Hillary wins / Bernie loses

[ConservativeDemocrat]

Setting aside policy differences (which are insignificant to all but the most exclusionary purist ideologues), there is one key differentiator between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders: Hillary can win the Presidency, Bernie will lose it.

Don't believe me?

There is a list of how popular candidates are. Sanders is so far behind, many polling outfits haven't even bothered testing his name, but we do have results for Arizona, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington.

Referencing this:

In Arizona...
Hillary is tied with Jeb Bush, and trails Scott Walker by 1% (well within the 4% margin of error)
Bernie loses to Scott Walker by 15%

In Iowa...
Hillary is outright ahead of all Republican candidates above the margin of error, +7% over Scott Walker
Bernie loses to Scott Walker by 5%

In Kentucky...
Hillary is behind against many Republican candidates, but within single digits (3% to 8% vs major GOP candidates)
Bernie is hopelessly behind, 13% or more

In Michigan...
Hillary is ahead, above the margin of error vs every Republican.
Bernie loses outside the margin of error.

In Ohio...
Hillary is ahead (albeit within the margin of error)
Bernie loses outside the margin of error.

In Washington...
Hillary is ahead outside the margin of error
Bernie is actually tied! (with Scott Walker) In Washington State.


Oh, but it's early?

Not in the least. Look at where Obama was in June of 2007 on the electability question:
CNN: Obama over McCain by 50% to 45%
Gallup: Obama over McCain by 46% to 42%
Newsweek: Obama over McCain by 51% to 36%
Rasmussen: Obama over McCain by 48% to 44%

Obama was ahead nationally. Sanders trails the Republicans by even more than Obama led by at this point.

Basically, Sanders sets Democrats back by a minimum of 15%. He loses states Hillary wins, and make competitive states that Democrats shouldn't have to be fighting over. He has no path to 270 electoral votes, and will lose us the election. This doesn't mean Hillary is a lock to win - getting a third Presidential term for one party is always hard in the United States - but she is clearly our best chance.

Final note. I don't expect to persuade the ideologues on this board with these irrefutable facts. (I'm over and done with that useless exercise.) So if you have a dream and want to keep dreaming it, that's fine. But when Hillary crushes Sanders on the road to the nomination, don't go pretending to yourself that this is because of any nefarious Wall Street "buying" of the election. It's just that Democrats - regular Democrats - want to win. It's kind of important to us - because unless you do, all those words and positions (absolutist or nuanced) mean nothing.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Le Taz Hot]

1. It's a beautiful day today.

I hope we get some rain soon.

[daleanime]

2. Still don't believe you....

but love you anyway.

[Indepatriot]

3. If this were December you'd have a real argument here, it's July....

[-Bernie-]

4. Your reality is a bubble

We are the reality.



Take the red pill, you continue to live the way you are. Take the blue pill, and I show you how deep and wide Bernie's support is.

[JaneyVee]

9. I think the op's use of factual data means he/she is reality based.

Show me one state Bernie is leading in. Just one.

[daleanime]

17. Show me one state....

where Bernie's not cutting into Hillary's lead the last two months. Just one.

But don't worry, we still love you.

[JaneyVee]

41. I will enthusiastically vote for Bernie if he is the nominee.

You don't have to convince me, but my post was in response to posters suggestion that op wasn't living in reality.

[daleanime]

43. Cool, cool...

reality is relative, I plan on working hard for the next 16 months.

Just to get the chance to work harder after the election.

[Depaysement]

36. You are totally hot

And I think you're the greatest. But it's July and this meme is like a baseball team being ahead during spring training,

[Ed Suspicious]

81. Amen. My Brewers were on fire at the All-Star break last year when the tide turned. It's a long

game and we're just getting started.

[bettyellen]

110. these sci-fi memes don't impress anyone except his core voters, same with the 1984 stuff.

go sell it at Comic Con, LOL.

