And this is precisely why the far Left will never achieve anything of substance, so long as they continue to insist that 100% fealty to their agenda is necessary to gain their support. If Sanders, their self-anointed Golden Child and best shot they've had in 30 years to get a place at the adults table can't live up to their standards, who in the world else do they think WILL?

Oh, right. Jill Stein - who will be lucky to get a booster seat at the folding card table in the kitchen with the other kids...

OK, here's a reality injection: 67%-ish of the electorate views Clinton as dishonest and untrustworthy, and the Corporate Dems have been warned repeatedly over the last year that huge numbers of voters all over the political map will never vote for her under any circumstances. Even still, they don’t view that as a problem, which is some industrial strength denial right there. I do agree that she will become president due to the (S)electoral College, though the popular vote will be uncomfortably close.

The Bernie revolution was never about Bernie, but about Bernie's message.

But, try telling Clintonistas that. They're so embroiled in the Cult of Personality narrative.

The country is just ungovernable, which is the simple truth. The Dems are about to nominate the candidate that drives over half the voters cross-eyed crazy with rage and will enter office with astounding unpopularity, so her ability to push legislation through a kamikaze Republican CONgress is already severely compromised. I suspect that she’ll collude with Republicans to pass the TPP, reduce Social Security benefits, further deregulate the Wall $treet/oligarch wealth transfer complex, and continue to provoke Russia in order to score some “wins.”

Remember how the anti-Sanders bias in the DNC was described as a conspiracy theory? Remember how delusional everyone was for pointing out that bias? When are we going to get the condescending "it's just politics, grow up" Dan Savage post about all that? Or the "DNC should have been biased against him" arguments?

Clinton is in a big mess now because not only are the top Democratic officials craven, cynical shitheads, they're also too incompetent to cover their tracks. If I was Clinton I'd be infuriated with the fact that my party sucks so much right about now. I'd be frustrated at the sheer ugliness and the failure to keep it out of easily attainable emails.

But yeah, let's keep pretending Clinton is a strong candidate (for the record, I don't think Sanders was a strong candidate either) and that anyone who suspects she might not be is hurting the cause. Let's keep harping on about the gun to the head of the American people called Trump, and pretending that anything the Dems do is okay because their opponents are so god awful terrible.

Alarm bells should be going off right now in this country and in the Clinton campaign. Instead, we're just going to shit on the left and blame it for everything wrong with the election.

@3/TheMisanthrope: "The Bernie revolution was never about Bernie, but about Bernie's message." If it wasn't about Bernie why couldn't bring himself to concede defeat after California?

@5/JMS: Funny, but the chief claim Sanders and his campaign made was that the DNC specifically set the debate schedule to impede the Sanders campaign, but there don't seem to be any e-mail to that effect.

@4, @5

Never change, please. You Bernouts are a gold mine of unintentional comedy.

They're actually booing the mention of Clinton and Kaine. I suppose it's pleasing to say they're booing Bernie.

Ultimately, you have to look at the big picture. The recently released emails confirmed what most reality-based people believed. The DNC was actively working for Clinton and against Sanders. The release of info just happened and people are angry. It's a fresh wound. Clinton people need to chill, let Bernie supporters vent.

The other reality is that Hillary Clinton at this point is a historically weak candidate against a historically weaker candidate - Trump. You're going to need Sanders' supporters to defeat Trump in November. Attacking them and belittling their beliefs is not an effective strategy.

Hillary is barely staying on top (not counting Trump's convention bump) of a bloviating, moist Cheeto which has been rolled over a barber shop floor, and apparently the DNC felt they needed to more or less tip the scales in her favor for her to beat Sanders, a fringe socialist who has never before seen much national prominence.

Maybe she just is not a very strong candidate.

There's either so few of us "radical leftists" that our votes don't matter, or we're so dangerous in rebelling against the Clinton Kleptocracy that we're about to serve up the election to Trump on a silver platter.

#6: He did concede defeat. Just because he didn't do it on your preferred timeline doesn't mean he's a raging narcissist. He wanted more leverage to influence the party platform and to placate supporters so more of them would be willing to consider Clinton once he conceded. He took a deliberate approach, and that's okay! Just because you have you own ideas of when someone should concede doesn't mean that the candidate in question is just out for himself. For all the whininess of some Sanders supporters, some of the Clinton supporter bullshit takes the cake. "Oh he conceded, but he didn't kiss the ring enough and didn't do it immediately after, so therefore he must be a raging egomaniac." I would think that these hardened Clinton "realists" (or neophytes pretending to be) would understand the concept of political leverage.

Maybe they're saying "Boo-illary?"

