The parties are more polarized than any time in recent history. A vote for a Democratic candidate, any Democratic candidate, is substantially different than a vote for any Republican candidate.

In the Senate, Clinton and Sanders voted the same way 93% of the time.

Makes visits here much more pleasant.

And think it's worse than just two flavors of soda or two types of chocolate.

Others think that they're more loyal to the country than the party and have a hard time squaring support for one of the candidates with their love of country.

And of course mindless party loyalty isn't good for anyone - even the party.

Many of the most fervent Democratic voters and the vast majority of the Democratic donors support a candidate that is quite the anomaly in the Democratic Party. There's absolutely no saying that many of them who think the party itself has massive massive issues won't jump ship if their candidate of choice isn't chosen.

And in fact one could easily see how the way that the party is behaving - playing favourites - is increasing the chance of that happening.

So in that situation the owner of this website is very clever to not be as aggressive towards Sanders supporters re party loyalty as many Clinton supporters are. Best to try and win over the energized base thst supports Sanders than to alienate them even further from the Party mainstream.

Saying that, I honestly don't think many Sanders supporters will ever support Clinton. I'd think that a large number of them would not vote or choose a third party.

I'm a Bernie guy, I hang out with a lot of Bernie supporters, and I don't know one of them who would not vote for Hillary in a race against Trump or Cruz or whoever the GOP nominee may be. I know there are some here on DU who say they just "can't vote for Hillary," so obviously there is some of that sentiment around, but I suspect that on a forum like this where argument gets a bit heated you may find more of that than you will in the "real world."

My vote for Bernie would be a vote for Bernie. My vote for Hillary would be a vote against the Republican. Either way, I'm voting for the Democrat. And DU ravings aside, my guess is that most of my fellow Sanders supporters will do the same.

Don't think a majority of Bernie supporters would disagree with you. Some would though. And I think it would be larger than anyone wants to consider.

Especially as many Sanders have their eyes open re Clinton and would believe that the lesser of two evils is still... Evil.

You know... There's a things that alcoholics and drug addicts sometimes say... You can't truly get better until you hit rock bottom... Propping up crap candidate for decades out of fear of the other have artificially kept us from the bottom... I'm not saying America SHOULD hit the bottom - whatever that even means - but I am suggesting that if Hillary got elected on the back of very tepid support and fear of her opponents it wouldn't be much of a foundation for meaningful change in America. And if she IS as corrupt as a not insignificant number of Dems and GOPers think she is, and if her Presidency were to end in flames in a way that her husbands just narrowly avoided - well thst would set real change back even further potentially.

All of which is to say that there's legitimate arguments being made against cynically voting for someone you don't like and don't trust.

Cannot risk having a President Cruz. He scares the crap out of me.

BUT...

If Bernie carries most of the nation and Supers do in fact hand her the election, that whole logic is toast. She needs to win and win outright or else (in my opinion) that unity is in serious trouble.

But the primaries will be over soon, and we can all get back to "normal" lol.

for the delusional ones to see reality. Oh well.

They are in Freeperville.

The only delusion I see if how some haven't yet seen how the country is changing.

"I'm not getting my way so I'm going to sit here and pout." That will teach them!

Sid

ya ain't gonna make it with anyone anyway...

We'll let bygones be bygones and we'll all come together in unity and harmony.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Yourself included.

Must you be so derisive?

Why not be blunt about what I see is the problem: corrupt politicians, whether they be republicans or corporate democrats ?

You get a lot of perspective about this place after that. I was one of many kicked off of here during the Clark vs Dean wars by being a rude SOB - but luckily let back on - lol!

I suspect that many here will not have the same happy ending that you've had. Just my guess... but time will tell.

There was a strong support for Dean on this site, but when the establishment decided they didn't want him and installed war voter Kerry instead, a large number of us lost interest.

I was never excited by Obama b/c I kinda saw what he was.. just another center right democrat.

I only came back to this site and changed my registration back to democrat BECAUSE of Sanders. If he doesn't get the nomination... I'll write off the party again and go back to voting green.

