RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Parry writes: "Barack Obama once called Hillary Clinton 'likable enough,' but a new poll raises doubts about that, as the Democratic frontrunner's net-negative has nearly doubled to 24 points."

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. (photo: Scott Olson/Darren McCollester/Getty Images)
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. (photo: Scott Olson/Darren McCollester/Getty Images)


Democrats March Toward Cliff

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

20 April 16

 

Barack Obama once called Hillary Clinton “likable enough,” but a new poll raises doubts about that, as the Democratic frontrunner’s net-negative has nearly doubled to 24 points, reports Robert Parry.

s Democratic-insider “super-delegates” give Hillary Clinton a seemingly insurmountable lead for the presidential nomination, the former Secretary of State’s negative ratings continue to soar to stunning levels, hitting a net 24-point unfavorable in the new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll.

It is hard to imagine someone who is viewed unfavorably by a clear majority of voters (56 percent) and with a net-negative of 24 points winning the White House, except that most voters also don’t like the top Republican choices either. Donald Trump sports a 41-point net-negative and Sen. Ted Cruz is at minus-23 points. (By contrast, of the two trailing candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders gets a net-positive 9 points and Gov. John Kasich a net-positive 12 points.)

But a major difference between Trump and Clinton in the latest poll is that Trump’s numbers haven’t moved much while Clinton’s net-negative has almost doubled in the last month. In other words, the more Americans get to see of Clinton the more they don’t want her.

While Clinton’s dismal approval ratings haven’t seemed to have shaken the Democratic establishment, which continues to line up behind her long-anticipated coronation, some outside analysts see the party leaders blindly marching toward a cliff.

Despite Sanders’s string of victories, Clinton still leads him in elected delegates, but her daunting lead comes from her dominance of “super-delegates,” party insiders who are not chosen by primaries or caucuses but still get to vote at the convention. According to The Associated Press tally, Clinton has 1,289 elected delegates to Sanders’s 1,045, but she has the backing of 469 “super-delegates” to Sanders’s 31. To win requires 2,383 delegates.

So, if Clinton’s eventual nomination is inevitable, the Democrats will be putting up a candidate who is broadly disliked by the American people. That means a Clinton candidacy will require massive spending on negative ads to make the Republican candidate so frightening in the eyes of most Americans that they will vote for Clinton out of fear, not hope.

There’s also the irony that although most attention has focused on the Republican need for a brokered convention – to block a Trump nomination – an argument could be made that the Democrats would benefit from a brokered convention themselves.

If neither Clinton nor Sanders could clinch the nomination on the first ballot, that could open the process to allow the party to select an alternative who has not been in the race, someone such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, an economic populist who is beloved by Sanders’s backers and a woman who might be acceptable to Clinton supporters wanting the first female President.

Still, such a possibility does not appear to be in the cards. The odds remain heavily weighted in favor of Clinton securing the nomination and the Democrats then trying to make the best of her soaring unfavorable numbers.

In a 2008 debate, addressing a question about Clinton’s high negatives, then-Sen. Barack Obama condescendingly opined that “you’re likable enough, Hillary.” But it turns out Obama may have been overstating the case. With her current unfavorable level at 56 percent – and only 32 percent holding a favorable view – many voters seem to be saying, she’s not likable enough.



Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+158 # diamondmarge7 2016-04-20 09:12
Did the closed primary lock out those who would have voted SANDERS? HRC is a warmonger, a liar, a promoter of fracking, a 1%er, a neocon masquerading as a Democrat, only running because "it is her turn" & she loves power. We are so screwed.
The election of BERNIE could have started our country back on the right track. Woe is us.
 
 
+105 # Buddha 2016-04-20 09:25
Very likely, Independents strongly dislike HRC, and in open primaries are able to side more with Bernie.
 
 
+5 # rocback 2016-04-20 10:49
Maryland and Pennsylvania are also closed primary states.
 
 
+4 # MidwestTom 2016-04-20 11:16
Are the Pennsylvania delegates bound?
 
 
-1 # rocback 2016-04-20 11:38
I assume you are not including the superdelegates and I think the pledged delegates are in the Democratic primary but most of the GOP delegates are not bound.
 
 
+5 # reiverpacific 2016-04-20 11:46
Quoting MidwestTom:
Are the Pennsylvania delegates bound?


Nah, they're pretty regular in their bowel habits I believe (ouch)!!!
Sorry Tom, I just could resist that one, sicko that I am.
 
 
+40 # Radscal 2016-04-20 14:42
Hooray for you!

Do everything in your power to nominate the least electable candidate in November.

You may well lose the general election, but at least you'll save the Democratic Party from returning to its FDR roots. Go Wall Street! Hooray for War!
 
 
+9 # tgemberl 2016-04-20 13:09
But there are Republicans who will vote for Hillary over Trump. I have a coworker, normally a staunch Republican, who says she would if Trump were nominated. Even Laura Bush implied she would.

See my comment at the bottom on how we might get better candidates in the long run.
 
 
+9 # RMDC 2016-04-20 20:41
tgm -- this is really strange. I would never vote for Hillree but i might vote for Trump just to keep her out of the white house. Probably I would not vote Trump either, but I really do believe that Hillree would be worse for the nation than Trump.
 
 
+2 # tgemberl 2016-04-21 10:37
Why do you think Trump would be better for the country than Hillary?
 
 
+2 # Salus Populi 2016-04-21 22:25
I would put it the way that tgemberl did initially, using the word "worse" rather than "better."

The main characteristic of Trump's campaign is its utter inconsistency. He simply throws out whatever is his opinion of the moment, or makes one up if he's never thought about it before. He obviously has no real ideology except self-aggran-
dizement, which makes him at least in theory open to changing his mind about virtually anything.

He also, being a billionaire, is unafraid to skewer sacred cows of the political/econ- omic establishment. So in the face of neo-con demonization of Putin, obviously and even admittedly prelude to attempted regime overthrow -- Trump opines that he could work with Putin to help resolve the Middle Eastern wars, which are another neo-con pet project.

While most Rethugs slaver at the thought of destroying Social Security and stealing all its funds for themselves, Trump says that he believes in it and that it has been a real benefit to poor, disabled and elderly Americans.

While he uses racism to gin up hysteria against Mexicans and Muslims, his "solutions" are so unrealistic and so unlikely to be implemented -- make the Mexicans pay for the wall? Round up 11 million immigrants? For real??! -- that if he were to be elected, he would probably abandon them by the time he gave his inaugural speech.

He even threatens to re-open the 911 investigation!

In any event, compare his scattershot positions to those of Clinton:

[1st of 2]
 
 
+10 # Salus Populi 2016-04-21 23:14
[2nd of 2]

Clinton, for her part, has been described as the only "moderate Republican" in the race, and from her roots as a Goldwater Girl to her present dalliance with the Family, she has evinced largely right-wing positions.

This is especially true in foreign affairs, which, with the world in its present state, I consider more important than domestic ones.

She has been a consistent voice, as First Lady, as a Senator, and as Secretary of State, in favor of a belligerent and lawless foreign policy, and there's no reason to believe she has mellowed in this: Indeed, with her recent address to AIPAC, she was casting her lot with out and out fascism, while her characterizatio n of Putin as "Hitler" said a great deal more about her values than about Putin, who is regarded in much of the non-NATO world as a cautious and thoughtful statesman.

She also misrepresented and justified the military coup in Honduras (that was at least approved if not planned by Foggy Bottom under her watch), and, having turned Tegucigalpa into the murder capital of the Western hemisphere, opined that the children who were fleeing for their lives should be sent back as an object lesson.

And, finally, one hopes that a person who aspires to be president of the most powerful nation on Earth is above gloating over the torture-ridden murder of a former head of state, overthrown at our behest and promised safe conduct.

This is a ghoul I would keep away from any position of authority.
 
 
+2 # tgemberl 2016-04-22 13:48
Salus Populi,
I am disturbed by what I've read about the coup in Honduras, though I haven't had time to study it. I am not very inspired by Clinton but think it is very important not to elect Trump.

I think America is in decline to some extent, and there's nothing we can do to stop that completely. We need to concentrate on rebuilding our social cohesion, which has been destroyed by Reaganomics over the last 36 years. I think we need to control immigration better, and probably need to pay more for food so that our own citizens will work to harvest it.

However, we will not be in real bad shape as long as we are a country immigrants would want to come to. I think Trumpism would destroy that. It would unleash bigotry against non-whites and non-citizens as well as a gun-based approach to problems. One of the worst things we must try to prevent is a situation where talented people around the world think "I'm not going to America because I could get shot anytime."
 
 
-2 # tgemberl 2016-04-22 18:32
Salus Populi,
This article about Clinton in today's Times is worrisome, I'll admit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html

I just read this Wikipedia article about Manuel Zelaya and the coup against him. It looks like he's a good man. However, the article, which doesn't seem to be biased in her favor (see the last paragraph), makes me wonder just how much to blame her. Yes, Zelaya shouldn't have been overthrown, but is it the responsibility of Clinton and the Obama administration to solve the problems of Honduras? She favored the elections in Nov. 2009 that were meant to be a compromise between Zelaya and his opponents. That wasn't perfect, but what more was she supposed to do? Could she force the Honduran congress and courts to reinstate Zelaya?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Zelaya

Where is the evidence for your claim the coup was planned in Washington? It looks like there are plenty of reactionary people in Honduras without Washington's help.
 
 
0 # rocback 2016-04-23 16:16
There IS no evidence. In fact Hillary was against it.
 
 
+1 # Salus Populi 2016-04-23 22:27
While no evidence has yet come to light that the coup was planned in Washington -- though its leaders were both trained at the "School of Coups" in the U.S. -- there is little doubt that it was welcomed by Hillary's State Department.

While the UN General Assembly, the Organization of American States, and the Rio Group all demanded the immediate restoration of Zelaya to power, and U.S. Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens cabled Clinton that "there is no doubt" that Zelaya’s ouster "constituted an illegal and unconstitutiona l coup"; and while the director of Policy Planning at State emailed her asking her to "take bold action" and "find that [the] coup was a 'military coup' under U.S. law," which would have required the U.S. to suspend its aid program, the SoS insisted that the coup d'etat was not clearly a coup.

In her autobiography, she discusses how she used a promise of "free and fair elections" -- under a military dictatorship -- to prevent Zelaya from resuming his duties. Instead, she had her old friend Lanny Davis, who lobbied for the coup-friendly Honduran Business Council, set up contacts with the president installed by the military.

The elections were marred by extensive violence and press censorship; while international organizations called for non-recognition of the new government, Clinton's State Department used a veto to prevent the OAS from condemning the farce.

Finally, as SOS, she opposed granting political asylum to the victims of the coup.
 
 
0 # tgemberl 2016-04-24 17:23
Thanks. I'll keep my eyes open on this.
 
 
+2 # Caliban 2016-04-22 16:29
Buddha, why are Independents more able to side with Senator Sanders in open primaries than in closed primaries?

One vote is one vote, right, and surely if we cast it for Sanders it counts for Sanders. I feel as if I'm missing something here and would appreciate being brought up to speed.
 
 
+1 # suziemama 2016-04-22 22:59
In a closed primary, Independents are not allowed to vote for ANYONE who is running as a party candidate. (Only registered Democrats can vote in Democratic primary when it's a closed primary.)
 
 
+85 # AlcheMs 2016-04-20 10:03
It's NOT OVER YET! Remember that Barack Obama lost his NY Primary race to Clinton 2008, and went on to win! SPEAK VICTORY!!!!
 
 
+8 # EternalTruth 2016-04-20 11:03
I wish I could still muster some optimism, but it's looking pretty bad at this point.
 
 
+12 # Radscal 2016-04-20 14:44
It's been a hard, uphill fight from the day Sanders announced.

Yesterday, HRC gained 30 some delegates over Sanders. Her lead is now about 250 with 1,700 more still up for grabs.
 
 
+4 # suziemama 2016-04-22 23:04
All political victories are hard fought, and have dark nights of despair. Creating political change requires fortitude. The good thing, is that you usually meet great people along the way... and sometimes, you win when you least expect it!
 
 
-8 # Crumbling Empire 2016-04-20 12:14
Quoting AlcheMs:
It's NOT OVER YET! Remember that Barack Obama lost his NY Primary race to Clinton 2008, and went on to win! SPEAK VICTORY!!!!

Comparing Obama to Sanders is a fallacious one, ALCHEME.

(1) Obama took vast amounts of corporate money and was an Establishment candidate, Bernie is taking none and is an outsider, (2) Obama won the majority of the superdelegates against Big Business Billary in 2008, by almost a 2 to 1 margin, Bernie is getting out-supered by more than a 10 to 1 spread, and (3) at no point was Obama trailing Hillary by over 600 delegates in total as Bernie is currently.

Your only hope is the FBI, and then no entry by Biden.
 
 
+29 # mh1224jst 2016-04-20 16:22
As an Upstate New Yorker, I think Bernie's still got hope. (1) He carried the Capital District 2-1, and Hillary did well mainly in urban areas where she could claim to bring business to NY (however accurately), (2) he did close the gap here from 40 points to 18 points, and (3) It really is important that Hillary's negatives continue to sap her support.

I'll confess to not disliking Hillary as much as many of you, until the recent media blitz. in which the Daily News and NY Times (Krugman) outrageous attacks came rolling out. It's hard not to recognize the obvious extent of her ambition. But Bernie has tapped into a full-blown revolution, I think, that will not subside this time, especially if they keep arresting hundreds of protesters at the Capital!
 
 
+21 # Linda 2016-04-20 20:11
Bernie could also close that gap entirely and maybe even win NY after those 123,000 provisional ballots are sorted out in court ! Remember those 123,000 people in Brooklyn whose voter registrations were fraudulently changed after they had registered as Democrats before the deadline ? One person even showed his registration where someone forged his signature ! This has to be Hillary's surrogates doing this cheating ! This lawsuit isn't over, there were also several people who reported they took screenshots of their votes flipping from Bernie to Hillary .
There has been a lot of voter fraud, suppression and disenfranchisem ent in this entire primary !
I would never reward Hillary with my vote if she manages to steal the nomination ,I don't reward cheats and liars ! It was bad enough she was legally able to BUY super delegates loyalties but this downright stealing Bernie supporters votes from them that is over the top for me.Maybe she doesn't care about Democracy but I do and I will fight for it any way I can !I will also fight for fair election by changing the system we have now !
 
 
-5 # rocback 2016-04-21 13:12
You are assuming those votes would go to /bernie, yet, Hillary beat him there (Brooklym) by a larger margin that she beat him in the entire state. She won teh state by 17 points and won Brooklyn by 20 points.

It's more likely that she would beat him by a larger margin had those voters registered properly.
 
 
+5 # Salus Populi 2016-04-21 23:33
Disenfranchisem ent is not done randomly, believe it or not.

With the Brooklyn machine (which has been widely described as the last old-style big city machine in the country) in charge, and Brooklyn's mayor a strong supporter of Clinton, taking away the vote of 123,000 voters chosen at random makes less than zero sense.

It is very likely that the futzing with the voter rolls was done with the express purpose of reducing Sanders's vote total in favor of Clinton. She desperately needed to win by high double digits, as the pundits were already saying that if it was closer, it would count as a win for Sanders.

Suddenly, in the midst of polls that show her lead consistently narrowing up to election day, it inexplicably widens by a significant margin, while 123,000 legal Brooklyn voters are effectively disenfranchised.

I don't know about electoral addition, but in my world, two plus two still equals four.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-04-23 23:25
scrubbing 126K voters from voter lists is not"winning', it's voter suppression and stealing.
 
 
+10 # RMDC 2016-04-21 05:18
At some point very soon, Trump will open up his dirty campaigns against Hillary who he believes he will face in the general election. He probably has a lot of good scandal material. He also believes she should be indicted for her private email server while Sec. of State. Trump might release enough bad material to drive Hillary out of the race. That is a long shot and it is not likely she'd give up any more than Ted Cruz has. But she could be so damaged that she'd lose every election.

Hillary will be a weak candidate when Trump turns his guns on her. He plays dirty and there will be lots of material with which to smear Hillary.
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-04-21 13:15
The GOP thru 9 Bengazi/email committees, 11 hours of cross-examinati on by 8 Republican prosecutors (including that guy who looks like he is from Deliverance) and an entire network (Fox) has been trying to take down Hillary for the last 10 years and has failed. She is one tough broad. She takes a licking and keeps on ticking.
 
 
-56 # Rain17 2016-04-20 10:28
Those were the rules of NY. Too bad Sanders and his campaign didn't realize what they were ahead of time. And I really don't know why it's so controversial that registered Democrats should actually be the voters determining who the nominee should be.
 
 
+55 # FTPenn 2016-04-20 11:54
Because come November they will be depending on those same independent voters who they wish to exclude in the primary.
 
 
-39 # Rain17 2016-04-20 11:58
Again I don't think it's such a controversial idea that Democrats should be picking the Democratic nominee for President.
 
 
+34 # Radscal 2016-04-20 14:46
They are picking the least electable candidate for November.
 