[1000words]

5. Bookmarking

Let's see how "reality-based" you are ...

[99Forever]

6. "irrefutable facts" Bwahahahahahaha.

Cool story, bro.

[tularetom]

7. You do understand that the election is over a year away, don't you?

Because you seem to be straying a bit far from the "reality based community".

[JaneyVee]

8. Bernie is great and I hope he wins, but...

If Hillary wins I hope everyone is on board because there is way too much at stake for America to elect any of these batshit insane Republicans.

[djean111]

10. Oh dang. And here I just stuck my Bernie bumper sticker on my bumper.

So I guess I will stick with Bernie. Plus it is way too far out to base support on polls.
If only Bernie had consulted with you before he tossed his hat in the ring. Dang.

[frylock]

29. Just sell the car.

[Ken Burch]

11. Why do you think arrogant dismissiveness helps?

HRC has nothing all that special to offer...we don't need to settle for a Scoop Jackson foreign policy to win.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. Not a landslide

The data suggest that it will be very close and Hillary would probably lose Ohio. However, the data are fairly old and it is early in the game. Other Dem candidates had not announced or barely announced so......

[PoliticAverse]

13. "irrefutable facts" - so these are "unskewed polls" then?... n/t

[ConservativeDemocrat]

19. No, these are polls

It's the Bernie supporters claiming that he's winning by being merely 10% behind in a single state that are "unskewing" polls.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[ram2008]

28. The general election polls don't mean a thing now.

Especially with Bernie's low name ID

What matters are Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. And right now Bernie is catching fire there.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

56. These are old polls

[SunSeeker]

14. Thanks. nt

[Chakaconcarne]

15. And if Bernie loses and decides to

Run as an independent? = republican wet dream. I support Bernie all the way thru primary...but I'm concerned about any possibility of an independent run. That's the only way the GOP can win and they know it.

[mwooldri]

22. Bernie won't run as an independent.

He's said this before. So if he doesn't win the Democratic Party nomination he will support the eventual winner. How hard he would campaign for the winner remains to be seen but he isn't running a spoiler.

[ram2008]

16. This is crap... the only reason he's behind is NAME ID

Aside from the fact that a lot of the polls you're citing are old, notice how Sanders is behind along with O'Malley and Webb. Guess what they all have in common? Low name ID. Clinton has 100% name ID, the fact that she's only polling with the margin of error with some lesser known Republicans in states that are supposed to be lean D is actually bad news for her.

If Bernie was approaching 100% name ID and was polling behind Walker, then you'd have a point. Right now he doesn't and is still little known. Your "irrefutable facts" are nothing more than half asses predictions based on incomplete data.

[hack89]

20. It says a lot that a long time congressman and senator

Has no accomplishments that have resonated with the public over the past 20 years.

[ram2008]

27. Very sad that people don't educate themselves about his record

I'm sure when they do they'll like what they see.

[hack89]

32. Ok. Nt

[Depaysement]

38. Don't bother

Sometimes one's political credentials can be summed up in a screen name.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

60. It may be "sad", but it's the reality of the situation

...and flat out, Bernie hasn't even had to survive any focused smear campaign against him like Hillary has.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[frylock]

31. And Clinton resonates with the public because of her accomplishments..

which are...?

[hack89]

34. Besides being one of the best SoS in recent history?

Yea, you have a good point

[ram2008]

37. What did she actually accomplish?

As Senator or SOS?

[hack89]

42. Enough to garner the name recognition Bernie will never have. Nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

45. Oh, please! She is the former first lady.

That's how she got to be senator from New York.

She lost her inevitable coronation to Obama. That's how she got to be secretary of state.

And what accomplishments does she have as SoS? Libya?

[ram2008]

47. Being the first lady, voting for the war, and losing to Obama?

Yeah I guess that'll get you some name recognition.

[hack89]

48. It's going to put her in the White House. Nt

[ram2008]

49. Not if she can't articulate what her accomplishments are

Being 'there' isn't enough..

