Support NeoGAF

[Polari]

Only one of them is a white supremacist

He's a white supremacist now?

That's a pretty ridiculous statement, unless you're aware of something the rest of us aren't.

 

[CCS]

Adam's sense of taste is worse than reddit's sense of scale.

 

[excelsiorlef]

He's a white supremacist now?

That's a pretty ridiculous statement, unless you're aware of something the rest of us aren't.

He's repeatedly retweeted white supremacist tweets.

As in more than once.

 

[eBay Huckster]

speaking of reddit, someone just posted this 2014 letter from nader to sanders on /r/hillaryclinton

e: how in the actual flying fuck did we both just post that at the same time

 

[itschris]

Ralph Nader of all people criticized Bernie in 2014 for his lack of coalition-building:

Back in 2007, we held the most notable conference on corporate power and reforms in the country right in Washington, D.C. You, along with Congressman Kucinich and others, were invited to speak. Your office said you would, assuming the Senate was not conducting a session on Thursday afternoon. The Senate did not have a session and you took off for Vermont leaving a large audience awaiting you without any explanation. I sent you a letter requesting an explanation for not showing up to relay back to the disappointed people who were in attendance. You chose not to reply.

You’ll remember that I met with you before and during your tenure as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont. That is how far back we go. I have touted your achievements in events around the country by way of encouraging people in those areas. How to explain your many proposed reforms in the Congress with an inability or unwillingness to network the numerous civic groups here with millions of members around the nation?

The simplest answer is that you are a Lone Ranger, unable even to form a core progressive force within the Senate (eg. Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator Elizabeth Warren, etc.). You surely understand that without internal and external networking, there are no strategies to deploy, beyond speechifying, putting forward amendments that go nowhere and an occasional hearing where you incisively question witnesses.

You do communicate in one way – repeatedly, intensely, and expressing alarm. Along with others deemed to be on the right mailing lists, I receive many of your fundraising letters to help Bernie get re-elected. Your letters are full of warnings about the right-wing, corporate interests out to defeat you – a shoo-in for re-election. Quick send a check to ward off the Huns. In the two years before your election, the letters flow with predictable regularity, recounting your record and the perils confronting your election. Once you are comfortably and predictably reelected, Bernie returns to the Lone Ranger mode.

http://images.politico.com/global/2014/03/06/2014_-_3_6_-_letter_to_bernie_sanders.html

EDIT: Hehe, beaten to the punch!

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

He's a white supremacist now?

That's a pretty ridiculous statement, unless you're aware of something the rest of us aren't.

It's true, what's white supremacist about wanting to build pointless walls to keep out brown people while claiming that they're raping our women? What about banning people from entering the United States due to their religion could be white supremacist other than that that religion's followers being overwhelming non-white?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

speaking of reddit, someone just posted this 2014 letter from nader to sanders on /r/hillaryclinton

e: how in the actual flying fuck did we both just post that at the same time

This should be alarming to everyone.

 

[eBay Huckster]

not only the fact that nader of all people is saying the stuff that's in that letter

but the fact that nader's actually right

 

[Crud]

John McCain is done. Days are numbered.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This should be alarming to everyone.

Yep.

It certainly shows a pattern.

You know it's funny people say Sanders suffers because not enough people know about him. I think it's the reverse he thrives because people know next to nothing of him except his campaign platform which is attractive to many so no one really bothers to dig.

 

[Wilsongt]

www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4ie5eg/sanders_is_no_tea_party_leftist_he_has_a_long/d2xcww3

Damn.

An anti-Berniebro comment was the top comment on a frontpage r/politics post.

Also did anyone see that HA Goodman video that was posted today? He kind of gave me the creeps.



Bravo PPP

Dude will turn into a pillar of salt when Hillary gets the nom, and then proceed to continue making videos saying that Bernie can still win even after she is in the White House. He is the Dick Morris and Unskewed Polls of the 2016 election.

 

[Maengun1]

Doing some random surfing of political articles on wikipedia as I am wont to do, and learned for the first time Sessions was re-elected to the Senate 2 years ago with no challenger o_o. I mean I almost get it, he's been in there forever, it's Alabama, it's a midterm year, but still....there wasn't a single Dem in the state to step up and go for that 30% or whatever? I actually am a bit shocked.

I heard his name floated on the 538 podcast as a possible Trump VP last week which is probably why I was thinking about him. Yuck.

