RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Galindez writes: "As we are seeing in the open primaries, Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton with independents in state after state. The strongest candidate for President in November is Bernie Sanders."

Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders. (photo: Reuters)
Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders. (photo: Reuters)


Who Is More Electable?

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

04 May 16

 

on’t look now, but in the latest hypothetical general election poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports, Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton.

According to the survey, which was conducted from April 27 to 28 among 1,000 likely voters:

Trump now has the support of 73% of Republicans, while 77% of Democrats back Clinton. But Trump picks up 15% of Democrats, while just eight percent (8%) of GOP voters prefer Clinton, given this matchup.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Trump leads 37% to 31%, but 23% like another candidate. Nine percent (9%) are undecided.

Hmmm, I do not think 32% are lining up to vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. So these are voters who at this point are not supporting anyone likely to be on the ballot in November.

Give the voters the option of staying home and the same poll has the race tied.

Rasmussen Reports did not poll a hypothetical Sanders versus Trump matchup. Other polls all show Sanders beating Trump by more than 10 points. Those same polls have the race closer between Clinton and Trump.

Talk about a race to the bottom, the two most unpopular candidates in either party will likely be the nominees of the two major political parties.

Now let’s look at some other indicators of electability.

Favorability: (Huffington Post average)

Sanders: 52%
Clinton: 47%
Trump: 35%

Unfavorability: (Huffington Post average)

Trump: 61%
Clinton: 55%
Sanders: 40%

Honesty: (yougov.com poll)

Sanders: 47%
Trump: 29%
Clinton: 27%

Dishonesty: (yougov.com poll)

Clinton: 56%
Trump: 52%
Sanders: 24%

When asked by Peter Hart and Associates in an April poll, all voters chose Sanders as the candidate they could support at higher levels than any other candidate.

Here is the exact question, Q13: “I’m going to mention a number of people running for president in 2016. For each one, please tell me, yes or no, whether you could see yourself supporting that person for president in 2016. If you don’t know the name, please just say so.”

Sanders: 49% yes 48% no
Clinton: 41% yes 58% no
Trump: 31% yes 68% no

If these numbers are true, why isn’t Sanders winning? The answer is simple: These numbers are among all voters, many of whom are shut out of the nominating process. Hillary Clinton’s numbers are better if you only ask Democrats. Donald Trump does better among Republicans.

I hear you: these are the party primaries not the general election. I would say you were right if there were a level playing field for all political parties. We have a two party system, and it is becoming clear that the two parties do not represent the views of the whole country.

According to the Pew Research Center, based on 2014 data 39% of Americans identify as Independents, 32% as Democrats, and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of Independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling.

As we are seeing in the open primaries, Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton with Independents in state after state. The strongest candidate for President in November is Bernie Sanders. If all voters had a chance to weigh in during the nominating process we would likely see a race between Trump and Sanders. If we had a multi-party system Sanders, would have a chance to win as an Independent or as a candidate of another party.

The reality is that the system is rigged in favor of the two major political parties, and we will probably be stuck choosing between the two most unpopular candidates for President. It is time for a democracy movement in America. We don’t have a real democracy now.



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

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

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

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

 
-6 # rocback 2016-05-04 12:28
Republicans are burning their registration cards:

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/05/04/some-republicans-are-burning-their-voter-registration-cards-afte/21370168/
 
 
+135 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-04 14:17
...and educated Democrats who know the issues and the track record of HRC are vomiting at the thought that she might be the nominee!
 
 
-63 # mjcamero 2016-05-04 21:07
Not me. I'm highly educated, and thrilled to vote for her.
 
 
+63 # Billy Bob 2016-05-04 22:59
How did you get through all that "education" without paying attention to facts? Clinton's supporters don't seem to actually support HER, they only support some notion of her, that's pretty vacant and unaware of most of her actually policy positions.
 
 
+13 # HowardMH 2016-05-05 11:45
That is what we refer to as "Educated Idiots"
 
 
+13 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-05-05 09:28
I was with a guy last night that said he would not vote for Trump or Hillary. He would stay home rather than vote for either most horrible candidate.
 
 
+70 # Billy Bob 2016-05-04 14:42
Keep peddling what you have to sell!

Any response to the fact that Clinton is considered LESS TRUSTWORTHY THAN TRUMP?

(troll your way out of that one!)
 
 
-27 # bigkahuna671 2016-05-04 18:31
Billy Bob, you and I have always pretty much agreed on everything, but this Hillary thing cracks me up. The RNC has spent over twenty years trying to destroy the Clintons. Since Hillary first got a mention as a possible Presidential candidate, they've spent hundreds of millions trying to destroy her reputation, trolling as if they were Progressive Democrats who were unhappy with her, when in fact, it was the RNC, the Kochs, and their affiliated SuperPacs spending like there was no tomorrow in order to destroy her credibility. Now, I feel the Bern, but I also understand that it's not the Progressives who started all this. The GOP initiated the entire process and actually conned a lot of dim-witted left-wing Progressives into believing all their horseshit!!! Now, Progressives are running around acting as if THEY were the ones who exposed Hillary. What a crock! All these attacks saying she's responsible for all the armaments being sold worldwide is a joke. We've been selling weapons for over fifty years and HRC didn't have a thing to do with any of that. You've got to be a real numbskull to fall for that line but there are Progressives who swear it was Hillary who sold the gas to Hitler for the chambers at Auschwitz and Dachau. Really, folks, start to do some actual thinking on your own and don't buy all the crap you're being handed. I want Bernie to win, but more than anything, I WANT Donald Drumpf to lose and DEMOCRATS to win.
 
 
-36 # bigkahuna671 2016-05-04 19:38
Ah, I must have hurt a lot of Progressives' feelings. So sensitive and so fuc*ing stupid. You don't even understand that you've been used for the last six years by the GOP, but it's far easier to blame someone else than to accept your own cupidity in being air-headed enough to just follow whatever the GOP tells you to believe. I think Bernie Sanders wants his followers to have more common sense, at least I hope he does. I'm one follower who recognizes that all this anti-Hillary crap isn't coming from TRUE DEMOCRATS, it's coming from Republicans, and you bozos are being foolish enough to just swallow whatever swill they serve you. You should be embarrassed for two reasons: 1)you were foolish enough to fall for their line; and, 2)you don't have enough courage to stand up and say that you won't take it anymore and will vote to keep Republifascists out of office. If YOU really think that DONALD DRUMPF would make a better President than Hillary Clinton, then you deserve DRUMPF. Now bring on all those negatives, knuckleheads.
 
 
+12 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 08:10
I'm normally content to row past the sewage one encounters leaking from the river barge of Hillary Clinton's lamentable schtick.

But the Otto in me doesn't like being called 'stupid'.

The wonder of you is the willing suspension of progress. And the fact that YOU, cupcake, YOU in particular, are FOR Hillary Clinton, is just another nail in her political coffin, and one that rational human beings will recognize.

Your thinking is the kind of stuff we slough off as we rise above our origins, fathaole.

Concern for all humanity is something I consider essential to the presidency and, coincidentally, it's something Hillary and her business partner Bill have little of. (Bill USED to have it, but apparently he's sloughed off the wrong stuff of late. I guess the pickings at the White House are tres magnifique and he really REALLY wants to get back.)

You keep fighting for the honorable cause of smearing a decent man while you become more cannon fodder for the Clinton machine. It must scratch some repulsive itch.

But don't call me stupid.
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-05-05 15:24
Wow, the queen of "smear" calling the kettle black.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 20:17
Aww, rook, you sweetie pie! I think I'm more about insult than smear, don't you? Smearing is kind of a troll thing.

The odd thing is, I'm normally a very polite person, one of the pleasanter people you'd meet during your day.

Even on here, and with the exception of one metaphorical drunken joy ride, I like to keep it civil.

But I guess I just don't like to be called stupid, especially in a condescending way, and I ESPECIALLY don't like for people to make up sh!t about my boy, Bernie.

Bernie IS a rock star. He IS almost a messianic figure to leader-starved masses of hurting Americans. My god, after 40 years of voting, AT LAST someone I can vote FOR. Holy crap -- 40 years -- in the desert! This is blowing my mind, roxie. Puzzles wrapped in blah blah

Now that we actually have a fantastic candidate with an agenda I believe in, I'll be damned if I'll let Hillary Goddam Clinton deny us the leader America needs.

Maybe it was being raised among sailors that makes my approbation a bit colorful, but I cannot abide liars. You and shades and lights ought to know that. Lucky for you Nominae's got me on a short leash.