 
+18 # Linda 2016-04-20 20:30
Rain17 ,Why is that ? Independents are just that Independent they can vote either way ! Some Independents lean Democrat, like Bernie has and even caucused with the Democrats and some Independents lean Republican . They are essentially free agents. I don't think they should be punished for that by taking away their right to vote in the primaries ! That is not Democratic !
 
 
+1 # NAVYVET 2016-04-24 19:39
Independents? Free agents? Where I'm concerned you are wrong. I've twice registered Independent. In 1957 at age 21, I registered Republican because my family lived in Florida--not because we chose to but because Dad's company sent him there. We hated the climate, too much cancerous sun, the stench of rotting seaweed, and Manichaean warmongering religion. To register Democrat, my parents said, would be an approval of the Dixiecrats (who have long since gone Republican). So I stayed vaguely GOP and voted on FL absentee ballots while in the Navy for 12 years, til Vietnam's carnage made me think. I got out in '68, and even earlier the 1964 Goldwater convention on TV drove me out of the ever-nuttier GOP, though I have voted GOP when their candidate was farther Left. I became an Indy til '72, when I joined the Democratic Party--grew more disillusioned until Obama's broken promises gave me no choice. I had to be Indy again. My state is closed, so I couldn't vote in the 2014 primary. When I was energized into supporting Bernie last summer, 2015, I re-registered Democrat. After the primary I'll go back to being an Independent. I'm now 80 and each year my disgust grows & my convictions move farther Left. I joined the Democratic Socialists of America before I knew Bernie was a DSA member, & wish they would become a party. But they aren't. That leaves me an Indy by default, because there's no other way if one has strong convictions that both parties are corrupt and should be defunct.
 
 
+24 # SusanT136 2016-04-20 14:35
Quoting FTPenn:
Because come November they will be depending on those same independent voters who they wish to exclude in the primary.


Couldn't agree more! The Democratic party scorns independents in the primary but furiously courts them in November - and NEEDS them.

NYS has very restrictive voting laws. If we were a Red state, all Dems would be screaming "Voter Suppression!"
 
 
+47 # CL38 2016-04-20 12:34
When at least 126K voters are scrubbed from the voting lists????????
 
 
-29 # rocback 2016-04-20 13:57
That was in Brooklyn where Hillary beat Sanders. So it is likely more of those votes would have gone to Hillary.
 
 
+39 # Radscal 2016-04-20 14:47
Mayor de Blasio observed that the purging of voters was not random. Entire apartment buildings were purged. It was clearly targeted voter suppression.

HRC "won" Brooklyn by less than 50,000 votes, while 126,000 were systematically disenfranchised .
 
 
-16 # rocback 2016-04-20 20:14
My point is that Hillary beat Bernie 60/40 on the counted votes in Brooklyn, even larger than her 18 point victory all over the state. So it stands to reason Hillary would have received many if not most of the 126,000 that you claim were disenfranchised .
 
 
+19 # Radscal 2016-04-20 21:46
The purges were not random. Specific apartment buildings and blocks were entirely purged.

So my point is that a clever group with access to data like social media posts, Google searches, etc. could easily scrub groups of people who favored the "wrong" candidate.

The result would look exactly like the results we got. Most of the HRC voters got to vote, and many of the Sanders supporters did not.
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-04-21 13:17
Bernie lost the apt complex he grew up in by double digits. We can all come up with anecdotal evidence if we want to.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-04-21 19:10
I cited Mayor de Blasio.

Where do you get your claim about how the people living at 1525 East 26th Street voted?
 
 
+1 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-04-21 03:07
That may be your point, but it's logically and factually absurd
 
 
+8 # CTPatriot 2016-04-21 05:43
You clearly don't understand how election fraud and voter suppression work, why they are done, and what kind of signs suggest those things may have worked in favor of a particular candidate.
 
 
+18 # Linda 2016-04-20 20:37
Quoting Radscal:
Mayor de Blasio observed that the purging of voters was not random. Entire apartment buildings were purged. It was clearly targeted voter suppression.

HRC "won" Brooklyn by less than 50,000 votes, while 126,000 were systematically disenfranchised.


Blasio actually said several entire blocks were purged or their registrations were changed !
 
 
+20 # Linda 2016-04-20 20:34
rocback, Actually you have that ass backwards ! Brooklyn is where Bernie was born, he had his widest margin of support in Brooklyn !I guess you never saw the crowds that came out for him in Brooklyn ?
Hillary never should have won Brooklyn !
 
 
+9 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-04-21 03:08
Facts don't matter to Hillarybots
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-04-21 13:27
Don't you two clowns realize there are RECORDS of the Brooklyn vote? It's very easy to check it out. Hillary beat Bernie by 20 points in Brooklyn.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/us/elections/new-york-city-democratic-primary-results.html#11/40.7100/-73.9800
 
 
+19 # librarian1984 2016-04-20 17:36
It is important that Sanders wins when the Independents join in.

Ask yourself this -- do Independents vote in November? Sanders wins them 2 (and sometimes 3) to 1.

Think about the implications of that.
 
 
+21 # DaveEwoldt 2016-04-20 19:21
Because in a two-party political system both parties need independent voters to win. Thus, the least brain-dead course of action is to put forth a candidate with the best chance of winning the national election.

What I don't understand is why Democrats think common sense is controversial.
 
 
+21 # Linda 2016-04-20 20:21
Rain17, Get over yourself ! Sanders and his campaign knew Independents couldn't vote ,those 123,000 Brooklynites had been registered as Democrats in October ,all their registrations had been changed just like the ones that were hacked and changed in AZ . Which btw the city council met with a room full of angry disenfranchised voters and after an investigation into what went wrong they were told months before the primary they knew they had a breach in their voter registration and did nothing about it and it was hacked and peoples registrations were changed ! Don't believe that ,Hillary supporter, look it up on line you can watch the very long video of the meeting and hear them say the voter registrations were hacked !
 
 
-5 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-04-21 03:05
I admire people that support Democrats but not democracy
 
 
+5 # BobboMax 2016-04-21 10:53
Rain,

My question about Independents (and all those other "fringe" voters) is why most of our election systems exclude them from any representation in the primaries. Why are the states required to spend millions on an election that benefits mostly the 2 major parties and excludes millions from any right to vote? Our Motto: One person, one vote (unless you want to vote for someone who threatens the establishment.)

And of course, we're still not talking about all the very successful voter exclusion efforts and the completely unreliable voting machines used in most states. My brother has been an election monitor in several counties and says most of the machines he's encountered use the same default password and are programmed to be completely open to hacking.
 
 
-56 # rocback 2016-04-20 10:48
Some of that unfavorability rating is due to sites like this.
 
 
+71 # EternalTruth 2016-04-20 11:06
In other words, the unfavorability is due to sites like this where you can learn about her actual record, instead of her left-pandering rhetoric. The truth, in other words.
 
 
-52 # rocback 2016-04-20 11:11
your "version" of the truth.
 
 
+56 # EternalTruth 2016-04-20 11:42
Hillary's record has nothing to do with my "version." She took her actions and made her votes without any help from me.
 
 
-31 # rocback 2016-04-20 12:12
her votes and Bernies votes were the same 93% of the time.
 
 
+38 # CL38 2016-04-20 12:40
try actually researching her record from the 90's to now-- what she supported and didn't support--and her votes when in the Senate.

You'll learn important facts you obviously don't know.
 
 
+23 # Nominae 2016-04-20 13:37
Quoting CL38:
.... You'll learn important facts you obviously don't know.


Excellent recommendation, but that would be assuming that Trolls are in any remote manner *concerned* with actual "facts"!

BTW, I have been greatly enjoying your posts. KUDOS
 
 
0 # CL38 2016-04-23 23:47
many thanks Nominae. ditto.
 
 
-19 # rocback 2016-04-20 13:59
The 93% statistic IS from the '90s. In fact its since forever. It includes every single vote they made together when they were both Senators voting on the same bills.
 
 
+16 # CL38 2016-04-20 14:42
false. do the research AGAIN. this time use CREDIBLE sources!
 
 
-13 # rocback 2016-04-20 15:05
I am not sure what you consider "credible" but "Occupy Democrats" website compared the two:

When it comes to the two remaining Democratic candidates, their voting records aren’t too far apart. Former New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders have voted in tandem on 93% of all the votes the made together, disagreeing on only 31 votes. The New York Times recently broke down exactly when they differed on opinion. When they did disagree, it’s clear that Clinton usually voted with the majority opinion, while the independent Sanders voted on his principles.

They clashed on whether or not to approve the 2008 bailout of the Wall Street banks (the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP) and the dead-on-arrival 2007 immigration bill, which Sanders opposed over concerns of fraud in the guest visa program that could have hurt Vermont farmers.

It’s a very interesting to see the dichotomy of the two sides laid out side-by-side, highlighting the differences in priority between the two candidates. But the important thing to note is that they agreed on a vast majority of the issues that matter to the American people – and that we are very lucky to have two candidates which such nuanced and intricately designed policy platforms, as opposed to the deluge of barely disguised racism and factually incorrect drivel that spews from the Republican side of the fence.
 
 
-14 # rocback 2016-04-20 15:06
The site also said they disagreed on foreign policy which many here have pointed out but the post was too long for me to include.
 
 
+30 # EternalTruth 2016-04-20 15:34
They disagreed on whether to bomb the shit out of Afghanistan and Iraq, they disagreed on the "patriot act", they disagreed on whether to force immigrants to travel home before applying for green card, they disagreed on whether to allow moving prisoners from Guantanamo to the US (to allow that horror to be closed).

To some of us, these are important distinctions which show a fundamental difference in character/philo sophy and not merely a difference of opinion.
 
 
-9 # rocback 2016-04-20 20:15
Wrong about Afganistan. They voted the same.
 
 
+5 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-04-21 03:17
Why bother to include stuff that proves you wrong?
 
 
+9 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-04-21 03:15
The problem isn't just Hillary's recored and ideas.

It's that her supporters, like rocbak don't care
 
 
+8 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-04-21 03:17
You might want to try to comprehend that "Occupy Democrats is not "Occupy Wall Street."

It is a Hillary PR group trying desperately to confuse people as to who they are.

They trick people like you
 
 
+36 # Radscal 2016-04-20 14:55
Yeah. So what if the times Sanders voted in opposition to HRC were things like an illegal and immoral war that has killed more than a million people?

"What difference, at this time does it make" that HRC voted to give Wall Street $ nearly a trillion dollars while leaving millions of families to be evicted from their homes?

Who cares about the USA PATRIOT Act? Constitutional Rights are SO 20th century.

Free Trade? Who can really be against these expansions of "trickle down economics?" After all, that's why we're called "peons."

NeoCons? HRC loves her some NeoCons, and voted for:
Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense

And then hired Victoria Nuland, partner of the founder of the PNAC.

So, we see, there's no substantial difference between HRC and Sanders, right? Right?

FAR RIGHT!
 
 
-29 # rocback 2016-04-20 15:08
The Patriot Act is something I disagree with too but to say it's unconstitutiona l is a stretch. If it is then let the Sup tell us...not Clive Bundy or you.
 
 
+22 # Radscal 2016-04-20 18:08
I suggest you re-read the 4th and 5th Amendments.

And you expect a Supreme Court that nullifies a significant enforcement of the 15th Amendment to rule to protect others?
 
 
-14 # rocback 2016-04-20 20:24
I am well aware of the current right wing court (5 of them at least). One of the reasons we keep losing on 5-4 decisions is because Nader cost Gore the election by giving New Hampshire and Fla to Bush which gave us Roberts and Alito and all those horrible 5-4 decisions like Citizens United.

And some people here want to do the same with Bernie. It's over. Hillary only needs 498 delegates with 1900 left and is ahad by double digits in the 3 largest remaining states.

Bernie is only siphoning money away from the Democrats and givng ammunition to the Republicans. The problem is his handlers are raking in the cash and they keep telling him to stick it out. They are on the gravy train and aalong as the money is coming in they dont want to stop.
 
 
+19 # cymricmorty 2016-04-20 20:57
Quoting rocback:
Bernie is only siphoning money away from the Democrats and givng ammunition to the Republicans. The problem is his handlers are raking in the cash and they keep telling him to stick it out. They are on the gravy train and aalong as the money is coming in they dont want to stop.


Either post a link or admit you're making that up. To think that Sanders' 5-million-plus small donators (or imaginary handlers) are somehow sucking precious Party blood is fatuous. Poor, poor HRC's PACs and Hillary Victory Fund scheme are underfunded? How does the impoverished DNC keep gamely limping along? You, rocback, are a Trojan horse of bullsht.
 
 
+11 # Radscal 2016-04-20 21:52
The Supreme Court did NOT vote on the USA PATRIOT Act, which was the single one of HRC's disastrous votes you disagreed with.

It was YOU who claimed that if the legislation was unconstitutiona l the Supreme Court would have struck it down. After I reminded you how right-wing the court is, instead of acknowledging that that POS legislation really is unconstitutiona l, you ramble off to bad mouth a great US hero.

Like your candidate, you exhibit no moral compass. Just swing whichever way you think "wins."
 
 
+10 # Billy Bob 2016-04-20 23:12
Radscal,

Thanks for taking Butcrack to the mat! I haven't had time to post much, so it's nice to read so many of your comments totally nailing the hypocrisy and slimy self-congratula tory "tone" for what it is.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-04-21 13:48
Hi Billy, and thanks.

This troll is almost too easy a target, but I just couldn't resist.
 
 
+2 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-04-21 03:18
Wrong again
 
 
+19 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-04-20 14:57
It's not from the 90's because neither of them was in the Senate in the 90's. They were in the Senate together for what, 2 years, 4 years? Look at the history of what they have done and supported throughout their lives, like in the 60's when Bernie was marching with Dr. King and Hillary was campaigning for Barry Goldwater.
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-04-20 20:26
I only said the '90's becasue I was answering CL38 above. If you notice I said forever.
 
 
+6 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-04-21 03:14
But you refuse to comprehend that it's the 7$ that matters.

I don't beat my dog 93% of the time.
 
 
0 # EternalTruth 2016-04-23 21:48
Perfect analogy!
 
 
+8 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 16:55
He probably knows. He doesn't care.
 
 
+4 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-04-21 03:12
And it's that nasty, inconvenient 7% that makes her a shit

Keep trying
 
 
+1 # GreenBee 2016-04-23 12:46
Well somebody has to tell the truth. The MSM surely doesn't.
HRC's most concerning actions are her SOS record and her complete misjudgment about the present mood of the electorate which is very angry at the big banks, and very concerned about too much foreign intervention - 2 issues she is a champion for. Sanders has been on the opposite side of HRC on these issues.
 
 
+16 # DaveEwoldt 2016-04-20 19:23
You know, rocback, the truth doesn't go away just because it is ignored.
 
 
-11 # rocback 2016-04-20 20:26
It seem that way on this site.
 
 
+8 # economagic 2016-04-20 19:45
Yeah, I like the flat earth hypothesis myself.
 
 
+3 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-04-21 03:12
Facts from The Congressional Record, and everywher else are only a version in your mind.

Hillarybots don't care about her lies and unethical behavior.

It's all about the vagina.

There's no other possible reason for supporting her
 
 
0 # GreenBee 2016-04-23 12:51
Some are "getting paid" as in paid trolls, or going to get a post in her administration or they are in the elite class of the top 10-20 income bracket and don't want their taxes raised. Most are just poorly informed as they get their "news" from the MSM.
 
 
+45 # dbrize 2016-04-20 11:42
Quoting rocback:
Some of that unfavorability rating is due to sites like this.


Yeah, if "sites like this..." would just go away, shut down and allow the coronation to proceed as planned.
 
 
+38 # reiverpacific 2016-04-20 11:48
Quoting rocback:
Some of that unfavorability rating is due to sites like this.


If you don't like RSN, nobody's FORCING you to keep infesting it.
Scared o' free speech, eh?
 
 
-37 # rocback 2016-04-20 12:13
scared of dissent? my hobby is exposing hypocrits.
 
 
+36 # guomashi 2016-04-20 12:22
Quoting rocback:
scared of dissent? my hobby is exposing hypocrits.


polish your mirror
 
 
+15 # Nominae 2016-04-20 13:44
Quoting rocback:
scared of dissent? my hobby is exposing hypocrits.


You could probably locate that many more of your "targets" if a bright Second Grader showed you how to spell the word: "hypocrites".

What you offer isn't dissent, it is drivel. But, then, they both begin with the letter "d" - so don't fire that Second Grader just yet ! ;-D

Understanding the word "hypocrisy" would also go a LONG way in helping you to comprehend why it is that ESPECIALLY "sites like this" cannot abide your repulsive candidate, or the myriad TROLLS who shill for her.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 16:58
You enjoy exposing yourself?
 
 
0 # GreenBee 2016-04-23 12:52
Well start exposing then, I haven't seen you expose any hypocrisy here.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-04-20 12:41
meant to give you thumbs up.
 
 
+30 # CL38 2016-04-20 12:38
Give us all a break from constant Hillary pandering.

ALL of her unfavorability ratings are due to bank & oligarchy support, outright lying and misinterpreting Bernie's positions and constant attacks on Sanders, including "Disqualify, Defeat & then unite the party."

She EARNED every ounce of those negative ratings.
 
