difference in he 2016 election.

My chance to vote is strictly worth something in the primaries, and I will vote for Bernie or no one.

I will vote for all Democrats on my ballot except Hillary. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Hillary.

I worked to get Bill Clinton, Kerry, Obama and other Democrats elected. I worked really hard, and they have not stood up for Democratic values. I'm tired of voting for people who call themselves Democrats but can't be bothered to stand up for working people when it counts.

Our financial sector is way off course.

Our trade agreements have resulted in the outsourcing and exportation of good jobs for working people. The small amount of compensation awarded to our dispossessed workers has resulted in what was a nation of prosperous farmers and workers becoming a nation of impoverished debtors.

Enough is enough.

The Democratic Party needs to stand up for working people.

had its share of republican governors. The assumption by some that a republican cannot win California is a lack of understanding regarding the independent nature that California actually is.

Proposition 8 and Proposition 187 are just two examples where the so-called conventional wisdom did not hold.

There was an effort to divide the state into 6 parts for electoral purposes, luckily it didn't get enough signatures to qualify, and there have also been efforts to have states like California divide the electoral votes proportionally between the candidates, instead of winner take all.

As for those that believe their vote is only worth something in the primaries, that speaks volumes.


Those assumptions, along with the view that California always goes for Democrats are how California ended up with Schwarzenegger, Wilson, Deukmejian, Reagan, Knight, Warren, Merriam, Rolph, Young, Richardson, Stephens, etc.

For 2016, the states that will probably be competitive will be the following:

NV - 6
CO - 9
IA - 6
WI - 10
OH - 18
PA - 20
VA - 13
NC- 15
FL - 29
NH - 4

That is 130 votes up for grabs.

damage he did to our state, I don't think any more Republicans will be elected in a long time.

Also, the number of immigrants in our state is very large. If we get them registered and out to vote, there is no way a Republican will take the presidential race. The Republicans are bigoted and anti-immigrant. That will not sell in California. We are a state of immigrants -- and don't forget that lots of immigrants are white, but just as unlikely to vote for Republican bigots as non-white immigrants.

I have no fear that California will vote Republican in 2015. Ohio and Florida are big question marks. But not California.

People here are pretty happy with Jerry Brown and the Democrats.

Jerry Brown saved our state from bankruptcy. That's quite an achievement.

If that were the case, Ronald Reagan would never have been elected Governor.

There is nothing about living in CA that means you don't have to worry about the state going to the Rethugs in 2016.

I suspect, that is the "my vote doesn't matter because ... " narrative is that of those that are trying to justify making what they know to be a bad/unlikely to be successful candidate choice.

It served a purpose when we were a small nation and transportation and communication between states and the capitol were slow. But now, we do not need the electoral college. We need one person, one vote with no vote counting more than another in our national elections.

It is preposterous that Californians' votes matter so little while the Wyoming citizens' votes count so much. It's wrong.

we must work with the system we have; rather than, wish for the system that we wish we had.

I am voting for Bernie and that is that.
I voted for every Democrat over and over. Every time I told myself that this time it wold be different, that this guy would really do or at least stand for what he claimed he stood for in the election. I have been disappointed too often.

I will not vote for Hillary. I will only vote for Democrat that I trust and who are genuinely working toward change.

I am 72 and I don't have time to waste on people who downright lie and take money from the very rich. I cannot support a candidate who promotes H1-B visas rather than real immigration reform. Every person who comes to this country to work should have an equal opportunity for dignity, wages, a union membership when appropriate and, with the exception of tourists and students, an opportunity for citizenship.

We are all equal. It's not we are all equal except people on H1-B visas.

I could go down a very long list of issues on which Hillary's stances are just too conservative for me. TPP is one. She has praised it for years. She criticizes the labor standards in the TPP, but in fact, the entire deal is rotten. We should not join that trade group, and we should renegotiate the agreements we have so that they conform to our Constitution, not so that our laws and Constitution have to conform to he agreements.

Hillary will not put into practice the policies that are absolutely essential for me. I will not vote for her.

And then there is the dirty business of her Iraq War. She met with Code Pink. She heard the arguments against voting for it. But she voted for it anyway out of political expediency. She did not have the courage to stand up for what was right.

We need a president with real courage. That is Bernie. Not Hilary.