A stylistic note: When you just put 'smear' in quotation marks it looks like you're questioning what I'm queen OF. Better to put the whole title in quotes (that gives it a hint of derision) or just capitalize the Q and S, or leave it plain.

LOVE the mixed metaphor, BTW. You're still my favorite, backsore.

Toodles!
 
 
+13 # fletch1165 2016-05-05 09:35
Those that want Clinton deserve the Trump they will get is the flip side of that coin. You had a golden chance to elect a true progressive, and instead you sullied him in PRIMARY season by promoting a sworn Goldman Sach's corporate officer and core employee. Seriously when she attacks Iran I will be looking to chat with you further and point out who was culpable for the election of this corporate monster who will be exactly the same as Bush and Trump in every meaningful way except the form of lies. Same goes for the next unilateral attack on GAZA. There is no way a true progressive can vote for corporate hacks and then attack those that don't. You are the one being negative. You are the one with no sense, not Bernie's followers who you clearly oppose fully.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 23:34
I've been angry with the GOP for a long time because of the monsters they keep nominating. Nixon, Reagan, BushCo and now THIS? I keep thinking they can't get any worse but they keep finding the way! Donald Trump is going to start getting *intelligence briefings*. Thank you for THAT, GOP!

But are the Dems any better? Gore, Kerry, Clinton? That's the best we can do? I'm angry about Gore and Kerry, but I'm outraged by Clinton. Who decided this was not only okay but apparently mandatory? (DWS, there's a special place in Madeleine Albright's backyard for YOU, curly.)

Even the Republicans can see we need radical change. A progressive CANNOT vote for Clinton. You can't force a corporate hawk on us, call us stupid, demand our vote and then blame us for Trump being president.

We know you're going to try to do just that. It's a neocon primal tactic. You people have been absolute DISASTERS. Every theory of yours has been disproven a thousand times over, but you will persist. How does anyone believe one utterance by Tom Friedman or William Kristol?

Clinton supporters, THIS IS NOT OUR FAULT. Millions of us will NEVER vote for HRC. We're telling you up front and the ball's in your court. Put up Sanders or we walk.

YOU are handing this election to Donald Trump.

Somebody, somewhere has got polls on this, though neither HRC nor MSM want it known.

How many people will NOT vote for Clinton?


If you insist on nominating her you'll lose in November.
 
 
+57 # Merlin 2016-05-04 19:38
bigkahuna671 2016-05-04 18:31

Do you really believe that the Progressive commenters on this blog have the opinions that you state here? If so, then you have not been reading here in a while.

For instance:
We don’t think we exposed Hillary, or whatever you mean by that.
No one said or believes that she is responsible for all the armaments sold world wide.
We don’t believe it was Hillary who sold the gas to Hitler for the chambers at Auschwitz and Dachau. (You are just being insulting here.)

These are statements you are laying on us for some reason that make no sense. I think you know better than this. So why are you doing it?

We are against Hillary on the basis of her proven record, not because of the mouthings of the political right or the rethug party
 
 
+47 # economagic 2016-05-04 19:42
I don't give a flying flip about party affiliation: I will not vote for the status quo ever again. We don't have time for any more of that. When the juggernaut is steaming for the cliff, ANY turn is desirable even if it results in our ending up in the ocean deep.

I voted for the DLC Democrat in 1996, 2000, and 2004 -- against my better judgment -- and defended Bill Clinton against his detractors for the good grace with which he weathered vicious, irrelevant, and often false attacks, though certainly not for his policies. After John Kerry's pitiful failure to fight in 2004, either during the campaign or on election night, I said "No more."
 
 
+7 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-05-05 09:37
If the Democrats want to have a party they had better start standing for something besides be very afraid of supreme court nominees from the right. For the average voter the supreme court is not something they follow. For the average voter the supreme court is something you read about in the paper once in a while and just hope they don't do anything really horrible.

If Democrats want to have a viable party they need to get back to their roots of where they were before the DLC Third Way Corporatist Clinton Democrats took over the party. The Third Way Democrats are really not helping the little guy at all and that will be the downfall of the party. That is why Trump will beat Hillary. It is not credible that she will all of the sudden not be a Republican Light as she has always been.
 
 
+32 # MidwestTom 2016-05-04 19:55
I am impressed with the fact that the Clintons have become Billionaires while SERVING in various government positions. This while many successful business people are struggling to make their first million. Maybe we should all feed at the public trough.
 
 
+8 # lfeuille 2016-05-04 23:15
Now you are overstating. They made their money after 2000 when Bill left office. He has had no government position since.
 
 
+7 # RLF 2016-05-05 07:23
And THAT doesn't count as a payoff???
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2016-05-05 22:55
Of course it does, but there is no need to exaggerate. The truth is bad enough.
 
 
-1 # backwards_cinderella 2016-05-05 03:05
Again, Tom, you say the most idiotic things.
 
 
+9 # ericlipps 2016-05-05 07:50
Quoting MidwestTom:
I am impressed with the fact that the Clintons have become Billionaires while SERVING in various government positions. This while many successful business people are struggling to make their first million. Maybe we should all feed at the public trough.

"Billionaires"? Not even close. The Clintons have done well for themselves--ver y well--but usually "billionaire" means
a net worth of a billion dollars. The highest net worth estimated for Hillary is $51.7 million, the lowest $10,830,007, according to a MoneyNation article on the subject. Addng Bill Clinton's estimated net worth roughly doubles these figures.

That's still a lot of money, but not quite enough for billionaire status.
 
 
+5 # dbrize 2016-05-05 08:22
Quoting ericlipps:
Quoting MidwestTom:
I am impressed with the fact that the Clintons have become Billionaires while SERVING in various government positions. This while many successful business people are struggling to make their first million. Maybe we should all feed at the public trough.

"Billionaires"? Not even close. The Clintons have done well for themselves--very well--but usually "billionaire" means
a net worth of a billion dollars. The highest net worth estimated for Hillary is $51.7 million, the lowest $10,830,007, according to a MoneyNation article on the subject. Addng Bill Clinton's estimated net worth roughly doubles these figures.

That's still a lot of money, but not quite enough for billionaire status.


A superfluous distinction. They are well into the 1%. All for giving speeches, right?
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 08:29
Why is it always a matter of DEGREE with the Clintons.

I guess you can't ever say: They are honest. Or she is caring. Or they won't rob you blind.

No, instead it's always presented as the TOLERABLE amount of corruption.

Hey, they're not BAD people. They're only going to take HALF your kid's education away. They're only going to let EIGHTEEN PERCENT of American children go hungry.

That's called PROGRESS, by the way. INCREMENTAL progress.

Oh, imagine the glorious songs that will be sung about sweet sweet incremental change!

You know, clusterfrack, you're not OBLIGATED to participate in your own marginalization (unless you're actually being paid). Do you make $15 an hour, ricky? Bernie's people do.
 
 
+8 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-05-05 09:40
Well that is just the money we know about. What about offshore accounts that are hidden in the Caymans? What about the Clinton Foundation money they use as their personal piggy bank by only spending 10% of the money on their "Global Initiatives"?

I am sure it is much closer to a billion and if it isn't it will be if she becomes President.

Just think of the "donations" she should be able to get for the hot war with Russia she will start.
 
 
+7 # Capn Canard 2016-05-05 08:38
NO, the Clinton's aren't billionaires... YET.

But YES the Clintons have made an enormous amount of money, but it has come following Bill's presidency. They've sold their souls to the Wall Street criminal class and have been rewarded with 200 and 500 thousand dollar speaking fees. And 100 plus speeches later, they are worth nearly $200 million! Great "work" if you can get it.
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 08:56
"Great "work" if you can get it."

Hey it's called a CAREER!

First you marry a charismatic guy and jettison your promising Goldwater-fuele d career, taking the first step down the Path of Calculated Beliefs.

Then you become a governor's wife and sit on the board of the most UNdemocratic instrument in town (but also the richest -- another habit begun!).

THEN you become a president's wife. You blow your chance at presenting a new giveaway to the insurance companies, because nobody thought to tell the GOP what was happening. "Bill you know YOU were supposed to tell Congress. Where were you?" I think we all know the answer to that.

You represent Wall Street but in eight years never visit public housing -- until it's an issue.

You lose a race and become Secretary of State and peace breaks out all over. You pick the biggest bullies -- one you provoke (Putin) and one you embrace (Netanyahoo). Who knows why. No wait, because .. election.

Then you're ready to ascend the throne .. er, take a seat in the Oval Office, where you, astonishingly, believe you belong, because .. Hillary?


What interests me is what you'll do next (assuming there's still a planet to retire on). Surely you won't stay here, with its tedious lack of infrastructure and loud, swarthy people.

