Old Bernie better get to changing that I behind his name to a D or he isn't worth shit come the presidential elections.

Although he's said that he's going to do that - change his Party affiliation - I won't post a "Vote for Bernie!" post until he actually does it. He's still not a Democrat and last I looked, this is still a forum that supports Democrats. But even if he does go against his own principle and change his Party affiliation from I to D in order to run for the presidency, he still won't have a snowball's chance in Hades to win against a Republican. Most people who understand the political dynamics in this country understand at least that. Even Senator Sanders. And I surmise, so do those who shout out their support of him in this community which makes me wonder about them.

I would rather vote for a Republican that was anti-war, anti-wall street, pro-choice, pro-government, and pro-labor than vote for someone because of stupid fucking label.

Jesus people.

... said republican?!

I'm mean, they voted for a guy who said he advocated a bail out of detroit when he did just the opposite

I should have expected it.

And I'm totally not surprised.

And, you can't argue against his positions, so you instead argue against his electability.

We see it all the time.

who points out Senator Sanders' unelectability somehow harbors nefarious reasons for it. You're wrong. I actually admire Senator Sanders immensely, and have contributed to his senatorial race when he ran. In fact, I wish more Democrats took his position on many issues. We'd be a far better country for it.

That said, I won't allow my admiration of him blind to me for the bigger political picture which is, although he plays an important role in progressive politics, he is still too extreme for the majority of a-political Americans who feel uncomfortable voting for someone so far outside of the political mainstream.

I.O.W., should Senator Sanders change his Party affiliation from I to D and run and win the Democratic primaries, he will most certainly lose against the unlimited-resources and corporate-media-backed Republican machine in the general since a-political Independents who lean progressive ultimately decide who wins, and Senator Sanders is just too much of a good thing for them.

I'd rather have one bird in the hand than two in the Bushes.

Your fine with, let's just continue down the path we've been on because it could be worse. Well, that's not case for some of us. It can't get worse.

I'm done doing it your way.

We heard the same arguments in 2008 for Obama; too unknown, too young, too liberal, etc. And, forget about the fact that a black man will never win.

Things change when we make them change.

Senator Obama has always been a Democrat. Yes, he was long shot by far, and for the very reasons you've cited.

But he used those "negatives" to his advantage. He practiced a perfect political Jujitsu. His victory came from the fact that he inspired the youth as well as having expertly used his organizing skills as an experienced community organizer which resulted in getting 53% of the vote in 2008 and 51% in 2012 (even with 7.2% unemployment). Can Senator Sanders do the same? I don't know if he can.

But, what other candidate can inspire and overcome their weaknesses.

I don't know of any that's considering running for President.

Do you?

I'm personally not a big fan of her. I'd rather have someone younger and more liberal. My preference is Martin O'Malley, but he's not getting any "love" from his Party or pro-Republican U.S. media, and he really is a long shot.

IMO, Governor O'Malley is young enough (51) to inspire the youth, smart and knowledgeable enough to go toe-to-toe with any seasoned Koch-bought Republican presidential candidate, and courageous enough to stand up for Democratic ideals like immigration reform (which would all but guarantee the approval of the vast majority of Latinos and their vote), as he's been proving in Maryland.

But unfortunately for me, he's announced last April that he won't seek the Democratic nom for president in 2016. He, instead, wants to further his career in music with his band, the O'Malley's.

He practiced a perfect political Jujitsu.

Americans are innately suspicious and distrustful. The majority of Americans have also been thoroughly brainwashed over the past thirty-plus years by corporate, pro-Republican American media.

When someone like Senator Sanders, an unapologetic Socialist, tries to run for the coveted WH, his past as a Socialist will be used against him by the corporate-backed, Republican-favoring U.S. media. He'd be painted a wishy-washy Dem, only changing his Party affiliation for political expediency, and that would make him look weak in the eyes of a-political American voters who will then easily fall prey to the inevitable dirty political ads by pro-GOP, pro-War billionaires who will spend hundreds of millions of dollars equating socialism with the dreaded C-word: communism. Given American people's deep-rooted fear of communism, how do you think the vast majority will vote?

his opponents were John "I'm suspending my campaign" McCain and Sarah "In what respect, Charlie?" Palin.

On the issues he is right in line with a majority of Americans. That makes Bernie CENTRIST.

He'll be defined as a Communist because the well-funded propaganda machine on the other side will meld socialism and communism as one and the same, and then they'll crucify him - with LOTS of help from all U.S. media.

Senator Sanders would be thoroughly crushed, and then we'll see another war-mongering, social safety net-slashing Republican in the WH.

compromised by Hillary than by a Republican president. Only Nixon could go to China is applicable here.