[hack89]

50. Bernie has the same problem. Nt

[ConservativeDemocrat]

61. It's amazing how much this sounds like a Republican attack

I tolerate attacks from the left, since I figure that's fair game within Democratic circles. This smacks of something that you'd read on redstate.com. But anyway, it's incredibly easily refuted:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/heres-a-list-of-hillary-clintons-accomplishments-so-quit-saying-she-doesnt-have-any/

• Even though her major initiative, the Clinton healthcare plan, failed (due to Republican obstruction), you cannot deny that it laid ground for what we have today, the Affordable Healthcare Act, something Clinton supports and would continue.
• She played a leading role in the development of State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides the much-needed state support for children whose parents cannot afford nor provide them with adequate healthcare coverage.
• She was also instrumental in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.
• Successfully fought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the National Institute of Health (NIH).
• She spearheaded investigations into mental illness plaguing veterans of the Gulf War; we now have a term for it – Gulf War Syndrome.
• At the Department of Justice, she helped create the office on Violence Against Women.
• She was instrumental in securing over $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.
• Took a leading role in the investigation of health consequences of first responders and drafted the first bill to compensate and offer the health services our first responders deserve (Clinton’s successor in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, passed the bill).
Was instrumental in working out a bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses for the renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act.
• Proposed a revival of the New Deal-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help homeowners refinance their mortgages in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster.
• Was a major proponent of sensible diplomacy which brought about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and brokered human rights with Burma.
• Oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
• Was the most traveled Secretary of State to date.
• The Clinton Foundation, founded by her and her husband, has improved the living conditions for nearly 400 million people in over 180 countries through its Initiative program.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Indepatriot]

59. You forgot dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.......

Oh, wait,.....nevermind

[Sheepshank]

92. oh, here, let me help you out....."Benghazi!!!!"

is that what you were looking for?

What do you suppoed a SoS does?

Hillary's earlier accomplishments came as the wife of POTUS and trying to install health care for all, even way back 20 years ago. Of course the male establishment laughed her off the stage. And with pressing women's abortion rights, teen pg education, campaign reforms, voting reforms, education reforms in the form of Pell grant increases and grants for American Indians, low income energy grants, minimum wage, victims rights, medical cost assistance for hospitals treating immigrants...oh hell, you don't really want any sort of list, you just thought you were saying something clever and as a dig.

[frylock]

51. And her accomplisments as SOS?

[PotatoChip]

18. Your 2nd link does not have D nominee Obama's 2007 'electability' stats. You linked to 2008. (nt)

[ConservativeDemocrat]

21. Thanks for the actual factual challenge

Which I'm happy to address. The 2007 polls are there as well. You just have to scroll down quite a bit.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[PotatoChip]

23. Ok, thanks. (nt)

[Gothmog]

24. These are not good polling numbers for Sanders

[mwooldri]

26. As long as the Democratic Party nominee wins....

Then America wins.

In any case, if Hillary wins she will have been pulled to the left thanks to Bernie. There's enough people in the party who want something other than the Corpadem message.

[Thinkingabout]

30. Good information, been waiting to see matchups with DNC candidates other than Hillary.

[frylock]

33. bookmarking

[virtualobserver]

35. you are providing data, not facts

Bernie is rising in popularity month by month.

The polls will reflect that.

Hillary's DNC friends haven't bothered to schedule a debate

By July 2007, we had already had three Democratic Primary debates

April 26, 2007 – Orangeburg, South Carolina, South Carolina State University
June 3, 2007 - CNN 7:00pm EDT - Goffstown, New Hampshire, Saint Anselm College
June 28, 2007 - PBS - Washington, D.C., Howard University

[questionseverything]

53. xcelant point

wtheck is wrong with the dnc not scheduling debates...they are gonna let the repubs suck up all that free airtime and we are gonna end up with bush

[kenfrequed]

107. One of the candidates doesn't want too many debates

One of the candidates wants as few debates as possible. Debates means that there are candidates to choose from. Having too many debates detracts from the "inevitable" argument and allows other candidates to get their names out there more.

