I Don't Understand the Mentality of Clinton Supporters, They Remind Me of the Tea Party. What is ...

[Impedimentus]

going on?

For over 50 years I've waited and prayed for a candidate like Bernie Sanders. A true progressive, a man of character who tells it like it is. The Clinton supporters seem oblivious to facts, to reason, unwilling to see the world as it is. Where does this mentality come from? It's as if some kind of Republican virus has affected the brains of some many Democrats. Don't they care about their children's future, about the viability of the planet, about being robbed blind by the oligarchy?

I understand the establishment and the media, but so many voters? It seems crazy to me.

Sorry, but I had to get this off my mind.

[SoapBox]

1. I ABSOLUTELY agree and understand!

Exactly.

[wendylaroux]

2. I don't get it either,everyone should want the best for EVERYONE!!

Bernie plans would help us all,rich and poor alike.

[Dustlawyer]

3. I don't understand it unless these are people who consider themselves well off.

Bernie would raise their taxes, that would explain some of them, the rest, who knows. One thing is clear, they don't look at this objectively!

[Gwhittey]

9. It is human nature

it is a Tribe mentality that is at core. Look at Sports teams for a good cross section of this. Add in "Famous worship" that American is suffering from you we have this. Where are sports star beats shit and knocks out his wife on camera and the public gives him a pass because he wins for their team. It always boils down to oh my guy/gal I like is better. Where I think many of us never thought of Bernie and latched onto him because he is Bernie. We where a group of people who did not have a voice and one of us stepped up and said I will be your voice. And that was Sen. Sanders. I mean really first time I had take a look at Sanders was Apr 30, 2015 when he announced. Saw a wild hair man saying exactly what I have been saying since I realized Obama was not giving us change he only gave hope that he did not follow through with.

[Dustlawyer]

30. Too right!!! They want us to think of the Partys as teams so we become loyal even when they

become disloyal to their followers.

[Gwhittey]

4. Stuck in past

You can see it with all poll bulshit post they have been doing. Even today with MI.

Last week they where on about how Clinton was winning polls in all 3 Sates of Sat primary etc.

They are reading polls that are all Land Line based which if you are trying to get a poll over people >55 years of age that is fine. But that is heavily skewed towards Clinton.

As HRC camp likes to say Math.
Sure and Math also includes extrapolation and how you use proper Methodology to apply to that. Not just 1 + 1

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. There AREN'T that many voters.

It's about 1/2 of the DEM Primary electorate. Which is a fraction of the general electorate. Which is a fraction of voting-eligible adults.

>>>I understand the establishment and the media, but so many voters? It seems crazy to me. >>>>

It's less "crazy" than it is low-info, emotion-fueled, celebrity worshipers coming out of the woodwork on primary day.

And ... whoa... are they ever in overdrive this morning. So much furious spinning going on here today .... my own head's spinning.

Was she really THAT bad last nite? The manic pace and tone of the Sanders-bashing hints that at least THEY think she needs help.

And in a HURRY.

[Faux pas]

6. K N R

[Impedimentus]

7. Isn't the insincerity, the manipulation, the lack of empathy in Clinton Obvious? And using Bill ...

as a surrogate is so disingenuous. What is the mindset of these people, why aren't they for Trump or Cruz, they behave and seem to think (if you can call it thinking) like the radical Republicans? It's god awful depressing.

[onecaliberal]

8. They're comfortable so they don't give a rip about others or the planet.

I can completely see why they back her because she doesn't care about the most vulnerable either.

[Jarqui]

10. I was going to try to describe my feelings about this and changed my mind

because I worried that it might come off as demeaning.

I agree that the blind mentality of some of her followers makes my head spin in disbelief.

In 2008, the lying, the flip-flopping, the sleazy campaign tactics, racial stuff, etc were exposed for all to see. Clearly, the majority felt we could do better and I think we did.

