Bernie would be doing better

    Today, Donald Trump would probably beat Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head matchup 538's Nate Silver predicts. Ah but the election won't be held today you reply. Correctomundo.  When the election is actually conducted sayeth Silver, Clinton should squeeze out a 10-point win in the electoral college.

    Nevertheless, her lead is remarkably slender. Under Silver's polls-only forecast, Clinton now has just a 52.4% chance of taking the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue from the current inhabitant in early 2017. Clinton does better in Silver's polls-plus projection where her shot at winning is pegged at 60%. Some stats gurus may quibble with my reliance on Silver for the proposition that Trump is much closer to Clinton than he has any right to be. Sam Wang from the Princeton Election Consortium calls Clinton either a 60% or 80% favorite depending on whether you use a “random drift” or “Bayesian” analysis whatever they are. The problem with Wang is that in the last election cycle he was wrong and Silver was right.

    The Princeton Consortium predicted the Democrats would maintain control of the Senate in 2014 while Silver correctly prognosticated a Republican victory. Others may argue that polls taken while the parties are holding their conventions are unreliable. Perhaps this is why Silver still projects Clinton to win. He has apparently discounted heavily recent national polls showing Trump with a substantial lead. The deadbeat Don is up by 7 points in today's LA Times/USC survey. CNN and CBS both have Trump ahead as well albeit by smaller margins. Swing states seem to be following the trend. Nevada is now in Trump's column according to one poll and Ohio is dead even according to another.

    So it sure looks like CNN is going to have lots of viewers chewing off their fingernails while watching Jake Tapper's five o-clock shadow steadily lengthen throughout the early morning November 9. If Hillary Clinton ultimately prevails, perhaps none of this will matter much. The reality-based community will breathe a sigh of relief that'll last for a couple of months until she takes office and we start fighting again over whether she's progressive enough or even a progressive at all.

    The Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton for President last night mooting the question of whether Bernie Sanders would do better against Trump. But it is an interesting and important hypothetical nonetheless. Some Sanders supporters are reluctant to rally behind Clinton because they perceive the nominee, her backers, and the DNC as arrogantly dismissive of the Vermont Senator's candidacy, his views, and his legions.

    If, however, Sanders were indeed more popular than Clinton national, the Democratic ticket would be well-served to identify quickly and publicly strong pro-worker, pro-peace, and pro-environment progressives to serve as top advisers in the hoped-for Clinton administration. Concomitantly, Clinton's base would have no legitimate basis for gloating over her “landslide” win the primaries and mocking Sanders voters as “immature crybabies” whose “demands” should be ignored.

    So would Sanders be better positioned than Clinton to defeat Trump? It seem beyond peradventure that he would. For the first six months of this year, poll after poll told us this. Clinton's biggest weakness then was that a majority of Americans do not believe her to be honest and trustworthy. Since she garnered the nomination, the number of Americans who say they believe her has fallen to a new low and she is now as unpopular or nearly so, as Trump himself.

    In early March, I wrote Who is more electable Bernie or Hillary? Closing on an ambiguous note I suggested that while Sanders would likely garner significantly more votes nationally than Clinton in the general election Clinton might still be stronger. Her outsized support among senior voters and voters of color, I decided, could provide her with a significant advantage in critical Florida. That advantage alone might make her a better bet for Democrats than Sanders. Nearly five months later, however, it seems the importance of Florida has dwindled somewhat in the electoral calculus.

    Despite forecasting a narrow Clinton general election win, 538's Silver has moved the Sunshine State's 29 electoral votes to Trump's side of the ledger. In other words, Florida is not projected to be a tipping point state. Moreover, Clinton is behind there notwithstanding the state's apparently friendly demographics. This means the election is likely to be decided in the rust belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin where Sanders would almost certainly be stronger against Trump.

    The conclusion that Sanders would be a better Democratic candidate than Clinton does not rest on now months-old polls and her tumbling approval ratings. In a just-posted piece at 538, Silver notes that many of Sanders backers in the primaries are independents and very young voters who are not committed Democrats. While Trump appeals to very few Sanders voters, Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian Gary Johnson may pick up a significant percentage of them while others, Silver suggests, may stay home. Comments from disgruntled Sanders supporters on social media and in pro-Sanders email groups strongly support Silver's thesis.