Honestly getting as much free media that the debates would generate is to our advantage and makes up for any lack of funding our candidates might comparatively suffer from.

[mwooldri]

39. Look where John Edwards was in 2007.

If he was able to keep his pecker zipped up, had no extra marital affairs or lovechildren, it's possible that we would be in the second term of President Edwards. We'd be wondering whether America will elect its first woman or first African-American president in 2016. Bernie wouldn't be running.

[calguy]

40. BernHeads ignore reality

I love Bernie too but when I take off the rose colored glasses it is plain to see that a clear majority of general election voters will view Bernie the same way we view Ted Cruz. He's as far to the left as Ted is to the right. you just can't win an election that way.

[GeorgeGist]

54. Simply nonsense. IMO.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

80. Bernie isn't that far to the left

Which issues are far to the left?

[stillwaiting]

101. Ridiculous claim. But, since you believe he is that far to the left...

... Surely there must be a few issues that makes you categorize him as such.

So, what are 3 issues that Bernie is so far to the left on, and how do those 3 issues poll with Americans?

This really should be a very easy and simple question to answer since Bernie is so far left (as Ted is to the right). And, it WOULD be very easy to point out 3 issues where Ted is batshit crazy to the right (and out of touch with Americans).

P.S. If you CAN'T point out 3 issues, then you really shouldn't be making that claim ever again.

[Sheepshank]

105. I do believe that is how a huge chunk of the electorate see Bernie

but we have to realize 50% or more of the nation are pretty middle of the road politically speaking. They shy away from any extremes.

[lame54]

113. we view ted cruz as an moronic liar...

bernie will not be seen as that

[AgingAmerican]

44. 8 months til the first primary

And Bernie is gaining 2% - 3% per week in the polls.

[SidDithers]

46. At that rate, he'll be at 111% by Iowa!...nt

Sid

[ibegurpard]

57. How about that NDP in Alberta eh?

[delrem]

77. hehe. And Harper's looking to lose the federal election in October.

heheh.
heheh - consternation all around for those Canadians who're such diehard supporters of US third-way politics.
hehehe, I'm just laughing my ass off, here, at their dead-end politics.

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. And the Dodgers started the day four up on the Giants.

Which means; in a reality based world, exactly... dick.

[ibegurpard]

55. Why are we listening to anyone

who goes to the trouble of putting "conservative" in their screen name?

[appalachiablue]

58. I've noticed that before now that you mention it. An oxymoron, but granted it explains much.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

62. There's more to the Democratic party than the D.U.

People who hunt, and go to church, and were in the military. Just remember that.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[ibegurpard]

65. none of those things makes someone "conservative"

Plenty of churchgoers, vets, hunters and fishers are as liberal as they come.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

66. Don't say that too loud around here...

You might get some screaming in your direction, if you don't toe the "outlaw all guns" party line.

But here is, indeed, a somewhat open "secret". I'm conservative for a Democrat. Go to the discussionist, where there are people who are too right wing for the Republican party in the mix, and anyone to the left of Attila the Hun is considered "liberal" by them.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[ibegurpard]

68. Yeah not interested

I stomach enough of that shit with right wing coworkers and family members. I don't need to go seeking it out.

[delrem]

78. Because they're honest about it.

Not pretending to be progressive and not even deigning to nod in the direction of 'liberal'. They are honest. Not pretending that "policy" matters to them, explaining up front that they're in it to win and that they love the money that they think it takes to win.

There are many DU posters who agree with ConservativeDemocrat, many of whom sport HRC logos as avatar. But there are also those who promote third-way economic/military policy but who aren't so up front. Hell, at first just a couple but now there are several actually pretending to be "Bernie supporters", using that front to promote their insidious message.

