Clinton is the nominee. But the Democratic Party should not just become Clinton Inc.

[Armstead]

Maybe she'll beat Trump.

She's lucky. Instead of moderating his behavior, Trump is becoming increasingly unhinged, and even the GOP is starting to quietly mumble "Oh My God. What have we done?"

But the Democratic party will either lose or find it impossible to govern in the future IF it ignores close to half of primary voters -- of all shapes, sizes, colors, genders and variations of beliefs and values -- who agree with the message and goals of Bernie, and believe the Democratic Party can and should do better than just "not GOP".

If her victory means that all dissent shoiuld once more be clamped down on, and the same old DLC/Centrist/Clinton/Corporate.Wall St/ straightjacket is imposed.....Then it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

On a more positive note -- The Democratic Party can remain relevant and become stronger and dominate the GOP in the future IF it takes Sanders seriously, and takes his supporters seriously in both message and in policy and partisan operations.

If it does that, and becomes a truly democratic Democratic Party -- and clearly liberal and progressive on issues of Wealth and Power and Social and Economic Justice -- there is a brighter future.

If not....well possibly say hello to President Trump. And regardless of the victor in November accept the prospect of continued stagnation and gridlock and a GOP resurgence for the forseeable future.

[qdouble]

1. Clinton is just one person.

If Bernie's revolution is real, it'll work to get more progressive in the congress to push more progressive legislation. I've never gotten the impression that Clinton has sought to suppress progressives, only that she is pragmatic. If progressives give her the backing to go further left while still getting stuff done, I don't see why she wouldn't oblige.

[Armstead]

3. Both she and Sanders represent deep and bigger things

Presidential elections tend to personalize things, and the occupant of the WH is generally assumed to be the face of the party.

You are correct in your statements about Congress, etc. That was part of what I was referring to among the "open up and take seriously" phrase.

[tonyt53]

2. Uh, luck has nothing to do with it. Odd how you want to discount some voters, Bernie did the same

You also discount the three million more that have voted for Hillary than Bernie. Take away open primaries and those low turnout caucuses and Bernie would be at least 6 million behind, and probably much more. Only you and a few other very ill-informed, or poor loser voters see anything but a Hillary landslide. All you have to do is look at the electoral college map. She whipped Bernie in all of those toss-up states and will do the same to Trump, plus she will likely carry some states that were written off to the GOP - because of Trump.

[Armstead]

5. Go ahead then. Ignore and dismiss and insult millions and millions.

Let me know how that works out for ya in a few years.

[tonyt53]

10. Yeah, go ahead and write in Bernie or stay home and not vote in November and see that works for ya

YOUR candidate is the one that dismissed millions of southern voters. And those millions and millions you mentioned, take away at least 2-3 million GOP voters in states with open primaries. Get rid of those caucuses and go to even open primaries in those states and Bernie loses by even more, Close those primaries, as they should be, and Bernie loses by even more. Hell, he'd have negative votes. I have lived through multiple presidents, starting with Eisenhower. I know very well what party stands with working people. I know the importance of having a Democrat in the WH, along with a Democrat majority in the Senate. Bernie, and his followers, have no idea. If you think that little "socialist" thing about Bernie doesn't matter, you'd better ask most voters over the age of 55. Bernie has aligned himself with communist and socialist governments in the past and would be an easy target for the GOP.

[puffy socks]

14. Armstead speaks for ALL the millions of voters, didn't you know that?

I'm voting for Hillary because she's done a better job of addressing my concerns and her record shows it.

She can be honest about her mistakes whereas Sanders and co. try and pass it off like he's never made mistake in his life.. hence the "always been on the right side of things "gibberish.

[Armstead]

66. So you speak for all voters too?

Gee I guess I've been usurped as the Voice of God




FYI we're both just schmucks posting our opinions on a message board.

[puffy socks]

70. I never even tried to imply I did.

so there's that. but nice try with the projection!

[puffy socks]

4. Good Lord stop with the all or none ridiculousness.

" IF it ignores close to half of primary voters "

It's funny how BoBs assume that all the Sanders supporters think like the fanatical over the top supporters. They don't
Nor are all Independents voting against Hillary.
I am an Independent and I am voting for Hillary.

