Clinton blesses Bloomberg as a back-up if she loses to Sanders.

[JackRiddler]

Last edited Tue Jan 26, 2016, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Tell me that's an unfair reading!

Despite a tightening race, Hillary Clinton said Sunday she's confident she'll secure the Democratic nomination, dismissing speculation that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seeking an independent bid for the White House.

"He's a good friend of mine," Clinton said. "The way I read what he said is if I didn't get the nomination, he might consider it. Well, I'm going to relieve him of that and get the nomination so he doesn't have to."

With only 8 days until the Iowa caucuses, Clinton said she feels "great" about her ground game in the state, which is working to ensure enthusiasm is "not just here today, gone tomorrow."

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-bloomberg-presidential-run-will-be-unnecessary-n503271

"Sanders can't win in November" having been toppled, Clinton and the Democratic establishment are now switching to "Vote for Clinton because otherwise we will have the means to make sure Sanders won't win in November."

Bloomberg is not a good friend of mine! You?

EDIT:

As a response to some of the first comments in defense, I want to see people ask themselves what she should have said. Here is what I wrote below (#13).

There is only one (politically) acceptable response to the question.

At least, if she's still part of her party first and a candidate second. (Ha ha.)

And that would have been that Bloomberg can do what he wants but that he is not a good candidate for president. And of course (even if he's a "friend&quot in the "impossible" situation that I, Clinton, should lose, then certainly I will support the Democratic candidate against all comers.

Anything else implies a public countenancing of this particular oligarch's ambitions (assuming Clinton's fail, of course). A good friend! Who cares! To the other 300 million people, he is a politician like her, so the question she should be answering is whether she supports his politics. Does she? Well duh!!!

FINAL CHANGE:

Headline change to "blesses," since people are hung up on some formal meaning of "endorses" and prefer to miss the open sharing of Bloomberg's concerns about Sanders as legitimate (which DWS did in an even more open fashion soon after, post 163). This statement amounts to her saying, "No worries Bloomberg, I got this."

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. It makes sense that they're friends. nt

[leveymg]

31. Hillary and Bloomberg - a dream ticket for Plutocrats.

They have the 1 Percent vote covered.

[Hortensis]

126. "ENDORSES" is completely, 100% untrue.

Go find something real to feel good about.

[Ferd Berfel]

39. SHe has lots of this kind of "friend"

Bernie has LOTS of This kind of friend:

[Fawke Em]

44. I like that sea change meme, but I with definition was spelled correctly.

I know you probably didn't make it, though.

[Ferd Berfel]

47. Ahhh. Shit

Tx

[Kalidurga]

2. I have never liked him. I was never a Hillary fan either. So, I dunno whose vote Bloomberg...

thinks he's gonna get. People who like Bernie aren't going to switch to the corporate, soda banning guy. People who are conservative aren't going to vote for the gun grabber. I guess that leaves some conservative leaning gun hating Independents that might vote for him. My prediction is if he enters the race, that fellow Undecided beats him for a long time in the polls. In the GE he gets less than a percent of all votes.

[Fawke Em]

46. I think Bloomie would split the GOP vote.

The Rube Right goes to Trump and the Rich Right goes to Bloomberg.

[Odin2005]

3. The fix is in, folks!

The Establishment would rather split the Dem vote and let the GOP win than let Sanders win.

[Fawke Em]

48. What's funny is that think liberals and young people and anyone left of center

would vote for Bloomberg.

[MrChuck]

76. This comes as no surprise. Eom

[Gothmog]

129. Bloomberg is stating that he believes that Sanders is not viable in the general election

There are a great many Democrats who also do not believe that Sanders is viable in the general election. Bloomberg will only get into the race if the Democrats nominate a candidate who can not win in the general election. We are in the primary process and so it is appropriate to look at electablity.

Please explain how Sanders could be viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million, the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars and Bloomberg may spend yet another billion dollars.

[senz]

134. Polls show Sanders doing better than Clinton in the GE.

For some mysterious reason, the willingness to speak honestly with the American people about their most important concerns is more powerful than big bucks.

You are a Hillary supporter. Your "concern" merely denigrates Senator Sanders despite all the polls contradicting your claims.

[Gothmog]

136. Hypothetical match up polls are worthless and should not be relied for anything

Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuses me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.

No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race. If Sanders is really viable in the general election, then provide some evidence that does not depend of worthless match up polls

[notadmblnd]

152. You are saying the only thing that matters is who has enough money to buy themselves the White House

Cause it sure sounds like it.

[Gothmog]

156. Again, Sanders would be running a much stronger campaign if he could show electability

[Gothmog]

137. Are Sanders general election polls fools gold?

These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946

Not surprisingly, Sanders' campaign is touting those general-election numbers. "There was fresh evidence on Sunday that confirms Bernie Sanders would be the most electable Democratic Party nominee for president because he performs much better than Hillary Clinton," the campaign blasted out to reporters yesterday. But here is a legitimate question to ask: Outside of maybe New Hampshire (where Sanders enjoys a geographic advantage), are Sanders' general-election numbers fool's gold? When is the last time you've seen national Republicans issue even a press release on Sanders? Given the back-and-forth over Bill Clinton's past -- and given Sanders calling Bill Clinton's behavior "disgraceful" -- when is the last time anyone has brought up the candidate's 1972 essay about a woman fantasizing about "being raped by three men simultaneously"? Bottom line: It's always instructive to take general-election polling with a grain of salt, especially 300 days before the general election. And that's particularly true for a candidate who hasn't actually gone through the same wringer the other candidates have.

