2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSeriously?
There are numerous posts every day about the demon-seed Trump becoming president, and how anyone who doesn't vote for Hillary is ensuring a President Trump.
I just want to tell you that NO Bernie supporter takes this seriously. If anyone who is pushing this TIRED meme was serious, they would be fighting with all their heart for Bernie to be the nominee.
How can we take you seriously? You are pushing the candidate with the worst favoratility of ANY candidate in the history of the democratic party, the candidate under FBI criminal investigation, the candidate who has shown horrible judgement on almost every major issue, has been on the wrong side of every major issue. . .
IF you were serous about defeating Trump, you would be backing the candidate who has defeated Trump by much bigger margins in every poll for MONTHS.
In these circumstances, it is OBVIOUS to any thinking, rational person that you are not serious about this "beating Trump" meme, it is just one more tactic someone thought up. If you were serious, you'd be backing Bernie. Period.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)that would be my requirement to support Sanders. It's just one little detail
Response to MyNameGoesHere (Reply #1)
jzodda This message was self-deleted by its author.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Just because someone wins the Primary does not mean they can win the General; and just because someone loses the Primary does not mean they wouldn't have the best results in the General. There are two very different sets of voters.
So this is a false argument.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)I can't back someone who isn't a nominee, a Fact.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Well she won, Sanders lost. It's actually quite simple and easy to figure out if you're paying attention.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)That's simple and easy to figure out too.
There is currently no nominee.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Details matter.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Since Bernie didn't win the primary, he won't be a candidate in the general.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)The Primary and the General have two different sets of voters with different demographics. A Primary's purpose should be to select someone who is strongest at winning the General. When we lose sight of that, we lose the General.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And attempts to extinguish the other, we end up with the inferior candidate in the General Election. That is the situation we are in.
metroins
(2,550 posts)If he can't win the nomination, he won't be on the ballot.
This isn't even a discussion anymore.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Demanding that the losing candidate be anointed as the nominee is completely unacceptable in the Democratic Party. Maybe some party that doesn't care about democracy would operate like that, but not here.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Debbie Wasserman Shultz and her preferred candidate and fellow supplicant of the mega corporate hierarchy, Hillary Clinton ...
The dishonesty that you defend for political expediency is real, and extremely corrosive to the only
party I have ever belonged to ... Your dishonesty us your dishonor ... Why would anybody want to belong to a party of liars? ... Fuck that ...
Your insulting diatribes have the effect of pushing long time members, like myself, AWAY from the Democratic Party ...
I've listened to your declamatory rants long enough ...
Blink once ... Gone ...
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Early in the voting ( February or so). To allow for such a contingency, the Democratic Party came up with superdelegates, with the discretion to act wisely.
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)Each party has shown us who they truly are.
How long has the Republican party strongly denied being racist? And who is it they will be nominating?
How long has the Democratic party stated they are for the people? And who is it they will be nominating?
The late great Maya Angelou: When someone shows you who they are.... believe them.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)You've won my deepest admiration.
niyad
(112,437 posts)11 reasons why Bernie Sanders lost this thing fair and square
?1464026361
VALLEJO, CA - MAY 18: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks at a campaign rally at Waterfront Park on May 18, 2016 in Vallejo, California. A day after winning the Oregon primary, Bernie Sanders is campaigning in California ahead of the state's presidential primary on June 7. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Bernie Sanders exceeded all primary season expectations and was en route to building something of a real movement. But rather than locking in those gains and settling in for a long-haul effort, hes opted for a legacy-busting temper tantrum instead, heading out the (primary) door in a cloud of whining, conspiracy mongering, and blame casting. Its a bizarre finale to what was undoubtedly an incredible run. So here are some observations, not because it mattershes lostbut because his claims of victimhood are absolute bullshit and need to be corrected.
