would just stay home on election day.I am one of them.

I would rather stay home without bernie to vote for.

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY. Period! After seeing her run against Barack Obama and the dirty "artful smears" about his birth and religion, put that together with her vote for the war with the same information Bernie Sanders had and he voted against it. Then there's her flippin freaky Bosnia airport story. I mean who the hell is this woman!?! Flip-flopping and saying "me, too" to everything Bernie says, now. A write-in campaign worked very nicely for, Senator Lisa Murkowski, who arranged it at the last minute and won.


Senator Lisa Murkowski wins Alaska write-in campaign
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-elections-murkowski-idUSTRE6AG51C20101118

Therein lies a threat no one mentions.

Third party candidates can indeed be serious--Kshama Sawant had 600 volunteers doorbelling and phonebanking last year, for just a single Seattle City Council district seat. Stein doesn't have that many for the whole country.

Odd choice of words.

candidate with more voter-allocated delegates goes into the convention and does not come out with the nomination, I'd chose a different word.

but if by some minor miracle he wins enough delegates to win the nomination... he wins the nomination.

So no one is being "denied" anything.

I am looking forward to Super Tuesday.

3/22/16
Arizona Primary (semi-closed)=75
Idaho Caucus (closed)-23
Utah Caucus -33

3/26/16
Alaska Caucus -16
Hawaii Caucus-25
Washington Caucus-101

April 2016 ~
4/5/16 ~ Wisconsin Primary (open)-86
4/9/16 ~ Wyoming Caucus (closed)- 14

A total of 373 delegates. Good luck with that overcoming South Carolina and Super Tuesday

I do find it interesting that Sanders is trying to rely on caucuses instead of primaries prhttp://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-iowa-obama-playbook-218137

I'm in NY.

I'll vote for Stein.... or whomever the non-DEM Party Left has to offer...... much as I did in 2012.

But I'll advise friends .... or whomever.... who vote in "swing states".... (Ohio, Va, MIch, Va.. maybe even NC)..... to vote for the DEM nominee.

In other words..... "*I* ain't votin' for her; but you SHOULD."

You also can vote your conscience.

Ralph Nadar

cannot win the general election given the wide public perception about her, others will see the choice as voting for an unsuccessful candidate who reflects their values or an unsuccessful candidate who mock their values.

Consider the issue from the perspective of voters who do not have an allegiance to our party (like you and I do): Hillary offers little to millennial Democrats (won't we miss them in 2018 and beyond!) and progressive and liberal independents (who made the difference between Obama and Romney in 2012).

The Democratic RWers lost the election for Gore, not the tiny amount of Left Democrats who voted for Nader. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good old-fashioned RW hippie-bashing.

You couldn't count on their vote no matter what. A lot of them are Southern Democrats from the "good ole days" who never changed their voter registration.

I don't think I'd write him in, there are other candidates already on the ballot.

So it's not as simple as saying a third party candidate has no chance of winning this election - so don't waste a vote on them.

People who are seriously fed up with the DNC - and who are being encouraged by Hillary supporters even here to leave the party because of it - may vote green party not because of a belief the candidate will win this cycle, but because of a push to get federal funds for the green party next cycle.


"Minor party candidates (nominees of parties whose Presidential candidates received between 5 and 25 percent of the vote in the preceding election) may receive public funds based on the ratio of their party's vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average of the two major party candidates in that election. New party candidates (nominees of parties that are neither major parties nor minor parties) may receive public funds after the election if they receive 5 percent or more of the vote. The amount is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's vote to the average vote of the two major party candidates in that election."

http://www.fec.gov/info/chtwo.htm

They will do it if they are in safe blue states or if they know their red state is solid. Swing state voters will need to really reflect.

And I will say folks are getting really sick of this false dichotomy bring offered up as choice.

Last edited Mon Feb 22, 2016, 11:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

dishonest, untrustworthy, overly ambitious, self-interested, self-promotional, and lacking in non-negotiable core values.

On what planet would a rational person sit down with a blank piece of paper and say "let's draw up the ideal candidate" and come up with someone who (1) has been caught telling untruthful self-aggrandizing stories contradicted by videotaped evidence, (2) is under a pending FBI investigation, (3) has 100% name identification coupled with huge unfavorable ratings and perceptions of bring dishonest, and (4) a well-documented history of financing her campaign and non-campaign projects with tens (hundreds?) of millions from those she purports to regulate?

Hypothetical match up polls are worthless in part because of the high margin of error and the fact that candidates like Sanders have not been fully vetted. Nate Silver and his website are very clear on why these polls are worthless Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

match up polling is not worthless; such polls are just worthless as commonly misused. If hypothetical match up polling is used to get a baseline of where two candidates start out in a contest, it gives useful data on that question. If used for nearly any other purpose, you are barking up the wrong tree and your data is worthless for that non-approved purpose.

I like Nate Silver and Harry Enten as much as anyone, but you are fooling yourself if you think they have answers to questions that even they would admit cannot be answered with more than a guess. Harry and Nate both predicted Trump would be out by now, and Nate thought Jeb would have the nomination by now and Harry thought the race was in the bag for Chris Christie. They have also consistently overestimated Clinton and underestimated Sanders. This is not surprising. People who understand statistics tend to be on the favorites and Clinton is certainly the favorite (she is perhaps the most establishment-favored non-incumbent in the party's recent history).

Hillary's weak-as-dishwater head-to-head polling is only part of her fatal weakness as a candidate. More worrying is the exit polling in primaries where actual voters are saying in huge numbers that they did not support Clinton because they do not trust Clinton. THIS IS AMONG DEMOCRATS WHO VOTE. That is not hypothetical anything. Likewise, the right-direction/wrong-track polling is devastating for a status quo candidate like Clinton -- that's not head-to-head polling either. Also, there is image and word association polling which shows that Clinton is more mistrusted and thought of less warmly than Trump -- that's not head-to-head polling. I assure you, independents mistrust Clinton 10 times more than Democrats and potential cross-over Republicans mistrust Clinton 10 times more than independent voters.

A Clinton nomination would be FATAL to any hope of significant independent support and cross-over support. Without such support (and with unenthusiastic hold-your-nose-and-vote support from progressive Democrats, liberal Democrats, and young Democrats who don't stay home or vote for Jill Stein), we are toast in November.

If we fail to nominate Sanders, I just hope that the next president is Rubio and not Trump (although I do prefer Elizabeth Warren's 2020 chances against Trump so there is that silver lining).

These polls are worthless and Nate Silver and others have attacked the use of these match up polls. The media likes these polls to try to promote a horse race but such polls are worthless due (a) the high margin of error (you have in effect double the margin of error) and (b) the candidate in question has not been vested.

If a poll has a margin of error of 4%(many of these polls have far higher margins of error) then to account for such margin of error, one must assume that the Sanders results against a GOP candidate could be 4% lower and Clinton's results are actually 4% higher. One cannot compare results in two separate polls without adjusting for the margin of error in each poll. Again, people who understand polling know that the polls mean that there is a band around the predicted results and the effect of comparing two separate polls each with their own margin of error is that you have to account for both bands of predictive or probable results.

These polls also assume that the candidate has been vetted and is a viable candidate (i.e., has adequate funding to run in the general election). According to the Sanders people he has not been given any media coverage and therefore he has not been vetted. The reason for that is that the media does not think that Sanders will be the nominee and vetting Sanders would hurt the narrative that there is a horse race. Sander has some vetting issues that will hurt him if he is the nominee and Sanders is also very vulnerable to negative ads. Hypothetical match up polls also assume that the candidate can run a viable and well financed campaign. That is not the case for Sanders who is very vulnerable to negative ads on the costs of his programs and his socialism. In addition, the GOP is actually supporting Sanders and running ads to try to help him get the nomination. The GOP will have fun attacking Sanders if he is the nominee and have a great deal of good material to work with. According to this article, Sanders has been treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign to date. However the GOP will not be as kind to Sanders. This article from VOX has some good predictions as to how nasty the GOP and the Kochs will be http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders

Look at warning number three



You seem to like citing Nate when he agrees with you.

but sure, she's more electable because Sanders might possibly be viewed that way later, maybe.

[link:http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2324|

re: Bernie's electability?

How many additions have you made to the "Bernie is unelectable" meme counter?

you're walking the line as it is

It's not against TOS to point out that Stein may get a number of Votes from Sanders supporters who fall much closer to her on the political spectrum than Zclinton.

or Clinton?

It is important to consider that Clinton cannot mock the values of Sanders supporters and expect them to fall in line when there are other options.

Clinton is assuming that progressives and liberals will fall in line out of fear of a Trump or Rubio administration (and that sort of argument could work with me if my efforts to nominate Sanders fall short), but millions will see Clinton as doomed anyway and so will vote for the platform they prefer over the platform they mistrust when both options look unlikely to prevent a Trump or Rubio win.

not really subtle

vulnerability to defections on the left if we cannot discuss the facts underlying that vulnerability?

First mistake.

Heh

The real choice is if a voter is going to make their selection based on issues or allegience.

There are many people who say that issues are what it is all about and the only way to hammer it home is to vote on them.

...if your State is in any way competitive, a Green Party vote because your candidate wasn't picked is ridiculous. The Republican or the Democrat will win. Jill Stein will not.

A pretty substantial number of Sanders supporters here are looking at Stein if Clinton is the nominee. That's a 29 EV swing from blue to red...more than 10% of the 270 needed to win.

I can survive a Republican Presidency...can you?

So it wouldn't affect me personally a bit. Destroying the third ways control of our state party would be beneficial to re growing the Dem party locally though, and progress towards that goal can be achieved with either a Sanders or a Republican victory in GE.

I am living in a state suffering from the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. The GOP would love to be able obtain control of the SCOTUS for a generation. Why do you think that the GOP senate is willing to hold up Scalia's replacement for over a year?

Worried about the voting rights act as the Clinton campaign commits fraud in the caucuses.

The Clinton platform is one of the best set of proposals to protect the right to vote that I have seen and this is one of my passions. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/voting-rights/

It isn't like she is fighting for our privacy anywhere else in regards to the government. There are a few intrusions that she has no problem with.

Makes the divorce a much more attractive proposition.

to take their ball and go home. The most powerful force on earth is sanctimony -- no way to fight that.

30 years of being ignored, insulted, threatened, and taking our votes for granted has now come to a head. We have remained true to our core beliefs, party 'leadership' has gone so far right as to be indistinguishable from establishment Republicans. That gap can no longer be bridged by us holding our noses.

Sanders isn't being "denied" the nomination unless you think that the voting is fraudulent or something. Get a damning grip on reality. Quit making shit up that somehow there is a big conspiracy against Sanders. His campaign at this point is solidly behind Clinton. That is likely to get worse based on the results of South Carolina and Super Tuesday given how the perception will play out if the results are as bad for Sanders as polling shows now.

Notice anything peculiar?
Hint: Look at the choices, or should I say, choice, listed for President.
Then look at the choices in the second column for delegates.

To many, the (D) after his name is not the driving reason people are supporting him. It is his platform. So if and when that platform is not on the ballot, they will look for a candidate that matches it closely. The closest one will not be h.

Then it will be a question of which woman to back and which woman can win. As it looks now, neither one will win in the GE.

Democrats than Susan Sarandon decades of tireless advocacy so ...

Wait, I'm not so sure about that.

Hold on.

Almost there ....

No, I was wrong. Your status as "internet-warrior" does not outweigh Susan Sarandon decades of tireless advocacy. Sorry.

Almost all Democrats would still vote for Hillary, but unaffiliated voters who voted for Bernie in open primaries and caucuses might well move to Trump if he's the nominee. It makes no sense on a policy level, but for some, it makes sense on an emotional level. For whatever reason, Hillary is just not that popular with unaffiliated voters.

Sanders. Those who support Bernie would probably either write his name in on the ballot, stay home, or vote third party. I don't think Bernie supporters will vote for Trump.

Clinton supporters will get all complacent if she wins....But it might just fuel Stein's third party run and make it a major spoiler for the Dems.

I hope Sanders is the nominee and I know Clinton is unelectable so I don't see Jill Stein as a spoiler.

I see Clinton as spoiling Democratic chances at winning the presidency.

Stein, whose candidacy is merely a statistical blip right now , could suddenly gain a lot of momentum from those alienated progressives...which could become a true spoiler campaign in the classic sense and eke out the enough votes that would make the difference in the GOP/Dem contest.

Good luck with the math http://www.salon.com/2016/02/22/bernie_youre_done_following_nevada_loss_pundits_rush_to_write_sanders_campaign_obits/

but given the progressive list in the OP:

was supporting social justice?

It's a waste of time to continue debating the same misrepresentations over and over.

No matter what you make up, Hillary has been on the front lines of social justice; including children, women, and immigrants for many, many decades. Some of us have been there seeing it first hand.

If you want to start another OP about central America - go ahead. In this case, the Texas lawyer posted a link to four of his other OPs, and created an illogical trail of incorrect criticism of Hillary. Then he threw in a Green party candidate for more confusion.

Hillary supported sending them back, and many got killed.

has an asterix next to it. And though you are fine with it, many are not.

I'd rather try something different. We've had trickle down so long I don't think anyone can claim his plan won't work. We never tried.

standard, we'd never have achieved social security, Medicare, ACA, etc.

This defeatist adenda that amounts to "I'm running to be the president who vetoes the worst bills that Paul Ryan sends me and I'll sign the rest!" exemplifies why Clinton will lose (either in the primary or, if not now, certainly in the general election). L

If we don't stand for something, we'll fall for anything.

that if we keep encouraging them by voting them in office, our needs get pushed further and further away.

Sometimes I look at the Democratic Party and feel that they might not be my circus, my monkees.

Handing the Republicans the presidency because the party didn't nominate your candidate because your "conscience" won't allow you to vote for Hillary? How will your "conscience" feel about the millions of middle class and poor Americans who will suffer immensely under a Republican? Regardless of your personal feelings towards Hillary, she's way better for the people of this country than any Republican could ever be.

(this isn't directed at the OP specifically, it's just a general comment on the tone of this thread)

dirty politics down in Vegas. She's not a very likable person to begin with and then to resort to cheating just makes all the rumors seem that much more true. MSNBC and CNN together with the DNC have their thumbs on the scales in Clinton's favor. We can see this as voters and are repelled but such tactics. I'm a veteran, a mother and grandmother I will not betray my country or my family by pretending this behavior by Clinton and her enablers is alright to do. I will write-in Bernie Sander's name in the general if Clinton wins by dirty politics.

Don't even get me started with what Clinton has cost this country by voting for the war in Iraq empowering Bush/Cheney. The thousands of American lives lost, the cost in money which could have been used for American lives here at home. No, Clinton WILL NOT BE our first woman President. There are many, much more worthy individuals we can give that honor to.

But quite a few Sanders supporters are previously alienated voters who would just go back to being alienated non-participants. I suspect more would sit home than would vote for Stein.

and then realized that we have been a part of the problem as well.

a write-in campaign for, Bernie Sanders.

First, hope (YES WE CAN...although when her big statement so far has been 'No we can't' I don't know how that's going to work)
Second, questioning (but, we thought that he was more liberal than this?).
Third, excuses (it's 3D chess, can't you see!? He's 10 steps ahead)
Forth, acceptance (well, he's better than any other we've got an option on, and those righties are nucking futz), eventual criticism (he didn't close gitmo, drones are the new 'random gun violence' in the middle east, not showing imo leadership when it counted, trying to negotiate with people that had clearly told him to fuck himself, and we believed him when he thought it'd make headway)
Fifth, support if sometimes reluctant and a feeling of overall hopelessness penetrated by the occasional 'YEAH! Our guy did good' amidst the 'oh, but.....ooohhhh, dammit barry'
Sixth, eventual buyers regret for some of her most faithful, with some doggedly determined she's the second coming of Susan B Anthony and to question her is to question reality.

I really don't expect to be welcome here if she does get elected. (and if you believe some posters, things will change drastically and the unfaithful and questioning will be ejected for their pride).
I'll want to hold her feet to the fire, not spend time on my knees puckered up and smooching the rarified Hillary heiny or walking on rice paper so I don't get sent to PC Principals office. Too much of the former and I'll end up subject to one of DUs purges, too much of the latter and I'll post the livestream of my brain deciding it doesn't want to live in this skull anymore, and it's riding a bullet out.


(ps, that last was metaphor, I can't stand to kiss ass, and would rather die.....so no, Hillionares, don't get your hopes up.)

I prefer Bernie, but the only alternative to the Democratic nominee is somebody like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or Marcio Rubio. One is an egomaniac, one a crazy theocrat, and one is worthless and apparently also very thirsty.

You pick. A Democrat, or one of those. The winner will certainly be one from the two categories. Myself, I would prefer not to throw my vote away.

spare us from that choice

majority of voter-assigned delegates, the super delegates would presumably flip to support the will of the voters which is how a democracy works (and which is what happened to Clinton's initially huge but ever dwindling super delegate lead in 2008). If Sanders wins a majority of voter-assigned delegates, and the super delegates nevertheless disenfranchise the voters, that is what I mean by deny.

I presume we are all smart enough to see that if the voters picked one candidate and the other candidate was nevertheless nominated, this would result in an automatically nonviable nominee, right? We agree that this is the sort of stunt that would potentially end the Democratic Party (worst case scenario) and would at a minimum lead to historic losses for the whole ticket from top to bottom, right?