 

[eBay Huckster]

i'm gonna print out this post aaron made over on OT and frame it

because i think it's one of the best takedowns of this whole "let's get outraged over everything clinton does that isn't 100% left-wing slacktivist orthodoxy" trend i've ever seen

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Philippines about to elect for president an admitted murderer who wishes he could rape female prisoners before they get killed. Things are going well.

 

[CCS]

Philippines about to elect for president an admitted murderer who wishes he could rape female prisoners before they get killed. Things are going well.

Man, Philippines are fucked up. Know a couple of Filipinos and they're planning on never going back if they can help it.

 

[Trancos]

i'm gonna print out this post aaron made over on OT and frame it

because i think it's one of the best takedowns of this whole "let's get outraged over everything clinton does that isn't 100% left-wing slacktivist orthodoxy" trend i've ever seen

What baffles me is that this is the same people that then comment on S4P threads about telling republicans to vote for Bernie so they can stop Hillary and not face her in the GE. So now that the Rep primary is over it is fair game to court republicans but only if they vote for Bernie. If not it's treason of the highest order against progressivism.

 

[bsp]

Is there a readily available list that clarifies, debunks, and counter-argues the common negative rhetoric surrounding Clinton? I know someone on Hilgaf has done this. I'd be very thankful.

 

[aspiegamer]

What exactly is the goal of /r/BernTheConvention? They seem to have an identity problem.

If they want a message of "Clinton is the wrong person," that's fine and something you can actually do at a convention as a "positive" protest. I can 100% understand someone being so upset with Clinton that they'd go to such lengths to protest it. I don't agree of course, but I wouldn't fault anyone for protesting the actual candidate herself. However, the way it seems designed, they're just being salty as hell over Sanders losing. Fact of the matter is they're not actually "protesting" anything. It's salt. Nothing but salt. "We're against this thing (Clinton)" is a political message. "We're demanding Sanders despite him losing" is not a political message. It just makes you a dick. They could even run on a "fuck the DNC" platform, but that even the Facebook message they go past this. Well, it is, but only as an excuse for the distribution of salt. From Facebook--

That’s why this year, we’re calling on Bernie Sanders supporters to gather in Philadelphia during the Democratic National Convention as the City of Brotherly Love prepares to make history. The DNC represents everything that is corrupt and unjust in our society, and they are holding the Convention in a city that is rich with the history behind the purest ideals of liberty and justice that define this nation. At a time when both liberty and justice are exceedingly rare, we see this as a special opportunity to elevate both the campaign of Bernie Sanders and the revolution that he’s calling for.

The first bolded is fine to debate (and we'll just politely ignore that Sanders ran to be a candidate of this party by choice) regardless of who was being nominated. That's an actual thing you can be mad about. But the second? Don't be sore losers, guys. The party, to you, is only awful because your candidate lost. Your sole argument of "some polls say our guys wins by more in November" is not a battle you should be willing to die for. The DNC is not "everything that is corrupt" because they're wiser than operating themselves solely on a few opinion polls.

 

[Wilsongt]

What exactly is the goal of /r/BernTheConvention? They seem to have an identity problem.

If they want a message of "Clinton is the wrong person," that's fine and something you can actually do at a convention as a "positive" protest. I can 100% understand someone being so upset with Clinton that they'd go to such lengths to protest it. I don't agree of course, but I wouldn't fault anyone for protesting the actual candidate herself. However, the way it seems designed, they're just being salty as hell over Sanders losing. Fact of the matter is they're not actually "protesting" anything. It's salt. Nothing but salt. "We're against this thing (Clinton)" is a political message. "We're demanding Sanders despite him losing" is not a political message. It just makes you a dick. They could even run on a "fuck the DNC" platform, but that even the Facebook message they go past this. Well, it is, but only as an excuse for the distribution of salt. From Facebook--
The first bolded is fine to debate (and we'll just politely ignore that Sanders ran to be a candidate of this party by choice) regardless of who was being nominated. That's an actual thing you can be mad about. But the second? Don't be sore losers, guys. The party, to you, is only awful because your candidate lost. Your sole argument of "some polls say our guys wins by more in November" is not a battle you should be willing to die for. The DNC is not "everything that is corrupt" because they're wiser than operating themselves solely on a few opinion polls.

The DNC is corrupt because it is supporting an establishment candidate over someone like Bernie, apparently. At least I think that is what these people assume.

 

[Tranqueris]

He's repeatedly retweeted white supremacist tweets.