These match up polls are not meaningful at this stage

[Gothmog]

138. Here is a warning from Nate Silver's 538 website on relying on worthless match up polls

Please look at warning number 3

[Gothmog]

167. Bernie Sanders says he polls better against GOP candidates than Hillary Clinton

While I still think that these polls are worthless, I am amused to see that Sanders was found to be misrepresenting these polls and that in fact his claim is not true http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/26/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-polls-better-against-gop-ca/

In the runup to the Iowa caucus, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has repeatedly said he has a better chance of beating the eventual Republican nominee in the Nov. 8 general election than fellow Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

"Almost all of the polls that -- and polls are polls, they go up, they go down -- but almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton," he told voters during a Jan. 19 town hall meeting in Underwood, Iowa.

We took a look at the various national surveys, as compiled by RealClearPolitics and PollingReport.com to see how that assertion stacks up against the data.....

Our ruling

Sanders said, "Almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton."

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal national poll released before Sanders' statement supports his claim for Trump, but it has no data against Cruz or Rubio. Earlier polls say he doesn't outperform Clinton at all against Cruz, Rubio or Bush, and the narrow races combined with the margins of error make his contention even more dubious.

Beating Clinton in only two of eight hypothetical matchups is far from "almost all."

The statement is not accurate, so we rate it False.

[senz]

143. Bloomberg is also stating that he believes Hillary is not viable in the GE.

Hillary gave her self-serving interpretation of Bloomberg's possible run, but it swings both ways.

[Gothmog]

144. Really? How do you come to this conclusion??

Bloomberg has stated that he will not run if Clinton is the nominee. Bloomberg is not going to waste his money on a run against Hillary Clinton because he knows that she will beat him. Bloomberg wants to be POTUS really badly and would run if he thought that Clinton was beatable

[senz]

146. 1) logic 2) a recent source close to Bloomberg

Logically, many see a polarized contest in which both candidates show weaknesses. This is inviting to outside candidates.

The source says Bloomberg doesn't agree with either Hillary or Bernie. (Get it? He doesn't like your fave.) They also say that if he enters, it will be before the Dem nominee has been decided.

The source added that Bloomberg sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg's views. But Bloomberg, who has flirted with Oval Office aspirations in the past, is serious about a possible candidacy, the source insisted.

A decision will have to be made by the first week of March, likely before it's clear who the Democratic and Republican nominees are, because of the process to get on ballots for the November election.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2016/

[Gothmog]

147. Your logic makes no sense

Bloomberg has clearly stated that he will not run if Clinton is the nominee. Bloomberg is evidently only planning on running if Sanders is the Democratic nominee http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michael-bloomberg-considering-presidential-bid

He has said he's likely to launch a bid if Republicans nominate either Donald Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Democrats nominate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), according to the Times.

To me this says a great deal about how electable Sanders is. Bloomberg evidently believes that Sanders would be a weak general election candidate

Hillary Clinton has stated that Bloomberg will not be running because she expects to be the Democratic nominee http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-responds-bloomberg-bid

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton responded to reports that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was considering a presidential bid by calling him a "good friend."

Bloomberg's intentions were reported Saturday by The New York Times. Clinton addressed them during an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press."

"He's a good friend of mine," Clinton said. "And I'm going to do the best I can to make sure that I get the nomination and we'll go from there."

The facts do not support your claim or theory

[senz]

149. A source close to him says he disagrees with Hillary and Bernie.

Get that? He's not a Hill fan.

It also says that if he enters the race it will be BEFORE the nomination is decided.

And I can assure you that Bloomberg's entry will hurt Hillary FAR more than Bernie.

[Gothmog]

150. Read the materials posted

Bloomberg has stated that he will not run if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Your theory has no merit given the facts here.

By Super Tuesday, we will have a good idea who the nominee will be. Clinton should have a substantial lead in delegates after Super Tuesday

[senz]

151. You like your interpretation. Okay, stick to it.

[Gothmog]

154. The facts are the facts

Bloomberg is not going to run if Clinton is the nominee and will run if Sanders is the nominee. Bloomberg clearly thinks that Clinton would be far harder to beat compared to Sanders which is an opinion shared by many people.

[Gothmog]

160. Do you have a quote for this?

Bloomberg would be running if he thought that Clinton was beatable. The fact that Bloomberg will not run if Clinton is the nominee destroys the premise of your theory

Read the material posted. Bloomberg is not running if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Just because you do not like these facts do not mean that these facts are not correct

[Odin2005]

157. Nice defeatism.

All you are doing is throwing up your arms and saying democracy is dead.

[Gothmog]

158. Not at all-I am working to nominate an electable candidate

I am supporting a candidate who I think is viable in the general election. I also like the fact that she is the most qualified candidate in the Democratic or Republican field of candidates.