    By contrast, Clinton won the Democratic primaries by dint of a huge margin over Sanders among registered Democrats. Such voters would doubtless have been disappointed if their preferred candidate had lost to the Vermont Senator But the seniors, voters of color, and coastal liberals who comprise the Clinton coalition would almost certainly have coalesced more quickly and completely behind Bernie Sanders than Bernie's battalions have behind Clinton.

    In part this is due to the sophistication of Clinton's older voters. After suffering through the Reagan and Bush years, they recognize how badly a Republican President can screw up the country while in office and for years thereafter through retrograde Supreme Court justices. The understandable fear and loathing of Trump so many women, African-Americans, and Latinos have would also push the great majority of the Clinton coalition to back Sanders enthusiastically.

    But it is also important to note that Sanders does not carry the baggage that freights Hillary Clinton. He is perceived as an honest straight-shooter. He is in no wise in thrall to corporate interests and his voting record reflects fealty to the economic interests of poor, working, and middle-class, voters. His pro-peace credentials are far more solid than Clinton's. While Sanders does differ from most progressives on gun control, his mixed record in this area would likely help him reach a few more voters in the hunting hinterlands of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

    The Bernie or Bust crowd should support Hillary Clinton because Donald Trump seems inclined to harm our nation and because there is reason to believe she could turn out to be a truly progressive President. She also deserves backing because she convincingly bested Bernie Sanders in a reasonably fair fight for the nomination.  Unfortunately, many Bernie voters are not inclined to vote for Clinton.

    Therefore, to improve their odds of winning, Clinton and Tim Kaine, along with the Democratic National Committee, and her supporters must explicitly acknowledge the essential correctness of Sanders's policy positions and the popularity of his ideals and character.  They must put aside their pique at a long-time independent backed by millennials and radicals who dared take on the Democratic establishment and challenge the candidate for whom they were ready. In short, they must commit to the Sanders agenda.

    Comments

    American voters hate Hillary so much and love Sanders but somehow they could not be motivated by that hate nor that love to go to the polls and vote for Sanders. But if only Hillary will adopt the policies of the man primary voters overwhelmingly rejected voters would rush to elect her in the general.

     


    We get censored for responding to this repetitive nonsense. Bernie lost. Bernie could not form a coalition. End of story.


    We're called to be the adults in the room and rise to a higher standard. While the kiddies run rampant, unchallenged.


    Trump is a racist, bigot, misogynist, con man. Despite this, the GOP made Trump their candidate.Democrats get only 40% of the white vote. 20% of black voters in Ohio cast a vote for an idiot Texan because they were homophobes. The problem is "What's the Matter With Kansas" and Kansas is everywhere.


    Speaking of pique, I am weary of this.  Republicans threw mud at Hillary and left Bernie alone.  Why?  Certainly not because they were afraid of him.  They wanted to run against him.  I can see their slogans now:

    Bolshevic Bernie!  He will tax you more and give free stuff to the takers!

    Socialist Sanders!  He will make our country into a great big CUBA!!!!

    Feel the "Bern?"  That's what he's doing to our Constitution --> burning it up!  

    Bernie will send everyone to college free instead of funding our horribly decimated military, so you'll be really smart when ISIS comes!

    Bernie the Taker!  He never had a job until he was 30!  A welfare cheat!

    Anyone who doesn't see that as baggage may just possibly be missing something.  What an utter waste of effort and time.  And I bit.  Oh, well.  

    I am really loving the Convention, by the way.  The booing and screaming seems to be past its sell-by-date, and Bernie did all he could to slap some sense into them.  Very late, but better than never.

     I thought Bill did a great job, and Michelle, and I have no doubt that the President will do a great job.  I am actually seeing a teensy bit of MSM push-back about Donald's invitation to Putin to commit cyber crime against his opponent.  Yep!  The right person won.  No doubt about that from my point of view.  Thanks, Hal, for one more chance to give my reasons!

    Edited to add:    "They must commit to the Sanders agenda". Meh


    We know how Sanders is going to get all the free stuff for his supporters. The same way he got his cable, by  stealing it from his neighbor.


    I heard it was electricity that he stole from his neighbor.  I don't think cable existed when Bernie was in his 20's.  Lol


    Socialist Sanders! He will make our country into a great big CUBA!!!!

    Great music! Cool vintage cars! Excellent healthcare from doctors making 1.6x the median income!

    Bring it!

     


    I'm with you, but Donald wouldn't be preaching to you or me, would he?  He even talks about the "European Lifestyle" as if it isn't better than ours.  