Your premise is weak.

[Armstead]

6. I suggest a course in reading comprehension

Here's a helpful starting point.....

of all shapes, sizes, colors, genders and variations of beliefs and values

[puffy socks]

12. You cant even comprehend your own OP?

now that is funny!

"But the Democratic party will either lose or find it impossible to govern in the future IF it ignores close to half of primary voters -- of all shapes, sizes, colors, genders and variations of beliefs and values -- who agree with the message and goals of Bernie, and believe the Democratic Party can and should do better than just "not GOP".

I hate to break it to you, Slim, but most Dems and Independent leaning Dems (who btw usually vote for whomever the Dem nominee is) have the goals of Bernie... even Bernie admits that.Bernie's PLANS won't work, which was the entire reason I decided to vote for Hillary....and he's voted for more war so don't even go there.




Many Independents who have those same values are voting for Hillary, including me. Berners dont speak for all people who have those values...it doesn't matter if you regroup and rename the Dems and Independents into voters " of all shapes, sizes, colors, genders and variations of beliefs and values" all are still Independents and Dems, changing tweedledee to tweedledum changes nothing.

How utterly side busting! thanks for the laugh this morning!

[Armstead]

23. You think banks have become inherently too big and powerful?

If you think this is fundamentally a major problem -- regardless of how healthy those banks might be -- maybe we have the same goals, as a starting point. ...I don't mean in financial risk -- I mean the inherent structural problem.

[puffy socks]

45. Yep I do

but, I do not agree that every person working in the financial industry is corrupt. nor is making speeches to big companies including banks mean anyone is bought.

1 show how breaking them up is legal
2 show how breaking up banks stops a systemic problem?
3 explain why when the GSA was in affect a similar crisis was averted while the GSA was still in effect? (google Rubin, Summers, Greenspan.)

Hillary is correct when she says we need specific regulations--the very kind of regulations Brooksley Borne was talking about way back in the mid 90s.

[Armstead]

52. Neither do I and neither does Sanders

The points you raise are valid, and would certainly have to be dealt with when the time comes.

But first has to come the actual desire to do something. That does not mean coming up with all kind of excuses to avoid looking at HOW it can be done.

The disfiguratiuon of the economy is NOT a force of unyielding nature. We did have checks and balances in place before the dismantling process started in 1980. There were constraints on banks and otehr corporations that have since been remove or ignored by Dem and GOP administrations alike.

That's the problem. We keep repeating how it can't be done....or shouldn't be done (echoing the party line of the bankers and corporations and GOP conservatives).

There is plenty of fodder for discussion on this and otehr subjects. Which was part of the point of my OP.

But that discussion will NOT HAPPEN unless the Democratic Party gets out of bed with Big Money and affirms a commitment to actually DO something about these things.

The relentless attempts to marginalize Sanders and his supporters -- and the principles they (we) are pushing for -- is not a hopeful sign for what will happen --- UNLESS the Democratic Party as an institution does some honest soul searching, admits the existence of systemic problems and decides to actually do something to solve them.

[puffy socks]

67. oh please.

"But first has to come the actual desire to do something. That does not mean coming up with all kind of excuses to avoid looking at HOW it can be done."

No one is avoiding looking at it. The problem is sabotaging progressives so that nothing can be done because you insist your way is the only way. That happened both in 2010 and 2014. from both progressives and the conservatives. Stabbing all Progressives in the back is what the "pure progressives of the BoB or Naders continue to do..and then they just cant figure out why a progressive agenda wont go through--DUH These people make Republicans look brilliant in comparison.

Jim Webb another "establishment Democrat" brought this up 10 years ago. Yeah in know that pains you all that Bernard isnt the one who started the fight.

"It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President's message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.

Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.

There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy ­ how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy ­ how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace."

Sound familiar?

Now show me how the Progressives have given Obama and Dems the chance to turn things around.
Show me the super majorities they had in 2009 and 2010 until the Berner types abandoned the fight (which is how I know no revolution is taking place, Berners are too weak and bhave no common sense when working with people who don't agree with them.)