And 90% of Sanders supporters plan on voting for Clinton. If the Dems continue their rabid attacks on Sander's supporters, maybe they can get that number down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-…

#7: You know what's funny? I'm not even a Sanders supporter. Honestly I think the Dems could have done much better than him or Clinton. But the fact that you assume that I'm this hardcore Sanders supporter (when in fact I've pretty much said I'm voting for Clinton for months now) is a great illustration of why Clinton's campaign is having so many problems. All you can do is attack, condescend and talk shit. This is why so many people don't like the Democrats. People like you actually hurt your own party.

@12- FTW.

I remember when Dan Savage used to be a progressive.

The PUMAS are BACK BITCHES!!!!

Remember 2008??

ugh, this entire year is a shit show.

67% of voters are buying 30 years of hysterical, baseless (yes, Vince Foster and Benghazi are baseless) anti-Clinton hype, and are therefore looking at fucking Trump for "honesty and trustworthiness"? what a bunch of rubes.

we make the Brexit vote look rational.

@15- He wasn't tearing Clinton apart, he was really quite polite and nice about what a shitshow Clinton is. What he didn't expected is to be influential and successful despite the entrenched interests working so hard against him.

What the Democratic Party ought to expect is to keep losing as they run rightwards.

@8 She's what you've got.

Who are these perfect strong liberal candidates people imagine are out there? Who are they? You know. The ones that actually want to run. The "strong" candidates that have the, money or the name recognition or ground game?

You guys act like there is factory where "strong" candidates are manufactured over night.

@17- The biggest problem for the Democrats isn't people voting for Trump because they hate Clinton, it's people not voting because both candidates are seen as untrustworthy scumbags.

@8,

But don't you think that's just modern day politics? Do you really think a self-described "Socialist" would have been any less off-putting and divisive to the right? I suppose maybe a Cory Booker or even Tim Kaine type might be slightly less so, but I've no doubt Karl Rove & his minions would mount an effective campaign to brand either one of them as Satan Incarnate.

@3: Right now Bernie's message is "vote for Hillary, because she's our best chance at enacting the reforms we want". And you guys suddenly have your fingers in your ears.

@15, 17, 19: Pretty much this.

@8- There's the Senator from Vermont who inspires a lot of people, is widely seen as trustworthy, and has hardly any baggage.

@18 as Sanders HIMSELF said the 2016 Democratic Party platform is the most progressive in US history. That may not be progressive enough for you. But stop pretending we live in a time when huge milestones - like legal gay marriage - don't exist because of the hard work of the Democratic Party.

I don't see how any amount of voting for Jill Stein will accomplish anything. Voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 didn't do shit for the green party in subsequent elections. The only message people will be sending is that they are willing to take the whole ship down rather than have it move partially in their direction. That's not a position that invites dialogue and further concession. If we want to continue to steer the Dems to the left, then we need to reward them when they move in that direction. If you want a viable third party (and I do), then we need to elect state level congressional level representatives.

@21. I'm not @8 but I'll give your question a stab.

Maybe, but only marginally. The Republicans have hated the Clintons for decades, ever since Bill Clinton "robbed" George H.W. Bush of his second term. They hounded Bill for years, up to and including impeachment, shut down the government, and threw up dumb scandal after dumb scandal.

Now, I'm not saying that they would have given any other candidate a pass. But I do believe that someone like Martin O'Malley or Cory Booker would not have that decades of seething hatred that Mrs Clinton has going against her.

And yes, I know, they went hard on Obama. But they never impeached him and they only had 8 years for the hate to build up.

Now if Malia or Natasha get into politics and end up running for president, they will most likely have the same problem(or worse) that Mrs Clinton has.

@4 The TPP will be passed during the lame duck session after the election before anyone new takes office.

@25 Yep.

@25

First, full disclosure. I'm going to be voting for Mrs Clinton and will most likely volunteer for her campaign if they get back to me.

That said, from what I can see, yes, a lot of people are willing to take the whole ship down exactly because it isn't moving in their direction at all, at least not in a direction that matters to them.

The biggest recent strides in the past 8 years only directly matter if you are gay, trans, or use cannabis.

Wages are still stagnating and have been for decades. Race relations are still catastrophically bad and will continue to be bad until we make some radical changes that nobody has an appetite for(for example, towns that don't have the tax base to be self supporting without using the police as revenue generators, like Ferguson, should be rolled into greater municipal areas). Qualifications for jobs are still and will continue to be a huge problem.

Now that Mr Sanders is not going to get the nomination it is almost a guarantee that things are going to get worse. The only reason I'm supporting Mrs Clinton is that I think things will get worse at a marginally slower rate than Trump.

