Why I Work Against Bernie Sanders During the Primaries

[MineralMan]

It is his campaign staff, which includes several people high in the organization who are proud to have voted for Jill Stein in the 2016 General Election. Rather than vote for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, they voted for Jill Stein to help spoil that election.

Bernie Sanders knows that about them, yet he hired them to represent him in the 2020 primary race. Why? I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't know that anyone has asked him that question, at least in a public forum.

As a Democrat, of course I will vote for the Democratic Nominee this November, no matter who it is. But, I will not do anything to help Bernie Sanders get that nomination - for the reason written above in this post.

I do not trust Senator Sanders' judgment, based on his choices for who runs his campaign. Not one bit. Why would a primary candidate, running as a Democrat, choose proud third-party voters for high positions on his staff? What other choices would he make, if elected as President, that go against the principles of the Democratic Party?

I'm sorry, but that's a non-negotiable thing for me during the primary race. You can make whatever argument you wish, but that is a non-starter for me in the primary elections. If voters decide to make him the nominee by voting for Senator Sanders and gain enough delegates to make him the nominee, then I'll vote for him in November. I sure hope I do not have to do that, though.

Proud Jill Stein voters lead his campaign staff. No, thank you, Bernie. Not for me.

[at140]

1. What keeps Bernie going is the energy of his supporters

They are the most energetic bunch.

[MineralMan]

6. That does not change anything I said.

Apparently, what concerns me does not concern them. I don't care how enthusiastic his supporters in the primary race are. I make my decisions after looking at the candidates and assessing them based on my criteria. For me, my reason for not supporting him and, yes, even for working against his nomination, are as I stated. I question his judgment, so I question his suitability for the job.

[MH1]

26. And his ego, and blindness or indifference to the disruption he is causing

He could have passed the torch - most likely to Warren - in a way that kept most of his supporters in the tent. As it is, when he goes down, it will be a repeat of 2016 with a lot of ugliness coming from the worst part of his supporters.

[at140]

116. I agree with you on that point..eom

[cwydro]

189. This is my worry.

I don’t think he cares a fig about our party.

[Demsrule86]

35. I would not use the word energetic...ruthless comes to mind...and how many of them are operation

chaos Republicans?

[DownriverDem]

38. Then

they will have the energy to be bummed when trump wins a second term if Bernie gets the nomination. Bernie has a ton of baggage that trump and the repubs are waiting to unleash if he gets the nomination.

[Skya Rhen]

111. So, so true - which is why most AAs are having no part of his "revolution". They stand to suffer,

most if Trump gets re-elected. This is not a game.

[yardwork]

2. I agree.

[guillaumeb]

3. If you suport Joe Biden, who has suggested reaching out to the GOP as President,

why do you attack Sanders for similarly reaching out to others?

That seems inconsistent, at best.

[MineralMan]

8. The answer to that is in my opening post.

All Presidents have to deal with Republicans. That's the nature of politics in the United States. I object to Bernie Sanders hiring proud, vocal Jill Stein voters for high positions in his campaign. I consider Jill Stein to be a Russian pawn. I question the judgment of anyone who surrounds himself with her supporters.

I thought I made that pretty clear.

[guillaumeb]

13. Many consider McConnell to be a Ruassian pawn.

And other prominent GOP leaders.

So no, it is not clear how one type of outreach is different from the other.

[MineralMan]

27. Our next Democratic President will have to deal with all of that.

With luck, and long, long coattails, a Democrat might just defeat McConnell in November. If not, then our next President may have him to contend with. Reaching out to McConnell will not be on that President's agenda, I'm sure. Working around him might have to be, whoever ends up being elected.

That, Sir, has nothing whatever to do with this thread, however. If you wish to divert from my original post, I suggest you start your own thread.

[guillaumeb]

29. It is not a diversion to question the logic of your assertions.

And with that, have a good, snowy day.

[MineralMan]

32. ..

[True Blue American]

79. Bi-Partisonship

Is the only way you get things done in Congress. Lack of it is what the problems have been for many years. Biden has done that for 30 years now.

Attacking, undermining the party you decided to run under is not the way to go. Attacking other candidates, lying about them are Trump tactics, not Democratic.

[Doremus]

289. Bipartisanship has been virtually nonexistent the last 20 yrs

“Going along to get along” is not a viable policy. We’ve had 40 years of it. Where has it gotten us again?

[True Blue American]

291. Because of Republicans. I

Do not blame President Obama or VP Joe Biden. Both of them did everything they could to get things done.

Anger and rants at your fellow Democrats accomplish nothing.we need to work to get rid of dead head Republicans so we can clean up their mess once again

[Doremus]

295. What makes you think Biden has suddenly found the secret to getting repukes to budge?

I get it that you don't blame Obama or Biden for the refusal of repukes to work with them.

What makes you think Biden has now found the magic formula for getting them to compromise on our legislation? If he's indicated he has any plans to do something different than he did when he was VP I'd love to hear it.

I'm skeptical that the same approaches of the last 40 years (go along to get along) are going to work now anymore than they have in the past. Doing the same things and expecting different outcomes is ludicrous.

We need *strong* *bold* ideas and strategies. I listened to an interview Sanders did where he was asked how he would make an (R) Senate work with him. He said he'd take the fight directly to McConnell's home state, asking Dems and Repubs alike to camp out on his street and put the pressure on. This is the type of aggressive thinking we are going to need if we are going to save our country.

Status quo is our downfall.

[True Blue American]

296. How many years did Joe spend

Working across party lines in the Senate? No one can work with Mitch McConnell. Even many of his fellow Republicans know that. A vicious little man with no conscience, power has gone to his head, but he will soon be gone.

There are good Republicans but they are few and far between now.

[MarcA]

17. Not only that but Biden said he would consider a Republican VP.

Of course that was a long time ago, a whole 3 weeks, so it shouldn't be considered.

[guillaumeb]

19. There is that as well.

I understand that many here have a favorite candidate, but attacking one candidate for outreach while supporting another for the same thing seems inconsistent.

[guillaumeb]

25. Did you read reply #17 in this thread? eom

[MineralMan]

46. He wrote reply #17.

Ugh.

[Demsrule86]

44. As always those who support I think Sanders leave out the part where Joe said he couldn't think of

any GOP types who would be worthy of consideration-it was a dig at the GOP...if one has to distort the truth in order to attack another candidate...it sort of ruins the entire point. This may be why 538 and others have Sanders as being down in Iowa...no one likes negative attacks that are not even true, decades old or both. These attacks are being launched by the Stein supporters who have no business working in a Democratic campaign. And when all is said and done-when Sanders fails to win the nomination-hiring Sirota and the rest of the Stein people will be one of the reasons he failed. It really does show poor judgement on Sander's part. A primary is an interview for the POTUS position, and there won't be a second interview.

[True Blue American]

292. Yes, I heard the entire statement!

[stopdiggin]

141. did you honestly put any weight into that?

astonished that any thinking person let that linger for longer than 3-4 seconds ..

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

217. Yeah, what's with that?! Though, I think Joe backtracked on that one.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[WA-03 Democrat]

21. Bernie said the same about working with

The Repukes at the last debate. Since this is sacrilege per the Bernie team, I was more than surprised.

[guillaumeb]

201. Agreed.

I think that we all know that at every level, there will be outreach in hopes of finding some sane GOP politicians.

[beastie boy]

24. Do you know anyone on Biden';s staff who voted for Trump?

That would be the only factor that would make your Biden and Sanders equivalency valid.

You do seee the difference between reaching out to someone and voting for someone to be President, don't you?

[guillaumeb]

31. My view:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287432504

[beastie boy]

40. Thanks for sharing. I read your original post.

I didn't respond to it not because I agree with all of it, but because you are entitled to your views, just like I am entitled to mine.

But now we are talking about false equivalencies, not opinions. This is something I feel obligated to respond to, pointing those false equivalencies out, and I am looking forward to you addressing them.

[guillaumeb]

45. In my view, anyone who voted for Jill Stein was delusional,

or influenced by Russian propaganda.

Stein has never shown any interest in building a green movement. She is only interested in the attention her "every 4 year" engagement brings.

But past voting patterns do not tell us the whole story. Do you think that all current or former Democratic candidates every voted for a GOP candidate in past elections?

[beastie boy]

68. I am assuming that you agree: reaching out to someone outside your party is not

nearly as detestable as voting for someone outside your party. Please let me know if I am wrong on this.

[guillaumeb]

122. Given that Sanders votes progressively

for more than my own Democratic Representative, Dan Lipinski of the IL 1st, positions matter.

[Demsrule86]

174. Yes I do...Elzabeth warren was GOP a long time ago but Democrats and her when she joined our

party voted for the Democratic nominee in past elections...except Sanders of course who has historically endorsed and one assumes since he endorsed voted for non-Democratic candidates.

[Docreed2003]

77. Is Biden actively employing Mitch McConnell or anyone who supported Trump

That's a weak argument. Sorry. Bernie is actively employing individuals who went out of their way to tear down Clinton and then went on to support and vote for Jill Stein. You missed MM's point completely by equating "reaching out to other sides" with what MM actually said...

[guillaumeb]

129. A tiny number of Sanders supporters attacked other candidates.

A tiny number.

[stopdiggin]

146. please address why it is acceptable

for a Democratic campaign to have these people in leadership positions?

[guillaumeb]

148. Candidates choose their own staffers.

And live with the consequences.

