Democrats, Can We Agree?

hoops said:

GL2 said:

ml1 said:

GL2 said:

We all wish there were more choices. But there aren't. 

There were two choices.  And the majority of the Democratic base chose the more conservative candidate.  This election has been a revelation in one sense -- I believe that the Democratic Party base is now essentially the Republican Party of people like Tom Kean, Millicent Fenwick back in the 60s, 70s and 80s.  They are socially liberal, but conservative on national security and economic issues.  I found this year that I'm out of step with 60-70% of Democrats when I look at the entire array of issues.

OK, 3 choices, if we include Gary Johnson. 

Regarding the health of the Democratic party, dissatisfied folks have 4 years to summon up the support for a viable primary challenger. They didn't have that support from the party this time around. 

How many ways can this reality be stated?

"Bernie beats HRC in all the Trump/Dem polls." Yup, with not one tiny anti-Bernie ad by the GOP, he's unscathed. This is a lowlife party that won't dump Trump and Bernie folks were expecting things to stay that way?

It's like the Bernie complaint that super delegates supported HRC early on. They made a choice. That's the way it works. Endorse when you're ready. They were ready. Don't like the concept of the super delegate? Work to change the rules.

You don't conveniently join a major party, complain about the party, the selection system, and trash the "Wall Schtreet" favorite in your party. You gotta do it the old-fashioned way: work for change.

Sorry about the italics but this siht is getting really old. It's over. Deal with it.

I think the bold is the crux of the issue.   I don' think its that there are no qualified candidates, or candidates who could be great presidents, I think its that democratic party elites pushed their favorite candidate to the front and shut out any others.  

The Clinton's have tremendous influence in many arenas and their advantage amongst the advantaged was too much for any other democratic insider to overcome.  So the money was there pushing Clinton along on wave, the name recognition, and the media shutout of all other voices in the early running all were and are causes of that.

I voted Bernie today, I know my vote is wasted, but I can't vote for the lesser candidate in good conscience.  

'I voted Bernie today, I know my vote is wasted, but I can't vote for the lesser candidate in good conscience.'

Same here. 

I can only wonder what the results would have been had those States that voted early on were voting today

hoops said:

I voted Bernie today, I know my vote is wasted, but I can't vote for the lesser candidate in good conscience.  

Your vote wasn't wasted, it went for a great cause that is alive and well.

What ever the pundits say,  Trump bulldozed his way through the primaries for an easy win.

Which clearly shows that a large portion of the Republican loyalists are following the George Wallace

theme of "America is in crisis, and only I can fix it".   The theme of the strong man coming to save the 

populace reverberates through history...........and deserves some pause

So now we have two liars facing each other............what a crappy choice

We deserve better

I hope that once the campaign really starts in earnest that HRC and the DNC don't have the same attitude toward progressives that the centrist Democrats on MOL have. Showing contempt for potential voters isn't usually a winning strategy.

Fortunately for Clinton she's running against a terrifying circus clown in November, so she may not need to reach out at all to get progressives to vote for her reluctantly.

hoops said:

GL2 said:

ml1 said:

GL2 said:

We all wish there were more choices. But there aren't. 

There were two choices.  And the majority of the Democratic base chose the more conservative candidate.  This election has been a revelation in one sense -- I believe that the Democratic Party base is now essentially the Republican Party of people like Tom Kean, Millicent Fenwick back in the 60s, 70s and 80s.  They are socially liberal, but conservative on national security and economic issues.  I found this year that I'm out of step with 60-70% of Democrats when I look at the entire array of issues.

OK, 3 choices, if we include Gary Johnson. 

Regarding the health of the Democratic party, dissatisfied folks have 4 years to summon up the support for a viable primary challenger. They didn't have that support from the party this time around. 

How many ways can this reality be stated?

"Bernie beats HRC in all the Trump/Dem polls." Yup, with not one tiny anti-Bernie ad by the GOP, he's unscathed. This is a lowlife party that won't dump Trump and Bernie folks were expecting things to stay that way?

It's like the Bernie complaint that super delegates supported HRC early on. They made a choice. That's the way it works. Endorse when you're ready. They were ready. Don't like the concept of the super delegate? Work to change the rules.

You don't conveniently join a major party, complain about the party, the selection system, and trash the "Wall Schtreet" favorite in your party. You gotta do it the old-fashioned way: work for change.

Sorry about the italics but this siht is getting really old. It's over. Deal with it.

I think the bold is the crux of the issue.   I don' think its that there are no qualified candidates, or candidates who could be great presidents, I think its that democratic party elites pushed their favorite candidate to the front and shut out any others.  

