2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWP: 81% of Sanders Supporters Have Already Moved To Support Hillary
As predicted on DU by myself and many others, the vast majority of Sen Sanders' supporters are now backing Hillary.
Important data points:
* support for President Obama among Hillary supporters in 2008 peaked at 74%.
* that current 81% number among Sanders supporters is based on polls taken before Sen Sanders said he would vote for Hillary in November.
* expressed support among Sanders supporters for Trump has dropped to 8% from 20% just a month ago.
Here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/26/donald-trumps-bad-month-just-got-worse-because-bernie-backers-just-rallied-to-clinton/?tid=sm_tw_pp&wprss=rss_the-fix
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Response to SidDithers (Reply #1)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)but the poll results are pleasant to see anyway.
Pollster Larry Sabato estimates that the Democrats' eventual voter "defection" rate will be about the usual 10% or so that both parties get every election.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)because it means they're accepting the democratic process.
I'm very happy with these numbers.
LiberalFighter
(50,504 posts)are they voting for someone else or just don't vote?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I'd looked that up. But like any little answer it raises more questions.
The Democratic Party has conservative blocs that normally defect for the presidential race but not necessarily for down-ticket races if the local Democratic candidates are also conservative. This is a presidential year so I assume they'd be considered defectors but am not 100% sure.
Earlier in the primary, we saw people in many states actually changing their registration to Republican, mostly in order to vote for Trump, also to reject HRC. Probably most were conservative or leaned conservative on many issues. According to the definition, these people would be in addition to defectors who stay Democrat but vote against their party identification.
Btw, wonder if the Trump-jumpers are pleased with their choice now?
scscholar
(2,902 posts)A lot of people are still very concerned about TPP, and trade was my concern about Bernie supporters in general.
Response to stopbush (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)that come with being a committee chairman. Lots of meeting with people, fundraising, etc. I'm sure he has to glad-hand a lot more bankers already than he cares to.
Response to Hortensis (Reply #7)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)to behave competently, and people on the banking committee are forever meeting with representatives from finance and other industries.
And, btw, the fundraising wouldn't be for him. Until we are able to repeal the corruption Republicans institutionalized, candidates with the most money will win most of the time.
Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #4)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I think it would be a perfect fit!
As head of the CFPB he could enforce the laws and rules, especially in this time of loan sharking that even banks have chosen to do as they wipe out personal loans from their own banks due to usury laws that only allows 10% per annum on a loan.
It would elevate his status, give him the power to tell banks and financial institutions what to do, and allow him to fight against those unscrupulous financial companies harming the American people. That position seems to written for him.
Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #37)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)suggestion on Sanders remaining a Dem and not switching back to Indy.
Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #49)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
LuvLoogie
(6,855 posts)LenaBaby61
(6,965 posts)Who said Hillary wouldn't get many Bernie voters to vote for her this fall.
However, in my circle of friends who include many Bernie supporters across this country, I can honestly say that 90% of them and their children/spouses/relatives--especially in swing states--are going to vote for Hillary Clinton this Fall in the GE.
The other 10% of Bernie supporter friends I have either are not going to vote at all this fall, or they're voting for Jill Stein and some are writing in Bernie's name for POTUS, but ALL of them tell me they are under NO circumstance voting for the lying, racist, sexist, misogynistic Orange Orangutan Trump
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Sherrod Brown is the ranking member.
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #18)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He doesn't get to jump the line and get special treatment at the expense of numerous other Senators.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I would have done the same for Bernie had he won the nomination.
Glad to see democrats coming together to defeat Trump and his anti-American party in the GE!
MFM008
(19,782 posts)redstatebluegirl
(12,264 posts)creon
(1,183 posts)It makes sense to me that 81% ( or more) Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton.
A proportion of the disagreement between Clinton and Sanders were over means, not ends.
Most Democrats are on the same page as to goals.