As in more than once.

Also his brand new (rehashed) "America First" slogan was being spread around in the 1940's by actual Nazi sympathizer and America First spokesman, Charles Lindbergh, who had plenty of things to say about Jewish people. Probably not a great look for a man already super close with racists.

So I guess what I'm saying is that Trump is either incredibly horrible at running for President, or racist as fuuucck, or both.

 

[aspiegamer]

Is there a readily available list that clarifies, debunks, and counter-argues the common negative rhetoric surrounding Clinton? I know someone on Hilgaf has done this. I'd be very thankful.

Can you give a more specific list? I'll go through a few off the top of my drunken head. I apologize in advance for what I'm sure will be a massive wall of text.

On the primary!
--There is no revolution. Democratic primary turnout is substantially lower than 2008. Even if the turnout was up, it doesn't change the fact that more people are voting for Clinton. Why should her votes not count?
--Sanders decided to run as a Democrat of his own free will, knowing all the rules in advance.
--All states count in primaries. Or at least be consistent when trying to throw out states that totally "don't matter" or selectively claiming there's "fraud" in states Sanders lost but conveniently not in any he won.
--Caucuses? Keep them or not. You can't just keep the ones in states Sanders won and get rid of the rest.
--There is absolutely no objective means by which you can claim Sanders has "won" the primary. None.
--Opinion polls of a theoretical versus Trump are complete bullshit because Sanders hasn't been vetted nationally. In annual AP polling, Americans say they're more likely to vote for a Muslim candidate for President before a Socialist. Literally, Socialist polls worse than any other thing they test. Any religion, any race, any ideology. The. Worst. Only 51% say they would consider it. That's it. I mean, if you want to go on polls alone, which is what you were doing a minute ago.
--Superdelegates exist for very specific reasons. To TLDR it into something that's instantly applicable, it prevents something like Trump from happening.
--If Superdelegates from states Sanders won moved to him he'd still lose. Also, that defeats the purpose of having them.
--She's not going to be indited. lololol. Even if she were they'd give the nomination to Biden, for a multitude of reasons.

On money!
--The candidate needs to be raising funds for the national party for the party to compete nationally.
--You need downticket to accomplish anything. Period. You campaign for the entire ticket.
--Many Sanders supporters seem to have no idea what Citizens United is actually about. You know Clinton has a special connection to it, right?
--That thing with Clooney? That wasn't CU-related. That's standard party fundraising that's been done for ages. Those are "bundlers." As the nominee Sanders would have to do all of that, too.
--PACs and SuperPACs are different. They are not interchangeable terms.
--People with more money wanting to (legally) donate more money isn't an inherently evil thing. If a person can afford $2700 instead $27, what's wrong with that? Is their money invalid?

On the issues!
--Clinton said she would sign a $15 minimum wage bill if it hit her desk, though she wants to target $12 federally and let places raise it more based on cost of living, etc, if desired, which does include the move for $15 in many places.
--College! Yeah, you can't force Republican Governors to pay for "free" tuition at public universities. Among other issues. She supports subsidized 2-year community college programs.
--Clinton supports an overhaul of of the college debt system.
--Clinton prefers incremental health care changes including the possibility of the "public option," but is opposed to "single payer" because of the economic impacts it would have. Among other issues.
--Clinton maintains she will not cut at social safety net programs. Period.
--Clinton has said that she'd seek a SCOTUS nominee that would overturn CU.
--No, Clinton is not as conservative as Trump (lololol). Please give examples.
--No, Clinton has not suddenly changed her platform for the primaries. Please give examples.
--You know they voted the same 93% of the time in the Senate, right?

Edit: I'll toss in some issues that have totally legitimate differences to discuss between candidates!
--Trade deals, though you she wasn't in office when NAFTA was signed, right?
--Foreign policy, specifically interventionism.
--Some parts of gun stuff.
--There are seriously very few substantive differences between the two. Nothing compared to any single issue vs a Republican nominee.

 

[RastaMentality]

I have a quick question about our education system. If you were to only test the white schools (since American schools are still very segregated) in the country, would America rank much higher among the world (like in the top 5 range)?

 

[teruterubozu]

I have a quick question about our education system. If you were to only test the white schools (since American schools are still very segregated) in the country, would America rank much higher among the world (like in the top 5 range)?

Nope. Very white states like Maine and Utah are still way behind the curve.