1. If you plan for a coup, youve already lost
Lets just take a moment to appreciate what Sanders is trying to accomplish herehe knows hes lost the election. Hes all but acknowledged it. Which is why hes now focused so heavily on getting the establishment superdelegates to overturn the election in his favor. Like a despotic dictator, he is so sure of his supremacy that he sneers at the choices of his electorate and seeks to callously toss them aside. He dishonestly tells his supporters that theres a conspiracy standing between him and victory.
Not only is this undemocratic, its outright delusional. These are the same superdelegates representing the same establishment hes repeatedly bashed and even sued. These are the superdelegates he spent the first year of his campaign blasting as an affront to the democratic process and illegitimate. NOW, things are different. Having lost the election, he expects these supers to overturn the will of the electorate, including the heavy preferences of key growth party demographics like Latinos and African Americans, in order to hand the nomination to the loser of the contest.
. . . .
3. No, Sanders wont do better than Clinton against Trump.
Current polling has Clintons negatives baked in. They are her floor. Current polling doesnt have Sanders negatives baked in. They are his ceiling. And dear god, there is plenty in Sanders background to feed the Republican Noise Machine for the general election. And by the end of the cycle, his negatives would match those of Clintons.
. . . .
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/23/1529938/-11-reasons-why-Bernie-Sanders-lost-this-thing-fair-and-square
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Hillary is the media's darling. She easily had 10x the media coverage.
If our elections were fair and square, Bernie would win in a landslide.
End of story.
treestar
(82,383 posts)PJMcK
(21,922 posts)Thanks for posting the link, niyad. It's quite an interesting read. I'm particularly struck by these points:
5. But what about the media blackout?
(snip)
Theres a reason Sanders did so well. Whether the nightly news would cover him or not was utterly irrelevant. If we know anything, its that if a network newscast covers a Democrat, its not good. Are you really jealous at all the Benghazi and emails shit Clinton has had to face? Lucky for all of us, people arent getting their news from those sources anymore.
7. The system was rigged because of closed primaries!
(snip)
That said, there have been 23 open contests, and Clinton has won 13 of them. Thats a majority. So even this stupid talking point is stupid. And you know what makes it even more stupid? Take away caucuses, so that were just talking about open primaries, then Clinton has won open primaries 13-6.
9. If the system is rigged, why does Sanders have more delegates than his vote share?
Sanders has won 43 percent of the popular vote, yet hes won 46 percent of the delegates. How rigged!
niyad
(112,437 posts)PJMcK
(21,922 posts)On the other hand, your post had already quoted enough of the article. I just thought I'd fill in a couple of blanks for you (wink).
niyad
(112,437 posts)kadaholo
(304 posts)brooklynite
(93,878 posts)LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)when Sanders admits that yes, Hillary is the legitimate candidate for president?
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)happens to be the candidate who got the most votes.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)For example, Bernie won 72% in Washington.
There are 7.2 Million people in Washington.
Bernie got ZERO votes for Washington.
That happened in a number of states Bernie won and a number with large margins.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)Is meaningless to this particular equation.
It gets extremely tiring to try to explain that the votes are counted according to the rules that Bernie agreed to.
demwing
(16,916 posts)or intentionally obscurring it.
If you feel tired, go take a nap.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)Only have to hang in a few more days.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Are going to deliver the results that you're counting on...
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)I'm pretty optimistic.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)By that "logic" California should be counted as nearly 22 million votes for Hillary since she won with 56% and the state population is 39 million.
There were not 7.2 million participants in the Washington caucus. And here's what happened when the people of Washington actually did get their votes counted:
http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/President-Democratic-Party.html
MFM008
(19,782 posts)she got at least a million votes on paper ballot.
He got a weekend caucus with those of us who had the time at 10 AM to sit almost 3 hours.
Its an awful experience, they had to pass out water in March because it felt like July.
We need to go back to only a primary.
apcalc
(4,461 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)In the Democratic primary. They do however participate in favorability polls. Even more important, they vote in November
pinebox
(5,761 posts)It really does.