I love all this 'not a strong candidate' 'weakest candidate ever' yammering. Yammer away armchair savants. Where is your bullet-proof progressive candidate that measures up to every single one of your morally pristine standards? If you imagine Bernie Sanders (or even better, Jill Stein) is it I think you should take a break from sniffing the cleaning fluid. The Dem bench was non-existent this year. Far from being the 'weakest candidate ever' Clinton was and is the best option the Dems have. Some colorless unknown like Martin O'Malley would have had a nearly impossible time even getting a soundbite in during the commercial breaks of the 24/7 Trump Circus.

30: Yes, it was a very small bench, and that should be cause for alarm. The fact that she's the best the Dems can do is not a good sign. This election needed an Obama, it needed someone who can inspire people while also being pragmatic. You know, a strong politician. So yes, Clinton is the best, and that's pretty sad.

Sellout Elitists: we didn't force Clinton, a right of center candidate, on the Democratic Party.

You did.

@14 I remember when Dan Savage was a Republican

@19, 30: Sorry that pointing out Clinton's clear weakness as a candidate makes you so angry.

But once again it is on clear display: Clinton supporters are completely unable to make Clinton out to be a worthwhile candidate, so instead they deflect and whine.

Instead of proving that Clinton is a good candidate, all you can say is "well, everyone else sucks too!" Or, "well, Trump is worse!"

Real ringing endorsements there. "Vote Hillary: she is the least terrible option!"

@29 Thank you for a most reasonable post.

http://i.imgur.com/Boo1svc.png

If a Sanders supporter wants to furnish a practical strategy that defeats Trump without electing Clinton, then I'm all ears. If not, stop throwing a fucking temper tantrum.

@34.
Schip.
Policy Wonk.
Long political experience.
Impressive ground work setting up this run, including pulling in all those d@mned super delegates.
Her constituency in New York thought she was great.
Demolished Benghazi hearings in marathon testimony.
Has the respect of the demo-office holders by and large.
Stood up to a two year long attack by the republicans when it became clear she was going to run again.
Stood up to years of attacks from the republicans as being part of the "clinton machine."
Impressive credentials prior to becoming arkansas first lady.

@22 That's because we don't agree with him. He's not God. We're not a cult following Jesus. He was just the best chance at getting our agenda into the executive branch.

Clinton is a total loss. Thanks, all you who Vote the Brand. Handed the country over to Trump.

Re: her being a strong candidate, convince me to vote for her without mentioning her opponent.

@29.

Please add in an excellent Supreme Court decision that turned back the insidious erosion of the right to choose.

And even if it was just gay rights (huge) and cannibis (so it doesn't count unless it effects you?), those were tremendous strides especially in light of the amazing obstruction of congress. You can add in Obamacare as well.

As to "the economy, stupid," (to quote Clinton, B.) yes I agree we still have wage stagnation, which is likely a systemic issue due to automation as well as globalization, none of which is going away. However, our economy is in much better shape than the rest of the developed world, including Europe. These things are relative. Even if the advancement of the progressive agenda is not what you or i would like, its a far better cry than turning it over to Trump.

This is one of the first elections where I have been honestly scared.

@34 Not especially angry. Exasperated about the overabundance of lazy-ass pontificating and the under-abundance of realistic perspective. 'Historically weak candidate'? Sure, yep, right. Except when compared to every single one of the other historically weak candidates you can name. I don't think that the level of hatred the idiot right has for any particular Democratic candidate is a good measure of that candidate's strength. Do you?

As for what makes her a decent candidate, let's see: almost 30 years of political experience in high profile national positions. Actual understanding of policy and how to realize policy (as opposed to Sanders who was, one example, hard-pressed to describe how he would go about breaking up large banks or even what that would supposedly achieve). What have you got? She's 'not well-liked'. Yep she's running for homecoming queen here.

@39.

Nope. Where do you guys live? I live in Georrrrgia. I know, back woods red, but a big chunk of the country will never go for Bernie. Your "best chance" was "no chance." Shrug. Why do you think Trump wanted him instead of Clinton.

@38, 42: None of you seem to understand what you are arguing. Have you ever heard the term "a good team on paper?"

Because a "strong candidate" is one that has the best chance of winning an election, not one who can barely maintain a lead over the most hated and reviled candidate ever in Trump.

Her credentials do not matter if she can't win the election. I still think she will, but a decent candidate would be blowing Trump out of the water. No other established Dems wanted to take on the inevitability monster that was Clinton (hell, the DNC went so far as to cheat and try to tip the scales for her against Sanders), and so none of them bothered to try to run. But you have to understand that this does not make her a candidate who is more likely to win.

