From a Sanders supporter to Clinton supporters: "We may need your help!"

[Attorney in Texas]

Clinton is the favorite and Sanders is the underdog -- we get it.

But we don't call off sports games and give the favorite a "win" just because the odds weigh against the underdog. More importantly, we don't simply crown the victor of the primaries two months before the first votes are even cast. The will of the voters matters:



Sanders has a chance here, but the pathway for a Sanders victory may require two things:

1. a Sanders win in Iowa or New Hampshire;

2. overconfidence plus a sense of entitlement on the part of the Clinton campaign and her supporters as was her downfall in 2007-2008.

I think the Sanders campaign has got goal number one well in hand, but we may need your help with goal number two.

Looking at the posts in this forum today, all I can say is thanks for pitching in where your help is needed most.

[Thinkingabout]

1. Who has called off the primaries?

[Betty Karlson]

71. DWS would probably like to do that. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

78. I have not seen anything coming out of the DNC even hinting at calling off the

Primaries, I have read several conspiracy theories posted here but none which said they was from the DNC. I saw lots of complaining about there not being more debates but not much after the second debate. I have posted there may be a sweep at the primaries but that does not mean I want the primaries called off.

[firebrand80]

2. Du posters aren't part of the Clinton campaign

[brooklynite]

3. Sorry, don't think we can help you out...

Despite the fact that we're good at analyzing hard data, and recognizing that the data looks positive, we know that overconfidence is dangerous, so we're already in the field going after every vote, with a larger campaign team than Sanders has. That's why we've taken the lead back in NH and are expanding our lead in IA:

[Attorney in Texas]

4. Your help has been priceless. Keep up the good work! Edited to add chart in gratitude for good work:

[MADem]

6. You do realize that, vote for vote, HRC got more than BHO?

She just didn't get 'em in the right places.

She's aware of that, this time.

But nice try.

[artislife]

18. She actually hasn't gotten a vote, yet. nt

[MADem]

47. If you can't bother to follow the arc of the conversation, there is just no point.

Thanks for making it clear that you aren't following along--saves time.

[Attorney in Texas]

23. Yes, I remember the HR Clinton administration fondly. She was an awesome president. Why are we even

debating how awesome her presidency was?

Isn't that how you remember it?

Remember back to the day, the voters thought she was "tough" and "smart" (not a "liar" and "deceptive&quot ?

Here is what voters thought of Hillary Clinton in 2007:



Here is what voters think of Hillary Clinton now:

She had a bigger lead over Obama than she now has over Sanders, and her supporters where dismissive of the other candidates because it was her turn and her coronation was inevitable. She cruised to the nomination and had a glorious presidency. Isn't that exactly how you remember it?

[JoePhilly]

35. OMG a wordle .... It's over for Clinton now!!!!!

[MADem]

48. So bitter and snarky! You are gonna love the First Dude, too!

Get ready for it!

If you spent half the time building up your candidate as you do desperately clawing at Clinton's indomitable lead, you might get somewhere....but you got nuthin'--except wingnut memes culled straight from the Daily Caller.

You apparently don't have sufficient faith in your candidate to spend your time telling us how great he is--all you can do is play that loser's put-down game. Immature and pointless.

That negativity will eat you up! Chomp, chomp!

[Attorney in Texas]

57. Here are links to my threads from this past weekend about how great the Sanders presidency will be:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251838722

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141267522

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141267494

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141267449

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251832412

[MADem]

58. Maybe you should stick to positive thoughts--all I've seen from you is negativity

and childish snarking beneath the standards of your user name profession, frankly. The repeated spamming with the right wing word cloud pretty much sealed your fate as to your mindset.

I wouldn't hire you, even if I were backing Sanders.

[Attorney in Texas]

59. That's a funny remark coming from "always positive" MADem. Has anyone ever hidden your posts or

blocked you from a forum?

[MADem]

60. I don't advertise myself as "Attorney From Massachusetts."

For someone who's such a newcomer here, you sure know an awful lot of DU history!

I was banned from the Sanders group for telling them that coverage of his announcement--in the midst of the Baltimore riots--WAS provided, and I even provided links. That's all I said. I guess those "facts" are "negative" things, eh?

