Way too much at stake this election. Next prez will pick the SCOTUS my children will grow up under.

The difference between them are minuscule compared to the difference between any one of them and the GOP.

Anyone would be crazy to let that other 7% be the factor that allows a 7-2 wingnut SCOTUS. America would go from progressive to regressive.

Oh and: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

YOIKS! Where are my pearls? Time for pearl-clutching!!!! GAK!!!!!!!!






In case anybody had any doubts.

As the Rude Pundit said not long ago - "well fuck us all with a surprise stick."


I am a woman and I've already listed all the reasons I have for voting for Hillary, in whom I've had great faith, and whom I've respected for a long time. I'm a pragmatist, too. So if Bernie beats her to the nomination, I am NOT sitting home and pouting and being a Sore Loserman. I AM voting and I AM continuing to vote Democratic (since he's finally decided to come on over and claim membership in the Democratic party. It'd be nice if being an independent counted for more, or that we had multiple parties, or whatever else we don't have now that would be mighty nice to have if we just hoped and dreamed enough). So if HE's the one who's still standing at the end of primary season, my vote is for him.

But I seriously doubt it'll come to that.

I care about my party (kinda like this planet thingie we're all standing on - the only one I've got) more than I care about my own little ego.

a fair and balanced mass media will have blossomed, giving equal time to political voices of all stripes, left and right, progressive and conservative. And, of course, the uber wealthy will have finally realized that it is morally wrong to manipulate the American political system for their personal gain.

After Hillary secures the plurality of delegates, very early next year, I think they will be even more prolific.

I don't lose sleep over them bashing anyone and I don't waste my time over them.

That would be unheard of.

rec page to see.

Look back at the thread about president Obama being a Fing PS used car salesman. Was that one a "glitch"?

Anyone of those who rec a thread could be "named removed" some day, all they have to do is get caught being a troll. We have had some long time posters who are now "named removed", or don't you remember them?

"name removed" cannot rec a post 100 times. That was what I responded to and I have no desire to discuss things that were not said that I did not respond to.

Keep pushing the "glitch" theory if you wish, but you know as well as I do what I am talking about.

mysterious thing that you think everyone knows about.

that are caught within x number of hours of signing up for DU and within y number of posts (I don't remember the numbers for x and y).

If I went off the rails tomorrow and got myself ppr'd, I would remain kdmorris. I would not change to "name removed".

Case in point:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=767680

NOT "name removed".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=221412

Of course if you really check out the names of those doing the recing on that OP with 100 recs, and keep on checking the other names that "keep" recing those same kind of threads, you might see a pattern of the same names over and over and over again.

If were as simple as you make it sound, you might have a point. Many (I assume, I can speak for myself anyway) rec'd that because it made many good points they identified with, such as voting issues rather than identity. But by all means carry on with your outrage, implying all that rec'd that OP are PPR candidates, wow.

I heard a lot of people say that when Obama was elected in the primary!

First of all, I get shorted because my state only has two senators -- same as Rhode Island except that our population is many times that of Rhode Island. And then we are a liberal state and will vote for the Democratic nominee as a state. My vote doesn't mean much, and it will not be cast for Hillary Clinton. I don't think she will make a good president. She made very bad decisions in a number of her votes, and her husband, Bill Clinton, made a number of bad decisions as president.

Bernie Sanders is the right candidate for 2016. He has the strongest moral compass of any politician I have heard from in the 63 years that I have followed politics.

If Democrats don't choose the best candidate, Bernie, the one candidate who is not going to owe his election and his future to the oligarchs, then God help them. Because I won't.

I'm firm about this. I will vote for every other Democrat on my ballot, but not for any Democrat for president other than Bernie Sanders.

Feel the Bern.

That's because it's not the House of Representatives.
You haven't been "shorted".


Are you a US citizen? because you don't seem to understand.

JDPriestly seems knowledgeable and wise, so I would think he/she was posting with that in mind.

number of voters per senator in other states.

And that does not only affect the make-up of the Senate. It also has an effect on the electoral college. Normally it might not make much difference, but in a close election it could.