And sorry, I don't think Clinton is "billion times better" than what the GOP is cooking up. She's better, but only 2 or 3 x better.

The real difference between Clinton and the GOP is that with Clinton the DLC style democrats we are the frog in the water being boiled one degree at a time, so we don't really notice that we are dying. With the GOP, they just drop us into the boiling water. The result is the same.

Centrist win. Extremers lose big. On both sides.

I knew that if Dean wasn't nominated I was voting D in the general.

Same as now.

There were a large block of us who left after Kerry became the nominee...

I couldn't pull the level for an Iraq war voter then... and I will not do so now.

Especially to the environment. Very sad state the world is now because of that man.

with Kerry's help

I live in Cali, so my vote doesn't count nationally.

The democratic party is to blame for lining up against Dean, who was their best chance of winning in 2004. We needed a candidate clean from the stink of the Iraq War.

They chose to put up a co-conspirator and set their own course.

I originally supported someone who was against the war but came to Kerry in the end. Being 60, I have seen way too many horrendous presidents. Nixon, Reagan, both Bushes. As a social worker who works with economically needy, I feel I have the obligation to my clients to see that we never have another Reagan or Bush. My ego and heart have been bruised/broken many times by my candidate losing. Have never had my original candidate win, actually. You develop a thick skin when your original candidate and even back-up candidate loses over and over again.

If I hear do more with less one more time. Programs cost money. It's guns or butter. I will support our candidate. Bernie's talk is great. Can he fight. Does he like LBJ know where the bodies are buried and get a Great Society Program passed?

He is the dark side.

nm

Now, of course, if any of them were Obama supporters in the 2008 primary season, and they ever spoke poorly of the "party unity my ass" idiots, they're being amazingly hypocritical.

But it might also be that Hillary supporters back then who are still here remember rallying around the nominee.

Hillary Clinton, for example, said that she negotiated the 2012 ceasefire. There was no ceasefire in Syria. She was the reason why the ceasefire never took place then, because she has backed a CIA-led attempt at regime change that has led to a bloodbath there.

<snip>

When we talk about foreign policy, we have a spreading war, and she has been a leading agent of that spread of war, from Iraq to Libya to Syria. This is CIA-led regime change that has led to chaos. And we need a different foreign policy. And that’s why it’s extremely important that people understand what the underlying roots of this problem is. It is the military-industrial complex, and she has supported it all along.

<snip>

I’ll tell you who she sat down with. I would encourage viewers to go back to The New York Times a couple of weeks ago when they unveiled what many of us knew, which was the secret deal of Saudi Arabia and the CIA to fund the destabilization of Syria. That’s who Hillary Clinton sat down with, with the CIA and with Saudi Arabia. And the bloodbath that we have underway right now is irresponsible.

<snip>

And it’s the same—and it’s the same kind of irresponsibility of going in to take out Gaddafi and then leaving a civil war and ISIS in Libya. And it’s the same irresponsibility of going in to take out Saddam Hussein. This is a repeated military-industrial complex, CIA-led coup change. And it’s bipartisan, by the way.

Reading is good! I'm glad you provided some reading for those who obviously need to pay more attention.

Typical GOP tactic.

has far more people not into the Democratic party, and more into the cult of personality.

insight. Third Way is the only way these days.

large majority here. Some of them are Democrats, but all are united by a dislike for liberals and liberalism and a rejection of mainstream Democratic Party thought. interestingly, their greatest opposition is to liberals, not to conservatives .

but they maybe should have created a Socialist site.

date and DU is becoming what represents the New, New Democratic party. Third Way had it's day and now a new way of thinking is in order. America is turn left after years and years of middle right policies. I for one welcome the change.

BTW - Obama is pretty much a moderate/center left. I think he got a lot accomplished considering the obstruction.

BTW BTW - when was the last time a far left candidate got elected. Maybe FDR, a rich establishment candidate like Hillary.

Oh well, dream on.

it may not happen this election but young voters see the struggles of their parents and of course their own. Hang on tight to your middling ways because they are going to become extinct. I'm a realist not a dreamer.......


