Trump Wants Sanders Voters - (Edited to Add) Or Wants Them To Not Vote Democratic In November

And so it begins --

Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign is planning its next coup: vying for the votes of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) supporters who say they won't back Hillary Clinton in a general election.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lewandowski-trump-targeting-sanders-supporters

This is what I've written about here.  You want the GOP agenda implemented?  Then vent and vote accordingly. 

If not, vote likewise.

[Edited to Add]  Thread title added to on 5/19, because of many comments (not only here but also heard and read elsewhere) that Sanders voters will just stay home or not vote Democratic.  Or, worse, that they have to be convinced to vote for the Democratic nominee if it's not Senator Sanders.

If Hillary wins, Sanders voters will vote for her or Jill Stein or stay home.  Very few will vote for Trump, unless they were very confused about why they were voting for Sanders in the first place.  This is just more publicity for Trump, as if he does not get enough.

If one chooses not to vote for the Democratic nominee, one is supporting the other candidate.

There, I wrote it.  Yell at me all you want.

nan said:

If Hillary wins, Sanders voters will vote for her or Jill Stein or stay home.  Very few will vote for Trump, unless they were very confused about why they were voting for Sanders in the first place.  This is just more publicity for Trump, as if he does not get enough.

Sadly, I have a friend who supports Sanders but will be voting from Trump in the general if Sanders doesn't make it and Trump does.  It'll happen with some.

If somebody is voting for Sanders to inflict maximum disruption of the status quo, then voting for Trump makes sense in a Clinton-Trump contest.  On the other hand, if you care about what Sanders is actually saying and hope that the government can achieve some of these things, then a vote for Clinton makes sense.

And if you want to ride your good intentions straight to Hell, vote for Jill Stein.

It wouldn't take much. Obama only won Florida by 70k votes (of 8M cast) last time around. 

nohero said:

If one chooses not to vote for the Democratic nominee, one is supporting the other candidate.

There, I wrote it.  Yell at me all you want.

After I vote for Bernie in the primary I will be leaving the Democratic party and changing my registration to Independent. I am done with the DNC.   I refuse to take the blame for Hillary's corrupt DNC campaign that showed contempt for the democratic process.  Where is the anger for the New York Times who invented "Left-leaning economists"  just to smear Sanders (one example of thousands--and most of the time they just ignored him).  What's with Bill Clinton hanging around polling places shaking hands?  What's with 120,000 dropped voters in Brooklyn?   And don't get me started on Super delegates or Debbie Wassermann Schultz admitting the process was designed to deny the nomination to a grass roots candidate. 

So after all this crap, the loss of the Presidency is on my shoulders?   It's a little late.  I understand lesser evil voting because I've done it all my life and I used to be the one saying what nohero is saying now.  It's even possible that come November I will panic and hold my nose and vote for the neoliberal goddess.  But, I'm an over 50 Bernie voter and not his key demographic.  The younger Bernie voters are not going to be swayed by unfair name calling and high-stakes demands.  Clinton herself is going to have to own her unfair advantage in this election and do something big to make peace and get the youth vote.  And so far all she is doing is pissing them off even more.  At a recent town hall she said she did not even need their votes, that she was a WINNER!.  If she says she does not need my vote than I think you can all stop telling me it's my fault that I did not vote for her.  She is out of touch.  If she loses this election it's her fault, not mine.

No.  If Clinton loses the election by one vote and that is your vote, it is on you.

nan said:

nohero said:

If one chooses not to vote for the Democratic nominee, one is supporting the other candidate.

There, I wrote it.  Yell at me all you want.

After I vote for Bernie in the primary I will be leaving the Democratic party and changing my registration to Independent. I am done with the DNC.   I refuse to take the blame for Hillary's corrupt DNC campaign that showed contempt for the democratic process.  Where is the anger for the New York Times who invented "Left-leaning economists"  just to smear Sanders (one example of thousands--and most of the time they just ignored him).  What's with Bill Clinton hanging around polling places shaking hands?  What's with 120,000 dropped voters in Brooklyn?   And don't get me started on Super delegates or Debbie Wassermann Schultz admitting the process was designed to deny the nomination to a grass roots candidate. 

