One of the reasons I supported her was that I thought she was a shoo-in for the general election. After all no-one has ever had more experience then her before running for President, and she would be the first female president. Bernie was a self-confessed Socialist which many low information voters think is the same as a communist, ie Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. O'Malley was a Governor of a small blue state that taxed the rain (talk about tax and spend), and his hand picked successor lost in a land slide. And Biden's many gaffs made him a joke to many people. This was an election that we must win because of the justices who will be replaced on SCOTUS over the next four years.

Carly Fiorina, in the words of the NY Times, as the sole woman in a 17-candidate (Republican) primary field, is singularly qualified to stand up to Mr. Trump. This is also a year that government experience does not seem to count very much with voters. Good-bye to two of the main assets Hillary had to help her win the race. Then there is the eMail server questions, and how it feeds into the questions about her character ie truthfulness and honesty. Finally, IMO Hillary is just a bad candidate, her personality does not connect with people the way Bill's did. I do not know why the Clinton foundation never changed its name, and why she never cut all ties to it. It has been the root of so many problems this year.

I am afraid, I am very, very afraid.

Unfortunately, I agree with OP and you.

/sarcasm

anything else aside from the Iraq vote, which Biden, and most of the other Democrats voted for?

because you must then hate a lot of current and former Democratic senators and representatives, including the current VP.

This vote was almost a decade and a half ago!!!

And despite it being almost a decade and a half ago we are still dealing with the after effects of that horrific vote.

and the cornerstone of much of "The Bern'ing" support for his candidacy, aside from Clinton-hatred of the fringe

Last edited Wed Aug 12, 2015, 06:43 PM - Edit history (1)

kind of is, especially when most other leading federal Dems who were in either house of Congress also did.

Last edited Thu Aug 13, 2015, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)

It is hardly a thing of the past, and yes Biden is just as bad, which is why no-one is into him. He is polling great even if socialism doesn't . Most voters have no idea what the term means.

Um, the war was based on lies.

for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's, the thousands of dead American troops, the tens of thousands of wounded Americans, the American economy that was destroyed, the Patriot Act and domestic spying that were the result.

Some want to pretend it never happened and elect someone responsible to be our president. That's fringe.

At some point we have to take responsibility for the actions of our representatives. Painting most our congress as war mongers (which may be true) does not excuse the fact that Americans have allowed all this to happen. Choosing a candidate based on one vote. Bad idea.

didn't buy the Bush Bullshit and didn't help the war criminals with their illegal invasion. I support them and choose not to support those that helped the Republicons. My choice of a candidate is not based on a single vote. But if I agreed with Clinton on everything else, that one vote would be enough. How anyone can pretend that it wasn't horrible. The damage done was immeasurable.
And those responsible have never owned up to their foul deed.

thousands of innocent Iraqis. Do those lives matter? Does the fact that Biden also voted to invade lessen her responsibility?

Those that are responsible for the horrible damage of the Iraq war should not get to be president. She helped sell the Bush lies and has yet to apologize for her "mistake". She says it was a mistake. A mistake that killed tens of thousands of innocent children and yet she has not apologized. Why support her when we have people that have integrity?

... who basically had their family fortunes made through deals with Joseph Stalin back in Fred Koch's day?

Joseph Stalin was a 1%er Communist dictator who was looking to kill off democratic socialists in his day like Trotsky, and worked with the Kochs that have always supported the 1%ers themselves as well.

I think learning those facts that the corporate media doesn't want to talk about, a lot of people would prefer someone who wants to reinforce the many socialist elements of our government that have worked for us already and will work for us more in a democratic fashion in the future with someone like Bernie rather than in a way that just supports the 1%ers.

argument to vote for a socialist is to bring up Joseph freeking Stalin, I think you're being delusional.

No, I'm not saying you present this argument to everyone you talk to, or use it necessarily as an open line to justify looking at Bernie Sanders.

