The rest of the story about Washington Post poll.

Dear Democrats, please give the sense of entitlement a rest: you still need to win over Sanders supporters, because the ticket won't just be Clinton and Trump. (Constructive criticism.)

nomination.

My hope is in the "good" vs "evil" "hope" over "fear" thingy with the voters.

And, I really believe that the salvation of this election lies in the hands of the POC voters. The third parties are more of a danger to us in this election than at any other time...although many will say not more dangerous than election 2000 was for us.
The so-called "establishment" is the single fire-wall we have against the creeping fascism that is upon us. This is not the time to demean them.

Please consider what I wrote some months ago: "unequivocal" isn't just a word. It's a trust-builder.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511824845

This establishment meme, touted by people who are supporting the most established governmental employee, with 60 years of establishment experience, is not reality.

Is calling an outspoken progressive firebrand like John Lewis part of the "Establishment." From back long before you were probably born, John Lewis was a model for people like Bernie Sanders. When the DLC/Third Way/Bill Clinton were pushing the AEDPA, welfare reform, and the omnibus crime bill, John Lewis was fighting them tooth and nail.

Just because he endorsed Secretary Clinton does not make him part of the "establishment" (a point also missed by Senator Sanders's supporters who went apoplectic when he did).

John Lewis IS the establishment. As is Clinton, Sanders, and every other politician who has been "established."

definition: "the action of establishing something or being established."

I do not think there is anything wrong with being establishment. your negative connotation is an unrealistic construct designed to insult. Wrong.

Your definition of "establishment" would disqualify everyone who tries to work for change within the system from being "revolutionary," in the sense that Dr. King, and yes, John Lewis, were revolutionary. Moreover it denies the courage of the men and women who, like Dr. King, spoke truth to power, to lump them in with mainstream figures who push only so far as popular opinion will condone.

That is the true insult.

It's about attracting more voters from a diverse population than the opposition does. That's how elections are won.

or Planned Parenthood for that matter. The word was used is a general sense, and I responded likewise. Ask Jitter65 to be more precise, if you insist on names and numbers of the establishment.

has supported Bernie has their own list. I know that because they've made it perfectly clear the past year. So what about HER supporters? What if we disagree with some of the things in his Platform? Does that mean that she has to bow to all his supporters and their demands while he has to do nothing?

You want to tell us how to behave on this site but I don't see Sanders supporters willing to offer any concessions. They just want the rest of us to shut up and stop talking. I just came back from a week away from this board and it was refreshing. The tone seems to be much better with the new rules in affect and it's a totally different environment. Some of us are never going to agree on some things and I accept that. If was refreshing to see that the GOP had nothing to report this morning about Hillary and Benghazi that we didn't already know. They should be ashamed of their 2 year $7,000,000 witch hunt. I also believe that nothing is going to come of the email 'scandal'. The Clinton's have been investigated more than anyone else in my lifetime, and probably in all eternity. Maybe, just maybe, they are not the evil empire they have been made out to be. All candidates are flawed. I don't look for perfection in any Man, or Woman, because I know that as a human, none of us are perfect.

Sanders' supporters feel that DWS and others have done everything to defeat them, and so feel little affinity for the party as a whole. Ignoring them now, at this critical juncture, means exacerbating the party division.

Polls show that when third parties are taken into consideration, support for Trump and Clinton slumps to a tie in the upper thirties. That is a huge problem, especially down-ticket. So like it or not, you need to win back some of the support that threatens to go third party. "You lost, now suck it up" will not be the slogan to do so.

Same with Sanders' independent supporters: they don't have a special sympathy for anyone with a D behind their name - or they'd be Democrats. Like it or not: their votes have to be earned, because we surely won't win by counting on Democrats alone: we only account for 1/3 of the electorate. Earning those independent votes means conceding part of the platform, or compromising with them about the platform.

That is the reality we are facing. It's the math, if I may borrow that phrase. And if you feel that reality tells you to shut up and stop talking, maybe you want to take a moment to listen and think instead? Fair enough?

Just asking. Oh, I could pontificate, but I won't.

But more establishment peeing down my back and telling me it's raining isn't going to do it for me. I want real change. Sure, I'll get behind Clinton, but I want real change.

I want single payer.
I want the Social Security payroll tax cap removed.
I want the corporate tax code reformed so that corporations pay their fair share.