This time around, the lying, the flip-flopping, the sleazy campaign tactics, racial stuff, etc are all back with new lies, new flip-flops, new sleazy campaign tactics and new racial stuff. But somehow, this is all ok now.

I don't get it.

[Donkees]

11. narcissistic people vote for narcissistic politicians

[Rebkeh]

12. I think they fear change, instability

They want those things you named but from within a broken system. The problem is that fixing it requires upsetting the apple cart, it requires some dismantling so they find themselves in a catch 22. They can't have it both ways, but they want to keep trying anyway. If only they could see that it's not such a big risk.

[Impedimentus]

13. Thanks to all of you for your replies.

I sometimes think that the Clinton supporters are living in an alternative universe. I'm so worried about my children's future and the enormous problems that future generations are going to have to deal with. We have really screwed things up and I see Bernie as the only hope for righting some of those terrible wrongs. I'm a lot closer to the end of my life than the beginning, but we have to think about the generations that will come after us, not just our lives, however short or long. There are so many people suffering and it is so unnecessary. Greed and corruption are the norm and it must be contained or the future will be lost for our children.

[Mufaddal]

14. To be fair, I don't understand the mentality of many Democrats, period.

I didn't show up here in the first place because I'm a Democrat or I think the Democrats are the best thing since sliced bread. I showed up because I support the senator from my home state and think he is the best shot we have at generating and mobilizing real grassroots change at a national level--change targeting the entire political establishment, both Republican and Democratic. The Clinton years threw me off of establishment politics for good.

The bottom line is: both parties serve at the behest of the US ruling class. One may talk nice to you before screwing you over, but in the end working people suffered enormously both here and abroad as a result of the Clinton years. I support Sanders because he isn't a Democrat. He's an Independent running on the Democratic ticket, and he's willing to hold a mirror up to the Democratic Party on the national stage now, which is long overdue.

[Donkees]

15. He's what Democrats used to be

[starroute]

16. Some believe in incremental change and think Bernie is a wild-eyed dreamer

One of my sons supports Clinton and explains it's because he's risk-averse. He believes she will protect the Affordable Care Act, protect Social Security, and make small improvements around the edges. He worries that voting for Bernie is a gamble and he prefers to place a small bet on what he sees as a sure thing than bet big on something that might not pay off.

I don't agree with him, but that's his temperament and I understand where he's coming from. He sees Clinton as more-of-the-same and is comfortable with that.

My own fears about Clinton have more to do with the things I suspect she's capable of. Introducing means-testing for retirement benefits. Turning around yet again and pushing through the TPP. Getting us into three more wars.

But that's because I'm suspicious by nature. My son takes her at her word, sees her as a pragmatic progressive, and is satisfied with that. And I would guess a lot of Clinton voters are much the same.

[Impedimentus]

17. Thank you for your perspective. I appreciate the insight.

I don't understand it, but I'm sure it's valid from your son's world view.

[dchill]

18. K&R!

[BernieforPres2016]

19. I think it is in large part due to "commitment bias"

Commitment bias means that the more we publicly commit to something in an effort to convince others, the more committed to it we become ourselves. Many Hillary supporters have been defending her against a variety of scandals and attacks for 25 years. If they now look closely at her record and change their minds, they have to acknowledge to themselves that they've been wrong about her for the last 25 years. And to add insult to injury, they have to acknowledge that to some extent the right wingers, people they absolutely despise (with good reason), have some valid points about Hillary.

That is extremely difficult to do. Most people aren't capable of it.

[Impedimentus]

20. Perhaps then self-reflection (or lack of it) is a key component of our attitudes ?

Don't most people constantly look at their values, look at them by stepping out of themselves and viewing themselves from the perspective of a third person? I can't imagine not asking ones self "are you basing your views and behavior on reason or bias, are you ignoring facts, are you letting emotion alone cloud your actions?) It's not easy to do, and the answers may not be pleasant, but should we not all attempt to take an honest evaluation of ourselves from time to time?

