There’s No Way Hillary Can Win Over Progressives Before The General Election

[GoLeft TV]

As we inch closer towards the convention, the question about whether Bernie Sanders’ supporters will get behind Clinton if she wins the nomination is becoming cause for concern with the Clinton camp. And if the actions of her supporters are any indication, it’s likely that the Sanders’ supporters won’t be falling over themselves to hop on the Clinton bandwagon. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins discusses this.

[Trust Buster]

1. I guess progressives can vote for Trump but I doubt it.

[bkkyosemite]

5. Clinton is apples Sanders is oranges...that is something that is not coming across to

those who support her.

[Trust Buster]

8. I still doubt that progressives will vote for Trump. You seem to have an extreme definition of

progressivism.

[KPN]

44. Seems rather that you have a limited definition

of progressives. Hillary's not a true progressive no matter how you try to spin it. Warhawk, neo-lib economics. Those don't fit.

[larkrake]

66. Agreed, she is neo-con with her foot on the brakes, far from progressive

her record paints a picture of republican light who colludes with the enemy

[emulatorloo]

12. Some like both apples and oranges.

At least IRL.

[1StrongBlackMan]

132. Thread Winner ...

[blm]

64. In March I chose orange over apple, but, choose apple in Nov over Trump's version of orange.

That is something that is not coming across to those whose arrogance would promote the COLOR orange as a viable alternative to the apple.

[Trust Buster]

78. Watch out. They'll take away your progressive card for saying that......LOL

[blm]

82. My adherence to reality and fairness got me banned from HRC and Sanders groups.

Some people find it annoying. ; )

[Trust Buster]

86. That is sad to hear. We need more good posters like you. Every position doesn't have to be seen

through extreme glasses IMO.

[larkrake]

114. Keep it up, reality is sorely lacking on DU

wear the bans with pride, for only the truth seekers will sleep well at night with no fear

[Buzz cook]

92. Trump's version is Agent Orange. nt

nt

[blm]

93. Except Trump used deferments to avoid being EXPOSED to Agent Orange in Vietnam.

So dying himself orange is the easy way he can claim he was exposed to it - a way that his voters will likely believe it. ; )

[bkkyosemite]

122. There is no arrogance intended. What I said is the truth. The difference is too large and

too important to not notice...and Trump has nothing to do with it.

[blm]

144. Trump WH is reality and not many of my neighbors and friends can afford what I can afford if I chose

to hold my vote as more sacred to me than what would be better for them via ANY Dem administration. Supreme Court justices and THEIR decisions last for generations and even lifetimes. I'm no precious flower. They can't afford the luxuries of MY arrogance.

Your mileage may vary.

[lewebley3]

26. Hillary is already winning over everyone

[Carolina]

128. Delusional much

[larkrake]

51. no way

[mudstump]

75. A real progressive would NEVER vote for Trump.

[LiberalLovinLug]

94. Hillary is closer to Trumps policies than Sanders - that's a problem for progs

Not talking about personality or intelligence. But once the GOP reels Donald in (as much as they can), and you just dissect the Republican nominee's policies, he will be pro-corporate, pro military intervention, pro-Wall Street, pro-TPP, pro-old energy and fracking, ...anti-universal healthcare, anti-$15 minimum wage, anti-free college.

Hillary is going to have to give on some of these to Bernie and his supporters...and start acting like a Democrat. You'd think that the Clintons would understand this, being the political animals they are. Even if they don't actually believe in those positions. Or are both so full of hubris that, like a racoon with its paw in a jar holding a peanut, they just can't forsake their crowning achievement, almost completed, a lifelong plan to transform the Democratic party from a workers/people's party to a Third Way corporatist run business.

[redstateblues]

102. Ridiculous. Bernie and Hillary agree 93% of the time. Hillary was one of the most

liberal Senators in Congress. She may not be as pure as the Purity Party prefers but she is a very solid liberal.

[LiberalLovinLug]

110. correction

She is a solid "social liberal" only. An easy position. Most Americans are as well.

Even Dick Cheney has his reasons to support gay marriage.
John McCain has his reasons to oppose torture.
Rand Paul opposes the NSA data collection, and illegal weed.

Social laws would change regardless, even if slower under Republican control. The tides have already turned for gay marriage and pot.


Its the real red meat issues she and the Don are buddies about. The big ones that affect the very fabric of what kind of country and who it serves.

[Peace Patriot]

140. Thank you, LiberalLoveLug! Your analysis is right on!

" pro-corporate...

"pro military intervention...

"pro-Wall Street...

"pro-TPP...

"pro-old energy and fracking...

"anti-universal health care...

"anti-$15 minimum wage...

"anti-free college."

Where is the difference between Clinton and Trump?

Gay rights and women's rights--and Clinton was very late on gay rights (supported DOMA, for godssakes!) and is clearly going to ally with RW's who are out to control women's bodies, by compromising on 3rd trimester abortions. I'd say gay rights and women's rights are in peril from Clinton as well. They are merely political cannon fodder to her. She has no deep commitment to anything except making money and gaining power to cover her money-making tracks.

There couldn't be a worse Democratic nominee! This is why she's losing to Trump in the polls. She's not only disliked and profoundly distrusted, but also, when people penetrate even the first level of Clinton policy, they don't find a progressive or a woman of the people, they find fracking and Wall Street!