I mean, did you know the FY17 budget calls for $582.7 billion for war spending? And did you know that is a whopping 51% of our discretionary budget?

See, I'm TIRED of having MY tax dollars that I pay in to OUR government, OF, BY and FOR the people being used for things that don't benefit me at all. I really am.

I want change.

Yes, I'll back Clinton...but I want change.

Very constructive.

The leading non-partisan self-funding health care think tank says that incremental expansion is the best way forward, both politically and in terms of disruption of the health care system. There are ways to get to universal health care without single payer.

Going after single payer makes as much sense as 80+ votes to "Repeal Obamacare," and just as good a use of time.

to 'do the right thing' after we'd tried everything else. If single payer is so very, very hard, why does the rest of the industrialized world have it and we do not. Why are there still millions of Americans who don't have coverage? Why do we spend over 17.1% of our GDP for shitty, rationed healthcare that has financially crippling copays when we could recognize healthcare as a basic human right and organize ourselves around providing it for all Americans? To me, this is a moral argument. Now, you're polite. You really are, and I do appreciate that in light of one of the other comments.

And they didn't do it quickly - and certainly not in a 10 year period.

Two examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Health_Service_(England)

http://fall09hpm101sweden.providence.wikispaces.net/History+and+Origins+of+Swedens+Health+Care+System


It was incremental, and not all universal coverage in Europe is single-payer.

There are other ways than single payer for universal coverage, such as using not-for profit, heavily regulated private insurers, such as the Netherlands.

There is also the fact that our culture is more diverse than many countries in Europe, and the idea of who is our 'tribe" is much smaller than in nations where people consider 'family' to consist of 30-40 relatives, rather than the 10 or so in the U.S., which is why it is so much harder for the US to get on board with many social safety net programs.

The reasons why it's not feasible here in the US (outside of active duty military, Medicare and Medicaid) -

1. Politically impossible. Even with a Dem White House, Senate and Congress, we could not even approve a public option. There is not enough support for it from the public - rightly or wrongly - and that has to come first.

2. Expensive - Yes, we have Medicare/Medicaid, however, Johnson had to lie about what it would cost, because he knew if he told Congress, they would never approve it. We now have the CBO, which crunches numbers on everything, so you can't conceal the cost. I understand that Bernie believes that there are ways to pay for it, but they also require congressional and Senate support, and that's not likely at all. You are also not going to get a consensus to shut down most of an entire industry in the US.

3. Disruptive to the health care system: Going to a completely different pay system within a decade would be like repaving all the streets in the city at once - both too expensive and disruptive. My father underwent cancer treatment, and his physician had a very hard time getting therapies approved for payment from Medicare. Many physicians are phasing out Medicare patients because of the difficulty getting paid. That has to be remedied prior to any discussion of making it available to everyone. And Medicaid, even in the states that expanded it under the ACA, is still not sufficient for many who have to empty their bank accounts and 529s, sell all but one car, and cut back on work to stay under the poverty line. So that needs to be fixed as well before you can make the case that our health care system and our government run programs are ready for expansion:

http://www.vox.com/2014/12/9/7319477/medicaid-disability

Full disclosure - I worked in the communications dept of the premier, non-partisan, self-funded health policy think tank in the U.S. for 8 years, and during the writing of the ACA, when our staff was contacted daily for information and counsel by congress and the White House. I asked about single-payer when the ACA was being worked on, and was told the reasons above. The best strategy for universal coverage would be incremental - expand Medicare to let people buy in earlier, expand coverage to all children. Once the US gets accustomed to that, they will think in terms of more public options, and trust the government running of it.

Here is the premier health policy think tanks' proposal on how we could move toward universal health care for children:

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/childrens-health-coverage-the-role-of-medicaid-and-chip-and-issues-for-the-future/

(bookmark that website - absolutely the most reliable source for health care policy information)

Also, state level regulations on health care costs has been very effective. In Maryland, the cost of a procedure is set, and is the same for everyone - no matter what insurance pool you are in, no matter if you are uninsured (Much like it is in other industrialized countries). Many inflated health care costs are due to the negotiating of prices for different policies. For instance, if an appendectomy costs a hospital $3000, they might negotiate with a large pool policy to give them a discount to $1000, then they would make that up by charging a smaller pool policy $4000, and an individual with no insurance would be charged $7000. In Maryland, everyone pays $3000. Competition in health care works backwards from normal market rules. If more states did like Maryland did, then that would be one more mechanism to bring costs down for everyone.