@24- The Democratic Platform is Progressive because Bernie Sander's voters moved it there. The Democratic nominee is a centerist, interventionist, who has "come around" to progressive positions after the majority got there ahead of her.

@28- It's almost like Sanders was running against Clinton for a nomination or something, what a shock he didn't compliment her constantly! I care a lot about whether or not Clinton wins or loses. I really, really wanted her to lose the primary. I really, really want her to beat Trump (though that's more an I-want-Trump-to-lose). But I also care a lot about the bigger picture, which means I'm not going to pretend to be happy with the Democratic Party.

@43- So when's the last time the Deep South put the electoral votes to a Democrat?

American liberals make the best circular firing squads in the world!

I'm booing that statement, too, but I'm still (reluctantly) voting for Hillary. There is literally no other sane option.

This is all stuff you can look up on your own, but regarding Hillary's progressive work, she has:
1. introduced a bill to address the disproportionate impact of environmental pollution on communities of color
2. introduced a bill to keep families in public housing safe from lead poisoning
3. introduced a voting rights bill and working to restore voting rights to those who were convicted of a crime and had served their sentences
4. introduced legislation to create a fund addressing the health disparities for people of color
5. introduced a bill to give historically black colleges grants that would go to underrepresented populations
6. co-sponsored legislation to eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, etc...
7. Created the Office on Violence Against Women in the Justice Department
8. Often speaks out in support of Planned Parenthood. She's been in Planned Parenthood’s corner more than any other presidential candidate according to their website
9. Introduced eight pieces of legislation to expand and protect women’s access to reproductive health care — more than any other presidential candidate
10. Helped launch the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy
11. Introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act ​in 2005, 2007 and 2009. No other presidential candidate has introduced equal pay legislation
12. Waged a multi-year effort​ with Sen. Patty Murray — and blocked the nomination of an FDA head — to pass the law that made emergency contraception available over-the-counter

Why am I not at all surprised that Dan Savage fails to understand that somebody can support a political candidate while not agreeing with every single word they say?

@5 & @13 ~ You said: "All you can do is attack, condescend and talk shit. This is why so many people don't like the Democrats. People like you actually hurt your own party." Totally agree with the first sentence - and, I'd not limit it to Democrats. That's how humans in the US communicate with one another at the moment, and it sucks. We attack, condescend, and talk shit to one another instead of being curious about what makes us believe the things we believe, feel the ways we feel, and think the thoughts we think. Crosses all party lines = lack of humanity, imagination, critical thinking, and curiosity. Likely I'll be labelled a concern troll for posting this ~ and if preferring to understand people's points of view that differ from mine makes me a concern troll, I guess it's true!

"The Democratic nominee is a centerist, interventionist, who has "come around" to progressive positions after the majority got there ahead of her."

Yes! Of course. And now the Bernie Bro's are cutting off their own noses, booing their own candidate, taking their toys and running home rather than see that progressive platform even have a chance.

Look. I voted for Sanders in the Primary, too. But all this Clinton hate being tossed around by the extreme left is simply unhinged. As unhinged as Trump supporters.

In the real world, supporting Hillary Clinton is also supporting wholesale corruption, dishonesty, war-mongering, and complete political expediency. I support Bernie Sanders. If I were in Philadelphia, I would not boo him, because what I remain grateful for what he did. I also understand why he is saying that we must choose Hillary. But I strongly disagree with him.

Irony of Dan voluntarily contributing to the cannibalism of the left is amusing, and perplexing that he's not smarter than this. If he was really interested in party unity and defeating Trump, he'd stop castigating and diminishing the Sanders crowd.

I'm really having a hard time grokking the position of the NeverHillary group here. The facts and logic here are pretty straightforward:

Fact #1: Either Clinton or Trump with be the next president of the United States.
I don't think this is in dispute. While folks talk about third-party candidates, I haven't seen anyone advance an argument than Johnson or Stein can actually win the presidency. But if someone wants to propose a realistic third option, please do so.

Fact #2: A Trump presidency will be much worse than a Clinton presidency.
Yes, Clinton is a terrible person, but she's not going to order our troops to commit war crimes, or force Muslims to register for a national database, or nominate anti-choice judges, or pull out of NATO, etc. I haven't seen any liberals really contending otherwise.

Conclusion: Given Facts #1 and #2, the sane person does what they can to get Clinton elected, which at a minimum means voting for her. There are no other realisitic options.

An analogy: suppose you're given the choice of being punched in the face or being shot in the face. You can legitimately complain that both options suck, that it's a crime to be in that position, and that the guy forcing you to make that choice should himself be shot. All good points, but when the clock runs down, you'd be a goddamn fool not to pick the punch.