I find ConservativeDemocrat's honesty refreshing.

[mmonk]

63. Actually the policy differences are central, not to "purists", but to the average American.

This is true whether the average American understands the landscape or not or how it affects him or her.

[McCamy Taylor]

64. Curious about what the name "ConservativeDemocrat" is intended to mean at DU

Most folks at DU would assume that an endorsement from "ConservativeDemocrat" is a huge negative, close to being endorsed by the NRA or John Birch. If you really truly support Clinton you might want to consider a name change.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

67. I'm no longer an NRA member. They've gone nuts.

Ducks Unlimited is my group now.

Ducks Unlimited, Inc. was founded by hunter-conservationists in 1937 and conservation has always been its mission. Ducks Unlimited, Inc. is first and foremost an organization dedicated to conserving wetlands and associated habitats for waterfowl and other wildlife, and the majority of its members are hunters. Ducks Unlimited, Inc. strongly supports the right to bear arms and believes that with that right comes a responsibility to use firearms lawfully and safely. Wildlife management, hunting, and habitat conservation in North America are interdependent, and Ducks Unlimited, Inc. strongly supports hunting. The financial contributions of hunters and recreational shooters, through mechanisms such as their hunting licenses and excise taxes on sporting arms and ammunition, provide the foundation for conservation funding throughout the nation.

This linkage between hunters and conservation forms the backbone of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The model consists of seven key components:
1. Wildlife is public property. The government holds wildlife in trust for the benefit of all people.
2. Wildlife cannot be slaughtered for commercial use. This principle eliminates trafficking in game animals.
3. Wildlife is allocated by law. Every citizen in good standing – regardless of wealth, social standing or land ownership – is allowed to participate in the harvest of fish and wildlife within guidelines set by state and federal governments.
4. Wildlife shall be taken by legal and ethical means, in the spirit of "fair chase" and with good cause. Animals can be killed only for legitimate purposes – for food and fur, in self-defense, or for protection of property.
5. Wildlife is an international resource. As such, hunting and fishing shall be managed cooperatively across state, provincial, and national boundaries.
6. Wildlife management, use, and conservation shall be based on sound scientific knowledge and principles.
7. Hunting, fishing and trapping shall be democratic. This gives all persons – wealthy and poor, landowner and non-landowner alike – the opportunity to participate.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Cha]

75. And, I would think that since you do like to hunt that you might support BS's stance on guns

unlimited?

Of course they are so many other factors and issues involved. And, your name is fine.. I like your reality base.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

83. Oh I do

It's the one place where I agree with Bernie more than Hillary. He's absolutely pro 2nd amendment, and she's not so much.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Cha]

85. I think Hillary is pro 2nd amendment.. just for sensible gun laws. you really don't have to

be against the 2nd amendment to want gun responsibility.

[Scuba]

69. "... insignificant to all but the most exclusionary purist ideologues ..." Bullshit.

She's pro-war, pro-Wall Street, pro-fracking, pro-H1B Visas. Bernie is not.


One doesn't have to be an exclusionary purist idealogue to recognize the very real differences between these two candidates.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

79. Way to prove my point, scuba

Only you and your fellow travelers could make such accusations against Hillary - pro-war? - with a straight face.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Scuba]

87. Yes, pro -war. Voted for the IWR and use of cluster bombs. That's pro war in my book.

[Vattel]

70. Since you are reality-based, you must realize how offensive the tone of your OP is.

Also, reality dictates recognizing that Kentucky will go red regardless of whether Clinton or Sanders is the nominee. (Yes, I will bet money on that.) I think Arizona is also a lost cause, but that is more debatable.

Those who are reality-based will also recognize that these numbers will change radically if Sanders gets the nomination. Will they change enough in the right direction to give Sanders the edge in the blue states on your list or in Ohio? Who knows?