Most Americans want progressive policies and elected representatives who are pro-people, and they turn away from Clinton in confusion and even fright, when they see she isn't who she says she is. She is not a liberal, except for her manipulation of women's issues and gay issues into political capital (and even with that, poor women's rights to a living wage, to child care, to affordable health care, to education are not included--it's feminism for the elite). She is not even a Democrat, in my opinion.

And here you really nail it, LiberalLovinLug!

The Clintons "just can't forsake their crowning achievement, almost completed, a lifelong plan to transform the Democratic party from a workers/people's party to a Third Way corporatist run business."

She even ran the State Department as a private business--with the scumbag Saudis on one line, getting U.S. weapons with which to acquire Yemen, and Bill on the other line, raking in billions to the Clinton Foundation from the same parties. A private email server, indeed!

If we're going to have devious Third Way Democrats in the White House again, who might throw some crumbs to the peasants, the least we can ask for is the competence to erase their private email server completely. I mean, I just stop there. This is Nixonian incompetence! And we think we're going to get a $12/hr minimum wage from four years of RW moronic impeachment hearings?!

The last time this happened to the Clintons, we ordinary people not only gained no ground, we saw Glass-Steagall repealed followed by the inevitable bankster crash, with an interim of trillion dollar war debt and piles of dead bodies.

The Clintons are going to collapse all these things together--deregulation, banksterism, privatization, war and the mind-boggling Nixonian incompetence of leaving a trail a mile wide back to their devious deeds.

Spare me, Lord! Please spare me this GE campaign, if Clinton is the nominee! Spare me the next four years if either them, Clinton or Trump, becomes president! I don't think our democracy and our Mother Earth can survive it. We are all too battered by this kabuki theatre at the top. Not a shred of honor or sincerity anywhere we look! Oh, wait....

Wait! Can you hear it? A song...a dream...from surfer country...

"California dreamin' ...on a winter's day..."!

Honor and sincerity in abundance to warm our wintry souls! Honor and sincerity offered--will we take it?

[bkkyosemite]

2. On MSM they keep saying over and over (as if to memorize it) they will come together

they will unite.........................................................no they won't.

[lewebley3]

27. They will and the polls show its already happening

[bkkyosemite]

136. rigged like everything else in this primary.

[brush]

32. You can only speak for yourself, not all independents

They aren't a monolith who all think alike. Some are right-leaning and will vote for Trump.

Many are moderate and left-leaning, and sensible as they don't want Trump selecting the next 3-4 SCOTUS justices and will vote for the Dem party nominee.

Others are dead-enders who regrettably have dug in their heels and will stay home, write-in, vote for Trump or third party, but they are nowhere near the majority on independents.

[KPN]

47. It's not just about independents.

I'm a registered Dem for 44 years. I'm not voting for Hillary or Trump.

If you don't get it, you're not paying attention. Hillary is not Barack! Obama at least was likeable for the Hillsies to unite around. Hillary is not, and she's well right of Obama.

[brush]

59. I get that you're a Bernie or Buster. That's not hard to get. You keep repeating it.

Why do you keep thinking people don't get the dead-enders?

Fortunately, others are sensible enough to vote for the Dem nominee so that Trump doesn't appoint the next 3-4 Supreme Court justices.

We get it and we're okay with your decision.

[KPN]

65. Your response indicates to me that you indeed don't get it.

You understand our action but you fail to understand the why ... as well as why it is so important; so much so that it transcends the SCOTUS argument.

[brush]

88. Keep blaming Clinton but Sanders and his campaign only have themselves to blame . . .

for coming up short.

"They committed a series of fatal strategic errors mostly attributable to incompetent staff work and an unforgivable lack of preparation against the Clinton Machine.

Among the bullet points in the campaign’s post-mortem, we can’t help but to note that Bernie & Company mistakenly went negative against Hillary, unnecessarily careening onto and embracing the low-road. Bernie, meanwhile, deeply excoriated the Democratic Party establishment and the superdelegate system, only to circle back, groveling now for establishment support after it’s too late. The Bernie get-out-the-vote effort failed to turn impressively massive rally crowds into actual votes, time and time again. Bernie himself stoked discontent and conspiracy-mongering within the party by misleading his supporters about delegate math while also failing to properly educate his ground-game activists about voter-registration and primary rules state-to-state.

Perhaps his deadliest error occurred when he pledged to run his campaign solely on individual donations famously averaging $27 when, in a general election matchup, he would’ve suddenly confronted a stratospheric pile of GOP cash that would’ve invariably crushed his chances unless he backpedaled. The list goes on and on. And now he’s willing to participate in a stunt — a debate between the GOP winner and the Democratic loser. A political exhibition bout.

These are all factors to take into consideration, and a farcical stunt-debate between Bernie and Trump wouldn’t have ameliorated Bernie’s self-inflicted damage, nor would it have sufficed as a last-minute Hail Mary. At the end of the day, it only would’ve managed to illustrate how a failed Democratic candidate was just as willing as Trump to debase himself within the idiocratic narrative."

— Bob Cesca is a regular contributor to Salon.com.

[KPN]

115. So is that it? Lol. You truly don't get much of

anything about the movement Bernie fanned into flames and life. This has nothing to do with who's at fault re: the present standings in the race. It has to do with with changing the playing field. Electing Hillary is a massive fail in that regard.

[brush]

117. Well, if electing Clinton is a fail, Bernie's failed campaign has to be factored into that . . .

That's unavoidable.

