The way the Democratic establishment is treating Bernie supporters is a blunder.

[BigT]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I think I’ve got a record here of supporting Sanders and speaking out pretty loudly against obnoxious behavior from Clinton supporters. Keep that in mind as I say, what the hell are you thinking?

Your post here and continuing in your other posts demonstrate a remarkably self-centered approach to politics. This is an excellent place for you to check your privilege.

A Trump presidency is likely to have severe impacts on people of color. Are you white, such that you can ignore these effects? It’s likely to be miserable for Muslims. Are you non-Muslim, so you can safely ignore these effects? There’s a pretty good chance (who the hell can even tell) that it’s not going to be great for women of childbearing age. Are you male, such that you can ignore these effects? It’ll probably be awful for kids living in poverty, and for their parents. Are you middle-class, so that you can ignore these effects?

A Trump presidency will have very real, very serious adverse effects for literally millions of people. For you to decide to stay home on elections day because of hurt feelings is a terrible way to cast a vote.

I’m not at all crazy about Clinton. A lot of Clinton supporters completely disgust me with their behavior. But my emotional state is not so fragile that a bunch of yahoos saying dumb things about me are going to cloud my political analysis.

I’m at the point where the superpower I wish for is the power to clonk peoples’ heads together like coconuts. About a third of Sanders supporters, and about a third of Clinton supporters, would be making the most satisfying clonking sound right about now.

Why do you guys have such trouble understanding this? His lack of vote isn’t going to make Trump president. It just isn’t. He pointed out that he’s in Arizona and his vote will be wasted, since Arizona will go for the Republicans.

So any argument about how bad Trump is will not be remotely convincing. As far as he’s concerned, it’s just fear mongering. Because it has no actual connection with what his action will cause.

He’s refusing to vote as a form of protest. A protest at those who came up with that bigoted “BernieBros” shit. It uses a stereotype of toxic masculinity–the bro–and uses it to tar Bernie supporters. Sure, you say it’s not a term for anyone who supports Sanders, but it sure is used that way. It’s more like when someone says those black people are okay.

I’ve been on record as saying that I think it’s wrong not to vote to stop Trump. But this is the first time I’ve seen a pretty good case for why someone wouldn’t.

As long as Trump still loses, I can’t really have a problem with this approach. Send the message that this shit has to stop by making the margins thinner than they should be. So, next time, if the Republicans put up someone who could actually win, you’ll know not to pull this shit.

The BernieBros thing is absolute fucking bullshit, and it has no place in the supposedly liberal party. Liberals care about other people. Liberals are anti-bigotry. So don’t use this bigoted excuse for a term to describe people.

It’s not like it’s asking all that much.

[YogSothoth]

@Evil_Captor

Oh, and remember all of you that thought Hillary was supporting downballot tickets and that made her so much more of a Democrat than Bernie?

Well, turns out she’s been looting state Democratic Party funds with her “Hillary Victory Fund” joint project. Of the $61 million raised, just one percent remains in state coffers!

So? I guess she needs the money. This is an unprecedented and long primary season after all, it makes sense that money promised for other spending months ago would be needed now that the campaign and stretched to late spring. The presidential election is the single most important election anyway, it makes sense to spend more money here than on downballot tickets

@Evil_Captor

I think Bernie’s chances of getting the nomination are way low at this point, so yes. I’m just pointing out all the fun you’re going to have with Hillary if she wins the Presidential race. Not a given. Even though George Will wants her to win by a landslide.

Are you guys SURE you’re Democrats? Because it sure sounds like we have two Republicans running for the Presidency this year.

Again, so what? The GOP knows they will reap untold devastation with Trump, so it makes sense they’d want Clinton to win. Better the devil you know than the one you don’t, and all that. GOP support says little about Democrats and more about how desperate Republicans are

[Pleonast]

@BrainGlutton

Sure, if they’re either deluded or in the upper 10%. Otherwise, no.

Telling others that you know their interests better than they themselves do is arrogant and undemocratic.

[Procrustus]

@BigT

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.

Well, it’s the Sanders *supporters *who are saying “Bernie or Bust.” Bernie is going to come around and endorse Mrs. Clinton eventually, but I don’t know if his hard core supporters are going to. They certainly have a right to do whatever they want, but it is also fair to point out that they are not making choices that support their stated goals. I heard on one the radio this morning saying he’d go for Trump if Sanders didn’t get the nomination. I honestly can’t even comprehend a person who wanted Bernie to win ever voting for Trump. Even Bernie admits that Hillary would be 100 times better President than any Republican in the race. Why are his “supporters” not listening to that?

