The same friends who voted for Nader

    By Flavius on Sun, 02/28/2016 - 7:19pm |

    in  2000 now plan to vote for Bernie. I guess you could say "figures".  But...

    At least in 2000 they could  argue Gore was going to  carry their heavily democratic states so not only was  there no down side to a Nader vote but it served to signal  there were votes available to the left. 

    Clearly at this point it's too soon for that. The primary  margins influence voters down stream so we can't avoid considering that, sadly,   any one of the remaining republicans candidates could be inflicted on the nation if we get it wrong..

    He should correct me if I'm wrong but surely Hal doesn't find Hillary so unacceptable he'd stay home in November if she's running against Trump/Cruz/Rubio. .

    So rationally we have to  assess not only whether our candidate can win the nomination but whether we really want him (or her) to. For me, If I thought Bernie had a better chance in November than Hillary that would be end -of-story. But I don't.

    Which does not mean ,however ,  I'll condone the sort of campaign  which would not only prevent his being  nominated but also prevent  his winning if he is.

    Maybe sometimes

    "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".

    This isn't one of those times.

    And you?       

    Comments

    The reason Bernie DOES have a better chance of winning in the general election IS that He attracts people across party & ideological lines.  He gets MUCH MORE Of the independent vote & independents are growing to be about as big a group as both R's and D's put together.  AND Bernie attracts more republican votes than Hilary.  He is catching up nationally and he polls better against all of the republican candidates than Hilary does.  

    Based on the oligarchy we are up against and the Disgusting corruption that the DNC, Establishment, and corporate media have used in support of Hilary there are quite a number of people, including myself that will NOT vote for Hilary 'if' she were to STEAL the nomination(w/the given corruption, I don't see her honestly,fairly winning it).  I will not give my vote to allow the oligarchy to operate under the 'pretense' of democracy.  I WILL VOTE and I hope that I will be able to vote for Bernie Sanders. I am in this fight all the way to the convention.

     


    by synchronicity on Sun, 02/28/2016 - 7:48pm

    This  is silly. You turn a blind eye to reality. It wasn't corruption that gave Hillary a nearly 50 point win in SC. It was the voters. It will be the voters that decide who wins the most states and the most delegates on super Tuesday. The amount of enthusiasm that you or any individual Sanders supporter has for the candidate is meaningless. It's the number of voters, enthusiastic or not.

    Not gonna vote for Hillary if she wins? shrug  What I found so interesting in 08 and now is how focused and mature the democratic electorate is. After the bitter campaign that was fought to nearly a dead heat the Hillary supporters put the hurt and anger behind them and voted for Obama. Now we see the same. African Americans have put what ever hurt and anger from that fight  behind them and voted for Hillary. That's enough to convince me  that very few Sanders supporters will be as childish as you.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 02/28/2016 - 8:52pm

    "African Americans have put what ever hurt and anger from that fight  behind them and voted for Hillary."  Given Clinton's history, including but not limited to the racism in her 2008 campaign, why do you view the willingness of most African-American voters to vote for Hillary instead of Bernie as demonstrating maturity? 


    by HSG on Wed, 03/02/2016 - 8:31am

    What racism, Hal? Bill referred to a speech as a "fairy tale". Hillary made mention of Jesse Jackson as a previously successful black candidate in South Carolina. Hey, Orlando Patterson compared her 3am ad to the KKK-applauding "Birth of a Nation" Because she didn't show a black child in the commercial. Got any other silly shit to add?Is any of this nonsense worth re-writing 8 years later?

    Interviews with blacks in SC showed they were very clear about why they were voting for Hillary for I think mature enough reasons. I know it's comforting to dismiss them as little children who don't know what's in their own best interest, but how about just stop already?


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/02/2016 - 9:18am

    The Obama-Clinton fight demonstrated that the Democratic Party was strong enough to have a battle about race and move on.Clinton was Obama's Secretary of State. Clinton would have been accepted as Obama's VP. Hillary supporters accepted Obama. Obama supporters accepted Hillary. Blacks have always been politically mature. When Al Sharpton ran for President, he lost the black vote to Bill Bradley even in his home town of NYC. Hillary 

    Many white Progressives have no clue about the desires of the black community. When frustrated, they will say that blacks voted for Obama because of race. This ignores the fact that blacks chose Bradley over Sharpton and stayed loyal to Bill Clinton during his impeachment.

    Some Progressives like Nader and Sanders thought it would be a good idea to mount a Primary challenge to Obama's second term. There were Progressives like Ed Shultz and Michael Moore who suggested that Democrats stay home in 2010. This ushered in the Tea Party, voter suppression, and opened the path for Donald Trump.

    Blacks have never seen Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren speak directly to them. Now Sanders comes begging for votes. He placed Cornel West an over the top critic of President Obama as his campaign's outreach to the black community. The fact that West was his first black surrogate pointed out that Sanders had zero understanding of the black community.