 
+19 # librarian1984 2016-04-20 17:44
Exactly! HRC supporters and surrogates are acting like it's Sanders' fault that HRC's negatives are climbing, but IT IS HER OWN BEHAVIOR and that of her campaign.

But of course the Clintons never admit they made a mistake and they certainly do not apologize.

Those negative ratings are because of HRC's actions, goals and behavior, no one else's.
 
 
+7 # CTPatriot 2016-04-21 05:58
But they sure do excel at playing the victim card when it suits their political goals. And their sycophantic cultists like rochead just eat that up and then spit it back out as though it were the truth. Poor Hillary. Bernie and his surrogates pointed out some facts about her that painted her in a negative light and boohoo it's all Bernie's and his supporters fault that people hate her.

I'm sure it couldn't be because they've figured out she's a liar whose policy ideas blow with the wind and who has shown really bad judgment in so many ways when she was SoS and when she was in the Senate.
 
 
+15 # Nominae 2016-04-20 13:35
Quoting rocback:
Some of that unfavorability rating is due to sites like this.


Well, try not to take *ALL* of that credit for yourself. ;-D

As the article notes above, Hillary has been simply *reeking* repugnance with the voting masses for literal *decades*.

Where you *can* "break your arm banging yourself on the back", however, is in the simple fact that TROLLS such as yourself on "sites like this" really *DO* WILDLY increase the unfavorable ratings for your "chosen" candidates.

Especially those practicing the very effective, if unsophisticated "drip, drip, drip" Propaganda tactic patterned upon Ancient Chinese Water Torture that you have elected to champion.

So, yeah ! Only 37% of the Country can stomach Hillary NOW, and a huge percentage of *them* are doing so while holding their collective nose.

So, you are correct. Repulsive Trolls on "sites like this" really CAN take a bow for *helping* to drive Hillary's negatives even FURTHER down into the Dumper !

CONGRATULATIONS !
 
 
-12 # rocback 2016-04-20 14:01
You are right. We can add the 24/7 Hillary basking by Fox "News".
 
 
+12 # Radscal 2016-04-20 15:07
Fox? Like this?

Ann Coulter to Lou Dobbs on FOX TV.

“I wish FOX news would go a little easier on Hillary Clinton. She is the one we want to run against; if you guys would just back off, because I feel like I’m running through this de javu again.

“We used to say ‘Oh, the next President isn’t going to be this guy named Barack Hussein Obama.”

[Well] Our next President is going to be Bernie Sanders if you people keep this up.”
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2016-04-20 23:19
A lot of right-wingers - sorry, wrong term - "Republicans" (can't use "right-winger" anymore, since Clinton is one too), have been making remarks about hoping Clinton is the nominee, because there's a rumor the F.B.I. is quietly waiting out the Democratic Convention, to spring the indictment.

What would our trolls with too much time on their hands do for "poor poor Hitlery", if she were sitting in a jail cell?

I know it won't happen, or Nixon wouldn't have been able to opt out of jail time by simply resigning.

Still, it's an interesting thought experiment. What would the Democratic Party, and all of its super-predator delegates do if Clinton wound up in jail before the general election?

If it were to happen, the superficial know-nothings on "her team" at the expense of the rest of us would be facing just desserts. Part of me would like to see it happen. Maybe it would wake people the hell up and force them to acknowledge how corrupted the Democratic Party has become.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-04-21 13:46
Yeah, I've been seeing posts and articles about the FBI planning to indict HRC. One HillaryOus aspect was the story "leaked" out that there were 147 FBI agents working on the case. Then, the "correction" was made that it was really "only" between 12 and 50 FBI agents assigned to the HRC email case.

In a sane world, admitting that there are 12 to 50 FBI agents investigating you would cause both the Party and the candidates' supporters to seriously consider dropping her before she does serious harm to the Party.

But the FBI Director, James Comey was hired by Obama out of his job running HSBC's “Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee.” That was formed immediately after HSBC settled with the federal government for laundering $ billions of dollars in drug money and for terrorist groups.

Comey was sold to "liberals" as some great hero because of the great PR story about him preventing an extension of illegal surveillance at the hospital bed of AG John Ashcroft.

But he is a totally bought shill for Wall Street and its surveillance and police state. So, I don't expect FBI to move on HRC unless her owners see her losing to Sanders. If that happens, then they will get rid of her one way or the other and replace her with another shill.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-04-22 07:11
If HRC is nominated and then an indictment comes, the DNC will try to put someone else in, like Joe Biden.

If an indictment were to be entered before June, it seems the nomination would go to Sanders.
 
 
# Guest 2016-04-20 16:19
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+17 # lgsonoma 2016-04-20 16:25
Quoting rocback:
Some of that unfavorability rating is due to sites like this.

Correct! And god bless sites like this!
 
 
+12 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 17:01
Most of it is due to what comes out of her own mouth.
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-04-20 17:40
Really? Do you have a poor assessment of HRC based on what you read here? It may be convenient to dismiss people's concerns, but it is dishonest.

People are raising legitimate concerns but you dismiss them and then don't feel you need to answer them.

HRC is a corporatist and a hawk. I think she would be disastrous in the presidency.
 
 
+1 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-04-21 03:10
Then don't read it.

You won't be missed
 
 
0 # Vardoz 2016-04-20 12:13
If Bernie supporters don't vote for HRC, as much as we hate her, we may end up with a horrific GOP President. She is very disliked but the bottom line is we would rather have her, perhaps a one term president, than a Trump or Cruz. If we think its bad now, ending up with a GOP president will send us to the dark ages. We should vote for HRC and work our butts off to change the house and senate and vote out all those establishment Democrats and replace them with Democratic Socialists with the same values as Bernie Sanders. I understand the intense anger over HRC, we feel the same but bottom line is we do not want a GOP president.
 
 
+21 # Radscal 2016-04-20 15:14
You are of course welcome to compromise your values and vote for whatever Reaganite, corporatist warmonger you choose in November.

I will not reward with my vote candidates who have been on the wrong side of most issues for most of their lives. HRC is likely to lose to most any Republican in the general election, and to drag Congress further down with her.

The Democratic Party is teetering on the cliff's edge. A Sanders nomination could pull it back from the precipice. HRC will drive it hard over the edge, completing the task of her DLC takeover of the party of FDR.
 
 
+21 # Blackjack 2016-04-20 12:55
Yes, Marge, it locked out 100,000 from Brooklyn alone, where Bernie should have had the most support. The DNC is a corrupt and biased monolith that refuses to move in the direction of inclusiveness and fairness. It wants what it wants (Clinton) because it likes the perks that come with the power that her election will provide. From its influence on the states, all the way to its influence at the highest levels of government, it retains control over who gets to vote as a Democrat. It worked behind the scenes to "purge" voting rolls for months before the primary election in NY, helping to guarantee Clinton's win. It lies, it cheats, and it steals and Ms. DWS is the reason. Let us all be very watchful after HRC takes office to see just what special treats lie in store for Ms. DWS!
 
 
-14 # rocback 2016-04-20 14:09
Hillary got 60% of the Brooklyn vote so it's likely she would have raised her vote over Sanders.

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/39/17/all-primary-berned-2016-04-22-bk.html
 
 
+16 # newell 2016-04-20 16:52
"Woe is us." Really? A year ago, no one questioned that Hillary would be crowned. A year ago nobody knew Bernie Sanders. A year ago nobody thought a democratic socialist, or any kind, would be any more than fringe. A year ago people under 30 were looking for something. A year ago liberals did not have focus. A year ago, we did not have a political revolution that WILL make real change.... Now, we are organized and we WILL stop the 1% from ruining our economy and our planet with their empty, oily, warring, class culture. And now--Bernie can still win--but that was never the cake--only the icing.
 
 
+1 # Dred Pierce 2016-04-23 01:05
There is always the option of taking to the streets by the millions and disrupting business as usual. Occupy Oakland stopped shipping from the Port of Oakland for several days by simply driving cars onto the bridge, parking them and walking away. This is the only message Clinton's people hear. The areas where most of the commerce is offloaded and loaded onto trucks, the coasts of the East and the West, are heavily populated with progressives like Oakland. The people of Richmond just up the coast elected a progressive mayor in a contest just about as embarrassing as jeb?s 160 million prime time death ritual. This isn't about Bernie per se, it is about being, doing, and thinking like Bernie. All of us, together. I expect the heavy suppression of free speech and democracy by the enforcers as in Occupy. If enough citizens take to the streets and stay in the streets one rally after the next until business as usual is impossible, concessions will come. Like removing ALL restrictions on voting. Raising hell if prominent CRIMINAL darlings of the corrupt establishment avoid prosecution and imprisonment for CRIMES against society that they commit. The US may eventually Balkanize as there probably will not be resolution between the conservative and progressive movements. One thing for sure, everyone knows where the REAL CRIMES are coming from. How else could anyone explain such massive unpopularity?
 
 
0 # Desiderata 2016-04-23 17:51
[quote name="Dred Pierce"] This isn't about Bernie per se, it is about being, doing, and thinking like Bernie. All of us, together. I expect the heavy suppression of free speech and democracy by the enforcers as in Occupy. If enough citizens take to the streets and stay in the streets one rally after the next until business as usual is impossible, concessions will come."

I agree with you.
(You should repost this on a more current site. Most of the responses here are dated the 20th.) The mainstream media has succeeded in pretty well blacking out all things "Bernie". The 99% need to turn up the volume asap.
 
 
+89 # jimmyjames 2016-04-20 09:15
I do not believe the Democratic Party elites care if Hillary Clinton loses or not. What both parties are trying hard to insure is that an establishment politician gets elected. They don't want trump or Sanders because neither of them has been bought off. They are absolutely satisfied if Clinton, or Cruz, or Kasich, or some other chosen one wins, as long as that candidate plays along by their rules.

Don't ever forget that the vast majority of our existing political "leaders" march to the same drummer and belong to the same club. As George Carlin once put it, "It's a big club, and you ain't in it."
 
 
-29 # rocback 2016-04-20 10:50
Sounds like another Trump trojan horse.
 
 
+11 # EternalTruth 2016-04-20 11:15
What do you mean by "Trump trojan horse" (yes, I've read the Odyssey and the Aeneid). You keep saying it. Are you accusing them of consciously trying to get trump elected by convincing people to not cite for Hillary?
 
 
-25 # rocback 2016-04-20 11:41
yes. I am not saying all or even most but the Bernie Bridge Burners seem more intent on trashing Hillary than supporting Bernie. Hillary is someone who is much closer to Bernies policies than Trump. But you will notice some are now dropping all pretense and saying they ill vote for Trump.
 
 
# Guest 2016-04-20 14:35
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+9 # dbrize 2016-04-20 11:45
Quoting rocback:
Sounds like another Trump trojan horse.

Quoting rocback:
Sounds like another Trump trojan horse.


Another non sequitur. Doesn't matter if he is or not. Do you disagree with his point?
 
 
-13 # rocback 2016-04-20 12:16
I would think thatwheterh I agree or not with his claim that the Democratic party "elite" don't care if Hillary wins or loses" would be self-evident.
 
 
+11 # John Escher 2016-04-20 14:36
Quoting rocback:
I would think thatwheterh I agree or not with his claim that the Democratic party "elite" don't care if Hillary wins or loses" would be self-evident.


This is a sentence? With a clear meaning? I don't see how anybody can respond to Mr. rocback until they figure out what he is saying, and that is impossible since he is totally illiterate. To school, to school Mr. Rocback! Go back to school to learn some grammar. You then may discover (but of course only if you study hard) that there is a relationship between clear language and clear thought. I can't even tell-- from your posts-- which candidates or party you support, sir, and this is holding you back. You just are not reaching your potential to annoy. So sneck up, fella, sneck up!
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2016-04-20 23:22
Is this more evidence that some of her trolls are not even American voters?
 
 
+8 # Nominae 2016-04-20 14:34
Quoting rocback:
Sounds like another Trump trojan horse.


You sound like a broken record - endlessly repeating your same vapid and too-tired comment.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-04-20 23:23
Buttcrack is not being paid for originality.
 
 
+11 # Vardoz 2016-04-20 13:42
They care if they are not reelected. many Vermonters called Patrick Leahy and told him that they will not support him because he endorsed HRC- He backed off to non- committed, but many Vermonters will be voting for non - establishment reps next round, Socialist Democrats with Bernie's values. We desperately need to change the house and senate Schumer should go, Boxer and Fienstein and even Al Franken endorsed HRC- Calling them and telling them why should we support you when you endorsed HRC and there is no way we will vote for you again scares them and if many call it has an affect. So call 202-224-3121
 
 
+71 # Ken Halt 2016-04-20 09:15
If the DNC cared anything about the future viability of the party it would nurture the energy of the younger demographic that is supporting Bernie with such enthusiasm and in such large numbers/percent ages. That energy and commitment is not going to automatically shift to HRC if she is the eventual nominee.
 
 
+38 # CarolinMexico 2016-04-20 09:57
Exactly. HRC needs to embrace Sanders' issues, instead of pretending they are hot air. She does not need to agree to specifics, but her "disqualify Bernie" with lies and inuendos is disqualifying her to his supporters.
Bad mistake as Ken points out!
 
 
-24 # rocback 2016-04-20 10:51
She has moved closer to Bernie. Your movement has been effective in that.
 
 
+4 # MidwestTom 2016-04-20 11:18
IN National polls Bernies is now only 2% behind.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 17:13
Depending on the poll. He is ahead in some.
 
 
+33 # reiverpacific 2016-04-20 11:50
Quoting rocback:
She has moved closer to Bernie. Your movement has been effective in that.


So; shoot us.
You mean she's flip-flopped once again and Bernie's forced her to APPEAR more populist, which she isn't in the least and will reveal herself in due course.
 
 
+19 # CL38 2016-04-20 12:47
She's moved closer to "saying' that she's a progressive like Bernie, but the truth is--as most know who actually check out her real positions--she' s Republican lite all the way. (i.e., I pushed for the TPP before running for President, now I no longer support it--at least until I steal the election......o ops...I mean.. until I'm' elected'.
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-04-20 14:14
She explained why she was for the TPP when she was Sec of State serving at the pleasure of the President. Even then she said she would only support the final version IF it had sufficient worker protection, environmental protections and consumer protection. It didn't so she is against it. Why is that so hard to understand?
 
 
+12 # dbrize 2016-04-20 14:46
Quoting rocback:
She explained why she was for the TPP when she was Sec of State serving at the pleasure of the President. Even then she said she would only support the final version IF it had sufficient worker protection, environmental protections and consumer protection. It didn't so she is against it. Why is that so hard to understand?


Not surprisingly for those who remember history, she reminds of the 60's comeback of RMN as the "new Nixon". Of course after voters fell for it we found he was still the old Nixon.

The "new Hillary" learned well the art of disguise. The parallels with Nixon are much closer than with Sanders.
 
 
+3 # CTPatriot 2016-04-21 06:10
You don't have to go back that far in history. She's following the Obama 2008 formula. Campaign as a progressive then once you're safely in office, take your mask office and govern as the neoliberal you always were.

With Obama we didn't have nearly as much evidence to figure out what a fraud his campaign was. With Hillary on the other hand, it's pretty obvious to anyone who's paying attention. She's not a progressive. She just plays one to get elected.
 
 
+12 # SusanT136 2016-04-20 14:39
Quoting rocback:
She has moved closer to Bernie. Your movement has been effective in that.


In her rhetoric, for the moment. The history of HRC has shown us that what she says now may not be the same as what she has done, even in the recent past, and may not be indicative of what she will do in the future. In other words, we can't trust anything she says, which is unfortunate.
 
 
+10 # DaveEwoldt 2016-04-20 19:33
When you examine some of Hillary's statements, it's impossible to not come to the conclusion she'll revert back to her right of center stance. After all, she's said she'll follow in Obama's footsteps and continue his policies, and he reversed pretty much every one of his progressive campaign promises once elected.
 
 
0 # GreenBee 2016-04-23 12:58
Quoting rocback:
She has moved closer to Bernie. Your movement has been effective in that.


I don't believe for a minute she will not return to her per primary positions if elected. The President of the US Chamber of Commerce gave a speech in March assuring the business community that she will indeed sign the tPP as soon as elected.(you can google that.) She has taken way too much money from too many powerful entities. She claims it never influences her positions but there is evidence that it does.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 17:12
She has. But no one believes her. It doesn't help to have to spouting Bernie's message in the campaign when we know she is going to revert to her true self if elected.
 
 
+20 # reiverpacific 2016-04-20 09:28
Projected Clinton pick for Vice-president; Jamie Dimon!
Think about it.
 
 
+27 # tigerlillie 2016-04-20 09:35
Perfect, Jamie Dimon is also widely reviled.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-04-20 15:21
Vote Clinton/Dimon and get BOTH sides of Wall Street.

Diversity the DLC can believe in.
 
 
+47 # Buddha 2016-04-20 09:28
IWith HRC now almost certainly the DNC/Oligarchy-a pproved candidate in November, I think like 2014 this is going to be a horrible turn-out year for Dems. Simply put, HRC's favorable/unfav orable numbers are uninspiring, and she is very disliked among independents that she would need in the General. Basically, the only argument for voting for her is that same tired "if you don't, the GOP will win" rationale the DNC keeps shoving down our throat to get us to accept corrupt Center-Right warhawk BlueDogs.
 