    Since you make the matter so  personal, candor requires that I confess to sharing DNA with individuals who have already heard the sermon (even now passing among us as human notwithstanding they have obviously been "snatched"

     

    )

     

     


    OK.  I am not fluent in your language.  


    After consideration of all the evidence, I believe that Trump is the point man for an alien invasion

     

    All the people who show up for  his rallies are merely the pod grown duplicates of now murdered Americans.

     

    Sad...

     

    ETA: my sister and nephew among them....


    True but they don't know it.  They still think they are alive.  The believe it because they like to eat so much and drink lots of diet sodas.


    Ah, now you see where the Zombie narrative becomes compelling.

    Somehow, imagining the existence of a replicating vector of infection serves very well as an explanation for perceived phenomena. It is a model that is in danger of becoming a part of what it imagines.

    Oh, sorry. Back to the discussion of politics...


    I thought the primaries were over.


    So did we all.  


    Hal ... Uhhhh...

    You wrote:

    "In short, they must commit to the Sanders agenda."

    Here's the PDF of the entire 55 page platform as approved by the Democratic Platform Committee July 8-9. 2016 in Orlando, FL.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

    Sander's agenda is in there. But of course it's 55 pages and the supporters can't take the time to read it because they're still damn too busy licking their wounds.

    Too bad for the Bernie supporters they haven't taken my advice.

    But who am I but a Silly Duck.

    ~OGD~


    Soros is back pumping money into the Dem campaign, which will open the gates for other donors. Presuming Mook and others do more than hust ad buys, or even if, the get-out-the-vote and messaging and lower rung contests are all getting a big boost. All is good.


    Just curious Hal...you either spent a lot of time on this blog, or you just cut & pasted myriad other stuff that you have posted without one new point at all.  I don't know why I even care, but why did you take the time (or lack of time, but effort) to post this reiteration of every word you have repeatedly said here over and over and over again, without one single new idea?

    To what end?  What is your point?  Should we all agree with you that a 74 year-old guy running on a total of four or five issues that he acknowledges he can't even achieve would be stronger than HIllary?  That Republicans wouldn't eviscerate him as they do everyone else that they run against?  That he had no baggage?  Really?

    Go to sleep, Hal.  Just pass up Barack Obama's speech.  You wouldn't enjoy it, and it might keep you up all night.


    Nate gives Trump 20% chance.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance...

    Back to the convention now.


    Your link was 28 days old when you posted it.  Now it's 29.


    Silver referred to a betting site - you just click the link within the link.

    https://electionbettingodds.com/

    They have Clinton's odds over Trump as 66.4% to 32.5% for Trump, or better than 2:1 as of today.

    Silver himself continues to say the odds are >60% Hillary to <40% Trump as of today (after qualifying out the obvious Trump post-convention bump). This is Silver's preferred "Polls Plus" methodology, rather than the more pessimistic, regular polls evaluation that you keep drifting towards.

    In any case, 4 of the most recent polls used for this exercise were 2 1/2 weeks ago. The rest range from June to last November. In short, it's not "recent" and none of this takes into account the Republican or Democratic conventions. Instead, they're more likely to give weight to unhappy campers before both Trump's and Hillary's kumbaya moments. (that Trump's involves burning effigies and donning masks and mud-paint to holler around "Kill the Pig, Kill the Pig" perhaps makes it less kumbaya by objective standards, but by GOP measure it serves the same purpose).

    One should also note that Bernie never went through a credible state-by-state Polls Plus evaluation, and if you consider the likely skewering he would have taken at the Republican Convention from friend of Castro's to socialist atheist to unwed father to a gillion other marching points like his break-the-budget education and health care proposals and break-up-the-banks populist stance, it's likely that most "values voters" would have found enough red meat to be horrified, while there would be none of Hillary's foreign policy experience to draw away sensible Republican foreign service grownups). And of course there are few secret GOP abortion supporters and feminist sympathizers who will flock to Bernie expecting refuge as they might to Hillary. As Silver's site notes, Trump's pushing Catholic voters heavily to Hillary (more than she's attracting them). Again I doubt Bernie'd be as acceptable a destination as a life-long confirmed Methodist.  (yeah, I'm an atheist, but I know how to evaluate the odds and where I stand in America's doghouse).


    The right response and one you'll never see from PP.