But still, the point is that California is a liberal state, and I'm liberal. The most liberal candidate is most likely to win the election with or without my vote for president. (Not true in other races.) Plus, California votes last, and we are not a swing state. California's vote is easy to predict.

in California. If you live in Wyoming or a state with a small population, your vote means more. Two senators per state means that the conservatives in small states get to load up the Senate with their guys whereas the liberals in California and New York don't get as many senators which means that Californians are underrepresented in the Senate. That shifts the government of the entire country to the right.

parliamentary body anywhere in the first world. It's completely absurd that people in Wyoming get something like 50x more representation than people from California. It skews policy, and it also helps conservatives, since most states that have low populations are Red (with some exceptions, VT, HI, but in general).

Every time this comes up there are some mathematically challenged people who just don't get it. The usual answer is "what's else will defend the people in Wyoming from the bigger states". Which is so dumb I can't begin to explain.

If New York City were broken into Wyoming-population-sized states, we'd have 32 senators: 10 from Brooklyn, 8 from Queens, 6 from the Bronx, 6 from Manhattan, and 2 from Staten Island. I'm thinking that 10 senators from Brooklyn might be enough to convince the "real Americans live in Wyoming" crowd just how absurd it all is.

It's so frustrating to sit in California with our huge population and watch states like Iowa and Vermont make decisions that reverberate across the country and that are skewed far to the right of California.

This is especially true on environmental issues. You'd think that Montana and Wyoming would want to protect the environment. But it is urban New York (better educated maybe?) who are willing to enact laws that will protect the environment. That is just one are in which all Americans suffer because the most populated states have the least representation per person in the Senate and in the electoral college.

Why don't you seem to get that?

The Senate is not about population or a majority. It is the place where every state has even and equal rep. It is there to check "tyranny of the majority". It's where states are just political entities ....all equal.

states like California, New York, Illinois and Texas, the provision in the Constitution that allocates the number of senators to a state has worked to make my vote count far less in the Senate that the vote of someone from a less populated state. That has meant that the Senate is very conservative, very right-wing and not very interested in the issues confronting huge groups of Americans. It is wrong in our day and age of fast transportation and media that covers the entire US.

The electoral college is based on part on the number of senators a state has and therefore that is also skewed.

It might even the influence and impact of the votes of people in states like California and New York if our voices could be heard first in the presidential primaries. It would not skew the vote just toward the left because Texas, a conservative, Southern, right-wing state, would also be one of the highly populated states to be included in the earliest primaries.

Nothing against people from Iowa or Vermont or South Carolina. But they are amply represented in the Senate and in the electoral college. They shouldn't also have a big advantage in the primary season.

Now that is something that needs major adjusting....or something...

I agree with you there! 100%.

Party schmarty, but these days not voting for the person who can beat the republican is the same as voting for the republican

If I vote for the Green or the Peace and Freedom Party here, it is not going to elect a Republican, but it is an opportunity to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the two-party stranglehold on our politics.

votes are counted, she's in big trouble.

California is not a swing state, and we vote last. The election is usually actually decided before our polls close. We don't count for much. Even when they delay announcing the results until our polls have officially closed, I am unaware of an election that hung on the California results.

We really don't count for much out here. That's why we see so little of the candidates. They just come to meet the rich Silicon Valley and Hollywood types, collect their money and run. I saw Obama speak ------ in Ohio. And I am pretty active in politics here in California.

...of who wins next November, for the next four years.

Anyone who does not vote is essentially on the outside looking in.

California will go to the Democrat. With or without my vote. California is unusual in that way.

They have never had a thought that didn't involve themselves. Their principals are in opposition to progress and they know it won't hurt them personally in any way. It's what money does for you in this country. Lets be clear, there are very few here making those comments. Very few.

We cannot forget that there are a whole new class of millionaires over the last decade. They have done very well for themselves. That comment is just dripping with a silver spoon mentality. Don't get me wrong, they didn't make their millions. They just have access to it. The comment is just ripe with elitism and a fuck you I got mine attitude.

People who can't afford to lose healthcare or SS aren't the ones willing to let the GOP win in order to make some ideological point. Or to try and let the country hit rock bottom so maybe then the socialist revolution will come.

The troubling thing is the number of recs. Maybe somehow those people missed the boldface comment that was front and center of the OP.

will support Social Security, even increase the benefits. Social Security is my income.

Bernie has not hung around with Pete Peterson or the Peterson Institute, the folks and organization that hate Social Security and want us to put all our retirement eggs in their Wall Street basket. The Clintons have.

