Support NeoGAF

[Funky Papa]

Sanders is a tremendous speaker at his own rallies. Yet to be seen how well that would translate to a general election campaign.

Sanders has the right words, but not the energy nor the tone. More often than not he comes off like a university teacher well past his retirement age; wise and old, but not very presidential.

Honestly, I really like the man, but in the even of a nomination he would need a great and energetic partner. It's not hard to see why so many people would be enamored of a Sanders-Warren ticket.

 

[Abounder]

The Clintons represent the establishment and the people are frankly sick of it. There's little enthusiasm for Hillary because we already have had 8 years of Clintons in the White House, and she lost to Obama not too long ago. Not to mention the USofA got fucked over by Wall Street and she won't do much to stand up against the billionaire class; and it's only a matter of time before another crash. Hillary's campaigns and interviews just don't inspire people (and the pandering only adds to the cringe), especially since Bill might as well be a cousin of Cosby's.

 

[FStubbs]

Now you sound like a Republican saying that you don't need to appeal to the middle, just the base.

Someone was always going to be the NotHillary. And that person -- Bernie Sanders -- will probably have a very tough time overcoming the first Super Tuesday. If Bernie were not in the race, O'Malley would be at 10-15%. Maybe 20%!

I think it's much easier for the GOP to attack an UN-battle tested socialist versus Hillary. The GOP dream is a Bernie candidacy. I really, truly feel -- as of today -- he would do worse in the general than she would.

Exactly. Bernie Supporters need to look at electoral maps for 1972 and 1984 to see what happens to Bernie-type candidates.

The Democrats have gotten smarter since then and not put up Bernie type candidates.

Bernie Sanders supporters who say "Bernie or NOTHING! BWAHAHAH!" are upper class white liberals who would not be harmed by a GOP presidency, since, being upper class and white, the GOP likes them. Many other Democrats can't take that chance.

 

[GnawtyDog]

For those saying that the GOP is salivating at the thought of beating Bernie, here's a fact that says otherwise.

Their resources are not going towards destroying Bernie, if anything, enabling him. Their resources are going towards destroying Hillary. A unified effort, even in Congress. In all the GOP debates, Bernie is dismissed as a joke candidate more or less.

But sure Reince can lie if he wants and we'll believe it. I mean the DNC doesn't believe it. No one in their god damn minds will believe it.

 

[Henchmen21]

Their resources are not going towards destroying Bernie, if anything, enabling him. Their resources are going towards destroying Hillary. A unified effort, even in Congress.

But sure Reince can lie if he wants and we'll believe it. I mean the DNC doesn't believe it. No one in their god damn minds will believe it.

No they aren't. Right now they're too busy with the infighting within their own party and have put little to no effort in attacking Hillary.

And I just proved to you that your previous post was factually wrong.

 

[noshten]

The very people that support Sanders and call out Hillary shill, fake, corrupt have subconsciously in many ways come about this sentiment through the work of the GOP. That is, the heat the Republicans have brought onto Hillary throughout her career. I mean, I don't understand how Sander supporters fail to see this and not be self-aware sometimes baffles me. But, that's smear, political attacks and opposition that gets propagated throughout the media against her character...whether the validity of those attacks and labels have merit or not is not significant. What's significant is the primary source that encourages such dissent on her character and that's the GOP.

Nope, the reason she is a disliked is that SHE KNEW she was going to run in the next election but CHOSE to do a speaking tour collecting millions upon millions of dollars from corporations. If she didn't want to be seen as a corporate candidate she could have let Bill handle these speaking arrangements. That would certainly be a helpful first step, but I think sometimes greed gets in the way of actually making rational decisions. Its disingenuous for Hillary in a debate to say she wants to stop the revolving door between boardrooms and politics while taking millions in speaking fees from corporations. It's too faced and feeds into the narrative of her being a corporate candidate.

Secondly the reason a lot of people dislike her has less to do with domestic policy and a lot more with her pro-war stance. People talk about her foreign policy experience as SOS but for me it's one of the main reasons I don't like her as a candidate. The main reason I preferred Obama to her in 08 was the promise of less foreign intervention. All the actual talk surrounding Libya, Syria and Iran makes me greatly concerned with the path Clinton will take if she gets elected. She has already been calling out Iran during debates and her ties with other regional power brokers are worrying and would likely shape her presidency. There is nothing that could hurt the democrats more than allowing the GOP to be the anti war party in 2020. Republicans know that type of rhetoric has worked for them in the past.