@44 Hmm. I think she has the best chance of winning the election out of the available field. 'Strong candidate' is relative. There are practically no Dems with serious national stature at the moment. Elizabeth Warren? A badass on domestic policy but has she ever said a word about foreign policy? Is she hard-nosed enough to prevail? She has been doing a good job against Trump, on Twitter.The same misogynistic vitriol would be directed at her by the right, with some good old red-baiting mixed in for good measure.

Amen 56. I feel the same way, though your analogy is a better way of explaining it than I've managed to come up with (mostly because I get stuck at, Really? You're willing to let a morally, ethically and fiscally bankrupt lunatic win over...email?). The world is a dangerous enough place without entrusting lives and wmds for a man who can't even grasp basic concepts of what it takes to govern.
I'm not a fan of Hillary, but I'll be damned if I let trump send my baby to war so he can prove that he doesn't have an innie penis.

Sanders lost me the second he announced running as a Democrat, rather then as a Socialist. I immediately became suspicious of this consumate politician and have remained so. Had he been proud of that heritage, he would have been seen as a person of integrity. Now, he just looks like an angry, self-obsessed power monger, driving his own transportation over a cliff. The similarities between Sanders, Trump and their hysterical acolytes is astonishing...and sickening.

During the Spanish Civil war the fascist front was moving in on the areas that were still held by the Republic loyalists. But much like we see here now, the hate and rancor that grew between the different factions that comprised the Republican army grew and grew to the point it broke into internal warfare and a civil war within a civil war begun, Days of May. And instead for presenting a unified front, they ended up shooting each other instead of the fascists. George Orwell wrote about this in his "Homage to Catalonia" memoirs. This in-fighting eventually led to total and absolute defeat and brought forth 40 years of fascist dictatorship. Obliteration vis-a-vis spitefulness, idealism and rancor.

Americans are poorly educated. They live in a world with a handful of catch phrases and ideas and little else. That is why they can't learn SQUAT from history, thus are bound to commit the same mistakes over and over again. Iraq was the New Iran, for example. Here you have a PERFECT HISTORICAL EXAMPLE of what is going on right now, right here.

Ignore it a be doomed,

Neolibs need to learn how to win without help from the left. And the left needs to learn the scorched earth policy that made the republican congress so successful at denying a progressive agenda. Everyone knows Hillary is going to win not because the Berniebros will vote for her, but because every neocon with their bomb-brownie agenda will vote for her.

Sanders has found out that stirring up a mob to action is easier than stopping a mob. He built this.

I hope they calm down.

@53- Keep moving those goal posts.

@52- I see a lot more hatred and rancor directed at Sanders and his supporters ("Bernie Bro" being a really good example) than I see directed at Hillary. I see critiques of Ms. Clinton's policy positions more often than I see any debate about Bernie's policies (except some quibbling about when he should have quit running for President.) I'm really fucking sick of getting insulted by supposed allies for not wholeheartedly embracing a candidate who doesn't represent me or the best interests of the nation (she's just a lot better than the other guy, but that's some faint praise.)

Dwightmoody -- are you in a battleground state that starts with an O, by any chance?

Hey Dan Savage, you shouldn't grovel before the corporate DemocRAT establishment just because Bernie Sanders does.

Kshama Sawant and Socialist Alternative are genuine socialists.

We appeal for a mass vote for the petit-bourgeois Green Party’s Jill Stein.
As an ax-blow to loosen the DemocRAT-ReTHUGlican corporate death-grip on US working-class politics and help form an independent mass party of the 99%.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the 99% to give birth to a mass party of our own!
Against the ruling capitalist enemy's Republican and Democrat parties.

The right to vote is a relatively-precious gift won for us with their blood by our enslaved ancestors in 1865 and our great-grandmothers in 1919.
We shall not betray them!
We shall not vote for any DemocRAT or ReTHUGlican for any public position under any circumstance.

The sole exception would be if there was a serious chance of a fascist party victory, where we'd been too stupid to run our own socialist candidates to smash them -- January 1933, where it was correct to vote von Schleicher to block Hitler. No such situation prevails in the US today — Trump is a sexist, racist, wannabe mass-murderer, but the Republican party is not a fascist party even though it has fascist currents embedded within it.

So, “Voting for Hillary to stop Trump” is mere cowardly nonsense.
As is “Voting for Trump to stop Hillary”.

We are not here to “Push the Democrat Party (or the Republican Party) to the Left”.
Instead, we are here to push them off the proverbial cliff!
:)

Please do contact and discuss with Socialist Alternative in your area, please donate to us, and please seriously consider joining us — let’s make history together!

http://www.socialistalternative.org/

If tennis follows the lead of politics, the Federer backers will remain so anti-Nadal that Djokovic will end up being deemed GOAT.