BTW, I signed up to be part of the Victory Counsel program and I have already done one research project for the campaign. The Clinton legal team is by far better organized than the Obama voter protection team

[Odin2005]

159. "electable" is Establishment newspeak for "won't rock the boat".

[Gothmog]

161. One of my key issues is control of the SCOTUS

The next POTUS will get to pick two to four SCOTUS justices and these justices will control the direction of the court for a generation. I do not trust that Sanders is viable and we can not afford to let the GOP control the direction of the SCOTUS

[Kelvin Mace]

4. Well. War criminal Henry Kissinger is a good friend so,

why not Bloomberg?

[snagglepuss]

10. Bernistas are on a roll tonight! Quips galore, all hilarious.

Don't forget she and Bill are friends with Trump. Remember that damning photo of the three of them at Trump's party?

[sulphurdunn]

71. Don't forget the Bushes.

[snagglepuss]

73. Ooops I did forget about Willy's golfing buddy, Poppa Bush.

I'm afraid to ask why you write Bushes, don't tell me he also golfs with junior

[senz]

89. Junior calls him his "brother from another mother."

They're tight.

[snagglepuss]

123. Wow. I truly mean wow.

That I did not know. That he could stomach let alone like that POS staggers me and I've never been a fan.

[senz]

125. Fairly soon after Bill's term, he and Poppy Bush became close.

They teamed up on a project. I forget what is was -- perhaps Haiti earthquake recovery? - not sure. Anyway, they got to know and like one another, and Poppy included Bill in various Bush activities. It was well known in the media that they enjoyed each other's company. There was discussion that perhaps Bill's lifelong need for a father figure made him receptive. This was during the time that the Clintons were becoming tight with the 1%. I recall seeing a video of a Poppy Bush birthday party at the Bush compound with both Clintons in attendance, but all you could see of Hillary was her back as she beat a hasty retreat from the cameras, not wanting to be videotaped chumming around with the Bushes.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Well, I did not see the endorsement, she stated he is a good friend of hers.

He may make a third party run if Trump should get the nomination in the GOP. Hillary will be the DNC nominee.

[JonLeibowitz]

20. Fortunately the DNC does not pick the nominee as you say.

I do understand the confusion in light of recent events though.

[leveymg]

37. Yes, the Clintons have the vote covered both ways, don't they?

[Thinkingabout]

58. What is this supposed to mean?

[draa]

53. I agree.

I didn't see an endorsement either. I suppose it's not out of the question but I doubt that would ever happen.

I expect the Democratic leadership to get behind what ever candidate wins the nomination. As far as the voters though...

[JackRiddler]

59. Hillary already is the DNC nominee, surely.

But she is far from being the nominee of the Democratic Party for president.

[Thinkingabout]

64. May be shorter than you think.

[JackRiddler]

66. May be.

I try not to think about future events without appropriate accounting of conditions. You seem pretty sure of yourself.

No one has voted. No one.

[JonLeibowitz]

79. Heh, great minds think alike I see! Can't be the only ones who noticed that slipup.

[jfern]

115. The DNC has clearly chosen Hillary, but we the people still get to vote

[Thinkingabout]

120. The fact is the DNC does not chose the nominee, the fact is

We the people is all eligible voters, fact is there are many endorsements for Hillary before the first primary.

Who are you calling "we the people"?

[draa]

6. It's not going to matter.

Unless Clinton takes back her position against Medicare for All she probably won't be President anyway. The polls are already showing the fark up it's caused in her campaign. And especially not if she loses both Iowa and New Hampshire as well.

[Rose Siding]

7. Ok, that's an unfair reading

[reformist2]

8. "...so he doesn't have to." Um, what's THAT supposed to mean???

She's all but admitting she would rather see Bloomberg run if Bernie beats her.

[senz]

92. Exactly.

[Babel_17]

109. "so he doesn't have to" I just checked to see if anyone else zeroed in on that

So maybe some of the press will mention it as well. Be interesting to see how the undecideds see it, if it gets brought to their attention. Post primary scenarios for the Clinton team will have to allow for a more scorched earth.

This could hurt them as the press more prominently features head to head polling between likely Democrats vs. likely Republicans. That those polls have an extreme margin of error isn't the point, that the inevitability mantra will be seen as largely inoperative will be the point.

People will start to question everything.

[JRLeft]

9. This thread has been alerted.

[JackRiddler]

15. How courageous of you.

Very much in the spirit of free debate and open exegesis of texts by friendly scholars.

I'm living in fear now!

[JRLeft]

23. I'm not the alerter. I voted to leave it.

[JackRiddler]

35. Oh! SORRY!!!

Didn't realize. You see, misreadings are possible, so people should debate before they shoot. Ha.

[JRLeft]

26. Feel better now?

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:25 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Clinton endorses Bloomberg as a back-up if she loses to Sanders.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511060377

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

OP is stating a deliberate lie ("Clinton endorses Bloomberg&quot , misrepresenting the source material to attack a Democrat.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:32 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That's one interpretation of what she said. You can argue in the thread right?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Grow thicker skin, to the member who alerted this acknowledge yourself. Stop being a coward.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Cannot reply to automated messages

Alert abuseDelete this DU Mail

[JackRiddler]

36. Thanks. Not exactly surprising, but it pleases.

[JRLeft]

42. I hate of the alerts, people need to stop being so sensitive.

That goes for BS supporters too.

