I do. Dishonest politicians killed a hundred thousand Iraqis.
No they did not. Twenty emails containing information classified after the fact or sourced independently would be within a reasonable margin of error. Two thousand emails containing classified information is not.
SlackerInc, you and I seem to live in very different countries. Bernie doesn’t seem foreign to me. He doesn’t seem particularly strange. He, in fact, seems far less strange than the blow-dried millionaires that seem to populate Washington.
If being a Brooklyn-accented working-class hero is strange, what is a Little Rock-accented rich boy with a Harvard degree? What is a Hawai’ian mulatto who eats arugula? What is a Texas Panhandle landowner with some oil money? What is Poppy Bush, or Jimmy Carter, or R. Milhous Nixon?
It’s a big country. We’re all a little different, and a little strange. We’re used to it.
And a Brooklyn Jew seems totally normal to me. Granted, I was a Billy Crystal fan as a kid, so it doesn’t even seem alien. But that’s the thing. I’m know I’m weird, but as far as I can tell, liking Billy Crystal is not weird. (ETA: Apparently Crystal was born on the Upper East Side, not in Brooklyn. Anyway…)
There may be some Americans out there who have never watched television nor seen a movie, to whom Brooklyn is some weird and alien place. Well, maybe so. Maybe they think Jews aren’t Americans, somehow. And maybe they even vote. But they’d think I have an accent, and they probably plotzed when Obama was elected.
We are on the other side, son. Worrying about secular Jews when this country has a elected a Arabian-named “half-breed” like Barry Obama is, frankly, goofy.
Would Sanders be doing better in South Carolina if he were a Christian? Maybe he would. Is it enough to worry me in the general? Not really.
Tom Jefferson was an “infidel,” a redhead, *and *a race-mixer, as his opponents loved to point out.
Clearly it did enormous damage to his political career. 
Your cite? This is mine, which explains the reason and why Sec. of State have separate servers:
and this closer:
Obviously she was competitive. But she lost, despite winning the popular vote, because Obama’s team did a better job than her at manipulating the arcane rules of delegate allocation. Not a point in favor of her being an especially shrewd politician.
No question Vermont is far more liberal than most States.
That Sanders has a much more impressive record of winning elections, including ones in which all the money and party establishments were on the other side. Obviously doesn’t prove that he would be a better candidate than Clinton this November, but you can’t really ignore it if you’re trying to figure out who is more electable.
There are many kinds of dishonesty. Bernie Sanders is not an honest politician either.
ETA: Do his fans not realize that Bernie also lost a bunch of elections?
The fixation on her emails may just be a political ploy. There hasn’t seemed to be a lot there, although maybe something will come out of it. I’m much more concerned about the idea of the Clinton Foundation peddling influence to foreign powers, let alone somehow laundering foreign money into her campaign.
I don’t want to nominate someone who is then shown to be guilty, or even credibly probably guilty, of high crimes.
That’s what has swung me over the last few weeks into thinking Hillary’s candidacy is a bigger threat to the party than anyone realizes, and why I think “baked in” is a garbage phrase.
I’d add that the Billy Crystal comparison is not reassuring. I love Al Franken, but did anyone notice how many Minnesotans voted for Obama but not Franken in 2008? That wives an unnecessary risk for Democrats (actually DFLers) to take, but they got away with it, barely, because their state is a little bluer than average.
Oops, “was”, not " wives".
George McGovern? Really? Not analogous.
McGovern had only 3% support among Democrats in January 1972, and he eventually won the nomination with only 25% of the primary vote. This was partially due to the large field of candidates (again, not like this election) and largely because 1972 was the first year of something resembling the modern system of primaries and caucuses. The rules of delegate allocation were extremely complicated and confusing, and McGovern had the great advantage of having written them. If Sanders wins the nomination, he will have a much clearer mandate from the Democratic voters than McGovern did.
McGovern was certainly left of the average American voter, but he also had the disadvantage of facing a fairly popular incumbent President, which Sanders won’t have. He probably would have lost in any case, but he likely would have made a much more respectable showing if he hadn’t shot himself in the foot by making the worst Vice-Presidential pick in history (until 2008). No reason to suspect that will happen with Sanders. McGovern was despised by much of his own party establishment, and many prominent Democratic elected officials openly campaigned for Nixon. It’s hard for me to imagine that happening today.
Career record 14-6. A better winning percentage than Clinton, and he did it all without help from a major party organization.
How many of our past presidents had six losing campaigns under their belt? I honestly don’t know.
So, you prefer candidates who only run in races they expect to win handily? Fascinating.
I wonder if Hillary knew in 1991 that her husband would win the White House in 1992. What else did she know would happen?
Did she foresee the GOP taking over Congress for a generation? Did she intend to lose in 2008 so she could be appointed Secretary of State and have even more on her resumé? Is it all predetermined? How far back do the rigged elections go?
