I am sure this was last month's meme.

Add and recycle.

Of her Scorched Earth campaign rhetoric ...

Nobody forced that insulting bunch of diatribes out of her mouth. .. That was her tongue pushing those words out ...

Bernie takes most independents and some disaffected Republicans. The longer he goes the stronger he gets. All of this against a terrible MSM headwind and Brock's shenanigans.

Hillary brings up dead Republicans from the grave to vote against he and the longer she campaigns, the more people dislike her! That's why Bernie polls better against Republicans than she does.

All of this is if the FBI investigation of her emails doesn't come back to haunt her!

Don't blame Bernie supporters for her weak performance. She had a perfect opportunity last night to start bringing the Party together when Rachel asked her something to the effect of what she might do to appeal to Bernie supporters assuming she wins the Primary. Instead of offering up something, anything, she bragged about all of her votes she has received. Rachael tried to help her out by saying something to the effect that, so your answer, assuming you win the Primary, about what you need to do to win over the Bernie supporters is to keep things exactly as you have? In effect she said yes because she just bragged that it has worked so far am massing more votes than anyone ever...

Obama garnered Hillary voters by making her his Secretary of State. Granted, Bernie doesn't want a high profile place in her administration to help him launch his next run. He would like some compromise of a few positions like $15 hour minimum wage, tougher on Wall Street, SCOTUS appointments that commit to voting down Citizens United, at least something to ease us into the fold. No, Hillary just expects us to fall in line! Ain't going to happen with most Bernie supporters!!!

In the face of people who could have come in, who had come in and now will never come in.

I am looking forward to how all those Bernie groups will still network and what their information and plans will be.

said no. What on earth was that about?

I think people here like Clinton's position on gunz, save for Gungeoneers.

They refuse to believe the SCOTUS decisions will effect their lives and believe that a scorched earth policy will teach us all a lesson.

I vote Democrat but I make very good money. If a Republican gets in, I can probably kiss my marriage goodbye but my taxes will probably go down and almost certainly won't go up. I disagree with nearly all of the policies of the Republican party and I absolute hate the idea of my marriage being invalidated, but this won't be scorching my earth all that much. Shame they cannot see how much putting a Republican into office actually threatens the stability of the poor.

as a running mate- No Bush.

understand it, but there it is.

But I believe they are serious. So my feeling is that they are now irrelevant and we have to leave them behind quick and get to work on people we CAN convince.

that the Left is just going to steam quietly in the background?

I snicker at the thought of h supporters thinking it will be flowers and unicorns against those evil republicans...only.

but that is what I am saying: I believe you. You will not vote for her. So we need to not waste any time trying to convince you because that would be futile. We need to move on and leave you behind.

All those real world voters picked Hillary. You live in a pleasant Internet bubble where some -- not all, mind you -- of Bernie's most ardent fans still believe he is just one ballot away from winning. By the time the GE rolls around, the Bernie diehards will be out, still moaning about their fate, but no longer relevant. Enter the great mass of General Election voters who only bother to come out and do their civic duty to vote on presidential election years. They've never heard of Sanders, but they've known Clinton for decades and they'll vote for her.

I do think we'll find plenty of other voters to replace them.

I make no mistake about this. Trump is a carnival barker. He CAN motivate people, and I am prepared for this to be a fight. But I also think we'll win.

the primaries are for the devoted party members to vote. So this is how she took NY, for example, not that there weren't people thrown off the rolls as well.

Look at this election cycle and the most glaring information that should be gleaned is that it is broken. So many people affected.

Plus.....43% and growing don't belong to either party.

Remember, President Obama (who I happily voted for twice and will miss) put this guy's name forward.

Kagen and Sotomeyer are no Thurgood Marshalls. And as a Latina, I am happy about a Latina being on the bench.

He probably looks peachy to the hill bullies, though

You can't cry over milk you never had in the fridge.

I get that all these Bernie or Bust tantrums are really all about trying to force our vote so their candidate has a chance but hey, my vote is my vote as much as their vote vote is their vote. I'm all for trying to bring people into the fold who might be able to warm to some of Hillary's ideas. Heck, even I don't support all of her ideas and you'll never find a single candidate I agree with 100%. And you certainly wouldn't ever see me do a tap dance around my previous positions on gun control based on any near-religious devotion to a particular candidate. It's ok not to get the whole loaf of bread. None of us get that. There are even facets of my life (my businesses) that would probably the better served by Republicans, though you'll really never see me vote for one of those. Each of us has to decide what we're willing to support and how we're willing to compromise to get as much of that loaf of bread as we can. If people simply refuse to even sit at the table, then I don't see the point in wasting our time trying to court them. They've said they're Bernie or Bust. They said they don't want to compromise. Fine. Then they've removed themselves from the discussion because there's no point in attempting to build bridges with people who are determined to keep them on fire. And if they suddenly had a change of heart and are willing to come to the table with 10,000 demands, they should also realize that many of us already wrote them off because talk is cheap, but you can't buy it back.

Ultimately, if we never had it, there's no point in caring about it.