I hear St. Croix is lovely. Ta ta!

Please PLEASE go away.
 
 
+2 # Capn Canard 2016-05-05 11:30
Yes. It is almost as if Hillary planned it that way from get go. Some say she wears the pants in the family and gives Bubba his whole political itinerary.

Oh, yeah let me correct one thing: she wears the pantsuit.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 07:56
@ bigkahuna671

broadandshallow, thanks for your heartfelt concern. You're like a slow and tedious cargo ship, toting the Clinton baggage downstream. As someone who BELIEVES in the vast right-wing conspiracy, I find it delightfully ironic that HRC has spent her professional life apologizing, always with gritted teeth, always blaming others and almost always of her own doing.

No one has to tell me about the Clintons. I've watched it with my own eyes the past 25 years and I'm heartily sick of the show. That couple, with their brains and their charisma, their brilliant careers and the world in their oyster, with a beautiful daughter and the greatest power in the world --

they took ALL THAT and they sold it for pennies.

Look at the tax returns, my friend.

It's yet another FINE example of Hillary shooting herself in the foot. "Where are the tax returns? I'll release the transcripts when Bernie does .. I mean when everybody does .. I mean .. look, a squirrel!"

She made more IN AN HOUR than Bernie AND his wife Jane made all year.

Princess Hillary (and I mean that in the Machiavellian, not the Snow White, sense) wants to be Queen. And for some reason you want that too.

I suppose there must be SOME ecological niche that requires a life of total delusion. It's not what I would choose but you seem content.

However Hillary's desires do not necessarily coincide with the good of the nation. Can you accept that basic premise, so we might proceed?
 
 
+3 # Capn Canard 2016-05-05 08:40
Hear, hear... Brilliant.
 
 
+3 # Capn Canard 2016-05-05 11:38
You seemed to have missed the fact that Elizabeth Warren hasn't and won't endorse the woman running for president. This is close to a straight up repudiation of Clinton. But then if Warren were running then many of us progressives would have a hard choice between Sen. Sanders or Sen. Warren.
 
 
+1 # dusty64 2016-05-05 21:19
#bk671
Trying to wrap my head around your premise that Hil's wrongdoing, when exposed by unsavory ppl such as the GOP, becomes ... not wrong? or no longer wrong? Now THAT'S a poser. I think I feel my skull getting numb!
 
 
+1 # mjcamero 2016-05-04 21:11
I have a comment - not true. See today's CNN poll.
 
 
-66 # Barbara K 2016-05-04 17:24
rocback: I guess this is what we can expect when an Independent runs on a Democratic ticket. He gets the advantage of 2 parties. He was never a Dem until he wanted to run for President. Hillary has been a Dem since she was an adult. We can be sure that Bernie knew he would have that double advantage.

..
 
 
+50 # hipocampelo 2016-05-04 17:46
Barbara K: Your comment is a reply to rocback, but has nothing to do with his comment. Mrs Clinton is a very dishonest and unprincipled politician. Not a great choice for POTUS.
 
 
+24 # Bruce Gruber 2016-05-04 18:32
And her resume' claims she was a Republican for Goldwater (who was the PRIME GOP fanatic).

Bill seduced her, among others, into being liberal, and thus Democrat
 
 
-12 # OLDGUY 2016-05-04 19:07
What a bunch of crap. She was in high school when she backed Goldwater. While in college she went to Texas to register Latinos. What did you do at her age
 
 
+2 # ericlipps 2016-05-05 07:58
Quoting Bruce Gruber:
And her resume' claims she was a Republican for Goldwater (who was the PRIME GOP fanatic).

Bill seduced her, among others, into being liberal, and thus Democrat

So what you're saying is that Hillary should be cast as a villainess because FIFTY YEARS AGO she supported Goldwater.

By that standard, Ronald Reagan was still an FDR Democrat when he left office in 1989.
 
 
-5 # ericlipps 2016-05-05 07:54
Quoting hipocampelo:
Barbara K: Your comment is a reply to rocback, but has nothing to do with his comment. Mrs. Clinton is a very dishonest and unprincipled politician. Not a great choice for POTUS.

"dishonest and unprincipled" would describe most politicians, of any party. Probably even including St. Bernard of Brooklyn.

By the admittedly low standards we expect from people in politics, she actually doesn't look bad. Which says plenty about our political system, but that's another issue.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 09:26
Oooh, there you go again, claptrap, excusing Secretary Clinton with the damning praise of virtue by degree.

Does your back ache, at the end of the day, from lifting that heavy load? They should give you guys Icy Hot with your paychecks.
 
 
+44 # jimmyjames 2016-05-04 17:50
Quoting Barbara K:
rocback: I guess this is what we can expect when an Independent runs on a Democratic ticket. He gets the advantage of 2 parties. He was never a Dem until he wanted to run for President. Hillary has been a Dem since she was an adult. We can be sure that Bernie knew he would have that double advantage.

..

That is such BS. First of all, Hillary was a Republican first, and switched because the grass was greener on the Dem side. And we haven't had a true Democrat running for President since JFK. And look what happened to him! Most of the others are bought and sold by the corporations and the 1%.Bernie is a TRUE Democrat and is fighting for democratic principles - just like FDR did which gave us Social Security and Medicare.

Even the Koch brothers prefer Hillary over the presumptive Republican nominee. That ought to tell you all you need to know about HRC....
 
 
-12 # OLDGUY 2016-05-04 19:10
Read my comment above about her being a Republican
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 09:28
Oh, geezerguts, boo :-(

I already knew you're dishonest and nasty -- but did you have to be lazy too?

I wouldn't scroll a micromillimeter to read your sewage.
 
 
-8 # mjcamero 2016-05-04 21:14
JFK a true democrat? Far more hawkish than today's democrats, and fought for tax cuts when we needed more social spending.
 
 
+2 # dsepeczi 2016-05-05 07:13
Quoting jimmyjames:
Quoting Barbara K:
rocback: I guess this is what we can expect when an Independent runs on a Democratic ticket. He gets the advantage of 2 parties. He was never a Dem until he wanted to run for President. Hillary has been a Dem since she was an adult. We can be sure that Bernie knew he would have that double advantage.

..

That is such BS. First of all, Hillary was a Republican first, and switched because the grass was greener on the Dem side. And we haven't had a true Democrat running for President since JFK. And look what happened to him! Most of the others are bought and sold by the corporations and the 1%.Bernie is a TRUE Democrat and is fighting for democratic principles - just like FDR did which gave us Social Security and Medicare.

Even the Koch brothers prefer Hillary over the presumptive Republican nominee. That ought to tell you all you need to know about HRC....


Actually, I'd argue that she switched to Democrat because the modern democrat does more closely resemble yesteryear's republican, though they are farther to the right of them. With 5 tax hikes to his credit, a 28% tax on capital gains, and a willingness to pull out of the Middle East during his term,Reagan would actually be considered too "progressive" for today's democratic party.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 09:37
Quoting dsepeczi:
Actually, I'd argue that she switched to Democrat because the modern democrat does more closely resemble yesteryear's republican.

The problem with this argument is you don't give credit where credit is due. Before Bill Clinton, the Democrats were spineless but at least they (said they) had principles.

It was President Bill Clinton who worked with Newt Gangrene and toe-sucking Dick Morris to triangulate the Democratic Party to take the place of the GOP. That way the neonazis had someplace to go. (They're SO much more malleable when they're scared sh!tless.)

It was a DELIGHTFUL exchange of ideas -- sort of like a political foreign exchange program, but with a tinge of prison school. They learned from each other. (It was so .. so beautiful.)

Those principles got dumped unceremoniously when the money started pouring in, and the disasters of mass incarceration and Wall Street deregulation began.

The Clintons are the ones who MADE the Democratic party Republican-lite . They are neocons and they are the enemy of rational people.
 
 
+2 # dsepeczi 2016-05-06 07:18
Quoting librarian1984:
Quoting dsepeczi:
Actually, I'd argue that she switched to Democrat because the modern democrat does more closely resemble yesteryear's republican.

The problem with this argument is you don't give credit where credit is due. Before Bill Clinton, the Democrats were spineless but at least they (said they) had principles.

It was President Bill Clinton who worked with Newt Gangrene and toe-sucking Dick Morris to triangulate the Democratic Party to take the place of the GOP. That way the neonazis had someplace to go. (They're SO much more malleable when they're scared sh!tless.)

It was a DELIGHTFUL exchange of ideas -- sort of like a political foreign exchange program, but with a tinge of prison school. They learned from each other. (It was so .. so beautiful.)