[stopdiggin]

165. thanks. nothing more, nothing less. (nt)

[Cha]

319. Exactly

[pnwmom]

84. What R's has Biden put on his staff? Sanders has done more than "reach out."

[guillaumeb]

126. Biden did suggest that he would consider a GOP candidate for VP.

[pnwmom]

134. He has no R's on his staff and the chance of him choosing an R for VP

are almost nil.

[guillaumeb]

135. Agreed.

As I argued in other posts here, Biden was actually making a satirical point about the utter lack of reasonable GOP politicians.

[True Blue American]

293. Joe also said he could not think of one!

Makes a huge difference!

[guillaumeb]

298. I have noted that fact in previous posts. eom

[True Blue American]

300. I know, but

Most do not seem to understand, so we need to repeat!

[awesomerwb1]

88. Are you serious??

Biden is not going to help elect republicans.

Sanders's people did in 2016, and without a doubt will do so again going by some of those supporter's comments on Twitter.

[guillaumeb]

124. A tiny fraction of Sanders supporters

voted for the wrong person. And Twitter should not be confused with the universe.

[awesomerwb1]

162. By all means, please provide the exact

percentage since apparently you appear to know it. "Tiny fraction" as you put might be tens of thousands of votes.

And yes, twitter should definitely not be "confused with the universe" whatever that means. (Maybe you're thinking about the religion forum you post at so much).

[brooklynite]

280. Allow me...

According to the analysis of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, fewer than 80 percent of those who voted for Sanders, an independent, in the Democratic primary did the same for Clinton when she faced off against Trump a few months later. What's more, 12 percent of those who backed Sanders actually cast a vote for Trump.

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

[Cha]

202. BULLFEATHERS.

Link to tweet

[guillaumeb]

204. Does this suggest that every one of these voters were Sanders supporters?

No.

[Cha]

209. Deny it all you want.. The OP Is Dead ON.. and

just One of the reasons I'm working against BS and his staff.. pushers of Jill stein LIES.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[guillaumeb]

222. There is nothig to support any assertion

that these voter totals represent any fraction of Sanders voters.

[Cha]

225. Keep it up.

[guillaumeb]

228. First, you have recommended posts of mine supportive of Biden.

Second,

Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election. That is according to the data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study — a massive election survey of around 50,000 people. (For perspective, a run-of-the-mill survey measuring Trump's job approval right now has a sample of 800 to 1,500.)

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

Which suggests that 88% supported HRC.

And Wisconsin and Michigan were states where the GOP, which was in control, suppressed and removed literally thousands of votes/voters.

Regarding Wisconsin:

A post-election study by Priorities USA, a Democratic super-PAC that supported Clinton, found that in 2016, turnout decreased by 1.7 percent in the three states that adopted stricter voter ID laws but increased by 1.3 percent in states where ID laws did not change. Wisconsin’s turnout dropped 3.3 percent.
If Wisconsin had seen the same turnout increase as states whose laws stayed the same, “we estimate that over 200,000 more voters would have voted in Wisconsin in 2016,” the study said. These “lost voters”—those who voted in 2012 and 2014 but not 2016—”skewed more African American and more Democrat” than the overall voting population. Some academics criticized the study’s methodology, but its conclusions were consistent with a report from the Government Accountability Office, which found that strict voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee had decreased turnout by roughly 2 to 3 percent, with the largest drops among black, young, and new voters.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/

[Cha]

230. Deny it all you want.. it's not working.

[guillaumeb]

231. Are you saying the facts that I presented are not true?

Specifically,

A post-election study by Priorities USA, a Democratic super-PAC that supported Clinton, found that in 2016, turnout decreased by 1.7 percent in the three states that adopted stricter voter ID laws but increased by 1.3 percent in states where ID laws did not change. Wisconsin’s turnout dropped 3.3 percent.
If Wisconsin had seen the same turnout increase as states whose laws stayed the same, “we estimate that over 200,000 more voters would have voted in Wisconsin in 2016,” the study said. These “lost voters”—those who voted in 2012 and 2014 but not 2016—”skewed more African American and more Democrat” than the overall voting population. Some academics criticized the study’s methodology, but its conclusions were consistent with a report from the Government Accountability Office, which found that strict voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee had decreased turnout by roughly 2 to 3 percent, with the largest drops among black, young, and new voters.

200,000 voters prevented from voting. And the media, and perhaps some here were unaware, chose to ignore or forget that.

So what is not working? We cannot ignore that the GOP knows how to win. And that knowledge involves erasing voters from the rolls.

[guillaumeb]

233. In Michigan, and Pennsylvania, in 2016,

Poll workers in Michigan incorrectly told voters that they needed to show identification to vote. While Michigan does have a voter ID law, it does not require an ID to vote; instead, voters have the option of filling out an affidavit swearing to their identity. There are no hard data on how many Michigan voters were improperly turned away for lacking an ID.15 There were also reports in Pennsylvania of people trying to vote but being told incorrectly that they needed to show identification.16 Alabama also had its first presidential election with a new voter ID law;17 at the same time, the state made it much more difficult for some people to obtain a state-issued ID when it closed 31 of its state driver’s license offices last year.18 Many of those offices were located in low-income neighborhoods of color.19

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2016/11/11/292322/voter-suppression-laws-cost-americans-their-voices-at-the-polls/

[fleabiscuit]

303. So it would have been more important that the remaining voters vote HRC.

Funny how “facts” can work. Although I haven’t seen much presented.

[guillaumeb]

308. My vierw is that the most important task is persuading the non-voter

to vote.

[fleabiscuit]

310. In my experience that is a study of pissing into the wind. nt

[True Blue American]

306. Thanks Cha!

Nothing like showing facts!

[Cha]

307. You're Welcome, True Blue!

[fleabiscuit]

311. Good God, makes me hate him even more. nt

[Cha]

312. oh wow.. you didn't know this

then.

Glad to expose BS for his top staff hires.. stein pushers.

Aloha, flea~

[fleabiscuit]

313. To see it in frame after frame

like that was a body blow.

OK, It's time for knives out now (not that I'm one to hold back).


Love ya Cha ~

[Cha]

314. yeah, Karma needs to

do its thing alright.

:Love ya, flea

[MineralMan]

234. Exactly. Those numbers tell the story.

Some try to equivocate about them, but that is what happened.

[Cha]

235. Yes, they tell the facts.. Thank you, MM!

Some are in deep denial.. not working, though.

[Cha]

200. No, it's does NOT. Hiring Pushers of Jill Stein Lies

as top staff and Especially THE LIES ABOUT HILLARY the Night before the 2016 GENERAL ELECTION has Nothing to do with Joe Biden.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

That's Not even good try.

[ehrnst]

254. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders urged Democrats to reach out to President Donald Trump's supporters

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders urged Democrats to reach out to President Donald Trump’s supporters to promote a progressive agenda that includes guaranteed health care for all Americans as part of a strategy to rebuild the party.

Sanders told a boisterous crowd Tuesday night in Louisville that Trump has reneged on his promises to working-class voters. He said Democrats should reach out to disillusioned Trump supporters as the out-of-power party tries to recover from last year’s election losses.

http://fortune.com/2017/04/19/bernie-sanders-trump-supporters-healthcare/

Bernie Sanders: I see areas where I can work with Trump

“I don’t think it makes sense to say, ‘No, we’re not gonna work in any way in any form with the Trump administration,’” Sanders told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “Trump has talked appropriately about a collapsing infrastructure: our roads, bridges and water systems. If he is prepared to work with us on rebuilding America’s crumbling infrastructure and creating millions of jobs and doing it in a way that doesn’t privatize our infrastructure or give tax breaks to billionaires, yes, let’s work together.”

“We have got to reach out to those people and we have to stand with them for decent jobs, decent health care, decent education and I think we can win many of them over,” Sanders concluded at Town Hall.

https://fortune.com/2017/04/19/bernie-sanders-trump-supporters-healthcare/

Bernie Sanders Thinks He Can Win Over Trump Supporters in 2020

Sanders has given similar remarks about Trump supporters in the past. Last year, the senator blamed the democrats for letting Trump win the presidency by not talking about how citizens are losing jobs to Mexico and China, and instead doubling down on calling most the voters racists and sexists. He criticized Hillary Clinton for labeling voters as “deplorables” during her campaign.

[getagrip_already]

4. there are so many reasons...

You nailed some. The nyt nailed some. He himself has nailed some through his own words.

But even if none of that existed, I still wouldn't support him because he simply isn't electable. You aren't going to get farmers to support him. You aren't going to get small business owners to support him. You aren't going to get soccer mom's to support him.

In fact, a lot of people we need to win are downright scared of him. The dems only amount to about 25-28% of all registered voters. There aren't enough of us to win by ourselves.

[guillaumeb]

16. Many farmers and business owners suported Trump.

And 47% of eligible voters did not bother to vote in 2016.

[getagrip_already]

23. and trump has hurt many of them badly.......

And many voters would have voted, but were denied. Mostly OUR voters; many would be bernie supporters in the general (students).

Which is why we need EVERY possible vote in 2020. Leave none behind. Don't scare them off. Don't threaten to come after them (even if that is the end result).

The never trumpers would still vote for him if the alternative is a socialist.

[guillaumeb]

28. In 2016, 47% of eligible Americans did not vote.

It seems to me that this should be a huge concern.

[getagrip_already]

34. it is, but that number is deceiving

It includes people who had their names purged from the voting roles and couldn't vote, people who had no gov't issued photo id and couldn't vote, students who didn't list a precise street address for their dorm on their absentee ballots and had them tossed out, and all kinds of shenanigans pulled that kept people from voting or having their vote registered.

