IDIOTS!

with a handle like bluegopher and a Herb Brooks quote.

Minneapolis here.

Nice. I can't wait to move back there. Eden Prairie. I'm starting to think we can take Erik Paulsen down this time. I really don't like that guy.

I'm glad I have Keith Ellison. I think Paulsen could be gotten rid of with a strong DFLer.

Will he phone in his inaugural address?

"...still laughing, bitches?"

And we really WILL be saying hello to a "President Trump" if we on the left don't get our shit together.

Just saying....

Last edited Fri May 6, 2016, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Down in flames AGAIN. It isn't like we didn't warn you.

Are we assuming that there's ZERO risk in nominating Sanders?

Bonus Question: Why are we so sure that Clinton will "go down in flames?" That really will be our fault if she does. Same for Sanders.

She could for a laugh.

Bernie motivates the INDEPENDANTS HRC not so much.
Bernie has a plan to benefit the MAJORITY of the people HRC...
Bernie is the future, HRC the past.
HRC has the highest NEGATIVES of any candidate running. Her only hope is that the Donald is scarier than she is.

Y'all can try to blame the left when HRC can't not scare enough votes but it will be her fault as well as the fault of Downer Debbie and the rest of the third way sellouts.

- Mr. Trump can be attacked on the fact that he is far more platitude than plan. His corporatism is a bonus and can be attacked by anyone.

- Independents aren't their own separate entity. There are nuances among them. Sanders can't hope to win with just independents because he simply won't carry them all. Neither would Clinton. Or Trump.

- Which of Clinton's plans benefit a minority only? Just curious.

- 74-year-old Bernie Sanders is "the future?" Really?

- I thought Trump had the highest negatives? Clinton's are up there pretty good, yes, but not as bad as Trump's.

- I define "the left" as "those of us left of center." Maybe I should re-state, then? Hillary's November failure--or Bernie's--will likely be the fault of us DEMOCRATS who continue to bicker back and forth because we want "our guy/gal" to get the nomination and are employing scorched earth tactics to make that happen. Once we FINALLY get to the general election cycle, the GOP won't have to drum up any negatives to attack the Dem nominee. Democrats will have done it for them. That's a gift that keeps on giving.

Now, I'm comfortable with voting for EITHER Bernie Sanders OR Hillary Clinton in November. The fact that either of them would be light years ahead of anyone the GOP has mustered up has not changed. But because of this infighting, the casual observer is now left to think: "well hell, NONE of them deserve my vote!" Is that something we really want?

REALLY...??

Just like the Tea Party on the right. Their preconceived notions are the only possible outcome, and they like to SHOUT random words.

Sanders is more moderate than Clinton? Who knew? The mental gymnastics required to reconcile positions taken without regard to facts are amazing.

That's a fact.

I never said anything about Clinton's positions vs. Sander's positions.

That's a fact.

But she does have to lie about her positions, which favor only a small and extreme group of very wealthy people.

Bernie simply tells the truth and he's still the most popular, well-liked presidential contender.

absolutes rarely are true.

The U.S. presidential election may turn out to be one of the world's biggest un-popularity contests.
…
"This phenomenon is called negative partisanship," Sabato said. "If we were trying to maximize the effect, we couldn't have found better nominees than Trump and Clinton."
…
About 47 percent of Trump supporters said they backed him primarily because they don't want Clinton to win. Another 43 percent said their primary motivation was a liking for Trump's political positions, while 6 percent said they liked him personally.

Similar responses prevailed among Clinton supporters.

About 46 percent said they would vote for her mostly because they don’t want to see a Trump presidency, while 40 percent said they agreed with her political positions, and 11 percent said they liked her personally.

http://reut.rs/1SQOkvV

You went for the fluff (probably because it make you feel better) and ignored that Trump gets trounced by 21% according to that poll.

Who can hate the most?

It seems to be what you do best, or at least you talk about it a lot.