GhostDog @ 29
“The biggest recent strides in the past 8 years only directly matter if you are gay, trans, or use cannabis.”

They all have one thing in common: Supreme Court nominees. OK, maybe cannabis isn’t, but health care is, diluted as it may be.

dwightmoodyforgetsthings @ 14
I remember Dan saying the same thing 16 years ago in regards to Nader.

TheReasonist @ 60
Thanks for the Spanish civil war history lesson, seriously.
As for, “Iraq was the New Iran”- Do you mean our ally against Iran in the early 80’s?

dwightmoodyforgetsthings @ 63
Thanks for the round football reference. I hope it is a soccer reference. If indeed it is a soccer reference than now there are four of us here.

socialistworld @67
Didn’t know assisted suicide is on the ballot.

Venn @ 68
Or using the round world of football: While mercenaries like Messi and Ronaldo keep fueling the Spanish civil war, Ibrahimovic’ goatee ended up in Manchester.

Ahem.... 69?

Five CMD. Five.

@68. You aren't in the 99%

Sorry. That was supposed to be 67.

BTW no one with serious foreign policy experience, no matter red or blue, supports trump. He is an international disaster.

@67: I won't believe you until you tell me the truth about the chemtrails.

Vote for the second oldest Pres ever who voted for everything you are against but now claims she's' for all you are for. That always works out. Just do what they tell you. Don't vote your conscience. Let them terrify you so much that you vote for Hillary Clinton. Enjoy that. What could go wrong?

DHR @ 70
Wow, an instant 25% growth!

Or @74, vote ( directly or indirectly) for the guy the KKK endorses.
Choices Choices.

@76 good thing there's not only two choices!

Vote for Hillary if you want--I probably will to defeat Trump--but make no mistake, she's a shitty human being and a bad politician.

That being said, Hillary will never get it anyways. The American public at large hates her guts and rightly so. They hate Trump's guts too, but that just puts them on a level playing field so that the one positive Trump has over Clinton stands out, namely that he is more entertaining. The best that her staunch supporters have to come up with is that she isn't Trump, which is sort of like if I told someone that they ought to get HIV instead of getting cancer because you may live longer with HIV. It's techncially correct but you'd still have to have serious problems or a bugchasing fetish (a serious problem) to actively *want* to contract HIV.

In the same way, you have to be tone-deaf to the American public if you think Hillary Clinton would be seen as golden if only it weren't for Old Man Sanders and his crew pointing out her mile-long list of shady shit. You also have to be delusional to believe that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. She won't. She'll make a shit president who will do nothing and twiddle her thumbs while the American people get shafted by the people who paid her to let it happen.

@74" What could go wrong?"
-Implementing Water Boarding and other torture tactics, plus the implementation of Secret CIA Prisons
-Bombing and possible military invasion of Iran.
-Putting far right Supreme Court Justices that will overturn not only Roe v. Wade (1973) but Griswold v. Connecticut (1967)
-Threatening US Journalists Putin Style
-A major drop in the US Stock Market with the implementing of a Trade war with China and Mexico.
-Major Problems with the US economy of the US withdraws from the WTO, that Trumps has stated.
-Smaller NATO and EU nations being invaded or bullied into Russia's sphere of influence with Trump's desire to ignore Article V of NATO Charter..
-Trump still trying to make money and personal deals while President of the US..

That is just a small list. Vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton for President in 2016, anything else puts Donald Trump into the White House. We don't need a repeat of Caligula in power again..

@77 But there are only two outcomes. Not voting for either outcome is indistinguishable from not doing anything at all.

"The sole exception would be if there was a serious chance of a fascist party victory, where we'd been too stupid to run our own socialist candidates to smash them -- January 1933, where it was correct to vote von Schleicher to block Hitler"

General von Schleicher wasn't an elected leader. He ruled by emergency decree with the favor of President von Hindenburg. Von Schleicher was hardly a Social Democrat, given he tried a couple of times in making a deal with the Nazis and turned a blind eye when the SA and other Nazis were taking weapons from Reichswehr depots. .

Hitler came to power in January 1933, in a deal made with Franz von Papen, who had the senile ear of President von Hindenburg. Hitler was never elected, he was chosen in a backroom deal as Chancellor, when the Nazi Party's power was actually declining after the November 1932 Reichstag elections.. The Nazi Party was the largest in the Reichstag in Nov. 1932, but it wasn't the majority. The first Nazi led cabinet had ministers held by other far right parties..

The "Popular Fronts" that came about in the 1930s of Social Democrats and Communist came after Stalin allowed Communist Parties in Western Europe to form coalitions with Social Democrats after the debacle of the rise of Hitler and Gleichschaltung by Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1933.

