"Bitter Bernie" Loses "Halo" Among Progressives

It's about time. Bernie is losing his halo among progressives.

A few days ago I wrote a post "Bitter Bernie" and it's still in my editing pile. I don't have time to edit it now, so I'll just post it. I named him "Bitter Bernie" because that's what I see when I watch him, and I can just imagine Trump using it.

Bernie Sanders grows more tiresome to me every day. His primary emotions are anger and bitterness. (See Kevin Drum on this.) He seems like a very unhappy, unfulfilled man. He's also tone-deaf to the best interests of Democrats, the very party whose nomination he wants and isn't going to get.

It may be over soon -- all except the street protests at the convention which will turn out to be a mess since his sore-loser supporters preach hate and intolerance. Sanders doesn't support hate and intolerance, but no one will know that since he refuses to criticize even the most unbecoming behavior of his supporters.

The reason it will be over soon: He's running out of cash, having spent his millions like a drunken sailor (or Jeb Bush, take your pick.) He's run through $40 million a month. Hillary has millions more than him. [More...]

Instead of graciously bowing out of the race for President, his followers are encouraging protests at the convention in Philadelphia. He wants to take center stage, even though he's not the main event. Instead of working to support the election of the Democratic nominee, help her defeat Trump and help down-ticket Dems beat their Republican opponents, he's still attacking her. He seems determined to make the Democratic convention as unhappy an event as possible. Hillary worked her heart out for Obama once she withdrew the first week in June. Bernie will probably still urge his supporters to contribute to him.

It's sad to watch hordes of angry young people follow Bernie Sanders like he's the pied piper -- as if he has answers for them. Maybe that's not surprising since this country has leaned right so long -- it might be the first time these young people have heard such ideas. But they are not new, and they didn't originate with Bernie.

Bernie Sanders, it's time for your nap.You've turned into a cantankerous old man.

< President Obama in Vietnam | Fallujah, Syria, and ISIS >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The GOP convention is in Cleveland. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 23, 2016 at 11:50:23 AM EST
    Dems will convene in Philadelphia. So, if you meant that Sanders supporters will be protesting the Dems, you don't mean Cleveland.

    yes, my mistake (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 23, 2016 at 01:31:02 PM EST
    Thanks, I changed it and added a link

    Strangely the guys at the gym (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by fishcamp on Mon May 23, 2016 at 11:53:40 AM EST
    are not exactly rooting for Bernie, but they're definitely not talking about The Donald anymore.  They still claim Hillary is a liar, and I say all of them are.  They agree and mumble and stumble over to a pile of weights and won't speak to me until they leave, usually with some snarky comment I just laugh off.  Howdy was right I was antagonizing them, but I no longer have to do that.  They've done it to themselves.

    Yet he gets to (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Nemi on Mon May 23, 2016 at 12:26:31 PM EST
    This won't amount to much (none / 0) (#8)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    Just my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    But Hillary supporters really need to quit saying that

    But it's true (none / 0) (#18)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 03:14:22 PM EST
    Regardless of who we support.  Is it really that dangerous to say things that are true?  

    You don't know that it's true (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 03:15:48 PM EST
    And if Hillary Clinton allows it to be true she's not half as smart as I'm certain she is.

    You're right that we cannot know with certainty (none / 0) (#20)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 03:21:09 PM EST
    If it does become true though, will it still be the case that "Clinton supporters" or even just "people against Trump" should avoid saying it?

    Why would people against Trump (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:21:36 PM EST
    Desire for Sanders supporters to feel disenfranchised by the process? I would think Trump supporters would be flying that freak flag.

    Speaking for me only (none / 0) (#35)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:28:28 PM EST
    I'm not talking about desire . I'm talking about whether we should tell the truth about what the Dem platform says and whether Sanders' campaign will influence it , and after the fact, whether it will influence it .

    My sense is that there are more than a few commenters here who seem happy with the prospect of Sanders not influencing the platform and happy to tell Sanders' supporters "we will win without you , so good riddance ."

    I realize that some of that is anger over how Sanders is running his campaign. But what if in the end Clinton (and her supporters!) really do disagree with Sanders on policy , and thus really don't want his people influencing the platform?  What if , indeed . I think it's what we are seeing. But as I already admitted to you , you could be right that we see the platform reflect differently than I'm predicting .


    They are actually (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:09:54 PM EST
    already giving him plenty
    Sanders was given the power to choose nearly as many members of the Democratic Party platform-writing body as Clinton, who is expected to clinch the nomination next month. That influence resulted from an agreement worked out this month between the two candidates and Democratic Party officials, according to Democratic officials familiar with the arrangement.

    Clinton has picked six members of the 15-member committee that writes the platform, and Sanders has named five, the Democrats said Monday ahead of an expected announcement by the Democratic National Committee.

    DNC rules allow the chairman to pick the entire slate of 15 people who govern the platform that will be presented at the party convention in July. Past chairmen have done just that, in consultation with the White House or winning Democratic candidate.

    The change was made to be inclusive of Sanders supporters after the strong liberal challenge he mounted during a long and sometimes bitter primary. A main complaint of Sanders supporters is that party rules and procedures disproportionately benefit Clinton. Some Sanders backers claim the system was "rigged" from the start to exclude a challenger.

    meanwhile while DWS is giving Bernie an olive branch, he of course is trashing her and  the establishment that is bending over backwards to placate him.


    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by jbindc on Tue May 24, 2016 at 07:57:11 AM EST
    Cornel West is one of Bernie's picks for the platform committee.

    Yep, makes me feel confident about his judgment.


    Cornel West (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Nemi on Tue May 24, 2016 at 02:47:59 PM EST
    back in August 2015 tweeted:

    Brother Bernie and Brother Trump are authentic human beings in stark contrast to their donor-driven opponents.

    Oh brother ...!


    I'm beginning to crack the code (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by ruffian on Tue May 24, 2016 at 03:16:33 PM EST
    The more delusional your pronouncements, the more authentic they are.

    He has (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 24, 2016 at 10:08:11 AM EST
    some real out there picks for sure. The only that that seems reasonable is Bill McKibben.

    I just read that too! (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:11:46 PM EST
    Tell the truth about the Dem platform? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:35:40 PM EST
    Who has a working crystal ball around here?

    So some people feel chafed, that usually ends when the friction stops. I desire for all WWF style smack talking supporters to join team Trump. That is my desire ;)


    you cant talk them into it (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:40:04 PM EST

    they either will or wont.  some will.  some wont.  if the specter of president Trump is not enough to  shock them into rationality nothing you or anyone else can say will.


    What goal has Sanders placed out there (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:44:52 PM EST
    That we can't work towards?

    Hillary and everyone else (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:51:30 PM EST
    has gone to great lengths to do exactly that.  there is a difference between "working toward" free college for all and tell his gullible supporters its possible in a desperate bid for their vote

    So you see no third way? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:55:12 PM EST
    Third way (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:00:00 PM EST
    I'd be interested to see it . But the last time triangulation was all the rage , we felt the literal Burn.

    Honestly I believe Captain Howdy is right that the sheer prospect of Trump getting his hands on the Presidency is fling to be more and more a shock to people as we get closer and closer to the actual voting.  None of these disputes we are discussing matter all that much now , and they'll matter even less then.