Those principles got dumped unceremoniously when the money started pouring in, and the disasters of mass incarceration and Wall Street deregulation began.

The Clintons are the ones who MADE the Democratic party Republican-lite. They are neocons and they are the enemy of rational people.


I agree 100% with all you say. I was just trying to lend some perspective to those that have made the "Bernie Sanders isn't a true democrat" statements as if it was a bad thing.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-05-06 15:07
Excellent point.
 
 
+1 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-05-05 09:45
Yes. I am glad you are pointing out that the Dems of today were the Repugs of yesteryear. St. Ronnie who Obama said he idolizes on more than one occasion. St. Ronnie would be progressive in his actions.
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-05 07:56
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+22 # Texas Aggie 2016-05-04 18:34
That isn't an advantage. It's a DISadvantage. An independent running against a nominal Democrat on the Democratic ticket has a major handicap to overcome.
 
 
+47 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-04 19:07
Dear Barbara K:
Hillary is no Democrat. She is a right wing, corporate owned, neo con hawk PRETENDING to be a Democrat!
Bernie Sanders is a New Deal Democrat the likes that we have not seen since FDR.
We have an amazing opportunity to change the course of our nation in a positive way.
We cannot afford a President Clinton or President Trump.
Neither of those two will adequately confront the terrible reality of climate change that confronts us.
Trump's solution? What climate change?
Hillary's solution? More fracking of course!
 
 
+12 # jimallyn 2016-05-04 23:32
Quoting Barbara K:
Hillary has been a Dem since she was an adult.

No, Hillary has *claimed* to be a Dem. Her words and her actions and the company she keeps say otherwise.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 09:24
@ Barbara K

Oh yes, Babs, one would HAVE to say Senator Sanders is awash in advantages.

You know when I was about five years old I made a mental connection and realized that the WORDS people said correspond to actual MEANINGS. Before that they'd been rather Pavlovian utterances, and my intellectual world exploded with the vastness I'd seen in that moment, the awareness of knowledge and language and a whole bunch of other things you've probably not heard of.

I explain this meticulously because it seems to be an experience you've not yet had, Kebabs.

Maybe it's the tone of your statements, but I have the feeling that YOU really don't like Sanders' Brooklyn Jewishness, am I right?

Let's lay it out there, babette. The actual accusations are boringly fatuous, so what is it that REALLY bothers you?
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-05-05 09:32
True Barbara K. At first, I was inspired by Sanders but lately, with very little chance of winning he, but especially his suppporters have degenerated into personal attacks when its clear she will be the nominee. That is a sign, they are more interested in themselves than the good of the country.

After winning Indiana, Sanders has 1,361 pledged delegates, according to the Associated Press’ count, and Clinton has 1,682, giving her a 321-delegate lead. A candidate needs 2,383 delegates to win the nomination, so Sanders would need 1,022 more pledged delegates if he were to win with those alone, while Clinton would need just another 701.

The remaining primary contests — Guam, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and the District of Columbia — have just 933 pledged delegates up for grabs.
.
If we're looking at overall delegates — pledged and super — Sanders stands at 1,400 and Clinton at 2,202. That means the Vermont senator needs 983 more delegates to reach the magic number and Clinton needs just 181.
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-05-05 09:36
In other words, Hillary could lose EVERY STATE LEFT by 70 to 30 and she still wins the nomination. Yet these poor losers are all about themselves rather than the country.
 
 
0 # dsepeczi 2016-05-06 07:22
Quoting rocback:
In other words, Hillary could lose EVERY STATE LEFT by 70 to 30 and she still wins the nomination. Yet these poor losers are all about themselves rather than the country.


Actually, that's where you couldn't be more wrong. We definitely ARE for the country and don't see voting for someone that will continue to work towards its demise as something that's good for it.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 06:48
@ rocback

Look at that, rockballs, even when you just state a bald fact you get 10 thumbs down. Oh, excuse me a sec, ELEVEN.

There's not much good will for you here (but I commend you for offering a link. That's a step in the right direction, and why YOU'RE the troll who holds the basket of my hopes and dreams).

I guess that's why no one threw you a party for being the first commenter. Know that means a lot to you.

What was it it you said about grandlakeguy (and there he is, number two ;-), he was sitting around waiting to be number one?

Hypocrite much, stoneslime? I mean, CONGRATS!
 
 
-6 # rocback 2016-05-05 10:12
I bet that killed you, librarian. :-)
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 10:32
No. I like you rorschach, for some odd reason.

I'm glad you got to be first.

Was it everything you hoped for? Are you allowed to keep hoping when you're on Hillary's payroll?
 
 
+83 # RMDC 2016-05-04 12:47
This is interesting. I hope all the "super delegates" are reading it. They will know right away that if they want a "democrat" in the White House next year, they need to unify the party behind Sanders. Hillary will drag the democrat party into defeat. The slugfest between Hillary and Trump will be so ugly that presidential races will be tainted for a few decades. And Trump will win in the end because in spite of both Trump and Hillary having dirty records, Hillary's is the dirtier. Trump faced some tough guy opponents like Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Kasich and he simply handed each one their asses one after another. He'll do the same with Hillary.

The Democrat party could take the high road and unify behind a candidate that is trusted and pretty much free from the sort of smell that taints Hillary and Donald. They would be setting up the Democrat party for a long term control of the White House because Sanders would most likely not betray the American people in the way Bill Clinton or Barak Obama did. Sanders is not a triangulor.

The real question is -- Will the Super Delegates get the message. They have time. This message needs to be screamed from the rooftops right up to the Convention.
 
 
+85 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-04 14:23
Bernie has been super polite and easygoing on Hillary during the entire primary so far.
For instance he has never mentioned the HRC vote (while in the Senate) when she sided with the Republicans to defeat a ban on our military's use of cluster bombs. These barbaric devices are designed to maim civilians and especially children. That vote defines her lack of compassion or basic humanity.
Bernie never mentioned the Hillary Clinton self aggrandizing lie that she came under sniper fire while on a visit to Bosnia as First Lady. There is wonderful video news footage exposing this deception and her subsequent admission that she "misspoke". That episode clearly defines her penchant for telling lies.
These are just two of numerous episodes in Hillary's past that the Trump forces will use to destroy her.
Just imagine the tv commercials these 2 episodes will make.
She is unelectable when you examine her record.
 
 
+68 # Crebbafrabitz 2016-05-04 15:37
"MIS-SPOKE":

That is a politician's word for "Lying-even-tho ugh-the-truth-i s-obvious-to-a- moon-rock!"
 
 
-1 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 07:03
haha

We should come up with a Hillary thesaurus.

Would you get on that, stonesthrow? You like to make lists that expose things, right?

Hey, roc! Quit doing your victory jig for being the first poster and get to work!

Hillary thesaurus, stat!
 
 
+2 # rocback 2016-05-05 10:16
He started out super polite but has degenerated into personal attacks and name-calling by his surrogates. It is soiling what could have been a real principled movement and is now just all about bashing Hillary.
 
 
+2 # dsepeczi 2016-05-06 07:24
Quoting rocback:
He started out super polite but has degenerated into personal attacks and name-calling by his surrogates. It is soiling what could have been a real principled movement and is now just all about bashing Hillary.


We don't make Hillary look bad ... her record does.
 
 
-14 # pegasus4508 2016-05-04 17:57
Then why don't YOU call your super delegates? Start with yourself, then let us know how that went. If you want to make a difference then DO THE WORK. That goes for the rest of the Bernie supporters as well. YOU know who your super delegates are - call them YOURSELF. Stop waiting for someone else to do the work for you.
 
 
+7 # Texas Aggie 2016-05-04 18:37
Actually there is no list of super delegates that I'm aware of. Can you maybe point us in the right direction?
 
 
+10 # Ted 2016-05-04 19:53
Hi Aggie!

Check out superdelegateli st.com
 
 
+11 # economagic 2016-05-04 19:57
Someone called "joe_me" posted the following in the thread on "Sanders: 'The convention will be a contested contest'" this morning:

Here is the list of 2016 democratic superdelegate names with their states. Was easy to find. Almost everyone of them supports Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 06:53
Already doing so.

First, contact any superdelegates you have a connection with, but others to consider might be Ed Rendell (PA), a pragmatist, and Patrick Leahy, Sanders' colleague from VT. Howard Dean of VT. He has a lot of sympathy for Bernie's agenda. It's likely he's been privy to some unattractive aspects of the Clinton apparatus recently, and he seems to have a conscience.

Vermonters, activate!

Also, anyone who's been abused or betrayed by the Clintons. THAT widens the pool considerably.