[hrmjustin]

11. That is not what she did!

You are just making things up to trash her.

[Armstead]

14. Why didn't she add, but I will urge all Democrats to support whomever our nominee is?

[hrmjustin]

22. The point was to sound confident.

To say she endorsed bloomberg is a complete lie.

[Armstead]

29. She failed to do what Sanders and his supporters are constantly told to do

She very knowingly raised the possibility of a damaging third party candidate if Bernie wins, but equally she knowingly did not emphasize party unity regardless.

It's called "not walking the talk"

[hrmjustin]

34. Was she specifically asked?

[JackRiddler]

25. Yes exactly the point here.

See #13 or EDIT to OP.

[JackRiddler]

27. Find a reading that isn't implying...

that Bloomberg isn't worse than Sanders.

(See #13 or the EDIT to OP.)

[hrmjustin]

30. Back up your claim that she endorsed Bloomberg!

Oh wait you can't!

[JackRiddler]

56. She implied he would make a good candidate...

and echoed the idea that it would be a genuine concern that would motivate him to run, if the impossible happens and she loses.

[hrmjustin]

65. You can't back it up.

And if Bloomberg runs that is not the fault of Hillary Clinton.

[MrChuck]

78. This is a discussion.

That's what these forums are for.
It's our duty to discuss these things.
Concern yourself with making your own point.
OP has made theirs.

[hrmjustin]

80. I don't need your permission on what to post thank you.

[MrChuck]

81. You certainly don't.

You'll just seem like a more reasonable person if you make an argument.
Not that you seem unreasonable.
(yawn)
ANYway...

[hrmjustin]

83. I challenged someone on a bogus assertion.

Very reasonable thing to do.

[MrChuck]

86. It's your opinion.

Saying it's bogus won't make it bogus.
There's an assertion in the op and reasonable argument in the thread.
I'm not really one to leap on a Democrat's back because they give a slightly clunky answer to an unexpected gotcha question but I will entertain the idea that, given the current climate, party unity isn't the first thing on the former Secretary's mind.
It's my opinion that, when discussing another candidate's late entry and its relation to her potential failure to secure the Democratic nomination, the former Secretary might have defaulted to an affirmation of her loyalty to the party instead of declaring her admiration for a recent GOP convert and potential spoiler.
There.

[hrmjustin]

88. And my point that I made above was she was looking to show confidence she would win the

nomination.

[MrChuck]

94. That's fine.

I think we can have opinions.
There is another case being made in the op and in the thread and it's entirely appropriate to discuss these kind of things.
I don't disagree that the former Secretary was trying very hard to seem confident.
I'm saying that it occurred to her to say nice things about someone who would potentially be soliciting votes from a Democratic nominee for POTUS.
That's not acceptable to me and I think a lot of other people would say the same.

[hrmjustin]

96. Hillary served as Senator here in NYC while Bloomberg served as mayor.

They are friends. She is not going to bad mouth him because she does not want him to run against her.

[MrChuck]

99. I wouldn't expect her to badmouth him

or anyone, for that matter.
It's not unreasonable for me to expect her to comment on unity though.
This election is for the PRESIDENCY of the U.S. fellow Democrat. Not Mayor. Not Senator.
We are constantly reminded that it's our duty to support the nominee.
Like I said, I'm inclined to excuse the former Secretary on this particular occasion but I reserve the right to speculate on the psychology behind her response.
It's my opinion that this is the purpose of these forums.

[hrmjustin]

101. Ok.

[billhicks76]

105. True She Did Not

Took me a second to see how they deduced that. I think it's when she said hopefully he won't HAVE to do that.

[kenn3d]

12. Yet another Oligarch stepping forward to buy the Presidency.

Bloomberg publicly declaring a possibility of his entering the race only casts further doubt on Clinton's prospect of winning. And it adds more fuel to the fires of passion for Sanders and his supporters; Yet another Oligarch stepping forward to buy the Presidency. They all endor$e each other... in a $uperclusterfk. They sure do have the money but...

Sanders has the people.
The landslide begins in IOWA.

[JackRiddler]

13. There is only one acceptable response to the question.

At least, if she's still part of her party first and a candidate second. (Ha ha.)

And that would have been that Bloomberg can do what he wants but that he is not a good candidate for president. And of course (even if he's a "friend&quot in the "impossible" situation that I, Clinton, should lose, then certainly I will support the Democratic candidate against all comers.

Anything else implies a public countenancing of this particular oligarch's ambitions (assuming Clinton's fail, of course). A good friend! Who cares! To the other 300 million people, he is a politician like her, so the question she should be answering is whether she supports his politics. Does she? Well duh!!!

[CharlotteVale]

16. She has the most unsavory friends.

[zeemike]

93. Yes but they are all very very rich,

[840high]

111. That they are. I get so disgusted

with her.

[Autumn]

17. She needs to drop out and endorse her good friend now, she's already lost.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. Republican pals?