    He's scary enough that I could imagine myself wanting to phone bank for Clinton by September .


    im not sure what that means (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:57:08 PM EST
    That you look at Sanders supporters (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:10:35 PM EST
    And tell them to suck it up buttercup. I'm reading at Orange right now that Sanders is being granted a lot of access right now into the writing of the platform. It would appear to me that Sanders supporters are declaring and feeling their victory...except for bobswern and OPOL.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:49:31 PM EST
    Here's hoping bobswerm and OPAL come around

    Those two go down in flames (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 24, 2016 at 12:43:44 PM EST
    It's funny after x amount of years of exposure, I used to view them as committed individuals. Now sometimes when I read them I wonder if they aren't simply just stubborn.

    Let's all agree (none / 0) (#52)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:55:46 PM EST
    That we cannot work towards something we believe is impossible .

    do you think free college for all (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:58:10 PM EST
    including the children of Trump and Romney is possible?  or even needed?

    Billionaires are such Outliers that (none / 0) (#58)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:02:38 PM EST
    I'd be hard pressed to say wait a minute . We don't need free college for everyone.  Just 99.999 of the people is all. :-)

    i think we could take it down to millionaires (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:03:21 PM EST
    Sure but where do we land? (none / 0) (#61)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:04:56 PM EST
    The classic 250,000 mark?

    Ok, let's hear the strong argument for that then . I'd like to hear that . Truly .


    no (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:07:10 PM EST
    not 250,000.  i dont know where.  but there has to be a sane place between 250,000 and a gazillion

    Well so maybe they'll find a place (none / 0) (#64)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:08:37 PM EST
    When they do their platform , and maybe they'll really advocate that in the Fall.  

    Also, I might sprout wings and Learn to Fly :-D


    Yeah, I agree - who remembers the platform (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ruffian on Mon May 23, 2016 at 06:27:59 PM EST
    after the convention is over? Not many.

    I think how it will work out is that Bernie's people will get the gist of his broad statements into the platform. But the platform will, as usual,  be light on implementation details, where most of the disagreements are. Will that make him happy? I am on the 'could not care less' side of the question, but I think it is the most he can ask for as the losing candidate.


    I think if Clinton wants two terms (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 06:33:12 PM EST
    She's going to have to be more receptive to the Bern portion of the voting base than that, or she'll be vicously primaried.

    Oh, I think that is already a foregone conclusion (3.00 / 2) (#78)
    by ruffian on Mon May 23, 2016 at 06:52:16 PM EST
    There will be a primary. It won't be like 2012.

    I hope not (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 23, 2016 at 06:53:59 PM EST
    unless whomever wants the GOP to win. But as we've seen this primary season there are plenty of nihilists.

    I don't think the people that are unhappy (5.00 / 7) (#81)
    by ruffian on Mon May 23, 2016 at 07:03:57 PM EST
    accepting the reality of incremental change are going to be any happier after seeing it in all its glacial glory for 4 years.

    --- this post dedicated to our absent friends


    Well, (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 23, 2016 at 07:23:26 PM EST
    here's the difference I see. Hillary will at least attempt to throw them a bone and fight to get something through. Ultimately it might fail but at least she tried. Obama for the most part completely treated the people that showed up to vote for him pretty bad. At least Hillary realizes that you need to do something and can't expect people to show up for nothing. And she knows how to use political power which is why the GOP is crapping in their pants over her being the nominee and slinging mud all over the place.

    As to this (none / 0) (#86)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 07:29:12 PM EST
    "At least Hillary realizes that you need to do something and can't expect people to show up for nothing."

    We shall see.


    I think that's absolutely crazy (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 10:34:57 PM EST
    Something we have all wanted, a Leftier Left, is possible right now. If Hillary doesn't slam the door in the face of the Left, it is insane to tolerate/invite her being primaried. I think embracing such a scenario at this time is a form of self victimization.

    I guess you are assuming people (none / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Tue May 24, 2016 at 06:20:01 AM EST
    will uphold the loose tradition, or whatever you want to call it, of not primarying a sitting POTUS of your own party.  In the minds of some, Hillary is never going to get leftward enough. And people are no longer in the mood to observe such niceties as not running against her in 2020. I fully expect, and in fact would welcome,  a plausible challenger from the left. By plausible I mean someone capable of doing the actual job of president - not Bernie.

    The best thing she can do to prevent this (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ruffian on Tue May 24, 2016 at 06:25:01 AM EST
    scenario is to pick a strong progressive viable VP, and make it clear the will stand behind him/her in 2024. I'd rather see Bernie have input into that decision than the platform. It means a lot more.

    Was Bernie ever happy? (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by oculus on Mon May 23, 2016 at 07:16:20 PM EST
    On his honeymoon (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 07:20:34 PM EST
    In Russia.

    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 07:26:45 PM EST
    There's a lot to be furious about . This very site and its commenters have repeatedly noted how far the USA moved to the right from the last quarter century of the 20th through now .

    It has hurt individuals and its hurt the country . And he's opposed a lot of it, been correct in his arguments , but repeatedly lost anyways . It's  not like he's just "old man yelling at cloud," here .


    You are exactly correct (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 07:32:51 PM EST
    The problem is well known.  Bernie did not discover or define the problem.  As Hillary and others have pointed out.  He's great at identifying the problem.   It's solutions he has a problem with.  Or at least viable ones.

    Sanders got a lot of credit from me and most everyone else here when he was directing the conversation and the focus.   He is not doing that any more.  He is actively undermining the party's chances in the general election.

    THAT is the problem


    That's (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 23, 2016 at 08:12:52 PM EST
    the problem, "fury" alone will not get us anywhere. The USA has moved rightward to the dismay of just about everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman.

    Bernie pointed  out nothing new to me(I was using "the system is rigged" line a long time ago). I lauded him for his message early on, but now he has slipped into all anger all the time.

    To me he has never proven to be able to move past that anger, increasingly ready to destroy the system, the oligarchy and seemingly the entire Democratic party in this "political revolution" that he has nurtured in his mind his entire life.


    He's been (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 23, 2016 at 08:21:16 PM EST
    in the senate and the house for a long, long time. Plenty of opportunities there to show some leadership but largely he sat in a corner and voted. Same in the senate for the most part. Why didn't he run for president in 2008? Why didn't he run against Obama like he said needed to be done in 2012? There have been plenty of opportunities to do what he's doing now. The only reason I believe he ran this year was because he believed he could win against Hillary but he completely ignored BTD's sage advise that demographics are destiny.

    Here's the rub (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 23, 2016 at 07:52:43 PM EST
    though. If you don't win presidential elections you don't get to move the country in any direction. We lost a ton of elections and that largely is the reason for the rightward movement. A larger problem is not spending time talking to voters and hoping for a white knight to come in and deliver a top down solution. It just doesn't work that way.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 23, 2016 at 08:32:41 PM EST
    Bernie and his supporters rail endlessly about the centrist tendencies of the Dems but they always leave out the fact that's the only thing the voters were buying, on a good day. It would have been virtually impossible to elect any Democrat to the left of Clinton in 92 and anybody who thinks otherwise is delusional.

    I freely admit that the Democrats got a little too comfy in their centrism, but they have been facing stiff headwinds for the last three decades at least and even now any sudden turn to the left may spell electoral doom.


    Well (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 23, 2016 at 08:44:17 PM EST
    I have determined that they were happier when we were losing.