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)The 20% of Sanders supporters for Trump was always a little strange, and I generally just assumed that it was the result of the primary influencing some to vote for Trump and that it was just temporary. Hopefully, this is an indicator that it is.
rock
(13,218 posts)The vast majority of them are adults and they understand how politics works. Way to bang the rocks together guys.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)Expressed their willingness to pivot for the GE and support HRC.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)so this makes sense.
Maru Kitteh
(28,303 posts)Most have already begun contributing to her or expressed their support for her in other ways.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)zenabby
(364 posts)Bernie has said he is not the likely nominee and will in "all likelihood" vote for Hillary. Essentially, any hope that Bernie supporters were holding that he might still fight and win the nomination are gone now. They will all be making up their own minds now, and not waiting for Bernie to tell them what to do. Bernie has thus lost all leverage and good will from DNC.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)though I am not surprised.
Thanks to all the Sanders supporters!
oasis
(49,152 posts)Response to stopbush (Original post)
Post removed
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)Here's an idea. Maybe we should vote for candidates and not their supporters.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)aren't unduly giving credit to Sanders. You act like they told you and him to go to hell. They just pointed out (rightly) that Sanders didn't invent progressiveness.
Triana
(22,666 posts)I only said he deserves some credit and got spittled with verbal acid.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)Please spare me the false victimization. You got challenged about Bernie and didn't like it. Anyone can read the thread for themselves and see that the challenge to your assumption was tame.
Triana
(22,666 posts)Not my claim. SHOW ME where I wrote that. I didn't!
It's the height of hypocrisy to level that kind of vitriolic snark at someone then blame THEM for it.
Bullshit.
If we're not supposed to be "re-fighting the primaries" here then that - I assume - INCLUDES Hillary's supporters - or do the RULES not apply to EVERYONE?
Response to Triana (Reply #70)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
Triana
(22,666 posts)corporate $$$
They should RETURN to supporting the middle class and it seems like maybe they are. We'll see.
Response to Triana (Reply #89)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)It is thankless, and today I'm burned out. But at least you'll get a thanks from me.
Cha
(295,929 posts)had President Obama and now we will have Hillary Clinton as #45!
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Yeah, I was REALLY annoyed that Sanders implied that if you didn't support HIS policies, you weren't a true progressive.
But honestly, it doesn't matter now. We have a Trump to dump. Bernie will be along eventually.
Zambero
(8,954 posts)The edge is in sight and the direction is straight down. Trump cannot and will not stop being Trump. Losing 80% of the Latino & Asian American vote and 95% of the black vote, not to mention 70% overall disapproval and 64% unfit for office polling numbers do not bode well for him.
Response to Post removed (Reply #23)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Not again. This is getting tired and stale.
Triana
(22,666 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Not.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Why would I want to be associated with Clinton supporters who do that?
Squinch
(50,774 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)That's a bit concerning. The strongly support numbers should be higher.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)You are supposed to just take the subject on it's face value and say to yourself, "well if the vast majority of Sanders supporters are now enthusiastic Clinton supporters then I probably should be too". If you scratch the surface for truth you will only end up confused and disappointed. Just base your actions on exactly what the establishment tells you is truth, and you'll be the perfect little voter.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)Hillary. That is the largest political voting block and could tip the scales either way.
Thanks for your comments.
Response to floriduck (Reply #35)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)That Gallup poll everyone loves to post about is most likely an outlier. Based on multiple polls, Dems have been the largest voting bloc since December.
As for independents being split, that's obvious if one understands who independents are. The majority already lean one way or the other, but just don't bother with party ID.
The ones who lean left will likely vote for Clinton. The ones who lean right will likely vote for Trump. The ones truly in the middle - a minority - will probably follow other moderates and lean Clinton by November.
Response to TwilightZone (Reply #42)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
Zambero
(8,954 posts)Trumps's toxicity is profound. Is there any way that he could possibly "rehabilitate" himself at this point to reverse the negatives? It seems doubtful indeed, but perhaps pigs could fly. Half of the GOP will try and pry him away from the nomination, but with a series of late primary sweeps Trump has a delegate cushion that will likely hold. At any rate, the optics of this inter-party schism do not bode well for him.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)him doing no wrong.