One of the hosts of that group pre-emptively banned me for not being sufficiently a fan. Well, had I been on the fence, that would have pushed me right off, let me tell you!



Where EVER do you find time to do so much DU homework--is the lawyering business slow down in TX?

[Attorney in Texas]

61. I'm not a new comer. I come for election cycles and leave between election cycles. I keep up with

political news because I think everyone should do that as part of being a good citizen and a well-informed voter. I don't consider it homework.

[MADem]

62. According to your profile, you are!

You've only been here three months! It's not really cool, FYI, to have more than one account here--the admins frown on it.

[Attorney in Texas]

63. I don't have more than one account. When I take 18 months off between cycles, I don't save my old

account. I set up a new account when I come back for a new election cycle and that is my only account.

[MADem]

64. That's weird. Frankly. It's not that big a deal to

tell the admins you forgot your password and they can hook you back up. Fact is, you still have those other accounts even if you aren't using them.

[Betty Karlson]

72. This reaction deserves an OP of its own! eom

[brooklynite]

8. That 50% is a real killer, isn't it?

Clinton consistently BELOW it in 2008 and consistently ABOVE it this time?

[Attorney in Texas]

27. No, here is the killer:

Here is what voters thought of Hillary Clinton in 2007:



Here is what voters think of Hillary Clinton now:



Gloat some more please.

[MADem]

49. And say--what's the percentage of SUPER DELEGATES? She's like Ivory Soap up in there!

99.9 percent purely for Clinton....

.1 for "the Bern."

There's a bitter smell in the air--I think the toast is 'bernt!'

[sleepyvoter]

74. This script has been followed to the letter again.

This was the postmortem of the 2008 primaries. It is a fascinating read.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4978839

[MADem]

76. Oh yeah? Ya think?

[NanceGreggs]

14. I have yet to understand ...

... why anyone would bring up the 2008 primaries as relevant to the current primaries.

HRC is not running against Obama this time - so where either of them were at this point in 2007 is of no consequence whatsoever.

HRC's current campaign is quite different from her 2008 campaign - she has learned from mistakes made then, and is a much stronger candidate as a result.

BS isn't - by any stretch of the imagination - even remotely similar to Obama, and is running a completely different campaign than Obama ran in 2008.

To keep promoting the idea that Hillary's loss of the nomination in 2008 is somehow a predictor of a loss in 2016 is politically naive at best. Bernie has lost elections in Vermont during his career. Obviously that wasn't an indicator that he would go on to lose every election - because he later went on to win in subsequent races. But according to the "once you've lost, you're predestined to lose every time" contingent, BS never should have taken a shot at winning ever again.

The idea of saying "but look where HRC stood when she ran against Obama" has absolutely no relevance to where she stands when running against a completely different opponent eight years later.

[Attorney in Texas]

28. You're right; Clinton was a MUCH STRONGER candidate in 2008 so why expect she will do as well this

election cycle?

Here is what voters thought of Hillary Clinton in 2007:



Here is what voters think of Hillary Clinton now:



Gloat some more please.

[NanceGreggs]

30. No.

Obama was the much stronger candidate in 2008. That's why he won the nomination.

See how that works?

[Attorney in Texas]

32. I recall she had virtually all the endorsements, she raised the most money, and lost to a 1st term

Senator who had the overwhelming advantage of bring an African American (which -- given the long and unbroken string of African American presidents -- was a virtually insurmountable advantage for Obama).

OF COURSE she lost that election and will cruise to an easy win this time. You are undoubtedly correct in your overconfidence. Let's just move onto the phase where we pick out our coronation dresses.

[NanceGreggs]

33. The fact that you think ...

... Obama "had the overwhelming advantage of bring an African American" speaks for itself.

Given the bigotry still evident among US voters, the fact that he was an AA was a distinct disadvantage that had to be overcome.

Coronation? The Dem nominee is elected by voters. If HRC were subject to "coronation", no voting would be required.

Are you actually that unaware of how the process works?

[JoePhilly]

36. But he's got a wordle!!!

[MADem]

50. Woah!!!!!!!! Did you actually SAY that?

Attorney in Texas
32. I recall she had virtually all the endorsements, she raised the most money, and lost to a 1st term
View profile
Senator who had the overwhelming advantage of bring an African American (which -- given the long and unbroken string of African American presidents -- was a virtually insurmountable advantage for Obama).