I do agree that Clinton is more likely to beat a Republican than Sanders. Is getting a shot at a Sanders presidency by nominating him worth the added risk of losing? That's a judgment call.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

72. Offensive tone?

As offensive as Hillary supporters being compared to fascists? Brownshirts? Murderers? "Corporatists?"

Yes, Kentucky is likely to go Republican. But when you have a candidate that can keep it close, that means that the Republicans have to spend resources there.

Yes, being "reality based" means that "numbers will change radically if Sanders gets the nomination". Specifically, radically worse. Hillary has already weathered 25 years of Republican lies and smears on her reputation. Sanders, being unelectable, has been left alone. But if he became the nominee, there would be exposes on whether he is a "sex offender" (from his 50 shades style writings), his radicalism in terms of nationalizing the banks, his age (the public doesn't want a President who looks like he can't handle the considerable rigors of office), and that's just the "legitimate" stuff. He hasn't been accused of deliberately getting a US ambassador killed yet, but those things are coming.

No, Sanders is not Obama. Obama was already ahead of Republicans at this exact point in 2007. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that Sanders' campaign, which is basically premised on the idea that Hillary is too conservative, is going to resonate with the general public. Judging by the polls, it doesn't even among Democrats.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Vattel]

73. Sorry, but I don't think that you can justify the offensive tone of your OP

by pointing out that others have been offensive.

In order to make a convincing case that Sanders' poll numbers will get "radically worse" than they are now if he wins the nomination, you would have to address the argument that his relative anonymity in most states is the reason that his numbers are so low right now. You fail to address that argument and so you fail to make your case.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

74. Oh, I'm not "justifying". I'm flat out denying.

Supporters of Senator Sanders have clearly decided to adopt the strategy of drawing deliberate offense at statements regarding the viability (or lack thereof) of their candidate, and they've even managed to nearly kick 1strongblackman off the site through abuse of the jury system. So the whole concept of attacking the "tone", to me seems to be little more than a deflection about the actual facts that I collated.

If Sanders is anonymous after a 30 year political career, that reflects his overall weakness as a candidate, not a strength. In fact, it's easy to conclude that Sanders is merely the second choice of fans of Senator Warren, and he's attracted the same third of the Democratic party that she started to organize. There is nothing to suggest that people who Sanders hasn't been able to reach before are suddenly going to fall for a northeastern 80 year old who uses the word "socialist" when describing himself, and wants to nationalize the US banks.

But regardless, as I said originally, I'm not hoping to persuade the true believers. Just remember this when, like Kucinich, Bernie ends up facing reality.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Vattel]

89. If you are denying that the tone of your OP is offensive,

then you are not being reality-based. As for your characterization of Sanders supporters as adopting some strategy of drawing deliberate offense, well, that is the usual sort of primary silliness that I don't take too seriously. I certainly don't take offense at the suggestion that Sanders is not a viable candidate.

On the contrary, I worry very much that you are right that Sanders is not viable. I am hoping, though not predicting, that his numbers will improve as more people get better acquainted with him. It will become clear one way or the other soon enough, and then if his campaign fails you can gloat and feel superior as much as you like.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

90. I will do no "gloating"

And I think that your intimation that this is what drives me, betrays your perception that my "tone" is "offensive".

Yes, I can certainly see how someone who is emotionally invested in a candidate winning might see a whole bunch of neutral facts contradicting that wish to be "offensive in tone". But we're simply going to have to disagree about whether a neutral arbiter would see it as anything but a simple presentation of Inconvenient Truths supporters just don't want to hear. (And yes, this includes the obvious fact that very few in the country see much difference in the positions between Hillary and Bernie.)