Republicans lie about everything. They painted President Obama as a socialist since he took office. So they will call Bernie a a socialist. Big deal. They have been calling every Democratic office holder socialists for a long time.

don't delude yourself there is an on-going campaign to tamper down Democrats support. Much like the PUMA bullshit from 08. Herr Goebbels would be proud The noticeable up tick in anit-Hillary messages is a replay from 08.

I don't care what you call it. If the Democrat, Hillary or otherwise, votes to the right of Nixon then I want no part of it.

I'm done supporting the Democrat just because they have a D next to their name.

I didn't say I was going to tamper down Democratic support. And I didn't say anything about Hillary. That's on you.

But, if a Republican got into office and voted like a Warren or Sanders, I would certainly consider supporting them in future elections. You wouldn't, just because of their label?

Abraham Lincoln be a Democrat today?

is it now?

And, that's the point, isn't it?

What stand do you take when it comes to supporting someone? Is it only about the label?

If we believe it to be un-American for the Republicans to put party before Country, and it is, then it is also un-American for Democrats to do so also.

The only way the best candidates can win is if you vote for them. It's time to either get the Democrats back to their root beliefs or break the two party stranglehold on America.

To ignore the best candidate for America for lack of the "proper letter" is shameful.

of people who actually believe in representative democracy more than party lockstepping.

for people who want to be part of a reality-based community.

and then wax snarky about the "reality-based community?"

and if they don't do as I say, I'm going to vote against them or not vote at all. I believe in democracy - the majority wins. I don't subscribe to the "universe evolves around me and my ideas"-based community.

What some fellow Liberals don't seem to get is, there are all types of Democrats in the Democratic Party. There are Liberal Democrats, Moderate Democrats, and Conservative Democrats.

If staunch Liberals won't or can't accept those facts, perhaps they need to branch off and create their own political Party?

They are destroying anything our party once stood for.

there was a progressive labor party and a business party, regardless of the ideologies of their members. Now, there is one corporate party with two faces.

They want us to settle for differences in cultural issues, which the 1% could care less about anyway. If their wife or their daughter needs an abortion or medical care of any kind, no problem. And, there are not that many minorities in the multi-billionaires' club.

Very well put.

If what a segment of DU considers liberals did start their own party, Democrats would never win another Presidential.

that if those who claim to be Liberals on DU would branch off, it would harm a potential Democratic presidential candidate - using the 2008 elections and the split between Hillary and Obama supporters on DU as a guide.

glad that I was not. But, quite obviously, I was not referring only to those liberals who post on DU. And neither did your prior post. Your comment referred to staunch liberals in general, not only DU's liberals.


No group of regular DUers-, traditionalists, centrists, unconditional loyalists, liberals or other--is large enough to cost anyone a Presidential election or to win any Presidential, either, for that matter. But Presidentials are won these days by smaller and smaller margins. So, splintering the Party is not a great idea for anyone who cares about Democrats winning Presidentials.

But Presidentials are won these days by smaller and smaller margins. So, splintering the Party is not a great idea.

But, the pundits said that the long and hard-fought primary was good for the Party.

I know what would would be bad for the party and for the country, IMO: an anointing or coronation.

....I'd say getting Dems into office is the #1 Priority. It's doesn't amatter to the Republicans what issue is up for a vote, the Vote will be "NA The pretense of voting for ideology will be lost completely if the Republicans take hold of the running the nation. We know full well, Dems are like "herding cats", they will vote their conscience and generally in the best intersts of theit constituents...Reps, no so much. There is nothing "blind" about that easly figured out scenario, and it would serve you well, to stop labelling people with extremes.

in the vote & the election to swing towards the repubs anyways. Do you?

In short, we are fucked unless we ELECT someone from the far left.

Sanders changes that I to a D it won't make a damn bit of difference other than to guarantee a repub gets elected. But keep living in your fantasy land of Bernie being your savior, he doesn't stand a chance in 2016 as an independent.

if Senator Sanders not standing a chance against a Republican is exactly what some are hoping for.

That's weird.

And you believe that's weird? How sad.

Not that you make up stuff (put words in my mouth) to make you feel better about voting for a label over an ideology.

before causing the type of problem you mention.

And also, the bigger problem is whether things will actually get better if we continue to vote for Democratic candidates that support war, Wall Street, and corporations over people.

But until he does he is just an independent talking a good game. You can bark about the war issue, wall street & the like all you want but as a Latina woman raising 2 mixed race son's with 2 teenage niece's civil rights issues & womens rights issues play a FAR bigger role in my voting decisions .