So after all this crap, the loss of the Presidency is on my shoulders?   It's a little late.  I understand lesser evil voting because I've done it all my life and I used to be the one saying what nohero is saying now.  It's even possible that come November I will panic and hold my nose and vote for the neoliberal goddess.  But, I'm an over 50 Bernie voter and not his key demographic.  The younger Bernie voters are not going to be swayed by unfair name calling and high-stakes demands.  Clinton herself is going to have to own her unfair advantage in this election and do something big to make peace and get the youth vote.  And so far all she is doing is pissing them off even more.  At a recent town hall she said she did not even need their votes, that she was a WINNER!.  If she says she does not need my vote than I think you can all stop telling me it's my fault that I did not vote for her.  She is out of touch.  If she loses this election it's her fault, not mine.

No, she said she was "winning." 

Now we're getting upset when people just say things that are facts?

RobB said:

nan said:

nohero said:

If one chooses not to vote for the Democratic nominee, one is supporting the other candidate.

There, I wrote it.  Yell at me all you want.

After I vote for Bernie in the primary I will be leaving the Democratic party and changing my registration to Independent. I am done with the DNC.   I refuse to take the blame for Hillary's corrupt DNC campaign that showed contempt for the democratic process.  Where is the anger for the New York Times who invented "Left-leaning economists"  just to smear Sanders (one example of thousands--and most of the time they just ignored him).  What's with Bill Clinton hanging around polling places shaking hands?  What's with 120,000 dropped voters in Brooklyn?   And don't get me started on Super delegates or Debbie Wassermann Schultz admitting the process was designed to deny the nomination to a grass roots candidate. 

So after all this crap, the loss of the Presidency is on my shoulders?   It's a little late.  I understand lesser evil voting because I've done it all my life and I used to be the one saying what nohero is saying now.  It's even possible that come November I will panic and hold my nose and vote for the neoliberal goddess.  But, I'm an over 50 Bernie voter and not his key demographic.  The younger Bernie voters are not going to be swayed by unfair name calling and high-stakes demands.  Clinton herself is going to have to own her unfair advantage in this election and do something big to make peace and get the youth vote.  And so far all she is doing is pissing them off even more.  At a recent town hall she said she did not even need their votes, that she was a WINNER!.  If she says she does not need my vote than I think you can all stop telling me it's my fault that I did not vote for her.  She is out of touch.  If she loses this election it's her fault, not mine.

No, she said she was "winning." 

Now we're getting upset when people just say things that are facts?

Good luck with that. I tried pointing out that it was a ridiculous question (and I normally like Rachel), asking if Hillary would drop her own positions and adopt some of Bernie's in order to attract his supporters. She countered--justifiably annoyed--that she's winning with her current platform. And then some of the Berniestas completely lost their minds.

I understand preferring Bernie to Hillary, but they are getting upset about imaginary slights.

tjohn said:

If somebody is voting for Sanders to inflict maximum disruption of the status quo, then voting for Trump makes sense in a Clinton-Trump contest.  On the other hand, if you care about what Sanders is actually saying and hope that the government can achieve some of these things, then a vote for Clinton makes sense.

And if you want to ride your good intentions straight to Hell, vote for Jill Stein.

My vote for Clinton will be a vote against things getting radically worse.  I have no illusions about things getting better.  This is definitely a case of choosing between the lesser of two evils.

That said, it is a choice and one EVIL is vastly greater than the other.

"If somebody is voting for Sanders to inflict maximum disruption of the
status quo, then voting for Trump makes sense in a Clinton-Trump
contest."

Not it doesn't. A billionaire who was born into wealth is the very definition of status quo.

ina said:

"If somebody is voting for Sanders to inflict maximum disruption of the
status quo, then voting for Trump makes sense in a Clinton-Trump
contest."

Not it doesn't. A billionaire who was born into wealth is the very definition of status quo.

The GOP apparently doesn't think so.

Trump's supporters are waging a particularly ugly attack on Julia Ioffe, a Jewish writer who wrote an article about Trump's family in GQ. https://twitter.com/juliaioffe

They are also going after Hillary's "health".

dave23 said:
Good luck with that. I tried pointing out that it was a ridiculous question (and I normally like Rachel), asking if Hillary would drop her own positions and adopt some of Bernie's in order to attract his supporters. She countered--justifiably annoyed--that she's winning with her current platform. And then some of the Berniestas completely lost their minds.

I understand preferring Bernie to Hillary, but they are getting upset about imaginary slights.

I've been criticized for that but that's why I called Bernie's revolution the childrens crusade. A pied piper of childish expectations and the many temper tantrums now being thrown because Bernie is losing and Clinton refuses to pander to his supporters.

When Clinton lost against President Obama in 2008, did anyone ask or expect Obama to change his position? To bend over for Clinton? No. But Clinton is expected to bend over for Sanders. Why the double standard?