    The thing that has to be questioned here is why some Progressives think that talking to all-white audiences is the norm. Hillary is a known entity in the black community. Hillary met with the Mayor of Flint, Michigan. Where is Bernie? Hillary has the black church on her side. Cornel West and Blacks Lives Matter cannot compete with the power of the Black church.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/02/2016 - 9:44am

    I'm tired of nonsense. It is Bernie a Sanders' fault that he doesn't have more black support. It's Bernie Sanders fault that he made a jackass like Cornel West his surrogate. It's Bernie a Sanders' fault that he is not best buddies  with Jim Clyburn and John Lewis, Elizabeth Warren should learn from the mistakes of Bernie Sanders.

    Im tired of turning on my TV and watching pundit after pundit try to ignore Donald Trump's racism by saying that he is moving towards the middle for the General Election like nothing happened.

    Instead of focusing on Hillary and the black community. Sanders supporters should have told him early on about his mistakes. It may be that by choosing a Black Lives Matter person as his communications director, he was mislead about the toxicity of Cornel West.

    Regarding Republicans, all of them have become my enemy because they were silent as the racists in the GOP were tolerated. They were silent about voter suppression and the insults hurled at the President. You got Trump because you wanted "your" country back. The country is not going backwards, so screw all of you.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/02/2016 - 11:03am

    If Bernie loses, is he going to work to elect other Democrats to provide forces for the revolution? Is he going to encourage donating to the Democratic Party to create viable Congressional candidates? Is Sanders going to encourage white Progressive outreach to the black community?

    Or will Sanders go back to being an Independent?


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/02/2016 - 12:22pm

    Word!


    by armchair guerrilla on Wed, 03/02/2016 - 11:44am

    I will respond to this thing you are prattling on about, Clinton "stealing" the primary election.  What exactly are you talking about, seriously. Steal. Do you understand that Sanders lost by 50 points in South Carolina, he was entirely rejected by African American voters, entirely. Clinton is not stealing any votes. At this point Sanders has won only one primary. One.

    Do you care that he seems unable to win diverse populations? Or do you just write that off? But do you understand that without turning out large numbers of African American voters, Democrats cannot win. By and large we do not believe Bernie Sanders can win anything, and we are witnessing that right now in the primary. He won New Hampshire. He has written off the super Tuesday states, these states are important in determining who wins the Democratic primary. Democrats do not write off African Americans in the North or South. From experience we know we cannot rely on young people to turn out in large numbers to vote. As you are witnessing, they do not.  That is our fear Synch, not that Bernie doesn't have ideas, he does, our fear is his voters don't turn out, and because he has yet to be vetted by Republicans they decimate him, he really did pal around with despots. And we lose like we lost in 1980 and boom Republicans control three branches of government. I cannot believe you would ever be willing to take that chance. If you are.. well.. we will always disagree and I have to hope that the majority of Americans are far more rational that that.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 02/28/2016 - 10:28pm

    With Donald Trump Looming Should Dems Take A Huge Electability Gamble by Nominating Hillary Clinton? - Glen Greenwald

    https://theintercept.com/greenwald/


    by synchronicity on Sun, 02/28/2016 - 8:01pm

    Sanders has a base of white Liberal voters. He would get slaughtered in a general election. Hillary had to rebuild her image in the black community to gain support. The South Carolina vote indicates that she was successful. Sanders should have worked on outreach to black and Latino communities before running. Elizabeth Warren will face the same fate if she doesn't begin outreach to non- white communities.

    Sanders has not been vetted. When the press does really start going after him we hear about a cranky old guy who got nothing accomplished in Congress, wants people to forget that he voted for the crime bill, and praised Fidel Castro and the Sandinistas. Did I mention that he is a Socialist = Communist who provided cover for gun manufacturers? He would serve as cannon-fodder in the General Election.

    He admits he cannot get much of his goals passed.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/28/2016 - 9:34pm

    Comes our  primary I'll be guided by 538. Greenwald's convincing on legal issues . If  he and Silver  disagree about one of those I'll follow Glen. Conversly ,If they disagree on voting trends I'll follow Nate.

    Horses for courses.

    .


    by Flavius on Sun, 02/28/2016 - 9:38pm

    It's probably a bit early to depend on these polls about electability and anyway Bernie will probably be eliminated on Super Tuesday.

    The numbers that do stand out, and seem to be telling, is the huge turnout for the Republican primaries, ten times as many Republican voters compared to the paltry showing for the Democrats in SC and record breaking numbers in NV also.

    Even with the hype of the Sanders' insurgency there doesn't appear to be much enthusiasm in the Democrat ranks and once HRC is free to project her 'No We Can't' message even the threat of The Donald may not be enough to stir more than a shrug from many disillusioned Dems.

