RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Galindez writes: "The establishment media is declaring Hillary Clinton the Democratic Party nominee. Since when do red states choose the nominee?"

Democratic U.S. presidential candidates Bernie Sanders (L) and Hillary Clinton (R) at their respective Super Tuesday primaries rally in Burlington, Vermont and in Miami, Florida on March 1, 2016. (photo: Brian Snyder/Javier Galeano/Reuters)
Democratic U.S. presidential candidates Bernie Sanders (L) and Hillary Clinton (R) at their respective Super Tuesday primaries rally in Burlington, Vermont and in Miami, Florida on March 1, 2016. (photo: Brian Snyder/Javier Galeano/Reuters)


Why Let Red States Choose the Democratic Nominee?

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

02 March 16

 

he establishment media is declaring Hillary Clinton the Democratic Party nominee. Since when do red states choose the nominee? Will Hillary Clinton win South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Iowa, or Texas in November? She might win Virginia, Arkansas, Nevada – and probably would win Massachusetts.

So Hillary Clinton has won one blue state and it’s game over? Not so fast.

Massachusetts was essentially a dead heat. Minnesota went to Sanders, and of course Vermont, another blue state, went to Bernie.

Oklahoma will go red in November. Colorado and New Hampshire are purple and Hillary’s Nevada and Virginia could go either way.

Can we put the brakes on here and have some primaries in the blue states before we decide who the Democratic nominee is?

Hillary Clinton’s margins in the South were impressive and have helped her to build a substantial lead in the all-important pledged delegates. But let’s put it into perspective: it was the South. It was Republican country. The Dixiecrats are Republicans now.

Let’s face it, the Democratic Leadership Council’s goal has been achieved again. By front-loading the nomination process with southern states they have given the momentum to a moderate candidate. It is a system rigged against a progressive insurgent candidate.

It will be an uphill climb, but the race is far from over.

Bernie Sanders will have to find some states that he can win by large margins or it will be difficult to catch Hillary Clinton.

Bernie  issued the following statement after winning primaries and caucuses in Vermont, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Minnesota:

The political revolution has begun.

Ten months ago, when our campaign started, not many people thought we would get this far or do this well. Not many people outside of Vermont even knew who I was. That was then.

Tonight, voters in Colorado, Oklahoma, and Minnesota have joined the people of Vermont in showing America that a political revolution is spreading across our country, that people want to take on the billionaire class and make our government work for all Americans and not just the top 1 percent.

Today, we head to Maine and Michigan. Our campaign is just getting started. We're going all the way to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia and beyond.

Tomorrow, I look forward to a contest this fall between democracy and demagoguery, between ordinary Americans and the oligarchs. I look forward to the chance for our people-powered campaign to show Donald Trump that the United States of America belongs to all of us and not just billionaire bullies.

The establishment media is also transfixed on the turnout. I guess they expect 2008 every year. In 2008 the Democrats doubled their turnout from 2004. In 2016 turnout is ahead of 2004, and in the few blue states that have voted Democrats have out-performed the Republicans. In fact, in Minnesota Bernie Sanders got more votes than all the Republicans combined.

So the lesson here is take everything CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the corporate media say with a grain of salt. They want an establishment candidate to win. They are happy with Citizens United: it allows corporations and super PACs to buy a lot of airtime. Think about it.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+108 # tswhiskers 2016-03-02 09:57
Thanks Scott for continually reminding us that the Dem. Party and the media have their hearts set on Hillary. There are quite a number of blue states that haven't held their primaries. The CA primary will be late this year (in June?) and will certainly award a huge # of delegates. So I will take heart along with Bernie who has vowed to stick it out as long as possible. I'll vote on 3/15 in NC. Have no idea how NC will go; a lot of us are very unhappy with our governor,so maybe that bodes well for Bernie.
 
 
+34 # sea7kenp 2016-03-02 10:40
I'll be "early voting", in North Carolina.
 
 
+69 # Old4Poor 2016-03-02 11:01
I had this same concern watching returns last night.

It seems that the concept of MOMENTUM takes over after a few large wins, and I had to wonder, but what about California, Oregon and Washington, etc?

Had they been first up, Bernie might now have the Big MO.

Why do we allow the South to pick our candidate?
 
 
+95 # RLF 2016-03-02 11:06
I wonder why we don't have a single primary day? This is the dumbest system I've ever seen. I'm in NY and there is absolutely no reason to vote in the primary! New York! We need one primary day 2 months before the election and no electoral college. Primary by direct numbers...like the whole country should be! This is a system designed by and for the rich and influential!
 
 
+52 # Patch 2016-03-02 12:55
I am in total agreement with you RLF. Our system discourages fairness and allows the media to have much too much influence.
 
 
+29 # Hooligan 2016-03-02 19:10
Quoting Patch:
I am in total agreement with you RLF. Our system discourages fairness and allows the media to have much too much influence.

Let's face it. The "elite" that runs the DNC don't actually want real people determining who the candidate is going to be.
 
 
+33 # Radscal 2016-03-02 13:20
I can see the value to voters of having the candidates focus their attentions locally immediately before the primary. So, how about say, 4 "super tuesdays" with about a dozen states voting at once, and separated by say one or two weeks. Maybe with one debate before each primary (in addition to other debates before the first primary). That would get the whole primary season down to less than 2 months.

(edit) We could schedule those primaries by the year that each state joined the Union. The original 13 colonies vote first, etc. That would combine different demographics into each primary date.

And state delegates should all be apportioned proportionately . No "winner takes all" states.

Importantly, ALL elections should be on paper ballots, marked in pen, and hand counted with observers from each candidate on hand.
 
 
+22 # Hooligan 2016-03-02 19:13
Quoting Radscal:
I can see the value to voters of having the candidates focus their attentions locally immediately before the primary. So, how about say, 4 "super tuesdays" with about a dozen states voting at once, and separated by say one or two weeks. Maybe with one debate before each primary (in addition to other debates before the first primary). That would get the whole primary season down to less than 2 months.

(edit) We could schedule those primaries by the year that each state joined the Union. The original 13 colonies vote first, etc. That would combine different demographics into each primary date.

And state delegates should all be apportioned proportionately. No "winner takes all" states.

Importantly, ALL elections should be on paper ballots, marked in pen, and hand counted with observers from each candidate on hand.

Absolutely! No more hackable voting machines.
 
 
+14 # Nominae 2016-03-02 21:30
Quoting Hooligan:

Absolutely! No more hackable voting machines.


Part I

Hi, Hooligan.

We all know how blindingly fast technology changes these days. Sad to say, "hackable machines" pose no serious threat anymore. It is now considerably worse.

Modern Voting Machines are programmed *specifically* TO "flip" a certain percentage of total votes to a predetermined, and software encoded, candidate.

Isn't that illegal ? It was. Isn't now.

Voting Machine makers such as DIEBOLD (*close* friend to Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of CA) now have *legal* protection against even having their machines being physically *opened* at the polls, much less being *examined* by a third party programmer prior to elections !

That's *right* ! The new laws make the machine code PROPRIETARY and give it patent protection.

The concept of Proprietary Software makes sense ONLY in the marketplace where a company is SELLING it's code in a competitive market.

Using that lame-a$$ed excuse in *elections* is the weakest dodge since "Teacher - the dog ate my homework." But these scum get away with it, bcuz the LAW now *protects* the *literal* theft of elections VIA *legalized* electronic vote machine "FLIPPING" !

Cont'd
 
 
+15 # Nominae 2016-03-02 21:32
Part II

I am a retired AS400 Systems Analyst for IBM. From a tech perspective, these weak-kneed excuses surrounding vote-thievery would not be tolerated out of a 14-yr-old coding student.

And Yet ......

A decade ago, these machine could be, and were, ripped open at the voting precinct, and the code was reviewed by independent coding auditors for "irregularities ". That was why Companies *used* to need to hack their own machines *after* they were inspected in order to control the vote count.

No More.

Add to that, various State Laws passed AGAINST allowing *any* kind of paper trail *from* a voting machine ? Why ? (we ask ourselves ;-D)

All of the early voting machines *automatically* produced receipts. It is no more technically difficult for a Voting Machine to produce a paper receipt than it is for your ATM to do the same thing. In fact, DIEBOLD itself *also* makes ATMs. How long would bank customers put up with ATMs that did not at least OFFER receipts ? And THIS is your vote we are talking about. Why the hell would legislatures vote to make receipts from voting machines *ILLEGAL* ?

Why indeed.

Between this and Citizen's United making it LEGAL to BUY elections, I think that, if we are being reasonable, we can forgive a few of our fellow Countrymen for being less than *wildly* enthusiastic about rushing right on out there to vote.
 
 
-16 # John De 2016-03-03 13:31
WTF NOMINAE, First you tell us you are 100% disabled from your time back in the Nam; now you tell us you retired from IBM. Does that mean you "double-dipped? " You were taking my tax dollars for your 100% disability while you took a salary from IBM. You need to keep your lies straight Mr. Warfighter (not).
 
 
+10 # Billy Bob 2016-03-03 14:28
You need to show a little respect. That was one of the most disgusting posts I've ever read.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-03-03 13:44
Of course, those machines could be programmed to produce a receipt showing exactly how one voted... but still record the vote differently.

Someone on RSN (was it you?) suggested a unique code issued after each voter completed voting, that the voter could later look up online to see if it showed the vote accurately.

But again, it seems to me it'd be easy enough to store the accurate ballot, but still tally the votes any way TPTB wanted.

And optical scanners that are used to grade multiple choice tests in schools can also be rigged easily.

Hand counted paper ballots seems the only technology needed.

BTW: Diebold is now called "Dominion Voting Systems," as in Dominionism, the Christian Taliban group that wants to replace our representative democracy with a theocracy ruled by Biblical Law.

And yeah, the owner is a Christian Dominionist.
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 22:37
What? Then how will the pro-war candidates be elected?
 
 
+15 # jackvandijk 2016-03-02 15:03
It gives the impression that the us is a democratic country. Nice try.
 
 
+12 # Hooligan 2016-03-02 19:09
Quoting RLF:
I wonder why we don't have a single primary day? This is the dumbest system I've ever seen. I'm in NY and there is absolutely no reason to vote in the primary! New York! We need one primary day 2 months before the election and no electoral college. Primary by direct numbers...like the whole country should be! This is a system designed by and for the rich and influential!

That makes way too much sense. You don't get to have caucus results determined by flipping a coin or by the drawing of the high card? What fun is that?
 
 
+1 # 47scooter 2016-03-04 23:41
Since February 29th occurs only during presidential election years, we could have that be a national holiday and national caucus day as well..??
 
 
+10 # tedrey 2016-03-02 22:26
And insist on a non-weekday too, for primaries and election, by all that's holy!
 
 
+3 # tswhiskers 2016-03-04 08:53
I suspect that campaigning would be impossible if all primaries took place together. That is also a reason, so I've heard, that the Electoral College still exists. This is big country, so I'm glad we have the primaries, altho I'd agree with Old4Poor that we shouldn't let the South so early and in so much force.
 
 
+26 # Cassandra2012 2016-03-02 14:28
Quoting Old4Poor:
I had this same concern watching returns last night.



Why do we ALLOW the South to pick our candidate?


Small potatoes RED states like rabidly bigoted S.C. are NOT the heartbeat of the country. California, Illinois and New York are among other large states yet to hold their primaries!!!!
 
 
+2 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 22:31
Bernie will win 90% of the blue states in my mind. Its the corrupt super delegates I am worried about. Hillary has paid $20 million for them, and Bernie won't pay of course because its corruption. Hillary is Trump's road to the White House which is even more alarming.
 
 
-41 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-02 11:30
Field Poll: Clinton keeps lead over Sanders in California

Clinton leads Sanders 46 percent to 35 percent among likely Democratic primary voters

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article53191495.html#storylink=cpy

This article was published on Jan 5th and the totals haven't changed from what they were in October. California has a very diverse population which makes it a better state for Clinton over Sanders.
 
 
+31 # Billy Bob 2016-03-02 11:53
In other words, Bernie still has a few months and he's closing in. She was a lot further ahead than that in California.

Why do you think Sanders does worse with black voters? Do you have an explanation for it?

Certainly it must be IN SPITE of the fact that Hillary has had a long history of racist remarks, racist policy decision, and racist dog-whistle innuendo.

Certainly it must be IN SPITE of the fact that Bernie Sanders has actually spent DECADES putting his ACTIONS where Hillary's, "new and improved" "minority friendly" words are - now - suddenly - that she has to get through the Democratic Primaries first before she can be herself and reveal her true nature, once again, when push comes to shove.

Here's a thought:

Could it be that Sanders doesn't do well with people who don't like Jews?

Just a thought. We all know the deep south LOVES them sum Jews, right?

To me, that's the only logical explanation for this. She could not be more popular among anybody who's actually paying attention to the issues and her past history - unless they're a conservative blue-dog "Democrat" who'd rather hijack the Democratic Party than reform the Republican Party.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:23
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+17 # Billy Bob 2016-03-02 12:58
I await your apology as well.