Because of my unique background on health policy, I knew that Bernie was ignoring the people who were experts in the field, and that caused me to view his judgement as I would a climate change denier, or someone who thinks that defunding Planned Parenthood would result in fewer abortions. I like his ideas, but I don't think he's the person who can get them done - especially if he refuses to listen to the very people who have the expertise to implement them. That is what ended my support for Bernie as president. He should be on the Senate Finance Committee, pulling the conversation to the left on this.

I would LOVE to see universal health care. I lived in England for awhile, and benefited greatly from the NHS. Frankly I think health care access should be modeled on our public school system - publicly funded with a private option. I think that it's a moral hazard to make health care a for-profit enterprise. Sadly, full public health care is really only an option for our active duty military at this point in time.

Allow me to explain. Most thoughtful people in the military, and their are quite a few, believe that a substantial part of this money is wasted. For instance, private companies continued to build Abrams tanks for a whole year after the Army said it did not need them, and Congress kept appropriating the money. And look at the new F35 - it still can't fly in thunderstorms, I believe. And how many billions have we poured down that rat hole so far? As Ross Perot quipped so long ago, "We can hear that giant sucking sound," as our tax money is sucked up by unnecessary military spending.

Let's be honest about what the real problem is: the military industrial complex Ike warned us about so long ago makes a profit on defense contracting. Big profits. Also, these defense contracts support a lot of jobs. If suddenly we say, 'we ain't gonna study war no more,' millions of Americans would lose their jobs and this nation would enter a very, very deep recession.

Our foreign policy is part of this MIC, as well. War does pay. Here's a quote from an article in The Nation: "This year, US Special Operations forces have already deployed to 135 nations, according to Ken McGraw, a spokesman for Special Operations Command (SOCOM). That’s roughly 70 percent of the countries on the planet. Every day, in fact, America’s most elite troops are carrying out missions in 80 to 90 nations, practicing night raids or sometimes conducting them for real, engaging in sniper training or sometimes actually gunning down enemies from afar."

Thus, George, it seems to me that by making your 'correction' of my term 'war spending' to 'defense' some pretty fine hairs are being split. We spend more than any other advanced nation on 'defense.' You can easily look this up. The bar graph is especially telling. My point stands: I would like to use a much greater portion of our tax money that we pay in to our government which is supposedly of, by and for us, the people, on things that actually benefit us, the people.

Now the MIC 'jobs program' is a seemingly intractable problem and I do recognize that we can't just do a cold turkey thing, but we could wean our system of military spending gradually over, say, a decade, and try to get it down to 2005 levels, then 2000 levels. Sure, conservatives will scream. But look at the fact that our defense spending has actually increased under Obama and our military is stronger than it has ever been. Ever. But STILL the Republicans are screaming about how he's 'gutted' the military. So they are gonna scream anyway.

I repeat. I want our tax dollars used for single payer. I would cheerfully bear a substantial tax increase for that because I already pay out the nose for it - called 'premiums' and 'copays.' I'd rather just pay a higher tax and not have to be wheeled on the stretcher through the accounting department first before I can get treatment.

I also want our tax money to subsidize college education for our children and grandchildren MUCH more heavily than is currently happening. Success in this endeavor can be measured by the rapid reduction in the average debt load on graduation.

And, I've paid into Social Security and Medicare full boat for over 40 years. Don't cut them. Don't reduce them. Don't raise the retirement age. Quit spending money out of the Social Security trust fund for other things. And get rid of the payroll tax cap.

So we gonna see these changes? Probably not in my lifetime, but if we elect Clinton we could have a 7-2 liberal majority on the SCOTUS for the next 30 years, which gives us a good chance to get rid of the corporate corruption that is the root cause of our government no longer being responsive to OUR needs.

Or am I wrong here?

move to the center it looks, in order to win. If there's no way she can get the Sanders voters..... Sanders isn't endorsing her and it looks like many of his followers are not supporting her she will have no choice to go towards the center. My guess is that things are going to get very nasty at the convention with protests, etc. That will not help matters....