 
-13 # CarolinMexico 2016-04-20 10:00
She is great on most women's issues! Signed, A Sanders supporter who does not want Trump
 
 
+18 # reiverpacific 2016-04-20 10:46
Quoting CarolinMexico:
She is great on most women's issues! Signed, A Sanders supporter who does not want Trump


Granted but deeply flawed on warmongering (which at least even Drumpf is opposed to) the poor, social safety nets -which many women rely on- and most other populist-friend ly issues.
 
 
+15 # CL38 2016-04-20 12:54
I agree. Being a feminist is not only about women's issues, it's includes a feminist approach to a broad range of many issues. How can a true feminist be for constant war, 1% oligarchy control of the majority of the population, or support (by default) gross inequality for most, bank and Wall Street scams and fraud, etc.?

As a 40 year feminist, that's not MY definition of feminism.
 
 
+12 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 17:29
Thank you. Very well put. I agree completely and I really don't understand how any feminist could think that being her being a woman and being pretty reliable on abortion are enough, but many do.

I say "pretty reliable" because I remember during the '08 campaign when the nonsense about abortion causing breast cancer was going on. Science had already disproven the link, and Hillary had to have known that since she has a staff to keep her current on pertinent issues, but when asked, she couldn't keep from pandering to the right wing by saying the jury was still out.

And then there was the Mother Jones article comparing Hillary and Bernie on the issue of abortion restrictions. Bernie was straight forward. "I don't approve of restrictions on abortion". Hillary talked all around the issue and never really answered it.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2016-04-20 23:27
Hitlery has always had an obsession with squeezing out every last possible Republican voter to her camp. She's never cared how many Democrats she stepped on to do it either.

That's always been the Clinton winning strategy - totally disregard Democrats, and focus most of your attention on "winning over" the Republican vote. It's never been a problem, because they can just attack Democratic challengers with actual ethics and a consistent record, as "naïve", etc.
 
 
+6 # John Escher 2016-04-20 14:40
Quoting reiverpacific:
Quoting CarolinMexico:
She is great on most women's issues! Signed, A Sanders supporter who does not want Trump


Granted but deeply flawed on warmongering (which at least even Drumpf is opposed to) the poor, social safety nets -which many women rely on- and most other populist-friendly issues.


I can't agree that someone who wants to bloat the military is opposed to warmongering. Regardless, we need to spend less on weaponry and more on infrastructure.
 
 
-28 # MidwestTom 2016-04-20 11:20
The only demographic Bernie won was White Males.
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-04-20 14:47
Horse*****.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-04-20 15:24
Well, not if those women live in Honduras or Libya or Afghanistan or Syria.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 17:17
It's Clinton supporters who make a Trump victory more likely. Bernie is absolutely as good as she is on Women's issues without any waffling.
 
 
+6 # DaveEwoldt 2016-04-20 19:35
Well, unless you're a Central American woman, or a Middle Eastern woman, or...
 
 
+7 # lorenbliss 2016-04-20 22:40
Actually -- despite her rhetorical camouflage -- Hillary's real-world record on women's issues is at least as bad as that of any ChristoFascist Republican.

But the savage blows she strikes against women are hidden within the far-greater body count inflicted by Free Trade.

Note that women whose jobs have been stolen by Free Trade have in fact also been robbed of their health insurance.

Note too that women who have been robbed of their health insurance have likewise been robbed of their sexual freedom.

Free Trade's millions of female victims have only one sexual choice: remain 100 percent chaste or defy the odds and risk pregnancy.

Nor does ACA, with its prohibitive co-pays and all its Hobby-Lobby exemptions, provide anything remotely approaching adequate replacement for the insurance coverage stolen with all the looted jobs.

This disguised assault on women is classic Clinton sleight-of-hand and misdirection.

It is exemplified by Hillary's sneaky collaboration with Sam Brownback and his ilk to impose zero-tolerance theocracy.

These Dominionist Christians are "tunneling beneath" separation of church and state rather than openly overthrowing it...

Exactly as in Free Trade's repeal of sexual freedom.

But the "tunneling" strategy is exposed by Jeff Sharlet in "The Family: the Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power" (Harper: 2008).

Read it, especially pages 272-277. See the true Hillary.

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.
 
 
+3 # Majikman 2016-04-21 22:00
Does murdering children and deporting them to a country to be murdered constitute being "great on women's issues"? I think not.
 
 
0 # pkricketts 2016-04-22 21:34
If she is so great on women's issues, then why does she pay her female campaign staffers less than the male campaign staffers?
 
 
0 # GreenBee 2016-04-23 13:01
Quoting pkricketts:
If she is so great on women's issues, then why does she pay her female campaign staffers less than the male campaign staffers?

And she doesn't pay her interns at all. But likely they don't need money as they are from the moneyed classes.
 
 
+29 # librarian1984 2016-04-20 10:01
I have taken the Bernie or bust pledge. I won't vote for HRC, but that doesn't mean I'm not voting. I'll vote Green Party and for the most progressive candidates I find all down ticket. But the Democratic Party has been taken over by Neocons, largely due to the Clintons, and I'm not willingly giving them back the White House.

You look at their tax returns and determine who is in it for the money.

This has really been such a remarkable election cycle. It started as a coronation for HRC and Jeb! and then it became a slow-motion circus and now it's turned into a battle, in both parties, of the establishment versus the barbarians, which for the GOP roughly means survivalists and/or neonazis, and for the Dems that means progressives and people, apparently, who don't really want to get things done.

If the GOP has a brokered convention, perhaps they'll come up with Jeb! again. And if Democrats decide, in this battle for the soul blah blah, that "Democratic" means a buttoned-up, bubble-zone, business-friend ly oligarchy, rather than a party that stands for equality and justice, then, after all the storm und drang we will end up with a Clinton-Bush matchup after all, augmented by a happy media -- they do love a circus!

Or perhaps Paul Ryan will be persuaded, and Elizabeth Warren, as this article conjectures. Now THAT would be unexpected, and probably VERY wonky.
 
 
-9 # Rain17 2016-04-20 10:32
I have no problem with you wanting to vote third party or stay at home. But don't whine about whatever a Cruz or Trump administration does. Don't whine about right-wing Supreme Court decisions. Don't whine when the bad policies in places like KS, MI, NC, OH, TX, and WI go national.

Why do I have a feeling that those who will vote third party and stay at home will be the ones screaming the loudest about the horrible actions of a Cruz or Trump administration?

Again I have no problem if you want to stay at home or third party, but you also better accept the consequences. I just really have no tolerance for people who will whine when they will have chosen to be part of the problem instead of the solution.
 
 
-25 # rocback 2016-04-20 10:54
They are the same people who voted for Nader and then cried about a "W" victory and his policies and Sup Ct nominees Roberts and Alito (which gave us the 5-4 Citizens United decision).
 
 
-26 # Rain17 2016-04-20 11:17
Of course they are. And they are the same people who will refuse to take any responsibility for their actions. I really don't care if they vote third party as long as they take responsibility for the consequences they want to inflict on the rest of us.
 
 
+21 # Radscal 2016-04-20 15:30
So, are you taking responsibility for the deaths and impoverishment of tens of millions of people in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria under the policies of your candidate?

Are you taking responsibility for the installation of rabidly anti-LGBT regimes in Honduras and Ukraine thanks to your candidate's "hard choices?"

Or do foreigners not count?
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2016-04-20 23:32
What you have to understand about Rain, is that, not only is he totally selfish and narcissistic, but not very big on self-reflection , or the ability to form opinions based on logic or the inclusion of facts outside his predetermined decisions.

Don't confuse him with facts.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-04-21 13:55
Exactly. And then he has the audacity to accuse others of being selfish. Quite a piece of work that one.
 
 
+15 # Anarchist 23 2016-04-20 13:17
You need to look at the history of that election. first it was blatantly stolen. There were a whole demographic of retired jewish peopel from NY whose district when for Pat buchanon...sure they voted for him!~ then John bolton and Republican aids physically broke in and announced 'I'm here to stop the recount'...fina lly the SCOTUS decided on the winner...whose brother just coincidentally happened to be governor of the contested state which gave Bush the electoral votes to 'win' even tho Gore won the popular vote by a considerable majority. so the Nader vote was negligible in the events.
 
 
+11 # Radscal 2016-04-20 15:41
It is important to Democratic Party Leaders to demonize Nader, so as to frighten voters and prevent progressive alternatives from actually winning elections.

FL was never in play. Jeb! and Katherine Harris guaranteed that a year before the election.

And the Democratic Party knew about the "Strip and Flip" strategy, but did nothing in the past 16 years to abolish election fraud.

Gore lost because he was a horrible candidate. He proudly defended the killing of 1/2 million Iraqi children, the impoverishment of millions of USians through his "reinvention of government" program and in general, full embrace of the Reaganite "New Democrat" sellout to Wall Street.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-04-22 07:15
And Gore couldn't even win his home state. He was a weak candidate, just like Kerry. The DNC does not have a good track record, unless you count fund-raising .... oh!
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-08-13 16:09
Yeah, but Gore was weak enough to win. Human institutions are simply not transparent and democratic enough to be what we'd like, we either have to live with that or change it? That includes today's DNC. I hate it. I especially hate Debbie Wasserman-Schul tz being pretend fired and them moved to a higher paying job ... another pattern in this country these days.
 
 
+11 # dbrize 2016-04-20 14:52
Quoting rocback:
They are the same people who voted for Nader and then cried about a "W" victory and his policies and Sup Ct nominees Roberts and Alito (which gave us the 5-4 Citizens United decision).


Actually, Hillary supported the worst of Shrubs policies. The GWOT, and still does. And I"ll remind you that it was Roberts whose vote conjured up Obamacare. You and Hillary find no fault there do you?

And you still haven't answered a prior question put to you:
You say you oppose "policing the world". Does your candidate agree with you?.
 
 
-7 # rocback 2016-04-20 20:33
yes
 
 
+6 # dbrize 2016-04-20 21:05
Quoting rocback:
yes


So we can count on her to remove us from our ongoing military operations in 134 nations around the globe? Quit interfering in Ukraine?

Provide some source evidence please.
 
 
+10 # lorenbliss 2016-04-20 23:01
Why are we wasting our time debating a person who -- as is now so painfully obvious -- is naught but a pathetically closed-minded low-information voter?

Perhaps rocback, who so loves to damn so many of us as Trojan horses, is merely projecting.

Perhaps the real Trojan horse is rocback – indeed a modern Trojan horse, attempting not to over-run us with a bellyful of bloodthirsty Achaeans but rather to rock us back on disruptive or rhetorically confusing rockers, albeit not specifically for either of the two Ruling Class parties, but rather to expand their Moron Nation constituencies. ..

And thus perpetuate the ethos of ever-intensifie d ignorance that keeps our oppressors in power.
 
 
+12 # bardphile 2016-04-20 11:14
I agree, Rain. I hope Sanders stays in until the end. His chances are small, but not zero. Regarding voting 3rd party, I did in '00, but only when my home state was securely called for Gore. If you're in a swing state, vote Democratic--the re is a big difference!
 
 
+5 # Rain17 2016-04-20 11:28
I have no problem with Sanders staying in the race until the end as long as he runs a positive campaign.
 
 
+8 # Nominae 2016-04-20 14:44
Quoting Rain17:
I have no problem with Sanders staying in the race until the end as long as he runs a positive campaign.


We'll see to it that the Sanders campaign calls you before they so much as *consider* a move of which *you* may NOT approve.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-04-20 23:34
Perhaps Hitlery could learn a thing or two about a positive campaign in the process.
 
 
-3 # Rain17 2016-04-21 17:21
Hitlery? My God, you sound so childish and immature.
 
 
+2 # Ken Halt 2016-04-22 20:04
rain: But the HRC campaign is the one that has lied and smeared, Bernie has run a clean campaign.
 
 
+24 # EternalTruth 2016-04-20 11:23
"I have no problem with you wanting to vote third party or stay at home. But don't whine about whatever a Cruz or Trump administration does."

Why is that worse than whining about whatever a Clinton administration does? At least we won't be complicit in the evils perpetrated by Clinton.

"I just really have no tolerance for people who will whine when they will have chosen to be part of the problem instead of the solution."

If you wanted to be part of the solution, you'd've supported Sanders instead trying to continue the problem by supporting Clinton. Hillary is the very embodiment of the problem.
 
 
-15 # Rain17 2016-04-20 11:30
And so you'll be complicit in even worse evils? With at least one, if not more, Supreme Court vacancies at stake, I can't take your comment seriously. Again I don't care if you want to vote third party or stay at home as long as you accept the consequences of your actions.
 
 
+13 # EternalTruth 2016-04-20 11:44
No. Voting for the good, does not make me complicit in the elected evil. But voting the lesser evil dies make me complicit in that evil. Lesser evil politics is what has gotten us where we are. It's time to change direction.
 
 
-14 # Rain17 2016-04-20 11:59
And let me guess that you can afford the luxury of throwing your vote away. Many other people can't.
 
 
+5 # dbrize 2016-04-20 14:55
Quoting Rain17:
And so you'll be complicit in even worse evils? With at least one, if not more, Supreme Court vacancies at stake, I can't take your comment seriously. Again I don't care if you want to vote third party or stay at home as long as you accept the consequences of your actions.


You can thank Roberts for Obamacare, don't be such an ingrate.
 
 
-4 # rocback 2016-04-20 15:16
You can also thank Roberts and Alito for Citizens United.
 
 
+7 # dbrize 2016-04-20 15:52
Quoting rocback:
You can also thank Roberts and Alito for Citizens United.


Still waiting for an answer to a direct question. You say you oppose "policing the world". Does your candidate?

Fourth request.
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-04-20 20:34
I answered. read above.
 
 
+2 # Salus Populi 2016-04-22 07:00
Could you provide any credible evidence for your simple "yes"? Since Clinton is running on the basis of tying herself to Obama's policies, which include having close to doubled the number of countries in which U.S. JSOC and paramilitary death squads operate -- from around 70 at the end of Bush's maladministrati on to 134 presently -- can you point to any votes as a Senator, public statements or demurers as First Lady, or actions as SoS that support your contention? Anything beyond empty campaign promises, such as her precedent [sic] gave us? Anything at all?

Well?
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-04-20 15:44
Your work to nominate the least electable candidate running for the Democratic Party will reap what you've sown.
 
 
+4 # Charles3000 2016-04-21 08:21
Voting Green or writing in Sanders is NOT endorsing a right wingnut nor a neocon/neoliber al like HRC! Your logic is flawed!
 
 
+14 # dbrize 2016-04-20 12:04
Quoting Rain17:
I have no problem with you wanting to vote third party or stay at home. But don't whine about whatever a Cruz or Trump administration does. Don't whine about right-wing Supreme Court decisions. Don't whine when the bad policies in places like KS, MI, NC, OH, TX, and WI go national.

Why do I have a feeling that those who will vote third party and stay at home will be the ones screaming the loudest about the horrible actions of a Cruz or Trump administration?

Again I have no problem if you want to stay at home or third party, but you also better accept the consequences. I just really have no tolerance for people who will whine when they will have chosen to be part of the problem instead of the solution.


Same song, change the tune. You are beyond redundant.

Here's how it works Rain17, folks can vote or not, however they choose and still retain their right to criticize, complain and bitch about whatever they choose.

Childish statements like "...you also better accept the consequences... " are middle school playground taunts. Grow up.

Sorry the facts of life annoy you but...hey, that's life.
 
 
-18 # Rain17 2016-04-20 13:02
I don't take people seriously who want to be part of the problem.
 
 
+17 # dbrize 2016-04-20 13:25
Quoting Rain17:
I don't take people seriously who want to be part of the problem.


Nothing requires you to take anyone seriously any more than others are required to cease complaining because it annoys you.
 
 
+11 # Nominae 2016-04-20 16:33
Quoting Rain17:
I don't take people seriously who want to be part of the problem.


By that definition, then, you are saying that you don't take yourself seriously.

No worries, you are in good company. Most of us cannot take you very seriously either.
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 17:43
The problem is the people who are scared into voting for someone as hated as Hillary is.
 
 
+10 # CL38 2016-04-20 13:01
It's not 'whining' to protest and refuse to continue to collude in the constant, never-ending Democratic strategy of "vote for the lesser of two evils" bind we're put in, decade after decade. They count on the threat of a continued GOP takeover to push a corrupt, maintain-the-st atus-quo candidate.

If this strategy finally backfires, I'll hold the DNC and MSM responsible for their strategy blunder; for taking voter's for granted. I'm tired of being bulldozed and threatened by the DNC.

I'm also outraged by Hillary's obsession with 'it's her turn" attitude, regardless of what's best for the country, the party or voters..
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-04-22 07:20
But the DNC, like the Clintons, will not accept it was their fault. They'll interpret it in a way that fits their narrative, and then proceed as usual.

Oh, they will probably put in some anti-progressiv e rules.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 17:41
"Why do I have a feeling that those who will vote third party and stay at home will be the ones screaming the loudest about the horrible actions of a Cruz or Trump administration?"

