I don’t believe any human can be entirely sane. If you said reasonably sane I’d agree with this.
An argument could be made that FDR’s actions were in total loyalty to his class. He didn’t want to see them lined up against the wall, after all. It’s not an argument I would make, but it’s not unprecedented in history.
Von Bismarck, for example, didn’t offer his social legislation because he cared about the welfare of the working class.
When independents have been allowed to vote in open primaries (which make up the great majority of primaries thus far) Clinton has done far, far better than Sanders. Yes, she has done even better in closed primaries, but let’s not make up information to suit a narrative.
Open primaries won by Sanders: Vermont by a ton, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, RI by strong margins, and Michigan by a smidge (and possibly Utah, which I think was a caucus but I could be wrong). Six, possibly seven.
Open primaries won by Clinton: virginia, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, Ohio, and Arizona, all by margins of over ten points and usually well over ten points, plus narrow victories in MA, IL, and MO. Fourteen. 14>7.
It is simply untrue that Sanders is the people’s choice when “everyone” is allowed to vote.
Bernie Bros are pathetic.
They smear Hillary Clinton and then suggest that by not acknowledging them after absolutely thrashing their beloved communist, that they’re being mistreated…lol.
Here’s the bottom line: you probably weren’t even going to vote anyway. Bernie Bros only got interested in voting when Bernie promised them a whole bunch of free shit. Why does Hillary Clinton care?
“OMG, like Hillary was like not nice. She’s, like, not a girl scout. But my BFF told me she was.”
Hillary’s a bitch. I actually like that. We need a bitch to stand up to the republitards.
Those who use the phrase “Bernie Bros” are generally referring only to a particular subset of Sanders supporters. I do not use that phrase but I share the disrespect of that subgroup, a very vocal sub-group that felt they should have free rein to insult Clinton and her supporters and then whine foul if anything critical is said about Sanders. If he is called out when he lies. Most of those who voted for and supported Sanders are not that sub-group just as most who voted for and supported Clinton do not use the phrase “Bernie Bros.”
A larger number are more the group that wants “change” and will perennially vote for it when at all consistent with their other fundamental beliefs. Given a choice between two candidates one of whom represents greater “change” and both of who are mostly in agreement with their fundamental beliefs they will support the bigger change one … in this case Sanders.
Of course once someone is the establishment they can no longer rail against the establishment. Obama did a great job actually delivering meaningful change. Clinton will continue that effort. I think most Sanders’ “change” supporters recognize that a President Sanders would have actually accomplished little (with some thrilled that they think he would try to think big even if he delivered naught). Sanders winning would have been a greater disappointment and source of disillusionment to those few (IMHO unrealistic) voters who expected actual big change than Obama was to them.
I have more respect for the bulk of Sanders supporters than you do SB. I see most of them as smart enough to not be disgusted just because the majority of voters came to a different conclusion than they did and to not have skin so thin as to let some snark from a few drive them into passivity or even passive-agressivity. They are used to snark. They know how to roll their eyes and they know how to give it back at their discretion.
Most of them are not so arrogant (and frankly ignorant) as to believe that they are, as you believe you are SB, “above all of” those of us who see our party as an instrument of accomplishing good and of preventing harms. They understand that there is a team out there that wants to put hardline conservatives on the Supreme Court, who would put this country back many decades, and would harm the well-being of the world, and they understand that stopping them requires the rest of us agreeing to disagree some, and working as a team to stop them and to move the country in the direction that we together agree on, even if the exact destination we argue about some.
They are NOT idiots. And most are not sore losers. Most do not hold all those who do not completely agree with them to be the enemy. Most. Those who are sore losers and who do think of those who do not completely agree with them are the enemy are awfully loud and vocal though. And they are sure they are the vast majority instead of the tiny minority they are.
By the way some reality check here on the “low information” subject … most voters - for Trump, for Clinton, for Sanders, and on, are low information voters. Not everyone is a junkie for this stuff and researching out both stated policies, actual records, and reasoned analyses of what is actually realistic and what makes sense. Elections are fought not in deep policy weeds but in superficial repetitious slogans, stump speeches, storylines, and packaging of candidate as the hot product all your friends are using (“Now 110% sincere!”; “More change!” …) That is true for the best candidates and the worst and all in between.
I’m not crazy about Hillary, but damn, she and Obama are VERY close on almost all policy issues. She’s a tad more conservative than Obama on social issues and right in synch with him on economic issues, and more of a hawk than he is. You are very unlikely to find a closer match to Obama than Hillary. I don’t plan to vote for Hillary, but it sure as hell isn’t because I think she’s going to go in a different direction than Obama. Au contraire.