Feel the Bern!

I did the same for so called Democrats and now see the fans of Hillary challenge the only candidate that truly and honestly supports democracy as other than a real democrat. I am a proud progressive and will work very hard for Bernie everyday. If he loses, I will keep working for his ideals because they are American democracy as it was meant to be with rule by and for the people not by billionaires. Bernie's ideals cannot be stopped, even if he were to lose in the primaries, we are joined in this battle for the control of our own country and we are united in a just cause. The people have awaken and action is on the way. Go Bernie!!!

Could you try to convince me you are sincere, and this not just a primary ploy to support that "Someone Else" or "Anyone But"?

And it's also not at all obvious that you're trolling for a TOS ban.

I just don't get Hillary Hate to the point a fascist conservative rightwing psycho nut is preferable.

I just don't get it.

Clinton can not win my state. As a result, my state's electors will be voting for a rightwing psycho nut no matter how I vote.

I hate electoral votes and the so-called two party system. Both are incredibly anti-democratic.


Biggest, most arrogant mistakes the Framers made were racism, sexism, classism, and making the Constitution so danged difficult to amend. If it hadn't been for the last one, we could have gotten rid of the first three types of Constitutional provisions much sooner.

I want real change this time, change in the leadership of our Democratic Party and change in our platform.

I want a real big D Democrat who is also a real small d democrat. And that is Bernie, Not Hillary.

But I have about a dozen or so reasons not to vote for Hillary on top of that.

On the other hand, our local Democratic leaders are great.

Alex Padilla, our California secretary of state, is a man to watch. He is an innovator with lots of great energy. I really like him and a number of our other California Democrats.

Our attorney general, Kamala Harris is another great Democrat who should be watched and voted for. Then there is my Congressman, Xavier Becerra, the best of the best. I would never fail to vote for him.

So it's just Hillary who is too conservative for me.

take a big dump on LGBT working people with Prop 8? Part of it was a smug certainty that it would never pass in CA, this certainty was held by city people who never, ever go to the bulk of their own State.

CA is my home State, it was part of the Republican's Red Wall and voted GOP for President 1968-1988, electing Republican Governors of the worst sort (Pete Wilson) all through history.

And of course any State the pulled the Prop 8 bullshit, an attack on their very own neighbor's civil rights, has no room at all for claiming that their inaction and apathy is a 'safe' behavior.

I can't vote for Hillary. If she is the nominee, I hope she wins but I can't vote for her. Luckily, the DEM nominee will win my state, so it's a win-win.

Look around, check where you are.

And actually gerrymanders a bit in our favor. The GOP knows this so they are trying to split votes per % won.

Also, the next President will appoint at least 2 new Supreme Court justices.

I really really do not think she would.

candidates would appoint justices who were more conservative than Hillary would?

Who doesn't know by now that the entire GOP lineup falls somewhere in the strong-right to extreme-right spectrum, with strong strains of authoritarianism, nationalism, ethnocentrism, theocracy, and fascism?

like TPP either. So all bets are off when it comes to politicians who put money before people. Who knows?

A Republican won't appoint anybody good, that's for sure.

appointing conservative judges? I guess she's not interested in a second term.

with her stances on war, the TPP, cluster bombs, and fracking. To name a few things. So, why would I think that Ms. "lesser evil" would really care?

For example

And more women, too. Sotomayor and Kagan have been fine justices, and I think the next president, if a Democrat would nominate more like them. Clinton knows law as does Sanders, and I seriously doubt there is much difference bewteen them in the type of person they would nominate to the Court. After Scalia, Roberts and Alito, we KNOW what kind of person a Republican would nominate. Ponder that.

a President Cruz/Trump/Carson/Bush/Christie/Rubio ...?

Seriously?

Shock (not). Thanks for injecting a little bit of sanity.

That is what we should do, according to many here.

Right?

The coach of a winning team does not gather the players around and say, "If you players don't get excited, the other team is going to win."

The coach of a winning team fires up the players by showing leadership, enthusiasm, support for the members of the team, and a passion for the game.

Bernie Sanders does these things, but Hillary does not.

But then to call the players stupid, because no one feels like playing when a lousy leader tries to muscle her way into the coaching position with corporate money, is misdirected at best.