 

[disastermouse]

http://youtu.be/Hb_TFjYfcyQ

You know, I can't imagine why there's so little enthusiasm for this woman of the people!

 

[Calamari41]

What it comes down to it that she doesn't have a good answer to the "why do you want to be President?" question. Whether you agree with them or disagree, Sanders and Trump have powerful and popular mission statements. Hillary's is, quite transparently, that it is her turn.

 

[Earthstrike]

Unfortunately I won't be able to support anyone who voted for the War on Iraq.

I'll just do a write in for Bernie when the general election comes.

You dislike the war in Iraq so much you will allow a neocon to get in power.

That's a well thought out strategy there.

 

[Holmes]

No they aren't. Right now they're too busy with the infighting within their own party and have put little to no effort in attacking Hillary.

Um...? How many Benghazi hearings have there been? How long was the final one? How many times did they mention Hillary by name in Thursday's debate? What Democratic candidate is brought up by name in Republican campaign rallies and in the media more than any other candidate?

Are you paying attention to what the Republicans are saying or doing?

 

[B-Dubs]

No they aren't. Right now they're too busy with the infighting within their own party and have put little to no effort in attacking Hillary.

And I just proved to you that your previous post was factually wrong.

Have you been watching the GOP debates? Like every third word out of their mouths is an attack on Hillary.

 

[HylianTom]

You dislike the war in Iraq so much you will allow a neocon to get in power.

That's a well thought out strategy there.

They also claim to abhor the influence of corporate money in politics, but when a chance to nominate justices who'll overturn Citizens United comes along, they'll sneer because the person doing the nominations isn't 100% of what they want.

That right there should tell you everything. This isn't about policy for the Bernie-or-Bust crowd.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

She simply, to me, isn't nearly as relatable as someone like Obama. She's very robotic while campaigning and doesn't come off as very genuine. She almost strikes me as a robot that was built specifically for running for President, although she's a much more advanced model than Mitt Romney was.

That said, she's still the most qualified person running to be President of the United States. I'd personally enjoy a Bernie Sanders as President, but we know that probably won't happen. I honestly wanted to see Joe Biden as the successor to Obama, but that isn't going to happen.

 

[Black Republican]

Any dem coming after obama would be a hard feat in the charisma factor at least

 

[SmokeMaxX]

What it comes down to it that she doesn't have a good answer to the "why do you want to be President?" question. Whether you agree with them or disagree, Sanders and Trump have powerful and popular mission statements. Hillary's is, quite transparently, that it is her turn.

Yeah fighting for women's rights. What an awful mission.

 

[gutter_trash]

You dislike the war in Iraq so much you will allow a neocon to get in power.

That's a well thought out strategy there.

Jeb!-Rubio would re-assemble what was left of Dubya's Entourage and be simply a continuation of where Dubya left off

 

[KingK]

Exactly. Bernie Supporters need to look at electoral maps for 1972 and 1984 to see what happens to Bernie-type candidates.

The Democrats have gotten smarter since then and not put up Bernie type candidates.

Bernie Sanders supporters who say "Bernie or NOTHING! BWAHAHAH!" are upper class white liberals who would not be harmed by a GOP presidency, since, being upper class and white, the GOP likes them. Many other Democrats can't take that chance.

I think this right here displays where a lot of the frustration from Bernie supporters comes from. It's not the 1980s anymore, stop acting like it is.

The DNC has been running scared of Reagan for decades now, and most of what they do or say is framed from a conservative perspective. Most democrats still run like the electorate hasn't changed at all since 1984 and liberals are pissed off at not having a voice in politics for the last 40 years. The electorate is significantly more liberal and less white, yet the DNC is still living in the 80s trying to fend off the ghost of Reagan.

 

[HK-47]

Exactly. Bernie Supporters need to look at electoral maps for 1972 and 1984 to see what happens to Bernie-type candidates.

The Democrats have gotten smarter since then and not put up Bernie type candidates.

Bernie Sanders supporters who say "Bernie or NOTHING! BWAHAHAH!" are upper class white liberals who would not be harmed by a GOP presidency, since, being upper class and white, the GOP likes them. Many other Democrats can't take that chance.

As a Bernie supporter, this has been made very clear over the past months. Voting with your heart instead of your head.