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Umm, it's an unfair reading

Bloomberg was Mayor of NYC for something like 8 years, at least part of that time while Clinton was a Senator from New York. On a personal and even political sense, they might well be friends, for what we might think were positive or negative reasons.. Bloomberg was a Democrat before he ran to become Mayor. He's a leading proponent of gun safety legislation etc. Clearly they know each other for multiple reasons

I have no doubt about the establishment strategy you laid out above, and maybe Hillary is directly in on that or maybe not. I think it is a deplorable strategy either way. But your reading requires a speculative leap, and hen takes it one step further by implying that not only is she an active player in this scare tactic being hatched (quite plausible but unproven), but she has actually endorsed Bloomberg over Sanders if it comes to that. She could I suppose, but she has made no such endorsement. So your subject line seems misleading in regards to what we can actually know at this point

[JackRiddler]

24. See #13.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. I did, and that is a different charge to make against her

I agree that something along those lines is what she should have said. We can speculate about why she said what she did instead. Personally I don't think there is an acceptable explanation for that. Maybe she doesn't want to deflate talk about a Bloomberg possible run because she hopes any talk of that might help her scare up some more votes in the early primaries now. I find that sleazy if it is the case. But no she has not endorsed Bloomberg over Bernie in any public comments she has made so far. It is inaccurate and thus unfair to say that she did.

[JackRiddler]

60. Allow me the satirical edge, shall you?

What she said is politically irresponsible enough without an explicit endorsement.

[Armstead]

32. A sin of omission...most likely deliberate

I think it never crossed her mind to add a caveat that she will support the Democratic nominee, whomever that might be.

Considering all of the demands made of Bernie and his supporters in that department, she's too smart not to have realized that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. A sin yes, I agree with you there

As to her motive, I commented more on that in another reply. I just have a problem with an OP topic that flatly says something literally happened when it hasn't. Plus feedback on whether it was a fair read was asked for so I gave it.

[Armstead]

51. Fair enough

I think the headline accurately states it.

I suspect Clinton and her campaign are thrilled with Bloomberg's little move, and are not going to do what they always urge Sanders and his supporters to do, to "state that you will support the party nominee, whoever it is."

[Jim Lane]

110. I don't think it even goes as far as a sin.

It's not uncommon for candidates to prefer not to address the possibility that they'll lose the nomination. I can understand her not wanting to pledge fealty to a different Democratic nominee. I can also understand her making nice to Bloomberg.

Of our three major candidates, Hillary Clinton is my third choice, and probably won't stay even that high if Lincoln Chafee gets back in -- but I don't see this comment as a basis for any significant criticism of her.

[Blue State Bandit]

21. Worry not fair Bizzilionare!

Hillary will protect you.

[Blue State Bandit]

28. How ironic is it that Bloomberg actually looks just like a...

Strawman?

[Travis_0004]

33. Results of Jury Service

On Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:25 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Clinton endorses Bloomberg as a back-up if she loses to Sanders.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511060377

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

OP is stating a deliberate lie ("Clinton endorses Bloomberg&quot , misrepresenting the source material to attack a Democrat.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:32 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That's one interpretation of what she said. You can argue in the thread right?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Grow thicker skin, to the member who alerted this acknowledge yourself. Stop being a coward.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Another 0-7!

Like trying to bat against Doc Ellis on acid day, I think.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. The people who think "Middle Class" is a $4 Million Condo and a live in nanny, believe Bloomberg

will be competitive for more Democratic votes, than GOP ones.

It must be nice, in that very expensive Manhattan bubble.

[mhatrw]

45. "Vote for my Nope or the billionaires will have to make it 100% clear who is really in charge!" nt

[KingFlorez]

49. That's not an endorsement

[Fast Walker 52]

50. whatever Hillary is saying, it's clear the more moderate oligarchs want to have Bloomberg

as a backup to Hillary if she loses.

[Jake2413]

52. If this doesn't say it all....

It just goes to the point that HRC is a corporate Democrat, something I could only support vs a Republican in the general election, if she gets the nomination, which is not a forgone conclusion. And what would democrats be saying about Bernie if he came out and said if I don't get the nomination I'll support a third party candidate. Boy what fodder that would make, but it sounds like HRC can get away with it.

[senz]

100. Agreed. She tacitly admits it's either her or Bloomberg.

Bernie, with his democratic views, is unthinkable for either of them.

[tularetom]

54. Do you honestly believe she'd give this up for anybody

It's HER TURN™, goddamnit! She's dreamt of this since 2008 (well, for her entire life actually).

She's not about to endorse anybody else. And she won't give up easily. Bloomberg can have that nomination when he pries it from her cold dead hand!

[840high]

112. I've said it before - her obsession

is the White House. At any cost to anyone.

[Bernin4U]

55. Hey, she stood up to the Birthers!

Is Senator Obama a Muslim?

"No, there's nothing to base that on. As far as I know."

[Avalux]

57. He's a good friend of mine!

[riversedge]

61. The OP can not read!! Period.!! You purposely distorted her words--better than fox or the RW

could do IMHO. Why do you want to look stupid and foolish?? Take your post down before you look more stupid as time goes on. No way did she endorse Bloomberg! I listed and saw that interview today.