So yes, something needs to be done. But reality is what it is. We still need every person who is willing and able to, to cast a vote for our nominee.

[guillaumeb]

37. True.

My view is here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287432504

And we need to focus on getting the unmotivated, and those prevented from voting, to vote in 2020, and every election.

When turnout is high, the GOP loses.

[Demsrule86]

47. And they probably won't vote in 2020 either...chasing the elusive non-voter...is a waste of time

and energy. And even if we succeeded...I doubt Sanders would be their choice.

[guillaumeb]

48. Write off 47%?

I disagree.

[Demsrule86]

175. We register as many as we can...but no point in going after voters who don't vote.

[guillaumeb]

194. There may be reasons.

GOP suppression, or ignorance, or no one reaching out to them.

[Demsrule86]

220. A fair number of people I have come across in my GOTV efforts just don't care.

[guillaumeb]

223. Putting them in the ignorant and uninformed category. eom

[Demsrule86]

244. I don't see much hope of reaching many of them.

[fleabiscuit]

315. There is a way... that is proven to at least help.

Register every eligible voter automatically (AVR) and vote by mail. Oregon does it and it is very popular. There are still many that don't vote, but it has helped with increasing the numbers, especially in non presidential elections.

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. Add me to that list!

[BannonsLiver]

7. A thoughtful post

I agree. Bernie must be stopped.

[MineralMan]

15. Thank you. I am a Democrat. A lifelong Democrat.

I want to elect someone who is also a lifelong Democrat. I want our party's nominee to be someone who is proud to be a Democrat.

Look at the campaign staffs of all of the other primary candidates. How many proud Jill Stein voters will you find? Not one.

Jill Stein symbolizes what happened in 2016 for me. She ran as a spoiler and the election was, in fact, spoiled by less than 90,000 votes. Jill Stein got more than that number in the three states that made the difference.

So, there you have it. I cannot forgive that, and am surprised and even shocked that one of the candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2020 chose vocal, proud Jill Stein reporters to represent his campaign and to publicly post about that campaign, sometimes to attack another Democratic primary candidate.

Personally, that unforgivable for me. That said, if the party nominates Bernie Sanders, he will get my vote in November. I don't think I will have to make that decision, though, and I'm solidly opposed to Sanders becoming the nominee, for the reasons i have explained.

[comradebillyboy]

61. Bernie's vision is a fantasy with no plans for achieving it.

[cab67]

65. "Anti-Bernie Democrats?"

In point of fact, I'm a pro-Democrat Democrat. Have you noticed that Sanders is only a Democrat when he wants to run for President?

[cab67]

94. I'm curious to know what the deleted post said.

[BannonsLiver]

80. There there.

[TwilightZone]

86. This is one of the funniest posts I've read here in a while.

Unintentionally funny, of course, but funny nonetheless.

[Stuart G]

9. I don't trust him either. K and R.

He cannot win. There is something that is very uncomfortable about him.
And most of all.......He cannot win. He does not feel right. I had never heard of this Jill Stein connection , but that ends it for me. Thank You for posting this. I don't trust Sander's judgment either. K and R your post. Oh, and I ain't new either. I have followed politics for 60 years, and worked for McGovern in 72. Bernie cannot win. That is my opinion.

[calimary]

10. I actually met one of those. He kept the Bernie sticker on his car but

slapped on a Jill Stein sticker on top of it.

I felt - okay for you, pal. You really want trump by default, ‘eh? You can’t bring yourself to support our nominee so you’re gonna cast your lot with a cheesy brass-plated know-nothing Russian-manipulated hopeless self-flattering poseur LOSER - like Jill Fucking Stein?????????

[MineralMan]

18. I also know a few Jill Stein voters who supported Sanders.

A couple of them are unapologetic and do not understand my opinion about their choice in the 2016 General Election. Those two are no longer in my list of friends.

Others have realized their mistake and wish they had not voted for Stein, even though it didn't matter in Minnesota. I'm hopeful that they will vote differently in 2020.

[Botany]

11. You can tell what a person is about by the company they keep and their actions.

Nina Turner is not a good person. And didn't Sanders hire a person (I forget the name)
who was busy spreading shit on Hillary in 2016.

And Sanders has consistently voted against sanctions on Russia and tough gun laws.

In 2016 the Russians used Sanders and Sander's supporters to hurt HRC and he didn't say shit.

And to what I really think of Bernie might get me banned from DU.

[Demsrule86]

49. Indeed...agree with all you said...and Warren is my second choice should Biden falter .

I have one caveat though...my support for Warren can never be used to make Sanders the nominee.

[True Blue American]

87. Siroto?

https://mobile.twitter.com/davidsirota?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[PatSeg]

12. The fact that Sanders chose Jill Stein voters

for high level positions in his campaign, is hard to fathom. It shows really poor judgment and bad political instincts. I don't think Sanders is very good at running a national campaign. Most of his political experience has been in a state with 626,000 people and not a particularly diverse state at that.

[NurseJackie]

14. That was a VERY LOUD AND CLEAR message of absolute contempt for Democrats...

That was a VERY LOUD AND CLEAR message of absolute contempt for Democrats and the Democratic party. Stein voters? It completely disgusts me.

[MineralMan]

20. That's how I saw it, too. He knew exactly what he was doing when

he hired those people, very early in his campaign. It was a thumb in my eye and a deliberate one. I do not think for a moment that those Stein voters regret their choice for an instant. That they were hired is a signal that we should pay attention to, I believe.

[calimary]

33. A feeling of "if I can't get there, then I'm gonna make sure nobody else can, either."

Can’t help it. That’s how it looks, to me. And how it smells.

[MineralMan]

36. Yup. Long-time Democrats would never do such a thing.

I will call Sanders a Democrat as long as he calls himself one. It's a label of convenience for him, though, I believe.

[NurseJackie]

56. Running "as-a" Democrat is NOT the same thing as actually "being-a" Democrat. --- The word itself...

Running "as-a" Democrat is NOT the same thing as actually "being-a" Democrat. He and his supporters like to repeat those two words often... reminding us that he's running "as a" Democrat.

The word itself functions as a preposition and a quick check with the Google's dictionary, we see that "as" (in this context) only means "similar" (in the guise of; with the appearance of; so as to appear to be; etc.)

I simply cannot support anyone who refuses to fully embrace the Democratic party, and commit to the Democratic party in a lifelong, sincere and meaningful way. Anyone who chooses to play a role, and who refuses to pledge and dedicate themselves (permanently) to the Democratic party is NOT someone who deserves my vote.

I know that I speak for millions of loyal, lifelong, stalwart, and dedicated Democrats who will never vote for a Socialist who has such open contempt and hostility for Democrats and the Democratic party. This is why a Socialist running "as a" Democrat will never be our party's nominee.

[MineralMan]

58. You make good points.

[True Blue American]

301. 100%

[calimary]

22. Agreed. Says one Hillary supporter who will NEVER forget.

[R B Garr]

91. Yes! Even more contemptible considering the one-sided

“Unity” cries are only meant to shut up Democrats while the Steiners have their way. So disgusted with it!

[Hekate]

95. Maya Angelou: When someone shows you who they are, believe them. nt

[NurseJackie]

98. Good advice. And if they show you over and over and over again...

Good advice. And if they show you over and over and over again who they are... vote for someone else.

There's no way that I can support any Socialist "running as-a Democrat". That doesn't mean that the Socialist IS-A Democrat... just that the Socialist is pretending to be a Democrat, and that the Socialist is using the Democratic party and manipulating the process for his (or her) own personal again.

His views on Cuba, Nicaragua, and the Soviet Union (up until the fall of the Berlin Wall) are absolutely disqualifying for me... and if nominated, the video and audio clips of HIS OWN WORDS would be played NONSTOP and on an ENDLESS LOOP in GOP ads.

All I'm saying is that loyal, lifelong, dedicated and stalwart Democrats (such as myself) will never support a Socialist who has such open contempt and hostility for the party whose nomination is being sought. That's all. It's really very simple.

[Hekate]

102. Bush the Dumb:" Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me, uh, fool me, uh, can't get fooled again."

Even though the final sentence is, "Fool me twice, shame on me," the message is valid. What is the DNC thinking, to give a vocally proud non-Democrat a second bite at the apple?

[LuvNewcastle]

128. They had to let him run or he would have run as

an independent and that would have guaranteed a Trump victory. That's the reason he's never really joined the party. He has more power as a potential spoiler than he would ever have had as a party regular running for office. He can decide not to cooperate in the Senate, too, and hold up progress. He's a pretty powerful Senator considering he's an independent from a small state, way more powerful than he really should be.

[True Blue American]

302. Without the Democratic

Party behind you. You would not get very far.

[Demsrule86]

30. That goes triple for me MM...you put it very well better than I would... This is why I work for the

Biden campaign and I hope it is all over and Joe is the nominee by the time my state (Ohio) votes.

[aikoaiko]

39. Sometimes we hire the "soldiers" away from our enemies.

No one seemed to have a problem when the conservative hitman David Brock when he was very active in prominent Democratic campaigns.

My point being that sometimes we hire people who used to work against us.

[MineralMan]

41. No, I don't buy that. Not for a moment.

[Demsrule86]

63. Brock has not been hired by any candidate ... so send a link if I am wrong...if he just hates Trump

that is not the same thing. Sanders hired people who voted against the Democratic nominee...that is a deal breaker for me. I will never forget nor forgive 2016. And a Stein supporter...or any who chose not to vote for the Democratic nominee who call themselves progressive can go to hell... a worse hell I hope than the one they helped create here with Trump's election.