OF COURSE she lost that election and will cruise to an easy win this time. You are undoubtedly correct in your overconfidence. Let's just m

ove onto the phase where we pick out our coronation dresses

How.....REVEALING.

[marym625]

66. sarcasm is lost on many

It requires a half way decent thought process

[Puglover]

67. ....

[sabrina 1]

73. Don't forget. It's okay for THEM to bring up the 2000 or 2004 election. You must not think that as a

Bernie supporter you have the SAME right to talk about previous elections as Hillary supporters do!

just in case someone takes the seriously.

[MADem]

5. Bill Clinton did not win IA. Bill Clinton did not win NH.

But he won SC and that was that.

He fought hard in a three way race and kicked ass/took names. I can't see Sanders getting any traction in diverse states.

I certainly hope the Sanders fans will vote for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the general election, and support the goals of the Hillary Clinton administration once she begins her first term.

[artislife]

19. Hope is a funny thing....nt

[MADem]

80. Yep....having any hope that Sanders will survive Super Tuesday is a funny thing, indeed. nt

[GummyBearz]

31. I've heard Hillary is also good at taking names

Making a list
checking it twice
gonna find out whose been paying her nice

[MADem]

46. Such unreasonable anger! Spend more time tearing down the "other" than building up yer own!

Not a winning strategy, my friend...not a winning strategy.

[GummyBearz]

54. Good advice

But who said anything about strategy? Spreading a little holiday cheer isn't strategy. Telling the truth may be called strategy by those who don't like it I suppose. To me its just being normal

[MADem]

65. You weren't spreading holiday cheer, though.

If that's your "normal," well, I am sorry for you.

[GummyBearz]

68. I fogot to mention it should be sung to the tune of the christmas song

Santa Claus is coming to town... sorry about that

[MADem]

69. That was obvious--still wasn't a cheery reference, though.

It was unkind and petty, at best.

[GummyBearz]

75. I agree

Keeping lists of people who are "not helpful to you" is unkind and petty. I don't personally know anyone who would do that, but I've heard some people do.

[ismnotwasm]

7. Sanders could win either state

They are not out of play for him.

Interesting you bring up Dewey and Truman because Hillary is campaigning in a fashion reminient of the old whistle stops. She's reaching out to specific communities and smaller venues. This might explain the positive polls amoung Democrats

[Fawke Em]

9. Ask Michigan State about being underdogs.

Or UConn.

[brooklynite]

11. The only thing worse than an "anything can happen" argument...

...is one based on something that has nothing to do with politics.

[onehandle]

10. Hillary has a 50 state lead and Iowa is in 10 weeks.

The primary is over.

[CoffeeCat]

34. Ten weeks before the Iowa caucuses in 2008...

...Hillary was leading Obama by 10 points in fairly competitive race between Hillary, Obama and Edwards (American Research Group poll Sept 26, 2007). Obama beat Hillary by 8 points--final result the Iowa caucuses.

That's an 18 point swing in ten weeks. Clinton came in third. Obama won.

The final six weeks of the Iowa caucuses are very volatile. Anything can happen.

[onehandle]

44. Hillary is currently up over 20 points in Iowa. nt

[CoffeeCat]

45. That's not necessarily true.

...this morning, on a local Iowa political show, I heard an Iowa pollster say that Bernie is trailing Hillary 8 points, in Iowa.

I will locate a link to the show.

The last poll I saw (Nov 1, Quinnipiac) had Clinton up by 18. That was nearly three weeks ago.

Again, we saw Obama complete a 20-point swing and win the nomination.

Support for Clinton is very soft here in Iowa. Her campaigning style does not mesh well with Iowa's very hands-on, interactive and personal brand of politics. We demand to speak personally with these candidates and engage with them. Thus far, I have not seen Hillary doing this. She's held mostly closed-door sessions with less than ten strong supporters. Media were not included. When her polls sank over the summer, she did some events that had a couple of hundred attendees. She appears to dislike the typical rally-Q&A-interactive campaigning, and if she continues that (and she may not), she will suffer for it.