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 26, 2016, 08:52 PM - Edit history (2)
You might want to rethink your position.
Edit: My original post was much too ambiguous, and for that, I apologize. It was meant to be sarcastic, but upon review, I obviously didn't make that clear.
My point was that using Trump supporters as the basis for comparison is misguided and I don't think being similar to Trump supporters is something that we should be aspiring to.
It also doesn't matter how much Trump supporters believe in their candidate. What matters is that we get more people to the polls than the GOP does. Their relative level of "enthusiam" is irrelevant as long as they vote for Hillary and other Dems.
Response to TwilightZone (Reply #39)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)It seems that people want to have it both ways. During the primaries, we were told that Hillary was only winning because of blind faith, blah, blah.
Then, when the head-to-head polls with Trump showed a close race, it was "proof" that Clinton can't attract enough voters to win in November. When the polls start showing a significant gap and show Sanders supporters getting on board, it's proof that those voters that she's attracted (you know...the ones that she couldn't attract) just aren't enthusiastic enough.
It's always something.
gg4usa
(83 posts)Am I the only one hoping that Hillary picks Bernie as her running mate? (and Bernie accepts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)We need a cohesive team with the same vision, who can work together. Sanders couldn't do that.
gg4usa
(83 posts)Yes, there was contention during the primary (as always), but in the end the 2 camps are not that far apart in vision. Both want to strengthen our citizenry, environment, infrastructure and economy. Sanders is doing what he thinks his supporters want (fighting to the end). Clinton is smart enough to know that. My fear is that Sanders will decide to stay in the Senate where he thinks he can do the most good.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... in a way that goes beyond the differences they have politically, and the "contention during the primary". (And I also think that in Hillary's heart-of-hearts, she privately dislikes Bernie too.)
Putting the two of them together would be like confining stray cats and dogs in the same room. They're oil-and-water and will not mix well together.
As you say, Hillary is "smart enough" to know that. She's also smart enough to know that Bernie's behavior delays unity, encourages division, and weakens the party.
gg4usa
(83 posts)You are still feeling animosity towards Sanders for his actions/comments in the 'heat of the battle'. They've already worked together in the Senate and any dislikes were created during the primary. Sanders will be happy if some of his policies are enacted. I still remember Sanders saying he was sick of hearing about Clinton's emails - not a politically beneficial thing for him to say during a debate. If he disliked Clinton as much as you say, he would have grabbed at the opportunity to discredit Clinton and garner more support.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Yeah, he really likes her, huh?
As much as you (and others) would adore having Bernie as VP, it's not going to happen. Hillary will not choose him to be her running mate. As I said previously, I doubt that she likes him either. Their styles clash (in more ways than one) and the friction would hamper progress. Besides, he's got more unvetted baggage than Hillary does, and he'd bring the campaign down... she knows that too.
Think again. You don't know me as well as you think you do. (But we can try to be friends if you want.)
gg4usa
(83 posts)But I live in Vermont and know that Bernie has avoided using personal attacks throughout his political career - he retracted the Hillary is not qualified comment (and he didn't actually say 'not qualified'). Things were said in the heat of the moment; supporters took offense. Hillary could have slammed Bernie more, but her focus is on Trump (where it should be). I see Trump looking like a petulant child, spouting one-liners and disrupting class to get attention, and Hillary as the reasonable, unfazed teacher. By the end of the first presidential debate, almost everyone will want to see Trump sent to the corner. The only baggage Sanders has is his socialist comments (nothing illegal, immoral). I see Clinton and Sanders working together to raise the minimum wage, address climate change (you should see the number of solar farms and windmills sprouting up here in VT - there are 2 solar farms less than 20 miles from where I live), equal rights, and improving infrastructure and the economy. You don't have to like each other to work together (and I don't think Hillary and Bernie dislike each other as much as you think). I work with 2 fervent Trump supporters that I'd love to put in their places (but I know it would be futile) - I avoid political talk and we get the work done.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... should also be one that has more appeal than Bernie. The far left adore him, but why should Hillary do anything to chase a "handful" of far-left votes at the expense of MORE votes from the rest of the spectrum?