When Clinton lost she wholeheartedly supported Obama. There was no telling Obama by anyone that support depended upon him changing his position to please Clinton.

dave23 said:

Trump's supporters are waging a particularly ugly attack on Julia Ioffe, a Jewish writer who wrote an article about Trump's family in GQ. https://twitter.com/juliaioffe

A lot of Trump's base is very ugly. American Nazi's and other white supremacists.

eliz said:

They are also going after Hillary's "health".
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/28/3773596/trump-campaign-embraces-conspiracy-theory-about-clinton-cough/They are also going after Hillary's "health".  

These people meet to get their talking points together. Which is why on hate radio  you often see the same memes appear suddenly.

Just recently, the Weekly Standard posted a video just of Clinton coughing. “What About Hillary’s Coughing Fits?” asks Town hall. She’s looking “sick, unenergetic,” says Rush Limbaugh. She had “another coughing fit,” says Breitbart. It’s also a favorite topic of Matt Drudge, purveyor of the conservative aggregation site the Drudge Report (which leans Trump).

When Bush was president, hate radio personalities like Limbaugh and other right wingers of note were invited monthly to the White House. They would meet Bush to get their attaboy's and then continue the meeting with Karl Rove to get their monthly talking point update.

BG9 said:

When Clinton lost against President Obama in 2008, did anyone ask or expect Obama to change his position? To bend over for Clinton? No. But Clinton is expected to bend over for Sanders. Why the double standard?

Clinton has spent the last year talking about how she is a "progressive".  All we are asking is that she live up to her words and not make a massive swing back to the right.

Interesting that many of you want Bernie supporters to see the big picture and vote for the lesser evil.  Meanwhile you take no interest in seeing the big picture yourselves--that Bernie supporters are really pissed off and have real reasons not to support Hillary.   Piling on and calling Bernie supporter childish and other names and just shrugging about the Un-Democratic party is not the way to go this time.  This election is different than others.  Things have changed and there is a big group of people that are severely alienated. 

You may think they are being big babies, but do you want them to vote for Hillary or not?  If you do, then you (and Hillary) will need to do something more than just name calling or the usual getting hysterical about lesser evil voting.

Klinker said:

BG9 said:

When Clinton lost against President Obama in 2008, did anyone ask or expect Obama to change his position? To bend over for Clinton? No. But Clinton is expected to bend over for Sanders. Why the double standard?

Clinton has spent the last year talking about how she is a "progressive".  All we are asking is that she live up to her words and not make a massive swing back to the right.

I would not expect that Secretary Clinton would take us to Cruz-ville or Trump-ville. 

So, that's how I expect to vote in November.

My prediction/opintion:

Secretary (is that higher than Senator?) Clinton is going to keep us mired exactly where we are today on economic issues, and will definitely continue policies that allow fracking, that increase off-shore drilling, that will support or at most, not interfere with oil pipelines across the continent.   She will not prevent big finance from implementing their agenda to have less regulatory oversight and make it easier for them to get paid (by us) through fees or tightened debtor laws.  

she will be good for womens rights, in support of planned parenthood, legal abortion, human and civil rights, but not enough to buck the existing law enforcement agencies and states, so no change to privatized prisons and the war on drugs.

She will be "tough" on foreign policy and prone to use force to prove her toughness.  She will have neocon's in her cabinet but i think she is not a true neocon herself.

she will appoint sane judges to the supreme court.

all in all not a game changing candidate, more a status quo candidate with who will "compromise" with the right wing.  

Agree with Hoops,

Hoops--I think HRC is going to surprise you. I think whoever wins, there will continue to be a lot of obstruction, but I am looking forward to watching things unfold.

I have three friends that were dropped in Brooklyn, one had lived in the same place for 20 years and voted every election.  They were all Clinton supporters.

nan said:

After I vote for Bernie in the primary I will be leaving the Democratic party and changing my registration to Independent. I am done with the DNC.   I refuse to take the blame for Hillary's corrupt DNC campaign that showed contempt for the democratic process.  Where is the anger for the New York Times who invented "Left-leaning economists"  just to smear Sanders (one example of thousands--and most of the time they just ignored him).  What's with Bill Clinton hanging around polling places shaking hands?  What's with 120,000 dropped voters in Brooklyn?   And don't get me started on Super delegates or Debbie Wassermann Schultz admitting the process was designed to deny the nomination to a grass roots candidate.  

nan said:

the Un-Democratic party

I'm sorry, what's undemocratic about the person with the most votes winning the nomination?

nan said:

Interesting that many of you want Bernie supporters to see the big picture and vote for the lesser evil.  Meanwhile you take no interest in seeing the big picture yourselves--that Bernie supporters are really pissed off and have real reasons not to support Hillary.   Piling on and calling Bernie supporter childish and other names and just shrugging about the Un-Democratic party is not the way to go this time.  This election is different than others.  Things have changed and there is a big group of people that are severely alienated. 