If you are not a 1%er or from a family of 1%ers, you should vote for Bernie. The Clintons are not on your side. They are on the side of the Peterson Institute and the Wall Street firms and other corporations that fund their lives (speaking fees) and their campaigns (employee donations) as well as their PACs.

We need to figure out on which side of the bread our butter is before we vote. Bernie's on our side. Hillary?????? Sometimes. Sometimes not.

But there are zero reasons to sit out the general election if one's preferred primary candidate doesn't get the nomination. That will do nothing except put Social Security, and everything else, in serious danger.

If you agree with me on that, than I have no quarrel with you.

To save and improve Social Security, you have to raise the cap on the amount of income and types of income subject to that tax. And Hillary is not or at least was not willing to do that.

Check out her platform when and if it comes out. That is a major point for me. Another major point is reducing the size of too big to fail banks. Another major point is ending student loan interest. The interest rate for a year should be set at the most at the inflation rate when it comes to student loans. If the inflation rate is 1.5% then the student loan interest rate for the following tax year should be at the most 1.5% and no more. Students should not be charged more for their tuition (and that is what the interest on student loans means -- a higher tuition price) just because they are poor. No one and no government should profit from student loans.

Or even equal? Or even close to equal?

What will sitting out of the GE accomplish for Social Security?

Even in California (where I am, too, JD).

And I think we have to stay awake and alert here in California, too. The bad guys have had their eyes on us for years now. They want OUR votes, too, YOUR VOTES AND MINE, and realize the only way they can get them is by rigging the game somehow. They want to fuck with our electoral college system and our winner-take-all system, and ANY way to rejigger the numbers so that THEY win California. Better believe it and stay awake and alert.

California is a TOP prize because OUR STATE ALONE is big enough to get you 1/4 of the way home, all by its widdle self. They want us and lust after us and I'll bet there's all kinds of long-ranging planning being done, NOW, to scheme their way, and yes, CHEAT their way, into winning California. Especially by now. They've lost out, out here, for years. They're getting REEEEEEEEEEALLY sick of that by now. And desperate. Because California's winner-take-all biggest-load-of-electoral-votes-in-the-nation gold mine keeps positioning itself safely out of their reach. And they're getting really frustrated and desperate to turn that trend on its ass (along with the rest of us).

JD, you sit home on Election Day at OUR peril. Maybe you don't care so much about your own. But it's GOT TO be about All Hands On Deck next fall. They leave us no choice whatsoever.

Let's keep the REAL Sore Losermen on THAT side of the aisle, okay? PLEASE? Seems to me OUR side is better than that. And bigger than that. Or should be.

I'm hoping JDPriestly and others of that opinion find a way to change their minds, should Hillary beat Bernie to the nomination. ALL OF US depend on it. As "evil" as they think Hillary Clinton might be, she is NOT going to entertain taking your Social Security away. Whereas if enough of us pout and stay home on Election Day, the bad guys WILL take it, and if they either win or cheat to win in enough other states to get a good electoral vote tally going, the motherload from California may not be big enough to offset that. And taking away YOUR Social Security (AND everybody else's, AND mine, too, that I'm eligible for, soon) has been a wet dream of their party ever since Social Security first became a reality. They've yearned to take that away from us ever since it began. PLEASE don't forget that!!!!!



Remember, the nose YOU cut off to spite YOUR OWN face, spites ALL THE REST OF OUR FACES, TOO.

It's too important.

I have nothing but a sad, almost nostalgic contempt for people who toss votes to Republicans. I used to do it too, and I freely admit I was an asshole. It took George W. To shake me out of my political petulance and temper tantrums.

I recommend this post. I for one work to get Democrats elected.

There are also a lot of not so rich people in that crowd too.

"People who can't afford to lose healthcare or SS aren't the ones willing to let the GOP win "

See: Teabaggers

I think you mean Dems who can't afford to lose healthcare or SS aren't the ones willing to let the GOP win.


The number a recs are from people who "worship" their candidate like a cult and I think has little to nothing to do with money.

It's fundamentalism...Dem style.

So what that people will lose healthcare if a Repug is the president, so what that minimum wage is ended, time and 1/2 for overtime gone, the endangered wildlife list is ended, EPA is gutted, women lose the right to make their own contraceptive and reproduction choices, who cares?

1%ers are billionaires, not millionaires.