[DrDeth]

@Evil_Captor

Oh, and remember all of you that thought Hillary was supporting downballot tickets and that made her so much more of a Democrat than Bernie?

Well, turns out she’s been looting state Democratic Party funds with her “Hillary Victory Fund” joint project. Of the $61 million raised, just one percent remains in state coffers!

Bernie at least hasn’t been looting state committee funds for his campaign.

Feel the Bern yet?

No “looting” no “laundering”. :rolleyes:

and yes, Bernie hasnt been doing that *as he hasnt raised a dime to help other campaigns. *

Clinton and Sanders spar over joint fundraising efforts | CNN Politics

[DrDeth]

@doorhinge

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.

Yes, 8,967,401 people (many of them Democrats) have voted for Bernie. However, 12,135,109 voted for Hillary.

He wouldn’t have had the slightest chance in hell, since the caucus system is anything but “fair”.

[Grumman]

@boytyperanma

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?

Let us know when Hillary supporters quit trotting out the “Bush made her do it” defense of her support of the Iraq War.

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@Evil_Captor

And The People are polling well to the left of Clinton on economic matters.

You made this claim upthread, except saying “the base” instead of “The People,” and I asked you for a cite. You ignored it, which I took as a tacit admission that you made the claim up. But now you’ve reiterated the claim. So I renew my request for a cite. Will you ignore it again?

[Procrustus]

@Grumman

Let us know when Hillary supporters quit trotting out the “Bush made her do it” defense of her support of the Iraq War.

I think most of us just say “she blew it on that one.”

Has anyone said she’s perfect?

[ISiddiqui]

@BigT

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?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and many other center-left Democrats are pro-union, pro-welfare, anti-income inequality, pro-progressive taxation, and pro-social justice movements.

Do you think President Obama is a Social Democrat? Because that’s pushing that definition pretty far.

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.

I’m not entirely sure where you get this viewpoint as I see plenty of attacks on Clinton supporters. Not long ago in this thread Clinton supporters were asked if they were really Democrats.

[Ulf_the_Unwashed]

@doorhinge

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.

Quite true. A very deeply unfair system.

Let’s see…closed primaries. Unfair because non-Democrats aren’t allowed to vote. If non-Democrats had been allowed Sanders would surely have won every one of these states, instead of losing them all. That puts CT, NY, PA, DE, MD, FL, LA, and AZ in his win column, and that doesn’t even count the voter fraud by the Clinton forces in Arizona and New York. So in a fair world, that’s eight more states for Sanders and eight fewer for Clinton. If they hadn’t been out to “get” Sanders by holding closed primaries.

Then there are the caucuses “won” by Clinton: Iowa, but that was so close it doesn’t count, and Nevada, and both were really early in the campaign schedule before the voters had a chance t really get to know Sanders. It’s very unfair, and unequal, that these early races pitted an unknown against one of the most famous folks in politics. Two more states for Sanders. If the contests were fair.

How about the open primaries? Well, Clinton won Missouri, Massachusetts, and Illinois by very narrow margins. Sanders came very close in these states, and if they’d just held the debates during prime time on a better night he would certainly have won them. Plus which, Bill Clinton unfairly deprived Sanders of 17,000 votes in MA by standing in polling places. Talk about unequal! Three more states for Sanders, three fewer for Clinton. If the playing field were truly level.

Then the states from Virginia over to Texas: VA, NC, SC, GA, TN, AL, MS, AR, TX. Nine states. Clinton won them in open primaries, okay, but they don’t count either because they’re all Southern states and insanely conservative, and it makes no sense to let conservative states have a say in Democratic primaries. Besides, they have too many African Americans and that’s not fair because…because they don’t seem interested in voting for Sanders. So that isn’t equal. To be truly fair, we need to take those nine states out of the equation. If the Democratic Party were truly, you know, democratic.

So when you come right down to it, really, Clinton won Ohio, and only Ohio, at least until we can figure out an excuse for how a Northern state with an open primary went for Clinton by 13 points, which will probably have something to do with low-information voters and people who just “don’t know their own self-interest.” But even if we can’t move Ohio to the Sanders column, the evidence is abundantly clear. If things had been fair and equal, Sanders would be way ahead.

/heavy sarcasm

[YogSothoth]

@Grumman

Let us know when Hillary supporters quit trotting out the “Bush made her do it” defense of her support of the Iraq War.

When the administration withholds vital information and actively lies to get a certain vote, don’t you think that should have some consideration in the vote? In fact, I give her credit for the Iraq vote, she changed her mind when many refused to look at reality. It may have been a mistake, but she owned it, and got better for it. I can tell you that my opinion of Clinton is not in any way affected by her Iraq war vote.