But if someone throws back at you "Sanders is a dirty socialist!", as if they are hurling an epithet that he's a "commie", then they are obviously trying to throw that meme to you and whoever is standing next to you, to try to stop the conversation. Those kind of people you need to hurl a strong epithet back in effect to get them to shut up and walk away (since many of those extreme viewpoints are useless trying to argue with for the most part and you just want to shut them down), while you explain to people with articles showing that Americans when polled actually think we're closer to a wealth distribution and want more of a wealth distribution like that of a Northern European Democratic Socialist nation in Sweden, to break down why America really wants more of the socialism it already has to fix the problems it faces now.

But in my book, if the Kochs are going to fund hit teams to go out and yell "SOCIALIST!" at you, I say yell "STALIN MONEY!" right back at them. It has more focused truth than a broad epithet style usage of the term "socialist" hurled at Bernie. Read more here...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/23/948765/-Meet-the-Kochers#

They have a lot more to explain supporting candidates that are funded by the Kochs than Bernie has of being a "socialist".

He's not a Democrat (and I'm fine with him running under the Democratic ticket). According to polls, an atheist has a better chance of getting elected. YOu can scream stalin all day long - 1/2 the country wont even know what you're talking about.

And if these same people that simplistically are lead to hate "socialists" even though half of the things they depend on are socialist institutions in our society (Medicare, social security, our public schools, etc.).

Yes, I know the DINO Third Way elements of the Democratic Party that are losing their power over this party are hating those ties, in their seeking to get more support from corporate backers that want us to throw that away that Americans want, but sooner or later, people are going to realize that DEMOCRATIC socialism and how it was brought in to our party during FDR's era is more what they want than the corrupting influences of 1%ers like the Koch brothers who had a history of getting their empire funded by 1% communist dictator Joseph Stalin, whose money Sanders wouldn't touch.

In short, if the Kochs and their like are going to bring fire to this fight, then you fight fire with fire at times, if the fire is affecting some voters.

screaming about stalin. Like I said, half our population is ignorant of history and will have no idea what you're talking about. For the moment, we're stuck with citizens united. The only thing that will beat the koch's is more money.

If they are so bent out of shape about socialists without knowing what it means, why wouldn't they also be upset about those associated with Stalin? If they aren't, is it more perhaps where they are getting this meme (Rush Limbaugh) than the word itself?

The Kochs have you conditioned to want to spend more money on elections and get more bought politicians for them working in our government. The more educated amongst us are starting to realize that this doesn't work for us, and that we need candidates like Bernie to fight the money, and if enough people speak up all over the place, just like Arabs in dictatorships in their world spoke up on social media there, we'll be able to have an equivalent to an Arab Spring here too.

Haven't you seen the gallup poll that has an atheist winning over a socialist? Americans are stupid when it comes to socialism and if you think you can educate them with all the ads that are going to running comparing us to North Korea, you're simply dreaming. And seriously, the kochs don't have me conditioned to do anything. The REALITY is that citizens united made throwing as much money as you can at an election perfectly legal. The koch boys play that game very well.

P.S. The Arab Spring has turned into a disaster - or haven't you noticed? Not one country that had it is freer than when they started. In some, things have gotten much, much worse so, no fucking thanks.

It's pretty clear in your messages here.

Where were the polls months ago in New Hampshire? Bernie was in the noise level then. He's now LEADING the polls there. Bernie's campaign is GROWING as people learn more about him. The only thing that is growing about Hillary's campaign is her unfavorability rating!

Revolutions take time, and when the population is under a very undemocratic system, it might evolve first in to something that isn't very democratic. But the point is things DID change in many countries there, and many despots were thrown out.

Just like the French Revolution of its day, the oligarchs who met with very untimely ends when the people who got fed up with them had them executed in very extreme ways, and for a while, that country also was beset by very problematic ruling power too after that revolution too.

If we want a decent transition to newer forms of power, now is the time to VOTE it in, rather than wait until many get so fed up with it that extreme forces get involved, and we have a French Revolution situation then.

that kind of idea def needs backup if its gonna go anywhere. And serious backup, not alternet or mondoweiss.