[larkrake]

120. I have to laugh at this rant, sorry, But Bernie has overcome great odds since the day the DNC

called him a "fringe" candidate. First off, his goal isnt the Presidency, it is a movement and his success cannot be written off for remaining in the senate where he can do more work for his movement than if he were in the WH

If Bernie does win the nomination, it is the DNC who will have to provide funds in the GE, not Bernie. Nevertheless, if he wins, the people will be sending him oodles, the enthusiasm he now owns will go crazy and he is looking to raise many candidates to retake state and county races.

Clinton was the first to go negative and he has been a gentleman against a desperate shrew poo-pooing his policies. He has every right to defend them, and us against her inappropriate word twisting, and obvious usage of victims.

Bernie's mistakes are minuscule. He has been very savvy and keen minded in his campaign, has not failed to grow anywhere. Cant say that about Hillary who suffers too often of foot in mouth disorder.

[bkkyosemite]

138. You sure like to put words in people mouth's don't you......assume what you want.

[larkrake]

71. agree with you, I wish we had more choices

I would vote O'mally or Biden, but we are not given a choice with Hill/ Trump. Trump is clearly a Bagdad Bob, all noise, but Hill is a known downgrade, not acceptable

[KPN]

74. Yep, we are going from not good enough to worse.

[Carolina]

131. I'm with you KPN

My first campaign was RFK's, first POTUS vote was for McGovern.

Would never vote for Trump, but cannot and will not vote for $Hillary. I will never vote for that not so lesser of two evils because we now know all too well that voting such, voting out of fear has gotten us ZIP.

We need an FDR; we need a Bernie Sanders, but the MSM and the DNC are preventing that.

The Clintons need to take their money and be gone. That all their questionably begotten wealth is not enough for them tells you all need to know. They need power, power and more power. And it sure ain't to help everyday Americans. Just look at the 2-for-1 Clinton legacy of NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, the Crime and Welfare Deform bills, and the Gramm-Bliley-Leach act which overturned FDR's Glass-Steagall Banking Act. Then look what HRC did in the Senate and as SoS: aye votes on IWR, the Bankruptcy bill and the Patriot Acts I & II; devastating regime change in Honduras, Libya, Syria; arms deals with the Saudis that benefitted the Clinton Slush Fund (aka Foundation); worldwide promotion of fracking, and the private server to avert scrutiny of all!

As Bill said of Bush-Quayle in 1992: It's time for them to go

In 2016, we should be telling Bill and Hill: It's time for them to go

[KPN]

150. Totally right on. The thing that convinced me ...

was listening to my 3 kids. They range in age 33 to 28, two boys and a girl. They all tell me the hell with the SCOTUS issue. They just will not vote for Hillary or Trump if those ate their choices. And the thing is my younger son is gay and, of course, my daughter is a woman. They all say that SCOTUS won't matter if we don't tackle the other major issues now -- global warming especially. If my adult kids won't be held hostage by SCOTUS, how can I?

[bkkyosemite]

137. And I see here over and over they don't get it.

[dorkzilla]

73. The post is addressing PROGRESSIVES

not independents.

[brush]

85. OK. Sensible progressives who don't want Trump appointing the next 3-4 SCOTUS . . .

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

justices will vote for the Dem nominee.

The dead-enders, fortunately, are not the majority the of us progressives either.

[dorkzilla]

98. us progressives?

you speak for all of us now?

[brush]

99. I speak for myself as a sensible progressive who will vote for the Dem nominee

[bkkyosemite]

139. Yes and he puts words in people's mouths too.

[dorkzilla]

141. A latter day Edgar Bergen then?

You don't look like Charlie McCarthy or Mortimer Snerd. Pretty sure I don't either

[brush]

146. What words did I allegedly put in someone's mouth?

[stillwaiting]

42. They are trying to manufacture consent for this. Like they always do. They are usually successful.

This time maybe not.

[KPN]

49. If they are, it will only be because of

low Republican turnout. What are the chances of that?

[mrr303am]

81. Not very likely.

Republicans vote full force in all elections from local through federal, while Democrats tend to only vote at their highest levels when candidates for federal offices are at stake, thus the overwhelming number of States under total Republican control now, along with local governments controlled by Republicans. I was looking at the total votes for Democrats in this yrs primaries it is approx 23.5 million, and total voting in Republican primaries is 27+ million. Even if all Bernie supporters (10.2 million) who have voted were to vote for Hillary in the GE, she'll still have a steep hill to climb to defeat Trump.

[larkrake]

113. Bernie is supporting State races, I dont see Hilary supporting anyone

please advise who she is supporting besides DWS. I like to stay informed

[mrr303am]

145. My reply was in reqards to whether Republicans will turn out in full force.

I was showing that during the primaries over 27 million people voted for a Republican candidate, while only 23 1/2 million voted for a Democratic candidate (of which 10.2 million voted for Bernie). The jest of the matter is who ever the Democratic nominee is, they're going to need to either sway more Democrats to get out and vote, convince more Independents to vote (and vote Democrat), convince dissatisfied Republicans to vote Democrat, if we are to defeat Trump and other Republicans. I'm a Bernie supporter, and Bernie has already stated regardless of the Democratic nominee, the main object is to keep Trump out of the White House, and retake the Senate and make inroads to retaking the House, and elect more Democrats to State and Local offices (preferably with progressive liberals). During the primaries 3 1/2 million more votes were cast for Republican Presidential candidates than for Democratic Presidential candidates, we need to energize more people to actually vote in the General for our candidates.