That said, why do you think that Bernie people won't support her in the end? I'm a fervent Bernie (or his platform) supporter, absolutely. But I'm NEVER, EVER gonna vote for Trump, and I won't vote for a third party candidate even though the Greens match my own philosophy more closely.

I've said in other threads, and I will say here that I will vote for Clinton. But I want change.

She goes to the center, she may lose. And a president Trump is unthinkable.

TPP is electoral poison.

So any national poll that includes them is overstating their results.

but will vote for Clinton just because of Trump. Or whatever other snake the Republicans put forth.

But I want change.

In that case, the Republican- led House would get to choose the President, and the Senate, the V P.

And they could pick anyone they wanted -- not just Trump.

So they are dying for us to screw this up.

was cited. Basically the plan is to (externally from the Democratic Party) paint any VP as too liberal - obvious.

But part 2 is interesting. They want to internally split off Bernie supporters with the things we all talked about here exhaustively during primary season. However, if their nominee is Trump, no sane person will vote for the guy. Nonetheless that's what the article said.

Sometimes I wonder though. I know you and I used to be on opposite 'sides' in the primary. I'm all for Bernie's platform and I do want change. But it kills me that Trump is being portrayed as a 'populist' when the legitimate populist (in my opinion), Bernie, was systematically ignored, downplayed and otherwise minimized by the corporate owned media.

I wonder, pacificNW, if our party will learn anything from this split. I thought we had some wonderful discussions about Third Way, neoliberalism and the New Deal. Like I say - hope the party bigwigs get the message.

for more progressive policies. And he obviously reinforced Hillary's leanings in that direction (she's always been more liberal than Bill.)

So that's great. I just hope he helps unite the party now. I'm nervous about having a national convention that's too much like the one in Nevada. That will only help Trump.

And you are right about Trump. He is anything but a populist. But he is a racist and a scaremonger masquerading as a populist. And he is a real threat that we can't take for granted.

that you need to seek revenge against for some perceived wrongdoing in the primaries. We are just people who are here for the same reason as you, to find information, and share personal opinions with fellow Democrats (mostly).

to 'talk back' to the media and sites like this help me fulfill that wish.

That said, there are some heavy hitters on here. If you want to see what is happening in the Dem establishment now it looks like Bernie will lose and Clinton will get the nod, look at the put-downs some people have written against people like me who will continue to speak out against 'free trade,' for unions, for lifting the cap on the Social Security payroll tax, for more heavily subsidized college for our kids and grandkids, for single payer healthcare...basically Bernie's platform, which to my mind would be a quite appropriate use of our tax dollars and would genuinely improve the lives of a huge swath of Americans.

Some seem to feel that now the 'unicorn thing' is over, we can go back to business as usual.

My feeling is that this would be a huge mistake for the Democratic party. Bernie has elevated the dialog and the Democratic party had better advance some real change, because this may be the last time New Deal Democrats like me vote for a centrist Democrat simply because she is perceived by some as a lesser evil than Trump (certainly so).

There are some voices that need to be listened to here. The establishment and corporate owned media was very adroit in quashing the real populist candidate (Sanders) but we still have a right wing populist-fascist candidate who has attracted all the neo-nazi ku klux xenophobic homophobic haters. Look at his platform - lots of these ignorant white men who are supporting him are working class stiffs who have watched 'free trade' policies fuck the middle class.

The thing we all should be against is neoliberal capitalism. Too bad some of the leaders in both Democratic and Republican parties are neolibs.

You shouldn't have to be begged to do the right thing.

I rather worry about the independent Sanders supporters who don't care about Ds behind the names of any candidate. Those are the ones that need to be won. Those are the ones who could end up voting third party, or sitting out the election (especially after some public relations 'mistakes' by the DNC chair in the heat of the primaries.)

And yes: we will have to beg, since especially those are the ones not convinced that voting Clinton is the right thing.

So let us start begging.

Just saying

which is wholly in line with the terms of DU. There is no obligation to precede every single utterance on the forum by some loyalty pledge: "I vote straight ticket D". Edit: but if you like the idea, you could put such a pledge in your sig-line. Who knows - you could be a trend-setter.