Because you are not thinking. The people who will not vote for Hillary are thinking about it seriously and know what to expect.
 
 
-3 # Rain17 2016-04-21 17:23
Again I don't care if you want to throw your vote away, but I damn well have a problem about the consequences people like you want to inflict upon the rest of us.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-04-22 07:25
Why are progressives deemed problematic in the Democratic Party? That should tell you something important.

"Throw our vote away"? I've listened to that tired old argument for years, and where has it gotten us? In a race to the bottom, and by that I mean in a contest with the GOP to see who can be more corporate-friendly.

What about the consequences of voting for Republican values cycle after cycle? Do you see a Democratic utopia filled with workers' rights and justice and equality flowing in rivers? No. You see the lowest union membership in decades, income inequality, an economy based on greed and subsidized by continuous war.

We have got to force a change in the status quo, and I will forever be grateful to Senator Sanders for renewing my hope.
 
 
+22 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-04-20 10:43
It won't work Trump will beat her. I say let him. Burn both parties to the ground at this point. They are exactly the same.
 
 
+15 # CL38 2016-04-20 12:50
I had committed to hold my nose and vote for her if Bernie "lost". After seeing her in action--corrupt tactics and voter suppression--th is 40 year feminist will write in Sanders in the General. If Trump wins, it will be on the DNC, MSM and Clinton. Not going to be held responsible by corrupt elites for giving voters a candidate they KNOW we don't support.
 
 
+8 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 17:46
That's what I'm going to do. Of course I'm in a very blue "state". But after seeing her in action I think I would probably do it even if I lived in Ohio.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-04-22 07:27
Quoting CL38:
I had committed to hold my nose and vote for her if Bernie "lost". After seeing her in action--corrupt tactics and voter suppression--this 40 year feminist will write in Sanders in the General.


This is exactly where I am too. I thought I could vote for HRC if she was the nominee, but based on her campaign, I can't do it. She represents the worst side of politics. I'm not going to support that anymore.
 
 
-8 # Jegrinnan 2016-04-20 09:31
every poll shows, regardless of likeability, voters overwhelmingly favor Clinton over Trump, whose non-likeability numbers among all demographics are off the charts.
 
 
+21 # Spence 2016-04-20 09:51
Yes Jegrinnan, but the more people hear and see Hillary the more they dislike her. The more they listen to Trump's message on the economy and war the more they like him.
 
 
+7 # MidwestTom 2016-04-20 11:22
Trump is the only candidate who has questioned why we support Saudi Arabia. I like a fresh idea here.
 
 
-14 # rocback 2016-04-20 11:44
There is another one!
 
 
+5 # John Escher 2016-04-20 14:45
Quoting rocback:
There is another one!


Vague reference. Unclear.
 
 
-9 # rocback 2016-04-20 15:18
a Trump trojan horse.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-04-20 23:37
I think you're the Trump trojan horse. You're the one trying to talk people into nominating the only candidate he could possibly defeat. You seem to want Trump to win. Sanders would beat him in a landslide. You've never addressed this fact either.

Pretty suspicious behavior.

I think you've been outed.
 
 
+5 # dbrize 2016-04-20 15:19
Quoting rocback:
There is another one!


Do you support KSA?
 
 
+4 # cymricmorty 2016-04-20 18:21
I don't even hear the crickets.
 
 
+6 # reiverpacific 2016-04-20 11:53
Quoting Jegrinnan:
every poll shows, regardless of likeability, voters overwhelmingly favor Clinton over Trump, whose non-likeability numbers among all demographics are off the charts.


This shows how many are really paying attention and get their news by name-recognitio n, courtesy of the corporate owned shallow, content-lite media.
My theory only of course but it makes perfect logic to y'rs truly.
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-04-20 14:52
Quoting Jegrinnan:
every poll shows, regardless of likeability, voters overwhelmingly favor Clinton over Trump, whose non-likeability numbers among all demographics are off the charts.


Yessir, I can already see the bumper sticker : Vote Clinton - "Better Than a Poke In The Eye With A Sharp Stick" ! ;-D
 
 
+32 # tigerlillie 2016-04-20 09:34
Never fear, Hillary will take the a White House any way she can get it. I am sure that she is undaunted by being widely disliked. As long as she is elected, by hook or crook, everything is A-OK for her.
 
 
+16 # Spence 2016-04-20 09:56
Personally, I am one of those that the more I hear and see her, the more I dislike her; to a point where I would sooner vote for Trump than Hillary. I trust Trump, I do not trust Hillary. As a lifelong Democrat and a feminist, it isn't easy to say this.
 
 
-13 # rocback 2016-04-20 11:15
based on exit polls in NY, fortunately, you are in the 14% minority of Bernie voters who wont vote for Hillary.
 
 
+8 # guomashi 2016-04-20 11:54
Quoting rocback:
based on exit polls in NY, fortunately, you are in the 14% minority of Bernie voters who wont vote for Hillary.


democrats are 34% of the electorate.
1 in 7 bernie voters won't vote for hillary.
hillary won 58% to 43% last night.

58% of 34% = ~20% = the number of voters hillary has in her camp.

14% of 43% of 32% = ~2% of total voters who will not vote for her.

you think she can afford that?
the situation is much worse outside democratic party in terms of tolerating her.
 
 
-11 # Rain17 2016-04-20 12:00
Again it's funny. As a Hillary supporter I'm supposed to vote for Bernie if he is the nominee. And, even though I don't like him, I will vote for Sanders in the general election if he is the nominee. Yet Sanders supporters are the ones threatening to take their ball and go home if they don't get their way.
 
 
+12 # CL38 2016-04-20 13:09
It's not about 'getting our way". THAT'S Hillary's and the DNC attitude.

Bernie Sander's supporters want a candidate who will force neo-liberal Democrats to deal with the profound inequality we are living with in the 21st century.
 
 
0 # GreenBee 2016-04-23 13:09
Many of us have come to the realization that voting for an establishment candidate means no one except the elites will "get their way."

Many of us believe, with good reason, that the longer we allow the big money interests to control our government, the more difficult it will be to change the policies that allow them to do this. They will become more entrenched and more powerful as they figure out more schemes to protect their positions, and keep any true competition out of the political sphere.
 
 
-15 # rocback 2016-04-20 12:19
yes, since over 50% of Republican voters won't vote for Trump.
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2016-04-20 23:37
Hitlery should run on the Republican ticket. At least that would be truth in advertising.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 17:49
That doesn't count all the independents for Bernie that weren't allowed to vote in the primary.
 
 
0 # Rain17 2016-04-21 17:26
Do you understand that sone states have closed primaries? Or should the rules that were fine in 2008 suddenly be changed?
 
 
# Guest 2016-04-22 07:29
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+9 # EternalTruth 2016-04-20 11:25
"I trust Trump."

Oh my! I'm simply speechless.
 
 
+3 # John Escher 2016-04-20 14:46
Quoting Spence:
Personally, I am one of those that the more I hear and see her, the more I dislike her; to a point where I would sooner vote for Trump than Hillary. I trust Trump, I do not trust Hillary. As a lifelong Democrat and a feminist, it isn't easy to say this.


Might be time to talk about something specific, like The Ukraine.
 
 
+19 # Trish42 2016-04-20 10:04
I'll vote for Hillary only because Trump or Cruz scare the hell out of me, mainly because they would have a posse of Repukes traveling along with them, moving the SC even further to the right. No matter who wins, only Bernie's Progressive movement can rescue this country. Keep it goin', Berners!!!
 
 
+1 # bardphile 2016-04-20 11:16
Exactly!
 
 
-4 # Rain17 2016-04-20 12:16
Or perhaps actually focus energies on local races. Lord knows that a lot of horrible policies are coming out of places like KS, MI, MS, NC, OH, TX, and WI.
 
 
+11 # CL38 2016-04-20 13:11
If you do vote for Hillary, you'll be voting for Republican lite policies, not progressive change. Don't be fooled by her pretense' to be progressive. After she 'win's', she'll revert back to positions she held before deciding to run.
 
 
+24 # AlcheMs 2016-04-20 10:06
One Sanders supporter suggested that those of us who have ALREADY VOTED for Sanders in Democratic Primaries across the country should now CHANGE OUR REGISTRATION TO UNAFFILIATED or INDEPENDENT to send a message to the Democratic Party. That will help them understand that this is NOT Your Father's Party anymore, and we have enough numbers to create a viable Third Party.
 
 
-17 # Rain17 2016-04-20 10:36
No you don't. Even Nader in 2000 could only get 2.74% of the vote.

You know what, it's even more funny how many of you are like immature children. As a Clinton supporter I'm supposed to support Sanders if he wins the nomination. I've gone on the record here saying that, even though I don't like him, I will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee.

Yet Sanders supporters are the ones who want to take their ball and go home because a majority of Democratic primary voters simply disagreed with them. It's quite funny that I'm supposed to get behind Sanders, but not the other way around.
 
 
+19 # EternalTruth 2016-04-20 11:32
The difference is that most Clinton supporters actually agree wth Bernie's platform but find it "unrealistic." Whereas many Bernie supporters fundamentally disagree with what Hillary stands for.
 
 
-17 # Rain17 2016-04-20 12:01
I'm not voting for Sanders in the primary--DC doesn't vote until 14 June, so it should be over by then--because I just don't think he can win the general election. I just don't think America is going to elect a "self-proclaime d Socialist" president.
 
 
+12 # Farafalla 2016-04-20 13:16
Speak for yourself. I love it how all these reactionary trolls try to express some kind of grim reality that is supposed to eclipse everything that is just and good for the eternal mediocrity of center right politics. I'm voting socialist and glad there is one candidate who calls himself one even though he is a New Deal social democrat. The trolls will have you believe that FDR was a communist.
 
 
+11 # CL38 2016-04-20 13:13
I would hope you'd vote for Sanders because he's the ONLY candidate fighting for you and me. For God's sake and your own, LOOK at her previous history!!!!!!
 
 
+3 # John Escher 2016-04-20 14:48
Quoting Rain17:
No you don't. Even Nader in 2000 could only get 2.74% of the vote.

You know what, it's even more funny how many of you are like immature children. As a Clinton supporter I'm supposed to support Sanders if he wins the nomination. I've gone on the record here saying that, even though I don't like him, I will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee.

Yet Sanders supporters are the ones who want to take their ball and go home because a majority of Democratic primary voters simply disagreed with them. It's quite funny that I'm supposed to get behind Sanders, but not the other way around.


You're getting a bit convoluted, too. Time to simplify by leading a discussion on The Ukraine.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-04-20 15:58
In the months leading up to the 2000 election, Nader was polling above 5%. His stated goal was for the Green Party to reach that 5% so as to qualify for matching funds and other benefits of being a "legitimate" 3rd Party.

That's why the DNC pulled out all the stops in a duplicitously negative campaign against him.

The Republicans had successfully destroyed the Reform Party by forcing Pat Buchanan onto their ticket. The Democrats destroyed the Green party by demonizing the person who has perhaps done more good for USians than any other for 1/2 century or longer.
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-08-13 16:06
There is a pattern here of the American people building something up, like the country, only to have capitalists swoop in, and either bribe it or buy it and use it for their own means. The whole country is a metaphor of that pattern now.
 
 
+5 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-04-20 10:47
I already change my registration based on the election coming up.

Living in a Red state my votes in Democratic primaries only really count in a presidential election. The rest of the time it is better to be on the R side to at least vote for the least bad republican to win.

I wish we still had open primaries for Federal elections. Now we only have open primaries for state and local races. Top two finishers go to run off regardless of party.
 
 
+6 # Jim Young 2016-04-20 13:43
Quoting AlcheMs:
One Sanders supporter suggested that those of us who have ALREADY VOTED for Sanders in Democratic Primaries across the country should now CHANGE OUR REGISTRATION TO UNAFFILIATED or INDEPENDENT to send a message to the Democratic Party. That will help them understand that this is NOT Your Father's Party anymore, and we have enough numbers to create a viable Third Party.


We've been non-affiliated for 20 years (after 5 generations of loyal Republicans) but we will register as Democrats to get into the meat of the delegate selection gutters (effectively playing the other dirty game as opposed to the Citizens United corrupting money equals speech even dirtier game).

Then we will sign up for a new progressive party that is way past due to be formed (or grown from lesser existing parties). The least we hope to accomplish is to get real representatives of the real people in the lower echelons of the party that may still have some room for the types of us that the Republican ALEC/SPN multitude types have shut out of their phony snake in the grass roots organizations.
 
 
+12 # RWP 2016-04-20 10:09
Agree. Like others, the more I have seen of HRC, the less I like/respect her and the more I see her as a danger. So the question is whether there is a way to vote strategically for the future? She will have some Republican support (those who recognize that she is a neocon and a Republican in disguise) but she will have poor independent support and those who are fed up with the establishment may cross to Trump. If elected, her presidency will be rough with attacks from both the progressive and Republican sides where she will remain disliked. Impeachment is not out of the question if the email controversy goes in one direction.
So, does one just write in Bernie or Jill Stein which will be symbolic but not effective, try to coalesce more broadly into an alternative party if Bernie agrees after being manhandled by the Dems, or vote for Trump because a period of chaos may (unpredictably) lead to a reboot of the parties. Don't know.
 
 
+2 # Rain17 2016-04-20 10:42
Again I have no problem if you want to stay or home or vote third party, but you are voting to accept the consequences. And that does mean a right-wing Supreme Court and horrible policies from places like KS, MI, NC, OH, TX, and WI going national. If you want to make your protest, I won't object as long as you accept the consequences and don't complain about Cruz or Trump when they take office.

The funny thing is that I don't think Sanders would want you to write his name in or vote third party. In the end, because he and his wife know what Cruz and Trump would be like, I think he enthusiasticall y endorses Hillary. I think he even campaigns for her, much like she did for Obama.

But here is the real answer. How about you and other Sanders supporters refocus your energies on running candidates in local elections? I've said it millions of times here to no avail, but the far right got their start running for offices like school board, county commission, and other obscure municipal offices that were often vacant or uncontested. And lots of policy that affects people directly comes out of local governments. That is also the minor league for higher offices.

The other point is simply this: how about you all actually win an election? I'll say this much. Take it for what it's worth. Prove that a Sanders-style candidate can win a general election in a purple or red state, and money and support will come your way.

Continued in next post. . .
 
 
-4 # Rain17 2016-04-20 11:02
Continued from last post. . .

The greatest weakness of the Sanders campaign IMO has been the inability to build relationships with key stakeholders well in advance of the campaign. Maybe Sanders never expected to really win the nomination, but he and his supporters didn't start years in advance building relationships with key stakeholders. Instead they seem to have believed that having the right agenda will automatically attract voters. That strategy has failed miserably.

The other weakness is not understanding minority voters and being dismissive of them when they chose to endorse Hillary. Here is a hint: most minorities are not in the criminal justice system nor are they on welfare. Yet, whenever has clumsily talked race, it has been in the context of those two issues. Other Sanders supporters here have called them "ignorant" because they voted for Clinton. That's not a way to get support either.

And here is my final point. You all expect one or two candidates to change everything in one or two election cycles. Then, whenever said candidate can't even come close to meeting those expectations, you all sulk and then go home. The reality is that these movements take place over several election cycles.
 
 
+6 # bardphile 2016-04-20 11:25
What he said. Though I don't quite agree that the strategy has "failed miserably." It went way further than anyone though a campaign could take a "socialist." If NY had an open primary, we'd be having a whole different conversation. Progressives need to go both ground up and top down.
 
 
-14 # Rain17 2016-04-20 12:02
I still think Hillary would have won an open primary in NY. Also it is still true that minorities have largely rebuffed Sanders and that is why he is likely going to lose the nomination.
 
 
0 # Jim Young 2016-04-27 19:13
We see an opportunity for at least 3 ballots including most importantly, a Universal Open Primary Ballot that may be selected by members of any party or no party.

The aim would be to let everyone get a better idea of who real voters would support, without being restricted to just their own party for all offices.

The parties can retain what ever level of control of the votes that will count for their conventions (just registered Republicans that vote on their ballot, or non-affiliated and Democrats on many of Democratic candidate only ballots).

Republicans and some Democrats that don't want to stay within just their own party's ballot may risk not having their primary votes counted at their conventions, but choose to have the freedom to vote for a mixture of some Democratic, Green, other, or even a few Republicans that would not be able to win in the more restrictive closed party ballots.

The two major parties could decide at any time up to their conventions on which Open Ballot votes from anyone, from any party or no party, could be counted.

Such a ballot might get a lot more cross party support for some of their candidates, and all major parties, and the general public, would be more enlightened about who and what the real voters would best support.

How those parties use or abuse the information would be up to them, but the general public would be a little better served, regardless of limitations the parties try to inflict.
 
 
+3 # tgemberl 2016-04-20 13:21
Rain17,
Yes, I agree with your point about the need to think long term. See my comment below where I suggest we should think ahead to 2024.
 
 
# Guest 2016-04-20 14:51
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-04-22 07:33
Quoting Rain17:
The greatest weakness of the Sanders campaign IMO has been the inability to build relationships with key stakeholders well in advance of the campaign.