You may think they are being big babies, but do you want them to vote for Hillary or not?  If you do, then you (and Hillary) will need to do something more than just name calling or the usual getting hysterical about lesser evil voting.

Sanders supporters can vote for whoever they want to in November.  However, if there are enough who don't vote for Clinton to allow Trump or Cruz to win, I just don't want to hear any complaining.

nan said:

nohero said:

If one chooses not to vote for the Democratic nominee, one is supporting the other candidate.

There, I wrote it.  Yell at me all you want.

After I vote for Bernie in the primary I will be leaving the Democratic party and changing my registration to Independent. I am done with the DNC.   I refuse to take the blame for Hillary's corrupt DNC campaign that showed contempt for the democratic process.  Where is the anger for the New York Times who invented "Left-leaning economists"  just to smear Sanders (one example of thousands--and most of the time they just ignored him).  What's with Bill Clinton hanging around polling places shaking hands?  What's with 120,000 dropped voters in Brooklyn?   And don't get me started on Super delegates or Debbie Wassermann Schultz admitting the process was designed to deny the nomination to a grass roots candidate. 

So after all this crap, the loss of the Presidency is on my shoulders?   It's a little late.  I understand lesser evil voting because I've done it all my life and I used to be the one saying what nohero is saying now.  It's even possible that come November I will panic and hold my nose and vote for the neoliberal goddess.  But, I'm an over 50 Bernie voter and not his key demographic.  The younger Bernie voters are not going to be swayed by unfair name calling and high-stakes demands.  Clinton herself is going to have to own her unfair advantage in this election and do something big to make peace and get the youth vote.  And so far all she is doing is pissing them off even more.  At a recent town hall she said she did not even need their votes, that she was a WINNER!.  If she says she does not need my vote than I think you can all stop telling me it's my fault that I did not vote for her.  She is out of touch.  If she loses this election it's her fault, not mine.

This is simply hysterical. Yelling about a "corrupt DNC campaign" because your candidate WHO IS NOT A DEMOCRAT didn't win is absurd. And "smeared" by NY Times economists, like Paul Krugman, who pointed out that Sanders' numbers don't make sense? Come on. 

Yeah, that does not prove anything.  Right now we don't know what happened.  But every primary has had lots of questionable practices.  They put a Clinton delegate in charge of the Brooklyn mess so who knows if we ever will.

I agree with hoops on what will happen with Clinton.  The problem I see is that by maintaining the status quo, things are going to get worse for the Trump (and Sanders) supporters and the environment.  There will be more unrest with the possibility of another, more dangerous Trump-like character emerging.  There could also be another Bernie, but those are rarer than Trumps.  There are lots of would be Trumps, especially if we don't have significant campaign finance reform.  I would prefer to go with the good Revolution now, rather than deal with the bad Revolution later.

unixiscool said:

I have three friends that were dropped in Brooklyn, one had lived in the same place for 20 years and voted every election.  They were all Clinton supporters.

nan said:


After I vote for Bernie in the primary I will be leaving the Democratic party and changing my registration to Independent. I am done with the DNC.   I refuse to take the blame for Hillary's corrupt DNC campaign that showed contempt for the democratic process.  Where is the anger for the New York Times who invented "Left-leaning economists"  just to smear Sanders (one example of thousands--and most of the time they just ignored him).  What's with Bill Clinton hanging around polling places shaking hands?  What's with 120,000 dropped voters in Brooklyn?   And don't get me started on Super delegates or Debbie Wassermann Schultz admitting the process was designed to deny the nomination to a grass roots candidate.  

The NYC Board of Elections is widely known to be a disaster. They should have been gotten rid of years ago.

To assume the dropped voters is a plot against Bernie is naive and paranoid. There are more Clinton voters than Bernie voters and the dropped voter count would have been higher for Clinton.

The NYC votes were consistently in favor of Clinton. Brooklyn does not stand out as an exception even with the dropped voters. Bern lost NYC, because NYC did not feel the Bern (Brooklyn "roots" notwithstanding).

The grass root nominee is obviously Clinton. Do we want the super delegates to deny the nomination to the grass root delegate, to give it to Bernie, as Bernie said he wanted in the above clip?