Trash.

Presidential ambitions.

Her advisors believe they don't need the Left.

The Third Way is advising her to attack Bernie using the 'you don't really WANT tax increases for the middle class do you?' meme.

Some pretty influential people on here have been hitting that one pretty hard.

Guess I really don't want to see that because it won't be good for us.

Bernie would bring our country to a new fair democratic level, but Hillary represents me better than any Republican. Of course she is my choice if Bernie does not win.

People have to decide for themselves what they can live with. If Bernie endorses her, that's his choice. I would not agree, but not my call.

Which means you'll give material support to Trump, or Cruz, or whoever the GOP nominees is. Nice. Very logical.

Maybe they just like what the Green Party stands for.

which is what we are cursed with, any vote NOT for the Dem = vote for the GOPer because those are the only two realistic options, whatever we may think of them.

I have heard your rationale so many times before: in 1968, in 1972, in 1980, in 1984, in 1988, and again in 2000. When will we ever learn?

'we are cursed with' we will continue to be cursed with a two-party system. Time to break the curse. I learned all I need to know when I watched jamie Dimon whipping votes on the Senate floor at the behest of Obama for the omnibus bill.

If they really didn't like the outcome then they would change the menu. We have to do it for them.

This would bring about landslide victories for the remaining political party. Only then can a new political party or parties emerge.

Do you really want the surviving political party to be the republicans? If that happens you could very well end up with a republican party and the teabaggers. Not only would they possibly control the political landscape for years to come but the legislation they would enact, would be devastating to this nation and the world.

As it stands, the best chances of any political party imploding would be the republicans unless people are so stubborn that they think only of their desires and not the good of the whole.

Voting for a non-competitive candidate or write in makes it more possible for the republican party to not only survive but to thrive.

But that is entirely on you, you have to make that choice.

I don't think they care. If the Democratic party wants to survive, they need to change. I'm not voting for more of the same.

Even though your candidate has acknowledged that the only way to get elected is participate in the two party system.

But if the two party system rejects your candidate, you won't vote for that party, thereby making it more possible for the other party to excel.

when Bernie announced his run in April I went down and re registered as a Dem so I can caucus for him. That's where I am. I always found rewarding my children and grandchildrens bad behavior never worked well, that crosses over to everything in life. I have said all I need to say on this subject so please have a nice day.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of "material support".

George W. Bush, is that you?

You forget that their ' play my way or I'll take my marbles and go home' strategy is their only leverage at this point.

but most Bernie supporters would not feel that they have to march in step, so would still make up their own minds.

best about him? If he backs off of that in this instance, doesn't that make him just like the others?

or no. Should he lose, it will be a loss to the entire world, but his supporters will not change their minds on him for one decision whether they agree with it or not.

It's candidates that are going to be a disaster for the world. Many of us will die with more of the same. If things don't change, people will die. People are no longer making it out here. Hillary will cause lots more of the same. The same just won't do anymore. So yeah, we are a bit passionate about what is most likely our last hope.

It's clearly very black and white when it comes to her. You are very passionate and feel strongly that she would be a disaster for he country and voting for her is a horrible thing to do. So, how can you defend Bernie Sanders endorsing her? If it's black and white for everyone else, why is he given a pass?

It's a gnat's ass on the rim of the Grand Canyon and not worth talking about let alone arguing about. You Clinton supporters sure like to fight about the tiniest non-consequential things. I suppose it's because that's all you can come up with, but it is tiresome. I can understand responding to a post, but trying to make it into a big deal is ridiculous. I am talking about people dying and you are wanting to argue about if Bernie supporters will be mad over a political procedure. It matters not. Gnat's ass-Grand Canyon.

But one thing is clear - you hold Sanders to a completely different standard than you apply to everyone else. You seem absolutely beside yourself with anger that ANYONE would vote for Hillary Clinton - EXCEPT if that anyone is Bernie Sanders. In his case, it's just a "political procedure" that matters not.

but looking back on your posts you either never understood, or pretended you didn't all along. Your argument is somewhat ..........Good night.