[larkrake]

147. Ok, I agree

the democratic turnout was depressed, thats a given. Indys will go Dem if they vote at all. A few lean republican , but there is no enthusiasm for Hillary in the ranks.

The state races, senate and House will be our biggest challange and it will be difficult. Republicans have entrenched themselves. If we dont regain the Senate, it wont be pretty even if Hill is Pres. We have to clean the House ASAP to regain the purse strings as well before the movement can take flight.

I do not see a path to a large turnout for Hillary so I will double my efforts for Colo senators and Reps.Those races do inspire turnout

Bernie will push his folks to vote dem, and I think we will get more indys than progressives. We will get both in state races.

So how to we energize voters for the presidential race?

[mrr303am]

158. Excellent question.

With all the negativity surrounding Hillary and the Clinton's in general it won't be easy. If Bernie we're the candidate he and his supporters are energizing more people everyday, and have since the beginning. Somehow we need to convince them to help energize voters for Hillary if she does indeed secures the nomination. We need the energy of the younger voters to continue to urge those that don't currently or normally to vote, that their future depends on them voting and voting Democrat. We need to convince these non-voters that the worst thing this country, and it's citizens need, or want, is Donald Trump and his Supreme Court nominees controlling everyone's future. As much as I cringe of Hillary in the Whitehouse, she would still be preferable over Trump. Still crossing my fingers, knocking on wood that a miracle happens and it will be Pres. Sanders though.

[Beartracks]

43. Because that's the "story" of political primaries.

The MSM likes things to conform to pre-determined storylines.

Stuff that doesn't fit the story gets edited out of the story (i.e. ignored)

==============

[larkrake]

54. no, they wont. even kids know what a scorpion is, progressives doubt Hillary

They doubted her in '08, they doubted her abilities as SOS

[Jester Messiah]

3. Only just now becoming cause for concern?

Jeez, we've only been telling them forever now...

[Betty Karlson]

31. as usual, Clinton is the last to get the message.

Remember how long it took her to stop opposing gay equal rights?

Remember how long it took her to abandon support for TPP?

[tonyt53]

4. So? She wants to win the votes of Democrats and Republicans that have not lost their minds.

Those "progressives" you talk about, wouldn't bother to vote for Bernie in November. they will have lost interest by then. Many have likely not even registered to vote anyway.

[bkkyosemite]

17. There are the young true, but there are CEO's, Managers, Psychiatrists,

VP's, Doctors, Psychologists, Electricians, Laborers, and many more high paying and low paying voters who are very definite in their affiliation as Dems and in their adamant wish for Bernie Sanders to win the nomination.

You and others in the HRC Group keep saying it's just the young who won't vote anyway. Wrong! The Bernie voters are many who are well educated and many above the 45 year old range. I've seen it myself. Thousands upon thousands stating their field of work their age........on and on......every aspect of the age range and job range. Hillary is apples and Sanders is oranges. And so it would be very difficult for those who are Bernie supporters and who are well researched to vote for Hillary. Those unfavorable ratings for her, where do you think they are coming from?

[tonyt53]

29. Few CEO's, electricians, or laborers are voting for Bernie. Most well-educated over 45 vote for HRC.

Numbers show this. I highly, highly doubt that many in the medical profession are backing Bernie either. My doctor voted for HRC in the primary. Those electricians and laborers? If they are union, they are backing HRC. Her unfavorable nonsense has been pushed by the GOP since 1993 and still trying to this very day. That nonsense is being repeated by the naive and desperate.

[larkrake]

90. Ah, no, most of the well educated are independents for Bernie as are the majority of Progressives

Most laborers are for Bernie, nurses, journeymen, he has many unions, all but a few co-ops, many doctors.Half the minorities and a few republicans

Against Bernie is the 1%, capitalists, CEOs, half the women, a majority of AAs and republicans

Hilary's unfavorable are real and growing. No one likes being force-fed someone who has been linked to damage and bad decisions. There is absolutely no enthusiasm from Progressives for her, nor nationwide. Turnout is going to be diminished by the moldy Pablum the DNC is serving.

[Beartracks]

40. Welcome to Memesville.

Well OF COURSE!! Bernie supporters are young, AND they're mainly white, don't work, smoke pot, won't vote, yet somehow own Volvos... and oh yeah, they'll all lose interest and all this uncomfortable progressive stuff will just go away.



It's weird that so many HRC supporters not only keep pushing this line of thinking about progressives (or what HRC supporters call "progressives" in quotes), because the last time I recall hearing such blanket presumptions about a large group of active, politically-minded left-leaning citizens was when the Republicans and the Corporate Establishment said all the same things (except the Volvo bit) about Occupiers.

<sigh> Remember when all of DU was giddy about Occupy? I don't remember too many here taking the pro-corporate side of calling them all shiftless potheads or decrying them as "just wanting free stuff." And yet... that's the same rhetoric a lot of HRC supporters use now in regard to Bernie Sanders progressives.

=====================

[tonyt53]

56. Truth hurt ya, didn't it? What the hell is a progressive anyway? I'm a Democrat.

[Beartracks]

67. "Truth hurt ya, didn't it?"

Nah. I'm a Democrat, too. I just think we need to be more progressive, as a party. I gravitate toward the left-er side of the party, since the ideas get bigger over there. You can't balance the rightward tilt of the political scale in this country by running to the middle.



