everything in their power to deny these candidates any access to the debates. If you are Sanders, the only way to get to the American people, is to become a member of the Democratic Party, file for office and present those policies and ideas in the primary debates. It was the only logical option for him.

And I believe, we as a party and the American people gained from hearing his far left progressive message, just as I think the American people would benefit from hearing more about the Libertarian platform and that is what Paul was trying to do as a nominee for the GOP. I never saw Sanders as a 'spoiler' . I saw him as providing a new generation, the opportunity to hear the closest thing to socialist platform that they may ever be exposed to, and it is fundamentally different from traditional liberalism of Obama or Clinton or Kerry, or Dukakis. I'd argue that Sanders opportunism, provided us all with a great opportunity to hear far left wing ideology and maybe, just maybe take an idea or two to heart.

As for electability. I agree with you he was never going to get much traction in a general election. The moment the GOP loaded up their big cannons with pinko commie talk, he was toast.

Sure, sure, but he was a spoiler all right. He stayed in the race for too long and damaged the only viable candidate, who could have won against Trump (of course he wasn't the only factor; that horrible candidate herself was the main factor in her loss, among others - Comey's letter, the Russians, etc; but Sanders definitely was one of the factors, and given how close the election was, any factor was in itself also a decisive factor - the bottom line is, had Bernie pulled out sooner, without all the victim stance that pushed at least 10% of his followers to join the real enemy Donald Trump, Hillary would have won; that's being a spoiler).

Maybe in one manner the American people gained from hearing this message, but it's a question of benefits versus damage, and the damage, being stuck with Donald Trump, is way bigger than the benefit.

Now, even if one might say that Bernie didn't have another option if he wanted to be heard, it's not the only reason for calling him a hypocrite. Look, he left the Democratic Party after he lost the election... and now, JOINED AGAIN!!!! Whoa! After criticizing the very process that allowed him to be heard and whining all the way against the Superdelegates, the major hypocrite ended up begging the Superdelegates to join him against Hillary - and therefore AGAINST THE POPULAR VOTE!!! - towards the end of the primaries. Isn't this an attempt to win at all costs, even against the popular vote? And this, after bashing the same Superdelegates for months? Yeah, major hypocrite.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Fox News poll has the 4 leading dems crushing Trump. So it is pretty obvious Bernie is electable.

 

[WCH]

lol...Cultural Action Party of Canada...

Cultural Action Party – Violent Transnational Social Movement Research Project

Canada has always been relatively socialist - even our conservatives (true Canadian conservatives, not the kind of filth you've quoted here) are left of your conservatives. What you are seeing are the kind of assholes that typically get ignored being emboldened by what is happening south of the border...essentially, they're a bunch of wannabes. I wouldn't take your political reading of Canada from these folks.

We tend to ignore these white supremacist types for the same reason. Their number and influence is minimal.

 

[Surrealistik]

Regardless, the election was so close, with Trump's electoral college victory resulting from a total of under 80,000 votes in three states, that ANY small percentage of true betrayers of their own convictions (the other poster quoted 10%) was still a HUGE factor in Trump's victory. QED.

Personally, I would doubt whether the total of the defections and abstains among the strong Dem lean voters alone were adequate, but I haven't done the math or looked into it just yet; perhaps over the weekend.

 

[Amelia]

We tend to ignore these white supremacist types for the same reason. Their number and influence is minimal.

Their influence is huge.

Trump thinks they're a large part of the more enthusiastic portion of his base and his tailoring his rhetoric and policies with that in mind.

 

[Surrealistik]

Regardless, the election was so close, with Trump's electoral college victory resulting from a total of under 80,000 votes in three states, that ANY small percentage of true betrayers of their own convictions (the other poster quoted 10%) was still a HUGE factor in Trump's victory. QED.