 

[Officerrob]

Morning Joe has basically been negative on Trump the entire first 40 minutes, so Trump decided to tweet this:

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 3m3 minutes ago
Wow, I hear @Morning_Joe has gone really hostile ever since I said I won't do or watch the show anymore.They misrepresent my positions!

Nobody was more up Trump's ass than Joe and Mika, what the hell happened?

 

[teruterubozu]

Joe's still a kiss-ass though. He's the only talking head who addresses him as "Mr. Trump."

 

[ThLunarian]

Can you give a more specific list? I'll go through a few off the top of my drunken head. I apologize in advance for what I'm sure will be a massive wall of text.

On the primary!
--There is no revolution. Democratic primary turnout is substantially lower than 2008. Even if the turnout was up, it doesn't change the fact that more people are voting for Clinton. Why should her votes not count?
--Sanders decided to run as a Democrat of his own free will, knowing all the rules in advance.
--All states count in primaries. Or at least be consistent when trying to throw out states that totally "don't matter" or selectively claiming there's "fraud" in states Sanders lost but conveniently not in any he won.
--Caucuses? Keep them or not. You can't just keep the ones in states Sanders won and get rid of the rest.
--There is absolutely no objective means by which you can claim Sanders has "won" the primary. None.
--Opinion polls of a theoretical versus Trump are complete bullshit because Sanders hasn't been vetted nationally. In annual AP polling, Americans say they're more likely to vote for a Muslim candidate for President before a Socialist. Literally, Socialist polls worse than any other thing they test. Any religion, any race, any ideology. The. Worst. Only 51% say they would consider it. That's it. I mean, if you want to go on polls alone, which is what you were doing a minute ago.
--Superdelegates exist for very specific reasons. To TLDR it into something that's instantly applicable, it prevents something like Trump from happening.
--If Superdelegates from states Sanders won moved to him he'd still lose. Also, that defeats the purpose of having them.
--She's not going to be indited. lololol. Even if she were they'd give the nomination to Biden, for a multitude of reasons.

On money!
--The candidate needs to be raising funds for the national party for the party to compete nationally.
--You need downticket to accomplish anything. Period. You campaign for the entire ticket.
--Many Sanders supporters seem to have no idea what Citizens United is actually about. You know Clinton has a special connection to it, right?
--That thing with Clooney? That wasn't CU-related. That's standard party fundraising that's been done for ages. Those are "bundlers." As the nominee Sanders would have to do all of that, too.
--PACs and SuperPACs are different. They are not interchangeable terms.
--People with more money wanting to (legally) donate more money isn't an inherently evil thing. If a person can afford $2700 instead $27, what's wrong with that? Is their money invalid?

On the issues!
--Clinton said she would sign a $15 minimum wage bill if it hit her desk, though she wants to target $12 federally and let places raise it more based on cost of living, etc, if desired, which does include the move for $15 in many places.
--College! Yeah, you can't force Republican Governors to pay for "free" tuition at public universities. Among other issues. She supports subsidized 2-year community college programs.
--Clinton supports an overhaul of of the college debt system.
--Clinton prefers incremental health care changes including the possibility of the "public option," but is opposed to "single payer" because of the economic impacts it would have. Among other issues.
--Clinton maintains she will not cut at social safety net programs. Period.
--Clinton has said that she'd seek a SCOTUS nominee that would overturn CU.
--No, Clinton is not as conservative as Trump (lololol). Please give examples.
--No, Clinton has not suddenly changed her platform for the primaries. Please give examples.
--You know they voted the same 93% of the time in the Senate, right?

Edit: I'll toss in some issues that have totally legitimate differences to discuss between candidates!
--Trade deals, though you she wasn't in office when NAFTA was signed, right?
--Foreign policy, specifically interventionism.
--Some parts of gun stuff.
--There are seriously very few substantive differences between the two. Nothing compared to any single issue vs a Republican nominee.

Thank you for this. I have a few more issues that I could use some help arguing against:

-"Clinton accepted donations from weapons manufacturers and from countries known for human rights violations and then authorized the sale of the weapons to those countries"
-"Clinton is friendly with authoritarian dictators and leaders from countries with human rights violations"
-"Clinton supported a military coup in Honduras"
-"Clinton's support of a no fly zone in Syria is likely to start World War 3 with Russia"


I am pretty bad at foreign policy discussions so this sort of thing is hard for me to refute or clarify. Help would be appreciated - if you're able to, then thanks in advance!