============

[Gore1FL]

36. I vote.

Not sure what you are talking about.

[KPN]

53. Lost their minds is subjective.

To many Bernie supporters, Hillarys have lost THEIR mind. Or don't get it.

[Bubzer]

6. "He owe's nothing to the democratic party" - Exactly right.

He sure as hell doesn't owe Hillary a damn thing.

[Plucketeer]

11. SHE owes

a BUNCH - but it's not to voters. And guess who'll pay those debts once she's in the White House???

[Beartracks]

45. Lion logos?

Where did those come from? They're nicely done.

================

[larkrake]

61. I really like the lions and their color unifies all americans, all Partys refugees, revolution

[Bubzer]

159. From here, with permision of course:

https://www.facebook.com/faustianrubble

[john978]

97. I love the Berniecrats images

[blm]

7. Sanders still may be nominee - shouldn't we be concerned about winning over HRC supporters?

.

[modestybl]

24. To first order, no...

Turns out, the vast majority of HRC supporters also support Sanders' platform: Expanding SS, Medicare-for-all, WPA-style work program for energy infrastructure... etc.

Very few Sanders supporters are thrilled with what HRC offers... mostly fear of Trump.

Bottom line: HRC needs Sanders supporters as the nominee way more than Sanders needs HRC supporters.

[blm]

30. Name the purple states Dems win without high turnout of minority voters who chose HRC?

I think one shouldn't base ANY election prediction on personal assumptions based in the arrogant stance of a PUMA.

[larkrake]

76. Colorado would go for Bernie, but not for Hillary, even if she picks Hick as her VP. He is not well

liked here for his Corp/ fracking stands, so Colo will go to Trump if Bernie is out of the pic

[blm]

80. Do you box? Ya gotta great reach.

Couldn't help but notice.

[redstateblues]

103. Wow! I didn't realize Colorado was that backward. Voting for Trump? Sounds like my backward southern

state of TN

[larkrake]

109. Yes, it is very Republican, perhaps because it is so military. Every election is a teeter-totter,

but they unify for Bernie, Colo Springs is a huge Repub block, Denver is half and half

[modestybl]

84. To first order, all Dems will back the nominee...

... and minority voters, AAs ~ 90%, vote Democratic in presidential years. Problem is, self-identified Dems are ~ 30% of voters now (Repubs even less), so there has to be strong appeal outside of people who don't identify with either party, and Sanders does exceedingly well among those voters. Younger and first time voters are enthusiastic about Sanders... not so much HRC.

The primaries in the South had tiny voter turn-outs this year. Texas down by over 50% from 2008. One can't win with Dems alone.

[randr]

58. Supporters of both Hillary and Bernie are gonna need whom ever

is the final candidate. A Trump presidency raises the stakes too high. We all need each other or we will never have a chance to elect or enact any progressive candidate or legislation.

[modestybl]

87. Again, either gets almost all the Dem vote...

... but the Dem vote alone is not enough.

I was stunned at the number of Trump supporters I talked to knocking on the doors of Dem voters this year... I talked a few into voting for Bernie, but many just felt there would be zero hope for them with HRC. That's why I believe an HRC nomination = Trump POTUS.

[larkrake]

96. true

Given the really low dem turnout in the primaries, if Bernie is out, we are SOL. Only the religiously democratic voters will vote, Indies wont vote or will throw the dice for Johnson, who will be on the ballot in all 50 states. Wouldnt it be cathartic if he miraculously became POTUS just because we cant swallow Hill or Trump? That would shake both major Partys

[Betty Karlson]

33. VERY good point.

[larkrake]

48. No, he does not have luggage as dark as she, and is palatable to dems

he has the enthusiasm and the indys at his back. He knows he will be lucky if he gets 10% of his policies through this congress, but thats ok, because he just wants to start the healing and stop the bleeding.

[blm]

60. I think you are ignoring millions of votes of those who enthusiastically voted for HRC. How did you

come to the conclusion that all HRC's voters will fall in line as we want, but, our votes are more sacred and worthy of ransom? Kinda arrogant way to look at these things, dontchathink?

[larkrake]

105. I'm saying Hills folk have proven to accept the lesser of two evils in their eyes

If it were Trump/Bernie, Hillary supporters would vote Dem. Hillarys enthusiastic followers are outnumbered by Hillary primary voters who fear change and an "outsider" or fear a socialist dem. Fear , fear , fear-just where the DNC wants us.

Given the very low dem turnout at primaries, more dems feel they had no choice so stayed out of the process.This is proof of lack of enthusiasm.

Concieved "tricks and chaos at primaries always benefitting Hillary" true or not, kills enthusiam even more. Corporate Media pushing Hillary down our throats kills enthusiasm even more.

Arrogance doesnt raise its head in supposing Hillbots will vote Dem if Bernie is the nominee. It is a given.They are loyal to the party, or just want a woman in the WH.

Progressives, on the other hand , are not so pliable. We weigh all scenarios, we resent being forced to vote for self destruction, so some will go 3rd party, some will go just downticket and serve the party that way. Progressives want progression and growth and entreprenurship and shun the same old school of thought that is sending this country ino a death spiral. Hillary is not the answer for us. We reach for life, not decay.