[BernieforPres2016]

21. Closely tied to commitment bias is confirmation bias

Humans naturally tend to seek out things that confirm their existing points of view and consciously avoid things that conflict with their points of view. It is why one group gets their news from Fox and the other group gets (or got) its news from MSNBC (when MSNBC was liberal, before becoming almost entirely corporate establishment).

We've all seen how Hillary supporters can almost never be engaged on any real policy discussion. They avoid those because they are uncomfortable; it pushes them into trying to defend things they can't defend. Their defense of Hillary comes into conflict with their progressive political beliefs so they avoid it. So their posts are largely about polls, quit because you are going to lose, loyalty oaths, the latest smear like "BernieBros", etc.

And another psychological trap that we can easily fall into is "status quo bias". Experiments have shown that if you give a people multiple choices, they will tend to stick with the status quo option. One experiment was with college students. They told them let's say you inherited a chunk of money and it was invested in a particular way (say option A, 50% stocks, 40% bonds, 10% cash). You can leave it like that or switch it to option B or option C. The students would overwhelmingly say leave it with Option A. But the other groups of students whose inheritance was invested differently, as Option B or Option C, would also vote overwhelmingly to leave it alone. The reason is that when we leave something like it is, we really aren't taking responsibility for it and give ourselves an out if it doesn't work. It was somebody else's decision and we just went along with it. It is a greater level of commitment to actively make a decision to abandon the status quo and do something different. That makes us more responsible and we fear that if it doesn't work out we will have greater regret.

Hillary is clearly the status quo candidate. She's basically said she is status quo, a 3rd term for Obama. Bernie is abandoning the status quo.

There is a very good book on these types of biases and psychological traps called "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion", by a professor named Robert Cialdini.

http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Revised-Edition/dp/006124189X

[tblue]

22. I used to support her

I used to think Hillary was fine. I assumed everything bad I'd heard about her was just part of that "vast rightwing conspiracy" she complained about. I'd enjoyed her autobiography, and I loved Bill Clinton, so how bad could she be? So yeah, I got excited when she announced her run for POTUS and I jumped on her mail list that day.

Then Bernie announced he was running too. After W stole the 2000 election, I became vigilant about Washington politics and made a point of watching what Pres Bush did. I noticed which Democrats in Congress pushed back against Bush/Cheney policies vs those who went along with them. Hillary wasn't reliable but I noticed Bernie Sanders and a very few others who were pretty much on the right side on every issue.

So in 2015 when Bernie announced he's running for President, I said, "Forget Hillary. This is my guy!" But I was still fairly ok with her and decided I'd never say anything negative about her because, after all, she's a Drmocrat so she must be ok.

Then Feb 11 happened. That morning I noticed tweets about Bernie not being the man in a photograph protesting for civil rights (in fact, it was Bernie). I saw what Capehart wrote about it, followed by John Lewis's remarks and the corporate-funded CBC-PAC endorsing Hillary. Then I saw her at debates repeatedly hollering that Bernie isn't sufficiently loyal to Obama the way only she is. It was all of a piece — all of it aligning to make Bernie look bad on race in comparison to soul sistah Hillary.

The thing is tho, I know Bernie's voting record and I know what he did fighting for civil rights. He did it for people like me & my family in Chicago. There wasn't just a photo, there were many other photos, videos, and news clippings that prove it.

So I knew for a FACT that Hillary's campaign was lying. And I cried like a baby that day to see this good man maligned in such an unjust and vile way.

And that's when everything changed. I saw Hillary's campaign through new and open eyes. I saw the deceit she's capable of, the character assassination she's willing to do, the henchman David Brock she has the gall to employ, the racial divide she works hard to grow, the connections in the media she's got wrapped around her finger and she exploits, the good progressive voters and Black Lives Matter activists she throws under the bus, the multitude of contortions she goes through to disavow her own past actions, the dismissive arrogance she uses whenever anyone holds a mirror up to her, and the way she so rarely gives a straight answer because she's leaving herself an out once her nomination is secure so she can betray us some more.