    Who is more bitter? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 10:36:57 PM EST
    Bernie Bros or us Pumas? We are better than this

    I think we should make a new hashtag: (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 24, 2016 at 02:07:54 AM EST



    That's another thing (none / 0) (#96)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 11:17:15 PM EST
    That remains to be seen , in my opinion .

    Every rough primary (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 11:25:32 PM EST
    We always ponder if we can unite, and then we just do it, we unite. I'm tired of falling for the pessimism.

    Sigh....do you not know how peace is made? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:56:42 PM EST
    Oh, absolutely! (none / 0) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 24, 2016 at 02:50:12 AM EST
    Militarytracy: "Sigh ... do you not know how peace is made?"

    Fill a cocktail shaker with ice. Add 3 oz. Patron or Cuervo tequila, 2 oz. lime juice, 1 oz. Simple Syrup and 1 teaspoon orange liqueur. Cover and shake until mixed and chilled, about 30 seconds. Then, press the rim of a chilled rocks or wine glass into a plate of sea salt, and strain concoction into the glass.

    If that doesn't make peace with your neighbor, then he's hopeless.


    He wants to truly ramp up (none / 0) (#47)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:50:36 PM EST
    How we regulate banks and the financial industry. How we work towards that is a mystery to me at this point .

    He also wants to reform student loan burdens and has even pushed for free college . No way we are working towards those things . Is there ?


    about free college yeah (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:56:13 PM EST
    as far as banks i suggest reading Hillarys approach which everyone from Barney Frank to Paul Krugman has said thats how we do it

    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:02:57 PM EST
    wants to fix the shadow banking problem which actually is the problem not the size of the banks. There's really not a problem with the size so much as their behavior. There were plenty of small banks that went down during the collapse.

    Bernie's plan for free college was never workable. He was relying on the states to cooperate. It seems that nobody in his campaign or Bernie has ever thought about the fact that people like Nathan Deal are never going to go along with that kind of thing and frankly I have read critiques where free college actually hurts the people who need college the most. Article here


    Fooey (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:42:53 PM EST
    We can be inclusive. We can do our part. We can do the next right thing. All these sour pusses and sour grapes

    its not about inclusivity (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:49:23 PM EST
    it stopped being about that when Sanders could no longer win but kept lying to his supporters that he could.

    the man is now a danger to the party.  most of the party is now realizing that.  talking his die hards off the ledge is not high in my list.  Hilary has to start defining Trump.  the snoflakes need to get real or get over it


    Dana Milbank (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:55:12 PM EST
    said on Joy Reid's show that if Bernie set his hair on fire on the senate floor not one super delegate would reach for the fire extinguisher. So at this point Bernie's behavior seems to be alienating everybody.

    And as far as Philadelphia, it's going to look great---not---to have a bunch of angry white males screaming at POC and women.


    True (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:49:53 PM EST
    but the way I look at it is at the end of the 2008 primaries fully 40% of Hillary voters said they would not vote for Obama. Sanders voters are at 20% now. Maybe that 20% is hard set or may be it's not. I'm guessing a certain portion of them definitely would not vote for Hillary but also would have never voted for Hillary with or without Sanders in the race.

    I think if we don't work (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:07:19 PM EST
    To isolate them and neener neener them, that portion is going to be very small, like maybe bobswern and OPOL...hahaha

    It's time for REO to sing Riding the Storm Out


    You know (4.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:11:54 PM EST
    what one of Bernie's biggest mistakes was IMO? It was hiring Revolution Messaging the same people, (Obama 2008 staffers) who did all the anti Hillary memes back in 2008 that flooded blogs and social media. It really started on the GOS very soon after Bernie declared. Only this time besides ticking people off it didn't work.

    I think he's going to get (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:13:17 PM EST
    His kids onboard now

    And Now Bill Moyers? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:20:13 PM EST
    Wasserman Schultz must go or Bill Moyers will attempt to prevent the clans from uniting? Is she really a road block? Or just a road block for Bill Moyers?

    She's not exactly been a winner (none / 0) (#71)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:22:44 PM EST
    For the Dems. A lot of people , reportedly including Obama, have not wanted her as chair for a long time .

    I'm having a hard time looking at her record and saying Yes, that's what we wanted !


    Well, it's (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:36:35 PM EST
    not like the one before her was that great either. I think she's going out anyway as it's a term limited position and she's out at the end of the year.

    Kaine was turrible (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 06:02:53 PM EST
    Dean was good though

    imo (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 05:22:45 PM EST
    at this point she is a distraction.  maybe she should go

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 24, 2016 at 10:25:18 AM EST
    DWS, has exceeded her lightening rod capabilities. She should go. The only remaining issue is the timing.  Maybe, after the California primary, especially, as I assume, with a win for Mrs. Clinton.  A point of strength for Mrs. Clinton, and a time for unity, and DWS's departure, a part of it.

    REO is guaranteed to shrink anything. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 24, 2016 at 02:37:21 AM EST
    Every time I hear "Keep on Loving You," I just want to throw heavy objects through the nearest window.

    Yer such a party pooper (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 24, 2016 at 09:37:10 AM EST
    I thought they were one of the better bands to see in concert in the 80s. Some concerts I went to, the sound coming out of the speakers wasn't even close to the album.

    I'm the only one in my family ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 24, 2016 at 02:11:05 PM EST
    ... who never liked REO Speedwagon. It's my antipathy to the whole Blow-Dried Big Hair / Arena Anthem Rock genre of the '80s, which often struck me as utterly pretentious. Another such song that sets my teeth on edge is Queensreich's "Silent Lucidity." That's why "This Is Spinal Tap" is one of my favorite films of the period. Rob Reiner & Co., just skewered them all.

    REO is from my hometown (none / 0) (#122)
    by ruffian on Tue May 24, 2016 at 02:24:22 PM EST
    so I have a softspot...and I like a couple of their songs, like the one power ballad that I can't recall the name of..

    Saw them in concert once at ISU...but it was free, so does that count? I probably would not have paid!


    I paid :) (none / 0) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 08:37:29 AM EST
    I'd rather as few as possible joined Trump (none / 0) (#38)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:36:51 PM EST
    And that we do actually hear these issues continue to be raised in the Fall .

    Then why focus on making a large (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:41:19 PM EST
    Swath paranoid about being disenfranchised? If that isn't your goal, your no crystal ball predictions are a little odd. They seem goading.

    If you want unity, encourage/pressure both Clinton and Sanders to unite the clans!


    How is it being "disenfranchised" (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:48:38 PM EST
    When your candidate loses in the open field both of delegates and of votes totaled ?

    I mean, heck, I'm a lot more supportive of Sanders than most everyone on these boards but even I would say it's absurd to argue if Sanders doesn't influence Clinton's campaign moving forward , that his voters were somehow done wrong.

    My sense based on the last year is that she thinks he's wrong about the things he feels most strongly about . Why she would suddenly start adding his ideas to the platform and advocating them, escapes me .


    Basically (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by smott on Mon May 23, 2016 at 02:19:13 PM EST
    Sanders is happy to burn down the village.
    And give us President Trump.

    Feel the Bern indeed.

    But i say F*** him.
    Nader v2.0.

    Look at the bright side (none / 0) (#114)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue May 24, 2016 at 12:17:41 PM EST

    If the Bitter Bernie analysis is correct then Bernie should get shellacked in the remaining primaries. Nothing makes a candidate reconsider more than losing by 15+ points.