Your argument would have more merit if we didn't see Sanders moving support by 20, 30 points or more when he's on the ground.

The more people see Senator Sanders, the more they like his ideas. The more they see Secretary Clinton, the more they dislike her ideas.

You also neglect to mention that Sanders has had to face not only the nonsupport of the DNC, but its obstruction.
 
 
+26 # angelfish 2016-04-20 10:11
We have met the enemy...and he is US! Then again, the deal is rigged and there is NO way a sane, decent, GOOD person like Bernie Sanders could ever attain the White House as long as Big $$$ holds sway in Washington. So sad. This was a REALLY good idea fouled by Greedsters and ME Firsters. We had the opportunity to change the World for GOOD, and had it Shahoolahed away because of "Closed Primaries" and other Phony Bull-Puckey to suppress the Will of the People! I'll be off this Mortal Coil soon so it doesn't bother me so much for myself, but the future is pretty bleak if the Neo-Cons continue to plow us under. Hopefully, the Torch has been lit and the young people who have been inspired by Bernie's will and determination will gain strength enough to, eventually beat them back into the caves they crawled out of! Get OVER the Hill and FEEL the Bern! It ain't over til it's OVER!
 
 
+17 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-04-20 10:48
Don't give up yet.
 
 
+8 # CL38 2016-04-20 13:15
Agree with everything, except, it's not 'sad'. It's an outrage.
 
 
+13 # m... 2016-04-20 10:12
I agree with the article and pretty much with the gist of the comments here so far...
I hope, pray, wish and gnash my teeth for a Sanders win; a Sanders win with coattails that sweep Senate and House with Progressives and Governorships and State Legislatures that can end the Gerrymandering nightmare that keeps Republican Cretins in their 'safe' seats...
I do hope and dream...
But I am also practical.
If Clinton gets the nomination, I will support her with donations and my vote... Its as simple-practica l as that.
Any possible Republican Nominee, from Trump on up to whoever else they might come up with, would be an absolute nightmare for the entire world.
In the meantime, I will hope for and support the continuation of the mass and growing movement Sanders has created for years to come. I will also email, write and comment and do whatever I can to keep Clinton's policy feet to the fire and urge others to do the same like the millions of straw-tossers we consistently need from now on... I will also bombard the DNC with my thoughts every which way I can too. I will donate to the Green Party and perhaps the Justice Party... I will march and stand whenever and wherever I can...
It just has to change.... It has to.
 
 
+11 # CL38 2016-04-20 13:18
If "Shillery" and the DNC manage to 'steal' the election, you can forget about gross inequality changing anytime soon.
 
 
-1 # m... 2016-04-20 21:29
I understand what you say and your feelings about it.
Still, Sanders has also said he will support her if she wins. He also understands that the current Nomination, Election and DNC System is what it is until it is not.
If Clinton wins and millions of Sanders supporters go home and pout about it instead of doing what they can to both prevent Republicans from making gains AND to keep up the pressure to change Clinton's agenda and the system at large, then that says more about all those people than anything else.
In other words, it makes no sense to cry and whine about it.
As the song says; 'You can't always get what you want.., but if you try sometimes, you get what you need'... And from there, the song mentions nothing about either reaching some plateau of bliss or despair. We have to keep up the pressure no matter what.
If Clinton wins all the way through, she will be concerned about midterms, her re-election, who is elected to Congress, where her 'base' is at in 2, 4, 6 years from now and any possible future nomination challengers from within the party.
We also have MANY Federal, State and Local elections that will continue to come up and where we can keep trying to force our changes through.
That is how the Republicans won the House in the 90's and set the national course on the tragic path we have been on since then.
Now, the Republicans are imploding. Opportunity stares us all in the face. Embrace what is as it is and work on it from there and don't give up
 
 
+19 # turtleislander 2016-04-20 10:14
NY primary is depressing but it is not over yet. Unlike a few weeks ago I am beginning to think folks really might vote Trump over Hillary if thats the choice. If the democratic party forces their annointed one onto the ticket they may create Humphrey-Nixon 2.0 and America will indeed become a joke that tells itself. But no one will be laughing.
 
 
+12 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-04-20 10:49
Trump is to the left of Hillary! It is insane but true.
 
 
+6 # rocback 2016-04-20 11:21
Trump is anti-choice, wants to keep min wage where it is and in fact says Americans wages are too high, wants to ban people from this country based on their religion, is against any form of gun control, is in favor of torture, is a sexist, and wants to deport 12 million people and split up their families.
 
 
-19 # Rain17 2016-04-20 11:31
Yet they think Hillary is the same. You really can't reason with these irrational people.
 
 
-4 # rocback 2016-04-20 11:48
I read an article last week that showed evidence that Trump people were infiltrating progressive websites and egging on Bernie supporters by trashing Hillary. Republicans have been using dirty tricks like this for years.
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-04-20 11:49
unfortunately a lot of these are young people who have never heard of this and are unaware of the diry tricks.
 
 
+17 # librarian1984 2016-04-20 12:50
Do you even KNOW HOW to converse with people without being arrogant and condescending?

People can disagree with without being stupid or naive.
 
 
+8 # EternalTruth 2016-04-20 12:29
FWIW, many of the people you are accusing of being trump Trojan horses have been here for years (unlike you), so the accusation sounds pretty silly. However, the phenomenon of which you speak doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 17:57
We've only been infested by Hillary supporters like you.
 
 
0 # GreenBee 2016-04-23 13:14
Quoting rocback:
I read an article last week that showed evidence that Trump people were infiltrating progressive websites and egging on Bernie supporters by trashing Hillary. Republicans have been using dirty tricks like this for years.

And HRC is doing the same with her PAC that is spending $1million to pay online trolls.:

http://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-super-pac-busted/
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-04-20 15:11
Quoting Rain17:
Yet they think Hillary is the same. You really can't reason with these irrational people.


You are just *SO* correct. You really ARE wasting your precious time *and* your astounding wisdom on the negligible little people here.

"Cast ye not your pearls before swine."

You and crocback could do *SO* MUCH better to take your "pearls" elsewhere to a higher class of readership.

Why not *prove* that wisdom and TAKE it to more fallow fields ? Yessir ! You guys are literally WASTED here !

If either contributor mentioned above is here with the naive and risible idea that they are in *any* way CHANGING MINDS - *that* delusion speaks of a narcissism that is absolutely CERTIFIABLE ! ;-D
 
 
+3 # reiverpacific 2016-04-20 11:58
Quoting rocback:
Trump is anti-choice, wants to keep min wage where it is and in fact says Americans wages are too high, wants to ban people from this country based on their religion, is against any form of gun control, is in favor of torture, is a sexist, and wants to deport 12 million people and split up their families.


See my response to "MsAnnaNOLA".
 
 
+6 # PCPrincess 2016-04-20 16:16
Trump is not anti-choice. He is actually somewhat liberal in his social-policies . If you really want to attempt to sway opinions, you MUST be one-hundred percent factual. One also makes a big mistake to use 'as fact' any statements made during a primary which conflict with long-held opinions. For example, Hillary saying she is a champion for the poor and is always most concerned with 'progressive' values. This does not equate with her long-term positions. It would also be equally as false for Trump to attempt to claim now that he is anti-choice. He was quite specific for many years what his thoughts were on the matter.
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 18:03
True, he was pro-choice for years and his recent "religious awakening" is so obviously phony that not even the evangelicals who want to believe him can manage to do it anymore, but that doesn't tell us how he would act in office. If he gets elected as an anti-choice candidate, will he follow through if elected or will he revert? No one knows.
 
 
-4 # rocback 2016-04-20 20:43
It's even worse than anti-choice. He is for jailing the women until he flip flopped. Even the pro-life people were taken aback.

You didn't answer about his claim that Americans wages are too high and he is against raising the min wage.
 
 
+15 # reiverpacific 2016-04-20 11:55
Quoting MsAnnaNOLA:
Trump is to the left of Hillary! It is insane but true.


Agreed; he's against wars of aggression and seemingly backing-off his original torture stance.
He's also pro-Social Security and Medicare.
 
 
0 # GreenBee 2016-04-23 13:18
Quoting reiverpacific:
Quoting MsAnnaNOLA:
Trump is to the left of Hillary! It is insane but true.


Agreed; he's against wars of aggression and seemingly backing-off his original torture stance.
He's also pro-Social Security and Medicare.


But he may just be saying these things to get votes. Who know what he will be pressured to do by Congress. What do you think he would do if he was threatened with Impeachment which I think is very likely - all he has to do is lie under oath - he lies a lot. How can you trust a such an obvious con-artist?
 
 
+1 # CL38 2016-04-20 13:19
The GOP will be laughing their asses off.
 
 
+28 # librarian1984 2016-04-20 10:15
I've taken four life lessons from this New York primary:

1) Whatever battle I am in, I want ex-Ohio state senator Nina Turner in my corner. I ADORE her. I was in the dumps this morning but she is so positive and strong, optimistic and righteous. Thank you.

2) Ted Cruz, THIS is why you don't burn all your bridges, why you don't call your boss a liar in public and why you don't shut the plant down with pique, and why you don't insult people and then go ask them for your vote. It's white trash behavior, Ted.

3) As if there was any doubt, a large swathe of the Democratic Party is much further to the left than the establishment. It would be easier to talk about what that meant if the HRC campaign and the DNC weren't so unwilling to be forthright and adult. I knew I didn't agree with HRC on many issues, but my visceral reaction to her now is due to her alone, and the behavior and tenor of her campaign. New information is coming out that she is represented by the same lawyers who represent the DNC, and there are questions about money flow between the two organizations. Why am I not surprised. The lesson is: trust your gut. If her policies mirror Republican goals and if she talks like a Republican and if she fights like a Republican .... then I'm not voting for her.
 
 
-14 # Rain17 2016-04-20 11:06
If that was the case they would have voted for Sanders. It's not like DWS, the DNC, the "oligarchs", and other impure people put a gun to our head and told us to vote for Hillary.

Did it ever occur to you that most other Democrats simply just don't agree with you?

And, if you want to vote third party, that's your right. But I also don't want you to complain about a Cruz or Trump administration. I don't want to hear you complain about right-wing policies, right-wing Supreme Court justices, or Cruz or Trump executive orders. I don't want to hear you complain when the policies that have wrecked states like KS, MI, NC, OH, TX, and WI go national. I don't care if you vote third party or stay at home as long as you fully accept the consequences of your action.
 
 
+20 # librarian1984 2016-04-20 11:35
Of course people disagree, but HRC's supporters are lower-informati on voters, also evidenced by the Secretary's unfavorables going UP with all the media attention.

So what are we not agreeing about? That Wall Street doesn't need to be regulated? That the minimum wage should be lower than $15. That free trade is better than fair trade. That Citizens United is ok. That commerce is more important than addressing climate change. That the status quo is great and incremental change is satisfactory? That it's more important to have a woman in office than a progressive?

Why don't you find fault with a Party that's moved so far to the right, with a party that chose its nominee and then did everything possible to discourage any debate or contest, with a party that denigrates anyone who disagrees and then expects their support later?

Do you think the Party has handled this nomination process well? Do you think Secretary Clinton has handled competition well? Do you respect her past judgment about war and trade?

What exactly are we disagreeing about?

I've participated in ten presidential elections, and almost always I've had to choose the better of two mediocre candidates, and I'm sick of it. This is supposed to be a democracy, not a corporate-frien dly oligarchy, with Bushes and Clintons exchanging the seat of power.

The GOP was smart enough to divest itself of Bush. We need to do the same with HRC.

(And I don't need your permission to complain.)
 
 
-13 # Rain17 2016-04-20 12:12
"HRC's supporters are lower-informati on voters,"

Thank you for insulting the majority of Democrats. Thank you for insulting minority voters, who have largely rebuffed the Sanders campaign. And you wonder why they haven't embraced Sanders. My God, you people don't realize how condescending and dismissive you sound. And you wonder why this "revolution" isn't going anywhere. Here's a hint: insulting people and talking to down them isn't going to make your candidate more appealing, nor actually expand your movement.

Sorry I'm not going to give up the Supreme Court for another generation over stupid purity tests. And yes the fact that you're willing to give the entire judiciary away for another generation says it all to me. Odds are that you're probably in a decent job with great benefits because you aren't going to suffering the consequences of your staying home or voting third party. Lord those there are many who can't afford the luxury.

My God, there are articles on this site EVERY DAY about the horrible policies being pushed in places like KS, MI, MS, NC, OH, OK, TX, and WI--states where Republicans control the Governorship and legislature--an d you all hate Clinton so much that you're wiling to give the entire country to Trump and Cruz to prove your point. What the h#ll is wrong with you people?

And yes I don't take you or others who complain seriously who vote third party since you chose to be part of the problem.
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-04-20 12:54
You shouldn't be insulted by statistical evidence, but maybe you should question your stance.
 
 
-8 # Rain17 2016-04-20 13:04
Statstical evidence shows that most minorities have so far voted for Hillary. And thus you just insulted them.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-04-22 07:52
I am not trying to insult voters. I'm sure some people vote for HRC with full knowledge of her policies.

But others don't. I don't believe HRC would get the minority support she enjoys if more people knew about the affect of her past policies and the positions she currently holds, though granted, that is only conjecture.
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-04-20 15:25
librarian, didn't YOU just call ME arrogant. Go back and read your last post.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-04-20 17:59
Yes I did call you arrogant, because you dismiss Sanders supporters as being naive and stupid.

I am saying that polls have shown HRC supporters are lower-informati on voters. I'm not insulting people. I'm stating a fact, whereas you are calling people stupid and naive. That's an insult, not a fact.

Potential voters were asked political and position questions, and supporters of Clinton and Trump did most poorly.
 
 
-6 # rocback 2016-04-20 20:45
cite the poll
 
 
-6 # rocback 2016-04-20 20:45
you just make things up don't you.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-04-22 07:42
No I don't make things up, but I am watching and reading so much that I can't always find things again. I take notes and if it's an article I can cite the source, but lots of these exit polls are on tv so there's not really a source. I agree that the lack of a citation makes my statement less acceptable. I apologize, but I will tell you what I remember.

These were exit polls taken in several different states, asking people who they voted for and then asking questions about the issues and the positions of their candidate.

Upon trying to find particular polls, though, I did find a number of anecdotal articles about this phenomenon.

Sorry not to be more helpful. Is there a way to search all these many polls that are taken?
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-04-20 19:14
Quoting rocback:
librarian, didn't YOU just call ME arrogant. Go back and read your last post.


Indeed so, but in that case, it was simply a statement of *observable* FACT !
 
 
# Guest 2016-04-22 07:50
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-04-20 13:25
It's YOU who are part of the 'problem'.
 
 
-4 # pegasus4508 2016-04-20 18:09
Statistical evidence says Trumps supporters have the LOWEST educational achievements, coupled with low information. So, are we in a race to the bottom or are you stating Clinton's voters are the same ignorant bigots that Trump's voters are?
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-04-20 23:41
I think Clinton and Trump are friends with a lot in common. Perhaps they even share the same end goal.
 
 
0 # CL38 2016-04-23 23:35
"YOU PEOPLE"? You sound just like Ann Romney: "You people have all the information you're going to get about our finances."

You saw how well that went over?
 
 
+11 # CL38 2016-04-20 13:22
"But I also don't want you to complain about a Cruz or Trump administration. I don't want to hear you complain about right-wing policies, right-wing Supreme Court justices, or Cruz or Trump executive orders. I don't want to hear you complain when the policies that have wrecked states like KS, MI, NC, OH, TX, and WI go national."

You not only WILL hear us complain about all of the above, we'll hold YOU, Hillary voters the DNC and MSM ALL responsible for this debacle. It's very clear that the DNC, MSM & SHILLERY are all engaged in major corruption to steal the election. I, for one, will hold YOU responsible for completely ignoring this reality...and for NOT supporting the ONLY progressive, honest candidate who is standing up for the 99%..
 
 
+18 # FTPenn 2016-04-20 10:18
https://citizensagainstplutocracy.wordpress.com/

http://www.movement4bernie.org/

I won't 'hold my nose' and vote for a neoliberal hawk just because they try to scare me that a republican is worse. People need to stand up and fight the power that is embodied in the dems and repubs. Quit voting for a lesser of two evils. It's still evil and you get no real progress.
 
 
+7 # FTPenn 2016-04-20 10:19
http://www.movement4bernie.org/run-all-the-way
 
 
-13 # Rain17 2016-04-20 11:07
Again I don't care if you choose to vote third party or stay at home as long as you don't complain when Cruz and Trump enact their policies. If you choose to be part of the problem--and not the solution--that' s your right. But you also are choosing the consequences.
 
 
+13 # FTPenn 2016-04-20 12:06
"Don't complain"? I'll 'complain' about shitty conservative/ne oliberal policies no matter who is in office. I'll protest injustice and agitate for social progress no matter what. But your lesser of two evils is just giving in to status quo. If enough people had the courage to oppose the two corporate parties we could get real change, but too many give in to the fear and threats that they love to spook you with every election cycle.
 
 
+6 # dbrize 2016-04-20 15:09
Rain17 cut class the day of the freedom of speech, freedom of choice lecture.