Maybe contact George Clooney. He's more accessible, seems to be sympathetic, and would be much more persuasive than us. Morgan Freeman? A 30-second spot of god switching to Bernie would be cool.

The toughest one, but the most important, is the first turnover.

Be respectful. Be reasoned. Make the case for Sanders.

WE support Bernie. HE supports US.
 
 
+18 # economagic 2016-05-04 19:52
"The Democrat party could take the high road and unify behind a candidate that is trusted and pretty much free from the sort of smell that taints Hillary and Donald."

Read Alan Grayson's latest message today about the dangers of trying to beat T-Rump through a smear campaign. His supporters see his flaws as strengths, and the rest of us already know about them and don't need to get bogged down in such negativity. Grayson is one of the most astute politicians going.
 
 
+23 # RMDC 2016-05-04 20:18
econo -- good point on Trump. No one will beat him by going negative. THat's how he beat all the republican competitors so throughly. I posted this on another thread. it is your point in more detail --

Lyndon Johnson was fond of saying "don't ever get into a pissing match with a polecat." For a long time I did not understand this because I did not know what a polecat was. Then I learned that polecat is Texan for skunk. LBJ was right. In a pissing match, you will lose to the skunk.

Trump is a skunk. Just look at what he did to Ted Cruz, who was not smart enough not to get into a pissing match with him. Trump put a stink on Cruz he will never out live. I think Cruz's whole political career is over. He cannot run for any office because of the stink Trump put on him.

Hillary is just like Ted Cruz. She believes she is tougher than Trump. Only, she does not know that toughness is pointless in fighting a skunk. The only way to fight a skunk is to stay far away. Hillary is too much of a pugilist to stay far away. She will want to go toe-to-toe with Trump and he'll put a stick on her too.

Sanders and Warren if she supports Sanders need focus on the issues and act as if Trump is not even in the race. They should have a positive message for every day and completely ignore Trump. He will go ballistic, but let him. He will only be hurting himself.
 
 
+4 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-05-05 09:53
This is an astute observation. So don't get in a pissing match. Stay above the fray. Easier said than done when Trump is pulling out all of her baggage. She will have a hard time talking about issues when he is talking about her bad record.

We nominate her at our peril.
 
 
+2 # RMDC 2016-05-05 10:21
You cannot win a pissing match with a polecat, unless you are a polecat, too. Hillary is not a polecat. She is a pugilist. She will want to fight toe-to-toe with Trump and he will destroy her. He will put a stink on her that will drive everyone away, even Bill Clinton.

We saw this already. |Hillary tried to upstage Trumps silly slogan about making American great again. She said "make America whole again." Trump brought the house down laughing at this comment and even made off-color jokes about it. What kind of "hole" was Hillary referring to?

Trump is just good at this sort of repartee. Hillary is terrible at it.
 
 
-11 # mjcamero 2016-05-04 21:17
Little late for this. The primary is over. Unless you want to disregard the will of the voters and have the superdelegates decide, which is the only way he can win now. He would need to win 66% of the remaining popular vote to make it happen.
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-05-04 23:23
If that's they way you see it, why are you here? Why do you care what us progressives think. We ain't buying your condescending dismissal. It is not over.
 
 
+9 # jimallyn 2016-05-04 23:37
Quoting mjcamero:
The primary is over.

The primary is not over. The only way either Hillary or Bernie can win is at the convention. Neither of them have enough delegates to win now, and neither of them can get enough delegates to win.
 
 
-3 # rocback 2016-05-05 11:32
Even if every super delgate in every state that went for Sanders flipped, Hillary still wins.
 
 
+66 # pernsey 2016-05-04 13:16
Really when you look at the choices...Berni e is the one!!

Trump is a big mouth narcissist and Hillary is too establishment.. .Im sick of the business as usual crew.

This country really does need positive changes not just more rich liars running the show.
 
 
+92 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-04 14:09
If the rest of the world was allowed to choose between these three ...
the world would pick Bernie!
Everyone is sick and tired and outraged at American aggression and warmongering and Hillary will only bring us more of the same (or worse).
Trump is flat out dangerous and unqualified.
Bernie Sanders has been on the right side of virtually every issue for over 30 years and is the only candidate properly addressing the menace of climate change.
I can only hope that we get it right for once.
 
 
+7 # Dion Giles 2016-05-05 01:54
Living in the rest of the world, WA (Western Australia) I can confirm Grandlakeguy's post 100%, especially as my governments are apt to send Australians to fight in US colonial wars.

I specially like the three portrait photos at the top of this article. A picture says more than a thousand words.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 10:39
Dion, my friend, you are SO SO lucky Donald Trump hasn't put up his Internet Wall yet! It's going to be SO high, and just as fantastical as the one along the Mexico border.

And have I mentioned who's going to PAY for that inter webs wall, sir? Western Australia, that's who!

And it's going to be the BEST wall and .. and .. Trump knows words. The BEST words. And ..

stay tuned. It's going to be SO special.



Why do I get the feeling that if Trump is elected the world will build a wall around US?

And guess who's going to pay for it?

Us.
 
 
+51 # Inspired Citizen 2016-05-04 17:13
It's not just the polls; Bernie is just an all around better candidate for a range of reasons, including the Bernie or bust movement.

http://www.examiner.com/article/who-is-more-electable-hillary-clinton-or-bernie-sanders
 
 
+40 # jimmyjames 2016-05-04 17:27
The two party system is and has been rigged for many years to keep populist and popular candidates from succeeding. The American political system is a sad joke, but it is not funny. The establishment elites believe they know better than the public does when it comes to who we want to lead them. I am simply sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. If Bernie Sanders is not on the ticket, I will write in his name. GO BERNIE GO - I FEEL THE BERN!!

Lord knows we need to stop moving one step forward and two back every four years...
 
 
+6 # pegasus4508 2016-05-04 17:51
Not an issue since the Donald will take us back centuries. Thanks!
 
 
+5 # economagic 2016-05-04 19:47
"one step forward and two back"

Reverend Barber called that "the moon walk" more than a decade ago!
 
 
-37 # pegasus4508 2016-05-04 17:50
Unfortunately, I think Donald Trump will win. Bernie's attacks on HRC will be used in ad after ad after ad. Bernie's supporters will be sulking at home and only some Democrats will vote for Hillary. Sad state of affairs. Since I voted for Bernie (a completely wasted vote in Maryland), my bitterness has NO BOUNDS.
Fucking Donald Trump as president? I hope all of you can live with your decision to throw the entire planet under the bus. It is not just about you, just like Bernie USED to say it was not just about him.
On another tip. The next time an independent wants to run for president, they will be on their own. The DNC won't be fooled again.
 
 
+14 # Merlin 2016-05-04 18:17
pegasus4508 2016-05-04 17:50

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? You are full of contradictions in this post, as well as being wrong about a bunch of things. Don't you edit what you write?

You like tips. Here is one for you. Leave your negative emotions outside, or in the other room. In this post you could not get passed your admitted bitterness and anger. And it really shows!
 
 
+19 # Bruce Gruber 2016-05-04 18:38
Don't blame Bernie for the DNC insider class insisting that the 'compromiser-in -chief" must be President to keep the coffers full. Not quid-pro-quo, you understand. Not an exchange of capitulation for cash. ... Just good old political realism.

EXACTLY WHAT BERNIE SUPPORTERS AIM TO DESTROY! DNC choice ... results are theirs to adjust. Back to you

Oh, and to aubrecht.1@osu.edu below: This septuagenarian is among a multitude of MATURE Democrats who have been in this fight for decades. Welcome to getting your feet wet. Home schooling is limiting by design.
 
 
-18 # Barbara K 2016-05-04 19:40
Right on, Pegasus4508. As I said, it was inevitable when an Independent is running on the Democratic ticket that he would get double party favors. Hope the Dems allow only Dems on the ticket from now on. There are a lot of Bernie fanatics on here. They have no interest in the nasty stuff Bernie has done. One person told me on a different thread that he thinks it is planned this way. That Bernie has smeared Hillary so much and so have the Rethugs, because the Rs know all Bernie's "stuff" and will use it against him during the General Election to make sure they have their R in office. It seems feasible and I hadn't thought of it that way. Just wondered why he wasn't vetted and scrutenized to the extent that Hillary was. He also said that all his smears against Hillary will be used against him too. I don't know if that is how it will turn out, I guess we'll just have to watch and see. Just ignore the nastiness from the Bernie fanatics, they had a good teacher.

..
 
 
-2 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 09:54
You know those moments that have become common in film and television -- where the camera is looking at a character looking at you, and only YOU see the truck speeding toward you (and the oblivious driver)?