    It is not clear to me, (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 23, 2016 at 02:53:35 PM EST
    what purpose Sanders is playing by staying in the race.  Winning the nomination?  Impacting the platform?  Replenishing the coffers?  A senate chairmanship of his liking?  Mrs. Clinton says he should stay in the race as long as he wants. And, that is what she should say.

      But, everyone else who does not want Trump to triump, should state the obvious:Bernie, it is past time for you to go, unless you really look forward to a  calamity for the country. And, unite your supporters, including the dismantling of the out-of-control bros.

    Bernie claims (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by smott on Mon May 23, 2016 at 03:06:52 PM EST
    He wants to impact the platform.
    The reality is, he is every day reducing the Dems chances to take the WH or the Senate, at a critical time re the SUpes. So he is ever less likely to impact any platform he pretends to care about.

    So the end result will be that Bernie will be completely rejected by the Dems (even if we win the WH and the Senate).

    His continuing  efforts to destroy the Dems will result in his being shut  out of any and all policy discussions. No more coming to him for a vote on some amendment. No More asking for his support. Forget about those committee seats.

    And he will face a  a primary opponent. Every. Single. Cycle.

    He's done. But hey -  he might be able to say he gave us President Trump. You go, Bernie !


    i think tts simpler (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 03:41:57 PM EST
    i think J was closer.  i think he is just a bitter old fart who is pi$$ed off because he lost.  hes not a democrat and doesnt give a krap what he does to the party.  and thats the charitable version.  the uncharitable one is he actually wants to sink the party because it didnt give him what he wants.  

    Bernie (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:21:41 PM EST
    is a lifetime true believer in his socialist vision , his "revolution" is more real to him now than it ever was and he can't let go of it.

    Personally I think he has lost it and actually believes that the nomination is being stolen from him.


    I'm leaning towards replenishing the (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by vml68 on Tue May 24, 2016 at 01:44:47 PM EST
    Sanders requests recanvass of Kentucky primary

    He is apparently looking to raise some cash off this move.

    And, here I thought St. Bernie believed money was evil. Looks like he has no problem with fleecing the rubes he claims he cares so much about.


    This is So Different from 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    In that, there really wasn very little ideological disagreement between Obama and Clinton.  In the end, Clinton's move to rally for Obama did take class, because after all, it sucks to lose.  But she didn't have to walk back any policy claims or ideological positions, in backing him.

    Sanders ran an campaign based on disagreements with Clinton.  The positive of this is that we actually had a battle of ideas and vision.  The negative is, how can Bernie Sanders now turn around and say he agrees with the arguments Clinton is making?  The very best he can do is say, well one thing we are absolutely agreed on is that Trump and the GOP are terrible.

    He already has said that Hillary Clinton would be far preferable to any of the GOp candidates who were running.  When all the smoke clears, he likely will do the same thing.  But the best he can do is be an anti-Trump attack dog now.  If he starts celebrating Clinton's vision, it'll get skewered in the media (and perhaps rightly so, given that we all know he disagrees with her).  

    The truth is that for all their raw numbers, the GOP stage didn't feature a whole lot of ideological disagreement about policy beyond Rand Paul, who was a boutique candidate anyways. It seems as though, in running an ideological campaign in the primary, you put yourself in a pickle when it comes time to "unify" later.

    Still and yet, I do belueve primaries should be fought in the level of ideas every bit as much as the General should be. The 2008 primary was so frustrating because for all the hooplah, there just wasn't much argument happening. Seems like a Catch-22 of sorts.  

    Trump's immigration position was different than (none / 0) (#22)
    by ragebot on Mon May 23, 2016 at 03:49:31 PM EST
    GOP candidates he defeated.  Same for his position on money needed for running for prez.  It was clear early on Jeb was bought and paid for by establishment GOP money.  Same for Rubio.  Whatever peeps think about Trump he got the best bang for the buck for money spent on ads.  There was also some difference between Trump and Cruz with the religious folks.

    Trump was the ideal candidate to overthrow the GOP establishment, not to mention a fractured field he needed to beat.  Bernie faced a much different situation.  Hillary was well positioned as the default favorite with plenty of money.  Lots of folks were shocked that Bernie got as far as he did.  I have to wonder how Hillary would have done against a younger more attractive mainstream Democrat.


    And I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Nemi on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:09:20 PM EST
    how Bernie Sanders would have done against a male mainstream Democrat? But had that been the scenario -- say Joe Biden instead of Hillary Clinton -- he probably wouldn't have run in 2016 ... either.

    you dont have to wonder (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 03:54:50 PM EST
    remember Martin OMalley?

    Martin O'Malley? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:13:23 PM EST
    Yeah, he was the guy who was for Hillary before he was against her. Whatever happened to him?

    I've missed you guys (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by BarnBabe on Tue May 24, 2016 at 08:39:46 PM EST
    Been ill and out of commission for the last 5 months but keeping up with the elections. Well, except when the round table TV discussions went round and round and round and repeatably monotonous every 15 minutes. I am glad to see you guys have not lost your sense of humor. And Bernie has that back to the future hair. Thanks all of you Talk Lefters.

    Glad you are feeling better! Welcome back (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by ruffian on Tue May 24, 2016 at 09:16:52 PM EST
    just in time for the home stretch.

    This should be fun. Welcome back. (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 25, 2016 at 01:56:01 AM EST
    The ideological divide between (none / 0) (#25)
    by glanton on Mon May 23, 2016 at 03:59:09 PM EST
    Trump and the others, to the extent that the divide is wide? Whee can those "others" now go except to yell a lot about how scary Clinton is , or stay out the race altogether ?

    Your point , though I'd quibble on how sharp the ideological divide in the GOP candidates really was, still reinforces mine, it seems.

    We love ideology but it's also a trap. That's why you mentioned O'Malley. "Younger" and "more attractive" are not the same as ideologically distant .


    Chicago Trib: Bernie Doesn't Need to Quit (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Mr Natural on Mon May 23, 2016 at 07:03:48 PM EST
    or Make Nice.

    Sanders, in my view, would be a disaster in the presidency. But the fact that Clinton is having so much trouble closing out her victory is evidence that he speaks for a lot of people in his party. And if he restores their hope in electoral democracy, good for him.

    As for the harm he could inflict on Clinton, it's more a symptom of her problems than a cause. She threw plenty of hard punches at Barack Obama in her 2008 campaign, none of which kept him from winning in November. If anything, the primary battle taught him and his advisers a lot about how to respond to Republican attacks. If Clinton loses to Trump, it won't be because of unkind things Sanders said about her.

    Do you think (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 24, 2016 at 10:12:29 AM EST
    Bill Clinton is campaigning in a brown suit in an attempt to attract Sanders voters?

    Seems desperate to me.

    Nwes Flash (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 24, 2016 at 10:30:03 AM EST
    Bernie redefines democracy,
    "So what? Democracy is messy. Everyday my life is messy. But if you want everything to be quiet and orderly and allow, you know, just things to proceed without vigorous debate, that is not what democracy is about."

    Sorry Bernie, Democracy is not messy(the results may be, but that is a different story). Democracy is quite simple, whoever gets the most votes wins.

    This guy is turning into a dangerous demagogue, IMO.

    From the same interview (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by ruffian on Tue May 24, 2016 at 11:45:36 AM EST
    this is getting into lunacy territory:

    "We don't live, thank God, in an authoritarian country. People dissent," Sanders said in an interview with NBC News' "Today."