HRC is the weakest choice moving into the GE. Bernie is the strongest and he energizes the team.

I know it, you know it, she knows it.

She knows it, and she doesn't care. Your cry for party unity only highlights the fact that, for Hillary Rodham Clinton, sacrificing the future of Democratic Party ideals is okay as long as she has her chance in the general election.

You're right, though. Too much is at stake, and Hillary needs to go away so that we have a chance to save this mess.

and so would have you, if Keyboarding were a competitive sport with coaches.

you's see who the Republicans fear and it ain't Bernie.

I don't want an (R) President either, but I don't want 2020 to be a disaster even more. We need a popular President running for reelection in 2020, not a neoliberal who has a record of getting things wrong the first time around and taking years before switching positions to where more competent people were to begin with.

We can't have a repeat of 2010 in 2020. We need the base our energized enough to help us take back some state governments and deal with the gerrymandering problem that we have had since 2010. If it is their base that is energized we will be screwed.


Yes, 2016 is important and bad things will happen if an (R) wins. 2020 is even more important and even more bad things will happen if an (R) wins then.


Think me an idiot if you want, I honestly don't care. I am not energized about Hillary Clinton and will never be energized about her. I will turn out and vote for every (D) I can (as always) and my vote will count just as much if I am doing it under duress or with joy. Unfortunately, many will not turn out for someone they feel is the slightly lesser of two evils and I can't blame them for it.

Maybe some of us should try to lose the tunnel vision and focus on more than just 2016. Given the demographic shifts in progress, 2020 could be a huge year for us. If it is a disaster then it could be two more decades before we have any shot at redrawing the districts in a fair way (since 2030 will be an off year election). At my age, I could easily be dead by then. I really don't want to live the rest of my life with the (R)s controlling the House just because we chose a terrible nominee in 2016.

BERNIE 2016!

I'd prefer some fresh, cool water.

If a shape-shifting, war-mongering, bad decision-making, lead from behind, weather vane of a politician is your idea of a viable choice, by all means support her. I choose to support someone who's demonstrated time and again that he's a principled man of good judgment who's values are similar to my own. Just know that supporting the Third Way makes you complicit in what they are doing.

i.e., "If you don't support Bernie, you MUST BE a supporter of HRC."

I do not support HRC ... I have said, time and again, Martin O'Malley will get my primary vote, should I get that opportunity ... AND the Democratic nominee will get my G/E vote, regardless of whom that might be ... including HRC.

But you seem to be unable to understand, "vote for Bernie because 'frog' scenario", falls apart, as soon as the Democratic nominee is determined.

HRC. Supporting him therefore represents no real threat to the Clinton/Third Way cabal. Furthermore, confirming your willingness to support a Third-Way candidate before the actual primaries have even started completely undermines any power you may have to change the party in a positive way. Support who you will, I will do the same, but I will not sit in the pot until the water boils.

has to be a tiny percentage, right?

It's not a minority. The majority are quite disgusted at "politics as usual". Clinton is "politics as usual".

Shouting "Republicans are worse!!!" will not suddenly make her not part of the status quo that has driven the majority into not voting at all.

Maybe people will FINALLY start fighting back when we're dunked in the boiling water, rather than being boiled slowly a degree at a time.

Whether you're boiled fast or slow, you're still boiled. The only way out is to finally realize the danger and fight to get out of the boiling pot.

4-8 more years of Corporate Control and we're truly screwed. We need to take a stand NOW.

They can all go to hell while your pot boils now?

At what point does the "lesser of two evils" become "a part of the problem"? Not sure exactly but IMO we are at least on the threshold.

those that it is applied to, generally, do not like it; but, it is empirically effective, none-the-less.

Interesting that the latest in nearly all animal training is Positive Reinforcement and it seems to works much better.


Negative reinforcement only works until the people rebel... and they will!

in societal conformity/norming.

I will grant that negative reinforcement, alone, is effective for everyone; but, for the vast majority, it is.

after prison.

Oh wait, we don't, and many do.

We corporal punishment is but one form of negative reinforcement and far fewer criminal re-offend after prison than do.

In every field, negative reinforcement is being abandoned as being a poor cousin to positive reinforcement in terms of creating positive change.