I agree with your description of Trump. The image of Trump sitting in the corner is one that appeals to me very much.
gg4usa
(83 posts)And he appeals to the anti-establishment and young voters (even some RW'ers), something Hillary needs to combat Trump.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)If they were, then Bernie might be the nominee. But he's not.
Response to gg4usa (Reply #28)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
gg4usa
(83 posts)I believe that would be more voters than with any other VP pick - even if the younger generation tends not to vote. Commie, crooked, liar, etc. - what else is new? Calling names is all Trump knows how to do. If it isn't apparent to some voters now, it definitely will become apparent the first time we have a presidential debate.
Response to gg4usa (Reply #120)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
gg4usa
(83 posts)81% is great, but 99% is better. You know Trump is going to come after her with both barrels. Clinton has been in the public eye for over 40 years and there is a lot of 'baggage' that has and will be exploited and twisted into lies. There is no guarantee that Sander supporters will not be swayed by all the mud-slinging (especially since they are younger and haven't lived through all the anti-Clinton smears). The media has latched onto Trump because he says outlandish things and it boosts ratings. He will continue to get the media coverage he doesn't deserve while Clinton's more reasonable approach doesn't garner as much. And it's become obvious that the electorate is looking for an alternative to an established candidate, and Clinton is definitely part of the establishment. I believe Clinton is strong enough to win the election without Sanders as VP, but why take the chance?
Response to gg4usa (Reply #125)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
gg4usa
(83 posts)and we can't afford a Trump presidency. Those RW lies are new lies to young voters.
Tim Kaine - yawn - another establishment candidate that won't excite young voters like Sanders has. VA has 13 EC votes; Bernie won Indiana (11), Colorado (9), Wisconsin (10) and New Hampshire (4) - all swing states.
Response to gg4usa (Reply #138)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
gg4usa
(83 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Vermont has 3 EC votes.
gg4usa
(83 posts)His campaign received 1 million individual donations, becoming the first in 2015 to reach that amount. Vermont EC votes are irrelevant. Sanders swept the nation and invigorated young voters, many who may decide not to bother to vote since their candidate is not on the ticket.
Money is no problem for Hillary.
She could do without the red-baiting and scare tactics of socialism that repukes are sure to use. Hillary handled Sanders with kid gloves but Trump won't be so gentle.
gg4usa
(83 posts)I'm talking about bringing in voters. The socialist/commie card has already been played - more name-calling by Trump will just infuriate Bernie supporters.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Nothing needs to be done for them to do the right thing.
In 2008, I was a Hillary supporter but moved seamlessly to support Barack Obama without any regrets.
In a democracy, one doesn't always get everything one wants and one has to compromise. Senator Obama didn't have to promise we Hillary supporters anything except winning the GE.
gg4usa
(83 posts)but she chose Secretary of State instead.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)It will not be sanders.
gg4usa
(83 posts)I believe the 2 camps have already discussed it; and Sanders has alluded to a united front on several occasions. Clinton and Sanders supporters are still feeling animosity towards each other. But I think the candidates themselves are too smart to not realize that winning the election is more important than any temporary differences they feel. Why would Clinton want to select a VP with little name recognition when Sanders has garnered so many supporters already?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)aside their own ego to support the Presidential nominee.
gg4usa
(83 posts)Sanders has been working quietly in Congress for 25 years. If he is as egotistical as you say, he would have forced his way into the limelight years ago. And he has been pushing for civil rights and income equality since 1964.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)As a VP candidate, he would have to stop doing what his supporters wanted and instead do what Hillary Clinton wanted.