Quote:

Support Democrats

Do not post support for Republicans or independent/third-party "spoiler" candidates. Do not state that you are not going to vote, or that you will write-in a candidate that is not on the ballot, or that you intend to vote for any candidate other than the official Democratic nominee in any general election where a Democrat is on the ballot. Do not post anything that smears Democrats generally, or that is intended to dissuade people from supporting the Democratic Party or its candidates. Don't argue there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Why we have this rule:

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government, and as such we expect our members to support and vote for Democrats at election time. Rare exceptions are granted at the sole discretion of the DU Administrators. (Current exceptions: None.)

Emphasis mine. Notice that the TOS relate to what someone posts, not to whatever you found missing or wanting when you read it.

Anything you were trying to say with that reply of yours is your business, of course. Or maybe you were just saying it. My post was concerned with what happens down-ticket. Fair enough?

Despite her efforts, nothing changes.

Although, I did see a poll that said 81% of BS supporters have moved to Hillary... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/26/1542650/-Bad-news-for-Trump-ABC-WaPo-poll-81-of-Sanders-backers-have-rallied-to-Hillary-already

If we're going to make assumptions based on these things.

Remember, there's almost no discussion about either the Libertarians or the Greens. There are many big reasons why these are fringe movements with little to no power, and as the GE moves along the great mass of more mainstream voter groups will remember why they identify any positions they may sympathize with as their own while rejecting these sidelined parties.

Libertarian leader Nicholas Sarwark: Our candidates aren't running to "reform" big government programs. Not to "replace" them. Definitely not to add to them. If you want to tinker around the edges of big government, the old parties have you covered. Only the Libertarian Party and its candidates are working to repeal laws and shrink government. What will this leave? Individual liberty and a small, constitutional government that is limited to defending our lives, liberty and property.

(Gee, are we supposed to not know the Republicans and ultra-wealthy have been long at work "covering" the repealing of laws and shrinking of government? And why not mention that Social Security and the EPA are on your block along with everything else?)

Not Senator Clinton or SoS Clinton or even Clinton. Mrs. Clinton. It's pretty fucking obvious what they are trying to do and their asses should be called out on it.

My recollection is that there are some jobs (like ambassador) that you get to keep the mode of address as a courtesy after you retire, and others (like MP) where you don't. I don't know which category either SoS or Senator are in, though - do you?

For example, U.S. Sec'y of State Hillary Clinton or (former) Senator Hillary Clinton or the Honorable Hillary Clinton. Those descriptions recognize her accomplishments, which are many.

"Mrs." sort of implies all she has done in life is manage to get married. Another implication is to tie her to (former) President Bill Clinton. He is never described as "Mr." Clinton.

Thanks. Sometimes I don't bother to think these things through when I hear them. I appreciate the chance to see a well-reasoned explanation.

It's simple, but I get lazy and let it slide.

A little internet research suggest that "Mrs Clinton" is probably impolite as you say, "Secretary Clinton" is outright wrong, and the correct form of address is probably "Senator Clinton".

But stress on the "a little internet research suggests ..." rather than "my years of expertise working in the protocol department of the foreign office tells me ..."

heard Mrs. Albright, Mr. Powell, Ms. Rice?

No. Retired SoS are usually referred to by their last names, former Secretary of State. The same with retired senators. Never have I heard them called Mr. or Mrs.

By calling her Mrs. Clinton they are wiping out her experience and accomplishments. Giving the impression that Mr. Trump is on equal footing. It is also a backhanded way to imply that her only worth/qualification is as Bill Clinton's wife.

It appears that former Secretaries of State keep "The honourable", but should no longer be referred to as Secretary, whilst even former Senators should still be addressed as Senator. So I guess that "Mrs Clinton" and "Secretary Clinton" are both wrong (although the former possibly less so than the latter), and the correct form of address is "Senator Clinton".

I *think* that the distinction is that Secretary is a role while Senator is a title.

http://www.formsofaddress.info/Secretary_Cabinet_Member.html

http://www.formsofaddress.info/Secretary_Cabinet_Member.html

Usual disclaimers apply: this is the result of five minutes skimming on the internet, not of any deep knowledge, and hence may well be bollocks.

refers to prior SoS, they usually use the last or full name followed by former Secretary of Sate. Sometime they only use their names.

Very few people have been SoS and a senator. When Kerry leaves that position do you think the NYT will address him as Mr. Kerry?

No. They will call him Senator Kerry or John Kerry, fmr Secretary of State. Even if he does decide to run for president again.