Here's a pretty in-depth history of the Kochs on Daily Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/23/948765/-Meet-the-Kochers#

I'm sure there are many places that doctor it in different directions...

There are images that have been doctored where Fred Koch was photoshopped from on top of a picture of FDR like this one, that I avoid now, as it misrepresents them meeting together in such a way.



But the bottom line is that they did have a business relationship with each other, and as the above article notes, also with Adolf Hitler too. And someone like Bernie Sanders is more aligned with Democratic socialists and not dictators like these, especially not Hitler who was responsible for murdering a lot of his extended Jewish family in WWII.

Booyah!

Enjoy your stay.

and Bill and Hillary, and Barack are Democratic leaders, not Socialist, or "Social-Democratic" leaders. I support them, as I'd imagine you should.

And you can take your party purity and blow it out your o-ring.

Your against mixed ideology marriages , can't sully the word Democrat with Socialist .

... and he far more advocates the policies of rule by the PEOPLE's voting in representatives and initiatives than the Republicans and so many "Democrats" do these days that work more for corporate contributor overlords than they do the people, that the system of democracy demands (which is the foundation of the name of the Democratic Party, and what it was traditionally before, before the DLC cancer funded by the Kochs infected it)

But the "honeymooned in Soviet Russia" talking point is right wing twisting of the facts.

Sanders and his wife left for the Soviet Union the day after their wedding,along with 10 other people, to implement a sister city project. Not exactly a honeymoon.

if you have a reputable debunking, put it here.

Apparntly, Snders himself did call it a homeymoon. Though they were there to implement a sister city program.

I think think his support of the Sandanistas is likely to be more trouble for him though.

and you're displaying certain similarities with right wingers.

"That's not a good link., Show me a real link."

None whatsoever. It would be McGovern levels of lose.

Overwhelming support. And that same big money you cite will do a heck of a job on Hillary or any other Dem candidate. Hillary has a ton of money, but it's chump change compared to what is available to the GOP. She's probably our best bet at this point in the general, but she's not a sure thing . . . especially with the email server brouhaha bubbling up again. Let's hope they only find Chelsea's wedding plans on it.

You guys are going to short circuit soon.

Socialist-misogynist-racist-weak-socialist-mis......there has to be some fractal feature to this pattern.

to the Clintons; Bill won twice (and if you're gonna start trying to diminish that, you're hopeless), Hillary got elected to the Senate twice, Bill left office with 60% approval ratings

As this post exemplifies.

Fortunately for those of us here, our candidate won the general election as well.

Otherwise we'd probably be having a much later caucus here in Iowa this time around, as punishment for screwing things up for the Party.

no comparison. Even Muslims, which Obama was accused of being, are also more electable than socialists.

That's not what folks were saying back then.

should be thinking about this.

Not to mention that constantly telling people why their candidate sucks and O'Malley is vastly better, and demanding to know why people just do not switch to O'Malley Right Now does not seem to be working all that well, so this is the next step. I repeat, I don't think DU is all that logical of a place to try and peel off anyone's supporters. In any great numbers. Maybe best to wait until one of the candidates falls really far behind or something like that. Anyway, new day, let's see what today's meme is. Or just start ignoring it.

As idiotic as it is, the American public has a negative reaction to the word "socialist". If Bernie wins the nomination (a massive "if&quot , then he has an uphill climb getting past that moniker with the general public. It sucks but it's true.

or this party will have learned nothing from Mondale/Dukakis/McGovern. We've spent 24 years to make this brand win again and over any of our dead bodies should it be wasted time by throwing away and election like nominating Sanders!

People are looking for unbought politicians, which is probably one reason why some on the right are looking at Trump. But most of us that are thinking want someone like US that is unbought, and that person in this election is Bernie!

God, I have to educate people on this board, too?

You'd think people here would know the difference between Venezuela and Sweden.