And "that comment" drips more of people who fall for cults of personality than anything to do with money. It's akin to religious people who don't think they have to follow the law because of the way they "feel".

You are wrong. That simple.

That simple

I can spot a silver spooner from a mile away. I'm not even sure what your responses are to. To fight for people worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Making statements that people worth a couple hundred million, and earning millions per year, aren't one percenters in your mind. You would be best served if you started realizing how much money has to do with this topic. Millionaires will be able to take their daughter across state lines, or fly her to a different country for an abortion. They can be apathetic toward the vote and still survive just fine. What the fuck am I going to do? Money sure as hell plays a difference in these little superior asshats who could care less if a republican or democrat walks into the White House.

Your first concern when replying to me was to literally claim that those counting their money in the millions aren't one percenters. That was literally your first concern. WTF.

Can you now?


Can you spot a gay right away?

How about a Jew?

What other amazing talents do you possess?

The problem is a cult of personality.... not money. People who worship their candidate like some messiah. Money has nothing to do with that.


"That was literally your first concern." Oh I see your powers of observation aren't what you say they are. You make up things you think you know. And way too much hyperbole. Sorry everyone doesn't agree with you. Try to live with that without attacking people.

Do you actually know this? Did that individual say that?

I thought 1%ers voted for Hillary or Republicans.

Not much help a conversation will do with black and white thinking on that level.

You seem to imply that the only reason someone could refuse to support Hillary is because they're rich and selfish. God forbid anyone have any problems with her politics or history.

As I do with the purity patrol who will put my sisters in jeopardy because of their "principals." It is a lack of principals that have been brought about by silver spoons.

You obviously take serious issue with me pointing out these people are in direct opposition to progressives. Do you fight against people talking about the stupidity of a republican vote or is it simply those who oppose progressives you don't like smeared?

You are on a site that supports Democratic candidates and you don't even get the point. I find that hard to believe.

Many Democrats feel that we are not being given a meaningful choice for the party's presidential nomination.

So, a kind of rhetorical challenge is going on here, in my estimation, when folks say that they might just sit-out deciding who or even whether or not to vote for president.

And ... I think this is bad for the Democratic Party and I blame the Clinton machine. Hillary shouldn't be running at all in my opinion. Just like in the Repuglican Party, I'll bet a large faction thinks that JEB! shouldn't be running at all either. It is time to move on!

My hunch is that there is general satisfaction with the Obama presidency at this point. However, that doesn't mean that most Democrats want a boring, traditional, establishment, 'conservative', Wall Street nominee -- even if she can raise a billion dollars.

If the Repuglicans end-up nominating JEB! ... and the national Democrats are so lazy and uninspired as to nominate Clinton, then I think the national sense of dissatisfaction is going to go sky high at the same time the national sense of hopelessness towards our politics will also go off the charts.

So, I don't blame non-Clinton Democrats for issuing their challenge by proclaiming a November 2016 disaffection -- the message has got to be sent before it is too late.

Of course I'm voting for Hillary if she wins the primary.

We've had enough of Reaganomics and plutocracy and social back peddling.

It makes me start singing.

If Bernie doesn't win the nomination, that's because he didn't get enough support from Democrats. But you can't argue that Dems aren't being given a choice.

Voting out of duty and obligation NEVER wins General elections for Democrats.

Unless the GOP is foolish enough to nominate a very anti-union candidate, get ready for record low turnout.

Many of us have been waiting a long time for this moment. I support her 100%. We'll have record turnout alright. Sorry to bust your negative little bubble.

... but Mrs. Bill Clinton is a general election loser.

It won't be the Repuglican candidate that beats her, it will be Hillary, herself.

Because it is "her turn" the Democrats are cruising right now to an electoral disaster.

My 'negative bubble' is based in real political baggage that Hillary is going to be carrying in the fall of 2016 -- and if you don't believe this is all going to come back to weigh her down into defeat, then you are living in a fantasy.

Rose Law Firm.
Cattle Futures.
Travelgate.
Filegate.
Vince Foster.
Whitewater.
Monica.
Vast right-wing conspiracy.
Pardongate.
‘Landing under sniper fire’ in Bosnia.
Emails.
Clinton Foundation.
More to come ...

...let Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, and whoever else they've had on board these past 25 years-- Why would you let the Right Wing choose your presidential candidate for you?