    "If we take your assumption and Clinton's supporters' assumption of the logical conclusion, you know what we should do? We should go back to a monarchy and not have any elections at all," Sanders added.

    They are called predictions based on past performance and upcoming primary schedules, Bernie. No one is declaring her queen. get a grip.


    bitter misogyny (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by mm on Tue May 24, 2016 at 12:00:07 PM EST
    She is winning because she worked her ass all her life to get to this point and is a popular and formidable political force.  Sanders and the bros would never make that type of denigrating comment about a male democratic opponent.  There is no doubt in my mind.  He literally oozes his sexism.

    Does he seriously not know (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Nemi on Tue May 24, 2016 at 02:39:24 PM EST
    that also monarchies have elections! Parliamentary elections. And that for example the Scandinavian Social Democracies that he not so long ago were looking to and praised are actually, you know ... monarchies. :-}

    He is, however (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by jbindc on Tue May 24, 2016 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    Becoming the King of Hyperbole.

    So tiresome.


    Senator Sanders (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 24, 2016 at 03:42:24 PM EST
    has become self-deluded by some polls showing him doing better against Trump than Mrs. Clinton. Some reality therapy seems in order.

    Much simpler than hyperbole or delusion (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by smott on Tue May 24, 2016 at 04:53:00 PM EST
    Sanders is simply an azzhole.
    Call a spade a spade and don't try to explain it much less excuse it.

    President TRUMP, Bernie. Like it?

    Trouble is, I suspect he does like it, and THAT is the problem.


    This just in: (none / 0) (#145)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 24, 2016 at 07:20:35 PM EST
    Grump goes to Fantasyland, says that he'll support "the lesser of two evils" between Snow White and the Evil Queen.

    I (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 24, 2016 at 07:32:41 PM EST
    am  begining to think this guy has an ego bigger than Trump, I am becoming absolutely disgusted with him.  

    From link: (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Nemi on Wed May 25, 2016 at 07:46:18 AM EST
    During a later campaign appearance in Riverside, Sanders made only passing reference to Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. In recent days, Sanders has toned down his rhetoric against Clinton, only offering strong criticism of the former secretary of State for backing out of a debate.

    And in an earlier speech calling her backing out an insult to the people of California. Really? How does he know? Has "the people of California" expressed that sentiment? (And was a debate in California a part of the agreement back in whenever, as he claims? As I recall the agreement included a possible debate taking place in California.)

    He also steered away from directly jabbing Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee ...

    But why? Isn't Trump also the presumptive enemy? Or is that still Hillary Clinton?

    "This campaign is listening to people who are not often listened to," he said. "What we need is a political revolution."

    Maybe I just missed it, but I haven't seen much evidence of him actually listening to people.


    Are Sanders supporters really the liberal (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 24, 2016 at 04:47:55 PM EST
    vanguard of the Democratic Party? A NY Times article would seem to suggest that they are not.

    Moreover, warm views of Mr. Sanders increased the liberalism of young Democrats by as much as 1.5 points on the seven-point ideological scale. For many of them, liberal ideology seems to have been a short-term byproduct of enthusiasm for Mr. Sanders rather than a stable political conviction.

    Perhaps for that reason, the generational difference in ideology seems not to have translated into more liberal positions on concrete policy issues -- even on the specific issues championed by Mr. Sanders. For example, young Democrats were less likely than older Democrats to support increased government funding of health care, substantially less likely to favor a higher minimum wage and less likely to support expanding government services. Their distinctive liberalism is mostly a matter of adopting campaign labels, not policy preferences.t that they are, on the whole, not.

    Something to think about.

    Vox (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 24, 2016 at 04:57:34 PM EST
    did a study pretty much saying the same things in that Sanders own supporters were unwilling to pay for what he wanted to do.  They would be willing to pay 1K more in taxes at the most.

    Jill Stein goes FULL NADER (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by smott on Tue May 24, 2016 at 05:24:27 PM EST
    May 21
    Dr. Jill Stein‏ @DrJillStein
    Yes, I will be horrified if Donald Trump is elected. I will also be horrified if Hillary Clinton is elected. Both are corporate politicians.

    Yeah Doc, go ahead and conflate Trump and Clinton. Just like Ralphie.

    I have supported you in the past, even voted for you, but now I will actively oppose you at every opportunity.

    WHat. AN. IDIOT.

    "Piled higher, Deeper." Don't get me started again.

    Wow, she must have been horrified her entire life (none / 0) (#147)
    by ruffian on Tue May 24, 2016 at 07:39:47 PM EST
    Has there ever been a POTUS she had the least bit respect for?

    Jeff Weaver has accused Barbara Boxer (5.00 / 7) (#165)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 25, 2016 at 11:21:52 AM EST
    of lying about feeling fearful while onstage at the Nevada Convention. So what if Sanders people were shouting obscenities in her face and screaming at her as she tried to say a few words in support of Clinton. So what that she had to be escorted off the stage by security as some of the screamers followed her, still screaming. Weaver knows, he knows, that Boxer was not really afraid, that she is lying to make Sanders look bad.

    Why is Weaver so sure about this? Why because Boxer did not act in a way that Weaver considers appropriate for a woman who is afraid. Boxer, attempting to defuse things, blew kisses to the crowd. This is not an acceptable response according to Weaver. He has not set out what a woman should do in such a circumstance. Perhaps crumple to the ground in tears? Run off the stage in hysterics? What is the proper, Weaver approved, way for a woman to act when she feels threatened?

    Please, Jeff, tell us women how we should act.

    The wheels are coming off (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 12:16:11 PM EST
    This clown car

    Maybe J. Weaver fancies himself (none / 0) (#168)
    by christinep on Wed May 25, 2016 at 12:42:04 PM EST
    in competition with Donald Trump as loudmouth Misogynist of the Year?  

    What a complete.. (3.00 / 2) (#6)
    by bmaz on Mon May 23, 2016 at 01:11:53 PM EST
    ...crock of you know what. Nobody needs to do squat until all the votes are in. Let the voters in the remaining primaries exercise their plebiscite as they will. Then, and only then, is it time for Sanders to do other than what he is doing. For anybody that was alive in 2008 for the extended bitter+divisive effort the Clintons (yes plural) maintained while the primaries were still in play, this call for Sanders and his supporters to magically kowtow to Hillary is bizarrely craven. Get a life and let it play out. Sanders has ALWAYS said he will support and fight for the Dem nominee. Pretending otherwise and making bogus demands to not fight for the left is curious, if not a more derogatory word.

    As anybody (5.00 / 11) (#7)
    by jbindc on Mon May 23, 2016 at 01:23:12 PM EST
    That was alive in 2008 knows, Clinton had an actual argument going into the convention - she had more actual votes while Obama had more delegates.  The rules say the winner with a majority of delegates  (including superdelegates) wins, but Clinton still had an argument, whereas Bernie does not.

    Let everyone vote, but Bernie needs to stick to his issues and otherwise STFU up "lesser of two evils",  "polling better than Trump",  etc.  Otherwise, Bernie should start looking over his shoulder at losing a potential committee chairmanship and even a primary challenger in 2018.


    Hillary's best argument (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by MKS on Tue May 24, 2016 at 08:43:28 AM EST
    was regarding the Florida and Michigan delegations.