The makeup of the GE is very different and Dems won't win with 29% of the vote. She is hated.
jzodda
(2,124 posts)Since Bernie lost and the ONLY way to defeat Trump is to support Clinton.
If you can't see that then you are blinded by hate.
Again the man lost and will be dropping out in a few day...
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Here is REALITY, may I introduce you? (these are the RULES by the Democrats)
If a Democratic primary candidate can win 59 percent of the Partys pledged (primary- and caucus-won) delegates or more, the primary is decided by pledged delegates; if a Democratic primary candidate fails to meet that threshold, they are considered by DNC electoral processes to be a weak front-runner and the nomination is finally decided, instead, by superdelegates who can express support for a candidate at any time, but cannot commit themselves to anyone (i.e., cast a binding vote for any candidate) until the Democratic National Convention in July; superdelegates are unlike pledged delegates in this regard because, while pledged delegates also do not vote until the Partys convention, they cannot change their votes from what their states voting results pledged them to be though it has been argued by some that in fact they can change their votes at the Convention, with this argument most recently having been advanced by Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008.
If you can't see that then you are blinded by hate.
We do not have a nominee until JULY.
And Bernie will NOT be dropping out in a few days...
jzodda
(2,124 posts)I doubt very much this is going to the convention.
This Super delegate argument is so far fetched. Is this the wait for the indictment that's never coming strategy? Because that's what it looks like to many.
I can't see how you can't see that its not over when the PRESIDENT has already come out for HRC along with Biden and Warren.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)I don't care if the Pope comes out and endorses her. SHE IS NOT THE NOMINEE UNTIL THE CONVENTION. That is what the rules say. I realize that following the rules is foreign to Hillary but really, it's good to try.
Again, I don't know what SD argument you are referring to, but IN THEIR OWN RULES, they clearly state the role of the SDs. What part of that are you having trouble understanding? I think it puts it out VERY CLEARLY.
You just don't like it. But there it is.
jzodda
(2,124 posts)If he drops out and endorses HRC its kind of over. Sure if she dropped dead (knock on wood-please no) or was indicted from now till then it belongs to Bernie but its a slim to none odds. Wouldn't take those odds in Vegas.
You don't think he drops out....Well I do think he will. Lets see.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)That doesn't change the fact that she is the presumptive nominee and will be named the nominee at the convention.
apcalc
(4,461 posts)Won't be the nominee until the votes...
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)That is why you fail.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)The actual DNC rules do not make any distinction between pledged delegates and superdelegates in the role call vote at the convention. There is no such term as "weak front-runner" to be found in the rules, and the roll call vote is always held at the convention no matter how big or how small the front-runner's lead in pledged delegates might be.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)super delegate and that Hillary should drop out of the race before the convention? Sounds like speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)There is so much hypocrisy that it is depressing. Of course, it couldn't be sexism. We know that doesn't exist.
JCMach1
(27,544 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Bernie will do what he feels he has to do.
And we will all do what we feel we have to do, which may not agree with what Bernie does.
This was never about one guy, you know. And Bernie cannot get me to support a candidate who is for war and fracking and other noxious things that hurt people. Bernie knows that.
There will be no hurt, no cognitive dissonance - and no mass pivot to Hillary. Sorry to disappoint!
Ino
(3,366 posts)Well said!
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)I guess I imagined the posts claiming 'the bird is a sign', not to mention all the posts comparing Bernie to Jesus (they were both carpenters, natch.)
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Bernie's super delegates are already moving ... Hillary is already hiring staff that he had to let go.
You can stand still ... everyone else is moving on to defeat Trump and the GOP.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Clinton has earned the nomination through millions of Democratic voters casting their votes.
I'm sorry that you're disappointed in that, but it is simply the fact.
Further, I doubt that you can speak for any Bernie supporter but yourself.