 

[gutter_trash]

I think this right here displays where a lot of the frustration from Bernie supporters comes from. It's not the 1980s anymore, stop acting like it is.

The DNC has been running scared of Reagan for decades now, and most of what they do or say is framed from a conservative perspective. Most democrats still run like the electorate hasn't changed at all since 1984 and liberals are pissed off at not having a voice in politics for the last 40 years. The electorate is significantly more liberal and less white, yet the DNC is still living in the 80s trying to fend off the ghost of Reagan.

Dems need younger candidates who are not boomers.

Sanders can't attract support outside of the left. He sounds like a grumpy old man who repeats the same tag lines over and over. The 1% fist in the air spiel

Dems need a young candidate with bold 21St Century ideas that are appealing for all to jump in

 

[hal9001]

She represents too much of the corporate interests for my liking.

 

[Calamari41]

Yeah fighting for women's rights. What an awful mission.

The nebulous idea of "women's rights" is one of many bullet points she always lists when trying to answer that question. It is not her raison d'etre. She doesn't have one, all she ever does is list the standard Dem talking points. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to get anybody amped.

 

[Earthstrike]

For those saying that the GOP is salivating at the thought of beating Bernie, here's a fact that says otherwise.

Can you think of why he said that?

 

[titiklabingapat]

Two more weeks of this. Two more weeks...

 

[dramatis]

The nebulous idea of "women's rights" is one of many bullet points she always lists when trying to answer that question. It is not her raison d'etre. She doesn't have one, all she ever does is list the standard Dem talking points. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to get anybody amped.

Fighting against inequality is so much more specific than "nebulous women's rights". Who are you to decide for a woman that "women's rights" aren't her raison d'etre?

Or perhaps you're amped when it comes to Trump/Sanders economic populist talking points, but can't be bothered about women's rights?

 

[120v]

Nope, the reason she is a disliked is that SHE KNEW she was going to run in the next election but CHOSE to do a speaking tour collecting millions upon millions of dollars from corporations. If she didn't want to be seen as a corporate candidate she could have let Bill handle these speaking arrangements. That would certainly be a helpful first step, but I think sometimes greed gets in the way of actually making rational decisions. Its disingenuous for Hillary in a debate to say she wants to stop the revolving door between boardrooms and politics while taking millions in speaking fees from corporations. It's too faced and feeds into the narrative of her being a corporate candidate.
.

making money off speeches is the bread and butter of most politicos. it's sort of like saying physicians are tools of insurance companies or something

its not like she was a lobbyist

 

[Calamari41]

Fighting against inequality is so much more specific than "nebulous women's rights". Who are you to decide for a woman that "women's rights" aren't her raison d'etre?

Or perhaps you're amped when it comes to Trump/Sanders economic populist talking points, but can't be bothered about women's rights?

No reason to attempt to make this personal. I'm not excited about any of the candidates in either party.

The thread asked why people aren't excited about her. That question has been asked a lot, and it's hard to deny that she is generating less pure excitement than Sanders and Trump. If gender inequality is indeed her mission statement above all else, then apparently that isn't exciting to people. So, if that's the case, you can change my answer to that.

Edit:

Actually, when directly asked recently what her overall message is, the closest she gets to mentioning women's inequality/women's rights is saying "those social issues that people talk to me about." You can't deny that Sanders and Trump would have been able to answer this question in a few sentences, and very definitively.

 

[AniHawk]

ideally, someone like bernie sanders can be president and do some good. after obama well, i'm a little less inclined to believe the other side is going to actually work with a democratic president, much less a self-proclaimed socialist one.

i'll vote for him, but california's a done deal for hillary. in the general election, i'll vote for hillary because i absolutely want nothing to do with 3-4 supreme court justices being replaced with trump nominees. or cruz nominees.

hillary is probably the best choice in dealing with the current crop of republicans. i think it's going to be a really hard fight against trump, but if she was president, i think she'd be more forceful like bill clinton and 2014-2016 obama. she would probably help along the implosion of republicans just by being a woman and a clinton and being president.

 

[dramatis]

Actually, when directly asked what her overall message is, the closest she gets to mentioning women's inequality is saying "those social issues that people talk to me about." You can't deny that Sanders and Trump would have been able to answer this question in a few sentences, and very definitively.

Why does it have to be a singular statement though? Isn't the office of the president rather all encompassing?

