Why the nastiness from some Hillary supporters?

[HassleCat]

Why are some (not all) Clinton supporters so aggressively nasty? Only they can tell you for sure, but I will venture a guess. They know their candidate can win just by hanging on, and it's unlikely Bernie can knock Hillary off track in closed primaries. But it's not going to be much fun. Bernie came very close, closer than anyone predicted when this whole thing began. This was supposed to be a cakewalk, nothing more than a succession of photo ops and fundraising appearances. Now it’s an unpleasant slog, responding to accusation of taking corporate money, swatting at some old gadfly who came from nowhere to challenge the established order. His effort has become some kind of movement, an expression of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party. The implications for Clinton are fairly serious.

First, if she tries running too far to the right, she will lose the election. It's clear there are very large numbers, make that VERY large numbers, of independents and disaffected Democrats who are tired of the third way, tired of candidates who take money from the wrong people, tired of capturing the presidency and losing more and more elections down ballot. If these voters don’t see some serious discussion of progressive issues, they will neglect to vote. That means Clinton could lose, and it certainly means Democrats would suffer more defeats at the state and local level. If Clinton doesn't have some coat tails, all that talk about being a real Democrat isn't going to mean much. Trying to unify the party isn't going to be easy, and many people are going to be very annoyed if there is even a hint that voters owe it to the party, have no alternative, etc.

Second, Clinton better deliver on all those promises. "I'm the pragmatic progressive, the one who gets things done." Well, things better get done, then. Many voters will not accept excuses about Republican obstructionists. "I get things done," means exactly that. It doesn't mean, "I get things done unless the Republicans make it difficult." Clinton is selling herself as a president who accomplishes things against the odds, although she hasn't said if she plans to neutralize the GOP, kiss up to them, kick their asses, or hire a hit man. If she can't get things done, voters aren't going to give her a pass. They're going to vote for the progressive Democrat who runs against her in the primary. I don't know who that might be, but there will be one if Clinton fails to deliver.

So I’m guessing Clinton supporters are grumpy because they realize we’re just beginning an unpleasant slog through the general election, and possibly the presidency. If Clinton wins the general the same way she’s winning the primaries, we’re in for major unhappiness. Can you imagine if Clinton achieves a weak victory against a weak Republican? Neither Trump nor Cruz could be considered a strong candidate. One is a joke, and the other is a bad joke. If it gets really disastrous, Republicans might gain seats in Congress, in which case the obstructionism we see now would look like a walk in the park. Yes, this makes me unhappy, but I’m not heavily invested in the candidate who might be looking at a bleak future. For Clinton’s more enthusiastic supporters, the general election victory might be the only bright spot in the next five years. In fact, it’s looking more and more likely. I guess I'd be grumpy, too, if that's all I had to look forward to.

[SidDithers]

1. They give what they get...nt

Sid

[Octafish]

30. Hillary's support is tanking.

Bernie's support is gaining.

Who are you voting for, siddithers of DU?

[SidDithers]

43. He was done on March 15...

it's all over but the crying, octafish of DU.

Sid

[Octafish]

47. 7 wins out of the last 8?

As time goes on, Bernie is getting more support.

That's the opposite of Hillary.

So, tell when you will vote for Hillary?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

102. You ain't seen "nasty" yet AND DO NOT INSULT SANDERS EITHER!

This forum is FREEPERVILLE!

[TheFarseer]

96. Tell me why you support her

She's going to win is not a reason. Experience is not a reason. Dick Cheney has experience.

[bigwillq]

2. There's nastiness on all sides.

Welcome to primary season. Some might want to invest in a thick skin suit.

[seattleite]

27. Tell that to the Clinton camp. Constantly feigning to be victims of some idiotic slight or other.

[Dem2]

29. Very true

[CentralMass]

3. They may need to increase their dietary fiber.

[amborin]

4. because their candidate is losing, and is so hopelessly compromised

[SFnomad]

9. Losing? By being 200+ pledged delegates ahead? By being 2+ million votes ahead?

You Sanders cheerleaders have a strange definition of "losing".

[Human101948]

15. It's cary when you go from 60 points ahead to only 6...

The trend is not in her favor. Sure, Bernie may run out of time, but it does show how weak a candidate Hillary actually is. That a virtually unknown Senator could come this close when she had the massive advantage of years in the headlines must be terrifying for the Hillary Group.