    You know what Hal I did link to a month-old article that has been completely superseded by subsequent events.  I was so angry and upset at what you wrote that I couldn't see straight so I just posted to the first link I could find that appeared to prove you wrong.  I'm sorry and I'll try to be more careful in the future.


    You know Hal I was on a mobile phone, so didn't have the chance to trash your thoroughly immature and cherry-picked article the way it deserved - apologies. I just updated it, and boy do you look out to lunch. You're welcome. I'll be careful in the future to skewer you better the first time rather than allow your self-lauded ego to balloon in the time it takes to update.

    PS - Bernie lost. Maybe you can look to the future.


    Keep digging.  You're entertaining me.


    I guess PP thinks long-winded explanations are more persuasive than short ones.  I always thought the first rule when you're in a hole is to stop digging, I guess PP never learned that one.

    PP's response to the absolutely correct (at the time it was posted) assertion in my article that Nate Silver had Clinton's odds of winning at 52.4% (now, I believe the odds are listed at 52.6%), according to Silver's polls-only forecast was "Nate gives Trump 20% chance."  PP linked to a 29 day-old article. 

    In the immortal words of RMRD - "end of story."


    Nate believes the odds to be roughly 60% to 40%, based on his Polls Plus methodology. He includes the regular polls figure for reference, not his preference. That is not the "end of story", since it's all about evaluating different state contests and their weights as they shift over time - finishing Nov 9, and because both Nate and I understand that polls are about probabilities, not exact science.

    And to help you understand how Nate truly feels about Bernie's chances, here he analyzes the "was it a close call or landslide" question in football terms. Hopefully a picture enlightens you where "long-winded explanations" don't seem to, explaining why this race was actually over back around March 1 and latest March 15.

    (while sports fans, especially the losers, don't like the "running out the clock" approach, competitors understand that a clock-run-out victory is as good as any other, and in this case the June pull-away confirms the results)

     

     


    Gee Hal ... Pot > Kettle . . .

    "I guess PP thinks long-winded explanations are more persuasive than short ones."

     

    Uhhhh...

    Today, Donald Trump would probably beat Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head matchup 538's Nate Silver predicts. Ah but the election won't be held today you reply. Correctomundo.  When the election is actually conducted sayeth Silver, Clinton should squeeze out a 10-point win in the electoral college.

    Nevertheless, her lead is remarkably slender. Under Silver's polls-only forecast, Clinton now has just a 52.4% chance of taking the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue from the current inhabitant in early 2017. Clinton does better in Silver's polls-plus projection where her shot at winning is pegged at 60%. Some stats gurus may quibble with my reliance on Silver for the proposition that Trump is much closer to Clinton than he has any right to be. Sam Wang from the Princeton Election Consortium calls Clinton either a 60% or 80% favorite depending on whether you use a “random drift” or “Bayesian” analysis whatever they are. The problem with Wang is that in the last election cycle he was wrong and Silver was right.

    The Princeton Consortium predicted the Democrats would maintain control of the Senate in 2014 while Silver correctly prognosticated a Republican victory. Others may argue that polls taken while the parties are holding their conventions are unreliable. Perhaps this is why Silver still projects Clinton to win. He has apparently discounted heavily recent national polls showing Trump with a substantial lead. The deadbeat Don is up by 7 points in today's LA Times/USC survey. CNN and CBS both have Trump ahead as well albeit by smaller margins. Swing states seem to be following the trend. Nevada is now in Trump's column according to one poll and Ohio is dead even according to another.

    So it sure looks like CNN is going to have lots of viewers chewing off their fingernails while watching Jake Tapper's five o-clock shadow steadily lengthen throughout the early morning November 9. If Hillary Clinton ultimately prevails, perhaps none of this will matter much. The reality-based community will breathe a sigh of relief that'll last for a couple of months until she takes office and we start fighting again over whether she's progressive enough or even a progressive at all.

    The Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton for President last night mooting the question of whether Bernie Sanders would do better against Trump. But it is an interesting and important hypothetical nonetheless. Some Sanders supporters are reluctant to rally behind Clinton because they perceive the nominee, her backers, and the DNC as arrogantly dismissive of the Vermont Senator's candidacy, his views, and his legions.

    If, however, Sanders were indeed more popular than Clinton national, the Democratic ticket would be well-served to identify quickly and publicly strong pro-worker, pro-peace, and pro-environment progressives to serve as top advisers in the hoped-for Clinton administration. Concomitantly, Clinton's base would have no legitimate basis for gloating over her “landslide” win the primaries and mocking Sanders voters as “immature crybabies” whose “demands” should be ignored.