I don't watch reality shows, don't live in an area where Trump has any influence. He's a clown. You could say I kind of like what he did to the GOP, but I wouldn't say I like him either.

OTOH, you seem very focused on hate, at least in this discussion.

about hating and tearing down her opponent. And nothing else.

I'm voting FOR Sanders, because he is almost everything I want in a candidate.

You perceive that Clinton hates Sanders because you hate her. If you actually listen to the candidates, there has be remarkably little negative campaigning, until recently.

The hate has all been from the supporters.

They both say whatever they believe their immediate audiences want to hear, as if they don't understand that the internet will replay their videos of speaking in two different locations saying two different things.

Sanders, to his credit, doesn't pander. He is consistent with his messages across all audiences.

I don't know what policies you imagined that I am pushing for, but I would check a mirror, if I were you. You are trying to project the things you have been saying on to me.

Survey shows Clinton supporters are more aggressive online than Sanders supporters
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/online-incivility-study-bernie-bro/

I've remained neutral in the Clinton/Sanders divide, I'm fine with either of them.

I find the Sanders supporters far more likely to attack, go negative, post ridiculous right wing BS. I attribute most of that to right wing trolls.

But this is a tangent to our previous conversation, feel free to keep changing the subject until you feel you have "won".

Quit lying.

You, obviously, are a biased Sanders supporter who hates everyone else.

Your hate blinds you to all else. Have a nice life.

You, obviously, are a biased Hillary supporter who hates everyone else.

Your hate blinds you to all else. Have a nice life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

It tends to be a sign of conservative thinking. But damned if this Clinton/Sanders split hasn't spotlighted the willful rationalization of the "Bernie or Bust" crowd.

Now it well could be that they tend to be conservative trolls. That would make sense after all. But then, one would have to admit that they walk among us, and are rooting for Sanders.

I don't see any "Clinton or Bust" movement forming.

Maybe you missed the PUMA stuff in 2008? Same deal as BoB, except that it was Clinton supporters, becuase clinton was losing.

Or are you just predicting that what happened in 2008 will happen again in 2016? That the person trailing going into the convention is going to step aside for the unity of the party and support the leader?

You point out that you do not see any "Hillary or Bust" people. You try to use this as part of your rather silly attack on the left.

Of course there are no "Hillary or Bust" movements - because she's the candidate in the lead. One doesn't threaten "or bust" when you're already winning. However, back in 2008, the exact same people, supporting the exact same candidate, did try their own "or bust" mini-campaign. Because she was losing.

That is to say that your complaint, your attack on the left, isn't actually founded on a useful or relevant observation. The "My Candidate or Bust" thing is grounded in simple sour grapes, rather than a specific political ideology.

No wonder you want to change the subject to who does what at the convention.

And there are no new voters and no one has died. Quite rigid thinking. I only said that binary thinking tended to be conservative in nature. When it comes to people, nothing is absolute. Of course there exist binary thinkers on the left.

And the Clinton/Sanders divide has given insight to some of them. I'm not going to ask you to follow along as long ago learned that there is no point trying to get a binary thinker to change their mind.

And you continue to try to squirm away from the point actually being made. What I said was - and still is - that there existed a "Hillary or bust" movement among her supporters in 2008, showing that it has more to do with the "sour grapes" mentality of a losing side, than your theory of inherent pathology within a given political leaning.

Maybe, when trying to accuse others of being "binary thinkers," open yourself up to the notion that you re not absolutely uncategorically correct and that people who argue with you are not absolutely uncategorically incorrect

I never said I was correct, but you insist that you are, another characteristic of binary thinking. You seem very intent on pushing your "point", whatever it is. You replied to my post and want to insist that I address your chosen "point" which as I said, is usually fruitless as those that are stuck in their own mindset are usually not open to considering other possibilities.

I have not claimed that you are a binary thinker, just that you resemble a lot of the traits. Not being able to see shades of gray is almost the very definition of binary thinking. As is making absolute statements that leave no room for shades of gray.