[JackRiddler]

63. You better alert on this OP to protect me from looking stupid.

Thank you!

[riversedge]

69. Most know that Hillary supporters are

vastly outnumbered on the board-and so is the jury system. Alerts are mostly useless.

I used to trust most Democrats. Not any more.

[Fumesucker]

72. Oddly enough I feel the same way

Go figure.

[senz]

102. I believe you could protect yourself

by inserting the word "tacitly" in front of "endorses."

Assuming the jury can make the distinction.

[JackRiddler]

117. Adverbs are so bad in headlines.

I really should have. For all the good it would have done.

Politicians parse their words very carefully. Clinton, of all people - in this regard she is truly the anti-Trump.

Asked that question, all she has to say is something like this: "He can do what he wants. I certainly wouldn't support him. I will always be for the Democratic nominee." She might add how confident she is that she will be winning the nomination as the best candidate and the choice of the party's voters.

Instead she talks about how he's a friend but hey, he's only running if she loses, in which case it seems understandable to her. You can't leave out the context of all her campaign's attacks on Sanders in the last two week as an extremist and dreamer.

This comment, even as a throw-off, even as a mere rhetoric, speaks to her attitude. Bernie the extremist, someone's gotta stop him, lucky it won't have to be "her friend" who is forced to do this, since her defeat is impossible!

And a jury already made the distinction, 0-7 for leaving this thread.

[senz]

118. I agree completely

Her unstated assumption is that of course something will have to be done if she doesn't get the nomination (because Bernie gets it), and then she adds that she'll get the nom so no worry. It's an undemocratic, elitist attitude, a little knowing wink among 1%ers.

Glad to hear about the 0-7.

[Truprogressive85]

62. Mr Clinch to power is no friend of the people

Anyone who calls Bloomberg a friend, supports innocent black males being stopped and frisked.

I think someone is trying to send a message

Nominate HRC or Bloomberg will come in

Well guess what I will be donating to the Sander's campaign eah day till Iowa!!!

Screw oligarchs

[840high]

113. ....

[asuhornets]

67. Bernie supporters are the worst..

This is a flat out LIE.

[Beacool]

87. Aren't they tiresome?

I'm sooo bored with the lot of them. A lot of hyperventilating and hyperbole. The fake melodrama and mind reading is astonishing. Only a few of their posts are actually based on fact and analysis.

[asuhornets]

91. Exactly..

Posting all these right-wing talking points. Unbelievable

[senz]

104. Oh...wonderful...

I look forward to reading some of your facts and analyses, Beacool. Please let me know when you post them.

[Fumesucker]

68. Ah, I was wondering what MM's "back up plan" OP was about

This answers it nicely, thanks.

[Tiggeroshii]

70. The establishment of the party is starting to show their true colors

... They are no longer the party of Roosevelt and Truman. They are an arm of the super wealthy and powerful -like try have been for decades.. They have made it very clear that they will continue to fight against the will of the working class and working families, regardless of what it takes. And they have made it clear that they will leave the party if the progressives make a comeback. Good riddance, I say. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

74. Trump made the same comment

You can be friends and still not vote for and even be able to run against the person.

[sammythecat]

75. She didn't endorse Bloomberg as a backup

Look, I'm a hundred percent all in for Bernie. Totally, and I'm a hundred percent NOT for Hillary, but she didn't say that. I watched that interview this morning and what your saying never crossed my mind. Just being honest here.

[Jack Rabbit]

77. Seriously, I don't read anything into what she said

Since she is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, some might find it disturbing that while, some are floating trial balloons about what to do if Senator Sanders wins the nomination that will make sure he doesn't win the election, that Mrs. Clinton (not to mention the likes of Ed Rendell, Harold Ford or Mr. Bloomberg himself) has left open the idea of not supporting Senator Sanders if he is the nominee. Senator Sanders has said unequivocally that he will support the nominee of the the party.

This should give pause to those claiming that Bernie is not an actual Democrat, if would appear that in reality that Senator Sanders is in fact a better Democrat than some in the party's establishment.

[onecaliberal]

82. If that's not a clear demonstration of the bullshit corruption in the corporate dem party.

I don't know what is. After I vote for Bernie, I'm changing my registration. Fuck this.

[senz]

106. A better plan would be a progressive takeover of the party.

Why leave it to the third-wayers? Let them form their own party; they're not Democrats.

[rpannier]

84. I don't see that anywhere

I don't see it as an endorsement of Bloomberg
Would love someone to explain how it is

[senz]

85. Which puts the lie to all the "Democratic Party" b.s. from her followers.

She doesn't give a shit about the party. She cares about two things:

a) Herself

b) The oligarchy

All true Democrats can stop supporting her NOW. Third-wayers, of course, can slink away.

[onehandle]

90. Pathetic interpretation.

A few blocks from our home, Hillary will accept our nomination.

I'll be there.