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-cant-handle-a-500-surprise-bill/

Most Americans can't handle a $500 surprise bill
204 Comments 9.6K Shares Tweet Stumble Email
While the recession may be long over, many Americans are still living one bill away from financial disaster.

Despite the stronger economy, a lack of emergency savings that would help them weather an unexpected expense such as a health crisis or car breakdown remains a serious handicap. In fact, about 63 percent of Americans say they're unable to handle a $500 car repair or a $1,000 emergency room bill, according to a new survey from Bankrate.com.

Its findings shed light on a disconnect between rosier economic figures, such as an unemployment rate that's declined steadily since 2010, and what continues to be the worrying financial reality for many Americans. Real median household income has slumped since 1999, when it reached a high of $57,843, and now hovers at about $54,000.

But given the increasing costs of everything from food to health care, that has left many families struggling to put money aside for rainy days.

https://medium.com/@bloonface/no-wonder-the-young-are-supporting-unapologetic-socialists-they-re-fucked-6462bf22bede#.7baik98c9

This stuff sent me researching to find out what is going on, and an extreme righteousness that does not allow compromising ideals to work with others is characteristic of both the far left and far right.

We also have disagreements with them over their evaluations of themselves and others. In general, their commitment to winning does not seem to allow doubt of their rightness and the wrongness of all those not with them. White or black. Or that they are, mercifully, very much a minority.

Of course, reality is that a solid majority of people in the outside world who support Bernie Sanders are not only both liberals and members of the Democratic Party but also like and respect Hillary Clinton as well.

I was replying to..........

My family is all Republican too.

Those increasing costs will skyrocket when they cause another illegal war and then end up having to trash all the social programs you love and want to reinvent better.

We are on the edge of complete corporatism, and you think we have the wiggle room for fantasies.

Nader thought that letting the GOP win would help.

How'd that work out for us?

We need to improve on what Obama did not have pipe dreams.

we are there already.

You never studied Fascism in school?

Thanks for giving all of us our marching orders, Mr. UglyGreed! Surprised that someone who is so far to the left is so authoritarian! I'm far to the left and believe that people should be free to do as they wish. I may not agree with some people here and their choices but as long as they are not a Republican, It's none of my business who they support.

LOL boy oh boy some here are very confused................ Read my reply again and tell me where the orders are

Do it and do it now!!!!!!!!

you wish, I'm sure other's see it as an observation...............

While you, OTOH, are listed as being here two plus years. So, then by your logic, you'd be in a position to know who's taken over Democratic Underground?

You write like you just covered American Government it in a post-secondary course and not someone who would provide examples of why anyone who's been here longer than you should go off and "create a socialist site". Perhaps you're just new to posting your thoughts, and of course, prefer that some some parts of the socialized budget be removed over the other items...

Everything in the budget process is socialized through the majority of those who pay taxes ... the military takes the largest of the pie... And, programs within that same budget that are also paid into through a payroll tax (like Social Security and old age benefits) are part of that budget, as well.

So, just what do socialists want that isn't already portioned in a crazy way in our already existing U.S. American budget?

We even get a little appreciation for it sometimes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002374653

Pfft.
By the way, mainstream Democratic Party thought is pretty conservative.

Then I was not talking about you. However, notice that you have adopted the peculiar notiion that the party is "pretty CONSERVATIVE.". Compared to whom? Conservatives? You? The anti-liberal far left?

Both Parties have demonstrably drifted rightward over the last few decades, and both are firmly on the conservative side of the traditional left/right political divide. Democrats are in favor of cutting Social Security, increasing inmate counts in for-profit prisons, increasing racist policing in our communities, increased spending on war and killing, increasing incarceration rates for non-violent drug users, signing anti-labor free trade agreements, and on and on ad infinitum. That's conservatism. There is no major party representation of traditional liberalism in the United States of America.

drifting toward reality itself. No political scientists or independent analysts' professional evaluations agree with your statement about where the Democratic Party is.