Remember? I've been trying to explain to you why you don't see a "clinton or bust" movement, and that it has nothing to do with inherent pathologies of people who differ from you politically.

Have a nice life.

I understand that you want to force an argument on your "point".

Your main difficulty has been that I simply don't care that you seem to think you have a point.

The question is, who can bring in more voters? Clinton has several things running against her.

• She can only "guarantee" the loyalist portions of the party. The left neither likes nor trusts her, and she's had a whole year to make it clear to us that she has absolutely no interest in our votes. That's almost a third of the party, maybe a little more, that she's decided to dismiss out of hand. The "loyalists" still make up the majority, certainly, but they have a problem too - they tend to assume, in their partisan fervor, that their candidate is always a shoo-in, and might be prone to staying home because they figure "she got it."

• She's been similarly dismissive of independent voters thus far. Her beeing a part of a "dynasty" and very much a "business as usual" candidate are also strong negatives for her among independents, who are primarily independents becuase they dislike the "standard" politics of hte US. All she really has to offer them are the same cautious, uninspiring K-street pablums they've bene rejecting all this time.

• Instead - as things are looking currently - she's going to try to court Republicans, the "I'm not Trump but I'm still a conservative!" approach. Problems there are multiple. First off, party wonks hate trump, but the voter base seems to really like the guy. She might get Charles Koch's vote, but the entire McCleetus clan of Burpsville, Iowa is going to make his ballot irrelevant several times over. Second, even though the remainder of Republicans dislike Trump, they still hate Clinton. They've hated her for thirty years, and are going ot keep hating her for thirty more. Third, such a play weakens her support within her own party, because nothing turns off Democrats quite like a candidate who takes them for granted and goes over to play ball for the Republicans.

• Thus far, her entire campaign in the primaries has been centered around claiming to be the second coming of Obama and ranting and raving against her opponent's policy proposals. Trouble here is.. .she's most definitely not Obama. They share a party, and there the similarities kind of peter out. Plus, even if she were able to convince people that she was a third term for Obama, that runs up into the problem that.. .well, there are lots of people who don't want a third Obama term. That leaves her with railing against "The Other Guy." That brings its own weaknesses - It allows "the other guy" to frame the discussion, and casts the "opposition" as nothing more than a vapid protest candidate.

Sanders does better on all tof these. he can secure the Left of hte party, and makes a strong showing with independents. Though it's nothing to bank on, he even has some slight crossover with disaffected Republicans - the difference there mostly being t hat he's not named Clinton. He has policies, ideas, and propositions, and those makde up the bulk of hsi campaigning, centering him as an "issues" candidate.

Zero risk? Of course not. Just the fact that we're trying to squeeze a third consecutive term in one party is fraught with risk. But Sanders could very well do better in the GE.

Glad to see you're still active on the site.

You can see that this bears out in the polling and general discourse among potential voters.

It seems just as many Bernie supporters plan on voting against Hillary or sitting out as Hillary supporters the other way around. It was apparent two months ago that enthusiasm among Dem voters isn't nearly what it was in '08 this year. It's not even as high as GOP enthusiasm--and that's scary.

And why is courting Republican voters a negative for Hillary--especially when she's allegedly ignoring independents? Shouldn't that be a GOOD thing? A big reason why Obama won so big in '08/'12, carrying virtually every swing state and a few previously-red states was because of a modified version of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. You can't do that by ignoring/insulting entire sections of the electorate. It's why I can't believe Trump has gotten as far as he has, but now that he has, the Electoral College math doesn't look so good for him at the moment.

I submit that Bernie should try to do the same exact thing: court those GOP voters. He's an independent himself, so he should already be in good shape among those voters. He's got the left because of his "Democratic Socialism" views. He SHOULD go for the GOP voters next because that can only help him in the Electoral College. Much has been said about his polling numbers in a head-to-head against Trump. They're better than Hillary's, yes. But that only speaks to national polling, though. The dirty secret is that Hillary's Electoral College numbers are better against Trump than Bernie's. Bernie can still win, but he has less room for error.