[rusty quoin]

95. It will break up the Democratic Party.

[rusty quoin]

103. Hi

[gwheezie]

97. Ffs I watched the interview

She didn't endorse Bloomberg. In every interview about who she'd vote for she says she's going to win. The Bernie supporters were bashing her last week for saying she was going to be the nominee and that was before Bloomberg said anything. This is nonsensical some Bernie supporters ™ have become unhinged if this sets them off. Get a grip.
Hillary already proved she'd vote for the dem nominee in 08. What makes you think Bernie is so special she wouldn't vote for him?

[Nyan]

98. Looks like Wall Street needed backup plan, FAST. nt

[Nite Owl]

107. I hope that tomorrow at the town hall

that she is asked if Senator Sanders wins the democratic nomination will she endorse him?Wiil she campaign for him?
A straight yes or no answer is what I would want to hear.

[Nyan]

114. Somehow I doubt that will happen.

I doubt they will ask her that question, and I really doubt that she'll give a straight answer.

[DonCoquixote]

108. Come on Hillary

Let me guess, at the 11th hour, you are going to do a variant of your "no way no how No MCain" speech which was about as wholehearted as an off off Broadway performace of "a chorus line."

[Hekate]

116. Your question: Is that an unfair reading? Answer: It's a crap reading of the highest order.

Last edited Mon Jan 25, 2016, 05:19 AM - Edit history (1)

You're welcome. Glad to be of service.

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. That's an unfair reading.

You are obviously too tied up in the race to be able to take an objective view of anything to do with it, so I thought I'd help out, as a neutral (I'm not American, so I don't get to vote in this; and I can see reasons for supporting both Clinton and Sanders).

Yes, your OP is an unfair reading. You have just asserted something that isn't there at all, so calling it a 'reading' is pretty dodgy in the first place.

[Tarc]

121. Why is the OP lying about what the article says?

There was no endorsement of Bloomberg by Hillary.

[Babel_17]

122. "Rich man's burden": Reads to me like a tacit endorsement of Bloomberg's sentiment

"An establishment candidate must win" being the sentiment.

The thinking behind that goes to supporting Bloomberg over Sanders. She did say "have to", not "want to".

"He's a good friend of mine," Clinton said. "The way I read what he said is if I didn't get the nomination, he might consider it. Well, I'm going to and get the nomination so he doesn't have to."

"Have to" goes to the premise of there being an ethical imperative to make sure Sanders isn't President.

"Want to" would make it about what's inside Bloomberg's mind.

"so he doesn't feel that he has to" would have worked, especially if she had also dropped "relieve him of that".

Presumably, "rich man's burden" is what she was thinking of. Ah, what a responsibility to bear; Oh the torment of thinking a non-establishment candidate might win.

[EndElectoral]

124. Of course she's a good friend, he's in the 1%.

[merrily]

127. The plutocracy will do anything to defeat Sanders, including rigging voting.

[senz]

132. How the hell can we win if they do that?

Oh I wish I were big, strong, healthy, powerful, rich, bold, brave, so I could jump in and save the day for Bernie. His opponents are such damn rich unethical power-hungry scoundrels. It a helpless feeling to watch it all from the sidelines and be able to do little beyond donating money, putting a bit of rhetoric out into cyberspace and local volunteering. The only comfort is the knowledge that there are millions of us giving money and there are many smart, capable, experienced, very motivated people working directly for Bernie.

End of whine.

Hi merrily!

[arcane1]

128. So Bloomberg prefers Hillary or almost ANY republican, to Sanders. He knows who benefits!

[senz]

133. Bernie took on the oligarchy and the oligarchy is now acknowledging his power.

The sweet part of it is, his power is us.

Well, to be more precise, his power is his courage (immense) and skill (good) in communicating TRUTH directly to the people so successfully that the people have responded in great numbers -- and that is when the oligarchy begins to stir and cast its eye of Sauron on Bernie.

We're at that point. I have a feeling that military types would know what Bernie's, and our, next move should be. (Me, I feel like hiding under the couch.)

[restorefreedom]

130. there is an easy solution

each campaign puts out a brief statement that they will unequivically and without condition, support the legitimately elected nominee of the democratic party.

no parsing, no doublespeak. support the dem.

if they can't say that outright, i have to suspect they are supporting bloomberg.

[Gothmog]

131. There was no endorsement

The premise of this thread is simply false.

I understand that the Sanders people will not answer the simple question to show how Sanders is viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million, the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars and Bloomberg may spend yet another billion dollars. That does not mean that anyone is endorsing Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is merely getting ready to take advantage of a situation where the the Democrats nominate a candidate who will not be able to compete in the general election contest

[Babel_17]

135. Hasn't the Sanders campaign shown money from the rich was overestimated in its importance?

And one person, one vote, still applies, so won't winning the most electoral college votes still get us a victory? Even cynical veteran pundits are amazed at how voters are getting drawn to the Sanders campaign. Truly nothing short of amazing.

I think the study of this phenomenon reveals insight into how the Sanders candidacy will win big. It starts with people buying into the integrity of the candidate.

[Gothmog]

139. Sanders is bringing knife to gunfight

Some candidates are better able to raise the funds necessary to complete. President Obama blew everyone away in 2008 with his small donor fundraising efforts and that made it clear that he was electable. Jeb is trying to do the same on the GOP side with his $100 million super pac.