Had some time on lunch so decided to check the numbers; going by this article: The Bernie voters who defected to Trump, explained by a political scientist - Vox

Sanders to Trump converts were 51k in Wisconsin, 47k in Michigan, 116k in Pennsylvania; let's say that 10% of Strong Dem Bernie defectors is the case for all of them; that gives us 21,400 turncoat voters; this is markedly short of the 80k needed (or assuming they all voted for Clinton instead, 40k);

Meanwhile the Trump win margin for each of these states: WI: 22k, MI: 10k, PA: 44k; the number of turncoats for each state translates into 5.1k for WI, 4.7k for MI and 11.6k PA per the 10% proportion above. Even doubling these doesn't equal or surpass the margin, though MI comes pretty close.

In general, I don't think the Bernie turncoat argument is convincing when one acknowledges those who had no real or strong allegiance to the Dem party.

 

[WCH]

Their influence is huge.

Trump thinks they're a large part of the more enthusiastic portion of his base and his tailoring his rhetoric and policies with that in mind.

More BS...following the Times are ya? The boy who cried wolf.

 

[Amelia]

Had some time on lunch so decided to check the numbers; going by this article: The Bernie voters who defected to Trump, explained by a political scientist - Vox

Sanders to Trump converts were 51k in Wisconsin, 47k in Michigan, 116k in Pennsylvania; let's say that 10% of Strong Dem Bernie defectors is the case for all of them; that gives us 21,400 turncoat voters; this is markedly short of the 80k needed (or assuming they all voted for Clinton instead, 40k);

Meanwhile the Trump win margin for each of these states: WI: 22k, MI: 10k, PA: 44k; the number of turncoats for each state translates into 5.1k for WI, 4.7k for MI and 11.6k PA per the 10% proportion above. Even doubling these doesn't equal or surpass the margin, though MI comes pretty close.

In general, I don't think the Bernie turncoat argument is convincing when one acknowledges those who had no real or strong allegiance to the Dem party.

Hillary was the obvious winner with registered Democrats.

Yes, Bernie's support came from a wider pool. Presumably the great majority of Hillary voters would also have voted for Bernie if only because he would have been the Democratic candidate. But it was less natural to assume all Bernie supporters would automatically switch to whomever the Democratic party picked, since many (such as myself) weren't Democrats to begin with.

Bernie had broad appeal. Hillary had very narrow appeal, concentrated in the small part of the nation which identified as Democrat, and even 25% of Democrats didn't trust her.



So, Hillary supporters feeling betrayed because Bernie supporters didn't all switch to Hillary in spite of him asking us to -- and in spite of him campaigning here for her when she couldn't be bothered -- that's not logical. Bernie's support came from many sources, not all with natural ties to the Democratic party.

Now, I've heard some say that means the support was fake and wouldn't have translated to votes in the general, but that's another variation on the sour grapes explanations which Hillary supporters need to console themselves with after picking such a terrible candidate.

 

[Surrealistik]

Hillary was the obvious winner with registered Democrats.

Yes, Bernie's support came from a wider pool. Presumably the great majority of Hillary voters would also have voted for Bernie if only because he would have been the Democratic candidate. But it was less natural to assume all Bernie supporters would automatically switch to whomever the Democratic party picked, since many (such as myself) weren't Democrats to begin with.

Bernie had broad appeal. Hillary had very narrow appeal, concentrated in the small part of the nation which identified as Democrat, and even 25% of Democrats didn't trust her.



So, Hillary supporters feeling betrayed because Bernie supporters didn't all switch to Hillary in spite of him asking us to -- and in spite of him campaigning here for her when she couldn't be bothered -- that's not logical. Bernie's support came from many sources, not all with natural ties to the Democratic party.

Now, I've heard some say that means the support was fake and wouldn't have translated to votes in the general, but that's another variation on the sour grapes explanations which Hillary supporters need to console themselves with after picking such a terrible candidate.

I completely agree. I just figured it's important to show exactly why even their arguments pertaining to Bernie voters throwing the election to Trump per the case of these small margins aren't at all sound.