    All in all it was very close in 2008 and not nearly as clear as it is now who would be the nominee.


    Exactly - talk about rigged (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by ruffian on Tue May 24, 2016 at 04:01:23 PM EST
    Florida was rigged by the Republicans, aided by the rules committee.

    Bernie Sanders is done. (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 23, 2016 at 01:39:13 PM EST
    And further, Hillary Clinton is going to win in November, regardless of whether or not you approve of her and wish to participate. That said, the door is always open and you're welcome to join us and we'd love to have you on board.

    But any choice on your part to self-marginalize politically via extended temper tantrum is entirely yours and yours alone, and is not at all contingent upon what Mrs. Clinton or any of her supporters say to you. While it's good form for the winner to extend a gracious hand to the runner-up, she's not required to kiss his a$$ so if you're waiting for that to happen, well, I wouldn't hold my breath.



    Yawn (1.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Dadler on Tue May 24, 2016 at 09:16:08 PM EST
    He's lost nothing. He is the candidate who is best positioned in the polls to beat Trump. If you weren't voting on gender, J, I am sorry, you would never support a pol with Hillary Clinton's sorry and inhumane record on crime.

    Delete me, I can take it.

    Love you, but this election is the biggest steaming pile of delusional horsesh*t since, well, the last one.

    You are so right, Dadler. (5.00 / 11) (#151)
    by vml68 on Tue May 24, 2016 at 10:13:14 PM EST
    We women are only supporting and voting for Hillary because she is a woman.  We obviously don't have brains and we lack critical thinking skills. Thank the Lord we have men like you to point out to us how we let our v@g!nas control and inform our decisions.

    I'm supporting her (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    And the last time I checked I didn't have a vagina

    Not a woman, (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 25, 2016 at 02:50:27 PM EST
    but Dadler may be right, in part, in my case.  Among intrinsic factors in my support of Mrs. Clinton is that she is a woman.  Not any woman, but a woman with special sensitivities and experiences that she would bring to he presidency--for the benefit of all.

      True, her gender is but a building block of factors that place her among the most qualified individuals who have sought the presidency.  However, that building block is fundamental to how she sees and addresses the needs of the country and the world. It is not a neutral, but a positive. And, offers a constructive model that is needed as we grapple with domestic and foreign affairs.  


    What Trump would do to Bernie's poll nums (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by aniebeeh on Wed May 25, 2016 at 01:25:55 AM EST
    From a Dem site, a compilation of what Republican/Trump TV ads would focus on.

      http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/19/this-ends-now-the-bernie-sanders-opposition-research-th e-media-refuses-to-release

      We saw Bernie go from an anticipated 20+% loss in Florida to a 30% one after what would ordinarily be a harmless video (at the MIami debates) of his thoughts vs the world's take on Castro and Cuba (after many were killed, imprisoned or just plain left, headed for our shores).

     But that's only the tip of an iceberg that would lower his poll numbers quickly in this world that is so drawn to a Trump (includ'g Bernie or Bust folk who feel Donald would be better than a Hillary).


    It's so frustrating (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 12:47:47 PM EST
    To hear the nonsense repeated and repeated that Bernie "does better in the polls". These people are being intentionally obtuse and repeating krap the know is not true or they are idiots.  

    National polls are meaningless.   Especially in May
    Sanders has never had a single negative ad run against him.  

    They know this.

    Also an FYI
    you comment may be deleted because you included a long link.  Which is not allowed.  It skews the site.  J wants use to use the linking icon or tinyurl.com.



    Dadler, I can't begin to express how very (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by Cashmere on Wed May 25, 2016 at 11:21:23 AM EST
    sad I am re: your reference to women only supporting HRC because of gender.  Some of us prefer her policy proposals to those of Sanders and Trump.  Some of us recognize her positive accomplishments to society and don't revel in the slime that those who hate her, as you seem to do.  With that said, will I be proud to have an accomplished, intelligent, qualified woman in the WH?  Yes.  Would I want any woman in the WH?  No.  I found your post very disrespectful to women in general.

    Whatever drives your unmitigated hatred (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by christinep on Wed May 25, 2016 at 12:38:50 PM EST
    is unfathomable, Dadler.  

    I did abstain from a "1" rating here in recognition of your not using your oxymoronic sign-off about "peace."  (BTW, it would be welcome one day if your political statements would ever reflect a person of peace ... but, consumed by all that anger you spout, I suspect that is not possible. Sad.)


    I am so sorry (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jbindc on Wed May 25, 2016 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    That yet another Sanders supporter has bought into right wing talking points, like Shaun King and Glenn Greenwald.



    But ... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Nemi on Wed May 25, 2016 at 04:39:54 PM EST
    wasn't Glenn Greenwald always a Clinton hater? Also, as I understand it, he was the one starting the demands for Hillary to release her Wall Street transcripts.

    As for Shaun King - awww, I almost feel sorry for him. He seems totally deluded and more than just a little bit naive. Not that naivete can excuse hatred, but still ...


    Greenwald was (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 04:48:16 PM EST
    And he was always a tool.  

    He'd be more useful right now ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 27, 2016 at 10:45:23 PM EST
    ... if he'd report on the present political upheaval occurring in Brazil, where he lives.

    Thye next time you're tempted ... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 25, 2016 at 01:21:49 PM EST
    ... to accuse politicians of lacking imagination, I would suggest that you first take a good long look at the far-left caricature who's staring back at you in the bathroom mirror each morning.

    Bernie was on the ground multiple (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon May 23, 2016 at 11:48:26 AM EST
    places in Southern California this weekend. Including at the border. Many of the supporters quoted in the local paper were youngish Latinos.

    Don't think it cause even (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Tue May 24, 2016 at 08:44:34 AM EST
    a ripple.

    He had a rally just down the road, and aside from those attending, no one noticed.

    No ads on t.v. either.


    "anger and bitterness" (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mr Natural on Mon May 23, 2016 at 01:07:05 PM EST
    lol.  The "Going Postal" for Presidency...

    Bernie is far from done (none / 0) (#11)
    by smott on Mon May 23, 2016 at 02:10:27 PM EST
    He has no chance of winning the nom, but he is far from done when it comes to destroying the Dems opportunity to take the WH or control of the Senate.

    FAR from done.

    Make no mistake, he is focused on destroying Clinton's ever-narrowing chances.

    Latest polls show Trump leading Clinton amongst our  fondest demo, white males, roughly 70-30. Astonishing. Probably historic.

    It will be enormously difficult for her to make that up. Can she offset it with white females?
     Not if Bernie has anything to say about it.

    Bottom line is , latest polls if they hold, show its over.

    Thanks to Bernie and the MSM.

    Bernie (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 23, 2016 at 02:26:09 PM EST
    is a millionaire who won't suffer for one second under a Trump administration. So he doesn't care.

    Oh, please. It's only May. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 23, 2016 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    It's way too early to be sounding any alarm bells and screaming down the halls. Let's please get a grip here.

    the were showing polls this morning (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:01:10 PM EST
    in spite of all the hoopla Clinton and Trump are remarkable close, in almost every demographic, to the numbers Obama and Romney had at the end of the last cycle.

    ... the most any presidential candidate has ever garnered, and yet he still lost decisively. George H.W. Bush previously held that record when he took 61% of that vote in 1988, so any comparison between the two campaigns shows how significantly the electoral demographics have changed in the country over the last 25 years.

