That's a pretty far drive round trip. Thanks for going.

Unfortunately, there is that other trend of ardent Hillary supporters growing a hatred for Mr. Sanders. That's a rift we need to heal as quickly as possible.

sense this growing hatred stems from Bernies rise in popularity, or is based on his positions on the issues of today?

good news about Mr. Sanders' campaign. I suppose there is some feeling among Mrs. Clinton's supporters that anything likely to deprive Mrs. Clinton of the presidency must be removed forthwith. Issues are twisted to fit that objective. It's not about the issues. (Let's be frank here: Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders agree more than they disagree, even when there are some big differences of opinion.)

That his detractors essentially agree with his positions, and have no counter for them.

It is a form of cognitive dissonance.

That rift is only relevant if Clinton does not win the nomination. Hatred of Sanders doesn't matter if Sanders is not the nominee.

But I get it, its primary season.

as the nominee. And the plans for healing the rift so may as well be formed now.

How will they react if she wins the nomination?

Bernie is the better candidate on civil rights, hands down.

The fact that there are ardent supporters of two Democratic candidates for the Presidency in the 2016 elections, and that some tend to get rather aggressive in both the defense of their preferred candidate and criticism of the other on this site may be a sign of something very healthy.

You're always going to have 'true believers' in such scenarios - it's a fact of life. However, this could end up being the most consequential contest for the Democratic nomination in a very long time, given the fact that these two candidates represent very, very different models of politicians.

You've got to take the 'haters' with the more sensible supporters of each candidate. Personally, I try to ignore the posts that are obviously meant to provoke one side or the other and focus on the more substantive, decent ones.

is negligeable in the general election? Even if it is, I'd hope there is a way to turn them into sensible supporters.

Completely agree with the rest of your words, by the way.

Sorry - the term 'haters' seems to be thrown about a lot on this site (usually by the most extreme supporters of one or another candidate, who probably fit the term at least as well as those they are accusing). It's probably not a useful term to use in a reasonable discussion, and I think I'll stop using it altogether.

I do think that even a divisive primary/caucus process would be healthy for the Democratic party. I won't claim that it would be good for the eventual Democratic candidate for the Presidency in the General Election, but if it is not, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.

We've got an institutionalized two party political system, and, during the past 25 years or so, it's usually personal charisma and skill avoiding taking very definite positions on anything meaningful that produces the winning candidates. I see that only getting worse (and becoming a kind of art form) without vigorous and sometimes divisive intra-party contests among candidates who will discuss serious issues and take meaningful positions.

And, in my opinion, a person who becomes President of the United States by not taking firm positions on serious issues knows that the American people are easily duped and that divisive issues are easily dodged by statements such as 'we need to have a dialog on...' and 'it is important that we...,' etc.

If it's only ever about winning, there really are no parties - just gamesters.

You have given me food for thought.

Just one question: "I won't claim that [ a divisive primary ] would be good for the eventual Democratic candidate for the Presidency in the General Election, but if it is not, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing."

How could it be a good thing for the eventual candidate to be marred by the primary fall-out? I'm trying to follow your line of thought here.

needs to be healed.

Where two sides fight, two sides are needed to heal the rift.

i would love to see him in a debate.

I was so impressed. My only disappointment was he didn't talk about voting rights and gun violence.

The thing is, the corporate-owned right wing has attacked the New Deal and basic human decency on 1,000 different fronts for over 50 years. If a candidate were to address ALL these things in a stump speech, it would be hours long.

I say this not to cut you down, or disagree with you. Just an observation because I've seen others say similar things. I'm sure Bernie has talked about both voting rights and gun violence in the past, as he has addressed the issue of immigration.

He said (a few weeks ago) Bernie is portrayed as a crackpot in the media, and it is easy to see why.... he says what he stands for and he stands for what he says. I think the biggest question for Bernie, the one he has to overcome if he is going to compete, is will the American public know what to make of him? His honesty is a great virtue, but in THIS country, it is something we simply are not used to. I have certainly never seen a candidate like him in my lifetime (I'm 37 years old).

I hope this poll is a reflection of people sort of "waking up" and realizing... hey, he's not crazy, he's saying all the things I say!

The only candidates I can compare him to are Shirley Chisholm and RFK.

tell that to Mitt Romney

Thank you in advance:


BTW, here are all the 012 Romney-Obama trial heats:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

At which point he passed her up and never looked back. It's gonna be a looong primary season.

She was way ahead of Obama too.

http://abcnews.go.com/nightline/politics/fullpage?id=4675670

(scroll through the timeline above...)

I hope the best for her. Bernie is picking up momentum.

I don't think so.

And it is hard to see Sanders filling that gap.

I'm hearing things that I believe, as the election gets closer, Hillary may have her hands full. I don't have a dog in this race yet, I'm just listening right now.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/bernie-sanders-emerging-as-clinton-alternative-468466756002

Gotta remember the BUSH taxcuts were supposed to be temporary. they expired in 2010 I think. if they were permanent the debt during Bush's time would be so high he couldn't run on it. the taxes on the rich have never been this low. so they keep saying they want the 1950's back. really? well vote for Bernie. of course without the racism

"Rich people got rich from being cheap on payroll" is about on a level with "All Mexicans are lazy."