I will never forgive the Green (fuck Stein and any who supported her) party in particular....every bad thing that has happened starting with 2000 can be laid at their door...they should change their name...the aid they give the GOP party particularly in 2000,2004 and 2016 disqualifies them from any claim they make about the environment, the also gave us United, they gave us two wars maybe three), economic collapse, thousands of deaths in both New Orleans and Jamaica and Trump's election which lead to a shitty tax cut for the wealthy creating more income inequality...something these loser (Greens) claim without any evidence to be against.

[58Sunliner]

119. More like the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Demsrule86]

176. Stein voters, justice Democrats, our revolution...all of those who went against the Democratic

nominee in 16 are and will always be the enemy...and they should not be working for any campaign. It is disqualifying.

[Cha]

317. David Brock did a 180 turn around.. the Stein Pushers

BS hired are the same as they ever were.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

42. I'm with you; and if you would, please allow me to add my observations.

I was an enthusiastic supporter of Sanders during the 2016 primaries. I didn't think he'd get the nomination but I agreed with a lot of what he had to say; I liked the enthusiasm he was generating, and I hoped he'd influence Clinton and the party itself to take on some more progressive positions. I also thought it was important to have contested primaries that would force the favored candidate to work to defend her positions. That said, I was always going to vote for the nominee (just as I will this time), and I always assumed it would eventually be Clinton.

Bernie started to lose me when he refused to withdraw after it became mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination. Then some of his supporters tried to disrupt the convention because they didn't like the result. After that it was several weeks before Bernie did anything to campaign for the winner when he really should have been the first one on the bandwagon. By then I was solidly behind Hillary (but my bad for not working harder on her behalf; I, like a lot of others, didn't think an ignorant, hateful buffoon like Trump could possibly win - I'm not making that mistake again). And I also assumed Bernie wouldn't run again.

But four years later he's baaaack, and he's following the same playbook - only more so. The OP accurately reflects my own dismay at his hiring of the likes of Sirota, Gray and Turner, people who spend more time trashing Democrats and the Democratic party than they do attacking Trump. This does not indicate good judgment on the part of the candidate; it suggests to me that he's more interested in furthering his own rigid ideological views than in actually winning the presidency, and that "the revolution" will occur when the people rise up. Which they won't. Most people are not, in fact, singing from Bernie's hymnal.

Another thing that troubles me is that I don't think he'd be a very effective president if he actually were to be elected. He has boasted about being uncompromising, but politics at all levels is essentially the art of compromise. Compromising isn't the same as folding like a cheap lawn chair, as some people seem to think; it's recognizing that in order to satisfy the interests of the entire nation - not just the people who voted for you - you are going to have to give something to get something. Furthermore, if Bernie and his surrogates keep trashing the Democratic Party and its members, how can he expect to have the support of Congressional Democrats in order to get his proposed legislation passed? Since it's a given that he won't have any GOP support, he will desperately need the Democrats in Congress and in the population in general to have his back, so maybe he should tell Sirota et al. to stop kicking them in the nuts at every opportunity.

Finally, there is a level of devotion among some Sanders supporters that has become a bit cultic in its intensity. No candidate is perfect and none deserve anyone's undying and unquestioning allegiance. That way madness lies. We all need to recognize that our favorite candidate, who is an actual human like us, will have a history of failures, baggage, missteps, misstatements, dumb ideas, and poor judgment. The sun does not shine out of anyone's butt - not Bernie's, not anybody else's. I will, of course, move heaven and earth to get him elected if he is the nominee because Trump is worse by orders of magnitude. But I'm not going to worship at anyone's altar.

[MineralMan]

43. Thank your for your very thoughtful reply.

I agree.

[Demsrule86]

69. What a great post...and not just because I agree with it either...well said.

[Docreed2003]

89. Amen!

You captured my own feelings completely. I supported Bernie in 2016 for the same reasons you listed and I similarly became disenchanted. Thank you for voicing the thoughts of many of us!

[Mike Nelson]

92. This should be...

...its own thread.

[redstatebluegirl]

166. I totally agree.

What the Sanders supporters did at the convention still makes me angry. He did nothing to stop that demonstration. They booed a civil rights leader who has been a member of our party for over 40 years. They bullied long time Democrats in every meeting they attended. It was shameful to say the least.

[uponit7771]

196. "... and he's following the same playbook..." I'm disgusted this is allowed, just disgusted to core

[still_one]

50. Well said MM. I feel the same way

[Gothmog]

51. Can someone explain to me how sanders voter revolution works?

I have never taken sanders seriously due to a complete lack of legislative accomplishments of sanders and the fact that I do not understand sanders voter revolution The NYT also did not understand how sanders voter revolution works

Link to tweet

Like the NYT, I have questions about this voter revolution concept. I have asked sanders supporters to explain this concept to me and so far no one seems to know how this voter revolution will work in the real world https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=430371

Gothmog (78,308 posts)
64. Exactly how does sanders voter revolution work in the real world?

It is my understanding that even sanders has acknowledged that he cannot adopt his platform unless he holds rallies and this voter revolution occurs. Is this correct? How does this voter revolution work in the real world? Again as I understand this concept, so many new voters will rise up and force the GOP to be reasonable. Is this correct? How many new voters does it take to accomplish this goal and where are these voters? How will these new voters force the GOP to be reasonable when so many GOP officeholders are in gerrymandered districts? Will these new voters move to these districts in time to vote for sanders’ platform? If these new voters are real, then why are theses new voters not showing up in the polls? New voters in such large numbers so as to cause the GOP to be reasonable should show up in polling. Are these new voters waiting for something? If these new voters really exist in the real world, why has sanders not used these new voters to get some meaningful legislation passed?

I look forward to answers to these questions

sanders interview with the NYT may have gone better if he had explained how this revolution would work in the real world. I am still curious

[Hekate]

159. It seems to be an article of faith, like the transubstantiation of the Host

[Gothmog]

167. I am Jewish and so this is not a concept that I am used to

[Hekate]

181. It's a Roman Catholic thing. Read on...

I went to a year of Catechism classes when I was 14, but couldn't resolve some of the issues.

"Transubstantiantion of the Host" means that during the Mass the wafer of bread (the Host) when blessed and dipped into the wine by the priest changes (transubstantiates) literally into the body and blood of Christ. Like the great Joseph Campbell, I understood it then and now as a metaphor of mysticism. I couldn't promise to see it otherwise.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

214. Using another Christian analogy, Bernie seems to regard himself as the Martin Luther

of politics. He's nailing his 95 Theses to the door of the DNC and proclaiming "Here I stand, I can do no other!" Of course, this put Luther in danger of execution and he had to go into hiding for several years. Bernie, in contrast, wants to be in charge of the whole thing.

[Gothmog]

287. Why will sanders not do this for impeachment?

Link to tweet

[Hekate]

288. Well spotted

[empedocles]

304. 'Interesting speculation'

[empedocles]

305. Wow. 303

[redstatebluegirl]

54. Add me to the list.

I work with a bunch of young people who idolize BS because they want free tuition and free healthcare. I keep telling them NOTHING IS FREE, but it doesn't resonate with them I'm afraid.

[Kurt V.]

57. not helpful.

[MineralMan]

60. No? Not helpful to whom?

[Kurt V.]

73. to the democratic party. nt

[MineralMan]

107. Jill Stein voters are not helpful to the Democratic Party.

Remember? Who is the current POTUS? I rest my case.

[Kurt V.]

182. Correct me if I'm wrong. stein got 1 million of 134 million votes cast. give or take.

comey. her emails (media) russian hacking and last but not least, republicans gave us trump. not stein. your narrative makes it difficult for some ppl to fairly and reasonably assess what went wrong in 2016 and what to do about it.

[Demsrule86]

192. No...she took votes in the EC states that gave Trump his EC victory...there were enough votes for in

those states for Hillary to have won... Stein votes in fact so fuck Stein. She and Uncle Vlad ...her mentor...no doubt knew what they were doing. I will never forgive her not the Greens. I will hate them forever. And hiring anyone who voted for her is disqualifying for me for a presidential candidate in the primary ...only way Sanders gets my vote is in the general.

[Kurt V.]

211. case in point. Thank you.

[Demsrule86]

219. I don't disagree about the Comey effect or the Russians...they made it close so with Stein

Trump could eke out an EC win...and I think that is what Trump is trying for now.

[cab67]

59. One of my deepest hopes

is that, assuming he doesn't become the nominee, Sanders drops out once his nomination becomes mathematically impossible. He did a lot of damage by hanging on in 2016.

I'm not trying to refight 2016 - I'm expressing concern for 2020. Candidates who don't accept reality can really cause problems.

[MineralMan]

62. I have no idea what he will do when he fails to get the nomination.

I'll just have to wait and see.

[MineralMan]

66. Here's Google's translation:

"I have to wonder if Mineral Man is really just another Russian agent to cause tension."

The answer is no. Simple, huh?

[Hekate]

140. Sounds like someone was being too clever by half!

[MineralMan]

143. The funny thing is that I had no problem reading the original Russian

in that post. That is thanks to the USAF, which sent me to Syracuse University to participate a total immersion Russian language program for some 9 months. They had some need for Russian linguists to do some things they needed to be done, I guess.

My Russian is pretty rusty these days, but I discovered an aptitude for language learning while in the USAF. During Basic Training, they administered a language aptitude test to recruits who scored highly on some other tests. Apparently I did well, because right after Basic, I found myself at Syracuse U. It was a very interesting episode in my life, which has been full of interesting episodes.