There are many on this board who doubt that Sanders will be able to compete in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will likely spend another billion. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac.

The fact that Sanders was unable to raise any money for the DNC and the down ballot races while the Clinton campaign raised $18 million is very telling

[Babel_17]

141. It's a fight to get votes, the Sanders campaign has shown it can get the needed support

This wouldn't be the first fight fought by a heavily armed opponent who didn't understand what they had gotten themselves into.

[Gothmog]

142. I live in the real world where money is still important

Good luck with this theory. I like Sanders but cannot support him unless he shows that he is electable. I do not think that Sanders is viable and control of the SCOTUS is too important to risk

[Babel_17]

153. Thanks! But the Sanders campaign hasn't need luck, or super pacs, to get this far ...

I won't go into how his current competitors have been trending. People are starting to see that we might be only a stage or two away from the party unifying behind Sanders.

In a month we should have a much, much, better sense of what looks possible, and probable.

[Gothmog]

155. You are wrong-the Karl Rove super pac has been running negative ads to help Sanders

Sanders was assisted by the nurses super pac and now Karl Rove's super pac is running attack ads on Sanders behalf attacking Clinton http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-karl-rove-attack

The Hillary Clinton campaign on Tuesday said that recent attacks from conservatives show that Republicans are hoping Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will win the Democratic nomination because they believe he would be easier to beat in the general election.

In a Tuesday evening statement, the Clinton campaign's communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, mentioned an ad from the Rove-aligned super PAC American Crossroads, which accused Clinton of being in Wall Street's pocket. Palmieri said the ad suggests that Republicans want to face Sanders in the general election.

"While Senator Sanders tries to make a case on electability based on meaningless polls, Republicans and their super PACs have made clear the candidate they’re actually afraid to face. The Sanders argument falls apart when the GOP spokesman is trying to help him and the Republicans run ads trying to stop Hillary Clinton in the primary," she said in the statement.

Karl Rove's super pack is running an attack ad against Clinton in the Iowa primary. Sanders is benefiting right now from the expenditures of a super pac.

[Babel_17]

162. Lol, poor Karl Rove, trying to be relevant

The Sanders campaign doesn't need that sad little man, or his pathetic attempts at looking edgy with his latest effort to keep money flowing his way.

We all know what ad is benefiting the Sanders campaign, and in a big way.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/266605-sanderss-magnificent-america-campaign-ad

[Gothmog]

165. Anti-Sanders attack ad isn’t quite what it seems to be

This so-called attack ad is really an ad designed to help Sanders. The fact that the Sanders supporters think that this is an attack ad and do not realize that the purpose of this ad is to help Sanders is amusing http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be

Republicans have made no secret of the fact that they’d prefer to run against Bernie Sanders in the general election. Whether or not their assumptions are correct is a separate question, but GOP officials, convinced that the senator would be easy to defeat, have gone out of their way to help Sanders in the Democratic race.....

At first blush, the move may seem encouraging to Sanders supporters. After all, if Republicans have gone from defending Sanders to attacking him, maybe it means GOP insiders are getting scared of the Vermont independent?

It’s a nice idea, but that’s not what’s going on here. In fact, far from an attack ad, this commercial, backed by a prominent Republican mega-donor, is the latest evidence of the GOP trying to help Sanders, not hurt him.

Indeed, in this case, it’s hardly even subtle. This commercial touts Sanders’ support for tuition-free college, single-payer health care, and higher taxes on the “super-rich.” It concludes that the senator is “too liberal,” which isn’t much of an insult in an ad directed towards liberal voters in Iowa.

In other words, we’re talking about a Republican mega-donor investing in a faux attack ad to help Sanders win because he sees Sanders as easy to beat in November.

It’s the mirror image of the tactic Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) used in the 2012 U.S. Senate race in Missouri, when she invested in ads intended to boost then-Rep. Todd Akin (R) in his primary race, with commercials touting his far-right positions and calling him “too conservative.” The point was to make Akin look better in the eyes of Missouri Republicans so he’d win the primary, making it easier for the incumbent Democrat to defeat him on Election Day.

This ad is just another example of the GOP trying to help Sanders become the nominee because the GOP knows that Sanders is the weaker candidate.

[Babel_17]

168. Were you replying to someone else?

Edit: Oh wait, did you think I was referring to an ad other than the video I linked? If so, then I think I follow. But since I wasn't ...

[Orsino]

140. No, she didn't.

It's an unfair reading.

[liberal_at_heart]

145. Didn't he say he supports unlimited H1b visas? Not that I'm all that surprised. She supports

H1b visas too.

[Betty Karlson]

148. Oooh, the establishment strikes back again.

Somehow I doubt this will lessen the Surging Sanders Support.

Still, it's nice to see a new tactic employed. The other dirty tricks were getting a bit repetitive.

[JackRiddler]

163. DWS does the same shit.

THose of you for waiting for an explicit endorsement of Bloomberg as proof of something are missing what's right in front of you. They are playing up the Sanders as extremist line by legitimating that Bloomberg has a legitimate beef, so vote for Clinton or it's understandable that Bloomberg runs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511065810

[JackRiddler]

164. kickster for the Debster