That's part of the reason that she came in third in 2008. She simply refused to engage. Many are saying that she's a better candidate this time around. I think the latter six weeks of the caucus season, especially late Dec/early Jan will be more clear.

If Bernie is still behind by 18, at that point--I would concede that he probably won't win. However, I am guessing that Bernie's large crowds, very interactive and communicative approach to politicking and his willingness to answer ANY question and talk with Iowans--will give him a huge advantage. Furthermore, the ground game will be important too, and with so many young people on Bernie's side, he appears to have the advantage with canvassing which is critical in Iowa.

I think we'll see Bernie cultivate a great deal of excitement and buzz as his campaign ramps up here. During the summer, his crowds were in the thousands. I can see him packing some big indoor venues, and those optics will no doubt be powerful.

But again, we shall see. There are so many unknowns at this point.

[BainsBane]

12. Funny, because I've noticed a great deal of entitlement

but not from the Clinton side. A number of people act like we OWE Sanders our votes, that we have to justify not voting for him and something is wrong with us if we don't.

[redstateblues]

16. They think we are brain dead if we support Hillary

I didn't support her last time out but I do now in a big way. I haven't done internet polls since Kerry lost. I realized they were false euphoria.

[beerandjesus]

21. .

[leftofcool]

13. No help from me.

[redstateblues]

15. Bernie will be crushed in the South

if he makes it to Super Tuesday.

[MADem]

77. If he keeps cozying up to gay hating, anti-choice bigots, he surely will be crushed everywhere!

When he said he was NOT a liberal, it is apparent to me that he was not kidding!!!

Reference: http://www.democraticunderground.com/128078069

Rev. Bernice King led a march to her father’s graveside in 2005 while calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. She was joined by Bishop Eddie Long, senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Church in Georgia, where she served as an elder at the time. Long, who recently settled out of court with four young men who filed lawsuits claiming he coerced them into sexual relationships, publicly condemned homosexuality.

King did not answer an interview request, but she has spoken publicly about her views.

During a speech at a church meeting in New Zealand, she said her father “did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage.”

Yet her mother, Coretta Scott King, was a vocal supporter of gay rights. One of her closest aides was gay. She also invoked her husband’s dream.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/what-did-mlk-think-about-gay-people/

[DCBob]

17. Most think Sanders needs to win both Iowa and NH to have any chance at all.

A loss in Iowa and squeaker in NH means nothing since its likely to be a blowout in SC based on current polling.

I dont think anyone in Hillary camp is taking anything for granted. She is determined to win this nomination and is pulling out all the stops to put Bernie away as fast as possible so she can concentrate on beating the GOP.

BTW, your attempt at snark falls short. Better luck next time!

[msanthrope]

20. Um, no. The Democratic machine...those of us who show up at the meetings, canvass, clean the

coffee pots....owe nothing to Bernie. If he does win the nom, I'll be wearing his credentials as a voter protection attorney on Election Day.....but he gets nothing from me before.

It's a sense of entitlement to think you can come late to the party.

[Attorney in Texas]

24. The machine picked Clinton. Thanks for the reminder. Heaven forbid that the voters get a say

Here is what voters thought of Hillary Clinton in 2007:



Here is what voters think of Hillary Clinton now:



Gloat some more please.

[msanthrope]

25. We are the voters. nt

[Attorney in Texas]

26. Not until you vote, you're not, and that does not occur for two months so you're a bit premature in

your efforts to call the election on behalf of your moderate candidate.

But, hey, thanks for supporting the inevitability/coronation theme. We cannot win without your help in that regard.

[msanthrope]

29. Ahem. Your unfamiliarity with how the Party works shows. You don't show up, you

don't get a voice in the Party.

[JoePhilly]

37. But he's got a WORDLE !!!

[msanthrope]

41. It's pretty. It's got fonts and colors. nt

[JoePhilly]

55. Yup, it's the future of political forecasting.

[Attorney in Texas]

39. LOL! I'm a precinct chair who has served on the state platform committee and has flown to New Mexico

as part of Obama's poll watching legal team and who has run half a dozen local Democratic campaigns. Thanks for your lesson on coffee pot politics.