Do you say the same things about Hillary, or Warren, or your preferred candidate?

And which issues does your candidate support that Bernie doesn't?

As long as Sanders is an Independent there is No Fuckin way I would vote for him as it will essentially split the votes, thus costing us the election. For whatever reason certain individuals are unable to see that is what would occur. No way will I vote for Warren as talk is cheap & she was a damn republican most of her adult life, she didn't change political affiliation until she decided to run for office. You already stated you would vote Republican if they wooed you properly which is exactly what Rand Paul is hoping for, so good luck with your closeted ideology.

So, you have no worries. Glad you're on board.

And, the only way a Republican could woo me is if they had a voting record that was far left, but nice try. BTW, Rand Paul is anything but far left.

(which the Republicans will tear him a new one for by pulling out the flip-flop costumes - you can bet on it) for political expediency, and IF he wins the Democratic presidential primaries, I and my group of young Democrats will still proudly cast our Democratic votes for him.

Until such time, until he actually changes his Party affiliation from I to D, I, as a Democrat and a Liberal, refuse to support him.

Bernie is a self proclaimed socialist! That precludes a bunch of people voting for him even if he changed to R.
Remember the S word is a bad bad thing.

..not just Democrats.

And, we heard the EXACT SAME arguments against trying to get a black man elected.

I have a problem with the I's splitting the vote. Which is what I have said repeatedly. You're the one that brought up voting for R's. I'm not voting for one with one behind their name now or carried it for most of their adult life.

You don't have to keep repeating it.

You are right on point. I totally agree with your points. If Bernie Sanders wants to change affiliation to D, that still does not guarantee a primary victory. I like Bernie Sanders, I agree with a great deal of his thought processes, but the Democrat Party is not all Socialist, progressive views, similar to the Republicans are not all tea-party bible thumpers. Bernie Sanders will need to capture the hearts of ALL democrats to win this nomination.

They agree with him on gun control, minimum wage, going after Wall Street, being anti-war, being pro-choice, legalizing marijuana, supporting gay rights, etc.

And, you're wrong. Those are exactly the things that Democrats should be fighting for, and once did. The current Democratic party is working for corporations first, while putting people and labor second.

We, or I am not wrong.... Not every Democrat is a progressive, or a liberal, or even a socialist. Not every democrat supports legalizing pot. Not every democrat is anti-war, (perhaps when not a direct confrontation), but I do recall a pretty stance Democrat calling for war when needed.

And, on every single one of those issues, the majority agrees with Bernie Sanders.

not yet said he would. He said he might, that he is investigating that.

(For those who knee jerk equate my wanting him to run in the Democratic Primary with my cheering for Bernie for President--and some have done that--please brush up on your reading skills and/or put on your thinking cap. I am not making up my mind until the Democratic primary field is set.)

whether the people elect a republican or a republican masquerading as a democrat?

When a Republican-Masquerading-As-A-Democrat is elected, Democrats cheer for wars of choice.

That's the big difference.

for the corporate agenda. Conservative "Democrats" are the enablers of our empire.

wasn't involved in a war of choice, regardless of who controlled congress or who resided in the White House?

A Democrat would not have put Scalia on the bench.

It takes all of 5 minutes. My god, how will Sanders ever get that done in the next two years?

and never liked Hillary in the first place are using this as an excuse to put her down.

But I hope you have your flame retardant suit on.

It's not up to bullshit, more like unintelligible garbage. You're welcome.

The "New Democrat" thing got me to. Before that, I was supporting Brown. That may have been our last best hope.

Many might not remember Perot actually bailed out of the race after the Clinton "New Democrat" speech. He got back in quickly though. It was like Perot bought it too and decided we really didn't need him.

after a good and fair run? Or will it be a "my way or the highway" thing for you?

I'm a Democrat but I vote for policies and principles. I'm not impressed by labels and "not as bad" candidates.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

I'm really not surprised, Tierra.

But ... cute quote. A bit too narcissistic for a person like me who actually believes in the "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" philosophy rather than "The world evolves around me" one.

I firmly believe having one bird in the hand rather than two in the Bushes is a good philosophy to have when it comes to elections.

Aren't you voting for your principles? Even if the principle is getting someone "not as bad" elected to office out of expediency?

I'm not really surprised Blue, that you adhere to the notion that a little bit of arsenic is acceptable because it's not a lot of arsenic especially if it has a "D" on the label.

Let's try it again

Vote for the crap we're offered so we don't get the crap from the opposition. Because, you know, our crap doesn't smell.