I've been saying that the extraordinary negatives will determine the outcome of the 2016 general election. Neither Hillary nor Jeb are going to transcend their particularly high negatives - in HRC's case, she's had negatives around 50% going back eight years, and among Independent voters her neg/pos are about 60/40. That's a gravely disadvantaged place to start a campaign for President. Bernie isn't permanently scarred personally. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251452687

whose socialist-label IS self-imposed.

in which Bernie gets the nomination. Show me the electoral college outcome.

Gallup didn't just survey right-wingers.

I think a "Socialist" might defeat one off those.

Since we're making such broad meaningless generalizations, might as well cover the full spectrum

He *gasp* honeymooned in the Soviet Union!

The right wingers would be dancing in the streets. They would flood the airways with so much damaging attacks against Bernie there is no way he could defend himself.
The GOP would frame the general election as a choice between "socialism or FREEDOM!!"
Bernie would lose in a epic landslide.

I'm sure they'd LOVE to hear that truth of who funds the candidates they'd vote for...

65% of voters cannot name ONE Supreme Court Justice, and you think an involved story about the nigh century ago dealings of a family of (mostly) GOP donors who are likely even less well known is a crushing refutation of a word with generations of built up visceral negative loading? That's trying to change reptile brain responses with human brain arguments. Utter waste of time. Challenging people who toss about the "S" word to define it then laughing when they get it wrong may make folks feel smug at wine and cheese salons but it does fuck all to change their response and their vote. Like it or not, rationalize it how you will, the S word will be an enormous obstacle for Sanders even in the primary, and will likely kill him in the GE without a media-saturation months long education campaign he'll never be able to afford on $30 donations.

Because then he would be pushed to having the "S" word against him with some part of the electorate.

Oh wait! In those days having the "S" world was a PLUS for many voters. Otherwise, he wouldn't have felt that pressure!

Oh wait, those were different times then, and the "S' word then wasn't as big a deal then as it is now...

Oh wait, THESE times NOW are different times than even an election or two ago, and the "S" word isn't as big as it was then either. And even though Obama got FALSELY labeled as even CLOSE to being socialist, it really didn't affect him did it.

In short, yes there are brainless that every election will not like "socialists" just because of it being an epithet like "feminazi" or something like that that Rush Limbaugh throws out.

Well, heh, now Limbaugh's audience is shrinking. That demographic that is paranoid about socialists is dying out, and being replaced by newer millenial voters that WANT socialism to deal with their college debt and other problems they are dealing with now forced upon them by a society that serves corporate oligarchs that they are being conditioned to hate even more so, and with more reason, than those in the past were conditioned to hate socialists. That's why tons of millenials and other disaffected people are coming out in 10's of thousands to see this socialist.

The more legitimate labeling of him as a DEMOCRATIC socialist like Trotsky was before the likes of Fred Koch pal 1%er Communist dictator Joseph Stalin killed him works FOR him with most demographics, instead of just being a sliver of demographics that is dying out that not many people care about in negative terms any more. Especially those that understood the real socialist/communist dynamics from those days.

The record low favorability ratings of congress is a testament how most Americans are just plain fed up with the way CORPORATE driven government is running today. Socialism is a WELCOME message of change for a lot of them now.

We are facing the same problems in terms of wealth inequality that we had then, which would be a good reason for the populace to reject a corporate system that has failed them now just as it did then. The rest of the world is more inclined to look at DEMOCRATIC socialism. Why are you insisting we are so stupid that we cannot do the same? I would suggest people aren't as stupid as you suggest they are.

Please.

And he got reelected many times by the people of that day that pushed government to pass the 8 year time limit on a presidency. And it probably drove the other side to do the socialist fear mongering that lead to the Joseph McCarthy era to try and keep another FDR from controlling office too.

Really?

slow news day?

and Sanders definitely could be NYC mayor too.

Different ballgame than the country as a whole. And I'm no DiBlasio fan either.

NYC is the city that allowed that racist dipshit Rudy Giuliani to stay in office

De Blasio beat a more funded, well known Christine Quinn in the primaries to become mayor

Bernie's not a regular socialist anyway, he's a democratic socialist.