As the saying goes, if the mountain will not come to Mohammed, then Mohammed must go to the mountain. In context, this means that to court Republican voters, you have to run over to their side, pick up their ideals, campaign on their issues, and basically be a Republican - because it's almost guaranteed that they're not going to come to us and take up our ideals and such.

It's why centrism and bipartisanship has been such a failure in American politics - because only one of the two major parties in the country is willing to consider compromise - the Democrats. The Republicans do not compromise, they demand. So the dynamic is, the Republicans demand, the Democrats compromise. The Republicans demand again ,the Democrats compromise some more. It produces a steady rightward creep by the Democratic Party.

If we had a sane Republican party, if Fascism were not a sweeping tide among their electorate, I would grant that you're right. But they're not, and it is. As things are right now, the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower looks like a Jim Jones-meets-David Duke tent revival. Even if outreach were successful - a long shot, since they have plenty of Republicans to choose from, why would htey pick a Democrat? - It leaves our party adopting their positions and policies and issues.

Democrats need to learn that lesson. Pretending to be a Republican loses Democratic votes and doesn't win Republican votes. It's hte big problem in our midterms - see Alison Grimes.

Isn't Alison Grimes the current elected Secretary of State in Kentucky? She had to have pulled some GOP votes, as did Democratic Governor Steve Beshear, no...?

Grimes did the same in her 2011 run for SoS of Kentucky, by pushing progressive ideals. She won by the largest margin in Kentucky history by doing this.

She then mounted a 2014 senatorial bid against Mitch McConnell. Here was her keynote campaign ad:

This was her style for the senate campaign. She tried to play towards Kentucky Republicans, distancing herself from Obama, the Affordable Care Act, and - as you can see - yuckin' it up over guns and football.

She lost, by 15.6%.

Now that's a pretty big change in three years. As far as I can tell, she did just fine as Kentucky SoS, so it's not like she blew her own foot off between 2011 and 2014. It looks to me as if the difference is due to the divergence between her Secretary of State campaign and her Senatorial campaign. She ran as a progressive for the first and won overwhelmingly, she ran as a conservative on the latter and lost easily.

What's important to remember is that this country is NOT split 50/50. People with Democratic / Liberal-leaning views outnumber peopel with Republican / Conservative-leaning views. The trick is to motivate them to vote. And the best way to motivate liberal-leaning people to vote, is to give them something they want to vote for - Liberal candidates, with liberal positions. Not just "more liberal than a right-wing asshole" but genuinely liberal in positions and ideology.

It's fine to appeal to Republicans, but the way to do it is to be like "this is why my liberal ideas are good for everyone, including you" and NOT "I will adopt your conservative ideas if only you'll please pretty pelase vote for me please"

It seems to me that Grimes' biggest problem in her Senate run was that she was running against a popular conservative in a conservative state in McConnell. That's like a liberal running in NY against Chuck Schumer by simply attempting to be more liberal than he is. In the eyes of the electorate, if the incumbent hadn't done anything egregiously wrong, what's the point in replacing him/her with someone similar? That could work if the incumbent is term-limited or otherwise wasn't running, but not if s/he is your actual opponent.

Which reminds me: Do you think President Obama could beat Trump in a general election if he were eligible? I think so, rather easily in fact. But I digress. Sorry...

Anyway, you're right: this country is NOT split 50/50, and the liberals/Dems probably do outnumber the conservative/Republicans. But even then, there's still the "squishy middle": the people who claim neither party nor political affiliation. And then there are those who DO claim a party, just not either Dem or GOP. There's a reason why they're known as "independents" with a small "i." It's easy to slap that label on them, but not necessarily prudent. It is these voters who could end up being a larger percentage of the electorate than we think.

We also have to understand that just because Sanders had, for years, been a "small i" independent, that he will not automatically appeal to all of them. He had in the past spurned party affiliation while actually being quite liberal. But he would be smart to understand that there are independents who aren't as liberal and appeal to them as well. The trick is to win those voters without pissing off the liberals because suddenly "he's not liberal enough!" Isn't that why so many liberals hate on Hillary now...?