Leave the negativity where it belongs - in the Republican party of fearmongers, warmongers, authoritarians, and sadists.

I got that knowledge from actually working at a Community Re-entry program back in the mid-'90s.

But that said, Re-arrested does not mean re-incarcerated AND there are a number of flaws in your interpretation of the raw data, as cited from a report, that you clearly haven't read (but, I have).

I'll leave it to you to figure out how raw data leads to inaccurate interpretations.

Further, you DO realize that a significant amount of the research contributed to/published by the NIJ, is done BY "HRC's prison-for-profit friends", right?

And I do realize those kind of stats favor incarceration. It is my belief that for-profit prisons are lunacy of the highest order, and I know that HRC has taken a lot of donations from those who run that atrocity of a business. Yet another reason to support Sanders or O'Malley. If the DNC thinks we'll vote for whomever they choose, and we confirm it for them, we will get whomever they choose. This is unacceptable to me, and I would never confirm their cynical calculations, regardless of whom I choose to vote for in the GE.

If you want my vote, give me a candidate worth voting for, don't just dust off the old 'they suck worse' flag.

Hell, many of the things on that list are being done with Democrats in the White House too.

fuck voting for the lesser of 2 evils, I'm done with that. Besides, if the current perceived front runner gets the nomination, why bother? She will not win and if she did, would that really be a win? I don't trust her on any of the issues you have listed. She is right of center and having her on ballot will ensure that the republicans keep the house and senate.

On Wed Nov 11, 2015, 09:48 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

If I don't support the canadate I won't vote for the candiadte
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=793994

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Blatant TOS violation.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Nov 11, 2015, 09:54 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with some of the sentiments expressed, but it's a TOS violation. It's also quite nasty, but I wouldn't hide it for that reason.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is the primary. People say things that may or may not change. I hesitate to ban people or silence them for speaking about our candidates and how they honestly feel about them and WHY. LOTS of people may feel this way but would vote for her and many might say this but will vote for her. Can we wait until after the primary to start culling the thinking herd here please?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster is just expressing year after year after decade of frustration over corporations choosing our candidates that really work for them and not us. The poster is just saying the time is now for progressives to fight with all we have against corporate rule.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: General election season has not started. We have barely begun the primary season. Alerter may be stalking.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: BS alert.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot reply to automated messages

And plan on voting for the candidate who has the best understanding of what problems we face, and how we should approach solutions.

In my opinion, a Sanders ticket is our best bet. He understands what's wrong (so does O'Malley), but also get it that a list of policy papers isn't enough, no matter how good those papers are. The thing that will best help this country is to generate enthusiasm and kick the youth vote into overdrive. The millennials are the most progressive generation in our history, and turning them out is critical for moving this ship so far to the left that it would take Republicans multiple generations, and a dynamic shift in demographics, to overcome.

Yeah, I've read plenty of opinion pieces on both sides, and honestly, I think either HRC or BS would likely win against any Republican next November (the electoral map really favors Dems there), but I think BS has the edge, and has the potential for bigger coattails. But yes, in November, I will vote for the Dem candidate, whoever it is.

Which has me thinking it can only be President Sanders or President Cruz or Rubio. I don't think Carson, Trump or Bush have any chance of getting the nomination.

- deporting millions of immigrants

Clinton has already supported this stance so she is no different than your feared Republican.

- ending Obamacare

Good for some, not good for others. We won't have proper medical care until it is universal health care. Period.

- reversing gay marriage
- ending abortion

SCOTUS decisions are done. This won't occur no matter who occupies the White House.

- shutting down Planned Parenthood

Did not happen with GOP run House & Senate with no need of an Obama veto.

- increasing access to guns

Ridiculous fear. The way things have been with regards to guns and gun control have not changed hardly at all for the last 30 years under both GOP and Dem WH control. Status quo will continue whoever wins.

- keeping minimum wage below the cost of living

Clinton already supports this, so no different than a Republican.

- ignoring global warming

What concrete & meaningful steps has the Obama Administration taken in the last eight years to address this? Nothing really, so status quo if we have Clinton or the GOP.

- blurring the separation of church and state

This has been going on in American culture now since the mid 1970's. One of Clinton's objection to gay marriage was about the Bible, God, and religion. Marriage is between a man and a woman. No difference again between her or them.