Posted Elsewhere:

I was just asked to pledge my vote for Clinton. No one owes you anything, no matter how bad the other candidate looks. This is still America, and we still have checks and balances, as long as we use them and don't have Senators voting for ill-concieved wars. A Democratic House and Senate could show Trump and Pence what real obstruction looks like.
Despite being a system of plurality voting, we have a right to vote our consciences, and mine weighs heavily.

The only real point of attack has been at Sanders supporters.

I tried, somewhere in the middle of it all, to argue with them regarding the need for party unity, and that the best goal should be to get Sanders as much as we could, even if it was only the vice presidency.
You, all of you, made that impossible.
Tone deaf towards BLM.
Hitting Sanders as hard as you could, where he was weakest, his marginalized supporters.
Looking, over and over again, for all the world, like you were in bed with the money and power more than the people.

Trump hijacked the GOP. Let's look for a moment at how he did that:
He went after those who felt marginalized. To be sure, a lot of supremacists who felt left behind by a changing world, a world they've been repeatedly told is under attack. To be sure, it is because they earned it with years of bigotry at home towards too many people, and years of wars abroad.
They feel beaten, and they have been, as much by their own corrupt politicians and religious leaders as by the outside world they abused. Trump cashed in on that thoroughly.

Now let's look at how the Democrats have treated the marginalized within their sphere:
Derision, attempts at silencing, mockery. All the tools the GOP's supremacists have used for years at here at home.
Unable to reach Sanders on moral grounds, the entire campaign openly went after those who felt the most vulnerable _without caring whether or not those feelings were valid and justified_.
All the arguing about the conspiracy theories that came out of the Bernie or Bust crowd boiled down to this. The statements by one Democratic pundit after another.
This is what we're supposed to pledge to supporting?
The Democratic party has used the GOP the same way the GOP has used the USSR and ISIS. It's all fear based tactics in the end.
Then we get to the recently released emails, and I can't tell the difference between the democratic party of now and LBJ, except the fiscal values still seem a lot like Reagan's. We are like chattel to you.

If Clinton loses to Trump, it is her and her party's own fault. You have 2 months to fix that. Get to work.
#endpluralityvotingnow
#demexit

@41, @69

A few things.

First, for me personally, cannabis is a somewhat sticky point.

I'm a cannabis user and at one point an activist(I used to be a member of NORML and contributed to the California Prop 19 campaign in 2010) so I am one of those three groups that directly benefited from the last eight years.

Now, if I was voting my activism, I would have an even harder time voting for Mrs Clinton than I do now because from what little she has said on the matter I believe that she is going to attempt to roll back cannabis legalization in the US.

I wasn't making a personal statement on Mrs. Clinton(like I said, I'm voting for her) as much as why people are basically totally unwilling to support Hillary and are basically willing to follow a fringe socialist to the gates of Hell.

Keep in mind I can make a very similar argument as to why the Republican base abandoned the GOP. In their case not only are they taking it in the chin due to economic factors but also on a cultural level their representatives have over-promised and under-delivered far more than anything that has happened on the left.

And I do agree that automation and globalization are playing a big role in the economic problems we are facing. That's part of why I'm as worried as I am. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is talking about economic solutions that will actually work.

We aren't talking about funding research to find the "next big thing" that will create jobs that have been lost due to automation(it isn't going to be manufacturing or .com stuff, btw). We aren't talking about basic income to deal with the people who can't get a job no matter what or supplementing incomes for people who have full time jobs but still live in poverty. We aren't talking about retooling our educational system to teach people how to learn instead of for a career that may not be around when they graduate. We aren't making training available for the skills that people need for the few high skill jobs left. The only thing we are doing right is that we are trying to raise the minimum wage so that the vast majority of jobs of the future(that being manual service jobs that can't be outsourced or automated) will have a living wage.

the headline is an interesting way to frame the narrative Mr. Dan. A reasonable person without interest in propagating the idea that Hillary Clinton should be the next president of the US might ascertain the people were not Boo'ing Bernie, but rather the idea that Democrats should support Hillary - but good for you - not sure what your (and hence the Stranger's) bias is all about - middle age complacency, money, both??

Bernie Sanders supporters boo Bernie Sanders? The Bernie Sanders Bolsheviks and Anarchist, were the rudest, most violent group, of political supporters since the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

@ 39,

"He was just the best chance at getting our agenda into the executive branch. "

This perfectly encapsulates the problem with the hard left. You don't understand that this is a decades-long process. You want everything NOW or you're gonna hold your breath.