    So would Sanders be better positioned than Clinton to defeat Trump? It seem beyond peradventure that he would. For the first six months of this year, poll after poll told us this. Clinton's biggest weakness then was that a majority of Americans do not believe her to be honest and trustworthy. Since she garnered the nomination, the number of Americans who say they believe her has fallen to a new low and she is now as unpopular or nearly so, as Trump himself.

    In early March, I wrote Who is more electable Bernie or Hillary? Closing on an ambiguous note I suggested that while Sanders would likely garner significantly more votes nationally than Clinton in the general election Clinton might still be stronger. Her outsized support among senior voters and voters of color, I decided, could provide her with a significant advantage in critical Florida. That advantage alone might make her a better bet for Democrats than Sanders. Nearly five months later, however, it seems the importance of Florida has dwindled somewhat in the electoral calculus.

    Despite forecasting a narrow Clinton general election win, 538's Silver has moved the Sunshine State's 29 electoral votes to Trump's side of the ledger. In other words, Florida is not projected to be a tipping point state. Moreover, Clinton is behind there notwithstanding the state's apparently friendly demographics. This means the election is likely to be decided in the rust belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin where Sanders would almost certainly be stronger against Trump.

    The conclusion that Sanders would be a better Democratic candidate than Clinton does not rest on now months-old polls and her tumbling approval ratings. In a just-posted piece at 538, Silver notes that many of Sanders backers in the primaries are independents and very young voters who are not committed Democrats. While Trump appeals to very few Sanders voters, Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian Gary Johnson may pick up a significant percentage of them while others, Silver suggests, may stay home. Comments from disgruntled Sanders supporters on social media and in pro-Sanders email groups strongly support Silver's thesis.

    By contrast, Clinton won the Democratic primaries by dint of a huge margin over Sanders among registered Democrats. Such voters would doubtless have been disappointed if their preferred candidate had lost to the Vermont Senator But the seniors, voters of color, and coastal liberals who comprise the Clinton coalition would almost certainly have coalesced more quickly and completely behind Bernie Sanders than Bernie's battalions have behind Clinton.

    In part this is due to the sophistication of Clinton's older voters. After suffering through the Reagan and Bush years, they recognize how badly a Republican President can screw up the country while in office and for years thereafter through retrograde Supreme Court justices. The understandable fear and loathing of Trump so many women, African-Americans, and Latinos have would also push the great majority of the Clinton coalition to back Sanders enthusiastically.

    But it is also important to note that Sanders does not carry the baggage that freights Hillary Clinton. He is perceived as an honest straight-shooter. He is in no wise in thrall to corporate interests and his voting record reflects fealty to the economic interests of poor, working, and middle-class, voters. His pro-peace credentials are far more solid than Clinton's. While Sanders does differ from most progressives on gun control, his mixed record in this area would likely help him reach a few more voters in the hunting hinterlands of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

    The Bernie or Bust crowd should support Hillary Clinton because Donald Trump seems inclined to harm our nation and because there is reason to believe she could turn out to be a truly progressive President. She also deserves backing because she convincingly bested Bernie Sanders in a reasonably fair fight for the nomination.  Unfortunately, many Bernie voters are not inclined to vote for Clinton.

    Therefore, to improve their odds of winning, Clinton and Tim Kaine, along with the Democratic National Committee, and her supporters must explicitly acknowledge the essential correctness of Sanders's policy positions and the popularity of his ideals and character.  They must put aside their pique at a long-time independent backed by millennials and radicals who dared take on the Democratic establishment and challenge the candidate for whom they were ready. In short, they must commit to the Sanders agenda.

     

    ~OGD~

     


    Sanders got virtually all he wanted in the platform. Should Hillary tap dance next?

    Edit to add:

    Sanders supporter Nina Turner says that she was not allowed to speak at the DNC

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/nina-turner-sanders-democrat...

    ​Sanders supporter Susan Sarandon says that this is because Turner is a "vocal black woman" (unlike Michelle Obama)

    http://thedailybanter.com/2016/07/susan-sarandon-says-it-certainly-didnt...

    It does not appear that Sanders fought hard for Turner to speak. If Turner spoke and failed to endorse Clinton, it would have been a fiasco, but that outcome was not out of the realm of possibility. I am glad the risk was not taken.