[Armstead]

71. I could answer but haven't the time right now

I'll just say in short, I've seen the same pattern repeated endlessly since at least 1980, whether the Dems have held the WH but not Congress, had all three branches, had the WH and a mixed Congress, or had to contend with a GOP WH and Congress...the pattern has been the same, with slight variations.

Don't fight for clear liberal progressive principles. Either go along with the GOP, or propose a "compromise" that gives the GOP 75 percent...or actively push for the same things the GOP pushes for.

I could give many specifics but lack the time.

Unfortunately often at the center of that has been the Clintons, and/or the brand of Corporate Democrat that is allied with them. Liberals and progressives are sent out to the yard and dismissed as the "fringe left." Often they are told "Let us realistic adults handle this." This primary is no different.

That dismissive and heavy handed stifling of progressives does not tend to engender widespread enthusiasm for participation in the less sexy off-year elections or other levels of participation.

But close to half of the votes in the primary went to Bernie. There are reasons for that that are much bigger than him.

[puffy socks]

80. "Don't fight for clear liberal progressive principles."

Is that why Bernie caucused with them?



Obviously you haven't really looked at the branches and seen who controls or you'd understand that since the 80s we have been hamstrung one way or another, by a public that bought into Republican lies ("government is the problem" )or by a fright wing Congress.
Compromise is the only way when you don't have a super majority that can override filibusters or a veto .

Every time the voters give the GOP power we then not only have to try and pursue the progressive agenda we want but repeal all the crap they legislated as well. These types of Progressive voters never blame themselves for lack of endurance in the fight and voting third pay like idiots who can 't grasp the idea of having an actual strategy, and they refuse to work with anyone who doesn't adhere exactly to every single thing they believe..so nothing ever gets done.
Quitting doesn't help, perseverance and compromise do.


I cant wait until the next generation blames Bernies supporters for not getting anything done.. I mean really whats your problem? whats stopping you from reaching your goals? hmmm? How come Bernie hasnt gotten everything done already he's been there for decades? ias he that incompetent?

Are you just going to blame everyone else like a bunch of children like Berners have for losing the nomination? Do Berners take responsibility for any of your failures? maybe that's why you cant see that others make mistakes too. because you're too busy believing you're perfect. But your candidate lost which proves you cant get shit accomplished, riiiiight?.... and of course, its everyone else's fault.


now let's give a little history: Jimmy Carter --definitely a Progressive. had the same problem Bernie has and it also screwed up the chances of anything getting done the exact same way Bernie does..and he did have a Dem majority.

He campaigned as a Washington "outsider", bashed the Democrat controlled Congress
He refused to play by the rules of Washington and couldn't enact his planned legislation as president.

Do you really think there will be different results trying the same damned thing again?

[Armstead]

85. Short answer

The GOP has dominated the agenda since 1980 and pushed it to the right because they have had clear ideological priorities (wrongheaded as they are) and relentlessly pounded away like a collective jackhammer.

Even when they were down politically, or lost on a specific issue, they just keep pounding and pounding. And they have also been very clear and aggressive (if misleading) about their agenda and actively selling it to voters.

The otehr reason is the Democrats have been lame counterpoint. Either they have preemptively whined "We can't do that. People will think we're tooooo libbbbbberal." Or else they have actively joined the GOP Corporate Club, and sell us out, eitehr in plain sight or under the table.

I will not continue to go around in circles. If you think Clinton and the Democratic Congress and Party Establishment will advance a truly progressive agenda, and push the US back to some reasonable point, good luck. I hope you turn out to be correct.

But in my own opinion, it's not going to happen unless Dems move beyond the same old same old that it has been stuck in for 35 years, and insetad open itself up to new ideas and new participants, and change with the times.

[puffy socks]

92. What baloney.

Democrats have pressed for years. The corporate media has helped the GOP and silenced the Dems ..strange how you all see this clearly with Bernie but not with Democrats.

Bernie's ideas aren't new. They aren't his ideas.
BERNIE hasnt gotten any of these goals accomplished ...why not?
Why hasn't BERNIE gotten his agenda legislated in 30 years? answer the question.