It's like that mother that says "no, you can't have the cookie," and then, when you stamp your feet and demand it, she says, "well now you're really not having the cookie!". Well, clearly stamping our feet for the Bernie supporters to offer up the cookie of their vote for Hillary was a waste of time because we weren't ever going to have it anyway.

the one who will implement them. As Barney Frank said, we ALL want those things, but electing Sanders would bring us farther from achieving them than we are now. Hillary will move us farther down the road toward getting them. People can scoff at incrementalism all they want, but it works.

And yes. If someone says "Bernie or Bust" I believe them. They're that milk we never had in the fridge that you mentioned.

I'd also say to your point about them coming to the table with 10,000 demands, that's not really coming to the table at all.

Like Hillary said to Rachel in that recent Town Hall, it's not how she handled it. She sucked it up and brought her supporters for the good of the cause.

the same conscience that allowed people to vote for kerry (who voted for the IWR), but not HRC. same conscience that allows people to vote for bernie (who actually voted for the 90's crime bill) but not HRC.

whatever other non qualification Hillary supporters think of next.

It's about knowing the candidate including all factual historical actions so one can assume through past actions how one would lead the country in the future.

The person that helped write the TPP, not a good candidate amongst whole lot of other reasons. Habitually lying, voting FOR the Iraq WAR, being Pro Corporate, etc.......

That's it, nothing else but if you all want to twist it around into some asinine, grade school reason, so be it. It's in line with your support for someone who will say anything to be President.

JEEBUS H CHRIST.

WTF?

Cause that stuff just doesn't happen, amiright?

They were talking about certain voters having issue with a vagina, I'm saying that's not a qualification for POTUS.

You've moved it to racism and yes it happens, same as sexism, but it still has nothing to do with being qualified to lead a nation?

I could care less if Hillary was a Woman, or a Man.

It's about character and searchable history. What did they do in the past that they are probably doing right now and in the future. You know Decision making.



She voted FOR the Iraq war, do I fucking care if it was a man or a woman, fuck no!

2 separate issues am I right?

to vote for her because she is a woman.

You are commenting on an exchange between two posters, one of whom was me. So no, I'm not changing the point. That is what the exchange was about.

"getting it" or not. Some do, some don't. You do.

The two are indistinguishable. They feel what you are mentioning to be small ball that will all be cared for under the economic utopia that Sanders will bring in.

There aren't as many of them as you think and most will tuck their tails between their legs and run back to Paul's camp after the primaries are over.

Its not even about Bernie or Hillary.

For the Hillary supporters, sure they can't see far enough to even get the point.

For the Bernie supporters it's about getting 1% and corporations out of our gov and to quit destroying our planet.

Hillary's name can be switched. It was never about her personally. Anyone with the super pacs would have gotten the same response in todays informed post occupy climate.

Bernie could easily be replaced with Warren or Stein, just for beginners.

Wake up. You've never heard what the Bernie supporters are saying. They aren't leaving the party because they're mad over Hillary. They would have voted for her had she been the most progressive option. She wasn't. That's the same reason she lost to Barak. The voters choose the most progressive.

I have heard them loud and clear and don't like most of what they are saying. I prefer to listen to Sanders himself. He is excellent and carries a great message.

I missed no point at all. I addressed the point in the op directly.

I don't find much progressive about running from building coalitions and accomplishing very little because one enjoys sitting on an island by themselves instead of fighting for communities.

If the people you are talking about are focused entirely on "economics" - that is the area where there is ZERO overlap between bernie sanders and ron (or rand) Paul.

Franky, the whole "Paul! Derp" thing is overblown, but the places where there might be commonality btw the views of Sanders supporters and Paul people are things like NSA spying, encryption, the 4th amendment, the drug war, the continual filling of our prisons with people for shit like pot smoking, etc etc.

You know, areas where some of our "leadership" - like DWS, or DiFi - have resolutely failed to do anything except advance and promote the worst fucking approaches.

"Economics" has nothing to do with it.

I just don't get it. But there is a reason the Sanders camp was sending volunteers to Paul events. Pauls "Audit the Fed" legislation couldn't have come up at a better time. Sanders recently voted with republicans on it and you know Paul supporters had their eye on it. Additionally, HA Goodman isn't the only one.

Other than that I don't get it either.

But we have time to have that conversation, once we have an official nominee.

It's really sad.

The country has moved so crazy far to the right.

which means we have to make sure someone far right is NEVER chosen. which means voting for whoever the dems nominate.

i'd rather see bernie win. but it very doubtful that will happen. doesnt matter the reason the simple fact is hillary will in all probability be the dem nominee.

and teh thought of a trump or cruz presidency is so repugnant that i would vote for her in a second over either of those two.

Like hell it doesn't matter.

You think fucking with the vote doesn't matter?

and lets say Bernie supporters DON'T stay home especially in swing states, and this tilts the election to Hillary

Ruth Bader Ginsberg could be replaced by another John Roberts - FOR LIFE.