It is clearly an attempt to ignore Clinton's accomplishments in her own right.

They call Obama "Mr. Obama", not President Obama. Same when George Bush was president. No special treatment for Hillary there.

Using Mr.? That's what they did for years. If they omitted her honorific, it is a new thing.

For other politicians they use their full name with no title the first time and then use Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. Here are some examples:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/politics/no-speaking-slots-ted-cruz-and-john-kasich-brush-off-trumps-threat.html?ref=politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html

It seems they only use the honorific title on the first reference for the president. So hopefully next year Hillary will get the honorific title from the New York Times.

See also: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/state-dept-classified-data-found-ex-secretaries-personal-email-john-kerry-condeleezza-rice-colin-powell.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FPowell%2C%20Colin%20L.&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection

Here, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell are referred to as "Ms. Rice" and "Mr. Powell" throughout, without any other title used.

See also: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/no-disrespect-intended/?_r=0

I understand that New York Times may refer to Clinton as "Mrs. Clinton" with the understanding that she prefers that title over "Ms."

As well as the AP Stylebook.

I believe I have seen other stories that refer to other women using "Mrs." Does anyone have a link with more info?

Miss Manners did a good column on titles years ago. In general "Ms." is preferred as a non sexist parallel to Mr. (because no reference is made to marital status). However, in personal settings she emphasized that knowing the target's preference and using it is important.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/weekinreview/02kornblut.html?_r=0

...

Op should chance the thread title. They aren't referring to the WAPO poll, but the outlier NBC Poll.

Rupert Murdoch Wall Street Journal..............
which means I trust it LESS than others, oh except Fox, Rasmussen,
YouGov, Gallup, Gravis whom have a republican trend of up to 7 points.

...and will probably reduce further as the election gets closer.

the idea of a Green party member on Clinton's ticket gave me a hearty.....

Hopefully she doesn't do that though.

So the people in the non-Green and non-Liberterian states may tell the pollsters Johnson and Stein are their favorite, but they won't find them on the ballot.

So this is not surprising. What remains to be seen is if she is able to get the Democratic voter who is very liberal. Some polls indicate they will vote for her, some indicate they will not.

Why rush to embrace something that is not right for the individual? While we pledge to support we are not asked to give up our ideals.

apparently not.

So there is already one on the ticket. And I am quite sure she pays quite a bit of attention to her own opinion.

Strong may be a bit overkill.

Which was the context of her comment. She is certainly not a moderate when compared to mainstream, progressive Democrats. She is certainly more liberal than both Bill, and Obama (and frankly, most elected Democrats). Her work as First Lady and her voting record as a senator very clearly shows that.

That is her best thing.

And she is very likely the most qualified person ever to run (at least in my lifetime). And I think that is why she won so easily.

I almost spelled it out for you but I will leave it with...we are each entitled to our own reality. Explaining anything to you would only put my own record in jeopardy.

I'm also a big fan of Democrats, which is why I signed up here in 2001. So what I am "trying to accomplish" is pretty simple and obvious. It's the same thing I have been trying to accomplish for 38 years of voting. Electing more Democrats. Thanks for asking though.

to legitimately call her a "strong" progressive. She has other strengths and is progressive on a limited number of issues, but not beyond the mainstream of the democratic electorate. A "strong" progressive would by definition be left of the democratic center, which she is not, even on her most progressive issues. It is amusing how people reject true progressive principles and still reach for the moniker. Not talking about you with respect to that, since I don't know you.

Her history of advocacy and her voting record are absolutely center left. I don't think that is even open to debate. It's just a fact.

She has an excellent record of progressive policies AND more importantly getting things done. The problem I see with those that demand purity is that they usually don't factor in effectiveness. Effectiveness matters. She is, IMO, by far the best candidate for progressives when effectiveness is taken into account.

one of her strengths in the general ...

Which was the largest expansion of Medicaid in history at the time (8 million plus kids with health insurance that did not previously have it).

Getting a rethug president to agree to a huge amount of funding to rebuild NYC after 911.

Getting 9 other senators to vote against the constitutional amendment to discriminate against LGBT people (I was there for that one).

Helping make the decision to go after bin Laden.