One of those Jews who knows something about discrimination is Bernie Sanders.

I'm awaiting the apology of every Clinton supporter who feels they can just wash away comments like:

“For a lot of well-meaning, open-minded white people, the sight of a young black man in a hoodie still evokes a twinge of fear."

Please apologize for the facts contained in this article about her racist response to the '08 nomination of a black man:

http://theweek.com/articles/567774/hillary-clinton-needs-address-racist-undertones-2008-campaign
 
 
-6 # Billy Bob 2016-03-02 13:13
Still awaiting your apology...
 
 
+23 # Billsy 2016-03-02 12:54
An african-america n activist in SC (obviously feeling hurt & angry that Sanders left to concentrate on campaigning in MN) had some constructive comments about the superior connection Clinton had made particularly with middle-class black women and her use of videos & photos of her surrounded by black women. He was speaking as an independent who hadn't voted democratic since 1992 and seemed to loath the way the Clintons treated Jesse Jackson. While Ms. Clinton has done little to aid struggling black families he was implying that she has better outreach to the black middle-class. Perhaps its Sanders brooklyn accent, largely white support and focus on blacks & crime. It's a shame that for poorly informed voters, Clinton's platitudes and campaign themes seem to hold more sway than her actual voting record and deep connection with wall st. and wealthy campaign supporters.

Here's a link to the Democracy Now interview which you may find informative: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/29/did_bernie_sanders_run_a_white
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 13:38
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+15 # EternalTruth 2016-03-02 14:55
"and the millions of blacks who support Clinton are poorly informed or ignorant. That is YOUR opinion, not the opinion of the vast majority of blacks. And lest you think I'm stupid too, I do support Bernie...but I don't disparage those blacks who don't."

So why do you think millions of blacks are supporting Clinton? Do you think they are well informed?
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 16:34
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 18:35
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2016-03-02 18:53
Yes. It is a waste of time. Why are you wasting your time? You've spent more time on this thread than any other commenter. Is the irony lost on you?
 
 
-6 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 12:37
WHAT!!!???...Oh please billy bob....just go back and count your posts on this article alone.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2016-03-03 14:39
Doesn't it bother you in the least that you're sticking up for, and openly siding with one of the nastiest trolls this site has ever suffered from, Babs?

Are you THAT DESPERATE to attack Sanders that you'll climb on board any ship that seems to have the same objective?

Maybe you haven't read my posts for the past several years, but I HAVE had a history of DEFENDING people I disagree with - and EVEN DISLIKE - whenever they were being unfairly attacked by trolls with an obnoxious agenda.

For some reason, scoring points on the "vote for Hillary - OR ELSE" scale has TRUMPED everything else for you though, hasn't it?

You know as well as I do that you'd be THE FIRST to complain - and loudly - about NRESQ's behavior and obnoxious, obscene name-calling, if he wasn't on your side. Since he IS on your side, I guess you'll give him a pass, and even adopt some of his tactics. It says a lot about what kind of a person you are.

Real classy, Babs.
 
 
-8 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 17:04
Wow, now you really are reaching for straws. When in the wrong, just throw crap around.
And although I have disagreed with NRESQ on most occasions, I do have the right to agree with him/her on some things.
And I do agreed with NRESQ's observation that ANYONE who dares to criticize Bernie is vilified by you and other Berners.
And class, my dear, has nothing to do with it. My right to an opinion does.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2016-03-03 17:36
We ALL have a right to our opinions, which is why many of us are getting a bit offended by the nasty tone and nasty tactics of disruption many of the brand new commenters have taken. You've been on this site for years, so it's a little disappointing to see you opportunistical ly riding the wave, rather than sticking up for people you may not always agree with, but have been your debate partners this whole time.
 
 
+15 # EternalTruth 2016-03-02 19:14
I never claimed to know what every single black person thinks. I just know what the candidates are saying now, and what they have done in the past. Based on that information, I suspect that most of the people of any color (that includes white/pink) who are voting for Hillary are lacking some of that information. They seem to be voting against their best interests (except for those in the 1% who benefit from a rigged system). I'm pretty sure Bernie would agree with that. Why is it racist to express this? And if you suspect that this assessment is wrong, why?
 
 
-6 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 16:53
Brava Saquon...
 
 
-14 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-02 13:26
Calm down, Billy boy. I just stated facts from an article in the Sacremento Bee, the most trusted newspaper in CA. The previous poster said that CA should be one of the first states in the nomination process. And HRC's lead has not declined since October. Read. The. Article.

Facts, they're a thing. I said HRC does better in states with diverse populations. This is true. I'm sorry truth is hurtful to you. Sheesh.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 16:44
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+8 # Nominae 2016-03-02 23:55
Quoting George Tirebiter:
how can you have a rational discussion with a person who comes from that mindset?


I know, Bubba. In your case, however, you have thus far exhibited overwhelming evidence that you lack the ability to have a "rational" discussion with ANY fellow human being.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-03 13:51
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+1 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 22:52
Well there you go. You trust newspapers?
 
 
+1 # jackvandijk 2016-03-02 15:04
americans are stupid
 
 
+10 # Crumbling Empire 2016-03-02 16:20
Quoting jackvandijk:
americans are stupid

JACK: Americans aren't any stupider than anyone else around the planet, just generally less educated, especially when compared to the northern EU and advanced Asia.

Also, I believe Americans are more propagandized by their media than those two regions, and as a result are (i) jingoistic to an unhealthy degree, which is why American Exceptionalism is so prevalent, and (ii) ignorant of the truth, whether political, social or cultural.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 16:47
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-03-03 00:14
Quoting George Tirebiter:
Damn I love this forum - more laughs than I find anywhere else on the Net.


Oafs and morons frequently laugh at what they are incapable of comprehending.

Let me give you a bit of a hint, Georgie.

You may care to avoid further embarrassing yourself and demonstrating your BONE-CRUSHING ignorance regarding what the grownups know as a "Logical SYLLOGISM" - because it is manifestly evident that you are fully unacquainted with the concept.

You have just given all the readers grounds for additional derision and contempt relative to the *next* clumsy effort you make at pretending to have so much as a nodding acquaintance with the actual Rules of Formal Logic.

Get some clue regarding what you *don't* know, Sparky, and then avoid bubbling off at the gums regarding THAT particular matter. That way, the gaping deficit in knowledge may be less *glaringly* obvious to others.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-03 14:06
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-03-03 00:00
Quoting jackvandijk:
americans are stupid


So, Dutch, I take it that you must have personally met and extensively interviewed all 320 *MILLION* of them ?

Yes ? Well, then, no *wonder* you speak with such eloquence and authority on the matter.
 
 
+10 # lfeuille 2016-03-02 17:04
No, I don't think so. It has to do with the fact the Bernie was totally unknown to blacks until a few months ago and he hasn't had time to campaign enough in black areas because he had to concentrate on Iowa and NH in order to stay in the race at all. And also with the fact that blacks are familiar with the Clintons and blacks in congress have worked with the Clintons.

I know it's ridiculous when look at from afar, but Bernie would have been better off in this political system, if he started a year earlier.
 
 
+23 # Patch 2016-03-02 12:58
January 5th was two months ago (less a couple of days). By the time the California primary is held Bernie could be in front.
 
 
-9 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-02 13:27
Maybe. Give me a better, more recent poll.
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-03-03 00:29
Quoting Juliajayne1:
Maybe. Give me a better, more recent poll.


So, you are also "google-challen ged" then ?
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-03 14:10
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-4 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-03 17:22
So, you don't have a more recent poll either. ;-) I couldn't find one and I asked in good faith. If you can find one, I'll happily acknowledge your superiority in the Google department. Ta!
 
 
+10 # Crebbafrabitz 2016-03-02 15:16
juliajayne: Susan Sarandon said "I don't vote with my vagina".
Maybe YOU should heed her wisdom.
 
 
-11 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-02 15:35
Maybe you shouldn't use crass sexism to make some point of which you haven't or possibly can't articulate because you're not very smart.

Btw, Susan Sarandon is an idiot or has conducted herself as one for the duration of this contest. She uses out of context quote mining and other RW tactics. I see her on twitter being really obnoxious. Maybe men shouldn't vote for someone just because they have a penis which is what we've essentially been doing. Really, give me a break.

And speaking of unintended consequences, the behavior of some of the BS supporters has had the effect of radicalizing people to vote for Hillary. Good work.
 
 
-16 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-02 15:42
I'd also like to say that most of the negatives I read here about Hillary are patently false. You don't drill down on the details of something or you refuse to employ critical thinking. I've been here when I can trying to act as a counter point to some of the worst offenses, but there' a lot of stupid here. You'll notice I never disparage Bernie and you all don't even know who I voted for. It's pretty rich for people who deem themselves so superior in knowledge and so much smarter than black people who voted for Hillary. Then again, sexism and racism go hand in hand and the mostly white people here seem to revel in both. It's patently disgusting. I wish more of you would adopt Bernie's stance and try to keep the conversation classy and factual. I know it's asking a lot of immature people though. ;-)) Ta.
 
 
-3 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 12:44
Brava Julia......But on this site, unless you disparage Hillary, you're anti-Bernie. Rational doesn't work here.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 17:11
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-1 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-02 17:57
George, I use BS for Bernie Sanders, a person I greatly admire. No double entrendre. ;-)
 
 
-7 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 12:47
See, you still got thumbs down votes. Some of these people have stopped thinking. They see a name they don't like and they vote "red thumbs down"..
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-03 14:14
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-03-03 01:22
Quoting George Tirebiter:
"And speaking of unintended consequences, the behavior of some of the BS supporters have had the effect of radicalizing people to vote for Hillary. Good work."

Thank you Juliajayne1, I've been making that point as well (falling on deaf ears of course). One question though - when you say "BS supporters" are you referring to only Bernie Sanders or did you have dual use/purpose in mind when you wrote that? Keep up the good work - there are at least two of us who haven't fallen prey to group think. I, however, often use my biting wit and sarcastic tone to make my points (seldom though does anyone "get it").


You are RIGHT, Georgie, all of you new paid Trolls from Camp Hillary need to stick together singing Kumbayah as Hillary carpet bombs Libya.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-03 14:21
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-1 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-03 17:41
Do you understand what an internet troll is? It's someone who is intentionally disruptive and posts hyperbole and uses a lot of ad hominems. I post facts because I care about a Democrat taking the WH. And people here seem more invested in shredding Hillary when it's abundantly clear that most have no idea what they're talking about. As I said before, I act as a counter point to some of the more virulent misinformation about her and I never disparage Bernie because I admire him and his vitally important message.

It might do some of the posters here well to quit relying on tired talking points and out of context quote mining and do some due diligence before they make a comment. If you all don't like facts, that's your problem and my problem. It's a problem for ALL of us invested in seeing that we don't get a Donald Trump in the WH.

Btw, it was a coalition of several nations that decided to take out the Libyan dictator. It was not a unilateral decision, nor did the US employ any bombs. See here for the information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
 
 
-4 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 12:45
Make that three, George.
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-03-03 01:18
Quoting Juliajayne1:
... the behavior of some of the BS supporters has had the effect of radicalizing people to vote for Hillary


You must be plumb tuckered out, needing to resort to using THAT tired boilerplate propaganda inanity straight out of the Clinton Camp "Bernie Bros" meme ! ;-D

If you are going to perpetrate this charade of possessing more than a room-temperatur e IQ, get some original material.

BTW - Intelligence is demonstrated, not "claimed", and to date you are not dazzling anyone but yourself !

Actually, you continue to embarrass yourself.

"Susan Sarandon is an idiot." Right !

Poor, hapless little Suzie - and her life is SO much less successful than your own.

Susan Sarandon is likely also homely, bow-legged, and almost CERTAINLY FAT as well - Right ? And, unlike your own august and elevated self - who is a data entry clerk for Hillary - Susan Sarandon, *being* the idiot that she obviously IS (compared to you), naturally has NO connection to social causes at all. Yeah. That Susan is just SUCH a cow, *right*, JJ1 ?

Susan Sarandon has spent her *entire life* demonstrating her "idiocy" to the entire world. How INCREDIBLY "special" that only *YOU* knew the truth all this TIME.

Given your obviously ham-fisted and clumsy lack of ability for accurate character assessment, no WONDER you are in the tank for Hillary ! Maybe you can ride "Slim Pikens-style" on a Hellfire Missle in Hillary's upcoming re-invasion of Libya !
 
 
-5 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-03 17:45
I don't work for HRC. And yes, Susan Sarandon has been a total idiot. Sorry, lol. I'm glad you got all of that bile out of your system. Now I just ask that you reflect on what you write before you write it so YOU don't embarrass yourself. I have nothing to be embarrassed about because I conduct myself like an adult.
 
 
-7 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 12:42
I agree Julia...I've found a lot of Berners to be obnoxious little boys. Spouting GOP narratives about Hillary and then, when asked to give facts to support what they've jus said, behave with disdain or walk away wishing me a "nice day".
They are such a turn off that I'm beginning to hate the sound of Bernie's voice.
 