'gnats ass on the rim of the Grand Canyon' level strawman you made up here, aren't you?

is his integrity. He agreed to support her if she wins, therefore as one of his supporters, I will expect him to do just that. Whether those of us who support him in the primary will jump on board, that is an individual decision up to each and everyone of us.

why would you give him a pass just because he agreed to support her if she wins? If supporting her is so bad for everyone else - and given the harsh words we've seen on DU for anyone who supports Hillary Clinton, shouldn't Sen. Sanders be similarly criticized for making such a deal with a person who is as bad for the country as many of his supporters think she is?

He has never said she was bad for the country, only that his agenda is better for the middle class. Please give up on trying to trap us into saying something you can then turn around and use against us.

their disdain for Hillary Clinton and anyone who plans to vote for her with Sanders' anticipated support for and endorsement of her.

There's no need to "trap" anyone - the hatred of Secretary Clinton has been expressly and repeatedly enunciated by people in the Sanders' camp for months.

You seek to drive them AWAY from Clinton.

So you could taunt and cajole people?

Thinks she will be a terrible president.

I dislike her but will hold my nose and vote for her.

the thing you most like about him? It would seem that "he will HAVE to endorse" someone he thinks would be a terrible president means that he is willing to back off of his principles for a political reason, which would fly in the face of what many of his supporters believe to be his most admirable quality.

How can you justify that?

How the hell can you justify unleashing Hillary on the world? That's a better question. How can anyone who understands the peril the world is in, justify electing more of the same shit?

In fact, his endorsement would be much more potent and influential than any individual's vote, so he would be even more culpable for doing what you seem to think is a horrible thing.

No, I will not like if Bernie would have to endorse her. But if Bernie is endorsing her it means we have all lost anyway and it's either republican or republican lite. And that WON'T be on Bernie.

You are holding Sanders to an entirely different standard than you're applying to everyone else. You criticize people for voting for Hillary because, in your words, she will "be a disaster for the world" who will cause people to die. But then you spin 180 and claim that if Bernie endorses her and votes for her, he bears no responsibility for any of this.

Given that fact, does that mean he would also have to think that he would also be a terrible president?

They really aren't that different, no matter how much some invest in believing they are.

One is for the 1% though she would throw the little people an occasional bone. The other is for ALL of the people; for ALL of the people to live and prosper. The difference is staggering.

Sometimes a small percentage makes a big difference.

I think some people will not bother to come out if Bernie loses. I always support the Dem nominee regardless. Bernie will win.

Just a feeling I get from him. If he does endorse, my opinion of him will increase. I'm fully prepared for it to not go down that way and for a rift to form.

The Dems have never put up an opponent to him, but if he lets down the side after using us all these months, he will understand the meaning of the word "retribution." Someone younger, more pragmatic, maybe even someone who threads the "gun" needle (without any Brady Bill messiness), who is appealing, maybe even who knows how to milk a cow, will be hauled out and put on the block. He'll have to work his ass off to keep his seat--or maybe he'll just retire in 2018, which is when he's got to go through the gauntlet again.

I'm confident he'll endorse the democratic nominee on the off chance he doesn't win.

Ya'll are just engaging in wishful thinking because you can't stand the nerve he had to challenge Hillary.

I get upset when people gleefully talk about primary'ing a current democratic candidate on the supposition that he doesn't endorse the primary winner.

edit: I also have not insulted you. I have shared my impressions based on reading the post. I have not characterized you personally, only how your post appears.

I provided a political analysis -- and you were and are free to disagree, and provide your POV with regard to it -- and you responded with YOU this and YOU that--a load of inappropriate, hateful and insulting comments that attacked my character--and now, you've added that I am "gleeful" to boot, because I have an opinion that does not match yours.

So obviously, "YOU" do have a problem with anyone who doesn't see things YOUR way. You also don't know too much about politics--it ain't bean bag.

If someone uses DNC assets and resources, and then fails to support the party they've joined in order to have access to those assets and resources, that is a betrayal, and it will be met with appropriate action.

The Democrats have never supported a primary candidate opposing Sanders to this point because he agreed to join our caucus and vote with us on procedural matters in the House and the Senate in exchange for committee assignments (he'd be sitting on the COMMITTEE OF ONE if he doesn't affiliate with a party), and he voted with us on legislation most of the time.

But parties--none of 'em--will never reward disloyalty. That's called Common Sense--nothing 'gleeful' about it.

smh.