It's gotten old, this has.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)And by the way................Bernie LOST!
theboss
(10,491 posts)I've never seen this in politics before - the idea that winning and losing elections actually does not matter.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)The downside of this is that some of those people are stubbornly refusing to learn how elections actually work.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)stupid enough to buy it)
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)enough to support such a weak candidate over a strong candidate.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I did vote for Bernie. He lost.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Finally, some of you say even if Hillary is better than Trump, youre tired of choosing the lesser of two evils, and youre going to vote your conscience by either writing Bernies name in, or voting for the Green Party candidate, or not voting at all.
I cant criticize anyone for voting their conscience, of course. But your conscience should know that a decision not to vote for Hillary, should she become the Democratic nominee, is a de facto decision to help Donald Trump.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/advice-for-divided-democrats_b_10162184.html
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)with all their might. He can beat Trump and Hillary won't.
A decision not to have Bernie as the nominee is a de fact decision to help Donald Trump.
apcalc
(4,461 posts)Maybe.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)KitSileya
(4,035 posts)That they think that everyone who supports Clinton would vote for Bernie if he was given the nomination? They themselves say they won't vote for Hillary, but they assume that we will not only vote for him, but also put the Democratic party infrastructure at his disposal if he were, undemocratically, to be given the nomination. She won the support of the majority of our party, but they think he should be crowned because of unsubstantiated claims that people who do not want to be a part of our party support him? (I mean, a huge number of the people who voted for him in West Virginia said they'd vote for Trump in the GE, so exit polls on R/D/I don't mean he will get the bulk of the independents come the GE.)
Even though I put myself in danger of being called an anti-semite for saying this, but they embody the definition of chutzpah. Bernie Sanders admits he ran as a Democrat because he wanted the advantages of doing so, accepting the strictures of the rules in the party with his choice, but his supporters claim he should be crowned nominee because he won those outside the Democratic party. Chutzpah.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)At this point Clinton, unless she dies, is going to be the nominee. Face reality.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Wishing for a different outcome isn't going to change that.
onecaliberal
(32,489 posts)For working people as opposed to protecting wealthy and their money.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)He is not. And if you care about poor working people, do you think they'll fair better or worse under a Trump presidency?
onecaliberal
(32,489 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)And there are millions of minorities, woman and poor people who will suffer greatly under Trump as President.
onecaliberal
(32,489 posts)Things don't change because we don't force it. There is literally NOTHING untouched by the corruption of the 1%.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)and callously ignores the suffering of women, minorities and the poor will endure under President Trump.
onecaliberal
(32,489 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)No one should ignore the damage that will be done by Trump and the GOP. This is in many ways the same as 2000 when we were told Bush and Gore were the same and many refused to vote for "the lesser of two evils". How did that work out?
As Robert Reich wrote:
Which brings me to those of you who say theres no real difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Thats just plain wrong.
...
Some of you agree a Trump presidency would be a disaster but claim it would galvanize a forceful progressive movement in response.
Thats unlikely. Rarely if ever in history has a sharp swing to the right moved the political pendulum further back in the opposite direction. Instead, it tends to move the center rightward, as did Ronald Reagans presidency.
Alex4Martinez
(2,180 posts)All of this drama also undermines the very foundation of our democracy and what few shreds of it are left.
We vote for the best person, the best ethics, the person who best embodies our dreams and values and aspirations.
Secondly, perhaps, we vote for the person most likely to beat the opposition.
By both measures above, arguably, we would all be supporting Sanders.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)I don't understand why this is so difficult to for some people to understand.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)that's it.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)This sad retread of an argument, "OMG ONLY TEH BERN CAN BEAT TRUMP" really needs to be buried. 16,000,000 voters felt it was ridiculous.
Your guy lost. Move on.
ancianita
(35,816 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)She's the nominee.
Sid
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Think about that.
