Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumFearless
(18,421 posts)Well you know the rest.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)that you are referring to someone who isn't even in the Democratic Party as a "real Democrat," and a long-time Democrat as a fake one. I understand this is unacceptable to many here, but the party is not comprised of 200 people on the internet. Nor is it defined by your mirror. It is everyone who registers as a Democrat or regularly votes Democrat.
Now, if you mean liberal or leftist, you should say that, but "real Democrats" are members of the party. Sanders purposefully chose not to become a Democrat and therefore doesn't self-identify as such but rather calls himself a socialist.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)A democratic socialist is a democrat.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)I am not wrong on both counts. Yes, Democrat and democrat are different words; you have a point there. However that phrase is invoked often around here in ways that excludes the majority of the population from consideration as part of a party, a party some of the same people who use that phrase say they will not support if they don't get their way with the nomination. Real Democrats" do not support Third Party candidates like Nader or Jill Stein or Republicans like Rand Paul. Those are swing voters. Real Democrats are members of the party and reliable Democratic voters.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)It appears to me that Bernie Sanders could attract a significant number of write-in votes resulting in the election of someone, at this stage most probably Bush, as president. It could also result in a loss of senate and house votes. I wonder just what the reaction will be of all those who seem to be so opposed to Hilary Clinton. If this should be the scenario then you can kiss any hope for the middle class a long goodbye. The greatly feared ultra-capitalists will make mincemeat out of the unions and outsource every damn job that they can.
Lets say that Clinton is a so-called Third Way Democrat. Is everything concerning corporations evil? I would be inclined to say that unregulated corporations are a threat, but certainly were asset in the past when unions were able to provide them with compassion and fair play that restricts their determination to maximize profits at any cost. The repeal of regulations was a major blunder that neglected to comprehend their innate determination to maximize profits. I see Clinton as someone who has realized this and would not make the same choices. Remember that the repeal of the regulations came to the presidents desk with overwhelming Democratic support.
The many young workers who were entering the work force during this period were convinced that unions were their enemy rather that their only hope for fair treatment. The massive campaign by the corporations and local and national business organization stigmatized as unions as being corrupt and controlled solely by gangsters. A minority were guilty, but all were regarded as guilty.
I saw union membership plunge and the table set for so-called Right-to-Work laws enacted in state after state often in areas of the South where workers would within a decade were working for minimal wages. The workers bought the corporate propaganda hook, line and sinker that unions were evil and the were the actual protector of worker. The protected them alright. They sent the machinery along with their outsourced jobs to starvation wage countries, cut their pensions and cancelled their health care.
Good luck with the campaign to destroy Hilary. You may not cherish the results.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)That's what happened. I would hope that every Democrat would pledge to support the Party's nominee. It certainly isn't an assumption that some progressives on this board have stated that if she is nominated that will not support her. The vitriol being spread on this board against Clinton certainly reveals that if she is chosen many would have a difficult time supporting her. I hope that isn't the case, but it is a distinct possibility given intensity of the hatred that has been displayed.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)When less than 45% of independents like her, she cannot win a general election.
panfluteman
(2,065 posts)And Bernie's doing exactly what they said - he's showing Democratic and progressive independent voters that she's NOT the most progressive and populist candidate out there! This 2016 presidential race could turn out to be somewhat of a rerun of the 2008 duel between two candidates for the Democratic nomination - with Bernie taking the place of Barack Obama. That would give the lady who plays Hillary on Saturday Night Live a lot of good material! Poor Hillary - what is this strange and persistent bad karma she seems to have with presidential politics?
msongs
(67,420 posts)groundloop
(11,519 posts)stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)groundloop
(11,519 posts)I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, but I'll say that Hillary has just as much right to run for the Democratic nomination as anyone. I refuse to tear down Hillary or any else running for the Democratic nomination - I think it's more productive to take the high road and state why I think Bernie will be the better nominee.
And as far as the OP, yes, it's perfectly logical that Hillary's share of the vote would be declining now that Bernie is gaining traction and getting more face time with the media. Whether he makes it past 50% remains to be seen, but it's a perfectly logical circumstance in any election cycle.
zebonaut
(3,688 posts)Hoppy
(3,595 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)It doesn't HAVE to be that way though....
Sanders 2016
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)That reference to a "douche" is going to somehow be interpreted to the point of ridiculousness
Divernan
(15,480 posts)And you know what word that rhymes with! And misspelling the word is no defense!
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)We know that they know what we know