The "Edit" I added to my post was meant to make it clear I was adding things after the fact, as is courteous in internet communications. There was no malicious intent there.

...stripped of his committee leadership roles? Oh right...he didn't! He betrayed the party BIG TIME!

Would you have preferred to cede leadership of the Senate to the GOP over his controllable fits of pique?

Vermonters wouldn't turn on Bernie, they're not blind party loyalists and they've seen dirty campaigns against him before.

They're just trying to scare his supporters into line.

Whatever a 'primary challenge' might mean in the case of an independent senator who wipes the floor with democratic challengers.

But it is fun to see people expose what they really think, as absurd as it may be.

That tends to bring out the worst in some people.

You neither insulted not attacked anyone, don't let them intimidate you.

We won't be silenced that easily.

The Democratic party certainly didn't help him get elected in Vermont when he first started out, and I'm damn sure they couldn't budge him now regardless of how hard they tried. Vermont loves him, and this campaign has made him even more popular.

So it's not "a crock" and there's just no need to be so shirty.

You'd be surprised at how easy it is to influence public opinion. Any time a politician starts thinking "their seat" is safe, if they become intransigent and resistant to the entreaties of their constituency, they find out otherwise. There are quite a few people in VT who are not happy with the F-35; someone who ran against him with that as a centerpiece might make inroads with the right approach.

Is because he doesn't just sit back and rest on his laurels, he goes around talking to normal people and finding out what their concerns actually are. There are countless stories of normal Vermonters finding him turning up on their doorstop back when he was mayor, and he's carried on that kind of everyman approach through his time as a congressman and now a senator.

I did sound shirty, because when people high handedly talk about how the party could primary him, it ignores how effectively he's beaten off opposition from both sides for years simply because he connects with the needs of the people of Vermont and actually works his ass off to improve lives there. In November of 2015 he had an approval rating in Vermont of 83%. You're going to primary that?

It's why his schtick in this campaign is rallies with a canned stump speech as opposed to small group dynamic Q and A (which actually prepare a candidate better for debate).

I am not being "mean to Bernie" when I say that -- as a member of the Democratic Party, availing himself of Democratic resources -- if he later decides he wants to return to his Indy roots and resume trashing Democrats, there will be a Come To (Insert Deity of Choice) moment. He will be challenged, and he just might fall. That's not "personal," it is politics. People don't like users or those who are disloyal. Nixon won election in the greatest landslide ever--but post-Watergate, he couldn't get elected dogcatcher. Fortunes change based on conduct and public perception.

He has carried out town hall and round table type discussions for basically his entire political career, along with talking one on one with constituents. There's a big difference between questions from real people about issues that are important to them, and the manufactured nonsense the media like to ask to try and create a headline. There's a reason he has such rock solid support from many tens of millions of people, and it has nothing to do with canned stump speeches.

As for that Nixon comparison, that really is beneath you.

I'm talking about questions from real people, at town halls. He doesn't do well with "unscripted" questions if they have a bit of a bite to them. His handlers know this and that's why he is running this type of campaign.

That Nixon comment had everything to do with the way politics works. Good grief. You do realize that is WHY we have superdelegates? Because we never, ever want to deal with a thrashing like that EVER again? And Nixon WAS The Most Popular Guy in the room when he cleared the board, save "DC" and "Don't Blame Me, I'm From Massachusetts." He was in the catbird steat--and he couldn't lose. Until Watergate--when he couldn't catch a break. Fortunes DO change--that's just fact. And people do go up and down in popularity based on what they DO.

That defeat IS part and parcel of our party history--so all that "beneath" nonsense is just a silly but failed attempt to "guilt" me because I provided you with an historical fact. This is not ABOUT me--so stow the personal comments. The sky is blue, grass is green, and a lack of party input gave us the Worst Defeat In History. Don't allow your partisanship to blind you to reality. We have superdelegates to keep the PARTY's interests in the mix--not to be "mean to Bernie." Without a focused superdelegate system that honed the wishes of everyone, to include the people who built and fund and grow the party, Nixon WAS the one.

smh.

Was because he engaged in criminal activity and then lied to the nation about it. Trying to draw some potential comparison to Sanders there is out of line.

