Right, like George McGovern.
Yeah, this is pretty much my POV also.
Obama’s results are monumental:
He wasn’t God-Emperor Obama, so had to compromise and push executive power to get what he wanted, but make no mistake. He did quite an incredible amount. I think Clinton will build upon the good work Obama has done.
If you don’t want to compromise and want to strangle American politics like the Tea-Party by creating a Tea-Party for the Left, then I’d rather have you and your ilk start a new party and not have anything to do with the Democrats. I don’t even want your votes. You and the Tea-Party can compete for childish non-compromise and leave that crap out of the Democratic Party.
Indeed. I’ve talked about it before, but the ACA is a big deal. It has upended lots of stuff on the health care system, changes that policy makers are just now beginning to grapple with.
And maybe the bigger change is creating a poverty program (through Medicaid expansion) that is not restricted to the “worthy” poor.
Yep, my sentiments exactly.
Bear in mind, I’ve appreciated what Bernie Sanders has done for the progressive cause. I don’t really have a problem with Sanders or even Sanders continuing to run a campaign that focuses on issues, even if it means going all the way to California. He’s earned that, and I think the issues he talks about, even if I don’t necessarily agree on specifics, are broadly in line with what the country needs to consider.
What I object to is what you’ve pointed out among some Bernie Sanders supporters. It seems that some want to ‘teach the moderates a lesson’. They’re just as unreasonable as the Tea Party, and they’re motivated by a sense of moral self-righteousness. Long ago I mentioned that one of the dangers of an extreme right wing is that will ultimately result in an extreme left wing, with both sides being locked in a bitter war of perceived ‘good’ and ‘evil’. If that’s the result, I’ve got some bad news for Bernie Bros: the religious nutbags are going to win that fight every time. You have to conquer extremism by appealing to the reasonable, negotiable, often silent middle.
He’s damaging Clinton’s chances, and therefore helping Trump, by continuing to be negative. And so are you and yours, btw.
Power to the people, man! 
And neither has Sanders himself.
We’ve got the figures for Bernie’s miserable coverage on CCN vs. Trump early on. Seems to me that if the media wanted a horse race they would have, you know, covered that other horse early on. It was all they had, really, and yet they didn’t bother. Why? Because they wanted to bury Bernie to support Clinton.
Then there’s the little matter of the way all the mainstream media kept including Hillary’s superdelegate totals in the counts of delegates, without even separating them out, thus making it appear that Hillary had a MUCH bigger lead then she actually had. Because those superdelegates can switch votes right up until the convention. And in fact, in the previous election, they DID switch at the convention, going with Barack Obama.
Now why would experienced broadcasters like CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS make a mistake like that unless they were trying to make Hillary’s lead look insurmountagble, hmmm?
Your theory holds NO water, sir.
So, the fix was in back in January. You think that makes it anything less of a fix? Really?
I’ll file that advice in the appropriate receptacle.
I really don’t see how you’re siding with “the people” when you support Bernie and “money” when you support Hillary?
Hillary has had far, far more people vote for her than Bernie and that’s especially true of people who don’t exactly come from “money”.
Additionally, the only reason the race in terms of delegates is even as close as it is is because Bernie cleaned up in the caucus states which are vastly less egalitarian and vastly less democratic than the primary states and pander to people who have lots of time on their hands.
So, why isn’t Hillary the candidate of “the people” since the vast majority of the “the people” side with her?
Moreover, all these complaints about the “Clinton machine” ignore that she had this same machine in place back in 2008 and not only did Obama clean her clock, but he never was once behind her in pledged delegates in 2008.
The Clinton machine is not nearly as strong as people think and frankly I’m more than a little nervous about the race coming down to her versus Trump.
If everything is so hunky-dory, Slacker (and I’d address this to Drum as well if he were around) why do you think the lower middle and lower class whilte male demographic of middle age is suddenly dying younger than ever before? If things are coming up roses for everyone, why are middle aged white men dying younger?
I’ll tell you why: the effects of wealth inequality are hitting, and it’s hollowing out American society from the inside. Sure, unemployment is low, but that’s the OFFICIAL unemployment figures. It doesn’t count the underemployed and those who’ve just given up. The American dream is dying on the vine.