I don't see that working out.
Do you?
gg4usa
(83 posts)I think he would be fine working behind the scenes - he isn't really the best public spokesman (and doesn't really seem to like being in the public eye), but I think he would do great if handed a project to oversee. And his and Clinton's goals are similar.
From Wikipedia: Sanders has liberal stances on social issues, having advocated for LGBT rights and against the Defense of Marriage Act.[212] Sanders considers himself a feminist.[213] He is also pro-choice regarding abortion, and opposes the de-funding of Planned Parenthood.[214] He has denounced institutional racism and called for criminal justice reform to reduce the number of people in prison,[215] advocates a crackdown on police brutality, and supports abolishing private, for-profit prisons[216][217][218] and the death penalty.[219] Sanders supports legalizing marijuana at the federal level.[220] On November 15, 2015, in response to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)'s attacks in Paris, Sanders cautioned against "Islamophobia" and said, "We gotta be tough, not stupid" in the war against ISIL, further stating that the U.S. should continue to welcome Syrian refugees.[221]
Sanders advocates bold action to reverse global warming and substantial investment in infrastructure, with "energy efficiency and sustainability" and job creation as prominent goals.[222][223] Sanders considers climate change as the greatest threat to national security.[224][225]
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Sanders would have to abandon his own movement in order to be VP. Just not happening.
gg4usa
(83 posts)including him.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)The top of the ticket is Hillary Clinton - that's where the focus should be, not on the VP. The expression "sucks all the oxygen out of the room" refers to someone who drowns out the rest of the room, so to speak.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Or when he has given them the majority where they otherwise: "His caucusing with the Democrats gave them a 5149 majority in the Senate during the 110th Congress in 200708. The Democrats needed 51 seats to control the Senate because Vice President Dick Cheney would have broken any tie in favor of the Republicans."
But yeah, he's totally not a team player because he won't just give in against his principles. If more people had principles on the Democratic side we wouldn't have gone to Iraq.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)gg4usa
(83 posts)Talk about a sore winner - Hillary has the nomination and Sanders conceded on Feb. 1. No he hasn't endorsed Clinton - he knows his supporters are not ready for that (yet). There is a reason we in Vermont supported him in record numbers (compared to Chris Christie and his lack of NJ support). Sanders has been advocating for the little guy since 1964. We Vermonters didn't need Obamacare - we already had great health care coverage at affordable rates. And Sanders was one of the few that voted against the war in Iraq.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)None of what you just outlined is relevant to what I responded to.
Bringing in voters and having similar goals isn't relevant?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I'm happy to see that a VERY LARGE majority of Sanders supporters have moved on and will support our party's nominee, and that the dire predictions being made by some (here and elsewhere) didn't materialize after all.
Response to NurseJackie (Reply #32)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
elias7
(3,976 posts)But if it makes you feel better to think you have a grasp of the bigger picture, more power to you.
Response to elias7 (Reply #69)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)The issue has always been that the American system is dominated by interests that are very much against the average American. Sanders was willing to speak more directly to these issues than Clinton is. The issues still exist, regardless of who is nominated.
Response to BlueStreak (Reply #43)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)If that is what the Clinton campaign believes, they are going to lose this thing.
Most Sanders supporters are quite pragmatic. We know that Trump would be a disaster and Clinton is easily the lesser of evils. And very few Sanders supporters ever said they would not vote for Clinton.
But I have not "moved on" from the issues that Sanders raised and I am not going to. I did not "move on" from those issues in the last 8 years while Obama compromised away many of those positions. Obviously Obama is better than Romney or McCain, but just because I voted for Obama twice does not mean I have "moved on" from the progressive issues and goals.
Response to BlueStreak (Reply #65)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And I'm sure that 81% will be more like 95% by the time November rolls around.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)less if can ever find to like him. He sure can't fire congress and many others, he can't fire the military and on and on.