     


    by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 02/28/2016 - 9:54pm

    I took one look at your SC numbers and knew it couldn't possibly be true. Dem turnout in SC 370 thousand, rep 737 thousand. About 2 times, no where near 10 times.

    it's true that republican voter turnout is high this year but I'm not very worried about it. I doubt that republicans will be able to unite behind the winner.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 02/28/2016 - 11:56pm

    Peter does not provide links because facts are not on his side.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 12:20am

    It's a full time job fact checking Peter. I figured you didn't have time to do it alone.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 12:41am

    Thx

    It is amusing when someone repeatedly reports that we are living in the end times and is found to have no grasp on what the data actually says. He continues to post things that can quickly be proven to be wrong. His posts are routinely dismissed because he can never support his claims. I think he is just starved for attention and knows that his arguments are not based in reality.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 12:56am

    Thanks, OK for correcting my typo and TwoX certainly doesn't sound so dramatic but Democrat primary voting has been falling for years while this year the Republicans seem to be enthused and turning out in record numbers. There is a report at HP, I noticed after I observed and commented on this trend, about this growing problem for Democrats.

    Many Liberal dems seem to be isolated from or reject bad news or information they can't digest so I'm not surprised when they can't see what is happening in the general population, The early and ongoing denial of Trump's appeal and determination to win is a telling example of their wishful thinking. HP had to eat crow and move Trump news back to headlines from their petty entertainment section.

    Your observation about Republicans not uniting behind Trump, eventually, doesn't match what I have been reading. He may not be their first choice but there is no question about their voting for him against HRC, they also apply LOTE thinking to their decisions.


    by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 11:46am

    "Typo"

     

    Weasels. It seems, abound this morning.  (It's like I misspoke)

    TwoX correct.

    TooX misspoken

    TwwX typo

    "Ten times" pulled from ass...


    by jollyroger on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 12:34pm

    i see that fear and loathing are spreading through the dem ranks as evidence that the Sanders' 'insurgency' has not produced the enthusiasm and turnout that was hoped for and in fact the opposite is true.

    I expect to see much more of this striking out, like yours, at anything that exposes the reality outside of the Veal Pen that  Liberal denial and isolation seeks, but is failing, to maintain.

    The old trusted control mechanisms have failed for both parties and the attempts to regain that authority and dominance already are showing the rot at the core of these elite political cesspools. Trump is leading this barn burning but even little Bernie is playing a useful role.


    by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 1:14pm

    Come on, you can do better than that - 

    And in the death, as the last few corpses lay
    Rotting on the slimy thoroughfare
    The shutters lifted in inches
    In temperance building high on poacher's hill
    And red mutant eyes gaze down on hunger city
    No more big wheels

    Fleas the size of rats sucked on rats the size of cats
    And ten thousand peoploids split into small tribes
    Coveting the highest of the sterile skyscrapers
    Like packs of dogs assaulting the glass fronts of love-me avenue
    Ripping and rewrapping mink and shiny silver fox, now legwarmers
    Family badge of sapphire and cracked emerald, any day now
    The year of the diamond dog

    This ain't rock and roll - this is genocide. 


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 2:01pm

    Typo? Maybe, but you've been caught too often for anyone to take your data seriously anymore. I don't know if the people you're used to talking to are ignorant and credulous but the people here are neither.

    The people here do lean left to varying degrees but we don't march in lockstep. There has been many times I agreed with rmrd and many time we've hotly debated some issue. Even when our opinions diverged I always trusted his data, link or no link. The same can be said for all the other long time posters here. That cannot be said about you.

    I don't think liberals have trouble digesting bad news. Perhaps what you're seeing is people disagreeing with your opinions and analysis as to what constitutes bad news. When your analysis is so often based on incorrect data it's not surprising that people disagree with your opinions based on the "data."

    While no one knows how a person will vote there have been many polls where significant minorities of republicans state they will never vote for Trump in the general. There is a growing number of main stream republican leaders disavowing Trump.

    "Chris Christie's endorsement of Donald Trump is an astonishing display of political opportunism. Donald Trump is unfit to be President. He is a dishonest demagogue who plays to our worst fears. Trump would take America on a dangerous journey. Christie knows all that and indicated as much many times publicly. The Governor is mistaken if he believes he can now count on my support, and I call on Christie's donors and supporters to reject the Governor and Donald Trump outright. I believe they will. For some of us, principle and country still matter." - Meg Whitman

    First, former Gov. Christie Whitman says she's planning to vote for Hillary Clinton if Trump gets the nod. She's keeping her options open, in case we find out something new and horrible about Hillary. But that's her plan now:

    "You'll see a lot of Republicans do that," Whitman told me. "We don't want to. But I know I won't vote for Trump."