- cutting Social Security
- cutting Food Stamps
- cutting Medicaid

No COLA, no increase in FS, and changes to medicare/medicaid all happened with neoliberal Obama. No difference if neoliberal Clinton or GOP in WH.

- provoking war with Iran

Hell, Clinton will join the chicken hawks for the neocon war in Iran.

- cutting taxes for the wealthy

You mean like Obama extending the Bush tax cuts? Yeah, no neoliberal or GOP President is going to raise taxes on the wealthy and will both find ways to cut them. History demonstrates that sad fact.

- further reversing voting rights

Was started under Dem WH control, will continue on the state level regardless of which party is there.

- giving police new powers

Neoliberals Bill Clinton and Obama have both militarized and expanded police powers. This will not change under Hillary Clinton or the GOP.

- increasing the role of big brother

You do realize that Clinton voted for all Patriot Acts, thinks Snowden is a traitor, and loves the TPP, right? This will continue under her or the GOP.

- ending net neutrality

Yup, this will also continue under her or the GOP.

- raising the cost of student loans

Will happen under both. Clinton has no plans to defy the banks and do anything about the student loan bubble. Period. Status quo here.

- promoting Islamophobia

Clinton as SOS did much to increase Islamophobia given her policies on Iran, Iraq, & Libya/Syria. This will still be there whether it is Clinton or the GOP

- ending birthright citizenship

OK, that is one that I don't see Clinton doing.

- intensifying the war on drugs

Hell, the Clinton admin with 1st lady Hillary support ramped up the war on drugs. She is still beholden to private prison corps and still wants to keep marijuana as a class 2 drug which is not going to change a damned thing. Status quo once more no matter who wins.

- blocking equal pay for women

Clinton might fight for this IF and only if it doesn't piss off the corporate powers that be. Marriage equality is one thing, equal pay may be another.

- ostracizing transgendered people

Given her past stances and 'evolution' I am not 100% trusting that she will fight hard for LGBT continued civil rights but I will give her the benefit of the doubt on this one.

- giving politicians, not scientists, the power to set health and environmental standards

OK, another one for Clinton

- cutting Wall Street regulation

Done under her husband, against reinstatement of Glass/Stegall, and in the pocket of big banks? Yeah, don't make me laugh. Both she and GOP will do this given first chance.

- and increasing defense spending that is now 2x what Russia and China spend combined

Already done under Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and will be under Clinton. She is a worse hawk and neocon than all but Bush II. Again no difference whether she or the GOP.

So out of 27 possible listed concerns, only 2 can we realistically say that Clinton will for sure be different than a Republican and 2 tentatively. So 4 out of 27 is the shitty continuation of the fucking establishment status quo.

You want something different? Then it is Sanders. He doesn't win the primary? Well, truly not much difference given your list of concerns here.

Reality is brat sometimes!

One will actually make it worse.

Yay team Clinton!

Shame on you.

a bad bear!

I just can't seem to help myself.

You rebutted this OP masterfully.

better and, frankly, I'm just tired of explaining this shit. If those who prefer Clinton can't see that the status quo will largely continue with her as president, I don't know what else to do.

My other worry is that her nomination will galvanize every bagger of every stripe to come out to vote against her, and it won't matter what nincompoop is the Republican nominee. If she wins the nomination, I see the Republican winning the general.

We keep being told that there is no difference between Clinton and Sanders and a huge difference between Clinton and the GOP.

That is just not true.

I agree that I do not see her winning the GE if she wins the primary.

- No, Clinton does not support deporting millions of immigrants.
- Okay, Obamacare is not single payer, but for more people than not it's a step in the right direction (supported by Bernie Sanders)
- Planned Parenthood will lose federal funding with a Republican president.
- You trust the Supreme Court not to reverse decisions, especially if they get another right winger on the court? Are you aware of the recent activist Supreme Court rulings on abortion and Hobby Lobby? But, it's amazing that your hatred of Hillary is so great that you apparently trust Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas. That's fucked up.
- The Republicans have fought to end net neutrality tooth and nail; the Democrats have been pretty good on this issue.
- Bill Clinton and Obama both cut defense spending, so quit making shit up.
- As far as your other points, on every one Hillary is better than any of the Republicans.
- Lastly, I think too many Bernie supporters come from a place of privilege (white, middle class). If you're gay (like I am), a person of color, a woman, a Muslim, etc. the last thing you want is a coalition that tries to appease the Tea Party. If Hillary gets elected, the liberals can be the equivalent of the Tea Party to keep her in the progressive column.