People can get excited about things that have multifaceted aspects, aka Star Wars/Marvel. The "lack of enthusiasm" for Hillary Clinton has very little to do with how concise and clear her message is. If you look through the thread, a lot of posters say, "She's fake" and "She's boring"—these aren't the type of people who are actually looking at her messaging.

 

[Calamari41]

Why does it have to be a singular statement though? Isn't the office of the president rather all encompassing?

People can get excited about things that have multifaceted aspects, aka Star Wars/Marvel. The "lack of enthusiasm" for Hillary Clinton has very little to do with how concise and clear her message is. If you look through the thread, a lot of posters say, "She's fake" and "She's boring"—these aren't the type of people who are actually looking at her messaging.

It is indeed all encompassing, and I'm certainly not making a judgment on any of that. She reminds me of a Romney type in a way. People will support her, but they're not going to go nuts like they are for Sanders/Trump types. Because her platform is basically the overall party platform. Which, again, is fine... But it's not going to get people excited like the other two, who are coming out swinging.

I'm fine agreeing to disagree with you, I'm just giving my opinion. I only really don't appreciate the earlier implication that I'm anti-woman or "telling a woman what she believes." If that's what we have to look forward to from her supporters if Hillary gets in, then it's going to be a long eight years.

 

[kame-sennin]

When I see the corporate talk, I at least hope people are not being hypocritical about it and ignoring Obama's campaign contributions. Now I know some far left ideologues consider Obama a sellout shill as well, but it seems like the numbers don't add up. In summary, don't be a hypocrite.

Obama is obviously a corporate candidate, just like Clinton. Corporations captured the democratic party in the 80's. Has anyone who has called out that (obvious) fact been inconsistent about it? People have been screaming for years about his justice department's refusal to prosecute the Wall Street criminals who destroyed the economy.

 

[wildfire]

Exactly. Bernie Supporters need to look at electoral maps for 1972 and 1984 to see what happens to Bernie-type candidates.

The Democrats have gotten smarter since then and not put up Bernie type candidates.

Bernie Sanders supporters who say "Bernie or NOTHING! BWAHAHAH!" are upper class white liberals who would not be harmed by a GOP presidency, since, being upper class and white, the GOP likes them. Many other Democrats can't take that chance.

Excuse me but upper class folks can afford more than $200

People are right to point out Bernie has a racial demographic issue but every time they try to attack him on other fronts (gender, age, income) they are always wrong. It's so bizarre where you guys get your sources.

 

[kame-sennin]

Bernie Sanders supporters who say "Bernie or NOTHING! BWAHAHAH!" are upper class white liberals who would not be harmed by a GOP presidency, since, being upper class and white, the GOP likes them. Many other Democrats can't take that chance.

Bill Clinton pushed through some of the most racist and discriminatory policies of the past 20 years. He's one of the major architects of the war on drugs and the mass incarceration state. He also destroyed welfare, which had a disproportionate effect on people of color. All these policies were spearheaded by Clinton - they were not concessions - and they were sold to the populace with horrible dog-whistle politics.

 

[2San]

I don't live in the US, but I'm convinced she is a robot. She makes me cringe whenever she's on talkshows, she just doesn't seem human.

 

[timetokill]

Bill Clinton pushed through some of the most racist and discriminatory policies of the past 20 years. He's one of the major architects of the war on drugs and the mass incarceration state. He also destroyed welfare, which had a disproportionate effect on people of color. All these policies were spearheaded by Clinton - they were not concessions - and they were sold to the populace with horrible dog-whistle politics.

ding ding ding

 

[KingK]

Dems need younger candidates who are not boomers.

Sanders can't attract support outside of the left. He sounds like a grumpy old man who repeats the same tag lines over and over. The 1% fist in the air spiel

Dems need a young candidate with bold 21St Century ideas that are appealing for all to jump in

I don't necessarily disagree with this (other than Sanders not appealing to those outside the left; he does better with independents than Clinton for various reasons).

Sanders is definitely not the ideal candidate in many ways. I've been a fan of his since he first got to the Senate, but he's not the most charismatic or skilled politician. I'm voting for him because i align with his policies more than Clinton in almost every category and i respect his consistency. I do wish his policies could be repackaged into a younger, more charismatic candidate though.

The fact that he has a commanding lead with democrats under 45 is very encouraging though. His ideals are clearly the future of the party unless the establishment continues to fight it and fuck themselves over in the process. I'm hopeful for someone like DeBlasio being the front runner for the dems in a couple cycles.