It also assumes that the candidate is a stereotypical socialist and that the candidate wouldn't be able to redefine the word.

Another thing is that you don't need 50 percent of the American public to win an election, in a presidential election its the individual states that matter. Another thing is that only a fraction of the public votes, so you only need your side to be more enthusiastic to vote (and be able to vote) than the other side to have an edge.

Hmm.... Socialism now is more popular than Bill Clinton was then!

and Perot's effect on the election outcome was a cheap way to save face. Him as a "spoiler who cost Bush" has been debunked.

If Clinton had come out against NAFTA, as Bernie would be now against TPP/TPA, etc. if he were the nominee, he likely would have had a real majority of votes instead of a plurality, and Perot might not have even run. Bernie has that 19% of votes that went to Perot likely going to him that neither Clinton, nor the pro-"free trade" Republicans would get this time around.

Bernie has great traction here because there's a lot of progressives and socalists here. Its one of the few place to be able to freely discuss this stuff.

However, Bernie, who has surged, hasn't come close to catching Hillary. She's not even seriously campaigning right now, and yet she's sucking up giant piles of cash. Hillary also has stunning approval numbers in the African American community. I don't know where she stands with Latinos, but pretend the number is 50%, that's huge. She's very likable with general liberals and women love her because she's not afraid to play the gender card over and over and over and she's very good at it. Hell I, a male, like Hillary for playing the gender card. She's even played it literally, I'm still giggling over that.

Bernie has a mountain to climb, he knows that. He's no dummy.

Also we are so early in the primary process, anything can go. The Democratic car hasn't even filled up yet. When we get to October, its time to pay more attention. Until then, I leave Bernie alone to do his thing. Its fine, I don't mind having him around, his presence alone drags the party to the left, that's a good thing.

Bernie can stay, and we'll see in the fall if he's the nominee or not. Let him be competitive, let Hillary be competitive. We only get stronger when we're competitive.

Remember 2008? Obama was stronger having competed against Hillary. And that was the nastiest I've seen DU ever be. This stuff with Sanders is a walk in the park compared to the PUMAs.

He'd like his soul back.

and they're not socialists nor did they bill themselves as socialists, like The "Bern."

it's a valid concern for an otherwise strong candidate
i still have hope that he can come up with a concise statement that addresses it memorably before the Koch machine starts producing campaign ads, infomercials, and NYT bestsellers highlighting the word in their own "special way".

Americans love labels as a shortcut to avoid thinking.

Oh wait...

Right now, I am worried that having Sanders on the ticked would hurt down ballot races or that socialism would cause negative coat tails. Sanders being on the top of the ticket would set efforts back in Texas just after we won a victory on voter id

Not the corporations banks and billionaires.

Thats what people want somebody honest consistent intelligent and independent. He cant be bought and he thinks for himself.

Yesterday, you were extolling the virtues of Glass-Steagall's demise. Today you are redbaiting a popular Democratic candidate for President. There is a word for that.

And I was not praising the demise of Glass-Steagalls. its demise did NOT cause the crisis. Your smear attacks on me are what Clinton-haters do.

I'm not redbaiting. I didn't call him a communist, which is what redbaiting is. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist. I'm simply pointing out why making such a person the standard bearer is an awful idea.

From your OP -

"A good example of this is about the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which occurred in a veto-proof bill that no President was going to bother to veto and waste political capital on before an election year, especially after one of the most wasteful opposition-executed witch hunts in American history."

Not exactly a stirring defense of Glass-Steagall.

By the way, Glass-Steagall applied to insurance carriers until the partial repeal. Figure out why that matters. It's pretty easy if you try and you might get why Liz Warren is right.

As for Sanders, you made a big deal about his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. Honeymoon. In 1988, when it was about to collapse. During perestroika. That's redbaiting, buddy.

"This guy is an avowed socialist. " He has always claimed to be a democratic socialist, meaning he supports Social Security and Medicare. But conservatives can't tell the difference and just want to lump all into a socialist category then disparage the category.