And why would you, a Democrat, repeat GOP lies about another Democrat?

I'm sincerely curious.

Hillary is as clean as a hound's tooth?

You can go on believing that those political scandals/controversies/episodes/etc. are all just right-wing conspiracy lies. But Mrs. Clinton has a long, long history in politics and I do believe there are many untoward things in which she has been involved.

I'm will not "let the Right Wing choose your presidential candidate' ... which is precisely why I am so vehemently opposed to Hillary Clinton's presidential nomination bid. I will let my genuinely progressive principles and aspirations drive my presidential preference.

....what Gingrich started, Rove carried forward, and so on. Repeat a lie often enough and some gullible fools will always fall for it. Not, of course, that this would apply to any DUer.

My old mother used to say, "Consider the source." It's a good motto for life and for any kind of research.

the only reason there is not a similar list for Bernie is ONLY because he hasn't gotten the attention of the GOP hit squads. Some of your list are mostly conspiracies and have little relevance, but I can give you a similar list (with plenty of links to published "investigations" on Bernie in two minutes:

Bernie's Robin Hood tax hurts public employees and makes Wall Street richer.
Bernie is not really a Democrat.
Bernie is a socialist.
Bernie is an Israeli citizen.
Bernie is Jewish.
Bernie supports Locheed-Martin, one of the worst military contractors.
Bernie supports pork projects like the F35.
Bernie's wife took an illegal buyout and ruined a college.
Bernie is a gun nut.
Bernie got support from the IRA.
More to come....

There are plenty of personal, policy, and political reasons that Bernie is not going to survive a national campaign.

Are they going to hammer at Lockheed? Not being a real Democrat a right wing cudgel in the general?

A citizen of Israel? Dumber than "Kenyan" and actually a lame brained lie from the "pragmatic progressive", pro Clinton, hard working white Americans, "We came, we saw, he died", corporate dominion loving, fine with a "associate of The Family", red baiting, trickle down championing of the Reaganism without the southern strategy, hippy punching, lead from behind civil rights "activists", conservative coddling and emulating, warmongering, anti civil liberties, environment scoffing, charter school endorsing, too big to fail loving camp of the Democratic party not any open Republican

Please.

All that crap has been debunked.

Look, I think she is a crooked politician -- it is that simple.

I'm entitled to my opinion which I base on her very long political history.

Believe it or not there are Democrats who are not saints or great leaders -- in my estimation, Hillary Clinton is not a great leader and I oppose her selection as the Party's nominee.

"Nobody I know is voting for Hillary out of duty and obligation"

"Many of us have been waiting a long time for this moment"

Interesting. It appears we'll just have to agree to disagree.

She will breeze through the primaries if that's what the Decision Makers want, but GL getting blue collar votes from OH, FL in the general.

I posted a link earlier that polls Dems, finding that 92% are just fine with voting for her.

You said your poll was taken June 23? Politico posted a poll published yesterday that shows Hillary losing ground with Democrats.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/poll-hillary-clinton-lead-shrinking-democrats-120140.html

Of course I'm sure most Dems would vote for her in the General Election if she's the nominee.

taken a lot of courage -- like opening up a bit to Cuba and like signing the intent to enter into a treaty with Iran. Like his immigration and overtime executive orders. Good things.

Also his statements on prisons and his visit to a prison.

I cannot picture Hillary doing these things, especially not opening up to Cuba or taking a cautious chance on a treaty with Iran.

Obama has been very weak in dealing with Wall Street and investigating fraud in the transfer of taxable income by big corporations to tax havens as well as many other issues.

But especially lately, Obama has been doing a lot of things that earn my respect.

I do not expect Hillary to be as courageous as Obama has been. She is too intent on appearing to have strength. The reason that I say that Obama has been courageous in some of his recent policies is that these are policies that Republicans view as signs of weakness. To me they are signs of strength, but Republicans ridicule them as weak. Hillary has a great need to come across as strong. She fears appearing vulnerable I think. That is one of the reasons that I do not trust her character.

Sometimes doing the right thing requires taking the risk of appearing weak and vulnerable. Bernie Sanders takes those kinds of risks. Obama is now taking them although earlier in his presidency he did not take them much. Hillary has a hard time taking those kinds of risks. That is a character flaw in her.