[TimPlo]

26. I find it rather funny

In one post you make a mocking post about the OP speaking for millions and then you post another implying he speaks for millions because you are saying "It's funny how BoBs assume that all the Sanders supporters think like the fanatical over the top supporters. " based on the OP.

[Seeinghope]

38. Most Independents want Bernie, you are in the minority. Clinton Inc. I like that!

[puffy socks]

46. You've spoken with all the other Independents, huh?

[Seeinghope]

58. Yep!

[yallerdawg]

7. As many as 140,000,000 Americans may vote this November.

Less than 10% have come out for the democratic socialist.

I don't see a political movement, much less a revolution.

Unless you count the first female President of the United States!!!

[Armstead]

9. If so.....What's the percentage that have come out for Clinton? 10% plus a few additional points?

[yallerdawg]

13. More than either Trump or Sanders.

Real votes and turnout rather than imaginary "poll" numbers touted by the third-place populist candidate to woo establishment elites to overturn the will of the people.

[puffy socks]

49. Maybe we can just have a super duper rally..and buy lots of yard signs!

That'll do it! Rallies and yard signs are the equivalent of a vote, or so it's been insinuated over and over again by the Berners

[Tal Vez]

8. You're absolutely right about the prospect of GOP intransigence.

The GOP is not going to support any progressive proposals no matter who lives in the White House. The GOP is not going to support providing anyone with health insurance or help with the costs of college or higher minimum wages.

Any progressive proposals are going to require a Democratic Congress to pass them. The Affordable Care Act did not get one Republican vote - not one.

The GOP has no intention of just rolling over for anyone. Their plan is to wait until they get a GOP president and then enact their agenda. Our job is to make sure that they don't succeed in doing that this November.

[Demsrule86]

11. True

We would lose all the progress we have made since Roosevelt.

[Beowulf]

16. Odd you would say that.

The very publicly stated goal of the DLC, New Democrat, Third Way, neoliberal Democrat is the undoing of The New Deal.

[Armstead]

20. ..................

?1459990583

[puffy socks]

50. oh really?

do post the link to the quotes "we want to undo the new deal." by the Democrats

[Beowulf]

84. Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal

is a thorough critique of the Democratic Party since the mid-80's. As good a place to start as any.

But you aren't really interested in doing any reading, are you?

[Demsrule86]

72. More insults

I am a liberal and always have been. I don't want to see us go back to the days of no safety net and bread lines, my Grandpa fought for union rights and was beaten for a decent wage and a 40 hour week. I come from a yellow dog family...seriously, you Bernie supporters believe your own propaganda. And Trump is way too dangerous to play stupid games...you say he can't be elected, I am not so sure. We need to mount an effective campaign to neuter him...I am very angry with Bernie ...not because I don't agree with him but because Bernie threatens the general and has weakened Hillary-the Democratic nominee. I decided to support Hillary because I don't think Bernie could win a general. I like them both at one time.

[Beowulf]

93. I suppose you be insulted by what I wrote

but I don't understand why I'm the source. I didn't pass NAFTA, the biggest Democratic betrayal of working people. Or the Crime Bill, Or Welfare Reform, Or Bank Deregulation. I didn't nearly form a deal with Newt Gingrich on privatizing Social Security or form the "Cat Food Commission."

New Democrats did these things. And I expect Hillary would continue the trend. I've never said Trump can't get elected, of course he can. Hillary does far more to weaken herself than anything Bernie says or does.

[Beowulf]

15. I see the end result of the FBI investigation as the key.

If she gets a pass, no indictment or a pardon or whatever that leaves her intact and the party's nominee, then the DNC, state parties, and the Clinton apparatus including the foundation will all work seamlessly together.

[Demsrule86]

73. No indictment fairy...no intent. nt

[Beowulf]

81. You may be correct

and that will clear the way for the Democratic Party and Clinton, Inc. to merge. Pay to play at all levels.

[firebrand80]

17. The Presidential nominee gets control of the party

and it lasts 4 years if she's elected. Neither Hillary nor Bernie are getting any special benefits or punishments.

[Armstead]

19. There's control and there's control

[firebrand80]

21. Hillary should get the same control Obama, Kerry and Gore got

No more, no less.