You are not far left by your own report, but this seeming disregard for facts that contradict your beliefs also suggests you are not liberal either. Generally speaking, as a group we are pretty open to and respectful of facts. In my mind, for instance, the truth is whatever it is and I need to understand reality before I can deal with it effectively. And like anyone else, liberals of course wouldn't adopt offensive and insulting mischaracterizations about who they are.

Could you perhaps be a conservative then? Perhaps far-right? Political scientist and psychologists have found many strong resemblances between those on the far right and those on the far left. Whatever. Good luck figuring it all out in time for the election.




"The truth will set you free. But first it will piss you off.". Gloria Steinem

He wants his damn party back and all the Third Wayers to return to the Republicans where they belong.

moderate in his views -- and very establishment. He just came to power in times that both required and allowed large solutions to large problems, and he was a big enough man to not be too afraid to tackle the job.

regardless of platform, funding, and ethics.

The other side is working for change, and is inspired to restore democracy.

That is what DWS is saying...if we don't vote for the elitist's candidate, then the elitists will just ignore us and nominate their candidate anyway. Why not just rename it the Autocratic Party? Sure isn't the democratic one. We shall see what happens during the primaries and convention. If the DNC wants to go scorched earth to preserve their spots at the corporate feed trough, they will lose a lot of voters. A lot.

I mean, seriously. Neither got the nomination threshold in pledged delegates. Hillary had a gigantic lead in the Superdelegates originally, but we don't have a Madame President now, do we?

Also, TBH, the fact that everyone knows or should know that Hillary supporters are going to rally around the nominee, "her" SuperPAC (which was founded in 2012 and spent $65 million attacking Romney) will endorse Bernie even if he requests that they just stick to attacks against the Republican nominee, etc...

It feels to me like it's Hillary's supporters who are really being treated like our vote/money is guaranteed, and therefore people are feeling free to say anything negative, true or not, against Hillary they want -- even as the more rational Hillary supporters refuse to attack Bernie the way Hillary is routinely smeared because he could still be the nominee. (And yes, I do have criticisms. They have nothing to do with the DSCC, his civil rights activism, etc, though.)

and there may be other reasons too

Although he usurped the Annointed One, he still wasn't going to upset the status quo...he protected the Wall St bankers from jail, and was fine with corporate/government partnership intended to funnel wealth upwards.
Sanders represents a real threat to that. TPTB can't rig the system to their benefit with Bernie in charge.

Remember the last Democrat we had in office for eight years, and how people agitated by Gore's establishment ties went Green? Even with strategic websites for "Nader traders" who wanted him to at least get a certain percentage of the national vote but still win Florida, too many liberal/progressive people who could have voted Gore in that one state voted Nader.

And then we got Bush.

Fight like hell for Bernie, if you feel he is the better candidate! And if the Superdelegates do overturn the obvious will of the people, you won't be the only one upset. But railing against the "establishment".... maybe I am just too damn old at 36 to think suggesting Planned Parenthood is an "Establishment organization" is remotely true even if they have a long history in this country.

Doesn't PP CEO's daughter work for Clinton campaign? Doesn't get more establishment than that. The seduction of power...having Senators on speed-dial...hob--bobbing on the DC cocktail party circuit.

Done with this mess, seriously.

They are planning on it.

The fact Cecile Richards's oldest daughter was hired last year by Hillary's campaign was Huge Newz! to the people accusing Planned Parenthood of cutting up live-born premature babies. Which they weren't doing, but of course, truth didn't matter to people.

If you're so caught up in condemning everything as "establishment", even when the organization in question has done enormous amounts of good and is under heavy attack from the real enemies of progress, you aren't worth arguing with.

does not mean it's not true. Partisanship is inimical to good decision making, as we can see in this instance.

And seriously, if you want a no-partisan site, there is one Skinner runs you might like better. It's called Discussionist.

This, however, is Democratic Underground.

I personally think it was amazingly hypocritical for Bernie to call for a 50-state strategy, after he tried ried to destroy his state's Democratic Party before he ran for Senate (with DSCC, which has about the same percentage of Wall St. donors as Obama's SuperPAC, funds). In exchange, he did start raising money for them, and was allowed to serve where his seniority would have given him if he always was a Democrat. But I am willing to accept that he is willing to work more for the Democratic Party *now*, and decided to run as a Democrat and fully committed himself to the Democratic Party after he officially announced his candidacy, as proof he can change his mind on that topic and so it's not a reason to stay at home in the General for me if he wins the primary. In fact, I will work my heart out for him.