    Stuart Stevens the chief strategist for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign said, "Every Republican, from elected officials to super volunteers to leaders of the party, must ask themselves what it will mean for the GOP and, vastly more important, the country to play a role enabling this hateful man."

    “For many Republicans, Trump is more than just a political choice,” said Kevin Madden, a veteran operative who advised 2012 nominee Mitt Romney. “It’s a litmus test for character.”

    Madden, like some of his peers, said he could never vote for Trump. If he is the nominee, Madden said, “I’m prepared to write somebody in so that I have a clear conscience.”

    There are more quotes and articles by prominent republicans out there. And every day I see more joining the anti-Trump side. Party leaders disavowal of Trump will not change the minds of Trump voters nor will it sway every republican who voted for Bush, Rubio, etc. in the primary. But it will solidify the resolve of republicans uncomfortable with Trump and sway the minds of some who are on the fence.

    For all these reasons it seems likely to me that the republicans will not unify behind Trump and that a significant minority will sit out in the general or even vote for Hillary.

     

     


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 2:32pm

    Thanks, OK for correcting my typo and TwoX certainly doesn't sound so dramatic but Democrat primary voting has been falling for years while this year the Republicans seem to be enthused and turning out in record numbers. There is a report at HP, I noticed after I observed and commented on this trend, about this growing problem for Democrats.

    Many Liberal dems seem to be isolated from or reject bad news or information they can't digest so I'm not surprised when they can't see what is happening in the general population, The early and ongoing denial of Trump's appeal and determination to win is a telling example of their wishful thinking. HP had to eat crow and move Trump news back to headlines from their petty entertainment section.

    Your observation about Republicans not uniting behind Trump, eventually, doesn't match what I have been reading. He may not be their first choice but there is no question about their voting for him against HRC, they also apply LOTE thinking to their decisions.


    by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 11:46am

    Link please to verify you accurately quote the article.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 12:08pm

    The reason we request links is so that we can check credibility of the source as well as if the interpretation is valid. To put it bluntly, I don't trust your ability to analyze data. You deliberately hide your sources. In this case, you quote some named Zachary Carter who is a political reporter for HuffPost. Most would respond with "Who", if I quoted Zachary Carter.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrat-turnout-south-carolina_us_5...

    Carter appeared on the Hugh Hewitt Show in the past. His responses to predicable questions from Hewitt does not make Carter seem to be a reliable source

    http://www.hughhewitt.com/meet-young-journalists-series-huffington-posts...

    Zachary Carter is a lightweight. Your arguments are often based on questionable sources and faulty interpretations. Zachary is worried. Boohoo. At the same time, we have the beginning of the death by a thousand cuts of Donald Trump. His good buddies Scarborough and Mika are abandoning ship. We are learning that the white supremacists love the Donald. The public will learn of his business failures and his abuse of the immigration system. 

    I hope Trump is the Republican nominee.I'm pumped because I'm a Democrat.

    These are not the end times, except perhaps for the Grand Old Party.

    Post more crap without links. The arguments will get knocked down like the crash test dummie conclusions they represent. The fact that you cannot take the small amount of time to include a link so we can go directly to your source is not only lazy, but confirms that you do not respect the other bloggers at Dag, in my opinion.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 2:37pm

    And yet Michael W. only voices concern when troublemakers or front-page "golden children" are gone after. 

    "Peter", living as he does in his fact-free zone, and lacking even the integrity to sign in and verify himself, is allowed to roam free, spewing random errors (with the greatest benefit of the doubt) and outright falsehoods (more likely) with nary an action.

    I'm slowly rousing myself to return here, though this will be fair and sole warning - I only respect the respectful.  I only offer tolerance to the tolerant.


    by Austin Train on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 4:18pm

    I guess I'm supposed to cringe because the heavyweight Train has thrown down the gauntlet but i wait with anticipation for his 'facts', or are they beliefs, memes and other diversions, that will change the stark reality facing the Liberal peanut gallery.

    He, I presume, has already shown his weakness and pettiness by beginning with a personal and fact-free attack.


    by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 8:30pm

    Since I dealt this mess let me comment that I welcome anything either of you wish to say. Preferably if thery're not attacks on each other.  But if that's what you want to do, so be it.

    I assume  about you, and about everyone else who comments  on a post of mine that you're posting in good  faith.. But if not, again, so be it. It's a free country.


    by Flavius on Tue, 03/01/2016 - 10:38am

    The number of voters in the primaries doesn't seem to correlate with the number of voters in the general. In 04 55.3% of the voting age population turned out to vote. In 08 the hotly contested primary brought out record numbers voters in every democratic primary but the percentage of the voting age population in the general was virtually the same, 56.8


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 2:07am

    It seems that not only Peter but even many I the media don't check facts. Many talking heads are issuing warnings about low Democratic Party turnout.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 7:20am

    Latest Comments