Look I know that I've been annoyingly strident on several threads since Monday

[The Polack MSgt]

And re-reading some of those posts, I realize that anger and whisky are not the most eloquent co-speakers.

Alright, I have posted a few inarticulate snarls of rage and I should explain myself.

For the last several months, this space has been sour and accusatory in nature.

Although any Sanders supporter could point to several counter examples, the weight of flaming blame, spite and recrimination keeps coming at me and others like me. So I gather that the prevailing wisdom is that Hillary supporting middle age Democrats are the problem.

More than that though, every damn thing that happens is Secretary Clinton's fault. Every issue from crappy grits at Denny's to your cousins leaking roof has happened because Hillary exists.

Hillary is required to wear the hair shirt and accept every accusation as divine truth. She can never abase herself enough to satisfy many of DU's true believers.

And since she never abases herself at all, her "arrogance" is held up as proof that SHE IS THE EVIL WE MUST PURGE.

There are many reasons this debacle happened - Comey, Russia, Gerrymandering, poor strategy/campaign planning, rat fucking fake "liberals", and the almost one in eight Sanders fans who voted for Trump.

Zip it, tuck it back into your pocket, and listen up:

Bernie or Busters were undeniably part of the Trump coalition. If you're here on DU that does not include you, unless you are intentionally breaking the TOS.

Here's the deal tho. I keep hearing about the "Obama-Trump voter" as if that was a major factor. Sanders backers love this demographic - because if Hill couldn't keep Obama fans in the fold it means she alone is at fault - right?

So, there are no other issues, she just sucks too hard to even keep Obama's fans.

Except these people's numbers are insignificant. Not. A. Factor.

But bring up the BoBers who wrote in Sanders, or voted third party or voted FOR TRUMP and the long knives are out.

No dammit no. Not everything is because of Bernie, not everything is Hillary's doing either. We all see that...

But there is a blatant double standard here that sickens me.

[guillaumeb]

1. "Passionate" sounds better than "annoyingly strident".

But, in my view, gerrymandering, voter suppression, media mis-coverage, and apathy are the main reasons that Clinton lost electorally while winning the popular vote. Any other analysis that ignores these critical factors is not worth the argument.

[mcar]

2. Oh, there is

HRC and Congressional Democrats are subject to all kinds of attacks here, under the guise of "constructive criticism," though I never see the constructive.

But other certain non-Democrats cannot be called out on anything, no matter what.

Double standard for sure.

[NurseJackie]

57. And if anyone points out the double-standard, the reply is always a dismissive one...

... defending the smears from non-Democrats and justifying it by claiming "the truth hurts" in order to reframe the lies and smears as being "truthful".

[mcar]

61. Just today - a thread on a Politico article

that indicates some concern about Sanders' supporters continued attacks on good Democracts like Kamala Harris. Some are calling it bashing.

Another thread cheering that a good Democrat, Feinstein, is being primaried by a 1%er "democratic socialist."

[NurseJackie]

64. The people who attack and smear Kamala Harris are fucking assholes! It's unclear to me...

... why that type of behavior would be welcomed or tolerated or defended at this web site. I'm amazed to see that "some people" are cheering and encouraging these types of divisive attacks on our brightest Democratic stars.

[mcar]

66. But even the slightest critique (well-sourced) of someone

who caucuses with Democrats is simply not allowed or call bashing.

It never ends.

Some demand that HRC and the DNC engage in either a lot of self-reflection or a complete change. But they will not countenance even a suggestion that Our Revolution types should reflect on their own flaws.

[NurseJackie]

68. "Our Revolution" now supports Republicans, right? Shouldn't that mean...

... that the group (and it's leaders) no longer get to enjoy a "favored" or "protected" status as being a so-called Democratic ally. They've made it very clear that they have NO loyalty to Democrats or the Democratic Party, so why should anyone give that group (or its leaders) any sort of special privileges?

Why allow them to smear, malign, denigrate, slander, oppose and undermine Democrats and Democratic candidates?

It's a fair question. It's a legitimate question that deserves an answer.

[mcar]

69. It is a fair question

I don't expect all DUers to agree on politicians/policies/issues (like we ever would ), but there needs to be some fairness here.

I saw President Obama maligned horribly here and his DU supporters mocked and belittled. I saw HRC supporters, particularly AA and women, insulted and driven off the site by alert stalking.

Then some disgruntled people formed their own site so they could call HRC the "c" word.

Now good Democrats are being smeared.

I feel like we're in a vicious cycle.

[George II]

3. Very well said, thank you very much.

[JustAnotherGen]

4. Thank you

Well written!

[sheshe2]

5. Well said.

thank you, MSgt.

[Ms. Toad]

6. Counts:

on page 1 of GD:

Trash Bernie threads (largely based on Clinton's new book): 6
Threads expressly responding to/defending against the trash Bernie threads: 2
Stop rehashing the primary/general election threads: 3

Trash Clinton threads: ZERO

Just stop it. Clinton is not being purged, but you just can't stop picking at the Bernie scabs. If you'd stop picking at it, it might have a chance to heal.

[The Polack MSgt]

12. Thank you for your input.

What were the counts prior to the book release?

[Ms. Toad]

39. Since the front page of gd prior to the book release

Is no longer visible, impossible to tell you.

Definitely lower - but the vast majority of the kind of threads I was counting were Clinton zealots bashing Bernie, or (recently) making inept analogies between Feinstein and Sanders to "prove" that Sanders is given a pass for things Democratic women are attacked for.

Clinton supporters/Bernie bashers need to give it a rest, and Sanders supporters need to stop taking the bait. None of it is helpful.

[UTUSN]

7. K&R

[lunamagica]

8. K&R. Thank you!

[AngryAmish]

9. It was the Russians interference in the primaries and general.

End stop.

[lapucelle]

10. K and R.

Great post.

[BainsBane]

11. It all comes down to one thing

The principle that all people are created unequal. That is why we see so many double standards.

[zentrum]

13. Two things.

As a Bernie supporter, who voted for Hillary in the General, I experience the site as just the other way around.

Almost anything can be said about Sanders and his voters, but if the same is said about HRC---alerts happen. I think for example, if you had written just what you said but it was on behalf of Bernie, and angry at HRC supporters, it would be incendiary.

So I guess it's happening both ways and one only notices when it happens to one's favored side. That's instructive.

The other thing is---it also seems to me 5 to 1 that it's HRC supporters who revive this thing over and over. We've been begging people to let let it go and move on.

I'm not angry at HRC supporters at all and understand their loyalty. We don't keep bringing up all the dismissive things she said about Sanders, which prevented him from being the candidate---do we? So what I don't understand is their anger at Bernie supporters for having a Primary. The primary is supposed to be a debate and that's what happened. And she won. We don't need to go over it again and again. But the Clinton side won't let it go.

I'm now focused on the good progressives in office--Kamala, Ellis, Schiff, and Warren among others--who can have an actual impact on current policy. Would love to not be involved in personalities that had their chance (again and again) and it didn't happen for them. We have huge, real, national problems to deal with.

[Madam Mossfern]

16. Thank you!

Maybe the admins can set up a separate forum for threads like this.
Honestly, I'm sick and tired of it and we're losing sight of what's really important - gaining a Democratic majority in Congress.
That starts at the local level, and there are elections in 2017.

Any outstanding Democratic wins will have an effect on the 2018 elections. We need Democratic momentum, not endless bickering over the past. Those who distract from that goal are doing none of us any favors.

[zentrum]

19. Your idea

...seems good to me.

[The Polack MSgt]

28. I'm not claiming the high ground

I walk around furious.

I sometimes over react.

I'm basically 20 seconds away from a vein bulging red faced episode at all times...

But i will always push back when i feel attacked. It's nothing I'm proud to say. It is just me as me.

I'm not hypocritical enough to give the "I apologize if anyone is offended" non-apology tho.

We are not (in most instances) actually enemies...

[mountain grammy]

17. I mostly skip these threads, but glad I looked at this one

just to see your post. Thank you. Well said! Enough already! Bernie's still out there, getting out the message and raising money for Democrats and progressives. He's still well liked and drawing crowds, and I'd rather people hear his message than almost anything, because it's our message. It's obvious from the last election that if someone doesn't appeal to the apathetic non voters and get them involved, we will lose, and lose big, forever. That's who Bernie is trying to reach.

[zentrum]

22. Forward!

[klook]

38. Best post I've seen yet in all the recent Circular Firing Squad threads.

Thank you! Your thoughts echo mine very closely.

Stronger Together. 2018. Excelsior.

[druidity33]

46. Thank you for this! nt.

[Lil Missy]

48. There were many, many, many more Bernie supporters than HRC supporters. That hasn't changed.

Also, just a thought, Bernie is not a democrat and he is not pretending to be. Fair game for criticism. HRC is a Democrat that WON the Primary hands down - not even close. We SUPPORT DEMOCRATS on this site. The rules are different for Democrats vs. non-Democrats.

[Jim Lane]

58. Your understanding of the rules is simply wrong vis-a-vis Bernie Sanders.

You write:

Bernie is not a democrat and he is not pretending to be. Fair game for criticism. ... We SUPPORT DEMOCRATS on this site. The rules are different for Democrats vs. non-Democrats.

Yes, the rules are different for, for example, Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump. You appear to believe, however, that the rules are different for Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders. Allow me to acquaint you with the actual rule:

Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).

Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

The last sentence is pretty clear, even if many posters and jurors disregard it.

[Lil Missy]

63. Stating facts, even if unpleasant, is not "bashing".

[Jim Lane]

71. I can assure you, from personal experience....

that stating certain facts about Hillary Clinton will get a post removed.

At any rate, the point is that, however you interpret the standard, posts about Clinton and posts about Sanders are supposed to be judged (for ToS purposes) by the same standard. The distinction clearly implied by your post #48 is not a correct statement of the rules.

[Lil Missy]

80. Which has absolutely nothing to my comment that "Stating facts is not the same as bashing".

[Jim Lane]

82. Oh, I agree with that comment of yours -- as a generalization.

The maxim you cite is not self-executing, however. It is relevant to point out that the distinction you rely on is not applied consistently.

[Demsrule86]

59. There weren't or Hillary Clinton would not have run in the general...and it wasn't close either.

It is my Opinion, that Sen. Sanders has lost Democratic support. I base this on posts on this website, other websites, twitter and other social media. It is an opinion. Hillary Clinton was the candidate in 16. This was his best chance. If Sen. Sanders runs in 20, I believe he will be soundly defeated...early. I hope he doesn't run as it would sow divisions we don't need, but I doubt our next new fresh candidate will face the same storm of Comey, Russia and a bitter divided Democratic Party.

[Maven]

14. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Yes there absolutely is a double-standard and it stinks to high heaven.

[Lordquinton]

15. Nah

And the 1 in 10 Bernie crossovers are actually a low, in 2008 the number was closer to 1 in 5 Clinton voters that voted for McCain, fortunately Obama managed to carry the votes where it counted.

[The Polack MSgt]

20. 16% in PA. 12% in MI

Overall i would guess that 10% voting for Trump is around right, but I don't know those numbers.

All my posts were based on a study of 3 swing states. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

So, nah.Right back atcha.

McCain and Trump are equal to you?

Ok.

[mythology]

31. You do realize that 20-25% is a higher number than even your estimate of PA and MI right?

It's a little silly to try to be snarky when you're inadvertently proving their point for them.

I don't know how anybody can read this forum with any objectivity and think that the problem is there aren't enough threads bashing Sanders or his supporters. There are a number of posters that all but directly call anybody criticizing Clinton sexist. But the whining persists.

But if Obama could win against a much more respectable opponent in spite of a significantly higher number of Clinton supporters not voting for him, that doesn't exactly sing the praises of Clinton.

Clinton didn't lose because of Sanders no matter what she claims in her book. The evidence is clear. She was significantly ahead in the polls up until the second Comey announcement in late October. The only reason there was a Comey announcement at all was because she decided to set up a separate email server. That was entirely within her control.

[The Polack MSgt]

33. 30 years of propaganda

And a concerted effort by RT Fox and the right wing web is meaningless to you?

Fuck this nonsense...

You can believe what you choose, but Colin Fucking Powell ran the State Department on a Yahoo account for 2 goddam years.

W's whitehouse deleted 23 million emails DURING AN INVESTIGATION and you thow fucking email servers at me as an excuse?

Nyet. Candidate is fine. Is fucking lack of knowledge that causes this missing of broadest side of barn

[Lordquinton]

43. Both less that 20-25%

And I'm going to back out of the conversation, rehashing the primary is destructive, and against the ToS.

[The Polack MSgt]

44. For real tho - I have not mentioned the primary in this OP or any of my replies.

That is probably the only reason it was not hidden.

The General Election, the Democratic Primary and the atmosphere in DU are not synonymous.

[UtahLib]

18. Very well stated.

[brer cat]

21. Well said, TPMS.

[CentralMass]

23. I'm a life long Democrat.. i haven't missed an election since I turned 18 back in 1978.

I voted for and supported Hillary in 2008 and was upset when she lost in the primary. I felt that the party hiearchy pulled the rug out from under her feet. I recall some party heavy weights like the late great Senator Kennedy and Senstor Kerry actively campaigning for Senator Obama during the primary before our Massachusetts primary had been held with Hillary holding a big advantage over Senator Obama in state wide polls. I think that she was up by 25% or more.

When she lost ( she won the Ma primary by double digits) I got over it, moved on, and voted for our nominee Senator Obama.


I supported Bernie in this last primary because I felt like his life long focus has been on issues and a phliosphy that we need to take care of the "least of us" in our society. A vison where someone willing to work should be able to afford food, clothing, lodging and the opportunity for an education. The idea that strengthing us from the bottom up was the key to rebuilding a strong thriving economy, country and society.

IMO, Hillary had made some bad decisions.
In light of the Neocon shitfest that Dubya & Company left us with in Iraq and Aghanistan. Her strong desire to aid in the over throw of Quadafi with limited U.S. involvement seemed insane to me at the time. They did not adequately plan for and misread what the negative consequenses of eliminating Quadafi and his government would be and what it would do the country and region. Her laughter in that interview where she said *we came, we saw, he died" was pretty damn scary, and I'm a Clinton fan.

Susan Rice's account (on the Sunday talk shows) of what happened in Benghazi in the aftermath did not seem to square with what i had been reading on the incident (and i was a news junky on it). I don't mean the republican narrarive on it either. What were they doing operating in a remote lightly guarded consulate near the border with known insurgents or otherwise hostile factions in the area ? There were rumors of covert ops. Quadafi had amassed a huge stock pile of weapons and after his fall Libya was being called an arms bazaar. I read an article at the time that said 40 or so groups fighting skrimishes in the area had been armed from that cache of weapons. Were we funneling weapons to sympsthetic factions in the region ? Conspiracy theories ? Who knows, but in my opinion Libya was a mistake. One that was a factor in me not voting for her in the primary.

Her quarter of a million dollar 40 minutes speeches with Goldman Sach's were another key factor.

I voted for her in the general but i have no tegrets supporting Bernie on the primary.

[zentrum]

42. Well said.

Our memories are too short term. The issues were deeper and wider than what Bernie said in the Primaries. He only voiced what many of us were already thinking. It's not as if we started to have doubts based on what he said.

Like you, I supported him but voted for her in the General. Which is like Bernie himself really---who campaigned for her, when he lost the Primary.

[CentralMass]

49. Thank and I agree with you.

[NurseJackie]

24. Pitch perfect!

Yes indeed... Double standards abound.

[murielm99]

25. I agree.

And you can be as strident as you like. I am sick of the double standard here, too. I will defend you and Hillary against anyone here who disrespects her or you.

The Berniebros are just upset that she wrote a book. How dare she? (Bernie wrote two, lol). And how dare she criticize him in her book? They are feeling the burn over that. LOL

[tymorial]

26. questions before I trash this thread like every other

That mentions Sanders, reargues the primary or attacks Sanders voters

What is the purpose of these persistent threads condemning Sanders and his supporters? Do they help move the party forward and heal the fracture? Do you honestly believe that beating these people over the head will somehow change their opinions? Everything I know about psychology (which is a lot) indicates that most will get defensive and double down. People do not like being confronted, today more than ever. Winning in 2018 or 2020 won't happen by alienating would be voters.

If people want to engage in purity screening and moral superiority so be it. I won't be involved. It lacks integrity. This is my last post on the issue. I am tired of the petty attack. Flag me. I don't care.

[The Polack MSgt]

29. I don't alert or trash or ignore.

Feel free to do you. Seriously. I just wanted to get this out of my throat

[m-lekktor]

40. excellent post!

[SalviaBlue]

45. Excellent question... I notice the OP did not answer you.

These persistent threads condemning Sanders and his supporters are flame bait posted by drama addicts. The OP even admits he only wants to vent and rant.

They need to stop. It is counterproductive.

[Demsrule86]

60. Fear- Sen. Sanders has said negative stuff about the Democratic Party...and he undeniably has

that will lead to division and ultimately Republican victories in 18 or 20. This is not a game. If the GOP holds absolute power for eight years, we will be in very big trouble, and God forbid they win the presidency in 20 because it would mean the end of the progressive movement. It would take decades to recover just from the courts...never mind the other crap they would do.

[SunSeeker]

27. K & R

[Hekate]

30. Polack...

Yeah, Hillary Clinton never abases herself.
Yeah, double standard.

[The Polack MSgt]

32. Hi.

[betsuni]

34. K&R

[progressoid]

35. Actually, the Obama-Trump voter numbers ARE significant.

Latinos in 2012 voted 71% for Obama.
Lations in 2016: 65% voted for Clinton.

(That's quite a shift considering the things Trump called them)

African Americans in 2012: 93% for Obama.
African Americans in 2016: 89% for Clinton.

(plus the AA vote overall was lower in 2016)

Union household in 2012: 58% for Obama.
Union household in 2016: 51% for Clinton.

Income under 50K in 2012: 60% for Obama.
Income under 50K in 2016: 53% for Clinton

etc.

etc.

[emulatorloo]

52. Actually, see my post below from WAPO

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029564223#post51

WAPO: "There's no such thing as a Trump Democrat"

Quick Summary: Those Obama voters who switched to the Trump were largely Republican to start with. The abberation wasn't their votes for Trump but their votes for Obama.

[progressoid]

76. So...it is possible to sway those voters to our side.

Even a Black, "community organizer" with a Muslim name can do it.

[emulatorloo]

83. Yes that's true! However assuming those Republicans were "disillusioned Democrats" isn't true, which

is pretty much what the narrative has been from the pundit class. So that's why the article is interesting.

I knocked doors in '08 and '12, talked to a few persuadable Republicans. In 08 they cited Palin, enough Bush policy, as reasons they were considering voting Obama. 12 it was talk of "legitimate rape" and war on women from deranged Republicans in congress among other things.

[Demsrule86]

62. As I told others... I have seen polls showing the numbers were not significant.

And it is no wonder some didn't turn out with all the bashing of the Democratic Party from the right and the left. Anytime that happens we lose. Many of Sen. Sander's supporters seem to think this is significant...personally I think it is an indictment of those who refused to vote for the Democratic candidate and loudly proclaimed along side the Russians that they would not do so.

[progressoid]

78. re: bashing

We've let others define us for decades. Being a liberal or a progressive or whatever has been successfully smeared. We need to take control of the messaging from both the MSM and social media. It doesn't matter if we have the best ideas for America if nobody hears it.
And it doesn't help when we have an enabling, complicit media.

Donald Trump succeeded in shaping the election agenda. Coverage of Trump overwhelmingly outperformed coverage of Clinton. Clinton’s coverage was focused on scandals, while Trump’s coverage focused on his core issues.



Attempts by the Clinton campaign to define her campaign on competence, experience, and policy positions were drowned out by coverage of alleged improprieties associated with the Clinton Foundation and emails. Coverage of Trump associated with immigration, jobs, and trade was greater than that on his personal scandals.



...https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

[Demsrule86]

79. Good point and then there were the lies, Russia, Comey, Facebook, Twitter...and I have still

not abandoned the notion that there was outright thievery and the election was stolen by the Russians , the GOP or by both.

[Gothmog]

36. K&R

[justhanginon]

37. K&R

[NurseJackie]

41. I can't thank you enough for posting this.

[Jim Lane]

47. There is a double standard here -- the exact opposite of the one you say. (n/t)

[The Polack MSgt]

50. Thanx for the input. NT

[emulatorloo]

51. Good read from WAPO: "Theres no such thing as a Trump Democrat"

Quick Summary: Those Obama voters who switched to the Trump were largely Republican to start with. The abberation wasn't their votes for Trump but their votes for Obama.

-------------

Opinions
There’s no such thing as a Trump Democrat

By Dana Milbank Opinion writer August 4 at 3:37 PM

Do you believe in mermaids, unicorns and fairies? If so, you may have taken interest in a new mythical creature that appeared during the 2016 election: the Trump Democrat.

It has become an article of faith that an unusually large number of people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012 switched sides and voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. It follows that Democrats, to win in the future, need to get these lost partisans to come home.

But new data, and an analysis by AFL-CIO political director Michael Podhorzer that he shared with me, puts all this into question. The number of Obama-to-Trump voters turns out to be smaller than thought. And those Obama voters who did switch to Trump were largely Republican voters to start with. The aberration wasn’t their votes for Trump but their votes for Obama.