[Armstead]

27. I'm talking about after the election and into the future

She has the right to run her campaign how she wants....She will obviously choose whether to address the issues Sanders is talking about, or "pivot to the right" for the general.....or just spend all her time talking about how awful a person Trump is.

I'm talking long run fundamental stuff....The Clintons don't tend to want to share power or open up. Hopefully the Democrats will become different, and not revert to the 90's.

[bettyellen]

54. But your OP said the result will be Trump winning, so nope.... You were posting about now and not

After the election, it would seem.

[Armstead]

56. Both

It referred to the possibility of Trump winning. That's up to Clinton, and how she campaigns.

[bettyellen]

87. Interesting flip flop you're doing now.

[Armstead]

89. Call it what you want

Will make a difference in the election (even assuming Clinton has complete control over her campaign) and afterwards if she wins or loses.

No flip flop but if you want to play word games, have fun.

[bettyellen]

95. Your OP was about before the GE, then you clarify you're talking about after the election....

Honestly, you've gotten yourself so twisted by emotion it's hard to tell what your message is anymore. I'd work on thinking shit through before posting another - would it be third or fourth?- OP today. Stop winging it.

[demwing]

18. "it will be a Pyrrhic victory" - Yes, but they don't give a short-sighted shit

as long as she wins.

The goal is for Hillary to become immortalized as our 1st Female President. Once that happens, the rest of the world can go to hell (and probably will).

[yallerdawg]

22. Yes, stand by your principles!

SportsPickle ‏@sportspickle · May 30

The wealthiest 1/10th of 1% really suck until they can get you some sweet Game 7 tickets.

[Armstead]

31. Could you possibly be any more shallow?

If Bernie wanted to become a 1 percenter, he could have done that long ago. Just join the Democratic Party and follow the Clintonian Elite path. Vote for Corporate and Wall St. policies instead of fighting them, and prepare for a wealthy post Congressional career as a wealthy lobbyist or consultant -- or an overpriced corporate speechifier.

So don't portray a campaign event as anything more than what it is...a campaign event.

[yallerdawg]

41. Warriors/Thunder Game 7 was a "campaign event"?

A pair of tickets we're selling for over $50,000!

Was this, "I go to the game with another celebrity, I'll be on TV Trump-style, write it all off as 'campaign event'?"

And you call me shallow.

[Armstead]

44. Yeppers I do

[840high]

83. Amen.

[NCTraveler]

24. Again, you are starting in a position outside of reality.

"But the Democratic party will either lose or find it impossible to govern in the future IF it ignores close to half of primary voters "

There is zero accuracy in that statement. Zero. It is an opinion that is based in nothing that has or will happen. It's actually impossible for it to happen.

[Armstead]

28. Please explain the "zero accuracy"

Were you alive and kicking in the 1990's?

Were you around for the overall capitulation of the Dems during the Bush era?

The DLC/NewDemocrat/Clinton faction has had almost fuill control since the late 80's. The chickens came home to roost in the crash of 2008....And those chickens keep on coming.

The fact that a cranky old guy like Bernie resonated with almost half the people who participated in the primaries should tell you that people want a change. The Democrfatic Establishment can either keep repeating what it has done for 35 years, or open up. That is the choice.

[NCTraveler]

33. Sure.

Half of the primary voters aren't currently being ignored and won't be ignored. You are speaking for people as if you are their leader when it's clear you aren't. Your thought that they are one unified block could be no further from the truth. Example. A friend of mine who voted for Sanders in Floridas primary is now completely on board for Clinton. Many Sanders supporters are doing the same. Not all of course. I wouldn't talk in absolutes as you are doing here. Your argument truly only works if you view things as absolutes that cannot be put in absolute terms.

It is a truly false premise you are pushing.

[Armstead]

43. No it is a false premise that a vote for Clinton means support for Clinton

First of all, I am not under the delusion that I am a leader of anything. Just another schmuck posting on another message board. That's what people tend to do on discussion boards (yourself included). They post their opinions.