The Clinton's have tremendous influence in many arenas and their advantage amongst the advantaged was too much for any other democratic insider to overcome.  So the money was there pushing Clinton along on wave, the name recognition, and the media shutout of all other voices in the early running all were and are causes of that.

I voted Bernie today, I know my vote is wasted, but I can't vote for the lesser candidate in good conscience.  

Thanks for acknowledging that the wheels were in motion long ago. It ain't easy promoting HRC, given the negatives. Every young person I know is a Bernie fan. And many old school lefties, obviously. 

But again, we're talking about SCOTUS and many BHO initiatives. Add to that the irresponsible GOP's nominee, a genuine madman and racist. 

Vote your conscience. Fine. But Bernie is misleading lots of young folks into thinking that the system was rigged against him, that the choice was premature, and that the DNC is corrupt. The system was in place (rigged or not), the choice was probably made around 2009, and the DNC was what it was long before Bernie decided he was a democrat. 

How many of these young voters don't have the maturity to hold their noses and vote HRC?  Let's remember FL, and for that matter, be suspicious of any state with a GOP governor. 

ml1 said:

GL2 said:

We all wish there were more choices. But there aren't. 

There were two choices.  And the majority of the Democratic base chose the more conservative candidate.  This election has been a revelation in one sense -- I believe that the Democratic Party base is now essentially the Republican Party of people like Tom Kean, Millicent Fenwick back in the 60s, 70s and 80s.  They are socially liberal, but conservative on national security and economic issues.  I found this year that I'm out of step with 60-70% of Democrats when I look at the entire array of issues.

Bernie has 46% of the pledged delegates and may have more after today.  And this will have a powerful impact on the Democratic convention, regardless of who wins the nomination.

In fact, most delegates agree with you on the issues. My anecdotal experience (which includes canvassing for Bernie in NY and NJ) is that most of Hillary's supporters prefer Bernie's positions but they don't think "he can win." 

nohero said:

BCC said:

nohero said:

BCC said:
Are you claiming the e-mail scandal is a nothingburger after the IG report and the information currently available?

In terms of someone going to jail?  From the actual content, yes.

From what people claim about it, of course, that's entirely different.

The IG was not 'people'. Her mishandling of documents in violation of the laws is on the record.

The record is what is in the report.

As opposed to "people" claiming that a crime took place. 

The record is not entirely in the report because despite promises to cooperate she was the only SofS to refuse to be interviewed.

I suggest you go back and read what the report unearthed and stop the word games.

GL2 said:

Vote your conscience. Fine. But Bernie is misleading lots of young folks into thinking that the system was rigged against him, that the choice was premature, and that the DNC is corrupt.

Today's story that Hillary has clinched the election is certainly an example of a rigged media.  And the DNC's failure to intervene and reiterate its rules is an example of corruption.

And both of these developments will further educate Bernie's young supporters on the bias of corporate media, corporate influence in the Democratic Party, and the need to work for what Bernie has called a political revolution.

New Hillary email controversy: emails on TPP sealed until after the election:

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/740172096630755330

paulsurovell said:

Today's story that Hillary has clinched the election is certainly an example of a rigged media. 

Actually it's not that at all. It's another example of one company--the AP--wanting to be first.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

Today's story that Hillary has clinched the election is certainly an example of a rigged media. 

Actually it's not that at all. It's another example of one company--the AP--wanting to be first.

Seriously. What next is rigged? 

GL2 said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

Today's story that Hillary has clinched the election is certainly an example of a rigged media. 

Actually it's not that at all. It's another example of one company--the AP--wanting to be first.

Seriously. What next is rigged? 

Anything that doesn't produce the preferred results.

paulsurovell said:
Today's story that Hillary has clinched the election is certainly an example of a rigged media.

No, it was reporting.  Talking to responsible officials, and telling what they said. 

The media didn't cause it.  Politics did.

Personally, I think they should have waited.  But the need to be "First" is what the media is today.

And it answered the question, is the AP still in business?

Lost in all this (on MOL at least) is the historical nature of this election. I guess it was lost in the primary battle. If Warren had won the nomination, we'd be doing cartwheels.

GL2 said:

Lost in all this (on MOL at least) is the historical nature of this election. I guess it was lost in the primary battle. If Warren had won the nomination, we'd be doing cartwheels.