Because it's evidently so much more important to pout than to try to deal with what IS, and make lemonade out of lemons. Otherwise we'll all be forced to try to make lemonade out of SHIT.

I am a Democrat.. part of the Democratic Party.. and when I see people A. wanting my party to support their candidate..but then saying.. if my choice does not get the nod than I will not support the the choice of the Democratic Party.. my head starts to spin.

I worry a lot more about corporate conservadems refusing to vote for Bernie than I do about disaffected Democrats voting for Hillary.

problem reaching centrist and independent voters if he were to win the GE.

It's the corporate conservadems that have a stranglehold on the Democratic Party that are the problem.

Bernie will mop the floor with Independents. Independents loathe the status quo, which Hillary and the GOP represent.

In the precinct level threads.

I love it.

OMG!

But I would also spend all the time from that point to the G.E. preparing for what I will be doing to fight the incoming GOP administration with a likely super-majority in the Senate and increased majority in the House.

Bernie would lose to just about every one of the 15 folks running for President on the GOP side, and some of them he would lose to by landslide proportions.

On Edit: Check that. I can't see anyone on the GOP side that Bernie could beat.

Rick Santorum would still beat Bernie Sanders in the general election, right?

raising in total.

Last edited Thu Jul 16, 2015, 10:00 PM - Edit history (1)

... it will ALL go to their Chosen One, whoever that is.

But Big Money isn't going to win this time!

He can beat any of them

They have PACs that have raised considerably more money than Bernie has on his own. And since Bernie has no PAC, that's presents a problem if he were to be the nominee.

That's why he's going to win it!

I voted for Hillary in the primary and when she lost to Obama I was devastated.....but I got over it, AND I voted for Obama (both times). I will vote for the Democratic nominee this time too....and I am pretty sure it will be Hillary....but if for some strange reason it's not, I'll vote for the nominee.

DEM (today: Bernie or Martin). If Hillary wins the nomination, I will cheerfully vote for her, will alway think we got 3rd best, and will try again for a better candidate in 2020. If every disappointed liberal/progressive stayed home for the past 56 years, USA would be solid GOP. By now, the middle class would have been wiped out and many more of the poor be imprisoned, killed or maimed in resource wars, or walking dead wage slaves.

I'm just going to write-in a random Democrat who is out of the race, or Mickey Mouse....or something.

That'll show 'em.

I will vote for the Democratic candidate. If you are uniformed and stuck on a single-issue or closed-minded, then you are probably heading for one of those "Bush barely beats Gore" type elections that will foul up progress for another decade.

Regardless, I think a lot of enthusiastic arguments on DU are frankly hypothetical. I'll say why:

"Hillary voted for the WAR!!" I was someone who was in the Vietnam draft. I was lucky my number wasn't chosen, BUT I was in the street, burning my draft card, working for candidates, and protesting the war. All these critics were virtually silent when both Bushes put troops on the ground. The anti-war movement has been weak for quite a while. Before you blame Hillary (who represented NY where the towers fell and was somewhat obliged to vote to represent her constituents), then post the pictures of you and a few thousands of your friends getting arrested with anti-war signs BEFORE you complain about Hillary. I don't want to hear that you emailed your representative. I want to see flip-flops on the ground and signs in your hands.

"AFT should not have endorsed Hillary." That BS. I'm a union officer and educator in Florida. Our internal surveys reflect the same pattern that AFT reports in their national poll. Hillary is way ahead, and Bernie is actually not a favorable because his policies would be harmful to union concerns (Robin Hood tax, guns). If you had a bad experience with your local union or state chapter it's your own fault. Unions are their members. You are criticizing yourself. Run for Union office, join the bargaining team, volunteer as a representative. I don't have sympathy for lazy complainers.

"Hillary doesn't want to break up the banks." First, the Wall Street meme is mostly more BS. The biggest banks, biggest abuse, and most untaxed money is in international banks - all out of the reach of US law and state regulations. Is it a problem! YES. Will putting a CEO in jail or breaking up Chase Bank do anything? NO. Bernie or any other candidate who wants to simply "break up the banks" is naive or dumb or lying to the crowds. Hillary understands that it will take international cooperation and a long time to get control of the international bank havens. We all know now (and I suspect Obama does too) that Wall Street insiders gave bad advice to the government, but the key to future economic progress is likely working overseas.