Dem voter turnout is way down. Republican turnout is through the roof. Now they have an outside populist to vote for and even more reason, they have someone to vote against who they absolutely can't stand. Republican voter turnout come November will be astronomically high. Us Bernie supporters have been saying this all along.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)second place goes to Trump, and first place goes to Hillary, with a clear, solid lead in votes.
Think about that.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)but when you break it down, Trump had more votes by percentages. Dem turnout is down big time Republican turnout is through the roof. Hillary is the weaker candidate in a GE compared to Bernie and all polls reflect this.
It is what it is.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Here, take a gander. The GE electorate is a very different beast where everybody votes, not just a select few Dems.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)Anyone serious about beating Trump will support the Democratic nominee, because that is the only person who has a chance of winning regardless of who it is. And we're sure as fuck not going to let a bunch of speculative polls about an event 5 months away tell us who to nominate.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)apcalc
(4,461 posts)Right wing bullshit.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)That said I highly doubt she will be even recommended for indictment.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)it is not some nonexistent "security review"
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Not their own facts. Non-criminal investigations cannot end with possible recommendations for criminal indictments.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)They have said 5 times that Hillary is not the target of the investigation.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)I leave you to your own delusions.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)It is NOT RW bullshit.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)chillfactor
(7,566 posts)and garbage like this will be gone.
Response to chillfactor (Reply #53)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MFM008
(19,782 posts)Only D.C. left and HRC will win it.
Sure he will be on the ballot at the convention
but He cannot change the minds of super delegates or he would already.
By then she will pick a VP nominee...possibly either Julian Castro or Elizabeth Warren.
6 days until the DU gets in GE mode and these type of posts have to end.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)left on this site who are still trying to push for Sanders. Everyone needs to not get so worked up as posts like the OP's will be gone in 6 days.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)As will a very large chunk of the site's remaining progressives. Enjoy your Third Way echo chamber.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)Most progressives can control what they say.
MadBadger
(24,089 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)nonsense?
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)I personally believe that Sanders would be absolutely crushed by Trump. I have my opinion on the matter, you have yours. Neither opinion is more correct or "serious." But surely you can see that name recognition, money, connections, and demographics are hugely important to winning any national race. All of those things that Sanders supporters complain about with Clinton are exactly the reasons why she'll win. The machine politics, establishment support, media support, the support of women and minorities, etc. If you were serious about winning you would realize that these things matter and that an unknown 74 year old socialist from a small rural state doesn't have a chance in hell of winning a general election.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)He should have been gone last July. Last August. Certainly by January. Couldn't possibly be around in March. Of course he'd be gone in April, May, June...
The Sanders campaign suggested two things. First, the nation was hungering for a 74 year old balding Jew from Vermont to set fire to the political world and lead America into a promised land of free college, etc., etc., etc.
Conversely, the Sanders campaign demonstrated how weak a candidate the supposedly inevitable Hillary Clinton actually is. Luckily for us the GOPukes seem determined to field a second-rate clown and con-man as her opposition. Let us pray that continues and that the GOPuke establishment does not succeed in replacing the Head Clown as their candidate with someone who has at least some understanding of politics and America's standing, and role, in this era. Jeb Bush, for example.
The die is cast, as the old Romans would say. We will have to see how November turns out.
For the true Progressives among us, Sanders ability to fight all the way to D.C. can give us hope that all is not lost. That's a lot more than we had a year ago.
Thanks, Bernie
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)we are always told to vote for a person because the other person is worse, what about the Supreme Court etc. etc.
Well that has not turned out so well for the American people, us boomers complied, in retrospect we may have messed up royally, believing the candidate of the other party would be worse.
When does your continued compliance lead to unintended and unwanted consequences, where and when do you draw the line? Do you ever say enough is enough before you die, or do you just always go along?
What have we gained for most people in the US, some equality here or there, but the middle class as we knew it decades ago has been shrinking. There are those who would point to specific injustices along the way, but ultimately money does buy power.
Money buys access to good schools, meals on the table and that can go a long way. Some say we need to separate racial inequality from economic inequality, I disagree.