But the idea that I take pleasure in this, is absurd. It's not exactly pleasurable to see so many Democrats flirt with losing the general election by picking a non-viable candidate, almost exactly in the same way that Republicans are flirting with all their non-viable clowns. What scares me, to be frank, isn't that Sanders is going to actually win the nomination (after which - it is 100% inevitable he'd be shot down in flames in the general, McGovern style). I trust regular Democratic voters too much for that. What scares me is that he will damage Hillary to the point that she loses her easy path in the general. The media, and their Republican owners, have engaged in literally two decades of outright lying and smears against Hillary, just as they did against Obama, and before that, against Gore. And they well know that the way to increase this perception that she's not trustworthy, is to try to find Democrats willing to echo Republican "character" attacks against her. Things you read constantly on this website.

The one thing I will say is going for Bernie is that he's above that. Of course he's highlighting the differences between them, she's center-left, and he's "democratic socialist". But he's repeatedly declined media invitations to raise non-existent character issues that the media could then use later on behalf of the Republican nominee. And for that, I am extremely grateful. He's a better man than most of his prolific screed-writing supporters on the DU.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Vattel]

96. Obviously it wasn't the neutral facts you presented that I found offensive.

Or do you think that when you said that those who find the policy differences between Sanders and Clinton significant are "exclusionary purist ideologues," you were just presenting a neutral fact?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

98. Yes. It is very much a neutral fact...

You have over 6000 posts on the DU. If the behavior of what I am speaking about isn't abundantly clear to you, then your partisanship has colored your thinking past any point where it would continue to be enlightening for us to talk. "Exclusionary purist ideologue" is quite a measured description. Each of the words hold no innately pejorative connotation, especially compared to the people it describes: those who prefer elected officials to engage almost exclusively in political grandstanding, and see any sort of deal making or attempt to win elections by appealing to non-purists, to be abject betrayal.

And this is really all that Bernie offers. He's been in office for 30 years, and much like Kucinich, has very little to show for it.

Note that I'm not completely condemning this sort of strategy ideological grandstanding at the expense of deal making. We need a few grandstanders here and there, if at least to counter the surfeit of ideologues on the Republican side. However, it is absolutely the case that every Sanders supporter I've ever gotten into a conversation with misstates Clinton's positions, either deliberately or unintentionally, thinking that simply because she talks to Republicans she must be one.

This is actually very "neo-con" like behavior, except that neo-cons usually reserve such idiotic accusations of "betrayal" for when Obama talks to the Iranians. Just as a neo-con says Obama is secretly Muslim, many DUers (and other Bernie supporters) call Clinton pro-war. They also both seem to imagine that negotiation means that you get 100% of what you want, and the other side gets nothing. And if you don't, you were stabbed in the back. No deal is always preferable to any deal.

Now I'm sure that you have some other way to characterize this difference. Certainly the screamers do. But acknowledging the difference between people who believe that politics is the art of the possible, and those who prefer to pretend that it is not, is not much affected by my terminology that I use to describe as accurately as I can what I see.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ p.s. When I am on the Discussionist, and end up conversing with some Republican who starts spewing overtly racist commentary - I call them "racist". This isn't pejorative as much as it is simply descriptive. I also call shit "shit". It's oddly freeing to not be particularly concerned with whether a topic is PC enough, though I will say that Republicans, for all their noxious beliefs, are far less likely to adopt this strategy of taking deliberate offense at everything.

[Vattel]

100. Words have meaning.

You claimed that anyone who thinks that there are significant policy differences between Clinton and Sanders is an exclusionary purist ideologue. Obviously that phrase is pejorative and your broad brush use of it to describe anyone who finds significant policy differences between Sanders and Clinton is ridiculous.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

102. And I stand by that

A policy difference is a difference in the end goal of what they'd want in an ideal world, while the only real difference between the two is strategy. Do you try to move the ball forward? Or do you scream from the sideline about how unfair the game is?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Vattel]

103. So, for example, Clinton's supporting the patriot act vs Sanders' not supporting it

is not a significant policy difference because both would seek national security and respect for privacy in an ideal world? It's hard to even make sense of what you are saying. And what's with the "screaming from the sidelines" question? I have no idea why you would ask such a silly question. Of course, I want to move the ball forward.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

106. Okay, good first step

Now here's your second step. And you can do it all by yourself. You sound trustworthy enough that I'll even take your word that you've done this...