If you're female, I'll continue the discussion re: Planned Parenthood. But if you're not LGBTQ, you don't have IMHO the actual interest enough in the Human Rights Campaign to say it's part of the "Establishment", if you're not a person of color you don't have the actual interest enough in the NAACP (or John Lewis/anybody else involved in the Civil Rights Movement) to say they're part of the "Establishment", and if you aren't of the gender that gets pregnant, you don't have enough actual interest in Planned Parenthood's work to call them "Establishment".

There may be legitimate criticisms of people/organizations like those three, but those criticisms aren't for straight white males to make. Bernie only criticized two out of the three. I have seen criticisms from parts of the LGBTQ community about the HRC not giving enough weight to the T part of that acronym, but I will leave it to them to decide if it's such a significant criticism of the whole organization's work to lump them in as part of the Establishment.

But as for three generations of women (Ann Richards, Cecile Richards, and her daughter Lily Adams) being empowered to get involved in politics/activism, no, I see neither conflict of interest or anything else wrong with it.

far left, as some of the above posts suggest. After all, the far left and far right are far more like each other than either is like liberals or traditional conservatives, and Bernie has been trying to draw disappointed tea-partiers to him.

... then they're going on my ignore list until it's time to rally around the nominee. If the poster has been here long enough to remember the 08 primaries, or earlier, I'd much rather hear their opinions. Doesn't interfere with anyone's free speech.

Gah! Obviously such talk of unity must be suppressed!

And because you fling gender requirements for further discussion, even to people (like myself) who support absolute abortion rights.

.... and remember that it's not just about abortion with Planned Parenthood, unless you already accept the RW attempts to redefine the medical definition of pregnancy....

Then you better check your privilege and realize that while allies are always appreciated, you don't get to direct the agenda for us. Neither should your candidate, by throwing them under the bus for not endorsing him by painting them with ths "Establishment" label that has been the Patented Bernie Attack and a such a four-syllable word lately.

Cool your jets

And go phone bank for hillary, with all that passion she can't fucking lose!

or not.

Now I am just a hysterical little woman, for disliking something your candidate said and not wanting it mansplained to me.

And do you do that in your phone-banking for Bernie? Because that's totally meanspirited. I can promise you, when I reach an undecided or Bernie supporter, I don't criticize either candidate. I say why I like Hillary's proposals better to the undecideds, and if they indicate they are supporting Bernie, I say "Aren't we lucky to have two great candidates? Thanks for your time..."

don't like your posts being called unreasonable? don't be unreasonable and make shit up out of whole cloth. But don't accuse me of misogyny based on nothing.

Clearly.

And it was.

And which words so that I can refute this bogus assertion.

Just because you posted two sentences about a post that I made does not prove it was misogynistic. Please again cite the words in my replies or even the post # that was misogynistic.

Thanks

And I am done here.

or misogyny, and as I posted upthread you just made it up, because you disagreed with me and decided it was misogynistic for someone to disagree with you.

BULLSHIT.

42. Done with this mess, seriously.

71. you aren't worth arguing with.

82. If you're female, I'll continue the discussion re: Planned Parenthood. But if you're not LGBTQ, you don't have IMHO the actual interest enough in the Human Rights Campaign to say it's part of the "Establishment", if you're not a person of color you don't have the actual interest enough in the NAACP (or John Lewis/anybody else involved in the Civil Rights Movement) to say they're part of the "Establishment", and if you aren't of the gender that gets pregnant, you don't have enough actual interest in Planned Parenthood's work to call them "Establishment".

99. Before you get the right to decide which orgs you toss under the bus....

106. Typically misogynistic reply, as expected.

118. And I am done here. ...

"118. And I am done here."
"128. Guess typing /ignore would have expressed the final sentiment more clearly." ...