Unfortunately, I've never visited Russia. As far as I know, I'm still not allowed to travel there.

[Hekate]

155. Yes, you have had an interesting life, MM

[MineralMan]

163. For which I am very glad.

Long ago, I realized that I get just one pass through life, so it might as well be interesting. I tend to let things happen, rather than trying to make things happen. If a door opens, I'm likely to walk through it to see where it leads. I wouldn't have it any other way. So far, so good.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

67. LOL.

MM has been around DU a lot longer than you. I can assure you he's no troll. BTW, calling someone a troll violates DU's TOS.

[JonLP24]

104. I have been here longer than MM though he has way more posts than me

He was blocked from the LGBT group very early in his DU career and has overall been one of DU's more right leaning posters. He even used to post at Free Republic.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

105. Argue all you want but he's not a troll.

And the Democratic party is supposed to be a big tent. Not supporting Bernie doesn't make one a right-winger.

[JonLP24]

108. I'm saying he has been one of DU's more right leaning posters long before Bernie

I'm actually not at all surprised he isn't supporting Bernie Sanders given the poster's history.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

110. I don't support Bernie either, but I'm far from a right-winger.

There are a lot of very progressive Democrats who don't support Bernie. That's not the litmus test.

[JonLP24]

112. I didn't say anything about you

I was talking about the OP who I'm well aware of his history at DU. Go to the LGBT group and look at the list of blocked members and I remember why.

[lapucelle]

178. ...

Not you. Him.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

191. The implication was that if you don't support Bernie you're probably a right-winger,

which is obviously untrue.

[lapucelle]

216. Yes that was the implication, and there have explicit attacks against posters saying exactly that.

No wonder the NYT Editorial Board said this:

Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.

[Hortensis]

113. And in that you're entirely wrong. Btw, we DO have

a few conservative-leaning Democrats, who have a right to be here subject to the same TOS that bind you, although MM is not among them.

[JonLP24]

120. This board has more than a few

Only one that I know of actually posted at Free Republic. Anyways I'm not going to get into it anymore than that. I'm just not surprised a former freeper doesn't support Sanders.

[Hortensis]

130. You can educate yourself about ideology ranges on

many sites. Your apparent view of what would fall under the smaller far right, the broad conservative mainstream, broad liberal mainstream, and smaller farther left is extremely inaccurate, and that's an understatement. The farther into the extremes, the fewer.

MM falls into the huge group of close to 100 million Americans registered to vote who make up the voting left. People so radical/extremist that they can imagine THEY are the real liberal mainstream and the others are not do not.

Damned good thing or humanity would have gone extinct eons ago.

[MineralMan]

139. Now you're making me blush...

[Hortensis]

151. :) Not to diminish any of our contributions

to liberty and justice, and medical care, for all.

[Hekate]

144. Skating on the edge today, are we?

A great many Democrats look at Bernie and say no, thanks. That doesn't makes us either bots, trolls, or stupid people.

[MineralMan]

152. Just shine it on. That's what I do.

That stuff all dates back to a time here when there was a forum that was a place where one could attack other DUers without many limits. It's gone now, but some of the arguments still remain.

It's certainly not worth rehashing, and I won't participate in any of that.

[TwilightZone]

160. Right-leaning doesn't mean everyone to the right of Bernie.

I've been reading MM's posts for years, and he quite certainly isn't right-leaning.

[MineralMan]

123. How interesting.

I'm not right-leaning at all. I am a pragmatist, though, who recognizes that this country does better when Democrats are in power. Because of that, it's my goal, as it is this website's goal, to get Democrats elected to office. Why? Well, one only has to look at who is sitting in the White House to understand that.

So, I'm naturally concerned with who the Democratic nominee will be. I believe that Bernie Sanders would lose to Donald Trump. I further believe that he is only a Democrat when it suits his goals to be one.

I was banned at Free Republic in 2006 for "Anti-Freeping." I haven't been back there since. I was, indeed, "anti-freeping" there. I've been here since 2008, and who I am is accurately reflected in my posts here. DU is the only political website I visit and post on.

I doubt you have read all that many of my posts here. If you had, you wouldn't think I was a right-leaning Democrat.

Anyhow, thanks for dropping in on this thread of mine. It's been a hoot.

[Hortensis]

138. :) As everyone knows except those who must deny reality.

[MineralMan]

153. Oh, dear...

[Demsrule86]

71. One shouldn't attack posters here...not good in any language.

[murielm99]

70. I agree.

If I say anything about the past primary this post will be removed. I don't like the way he has hired such divisive people. He could rein in his more obnoxious supporters, but he does not seem to want that.

He will try to act as a spoiler if he can. The caucus process can be subverted. Republicans can be encouraged to vote in our primaries. I think he will stop at nothing to spoil our chances, unless he is the nominee. And he will not be!

His past statements about our party show that he is not one of us. Bernie cares only for himself.

[Demsrule86]

72. +1000

[Autumn]

74. As a Democrat I Will Work Against Biden During the Primaries as he does not represent my needs

views on interests. I will vote for the Democratic nominee but I am pretty sure it will not be Biden, I believe it will be Warren.

Joe Biden? No thank you. Not for me.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

78. Suit yourself. That's what primaries are for.

[Autumn]

82. Exactly. nt

[janterry]

81. ITA. I've said if I have to hold my nose and vote for Biden come the election

I will.

But it will be a sad day indeed

[Cha]

318. Yeah, you do that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

96. I am wondering, though,

whether you approve of Sanders' campaign tactics and governing style. This thread is about those things only, not whether one agrees or disagrees with his or any other candidate's substantive policies. So, with respect only to those issues, I'd ask these questions:

1. Have Biden/Warren/Buttigieg/Klobuchar ever hired campaign staff who publicly disparage the Democratic Party?

2. Have Biden/Warren/Buttigieg/Klobuchar ever hired campaign staff who supported Jill Stein in the last election?

3. Have Biden/Warren/Buttigieg/Klobuchar themselves, while campaigning, publicly disparaged the Democratic Party?

4. Have Biden/Warren/Buttigieg/Klobuchar ever indicated they would not cooperate with other Democrats who did not agree with their positions on various issues?

5. Have Biden/Warren/Buttigieg/Klobuchar ever failed or refused to promptly support a Democratic nominee for the presidency?

The basic point of this thread is that some of us don't support Sanders because he and his surrogates are not especially supportive of the party to which he (at least temporarily) claims allegiance. This is extremely important for reasons described elsewhere in this thread, and because presidential candidates' campaigns are essential for the success of down-ballot candidates. If Bernie isn't supporting the party he'll hurt it. If you think this is OK, or if you think other candidates are doing the same thing, please feel free to explain.

[Autumn]

229. I'm not interested in your comparisons. Bernie Sanders caucuses with the Dems and is running as a

Democrat. There are candidates who have hired staff members I don't like but I'm smart enough to separate them with their staff. Bernie attracts a lot of younger voters who are not entrenched in any party and Independents who really don't have a problem with Jill Stein. Many young people don't really care either as a lot of them really have no party loyalty. That may come with time when they realize the only party who won't fuck them is the Democrats. As for harming the party Bernie has always supported the Democratic party and he always will. It's a primary, the candidates aren't going to be sitting around singing Kumbaya

[MineralMan]

100. Not a problem. Primary races are what they are.

One of the candidates will become the Democratic nominee.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

245. Me too... zero chance Joe wins the primary once the vetting begins in earnest.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[comradebillyboy]

76. By the Democratic Convention in 2016 I didn't think my opinion of Sanders

could sink any lower but I was wrong. His 2020 campaign is alienating me even more. How can Sanders actually accomplish anything with his "no middle ground" approach?

Great post MineralMan but it's just the tip of the iceberg.

[radical noodle]

83. I'm already seeing more #BernieorBust

posts on Facebook groups. Sanders' campaign managers are doing nothing to discourage this and the GOP is promoting it too. I don't see any other candidate's supporters saying things like that.

[CaptainTruth]

85. The only reasonable explanation I can think of is...

... that maybe by including those 2016 "third party" folks on his staff, Sanders thinks he can prevent some 2016 third party voters from voting third party again.

In other words, it's an attempt to "bring 2016 third party voters into the Democratic tent," so to speak, so they don't vote third party again in 2020.

I don't know if that's his actual strategy, & if it is, I don't know if it would be effective. I'll leave that for others to debate.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

109. That would be a more credible argument if those same people

didn't keep trashing the Democratic party. If the purpose was to bring them into the tent it isn't working; they're still standing on the outside pissing into it.

[yaesu]

90. I don't work against any candidate except tRump. nt

[PatrickforO]

93. Sadly, that's why I'm not supporting Bernie this time around.

Voting for Jill Stein was not good judgement. Clinton was far from my favorite candidate because there were nearly as many 'never Clintons' as there were 'never Trumps.' But if those Bernie supporters had swung behind Clinton, we would not be having the current national nightmare.

I do have a friend, though, who makes an interesting point. He says that if we look at Obama, we see a president who was better than merely 'good.' We see someone who led us through a great recession, rallied Congress to pass a national healthcare act, and put a whole bunch of good policies into place. Plus, the guy got Bin Laden. But he had the temerity to do all that while at the same time being black, and this caused the white supremacists to crawl out from under their rocks.

So, in 2016, we went from a smart, good, moral president who was black to a disgusting, foul, corrupt, treasonous, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, deregulator who has created messes it will take decades to clean up, lost us the confidence of our allies, promoted the interests of hostile foreign powers and illegally withheld aid from an ally for his own political gain.