[FoxNewsSucks]

9. She "evolved" or whatever, and started saying the same things as Sanders,

because he's "moved her to the left". Supposedly. But I see no reason to think she actually means it and would act "to the left".

While the Fox "news" Sewer is desperate to have another go at the Clintons, I think she's a poor choice to lead the ticket. Beating someone like Dodging Donald tRump should be a slam-dunk. But Clinton is barely even with him.

The corporate media might want a nail-biting horse race and all the accompanying ad $$$ and ratings, but that's not what is best for the country. I want someone who will stomp the crap out of the rightwing crazies once and for all. Decisively.

[larkrake]

50. I see her as a yapping lap dog, swearing she has evolved, but its not true

she panders and it is clearly lip service

[Beartracks]

55. "stomp the crap"

OMG, yes. Frankly, rightwing ideology needs to be thoroughly, resoundingly, and unequivocally rejected at every level. It should receive such a defeat at the ballot boxes that there is NO room for defensive spin, NO room for cheating to change the outcomes... Something way, way, way outside the margin of error, WAAAAY outside the possibility of being able to argue that the country is divided.

======================

[jmowreader]

91. Bernie polls better than she does for one reason

Hillary voters will vote Bernie if he is the nominee because Bernie is better than Trump. In these hypothetical matchups, some HRC supporters admit they'll vote for him if necessary.

Bernie's supporters won't return the favor.

There are about 200 million people who can vote in the US. Of them, maybe four percent came out for the primaries. The most reliable voting bloc is seniors, and baby boomers after that. Sorry millennials, but the people in those groups believe socialism is a very bad thing.

[larkrake]

106. I am a female boomer. I and my boomer friends are for Bernie, but we are an active lot.

Most of us have the intelligence to see that Socialism is our backbone. Socialism isnt communism, only an uneducated or brainwashed person would think so. Boomers were the first generation to see how corrupt our gov is, thanx to Viet Nam, Kent state and other atrocities. Seniors do not like Hillary, but many fear change so did not vote Obama and will not vote Bernie. At the same time, they know Hillary will not help them, but they fear Trump so they will vote the lesser of two evils.

Do not think Boomers will support Hillary. They know her too well, they witnessed her weakness and desperation. Dont count on Seniors and Boomers, we are a generation of rebels and we have little to lose. We wont be around for the results, but we will vote what is best for our grandkids in the future and Hillary aint it.

[jmowreader]

118. I have seen the voter breakdowns from the primaries

If boomers and seniors do not like Hillary, why do they overwhelmingly vote for her? Sanders is a recipe for disaster.

[larkrake]

130. Primaries do not represent the hopeless, disgusted, indys, and almost half supported Bernie

I wouldnt bet on primaries being indicative of the mood of the country

[Carolina]

134. Bravo, larkrake

I am a female Bernie Boomer, too, and I refuse to vote for HRC, that not so lesser of two evils.

The Clintons need to take their money and be gone. That all their questionably begotten wealth is not enough for them tells you all need to know. They need power, power and more power. And it sure ain't to help everyday Americans. Just look at the 2-for-1 Clinton legacy of NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, the Crime and Welfare Deform bills, and the Gramm-Bliley-Leach act which overturned FDR's Glass-Steagall Banking Act. Then look what HRC did in the Senate and as SoS: aye on IWR, the Bankruptcy bill and the Patriot Acts I & II; devastating regime change in Honduras, Libya, Syria; arms deals with the Saudis that benefitted the Clinton Slush Fund (aka Foundation), worldwide fracking promotion, and the private server to avert scrutiny of all!

As Bill said of Bush-Quayle in 1992: It's time for them to go

In 2016, let's tell Bill and Hill: It's time for them to go

[Gene Debs]

10. Especially since, if she wins the nomination, she'll immediately drop all her fake-ass "progressive"

phony rhetoric and tack immediately back to the right as soon as the convention's over.

[KPN]

79. That'll be apparent with her appointments.

From there, watch out!

[larkrake]

107. Kissenger and Sid no doubt will be her advisors

[geek tragedy]

13. anyone content to let Trump win is not a progressive. nt

[ciaobaby]

14. and some might say

anyone who supports hillary is not a progressive.

[geek tragedy]

15. I have no time for puritanical fools who think John Lewis and Dolores Huerta and Donna Edwards

and Nydia Velazquez and Jerry Nadler and Steve Cohen and Jim McDermott aren't progressives.

No progressive is okay with Trump winning over Clinton. Per se.

[ciaobaby]

19. funny, I didn't mention any of those people - was only referring to Hillary.

[geek tragedy]

20. those people all support Clinton and have endorsed her in the primary nt

[nyabingi]

52. I wouldn't characterize any of these people as progressives

if they are stupid enough to support Hillary.

These are people who are not looking to rock the boat, hoping for acknowledgement of their support down the road, and wanting to be on the "inside" with the Democratic Establishment.

If they aren't supporting anything similar to what Bernie is putting forth, they are not by definition progressives.

These are "liberals" - a word that has come to mean Democrats who are nearly as bad as Republicans.

Be proud of your liberal label and stop trying to sully and dirty the progressive label.

[larkrake]

111. Progressives are pure Democratic, none will vote Trump

The DNC is no longer pure, so Progressives have other choices

[geek tragedy]

112. purity is not something human beings should aspire to.

drinking water, yes.

human beings, no.