 

[Diablos]

Damn, is Ryan really going to get primaried?

 

[shinra-bansho]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ty-a-tough-sell-among-some-sanders-supporters

Sanders' supporters consist of young, white, liberal and independent voters who are more aligned with Democrats than Republicans. They distrust Wall Street and the political establishment. They value trustworthiness and compassion over experience and electability. They include a core of perhaps 15 percent that may be unwinnable for Clinton and from where any defections to Trump may be more likely to occur. They also include voters who live in states, such as Oklahoma or Idaho, that any Democrat would have little or no chance of winning in November.
...

Among the findings:

While Clinton is the clear favorite of minority voters overall, younger black and Hispanic voters, like whites, prefer Sanders in the Democratic exit polls. Clinton is leading Sanders with blacks 77 percent to 21 percent overall, but among blacks ages 17 to 24, Sanders leads her, 57 percent to 42 percent. Clinton leads Sanders with Hispanics overall, 62 percent to 38 percent overall. But Hispanics ages 17-24 go for Sanders 75 percent to 24 percent, and Hispanics ages 25-29 prefer Sanders over Clinton, 56 percent to 44 percent.

About 15 percent of Sanders supporters expect to feel “scared” if Clinton wins the nomination according to the combined findings of Edison's findings in Democratic exit polls in three states, Wisconsin, New York, and Indiana, where voters were asked whether they'd be excited, optimistic, concerned or scared if either Clinton or Sanders is the nominee. If those numbers extend nationally, it is this bloc of Sanders voters that may be the most resistant to voting for Clinton. It's less clear how many of them would consider voting for a Republican alternative. Overall, the three-state findings show 48 percent of Democratic contest voters would feel optimistic about a Clinton win, while 19 percent said excited, 24 percent concerned and 8 percent scared. “There's grudging acceptance of Clinton among the Sanders voters instead of them being concerned,” Lenski said. “There's not a lot of negative. It's more like, ‘Eh, ok, we can live with it.’”

Asked what candidate qualities matter most, 46 percent of Sanders' backers said honest and trustworthy and 37 percent said caring about people like themselves, while 9 percent said experience and 6 percent said someone who can win in November.

Ideology isn't as decisive as age or race. In the Democratic exit polls, those calling themselves very liberal chose Sanders over Clinton just 50 percent to 49 percent, while Clinton bested him with somewhat liberal and moderate categorizations. “It's really age and race that drives most of this,” Lenski said.

Sanders backers and Trump fans don't usually have much in common. The one overlap, Lenski said, is “that they feel the system is kind of rigged against them” with concerns about global trade and Wall Street. Trump's supporter profile tends tends to be white but lesser educated, more male, angry with government.

Age and race are the biggest dividers. The very liberal are actually split.

#fomo.

David Fredrick, the co-founder and executive director of Grassroots for Sanders, said there are many in his coalition who would rather vote for a third-party candidate or skip the ballot than turn out for Clinton under her current platform. He said Sanders fans want to know if she emerges as the nominee “that she’s going to bat for the issues that we love Bernie so much for.”

Clinton will lose votes by “tearing us down by saying ‘pie in the sky,’ ‘unachievable dreams.’ We can’t handle the insults to where our platform is, and that’s where Hillary needs to make that change if she wants to have us keep coming,” he said.

“We need to be looking at something that’s far more liberal than what she’s doing,” Fredrick said. “Maybe not as liberal as what Bernie’s doing, but if she’s going to be moderate, moderate left. We can’t have her as moderate or moderate right.”

Keep moving left into the General!

 

[User 463088]

Pear vodka?
That's not how you celebrate success right.
Congratulation, you played yourself.

i look forward to your drunk posts to teach me what i should never drink under any circumstances unless i just ingested poison

Wait what's wrong with pear vodka? It's not as good as peanut butter vodka and chocolate milk but it's still yummy. I'm going to make cocktails great again.

 

[Chichikov]

Wait what's wrong with pear vodka? It's not as good as peanut butter vodka and chocolate milk but it's still yummy. I'm going to make cocktails great again.

It was a dumb DJ Khaled joke. Drink what you like and fuck the haters.

 

[kadotsu]

So the purity arguments have begun on the liberal side of US politics. It's a recipe for success. Just ask the GOP.

 

[User1608]

I swear to God if we get a left tea party-like movement...

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I swear to God if we get a left tea party-like movement...