But he's white.

It may be, Mineral Man, that my friend is right. Your comments about Bernie aside, because I agree with you, it may be we needed this descent into the Trump nightmare so that we could look on it in horror and so regain our decency and goodness as a people, end the American Empire, and regain our republic - the republic our founders intended we have.

Corporations and oligarchs have so much control through the dollars=free speech doctrine codified by the Citizens United and other disastrous court decisions, and Moscow Mitch has so successfully packed the federal courts with many-times-unqualified right wing idealogues, that we may well suffer into the next generation.

But we have to keep trying. We cannot give up. I suspect Biden will be the nominee, which is sad to me. It will once again seem to me that the party 'machine' has gone centrist out of cowardice at potentially losing an election rather than supporting the bold change that can inspire new generations of Americans.............but we have to get rid of Trump. We have to. So, if Biden gets the nod as I expect he will, I will support him. Enthusiastically, financially and as a volunteer.

I know you disagree, probably vehemently, with what I just said about the 'machine', but I will tell you that there are millions of people who will expect a President Biden and a (hopefully) Democratic Senate and House to make sweeping, bold progress on healthcare. On climate change. On the tax codes and on educating Americans that taxes aren't some kind of 'gummint' extortion but are necessary to pay for programs we need. On preserving and strengthening Social Security through imposing the 1999 'lock box' that Biden voted against. On preserving and expanding Medicare.

We also need to revise our trade agreements to be fair to American workers, and better dovetail workforce and economic development strategies so that the millions of American languishing in crummy jobs that are all that they had left after their good jobs disappeared are given some relief. We are going to have to be a bit more aggressive that I think Biden wants to be in adjusting policies to be more pro-worker.

The Republican party has become a party of treason, holding the needs and interests of foreign (and domestic) oligarchs above the interests of the American people. It cannot be allowed to stand. But we who make our way through the ruins the Party of Trump has created must do more than merely play 'clean up' while the peanut gallery - what Maddow calls the right wing noise machine - sits back and blames us for the problems. We have to get aggressive and go back at these cretins line by line.

Well, enough of that. We are both within the middle two thirds of the Bell curve, I think, though you might not think it of me. I will, of course, be supporting Warren as her photo on my signature implies, but again, I and hopefully every other Democrat in good standing will be supporting whomever our nominee is.

Because we must get rid of Trump.

There's a lot to do, and because of the urgency of climate change, it can no longer be business as usual.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

103. This thread is about Sanders' campaign tactics and governing style, not policies.

And those things are important; they are not "petty grievances over personalities." No candidate can implement his/her policies without the strong support of Congress. Do you believe that a President Sanders will actually have that support after he and his surrogates have devoted so much time and effort to disparaging the party to which he (temporarily) belongs? That's the concern here, not the policies.

[MineralMan]

118. Thanks for participating in the thread.

I hope you'll continue to participate on DU, so welcome to the site.

[JonLP24]

106. I agree

The staff hires are an excuse as the poster didn't support Sanders in 2016 either.

[stopdiggin]

164. nope. I too find the "staff hires" almost inexplicable

and extremely disturbing

(And it would seem that is a common sentiment. And I don't endorse any one candidate at this point. But one of them is distinguishing themselves as troubling. IMO).

[Demsrule86]

199. We have a DU given right to support whom we choose and don't need an 'excuse'. I didn't support

Sanders in 16 and I don't now...deal with it. And I get what MM is saying because I am working the primary this time as well...I rarely work primaries...most years, I like any of our candidates...but not this year. Sanders has my vote in a general but never in a primary.

[Cha]

316. NOPE.. BS hiring stein pushers as his TOP Staff..

is just adding more INSULT.

[58Sunliner]

127. Great aspirations-what is his record?? 2 post offices, a park, inclusion of women in defense bill,

and a transportation bill that was between 2 states. He spends more time campaigning than actually accomplishing legislative goals. Track record.

[MineralMan]

133. To Senator Sanders' Credit,

he has voted with the Senate Democratic Caucus almost all of the time. It is difficult for an Independent to get bills through that house of Congress. He has, however, introduced amendments to many bills that have succeeded in being part of bills that passed.

I have no brief against Sanders as a Senator from Vermont. In fact, I thank him for his support of Democratic-sponsored legislation. Sometimes, his vote has made the difference between passage or failure of a bill.

I do not support him to become the nominee for President of the Democratic Party, however, for the reasons I posted above. I believe we need a solid, long-time, declared Democrat as our nominee. Bernie Sanders is not that.

[58Sunliner]

265. What is he supposed to do, vote against the Dems? What amendments has he put through all by himself?

He also does not need to be the sole sponsor of a bill-so his handicap of being an Independent should not limit his effectiveness. I'm going to go with Hillary on this one, as she actually knows more than either of us.
Bernie also voted against the Magnitsky Act, and any other Russian sanctions.
"I have no brief against Sanders as a Senator from Vermont." Maybe you should.

[MineralMan]

266. I'm familiar with how Sentator Sanders has voted.

Most of the time, he has voted with the Democratic Caucus, for which I thank him. A few of his votes have puzzled me, of course, but then I remember that he is not actually a Democratic Senator. He intentionally claims to be an Independent. At the moment, he is claiming to be a Democrat in his run for the presidency, as he did when he ran in 2016. As soon as it was clear that he lost that opportunity, he publicly reverted back to his Independent status. I expect he will do the same thing this year.

Bernie Sanders has never claimed to be a Democrat for any significant period of time. He is proud of his status as an Independent. That's his privilege, of course, but it's also a factor in my decision making during this primary campaign season. That has not changed.

[GemDigger]

99. In 2016, A coworker of mine wanted Bernie. When I asked her why

she said it was because she wanted a Bolshevik revolution American style. After that comment I wondered why she would say such a thing. Recently her comment was going through my head again so I then googled "Bolshevik revolution Bernie sanders". The results were very interesting.

[SCVDem]

101. I agree with MM.

There is no separation between Putin, Stein, her minions and their working for Sanders.

We never knew this many Russians as we do now. Why is this acceptable?

[peoli]

115. This post smells

[MineralMan]

117. So does a rose.

[fantase56]

121. Thank you MM for stating this point so well...... nt

[MineralMan]

125. You're welcome.

[DacreMont8]

131. Your first paragraph is a lie

Here we are again, ripping people for having the temerity of supporting the candidate of their own choosing. I won't be bullied into voting for your candidate when the best one is Bernie Sanders.

NEWSFLASH: We are in a primary and we get to vote for who we want! Stop shouting lies at me!

If Sanders does not WIN the primary, then I will vote for who does. But it makes me SICK TO MY STOMACH all these [people] who keeps repeating lies from Fox news. Stop it!

[MineralMan]

136. Nobody's bullying you to do anything.

I simply gave my reasons for not supporting Senator Sanders for the Democratic nomination for President. I'm not telling anyone how to vote, because that would be stupid of me to do.

If you'll notice, I said I would vote for him if he becomes the Democratic nominee. I even put that in boldfaced type. I believe you have mischaracterized my post by claiming that the first paragraph is a lie.

Vote as you choose. That's what I'm going to do, and I explained why.

[LongtimeAZDem]

142. Briahna Joy Grey voted for Jill Stein

Cornell West endorsed Jill Stein.
Nina Turner even campaigned with Jill Stein.

[MineralMan]

149. I believe Sirota also voted for Stein.

[LongtimeAZDem]

157. He publicly denies it, so I did not include him

[MineralMan]

158. Ah, OK. Thanks.

Since he did a wholesale deletion of his old Tweets, it's hard to say, I think.

[LongtimeAZDem]

161. No problem. Mind you, I don't belive him.

[rwsanders]

132. Thanks for the reminder that it is time to send my contribution.

[MineralMan]

137. You're welcome. Contribute away as you think best.

[Demsrule86]

180. Money can't vote...just saying

[rwsanders]

258. And another round of 2016 like bullying ain't going to have better results than it did then.

Just saying...

[Demsrule86]

259. I agree...Sanders should support the Democratic nominee in the general this year .

[rwsanders]

261. Democratic nominee or democratic nominee?

we didn't have a small "d" nominee in 2016.
And you seem awfully confident he won't be the nominee. Is the fix already in? Can you give us the details?

[Demsrule86]

276. I don't do small d, big D...we are all Dd. And there doesn't need to be any fix for Sanders to lose

There is no way to 'fix' a primary. Some candidates win and some don't. I think Sander has less support this time...but I will vote for him if he does win...I am confident that Sanders is unlikely to to win for two reasons. He is not blowing out Iowa and New Hampshire, and he doesn't have enough AA support to win in diverse states moving forward.

[The Valley Below]

145. It's not just his staffing issues (which are disqualifying on their own)

the problems start at the top.

[MineralMan]

147. That's true, but it was his staff that was my tipping point for this round.

While some say it wasn't Jill Stein voters who made it possible for Trump to win PA, MI, and WI, the number of votes for Jill Stein in those states exceeded the margin by which Trump won in them. I make no apology for thinking Hillary would have won in those states were it not for those votes. I can't prove it, of course, but the numbers speak loudly to that effect.

[The Valley Below]

156. Fully understandable. The staffing issues (alone) are good enough cause IMO.

I'm just seeing mountain of other problems.

As to the Stein votes (et al), we are on the same page entirely.