[SFnomad]

32. The same stale right wing talking points over and over again

Did you feel Obama was "weak" when he couldn't close things out until the very last primary states back in 2008 as well? Didn't seem to work out too badly for him, did it?

[TDale313]

57. Oh puhlease.

This race was *never* expected to be this close. The candidate with 100% name recognition, who has been running since forever and who has the entire media and Democratic establishment in her corner- cannot put away the 74 yr old virtually unknown Socialist from Vermont. She may win- but nearly half the party is saying they want someone else. That is not a good place to be in. She was supposed to be the overwhelming favorite. This was supposed to be a cakewalk. They let Bernie run (after clearing the decks of all "credible" threats) cause, hey, let's throw the lefties a bone. He'll be lucky to win a single state.

If you honestly believe this race has unfolded the way the Clinton camp planned? You're delusional. Just look at how their reacting. Full panic mode. She's still likely to win the nom- I'll admit that. But this is not where they wanted to be right now, and they're likely to do some real damage to the Party and any real hope for unity in getting this win.

[SFnomad]

59. Sanders has performed better than I think anyone truly expected him to

but to pretend you're not listing one right wing talking point after another is to be delusional.

And to not realize that the Democrat's every state is proportional primary method doesn't lend itself to races that are closer than the Republican's with their many winner-take-all contests is to be delusional too.

[smiley]

65. You're making excuses for a poor performance in this primary.

How is pointing that out a rw talking point? She was expected to be the overwhelming favorite. Pretending she still is, seems purposefully delusional IMO.

[SFnomad]

69. Lol ... yeah, ok, whatever

Secretary Clinton was the overwhelming favorite ... and she is still going to get the nomination.

That she hasn't gotten the nomination fast enough for your liking is like how Republicans aren't happy that President Obama hasn't cleaned up their mess fast enough.

[smiley]

72. Was the overwhelming favorite.....

You may have misunderstood me, since I'd prefer she does not get the nomination. I fear she has too much baggage to win the GE.

[SFnomad]

74. She still is the overwheling favorite

I fear Sanders would wilt under the constant attacks he would eventually get from the right wing, since he's never faced their scorched Earth tactics like he would see in the General Election.

After 20+ years of facing their attacks, there isn't anything new that the Republicans could come up with against Secretary Clinton.

[smiley]

76. I fear

Hillary.

[SFnomad]

78. So does the right wing ... buh bye ... n/t

[smiley]

80. And an overwhelming majority of Americans and foreigners.

Bye! You didn't miss a beat. Do you have a survey I can fill out to rate your performance?

[SFnomad]

81. What a steaming pile

If an "overwhelming majority of Americans" feared Senator Clinton, how is it that she's 200+ delegates ahead of Sanders and 2+ million more votes?

I don't need your condescending rating on my performance, I've got my quota for this week already taken care of.

[smiley]

82. Ok good to hear!

Have a great day!

[SFnomad]

83. buh bye n/t

[smiley]

84. You said that already.

[SFnomad]

87. How can I miss you if you won't go away? n/t

[smiley]

89. I'm not sure how to help you.

On many fronts....

It seems we are at in impasse. I assumed the condescending "buh-bye" was for real and I was hoping I made your ignore list. But I guess you just have a hard time with the truth. Telling it and seeing it.

[SFnomad]

90. I don't need your help

Just not sure what part you didn't understand ... the "buh" or the "bye" ... buh-bye.

[Skink]

5. They are on the ropes

Down for the count. In to deep. Running on fumes.

[Fumesucker]

10. I resemble that remark...

[restorefreedom]

6. fear.

this why the campaign tried so hard to force bernie out in march, they knew he would hit his stride and start winning big, and that is exactly what has happened. clinton can not win big outside the south without voter suppression or other tactics. bernies rise is her fall, and they knew it was coming when he would not drop out and kiss her ring.

and now it has arrived. all over again just like 08

[Joob]

7. I block anything troll like, from both sides. Much nicer place. nt

[RazBerryBeret]

8. Because they are not here....

[img][/img]

[Sheepshank]

11. Hillary supporters are nasty? Perhaps you should read upthread

And see just where the lions share of the nastiness originates.....apparently many don't like the responses to BS comments. HRC supporters apparently are expected to be door mats.

[Surya Gayatri]

60. Rec post for unmitigated truth...

"Bear the abuse and accept the intimidation" - that's the unspoken message.

