No, I disagree entirely. If Sen. Sanders did not have the support and infrastructure of the Democratic Party, and all of the initial goodwill towards his candidacy especially by the rank and file, ole Bernie would be wagging that ole finger to crickets, the way Nader is doing these days.
And no, the alternative is not for us to be “Naderized”! By which I assume you mean stuck in an ideological spider hole which allows to diversity of opinion. (Or, what exactly do you mean by that?)
The Democratic Party is a diverse and vibrant party – flawed as it is – and has no need to beg ideological left-wingers to run under its banner.
I stand by my contention that allowing Bernie to step in and try to destroy my party was a big mistake.
I agree that this is not a big deal, Sec. Clinton has been called many names over the years, and this is very tame. She was called a murderer, drug dealer etc. Sec. Clinton is probably laughing about this and this is what we should do. We should accept that these types of statements will be made, especially in the coming campaign against Trump. We should not be distracted by such statements, just keep on focusing on the issues as this is just a means by the opponents to divert our focus away from the important issues of the campaign.
While I support Clinton and some ace me of being a “Hillbot” (which is funny given who I was supporting earlier in the race) I have been keeping in sight of down-ballot races. Which is why Sanders platform, lack of effort or support of r those down-ballot races is yet another data point on why I de-camped from his candidacy and support Clinton’s. Because she and the party are very much looking at the top, middle and bottom of the ticket and backing it with not just words but money, investment, effort, coalition building, intraparty support, etc.
I don’t agree. But if you want to think that the 18% here refers to Clinton having an 18% lead over Sanders with Independent voters in the primaries and caucuses to date, please proceed.
If that risible statement were even remotely true, Bernie would be winning in both the delegate count and the popular vote.
The fact that he is doing neither of those things shows quite clearly that he cannot mobilize diddly squat to participate in government or effect change.
All he can do is wave his arms around and have rallies that don’t translate into votes or delegates.
I am not distracted, I am not outraged. I am going to call out sexist speech when I see it. The phrase “whore” is a gender-ladened stereotype. It has no place in this discussion. I can’t stop Trump but it doesn’t belong in a conversation between progressives. Language that marginalizes a group that is less powerful than the dominant (still male) culture just doesn’t belong.
How does Hillary attract independents to those down ballot Democrats? I suspect her coattails will be exceedingly short. That is why the Democratic message needs to be bigger than “vote for me, I am competent.”
Interesting, isn’t it, that Secretary Clinton has garnered far more than a million more votes and a couple hundred more delegates than Sen. Sanders. She is out running him by miles and miles, out-organizing him, out-debating him hands down. Get out of your Bernie Bubble for a few hours.
Secretary Clinton is not only “in the running” but running circles around the hapless old Socialist.
Sophie-Brown said that Bernie is responsible for Garland not getting a vote, because his staying in the race has given Republican Senators cover. Apparently Senate Democrats are so drawn into the fight between Hillary and Bernie they can’t keep pressure on endangered Republican Senators.
I never said independent voters. That was not even what the initial comment that kicked off this subthread was about. So can we stop walling that goal post?
That original claim in question was about you claiming that Sanders had parity now with Clinton among Democratic voters. The article you linked to in an effort to back that claim up, clearly states and refutes this point when it says that among self-identfied Democratic voters, she has a +18 lead over Sanders. You are indeed misreading that passage 9not me) as those are separate breakouts, which ai serape subsets of the groups where Clinton lead Sanders and by want margin. The second one in that coma delimited sentence is people who identify ad Democrats. Which is what the original comment was disputing, your claim that Sanders has parity amount that group. Which simply is not the case and your Bloomberg poll/article contains the salient part when refutes it.
Well having the Sanders camping stop their seamless smear campaigns and go back to running an costive issues capping and then when Clinton is the nominee, be good to his word and vigorously campaign to make clear that anyone who supported his candidacy should vote for Clinton and commit themselves to staying engaged and involved and work within he Democratic party.
And I think the contrast between what the Democratic party and a Clinton administration has to offer independents vs. what the GOP will be selling will make the choice pretty clear.
I think there are a lot of things like this in there:
‘Mark Lippman of Daily Kos was evidently the first to report the Vermont senator’s incomplete disclosures. He also noted that the value of Jane Sanders’ “retirement accounts appreciated in value from $285,000 in 2011 to $481,000 in 2014.” Nothing wrong there, by the way, though readers may find the 68.8 percent increase puzzling because Lippman failed to give context.’
A 68.8 percent increase in their portfolio! Looks like he’s very cozy with Wall Street.
I think a lot of independents are going to either vote for Hillary without regard to the down ballot candidates or they are going to stay home. In fact that is my greatest fear. A lot of people are going to stay home and either Trump or Cruz will be elected. I will do everything I can to help Hillary, but her “small ball” campaign makes being for her very difficult.
Senate democrats can’t do it alone. It takes popular opinion and a unified response. Have you written any letters or done anything to press the issue?
Let’s go back to where this come from. You just tried to pin Garland’s failure to advance on Obama. I called BS. Now you’re saying it is senate dems fault?