[Tom Rinaldo]

154. I will restate the obvious. Country over Party

At this point I can easily see scenarios that would have me voting for Biden, or Warren, or Klobuchar rather than Sanders when the New York Primary comes around, even if Sanders was still in the running. I of course will back any Democrat in November. I am watching the electorate very closely this time around because, like everyone else, I know we have to get Trump out of office in November. Loyalty to the Democratic Party is not at the top of my list of priorities. At the top is saving our Democracy. Below that is reversing the consolidation of riches and power in America into fewer and fewer hands.

I choose to be a Democrat because we functionally live in a two party system rather than in a parliamentary style democracy in which governing coalitions are routinely assembled from several different parties. My values and priorities have a seat at the table within the Democratic Party, they do not within the Republican Party. Almost all of my political heroes identify as Democrats, essentially none of them are Republican. I have always rejected the Green Party because backing it siphons votes away from the one political party that can defeat Republicans. Sanders is an Independent who functionally, in varied ways, coordinates with Democrats, with the most obvious example being his membership in the Senate Democratic caucus. If I back Sanders for President I back him only as the candidate of the Democratic coalition. I would not back him running against a Democrat in November.

Yes Sanders has a long political career as an Independent. A plurality of Americans also self identify as Independents. Most Independents end up voting for one of the two major party candidates in November. I believe that the appeal Sanders has with many Independents was not obviously recognized by conventional wisdom in 2016, and for the most part isn't adequately recognized this year either. Independent voters don't care how loyal a politician is to the Democratic Party, rather they care how loyal that politician is to them. And yes, many 2016 Green Party voters also have positive feelings for Sanders. Some of them would abandon the Green Party for Sanders if he wins the Democratic nomination and is on the ballot in November. In a close election that may matter.

I am comfortable by and large with the policies that Sanders advocates for, so I have no reason not to support him on ideological grounds. If I sense that he has the chance to put together a more likely winning coalition in November than the more standard Democratic playbook calls for, because of his cross party line appeal to swaths of voters who are fundamentally dissatisfied with the long time status quo in America, Sanders will keep my support in the primaries. If not it will go to another one of the candidates for the Democratic nomination who are more clearly identified with and loyal to the Democratic Party. In the big picture everything else is just static

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

205. What I can't figure out is why Warren isn't a more acceptable progressive choice

than Sanders. Their positions are almost indistinguishable but Warren has far less baggage; she and her campaign staff aren't bomb-throwers who voted for Jill Stein and disparage Democrats and the Democratic Party; her M4A proposal has actual numbers (some might disagree with her numbers but at least she has them); she was instrumental in designing and implementing the CPFB; she wrote or co-sponsored much more legislation than Sanders ever did, even though she's been in the Senate for a much shorter period of time (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/elizabeth_warren/412542/report-card/2018 vs. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2018). So why Sanders and not Warren?

[Tom Rinaldo]

232. I agree that is a good question

Part of the answer might involve asking a different question. Are only self identified progressives drawn to Sanders? One thing that has interested me is some polling data that indicates a significant number (I didn't say majority, just significant) of Biden supporters in Iowa for instance, back Sanders as their second choice. There may be "positive" reasons for that, such as the fact that Sanders has been consistent in his views for decades or that he so strongly identifies himself with the working class, or "negative" reasons for that, such as some voters maybe feeling more comfortable with male potential leaders.

I like Warren a lot and wanted her to run in 2016. I was backing her here until a few weeks ago and I can see myself possibly going back to supporting her over Sanders. I need a clearer sense of what type coalition each of them is capable of pulling together to win the presidency. That is what I am now focused on.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

242. Or maybe just plain ol'-fashion' sexism?

Like Bernie said, a woman can't win?

I sure hope that's not it, but it does look that way.

[Tom Rinaldo]

264. I hope not also n/t

[melman]

168. I don't think that's why

[MineralMan]

169. Well, that's cryptic. Care to explain?

I'll wait here...

[melman]

170. No

I don't care to explain. Why? No explanation is necessary.

[MineralMan]

171. Well, then, never mind...

[melman]

172. Hey

If you post something, I might reply to it. That's DU for you.

[MineralMan]

173. Well, you seem to be saying that I don't know my own mind.

Do you know my mind better than I do? Or are you just saying that I'm lying? I'm guessing the second. If I'm wrong here's your chance to clarify.

[melman]

177. You have well over 100,000 posts

thousands of which show you to be a long-term Bernie basher.


Just as an example let's look at this thread here


Do you expect people to see you post things like that for years and then buy that you just decided now to be anti-Bernie?


Well I'm sorry but I don't. I just don't believe that.

[Demsrule86]

184. MM is not anti-Bernie...but pro-Democratic Party...

I am very displeased with Sanders myself and was last time during general as well.

[MineralMan]

185. Yes, I do.

I carefully explain why I hold opinions in them, as I did in this one. You claimed that I didn't believe what I said, or that I lied about my reasons. I did not lie. That is my reason. Now what, melman? Am I a liar?

[melman]

197. I told you what I think

and I explained why I hold that opinion. And that's all you're going to get.


You can keep on trying to bait me but I'm not going to go for it. So sorry.

[ehrnst]

187. Is that from "How to Make Friends and Influence People?"

[TwilightZone]

252. Where did he say he just now decided not to support Bernie?

I think you're seeing things that aren't there.

[Demsrule86]

186. That is nonsense...we deal in opinions. you all just don't like MM's opinions...

I would argue that some Sanders supporters ...not saying you...have little tolerance for people who's opinions do not include support for Sanders in the primary.

[zipplewrath]

236. Not a Sanders supporters

I just find that MM doesn't ever seem interested in defending his position, only expressing it.

[Demsrule86]

243. He explained his reasons for not supporting Sanders...I feel the same way. Hiring Stein supporters

is a deal breaker for me and for MM apparently in the primary. I volunteer for the Biden campaign because of how I feel about Sanders. It is rare for me to campaign in a primary ...so how should he defend this opinion...it is how he feels. Perhaps an example? I will vote blue no matter who in a general which includes Sanders, but I hope I won't have to do this. Hopefully, he won't be the nominee.

[Demsrule86]

248. I don't agree. I enjoy MM posts and think he explains his positions...I never wonder why he feels

as he does. We can agree to disagree.

[zipplewrath]

249. We can

But you'd be wrong. Review his years of explaining the "it's just his opinion". It's in his signature.

[Demsrule86]

251. I don't have a problem with that. Everyone has a right to their opinion.

I hope you have a nice evening and I mean that.

[MineralMan]

188. Nope. I explained my opinion and the reasons I hold it

in some depth. I then expanded on that in the ensuing thread. What say you now?

[zipplewrath]

237. You're never willing to "defend" it.

Your primary "defense" is to say "it's my opinion".

[MineralMan]

238. Have I said that in this thread?

I provided information. I explained my reasoning, and I'm answering replies. I'm not the one who is avoiding giving answers here.

[MineralMan]

240. My signature line still says that.

Signature lines don't display in the Democratic Primaries forum, though. The signature line also says that I do not normally reply to DU Mail. I reply only to public posts, and I reply to them frequently. That's how my post count got so high.

You admit you have not read even this thread, in which I have replied to most posts and replies. Apparently, you're no that familiar with me.

[TwilightZone]

255. Signature lines don't show up in the Primaries forum.

And, to be more accurate, his signature line says he won't respond to DU mail, not in conversations. It seems pretty obvious that he's responding to conversations, frankly.

[True_Blue]

183. I find it troubling that any Democrat would actively work against a possible Democratic nominee

Why not just actively campaign for the candidate you prefer? It's very important to stay united to win all three branches of govt so we can clear out the treasonous rot in the WH.

Dan Rather said "A classic Russian ploy is to sow division and distrust between natural allies."

Link to tweet

[MineralMan]

190. This is about the Democratic primary race.

Only one candidate will win. I am explaining why I will not vote for one of them. That's part of the process. I have no connection to any Russians at all. You are the second person in this thread to imply some Russian connection. No such thing exists.

[True_Blue]

207. I understand how primaries work,

but why actively "work against" a Democratic candidate who may be our nominee? All of our candidates are good decent people, and I would happily vote for any one of them over Trump.

[MineralMan]

208. I have a preferred candidate. I also consider Sanders to be a

Democrat of convenience. As I said,I will vote for him if he is the nominee. I said that in boldfaced text. Did you miss that?

[Demsrule86]

203. Please note it is in the primary...and I would submit that Sanders and his Stein crew are actively

campaigning against both Warren and Biden. MM has repeatedly said he would vote for Sanders in a general so would I for that matter.

[True_Blue]

213. I've been through quite a few primaries in my lifetime

Trump is my 12th & worst president so far. There's always disappointment after primaries when your candidate doesn't win, but I've never seen the resentment last for years. Maybe a month or two, but then the Russians weren't involved back then either.

[MineralMan]

215. What do you think Russians have to do with my thread?

[aikoaiko]

193. Maybe we should all work against nonpreferred candidates.

[MineralMan]

195. Perhaps so. Tulsi Gabbard, for example.

[Hekate]

210. That's what I have been explicitly doing here at DU regarding Tulsi

Sometimes you just have to.

[MineralMan]

212. Yes.

[aikoaiko]

218. Knock yourself out.

[MineralMan]

224. No need.

[Demsrule86]

206. Judging from the anti-Biden posts...some of us do in the primary.

[Progressive dog]

198. Thank you

I certainly won't vote for Bernie in the primary, no matter who else remains viable when New York gets to vote.

[dlk]

221. I don's see Bernie as a uniter, which is what we so desperately need at this critical juncture

Bernie appears to be more of a “my way or the highway” kind of guy and so do many of his supporters. Too much is at stake for this kind of divisiveness.