My view of Hillary now is at an all-time low. I look at everything she does with suspicion based on the deceit I witnessed with my own eyes when her campaign swiftboated Bernie Sanders. I didn't believe she could possibly be as dishonest as people have been saying all these years. Now I've done a 180 and I ain't going back. Once you see the lie it can't be unseen. I hope more people see it soon.

[BernieforPres2016]

24. Great post

That's why so many Hillary supporters won't look closely. They are afraid of what they will find.

[Impedimentus]

25. Thank you for an excellent post.

Really great.

[Lorien]

27. Excellent post. I also used to be a staunch defender of the Clintons

I voted enthusiastically for Bill twice. I thought that the Lewinski brouhaha was nonsense ( I knew other guys who had cheated who weren't bad people, but their judgement and impulse control were poor, and some had spouses who tolerated it. Not my business)! I also thought that every other scandal that surrounded them was a right wing smear. But that all changed in 2000 when I got rid of my TV and started reading the New Yorker and The Guardian, among other International news sites. Then I joined DU in 2002 and several DUers opened my eyes to how destructive many of Clinton's policies were. I realized that, despite the fact that I had attended liberal private schools as a kid which insisted on critical thinking when answering any question (the answer alone wasn't enough; we had to back it up with reasons why it *was* the answer), I WAS in fact bamboozled by the mainstream media! I had gotten lazy and wasn't bothering to look into the facts for myself, it was just easier to think "oh, they're Democrats, that means that they have our backs!". Now that I've made research a habit I'm horrified that I once was so blindly loyal to such a corrupt and unDemocratic couple. I suspect that many of her current followers are as I once was; hooked into cable TV, reading the mainstream American press, and not making any sincere effort to dig deeper. I'm glad that I finally turned off the TV and woke up, but I wish I would have done so a lot sooner!

[MisterP]

23. on DU they've long declared that they don't care what policies a pol pushes,

as long as it's the pol pushing them--ever since '08

it's frightening to see it put so nakedly, like DWS or Dean's quotes on superdelegates

[CalvinballPro]

26. It's suspicious that your argument begins with the assertion that you're already correct.

"oblivious to facts, to reason, unwilling to see the world as it is."

This describes Sanders supporters much more accurately than Clinton supporters.

Delegate math:
Is there a serious case that Bernie can win enough delegates to earn the nomination? Not according to 538's delegate tracker:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

Sanders has met or exceeded his target for necessary delegates 7 times out of the 20 contests so far, but never by a margin greater than 5 delegates. Clinton has met or exceeded her target for necessary delegates 13 out of 20 times, and in some cases with margins greater than 20 delegates. In pledged delegates alone, she is ahead by more than 200. She's won 3/5 of all delegates awarded so far, to Sanders' 2/5.

Sanders needs to win major delegate-rich contests by margins greater than 60% to be back "on track" to the nomination, and every primary where he misses his target compounds the required margin of future contests.

Popular vote:
Clinton now holds a commanding lead in the popular vote, which has fractured two myths at once:
1) Clinton is not popular with Democrats- 4+ million votes and counting, more than any candidate currently running
2) A groundswell of new voters will appear to support the Sanders candidacy- Where are they? Do they know the primary is almost over?

Now, faced with these facts and the reason behind them, do you still want to pretend it's Clinton supporters who are "oblivious?"

As for the Tea Party, only one side has been enforcing a rigid ideological purity test, and it hasn't been the Clinton camp. Sanders is the one who appointed himself the arbiter of who is and is not progressive, which is literally (proper use) what the Tea Party did on the conservative side. Sanders supporters use the expression "DINO," another Tea Party analog. Who do you believe you're fooling?

[Lorien]

28. The Establishment thanks you for swallowing their bullshit hook, line and sinker

You really think that this Primary in "almost over"? Did 2008 pass you by completely?