Response to stopbush (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)I always thought that a majority of Sanders supporters would vote for Hillary Clinton, but this is a big margin. Many thanks to all the sane Sanders people!
ericson00
(2,707 posts)they were the X-factors!
Maru Kitteh
(28,303 posts)SharonClark
(10,005 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)zenabby
(364 posts)Bernie supporters did not go to Bernie because he asked them to, but because of what they thought was good for the country. Similarly, any self thinking Bernie supporter is not going to wait for Bernie to give the nod - they are going to pick what is good for the country based on current situation/options. There will be a very few who are so emotionally invested and am unable to bring themselves to vote for Hillary, but time will heal and most of them will have converted by Nov.
Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)Looks like he wasn't wrong
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/clinton-trump-polling-washington-post-224806
still_one
(91,965 posts)Alfresco
(1,698 posts)stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Response to Logical (Reply #84)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)He is still railing against Dems... The down ticket candidates that he says he is BRINGING in to run are running as INDEPENDENTS not DEMOCRATS.
Native
(5,935 posts)this is fabulous news!
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)They may not be as enthusiastic as Sanders is about raising heck on the convention floor. That seems to be his present plan.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)But you're damn right I'll back Hillary to the max, including GOTV, signs, etc.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)are disappointed but are now supporting Hillary Clinton.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)a choice between HRC and Trump... well that's not even a choice.
Hillary Clinton will make a fine President and I will vote and work for her without any doubt.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Except for McGovern.
Clinton was either already for or moved to Bernies positions, or close to them throughout the campaign.
If she could get half of her ideas passed I'd like her great.
Cha
(295,929 posts)Thank you, stopbush!
cloudythescribbler
(2,586 posts)In MA where I live, or in some place like Tennessee, not a swing state either, if Bernie supporters choose to vote for Jill Stein, that doesn't much bother me. But every loss of voters in Ohio, PA, MI, and WI and other key states like those is worrisome. It is absolutely important that Trump never become president -- and as a Leftie, I see too many of my political colleagues still in total anti-Hillary mode. If this influences voters in swing states, it could be a problem.
I have long been concerned that ESPECIALLY at this point in the election, those doubtful supporters of Bernie in swing states need a good forum for other Bernie supporters who are progressive to win them over
Maru Kitteh
(28,303 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I am not referring to whether people like her as a person. She's the nominee and the only alternative to Trump at this point. She is miles ahead of Trump...But that's not what the bar should be.
Elections are about who is going to steer government, and how the party they represent is going to do business of governing.
As the recent primary proved, there are many, many Democrats (and independents) who do not "support" the notion that the Democratic Party should be so closely tied to Big Business and Wall St. interests. They believe it needs to be more Liberal and Populist on issues of Wealth and Power -- both in a large sense of message and in specifics of what gets included into bills, and whether those benefit the Public Interest or are crafted with lobbyists as gifts to large Corporations and Wall St. interests.
Whether or not one chose to support Sanders personally as the candidate, he represents exactly the views of millions and millions of people -- including those who have supported Clinton because they like her and/or believe she was the more "electable" candidate, and/or because she is a woman.
Elections are a means to an end -- the end is governing. That is far more important than what individual holds what office at what time.
Response to Armstead (Reply #112)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)the opportunity to keep screwing us.
Public social coverage of healthcare is totally realistic. And practical than the convoluted mess we have now.
Whether or not Bernie's specific approach was practical or not (and it would be practical if there were a public will to transfer some of the money that makes the financial sector obscenely wealthy) the discussion should be about expanding public coverage, eitehr as a competitor or replacement for private insurance. Not FREE coverage, but coverage based on income.
But the whole subject has been taken off the table by democrats who -- in usual fashion -- threw the baby out with the bathwater. Even the nice little public option got squashed by corporate pressure and the cowardice and/or corruption of politicians.
Response to Armstead (Reply #118)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Armstead (Reply #118)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Response to VulgarPoet (Reply #113)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.