[larkrake]

125. ethics, yes which is what Democracy is and doesnt apply to Republicans, generalizing

[FoxNewsSucks]

16. I'm not content to let tRump win,

the chance that he could is one reason I find it so hard to support Clinton.

It's made worse by the fact that I'm sick and tired of my vote being taken for granted. That I have to support whatever corporate tool the party runs because, of course the republicons are even worse.

I want a candidate that can crush tRump, and a candidate that I'm voting FOR.

[geek tragedy]

18. that's fair enough, I wasn't a fan of John Kerry in 2004 or Al Gore in 2000 but

sometimes we just have to suck it up.

Two party system means it's always going to be a contest between a somewhat dissatisfying candidate and an utterly repulsive and disastrous one.

[Carolina]

135. Yeah, we sucked it up and look where we are

continually tacking starboard. I am sick of sucking it up, especially since this time, we have a real choice

The Clintons need to take their money and be gone. That all their questionably begotten wealth is not enough for them tells you all need to know. They need power, power and more power. And it sure ain't to help everyday Americans. Just look at the 2-for-1 Clinton legacy of NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, the Crime and Welfare Deform bills, and the Gramm-Bliley-Leach act which overturned FDR's Glass-Steagall Banking Act. Then look what HRC did in the Senate and as SoS: aye votes on IWR, the Bankruptcy bill and the Patriot Acts I & II; devastating regime change in Honduras, Libya, Syria; arms deals with the Saudis that benefitted the Clinton Slush Fund (aka Foundation); worldwide promotion of fracking, and the private server to avert scrutiny of all!

As Bill said of Bush-Quayle in 1992: It's time for them to go

In 2016, let's tell Bill and Hill: It's time for them to go

[larkrake]

108. Contentment isnt possible in a two party system

one person, one vote, disband Partys

[Gene Debs]

123. And by "let Trump win" you mean "not vote for 'Hillary'."

[geek tragedy]

124. people can either be anti-Trump, pro-Trump, or Trump-neutral nt

[ish of the hammer]

22. the DNC cheated to get Clinton the nom,

as a Sanders supporter, I can tell you that I will never vote for Clinton. A write in for Sanders, or a vote for Stein.

[blm]

23. DNC didn't cheat for Clinton and Sanders even said so. Why further an untruth? Each state set rules

just as they have always done. State Dem organizations are far too disorganized to carry off any plan to cheat the vote.

If DNC had rigged the primary then Sanders would never have won Michigan which is widely considered one of the top bellwether states. And I say that as someone who voted for Sanders in NC.

I think the claims of cheating are based in lack of familiarity with precinct, county, state party infrastructure. It's every one else's fault and never the fault of the person who only recently decided to pay attention at what's happening in their district?

[AlbertCat]

39. I think the claims of cheating are based in....

....DWS and her shenanigans with debates, plus the parade of nepotism/cronyism realized when they tried to accuse Sanders of stealing info, and the way all the mix-ups at caucuses and primaries favored Clinton...and all the officials running them who had done stuff for Clinton in the past... more cronyism. The "It's her turn" and "she deserves it" attitude from the start doesn't help either.

[blm]

41. That's feeding into perception, but, still not based in reality.

DUers should all know by now that election fraud is a serious matter that shouldn't be diluted with inaccurate and frivolous declarations.

[ish of the hammer]

133. politics is perception, who knows what REALLY happened in those smoke filled

back rooms ??

[larkrake]

127. DNC has been discriminating, unfair and crooked,, and some could call that cheating

[dbackjon]

25. I'm Progressive and already support Clinton

[TeamPooka]

38. Same here. As soon it was obvious Bernie lost. I'm with her now. Because we need to win in Nov

against a true fascist running for President.
I'm not letting this idiot undo everything President Obama has worked for.

[MisterP]

28. she really does think that she can peel off enough anti-Trump Pubs that she doesn't need lefties

unfortunately she's badly misread the GOP's famous "party discipline": she just sees them as cowing their voters through fear and threats while popping the champagne with the Dems and selling out their base, and figures the Dems can do the same

but the GOP's party discipline extends to the pols and not just the peons: if you don't stick to the ever-rightward party line you're out on your ass; meanwhile the Dems have lumbered rightward (oh, and accepted gaying once it polled well enough) and broken ranks from IWR to TISA; the Republicans pander and rile up their voters, while the Democrats work in spite of them

[Beartracks]

34. HRCers like to complain about the behavior of Sanders supporters...

... yet don't glom onto the fact that that knife cuts both ways.

===============

[blm]

37. I see it on both sides. The attacks have been way overthtop in their viciousness, imo.

Political primaries are the perfect example of a two-way street.

[LibDemAlways]

35. Agree completely with this. As nominee, Hillary would need to earn

the trust of the electorate. She'd need to make the case for herself and it would need to be considerably more substantive than Trump is scary. Whether she can convincingly do that in a manner that makes people think, "I can get behind her. She'd be good for the country" remains to be seen.

[lark]

46. You think progressives would rather have Trump?

I certainly hope and pray not. For all her sins, HRC is a far better choice than Hitler in the making. She won't bankrupt us and won't start a war with Iran almost immediately like Trump would. Under him women go to jail if they have an abortion, under HRC we don't lose any rights to make choices. He bankrupts us trying to move 14 million people out of the country, and build his "beeyootiful" wall, she would do nothing of the sort.

If she is the Democratic general nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her and would expect other left wingers to do the same.