[JoePhilly]

86. + 1

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. it was like this here in 2008

same stuff

[yourpaljoey]

13. Some are paid to post here -- no doubt about it

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Prove it...

Some are paid to post here -- no doubt about it

yourpaljoey

Prove it:


At least we don't dox our opponents:




http://redlegion.org/2016/03/12/Anti-progress-sentiments/

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Prerequisites. nt

[Dem2]

16. Why do people on the internet act nasty?

Both sides here can be quite nasty. Why?

Because internet.

[highprincipleswork]

17. Let's take their concerns off the table and win this for and with Bernie!!!

[BernieforPres2016]

19. Hillary is going to get what done?

What is her agenda other than the status quo and a little tinkering around the edges? Ask any Bernie supporter what his agenda is and you will get a list of at least 10-15 things. Ask a Hillary supporter and you will likely get a blank look.

[QC]

23. Find common ground and get things done!

[BernieforPres2016]

24. Good response!

But I would push Hillary's circle to the right until there is about a 3/4 overlap with the Republicans. It would be easier and a shorter list to fill in the items on the left side of Hillary's circle with things she doesn't agree with Republicans on.

[QC]

25. Sadly, I think that graphic is probably true.

I can see her "compromising" on a lot of things we'd be better off without.

[DanTex]

20. Why the nastiness from Bernie supporters?

I could probably come up with some psychobabble nonsense too, but I'm guessing it's because (A) their campaign is losing and (B) some are just nasty people to begin with.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Did you see my post, bro?

Certain people are actually doxing their opponents, watch out:

http://redlegion.org/2016/03/12/Anti-progress-sentiments/

[HassleCat]

92. It's our nature.

We (Sandernistas) are grumpy old democratic socialists who support the grumpy old democratic socialist, so you would expect it from us. But Clinton is the pragmatic progressive, the reasonable one, all that stuff. Clinton supporters are supposed to be above all the cat fights, pissing contests, etc.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. At least we aren't as nasty as to dox our opponents

http://redlegion.org/2016/03/12/Anti-progress-sentiments/

[riderinthestorm]

26. You've linked to Hillary supporters who are posting anti-Bernie tweets

did you realize that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Precisely

Some miscreant is compiling a list of twitter users who make anti Sanders tweets to dox them:

Anti-Progress Sentiments

It looks like there are more “Anti-Bernie” twitter users now than there ever have been. So, now more than ever, I’m interested in watching them. I collected a handful of users active on #NotUsMe, #VetBernie, #VettingBernie, and #BernedOut.

It certainly looks like a few of them are just paid shills.

But, just in case, I’ve thrown together a quick script to convert their User IDs to ID numbers. That way, if any of these anti-bernie assholes ever change occupations (other than bashing Bernie), we can still observe them knowing full well what they’re about.

Note: This is a small sampling of a few hours. If you’d like me to add to my list, just email me at [e-mail]

http://redlegion.org/2016/03/12/Anti-progress-sentiments/

That's nasty.

Don't dox me , bro

[riderinthestorm]

38. So you don't see the problem with the whole anti-Bernie part.

Ok...

That would explain your silence here then...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511682634



Helps put things in perspective.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. I have the poster on Ignore so I couldn't see it.

Doxing random internet posters is beyond messed up. I regret we can not agree on that.

And what is chilling is that miscreant is going to follow them after the campaign is over, wow!

[QC]

28. Because this movie is starting to remind them of another one

they saw, and they really hated the way that one ended.

[Politicalboi]

31. They're like their Queen

They think they're above us all. Noses in the air. Shit don't stink. Can do no wrong. And who cares. Soon they will leave us alone when Hillary is brought down once and for ALL.

[Ken Burch]

34. They still think their candidate was owed an uncontested nomination.

Or, at the very least, that if she did face competition, that it would only be from another centrist leaving the fundamental assumptions of Nineties politics unquestioned and campaigning strictly on personality/"character" issues (such as in the Clinton-Tsongas rivalry in '92 or the Gore/Bradley contest in '00) or, if at worst, a progressive challenger only able to pull Kucinich levels of support(which is the best O'Malley could probably have managed).

[Marr]

110. Well put.

I think that's it exactly. I'd love to know what sort of machinations went on behind the scenes to clear this primary for Clinton. The party establishment seemed to pretty uniformly just step out of the way.

[Buzz cook]

35. I'm one of the nasty ones

according to several Sanders supporters I've interacted with.