The racism isn't there. The Tea Party is held together by bigotry, which is a powerful force.

 

[User1608]

The racism isn't there. The Tea Party is held together by bigotry, which is a powerful force.

I know. I mean in terms of a rather big movement that becomes uncompromising, unyielding, dumb for the sake of purity (not liberal enough).

Sorry for the misunderstanding

 

[HylianTom]

Man, this tonal change towards Trump on Morning Joe is something else! He's yelling about how Trump isn't pivoting.. really amusing.

 

[bananas]

I swear to God if we get a left tea party-like movement...

It's young people. They're going to go back to not voting and being disinterested in politics, which still sucks, but better alternative than a green tea party.

 

[Y2Kev]

Ideological purity is not what drove the tea party. The tea party was coopted by the republican elites. It was well funded and covered favorably by the right wing media. It was extremely well organized. This all happened on a midterm election cycle!

What Bernie has done from a fundraising perspective has been nothing short of a political miracle but this will likely die once he's gone. The media will not be kind. The money won't flow.

I'd love to see liberals rise up and kick out some republicans though.

 

[dramatis]

Where Democrats Like Hillary Clinton the Least (Besides Vermont) [Upshot at NY Times]

Once you get past places in Vermont on the list of the worst counties for Hillary Clinton so far in the primaries, you quickly arrive at Coal County, Okla., where Hillary Clinton won just 19 percent of the vote.

Mrs. Clinton’s profound weakness in a county named “Coal” is not because of her comments about shutting down coal mines, as one might expect. Those comments came a month after the Oklahoma primary.

It’s because Coal County, like much of the traditionally Democratic parts of the South, has a huge number of registered Democrats who now vote Republican in presidential elections. In the states with closed or semi-closed contests — like Oklahoma — these voters can participate only in the Democratic primary. When they do, they have voted against Hillary Clinton (and for the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders).

Coal County, Okla., is one of the most extreme examples. There, 80 percent of voters are registered Democrats, yet President Obama won just 27 percent of the vote in 2012. Mrs. Clinton has performed very poorly where the share of voters who are registered Democrats is much greater than the share of voters who supported Mr. Obama.

Graphs and stuffs at the link.

Basically Bernie got a lot of DINOs?

 

[Amir0x]

The same can be said for Trump, just reverse the names. You know all those people who are voting Clinton and can't stand Trump? There might be as many people who feel the exact opposite. Bothe of these people are making entirely valid choices.

Words mean things, and if you can't actually sit down and think about them before you type them, then you probably shouldn't say them. Trying to push false equivalencies right here shows the intellectually shallow ground you're standing on - and emotional pretense baked into the idea that BERNIE LOST and HILLARY WON, and therefore I will fuck the system up because I want to. It's made by someone without any true deep seated ideological beliefs themselves, since the two candidates could not possibly be more different if they tried, nor could they have presented themselves and acted in public more differently. No, both those people aren't making entirely valid choices, and they aren't equally delusional.

It is time you actually start to think about the absolute shittin' garbage that you are posting about this subject at times. Because there are real people in this country, millions who stand to be disenfranchised if Trump wins and even does the least worst thing of all the horrible potential things he would do if he followed through with his words and nominate conservative Supreme Court Justices. And if you're that spiteful that you're willing to hurt those people to support your emotional voting suicide, then you deserve to be called out for that behavior.

 

[VRMN]

Where Democrats Like Hillary Clinton the Least (Besides Vermont) [Upshot at NY Times]

Graphs and stuffs at the link.

Basically Bernie got a lot of DINOs?

I thought we knew Bernie got the anti-Clinton vote in addition to his more lefty voters.

 

[Officerrob]

I'm not going to get too worried about the long term motivations of a group that consists of mostly white millennials until they prove they can get off their asses in a non-presidential election.

 

[User1608]

It's young people. They're going to go back to not voting and being disinterested in politics, which still sucks, but better alternative than a green tea party.

Ideological purity is not what drove the tea party. The tea party was coopted by the republican elites. It was well funded and covered favorably by the right wing media. It was extremely well organized. This all happened on a midterm election cycle!

What Bernie has done from a fundraising perspective has been nothing short of a political miracle but this will likely die once he's gone. The media will not be kind. The money won't flow.

I'd love to see liberals rise up and kick out some republicans though.