 
+2 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 22:59
Its not near as many outright turncoating from the Democratic party because of Wasserman Shultz, Hillary and the corrupt Super Delegates. Lifelong Democrats are quitting the party for good if Hillary is nominated. Nice job Debbie.
 
 
+1 # Skippydelic 2016-03-03 03:52
Quoting Crebbafrabitz:
juliajayne: Susan Sarandon said "I don't vote with my vagina".


Crebbafrabitz: That makes a REALLY disturbing visual, too… ;-)
 
 
-5 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-03 17:46
It's a patently disgusting statement from someone (SS) who should know better. ;-)
 
 
+10 # kyzipster 2016-03-02 10:12
So Southern Democrats are not worthy because they live in red states? Dixiecrats are Republicans now? Confusing message. Yes, many former Democrats in the South are now Republicans but they don't decide the Democratic primary.

Maybe you want to finish what Republicans started with their Southern Strategy but I believe we can win back some states in the South someday. Large African American populations, growing immigrant populations, plenty of white progressives in all of the urban areas. It can happen.

I'm not cheer-leading for Clinton at all, I'm a Sanders supporter, but this divisiveness often goes too far. It only helps the GOP. Yes, Democrats in the South are more conservative and supporting Clinton but this is not the same as supporting Trump or Cruz. I agree with you about the MSM.
 
 
+59 # Buddha 2016-03-02 10:37
It has nothing to with not being "worthy", it has to do with our general election not being determined by a popular national vote, but state by a state electoral collage system. And the reality is that Democrats in solidly Red states are meaningless in a General election, their state is going to go to the Republican nominee, period. So the question is why the Democratic nominee is being decided by Red State Democrats who won't be contributing any electoral collage wins in the general, while the desires of Democrats in blue states who WILL help elect a Democrat are being dismissed.
 
 
-1 # kyzipster 2016-03-02 10:57
I understand but the article has a confusing message, Dixiecrats are Republicans? Democratic votes in red states are not meaningless in the primary, I think it would be absurd to exclude them. Bill Clinton won Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Georgia, Louisiana and Arkansas in the general. The whole idea that we've given up on the South is a problem. Hillary Clinton might surprise if she gets the nomination. Again, I am a Sanders supporter but I have to concede that Clinton has an appeal to more conservative Democrats, the voting so far seems to be proving it. I agree with the author about the media's angle, they should speak to what's ahead.
 
 
+33 # Buddha 2016-03-02 11:33
Nobody is saying to "exclude them", the point of the article is that Red State Dems, who in a "Stockholm Syndrome" dynamic are typically more Conservative than Blue State Dems, shouldn't be the ones determining who is the most viable Democratic candidate. We haven't heard yet from the largest Bluest most-delegate and most-EC states yet, have we? And yet the media and the DNC are using all these results in smaller less-populous Red-State America to rationalize that HRC is the best candidate. I'm not buying it.
 
 
-25 # lnason@umassd.edu 2016-03-02 12:41
The article implies that red state voters should be excluded or ignored and that implementing either idea would be political suicide and only confirm that those states would forever stay red.

But the only three large reliably blue states are New York, Illinois and California and Clinton is polling double digits ahead of Sanders in all three states.

One might reasonably conclude that implementing Galindez's ideas would not change the electoral chances of Sanders much but would help the Republicans quite a bit.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
-12 # kyzipster 2016-03-02 12:52
I think the DNC was doing that long before we saw the results of some Southern states, the reasons are obvious. The whole angle of this article makes no sense to me.
 
 
+10 # lfeuille 2016-03-02 17:33
Right. Blue states should have more influence than Red states in the Democratic primaries. Clinton cannot win most of those states in the general election.
 
 
-6 # Crumbling Empire 2016-03-02 12:20
Quoting Buddha:
It has nothing to with not being "worthy", it has to do with our general election not being determined by a popular national vote, but state by a state electoral collage system.....So the question is why the Democratic nominee is being decided by Red State Democrats who won't be contributing any electoral collage wins in the general, while the desires of Democrats in blue states who WILL help elect a Democrat are being dismissed.

What you propose, BUDDHA, is the disenfranchisem ent of Democratic voters in the South.

While the general election is structured in a ridiculous Electoral College format, the Democratic nomination process is run by the Popular Vote method, plus the corporate Super Delegate "everything is rigged" method.

The author above stating that "The Dixiecrats are Republicans now" to me is a disingenuous and possibly insulting oversimplificat ion and mischaracterization.

The argument of having a more representative blend of urban-rich and rural states throughout the process has merit, but pales in comparison to the far more devastating effects of Super Delegates and a pro-corporate/e stablishment candidates propagandizing media.
 
 
+26 # SusanT136 2016-03-02 12:34
Quoting Crumbling Empire:
Quoting Buddha:
It has nothing to with not being "worthy", it has to do with our general election not being determined by a popular national vote, but state by a state electoral collage system.....So the question is why the Democratic nominee is being decided by Red State Democrats who won't be contributing any electoral collage wins in the general, while the desires of Democrats in blue states who WILL help elect a Democrat are being dismissed.

What you propose, BUDDHA, is the disenfranchisement of Democratic voters in the South.

No he's proposing to NOT disenfranchise Democratic voters in Blue states, especially those with a large delegate count, by acting as though things are done, all decided. I live in NYS and I intend to cast a vote in the primary. I'm sick of being told that states with a smaller population than many apartment buildings in NYC have already selected the nominee. It's hogwash and its prejudicial.
 
 
+15 # Cassandra2012 2016-03-02 14:38
Right on! I live in Illinois and S.C. voters' positions and ideas are mostly irrelevant in high population states like Illinois, California,Penn sylvania, New York etc. It IS indeed deliberately prejudicial based on the bought and pad for MSMedia pie-in-the-sky 'wishes'.
 
 
+20 # Buddha 2016-03-02 13:15
Whereas disenfranchisin g Democratic voters everywhere else, particularly in the Blue states that get Democrats elected, is better??

And no, the Democratic nomination process ISN'T run by the Popular Vote method. Haven't you been paying attention? It is a state-by-state process, some using a caucus format and some a voting primary, and then some states allocate their delegate count proportionally to the caucus/vote counts and some are winner-take-all . It most certainly is not a uniform Popular vote method.

And regarding "Dixiecrats are Republicans now", it isn't disingenuous. Historically, "Dixiecrats" were the White Segregationist wing of the Democratic Party. When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he proclaimed "We will lose the South for 100 years", knowing that those Dixiecrats would indeed flee en masse to the GOP who welcomed them with open arms. Thus ends your history lesson for the day, lol.
 
 
-10 # Crumbling Empire 2016-03-02 13:34
Quoting Buddha:
..the Democratic nomination process ISN'T run by the Popular Vote method. Haven't you been paying attention? It is a state-by-state process, some using a caucus format and some a voting primary, and then some states allocate their delegate count proportionally to the caucus/vote counts and some are winner-take-all. It most certainly is not a uniform Popular vote method.

And regarding "Dixiecrats are Republicans now", it isn't disingenuous. ....When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he proclaimed "We will lose the South for 100 years", knowing that those Dixiecrats would indeed flee en masse to the GOP who welcomed them with open arms. Thus ends your history lesson for the day, lol.

DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IS PROPORTIONAL-ON LY, UNLIKE THE RNC PROCESS. From Wikipedia, BUDDHA: "Under the current Democratic Party selection rules, adopted in 2006, pledged delegates are selected under proportional representation, which requires a candidate have a minimum of 15% of a state's popular vote to receive delegates."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary

DIXIECRATS, If "those Dixiecrats would indeed flee en masse to the GOP who welcomed them with open arms" as you say, then they now would be registered as Republicans.

MINORITIES IN THE SOUTH. More importantly, it is totally disingenuous and inaccurate to label the majority of the masses of minorities in the Southern states as "Republicans."
 
 
+12 # Buddha 2016-03-02 14:09
Quoting Crumbling Empire:

DIXIECRATS, If "those Dixiecrats would indeed flee en masse to the GOP who welcomed them with open arms" as you say, then they now would be registered as Republicans.


Uh...yeah...that is exactly the point the author made. They are. And that is why the GOP since then has followed the "Southern Strategy" of messaging to those White Segregationist former-Dixiecrats now in their party. This is simple historical fact, not even arguable dude.

Quoting Crumbling Empire:

MINORITIES IN THE SOUTH. More importantly, it is totally disingenuous and inaccurate to label the majority of the masses of minorities in the Southern states as "Republicans."


Huh? Who did that? Of course they aren't. But they certainly live in Red State South, are surrounded by Conservative media 24/7, and as such, it is a bit of a stretch to assume an African-America n in rural Alabama believes the same things or is as equally informed as an African-America n on the streets of New York or Los Angeles.
 
 
-5 # Crumbling Empire 2016-03-02 14:27
Quoting Buddha:
Quoting Crumbling Empire:

DIXIECRATS, If "those Dixiecrats would indeed flee en masse to the GOP who welcomed them with open arms" as you say, then they now would be registered as Republicans.


Uh...yeah...that is exactly the point the author made. They are.

BUDDHA: If you're saying, which the author above does not, that Republicans in the South in the minority of open primary states elected to vote instead in the Democratic primary, then we disagree on this premise.

I'd bet that most Republicans in the South voted in the Republican, not the Democratic, primaries, especially given the turnout numbers on both sides, substantially higher for the Republican primaries, and given the intrigue on that side.

But I'll leave it there, as I don't feel we're getting anywhere, and will not agree on anything. We'll see if others here chime in...
 
 
+12 # Buddha 2016-03-02 23:25
You are missing the point he was making. It is that the South is solid Red because the Dixiecrats became Republicans in anger at passage of the CRA by Johnson. Democrats remaining in the South are now a MINORITY, and powerless to deliver those states to a Democratic candidate in the General. The point of the article, and one I and many others here agree with, is that it doesn't make sense to have Red State Democrats be considered the most important voices in determining who is and isn't the most popular and viable Dem candidate, and having Primary races and media proclamations of electability determined before the largest, most populous, most diverse Blue states can voice our opinions.
 
 
+18 # AKPatriot 2016-03-02 10:54
"Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow.” --Plato
 
 
+28 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-02 10:56
I worked on the Wendy Davis campaign in 2014 and it was clear from our VAN data that Texas is actually blue. We just have a non-voting state, likely because the Dems don't put money into winning Texas elections and don't field good candidates. People forget that my state was blue just a generation and a half ago. It could be again, but we need to field good candidates. No kidding, when I went in to early vote 2 weeks ago, they asked me which ballot I wanted. The Rs had a 4 page ballot and the Dems had a one page ballot. This is how it always is. The Hispanic population alone could put us over in to blue territory. And of course there are those onerous voter ID laws that we have which scare people or make it difficult for them to exercise the franchise.
 
 
+13 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-03-02 11:30
Louisiana is similar. Outside of New Orleans there are few Democrats but if we had better candidates or any party organization whatsoever we could rock over here. We recently elected a Democrat for a governor and Bobby Jindal has sufficiently disgraced himself that I think it would be possible to elect centrist Democrats here. I am predicting we go for Trump in LA if he is the Republican nominee. After all he is left of Clinton on a lot of issues.
 
 
+10 # kyzipster 2016-03-02 12:56
Detailed electoral maps are very interesting. Almost every urban area in the South votes 'blue', every rural area 'red'. The same is reflected nationwide. The only exception is New England which is solidly 'blue'. We really have an urban/rural divide, not a red/blue state divide. Culturally anyway. The only solidly 'blue' states are those with huge urban populations like NY, CA and IL.

I've lived all over the country, I see more similarities than differences. Very little difference between rural Oregon and rural Tennessee. Not much difference between urban Atlanta and any other large urban area. To generalize as this article does is far from a reflection of reality.
 
 
+13 # Radscal 2016-03-02 13:31
Your observation is also apparent in CA. The urban centers are the solid blue parts, but the rest of the state is solid or leaning red. And often the Republicans motivate voters more than the Democrats.

That's how the State bequeathed to the country our former governor Reagan. We've had Republican governors in office more years than Democrats over the recent decades.
 
 
+7 # kyzipster 2016-03-02 20:45
I was stranded once outside of Chico, CA with a car repair. Hung out at a diner for 3 days, it was like being in the Deep South. Not in a bad way necessarily.

CA gave us Reagan, NY gave us Trump. I understand the frustration with the South and the Tea Party mentality but it's often scapegoating. This culture is nationwide and progressives are everywhere also.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-03-03 13:50
Exactly.

I'd also note that many of these Republican voters actually favor progressive stands, when asked about a specific policy issue without labeling it "conservative" or "liberal."

Social Security, Medicare, increased taxes on the wealthy, and on and on are favored by most self-labled "conservatives. "
 
 
+4 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-02 18:04
I have been pointing this out for a very long time. It's rural vs. urban. Almost every city with a population of 100,000 or more votes blue. In any state. Thanks!
 
 
+13 # kyzipster 2016-03-02 11:33
The non-voting issue is a problem nationwide. We progressives like to talk about all of the working people voting against their own self interest when it's voter turnout on the left that is probably the biggest threat.

