surrogate talking points we've been hearing all along, except from hard core surrogate McCaskill.

How many posts to this effect did we see on DU right away? Maddow tried this, too, at first. She actually even asked Bernie what it would take for the Clinton candidacy to be satisfactory to him. As though he could tell her, then Hillary could include it in her campaign and Bernie could stop running. Because, after all, he's running to make Hillary a better candidate.

Sorry, hard core surrogates and soft core surrogates: no sale.

and which one is leaning left because of the other one...which means after winning POTUS, they can go back to their usual routine?

We could have a great woman candidate like Senator Klobuchar.

And one, who, if she became President wouldn't have the *.

* Former First Lady who succeeded her husband, William Jefferson Clinton, into the office.

But Hillary's and Bill's political ambition trumps what is best for the Party and nation; the drive for power and wealth for the Clintons is the elephant in the room that shoves dynamicl possible candidates like Klobuchar into subservient roles.

a great candidate. She's a human windsock. She never takes stands on anything controversial; if you write to her office to ask for her position on something all you get back (if anything) is waffling and doublespeak. She makes Hillary look forthright and courageous.

but I have to admit her staff does write the best non-response responses I've ever read.

Talking to them is another matter. I think they're required to take lessons on how to be condescending to constituents who aren't calling to tell them Amy is wonderful. I had better chats with Coleman's staff when I was calling to tell them their boss was a weasel.

This is probably a tough position for Amy-kins to be in. Too many DFLers - including long time really active ones - are in Bernie's camp she has to find a way to support Hillary without alienating them.

eom

Really hard to tell them apart unless they have on different outfits.

One outfit is blue and the other is purple.

Last edited Sun Aug 2, 2015, 10:47 AM - Edit history (1)

TPA, TPP, Keystone XL, and that we are the kind of Democrats who want Glass-Steagell back. Unfortunately I got a letter from Al about 3 weeks ago asking for money for Hillary also. Done - contacted both of them. Told them how I feel and why.

However, some Bernie supporters have lost it. They are repeating RW talking points and Rove type planted anti-Clinton stories, then jumping with joy.

Clintons are accused of having ambition and a hunger for wealth but Bernie is somehow devoid of any ego, ambition or desire for a spotlight. He is just the second coming of Jesus -- or even better. The fact is that anyone who runs for POTUS has to have a big ego and ambition -- why would anyone want that job otherwise?

The reality is that if Bernie wins the nomination, he will be irreversibly classified as confiscatory re-distributor of wealth socialist and it will drive away small business owners, independents and even many moderate democrats. Any -- and I mean ANY - republican would make quick mince-meat of Bernie and we'll have another disaster which will last 8 years with 5 brand new conservative SCOTUS justices replacing Scalia, Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer and Kennedy.

The last revolution was in 1776 -- there will not be one in 2016 -- wake up and smell the coffee.

All Bernie supporters are doing this? I don't think so.
Are all criticisms of Hillary by Bernie supporters "RW"? I don't think so.

your graphic.

If you actually want some facts about Mondale and McGovern and not the played out memes, try making your way through this post and the material linked within this post. http://election.democraticunderground.com/12779277

The post does not cover Dukakis, but it's a good start, anyway.

which is not the point. A loss by a few electoral college votes is understandable - like Gore's.

McGovern lost EVERY STATE EXCEPT MASSACHUSETTS. That is a CRASH AND BURN.

Mondale lost EVERY STATE EXCEPT MINNESOTA. That is a CRASH AND BURN.

We just don't think an otherwise great candidate who would lose every state except Vermont a prudent strategy for the democratic party.

If the democratic party were to nominate Bernie Sanders, you'd be writing an OP about excuses for Bernie's loss like you wrote about McGovern and Mondale and giving "baggage of being an avid socialist" at the top of your list. (And you'd be right!)

I agree that America is not a center-right or center-left country. Most Americans are not political junkies and decide a few weeks before every election based upon slogans, pundit parroting and sound bites that are decisive.

The only times Americans have voted for a major change was based on massive discontent in 1932 (FDR elected due to depression), 1980 (Reagan elected because Carter didn't appear to have a clue) and 2008 (Obama elected because of economic disaster.) Those conditions DO NOT EXIST in 2016 and thus the probability of Bernie Sanders being a disastrous candidate is 99 out of 100.

the meme for decades.

As demwing's thread about McGovern and the replies show, NO ONE was going to beat Nixon and Democrats knew that. As far as Mondale, he was not even a liberal, and there were many reasons he lost to a charismatic incumbent, including the Carter-Mondale Administration and the fact that he was far inferior as a campaigner.

My posts backed up my statements. Your disagreement with them is nothing but prediction and supposition.