That's how I feel with you Hillary supporters.

You seem gleeful at trying to shred a good man's reputation, and for what? So Hillary Clinton can ride her arrogance and belligerence to glorious defeat in November?

Donald Trump is looming behind you and at full-speed ahead, while you pick at nits and refuse any appeal to sense.

Senator Sanders is not only more electable, but he has a better agenda and a character and temperament more suited to the office.

Hillary Clinton does not deserve to be president, and I offer YOUR particular support as evidence. She WANTS to be president, really REALLY badly (and Bill wants a great kitchen on call again too, and lovely ladies to deliver -- do you think they only put men on duty at night when Bill Clinton is in the House?), but that doesn't make it true.
 
 
+2 # dbrize 2016-05-05 13:43
Quoting Barbara K:
Right on, Pegasus4508. As I said, it was inevitable when an Independent is running on the Democratic ticket that he would get double party favors. Hope the Dems allow only Dems on the ticket from now on. There are a lot of Bernie fanatics on here. They have no interest in the nasty stuff Bernie has done. One person told me on a different thread that he thinks it is planned this way. That Bernie has smeared Hillary so much and so have the Rethugs, because the Rs know all Bernie's "stuff" and will use it against him during the General Election to make sure they have their R in office. It seems feasible and I hadn't thought of it that way. Just wondered why he wasn't vetted and scrutenized to the extent that Hillary was. He also said that all his smears against Hillary will be used against him too. I don't know if that is how it will turn out, I guess we'll just have to watch and see. Just ignore the nastiness from the Bernie fanatics, they had a good teacher.

..


Aha! Another conspiracy against poor "Hill". They just keep a'comin' don't they? Nothing to do with her RECORD. A record which YOU Barbara K refuse to discuss.

Enough of trite whines.

Do you support the GWOT?

Do you believe agreements such as NAFTA and TPP are examples of "free trade"?

Do you believe we must "temporarily" suspend certain constitutional protections for an unforeseen duration?

Do you support the policy known as "regime change"?
 
 
+10 # jimallyn 2016-05-04 23:39
Quoting pegasus4508:
Bernie's attacks on HRC will be used in ad after ad after ad.

Attacks? Since when does stating the facts constitute and attack?
 
 
-1 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 09:56
It's the new ClintonSpeak, reference Orwell.

You working on that Hillary thesaurus, ricotta? Chop chop.

(Did you like that one Babs? I'm guessing you don't think much of 'Orientals' either. Just a guess.)
 
 
0 # rocback 2016-05-05 11:35
ait's already happeneing. I jsut saw Trump on TV today using the exact same language Sanders and his surrogates are using: "She only is winning because the election is rigged".

Of course he neglects to say she is ahead by over 3 million popular votes.
 
 
-2 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 13:14
Oh, rockette. Don't make me sad.

I've probably seen eight different attacks on Hillary this week, most of them from women, and only one even vaguely connected to anything Bernie has said.

She is being hoisted by her own petards, trinket. They're going after her for things she said about Bill's women back in the day. They're going after her, ironically enough, for accusing Sanders of sexism when he hadn't done anything wrong. They're going after the WS transcripts and the emails and Libya. The coal mis-speak.

And it's only been TWO DAYS since Trump won the nomination! Doesn't it feel like a year?

It's only just started and you CANNOT blame Sanders for the baggage Hillary and Bill drag around with them like dead hookers in the trunk from one lucrative situation to another.

It's probably not easy to be rich AND well-loved, but I think Hillary and Bill probably sleep just fine at night.

And I'm sure they don't lose one second of sleep over worrying about us and our puny lives.
 
 
0 # dbrize 2016-05-05 13:46
Quoting rocback:
ait's already happeneing. I jsut saw Trump on TV today using the exact same language Sanders and his surrogates are using: "She only is winning because the election is rigged".

Of course he neglects to say she is ahead by over 3 million popular votes.


Hey Man...if Trump starts echoing Sanders you are REALLY in trouble.
 
 
0 # SusanT136 2016-05-07 13:11
I wish Hillary supporters would make up their minds. First, it's Bernie and or /"us" (progressives) getting fooled into using the SAME attack points on Hillary that the Republicans have been using for years - why we're just tools of the Republicans! Then, it's Bernie and or "us" who have just HANDED the Republicans attack points on Hillary -

So which is it?

IMHO it's neither - because Hillary's record speaks for itself. And that is all that Bernie or all of "us" have been pointing out.
 
 
-28 # aubrecht.1@osu.edu 2016-05-04 18:25
This is pie in the sky wishful thinking. Yes, YOUNG independents voted for Bernie. People born after maybe 1970. Older people in the general election will go along with Communism = socialism, which will be blasting from every TV and every bit of social media. The older people will not vote for Bernie, and may vote for Trump, either. Communism as the great evil will win out.
 
 
+36 # DaveEwoldt 2016-05-04 18:51
Nope. Sorry. Those of us born in the '40s, '50s and '60s are now old enough to know the Red Scare was a bunch of crap dreamed up by the elites to keep themselves in power.

The initial Bernie house parties last year were attended mainly by people with white hair. At the time my wife kept remarking that we needed to get young people more involved.

How do you get by on a day to day basis living in such a fact free world?
 
 
-14 # OLDGUY 2016-05-04 19:15
I was born in 30s and I agree with aubrecht.
 
 
+13 # economagic 2016-05-04 19:49
Bernie is not even a socialist by any of the most common definitions, but a "social democrat" (a party unknown in this country), as many people have pointed out.
 
 
-4 # jimmyjames 2016-05-04 19:50
Quoting OLDGUY:
I was born in 30s and I agree with aubrecht.

Then you are just too old to know better....
 
 
-2 # OLDGUY 2016-05-04 20:08
You know you sound just like Trump. But then what else can one expect from a young know nothing.
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2016-05-04 22:53
Ironic, huh?

Many of the attacks against Sanders have been based on his age.

Apparently, swipes at Clinton being a woman are off limits (as they should be), but swipes at Sanders being "too old" (only 5 years older than her) are perfectly ok.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 06:15
I am wondering, too, and not in reference to anyone in particular, how much of the opposition to Sanders is based on anti-semitism.

What do you think, Babs?
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 06:28
Hillary is five or six years younger than Bernie.

If she were to be elected, after her first term she'd be 72.

So would we get her assurance she wouldn't run for a second term?
 
 
0 # rocback 2016-05-05 11:37
"off limits". lmao. Nothing is off limits here in Hillary bashing. That's all this board has degenerated into.
 
 
+12 # California Neal 2016-05-04 20:13
I was born in 1959 & I agree with Dave Ewoldt's rebuttal of aubrect. The older people I know overwhelmingly support Bernie. Trump is a scary racist-sexist-x enophobic narcissist with no experience in government, among other problems. Hillary is a warmonger who may be stealing the nomination from Bernie, among other problems.

Most of us have understood that red-scare tactics are repulsive propaganda since back in the day. Others have learned to be able to evaluate someone like Bernie for themselves--as in "if that's democratic socialism, I'm for it." None of us will be swayed by Republican tar-&-feathering.

I have to say, though, that if we can't get the Dem nomination for Bernie, the seniors I know will vote--with a heavy heart--for HRC. We need Supreme Court Justices who won't trash Roe vs. Wade, who may trash Citizens United, & who respect the continuing need for voting rights protection. HRC would be better for women & immigrants, & probably for the middle class & on climate change, than the Republicans' bizarre nominee-to-be.
 
 
+11 # jwl 2016-05-04 21:55
Quoting OLDGUY:
I was born in 30s and I agree with aubrecht.

You know, it maybe doesn't matter how old you are, if you're determined to miss the point. I'm from your age cohort, and I'm with DaveEwoldt.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 06:17
There is an erroneous trope that wisdom comes with age, but of course that's false. A young asshole doesn't blossom into an old sage.

I'm pretty sure oldgeezer was ignorant in the 60s, too. And the 70s etc.
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2016-05-04 22:51
My mom was born in the '20s and she agrees with Dave.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 06:18
You're a lucky son. Much better to be raised by a kind parent than even a rich one.

PS Don't forget Mother's Day -- three days away! (get something different this year.)
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 06:22
Bernie mugs are nice.
 
 
+6 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-05-05 07:36
@ librarian1984
Bernie mugs are not only nice but they are MADE IN THE USA!
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 10:04
@ tref

Of course they are -- and the workers make $15 an hour!
 
 
+1 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-05-05 07:44
@ librarian1984

BTW, librarian1984, on another article, Nominae wrote:
This is why I like to encourage us to use the @IntendedTarget designator.