I do it because of the reductionist, eliminationist, and absolutist rhetoric I've confronted.

It's pretty much the same as 2000 and 2008.

[SheilaT]

62. FYI, Democratic Underground got its start on January 20, 2001.

Wasn't around in 2000.

Oddly enough some people here keep on saying they were here then.

[Buzz cook]

98. I was refering to election 2000nt

nt

[SheilaT]

100. Right. I understood that. But DU wasn't here for the election of 2000.

It opened its doors, so to speak, Jan 20, 2001.

[Buzz cook]

104. So what point are you trying to make?

I saw the same nasty rhetoric in 2000 and 2008 as I see now. What does the existence of DU have to do with it?

[SheilaT]

105. You seem to be implying that the nasty rhetoric in 2000 was taking place here on DU.

It wasn't. That's all.

[Buzz cook]

107. Try not to read into posts thing that are not there.

That I think is at the root of many problems. Heck it's almost a truism.

[HassleCat]

93. But you don't have to be.

What interests me is that Sanders supporters should be nasty, since they're the underdogs. But Clinton supporters don't have to worry nearly as much. They have a smoother path, less trouble, smaller cause for conflict.

[Buzz cook]

99. Don't have to be.

But it is fun, and as long as I stick to facts and my arguments are logically sound, I don't think the harm can be that great.

[SheilaT]

109. Try not to word things a bit carelessly.

[Buzz cook]

112. Point out where I was careless. I dare you

Here's my original post.

according to several Sanders supporters I've interacted with.

I do it because of the reductionist, eliminationist, and absolutist rhetoric I've confronted.

It's pretty much the same as 2000 and 2008.

Is it the first line? Do you assume that Sander's supporters only inhabit DU or that I only post to DU?

Is it the second line? Again are those traits common only to DU?

Is it the third line?

I've been on the intertubes since 1995, arguing with conservatives mostly. I've also argued with Bradley supporters, Nader supporters, Kerry supporters, Obama supporters, and now Sanders supporters.

The first forum I posted to was the Discovery Channel Online. Since that time I've posted to a bunch of different forums. I'm willing to bet your internet history is similar.

So why the leap to saying I'm only referring to DU? I'm betting you saw a chance to score a point and didn't stop to reflect.

[SheenaR]

36. There are some Hillary supporters here

who are thoughtful, respectful and can have a good debate about the issues without being condescending or rude.

DSB and to an extent MineralMan off the top of my head deserve praise for presenting their facts repeatedly showing WHY their candidate is worthy of the nomination. Rarely do they engage in personal warfare in my experience.

Others? You see the names. You know who they are. I have no proof, but if someone said a few were hired to start flame wars I wouldn't be surprised. And the only reason I say that is because of the timing of: 1) Date of joining, 2) exact phrases used by multiple people in their writing (some might call them "talking points&quot and 3) Timing of the same OP being posted within a short time as if it were on a schedule.

Again, I have no proof. It just seems coordinated.

As for my side, I am as guilty as anyone as well. I came here from Kos to get involved in this community. I started posting why Bernie is my candidate and the best candidate in my opinion. That quickly turned to having to defend him in attack threads, which has led me to be someone who posts things highlighting Sec. Clinton's failures as opposed to continued posts on Bernie.

Both sides are guilty. One side to me can be over-exuberant and perhaps too excited (in people's view) about their candidate and his idealism. And one side is hellbent on telling the first side they are wasting their time in a rather condescending fashion, over and over again.

But again, I'm new to the community in DU age, so this will probably either get attacked or hidden or who knows what.

Enjoy the day everyone

[KPN]

37. You are spot on.

I have absolutely no doubt that Hillary will be a one- termer if (and that's a big if -- she's gotta win the primary first and even then, watch out, the GOP will maul her) she wins the GE.

[NorthCarolina]

40. Bitterness.

Greed. The vision of "me" clouds the "we". The same thing that makes them believe things like how it's better to forgo the promise of a College Education to all citizens because the risk of Trumps kids going to Community College on the taxpayer dime is unacceptable. Forget the greater good to society and the country such a program would provide because they-simply-don't-care.

[GreatGazoo]

41. Rightly or wrongly some feel attacked, personally.

And they give themselves permission to attack back, personally.

That's in general. The Vatican thing though seems to have hot wired their minds. I think there is genuine anxiety that Hillary is being out maneuvered and that her lead is slipping away in the big states coming up.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. One doesn't need a graduate degree is psychology from Stanford to figure this out.