[Maedhros]

142. I fear your expectations may not be met. [n/t]

[lark]

152. I fear a Trump presidency if that's the case.

[Maedhros]

153. That's what can happen when the Democrats nominate someone with such low favorables

and so little in the way of new ideas.

[lark]

154. Trump's favorables are quite a bit worse.

He's a worse person and would make a worse president. Not voting for HRC is in effect voting for him. I don't see how any Dem could support him, even in a backhanded way.

[Maedhros]

155. Not voting for HRC is not voting for HRC.

Perhaps more and more Democrats are waking up to the fact that they are being played by their Party, cajoled, shamed, and coerced into casting votes for candidates that offer no solutions - or worse, candidates that collude with the enemies of the working class.

The days of "vote how we tell you, or else!" are coming to an end.

[lark]

156. Sorry, that's how Trump will come to power.

I guarantee you life will be far worse under him than under HRC. I hope you enjoy what you will have created if this comes to pass. My husband and I are strongly considering becoming ex-pats if the ass gets the presidency, just have to choose the right place to move.

[Maedhros]

157. That I will have created?

Sorry pal, but no: the Democratic Party will have created this mess, because it did not nominate a decent candidate. It's the job of the candidate to actually inspire and motivate voters to show up at the polls and vote. If the Party insists on nominating an exceptionally weak and uninspiring candidate, then the Party owns the responsibility for that candidate's performance.

My conscience is clear.

[MariaThinks]

57. There is no way she can win over the nutjobs - ever. The progressives really like her.

[larkrake]

63. The Progressives dislike her, the old school trusts her, the corps/wall st like her

[MariaThinks]

68. the progressives i know love her and appreciate all she has done - starting with her fight in 1994

to bring universal healthcare to all Americans.

[LiberalLovinLug]

119. If universal healthcare is what you want, you are backing the wrong candidate

Her corporate overlords have nixed that idea

[larkrake]

148. ah, now she says "it will not pass." I cannot think of one thing Hillary has done for America

she does support womens rights, sort of

[KPN]

72. Nutjobs? Really? Do you have to stoop that low?

How about trying to really grasp the issues and concerns despite your current views instead? Do you have a clue why older voters who are lifelong Democrats are also Bernie or Busters? .... I suspect we share similar views on most things, but not on a couple of premier issues, including what are the premier issues and why.

[MariaThinks]

104. how about not stating that ALL progressives don't support her. Tone deaf. Do you even

hear what people call Hillary?

[KPN]

116. Why? That would be overlooking the obvious.

[larkrake]

149. I'm sure some do support her even some Indys

[KPN]

62. This race doesn't compare to 2008.

Obama was likable and progressive. Hillary's supporters did not have to ignore unlikability. Many factors go into likability. In itself, likability can yield success. Hillary just doesn't have that going for her with way too many people. To assume that unity will occur like 2008 is faulty because it's base on a faulty comparison.

[riversedge]

69. I am optimisist that most will support the Dem. Party nominee.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

70. Had you said "there's no way Clinton can win over libertarians...

...that I would believe. The Rand/Ron Paul "progressives", which the rest of us call "libertarians"-

Yeah, I'd never expect them to vote for the Democrat.

So what else?

[RandySF]

77. Sure

[RAFisher]

83. The polls say you are wrong.

From the polls I've seen, 70% of Sanders supports would support Clinton.

[jwirr]

95. The polls have not been all that great this season.

[shenmue]

89. Except she's already in the lead

[dorkzilla]

101. another profoundly intellectual response nt

[MFM008]

100. Get it out of your system Berners

The end is nigh.
June 7
June 14
JUNE 16

Happy June.

[RBInMaine]

121. If they would do ANYTHING that helps FrankenTrump, they are NOT "progressive."

[Carolina]

126. And with her record

there's no way she deserves the progressive vote. We are sick of voting for the not so lesser of two evils because we now know all too well that voting such, voting out of fear has gotten us ZIP.

We need an FDR, and Bernie is the one.

The Clintons need to take their money and be gone. That all their questionably begotten wealth is not enough for them tells you all need to know. They need power, power and more power. And it sure ain't to help everyday Americans. Just look at the 2-for-1 Clinton legacy of NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, the Crime and Welfare Deform bills, and the Gramm-Bliley-Leach act which overturned FDR's Glass-Steagall Banking Act. Then look what HRC did in the Senate and as SoS: aye on IWR, the Bankruptcy bill and the Patriot Acts I & II; devastating regime change in Honduras, Libya, Syria; arms deals with the Saudis that benefitted the Clinton Slush Fund (aka Foundation), worldwide fracking promotion, and the private server to avert scrutiny of all!

As Bill said of Bush-Quayle in 1992: It's time for them to go

In 2016, let's tell Bill and Hill: It's time for them to go

[Zambero]

129. Wanna bet?

Eight years ago around this time the Obama campaign was pummeled with reports that some 40% of Hillary supporters would not be voting for him. Come election day, over 90 percent of them did just that. For starters, thank Sarah Palin. Repeat exposures to the possibility of an impending Donald Trump train wreck roaring down the tracks will bring the nay-sayers along.

[Maedhros]

143. The Democratic Party Establishment has transitioned

from weak allies that liberals must work through to get progressive policy, to ideological opponents that liberals must work against.

The current situation is vastly different than 2008.

[RufusTFirefly]

151. This is going to be like the Walker-Barrett recall election of 2012

Only Barrett was less divisive.