Are you sure Sanders is a Democrat?
Look, I voted for Sanders in the primary here. But, you know, it’s readily apparent that Clinton will win the nomination. Such is life.
Your argument that there is no difference between Clinton and Trump is nonsense.
I can’t think of a better example of a Democrat than Hillary Clinton. She’s very representive of the parties planks and goals as well as its flaws.
The Democratic Party is choosing her as it’s candidate. To argue she isn’t a Democrat is the most nonsensical thing I’ve read here.
The people are choosing Hillary over Bernie just like they will choose Hillary over Trump. If you had the people on your side you would have more votes.
Nader made the same sort of claim, too. How’d that turn out?
Oh, right, “this time it’s different”. :rolleyes:
I never made any such argument, and will not, except within the areas of;
In terms of foreign policy and social issues they are very different.
But basically, we have a Republican of the compassionate conservative vein in Clinton, and a raging fascist of the Tea Party Republican style in Trump. Neither is really a Democrat. Sorry.
Clinton is interested in all these things. Unlike Sanders, she doesn’t resort to scapegoating and demagoguery in addressing them.
The people are making bad choices that are not in line with their own beliefs and definitely not with their own best interests. Isn’t the first time, won’t be the last.
Or maybe you have a definition of Democrat so absurd no Democrat fits it.
The Democratic Party might not be what you want it to be, but here in reality it is the party Democrats want it to be.
I said it before. But apparently it bears repeating.
Political campaigns, when faced with the reality that groups of voters don’t like their candidate especially, can respond by doing something to convince those voters otherwise…or they can blame the voters for being idiots.
The second way does not seem designed to win hearts and minds. I suspect these campaigns tend to lose races. And if this really what you think, it’s a lousy advertisement for your candidate.
Why would you not think a “real Democrat” is what most Democrats define it to be? :dubious:
We The Democrats indeed have spoken, and quite clearly. Maybe it’s time you dropped the caricatures you have cherished for so long and made an effort to understand why the Democrats have made the choice we have.
Now there is a real democrat.
Can you not face the fact that some people might not see Bernie’s proposals as in their best interests? Or don’t have his beliefs? And yet they are still Democrats. They still believe in civil rights, a woman’s right to choose, freedom of religion, scientific thought, and a progressive taxation system.
They nae be true Democrats.
Just the vast overwhelming majority of them.
I’ve heard that before … back in 2000. Think of how different the world would be if the other “Republican” had won.
And millions of Democrats have spoken quite clearly. They want Bernie.
I suspect that Bernie would have done much, much, better if the national and state Democrat parties had treated all of the Democrat candidates fairly, and equally.
It’s incredible, isn’t it? For some reason there are people who believe if one isn’t a Social Democrat, they aren’t a “real Democrat”, which is amazingly absurd. The Democrats have NEVER been a Social Democratic party. If you want a Social Democratic party, START ONE. Don’t try to redefine parties in nonsensical, ridiculous ways. Though I guess that does help identify the crazies…
And 3.168 Million more of them want Clinton. That is 15% more people.
I suspect he still would have lost.
If Sanders lost solely because he wasn’t treated fairly what that really shows is he sucks at politics. He’s had many more years to make friends and gain support than Clinton has had yet a younger politician can steam roll over him and no one in his party is willing to come to his defense? If he wanted to run as a Democrat with thier support he made a terrible political play.
I don’t want someone who sucks at politics as president. What are they going to do cry unfairness when another world leader out plays them?
I think the parties and the members of the party have a right to support the candidates of their choice. Bernie did “much, much, better” than anyone expected. To me that’s some evidence that the parties and the voters gave him every opportunity. Someone has to finish second, why not Bernie?
Sure, if they’re either deluded or in the upper 10%. Otherwise, no.
So, Democrats are not the pro-union party, not the ones that push welfare, not the ones who try to fight income inequality, not the ones who push Keynes and progressive taxation, and aren’t the part of all the social justice movements?
Maybe you can say it’s not “just” the Social Democratic party, but it sure seems the party for Social Democrats to me.
Is it really that controversial that they are putting up the more centrist candidate because that’s what wins elections? Because it isn’t the base of either party that decides. It’s the independents and moderates.
We talk about this here all the time, how Obama is fairly centrist–he just seem left because the Republicans have pulled so far to the Right.
And, while this isn’t related to the above, I do want to say it: I notice that the attacks on this board from the Sanders side tend to be on Clinton herself. But the attacks on Clinton’s side seem to attack Sanders supporters.
And surely it’s not controversial that you shouldn’t be attacking the supporters–the people you want to vote for your candidate? Seems a no-brainer to me. I did not expect such an OP to get this much opposition.