If X says something bad about someone Y likes, Y is going to say something bad about who X likes.

[polly7]

44. They have no interest in the life and death struggles and issues that millions/billions around

Last edited Sat Apr 9, 2016, 02:08 PM - Edit history (1)

the world who are not making it with the current status quo are being faced with .. so no ability to debate them either.

That's just who they are.

[frylock]

45. Because they're nasty people?

[Ned_Devine]

53. That's the obvious explanation

[Bobbie Jo]

46. You just obliterated my irony meter

Have you missed the last 9 months around here? I suspect what you're seeing is some long overdue pushback.

Wow

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. Other way 'round.

I can't speak for others, but I ratcheted up the bitch-o-meter in direct response to countless smug, condescending, asshole posts from Hillary supporters. Not exactly taking the high road, I admit...but definitely reactive, not proactive.

[Bobbie Jo]

55. Not even close.

[Lizzie Poppet]

56. I can only speak from my own perspective...

...and that was my experience.

[Amaril]

58. Likewise

I'm mostly a lurker / reader (as my post count demonstrates), but the nastiness from the (alleged) Clinton supporters has made me jump into the fray...........and increase my ignore list by 300%.

[Vattel]

85. I agree entirely. And if you add to the nastiness the rampant dishonesty

of many prolific DU Clinton supporters (not to mention the dishonesty of Clinton herself, her campaign, and her surrogates), it does become difficult for a Bernie supporter not to be rude.

[HassleCat]

94. Why fight bile with bile?

I realize many Clinton supporters consider some of the criticisms to be lies, right wing talking points, etc. Why would they reply in kind? Why would they cut and paste right wing talking points? That's more than just pushback.

[B Calm]

48. I learned today from a Clinton supporter it's okay to discriminate against low pay rural workers.

At the same time they agree that women deserve equal pay.

[NorthCarolina]

49. Hopefully companies will never think to simply move out of cities and relocate to rural areas

to save money, leaving the cities to rot.

[B Calm]

51. That could possibly happen. After all, it is a race to the bottom with these cheap labor cons!

[Ned_Devine]

52. It's panic based, like a cornered rat.

[2pooped2pop]

54. they are in to green things like money and jealousy.

[athena]

61. If you want to see nastiness,

look at all the posts in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511687034

I never see anything like this posted about Bernie by Hillary supporters. But in the eyes of Bernie supporters, any criticism of Bernie -- indeed, anything that is not laudatory -- is considered nasty and unfair.

[TM99]

63. Oh horeshit!

Clinton supporters started hate sites like their cave and jackassradicals. They have been anti-Semitic, called Sanders supporters racist, naive children, etc.

Clinton supporters are acting particularly nasty and childish about the Vatican conference.

Care to offer a ration & valid reason why?

[athena]

66. If telling the truth is acting "nasty and childish",

then Hillary supporters will, of course, appear "nasty and childish" to you.

Bernie lied when he said the Pope invited him to visit. What makes it interesting to post about this is the lengths to which Bernie supporters go to argue that Bernie did not lie. If Bernie's supporters accepted that this was a lie, or at least a major misstatement, no one would be talking about it any more.

[TM99]

71. You are conflating multiple events.

He never said the Pope invited him in any spoken or written statement. He clearly said the Vatican.

On the view, the host asked him, and he said yup, and before he could clarify, she went on about the Pope.

I have clearly said he misspoke on the show likely in order to not talk over the female host (y'all get pissy when he interrupts a woman after all!).

I have also asked if y'all will own up to the even worse 'misspeak's' of Hillary Clinton. You know things like being under sniper fire in Bosnia?

[B Calm]

67. The OP was spot on, thanks for sharing!

[athena]

68. So an observation by a Hillary supporter is "nastiness."

OK, I get it. In that case, I agree with you. Hillary supporters are so nasty! They just can't stop disagreeing with Bernie's supporters. They can't help going on about how they think Bernie is not an honest candidate. They can't bring themselves to trust Bernie the way his supporters do. What nastiness! How dare they even have an opinion that is not complimentary to Bernie!

[B Calm]

70. Have you heard about Bill Clinton pointing and wagging his finger at the BLM movement?

[Marr]

111. That thread was itself inspired by all the rabid vitriol from the Hillary camp.

It was asking the question, 'why is this unambiguously positive event being attacked so viciously'? It's still being attacked and belittled.