Fortunately, living in a progressive district, and a state populated with "my crap doesn't smell" Democrats, I have the luxury of voting for real Democrats or third party candidates that reflect real democratic principals.

But I would do the same if I lived one teabagging district in a red state, vote my values.

All is good if their team wins. They can't realize that we lose either way.

Hamilton said it best:

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.

I'm sorry, But Bernie is not going to run for president.

We just pretend to have two political parties to keep the rubes waiving party pom poms, the mass media rich, and to maintain the imprimatur of legitimacy elections give the oligarchy.

the strings from the puppeteers remain invisible to the politically unsophisticated, ignorant, and those firmly in the grip of the fear of modern rightwingnuttery.

I've argued since the rise of the Pea Partiers, that the escalation in rightwinger madness they represent wasn't happenstance, but rather a calculated effort to move the already well off center ideological dividing line in DC farther to the right by way of very energetic exploitation of that fear. That's why we got chained cpi proposals, etc, because that's still better than the privatization scheme Bush and her husband wanted -- that Lewinsky saved "us" from in his case. HC can and will benefit from it as the latest "good cop", despite the fact that as you can see around here even, many are starting to see how the game has been played, and are starting to reject it. Hopefully not enough to keep a better rep for the dem party and its values that have been drifting rightwards since her husband took the pres helm, from wresting it from her.

Hindsight is no replacement for the foresight we longtime critics of the "third way" coppers have long exhibited and shared, but it's far better than the blindness that the ignorant and fearful still cling to.

all the REAL decisions are made in the primaries. If you ignore the primaries you'll get two corporate candidates and the corporations don't care which one wins, because they win in either case.

The people have to run candidates that will represent them and campaign HARD in primary season.

We have failed to do so, and the elite have stolen our country from us. They choose and heavily bankroll "Democrats" that will not change the status quo (not only that, many of them will support legislation that benefits the wealthy and Wall Street over average Americans).

We need a massive awakening that lasts YEARS for us to turn this country around.

So much of this is just complete bullshit coming from those who stand strongly opposed to Hillary. Let me put it this way, anyone who gets fooled into voting for Hillary is a complete dumbfuck. She has a very extensive track record. How one perceives that track record is up to the individual.

"Speaking of getting fooled, what sane person would ever vote for Hillary Clinton for president?"

How well liked is Hillary among Democrats? If the person who wrote that line needs a reality check, I will give it to them. If they are so far on the fringe that they think it would be insanity to vote for an extremely well liked and strong woman, maybe they need to visit the "dock".

This author writes at a middle school level and the hate brigade swoons.

What sane person could like the word salad posted in the op?

Do grow up.

/bye.

Very well thought out. Seems you missed everything else I typed. Then again, if one enjoys the writing level of this author......

Although the track record is clear. https://www.google.com/search?q=Maedhros+Clinton&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl

Now those are two damn good reasons to vote for Hillary. Just what one would expect from a middle school party loyalist.

Your reply doesn't make sense. Nice cheap shot you took at a fellow duer. Pretty low. It is what I have come to expect from some of the anti-Hillary crowd.

And your comments are examples of detached objectivity.

Might want to check. Either doesn't make sense, is to the wrong person, or it just doesn't matter to you. Either way, pretty interesting. Have a great one.

It will help you to use the term correctly in the future. I love learning!!!!!

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

She ain't going anywhere.

You can't be asking that in good faith. I will simply start with Elizabeth Warren and then let you use google from there. It is a helpful tool. Where does Hillary poll at?

And why shouldn't she? She won't be in this position again.

Looks like there are quite a few people who like the ideas expressed in the OP.

Guess they're not "sane". Nice. Very nice.

Yet you have a problem when I use it. I like how you are selective in what offends you. Pretty laughable. You still didn't respond to my main point. None of it was really condescending. Who in their right mind would make the argument that one of the best known politicians with a very long track record is going to fool people. They would have to be pretty foolish. Interesting you take issue with that fact or anything else I wrote. Pretty simple stuff really. I can help it if some find outrage so easily.

It is condescending and patronizing. And elitist. And it turns A LOT of people off in this country.

A small percentage of Americans communicate at levels higher than the level that appears in the OP.

In addition, the DU poster did not make the "sane" reference. It appeared within the post that they posted. Does that mean that anyone who makes a post on DU believes and supports EVERY statement made within it? They might fully believe that or they might not. In your post, YOU directed the "sane" comment to many of your fellow DU posters.

Your post, in its entirety, is what prompted my response. Everything in my original post to you remains my opinion.

P.S. I know that you don't care about my opinion.