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/

And just as was true in 2008 with Obama’s nomination, it should be noted that standing alone — i.e., without regard to the merits of the candidate — Clinton’s nomination is an important and positive milestone. Americans, being Americans, will almost certainly overstate its world significance and wallow in excessive self-congratulations: Many countries on the planet have elected women as their leaders, including many whose close family member had not previously served as president. Nonetheless, the U.S. presidency still occupies an extremely influential political and cultural position in the world. Particularly for a country with such an oppressive history on race and gender, the election of the first African-American president and nomination of the first female presidential candidate of a major party is significant in shaping how people all over the world, especially children, view their own and other people’s potential and possibilities. But that’s all the more reason to lament this dreary conclusion.

That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance — rallying behind a Wall Street-funded, status quo-perpetuating, multimillionaire militarist — is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.

tjohn said:

ker·fuf·fle
kərˈfəfəl/
nounBRITISHinformal

a commotion or fuss, especially one caused by conflicting views.
"there was a kerfuffle over the chairmanship"

Another example of the use of kerfuffle in a sentence:

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/06/chris_christies_endless_ambition_leads_him_to_embr.html

Gary Johnson doesn't think it's a kerfuffle, either. He thinks it's a "whatever".

MR. JOHNSON: I mean, issues are up for grabs, but, you know, name-calling and, you know, back and forth, back and forth, come on. Hillary Clinton--is she guilty of her e-mail whatever? Well, was there criminal intent? I don't think so. Donald Trump occasionally says something that makes sense. I don't want to say everything that he says doesn't make sense but occasionally he does say something. Maybe you can tweak my memory as to what that might be. But, like I say, occasionally.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/off-message-transcript-gary-johnson-223918#ixzz4AupAFat5 

So now that Bernie lost miserably yesterday are we done with this debate?  

Woot said:

So now that Bernie lost miserably yesterday are we done with this debate?  

Nah.  Everybody knows there's just no enthusiasm for Clinton.  

Woot said:

So now that Bernie lost miserably yesterday are we done with this debate?  

Sanders lifelong dream is coming to an end. Let's give the man some space. He's meeting with Obama tomorrow - I think after that we'll find out if Sanders truly wants to leave a legacy, or if he just wants to burn it all down.  I'm hoping for the former, and not planning on saying anything to Sanders supporters for the next few days in the hopes of easing their transition out of, what is for them, a very big emotional blow.

PVW said:

Sanders lifelong dream is coming to an end.

I guess you could look at it that way.  Or you could say that Sanders was very successful at shining the spotlight on some things he has worked for all of his life and that his efforts will produce some results.

Woot said:

So now that Bernie lost miserably yesterday are we done with this debate?  

Bernie lost big in NJ and California

Lost close races in New Mexico and South Dakota

Mopped the floor with her in North Dakota

He won respectably in Montana

Announcing her highness had it  in the bag the day before the primaries caused many Bernie voters to stay home

The fight continues

As Bernie said in his speech last night, there's no way he's going to let Trump win.   He's  fighting  not for personal gain, but to ensure the party doesn't forget its roots in helping working families.  He's the democrat / progressive.  Clinton is the democrat / corporatist.   Trump is the authoritarian.   Bernie needs to get Obama's help in putting a union voice on the platform committee.   That would be a good compromise and Bernie could use that to rally his supporters for the party.  If Clinton isn't willing to do that, the party probably should be burned to the ground.

Can somebody help me find North Dakota on the map.

author said:

Woot said:

So now that Bernie lost miserably yesterday are we done with this debate?  

Bernie lost big in NJ and California

Lost close races in New Mexico and South Dakota

Mopped the floor with her in North Dakota

He won respectably in Montana

Announcing her highness had it  in the bag the day before the primaries caused many Bernie voters to stay home

The fight continues

We're takin' this all the way to Philadelphia!

It's that really white state with a few hundred people on the Canadian border.

tjohn said:

Can somebody help me find North Dakota on the map.

 

GL2 said:

It's that really white state with a few hundred people on the Canadian border.

tjohn said:

Can somebody help me find North Dakota on the map.

 

It has a lot of shale oil. They probably thought that Bernie would help them. (It was a caucus, not a primary.)

cramer said:

GL2 said:

It's that really white state with a few hundred people on the Canadian border.

tjohn said:

Can somebody help me find North Dakota on the map.

 

It has a lot of shale oil. They probably thought that Bernie would help them. (It was a caucus, not a primary.)

But Sanders is against fracking.  

tjohn said:

cramer said:

GL2 said:

It's that really white state with a few hundred people on the Canadian border.

tjohn said:

Can somebody help me find North Dakota on the map.

 

It has a lot of shale oil. They probably thought that Bernie would help them. (It was a caucus, not a primary.)

But Sanders is against fracking.  

I should have learned by now that I have to use an emoticon.