I would say “reasonably sane,” but the King of the Potato People won’t let me.
I don’t think Bernie can win the Dem nomination, it’s almost certain to be Hillary after the last set of primaries. I would like to see Hillary adopt a more progressive position in order to mend fences with the progressives, and I do think she’ll make some superficial moves in that direction during the convention, but afterward, she’s going to pivot to the right in order to pick up the mythical independents who are politically between her and the Republicans. I actually don’t think there are a lot votes to be had there. Anyone who is to the right of Hillary is already a Republican. But she’ll try, because that’s what centrists believe is the thing to do once you’ve got the nomination sewed up, cozy up as close to the Republicans as you dare without enraging the base. (She will enrage the progressives, you can be sure.)
Now I personally don’t care if Hillary lies like a rug, is mean to dogs and little kids and uses a knife and fork to eat pizza. What I care about is policy. And Hillary’s policies scare me. She’s hawkish on the Middle East, and in my opinion the Middle East is just a pile of sand capable of soaking up every last dollar and drop of blood America sends there and not looking a bit different afterward. And she is very likely to send a lot more blood and money to the Middle East given half a chance, and the Middle East is VERY likely to give her more than half a chance.
I also think she has no real interest in ending wealth inequality or getting money out of politics. She likes the money in politics, she’s indifferent to the middle class (though she does favor social safety nets to care for the extremely poor) and she sees corporations as a solution to problems, not the problem itself. She sort of sees America as a bunch of peasants with people like herself and an elite of wealthy corporatists protecting the poorest of them and allowing the rest to lead their merry peasant lives of toil and drudgery. She’s not going to do anything to hurt the big banks until they fail, at which time she’ll let them plunder the taxpayers as much as they like. She’s not gonna reinstate Glass-Steagall. She’s not gonna prevent regulatory capture. She’s DEFINITELY not gonna break up the big banks.
These are major problems that I don’t think Hillary is going to solve at all well, given her known proclivities. Neither will any Republican, of course, including Donald Trump (as someone said earlier, Trump is not beholden to oligarchs … he IS an oligarch).
So what I’m going to do if Bernie is not the Dem nominee is vote for Jill Stein. I am in a red state anyway, as a Democrat, my Presidential vote is meaningless. But I figure if there is a significant protest vote from progressives, it might help signal to the Democratic Party that they do indeed Have A Problem.
And in the meantime, I’ll be working on 2018, when I hope there will be a lot ofprimarying of Dems from the left.
You do realize that Hilary is part of the ruling class? You do realize the ruling class, as a rule, only makes concessions when they need to in order to maintain or gain power?
Oddly, it would seem Hillary is going to be the nominee because more of We The People have *voted *for her to be. But maybe it’s because she’s part of the Ruling Class and Bernie isn’t, who knows?
No response from CarnalK or SenorBeef about the fact that black voters overwhelmingly (88-12, based on the '92 Maryland Senate race) will support white candidates over black candidates if they feel that the white candidate better represents them?
Umm, thanks for the cite? I was just curious if the statement could be backed up.
Fair enough. I was hoping for chest-beating and gnashing of teeth, but I guess that’ll do. 
Which may mean that “We the People” prefer that class for our Presidents. Or at least don’t mind it and prefer her approach.
She isn’t winning because of some smoke filled back room. She isn’t winning because she had a lot more money - Bernie did quite well raising money. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/2016-bernie-sanders-fundraising-hillary-clinton/). She isn’t winning because corporations get to vote. She isn’t winning because of gerrymandering. She is winning because more voters voted for her than for Bernie.
I was trying to figure out why it’s okay for Sanders supporters to be mean, and it wouldn’t cost him your vote. But it’s not okay for Clinton supporters to be mean, and it would cost her your vote. You’ve said the meanness hasn’t been directed at you, and that it’s not personal. I wondered if there was any sort of principled stance behind it, but it just seems like you don’t like Clinton so will apply different rules to her supporters than to Sanders supporters.
So, it’s really just that you don’t like Clinton. That’s fine, but not really what the OP of this thread was going for.
And the fact that she is winning makes me more confident in my party. The OP thinks the way the party is treating Bernie supporters is a bad idea, i disagree strongly. We cannot follow the Republicans down the path of getting votes by promising things we have no way to deliver (15 dollar minimum wage, universal healthcare, free university) or things that would cause a catastrophe if they were actually accomplished (destroying wall street). We need to reject this as a party if we don’t want to go down the path the GOP has taken, even if it costs you votes.
Communists don’t get even that.
Very well said.