Those are just a few off the top of my head. The list is long, and dwarfs Sanders. It's very difficult to be effective if your main objective is absolute political purity. I've never seen it happen in all my years as a poltical activist.

I am prohibited by TOS from further, specific comment, but I will say I remain concerned her effectiveness may not bear out as the strength many hope it will be in the GE.

I would say a few things contributed to my perception:

1. They way Sanders seemed to focus on criticizing the Democratic party instead of the real problem in this country - the GOP.

2. Calling HRC, NARAL, PP, and folks like John Lewis "the establishment" - especially coming from a career politician like Bernie.

She supports some progressive policies and doesn't support a lot of others. She, herself, has said she is not a progressive. (Of course, she has said that she is a progressive, too, but that is handled by others in this sub thread).

But here's a hint: if the progressives of the Dem party say she isn't a progressive, she probably isn't.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate

Also, every Dem I have worked with supports Clinton, and they certainly see her as progressive. Because she is. Not sure who you are referring to when you say "progressives of the Dem party say she isn't a progressive" but recent polling shows all but 8% of Sanders supporters support Clinton.

are mutually exclusive. If they polled me, I would say that I am voting for Clinton. I do not think she is a strong progressive.

even the ones who have worked closely with that candidate, that candidate probably isn't someone who works well with other progressives.

And I can tell you I know enough elected officials to confirm that you are correct in your hypothesis.

And it is something anyone who thinks about running for office ought to consider. Progressives who are focused on getting things done simply will not rally around someone who is fixated on a circular firing squad.

and not a pissing match about what happened in the primary.

"progressive" stance being determined by other progressives, and applied it to the number of progressives that have endorsed the two candidates.

Is that clearer?

Endorsing her and saying she is a strong progressive are mutually exclusive--one does not prove the other.

To each their own.

3% for Stein and 2% for Johnson (who?) and come up to 16%? Seems somewhat like an outlier to me.

If Hillary chooses Elizabeth, this could be an electrifying race.

But I'm sure she'll take your expert advise on advisement and then file it where it belongs - in the bitter knitter drawer.
Thanks for your concern.

shows an amazing ignorance about the way party politics actually works.

There is no way on god's green earth that she will select anyone who is not a Democrat. Furthermore, whoever that Democrat is will be someone well aligned with her in many ways, someone she can trust to campaign strenuously for her, someone who will happily fade into oblivion after November 2nd. Quite a few Democrats meet all those requirements. Not a single non Democrat does.

I keep on recalling the idiotic fantasies some years back of McCain jumping parties and being a VP on the Democratic ticket. Anyone who thought that clearly was not paying any attention to McCain and what he clearly stood for. He was never any sort of liberal or progressive, but some people very mistakenly thought he was.

And personally, were Clinton to select a non Democrat as her VP it would cause me to seriously rethink the proposition that she's smart.

I was suggesting a Democrat that has shown he/she were a strong progressive on economic issues and/or a Democrat that has shown he/she were a strong advocate of policies that would protect and enhance our natural environment. If the polls are correct (and I see from the responses above that many do not put any stock in the polls) Clinton (that is, Senator Clinton, not Mrs. Clinton) would benefit with a higher number of voters who would vote for her, if she showed some interest in these positions, rather than vote for a third party candidate which espouses progressive or environmentally strong policies. Whether she has any interest in attracting libertarian voters I don't know, but I doubt it.

Especially since there is an official Green party.

Mentioning green party aand then clarifying to progressive kind of tells us where your coming from. IMO the Green party is not the democratic party.

The most die-hard of the remaining ones will never switch. This is especially true when Mr. Sanders has refused to endorse Hillary for unclear motivations.

...aren't public and so we can't say how progressive he is.

Castro is reportedly one of the top three HRC is considering for VP (the other two being Elizabeth Warren and Tim Kaine whose political beliefs are public.)

Two 4-way race polls were released yesterday. The NBC/WSJ had her up +1%. The WaPo poll had here up +10%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

Third parties are, when included in the polls, always vastly overrepresented in pre-convention polling.

The problem is that there are a great many left leaning independents and registered Democrats who do not like Hillary Clinton in a very big way. Maybe I'm swinging in the wrong circles but most people I talk to who express an opinion feel this way. Some will hold their noses and vote for Hillary--others will vote third party. Many will stay home.

These are the people who like it or not Hillary will have to win over.