As for superdelegates, they will follow the will of the party membership or the party will schism. The party shouldn't have any 'interests' beyond trying to elect members who reflect the will of Democractic voters. It's about damn time that was remembered unless you really do want to hand the White House to the Republicans for the foreseeable future.

I think the point is germane. It's not "out of line." Sanders can't get off the thirty percent ceiling for a reason. A lot of that reason has to do with the people he surrounds himself with--they don't serve his interests. Their hyperactive "loyalty" doesn't help him. It certainly didn't help him when they didn't tell him what was going on with that database breach, and he had to find it out from the DNC.

The super delegates--who are members of the party-- will follow their own views as to what best supports the party. Not the demands of party line crossers and independents who have never donated to the party before, and are unlikely to so do so now, or in the future. Their focus is this single solitary person, not the party platform. Day trippers playing in the party pool simply won't "schism" the party.

And (FWIW) swearing at me isn't going to change a doggone thing.

Unless there's been an announcement of an FBI investigation that I've overlooked. Feel free to provide links if that is the case.

As for 30% ceiling, as different polls have shown him in the high 30's at different points, I'm not sure what kind of math you're using here.

Damn is swearing now? Wow, you must travel in some very delicate circles.

As for the superdelegate stuff, if you think that a small group of party insiders are going to go against the will of the voters (regardless of your clear contempt for any Democratic voter who prefers a different candidate to you) then you're going to get a very unpleasant shock come the convention.

Stop getting personal.

It shows the weakness in your arguments.

The bottom line is that Democratic party members (and that is what SUPERS are) DO have the interests of the party close to their hearts, even if some voters who are not members of the party happen to not like that. Our system provides a means for the party to influence the outcome.

Back in the old days, they did a few primaries, and a bunch of fat guys smoking cigars made the pick. At least now they do primaries from sea to shining sea, and the Super Delegates include people who were nominated by Democrats and elected in general election contests.

On one hand you're claiming you don't have contempt for non-Clinton Democratic voters yet on the other hand you're supporting a situation where superdelegates could step in and overturn the popular choice of the party if they vote for Sanders. You're then describing those voters as 'voters who are not members of the party'. How on earth would you know? So if Sanders wins you're not going to be able to accept that it was because Democrats decided that? You're going to write them off as outsiders because they chose in a way you disapprove of?

As for the old days, it really doesnt matter any more. The internet age has changed absolutely everything, and the idea of establishment insiders overturning a popular vote is just entirely unacceptable in this day and age. It would break the party clean in half, and it actually scares me that you don't believe that because it suggests that just maybe they don't either.

way demonstrates--as I said before--the weaknesses in your argument. Do I need to keep repeating this to you, over and over again, until you get it?

YOU brought the "contempt" word into the conversation with YOUR accusation against ME. You would do well to just drag that thing back outside, because it's not about THAT, either.

I see what the party is doing and I understand their reasons and logic. I agree with the use of super delegates to help focus on party principles in picking a candidate to represent us. All candidates are free to lobby super delegates and ask for their support. Some seem to do a better job of that than others. In this election cycle, it's obvious which candidate that the Democratic party players--many of whom were elected by, yes, DEMOCRATS (and a very few who work in HQ jobs and are not elected) -- prefer.

But you don't GET support if you don't ASK for it. And you don't GET support if you have never GIVEN it in the past, either--that's just how elections--like life--generally work.

Candidates who want to play in the Democratic Party tent need to play by the Democratic Party rules. If they want support from within the party, they need to ASK for it. They also need to follow the DNC rules with regard to access to The VAN database.

No votes are going to be overturned, but if there are no candidates who make it to the threshold, the Supers will put the best candidate over the top.

The superdelegates will only have any real purpose if the primary is too close to call, and even then they would cause resentment. In a democratic (deliberate small d) system, the idea of having to lobby a group of powerful figures in order to ensure your election is just utterly unacceptable.

about ME instead of the topic, and, furthermore, interpreting my words in an inaccurate manner, we'll have nothing to say to one another.

I'm not tolerating this bogus, deflecting kind of nonsense. Name calling and aspersion-casting is no substitute for an actual argument--and I'm not seeing any "actual argument" in any responses you have offered.

