Secretary Clinton is the opposite of a Republican. She is a dyed in the wool Democrat, as is her husband, President Clinton. She's been a leader of the Democratic Party for decades. If you're confused, go catch some of the crap spewed by the Republican candidates for President. Do a comparison. There IS a difference, regardless of the emotional angst displayed here from some Sanders supporters. I know it burns their butts, but Sanders supporters should start getting used to the idea that we will see a woman running for President under the Democratic banner. If elected, yes, she will be the first woman to hold our highest office. I think that's a huge deal. Unless supporters of Senator Sanders want to see Ted Cruz or Donald Trump select the upcoming vacancies of the Supreme Court, they should consider voting for the Democratic ticket, whoever that may be. Senator Sanders isn't out of it yet, but it looks increasingly difficult to see a way forward for him to win the nomination of the Democratic Party. I wish him luck.
I still find it hard to listen to Sanders supporters claim anyone isn't a Democrat when he's never been one until now. And he'll probably run as an independent for re-election if he doesn't retire. Moreover, how can you label any Democrat as a Republican anymore? The most conservative member of the Democratic House caucus represents a solidly Republican district in my state and he's not even close to being a Republican. Outside of voting with Republicans on guns and a few symbolic issues, he doesn't even come close to the Republican caucus. On the Senate side, Senators like Joe Manchin from West Virginia or Heidi Heitkamp from North Dakota still vote with the Democratic caucus 95% of the time. The last time you had Democrats that truly acted like Republicans was in the 90s when you still had Democratic senators getting elected from Southern states. (think John Stennis or Richard Shelby when he was a Democrat) And the last time you had Republicans voting like Democrats was Lincoln Chafee and I guess Arlen Specter. Democrats need to shut up about purity tests because 1) they're not true and 2) the Republicans are imploding thanks to made up litmus tests.
I don't disagree. I think it's more of a case of Sanders representing the ideas of the pre-triangulation, pro-labor, New Deal-friendly Democratic Party, which the Clintons largely were responsible for bringing to near extinction by co-opting Republican positions that were popular with the general electorate in order to win national elections. That those chickens have come home to roost, I think, is the source of the animosity. Sanders (and fellow travelers in the progressive caucus like Warren) are doubling down on things that have long faded from the party's portfolio, like advocacy for the working class and economic equality. To tell those disaffected by the Clintonian triangulation of the 90s to vote for the status quo candidate because Republicans are much worse for them is not a strong sell, nor is it a very strong call to action to vote. And that leaves only the rhetoric of demagoguery to instill fear: "Vote for me or Donald Trump is going to round up all the Mexicans and Muslims and put them in concentration camps while Ted Cruz is going to force us to pray away the gays and make abortion illegal." To me, it's sort of the flip-side of "They are gonna take our guns away" and "They are gonna just do nothing and let the terrorists win." And that's what I would expect the general election to sound like because...what else do they have to sell to the electorate?
Bernie's supporters on Reddit have gone into full loony mode. Conspiracy theories including: Clinton supporters posted p*rn to get Bernie Sanders Facebook groups banned (was a bug and the groups are back), Clinton is going to be arrested by the FBI at any second, Clinton's speeches were illegal as well as unethical because she said she was running, and there is widespread voter discrimination affecting only Bernie supporters (how would you even know who someone is voting for?). I voted for Bernie today, but I am going to fully support Hillary Clinton now that the math is settled because I believe she will be a good president.
Yet. That summarizes my thoughts/feelings on what this election cycle is becoming. On a side note, given what's happened with Clinton's campaign, it would've been fascinating if Biden had run this year in the Dem primary.
What exactly has happened with Clinton's campaign? There seems to be this odd narrative shared by Sanders supporters (and the far right) that the Clinton campaign has some how been a failure, when it has not been at all. She all but has the nomination wrapped up before May and has had a lead from very early on in the campaign. I am not taking anything away from Sanders, but if I were Clinton or a strategist for the Clinton campaign, I am quite happy with the current situation.