Registered Republicans are only 20-something percent of voters, about equal to Democrats, but they're passionate about guns, abortion, etc.
 
 
+12 # Radscal 2016-03-02 13:39
Yes. My observation is that these corporate, "3rd Way," "New Democrats" do NOT motivate progressives to get out and vote for them.

Then, the hugely successful marketing campaign to discourage voters from voting for progressive alternatives adds up to low voter turnouts.
 
 
+3 # Skyelav 2016-03-02 11:06
Im sorry but I am tired being "nice"...
 
 
+1 # kyzipster 2016-03-02 11:38
I don't think the author is 'mean'.

I think a person can South-bash all day long if that feels good but still have some understanding that Southern Democrats often share the same values as Democrats in California and New York. It would certainly be easier for many to register Republican.
 
 
+17 # Ken Halt 2016-03-02 12:26
"Let’s face it, the Democratic Leadership Council’s goal has been achieved again. By front-loading the nomination process with southern states they have given the momentum to a moderate candidate. It is a system rigged against a progressive insurgent candidate." Scott is not disparaging southern Dems or states, he is criticizing the DLC for rigging the system so their pet candidates get early momentum. These people are elitists and very cunning and, judging from the way MSM is jumping on it, effective. Nothing surprising here, the establishment goal is to elect their establishment candidate. If we want real democracy and and the election of the best progressive candidate to come along in my (extended) lifetime, we're going to have to go to the mat, take it to the streets, work our butts off, raise a big noise, and upset the powers that be, the deep state. GO BERNIE !!! WE'RE WITH YOU TO THE CONVENTION AND BEYOND!!!!
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:57
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+14 # Ken Halt 2016-03-02 15:57
Irrelevant, I didn't specify Bernie was a lone victim or that the process was set up just to harm his chances. Scott is pointing out a systemic bias and as a long-disenfranc hised voter, I understand what he's saying. For the past many decades I could vote for tweedledum or tweedledee, neither of which I wanted. This election there is a real and clear choice: HRC is beholding to Wall St, corporations, and fat cats. She hobnobs with them and takes their money, Bernie does not, it's as simple and clear as that. Is HRC going to change the status quo. Doubt it! IMHO Bernie is not connecting with Blacks because, like many US voters of all religions, ethnicities, and genders, they don't do the due diligence to learn about issues and candidates. Bernie has a long history of standing up for civil rights and for the common welfare. It's there, it's easy to find, people can learn about it. HRC does not have a similar good record, and if she supported, as she says she did, the policies of Bill when he was pres, those policies did a lot of harm to the underclasses and whether intended or not, blacks. I think we all should let the primaries play out, stop the name calling, and not coronate HRC prematurely. Though not a resident of Vermont I've supported Bernie for decades and don't see any reason to stop supporting him now, your "undisputed facts" notwithstanding .
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 18:42
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+8 # Nominae 2016-03-03 01:56
Quoting NRSEQ:
Nobody else is buying this stuff, Ken. Look at the results below.

Except those in denial on this site.


Beavis, like the man said .... "irrelevant".

Now that's something you *should* understand !
 
 
+14 # EternalTruth 2016-03-02 22:16
"No one was clamoring for a Bernie Sanders to come and save the Democratic Party"

Actually, lots of us have been clamoring for that.
 
 
-9 # kyzipster 2016-03-02 13:05
I understand his argument but he is disparaging Southern Democrats with his rhetoric. They vote red anyway, they're basically Republicans, so why do we give it any meaning? I believe we can win back some states in the South in my lifetime. I love Sanders but I really hate the culture war.
 
 
+14 # Billy Bob 2016-03-02 13:15
The problem is that the Democratic Primary has, so far, been dominated by red states where Hillary Clinton won't have a chance to win in November anyway.

Why are we allowing states that definitely will not vote for a Democrat in November to choose the Democratic nominee, and then acting like they have the final say, because, as we all know, this country only has 15 states, right?
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 13:56
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+8 # Nominae 2016-03-03 02:01
Quoting George Tirebiter:
Right on Billy Bob,
Let's disenfranchise millions of southern voters.....


Right on Billy Bob, Let's send ten million pallets of marshmallows to Mars .... oh, WOW ! I am learning to argue with the same "logic" demonstrated by George BileBiter himself !

George, 'nother hint, Slick - there is a huge difference between *reading* and reading comprehension !
 
 
+14 # RLF 2016-03-02 11:07
There is not that much difference between HRC and the republicans...n ot enough to vote for...Bernies gone?...then I'm voting green!
 
 
-10 # bmiluski 2016-03-02 11:31
Hell, RLF.....why not just vote for Trump. Cause that's what you'd be doing with your "green" vote.
But that's why you people come on liberal sites, isn't it?
 
 
+13 # Billsy 2016-03-02 12:58
The process is more sophisticated than you think. In a blue state like California it is perfectly feasible for us to vote for a green party candidate like Jill Stein while ceding our delegates solidly to the democratic party nominee. That is what many of us did in 2008 and 2012. Your comment is both uninformed and impertinent.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-03-02 13:46
Since we live in CA, where we can ONLY vote for the top two vote getters from the primary, last night my wife said that if HRC and Trump are the nominees, she will likely vote for Trump.

At least Trump doesn't want to challenge Russia to the point of military confrontation, opposes "regime change" interventions and these "Free Trade" agreements, and pledged not to reduce Social Security, and even favors Single Payer healthcare.
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 23:12
And Sanders is against the genocide of the Palestinian people. He and his brother have openly stated this many times in past years.
 
 
+9 # Nominae 2016-03-03 02:05
Quoting bmiluski:
Hell, RLF.....why not just vote for Trump. Cause that's what you'd be doing with your "green" vote.
But that's why you people come on liberal sites, isn't it?


So much for respecting the right of every American to vote for the candidate of THEIR *OWN* choosing, yeah ?
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 23:11
NO, that is what a vote for Hillary means in the primary. Clearly she will win Trump the election if nominated.
 
 
+8 # cymricmorty 2016-03-02 12:17
Quoting RLF:
There is not that much difference between HRC and the republicans...not enough to vote for...Bernies gone?...then I'm voting green!


So will I.
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 23:14
Me too. Or maybe a write in Zapatista party.
 
 
+5 # dipierro4 2016-03-02 10:29
Like it or not, the truth is that if the Dems tried to take the power away from South Carolina, it would be seen as an intentional disempowerment of the African-America ns, who are by far the majority of Democratic voters there. The same is true, if to a lesser extent for the Super Tuesday states in the South.
 
 
+42 # Buddha 2016-03-02 10:30
So very much this. I am looking at the states HRC is dominating in, and those are mostly Red States that she won't win in a General anyways. In purple states when she wins, it is a squeaker, and she is getting blown out in most solidly blue states. The MSM and its bought-and-paid -for DNC certainly has its Oligarchic agenda to push, and that is to get HRC to win the Primary, but it looks more and more to me that she is the WEAKER of the candidates for the general.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 10:36
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+12 # nice2bgreat 2016-03-02 10:49
.
NRESQ, do you receive funding from the Democratic Party or for political activity?
.
 
 
-14 # bmiluski 2016-03-02 11:34
Sorry...nice2bg reat....but NRESQ is right. Hillary won the Latino vote, the Black vote and the women's vote. Bernie won the men's vote.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:44
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:02
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+11 # Billsy 2016-03-02 13:02
How's that self-righteous arrogance working for you?
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-03-03 04:45
Quoting NRSEQ:
No, but I am in the reality wing of the Democratic Party.


Beavis, you aren't even in the reality wing of the Planet !
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 23:22
Who cares who wins red states again? And who invested more money in doing so?
 
 
+12 # Bourbaki 2016-03-02 10:49
From what Clinton field office are you working away today?
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:03
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+7 # cymricmorty 2016-03-02 12:23
Are you an Ambulance Chaser for HRC?
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:43
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-03-03 04:53
Quoting NRSEQ:
Wow, another ad hominem attack by a Bernie-bot!


This Powder Puff, NRSEQ can dish it, but he can't take it. The man is a *major* "kitty cat" ! ;-D
 
 
+13 # Billsy 2016-03-02 13:04
If you love HRC so much, then campaign for her, work the phones, knock on doors, but all you do is waste time harassing those of us who long ago decided we do not support her hawkish centrist neo-liberal policies and are disenchanted with the status quo. Insanity is engaging in the same failed actions while expecting different results.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-03-02 14:01
NRESQ writes:

"I'm working in my office, for clients."

Unless your clients are the DNC, the amount of time you spend online shows you're ripping off your "clients."
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-03-03 04:52
Quoting NRSEQ:
I'm working in my office, for clients.


At your admitted age, you would be as much a danger to "clients" as you obviously are to yourself, Slick.

Further, you are a FULLY self-invented lawyer. Your self aggrandizing "ESQ" is a pure fantasy, Beavis.

You couldn't even *lift* a law book. If you could even mow a lawn you wouldn't be a paid Troll for Hillary, and you spend WAY too much time doing you job HERE to even fantasize about "clients".

RSN is full of self-appointed doctors and lawyers Beavis, but none more delusional than your own precious self !

WOW ! I HAVE A CAPS KEY TOO !

Stay Classy Beavis, you know, you and Trump !
 
 
+2 # AKPatriot 2016-03-02 10:58
"Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow.” --Plato
 
 
+22 # Buddha 2016-03-02 11:38
So, California and New York, some of our most populous and diverse states, aren't representative of America or the Democratic Party? Our opinion, despite having far more EC and delegates than pretty much all the states that just voted in Super Tuesday, shouldn't matter?
 
 
+8 # SusanT136 2016-03-02 12:46
EXACTLY!
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 13:06
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+9 # SusanT136 2016-03-02 15:04
How about some links for your contention that Hilary is way ahead in the polls in CA? The only polls I can find are 2 months old; you have expressed high disdain for "old" polls that show Bernie either gaining on or even ahead of Hillary nationally.

And yes, I think it's possible that Hillary could lose NYS. There are a lot of people who see her as representing Wall Street over Main Street. There are no current polls but she has polled with a stronger unfavorable rating vs favorable rating in the past, although again there is nothing current to go by.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 18:49
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+4 # SusanT136 2016-03-04 06:33
Your link doesn't work but I googled it. It says it was updated about 2 months ago, so early January not late. And it shows Hillary's popularity steadily decreasing and Bernies steadily increasing. If you follow the trajectory 2 months out Bernie will win in June. Of course anything can happen but there's no denying this strong trend: her popularity is going down, his is going up.

I notice you are very scornful of national polls from 2 months ago that show Bernie beating Republican candidates by a significantly wider margin than Hillary. You really are just a troll aren't you?
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 23:26
Everyone I know in California is voting Bernie. Where do you live? Tulare?
 
 
+24 # macserp44 2016-03-02 10:31
There is no doubt that Hillary is the mainstream candidate - of, for and by the Oligarchs.
Its a wonder so many would be, or should be, disenfranchised voters in the south turned out in support of her.
It goes to show the corrupting power behind her political machine, that Bernie's message is lost on those who have been repeatedly left behind. It truly boggles the mind that anyone taking notice at this point in her political career can see her as a sincere candidate working for all Americans.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 10:40
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+3 # Bourbaki 2016-03-02 10:49
From what Clinton field office are you working away today?
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 10:52
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+18 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-03-02 11:35
More like the Neo-con wing. That is what Hillary represents. No Thanks!
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:41
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+12 # Billsy 2016-03-02 13:06
You're Debra Wasserman-Schul tz!
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 18:50
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-03-03 07:07
Quoting NRESQ:
Feel free to start your own party, NOLA. Let us know how that works out.


And you have the withered stones to call OTHERS out for "Block and pasted" comments ?

Beavis, you are an ancient mimeograph machine !

But, you ARE good for a laugh ! ;-D
Thanks for THAT !
 
 
+7 # nice2bgreat 2016-03-02 10:50
.
NRESQ, do you receive funding from the Democratic Party or for political activity?
.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 10:53
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+29 # Old4Poor 2016-03-02 11:06
This is willful ignorance. Why assume that Clinton can win the General Election and Bernie cannot? All the polls show otherwise.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:38
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+13 # SusanT136 2016-03-02 12:56
Quoting NRESQ:

When you look at the last 2 election cycles, the Obama coalition of states delivered UUUUUGE victories for Barack Obama--historic by any definition of the word.


Perhaps you slept thru the last election cycle? There is no "Obama coalition". The Democrats gained a majority in the House after the 2008 election but immediately lost the majority in 2010 and did not gain it back in 2012 when Obama was re-elected, and the Dems have lost seats in the Senate since the 2008 election.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-03-02 14:05
Exactly. The Dems have lost seats in both houses of Congress, and state governments in every election since 2008.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 18:55
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+6 # SusanT136 2016-03-03 09:49
Quoting NRESQ:
You guys always cite MID-TERM elections..


I agree - that's totally unfair since all the laws passed by Congresses elected in midterm elections don't count...right? Face it - if people aren't pleased with what the party in power is doing, the party in power will lose seats.