As far as Bernie goes, he's from Vermont, a great liberal state. He never had to build coalitions like the Clinton's have had to do. He's certainly to the left of Hillary, but Hillary's record is in part based on political realities that Bernie never had to face.

If Bernie doesn't win the nomination, any Democrat (even Jim Webb) is better than any Republican. Even Bernie has said that Hillary is better than any of the Republicans.

and out of touch with reality.

Yes, Clinton supported deporting the children from South America. Do your research.

No Obamacare is NOT a step towards anything. It is an insurance mandate that has a few good things that have helped some and plenty of bad shit that has hurt others.

You speak as if you are certain PP would lose funding. It has not under Bush, nor under GOP controlled congresses, nor under the current one. So given the past history, I am confident in saying it will not even if Clinton loses the GE for Democrats.

Major precedent setting cases like Roe v. Wade are rarely if ever overturned. I am far more concerned with other things that that red herring of fear.

I do not hate Clinton. I do not personally know the woman. I dislike her behaviors. I despise her political positions. But this bullshit meme that someone who opposes neoliberalism neocons like Clinton somehow has hatred for her is childish.

Clinton and Obama did not cut funding enough. Perhaps you are a kid and don't remember the 'glorious' 1990's. I do. Military actions were abundant as they are now under President Drone Killer. No President since Reagan has cut the military enough or stopped senseless war mongering in the middle east in particular to actually do a damn thing for the rest of us back home. Cut 1/3 of that bloated MIC budget and social programs would soar in funding.

You say she is better but do not actually disprove my reasoned responses.

Oh, look, another fucking meme Yes, the only people that could possibly support Sanders are volvo driving, latte sipping, white folks with privilege.

I am a bi-racial man, a veteran, on medicaid to supplement my VA benefits because of severe chronic health problems. My partner is bi-sexual and she & I struggle month to month to make ends meet right now.

So now that you have trotted out the I am a Sanders supporter but, threw in the Sanders supporters are 'privileged & white', and the classic, Sanders has never had to build a coalition (look at his VA bill which Brookings Institute uses as a case study of coalition building!), we are done.

I am sick to death of this meme bullshit being spread on DU.

Clinton at her worst said that all of those children who can be safely reunited with their parents should be sent back.

I work with people who get insurance. Obamacare, for all its flaws, has helped a lot of working poor people get reasonable insurance. While some employers provide lousy insurance, there are a lot of employers who provide good insurance with low or no deductibles and reasonable copays. For the most part, Obamacare is better than no Obamacare.

I don't trust the Republicans as much as you do when it comes to Planned Parenthood and the Supreme Court.

No, Obama and Clinton did not cut military spending enough, but they did cut it. When you have Blue Dog Democrats, it creates obstacles. Further, liberalism has historically been involved in wanting to address genocide and abuses, so this change to a more libertarian point of view is more complex than give peace a chance. If a liberal president wanted to address the genocide that ISIS is engaged in, I'd probably not be opposed.

The only fundraisers and events I've been to have been for Sanders. I see who is supporting him. He is not connecting with a lot of minority groups. That's an unfortunate fact. Why Hillary is, I'm not sure, but the reality is that among gays and people of color she is quite popular. Perhaps because she's been beaten up for so many years by the Republicans. Sanders has never come under the kinds of attacks that minorities and women come under. In fact, one of the reasons I support Sanders over Hillary is that I think a lot of independents are too sexist to support a woman -- in liberal MA, we never had a woman in a top political position until Elizabeth Warren, so that tells me that Hillary will face more challenges than people realize if she gets the nomination.

I didn't say Sanders never had to build a coalition. I said he never had to build coalitions like the Clintons have had to. He has not faced the kinds of challenges that Obama and Clinton have (with powerful conservative blocks in their own party), so he's been able to be more committed to his ideology. I also said that he is to the left of Hillary. That's the main reason I'm supporting him. I'd love him to win the nomination, but so far there is not much evidence that he will be able to do that.