As long as we're predicting though, I believe Hillary has a much better chance of losing the general than does Bernie. I've been posting that all along and polls are beginning to back me up. I hope I don't have to write that post.


Of course, Bernie is a Democratic Socialist, which is not the same as a socialist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12806844

However, according to a poll, 47% of Americans said they would have no problem at all voting for a socialist. And, on the issues, they very much are Democratic Socialists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12779589

they are the ones that don't pay attention to the details of the candidates, but to sound bites. Most are working 8 to 12 hours a day and just watch TV and listen to the sound bytes, and here in Texas it is Fox noise. Talking to many here, they do not even know who Sanders is.

I like Sanders and Warren, but if we lose either of them from the senate how are we going to make up the loss. He had been a positive force voting with the Democrats 98% if the time. Yes, either of them would make a good president, but the right would destroy them as they have Bill and Hillary Clinton and even Barrack Obama. Lies and innuendo have been the credo of the republican party since Nixon. To them the means justify the end. Larry Klayman, James O'keefe, Karl Rove, are perfect examples of these nasty attacks.

The money that Bill Clinton received from many sources has gone to the Clinton Global Initiative, if you really take time and investigate. I believe Bill Clinton gave a great insight into the problems with NAFTA. Hillary is a good Democrat. She tries to maintain a relationship with the Democratic Presidents and not undermine their efforts to do what they believe are beneficial to the American People. She has worked hard for women and families. The lies and innuendo has hurt her credibility and DU is fostering that to the point that even Democrats are joining in.

Newt Gingrich had his employee in the basement of the capitol when he was crucifying Bill Clinton. They said Hillary was having an affair with Vince Foster and that is why he was killed. It did not matter that this was proven as a lie, it has persisted even to this day.

The problem is that DU is allowing infiltration of the many ugly and inaccurate labels and perceptions to creep back in. I truly believe that the repugs will destroy Sanders with their scandal machine. I do not think he deserves it as Hillary does not deserves the trashing she is getting here on DU.

why McGovern and Mondale lost for post after post. It's about time someone cut back against that crap and it may as well be me.

Obviously, we disagree about Hillary's making a good President. I support Sanders or O'Malley over Hillary any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays. However, I have not lied about her. If you think I have, please prove it. If you don't think I have, please take your complaints about lies to whoever you think has lied about her.

Bill is not running and neither is Newt or Warren.

She was just as inevitable then as she is now.

I was. This ad is typical of that campaign http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9323459/mcgovern-sanders

surrogates, memes and minions when describing Hillary supporters. How can I respect anyone who uses demagoguery and name-calling instead of logic?

Their dismissive, pejorative language tells me a lot. Rove must be the one jumping for joy.

Last edited Mon Aug 3, 2015, 01:05 AM - Edit history (1)

The reality is that if Bernie wins the nomination, he will be irreversibly classified as confiscatory re-distributor of wealth socialist and it will drive away small business owners, independents and even many moderate democrats.

make me a right-winger.

Saying "watch out the dog will bite you" doesn't make me a dog either.

Especially given how much Clinton supporters call 3/4 of the criticism against her the same. Again hypocrite.

economic issues if your supporters are seen frolicking about in Robin Hood hats. Don't think that kinda stuff goes over the heads of Fox News staffers and writers.

Of course, all of them were running against incumbent presidents (or an incumbent vice president) in an improving, or flooded with free money, economy. I'm failing to understand why, if the hype about our economic numbers is true, ANYONE running as a Democrat would have a hard time with the GOP. Let's be honest, even with the complete disaster that has been Democratic electoral politics since 2008 (almost, did hold the presidency), Democratic candidates continue to outpoll Republicans on a regular basis.

You haven't laid out a case why Sanders is unelectable. Calling him a socialist, a fascist, a communist, or whatever you like is what is done every damn day of the week already. It's been 5 years since Glenn Beck, noted conservative intellectual, managed to declare Obama both a communist AND a fascist. The only notable thing about that was the fact Beck claimed Obama to be both at the same time, not that he did it at all. Honestly, there's jack squat for proof that red-baiting bullshit is a remotely viable strategy outside the Democratic Party. Voters could likely give less than a damn. Give them tangible benefits and show them how their future will be better. That's how you actually win elections.*

I'm no Sanders partisan. I simply find your type of simplistic electoral analysis to be a joke. There's no real thought, it's just emotional hype based on an incomplete reading of the past. That doesn't mean he can win. It simply means that your case as to why he can't is lacking.



*It's how you win if you're not willing to play to prejudice.

It should be self-evident that Clinton's campaign would suffer if she had no primary opponent.

It should be self-evident that Clinton's campaign believes it would benefit from being perceived as moderate in the general election (if she win the nomination as her campaign believes she will) and so a primary challenger from her left would be her best-case-scenario challenger.