BTW 2012 was not a mid-term election. Dems gained 8 seats in the House but were still 31 shy of having a majority.
http://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/
Dems gained 2 seats in the Senate. Not enough to stop a filibuster, and hardly "another historic victory".
http://www.senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm

In 2012, voter turnout was down from 2008 and even 2004.
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/press-release/2012-election-turnout-dips-below-2008-and-2004-levels-number-eligible/

Maybe before you make such snide remarks about other people "doing a little homework" YOU should follow your own advice. I made it easy for you with links and everything. Go ahead - find links that show me where that "Obama coalition of states " and the "historic victory" is in 2012. I know you won't because you're not interested in facts, just in trolling.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-03-03 14:17
Obama obviously did beat the Mittens in 2012. But Obama got about 8 million fewer votes than in 2008, and Dems lost other elections around the country, largely because of that lower voter turnout.
 
 
+8 # Billsy 2016-03-02 13:06
If the polls are meaningless, then why do you reference them in your support of HRC?
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 18:57
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-03-03 05:23
Quoting NRSEQ:
Always happens; better to remain quiet and let people think you're a fool, rather than open your mouth and confirm it.


Sweet of you to say so, since it is OBVIOUSLY too late for *you* to benefit from that advice.

And, to conclude, old boy, (who is close to the same age he slanders in Sanders)
-

"Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" !

~ Benjamin Disraeli
 
 
+27 # EternalTruth 2016-03-02 11:09
Interesting that you ignore all the info that shows Bernie to be the stronger candidate in the general election.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:34
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+7 # EternalTruth 2016-03-02 13:44
Ever heard of circular logic? Look it up.

I want Hillary to win the Dem nomination because I want a Dem in the White House.
Bernie is a stronger candidate in the general election.
But he won't win the nomination, so I'm pulling for Hillary.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 18:58
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+10 # EternalTruth 2016-03-02 22:03
OMFG!!! I find it difficult to believe that you actually graduated from law school and passed the bar. Let me break it down for you:

We were talking about who ought to win the dem nomination. You stated that the reason that you want Hillary to win, is that you want a Democrat in the White House. It was pointed out to you that pretty much all available indicators show Bernie as the stronger candidate against all republican challengers, so if your goal is actually to have a Dem in the White House, you should be pulling for Bernie. Your response to that is to claim that Bernie has to win the dem nomination before he can win the general. OF COURSE HE DOES!!! That's why you should trying to get Bernie nomination!!!

Essentially your position (originally I thought your argument was disingenuous, now I believe it's just dumb) is that you want Hillary to win the nomination because you think she is going to win the nomination. You are going with stronger candidate in the primary regardless of how it affects the general.
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2016-03-02 23:49
Perfectly stated. I haven't read ANY substance coming from the Hillarybots. They only seem to be interested in "Hillary is winning". That's it. If you corner them on ANYTHING of ANY substance about policy, voting records, etc. the only response you seem to get will be about the polls and their theories about "electability" - that is, when they're not accusing you of "sexism", or "racism", or any other vile insult that pops into their heads.

Their "position" doesn't actually exist. They have no position other than that they want Hillary to win. That's it. That's all there is to it and they have no actual reason for it that has anything to do with the choice between her and Sanders, or that, in any way, pertains to the Democratic Primary - which she still hasn't won.
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-03-03 07:12
Quoting EternalTruth:
{To NSREQ} OMFG!!! I find it difficult to believe that you actually graduated from law school and passed the bar....


Simply because, of course, he never DID ! ;-D

He's a narcissistic old dawg who invents this pathetic tripe to make himself feel important.

Next time you hear from him, he will be a NIGERIAN PRINCE ! ;-D
 
 
+22 # Buddha 2016-03-02 11:40
You are on crack if you think HRC, with her far worse favorable/unfav orable numbers, is a stronger candidate in the General. Mark my words, an election with HRC will be an uninspiring low-turnout election, and a guarantee of Trump's win.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:33
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+4 # Buddha 2016-03-03 10:55
Look at this entire election, a huge discontentment is out there for the typical bought-and-paid -for insider Establishment politicians. While Democratic voters may be idiotic enough and easily corralled by Debbie Wasserman-Schul tz's machinations to put HRC forward as the candidate, what does that leave us in the general? A populist anti-Establishm ent Trump, vs a Establishment Insider Crony HRC. And you think Independents are going to flock to HRC's banner? You don't think Trump would be able to attack her for being bought-and-paid -for, while he is "unbuyable"? All Trump has to do is slightly tone down his racist ethno-nationali sm and sexism a tad, and HRC is going to get torched in this election. If you can't see that, then you are as deep into your Kool-Aid cups as DWS and the DNC.
 
 
+7 # RLF 2016-03-02 11:11
NResq...suckin up the Hill swill a bit to fast!
 
 
-14 # bmiluski 2016-03-02 11:36
Oh my RLF....how gracious and intellectual of you. Brava to your neo-con masters.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:06
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+9 # Billsy 2016-03-02 13:07
Equally respectful to you as you are to progressives :-)
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 18:59
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-03-03 05:28
Quoting NRESQ:
Gee, whiz. I thought Bernie-bots were ever so respectful of others' viewpoints.


And, indeed, for the most part they ARE !

But they are also sufficiently wise to have nothing *BUT* derision and *contempt* for the bullshit of a paid Clinton whore.

C'mon, Beavis ! ;-D
 
 
-11 # Skyelav 2016-03-02 11:12
Party liners do that, I agree.. Dems are the worst. But in any cases if they are lying to "them" they may need to appear paternalistic to cover it up.. It's not working any more. Bernie needs advice on this.
 
 
-14 # Skyelav 2016-03-02 11:13
PS the negative votes on this post (poor disenfranchised voters...) just proves the point. Also proves that we don't like looking at our faults..gasp
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-03-03 14:29
I saw an interview with Bernie's wife, Jane on MS-DNC. Even though Sanders has reached out to various minority groups, and has detailed positions on issues important to them, he has tried not to make "identity politics" a focus. He believes that "identity politics" is used as a tactic of divisionism.

But she said that they see the need to do more outreach, and are working now to do just that.
 
 
+18 # macserp44 2016-03-02 11:14
Quoting NRESQ:
Yeah, and you know what best for these poor disenfranchised voters.

Exactly the attitude why minorities are turned off to Bernie and his bots.

So, so condescending and paternalistic; like you're referring to children.

The most pathetic thing: You don't even realize you're doing it.


Interestingly enough, I count myself among the disenfranchised voters and always have. (And for the record I did not use the word 'poor' in my comment.)

Even my eight year old daughter has expressed the desire to cast a vote for change, as incomprehensibl e as that may seem coming from a girl who desires stability (as most children do) over just about everything.
She understood clearly when I told her that Hillary represented where we've been, and that Bernie represented where we should be going.
 
 
-16 # bmiluski 2016-03-02 11:39
Let me get this right....macser p44, YOU told an eight year old child only one side of an argument and now lo and behold she agrees with you? Is that your argument?
Hmmmmm.
 
 
+13 # macserp44 2016-03-02 13:00
Actually, I told her that even though Hillary has had a distinguished and remarkable career as a Democratic politician, a good deal of her campaign money comes from special interests, and she is beholden to her large corporate donors as a result. I also told her how those donors don't really care about you and me. I explained to her that Bernie is running a campaign on small donations, and has not changed his tune appreciably over his career, and she saw a valuable difference there.
She also likes Bernie's track record on the Iraq war hoax.
I'm not here to claim that even an 8 year old gets it - I'll let you make that call.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:07
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-03-02 13:03
Was that a quote from your shrink?
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 19:01
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-03-03 05:38
Quoting NRSEQ:
Hi Billy:

I noticed LOTS AND LOTS of people said some pretty nasty things about you, above...


What ARE you .... six years old ?? ;-D

Now THAT's the Beavis I KNOW ! Fully vapid and sophomoric drivel ! I'm proud of you Beavis.

Magnificent, NRSEQ - spoken like the true Second Grader
in a Sandbox that you really ARE.

How about a little grown up repartee ?

Ask Hillary's handlers to help you ... Hillary is no better at this than YOU are !

"Snark is the modern moron's substitute for actual wit." ~ Aaron Sorkin
 
 
-3 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 17:19
Really billy bob....how mature.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2016-03-03 17:42
Babz? Is that YOU?

Are you the same "Babz" who said, and I quote:

"And I just gave you a red one....nana,nan a,na"

?????

Ask your parents if you can use Google and look up the words unintentionally hilarious, and hypocrite.
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-03-03 05:32
Quoting NRSEQ:
Garbage in, garbage out.


Beavis, you narcissistic old sow, do you NEVER tire of talking about yourself ? ;-D
 
 
+1 # EternalTruth 2016-03-02 11:57
"Yeah, and you know what best for these poor disenfranchised voters.
Exactly the attitude why minorities are turned off to Bernie and his bots. "

I know, right? It must be that minorities are well-informed about both candidates platforms and history, and are voting for their best interests. It's totally condescending, racist, and elitist to suggest that minorities are disproportionat ely poor and low information voters who therefore are easy prey to MSM propaganda. It's much more likely that are making informed decisions to vote against universal health-care and education and increased minimum wage, since they don't really need those things.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:09
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+14 # SusanT136 2016-03-02 13:03
Quoting NRESQ:
Or maybe they ARE a lot more informed than YOU give them credit for. And maybe they believe that HRC, who has been fighting for these things since at least the early '90's, is the best person to deliver on these promises


Yes in the 1990s HRC fought for the crime bill including harsh penalties for nonviolent drug offenses and higher sentences for crack vs cocaine, a lifetime limit on welfare, outlawing excons from public housing with a penalty of throwing their families out if the family tries to give them a place to stay, the start of private for-profit prisons AND repealing Glass Stegall. Read Michelle Alexander's article about how HRC doesn't deserve the black vote.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 19:03
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+7 # SusanT136 2016-03-03 09:55
Quoting NRESQ:
You mean the same one Bernie voted for?

Oh, RIGHT. Another inconvenient truth!.


Yes the Crime Bill that Hillary fought FOR and that Bernie made a speech on the floor of the House AGAINST and only voted FOR it to achieve the passage of the Violence Against Women Act which was attached.
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11116412/bernie-sanders-mass-incarceration

Another "inconvenient truth" for you. BTW HRC accepts money from private, for-profit prisons, Bernie does not.

Have you read Michelle Alexander's article yet? Michelle Alexander, brilliant black author and attorney whose name is being floated in the blogosphere for SCOTUS nominee? I'm sure you haven't because it will be a very inconvenient truth for you to read an article by a brilliant black woman spelling out many reasons why HRC doesn't deserve the black vote.
http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
 
 
-5 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 17:20
Susan....Bernie voted for that crime bill. Why do you people keep forgetting that?
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-03-03 05:54
Quoting NRSEQ:
Wow, the solipsism of Bernie-bots has no bottom!


Similar to the ignorance of Hillary Trolls, Beavis. If you LOVE Hillary, Sweetie, I hate to break it to you, but this is NOT your site, punkin' !

Didn't anyone ever tell you that RSN has endorsed Sanders ?

Well, of COURSE they did, and *THAT* is what got you and your fellow Hillary Trolls racing over here with your tongues hanging out and your pants falling down - in a hope of SPREADING doubt and discontent in order to RECRUIT "converts" to Hillary.

Trouble is, Beavis, you SERIOUSLY suck at your job. But PLEASE keep posting. You are the most revolting representative for Hillary since Hillary herself - you are turning people OFF to your warmongering Mommy in absolute DROVES.

You could not BE *MORE* of a valuable asset to a Sanders Site !

Can you start foaming at the mouth in ALL CAPS again ? That was a REAL tribute to the image of your Clinton employer !
 
 
+1 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 23:33
And the money they have to spend too. I doubt very much Bernie invested much in red states compared to Hillary and Debbie Wasserman Shultz and their paid for supporters who made phone calls and appearances daily in the lost cause states. This is a major PR campaign to disenfranchise voters in states where it really counts. It is boggling how much impact campaign spending and the media can have. Thanks for RSN and other independent media outlets for the means to get the actual truth out. Too bad most don't get it or haven't found it yet. The majority will once informed.
 
 
+28 # guomashi 2016-03-02 10:36
clinton's lead is largely distorted by counting superdelegates in her total.
this is clear manipulation by the media and the party.
she is nowhere near as far ahead as they are portraying her to be.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 10:41
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+15 # nice2bgreat 2016-03-02 10:50
.
Figures lie and liars figure.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 10:54
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+8 # AKPatriot 2016-03-02 10:59
"Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow.” --Plato
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:11
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-03-03 06:03
Quoting NRESQ:
How many time you going to block and paste this?


As often as you block and paste *YOUR* inane shit, Beavis ! F*cking annoying - yeah ?

You can dish it, but you cannot take it, "kitty cat" !
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 23:35
You watch MSNBC? And you are to be taken seriously for what reason again?
 
 
-13 # bmiluski 2016-03-02 11:42
Time to get you head out of the sand ...nice2bgreat( not). Bernie has NOT been getting out the hordes of people to vote, as promised, and he is NOT winning the minority vote.
 