We can try and dismiss the economic side, but if you ever have faced a serious illness you will realize that money cannot cure the illness, but it goes a long way in making it easier to cope with the daily/monthly chores.
Money helps to smooth out the injustices felt by people for a myriad of reasons, we can try to fight the injustices of what money can buy, but IMHO we cannot escape the fact that it makes things easier and allows access to certain things ... health, education are two very important reasons to push for economic equality.
At what point in our lives do we acknowledge the fact that 'just going along' is no longer working and we need another path.
randome
(34,845 posts)Clinton has the nomination. That's reality. Voting for Sanders at this point means you've decided to take the fork in the road that leads to a dead end. The other fork may be long and tedious but at least it leads somewhere.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)nor"recommends indictment" for, anyone. They are an investigative, not a judicial, agency.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)If the DoJ thinks it has a prosecutable case, it calls a grand jury. The grand jury either indicts or no bills.
This is where the process would break down in this instance. Where , in DC, are you going to find a couple dozen potential grand jurors who have not formed an opinion and, with the primary recent in their memory, can convince the court that they are truly impartial? And the problem gets even worse trying to seat a petit jury,
It's not going to happen.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)tandem5
(2,072 posts)we should vote for Clinton in the general and not let Trump destroy the country.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)You're suggesting that a vote for Hillary means one is not serious about defeating Trump. Thus, it's OBVIOUS to any thinking, rational person that you cannot come up with a rational reason why Bernie lost. (And HRC is the preferred candidate.)
If the poll positions were reversed, there is NO DOUBT IN MY MIND that you would be touting another meme in which Bernie with the smallest margin would be the better choice.
For me, Hillary is the best qualified. I look at the whole record, over the entire career and or public life. Not just one vote or statement. Nor am I a Purist. And, I don't take right-wing talking points and sources seriously.
quickesst
(6,280 posts).... these broken records get so many replies.
?w=714
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)quickesst
(6,280 posts)You made an OP that has been done 1000 times right here. Let's see... something about doing something over and over again and expecting a different result.
If I turn up my hearing aid do the words get clearer? I don't know how that works. One thing I do understand. There are people in this country who would do and say anything to derail Hillary Clinton, even at the prospect of a trump presidency. Thankfully they are a much smaller group then most think.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)"if you don't want Trump, you better vote for Hillary". . . THAT gets posted many times EVERY day.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)...... Being that asking for Democrats to vote for the Democratic nominee chosen by the people is a matter of simple logic and common sense. On the other hand, pining to turn back the hands of time and wishing for a different outcome is fantasy.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)You disagree, which is fine. But now we have a nominee, so that disagreement doesn't matter anymore. At this point, anyone who doesn't vote Hillary is helping Trump become president out of bitterness.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)and I take the argument about having to defeat Trump very seriously indeed.
"NO Bernie supporter takes this seriously..."
Since when did you become spokesperson for every Bernie supporter in existence?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Time for change
(13,714 posts)And let's not forget that Bernie has the HIGHEST favorability of all the candidates this primary season.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)This particular site is here to support THE Democratic candidate. That is NOT Bernie.
If you do not want to do that, your welcome here is fast disappearing and will be gone in a handful of days.
dubyadiprecession
(5,625 posts)weren't democrats to begin with. So they can't really be part of the base that turns out to vote for our candidates.
annavictorious
(934 posts)for a person to believe that he personally speaks for thousands of people? If you were serious, you would temper your vitriol with reason. Period.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)When the GOP hit Bernie with the "commie" label, he would have lost most voters over the age of 55. The GOP would have plenty of ammo to back that claim up, thanks to Bernie's own words.
SCantiGOP
(13,856 posts)Amazing logic in the OP.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)The general will be Hillary vs Trump, make your choice.
Anything else is sour grapes. Bernie couldn't seal the deal with most democrats, its time to move on.