Obviously there are significant and important differences between Clinton's platform and Sanders's platform, but if you compare their views to the platforms of the extremists running for the Republican nomination, it is equally obvious that Clinton's messages is more similar to Sanders's message than to any other announced candidate in any party polling nationally above the polling margin of error.

Klobuchar is correct. Sanders is a great candidate, no one who supports Clinton should have any criticism of Sanders or any objection to his campaign, and -- from my perspective -- the Party benefits from a nomination process where there is some debate of different views that fall within the scope of the Party's principles while -- from Clinton's perspective -- her campaign benefits from the Sanders campaign because it (1) enhances her perception as a moderate (not a goal I share but clearly a key goal of her campaign), (2) precludes the false impression that the Democratic nomination process is a coronation, and (3) Sanders accomplishes goals 1 and 2 without being a nasty opponent who makes personal attacks against the other Democrats.

The Sanders campaign is a huge benefit to the more liberal aspects of the Democratic Party (where I can be found), but it is an equally large benefit to the Clinton campaign. There is no reason to doubt Klobuchar's motives or sincerity simply because she recognizes this fact.

No one could have put it any better.

Bernie Sanders is an excellent candidate who is running a pro-Clinton campaign. His supporters have misconstrued it as a HRC assassination attempt and Clinton haters have joined with gusto.

that I'll probably be voting for Clinton in the General Election.

I suspect that this describes many (if not most) people in the most progressive end of the Party who vote in the Democratic Primary.

I wish there was more policy debate and less inter-party fighting on a personal level.

and/or campaign surrogate, it starts sounding as though they are all reading from the same script.

inclined to agree.

If the Clinton campaign has a plot to say nice things about Sanders and point out areas of agreement, I am going to save my hair pulling for another day.

The Sanders campaign is the best thing that could have happened for the Clinton campaign -- she needs an opponent, and in Sanders he has found an opponent who is a genuinely nice guy, who will make a wise and impassioned case for policies to the left of Clinton's policies and -- thereby -- position her as a moderate which is where she wishes to be positioned, and who will not attack her on a personal level while questioning whether her policies are too moderate.

This is not a talking point - it is a fact.

You asked a question; I answered it.

As far as a plot to say nice things about Sanders, poster please. The claim that his message is not very different from Hillary's is not the least bit "nice." It is false and designed to undercut his campaign.

Well, that's patronizing.

cannot win the nomination for Sanders, let's nominate the candidate who is closest to the Warren-Sanders segment of the party, and then in the general election, let's elect the most progressive candidate we can.

= euphemism for collaboration with the oligarchy and ignoring the will of the people and democracy.

Bills and amendments he has sponsored have become law, a negotiation he did with McCain is now a case study on working across the aisle at the Brookings Institute and McCain and a number of other Republicans have commended him for his ability to work across the aisle.

oh yeah, same fertilizer, different delivery company.

He is a one-trick pony with narrow vision and narrow appeal.

No idea what you're trying to do, but it fell short.

perhaps he just be better off playing golf instead of trying to save this country from the oligarchs.

you should try it sometime. he's a very compelling speaker.

He is a career politician. That, first and foremost, defines him. His speeches are dynamic but repeat the same stuff he always says.

When asked a question in an interview, he immediately answers with another question that is generally about 50% related to the original question. The interviewer will have no interest in answering Sanders's question, so Sanders then takes the opportunity to skid along a tangent and changes the subject back to his comfort level.

He's okay. I'll vote for him if he's the Dem nominee, but he ain't all that.

meh.

So she is trying to advocate for him while endorsing Hillary. She can add Minnesota to his campaign. She adds ideological balance to a Sanders ticket.

I can't imagine Bernie choosing such a nothingburger.

nicely. I will vote for him if he is the nominee. But it will be with mixed feelings. It will be a re-running of McGovern. A very decent man who will be savaged in the election. Sec. Clinton is the only democratic candidate who has been fighting these scum for two decades and knows how to defend and counter punch and attack. As Pres. Jimmy Carter has pointed out, unlimited bribery does have its effects and has turned us into an oligarchy. Only Sec. Clinton is going to be able to raise enough money to come close to the Republican nominee.

Sanders has some good ideas that will help the party

Eat your heart out, detractors!

finding a ecologically safe and cheap fuel, plenty of sources of rain water, a cheap cure for every disease and condition and full employment for all with an automatic 5% raise every year will also do wonders for the world population.

Then one wakes up from the daydream and thinks of reality.

A master of the meaningless statement.....

It's great to see and hear Senator Sanders on all the regular media interviews and he's invited to all the regular, presidential speaking opportunities.

As a woman, this is really disheartening...

I'm sure Amykins and the rest of the Third Way types up the DFL food chain are not amused. -- They were no doubt hoping to shove Clinton down our throats the way they did Amy.