1). She's only winning (by any appreciable margin) States that will go to the GOP candidate

2). Most people are figuring out that Trump is a boogyman created BY the Clintons, for the benefit OF the Clintons (in fact, Hillary fans have been crowing about this). Nobody appreciates being manipulated, and they won't turn out for the person manipulating them.

3). Hillary, having burned her bridges with the "Bernie Bro" bullshittery and the rest of her fans attacks on Bernie supporters, will not have the support of at least half of all Bernie supporters in the Blue and Purple states critical for a Dem win. Bernie is carrying those States by a significant margin.

4). Hillary has ZERO crossover appeal. Though many Repugs may hate the choices that they've been given, they'll gladly turn up to vote against one of the most hated figures in the Dem establishment.


With the MSM's help and scum bag tactics she may with the battle, but she will without a doubt lose the war. How many Clinton fans really want a President Trump?

Sanders never appointed himself the arbiter of who is and is not progressive. That's an absolutely laughable claim! The DNC has done that, and by their measures-and yours-the issues DO NOT MATTER IN THE LEAST. Those of us who have been liberal Democrats since the 1970s know damn well what defines the Right from the Left. Let's make it simple for you; ONLY a Right Wing Republican Conservative would occupy the same positions on these issues as Hillary has:

Iraq
TPP
KXL
Pro arctic drilling
Pro for Profit Prisons
Pro Monsanto
Bankruptcy bill
Voting for a border fence
Saying child migrants should be sent home
Using her position as SoS to push fracking on the rest of the world
Wall Street donations
Six digit speaking fees
Taking money from weapons deals
Honduras
Comments about nuking Iran
Voted to raise credit card interest rates
NAFTA
DOMA
DADT
Opposing gay marriage in New York State
Brownbeck Amendments
Glass-Steagall
No living wage
No free college
No universal health care (ACA coverage gap....ACA will never provide UHC)
No medical Marijuana
Supports mandatory sentencing
Says that she's "proud of" the way Walmart does business
Libya
Yemen
Syria
Egypt
United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Free trade - Oman agreement
Voted FOR Gitmo. --- Hillary voted against the Byrd ammendment and against a large majority of democrats to reduce Guatanamo funding by $36,000,000. She joined the republican majority against the majority of democrats in supporting Guantanamo.
Pro death penalty
Pro cluster bombing
Pro increased carcinogens in drinking water
Clinton policies lead to the largest mass incarceration of human beings in the history of the world
and the list goes on...

The political compass puts her TO THE RIGHT of many GOP politicians. You are hung up entirely on Establishment labels, mainstream media bullshittery, and are utterly and completely blind to Hillary's history and right wing positions on the issues. It is you, CalvinBallPro, who is the one who has been fooled.

[CalvinballPro]

29. Groan.

[appal_jack]

31. Groan all you want in GDP.

I've been banned from the HRC group for being much more mild against Her Highness than you are being here toward the supported candidate in the Bernie group, CBPro.

I was juror #2 on the alert, and I stand by my vote: take your 'math' to GDP. This place is for Bernie supporters.

-------------------
On Mon Mar 7, 2016, 09:47 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

It's suspicious that your argument begins with the assertion that you're already correct.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=138071

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I thought this was a safe harbor for Bernie Sanders supporters. Not a place for Clinton supporters to come and make their points? CalvinballPro is obviously a Clinton supporter. My apologies if I am incorrect. Thank you.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 7, 2016, 09:54 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post would be fine in GDP. But take it out of the Bernie Sanders group.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The Alerted is wrong but the post is not hideworthy.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post does not belong in the Bernie group.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

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

-------------------------

-app

[eridani]

32. A candidate for president who has been running for 10 years has much more name recognition--

--than one who has been running for 10 months.

[Broward]

33. It's all eerily similar to what we saw from GWB supporters.

[nolabels]

34. I think they may have only changed their screen name

Between those who thought it would be a good idea to invade Iraq and the Clinton bandwagon i can see no difference