In 2012 U-3 was 8.1%, U-6 was 14.7%
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt12q4.htm
In 2015 U-3 was 5.3% and U-6 was 10.4%
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt15q4.htm
It really is possible that most Democratic voters have chosen to support Clinton on the merits. Really.
2012 U-4 was 8.6% (meaning subtracting from U-3 gives .5% discouraged workers)
2015 U-4 was 5.7% (.4% discouraged workers)
Tell that all the black people who can vote now. Tell it to the gays that can get married now. Change can happen very quickly, but it will NEVER happen if you aren’t TRYING to make it happen. That’s the difference between Bernie and Hillary. He would TRY to make things happen. Hillary is a Wall Street finger puppet.
In case it wasn’t obvious my last two posts were directed at this:
The civil rights movement succeeded because of years of hard, anonymous and often dangerous behind-the-scenes work, by people who had no guarantee they would even live to see their movement succeed. It was NOT achieved by quixotic presidential candidates who believe they’re so awesome they can simply steamroll the entrenched opposition.
Oh, yah, and the progressive movement hasn’t existed for all these years? The conservatives labored without apparent success for decades before Ronald Reagan took over. Saint Ronnie didn’t happen in a vacuum, neither has Saint Bernie.
No one had any idea that Sanders would be a viable candidate in January. So, if there was a "fix’ then I wish they’d lend me their crystal balls to check Lotto numbers.:rolleyes: And, not only did they see this coming back in January, they saw it coming in 2012, 2008, 2004, 2002, and so forth, as they do this every four years for the primaries, no matter who the candidates are.
It’s ludicrous to assume somehow this was the “Democratic machine” “fixing” the election vs Sanders. :dubious:
Regarding RI polling places being closed just to “get” Sanders, this is of course just one of many narratives constructed by (some) Sanders supporters to allege massive electoral fraud. People being removed from the rolls in New York–evidence of massive, organized anti-Sanders fraud. Involuntary changes in party registration in Arizona, along with fewer polling places, long lines, and the media calling the state for Clinton while people were still standing in line–evidence of massive, organized anti-Sanders fraud. Exit polls not always agreeing with the official vote tallies–evidence of… It gets tiresome.
The trouble really is cognitive dissonance on the part of these supporters. Sanders is by far the best candidate, they say, so everyone except the moneyed interests should support him. Plus which, he gets 20,000 people at rallies, and Clinton gets what, 500 at most? It seems intuitively obvious under these circumstances that “everybody” really DOES support Sanders. In which case, why is Clinton ahead? Well, it can’t be entirely through fair means; that doesn’t make sense. So it must be through foul.
It’s the same thing that makes certain Sanders supporters say things like blacks are “low information voters.” I think someone earlier in the thread called it “tragic” that blacks didn’t like Sanders very much. Presumptuous of course, and deeply arrogant; but it illustrates the same thing: *everyone *(except the moneyed interests) should like Sanders, and should vote for Sanders, and if some people aren’t voting for him, it’s their own damn fault, it’s because they’re just not paying attention or not even aware of what their own interests are.
Anyway, it’s the fault of the folks who run the elections for stealing and suppressing votes, and it’s the fault of the media for not giving Sanders any coverage, and it’s the fault of black and Hispanic voters for not knowing enough to support the best choice, and it’s the fault of the establishment politicians for backing Hillary instead of Bernie even though Sanders is clearly the better candidate, and it’s the fault of organizations like Planned Parenthood which aren’t really “progressive” at all…
If your candidate’s message isn’t translating into votes, especially among people you think “ought” to be voting for you, then you can say one of two things:
*Option A: “Hmm, we’re not reaching group x, what are we doing wrong? How can we tweak our message, change our approach, redeploy our resources to bring them into the fold?”
*Option B: Or you can say, “Hmm, we’re not reaching group x, what are they doing wrong? The whole system must be stacked against us.”
I suspect that if you look at successful campaigns you’ll see a lot of Option A going on. Sanders himself, to an extent, seems to prefer Option B, and certainly some of his staunchest supporters do too.