You responded:
I have no idea what that means.

I didn’t see whether anyone responded to you so here goes.

Sometimes when there are multiple responses to a comment, you wind up with nested comments where a “Reply” may be intended for one comment but be positioned under a different comment. That is why Nominae encouraged using the ampersand (@) along with the handle of the poster. Here is an example.

Suppose I post the following:
# tref
BY FAR THE EASIEST WAY to form a party or organization is to commandeer an already existing one.

You “Reply” to my post, agreeing with me, but before your reply appears, several other people “Reply” to my post and some “Reply” to the replies. Then the “Reply” to my post by Someone appears:
# Someone
This is just an attempt to subvert our Democratic party. If you want a “revolution,” start your own party.

Followed immediately by your “Reply” to my comment:
# librarian1984
I agree with this completely.

On the thread, it will look like you are agreeing with Someone, not me. To avoid that, Nominae and I use the @, like this:
# librarian1984
@tref - I agree with this completely.

That way, it is clear with whom you are agreeing. Have a great day :)
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 10:03
@ tref

THANK YOU so much.

You are great at explaining things, but I predict I'll mess this up before I get it right, so please be forgiving.

I just put it in the body of the reply? Does that do anything other than show up as clarification? Does it actually reposition the comment?

Thank you again.

PS -- Can I turn off autocorrect? It keeps wanting to call rocback 'roebuck' and I can do so much better than THAT.

Right, crookshanks?
 
 
0 # Majikman 2016-05-05 17:30
Good advice, Tref. I try to use the handle of the poster I'm responding to to avoid confusion. With all the fast & furious comments it gets a tad muddled.
 
 
+1 # OLDGUY 2016-05-05 07:06
Why don't you tell the people of Latvia, estonia, Lithuania, Poland, East Germany hungary, chek republic, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria slovokia, Serbia, Slovinia, Macedonia, that their occupation was a plot by GM, GE, Goldman Sach.
 
 
0 # SusanT136 2016-05-07 14:30
And your point is.....
 
 
+3 # Headzzzup 2016-05-05 06:20
Quoting aubrecht.1@osu.edu:
The older people will not vote for Bernie

I'm 80, my wife is 70 - we will only vote for Bernie. Hillary, the NeoCon, will never be an option. True of my friends in our age group.
 
 
+19 # vicnada 2016-05-04 18:33
"The reality is that the system is rigged in favor of the two major political parties, and we will probably be stuck choosing between the two most unpopular candidates for President."

Based on Bernie's results now, I have no doubt that there will be a contested Convention AND given the numbers you list that will only grow more attractive for Bernie, SuperDelegates would have to be insane NOT to back him as the only reasonable candidate to ensure we get the WhiteHouse...an d most likely Congress.
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-05-05 11:39
actually, If the delegates were split exactly based on popular votes, Hillary would have MORE delegates than she has now.

But why let some pesky facts get in the way of a good story, right?
 
 
+14 # Ted 2016-05-04 18:39
As confusing as the first part of this article is (why did the Rasmussan poll only include two of the currently running candidates?), the other "electability indicators" clearly have Sanders as the candidate that our Democracy is choosing for President.

So my question is; why do we care who either party is pushing on us?

Lets just write in Sanders and get the person we want as our President.

A Democracy only works if the majority of the citizens make the choice they actually believe is best for the country, and this so-called two party system only has the power that We give to it.

Write in Sanders.
 
 
+8 # Ted 2016-05-04 18:54
Besides, the hacking of the voting machines or the tweaking of their tallys probably won't include messing with the write-in vote.

Or maybe it will this time because of all the Sanders voters. They're getting pretty good at changing election outcomes after all these years.
 
 
+7 # economagic 2016-05-04 19:59
Write-in votes are not counted under the laws of some states. Remember, election law in this country, unlike other wealthy democracies, is almost entirely at the state level.
 
 
+4 # Ted 2016-05-05 05:17
Quoting economagic:
Write-in votes are not counted under the laws of some states. Remember, election law in this country, unlike other wealthy democracies, is almost entirely at the state level.


I stand corrected!

Some quick research shows me that our two-party system also has the elections very strongly rigged against write-in candidates (why have we allowed our Democracy to be so badly undermined?).

This changes my position on writing-in Sanders unless a strong Write-in campaign is undertaken by his organization.

What a mess we've made for ourselves.
 
 
-4 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 06:40
I'm confused about something.

If Bernie Sanders has the support of all the young people, why aren't any of them hacking the election.

C'mon guys, pull your weight!

The LEAST you could do is reveal the Diebold software.

As a matter of fact, I think Hillary should be VERY worried about this, and call for universal recounts.

Oh, Hillary! We need a progressive LIKE YOU -- one that gets things done!
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 10:09
See, I'm trusting that Hillary will NOT call for recounts, because it would ACTUALLY reveal the DNC's shenanigans.

The B'rer Hillary maneuver, as it were.

Trust me. She WON'T do this. But we should try to make her. The beauty of it is it fits with her self-destructiv e nature. You know, the one that's going to take us all down with it?
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 10:14
AND if Hillary thinks youngsters are hacking for Bernie, maybe we'll move to paper ballots, as god and Canada intended.
 
 
0 # carlcoon 2016-05-04 18:45
You lads are floundering. If it's overturning the establishment you want, go for a temporary alliance between Bernie and Trump. Only that will triumph over the lock Wall st and the rest of them have over the media and public opinion. If Bernie wins out in the end we'll start a new era, if he loses God help us.
 
 
-7 # OLDGUY 2016-05-04 19:17
Chicken little
 
 
+8 # economagic 2016-05-04 20:08
Oh, come on, get serious. If you believe there are no threats to the endless continuation of "business as usual," start with the Triple Crisis Blog then study a little science and read a little news from sources other than the business press and the rest of the MSM.

With crisis comes danger and also opportunity, but pretending the crisis does not exist is foolish. The present crises have been building for centuries, as anyone who lived through "WW II" and even part of the "Great Depression" should be well aware.
 
 
+15 # Merlin 2016-05-04 19:48
carlcoon 2016-05-04 18:45
“…alliance between Bernie and Trump.”

There is no possibility that this happen because the two men are total opposites ideologically. tRump is a corporatist 1%er, dressed in an independent’s clothing. He is a phony and a rabble rouser. Bernie is of the People and is open and real. Even a casual look shows the huge difference between the two men.

Why would you propose such a ridiculous matchup, that only an ignorant fool would accept as real?
 
 
+1 # Capn Canard 2016-05-05 08:51
No. I doubt that. The lock on power is in the hands of the wealthy, the establishment. Hillary is getting support from the wealthiest while Sanders has gotten support from us. If you pay attention to American Media then you would see very little positive stories on Sanders. (Not really much on Sanders at all except negative stories telling us he has no chance.) Meanwhile Trump finances his own campaign and many of the ignorant will follow him simply based on that idea of his supposed incorruptibilit y. This "election" is laugable... one hopes that Sanders could get elected, but I fear that the establishment will do all that it can to prevent Sanders from winning.

Prepare for political deceptions, shenanigans and gymnastics!

It is a fuggin circus...
 
 
-2 # jazzman633 2016-05-04 19:24
Trump is wrong with his "If Hillary were a man... " argument. Hillary WAS a man, sort of. John Kerry had comparable credentials (minus the First Lady part) and was considered Presidential material.

She has experience working the system, for whatever that's worth. More than Trump. Her being female is icing on the cake.

Unfortunately, the icing conceals an interior that is rife with corruption and decay. Her raw ambition took her from Arkansas on Willie's coattails, and her lust for power overcame her indignity in the face of his philandering. From there it was about influence peddling and money, money, money.

And policy. She once confessed, "I'm a policy junkie." A revealing moment from one who has never turned a profit, made a product, or enriched the economy but has devoted her life to running other people's lives and rewarding cronies through government. That's what we can expect from her presidency.

How can this hypocrite "fight" for Americans she has already sold out through trade deals with her powerful friends? And WHAT was in those speeches that's worth $600,000?

I'm voting Libertarian.
 
 
+9 # economagic 2016-05-04 20:39
Wait a minute: The platform of the Libertarian Party in the U.S. asserts that there is to be no restriction on the association of persons for business purposes. That is part of the definition of a corporation, the other part being that its members incur no liability for any damage resulting from the acts of the organization. Perhaps you are on the wrong web site.
 
 
0 # Capn Canard 2016-05-05 08:58
I got a better idea:

DON'T VOTE.