Action on Climate change - out the window.
Repealing Citizens United - gone
health care- dont get sick
unions--- good luck

She would nominate someone like Ginsburg to replace Gibsburg.

Hillary is much more likely to nominate a centrist judge who she thinks she can get through the confirmation process. If the makeup of the Senate stays similar to what it is now, it's more likely to be a right-leaning centrist.


Of course, Bernie would face the same constraints, but I believe he would start from a more liberal position.

ginsburg and breyer....

i would expect hillary to nominate someone like them over a roberts


roberts was nominated by bush. i would expect any nominee from trump or cruz to be as right as roberts if not more so....

Now I see...her detractors can't compare, but her supporters can. Got it!

Hillary is her own woman, until she isn't.

and nominates a corporatist judge to replace RBG?

and he nominate RBG. probably the best thing he did. there is nothing to suggest to that she won't nominate someone just as liberal, and this is just accusation by random innuendo.

RANDOM?

I can think of 153,000,000 reasons to fear she would nominate corporate judges. And there's probably at least a billion more reasons in the bank accounts of the Clinton Foundation.

especially when the actual reality shows bill clinton as having nominated the most liberal judge of the current SC

with your head in the sand.

ill take my chances with a hillary over the sure thing with a rethug

your link claims the same number of nadar voters would have voted for bush as gore. thats just unrealistic
nadar himself says that 38% of his voters in 2000 would have voted for gore,25% for bush and the rest stayed home.

https://web.archive.org/web/20040702033113/http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=14

in florida in 2000 nadar got 97k votes

if 38% went to gore,25% bush and the rest staed home that would have given gore a win in florida by 12k...

If 10% of Bush voters had gone to the moon on that day, Gore would have won.

So you are taking what "Nader said", over the ACTUAL exit polls?

In Florida, CNN’s exit polling showed Nader taking the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Nader also took 4 percent of the independent vote.
...
Had Nader not run, Bush would have won by more in Florida. CNN’s exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Nader-less Florida race.

Anyone who thinks Nader is responsible for Gore's loss in 2000 is so politically ignorant as to be unworthy of even cursory attention.

Sanders is not a viable general election candidate and we cannot trust the control of the SCOTUS for the next generation to Sanders' failed revolution

After all, there has to be some retribution if Bernie can't be President.

I don't know why anyone who professes to care about the issues you cited would support Hillary over Bernie.

im strictly talking about the general election.

if you want to vote bernie in the primaries go ahead...thats who i voted for. but if he doesnt win teh nomination and its HRC vs trump or cruz there is no doubt i will go to the polls and vote HRC. staying home or third party is not an option. im not taking teh chance of a trump or cruz winning and getting to nominate SC judges

on women and children around the world to protect those rights? Talk about privilege...

let us turn this around on Hillary supporters - say you keep ignoring the chances that she is not liked by a great deal of voters (Rs, Indies, Bernie supporters, third party, others) and does not get enough votes to win with elected delegates. Say she uses the Super-delegates to try to win but fails because some of them are loyal to the voters of their own states.

And the same thing happens. I would suggest we look at this in a different way. I suggest we recognize that Hillary has some really toxic baggage, could be indicted, speeches to the corporations, and all the things the "could" destroy her either during the primary or after the primary. IF you really care about keeping this country from being destroyed even more by the Rs. then think about nominating the candidate who has less baggage.

Stop with the false narrative.

and someone like cruz or trump could easily nominate someone like that.....


im not taking the chance

My grandchildren and greats deserve better. I also don't support pathological liars

....

"Vote to be screwed with lube, or you will get screwed without!"

- No you fools: stop screwing me!

is this meant to obscure David Brock's ULTIMATE culpability for
Clarence Thomas and ipso facto Bush v Gore?
that would splain the nader nonsense
and that rather shiny SCOTUS appeal.
You gotta admire that brassy gleam
it is all Brock.

How do we know she won't pick Clarence Thomas or someone like him out of compromise?

thinking HRC would nominate a righty is failing to use common sense

Probably not.

Face it, SCOTUS and all other judicial appointments for the last 26 years have been mostly about what's 'doable'.

If Dems don't control the senate... then the doable looks very much like a republican wish list.

Don't give me fear based arguments about SCOTUS appointments

They're both on the Court. No one is replacing the other. The issue at hand is the risk of rldctong s republican wove I'll attempt to appoint someone to the right of the late Scalia.

Continuing to cry about Nader 16 years later won't cut it.

This is all about ego for these people.

at the feet of anyone but the sheer number of Republican voters who can't stand the name Clinton. I don't think people realize that.

So I guess we should be blaming conservative democrats.

Crooked politicians running crooked elections have bad consequences.

Deal with it.

And if she loses, it will be the fault of Her Majesty and all of the right wingers who thought having a female in the WH was essential - even a corrupt, conservative one.

Is not likely to appoint a liberal justice. We're fucked whether we get Trump or Hillary.

alienating loyal D voters who wanted to see real progressive change. Ruth will have to hang on for another four years until we get a real choice.

...but we ramp up a few wars or start a new one. Are hillary supporters ok with that?