Clinton at her worst said that all of those children who can be safely reunited with their parents should be sent back.

I work with people who get insurance. Obamacare, for all its flaws, has helped a lot of working poor people get reasonable insurance. While some employers provide lousy insurance, there are a lot of employers who provide good insurance with low or no deductibles and reasonable copays. For the most part, Obamacare is better than no Obamacare.

I don't trust the Republicans as much as you do when it comes to Planned Parenthood and the Supreme Court.

No, Obama and Clinton did not cut military spending enough, but they did cut it. When you have Blue Dog Democrats, it creates obstacles. Further, liberalism has historically been involved in wanting to address genocide and abuses, so this change to a more libertarian point of view is more complex than give peace a chance. If a liberal president wanted to address the genocide that ISIS is engaged in, I'd probably not be opposed. Any Democrat who becomes president is in a position to do more for veterans simply because on that particular issue Republicans are more likely to tow the line. Obama has done some good things for vets, but the real problem in my opinion remains those who were physically or mentally injured, where we are not doing enough (and not only for vets).

The only fundraisers and events I've been to have been for Sanders. I see who is supporting him. He is not connecting with a lot of minority groups. That's an unfortunate fact. Why Hillary is, I'm not sure, but the reality is that among gays and people of color she is quite popular. Perhaps because she's been beaten up for so many years by the Republicans. Sanders has never come under the kinds of attacks that minorities and women come under. In fact, one of the reasons I support Sanders over Hillary is that I think a lot of independents are too sexist to support a woman -- in liberal MA, we never had a woman in a top political position until Elizabeth Warren, so that tells me that Hillary will face more challenges than people realize if she gets the nomination.

I didn't say Sanders never had to build a coalition. I said he never had to build coalitions like the Clintons have had to. He has not faced the kinds of challenges that Obama and Clinton have (with powerful conservative blocks in their own party), so he's been able to be more committed to his ideology. I also said that he is to the left of Hillary. That's the main reason I'm supporting him. I'd love him to win the nomination, but so far there is not much evidence that he will be able to do that.

Clinton called for deportation.

http://www.spanishjournal.com/2015/09/hillary-clinton-defends-call-to-deport-child-migrants/

It is a mixed bag that as I said in the beginning has helped some and harmed others. I will not agree ever that it is better than no Obamacare given my own experiences and those I treat.

It is not about trust. It is about legalities, history, and precedent. Most of the time I don't trust but a few politicians, no matter what letter is after their name.

I am a vet. I counsel vets through the VA. I have seen combat. I simply can not white wash the middle eastern conflicts that we have been engaged in for most of my life. We fucking created ISIS with our 'liberation of Iraq'. No more 'saving' other countries thank you very much.

Then you are not in the 'right' circles. My community of supporters here are other bi-racials, mixed racials, AA's, and hispanics. They are young and older. They are straight, gay, transgender, and everything in between.

I don't want Sanders to build coalitions like the Clintons have. Their triangulation in the 1990's led to many of the problem we face now. He coalition building with GW Bush helped push the Iraq War.

He can and likely will win if we can fight the memes, the propaganda, and open our eyes to the real anger and hurt that the majority of Americans are really experiencing.

Her calling for deporting kids was about discouraging parents in Central America from sending kids to the US unattended. That obviously is a dangerous journey. At the worst, her call is reasonable. It's hardly her being Donald Trump.

Well, I'm a therapist who has worked in both community mental health (including with some vets) and private practice. Vets seem to be reasonably covered either way, the very poor are reasonably covered through Medicaid, but the problem was for the working poor and many of the middle class. I've seen various situations: Some middle class people who previously had good insurance are opting for the cheaper high deductible insurances offered by their employers (and they negotiate with me for a sliding scale rate), and some people who never had insurance are being given good plans. I really haven't seen anyone lose on Obamacare, except perhaps when they decide they opts have more money in their pocket by taking a high deductible insurance option offered by their employer.