 
+11 # Skyelav 2016-03-02 11:11
Hey! Obama was losing big after Tuesday.. He lost all the south. Remember???
 
 
+4 # Nominae 2016-03-03 06:05
Quoting Skyelav:
Hey! Obama was losing big after Tuesday.. He lost all the south. Remember???


No, no, no ! Skyelav ! ;-D

Trolls really HATE any numbers other than their OWN ! ;-D
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-03-03 06:01
Quoting NRESQ:
Keep repeating this over and over if it makes you feel better.

Numbers don't lie.


By now you know it by heart, Beavis :

"Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" !

~ Benjamin Disraeli

You never tire of recycling the same inane crap. I am catching ON - only with better stuff to repeat!

Repetition, repetition, repetition, - right out of a Goebbels Manual, huh ? SWEET ! ;-D
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-03-03 14:35
That's true. Numbers don't lie. Here are the numbers after "Super Tuesday."

The current count of ACTUAL COMMITTED delegates is:

Clinton: 576 --- 24% of the way there
Sanders: 386 --- 16% of the way there
HRC is "ahead" by 8 percentage points...

2382 are needed to "win" nomination...
There are still 3,801 delegates to be determined!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
 
 
-7 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-02 11:06
"The Bernie super delegate panic is based on lazy reporting — here is what’s really going on in the DNC"

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/the-bernie-super-delegate-panic-is-based-on-lazy-reporting-here-is-whats-really-going-on-in-the-dnc/
 
 
-12 # bmiluski 2016-03-02 11:40
You know you guys....I was wondering not IF, but HOW you people would spin Hillary's win.
On a scale of 1 to 10.....a sad 2.5.
 
 
+13 # donaldmead 2016-03-02 10:41
Each person that votes for HRC has just "pulled a trigger and dropped a bomb". Each person that votes for HRC will be personally responsible for more death and destruction. Will they be able to sleep as soundly as their Republican counter parts? Probably.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 10:55
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+14 # EternalTruth 2016-03-02 11:10
If only we all believed like you the world would be full of poverty and bombs...oh, wait.
 
 
+3 # kyzipster 2016-03-02 11:14
I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination, sleeping much better than if I had stayed home, giving Trump a vote. He's sure to start WWIII for the ratings.

Even Noam Chomsky and Nader had to back off of their insistence that both parties are exactly the same after the massive casualties in Iraq no longer made it a simple intellectual exercise.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-03-02 14:19
I think the evidence is the opposite.

Trump wants to work with Russia, not impose 'no fly zones," send arms to the nazis in Ukraine, and quadruple US/NATO forces on Russia's border like HRC.

Trump wants to negotiate the Palestine/Israe l conflict without bias, unlike HRC who promises to support Israel's right-wing fascists no matter what they do.

HRC has always promoted "regime change" operations like she did as Secretary of State in Honduras, Libya, Ukraine and Syria (and covertly in Sudan, Somalia, Mali and Egypt). She pushed the horrible "troop surge" in Afghanistan. Trump opposes "regime change" and wants to stop funding US military hegemony across the globe.

HRC is the greatest warmonger currently running. Even the Republicans who want to bomb Syria until it glows opposed the Libya massacre.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-03-02 18:04
Yeah, but it's really hard to get past his acceptance of the KKK endorsement, the "Wall", the hatred of Muslims. With Hillary vs. Trump there is no good choice. And the least bad choice is really a guess since we really don't know too much about what Trump would actually do. He contradicts himself too much.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-03-03 14:38
Yeah, I can't see myself voting for Drumpf (I decided to start using his real name).

But in terms of kyzipster's claim that he is more likely to start WW III than HRC, I think the opposite is true.
 
 
-5 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 17:34
Yeah, because Hillary is threatening to kill the families (woman and children)of terrorists.
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2016-03-05 01:27
Flat out lie about Chomsky; he has in every election advised that while the differences between the parties are minor, in a state as powerful as the one we live in, even very minor differences in policy can have a major impact on the lives of the people of other countries that are subjected to the capo's violence and threats. I don't believe Nader ever said the parties were "exactly the same," either, but he may have at one time or another.

By the way, have you read the John Chuckman article about the second letter Hillary sent to a prospective donor in Israel? It was leaked and published by the UK Guardian.

In it, she says that Israel didn't go far enough in its attack on Gaza, and if it requires killing *200,000* of the residents, "so be it." She also attempted in it to justify the bombing of children, and promised to increase still further the sending of military hardware to Israel to enable it to do what has to be done.

It was so genuinely monstrous that it would literally have been right at home in Nazi Germany, as Chuckman noted in his relentless and unsparing dissection of her words.

Anyone who reads Chuckman's piece (which was published in RSN) and still supports Hillary is literally playing with genocide. Even if we take at face value her claims regarding Wall Street and Dodd-Frank, her foreign policy is quite honestly no better than those of Cruz and Rubio, and considerably worse than that of the most likely Republican candidate, Trump.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 10:48
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 10:56
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+14 # Ken Halt 2016-03-02 12:44
So we should all give up and go home when we're behind in the first quarter. Game over? It's barely just begun, and giving up never leads to success. Bernie's come-from-behin d, underdog victory is going to be so incredibly satisfying! GO BERNIE!!
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 13:09
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-03-02 13:20
OOPS!

Sorry, I accidentally gave you a thumbs up for that comment.

SORRY! I know this affects your paycheck, so I hope someone will please undo my mistake. Hopefully they still see it. It makes it more difficult to find one of your comments out of a few hundred, when it's the only one not conveniently marked in bright red!

ONCE AGAIN, SORRY!
 
 
+7 # EternalTruth 2016-03-02 13:52
I usually ignore the thumbs, but just for you, Billy Bob, I gave NRESQ a red one.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-03-02 15:26
Thanks. I was getting worried. I'd hate to see NRESQ's paycheck docked!
 
 
-4 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 17:32
And I just gave you a red one....nana,nan a,na
 
 
+7 # Ken Halt 2016-03-02 16:21
If she's the candidate it IS going to be tough, she has a lot of negatives and in polls doesn't do as well as Bernie would. I'm trying to nominate the better candidate, one with a better chance of winning the general election. I really don't understand why you are so arrogant in tone and insulting to Bernie supporters. Let the primaries play out as they will, that's what they are for. Let the candidates speak and debate, let's get the best person through, nobody should be a shoo-in or nominated because they have a famous last name. In the give and take the better statesperson may win through to the nomination, but if it's Hillary, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-03-03 07:32
Quoting NRESQ:
No, Ken. Fight on by all means.

But don't lose sight of reality. Its going to be a VERY TOUGH fight in the Fall to get HRC into the White House.


Great, Beavis. But in case it has escaped your scattered attention, we don't WANT HRC in the White House. NO MORE WAR !

So, save your adolescent fear-mongering.

And really, who the hell appointed YOU the National Nanny anyway ?

Spare us your sychophantic "concern".

The Troll's job is to cry "The Sky Is Falling", early and often in order to undermine confidence, and to plant seeds of doubt and discontent.

You do so incessantly, Beavis. Congratulations .

But, unless you ARE about to pass out (one can only hope), try to mix it up a little, Slick ! ;-D

You are BORING everyone.

I KNOW Goebbels says to "repeat, repeat, repeat", but bring it on up to the 21st Century, O.K.? ;-D
 
 
+8 # AKPatriot 2016-03-02 11:00
"Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow.” Plato
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:12
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-03-03 07:40
Quoting NRSEQ:
Here it is again.

Can't even come up with an original thought.


He's your MIRROR, Slick, but at least he repeats INTELLECTUAL memes, Trollster ! :-D

You can barely SPELL "original thought" !
 
 
+15 # Old4Poor 2016-03-02 11:09
You are assuming that in the General Election the Black and Hispanic voters will not vote for Sanders or will not turn out.

If he is the candidate and is properly supported by the party, they certainly will.
 
 
-13 # bmiluski 2016-03-02 11:47
No old4poor.....wh at we are trying to say is that Bernie has NOT appealed to minorities. The Black and Hispanic voters that voted for Hillary will vote democratic, no matter the candidate. They're just saying that they would prefer that the candidate were Hillary.
 
 
+6 # Old4Poor 2016-03-03 02:17
They are entitled to prefer Hillary. No issue with that.

But, for some reason the media has failed to properly report Bernie's many long years of work in the Civil Rights Movement as well as his work for the cause in Congress.

Yes, he has been tying this into his economic fight as he sees that as a major issue preventing "minorities" from getting their rightful share of so many pies.

As the poll show and I firmly believe, if it is Sander/Trump they would flock to the voting booth for Bernie.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:14
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+9 # Nominae 2016-03-03 08:05
Quoting NRSEQ:
First, Bernie must EARN the nomination. So far, he's failing in that regard with these traditional Democratic voting blocs.


You're a STITCH, Slick ! As if CLINTON has "earned" anything ?

Clinton is the choice of THE MACHINE.
THE MACHINE has not LOST in ages.

The GOP is running the most egregious morons they can FIND against her in order to HELP her win. DINO Power !

As first female POTUS, Clinton will do a marvelous job of SILENCING the Left, even as Obama did as first Black POTUS, while the "Politically Correct" Dolts such as yourself "give her a chance" the way they did "Goldman Sachs Obama".

Theater, Son, theater. And, a MASTERSTROKE if you think about it. No more of that pesky Left that had to be suffered under the Chaney Administration !

Install a WALL STREET WALKER like *either* Obama or Clinton, everything remains "OPS NORMAL" in The Back Room at the MIC, but you *ingeniously* shut the Left the HELL UP as you *continue* to invade every little postage stamp sized Country you can FIND promoting the Perpetual State of War that IS the US Economy.

THAT'S your "Party" dimwit !

I AGREE with you, Clinton likely IS a "lock", even as Bush was in 2K, but what gives me HOPE is the OBVIOUS FACT that you Hillary TROLLS don't think so.

If you HAVE a winner, just sit down and STFU. Hillary's "lock" CANNOT be affected by the few paltry Sanders votes you might pick up on these sites.

Else, look up "Sisyphus", Beavis.
 
 
+1 # lark3650 2016-03-04 14:28
Wow! You don't think Bernie has earned a place in the sun?!! Thoreau said: "There are a thousand hacking away at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." Bernie Sanders is speaking the truth and providing a vision of what is possible. As for me, I am not satisfied with the status quo.
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 23:41
I do not like the lie of trickle down macro economics they shoved down our faces for decades only to then mutually agree it was all BS. Now its just a deregulated laissez-faire crap shoot for the Power Elite as described by C Wright Mills 1956 in his book by that title. Oh yes they can do much better. They can fulfill basic standards at least.
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 23:37
So you want Trump? If Bernie isn't the nominee Trump beats Hillary. Obvious.
 
 
+2 # RLF 2016-03-02 11:13
I guess the AA' and latinos better get their heads out!
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:09
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+8 # EternalTruth 2016-03-02 13:59
I agree. I think any person of any color needs their rectum examined for a head if they vote for Hillary.
 
 
-4 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 17:31
How lovely...yet not surprising.
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-03-03 08:18
Quoting Saquon:
Excuse me - do you mean that blacks and Latinos should get their heads out of their asses or sand. And don't say sand which means, "To ignore or hide from obvious signs of danger.".....Bernie (my guy) would be shocked and dismayed by comments like yours.


First, I just LOVE the freakin' hubris inherent in pretending to "channel" Sanders. You have NO IDEA regarding Sanders' inner emotional states !

You would do well to master your own.

So the attempts to use Sanders as a psychological bludgeon are just *beyond* ludicrous. ;-D

I apologize for the fact that my following comment will fail to support your interminable "racist" meme here, Sparky. On this site - if you are a hammer, everything TO YOU obviously looks like a nail.

You, however, INDIVIDUALLY and single-handedly , embarrass *yourself* every time you opt to post these overwrought and convoluted "racism" screeds.

It's just really *NOT* "all about YOU" !
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-03 22:20
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 23:43
If the crackers would just give them jobs or education they would have voted Bernie for sure. Hillary was offering donuts.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:09
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 23:48
Who cares about all the former slave states? They always go Red.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:27
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-03-03 07:20
Quoting NRSEQ:

Alabama: Clinton 93%, Sanders 5%
Arkansas: Clinton 90%, Sanders 10%
Georgia: Clinton 83%, Sanders 16%
Oklahoma: Clinton 71%, Sanders 27%
Tennessee: Clinton 85%, Sanders 12%
Texas: Clinton 83%, Sanders 15%
Virginia: Clinton 84%, Sanders 16%


"It ain't over 'til it's over."

~ Yogi Berra
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 23:50
Which of those states did Obama need to win?
 