[MineralMan]

226. That, too.

[dlk]

227. Yes

[zipplewrath]

247. As oppose to Clinton

Which was a "my way" kinda guy because he was more interested in being successful, than "right". Do you want Clinton or Carter?

[Demsrule86]

250. Neither...I want Biden.

[NanceGreggs]

253. I trust Bernie Sanders ...

... as much as I trust Donald Trump - which is not at all.

[totodeinhere]

256. This doesn't bother me at all. We need people who voted for Stein last time to vote for

the Democratic nominee this time. I think it's time we move on from the 2016 election and concentrate on winning in 2020.

[Demsrule86]

260. No we do not need any Stein voter working for a Democratic candidate. As for moving on...I will neve

get over the 2016 General election and never forgive Stein and the Greens...they are dead to m.

[totodeinhere]

277. Well, I guess some people are more forgiving than others.

I have always considered forgiveness a virtue, but then that's just me I guess.

And you know, it's against the DU TOS to keep reliving the 2016 campaign. You can get alerted for that although I personally don't do alerts. I understand that there were some hard feelings over the 2016 campaign but I at least am ready to move on and concentrate on the future.

[Demsrule86]

282. I guess I am not that virtuous... Trump was elected.

[questionseverything]

262. yes we do need those voters this time

just like we need the 10% of the black vote we lost in 2016

we certainly do not make it harder for them to vote blue by repeatedly bashing their preferred candidate

but that is just my thinking

[Happy Hoosier]

267. But will they?

The problem is these folks don't regret their vote for Stein and will likely do so again if their guys doesn't get the nomination. This means they don't care about the success of the nominee unless it is Sanders. That is a problem. And as long as Sanders tolerates them, he is a no-go candidate for me. Period. (I will certainly vote for the Dem nominee even if it is Sanders).

[totodeinhere]

278. I'm not sure if I buy that generalization or not.

But as a general principle I think we need to fight for every vote we can get.

[Happy Hoosier]

279. I don't disagree, but...

Do you at least recognize a potential problem in Sanders staffing his campaign with so many unrepentant Stein voters?

[totodeinhere]

281. Of course I understand that some people will not let this go.

But I don't believe in any sort of litmus test. If they are willing to support one of our candidates this time that's fine with me. I would rather have them on board with Bernie. I don't want to drive them away and tempt them to support another third party candidate.

[Happy Hoosier]

283. It's not about "not letting this go"

This is an ONGOING issue. The recent "op-ed" is a perfect example.

[totodeinhere]

285. It's only ongoing because some people won't let go of a grudge. n/t

[TwilightZone]

257. Well, this is an interesting thread.

I had no idea that you engendered such fevered animosity. I think my personal favorite was the one where expressing your opinions and clearly labeling them as such is apparently an affront to all that is holy and to polite society. At least that's what I gathered from the conversation.

I can't recall seeing quite so many vague assertions and personal attacks based on, well...not much.

This place sometimes makes me laugh and sometimes makes me roll my eyes. Sometimes both.

As for the OP, I probably wouldn't have as much of an issue with his staff's prior record if they weren't continuing some of the same strategies this cycle. I saw that Sanders apologized for Teachout's comments, which is a start, but I think that the horse was out of the barn a long time ago and likely isn't coming back.

[MineralMan]

268. Well, my positions and opinions on some subjects are not universally liked.

That's to be expected, I suppose. I'm a mainstream Democrat, because it has been such Democrats who have managed to win office more often that those who hold views further to the left. While I am a philosophical socialist, I've not found that my personal philosophy leads to success at the polling place. So, since I believe that this country does better when Democrats are in power, I work to elect Democrats everywhere. What that means is that in some places, Democrats who lean more toward the center are the only ones who can get elected.

Nationally, too, it has been more moderate Democrats who have managed to get elected as our Presidents. That is frustrating, of course, to people who decry any compromises in legislation, etc. They forget that nothing happens in this country without compromise. That's because we are not a unified nation, politically.

People who are frustrated tend to strike out at anyone who doesn't see things their way. There's no getting around that, so taking certain positions on DU, which tends to lean left, ends up with the person taking the moderate position getting attacked sometimes. I'm used to that. I try to shed such attacks as gracefully as I can.

Note: It is my policy on DU not to alert on any post that is a reply to something I have written. I follow that policy religiously, even when attacked for some reason. I prefer to reply within the thread to such attacks, or simply ignore them.

[Demsrule86]

271. It is easier to attack you then to defend Sander's choice of staff...no one who didn't vote for the

nominee or actively campaigned against her in the General should be employed by any candidate. It is a deal breaker for me as well. The fact is -like it or not- presidential elections have always been won in the center...those few times we strayed to the left, we lost in blow out elections. And based on the governorships, legislatures, Senate, we have moved further to the right. We always do when a Republican president is elected which is too often if you ask me. We should not be losing elections...presidential or midterm, if we all vote blue no matter who and support one another maybe we could get some of these progressive goodies that many of us have long desired.

Consider the ACA, we talked about it and it was pretty much hated...Nancy gave up her majority to get it passed, The Tea-party lost their minds, but once people experienced it, they wanted it. Healthcare is now viewed as a right. We did that, we changed people's minds across the board and against all odds. And those who want to tear it down and replace it with MFA will not be successful and could cost us healthcare in the attempt.

I will never understand why the left stands with the right on this. The bottom line is providing the best healthcare we can get passed and right now that is the ACA. And we have won several elections on health care. The same would be true with some of our other programs as well. If we compromised and passed something maybe not exactly what we want but a compromise, People would like it after they saw how it made their lives better.

So I view this M4A drama as snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Democrats should be damn proud of the effort and sacrifice it took to get what is the only healthcare program ever implemented. But instead some sneer at our greatest success and call those who support it Republican...It is a damn shame and disrespectful to those who gave up their elected offices to pass it. Thanks for the OP...I think it lets people see where others stand and did promote understanding.

[MineralMan]

272. Perhaps so. Fortunately, I'm like a duck in a rainstorm.

Attacks here roll off my feathers, while I stay dry. What you say is also true. If we stick to our guns and vote for the Democratic nominee that is selected by the primaries or caucuses in our 50 states, we'll make progress. We might not reach the exact goals held by some people, we will make progress. That is the overriding goal. If we do not get behind that candidate, a Republican will win, either Donald Trump or some other noxious individual.

It ends up being a binary choice between something with promise or something that will increase the harm. For me, the choice is simple. It always has been simple.

[Demsrule86]

273. I agree completely. We must not allow Trump or any GOP four more years. I am not sure

we could recover from that as a party or as a country. The thing that disturbs me with some of this is the idea that somehow there is honor in losing...if the best most pure candidate loses...why it is probably for the best they say. I have seen some say, we should not worry about the presidential elections and concentrate on Congress...I find that very disturbing and foolish. Winning is everything..endless policy discussions when we have not way to implement such policy bores me to tears...let's talk about what is possible and win elections...so more is possible.

[MineralMan]

274. What you said...

[Demsrule86]

275. We are going to beat Trump...I feel it in my bones...

[Kentonio]

284. The op gets a lot of negative reactions because of some of his poor behavior in the past

These things don’t get forgotten easily, although many years have since passed.

[Hekate]

294. Someone upthread accused HIM of "holding a grudge"!

.... Now back to your regularly-scheduled programming...

[Tarheel_Dem]

263. Ditto! n/t

[wryter2000]

269. You nailed it

Of course, I hate being talked down to by his supporters.

[LanternWaste]

286. Although I may not ever work for a specific Democratic candidate

in the primaries, I'll certainly never work against one. It's more a reflection of one's own character than it is anything else.

[Hekate]

297. Personally, I've been working against Tulsi Gabbard since early on, based on info about her leanings

... And her overall background.

Now that charming young lady has hired Right Wing lawyers and filed a $50 million lawsuit against Hillary Clinton -- who never mentioned her by name.

There are some things you just have to do. "Vetting" of candidates is an exercise best done during the Primaries -- and best done based on facts.

[booley]

290. Sounds counter productive if your goal is to beat Trump

Let us think about this.

One of the reasons given by Centrists for Clinton's defeat in 2016 was Jil Stein took voters away from Clinton.

Now, this is wrong for many reasons. But lets for the sake of argument say it was true.

Why would you not want those voters to vote for you if they not voting for you cost you the election last time?

IF Sanders is putting former Stein people in his campaign then that means he is trying to get those Stein Voters. This means if Sanders is nominated, you wouldn't have to worry about the Green party spoiling the vote.

I am not going to tell you how to vote. No one is entitled to any vote. But just on a strategic level, I don't understand this and other's position that we can throw away voters as if we have too many. Especially when people like Biden are saying he wants to draw in disaffected Trump voters, who are way more problematic than anyone who voted for Jill Stein.

I can't even call this a purity test since the standards are all over the place.

I want to beat Trump. So I am going to work my ass off for Sanders in the Primary.

[Cha]

299. KICK!

[Gothmog]

309. The attacks on this man by sanders supporters are sad

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Gothmog]

320. trump would destroy a weak candidate like sanders

In addition to the well written 101 page memorandum with oppo on sanders with a 1000 pages of backup from the Clinton campaign trump has his own oppo file on sanders that would destroy such a weak and divisive candidate like sanders. Trump had a two foot thick book of oppo research on Sanders http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach....

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers....

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

sanders was such a weak primary candidate that the Clinton campaign did not use its oppo but trump would have fun destroying such a weak candidate like sanders