 

[fantomena]

Bill Clinton pushed through some of the most racist and discriminatory policies of the past 20 years. He's one of the major architects of the war on drugs and the mass incarceration state. He also destroyed welfare, which had a disproportionate effect on people of color. All these policies were spearheaded by Clinton - they were not concessions - and they were sold to the populace with horrible dog-whistle politics.

He did? Can I get sources on this?

 

[Anfang]

Fighting against inequality is so much more specific than "nebulous women's rights". Who are you to decide for a woman that "women's rights" aren't her raison d'etre?

The lack of specifics is a big of enough reason for most of us. No real statement about what exactly is wrong and how she would change it. Shes playing the game just like Romney did and flip floppin around to catch the votes of whats on peoples minds atm.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

The Democrats have gotten smarter since then and not put up Bernie type candidates.

Bernie Sanders supporters who say "Bernie or NOTHING! BWAHAHAH!" are upper class white liberals who would not be harmed by a GOP presidency, since, being upper class and white, the GOP likes them. Many other Democrats can't take that chance.

Minorities have seen net gains correlate with both Dem/Repub admins. The presidency is one facet of the US gov't. To Obama's credit and to the extent you can give an administration credit...some things improved during his tenure or correlate in his favor. He helped put in place Obamacare which I think is huge for minorities and redistribute to low-income folks. However, you can't paint the same flattering picture for poverty and inflation-adjusted income which are also huge deals. The US economy likely suffered permanent damage as a result of the Great Recession just like every country affected.

Also maybe I'm wrong, but didn't minorities in the US get fleeced in the lead-up to the financial crisis? If I recall, minorities were the disproportionate targets of fraud. Yet, the needs of minorities coming out of the financial crisis was low priority similar to how Republicans would rank them as far as I can tell. Moreover, Obama helped facilitate a ton for whites that deserved the least amount of goverment assistance. It doesn't sting that the multiracial guy who's supposed to be in your corner was better for the living standards of the Donald Trumps and rich white Bernie supporters who just don't understand? That's an embarrassment for the first black president to have as a legacy IMO. Business has soared in a multitude of ways arguably at the expense of minorities who were by and large left behind which is very sad.

It's clear to me people love playing fast and loose with the level of wealth, comfort, and goods they share relative to their rich peers as the US economy does well. Many gambled and got burned by failed establishment policies and rent-seeking under guys like Bill, George W., and Obama. So, how smart can Democrats actually be in any material sense? Maybe one liberal putting another on the Supreme Court will help, but y'all like to take chances with your share of the economy. I'm voting for Hillary because she's a woman, likely $ in the bank, and peace of mind for me in the heat of the moment, but perhaps some of the most vulnerable Democrats should think about their choices in gov't a little harder especially minorities. I can more than afford to live Bernie Sanders if I have to.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-black-income-unemployment-worse-now-j/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-arent-middle-class-anymore/

 

[And_Gignac]

Exactly. Bernie Supporters need to look at electoral maps for 1972 and 1984 to see what happens to Bernie-type candidates.

The Democrats have gotten smarter since then and not put up Bernie type candidates.

Bernie Sanders supporters who say "Bernie or NOTHING! BWAHAHAH!" are upper class white liberals who would not be harmed by a GOP presidency, since, being upper class and white, the GOP likes them. Many other Democrats can't take that chance.

Reagan and Thatcher are dead. Come back to the present. Thank you.

 

[najehe]

Exactly. Bernie Supporters need to look at electoral maps for 1972 and 1984 to see what happens to Bernie-type candidates.

The Democrats have gotten smarter since then and not put up Bernie type candidates.

Bernie Sanders supporters who say "Bernie or NOTHING! BWAHAHAH!" are upper class white liberals who would not be harmed by a GOP presidency, since, being upper class and white, the GOP likes them. Many other Democrats can't take that chance.

The most recent example you gave was 32 years ago. Cultures and values change with time. In addition, there are a number of factor that lead to those types of landslides. One of the biggest factors being the well-being of the economy. In both cases, the economy had fully recovered from a previous recession and was humming along. It is very difficult to beat an incumbent when economic and national security factors are good to the general public.