 
-15 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-02 10:49
With an emerging Fuhrer rallying The Mob with a carefully chosen "Make the (Post WWI) Fatherland Great Again," I would like to see RSN spend the $$ on someone a bit more profound than the intrepid expense account enjoying Scott Free Everything. We lost Vietnam, 9-11, Tulsi's war crimes Iraq War of Occupation. We no longer DOMINATE, haven't invaded an upstart Latin American country for over 25 years. Reactionary, racist, xenophobic white America is overdue for a Hitler. Little Scottie should stop whining about not getting free tuition for going back to Syracuse to resume his education. If we can't unite against the KKK candidate, what could we unite against?
 
 
+15 # DaveEwoldt 2016-03-02 11:10
Why should we even need to unite against a KKK candidate? Just the fact that you're worried that Hillary couldn't beat Trump speaks legions.
 
 
+15 # Old Uncle Dave 2016-03-02 10:59
A Clinton candidacy will put a Republican in the White House.
 
 
-6 # Crumbling Empire 2016-03-02 17:41
Quoting Old Uncle Dave:
A Clinton candidacy will put a Republican in the White House.

Not according to all of the oddsmakers, UNCLE DAVE.

Hillary remains the favorite, at better than even money, with Trump at just better than 2 to 1.

For the first time today, I saw odds on Mr. 47% himself, of 100 to 1 (of course, that's Romney), which would mean a brokered convention.
 
 
+4 # Ken Halt 2016-03-02 19:57
I think what Uncle Dave is saying is that if HRC is a candidate, the US will definitely get a Republican pres. We won't know until Nov if said pres is a man or woman, but we'll know ahead of time the political persuasion.
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-03-03 13:03
Quoting Ken Halt:
I think what Uncle Dave is saying is that if HRC is a candidate....


Or, Uncle Dave may be saying that Hillary IS a Republican Candidate ! If so, he would not be wrong !
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 23:57
Oh she is a neocon alright. I'm sure that is what he means. She promises our client states overseas the genocide will continue unabated. She promises weapons contractors very lucrative deals in the process.
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-04 23:53
Yeah but they rarely get the Superbowl odds right either. The first year Dallas won with Aikman it paid 50-1.
 
 
+2 # Robbee 2016-03-02 11:28
Why Let Red States Choose the Democratic Nominee?

- why let anyone pick the dem nominee?
 
 
-8 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-02 11:41
Although Major Tulsi has a paradoxical relation to Wars of Regime Change Intervention/Bl oody Occupation, she saw Bernie changing the American political dialogue and jumped in on matters of great import. Fabulous. More power to Bernie & Tulsi. But my hero, E-Warren, has not endorsed. She knows this election is about MUCH BIGGER things than free tuition for the privileged plutobrats on Beemer laced Greek Row. Hitler is out of the closet. Focus.
 
 
+12 # Radscal 2016-03-02 14:30
"free tuition for the privileged plutobrats"

Sanders is calling for tuition-free PUBLIC SCHOOL education. Those "plutobrats" (great term) will continue to go to their privileged private schools where their "legacy affirmative action" guarantees them admission and degrees, regardless of their scholastic success.

Major Gabbard showed awesome bravery and highly principled action in resigning from the DNC vice chair to endorse Sanders.

She was on the fast track with the DNC. By going against DNC leadership, she may well have sacrificed a promising political future. Unless Sanders wins and the political revolution takes root, that is.
 
 
+7 # Ken Halt 2016-03-02 16:12
Elizabeth Warren's non-endorsement speaks volumes. See her comments on Youtube about the influence of Wall St money on HRC's vote as senator against a consumer fairness bill.
 
 
+3 # Robbee 2016-03-02 11:43
democracy is the worst political system in the world - except for any other!
 
 
+11 # Texas Aggie 2016-03-02 13:07
Would that we had a democracy here in the US.
 
 
+3 # Crumbling Empire 2016-03-02 18:05
Quoting Robbee:
democracy is the worst political system in the world - except for any other!

ROBBEE: The USA was founded as a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Switzerland is the nation state that most closely practices actual Democracy.

At this juncture, the USA is a Plutocracy, and has been since the 1970s in escalating fashion.
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-03-03 08:38
Quoting Robbee:
democracy is the worst political system in the world - except for any other!


Damn ! You almost managed a quote from Winston Churchill.
 
 
-2 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 17:29
LOL....love it.
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-03-05 00:01
You must mean the laissez-faire deregulated capitalism the plutocrats pretend is democracy.
 
 
+12 # Maybe 2016-03-02 11:46
I cannot hide my disappointment that Bernie did not at least win Massachusetts. I cannot hide my concern that Hillary Clinton is a DINO, and will have us at war within her first two years. I am in Minnesota, proud of my state for seeing through the rhetoric and voting for the one person who could make a difference. It is my feeling that the enthusiasm for Trump will not translate to votes in November, and that after the brouhaha and hallelujah of electing a woman president subsides, there will be a lot of disappointed people ... people who didn't think beyond the fact that they were able to vote for a woman, people who gave no thought to what that would follow, policy-wise. Mrs. Clinton is called a moderate. In yesterday's world that meant "moderate". In today's world, it means far right of center. the Senate and Congress won't give Hillary the brush-off they gave Obama, because they will see themselves as gallant in dealing politely with a woman, and, most of all, they won't have a BLACK man in their WHITE house, in spite of the fact that that BLACK man was the best president in modern times. Besides, this Congress may never get it together, and with the many competing factions, it will take real moderates in both parties to get anything done. I'll be amazed if Mrs. Clinton, who speaks, as my mother would say, from both corners of her mouth, actually follows through on any of her promises.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 12:17
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+13 # Texas Aggie 2016-03-02 13:06
You surely aren't arguing that Hillary will not get us involved in wars a LOT faster than Bernie will, are you? After all, who voted to go into Iraq? Who is responsible for the mess in Libya where ISIS is ascendant? Who is responsible for the mess in Ukraine and everything there? Who supported the military coup in Honduras that is now sending thousands of kids north to avoid being killed by the military, the cops and organized crime? And who has no problem with sending those kids back to be killed?

If that is what you consider to be the Democratic position, then you are sadly out of touch with reality.
 
 
+10 # Billsy 2016-03-02 13:11
HRC has captured the uninformed vote, the defeatist vote, the fearful vote, the establishment vote. She's the status-quo candidate. Why settle for so little?
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-03-02 15:27
Are you insulting her constituency? You've just described her entire strategy. It's been her plan all along to RELY on those people.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-03-02 14:49
Let's see. As Senator, Ms. Clinton voted for:

Confirmation of NeoCons:
Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General

"Free Trade" Agreements:
HR 2739: 
U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
S 3569
: U.S. -Oman Free Trade Agreement
 S 3711"
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act

"Drill, baby, drill."

S Amdt 2480: 
Border Fence and Customs Appropriations
Remember how much liberals hated McCain for wanting to "build the damn fence" and now deride Trump for "the wall?" Yeah, she voted for it.

 S 1050
: Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization

Ended the decades-old ban on new nuclear weapon development.

She also voted to reduce our rights with:

HR 3162: 
USA Patriot Act of 2001
And then twice more voted to reauthorize and expand its powers
and
Establishing the Department of Homeland Security

HR 1
: No Child Left Behind Act
This was GW Bush's signature destruction and privatization of public education

I could go on and on, but Hillary-bots seem to be immune to her actual record.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 19:08
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+4 # Nominae 2016-03-03 08:49
Quoting NRSEQ:
THIS drivel is HRC's "actual record"?......
What a spaghetti-spine d dodge THAT was, Beavis !

The Troll Sqirm-out ! And you are simply deluded in your weak-kneed repetition that that "Bernie is losing" there,
Baghdad Bob ! ;-D

The contest has only just begun.
 
 
-4 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 17:28
What a shame you have so much time on your hands, NOMINAE, and you can't come up with an intelligent response.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-03 22:40
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-03-03 14:51
Yes, that's her actual record, and yes it is a very NeoCon record.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton#.UmggoyjObGk


And yes, you proved what I wrote, "Hillary-bots seem to be immune to her actual record."
 
 
+1 # Nominae 2016-03-03 08:44
You are characteristica lly *crushing it* there, Radscal.
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-03-03 08:42
Quoting NRSEQ:
I always LOVE when someone refers to a person like HRC as a "DINO".... See the analogy, Maybe?


Beavis, similar to your other deluded rantings, this yet *another* thing that that ONLY YOU see.

You are babbling, Brother ! ;-D
 
 
+15 # grandlakeguy 2016-03-02 12:13
HEY HILLARY:

RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS!
RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS!
RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS!

We deserve to know what she promised her Wall Street masters.
 
 
-9 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-02 15:22
All SOSs give speeches to all sorts of groups after their tenure. They're in demand. One talk she gave involved micro-loans to women in developing countries and women's entrepreneurial endeavors more broadly.

After a talk she gave to the Keystone Pipeline folks, she voted against the pipeline. But I understand that you have this narrative which is that she's some kind of sycophant to big money. You do know she fund raises for down ticket races while Bernie does not. So how is that going to work? He needs Dem votes to get his proposals accomplished.
 
 
+4 # Nominae 2016-03-03 09:08
Quoting Juliajayne1:
All SOSs give speeches to all sorts of groups after their tenure. They're in demand. One talk she gave involved micro-loans to women in developing countries and women's entrepreneurial endeavors more broadly.


RIGHT ! Because THAT'S what Goldman Sachs pays $675,000 in Speaker's Fees to hear about - micro loans to women ! And Clinton spoke, at best, as a *former* SOS - but, what's a little deliberate distortion among friends ?

Damn ! JJ1, my apologies ! You really *ARE* as bright as you *say* you are ! ;-D
 
 
-4 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-03 18:04
You can believe anything you like. I post facts. If you don't feel that her work with women the world over is valid or that she has a unique point of view from her tenure as SOS, then so be it. But obviously they were happy to gain her perspective.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-03-03 14:53
When do you believe HRC voted against the KXL Pipeline, AFTER being Secretary of State?
 
 
-4 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-03 18:05
Yes, she opposes it: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/hillary-clinton-opposes-keystone-xl-pipeline/
 
 
-2 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 17:23
Why do you people keep asking her to release transcripts but no one else?
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2016-03-03 17:45
Because no one else was paid $600,000 to speak to Goldman Sachs in private. Some of us want to know what Goldman Sachs was paying her for. Don't you? Or do you consider that "none of our business"?

You've asked this question before and been answered, by the way.

The fact that you're still repeating it means you either don't read other people's answers to your questions before attacking them, or it means that you're being totally dishonest and pretending you didn't already know the answer.
 
 
+15 # lark3650 2016-03-02 12:19
Unfortunately many people don't do their homework and vote for a candidate by looks, familiarity, gender, etc. Bernie has a long standing record of thoughtful decision making on every issue, always keeping in mind the effects the outcome would make on the people of this country. We have had years of the Bush family dynasty and the Clintons. As my dad used to say: "If you keep doing what you're doing, you'll get more of what you got." Please, look into the faces of your children and grandchildren and make a thoughtful decision for their sake. Let's vote for Bernie Sanders who wants to do something different; who wants to make this country once again a country "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Bernie is a statesman, not a politician.... a statesman do everything he can to do something for the people; a politician will do everything SHE can to get the people to something for her. KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-03-03 09:21
Quoting lark3650:
Bernie has a long standing record of thoughtful decision making on every issue, always keeping in mind the effects the outcome would make on the people of this country.... Please, look into the faces of your children and grandchildren and make a thoughtful decision for their sake...


Wonderful post ! Well *said* ! You yourself represent a consistently well-thought-ou t contribution here.

I have long since enjoyed your "voice of reason" input. Thank you.
 
 
+12 # Shorey13 2016-03-02 12:21
AK Patriot suggest that we read The Republic, by Plato. I have, and must note that he has Socrates assert that the fatal flaw in democracy is the false assumption that all citizens are equally capable of self-government , and that this allows oligarchs to hire sophists (we call them "spin doctors") to use their rhetorical skills to convince unenlightened citizens to vote against their own best interests. Sound familiar?

Also discussed therein: the threat of demagogues, who can use their own rhetorical skills to win democratic elections. Fear and ignorance (of which we have a plethora) are the mother's milk of demagogues. Draw your own conclusions.
 
 
+4 # Cassandra2012 2016-03-02 15:02
Achtung ! Heil Drumpf! btw did anyone else notice that the poorly trained? 'Secret Service' (SS?) knocked down a journalist at one of Trump's neo-fascist rallies? The very same SS that was caught whoring around when they were supposed to be on duty protecting Obama?
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 19:08
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+7 # Texas Aggie 2016-03-02 12:58
For all of you wailing about "disenfranchisi ng" minority Southern voters, how about in the future we do this? The first Democratic primaries will be held in states that have a legitimate chance of going Democratic and after that, we go to the states that are going to go republican no matter what. While it won't disenfranchise anyone, it will make the votes that don't matter irrelevant, the same way that the present system makes the votes of the blue states, that would actually elect a Democrat, irrelevant.

While minorities in the South are solidly behind the Clintons, it looks a bit different in the rest of the country. What it looks like now is that Clinton, as opposed to Sanders, has little chance against Drumpf anyway, so any system designed to nominate her is an exercise in Nation destruction.
 