He was at the local politburo meeting.
 
 
-3 # Rain17 2016-04-21 17:30
Nowhere did I say you had no right to freedom of speech.
 
 
0 # dbrize 2016-04-23 21:51
Quoting Rain17:
Nowhere did I say you had no right to freedom of speech.


Now you are digging yourself in deeper. If you tell someone "don't complain if...", you are denying them their right to speak . The fact that no one cares what you tell them notwithstanding .
 
 
+1 # Salus Populi 2016-04-22 08:04
Out of curiosity, Rain17, do you support, or take responsibility for, the continuing erosion of constitutional rights in the U.S., the subversion of Posse Comitatus, the drawing up and carrying out of Kill Lists that include American citizens -- that is, extrajudicial executions, the use of drones to mechanize killing, even though by some estimates up to 92 per cent of the victims are non-combatants, the consorting with and approval of neo-Nazis, the overthrow of elected governments, the criminalizing of whistle blowing, the reversal of the right of habeas corpus after 700 years, the granting of impunity and refusal to prosecute criminal fraud on a global scale while locking up and even persecuting those who publicize actions that are illegal under both U.S. and international law, the violation of other nations' sovereignty, the deportation of multiple millions of undocumented immigrants, and on and on?

I am assuming that you voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, so he would qualify as someone you helped get into and keep in office.

All of the above, along with guaranteeing the insurance industry millions of new sheep for the fleecing, are among his documented policies.

Since you want to hold those who don't vote for your candidate responsible for terrible policies if she loses, how much greater is your own responsibility for the policies of the candidate you actively supported and voted for?
 
 
-4 # pegasus4508 2016-04-20 18:06
In case you did not notice, there are enough republican run states that should scare you shitless. Unless you already live in one. I voted for Bernie, yet I got tons of thumbs down for voicing my own opinion. Check out all the Southern states with their new discrimination laws. Soon, it will be black and white water fountains again. I am sure you have the luxury to not vote Democrat. I DON'T.
 
 
-2 # Rain17 2016-04-21 17:31
But they really don't care about the consequences.
 
 
+20 # librarian1984 2016-04-20 10:22
4) Bernie Sanders needs to be the Democratic nominee, and he needs to not give up right now, though spirits may be low.

The key demographic lesson is that SANDERS WINS INDEPENDENTS. Their disenfranchisem ent is part of why HRC won. And in November, winning Independents -- 42% of the electorate -- will be key.

This is a populist mood. If we nominate HRC we will get trounced in November. The HRC campaign is already trying to minimize the fact that Sanders performs better against the GOP. 'He just wins by more,' they've said dismissively. But add in five months of attacks by Trump, who will say and do things no one wants to see or hear. After he gets the nomination the establishment will be more than happy to release Trump on the Clintons. Is THAT the election we want? Ugh.

Clinton wins demographics that will reliably vote Democratic, particularly when faced with Trump as an alternative. Does anyone believe Democratic women will vote for Trump instead of Senator Sanders? More importantly, Sanders wins in battleground states. He wins Independents. He wins youth. He wins college graduates and high-informatio n voters.

It would be foolish to make Secretary Clinton the nominee.
 
 
-13 # Rain17 2016-04-20 11:13
Well a majority of Democrats seem to disagree with you. But I think you are wrong about Sanders's prospects in the general election. A quick google search revealed these videos with Sanders in them:

Here is a video of Sanders talking about bread lines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJBjjP8WSbc

Here is a video of Sanders talking about Fidel Castro:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfw5uOWh2vM

Here is a video of Sanders talking about Nicaragua:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1xrAv9cMqI

Sanders has also called for nationalizing industries, applied for conscientious objector status in the Vietnam War, said out loud that he is a Socialist, and called for higher taxes.

The larger electorate isn't aware of these positions yet. And, mark my words, once Republican negative ads take these comments out of context, Sanders will be facing a tough election. Now maybe I'm wrong and that most swing voters in the suburbs, the voters who decide elections, won't have a problem with any of this. But I also know that a Gallup poll from 2015 showed that 50% of Americans would NOT consider a socialist candidate for president.

And nothing from Sanders has convinced me that he can survive this onslaught of negative ads headed his way. And some of you act like Americans will have no problem with any of this. I think you're sorely mistaken, although I'd love to be wrong.
 
 
+14 # FTPenn 2016-04-20 12:11
YES. Bring on the democratic socialism!
 
 
-7 # Rain17 2016-04-20 13:05
And you think swimg voters will like this?
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-04-20 23:43
Swing voters were prevented from voting in many of the Democratic Primaries. Your side of this argument seemed to be pretty proud of the Democratic Party's record of excluding them.

Your hypocritical lectures are getting old.
 
 
-2 # Rain17 2016-04-21 17:32
Should the rules suddenly be changed? So closed caucuses, which Bernie won, aren't bad; but closed primaries are?
 
 
+21 # billhabedank 2016-04-20 10:23
Someone recently asked me if I thought Hillary would be a suitable candidate to become president. I said yes she would be if you want a person who will maintain the status quo. In other words, if you want more of the same, vote for Hillary. If you want change then vote for Bernie and this change will be different than the one we voted for in 2008.
 
 
+8 # John Escher 2016-04-20 14:55
Quoting billhabedank:
Someone recently asked me if I thought Hillary would be a suitable candidate to become president. I said yes she would be if you want a person who will maintain the status quo. In other words, if you want more of the same, vote for Hillary. If you want change then vote for Bernie and this change will be different than the one we voted for in 2008.


We'll be a country at war with either Clinton or Trump in power.
 
 
+10 # guomashi 2016-04-20 10:36
Quoting Rain17:
Those were the rules of NY. Too bad Sanders and his campaign didn't realize what they were ahead of time. And I really don't know why it's so controversial that registered Democrats should actually be the voters determining who the nominee should be.


because democrats make up 32% of the electorate. independents make up 40% if independents can't be won all is lost.

the democrat establishment can go on with its private little tea party. quite a number of sanders supporters will be voting trump over hillary, or not voting at all.
 
 
-6 # Rain17 2016-04-20 11:14
Well then, knowing the election rules in NY, maybe Sanders and his campaign should have registered those independents and told them that NY law required them to be Democrats to case a ballot.
 
 
+7 # FTPenn 2016-04-20 12:14
or writing in Bernie, or voting Green.
https://citizensagainstplutocracy.wordpress.com/
 
 
-7 # pegasus4508 2016-04-20 17:58
Then vote Trump and leave us alone.
 
 
-19 # RBREDFOX 2016-04-20 10:40
Bernie and y'all are marching toward being the worst disaster in
the history of Presidential elections. Up until now Ralph Nader and
his Green Party hold that distinction by giving us George W Bush.
But you are going to give us something much worse Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Bernie cannot win and we must come together to save our Country.
 
 
+15 # FTPenn 2016-04-20 12:18
Nader and Greens didn't give us Bush. Republican voters, election rigging and disenfranchisem ent, and the Supreme Court gave us Bush. Stupid to blame the few people who bothered to vote FOR something better than the two corporate parties.
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-04-20 18:04
I feel the same, but in reverse, that people who are supporting HRC are giving their approval to more of the same -- climate change, income inequality, corporate rapaciousness, election irregularities, war, etc. We cannot afford another Republican president, and HRC is a Republican.

When I hear her, her lies and disingenuousnes s seem so obvious. Are you ignoring that, or do you not see it?
 
 
-20 # hilo 2016-04-20 10:41
If Reader Supported News continues these unwarranted attacks on Clinton, I'm withdrawing my support. Say all the good things you want about Sanders--I like the man--but don't attack Hillary. You aren't doing anyone any good. There's no support of readers in your effort.
 
 
-17 # rocback 2016-04-20 10:57
Something tells me there are Trump supporters here masquerading. Trojan horses.
 
 
+9 # PCPrincess 2016-04-20 16:23
Enough of that crap already. We are honest, ethical people who have absolutely had it with the bullshit. We see the one and only chance many of us have seen in our lifetimes to have a decent leader as President being freaking stolen from us. We are not 'secret' trump supporters. We are progressives damn it.
 
 
-8 # pegasus4508 2016-04-20 17:58
Please explain who is stealing what from you? It does sound like the Donald.
 
 
-16 # Rain17 2016-04-20 11:32
I find their constant emails begging people to donate to be annoying. It makes them look desperate. Maybe if they gave positive reasons to donate to the site they'd raise more money.
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-04-20 16:06
Quoting Rain17:
I find their constant emails begging people to donate to be annoying. It makes them look desperate. Maybe if they gave positive reasons to donate to the site they'd raise more money.


I see that you have SEVERELY amended the original form of your offensive comment above railing against RSN in general, and RSN Fundraising in particular.

Too much sh*t even for *YOU*, I take it ? ;-D

I, on the other hand, will allow my original response to your original comment to stand as follows :

Maybe if freeloading TROLLS like you and crocback, took your little patsy cookie party elsewhere, PAYING members on RSN could resume their discussions in peace, and new subscribers would find less to *avoid* about the RSN Comment section.

You don't pay a dime more than you must to be allowed to comment, and your collective offal offends people who may be looking for somewhat less vapid input.

So you find fundraising "annoying" ?

Poor, poor, pitiful YOU !

Fundraising would not be *necessary* if everyone paid their fair share to *begin with*. But snivelers are never "about" pulling their own weight - are they ?

Can you imaging people PAYING to hear *your* little Pollyanna Diatribes ? This site is not ALL ABOUT YOU !

I know - reach for your smelling salts - but somebody *seriously* had to say it ! ;-D

When it comes to donations here on RSN, a "put up or shut up" policy might not be entirely out of order.
 
 
+1 # pegasus4508 2016-04-20 17:56
Put UP! Pay your fair share, ever little bit helps!
 
 
-3 # tgemberl 2016-04-20 19:31
Nominae,
Are you saying you only want people who agree with you on this site?

I'm annoyed by the frequent emails asking for donations, too, but I normally give about $10 a month, all I can afford.

Rain17 made a number of very thoughtful, substantive comments on this page. There is no justification for calling Rain17 a "freeloading troll."

This reminds me of the time I got a political poll from an organization in the mail. After I had spent the time carefully considering the questions and writing answers, I noticed there was a note at the end saying "we will not be able to count your answers unless you make a contribution." Given that this was an extremely partisan organization, that meant their "poll" results would be biased.
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-04-20 21:18
Quoting tgemberl:
Nominae,
Are you saying you only want people who agree with you on this site? ......


Thank you for your inquiry.

The answer is an emphatic "NO"! Of *course* not.

Rain17 had made some starkly egregious accusations against RSN and the Fundraising system itself, along with freely castigating the Sanders Supporters in general.

Then, apparently realizing his own overreach, Rain17 went BACK and *EDITED OUT* everything he had said in re: Fundraising except what words he HAD to leave on the board, even tho what now *remains* of his comment on Fundraising *NOW* reads COMPLETELY out of its original context.

Seemingly, the only reason Rain17 left the portion of his original comment that he DID leave, was that I had quoted his words in my own comment - so those were the only words Rain17 allowed to remain OF his original, unedited comment in this exchange.

My point was that contributors are not welcome to take full advantage of RSN as a megaphone, and then "lift their leg on" RSN as a business, and the RSN paying readership in general, all at the same time.

At least, not without "blowback" *from* that same readership.

Again, thank you for both your input and your willingness to request clarification before "lobbing bombs".

The kinds of "tricks" Rain17 here employs are likely to become MORE, not LESS, common on these political sites as we move forward into November.
 
 
+1 # tgemberl 2016-04-21 12:48
Thanks for your explanation. I did not see the original message by Rain17, so I don't know how to evaluate the point about the person revising the message.

I did think Rain17 made some very thoughtful and substantive statements. Maybe that shows my biases since his/her opinions are similar to my own. I didn't think they were snarky. Rain17 took the time to explain his/her position. I particularly thought the postings at 10:42 and 11:02 yesterday were good.

I noticed someone responded to them that they were "boring and pompous." He refused to read them. That strikes me as a good example of the dangers in our present political environment. Too many people want to go to an echo chamber where people agree with them and get quick sound bites. They can't be bothered to stop and consider ideas unlike their own.

Once again, thanks for explaining.
 
 
+1 # Nominae 2016-04-21 21:05
Quoting tgemberl:
Thanks for your explanation. I did not see the original message by Rain17, so I don't know how to evaluate the point about the person revising the message.


Eminently understandable. That fact and your courteous inquiry combined to prompt me to write you the clarification.

Quoting tgemberl:
I did think Rain17 made some very thoughtful and substantive statements......


I am happy that you found something in Rain17's comments that pleased you to hear.

Accordingly, your approval might be quite well received indeed, if directed toward Rain17 himself.

Quoting tgemberl:
Once again, thanks for explaining.


You're welcome. It was my pleasure to do so.
 
 
+9 # EternalTruth 2016-04-20 11:37
How is anything said in this article "unwarranted?"
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-04-20 16:15
Quoting EternalTruth:
How is anything said in this article "unwarranted?"


Good point, Eternal Truth, and be of good cheer. People like hilo, publicly *threatening* to remove their support are almost ALWAYS people who are not *providing* a nickel's worth of support to BEGIN with.

"Write what I WANT TO READ or I won't pay my share" is not the kind of threat that adults can take seriously in the first place.

If such blackmailers WERE paying a dime, that kind of pap should be met with an offer to "do it - grab your seven bucks and go see how much editorial control it buys you *ELSEWHERE*, Slick !" ;-D
 
 
+6 # John Escher 2016-04-20 14:58
hilo, please report on Hillary's actions in The Ukraine.
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 18:09
Bye-Bye. You are not required to read it.
 
 
+16 # danireland46 2016-04-20 10:55
Maybe it's because I'm getting old, but I feel that our country is indeed on the edge of a cliff. The HRC lemmings are ready to leap and the Bernie mob is afraid that leap could send all of us to a hideous continuation of lost hope and diminished lives.
The thing is, I have children. Their lives are in danger when a war-loving, WS sycophant, with the backing of the DFL establishment seems destined to take over. I can't give up yet, but I fear the future with Hillary.
 
 
-6 # Rain17 2016-04-20 11:19
How about fearing the future of Cruz or Trump? How about fearing the future of what will happen if the policies that have already been enacted in places like KS, MI, NC, OH, TX, and WI go national?
 
 
+6 # John Escher 2016-04-20 14:59
Quoting danireland46:
Maybe it's because I'm getting old, but I feel that our country is indeed on the edge of a cliff. The HRC lemmings are ready to leap and the Bernie mob is afraid that leap could send all of us to a hideous continuation of lost hope and diminished lives.
The thing is, I have children. Their lives are in danger when a war-loving, WS sycophant, with the backing of the DFL establishment seems destined to take over. I can't give up yet, but I fear the future with Hillary.


Moi aussi.
 
 
+2 # PaulK 2016-04-20 11:43
Yes people can vote early and often. It's called phone banking. The other tactic for unlawfully disenfranchised New Yorkers is to jump the state line and throw an election vote or two in Connecticut or in Pennsylvania.
 
 
+12 # Lucretius 2016-04-20 11:52
All this bs about the Supreme Court. As if things can get any worse. Scare tactics. Just keep the war and antiglobal warming parties in office and business as usual as the planet begins to boil. A lot of good the Supreme Court will do us.

Always scaring us with some bogeyman as if the Democratic war party hasn't by defunding America brought enough pain around the world. Obama and has 103 wars and Hillary setting the middle East on fire. I suppose people who live on the rest of the planet don't matter to American Exceptionalists in the Democratic Party. Ya'll a bunch of racist imperialists. :(
 
 
-11 # Rain17 2016-04-20 12:15
Scare tactics? I'm sorry, but I'm not wiling to give the judiciary away for another generation. You like decisions that invalidated the Voting Rights Act?

It's funny that so many people complain about what happened in the AZ primary. Yet people forget that AZ used to be covered under Section 5 under the Voting Rights Act, which required the Justice Department to sign off on any changes to their voting policies.

Yet some of you don't care about the Supreme Court. It's quite ironic.
 
 
+7 # guomashi 2016-04-20 12:28
Quoting Rain17:
Scare tactics? I'm sorry, but I'm not wiling to give the judiciary away for another generation.


so have your corporate democrat friends filibuster the nominations like the republicans do.
 
 
-2 # pegasus4508 2016-04-20 17:55
Without Harry Reid to keep those cowards in line, I tend to doubt if that would help. I am not willing to allow the republicans another shot at the supreme court for another 100 years. By then, it will no longer be needed.
 
 
+2 # Salus Populi 2016-04-22 10:27
Note that Obama had a chance to nominate a genuine liberal, or even radical, to replace Scalia. Rather than finally throwing down the gauntlet, he punted by putting forth the most right-center nominee he could come up with, just to score political points.

Funny how every time a Democrat appoints a justice, it's a center-right nominee who does not change the balance of the Court in any significant way. Clinton even "vetted" his nominees with arch-reactionar y Orrin Hatch, the Republican who ran the Judiciary Committee, before submitting the names for consideration.