The DNC runs a very organized ship, and they've run it this way for many years. Complaining about it, while one candidate doesn't do the work to convince a fifth of the delegates that he deserves any endorsements, is not the way to create sympathy, change minds or move forward. It's not a SECRET how these things are run--and acting, in a childish and disingenuous fashion, like this is all new and a big surprise just doesn't cut it.

Putting that aside however (as its clearly going nowhere useful), rules like the superdelegates are only still in place because the actual party voters don't get much of a say in how the party is actually run. Just saying 'these are the rules, deal with it' is exactly the kind of undemocratic attitude that creates this potential problem in the first place.

That's not a winning look for you.

Just a feeling I get from her. If she does endorse, my opinion of her will increase. I'm fully prepared for it to not go down that way and for a rift to form.

He's going to have to get his people in line, first, though.

This far out? Are you putting sandbags around your house? Hoarding water? Buying survival rations?

I suspect a lot of Bernie supporters will not vote for Hillary. I'm utterly fed up with a lot of the positions she takes, and I am fed up with how the party treats Progressive voters.

The Democrats who run for office in my area are true Progressives with one exception -- Dianne Feinstein. I will proudly support them.

But I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary. She has shown bad judgment on several issues especially the Iraq War Resolution.

...Bernie Sanders congratulated his rivals, and said: Any of us on our worst day is better than the right-wing extremists on their best day.

If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination and Bernie Sanders endorses her, most of his supporters will understand that it's because she's better than the Republican nominee.

another scared Hillarian seeking reassurance

He has a 40 year record of doing what he says he will do.

Let me paint a slightly diff picture for you, because NO I WON'T 'enthusiastically jump' on HRC's bandwagon. But I will work with the millions of other Bernie supporters he's activated to try and hold my elected officials' feet to the fire and drive the agenda more toward helping Americans.

Because that's the real issue in 2016, isn't it? It's a battle to make the establishment realize and ACT UPON the moral truth that wanting to help each other is not an extreme political position.

I admit I'm an idealist. Yes, I admit that. But I'm also in my late 50s and have been following politics for many years. I think this time around the track is different from anything we've seen. Obama set the standard building his giant online machine that rolled over McCain/Palin (whew!) and Romney/Ryan (double whew!!). I worked locally in that machine as a volunteer and I've never, ever seen anything like it.

Now, guess what? Bernie's got the Millennials who have been RAISED with this stuff and are better at it that I will ever be. IF they show up for the primaries, and it is admittedly an 'IF,' they will crush HRC simply because she is a lackluster candidate perceived to be too far right for many in the base. But Bernie surprisingly is getting support from some local Republicans, and his campaign is actually CALLING REPUBLICAN voters as well as independents in Iowa.

I'm thinking the establishment is gonna get a BIG surprise when the voting and caucusing begins, because Trump and Bernie are both anti-establishment and have built some pretty fervent support.

So, we'll see, won't we? Because I honestly don't think many of Bernie's supporters are showing in the polls, and IF they show up AT the polls, he'll win handily. It won't even be close.

we will not denounce him as a sellout, nor will we enthusiastically jump on her bandwagon. I (can't speak for everyone) will vote for the Democratic candidate, even if it is Rex the Wonder Dog before I would vote for ANY of the clown parade.

If we lose, we lose (and many of us think the nation would lose as well). Then the choice between the lesser of two evils will be stupidly easy to make.

With each day, however, the chances of pulling this out (this totally improbable campaign) seems to be getting better and better.

Because it will confirm all along my suspicion that Sanders "supporters" are really just anti-Democrat more than anything.

Or, we recognize that ideas are more important than party labels. Could it be that?

Young voters especially see no point in party loyalty and in an era of instant fact check and Youtube want someone who is honest , trustworthy, and not bought out by mega-corps (which the internet also facilitates discovering).

Not about the party.

Sanders has more integrity than his faux online "supporters."

Having the intellect to weigh each candidates positions and make up your own mind as to whether they match your own personal requirements is EXACTLY what we should be encouraging in people. If someone is willing to switch to another candidate just because their candidate tells them so, then they're treating politics like following a sports team.

Politics is too damn important to vote for a candidate in any election just because someone else tells you.

..."not match his own personal requirements?"

That he'd be "treating politics like following a sports team"?