The Democratic Party was getting their brains bashed in at the Presidential level prior to Clinton. I don't really believe that Clinton killed that part of the Democratic Party, it was already suffering, with Ronald Reagan taking huge chunks of voting Union members. Bernie Sanders is somewhat a unicorn, there are very few national politicians that take his position when push comes to shove. For example, has Elizabeth Warren endorsed Bernie Sanders Presidential run? This is inevitable, the grass is always greener on the other side. Political parties undergo major disagreements and growing pains. You have had 16 of the last 24 years dominated by moderate Democratic Presidential administrations. The problems that are created become more obvious the longer you have one philosophy in power. You saw the last bout of Reaganism when George W. Bush limped to the finish line. Well, first a majority of the electorate does not support Bernie Sanders. Having said that, there is CLEARLY a nice portion of the Democratic voting pool that relates to Sanders. I do not personally think that his positions can mesh with the current state of the party. That may change, because older voters will die out. We saw something similar with the issue of Gay Rights. Perhaps in 8 years the Democrat Party will be more like Sanders that the old guard. What I find interesting is that you essentially have two independents pulling a large number of voters. The Republican Party is even in more dire straits than the Democrats, and they are about to elect a man with no connections to the Republican Party.
Ouch, well this was the nail in the coffin for Bernie. Great campaign, he opened the world of voting and politics to a lot of young people, even though he wont win this year he will in the long run, his campaign has inspired a lot of people. I'm sure his campaign will be ran again in the future by someone else but with the same core values.
Most people tend to associate Democrat with the left and Republican with the right. Even though in practice Democrats are more like centrists and Republicans I don’t know wtf they are anyway. It’s arguable that the Democratic party should represent the left, liberal progressive views, even if in reality they aren’t close to being that radical. At least not in the way Republicans have been. Of course, these days it feels like people are mostly just “you’re with us or against us” so political designations are basically all over the place.
Don't forget there is still a platform fight at the Convention. Though marginalized, there will still be Bernie supporters in the room reminding the leadership that Bernie's messages are what energized the party. Without the progressive message many democratic voters will just stay home. Also, Progressives give an activist alternative to regressive and obstructionist GOP Congressmen. You have to keep the pressure on to combat the PAC money locally. If the Democratic Party devolves into the Corporate status quo Party like Ms. Clinton is inclined to do without outside influences, there is no inspiration or excitement for challenging incumbents.
This is a great point, and I applaud Sanders subtle pivot last night, where he was *really* talking about exactly this: taking as many progressives as possible to the convention and making their voices and causes heard. That would be making some important headway. I may even be able to vote for him in California now, if that's his aim (versus arguing for the nomination somehow or, god forbid, supporting the crazy conspiracy theories of some of his followers).
I brought this up in another thread but if you look at where the world was in the early 90's it seems likely that if Bill Clinton hadn't existed then most likely there would've been a political leader like Bill Clinton. The choices that were driving the politics then were pointing to a candidate that would follow the Reagan Revolution in regard to a different view of government but one that would also start addressing some of the other changes that were happening. Sanders supporters like to blame the Clintons but the country had pretty much soundly rejected the New Deal liberalism. If it hadn't then someone like Tom Harkin would've been President in the 1990's. Every campaign though has a context that includes who is the opposition. As I say often in my lifetime there has been no major presidential candidate that I can say I've agreed with 100%. The country is too large and diverse that any candidate who hopes to win has to put together a large coalition of interests that sometimes are in conflict. At the same time who the opposition is and what their platform is has to be considered too. I personally have for the last 15 years mostly voted for non-D or R candidates. That said I understand that the consequences of it might be that in many cases a D or an R who I might not agree with as much will be elected while the other candidate who I agree with more might lose. I weigh that based upon how bad I think the Dem or Repub. will be if they win.
True this wasn't the coronation that Clinton might've hoped for but this has been a successful lead. Consider that Clinton has done better against Sanders than Obama did against Clinton in 2008.
You find that hard to believe? I voted for Obama in '08 in the Texas primary, defending Hillary Clinton the entire time. You just don't get it, glynch. You're too busy calling Democrats like me "warmongers" (I'm not, *******) to figure out that I leaned more towards Obama in '08 (not the impostor that became President) and more towards Sanders in '16 politically, but I still respect the Clinton's and didn't see why that was impossible in '08 and why it should be impossible in '16, regardless of what sort of crap you're busy spewing today. What I care about most is that a Democrat, whoever it is, appoints a justice to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court and the 2 vacancies that will probably open up during the next President's first term. You just don't get it. You're too busy being an "idealist" that is more interested in sawing off your own foot than preventing the theocratic, bigoted nightmare from the Right that is staring you in the face. Too busy playing the fool, with all respect due, naturally.