The Democrats and liberal Democrats have a history of fighting for human rights, while the Republicans have traditionally been more isolationist. One of Jimmy Carters few great accomplishments was making human rights part of American policy. I'd be all for taking on ISIS if I thought it would do any good, but the reality is that western intervention has generally installed reactionary leaders and created even more reactionary insurgents. I think at this point, we should basically do what Obama is doing -- allow those nations the right to self-determination, provide humanitarian aid, and provide some military support for those whose situations we jeopardized because of our past policy. We can't completely walk away from the messes we created without leaving the people who trusted us as sitting ducks.

And, yes, Sanders would be a better president than Hillary. Absolutely. Bill Clinton was an effective manager, but he was not a great leader. He worked the system and tended towards Democratic ideals, but was always willing to compromise in the face of political and public pressure. Sanders would not be like that. At the same time, he'd have to contend with the realities of power in DC.

I would also add that most of America is not experiencing anger and hurt. They are home watching tv, smoking a blunt, hanging out with friends, going to work. Sure, they want things to be better, but for most people life is okay. The only movements that I think is genuine is BLM and to a lesser extent the high manipulated Tea Party. The rest are more based on belief systems than personal experience. (There's nothing wrong with that, but I think it explains the lack of motivation.) Bernie has given Democratic socialism new life in the US; if he wins the nomination it would be amazing, but just as important is how does he sustain what he started?

for a few points.

I have seen both clients, friends, and students deal with problems with Obamacare from MD's leaving practices to excessively higher deductibles than what was previously paid. If it was only a stop gap on the way to single payer/universal so be it, but it is not.

Jimmy Carter fought for human rights through charity and diplomacy. Since Reagan, these 'fights' for human rights are cover stories for military expansion, non-sanctioned & unconstitutional assassinations, and wars on terror that have literally zero to do with human rights. Yes, we created the messes. No, they did not trust us to fix it. In fact, they want us gone. And anyone who has seen time in the Middle East knows this intimately. The GOP used to be isolationists but today both parties are gungho for the MIC. This will not ever end with a neoliberal in office especially one like Clinton who is also a damned neocon.

I definitely disagree with your last paragraph. Perhaps you are fortunate and/or privileged, but I know many who are angry and hurting. They are struggling for work and money. They are struggling to get proper medical care. Examples abound for me from my mother who desperately needs hearing aids, but her medicare nor her supplemental insurance will pay for it. She can not afford $5000.00 out of pocket. One close friend in Tucson lost his job in May. He is now on the verge of being homeless with his wife and three kids. He literally pushing 50 could not get a job digging ditches. Another friend lost his job as it was outsourced to India (yes, he works in IT). For more than a year, he has looked. He is also pushing 50 and he got turned down yesterday for a job transporting urine samples for a local lab company. Why? He is over qualified. It doesn't matter that he is on the verge of bankruptcy and eviction. Yes, this is anecdotal. And I see such stories everywhere.

Sanders would not be garnering the support he is if this was not true.

I don't see it. The right wingers have loved to hate on her since the early 90s. Also, I think there is a huge contingent who want a white man back in office, & yes many of them in our own party. Add the fact that the left is lukewarm about her, I wonder why so many have such confidence that she will win? I think democratic leadership is taking a big gamble that HRC is invincible.

..when you hear that line, you KNOW they are just plain not honest.

It's as fucking lazy and unconvincing as the dishonest talking points.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

"Ending birthright citizenship:--ain't gonna happen. It's in the Constitution and the Constitution ain't getting amended any time soon.

"Raising the cost of student loans"-- Remind me how raising the cost of student loans is impossible with Democrats in the White House? Especially with Republicans in control of both Houses, thanks to massive election losses by the allegedly "electable" Democrats.

"Cutting Wall Street regulation" -- Seriously? Are you effing kidding me? Whose White House lobbied hard for repeal of Glass Steagall and passage of the Commodities Futures Financial Services Act?

And so on.

You want me to be more enthusiastic? Insist that our party do a much better job for the 99% than it's been doing since Al From/Clintonites got a stranglehold on it.

I feel your pain!

will/won't support in the GE. It is obvious that folks are attempting to bait DUers in order to alert on them. Support the candidate of your choice, but don't make a statement that may get you alerted on.

Seeing as how I've never voted for a Republican, I can't really say how energized I am about not voting for a Republican again.

Is the DNC happy now? Of course not lol. Oh well, their problem.

A vote for what I want, never against what I don't want. In the general I will be more strategic. This is the time for idealism. Now.