Second, please note this little phrase that acknowledges exactly what you are referring to

of all shapes, sizes, colors, genders and variations of beliefs and values

But what they DO have in common is that they want a change frok the stale Democratic Centrist Corporatist status quo. Otherwise they would have voted for Clinton. They also support bernie's message and vision in a pro-active positive sense, as the enthusiasm that has characterized his supporters makes clear.

Like many or most of them, I'll vote for Clinton in November to Stop Trump. But I will not like it. There are many people in the same boat.

And during the primary -- if you want to use anectdotal evidence -- I have a number of friends and relatives who love Bernie and have said they would much prefer to have someone like him as President. But they supported Clinton either because 1)"It's time for a woman president" or 2) They bought into the meme that "Only Clinton is electable. My beliefs and Bernie's are too liberal for the mainstream."

The only reason they are perceived as out of the mainstream is because politicians like Clinton have marginalized progressive and liberal positions, except on certain select ones that do not affect the balance of Wealth and Power. They have not sold those policies, or demonstrated to people that their beliefs are not "fringe."

And worse, demjocrats have alw3ays dismissed and marginalized those who challenge the Corporate Centrist agenda as "the "far left" or the party's "leftist fringe."

One thing Sanders accomplished is demonstrating clearly that liberal and progressive goals and values ARE held by a substantial percentage. he was portrayed as a loony fringe candidate who might get 10 percent of the primary vote. He proved the centrists wrong.

And, as I said in the OP, if the Clinton democratic Partry wants to revert to form and Party like it's 1999 again, then they will run up against the reality that things have changed.

[NCTraveler]

48. Why do you keep speaking in absolutes?

You say you aren't their spokesperson then proceed to speak for every single one of them. You are proving yourself wrong while doing so.

"But what they DO have in common is that they want a change frok the stale Democratic Centrist Corporatist status quo."

That is so black and white and incorrect. I know you can see it. I hope you can.

[Armstead]

55. You also speak in absolutes...as do most here

Nothing is absolute. That's a giant Duuuhhhhhh.

But every post can't be a 500 page tome exploring the intricacies and complexities and paradoxes of every subject discussed.

People have wide shades of opinion. For example, despite my frequent radical-sounding popping off here, I am a lot more like Obama in my view of the world than you might think.

But things do have to be put into bite sized chunks on a message board. And no single post or thread is going to solve all the problems of the world.

For me, this OP is simply a response to the impending end of the primary, expressing the past frustrations of the tone, and my fears for the future as I see the troops falling into line and ready for a very nasty and shallow General Election.

That and the cost of a subway card will get you a subway ride. But it is how I feel, and I'm sticking to it.

[NCTraveler]

57. "But every post can't be a 500 page tome exploring the...."

It's not necessary to post 500 pages in order for one to not speak for whole groups that cannot even come close to being singularly defined.

[Armstead]

60. Once again....yawn....I am expressing my opinion.

You are picking at a nit.

An opinion is one's particular view of reality.

It would be cumbersome for everyone to start every sentence in a post here with "I realize this is just my opinion, and many people might disagree with me, or only partially agree, but here is what i think....."

I often use the IMO shorthand for that, but even that is not something required on every sentence on every post.

[Lord Magus]

36. Apparently the majority don't want the specific change that Bernie calls for.

Why should the minority of voters get to dictate terms to the majority?

[Robbins]

25. There is no democratic party anymore with clinton as nominee

it's now the clinton party.there is no place for progressives anymore.it's a neoliberal corporate neocon party.

Clinton could announce at convention time to erase all remaining traces of new deal and great society and embrace corporations and centrism and her supporters would still cheer for her.

GOP wins no matter what eather they get complete control of government or clinton will sign as president much of what corporations want and GOP congress pass and she helps gop make gains in 2018.

[Lord Magus]

32. Clinton IS A PROGRESSIVE.

Just because you say that Clinton supporters would still back her if she does something she obviously is not going to do doesn't make it so. That's just as ridiculous as claiming Bernie's supporters would still back him if he joined the Constitution Party and expressed full support for its far-right wacko platform. It will never happen.

[Robbins]

34. CLinton is no progressive

she is right winger who supports corporations and neocon agenda.