Oprah got rich from being cheap on payroll? I know some guys in Dallas who have people lined up around the block to find jobs with them because they are the opposite. They got lucky with their company and their personal investments, probably worth over $50 million apiece at this point. They have kept some of the few people fired for reasons other than theft on the payroll just so they could keep their health insurance a little longer while they look for a new job. In Vermont, Ben & Jerry sold their company for a bunch, never were cursed out by their former employees as far as I know for being cheap.

SOME rich people got that way by being mean and nasty. Some got that way for just the opposite reason, and their employees gave as good as they got.

By the way, if $50 million isn't rich to you, please disregard the above. To me it's a bloody fortune!

They said, "Seven million."

That's per year.

Most of America can't imagine making that kind of income every year. For a 40 hour work week that's $3000.00 an hour.

I know, someone will say, "But they work longer than 40 hours a week!".

I've met these types. They consider it to be "work" to read the news while on their private jet. They act like it's a major burden to show up for an annual stockholder's meeting or a ceremony where one of their own is presented with a crystal award to honor the fact that they made the most money.

His name is Peter Norton. Invented some kind of anti-computer virus software a while ago and made himself a billionaire. Nicest guy you could ever want to meet. No idea what he would have been like to work for.

He asks me what I've been up to the last year. I say same old shit, how about you?, Oh, he says, I was busy building a city in China....

And he isn't joking.

You should ask him. Or maybe the Chinese did, and we didn't? No idea. He is soft-spoken, but he is a very open-minded guy. Maybe you should write to him and tell him your suggestion. You just might get an answer. But knowing him, his answer could well, be, "so what did you have in mind?" So be prepared with a lot of coherent specifics.

But let's face it. The PEOPLE through their government should be the ones building and OWNING cities.

Most if them would be thrilled if they knew where their next paycheck is coming from. Peter doesn't have the money to rebuild Detroit. Probably no one does at this point, not even the Sultan of Brunei. Who are "the people" here, anyway, and how much money do you think they have? Detroit's citizens sure don't have the means. The State of Michigan doesn't either. And if the entire congressional delegation of Michigan were to suggest, with a united voice, a bill in Congress to rebuild Detroit, the rest of Congress would react like they did when NY and NJ asked for funds to rebuild after Sandy. Sorry, nope, no money. Granholm couldn't do it, and Snyder couldn't care less. So, WHAT "people" are going to be able to do this? The Chinese might do it, if we cede the territory to them, and they get to set the rents (i.e. Americans out). Fat chance.

that the exodus of jobs to China for cheap labor (yes many people get rich by doing this) is what has destroyed our cities which need rebuilding, also it eroded our tax base and led to failing infrastructure, yet you are here lauding a rich person for buillding a city in China.

So even in the example you used to rebuff the statement about people getting rich by paying low wages, you were promoting someone who is apprarently developing in China. Ironic to say the least.

I'm sure you're right that the generalization isn't always true, we all know all generalizations are false (irony intended). But the point about people getting rich on cheap labor was largely correct.

Clinton remains the race’s overwhelming favorite, but there’s no question that the 73-year-old self-described democratic socialist, whose disheveled white hair might remind some of Doc Brown from “Back to the Future,” isn’t just a novelty.

“Clinton is going to be a safer bet,” said John MacBride, a 24-year-old Sanders supporter who drove from Kansas City to see him speak. “A lot of my peers think she’s a safer bet. But they like what he says better.”

don't settle, don't give in, don't give up. ask questions, expect and demand more.

...it's kind of inevitable that any significant gain in support for Sanders (and O'Malley, and any other D candidates) would come at least in part from and erosion of HRC's support.

that's a problem with being the prohibitive favorite early-on.

whatever the case, i think a close race between HRC and Sanders will ultimately be good for the Democratic party. the end result should represent some kind of reconciliation between "mainstream" Democrats and the "progressive left", if losing candidates bow out gracefully as the race goes on and don't try to cause explicit splinterings and schisms.

could see themselves supporting Hillary.

So at least we don't have a problem there.

Go Bernie!

that doesn't actually provide any polling results.

I was just in another thread where a bunch of posters were telling me polls don't matter.

NOT adjust his message based on polls and focus groups. He tells it like it is. That's sure why I like him, and why I won't be surprised if he ends up beating Clinton in key primary states.

I can still remember a Democratic primary debate in 2008 when every single one of the candidates waffled when asked the question, "Do you believe healthcare IS a basic right?"

Bernie isn't waffling.

I think it's a big part of his appeal to millenials, to be honest. The trend with younger people is towards discarding bullshit and hyped up advertising. They're incredibly sensitive to it-- having grown up with the slickest stealth advertising ever invented, from 'viral videos' to product placement and everything else. And they're cynical and suspicious about shiny, focus group-tested messaging.

American Apparel's ads are the best example I can think of for the modern sort of 'un-advertising' that appeals to younger people now. Just stripped down, no nonsense, no frills, what-you-see-is-what-you-get sort of stuff.

So she's doing okay, whatever his gains may be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251413177

If you're going to mention polls in the headline I expect to read about poll numbers, lol. I like reading about Bernie, but the author kind of blew it with that headline :-P