[SheilaT]

64. A lot of the real nasties are those who only joined

in the past few months, or have accounts that go back several years but started posting a lot only recently. I wonder what that's all about?

[Betty Karlson]

73. Less than a week ago, Sanders won Wisconsin. That very day, Clinton's campaign went

for the scorched earth tactics, and publicly announced its intention to do so. I guess the Hill-bullies get (at least some of them get) their marching orders from David Brock, who specialises in nastiness.

[smiley]

75. paid trolls

(some, but not all of course)
eom

[Vattel]

77. The nastiness isn't nearly as offensive as the dishonesty.

[Vinca]

79. You should call them "supporters." They're losing votes for Hillary in the general election.

[Beacool]

88. Pot, the kettle is calling.

Ever since Hillary announced her candidacy and Sanders his, this site has been non-stop vitriol against Hillary and her supporters. Many left and didn't come back. Some like myself participated sporadically and returned on a regular basis once the primaries were in full swing.

I have no issue with Sanders running until the last vote is cast, but I do have an issue with him bringing down the likely nominee of the party. Calling Hillary unqualified to be president crossed the line. Particularly since he was retaliating based on an erroneous WAPO headline that garnered it and him 3 Pinocchios. Not only did he tick off the Clinton people, but forced the WH and other elected Democrats to assert that Hillary was more than qualified to be president.

[Odin2005]

91. Because they are privileged.

Privileged people lash out when their privilege is attacked.

[TheFarseer]

95. She's not going to get anything passed either

Except great stuff like trade deals that send jobs overseas, more H1B visas, relaxed regulation for banks, more wars. I haven't gotten any Hillary supporter to give me a real reason why they support her. It's always just, she's winning and I want to win.

[Tarc]

97. Oh please, the Sanders camp has been dishing out aggressive manspalining since Day One

[AgerolanAmerican]

101. Stage of grief: Anger

expect bargaining in the near future

[DemocracyDirect]

103. I ignore posts that lack substance.

Are there Hillary Clinton supporters here?

[anotherproletariat]

106. I'll tell you my story...came to DU in February trying to figure out who I wanted to support

Coming from a college where many friends are Sanders supporters, I was leaning that way (one of the reasons I picked my member name). Immediately I saw the very aggressive, and often downright mean posts from the Sanders supporters. At the same time I started to realize that Sanders and Trump are the same type of candidate on opposite sides of the spectrum. Both are using divisive rhetoric, talk in catchy slogans with no substance behind them, and both are tolerating aggressiveness from their supporters without saying anything to condone it. Cleary, a true leader would not let this happen.

So, I made my choice to support Hillary, but made a conscious effort to be nice the other side because it was so unbecoming coming from them. So many times I started to write a reply, then stopped because I thought it would be seen as mean. Instead, I would make a small donation to Hillary whenever I felt like saying something bad about Sanders. However, in the past couple weeks, it has come to the point where I felt like I was being bullied. I just couldn't take it anymore and felt that I needed to stand up and defend myself and my candidate. I do feel strongly that Hillary will win the nomination, and I know from having talked directly to one of my state's senators while I was in DC over spring break, that the super delegates will never change en masse to support Sanders. (In fact, I was told that they are going to try and change DNC rules after this cycle to require future candidates to be members of the Democratic Party for a specified number of years before they can run for president as a Democrat. It seems that many are clearly not happy with Sanders.)

[Marr]

108. You know, for the longest time I thought I had to be imagining it.

I thought it must be my own bias making it seem that way, and that both sides were more or less the same.

But I have to admit that is just not the case. The two camps have decidedly different vibes, and the Hillary camp is just, I'm sorry, unpleasant. They seem much more likely to casually-- even giddily-- repeat smears that have been discredited, with the online version of a smirk, like, 'I know it's a lie and I don't care'.

They're much quicker to make crude personal attacks, they tend to show a lot of intellectual dishonesty, and they're overall far less likely to engage on actual issues, seeming to prefer personal attacks and Rove-style dog whistles. I've had more of than one of them tell me very flatly that ethics are for suckers and only winning matters. It blows me away.

This doesn't apply to all of them, of course. There are plenty of Hillary supporters who are intellectually honest, sincere people who prefer Hillary as a candidate for solid, supportable reasons. But speaking very generally, the vibe is just very different on the two sides.