Yeah, Bernie ran a bunch of no-hope campaigns when he started out, and then turned into a real live career public servant. That’s an inspiring story.
Hillary’s story has been an amazing story of class privilege, of a rich Anglo-Saxon woman striving for status above all. Maybe Gloria Steinem finds it inspiring, but I think she’s a cartoonish self-parody of celebrity.
Anyway, at this point, you’re flailing, Inc.
“Bernie isn’t honest,” is an amazing statement. Why do you say that? Um, because he doesn’t admit he doesn’t believe in God? Because he’s a pragmatist on gun laws? Something else?
Interesting question. I would guess zero. Offhand I can’t think of any who had 14 winning campaigns, either. It would have to be someone who spent a long time in the House before running for President.
I think this thread is slipping back into Bernie vs. Hillary territory again. There are other threads for that. This thread is about whether Bernie supporters will deliberately stay home and not work to get Hillary elected should she be nominated, and whether that’s a wise action to send a message to the Democratic party, or a surefire ticket to President Trump/Cruz.
Talking about Hillary’s negatives in the context of why you won’t vote for her if she becomes the nominee is perfectly in line, but I’m seeing some pure boosterism of the preferred candidate, and I’m curious about more than that, personally.
OK, yeah.
I hate to say it, but I’ve crossed over from, “Get a Democrat in for** kaylasdad99**,” to, “Vote Green in protest & prepare for 2018 Congressional races.” I fear that Hillary’s almost inverted sense of ethics and propriety will first discredit the party in the eyes of those who aren’t already loyal partisans, then transform what remains of the party into a Hastert-like nightmare of sheer influence-peddling.
I believe that Nixon’s disgrace wrecked the GOP. The good, the sane, & the sage seem to have lost any affinity for the party, leaving a hard core of crypto-fascists who believed in executive *carte blanche *over a global jurisdiction, and of course in plutocracy.
To defend Hillary may become like defending Nixon.
Some will say I am naïve; that the USA is already that corrupt. Well, maybe so. But yes, I suppose I do want a not-for-sale government. As an economic leftie, I’d like to be able to argue for that in coalition with a party of the left. Maybe hoping that the Democrats could remotely resemble what I consider good government is a mistake on my part.
Point taken. I will therefore not respond to a couple things directed at me that are off topic for this thread. If the people hitting me with those points or questions want responses from me, they can paste them over on a more appropriate thread.
I am not completely GBCWing this thread though. If people make (IMO specious) arguments about why it doesn’t matter if they refuse to vote for Hillary in the fall, I reserve the right to push back on that.
This is a bizarre statement. “Inverted sense of ethics”? Yeah, okay, I agree that Clinton has a serious problem with honesty and with thinking the rules apply to her–but she nonetheless has a very strong ethical system, which she’s demonstrated during her years in politics. She’s not going to ruin the party.
I always tell myself that if my ethical conclusion somehow lines up perfectly with the most satisfying thing to do anyway, I should be suspicious. In this case, I encourage you to be suspicious of your own reasoning.
The views expressed by hardcore Bernie or bust supporters are exactly why the Democratic Party should and will ignore them. Reminds me of when I called and canvassed for Kerry in 2004 in Ohio. We had a rating system to gauge the likelihood of the person voting for Kerry. Green/Naderite people were assigned the lowest likelihood, the same rating as hardcore Bush voters. The green/Nader voters would simply waste your time and their rigid ideological purity would always find some reason they couldn’t vote Kerry. Perhaps John Kerry didn’t wash his hands after using the bathroom when he was 5 years old.
Bernie supporters will fall into either the Dated Dean/Married Kerry camp or else they’ll stay home or vote 3rd party. I suspect many of the latter would call Bernie a sell out if he did get the nomination. Just like how the hipsters immediately dislike an indy band that suddenly has a hit.
Well the notion that Bernie is squeeky clean on the left of centre and Hillary is some sort of evil incarnate is the narrative the Sanders campaign is putting forth. Her receiving money from Goldman Sachs is somehow the lynch pin. Except lefties like Michael Moore had his last film funded in part by Goldman Sachs. His political views and his creativity notwithstanding, it didn’t seem to deter a point of view.
This is I think a problem for Bernie going forward. He’s not owing up to the fact that he out spent Hillary 2-1 in the Nevada primary, the Nurses’ superpac is helping to fund his campaign and he received help from the Rove superpac negative ads.
If this is an issue oriented campaign, then debate the issues. Bernie has some splannin to do about his environmental record. Especially the transport of nuclear waste from Vermont to a very poor latino section of Texas. I was frankly shocked to read about Bernie as a socialist would actually co-sponsor a bill that did exactly that . The “not in my backyard” sort of attitude was really coarse. The Sierra club calls it Environmental racism. Environmentalists thought they had a friend in Bernie, they were dead wrong.