[Johnny_Ace]

@Grumman

Let us know when Hillary supporters quit trotting out the “Bush made her do it” defense of her support of the Iraq War.

As soon as Hillary haters stop trotting out the same old tired ‘warmonger’ argument. Yeah, I know, never gonna happen.

[doorhinge]

@DrDeth

Yes, 8,967,401 people (many of them Democrats) have voted for Bernie. However, 12,135,109 voted for Hillary.

He wouldn’t have had the slightest chance in hell, since the caucus system is anything but “fair”.

Almost 9 million? I wonder how well Bernie would have done if the national and state Democrat parties had treated all of the Democrat candidates fairly, and equally?

The question is, and has been, would/should the way the Democrat establishment (leadership, power brokers, and party friendly media outlets) treatment of Bernie and Bernie’s campaign be considered a blunder? Some people seem to believe it’s fair because they want Hillary to win, regardless. Other’s seem to believe that the treatment Bernie has received has been unfair, biased, sleazy, prejudiced, ham-handed, and stupid. I doubt that the latter group are very proud of their Democrat Party. Maybe they won’t vote because of the SSDD party politics? Maybe they’ll vote Republican? Maybe not?

[Procrustus]

@doorhinge

Almost 9 million? I wonder how well Bernie would have done if the national and state Democrat parties had treated all of the Democrat candidates fairly, and equally?

The question is, and has been, would/should the way the Democrat establishment (leadership, power brokers, and party friendly media outlets) treatment of Bernie and Bernie’s campaign be considered a blunder? Some people seem to believe it’s fair because they want Hillary to win, regardless. Other’s seem to believe that the treatment Bernie has received has been unfair, biased, sleazy, prejudiced, ham-handed, and stupid. I doubt that the latter group are very proud of their Democrat Party. Maybe they won’t vote because of the SSDD party politics? Maybe they’ll vote Republican? Maybe not?

Bernie was treated fine. Everything’s fine. Not everyone participant can get a ribbon.

[iiandyiiii]

@doorhinge

Almost 9 million? I wonder how well Bernie would have done if the national and state Democrat parties had treated all of the Democrat candidates fairly, and equally?

He probably still would be losing by a lot. Most Democratic voters like Hillary Clinton – and that was the problem for a challenger… it’s hard to peel away voters when they genuinely like the frontrunner.

The question is, and has been, would/should the way the Democrat establishment (leadership, power brokers, and party friendly media outlets) treatment of Bernie and Bernie’s campaign be considered a blunder? Some people seem to believe it’s fair because they want Hillary to win, regardless. Other’s seem to believe that the treatment Bernie has received has been unfair, biased, sleazy, prejudiced, ham-handed, and stupid. I doubt that the latter group are very proud of their Democrat Party. Maybe they won’t vote because of the SSDD party politics? Maybe they’ll vote Republican? Maybe not?

This has been a far, far less contentious Democratic primary than 2008. I see no reason to believe that more Bernie supporters will reject Hillary than Hillary supporters rejected Obama.

Bernie did great, considering how tough his task was, but he’s losing by a significant margin because most Democrats like Hillary Clinton and think she’d be a good candidate and president.

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@doorhinge

Almost 9 million? I wonder how well Bernie would have done if the national and state Democrat parties had treated all of the Democrat candidates fairly, and equally?

The question is, and has been, would/should the way the Democrat establishment (leadership, power brokers, and party friendly media outlets) treatment of Bernie and Bernie’s campaign be considered a blunder? Some people seem to believe it’s fair because they want Hillary to win, regardless. Other’s seem to believe that the treatment Bernie has received has been unfair, biased, sleazy, prejudiced, ham-handed, and stupid. I doubt that the latter group are very proud of their Democrat Party. Maybe they won’t vote because of the SSDD party politics? Maybe they’ll vote Republican? Maybe not?

Are you actually unaware that ‘Democrat’ is a noun and not an adjective?

[Procrustus]

@Do_Not_Taunt

Are you actually unaware that ‘Democrat’ is a noun and not an adjective?

I can’t believe I missed that. I could have stopped reading sooner.

[DrDeth]

@Do_Not_Taunt

Are you actually unaware that ‘Democrat’ is a noun and not an adjective?

Meh. No big deal, and I dont know why folks make a big deal over it. I likely have been a Democrat longer than you.

[iiandyiiii]

@DrDeth

Meh. No big deal, and I dont know why folks make a big deal over it. I likely have been a Democrat longer than you.

Yes, your opinion is more valid than ours. Thanks for reminding us. We’ll shut up about it now, since someone older disagrees. :rolleyes: