2016 Mar 31, 2016 at 12:01 pm


Democrats win when people vote. Gore was a shitty candidate. So is Hillary. Don't blame Nader or Sanders.
If Clinton wins it's only going to be a matter of time before someone worse than Trump comes along and wins. She's perpetuating and profiting from the problems, not fixing them.

And if you want to get on your high horse about the privilege of not voting for Clinton, you're probably one of the people privileged enough to not suffer the effects of a Clinton administration. For instance, you probably aren't a Syrian refugee or a Honduran child or an Iraqi civilian.
Hear, hear, Dan. I was standing at an Al Gore rally at Cincinnati State community college in September 2000 and had to listen to the younger-than-I Gen-Xers pull this BS about Gore=Bush and that they would vote Nader. And their bullshit really mattered, because it happened in Ohio. We reasoned (and then begged and pleaded) with them that they had no adult memory of what it was like to live under Republican rule, but to no avail. Bush won by 3.5%, and 2.5% of that went to Nader. They lived to regret it, but I guess every generation of white, privileged kids has to learn from its own mistakes.
The next President will appoint 2 - 4 new members to the Supreme Court of the United States. Do we want a Democrat making those appointments, or Donald Trump / Ted Cruz? The decision we make in November will have profound effects for decades to come.
Also, if we're talking about Bush and Gore, let's not forget a certain sex advice columnist who was all-in for invading Iraq and murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians back when Bush was president. So your political judgment might not be very reliable.
Who the fuck is Susan and why do I care what she thinks?
I hope you the other Dan Savage a lot of action if he's not already getting it on his own.
Thank you Dan for stating what should be so obvious to Sanders supporters. It is remarkable that even after the 2000 campaign that so many people on the left are contemplating doing exactly the same thing in 2016.

As @4/RDPence, says the next president will nominate 2-4 justices. That could give the conservatives a 7-2 majority for the next 30 years. How anyone on the Left thinks that their polices will be advanced thereafter is a complete mystery. The ACA barely survived constitutional challenges, which are still ongoing. How do people think abortion rights, affirmative action, voting rights, union rights, gun control, environmental legislation, etc. is going to fare?
I will vote for whoever I want, because my vote won't make a difference; but I won't actively encourage large groups of people to make a protest vote (not that anyone is asking for my opinion on the matter, but if they did), because that could make a difference.
Anyone who says they want to vote Bernie, but will vote Trump if Hillary's the nominee, is essentially attempting to terrorize the rest of us. The implication is "If I don't get way politically, i'll do something for the purposes of hurting everyone". It's basically direct terrorism, without the direct violence.
Susan Sarandon is like someone out with friends for lunch, who does't see anything on the menu she likes - so she'll just self-righteously have ice tea while all her friends try to awkwardly enjoy their meals.
Politics is full of compromise. Period. I am a Bernie Supporter but let's be clear, thirsty people in hell have a better chance of getting ice water than Bernie's proposals have of being passed by a GOP/Tea Party dominated Congress. If HRC wins the Dem nomination, she will eminently superior to Trump, a bombastic, I'll-informed, diarrhea mouthed, bigoted narcissist, or Cruz, a Christian Dominionist who will appoint mirror images of himself to SCOTUS and bring minority and women's rights back to the 1950s. The best compromise we can hope for is that if HRC wins the Democratic nomination, she will ask Bernie to be her running mate and he agrees.
I am a Bernie supporter, who if I need to,will hold my nose and vote for Hilary versus the crazy, batshit Republican candidate. The lesser of two evil conundrum of American politics sucks and it's the reason our country is going down the drain. I hope that Bernie pulls off an upset. (It is still possible.)

As to the post:

Please... Gore won Florida. The Democrats were too timid to fight it. You can continue blaming Nader and whomever voted for him, but that let's Republicans off the hook to continue their voting fraud/disenfranchisement of voters.

Secondly, Candidates need to earn votes. Candidates say a lot of stuff when they're trying to get elected. What would Hilary do to win the votes of people who are disillusioned with the failing centrist, corporate friendly (corrupt) crop of Democrats?

Finally, it's nice to talk about Susan Sarandon and "privilege," Will Hilary do much to help the unfortunate victims of our drone wars and our glorious neo-liberal empire building? (aka GWOT) ( Out of all the candidates, Sanders is by far the best for everybody - not just us fortunate and privileged Americans.)

@1: this would be a more credible argument if Gore hadn't won the popular vote.
Perhaps it's too early to be asking this question? Maybe we ought to wait until the primary is over.

Emotions are still running high, for one thing.

For another, even if you know Bernie can't win the primary, there are still very good reasons to continue fighting (tooth and nail) for him and against Hillary until it's official. If Hillary is in fact a liberal, the voters need to demonstrate to her that it's no longer necessary or acceptable to be so cowardly about it. If she's actually a moderate conservative, she needs to know that she is out of step with Democratic voters.
I have the privilege of living in Washington state, which will forever and until the end of eternity vote for the Democratic candidate. Clinton could eat a kitten on national television and still win WA. I don't feel bad for using my privilege to vote for a third-party candidate that better represents my vision for what I want a left-wing party to be. That way I also avoid the pesky moral culpability that comes from the thousands of lives sure to be lost in Hillary Clinton's application of American power overseas.

I really would be torn about this if I lived in anything resembling a swing state. But I don't, so I'm not.
Another president Clinton means the US will likely criminalize BDS, assist a "coalition" in killing Palestinians, then Iranians, then who knows. Americans will be more able to access safe abortion, poverty will stabalize but deepen and wealth gaps will widen. Since Savage has declared all non-Democrat voters idiots, who can be the scapegoat (scapegoats need some cleverness and forsight) for the "good" Dem? I say Clinton herself, because she can apologise and be forgiven the next day; she seems to be one of the few who can escape being a concept and remain human in the notions of her supporters.
@2- Yep, pretty much by definition a US voter isn't going to be a foreign national or a child.
@17 I love the disconnect people have where they talk about how "terrible candidate" Hillary Clinton can't inspire anyone to vote for her, so we should instead nominate Bernie Sanders, who has 2+ million fewer votes. Nothing against either candidate, but I'm pretty sure the best measure of someone's ability to get people to vote for him or her is the number of vote that person has gotten.
I think if you imagine there is going to be some sort of 'revolution' in this country you are way too high from the pot fumes in your left coast bubble. Do you have any fucking idea what sort of country you live in? I'm a fan of Bernie Sanders but when I hear your average Berniac spouting off I hear someone who is just about as well informed as your average Trump enthusiast. Let me tell you, if there was ever any sort of revolution it sure as hell would not be of the sort that you imagine, in fact it would be just about the opposite. This is a country where a significant majority favors torturing terrorism suspects, a country where an absolute total yahoo is poised to become the nominee of one the two major political parties,
Also, Clinton didn't vote for the Iraq war any more often or more forcefully than Cantwell did.
Some of Bernie's people have mistakenly conjured up an image of Hillary Clinton as a mutant alien pirate were-vampire space ghost. It's not true. It was never true.

And there's an effective therapy for thi condition -- just binge-watch a couple seasons of Scooby-Doo.
@19 Yeah, President Hillary Clinton is extremely likely to "criminalize" the decision of people to not buy goods from a certain country (whatever the hell that would mean or look like) and attack Iran after being instrumental in getting a nuclear deal that effectively takes warfare off the table. Also, she'll form a "coalition" to attack two tiny non-states bordering a major military power that we already provide plenty of weapons to (and have for decades).

There are plenty of reasons not to support Hillary Clinton, including her hawkish foreign policy. If you think people shouldn't vote for her, you should try and do better than tossing nonsense around, since it kind of kills any credibility you might have. And by the way, what the hell does it mean for poverty to "stabilize but deepen?" Either it's stabilizing, or it's deepening - it isn't both.
@22 I'm pretty sure any "revolution" isn't going to go well for the parts of the country that have spent the last 30 years trying to get more gun control and voting in politicians to do likewise.

Vermont might do okay, though.
People need to stop confusing politics with ideology. They're only tangentially related. Politics is about policy. Ideology is about activism.

Sense when has there ever been good presidential candidates in America? It's so rare you might - MIGHT - be able to count them on three fingers.

Sanders isn't remotely perfect. I like him. I'll vote for him. But he's slightly delusional.

Clinton has risen through a system that all about corporatism. So that's what she good at. That system itself is broken. But I'll vote for her, too.

But neither of them is going to fix the broken system. Our presidential politics has always been about least bad choices. And no election has this been imade more stark than this years election.

Not voting for either democratic nominee is simply ego. And be living it will hasten a revolution is asinine.

Not voting and hoping a shitty president crashes the system is like a childish James Bond Villain plot applied to politics.

Yeah. Let's crash the moon into Russia! And then... UTOPIA! Somehow.
@ 16 - June of 2015 would like to have a word with you...

"At a dramatic weekend rally on Roosevelt Island, Hillary Clinton unleashed a speech that was in some ways strikingly liberal, especially for a candidate who's not facing meaningful opposition in the Democratic primary..."

Go read the rest of the article here:

You know what...if you're going to spout off about revolution I want to know EXACTLY how that shit will go down? Are you going to attack the White House, kill the President? Do you have an "in" with one of the branches of the armed forces to take Washington DC? Seriously, this was a fucking idiotic thing to say and to anyone who claims "Revolution" you need to spell out how it's going to happen.
What Rhizome @23 said. A Trump-triggered revolution would be a pitched battle between Sarandon's energized liberal army and a *large* wing of Trumpists. Who will be lathered into their most xenophobic, most authority-following, most immoral mode. That's bad. The more Trump can be banished out of public life -- and we're not doing well so far -- the more these folks might recover what human decency they're capable of, or at least go hole up by themselves. Liberals are their shitty selves in this war too, I have to admit.

Sarandon's "heighten the contradictions" strategy is a lot like Da'esh's, they're just counting on different anti-Trump armies to be activated...
Revolution? That's laughable. There will be no "revolution" of any kind, no matter who is elected.

Sanders supporters talk about "revolution" and then declare they'll stay at home and do nothing if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. Yeah... how revolutionary of them.
There is a close Democratic primary between a progressive and a neoliberal going on. Until that race is decided, only conservative Democrats and/or liberals with the political acuity of a stump give their suport to Clinton or dismiss Sanders. End of.
@32 the Sanders revolution will be about 1/10th the Obama Revolution.
@15: You missed my point. Throwing out the 1996 ass-whooping, 2000 set a record low for voter turnout. When people vote, Democrats win. Gore lost.
@3 "Bush won by 3.5%, and 2.5% of that went to Nader."

if you are saying that 2.5% of voters went for Nader. A fraction of these 2.5% voting for Gore (let's be nice and say half) or even all of them would still be insufficient for Gore to make up his 3.5% deficit. Gore was a lousy candidate that didn't appeal to the natural constituency of the Democratic party. Blame party elites for pushing a dud on Democratic voters.
@36: Yes, 2.5% of the 3.5% gap (on an absolute scale) went for Nader. The others went for other 3rd party candidates. Who led the narrative that Gore was a terrible candidate? (hint: Nader supporters). Did that perhaps have an effect on voter turnout, which as others have noted above, always affects Dems worse than Republicans?

Just more lessons for the privileged (white) folk who don't want to learn at all from the past. How different would this country be right now if we hadn't had W for 8 years.
@1 How Ralph Nader helped elect George W. Bush:

Sanders is much smarter than Nader or Sarandon.
@38: That narrative excuses low voter turnout due to a lackluster candidate running an incompetent campaign in 2000.
Why in this of all years did the Dems have to run one of the most openly corrupt, mendacious, polarizing, and divisive charlatans in modern political history? Clinton is the ultimate establishment insider, and it's incredible that people think her candidacy is a great idea in an election in which voters are in an all-out rebellion against the kleptocratic establishments of both major parties.

You don't create change in a political party by telling them they have your vote no matter what. The Dems have been moving right for 20 years, and they've lost CONgress, and the majority of state governorships and legislatures, and have millions of disillusioned and disgusted former voters to show for it.

Regardless, Clinton's neoliberal/neocon policies are more of the same poison that's been killing the middle class and poor for decades. And even then there's no hope for change with the neo-nutzie Republicans in charge of CONgress. It'll be interesting to see how our already demoralized and enraged population reacts once it's clear that all political solutions have failed and reform attempts are futile.
"I'm far too good and pure to join a coalition with you people; I'd rather leave you to the depredations of Trump and the Republicans" is a shitty thing to say to a poor people, minorities, people who need to their health care, etc etc etc. But some people sure are proud of themselves for saying it.
The Dems really shot themselves in the foot when they nominated Gore. People just didn't like him. (Yes, yes, yes, Nader, Nader, Nader. I don't want to hear your idiotic nonsense. I know you lack intelligence but even my potted plant can figure out punching hippies does not increase your vote count).

And they are about to do it again. Only worse, democratic voters are so bloody stupid they are favoring a candidate who has an unfavorability rating hovering in the mid fifties. Ha! It is laughable. People are going to stay home. Of course the same simpletons will blame the hippies, they seem to have this OCD obsession with making everything the fault of hippies just exactly like their favorite Think Progress wonk tells them to, but the people who dislike her most are actually the independents. They aren't in your tightly sealed dem echo chamber, and they won't turn out for her.
@41 This is what I'm talking about: it seems clear that fringe leftists such as yourself imagine you have a great deal in common with the 'demoralized and enraged population' of which you speak.I'm trying hard to understand where the hell you get this idea. Are you awake? Do have functioning eyeballs and ears? The 'disgusted and disillusioned' getting their way, I'm pretty sure this would be the exact opposite of what you imagine. Trump is the perfect representative of the disgusted and disillusioned, the enraged, the demoralized - that is the ignorant, reactionary and paranoid white people that make up the majority of the electorate. I'm reasonably certain that a utopia of universal healthcare, responsible environmental stewardship and economic justice is not on their agenda.
@43 It seems like bland, middle-of-the-road, squishy-minded illiberals who support Clinton (such as yourself) really don't see how bad things are in the country, and many people turning out to vote for Bernie actually are 'disgusted and disillusioned'. They have a lot in common with themselves, yes. Disillusionment is happening everywhere. I understand your illiberalness doesn't allow you to see other points of view very well, but if you could you would plainly see.
Revolution. I haven't heard that one before. Guess everyone better get their guns, be ready.
Yeah, stay home and let Trump win. Smart move.
@20: Nor do privileged Americans need to give a shit about them either, eh?

I don't know the Republicans who don't like Trump don't all just vote for Clinton. She's pretty much identical to Condoleeza Rice except for the fact that (a) Clinton doesn't give them a way to pretend they don't hate black people in addition to pretending they don't hate women, and (b) Rice is somewhat less of a pathological liar.
@46: should be "I don't know WHY"...
@25, sure, no arf, but all that is that is at least as likely as Trump's nutto plan, and yet, he (truly unelectable unless he magically get coherent with policy and numbers) is the boogie man that means Clinton or doom. Dems need scapegoats for their neolib candidates, which reminds of the other boog in this Saromandon story, the 3% Nader got nationally, when some 11% registered Dems went to Bush (but lets not bother to think about that, or investigate the many Gore misses, like discluding Clinton because sex stuff).
Ah, still pearl-clutching over Nader, eh Dan? Even though it's like comparing two different things that aren't at all alike. Hey, but what do I know? I'm not a big-shot journalist who gets paid to think in close-minded ways that isn't really thinking at all, just regurgitating cranky old conclusions that no longer work.

At least you came around on Iraq. Years too late, but the destruction of a nation isn't much to a comfy white liberal like you.

Instead of whining about Bernie supporters, why not do some actual research and intelligent analysis on the drives behind his campaign? Forget the politics and the "We should all turn off our minds and fear the Donald" approach of mainstream Democrats. What is it about our nation's "liberal" party that is such a turn-off to hundreds of millions of supposedly "liberal" voters? Why, in the face of obvious, patent, and ludicrous incompetence of the Republicans, far into its second decade, do the Democrats seem so powerless?

And if you're not willing to follow the money, then at least be honest with your readership and explain why, when your own pet issue (LGBT rights) is winning, you can not only give up on every other issue, but belittle and demean those who haven't settled like you.
Susan, she say anything about how the system has served her mob? Getting millions of dollars for a few months work.
She's just doing this to appease her rich arse conscious.
Dan, if trump gets in, a house in France won't be protection against anything.
@MiscKitty: Thanks, that was actually somewhat reassuring, given her Iraq vote and her most recent speech on Israel.
@ 43, If refusing to vote for a candidate that openly takes bribes from Wall Street and foreign governments (for arms sales that are then used on women and children no less) and who lies compulsively (Reagan started the conversation on AIDS being the latest whopper), then sure, that makes me a dirty "fringe leftist."
@44 You're proving my point that Bernie Supporters and Trump Supporters are basically the same people.
@Urgutha: Revolution? That's laughable.

Indeed, revolutions are fueled by hunger, not one pound tubs of cheese balls from Costco.
@41 and others. Clinton is not more establishment than Obama. Sheesh. And I'm a Sanders supporter. Obama did his job for the Democratic Party: some kind of not-single-payer healthcare to quell the mumbles of complaint getting louder on the left, damping traditional Black activism, and keeping the regulators off the backs of the resource extraction business. Insurgent Black Lives Matter pushed by the young kind of undid his de-fanging of traditional Black political activism, but he did good work for the status quo and the military industrial complex nevertheless.

Rabid Clinton haters on the left who don't simultaneously rabidly hate Obama are just people who have unthinkingly let 25 years of misogynistic Republican slime seep into their pores and up into the depths of their brain.

If Sanders' loses the primary I will willingly vote for Clinton, if only for the chance of watching the heads of all those misogynistic haters and self-deluders' heads explode. Plus, if its Trump, then we are become a Banana Republic. I don't know about revolution, but a Trump win will blow big chunks out the foundation and legitimacy of both the political and economic system of the present day United States. I'm too risk averse to want to bet the result would be a good thing.
@56 are you daft? you think I'm referring to political opinion and ideology?
#58, Seriously, you'd think she was Hitler the way people talk about her. The right wing has been feeding horrible stories to the media about how the Clintons are criminals since the 90's (they were just talking about this on MSNBC), and it sounds like a lot of the Sanders campaign has gobbled them all up.

Also, these idealists are such hypocrites. They talk about fixing the economy while shopping on Amazon, buying Apple products, and voting for an across the board minimum wage that hurt small business owners all over the city.
@ 58, Obama's other slam dunk was working with Holder to ensure that no Wall Street oligarchs were ever prosecuted for their schemes that sacked the economy in 2008. No doubt he'll be joining Deval Patrick in a nice cushy Bain Capital Managing Directorship after office as payment for services rendered. But let's ixnay on the Obamatay for now since he's not on the ballot.
Undergraduate zeal is an admirable thing - for an undergraduate. Susan Sarandan ain't no undergraduate.

More to the point, the woman is estimated to be worth 50 million dollars - largely thanks to GOP tax policies. She has a house in Greenwich, CT and a penthouse in NYC. She probably hasn't flown a common carrier, pumped gas, or been to a grocery store or a mall in decades. When she works, she's treated like the star she is. Any "revolution" will stay far from her door, thanks to her security people and the gated communities she travels in, and in the case of any trouble she'd probably go to Cannes or some place, just to make sure she was safe.

And yes, Clinton is the lesser of two evils. Cry me a damn river. Life is full of less than optimal choices, and then you die. That's how it works.
I would've said Sarandon is brave to voice opposition to such violently ignorant ideas such as "lesser of two evils" voting, but I then realized those who sing it's praises are nothing but serfs. They are nothing but weak, voiceless nothings who pose no threat to anybody; Sarandon could say anything and stay ahead without any loss here.

Lesser evilism is how ignorant fucks are managed in elections. They are nothing but serfs eagerly waiting their beatings. "Life's not fair, we might as well accept the rotten crumbs our master gives us". That is the reality to these frightened, indebted serfs who will truly say anything to convince people to vote for the "lesser evil" their master told them is the right choice, the only choice.

The Democrats have become such sad sacks. How to handle such sad sacks? I can truly sympathize with Sarandon's dilemma.
herm@64. Think the term is a realist.
Bernie is a good guy, to be sure. But you guys aren't shooting a Western here.

So are "serfs" the new "sheeple"?
@65 I'd like to respond, but you really leave nothing to....

@66 Is "'Serfs' the new 'sheeple'" some horrid, vapid, and ultimately meaningless hipsterism? Judging by the beehive I"m guessing so. So maybe you are the friend to turn to for "fashion advice", but when it comes to terms to actually bettering out lot in life, not so much. "Vote Hillary", indeed, beehive serf.
idiots are the new sheeple (who were the new serfs); tough choices for sad sacks; take it, or go suck the mustard cause hopelessness and inevitability is just the fact.
@65 Let me elaborate on the problem you seem to be having with reality and the misnamed 'real-politic' idea you are highlighting: What Hilary is offering is "well, you are going to continue to fall behind, but with Trump you will even do worse off".

To you choosing Clinton is "realism", but if reality is truly your guide then clearly you are merely accepting a lesser form of serfdom. Why can't you get ahead, just because Trump is so bad? Like I said, Sarandon has a point, you basically deserve your fate. Do you deserve better even though you don't think you do?
@68: exactly, pansack, exactly.
Fine you guys, cut off your noses to spite your faces. never ever vote for Hilary.
And enjoy the ride to hell with Trump or Cruz. At least you stood by your principles in not voting for Hil.
herm. I can't vote, I live in Australia. Here we look on in horror at the thought of a Trump victory. The man is fucking mad. Sick in the head. Hates women. Hates Mexicans . Hates Muslims. Etc. etc.
You guys all get on your high, high, high horses, and not vote then you are then responsible for helping to hurt those people Trump or Cruz will go after.
And leave Mrs Vel Du-Ray alone. She is much loved around here.
The nose is off, blown up in Yemen by cluster bombs in 2010, murdered in Honduras, and all the other places we are all so bored of hearing about. We need to shut up and take our lumps, the drug war, and all the wars and prisons neoliberals like Obama and Clinton supporters are so fond of, and so bored of hearing about. The nose is cut off daily, 1 in 5 American children in poverty, and let's just simmer down, take our lumps, it's a tough choice world and there is only one choice out there; forget about those foreigners when a tender USA might get hurt. Australians have their own head moroon, we'll get ours soon enough; if not fear voting today, when? At least Aussies are getting some reality about abuse of juveniles in prison; America is a few decades off for that if things remian status quo.
pansack. Yes, fucked stuff has gone down. Letting more fucked stuff go down under a Trump presidency will do what exactly?
We got rid of our moron PM, Abbott. And he was scary enough.. Nothing on Trump though.
Yes, America needs to change. Needs to move past its extreme Capitalism, obvious.
Destroying your country thru hate is not going to do that. This bullshit revolution Saradon so easily mentions, won't change a thing. Just bloodshed.

Let's say you've been dating a guy. It started out nice, and he promised you that he's a totally nice guy who loves all your friends. But, then he started hitting you in private while showering you with flowers and bracelets. When you complain about the hitting, he tells you that the other men out there are rapists and will kill you. Eventually, you get tired of it and break up. But, he promises he will change. And, just as you're falling in love again, he gives you a nice big shiner.

That's sort of my relationship with the DNC. They're abusive assholes holding liberals hostage by making us afraid of everybody else, even though they're beating us senseless.

Dan, would you want me to break up with the DNC, or continue dating then?
@75. Well here is the problem with that anaolgy. As a person, we always have the option for "none of the above" and be single. We don't have that option. If it's not the Democrat it will be the republican. And if you don't think it matters ask yourself why the Republicans won't put Garland on the court.

I can only speak nationally because I live in a red state but everyone whines over Obama not getting anything done. Well the Democrats sat at home at the midterms. It's funny to hear about the betrayal of the Democrats when their own voters betrayed them. Obama cannot get anything done with an obstructionist congress.

So you know what? Here's your question: do you want to be married to the person who slaps you or the one that puts you in the hospital, because single isnt an option.
@24: "...Hillary Clinton as a mutant alien pirate were-vampire space ghost.

...okay, that would still probably get my vote. That's kind of sad, but look at the alternatives.

But the one thought I can't escape is "man, we are going to miss Obama so much." Even if you just look at Middle East policy, every candidate with even a tiny chance of winning has committed to making the situation worse.
Here's what I don't get about the Undergraduates for Bernie crowed (as exemplified by Our Dear Herm). I never said I wouldn't vote for Bernie Sanders. I'd love to see him as the nominee. I've been following Bernie Sanders since most of undergraduates were playing with their Tickle Me Elmo dolls.

I said I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee, but that's like saying that while I love omelettes, I'll take scrambled eggs, but the Undergraduate Zeal types take that as some sort of personal betrayal and launch into histrionics about how stupid we are and how willing we are to put up with the status quo. As if Bernie Sanders would be able to make any meaningful change, given the current make up of the Congress and the gerrymandered House districts. That's thanks largely to the Undergraduate Zeal types losing interest and not showing up for the mid-terms, usually claiming that it was because Obama "sold them out"

And let's take a moment to consider how the primary season is going: In states where there is direct voting, she is beating Bernie Sanders, sometimes by wide margins. In states where there are the dreaded disenfranchising, undemocratic, mean-to-poor-people caucuses (as some of our more overwrought writers and commenters have characterized them) Bernie wins. What's wrong with this picture?

Here's what I want to know about the Bernie-Or-Bust types: Bernie is 74 years old. (That doesn't disqualify him for the office. Calm down) What will you do when he shuffles off this mortal coil? Who do you have on the back bench? Or is this just a political bromance?

@78 There is always Elizabeth Warren.

Right now, I wouldn't even vote for Patty Murray for President because she's so beholden to Boeing (like all of WA's Democratic Party) that she supports TPP/TPIP.

The Democratic Party needs to get rid of all the aging Boomer economic centrists in favor of some younger and more idealistic politicians, otherwise they're going to continue shedding voters. The ~20% that voted for Socialist Spears over DINO Frank Chopp (you know, the guy that refuses to even talk about rent control, refuses to allow warranties on your house, voted to make Unemployment more insolvent, and voted for Boeing's big tax cuts while pressuring Boeing's unions)? That's your BernieorBust crowd.

Bern is a socialist. And in many voter's minds, that means he's a communist. They've done the polling. He also hasn't been vetted like Clinton. We don't know what's in his closet. Hillary has so many "scandals" (many manufactured by republicans) because for the last twenty years she's been in the limelight. So there is a significant risk that Bernie will NOT play nationally.

And nothing the "Bern or Bust" types argue makes me want to take that risk. Raving about a revolution? Where?

Until I see the "Bern or Bust" types line out a coherent path of how his policies are enacted in light of the current status of the Congress, it's nothing but noise.

Like that South Park joke:

Step One: Elect Bern

Step Two:.... Revolution (?)

Step Three: European Socialist Paradise!!! Wohoo!

And how does that revolution happen? Oh people will go out and vote. You mean how those self same complaisant democrats failed to go vote in the midterms after Obama and let the republicans take congress, guaranteeing stalemate for six long years?

Look back on the models of successful revolution in the sixties and then the republican revolution of the 90s. There was on the ground organization that targeted small and local. The republicans started with congressional districts, where a swing of 1000 votes means something, and moved up. They turned each district and made sure that those districts became safe. Inch by inch. And over the course of twenty years, they've turned everything but the coasts red. And they got their constituents out to vote and those constituents weren't asking for "purity tests." They voted R even if the R was a cheatin' bashtard so long as he/she supported most of the policies they wanted. And the democrats stayed home.

So, show me the coalition. Show me how you support and pass Bernie's bills in the congress. Show me your pragmatic plan to establish an organized movement that will act locally all over the country to get congress-critters in to support Bernie. The civil rights movement had the ACLU, the NAACP, churches, ministers, etc. down South, bleeding and dying, to roll back Jim Crow.

And if you say "social media" I will laugh you out of town. Write me off as an old fuddy duddy and cry Arab Spring, but ISIL's social media campaigns, the Brotherhood's etc, were carried out by an on the ground organization that expanded their reach through social media. Social media is a tool, not a substitute for an organization of people who implement the strategy. Show me your organization that extends beyond just getting Bernie in the whitehouse. Show me Bernie trying to get down the ticket democrats elected.

Clinton, x-goldwater girl, social liberal, the grateful heir to the civil rights movement for women, knows how washington works. Is she perfect? No. But I have confidence right now she knows more how to pull the levers of power to move the country left than Sanders.

And give us a vote on the Supreme Court (so so so so so important).
@79. Who isn't running for president. I like Warren for sure. Up and down. But she isn't running and she is but one senator. You need at least another five. Working on that?
@79. I have no idea who you are talking about. I had to pull them up. You are talking Seattle. Tell you what, take a good long hard look at the US MAP and look at all that red the reaches from the west coast to the east. I live in Georgia. I am from VA where my family is heavily involved in the democratic party on the local level. We can barely keep VA purple. Ohio has a red governor and so does - for goodness sake - New Jersey. Wake up. You think all the young people are socialists? Nope. And on top of that, young people don't vote, especially not in the midterms and not on the small stuff. Too bad. That's how it gets done. I wish they would. (Man I feel old, Gen x). It's also pretty well established most people become more conservative as they age too.

Do we need more young people in the party? Well Bernie and HiIlary are older, but Martin O'M (whom I liked) is not too bad. Jim Webb waffled it, but he is actually an excellent VA demo. We have Corey Booker and he's young, eligible, and rocks.

Elect a freakin' socialist in Washington State, sure. You've got the demographics in Seattle to do that. But Seattle isn't the rest of the US. And I wish people would honestly consider the regional differences.
@80-82 Hypocrite. First you say to show you a movement at the local level (@80), then you bash me for using a local example (@82).

Done with you Clintonites. Bernie or Bust has become BernieorTrump.

Fuck you guys.
@83 please consider the Green party, or other 3rd party candidate; Trump is a chaos candidate and while we can appreciate his anti-corruption and anti-imperialist statements, you just don't know what you'll get (while we do know with Clinton- more war, monoplolism, corrupt banking and all the rest the Dem elites are all about, and insist are needed for "electibility").

@74 I cannot choose the inevitable slaughter and oppression neoliberal policies require; I will vote but not for murderers and monopolists. I cannot weigh the destruction of lives abroad against the destablization of lives here.
@83: "First you say to show you a movement at the local level (@80), then you bash me for using a local example (@82)."
What did #80 say? "Show me your pragmatic plan to establish an organized movement that will act locally all over the country to get congress-critters in to support Bernie."
Reading comprehension is key, TheMisanthrope. But then again, so is an actual strategy beyond "everyone will show up and support me, I'm sure of it!" which is what both Bernie and Trump are relying on.
Oh yes, the Green Party's Jill Stein. A recycled professional scold with absolutely zero chance of winning and no congressional support. That'll show 'em!!!
If you want a winner, or if you just don't want to be a loser, vote for Trump, because that's how narcismism works- always at the top. True! I'll stick with the losers, and wish more people would.
When guys like Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, liberal political scientists who have written books titled "American Amnesia: How the War on Government Lead us to Forget What Made America Prosperous," "Off Center: The Republican Revolution and Erosion of Democracy," and "Winner Take All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned its Back on the Middle Class," just to name a few, are supporting Hillary Clinton's policies, maybe Bernie supporters should pay attention:


Read a bit of history, you revolution loving kids. Just your own, go back to the sixties and early seventies. Look at Kent State. Look at the Civil Rights movement. People were killed. Dead.
If you guys want more Bernie types in your party, then go for it. Do the work to get involved. Do Poitics.
Bernie talks great ideas. No one is disputing that. His and his followers constant put downs of Hillary, when she doesn't retaliate, is worrying and childish. Why is he doing that?
Obama talked great ideas as well. How long if Bernie got in power, before traitor would start to be levelled at him by you innocent little purists? Because of the reasons Dark Horse and
Mrs Vel-DuRay pointed too.. The fucking congress would stop him.
His ideas will not translate into reality.
@83. You want to send someone who is pro-life and wants to send women to jail for obtaining an abortion (Trump)?


I am a vag holder with two little daughters and I goddamn don't want them bleeding out in a back room along with all those demo-minorities trapped in the red states that the Bern bots think don't count.

But you know, fuck em, right? Because you have got yours and your all nice and protected in a bright blue (but goddamn expensive) city.

It's all nice and sweet and cushy to sit in the socialist mecca and give me the finger because I dared to ask a Bernie supporter to put forward the NATIONAL (not in some "hippy dippy super rich supported by the tech bubble north silicon valley enclave") strategy to flip a substantial part of the country from red to blue. I am not talking about the disgusting politics of primarying democrats with even farther left democrats (as the tea party does) which does NOTHING to help Bernie nationally. I am talking about moving Georgia, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, etc. back blue.

And when the Supreme Court does eviscerate Roe v. Wade, and turns to Gay Marriage, Obamacare, and civil rights, things you might care about in your blue haven, just remember, you stayed home and let Trump win and appoint at least one and possibly THREE supreme court justices.

We used to mock the republicans for ascribing to the philosophy of "fuck you, I've got mine." But you've just engendered a new one "fuck the rest of the country, I don't get the exact perfect candidate I want."

(Hillary has gotten 2 plus million more votes, by the way. Hows those democratic ideals working for you).

This is an election that COUNTS.

The notorious RBG won't live forever.

PS, I love Seattle and Washington State. We considered relocating there except the biggest house we could buy was a trailer and some of the schools outside Redmond aren't that great. I am not dissing Seattle, but you have get the f-out and see the rest of the country. Because the rest of the country votes too and isn't on the Bernie socialist train.
And Bernie is too old. He doesn't have the stamina to be President. Just look at him, for gods sake. He's getting off on the whole adulation thing, his shit does stink.
@87. Trump reminds me of the old insult. "Born on third base and thinks he got a home run."
@60 Blip sure:

Sanders and Trumps are both isolationist populists who've rallied a particular socio-ethno-economic class against some nebulous other socio-economic-ethno class. Both have well established cults-of-personality and both sets of supporters have generally adopted a "If I cant have my way I'll do what I can to punish supporters of the other candidate(s) in the same party". The only difference is on policy points; but the modes of thinking are nearly identical.
@16 Hells Yeah!

(and spoiler alert: I cheated and peeked at the last chapter of the book...HRC *is* a moderate conservative.)
@90 You're not asking for our vote in the NATIONAL election. You're demanding. You think you're entitled to it because you're scared. Guess what? You don't get to tell me who to vote for, and then curse me out when you don't get your way. I can't wait for President Trump to get all up in your cooch and rearrange how you think, and maybe you'll realize that bad candidates don't inspire votes. Hillary is a bad candidate - actually, an awful candidate - and, in a sane world, is somebody that we should be rioting against, not voting for. Fuck Bill Clinton. Fuck Hillary Clinton. And Fuck You.

When Clinton loses to Trump, you only have yourselves to blame because, "YOU WERE WARNED."
Donald Trump will NEVER be president. I doubt if they'll let him have the nomination. My hope is that it's Cruz for the nomination, and that Trump runs as an independent.
Every Clinton supporter should read Hard Choices, and compare her version with first and second page search results of the same. Her Honduras ends with the fact that an election happened in 2009; nothing about it, nothing after it, only that it occured.

A seperation of foreign policy from domestic is a curious feature of the fearful Dem-or-doomers, so much that the former is treated like it doesn't exist. And when it is included, as with the #88 link, it's as if the Dems were somehow absent in their support for the unendable wars in West Asia. I don't get 'revolution' either, it seem typically to encharge a different kind of despot (which is not a problem for the neolib Dems, who support despot "allies" because of the "reality" neolibs insist on). I like revelation and evolution and prosperity and sharing better, but, the adults who bully their way to power have developed a deep hatred for these, seeing them as hippie and negro things, the stoner and junkie wrecking the right and proper marriage of man and country, as divined by commerce. Which is probably why the murder of foreigners becomes a nonsensical tear-river, hippie negro trash, the collateral of business.
Listen moron @95. You sound like you're a stooge Trump supporter anyway. Been sent here to cause trouble then?
@98 Shut it, Aussie. You don't even have any skin in the game.
Not true. Unfortunately. Maybe your great mind hasn't cottoned onto it yet, but for some unfathomable reason, the USA is the leader of the free world.
Funny, here's Bernie preaching equality, compassion etc etc and so many of his followers, show how shallow their compassion is.
People like you and Stupid Susan, would rather see deep pain inflicted on the masses, if Bernie isn't the nominee.
Shallow care. Hypocrites.
@100 "The Leader of the Free World."

Hey, lady. The 80s called. They want their propaganda back. Moron.
What fucking planet are you on? You know nothing about the rest of the planet, do you? Silly, silly little boy.
America, only looks at it self.
Yes, the USA is still the Leader of the free world. I'm guessing not for much longer , though. China is fast on her tail.
And with idiots like you, Susan and Trump multiplied by millions running around your country; it's pretty much six of one and half a dozen of the other where China is concerned. Both of your countries look crazy from the outside.
Like I said, hypocrites. It's not the compassion and equality you guys are really attracted to at all is it? This same
God is our man story went down with Obama , too. Great Saviour is here.
And both times, a woman was the contender. This mad behaviour coming out of you less than compassionate people, is about Hillary being a woman, I'm thinking.
It's either that or you guys are a bunch of hypocrites; take your pick.
@Darkhorserising: Yes, Bernie is a socialist. And 8 years ago that would have doomed him, I agree. But the Republicans have spent the last 8 years calling Obama a (Muslim Atheist) Socialist. Obama, the guy who's so socialist he went to the Republicans to get negotiating approval for the TPP when none of the congressional Democrats would touch it. So I don't think "socialist" is the doom-word it used to be. I think now, to many American voters, it just means someone with policies like Obama's.

The irony being, of course, that Sanders actually is a socialist.
@86 "Let's surrender now (or preferably in January 2015), that'll show'em. But, make no mistake, I am a progressive!"
I'm tired of hearing all this "lesser of two evils" nonsense. A Democratic president isn't a lesser evil, but a POSITIVE GOOD. A Democratic president means progress for our goals. Never as much as we would like, because people who disagree with us exist and have as much right to the political process as we do, so there always have to be compromises, but with a Democrat in the White House we get stuff we want. With a Republican we get at best nothing, and at worst we lose things we value. People need to grow up and give up the fantasy of a perfect president who makes everything perfect. Nothing run by people is ever going to be perfect. Appreciate what you do get instead of denigrating it as a "lesser evil" just because it's not everything you dreamed of.
Jesus. I'm putting my world vote to Hillary. I look at that line up of four, three men and one woman.. and she is the only one who presents themselves as Presidential to me.
You guys can play dress ups all you want. Trump's rhetoric on one side Bernie's on the other. Cruz flying around like the crazed pigeon he is.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.