    Why are Republicans hellbent on replicating what obviously didn't work in California in the 1990s? Recasting the GOP as the party of angry and ignorant whites is a good way to ensure that 25 years hence, Republicans will be relegated to the margins as the favored party of only one in five voters.



    Donald what's your dispute? (none / 0) (#36)
    by smott on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:29:20 PM EST
    Do  you think the 70-30 poll re white men is wrong?

    Or do you think Clinton can overcome ? If so, how?

    My sense is its pretty close. We're down to the bottom line now and we are finally finding out who will really vote for this woman. Or won't.

    And I do not believe this country will ever  vote for this woman. Our misogyny combined with decades of the the MSM's attacks, which have affected a new generation of voters, will be too strong.

    I do not think she has a chance, even against this grotesque, dangerous lunatic Trump.

    It's going to be a real revelation of the deep disgusting misogyny in this country.....

    Which will allow for an unimaginable president Trump.

    Because, we just hate Hillary that much.

    We get what we deserve.


    My understanding (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:45:43 PM EST
    is the 70/30 number might be right but they are using old demographic numbers to get the top line numbers. It also says there are a lot of so called progressive men that have a problem with women leading. Those of us who were around in 2008 knew that already though.

    Elizabeth Warren (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 25, 2016 at 07:33:15 AM EST
    as running mate looks better and better.  Maybe, critical.

    Elizabeth Warren (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 25, 2016 at 07:47:02 AM EST
    would probably be more of a drag with that demographic than a help. I mean some of these guys have a serious problem with a woman candidate and Warren would not help in that area and maybe even hurt.

    Warren still looks better as (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by christinep on Wed May 25, 2016 at 12:54:10 PM EST
    an enhanced leader in the Senate or--if she would like--as Secretary of the Treasury.  IMO, her help now as a motivating, passionate team player is heightened all the more because she serves as a path-clearer leader to the convention and beyond. A unique, important, singular role.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by jbindc on Wed May 25, 2016 at 01:02:57 PM EST
    The VP pick will not be a Senator from a state with Republican governor who would get to replace them.  No Warren, no Sherrod Brown.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#178)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 25, 2016 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    I am aware of that issue as well as the opposition of Senator Harry Reid.  But, that concern and other worries such as being needed in the senate are dwarfed,  in my view, by the need to effectively unite the party so as to defeat Trump. Senator Warren is in a unique place to do so.

    If polls are to believed or even taken with a pound of salt, the election will be close. If Senator Warren can bring special strength to the ticket, that should be the deciding factor.  And, I believe she can do this better, than, say, a safe and bland Tim Kaine. The state of MA presents fewer concerns than a state such as Ohio. A special election must be held within 145 to 160 days of the vacancy.

     And, there is a high likelihood of Senator Warren being replaced by a Democrat.  Vice-president-elect Warren could resign in early November 2016 and a Democratic replacement could be sworn into the senate by the end of March,2017.  Not risk free, of course, but a very good bet.  

    I am not advocating Senator Warren because I am her brother-in-law, but for strategic electoral purposes in light of the high stakes and low lives possibly in our future.


    You know I agree (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 04:51:58 PM EST
    The good news is she can do a lot of that if she is VP or not.   And clearly she will.  She is shaping up as the anti-Bernie.  

    True, and (none / 0) (#183)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 25, 2016 at 05:22:32 PM EST
    if calculations prove this idea to be infeasible, my hope is that a bold choice is made.  Certainly, one that will undercut the Bros. and over-arch the flashy know nothings caught up by the media's eye.

    Just watching the (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 05:31:37 PM EST
    "With all due respect" boys lament (and seriously doubt) that Warren can become the Prylosec to Sanders reflux.  But they fear she can.   The should IMO.

    Their show today was declared to be about email.  


    If the "with all due respect" (none / 0) (#185)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 25, 2016 at 05:50:50 PM EST
    cohort thinks it is a bad idea, or, suddenly finds that Warren is needed much more in the senate, we can conclude that we are clearly on the right track.

    I am a bit perplexed by some comments that find reasons why this can't or shouldn't happen, from "she does not want it," (let her answer), to Harry Reid does not approve (more important is does Mrs. Clinton approve).  If Warren helps the ticket, that outweighs these arguments.  Oh, and by he way, thanks for suffering through these two "journalists," so as to report on the moron thinking.  I'll take two hours of Tweety to one of theirs--if waterboarded.


    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 06:03:38 PM EST
    This is a quote.  I rewound to make sure I got it.  The bald one talking to Trumps fat minion (I forget his name)...

    "I understand,  but then why are we talking now about Bill Clinton and the accusations about him from various women, about Vince Foster and now apparently we are going to be talking about Whitewater.  I understand these are all big important issues and may be what the campaign is about but right now why are we talking about these things?


    I second (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 25, 2016 at 06:08:43 PM EST
    KeysDan on thanking you for watching that nonsense and reporting back. I would almost rather have a hole drilled in my head and what you bolded shows how ridiculous they are.

    holy hell, my worst media peeve (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by ruffian on Wed May 25, 2016 at 06:30:36 PM EST
    Do they not realize they can just stop talking about it whenever they want?

    Thanks for taking the hit and watching these idiots for us.


    I've had it on most of the day (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 06:51:32 PM EST
    Curious how the covered the IG report.  They have not disappointed.  Earlier today Ron Reagan was on with some idiot anchor who was whipping the email krap and Reagan killed him.  He would not speculate about "how bad it was" and instead posed a thought experiment;  yes Hillarys "numbers" are bad on the trust issue, he said, but let's imagine how bad Trumps numbers would be if every time him name was mentioned in any context we brought up that he has been accused of rape twice.  Once by his ex wife.

    It was great.  They went to a commercial.

    MSNBC seems to have lost whatever tenuous grip on reality they ever had.  The promos for their show are guffaw inspiring.  Take Maddow for instance, I personally think it's just not a good idea to put the phrase "arguably the smartest person on TV" in your promo even if, you know, you are.


    And Tweety (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 06:12:57 PM EST
    Is just lamenting that Warren is now "in the dirt with everyone else"

    Her brother-in-law? (none / 0) (#192)
    by Cashmere on Wed May 25, 2016 at 08:34:34 PM EST
    Really :)  Or am I being naive here.  If so, how cool!

    You are right (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 12:58:09 PM EST

    She is already under Donalds skin.  And "Pocahontas Warren" ain't gonna do it.


    Well those (none / 0) (#49)
    by smott on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:54:36 PM EST
    Fabulously progressive men just sh** the country down the toilet.
    You go boys!

    My "problem" was stated above. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 23, 2016 at 07:30:43 PM EST
    Again, it's only May, and yet you're assuming that Trump will hold such a 70/30 split for the duration. That's more than likely not going to happen. It's way too early to be talking in such apocalyptic tones.



    Not likely. If Bernie can destroy her chances, she is too weak to win anyway. Bernie is not the great and powerful Oz!  

    Feel the Love (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mr Natural on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:00:45 PM EST

    its all downhill from here (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:03:18 PM EST
    i promise

    NPR - Why You Should Take A Deep Breath (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Mon May 23, 2016 at 04:02:20 PM EST
    Before Reading The Latest Trump-Clinton Polls

    Whether that makes you ecstatic or enraged, calm down. Here's what these first few general-election polls do and don't tell you.

    Circa 1992 when Harkin was running for Pres (none / 0) (#113)
    by Farmboy on Tue May 24, 2016 at 12:02:50 PM EST
    he had many of the same progressive goals as Sanders: public college tuition, universal healthcare, etc. His stump speech proposal for paying for all this was "imagine what we can do with just one less aircraft carrier", or "one less nuclear sub".

    I kept waiting for Sanders to make the same funding suggestions, but he never did (to my knowledge). Might've gotten my support if he had.

    Figures (none / 0) (#115)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue May 24, 2016 at 12:23:49 PM EST
    Didn't work out so well for Harkin.

    That was nearly 25 years ago. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 24, 2016 at 02:16:01 PM EST
    Societal views do tend to evolve over time, you know. Ronald Reagan never really found a receptive audience for his message when he first ran for president in 1968, and he lost eight years later, as well.

    Farmboy, I'm surprised at you (none / 0) (#123)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 24, 2016 at 02:28:52 PM EST
    Bernie's Blog


    Bernie Sanders on Gun Control
    Bernie Sanders on Taking on Wall Street
    Bernie Sanders on Taxation & How He'll Pay for Programs
    Bernie Sanders on the Issues
    Bernie Sanders on Combating Climate Change
    Bernie Sanders on Racial Justice in America
    Bernie Sanders on War and Peace

    And on, and on, and on


    I see plenty of references to taxing the wealthy, (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Farmboy on Tue May 24, 2016 at 03:37:51 PM EST
    forcing Wall Street to pay, closing loopholes, etc. Didn't see any proposals to lower military spending - just the usual "ike warned us but politicians aren't listening" comment as if he never voted for a bill funding Vermont defense contractors.

    You could effectively double both the federal education and medicare budgets by lowering military spending from 54% of the budget to something not-so-radical like say, 45%. That's how you effect real change.


    Bernie (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 24, 2016 at 04:26:32 PM EST
    has voted for the MIC many times
     and  this is rich
    In spite of claims of being antiwar, his "hawkish" support of Clinton's military actions in the 1999 Kosovo War caused one of his advisers to quit. When antiwar activists occupied Sanders' office in 1999 because of that support of Clinton's war policies, he had them arrested.

    Democracy is messy, Viva la Revolution


    You don't really expect (none / 0) (#131)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 24, 2016 at 04:07:37 PM EST
    that a candidate for President has a completely finished budget prepared during his/her campaign, I hope. My Lord, the Appendix alone runs well over 1000 pages. (In 2012, it ran over 1300 pages.)  

    Personally, I just go on blind faith that a candidate who lays out, generally, how he/she is going to approach the budget and will have a completed budget ready after they are inaugurated. I don't know how many financial/economic experts an incoming President normally has working on the Budget, but, I'm pretty sure it's hundreds, maybe thousands, of time greater than when they're running.

    By the way, your questions are a good example of why more debates should be a given for any Presidential campaign. (Not that any of our media would ask the candidates about their budget, but, that another story.)


    No one wants another debate (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 24, 2016 at 04:24:36 PM EST
    Except people who want to hear, again, that Hillary was paid for speeches.  By Goldman Sachs.

    I would be willing (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 24, 2016 at 04:26:36 PM EST
    to say nobody has learned much from any of the primary debates on either side. More would not have made a difference.

    I don't expect a detailed map, but (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Farmboy on Tue May 24, 2016 at 04:47:51 PM EST
    after a year of campaigning I'd like something more in-depth than "Wall Street bad, mmmkay?"

    Let's look at one of Sander's more popular suggestions. Tuition for all is always going to be a tough climb. The more immediate need is to fix the federal student loan program and get the repayment monkey off graduates' backs. The government shouldn't be in the usury business. Student loan rates should be zero, with maybe a one-time processing fee. That's all. Paying back the loan becomes a back breaker when your repayment is twice what you borrowed - or worse if you go to grad school.

    A better and more realistic higher education plan would be to refinance all outstanding federal loans at 0%; apply all payments to date to the original amount borrowed; then refund any overpayment.

    Student 1 borrowed $70k for undergrad and grad school; and paid $10k a year for the last ten years (and has five years left). New plan: the $70k note is paid-in-full and since $100k was paid so far uncle sugar cuts her a check for $30k.

    Student 2, same size loan, only five years in: $50k of the $70k is done and she has only two years left.

    Student 3 can focus on her studies because she knows the $70k she's borrowed will only be $70k when she's done.

    This issn't free tuition, it's a nation investing in its citizens. Even better, it benefits everyone not just the millennials who haven't entered school yet.


    Samantha Bee, (none / 0) (#121)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 24, 2016 at 02:19:07 PM EST
    gives it her Bern.....The Nevada Caucus, a bern-gams fostered by Bern.

    "Why are you persecuting me?" (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 24, 2016 at 07:14:55 PM EST
    LOL! She nailed it.

    After The Lie Told around the World, (none / 0) (#133)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 24, 2016 at 04:25:54 PM EST
    You know what (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 24, 2016 at 04:27:16 PM EST
    Bold is not going to make it true.  

    Although this quote from that site (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 24, 2016 at 04:32:04 PM EST
    Is funny

    What happened at the recent Nevada state Democratic convention sure looks like a railroad job. It reminds me very much of what happened to Ron Paul and his delegates during the 2012 GOP convention.

    Bernie won the (WA?) caucus by many points (none / 0) (#152)
    by sallywally on Tue May 24, 2016 at 11:51:20 PM EST
    Gird yourself for victory fist-pumping and predictions of Jane in the White House.....

    In the same state where Clinton just handily won (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by ruffian on Wed May 25, 2016 at 06:55:10 AM EST
    the primary. Guess one of Bernies 'reforms' of the Dem Party will not be to get rid of caucuses.

    Well (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 25, 2016 at 06:59:05 AM EST
    it's my understanding that Hillary wants to get rid of the caucuses and she's ignoring Bernie's request for all the primaries to be open. What Bernie seems to be getting is platform accommodation.

    He can have the whole platform for all (none / 0) (#161)
    by ruffian on Wed May 25, 2016 at 09:44:53 AM EST
    anyone cares. Are his supporters really so naive as to think it matters? Hard to believe, but if it makes them happy, I say go for it.

    Now he also wants to pick the cabinet. (none / 0) (#162)
    by oculus on Wed May 25, 2016 at 10:47:07 AM EST
    uh, that's a no Bernie, sorry. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by ruffian on Wed May 25, 2016 at 10:56:22 AM EST
    Would have loved to be in the Clinton war room when that came across.

    I saw (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 25, 2016 at 01:10:39 PM EST
    that. Has any losing candidate ever said such a thing before? I certainly don't ever remember a losing candidate demanding they decide who is in the winning candidate's cabinet. This makes me wonder if it's because Hillary is female that he thinks he can make such a statement.

    Or ... he may subscribe to (none / 0) (#182)
    by christinep on Wed May 25, 2016 at 05:02:08 PM EST
    and regard himself as Plato's Philosopher King.

    I've never seen anyone come to believe his own (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by ruffian on Wed May 25, 2016 at 06:33:52 PM EST
    mythology so fast. I understand people were so hungry for the message he has become the voice for that they back him. I truly do. But he seems to think it is about him.

    He read Team of Rivals. (none / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Wed May 25, 2016 at 11:06:38 PM EST