I don't think there's zero risk in nominating Sanders. He has some embarrassing erotic fiction he authored in his past that will be dragged out of the closet and could do some real damage, for one thing. And of course there's the obvious Red-scare tactics that Trump would unleash.

I'd put the odds this way. Sanders has about a 60% chance of beating Trump; Clinton has about a 40% chance of beating Trump. Either way, Trump will be a tough opponent. I think he'll win more swing states than most imagine, Pennsylvania included.

To do this analysis justice, you have to understand the level of anger and discontent that's out there among the populace. The mass media and pundits don't get it. That isn't surprising when you consider many of those talking heads earn above a million dollars a year and the median salary for reality-based Americans is $27,000.

Uneducated American are ready to burn this nation down to the ground; educated Americans are so disgusted with the corporatocracy or oligarchy we've become that they're ready to make major adjustments to the society or walk away from participating in elections altogether.

In the end, it will come down to authenticity. This is not the election in which to pit an establishment politician against a perceived-maverick, like Trump.

You want the voters in the middle to be asking the following: "Okay, they're both real. They're both saying what they really think, so I trust them both. Which one is the better person?" That inner dialogue results in a vote for Sanders.

The question you don't want those voters asking is: "One's a maverick, shooting from the hip. One's an establishment politician who triangulates. Which one do I trust?" That inner dialoge results in a vote for Trump.

When it comes to stopping Trump, Sanders is the better bet.

No spellcheck?

Refresh my memory for me please. Surely you're not talking taking about 2008 when she actually had the popular vote but not the delegates and bowed out gracefully? Then went on to announce, then Senator, Obama's victory at convention?

Am I forgetting something?

A lot can happen between now and November, most notably all of the mudslinging on Hillary that will sway the polls.

Ellison looks very prophetic in the clip. The response he received from the self-proclaimed experts in the studio with him is too typical of the perception and insight these bozos really have. And unfortunately, the people of this country have an attention span of a gnat and they won't resort to any history, recent events or any other material to bring sanity to the campaign discussion.

but since you referenced "we on the left", I must tell you that we on

the left don't like being addressed with the derogatory, sexist term 'bitches' either.

Just saying...

in Rep. Ellison's voice, not to the readers.

but it's still offensive

No one thought he'd win.

Score big for Rep. Keith Ellison.

And damned right he should be taking a victory lap on the fools who were laughing.

we could wake up to king real estate swindler, in which the sitting pols on both sides are replaced.

A terrorist attack or threat of one a week before, long enough for daddy to get on tv and pretend he will keep everyone safe, extending his stubby fingers like a bad allstate parody.

Any given Sunday...

Thanks for documenting and reminding us how out-of-touch the pundits have been this election.

To my mind, the entire political establishment has been a ship of fools. First, as you've shown, the pundits proved themselves incapable of recognizing the appeal and destructive power of Donald J. Trump. Why? Because they were out of touch with the people. Second, the DNC insisted on advancing a candidate, by any means necessary, with historically low approval ratings, and gave the cold shoulder to the one candidate who could stop Trump. Why? Because they were out of touch with the people.

Make no mistake, this election will be one for the history books: Nothing, and I mean nothing, will be going according to the establishment's playbook.

1. an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public:
"a globe-trotting financial pundit"
synonyms: expert · authority · specialist · doyen(ne) · master · guru

2. variant spelling of "pandit".

Klobe definition: "Pandit" ... [ˈpandət] ... NOUN ...

1. A so-called "pundit" who "panders" ...

... continuously ...

... for money and recognition ...

How did that work out? Now they're doubling down by annointing Bush 2.0, Hillary Clinton, to cakewalk over Trump. I think the beltway bubble pundits are again greatly underestimating voter anger at establishment status quo, and Trump will surprise them again.