Enthusiasm is a huge part of who shows up. Virtually all the Democrats I know like Clinton (and will vote for her if it comes to it) but they all LOVE Sanders. I literally don't know a SINGLE Democrat who is excited about Clinton. No Democrats I know really hates Clinton but no one is excited about her either. The Democrats I know are genuinely EXCITED about Sanders. If you feel differently, good for you, but I'll support Sanders with glee because Clinton seems to me like Hart 1988, Cuomo in 1992, Lieberman in 2004, and -- uh -- Clinton 2008. All inevitability hype and little enthusiasm.

If your moderate wins the nomination, I'll support her, but if my progressive candidate wins, I'll expect the same from you.

[msanthrope]

40. Dude....I was the election protection attorney in the NBP ward in Philly.

You got flown? I only had to walk down the street to represent.

Yeah...enthusiasm. Funny how that's not translating into numbers.

[Attorney in Texas]

43. We'll see how the numbers play out on February 1 and again on February 9. Until then, we'll have to

wait and see if progressives win the day or moderates run the table.

[Bernblu]

22. Just wait until the people vote

The smug Clinton supporters on DU are in for the surprise of their political lives.

[JoePhilly]

38. Kind of like with that primary of Obama in 2012.

Man, we never saw that coming.

[brooklynite]

42. I'll certainly be surprised...

...care to offer any evidence so I can prepare?

[DrDan]

56. Bookmarked

[NanceGreggs]

51. HRC didn't suffer a "downfall" in 2008.

In fact, she did very well for herself.

She lost the nomination to Barack Obama, who voters believed was the better person for the job of POTUS in 2008 - and I was one of those people.

"Over-confidence and a sense of entitlement" had nothing to do with it. Her loss was simply a matter of MORE people preferring Obama to represent them in the GE than those who preferred HRC - and it's not like it wasn't close between them right up to the very end.

What BS supporters don't seem to want to acknowledge is that it's the same now as it was then - always has been, always will be: the nominee will be the candidate the majority of Democrats want. And as things stand right now, the majority of Democrats want HRC.

[Lil Missy]

52. Isn't that special. n/t

[Demeter]

53. You lifted my spirits this morning. Thank you!

A little well-worded snark is better than chocolate!

[Betty Karlson]

70. Harsh, but true. eom

[GitRDun]

79. I really wish you Sanders id squad-ers could at least be constructive.

Sanders is losing, and objectively speaking, he deserves to be losing at this point. Both Sanders campaign and his supporters have led SEPARATE, but similarly one-dimensional campaigns:

The Sanders campaign began and still leads with income inequality as the prism through which they see the world. Most other issues are explained or solved in part by fixing income inequality. This worldview is the reason he comes off as "insensitive" or "tin-eared" in some circles. It's my view that because of this limited worldview and unnecessary petty criticisms of the President, he gains no trust among many democratic constituencies.

From a broad perspective (meaning not all), the non-campaign Sanders support is one-dimensional as well. Hillary Clinton is "evil" (take your pick as to why, corporate shill, untrustworthy, etc.) and Bernie will save us (despite the fact that he has few political allies, people of color don't like him in large numbers, etc.)

Neither of these one dimensional approaches is inspiring in the least. Barack Obama inspired me. He made me feel like we're all in this together and we can do better. The Sanders' messages aren't inspirational in the least...they merely show me the enemy.

Nowhere in the Sanders message do you see a meaningful narrative on what a great job he did as mayor in Burlington. There is a massive story there that should be told.

Nowhere in the Sanders message do you see a laundry list of Senate amendments that Bernie got pushed thru that helped people. Rolling Stone called him the amendment king!

If you can't inspire people to vote for you, you are going nowhere. Both Sanders and his supporters have 2 huge stories they could be telling...but they'd rather point their collective fingers and tell me who to hate, distrust. It's pathetic.

Even more pathetic is the current whining narrative about how horrible Hillary supporters are on DU, when just a couple months ago, the Sanders crew was ruthlessly attacking en masse posts that were in the slightest bit negative about SBS. The proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

I have not made my final decision yet. I believe Hillary is a flawed candidate....but Sanders is seriously flawed too. I can go to the mall and see a rainbow of skin colors...and know that mostly the white ones like Bernie....not too inspiring....and it's their fault...both the campaign and his supporters.

Please keep the "entitled", other anti-Hillary stuff to yourself. Sell your guy. It works better.