Thanks for calming my fears. I do know about the history of the tea party, just that I was worried we were seeing the beginning of something similar in terms of a movement that stalls progress, even if for different reasons and such. And agreed, kick those clowns out.

 

[teruterubozu]

I'm not going to get too worried about the long term motivations of a group that consists of mostly white millennials until they prove they can get off their asses in a non-presidential election.

To be fair, all ethnic groups completely fail at midterms, not just white kids.

 

[HylianTom]

From the rhetoric coming out of many purists' mouths, you'd never guess that the #1 impediment to progressive change in this country is {*drumroll*}.. the Republican Party.

If only the right kind of Democrats were in office, we'd be able to realize all of our policy dreams; nevermind the structural features that allow an opposition party - a rather successful one, at that - great leverage for hindering progress. Naaaah..

 

[HUELEN10]

Words mean things, and if you can't actually sit down and think about them before you type them, then you probably shouldn't say them. Trying to push false equivalencies right here shows the intellectually shallow ground you're standing on - and emotional pretense baked into the idea that BERNIE LOST and HILLARY WON, and therefore I will fuck the system up because I want to. It's made by someone without any true deep seated ideological beliefs themselves, since the two candidates could not possibly be more different if they tried, nor could they have presented themselves and acted in public more differently. No, both those people aren't making entirely valid choices, and they aren't equally delusional.

It is time you actually start to think about the absolute shittin' garbage that you are posting about this subject at times. Because there are real people in this country, millions who stand to be disenfranchised if Trump wins and even does the least worst thing of all the horrible potential things he would do if he followed through with his words and nominate conservative Supreme Court Justices. And if you're that spiteful that you're willing to hurt those people to support your emotional voting suicide, then you deserve to be called out for that behavior.

You misunderstand Ami, in a lot of ways. To begin with, I agree 100 percent with the notion that voting out of spite is absolutely horrible. Anyone that doesn't might be disturbed. That being said, you assume that I am emotional in my choices, and am doing things out of spite because Sanders lost. Ami, Sanders hasn't lost, nor has Clinton, and all the dem nominees must wait until the delegates make the final call to see where the party stands. My ground isn't shallow, I am a real person, a citizen who like any other can be directly and indirectly affected based on who wins this election as president to our great republic.

I truly feel hurt by you accusing me of vote by spite. Though not common in these parts, I absolutely call out shit when it needs to be called out, like Trump's bullshit bigotry, or calling Mexicans Rapists. At the same time, there are things that I like about Trump just like there are things I like about Sanders. For example, both are anti-TPP and I really like Trump's VA reform proposal among other things. Never forget that our great nation seems to be divided in politics. Hence 2 parties, hence nearly 50/50 on prior elections. It's absolutely reasonable to expect that if one person thinks one thing about one candidate, than another will feel the exact opposite. Also keep in mind that for a lot of the country, it's really a choice between the whole "lesser of 2 evils" or low-tier picks that can sway decisions, not mere spite.

 

[PBY]

Huelen pls

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Basically Bernie got a lot of DINOs?

I don't think this should come as a shock to anyone. Bernie (and his base) paints his campaign as a progressive movement, but rhetoric is converging more and more with the how the Ron Paul circus looked in past cycles.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that the "anti-establishment" is the primary driver, and "progessivism" is simply the vehicle.

 

[User1608]

From the rhetoric coming out of many purists' mouths, you'd never guess that the #1 impediment to progressive change in this country is {*drumroll*}.. the Republican Party.

If only the right kind of Democrats were in office, we'd be able to realize all of our policy dreams; nevermind the structural features that allow an opposition party - a rather successful one, at that - great leverage for hindering progress. Naaaah..

Ah yes. I forgot that the tea party actually voted too. If only they stayed home...

 

[HUELEN10]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party/index.html

Fresh CNN article I believe. Sanders seems not closed to a Clinton deal.

 

[Officerrob]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party/index.html

Fresh CNN article I believe. Sanders seems not closed to a Clinton deal.

From that article:

Alex Mayers, a 29-year-old from Fairmont who is half Costa Rican, said free college is "the single most important" issue currently facing the country. "You can't have a strong country without an educated work force," he said.

Wearing a black T-shirt with an illustration of Sanders smoking a marijuana joint on top of a tank that is pointed at Clinton, Trump, Jeb Bush and Ben Carson, Mayers said he would not vote for Clinton in November and write in Sanders, instead.

Perfectly filling that Berniestan stereotype (minus being half Costa Rican)