 

[To Far Away Times]

You help put any of the Republicans (except Rand, lol) in the White House, we're going back Iraq with a ground force. Back to roadside bombings and ambushes. Back to troop deaths in the news every day.

Well, to be fair that's exactly what Clinton wants too.

I live in a state that is solidly liberal anyway, a vote for Bernie at least helps me have a clear conscious.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Only one person didn't vote for Iraq, Bernie. But if you're going to make yourself look like a fool and do a meaningless write in go ahead. You're only helping hand over the presidency to someone who will undo all the progress accomplished over the last 8 years.

It's a shame more people aren't this pragmatic.

The all or nothing approach really works against people's interests.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

He did? Can I get sources on this?

Yes, he did.

Twenty years ago this week, in 1994, then-President Bill Clinton signed a crime bill. It was, in effect, a long-term experiment in various ways to fight crime.

The measure paid to put more cops on the beat, trained police and lawyers to investigate domestic violence, imposed tougher prison sentences and provided money for extra prisons.

Clinton described his motivation to pass the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act in stark terms.

"Gangs and drugs have taken over our streets and undermined our schools," he said. "Every day, we read about somebody else who has literally gotten away with murder."

And if Clinton and Congress reflected the punitive mindset of the American people, what they didn't know was that soaring murder rates and violent crime had already begun what would become a long downward turn, according to criminologists and policymakers.

http://www.npr.org/2014/09/12/347736999/20-years-later-major-crime-bill-viewed-as-terrible-mistake

Here's some more for you:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22— In a sweeping reversal of Federal policy, President Clinton today ended six decades of guaranteed help to the nation's poorest children by signing into law a vast welfare overhaul requiring the 50 states to deal more directly with the social burdens and the budget expense of poverty.

''Today we are taking a historic chance to make welfare what it was meant to be: a second chance, not a way of life,'' Mr. Clinton declared in signing the measure, which will affect tens of millions of poor Americans, largely by mandating work requirements and imposing a five-year lifetime limit on welfare help to needy families.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/23/u...elfare-states-in-new-role.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Tesseract]

it's hard to be enthusiastic about anything establishment, whether it's media or politics

We no longer need CNN Fox News MSNBC CBC NBC ABC BBC LDC CBN TV DDBB

the system is corrupt to the bone, we all know it and so we should let it burn

vote Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren for 2016

 

[Loakum]

Hillary don't give straight answers to anything! She seems fake as an 8 dollar bill! Not to mention it's tough getting excited for any candidate now, after Obama turned out to be an MAJOR disappointment. Hillary is tied to wallstreet just like Obama, which is why wallstreet has set records in profits during Obama's two terms. I'm disgusted with politics. I've given up hope in our elected officials.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Stuff like this makes me wish Bernie was in for 2024... this divide may lead to having a damn Trump presidency, and it shouldn't fucking happen. And the worst thing as some Bernie supporters actually wouldn't mind a Trump presidency either which blows my mind even more.

 

[ColdPizza]

Stuff like this makes me wish Bernie was in for 2024... this divide may lead to having a damn Trump presidency, and it shouldn't fucking happen. And the worst thing as some Bernie supporters actually wouldn't mind a Trump presidency either which blows my mind even more.

Bernie will be dead by then. Or too old.

 

[ShadowKingpin]

She's a mild Republican and a Corporate sympathizer.

 

[HylianTom]

Stuff like this makes me wish Bernie was in for 2024... this divide may lead to having a damn Trump presidency, and it shouldn't fucking happen. And the worst thing as some Bernie supporters actually wouldn't mind a Trump
presidency either which blows my mind even more.

The divide is pretty over-stated. Nate Silver was noting earlier today about how one major underreported/overlooked aspect of the Democratic race was the fact that both candidates are very well-regarded among primary voters. The probability that there'll be a larger-than-usual temper tantrum vote in November seems pretty low.

We might not get Bernie here in 2016, but we might end-up getting Bernie 2.0 in a future cycle.

I hope we don't fuck-over Bernie 2.0 this November.

 

[cDNA]

No they aren't. Right now they're too busy with the infighting within their own party and have put little to no effort in attacking Hillary.

And I just proved to you that your previous post was factually wrong.

Reince have been tweeting and talking about Hillary all the primary season. Even the WiFi password in the Gop debate was stop Hillary. He bullied two networks two cancel documentaries about Hillary, threatening to without Gop debates. Every single Bengazhi/email rumor have been hyped by Reince.