It's also unintendedly ironic, given that Bernie has delivered just that. By getting the platform changed, he had gotten the agenda on the Democratic radar. And now you want to throw it away.

@82 - you wrote "A Democratic House and Senate could show Trump and Pence what real obstruction looks like."

We aren't going to get a democratic house and senate. Imagine what Trump and Pence can do with a republican house and republican senate - which is the most likely outcome for those two legislative bodies. MAYBE we'll get a democratic senate; but unlikely, esp. if Trump wins the White House.

So you can vote for whomever you want; but your vote has consequences and should not be based on a daydream that won't happen.

@86 I'm honestly not asking for anything at all except election campaign reform. I fail to see how that's possible through a candidate who uses all the dirtiest tricks of campaigning.

But I guess I'll vote for her since maybe her SCOTUS nomination can overturn Citizens United, maybe. Besides that, we'd be sentencing her to four years of getting shit on all over again and that's just fine with me, so sure, she has my vote.

@82 - you wrote "A Democratic House and Senate could show Trump and Pence what real obstruction looks like."

And this is good for the country how?
Forget the fact that the Ds won't take both chambers -- obstructionism is damaging to the nation.

Sure it’s a daunting challenge:
To fight for the birth of a mass Movement of the 99%,
For a mass political party of the workers, for the workers, by the workers.
Against the ruling capitalist enemy’s DemocRAT-ReTHUGlican duopoly which is strangling us politically, economically, environmentally.

However if we want to give birth to a new world, a socialist world, we have no other choice.

And now is a historic, once-in-a-generation, moment to begin the process — with the glorious human tsunami energized by Sanders’ now-failed campaign, and to some extent even with the right-populist surge around Trump.

Here’s Socialist Alternative’s Kshama Sawant on the subject, in inspiring Kshama-style:
http://www.socialistalternative.org/2016…

Let’s expose the capitalist lickspittle-leaders’ self-serving “lesser-evilist” lies:
Is “Hillary the lesser evil compared to Trump”? Or “vice versa”?
No — they are both instruments, though different instruments, in the capitalists’ infernal orchestra.
“Wouldn’t appealing for a mass vote for the Green Party’s Jil Stein usher in Trump?”
Most likely not — but even if it was so, that’s a risk we have to take.

Because the need of the hour is to strike a smashing blow against the colossal capitalist monster’s duo-paw duopoly — its Democrat left paw’s claws, and its Republican right paw’s claws, that are together rending our throat apart.

Here's a quotation from Marx and Engels:
" ... the proletariat must take care: 1) that by sharp practices local authorities and government commissioners do not, under any pretext whatsoever, exclude any section of workers; 2) that workers’ candidates are nominated everywhere in opposition to bourgeois-democratic candidates. As far as possible they should be League members and their election should be pursued by all possible means. Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo…

And Malcolm X:
"Democrat bigwigs, Republican bigwigs: one's the wolf, the other's the hyena. No matter what, they'll both eat you!”

And Public Enemy’s Chuck D., lyrics from “By the Time I Get to Arizona”:
“Neither party is mine, not the jackass nor the elephant … What they need is a nosebleed”

And Upton Sinclair on the Republican and Democrat leaderships:
“Two wings of the same bird of prey”

Let’s take courage — and strike hard!
We have a world to win!

http://www.socialistalternative.org/

@90: All right, you've inspired me! I'm going to go out there and rally the American people, to demand the creation of a band called "The Capitalists' Infernal Orchestra"!

How many times have our resident clintonites used "far left", "extreme left" to describe commenters criticizing neoliberal Clinton over the last few days? How is "catapulting the propaganda" going people?

@92 - I prefer calling them the Green Tea Party personally. They're as reality-blind as their namesakes.

@93:

Nicely done, sir!

Vote Trump. It is a win win scene. We either get a President that is a no nonsense person when it comes to solving problems (atleast getting us turned around mentally towards fixing rather than saying it is too large to fix) or he turns out like any other corrupt politician BUT without the full support of complicit media in sweeping everything under the rug or running defense. At the end of the day Trump will have much less wiggle room in anything corrupt as compared to the Clintons. While I think Trump may do a great job at being the change agent needed in government he would be much less capable of doing things due to the 24/7 witchhunt by the media.

When you factor in the multi level abstract thought processing he turns out to be the much safer candidate. He is the battering ram (which is needed) . Could any of you think of a single person who would be able to pretty much be laughed at by everyone in the start of the election to now being 1 person away from President? That was no accident and trust me, they threw everything plus the kitchen sink. It is my humble opinion that no one could have weathered the same thing. You can also be assured that if Trump does not become president, they are going to make sure the rules are changed in such a way for both parties , that this sort of thing NEVER happens again with an outsider getting so close.