It follows for Democrats that most of these Obama-Trump voters aren’t going to be persuaded to vote Democratic in future; the party would do better to go after disaffected Democrats who didn’t vote in 2016 or who voted for third parties.

<snip>

And those Obama voters who did cross to Trump look a lot like Republicans. The AFL-CIO’s Podhorzer analyzed raw data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study , out in the spring, and found that Obama-Trump voters voted for Republican congressional candidates by a 31-point margin, Republican Senate candidates by a 15-point margin and Republican gubernatorial candidates by a 27-point margin. Their views on immigration and Obamacare also put them solidly in the GOP camp.

“Democratic analysts who are looking to solve the party’s problem by appealing to this small group of Obama-Trump voters are pointing themselves to a group that by and large is a Republican group now,” Podhorzer told me. “The bulk of Obama-Trump voters are not fed-up Democratic voters; they are Republican voters who chose Obama in 2012. As such, few are available in 2018 or 2020.” Democrats should instead appeal broadly to working-class voters, he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-trump-democrat/2017/08/04/0d5d06bc-7920-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html

[The Polack MSgt]

54. Thank you for the link.

I appreciate it.

[LovingA2andMI]

53. Beyond Sick Of These "Threads"....

Add one more to the growing IGNORE List....

[The Polack MSgt]

55. That's you're prerogative. No issues here...

Thanks for your input on this thread.

[Kentonio]

56. The difference between former Obama voters and so called Bernie Bros is stark.

Supporters of a candidate are not controlled by that candidate. When people who voted for Obama (a moderate centrist Democrat) suddenly refuse to vote for Clinton (a moderate centrist Democrat) then we have a real problem. Those are people that decide after several elections of voting for a certain vision, that they won't vote for someone promising to continue that vision. That only leaves us with two real options, either they don't think that vision of the country is working for them, or they dislike or distrust the new candidate.

With the new Sanders supporters, we're talking about people who weren't previously willing to vote Democrat. Either they were on the left and saw the candidate as someone who finally represented their views, or they were from elsewhere and decided they liked the candidate and his views enough to move their vote. Either way, those were voters we didn't previously have, and were a simple addition to our potential vote count. By not nominating Sanders, we gave away most of those votes. You can certainly argue that by nominating him we may potentially have lost some other sections of the vote who previously voted Democrat, but what you can't do is expect those new voters to just smoothly transition to Clinton. If they were ever going to vote for her, there's no reason why they wouldn't have voted Obama previously.

[The Polack MSgt]

65. Thank you, that's well argued

By not nominating Sanders, we gave away most of those votes.

The issue is the decision to not nominate Senator Sanders was made by counting votes.

I can't see how he would have done better in the GE than the candidate that won the primary

[Kentonio]

67. End of the day he lost the primary and that's fair.

Personally though I'd argue that in the general he could have maybe either brought in a lot of voters in the Rust Belt that we lost to Trump or which didn't vote at all. His message resonated in those areas in a way the party hasn't for a long time now. Obviously its all theoretical, but that was my belief then, and it still is today.

[The Polack MSgt]

70. I concede that it's possible. You could be right, but I don't think so...

On the other hand - My crystal ball is obviously just as broken as the ones the rest of the country used...

[dembotoz]

72. i am sorry i thought loyalty oaths were just a gop thing

[The Polack MSgt]

73. He says to a man who swore the Oath of Enlistment 5 times.

I don't consider oaths to automatically be evil, and this is not a call for signing a parchment with your own blood.

Hey, vote for who you like.

Just don't accuse the main steam candidate of malfeasance while at the same time hand waving away problems with the alternative candidate.

[dembotoz]

74. what you are suggesting would cut my local dem party by 2/3

[GoneOffShore]

75. Well said, sir. Too bad your words fall on deaf ears.

And there are many people here who refuse to believe that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Of course there would seem to be a contingent of hardcore disruptors who indulge in 'othering', 'whataboutism', 'sealioning', and other tactics to divide those who actually want to get things done.
It's one of the reasons that I post as infrequently as I do and keep out of the in-fighting. It's too tiring and just makes me despair about good people not willing to adjust positions by indulging in absolutism.

[Me.]

77. Rec For Honesty

"and whisky"

[louis c]

81. exactly how I feel (nt)