Go to a local coffee shop:
* Ask them, "Are you aware of Senator Sanders' Vote on the Patriot Act in 2001 right after 9/11?"
* Then, "Are you aware of Senator Clinton's Vote?"
* Then finally the kicker, "If there was a difference, is this significant to you?"

Then come back and tell me the overwhelming percentage of people who think this is significant.

If you tear apart the records of people who both have been in the legislature as long as Sanders and Clinton have, of course you're going to be able to find something that they differed on, somewhere. But even isidewith.com, which covers dozens of issues, doesn't list the Patriot Act as anything even worth mentioning. Sanders was with Rand Paul in opposing a 74-8 vote for the Patriot Act extension, but frankly no one cares. This is good for Sanders, because if they did care, it would be another nail in his electoral coffin.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Vattel]

108. wow.

[bettyellen]

112. "Is getting a shot at a Sanders presidency by nominating him worth the added risk of losing? " is a

really great question, one I have been asking myself. I think it explains a lot about voting patterns too.
Some of you all have a LOT less to lose if the USSC goes conservative.

[99Forever]

71. Why would anyone on this site take someone with conservative in their name seriously?

[delrem]

84. I'm going to answer identically as I answered ibegurpard #55

since it's the identical question. I answered:

"Because they're honest about it.

Not pretending to be progressive and not even deigning to nod in the direction of 'liberal'. They are honest. Not pretending that "policy" matters to them, explaining up front that they're in it to win and that they love the money that they think it takes to win.

There are many DU posters who agree with ConservativeDemocrat, many of whom sport HRC logos as avatar. But there are also those who promote third-way economic/military policy but who aren't so up front. Hell, at first just a couple but now there are several actually pretending to be "Bernie supporters", using that front to promote their insidious message.

I find ConservativeDemocrat's honesty refreshing."

[99Forever]

88. We'll just have to agree to disagree. n/t

[villager]

76. Ah, the "purist" and "ideologue" cards get inevitably played. Again.

I am going to go ride my unicorn over the nearest rainbow now.

[Fearless]

82. CLINTON WAS THE FRONT RUNNER IN 2004. SHE LOST.

What did the polls say about that??

[FSogol]

91. 2004?

[Fearless]

93. 2008. You know what I meant.

[FSogol]

94. You have the ability to edit it and make the correction instead of snapping at me.

[Fearless]

95. You inferred that I was snapping, I really wasn't.

[FSogol]

97. You added, "You know what I meant" which seemed like snark.

My post was 100% snark free. It is impossible to decipher tone via type.

[John Poet]

86. POLLS are not "irrefutable facts".

They are a snapshot in time. Nothing more.

And, at this point, such polls measure little more than name recognition.

Bernie Sanders has just gotten started. In a few months,
he's gone from the low single digits into the thirty-plus percent range
in Iowa and New Hampshire, a rather astounding poll movement IMHO.

I am confident that as voters get to know Bernie, those GE election poll numbers will likewise shift, but there's a long way to go.

Know what I am not confident about, regarding Hillary?

I am not confident that damaging emails will not somehow surface.

I am not confident that Bill won't be caught with a live goat or a dead boy,
or some other sex scandal brought to light,
in between the convention and the general election...

Those are two issues that it would seem are not in play,
if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic presidential nominee.

[daredtowork]

99. DINO alert. nt

[Sheepshank]

104. WTF are you talking about?

Who is the DINO and how is comment helpful?


Oh wait never mind, you did bump the thread and that was helpful.

[bettyellen]

109. Silly you! Dontcha know only the polls showing a Bern- surge are correct?

[lame54]

111. why do we bother with elections...

when we already know the outcome