    Trump is a racist. Trump is ignorant. Trump cannot win the electoral college. If Hillary continued to appear weak by giving in to people who are alienating a large group of Democrats, she would dampen enthusiasm of her core supporters. Sanders and the majority of Sanders supporters are with Hillary. Clinton has done the move to Sanders position that you demand. What further appeasement do you want?


    think you meant "...*NOT* allowed to speak"


    Thx


    Why is this post okay when others are told to stop rehashing the same old arguments?


    I agree with the peanut gallery, Hal. This is "admit I'm right" routine is tiresome, divisive, obnoxious, and futile. Please stop.


    It takes a while to get over things. Remember Bill Buckner in the ninth inning of the 7th game of the 1986 Series. Red Sox leading, two out , routine grounder  to the slick fielding Buckner . Went through his legs and the Mets  won instead.

    Many years (20?) later some one reminded him  in a parking lot and Buckner slugged him.

    Hal's more of a gentleman than that. Cut him some slack.


    This article directly addresses, analyzes, and offers an explanation for breaking news that nobody here has mentioned.  1) A new national poll by respected institutions - LA Times/USC - that has Trump up by 7 points as well as CBS and CNN polls that also show Trump winning nationally.  2) Silver's prediction that were the election held now Trump would win.  3) Silver's examination into the demographics of Sanders' supporters and his conclusion that they may be tough for Clinton to win over.  I also suggest the best way for Clinton to try to win them over. 4) Clinton's current unfavorability ratings which are the lowest they've ever been.

    Mike - just a thought - but perhaps your posts would be better directed at those who have stopped up their ears and eyes any time a discouraging word regarding Clinton is heard or written.  Maybe, just maybe, you should urge them to respond with specifics and evidence to arguments that, to date, they've simply ignored or mocked at their peril (and ours). Jus' sayin'.


    Hal, if you continue to hound dagbloggers with incessant and irritating demands to acknowledge your criticism of Clinton, I'll start mocking you too, and then you'll know what it means to be mocked.


    Good job Mike.  You absurdly criticized my spot-on timely article by claiming I was rehashing old arguments.  When I called you out on your nonsense - which I assume is shoveled in an attempt to "prove" to the willfully blind Clinton claque your even-handedness - rather than acknowledge your error, you doubled-down.  I had such hopes for you but you dashed them.  Sad for me.  One more fallen idol.  ;-(  So bring it on oh mocker in chief.



    Your blog is nonsense. All statisticians agree that polls are not accurate until after the convention. This has been pointed out several times with numerous examples from previous election cycles. I could counter this with polls showing Hillary winning, like this poll showing Hillary  up by 9 in Pennsylvania.   PA is a significant state this cycle since it has a large working class population hurt by loss of manufacturing. I'm certainly happy Hillary has such a strong lead in PA but at this point it's meaningless. Polling before and during a convention are meaningless. It's incredibly stupid to have a meaningless discussion about flawed data.

    It doesn't matter if Sanders would be doing better. Sanders lost and he lost big. He lost in March when he lost New York and PA. He's irrelevant. This post is nonsensical as some conservative democrat ranting that the media gave no coverage to Webb and that media conspiracy caused him to lose. Then claiming he would have beaten both Sanders and Hillary if he was treated fairly. Webb lost, O'Malley lost, Sanders lost, and they all lost convincingly

    I recognize your pain. First your candidate was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters. Now you see the bernie brats destroying what little is left of your movement. That the so called Sanders revolution will go down in history as a lesson in political ineptitude must be hard for you. But you're a smart person. Don't let the pain of your loss and the total destruction of all you've worked for this last year over ride your intellect. Learn from the errors of your movement, rise up out of the shambles you helped create, and try to do better next time.


    I think what Hal and others are pointing to is that the only way they can be satisfied is if everyone agrees meet their demands. Every post that comes from the hardcore Sanders supporters confirms that they want a dictatorship. 

    Now Nina Turner, the woman who lost a statewide election in Ohio is whining that she did not get to speak in support of losing candidate Bernie Sanders at the DNC. If a hardcore Sanders supporter's mouth is open, you can be certain that they are whining.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/nina-turner-sanders-democrat...


    I've had enough guys. Comments are closed on this thread. Peracles and Hal, I'm suspending your accounts for three days for you to cool off. As always, you may email me if you wish to discuss, but I encourage you both to take a breath and let the grievances subside.


    Latest Comments