If everyone refused to vote, then it would seriously show the naked criminality of American electoral system. Touch screen voting!?!? what a fuggin joke. It is a system that is designed to be fixed. But I don't think we could convince enough people in such a short time.
 
 
-14 # RBREDFOX 2016-05-04 19:34
An avowed socialist cannot win in this country. Plus Bernie can't even beat Hillary!
 
 
+19 # Ted 2016-05-04 19:58
Sanders is not a 'Socialist', he is a 'Democratic Socialist'.

The difference is as clear as the difference between Denmark and North Korea.

And according to the stats, Bernie WOULD beat Hillary in an open and fair election.
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-05-04 20:12
That's not quite right. See my response to Old Guy several posts above. It is an oversimplificat ion, as there are more definitions of "socialism" than there are people who claim to be socialists, but your distinction is not an accurate representation of the differences between Denmark and North Korea.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-05-05 10:20
@ economagic

What would AMERICAN democratic socialism look like?

We'd have to have lower taxes than the Scandinavians tolerate, but maybe free quality daycare and education, sweetened by free cable tv.

And something fried and on a stick.
 
 
+2 # Capn Canard 2016-05-05 08:59
That is a tired old meme that only tired old men believe.

Times have changed.
 
 
+7 # djnova50 2016-05-04 19:40
Please watch this video and explain to me why anybody would vote for Hillary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK2K5v5bm0Q
 
 
0 # Headzzzup 2016-05-05 07:14
Thanks, These are probably some of the videos that Trump will use against Hillary. What a rich source of anti-Hillary material.
 
 
-10 # mjcamero 2016-05-04 21:02
Love this sight, but the cherry picking of data does no one favors. Today she is up 13 points in the new CNN poll. Besides, the primary is over. She is winning in a landslide. If you want to make the case that he is more electable, make the case to the voters, and then count the votes. Thus far they aren't buying it. Time to move on and fight Trump.
 
 
+13 # Billy Bob 2016-05-04 22:57
The primary is over when it's over. Until she has all the delegates she needs without super delegates to pad her results, it's not over. Right now, her chances of getting all of the delegates as pledged delegates are becoming pretty slim.

The Convention WILL decide the candidate, no matter how much you WANT the "primary over".
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-05-05 10:20
Denial is not a river in Africa.

She had 2203 delegates and only needs 2383 to win. She needs only 178 more out of 1159 left. If this were based on the GOP rules she would have already won.

She could lose every state left by more than 80 to 20 and still win the nomination.
 
 
0 # SusanT136 2016-05-07 14:41
Quoting rocback:
Denial is not a river in Africa.

She had 2203 delegates and only needs 2383 to win. She needs only 178 more out of 1159 left. If this were based on the GOP rules she would have already won.

She could lose every state left by more than 80 to 20 and still win the nomination.


Your math changes like the direction of the wind. earlier you said

"After winning Indiana, Sanders has 1,361 pledged delegates, according to the AP count, and Clinton has 1,682, giving her a 321-delegate lead. A candidate needs 2,383 delegates to win the nomination, so Sanders would need 1,022 more pledged delegates if he were to win with those alone, while Clinton would need just another 701.

The remaining primary contests — Guam, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and the District of Columbia — have just 933 pledged delegates up for grabs. "

Now you say she needs 178 out of 1159 delegates left. WTF? This doesn't add up, even figuring in the 715 super delegates.

So which of these fabulous scenarios in math is wrong, according to you, because they can't both be right???
 
 
-9 # Robbee 2016-05-04 21:11
threatens GOP troll!- Inspired Citizen 2016-03-20 13:13
"... either Unite Behind Bernie or else (RAP promises) Trump as the next President.”

hill worse than rump! snarls GOP troll - # Inspired Citizen 2016-03-17 15:51 "... Clinton more dangerous than Trump.”

citizen, note that your pledge amounts to GOP catfishing for progressive votes! - # Inspired Citizen 2016-02-23 14:27 "... Bernie or lose the general election ... is a pledge."

outing false-flag ops! - our local hill-haters have been self-identifyin g here as GOP trolls for months and months!

- citizen, at long last! thanks! outs RAP! - Republicans Against Progress - says - # Inspired Citizen 2015-12-10 18:10 "It's going to be #BerrnieOrElse the GOP. That's RAP's promise!"

- and says - # jsluka 2015-08-30 17:22 "I will not vote for Hillary Clinton ... It would be better for a Rethuglican to get elected, and bring on the revolution!"

- humbug! as says # Scott Galindez 2015-10-20 10:28 “Bernie needs enough delegates at that convention to win, not signers on a petition making an undemocratic threat.”

citizen's is false-flag attack on hill! and false-flag support for bernie! - listen to bernie! - down with RAP! - down with GOP! - go bernie!
 
 
-9 # Robbee 2016-05-04 21:13
false-flag, pt. 2

citizen wants us to throw away our vote! as notes - # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-04 00:22 "... (When RAP thugs here say take) the "never Hillary" pledge, they are saying they won't join with vulnerable people of color to resist fascism in the White House."

- citizen's is false-flag attack on fascism! and CLEARLY, false-flag support for rump! - plain and simple! citizen supports ANY and EVERY GOP fascist! - who here on rsn is our local fascist? clue: it's not hill!

- listen to bernie! - down with RAP! - down with GOP! - go bernie!

says self-fulfilling prophet of doom! - # Inspired Citizen 2016-03-17 21:44 "Without a miracle, (bernie’s) campaign is doomed. (RAP) has been arguing this since last July ..."

- but sneaky RAP only came out of the closet, finally self-identifyin g as a GOP troll outfit, five months later! - # Inspired Citizen 2015-12-10 18:10 "It's going to be #BerrnieOrElse the GOP. That's RAP's promise!"

- down with RAP/GOP! - go bernie!
 
 
+16 # danireland46 2016-05-04 21:50
If according to the polls and charts displayed in this article, and the most electable candidate is not on the ballot in November, there's something horribly wrong a system that is supposed to be a Democracy.
The political establishments will exclude the most electable candidate, Bernie Sanders, because he's the candidate of the people. There's no way to keep his presidency under control. He will be representing the rabble, and that's not acceptable to the plutocratic puppet masters.
Which brings me back to the notion that we are a Democracy. This may be our last chance for redeeming our country.
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-05-05 10:23
Polls are just that...polls until the real vote. Hillary has received more votes than Trump or Sanders by millions.

If you like polls for the remaining states, she is ahead by 20 points in Calif and 30 points in New Jersey.
 
 
+3 # Scott Galindez 2016-05-05 16:57
Your missing the points...more Americans are independent than members of either party. Bernie is the strongest candidate among independents, that is why he would be the strongest candidate.

Hillary in vulnerable in November because she is not popular with independents.

This is not the year for an establishment candidate. Hillary may unite the Democrats but she swill have trouble with the independents who voted in the Democratic primary because Bernie was running.

The system needs to change to allow a level playing field for more political parties...if it does both parties will split but more Americans will be able to find a party that represents them.
 
 
0 # SusanT136 2016-05-07 13:31
Quoting Scott Galindez:
Your missing the points...more Americans are independent than members of either party. Bernie is the strongest candidate among independents, that is why he would be the strongest candidate.

Hillary in vulnerable in November because she is not popular with independents.

This is not the year for an establishment candidate. Hillary may unite the Democrats but she will have trouble with the independents who voted in the Democratic primary because Bernie was running.


Totally on point. Membership in both parties is low. In this Gallup 2015 poll, 42% of American adults identified as Independents, not as Republicans or Democrats - not sure if they're gotten a bump from this election year or not. Hillary will have trouble with Independents period - whether they're Bernie supporters or not. Her negatives are too high.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx
 
 
+2 # ishmael 2016-05-05 04:25
HRC will probably get the nomination. Then voters will be forced to vote for someone ...in an election following campaigns characterized largely by preadolescent drama.
 
 
+2 # Archie1954 2016-05-05 13:04
It seems as though the Washington pundits still don't understand that Senator Sanders represents change, the change that everyone believed President Obama represented but didn't! Now the dam has broken and the American voter is demanding change, Sanders change. Why don't they simply admit that Clinton represents old Washington elites. She couldn't care less about the great majority of Americans. They are only useful to her on election night, not before and not after. Also Clinton comes with a load of baggage that would break any camel's back, never mind adding even one straw. She is a warmonger. She has consistently proposed and supported military operations in areas of the World where civilians were automatically targets. Enough, thank you very much, no more!
 
 
0 # ojg 2016-05-07 23:21
it took me about 5 minutes to figure out who the smiling man in the photo was. I've never seen Bernie smile.
 

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