Meanwhile, the Republicans nominate the farthest-right scum they can dig up, secure in the knowledge, based on experience, that there is no fascist that the Democrats will object to sufficiently to kill a nomination by filibuster, nor even unanimously oppose. Indeed, both Kennedy and the execrable Scalia himself received unanimous Democratic support in the Senate, and Joe Biden helped facilitate Clarence Thomas's elevation.

While Republicans march in disciplined lockstep to cement their fascist polity, Democrats know that there is simply no right-wing action they can vote for or progressive one against that holds the slightest possibility of censure or expulsion.

Thus Blue Dogs, DINOs to a person, in alliance with the RethugNaziCons, guarantee the appointment of ever more Reicht-wing Justices, in keeping with their general support of "fascism-lite" as a philosophy.

[1st of 2]
 
 
+2 # Salus Populi 2016-04-22 10:34
[2nd of 2]

It is telling that when genuine progressives run in primaries, the DNC funds their right-of-Reagan Dem opponents in the primaries, and if they happen to win the primaries, zip up their pockets to keep the progressive from winning.

They would literally rather see a Republican win the office than a "left-wing" Democrat -- a domestic version of Kennedy's famous dictum that of *course* we'd rather see democratic elections in other countries under our heel, but if the choice is between a progressive democrat -- considered by JFK to be a pinko or a red -- then naturally, we would have to reluctantly support a violent fascist coup to prevent the "communist" from being elected.

Hence their rabid, if concealed, opposition to the very idea of an FDR Democrat, which is what the policies proposed by Sanders amount to, becoming the candidate.

Not because he can't win, as polls clearly show, especially the ones that have consistently shown he gets a net positive reaction, of which Kasich, a political unknown who has largely distinguished himself by pretending to be the only adult in the Klown Kar, is the only other candidate to do so.

Rather, it is in fear that if nominated, he *could* win, and saddle the Beltway Bourgeoisie with someone directly threatening to the corpoReich kleptocracy and the psychopathy in high offices on which it depends.
 
 
-3 # Sweet Pea 2016-04-20 11:53
Like my father said, "The worst Democrat is still better for the people than than the best Republican". I'd prefer Sanders. However, if Hillary wins, I'll just have to swallow the medicine. It's still better than the horrible medicine that Trump is giving out.
 
 
+8 # djnova50 2016-04-20 12:12
Hillary Clinton is strong on women's issues; but, that is not enough to make her President of the United States. It won't matter if she is strong on women's issues if she is stronger on Defense spending, regime change, and unending war and other conflicts around the world. I do not trust her one bit. I will vote for Jill Stein, if I want a woman as President. Of the two, Bernie or Hillary, I have to say that Bernie is the most rational, if not logical choice.
 
 
-6 # rocback 2016-04-20 14:18
She is also, against the TPP, in favor of gun control, in favor or raising the minimum wage, in favor of making opposition to Citizens United a litmus test for Sup Ct nominee, in favor of progressive immigration reform, in favor os eliminating the carried interest rule, etc. Everything the Republicans are against and you will vote Republican?
 
 
+11 # lfeuille 2016-04-20 18:15
She is not against TPP. She pretends to be because Bernie made an issue of it. She will absolutely find a pretext for approving it if elected. Hillary will lie to get elected.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-04-21 14:22
Exactly what her hubby did with NAFTA. He knew labor groups were deeply opposed to it, so during the campaign, he tried to ignore it. When called on it, he made the exact same claim that he would only support it if it had protections for workers and the environment.

Now, HRC is making the same vacuous statements about TPP (and NO ONE is talking about the equally odious Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Act).

Then, once in office, Bill lobbied Congress to pass it. And HRC personally worked members of Congress to pass it, and has bragged about her role in getting it passed.

Of course, now that there can be no doubt that NAFTA had precisely the negative impacts that Sanders and Nader warned us about, and an election is happening, both Clintons are suggesting that some provisions should be revisited.

Fool me once, people!
 
 
+1 # Salus Populi 2016-04-22 10:52
As for her other positions you mention, her record belies those confident assertions.

Running against Obama in 2008, she denounced his stance on gun control sufficiently to earn the sobriquet of "Annie Oakley" during the campaign.

She lied the other night, claiming she had supported $15 for the minimum wage all along, when during last fall's debates, she vociferously opposed it and said $12 was plenty. Undoubtedly, she hoped her listeners would have the usual amnesia that characterizes large portions of the U.S. electorate.

As to her "litmus test," as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, her followers are now reduced to parroting the arguments of Antonin Scalia regarding how taking vast sums of money from Wall Street and other corporate interests doesn't corrupt a candidate or office holder unless it's in the narrow form of a direct bribe.

Having benefited from it -- and dishonestly claiming she had no other choice, which is disproved every day by Sander's grass roots support -- are you really so naive as to believe she will work to abolish it before her re-election campaign?!

Her stance on "immigration reform" did not stop her from advocating that the children running from the death squads of Honduras, the overthrow of whose elected and center-left government she enthusiasticall y approved of, be sent back to die.

She is still for provoking the Russians with a no-fly zone in Syria; strongly supports the Ukraine coup; and she wants to snuggle up to Netanyahu.
 
 
-6 # revhen 2016-04-20 12:39
Politics has been defined as “the art of the possible.” President Obama has achieved amazing results despite the Repubigots absolute hatred of the BLACK Democrat (= the Devil in some circles) in the WHITE House. We wish he had done more but he did what was possible considering the daunting opposition. The Repubase does not accept the reality of politics. It’s either “do it the way WE want it or we shut the government down.” What they want is so narrow and controlled by the filthy rich and big business – of which the “base” is unintelligently unaware – that the Blusterer-in-ch ief has them by the short hairs. Now I completely agree with Bernie’s analysis of what REALLY happening. But is what he proposes all possible? I think that Hillary with her experience can more effectively manipulate the pedals of power but with the temptation to preserve her wealth and that of others. Now the left-wing Dumbocrits are equally narrow. They are so highly critical of a president who doesn’t do all they want and ignore all that he HAS done. To me the ideal team would be Hillary as President and Bernie as Veep in a position to continually hold her feet to the fire of reality.
 
 
+2 # tgemberl 2016-04-20 13:03
One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of Republican women will vote for Hillary over Trump. I have a coworker who said she would, and apparently even Laura Bush implied she would.

There's no doubt Hillary is not an inspiring candidate. My prediction is that she'll win this year, but people may be so dissatisfied by her that a Republican will win in 2020. Then there will be a chance for a stronger progressive like Elizabeth Warren to win in 2024.
 
 
+8 # Blackjack 2016-04-20 13:11
Somebody please explain to me how this flip-flopping, unlikeable, corporate shrew is going to excite enough people to get them to come out and vote for her. Any action on her words before the election will not come until after the election and we already know how she distorts intentions. She is not trustworthy; that is probably the biggest reason for her unlikeability. And yet, enough people will swallow all that and come out to vote for her so that she will win? I don't buy that for a minute. I think she will lose to whoever the Repuke nominee is, especially once the FBI closes in on emailgate. So, on the day after the election, when one of the Repukes is sitting in the Oval Office, those of you who were so certain that Bernie couldn't win the general, take a bow. You should be very proud!
 
 
+3 # tgemberl 2016-04-20 13:35
A lot of women, even Republicans, are so disgusted by Trump that they'll vote for Hillary. Even Laura Bush was quoted as saying she would. Don't underestimate the female disgust factor. Yes, it may be that there won't be a lot of enthusiasm among independents for Hillary, but there isn't much enthusiasm among Republicans for Trump, either. I think that pretty much cancels out the enthusiasm gap. I doubt Cruz or Kasich can beat Trump at this point.
 
 
+7 # PCPrincess 2016-04-20 16:26
Okay, I'm editing my post. I'm a bit frustrated. However, I don't have ANY faith in Republican women. They are Republicans, right? They will vote party line, even though they may say they won't when pressured.
 
 
+1 # tgemberl 2016-04-20 18:24
PCPrincess,
Think about this question. A lot of posters on this site assume that Democrats (or people who tend to vote Democratic) will not vote for the party's nominee. Why assume that Republicans are sure to vote their party line? Especially when you see the way Trump has repeatedly insulted and degraded women, such as Megan Kelly, the Fox News anchor.

I think--I suppose this could be wishful thinking for a Democrat--that this year represents the disintegration of the Republican Party. Not that it won't continue to be able to elect people to Congress or local races, but I think it's clear a lot of the Republican base doesn't really believe in the old Reagan ideology anymore. Romney was a real weak candidate in 2012, and they can't find anybody even as good as him this year.

A Trump supporter friend told me that recently, Rush Limbaugh speculated that if there's a contested convention, Jeb Bush will be nominated. That's crazy wishful thinking on the part of someone who wants to believe in the old Reagan/Bush message. It would be suicide for the Republicans to nominate someone who couldn't win one state primary.
 
 
-1 # pegasus4508 2016-04-20 17:52
Any woman who is republican - do I really need to finish that sentence. In my opinion, any woman who values her dignity and self respect would not be a republican. Feel free to insert black or gay into that sentence and it would still be true.
 
 
-5 # rocback 2016-04-20 14:20
So far she has more than a million and a half votes than Trump and more importantly, ahead in every swing state over Trump.
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-04-20 14:52
She's stealing the election by suppressing the vote, scrubbing 126K voters from NY polls alone. That's not 'winning' in my code of ethics!
 
 
-7 # rocback 2016-04-20 15:30
Those votes were from Brooklyn where Hillary beat Berni by a larger margin that she beat him overall. She beat him 60/40. It is likely most of those votes would have gone to Hillary.
 
 
+1 # Salus Populi 2016-04-22 11:07
Repeating that stupid trope _ad nauseam_ doesn't make it logical or even coherent.

The pro-Hillary Democratic Brooklyn machine, the last of its kind in the country, "scrubs" the voter list of 126,000 voters.

Do they randomly pick them out of a phone book? This not only makes no sense, but is belied by the reports that whole apartment buildings full of residents were disenfranchised.

As a result of all these shenanigans, which the Democrats denounce when they are undertaken by Katherine Harris in Florida or other Republicans in other states, Hillary wins in Brooklyn by 50,000 votes. And the Hillarybots want us to believe that had the scrubbing not taken place, most of these targeted voters would have ended up voting for Hillary anyway.

This is not only stupid, it's insulting to anyone who has a third grade education. Go ahead and piss all over Sanders supporters, but don't be surprised if they reject your claim that it's just raining.
 
 
0 # CL38 2016-04-23 23:41
Keep telling yourself that's what happened. The majority don't buy it, especially since there were voter suppression tactics used in AZ, Idaho and Utah.

How do you explain that???

And when it happens again in PA and other states???
Just a coincidence????
 
 
+2 # John Escher 2016-04-20 15:03
Quoting Blackjack:
Somebody please explain to me how this flip-flopping, unlikeable, corporate shrew is going to excite enough people to get them to come out and vote for her. Any action on her words before the election will not come until after the election and we already know how she distorts intentions. She is not trustworthy; that is probably the biggest reason for her unlikeability. And yet, enough people will swallow all that and come out to vote for her so that she will win? I don't buy that for a minute. I think she will lose to whoever the Repuke nominee is, especially once the FBI closes in on emailgate. So, on the day after the election, when one of the Repukes is sitting in the Oval Office, those of you who were so certain that Bernie couldn't win the general, take a bow. You should be very proud!


I just don't find her untrustworthy. But she is a regime changer. It is, despite what you hear, in the foreign affairs realm that she is weakest. People always go after her, just as they did in the case of Obama, for the wrong things-- a terrible problem.
 
 
0 # mmc 2016-04-20 14:43
The country will walk over an even bigger cliff if Trump or Cruz is elected, but few who post on this site seem to care about that.
 
 
+8 # Blackjack 2016-04-20 15:31
We care; we're just not blinded into believing that HRC will win while Bernie wouldn't. HRC is loaded with baggage; Bernie not. His polling numbers against Trump are higher than HRC's. Bernie is not protecting anyone. HRC is protecting the Democratic Machine, which has become unhinged. HRC will lead us into endless war. Bernie won't. No, I'm not giving up on Bernie because I DO care!
 
 
+8 # DrD 2016-04-20 14:44
All Dont give up on Bernie yet. He sure hasn't - here's his speech from last night at Penn State. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_f8GG-DpXOs

Bernie lost a net 33 delegates last night- bad news but the fight is not over. If you live in one of next Tuesday primary states, get out and canvass for Bernie. If you don't call!
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-04-20 15:32
Hillary is ahead by double digits in each of the three largest states left, Maryland, Penn. and Calif.

Keep running if you want but tone down the personal attacks and friendly fire. We get enough from the right wing echo chamber
 
 
+4 # Nominae 2016-04-20 19:56
Quoting crocback:
...Keep running if you want but tone down the personal attacks and friendly fire.....


crocback is right ! Start agreeing that the Earth IS Flat, that the Moon IS made of Green Cheese, that Gravity IS a "theory" (even tho Newton's formula for Gravity is what *LANDED* the freakin' Mars Rover - eh? "Dr" D?) that Clinton IS a Progressive, that the Tooth Fairy HAS her own dental plan, and with all the OTHER outlandish Rainbow-and-Uni corn Fetish Fantasies with which it pleases the weak-minded to indulge themselves.

crocback is now beginning to soften his tone, and to sloppily suck up to the same Bernie supporters that he has thus far been consistently "lifting his leg on" because poor crocback suffers from (at least) two glaring misconceptions.

1. That "The Fat Lady" has *Already* sung, and

2. That Bernie Supporters are as unsophisticated and naive as are our present Trolls, and that Bernie Supporters will now WELCOME crocback and the other Hillary Trolls as their new-found buddies and brother/sisters -in-arms as we all kiss, make up, and sit around the campfire together singing "Kumbayah".
;-D ;-D
 
 
-6 # rocback 2016-04-20 20:49
or you can cut off your nose to spite your face.
 
 
+4 # Nominae 2016-04-20 22:26
Quoting crocback:
or you can cut off your nose to spite your face.


Hey ! Merci ! That's what I like, crocback - OPTIONS ! ;-D

My gratitude as well, for proving my point regarding sophistication. When one goes to apply lessons from the old "Carrot and the Stick" School of Mass Manipulation, it is *absolutely* the CARROT that *must* be applied FIRST !

You seem to have inadvertently reversed the order.

One does not *as* successfully change hearts and minds when you
LIFT YOUR LEG ON PEOPLE FIRST, and *then* attempt to SUCK UP TO THEM LATER in the guise of "warm and trusted friend".

But, then, by *all* means, YOU go ahead and "DO" YOU ! ;-D

It is providing absolutely *matchless* comedy so FAR !
 
 
-1 # Rain17 2016-04-21 17:38
You also forgot NJ, where she is ahead by double digits.
 
 
0 # dascher 2016-04-20 16:24
The mainstream media blacked Bernie out for months and months. There was no mention of his giant rallies and virtually no interviews until the last couple of months. It was all about Trump Trump Trump Trump who babbled about the press giving him a hard time just because he said Mexico was 'sending us their worst people' and 'China is eating our lunch' and other such "press-worthy" drivel. New Yorkers could be forgiven for thinking Bernie was not a serious candidate based on what they saw in the press. It is amazing that he managed to do as well as he did under the circumstances. Bernie and his ads should have started appearing in NY rather than chasing after some of the small states' delegates that he was occupied with.
 
 
-4 # pegasus4508 2016-04-20 17:49
The open/closed primary is a red herring. That is determined by the state in which you live. Had I elected to choose "independent" it would have been with the FULL knowledge that I would rarely have the opportunity to vote in any primary. Unless an independent was running. In that case, I could only vote for the independent. Closed means you get the ballot based on the party affiliation you choose. No one is locked out. It is called CHOICE.
 
 
+7 # Anonymot 2016-04-20 19:47
Obama proved to be wrong about many, many things, including whether Hillary is likable enough.
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-04-21 11:30
The latest polls out today show Hillary ahead in:

Penn by 52% to 39%
Maryland by 57% to 32%
Delaware by 45% to 38%

It's not the "media" who says its over, it's the PEOPLE!

And all you are doing is slowly damaging the Democratic Partys chances with this friendly fire.

Or do you want

a Republican appointing the next 3 justices on the Sup Ct
a ban on immigrants based on religion
the use of torture in violation of the Geneva convention
the mass deportation and destruction of 12 million Americans
total elimination of the inheritance tax
banning of any increase in the minimum wage
repeal of Rowe v Wade
cutting of programs for the poor to give tax cuts for the rich
 
 
0 # GreenBee 2016-04-23 15:59
Well actually it has much to do with "the media" since the MSM has been extremely biased in favor of HRC. After the first debate all the online polls showed Sanders had won by a huge margin, but the MSM said "HRC dominated." The MSM may have "manufactured" a more positive perception of HRC and a more negative one of Sanders.
These short videos on Redacted Tonight and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now document examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvP6edGhJvs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TTeBfgMh3I

Just as the MSM is not reporting right now on the largest mass arrests in decades of public political protesters that are happening right now, because their core message is the same as that of the Sanders campaign. But then maybe this is because CNN is the 8th largest contributor to HRC's campaign.
 
 
-2 # Rain17 2016-04-21 17:36
Theu don't care because they're likely not going to be suffering tthe consequences.
 

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