I understand your frustration. Sen Sanders, no matter what names you call him or how you try to associate him with communists, is bringing out great crowds of the 99% while Clinton is having $2,700 a cup tea with the 1%. I understand the desire to associate oneself with the billionaires. I bet you think that their wealth means they are better people than the 99%. Well sooner or later, your side will fall. Your Oligarchs will fall. The 99% will only take so much.

By the way, which "socialist" issues of Sen Sanders do you disagree? I bet you want to privatize Social Security. That would sure teach the damn socialists.

That you can count on

assuming you know what "absolute value" is. Its the kind of math that if you don't know, you'd believe in the Perot-myth, peddled by Clinton-haters as is the Clinton "scandals."

I understand you're scared that he might not win in a general election. I have some apprehension about that too. But sometimes you have to master your fears and not care so much about what pissant talking heads and Republicans have to say. It doesn't matter what they say, so long as enough people vote for Sanders. Push your fear to the side and help him win. You'll be glad you did.

Sure ruined his chance at the presidency.

he visited as a student. Bernie went there to serenade what was then his new wife. No comparison.

... or Hillary being a Goldwater girl or president of a Republican group when she started college doesn't count either for that reason!

But I'm sure someone will take issue when I as a kid travelled through Yugoslavia when it was under Tito...

So I'm not too worried.

And these gentleman were celebrating how their money was going to be used to control our elections to keep out DEMOCRATIC socialists of our day too!



Yes, the first picture was Fred Koch photoshopped on top of a pic of FDR, but it isn't much different than the photoshop you have here too. And it did depict a REAL relationship between those individuals instead of the false party you are putting up here.

Too many dumb-asses out there among the undecided and apathetic will be swayed by cartoonish crap like this from all corners of the GOP. Especially dumb-asses who might not have bothered to vote.

Unfortunately (and unfairly), the word "socialist" has been so thoroughly peed on and pooped on and slandered and smeared over several generations by now. Look how long it's taking to rehabilitate the word "liberal", which has also been thoroughly trashed, although only in earnest as of the last 30+ years. The terms "socialist' and "socialism" have been veritable dirty words for almost a century by now. And the opposition is very good at pulling on people's fears with all manner of buzz phrases and frank luntz'd focus-tested propagandizing.

Whether anyone here likes it or not, or believes it or not, this IS going to be a factor. Because too many American voters A) don't think and B) scare easily. Fear is a tremendously powerful motivator. And all we Dems need is an opposition party's voters scared into being even MORE fired up to turn out at the polls and get their guy in, instead of ours.

"And I hear the USSR will be open soon, as vacation land for lawyers in love."

(This is a silly criticism.)

But I'm still voting my conscience and voting for Bernie. And telling everyone I know to vote for him, too.

Sanders caucuses as a Democrat. And he's running as a Democrat. So what? People even switch parties in this country, frequently. I don't personally think much of Sanders as a "socialist." So he calls himself that - so what? Was FDR a socialist? LBJ? If you ask some right-wingers, they might say so. If socialist means having a social orientation and caring for people, what will people think? I don't think Sanders is wanting to collective farms lol...

and no modern Dems run as socialists either, or if any do, they're probably extremely limited in number and geographic spread.

Those who have socialism as a sort of bugaboo are likely to vote against Democrats in any case, in my opinion.

I get that plenty of people find voting for a self-described socialist unacceptable. I'll vote for whoever I support - which I do not think is a given for all voters.

no matter what the people here at "Not a DU" think. He has had absolutely no push back from the republican party because they would (and probably are) paying good money to see a Democratic Socialist nominated. There simply isn't enough money in the world to get him elected POTUS let alone win the nomination, and he doesn't have any money anyway.

All the ranting and raving on the internet isn't going to make it happen. Even the pundits have given up trying to gin up the meme of Bernie Sanders as a dark horse threat to Hillary Clinton. Now they are desperately hoping anyone will jump in the race to generate some news about competition Democratic primary.