Because, really, whatever you say about Sanders supporters who would still support Sanders decision to support the nominee, applies to Sanders himself for supporting said nominee.

Anyone is free to make a recommendation, and if people wish to factor that into their decision based on the person giving the endorsement having information they do not (knowing the candidate personally for decades for instance) then that is fair as part of a much larger decision making process.

What you said however was that if people didn't follow his endorsement then they weren't loyal supporters of his, just anti-Democratic party. Which was wildly unfair.

If he endorses Clinton anything you say about supporters who support his decision applies to him as well.

And then asked for my support. Well, asked is the wrong word.

I don't really get why all the speculation. Sounds like whistling past the graveyard.

There are a number of other options and motives for taking them.

Smells like flamebait because it is.

Just another cheap attempt at a loyalty pledge.

Anyone following this forum must have a slight interest in politics. There are winners and losers. My feeling for Bernie would only be magnified because he would have changed the narrative significantly and given her the challenge she needed to get the nomination. That said, I still think Bernie has a chance and I think he'd be a better general election candidate. Of course, if she's the nominee I'll vote for her. I won't be a party to enabling Trump. I wouldn't be terribly enthusiastic about it though.

Yup, we all love Bernie because he isn't establishment and that is the ONLY reason. Don't you all have some policies of your own to discuss, oh yeah, probably not.

It is actually none of your business. All of us get to vote alone without interference. The loyalty oath threads are stupid. I could tell you I was voting for Donald Trump and get booted off the site when in fact I always was going to vote for Hillary. How would anyone really know? How in the hell do you expect grown adults to take these threads seriously. Pinky swears?

Who gives a crap if you think any of this will be interesting. Why do you think any of this will be on the Sanders side only? Remember the last election fallout when Hillary lost? Maybe we should all be concerned about your attitudes.

First thing in the damned morning.

1) it is none of your damned business

2) grow up, pinky swears and speculations based on premature gloating are really beneath any people who actually takes this seriously.

3) apparently you think we are all Borg with a hive mind, how charming.

Sorry for the all caps but I am sick of this idea that "Sanders supporters" are this homogenous mass who all think alike.

It makes the world a much simpler place, doesn't it?

The goal here seems to be insulting, bullying, then driving Sanders supporters away from Hillary Clinton.

Why do you guys do this sort of crap? Is there a purpose?

will the PUMAs be back out in force?

It will be disturbing to watch this unfold, should the circumstance arise.

that's a bit rich.

Bernie will not be a sellout for endorsing Hillary since he has already said he is not in this to elect a Republican. He has not hidden this from anyone. I can't imagine any of his supporters turning on him for something he is already not hiding now.

I figure 95% of Bernie's supporters will vote for Hillary with degrees of enthusiasm ranging from resigned acquiescence all the way to disgust. Yes, there will be those who won't vote all if their man isn't the nominee. There will always be some. With any luck, they won't be numerous enough to give us a president Trump, Cruz, or Rubio, because judging from what I have read, some of them really don't care.

I have yet to hear, read, or talk to ANY Hillary supporter who will not vote for Bernie if he is the nominee, but if there are any out there, they belong in the same category as their rigidly dogmatic counterparts in Bernie's column.

... sulk, and then complain about how terrible the Clinton campaign is while avoiding saying they won't vote for her.

They say she's not motivating the couch potatoes to vote, smiling too much or too little, that she said the right things but not the way they think she should.

Their attacks will continue. Just framed as concerns.

Bernie will support her, just as she ended up supporting her rival, Barack Obama, after a long and rather nasty campaign.

I just can't get enough of them.



And, in addition, your OP is a false choice.

because she's better than Trump.

We're not all feeling this bitter, are we?

Bernie can endorse whoever he wants, it won't change Hillary's history of bad policy.

I expect I'll do so again in the circumstance you describe. I don't usually take political instructions from candidates I support. Sanders or anyone else.

If Clinton doesn't win NYS in a romp, she won't win the presidency; so my vote... practically speaking.... is not needed by her. ( Nor does she deserve it; but that's another issue.)

I'll advise people in swing states to vote Clinton however. She *might* make better SCOTUS appts. than Trump... although even that's not clear.

I would not vote for her under any circumstances. If she was unopposed in the primaries I wouldn't vote for her in the general election.