 
-7 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-02 15:08
How about we not disenfranchise Democratic voters period. Voting in so-called red states in the primary makes my vote count. In the general my vote doesn't.

And your hyperbole about CLinton being unelectable against T-rump is ludicrous. Pure rubbish. In the latest CNN poll, she beats Trump handily 52 to 44. Sanders is a bit better at 55 to 43. Bear in mind that in a Gallup poll in October of 2011, their poll showed Obama and Romney in a virtual tie. And Obama was losing to a generic R candidate. Nobody said we should get a different candidate, well except Bernie. ;-)
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-03-03 09:54
Quoting Juliajayne1:
your hyperbole about CLinton being unelectable against T-rump is ludicrous....


Good GRAVY, visiting Sophist, Clinton can't maintain her emotional center in front of mild BERNIE SANDERS ! Her handlers keep reminding her that erupting into high dudgeon on stage does *not* make her look "macho", it makes her look emotionally unhinged !

It damned CERTAIN doesn't make her look like the Leader of the Free World in a Nuclear Age! It makes her look like what she IS - an entitled, spoiled, volatile and petulant child !

Since Hillary can't control her prickly personality in front of Bernie, *imagine* that Clinton powder keg facing Trump ! ;-D

Or Putin ? ;-D

Trump would insult Clinton ONCE - Clinton would go *ballistic* even as she demonstrated with Bernie, and walk right into Trump's trap.

No one has EVER *accurately* accused Hillary of having a "deft ear" for politics. That's Bill's job. Hillary has been recently trying to sell her proposed Presidency as "Bill - Term III", and "Obama - The Sequel". Even SHE knows that she is playing hell trying to "sell" Hillary ! 56% of Americans from *every* walk of life find her to be absolutely repugnant, and *eminently* dishonest and untrustworthy.

The only human they find more repulsive IS Trump !

Hillary is bristling, ham-handed and clumsy in every endeavor she has ever undertaken.

Hillary is a KNOWN QUANTITY. The STATUS QUO. And she is *highly* disliked even in that role.
 
 
-3 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-03 18:13
Well, you're a known quantity here and not very deft at making plausible arguments. Obviously if HRC were that disliked she wouldn't be outpacing Bernie. Actually she is one of the most admired women in the world. Look it up. lol.
 
 
+11 # Amsterdam 2016-03-02 12:59
FINALLY!! Thank You for writing this, I was getting sick of hearing the mainstream media force feed me Clinton. Also, feel the DNC and their super delegates are a HUGE part of this problem. They want a moderate so everything can stay the same so everyone can count on lining their pockets for another 4 years.
 
 
-4 # bmiluski 2016-03-03 17:26
Oh honey, just keep coming to this site cus you'll get Bernie force fed to you.
 
 
-10 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-02 13:38
Minus the pie in the sky pandering, Bernie is greatly preferable to HRC to me. But Elizabeth Warren's home state just went for Hillary. Baptist Democrats, Methodist Democrats, Catholic Democrats, northern Democrats, southern Democrats, (deeply religious, anti-Castro) Latino Democrats, deeply religious African Americans don't want "Godless Socialism." What part of "no" don't you understand? Turn the page. Bernie & Tulsi are trying to change the American political dialogue, with some success. We are VERY grateful, and should unite against fascism. For people worried about the jack boots knocking down their doors to deport them, this election is not about free tuition for wealthy, spoiled, binging, credits-blowing plutobrats on Beemer lined Greek Row.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-03-03 14:59
I see that Debbie Wasserman-Schul tz just introduced a piece of legislation that waters down Ms. Warren's Consumer Protections, and erases part of the already too weak Dodd-Frank Act.

I wish Senator Warren had endorsed Sanders, with whom she obviously shares economic policies.
 
 
+2 # Skippydelic 2016-03-02 14:02
OK, kiddies, let's stop and put this in perspective:

The southern states that made up a good portion of Super Tuesday yesterday DID award a good number of delegates. At the same time, though, they WEREN'T 'winner-take-al l' states; the delegates were awarded PROPORTIONALLY, based on the percentage of the vote, so if the vote was close (i.e., MA), they both get almost the same number of delegates - Hillary got 45, Bernie got 43 - so it was NOT a 'Big Win'!

Once the general rolls around, though, the winner gets ALL the electoral votes in that state. Unfortunately, that means that the Democratic votes DON'T matter as much.

My feeling is that the primary system needs to be re-structured like this:

February - Iowa, NH, SC, NV;

March - States with 3 or 4 Electoral Votes (13);

April - States with 5-10 Electoral Votes (17);

May - States with 11-19 Electoral Votes (15)

June - States with 20 or more Electoral Votes (6);

This way, ALL the states will have a say in the process! I live in SD; we have our primary the same day as California. Do candidates EVER campaign here? Nope!

Candidates would be able to build their delegate totals in the small states, and it would start to become clear which ones have the best chance of being nominated. It still allows an upstart like Bernie Sanders the opportunity to break through, as well.

Discuss.
 
 
+3 # Texas Aggie 2016-03-02 16:13
Good idea. How about instead of scheduling on the basis of electoral votes, we schedule on the basis of whether or not the state is likely to go Democratic? That way, the people who actually will be electing the next president are the ones who get first crack at it and the ones whose votes will get drowned in a sea of red get to register their opinion, but aren't going to detract too much from a candidate that the Democratic party voters would prefer.
 
 
0 # Skippydelic 2016-03-03 04:11
Good point, but this is going to be a matter of changing the dates for BOTH parties' primaries, so I'm not sure if 'likely to go Democratic' is the best criteria to use… :-)
 
 
+5 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-03-02 14:55
Last night after the polls closed, my local (CA) ABC, CBC, and NBC affiliates all replaced regular programming with the national network’s coverage of the Super Tuesday primaries. I had already seen in previous election coverage how biased towards the monied interests CBS national commentators, are and that ABC seemed to be more balanced than NBC, so I didn’t spend more than a few minutes watching CBS. Nevertheless, in the few, brief moments I watched CBS, they performed as expected. Devoting most of my time to analyzing ABC and NBC proved fruitful.

The dullest presentation was by ABC. ABC was also the most balanced. I saw a commentator stating that according to voter polls taken that day, the vast majority of Southern Democratic voters, who as you know voted for Hillary, also said they didn’t know much/anything about Bernie Sanders. To me, this is a TREMENDOUS indictment of the Fourth Estate. While it reported extensively on Clinton’s positions and sound bites, it bent over backwards to avoid reporting on Sanders’ positions EXCEPT when they were condemned by people whose livelihoods depend on the plutocrats. There is no excuse for the vast majority of Democrats in the South to not know anything about Sanders or his positions. UNLESS that information has been deliberately withheld by the media - and it was.

The MSM has never before so steadfastly refused to inform the voters about the positions and histories of candidates. That is a national disgrace.
 
 
-3 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-02 15:21
WHY on earth are you watching ANC-BS?
Corporate "Pravda." "Balance"? You're joking, right? Like eating sugar(HFCS) and lard mixed. Not so good for you.
 
 
+5 # kevenwood 2016-03-02 16:09
While CNN, the most popular destination for campaign coverage, is much more balanced than Fox news, they still fall into the trap of favoring Hillary, and it's quite obvious. Not only are most of their commentators Hillary supporters, but they tell false story lines like "Hillary seems to be wrapping this up", etc.

The problem is that CNN is paid for by corporate ads, i.e commercials.

CNN has underlying pressure to keep these corporations happy, because if they don't, CNN can lose those ad buys, which are the lifeblood of their revenues.

The electoral map gets more friendly for Bernie from herre forward, and the superdelegates that have sided with Hillary can change their minds.

But CNN fails to make these points. I wonder why? Uhhhh. Money, that's why.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-03-03 15:07
The problem with CNN is that it is owned by Time, which has been a propaganda arm of CIA since Henry Luce founded it.
 
 
+6 # nice2bgreat 2016-03-02 16:12
.
"Hillary Clinton Caught Lying to Voters on Trade Deal"

http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/03/02/hillary-clinton-caught-lying-to-voters-on-trade-deal/

Hillary Clinton's excessively ambiguous (and temporary) opposition(?) to the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) is reason for caution (disbelief).
.
 
 
-5 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-02 18:18
That article is little more than gossip. As with everything, the devil is in the details. To wit:

"There is no reason to doubt Clinton's account of her position on trade. It would be foolish to think that because she had once supported the TPP in principle, she should remain committed to it unconditionally . Furthermore, Clinton's longer record shows an increasing reluctance to support the free trade agenda that characterized her husband's administration twenty years ago. While she has supported many past free trade agreements, she voted against the Central American Free Trade Area (CAFTA) in 2005, while she was a senator. In 2007, reflecting on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), she offered mixed support, explaining, "what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain." By 2008, she had concluded that NAFTA "had not lived up to its promises." Later that year, she broke with members of her own campaign team -- and her husband -- over a free trade agreement with Colombia.

Continued...
 
 
-6 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-02 18:19
...In more recent years, Clinton's positions on trade have partly reflected the needs of the Obama Administration in which she served as Secretary of State. But they also show a commendable willingness to scrutinize the specifics. Not all trade deals are created equal, and what matters are the details. Support for one deal should not automatically translate into support for another- but explaining how the details matter, and why, is hard to do in a campaign slogan or a quick response in a televised debate."

Excerpt from this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-singh-grewal/why-hillary-clinton-is-ri_b_8295420.html
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 19:11
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+4 # Nominae 2016-03-03 10:03
Quoting NRSEQ:
You're wasting your time, Julia.


She really *is* wasting her time, Beavis - both of you Hillary Trolls need to "get" that ! :-D
 
 
-3 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-03 18:16
I'm pretty sure that it's definitely YOU trolling me. Please stop.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-03 20:54
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2016-03-02 18:16
Thanks, Scott. I know you probably won't read this far down, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate reading a positive take on Bernie's progress.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-02 19:12
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-7 # LionMousePudding 2016-03-03 03:31
I'm not voting for the same candidate at JuliaJayne but I'm on her side here. What this looks like to me is a case of insiders not wanting an outsider in-- insider mostly men, not wanting to let JuliaJayne into the conversation.

Her writing is far more intelligent than many here. She is not resorting to slurs or ad hominem attacks. And yet I see a consistent level of vitriol shown toward her that is really telling. And the patronizing attitude shown toward her is unique as well.

Proof in the pudding: she posts a LINK. No words just a damn LINK and you guys vote her down.

Check your egos at the door, boys. Your Freudian slips are showing.
 
 
+1 # Nominae 2016-03-03 10:32
Quoting LionMousePudding:
Check your egos at the door, boys. Your Freudian slips are showing.


Convincing, isn't she ? She may not be a bomb-thrower, but she IS a compensated Clinton Camp Troll. Hence the "Disagree" marks
from those who already so well know and love her.

You are yet another newbie here, and your comments would be more than appropriate, even admirable, in defense of an *honest* contributor.

Juliajames, and the rest of our hot new Clinton Trolls do not have a WORD to say regarding ANY RSN article or subject that does NOT give them the opportunity to Troll for Hillary. Their job is to constantly sow seeds of doubt and discontent, hoping to siphon apparently desperately needed votes back to the Clinton carnival.

Actual contributors show up on ALL the RSN Qs, not just those pertaining to Clinton/Sanders .

When the Clinton campaign began, we had no Clinton Trolls here. When Clinton discovered that Sanders *is* a viable candidate, and discovered how *wildly* unfavorably SHE is seen by the electorate, Clinton panicked and dispatched compensated propagandists to every Sanders site she could find.

RSN has Formerly Endorsed Sanders.

Beginning with NRSEQ, we were subsequently inundated by the paid propagandists.

We welcome Hillary FANS, because we respect the right to Freedom of Choice for ALL adults. We also *insist* upon the courtesy of respect for *our* Freedom of Choice in return ! We'll soon see who you are, so welcome.
 
 
-3 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-03 18:26
Dude. I am not a newbie. I have contributed to this site for many years. That, perhaps, makes you a newbie since you're unaware of that fact.

Do facts so scare you that you need to constantly insult me?
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-03 18:56
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-3 # Juliajayne1 2016-03-03 18:22
This guy thinks that posting facts makes me a Hillary surrogate. I'm just a person posting facts! Thanks for your post. I haven't actually said who I voted for, but many assume. I just feel like we need to support whomever the nominee is and some here are rewarding the RW spin machine and their 25 year torrent of lies about HRC. It needs to stop. I care about an R not gaining access to the WH. That seems to be a cardinal sin for some reason...sigh.. .ha!
 
 
+3 # mike@worldmentoringacademy.com 2016-03-03 12:42
It's bad enough that the order of primary states heavily favor Hillary, in states that never carry a National election & and are only Democratic because of a long standing Civil War protest to Lincoln's party. The South unfortunately are voting against themselves to favor a Wall Street puppet. On the average they do have the lowest SAT scores and have lowered their Education exit tests so students could graduate, which made the Common Core needed. BTW why would we let the less informed lead a political primary? I typically like following intelligent people, don't you?,, or do you cheat off the stupid student's test? I hope not.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN