... or voted against the Brady bill five times or says on national TV that when you think of Black's you think of the ghetto or who keeps voting to fund the mic or...

Is progressive enough to chunk rock's at anyone

Let's see, so you think I should be able to sue Ford if someone driving a Ford truck runs over my kid?

Why not look into something before parroting an obvious talking point. . . that is, obvious to anyone interested enough to want to know the truth.

.. They had a dangerous product and choose to make it more dangerous or not make it safer.

Also, slightly more progressive doesn't afford Sanders the beating stick he uses against Clinton on these issues often.

Clinton supporters will support the nominee. Sanders supporters, not so much.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

I'm not fooled by anything she does or says recently that runs contrary to how she has run before and what she has done before. Why should I trust these antics?

Now, if Hillary were to keep her stands the same as they are today, or perhaps moved them even more towards a Populist view, not only would she win my support but the support of many, many others, and the presidency as well.

But if she were to become the nominee (still not decided and still in question), and run in some ways to the Right of even Donald Trump (likely), then her cause is doomed (IMHO). There is too big a percentage of the American public that is fed-up and believes in the Populist message for her to run effectively from it or as weaker on it.

Finally, even if PoC have in many areas (not all) gravitated to her as their choice, and that is certainly their fundamental right, there is absolutely no solid reason to think that Bernie Sanders would do less well than Hillary on racial injustice, and many of us believe he would do more.

But Clinton is Progressive, imo, just not as Progressive as Sanders. And I agree, I think Sanders would do great. I even think he would win out over Trump. But it doesn't appear likely we'll find out.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

Go away and look up what Clinton's positions on those issues really are.

And next time someone claims that Sanders supporters are just stating facts, rather than spreading falsehoods to slander Clinton, I'm afraid I shall cite this as exhibit A for the prosecution.

To pick a couple of flat-out lies from the mass of dishonesty, distortion and misrepresentation, Clinton has explicitly stated that she is opposed to both the TPP and the Keystone pipeline.

Listen, if you think Hillary would lift a finger to seriously interfere with TPP's implementation, you really are a poor judge of character. Look at her record, look at Bill's look at her friends, look at her actions, look at everything she said before he was in danger to losing badly to an unknown guy from Vermont.

Would you acknowledge that large chunks of the screed you posted were a pack of lies?

And yes, I think it entirely likely that Clinton's attitude to the TPP was influenced by its contents.

I also think it entirely likely that Sanders' attitude to the TPP was *not* influenced by its contents.

I do not find them a pack of lies. I am incredulous, however, that anybody believes much of anything she says, unless it is pro-war or pro-business. Well, there are a few Liberal causes she supports that will not do me or anybody like me any possible good whatsoever.

And yes, I do vote in my own self-interest, and encourage others to do likewise. I do not believe there are many average Americans, from the very least economically fortunate all the way up through Middle Class Americans that would do better under a Hillary presidency, and I suspect they will suspect they will be shocked to see how much worse they will do, if she is the one elected.

some of you wouldn't vote for Thomas Jefferson.

There's nothing wrong with people choosing Clinton over Sanders. It doesn't mean they aren't a democrat and it doesn't mean they aren't a progressive. It may just be that they think Sanders is too off-in-the-distance for their taste. Or it may be that they prefer realistic goals instead of pie in the sky.

You say "authentic progressive" as if anything else is unworthy. It's arrogant to presume only one candidate does or should match the whole party. That's what primaries are for and Sanders is losing and losing badly.

More trash, thanks.

And no wonder. . . . . Interesting fact of the day

Hillary's LARGEST crowd was 5,500. Her average is 4,000

And we've all been awestruck every day with Bernie's crowd size. .. . and a lot of then he gathers with only a day or two notice.

I wonder where the enthusiasm is? ? ? (this isn't a trick question)

I wonder where the voters are?

Hint: It isn't American Idol..

hint: fewer people are actually voting for him. That is why he is losing.

The racial meme has been debunked so we're on to Nader. Yawn.

Telling people to fall in line just does not cut it.

You have to give people something to vote "for" and not "against".

And blaming third parties for your failures is just pathetic.

I'll leave falling in line to those who need a strong daddy; I don't.

if Bernie was running as a 3rd party candidate.

Since he's running in the Democratic primary, these arguments suggest that Democrats shouldn't have primaries, we should just anoint someone.

More people dislike her than like her.
Don't believe me?
Ask President Gore and President Kerry.

Caucus States -- where people come together to discuss the pros and cons of candidates as a group, thereby influencing one another via debate and reasoning. You seem to denigrate that.

States where Nader got 3% of the vote -- what's that got to do with Bernie? Nader ran as an Independent. Bernie's running for the nomination, not against the Democratic candidate in the GE.

The importance of falling in line? Lol. Even Al Capone used to talk about the importance of falling in line. You obviously just don't get it. The Bernie candidacy isn't about "perfection", it's about a short 4 letter word: GOOD. It's about standing up against a corrupt political system that threatens the existence of democracy in our nation. What your sentence said in my view was " Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good enough". Sorry - thats basically what I heard in that statement.

How about we wait till we have a nominee and then go from there. Ralph Nader -- Geesh!!!!

Having to be in one place for 3 or 4 hours is a commitment that some people can't easily make.

Hillaryous!!!

and I'm not sure who exactly got screwed in the long run on the whole debacle...

>"states that never go Dem"
>post map showing preponderance of deeply red Southern states for Hillary

- states that never go Dem (the few Dems in those states are ultra-progressive urbanites) (AK, ID, UT, KS, NE, OK)
At least six of Hillary's wins are in states that haven't voted for a Dem in 20+ years.

Maybe because she's so far to the right they think she's a Republican

Thanks for so proving to me that supporting Bernie is the right thing for me to do.

Hillary does well in the foyers of hedge fund managers.

actually have won at least once, some twice, in the last 25 years like KY, TN, LA, FL, AR, MO, and she also won FL, NV and AZ, which Dems have won in the last 25 years.

Neither should drop out.

-States where some form of election fraud was not done.

author and myself. There is still some seating left in general class for those that get with the program soon. Otherwise, empty coal cars in the back of the train with no amenities will be all that's available to the apostates. That's how I see it.

Nader cost Gore the election by playing the role of a spoiler candidate in the general. If Nader had run in the Democratic primary instead of running as a third party he would not have taken votes from Gore in the general. I can't stand Ralph Nader, but I can't say for sure that he would not have won had he been the nominee. Total apples to oranges comparison.

Of course, to hear some in your camp talk, they would rather Bernie run as a third party than "infiltrate" the Democratic Party.

in the confederate states. The majority of her wins outside of the confederate states have been marginal at best.

This myth just refuses to die.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth

They split the delegates in all those pretty much evenly.

had it not been spring break at UIUC, Sanders may've won IL.

Fact is he did not win, thus he lost.

running against the most powerful people on earth.

It's correlated with internet access. Places that get their info through commercial media favor Clinton. Places that get their info through internet resources favor Sanders.

Old thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/48kpuv/bernie_winning_states_with_better_internet_access/

Most recent infographic I could find: http://imgur.com/ODXpzIJ The /r/SandersForPresident group uses these to coordinate activism, and it has been very effective.

If the pattern holds, Sanders will do fine in NY and quite well in CA.