[Lord Magus]

35. If you beieve that then obviously no facts can sway you. -nt-

[Robbins]

39. There are plenty of facts to support this

clinton supporters when not spouting her move to right just want to spew the lie she is progressive.

[demwing]

91. She's a socially liberal, economically regressive, war hawk

Who self identifies as a centrist with proud conservative roots. She's no more a progressive than the Easter Bunny.

[Agnosticsherbet]

29. Trump is what he is. Luck has nothing to do with it.

Governing requires that the President and Congress compromise.

If Republicans continue in control of the Senate and the House, it will be difficult for any Democratic President to do anything but say no to their most egregious desires. Those Primary voters need to GOTV and, along with electing Clinton, elect as many Democrats as they can to City, County, State, and Federal offices.

We will do better if those that must compromise begin in the same ideological river as both Clinton and Sanders.

[demwing]

30. BTW - Clinton may well become the nominee

But until the convention, there is no nominee. That's a fact.

[Lord Magus]

42. Bernie seemed to think differently in 08.

Apparently back then the nomination didn't need to be secured with pledged delegates only.

[demwing]

74. Don't be dishonest, that wasn't Bernie's position and you know it

Bernie backed Obama over Clinton, that's all. Who can blame him? She's a horrible candidate who - despite all her connections and privileges - can't shake a 74 year old, gravel voiced, wild haired democratic socialist that few had heard of just a year ago.

[Lord Magus]

75. Yes that WAS Bernie's position. And you know it.

Bernie said his policy was to not endorse until the party had chosen its nominee. He endorsed on June 5, 2008 because by that point the nominee had been chosen. Even though nobody was in a position to win with only pledged delegates. But now he's insisting that superdelegates aren't to be counted until the roll call vote at the convention. That's completely incompatible with his 08 position.

As for Hillary being unable to "shake" Bernie? She did that back in March.

[hrmjustin]

37. Tthe party is diverse and will remain so.

[Armstead]

64. It's always been the cat-herding party but....

the Clintons have shown a tendency to put the cats into cages over the years

[hrmjustin]

65. Are you saying we can't think for ourselves?

[Armstead]

68. I'm saying that when you have the formal levers of power, you can handle it in many ways

The Clintons tend to have a heavy hand, while Obama has been more appropriate in his handling of that power.

That's my opinion.

[hrmjustin]

69. I think they have been rather calm.

[seabeyond]

40. Did we challenge the Democratic party not become Obama Inc. Wtf is this, create all these rules and

demands

[djean111]

47. Too late, really.

The Third Way has been implementing that for years.
Look at the membership and agenda of the New Democrat Coalition. Third Way advises them, and they used to boast that the did not care about ideology, just wanted to work across the aisle to get things done. Which are Third Way things, of course.

In addition, you cannot really have meaningful negotiations with what I have to say is a practiced dissembler and liar. Anything agreed on would be tossed immediately after the election. and, down here in Florida, we can see DWS supporting her GOP buddies and not supporting liberals or Progressives. I have no reason to believe that the DNC does not do this across the country, which makes that "elect liberals locally and they will ascend through the ranks" thing a canard. because they won't rise at all if DWS can help it. There is even a DNC rule whereby incumbents are given tremendous advantages, such as a primary challenger not being given access to the registered voter database. the deck has been in the process of being stacked for quite a while.

With Hillary as the nominee, I personally will resign the Democratic Party and work with outside groups.

[beachbum bob]

51. democratic party didn't become obama Inc

[Armstead]

53. Because Obama is not Clinton

He is more open and receptive.

Speaking for myself I don't agree with him on everything, but I have always trusted his judgement, intentions and motivations. He is not from the same mold as the Clintons.

[Garrett78]

59. The GOP has been worried ever since Trump first won a primary.

And they aren't mumbling about it. Many have been quite vocal for months now. I'm sure they'll do all they can to hurt Clinton, but ultimately the GOP establishment will resign themselves to obstruction and attempting to win back the White House in 2020.

[magical thyme]

61. She is? I guess everybody can just stay home tomorrow.

and the Superdelegates don't need to show up in July. Convention off. Coronation on.

[Armstead]

62. I think as many people as possible should vote for Bernie

It sends a message, and gives him more in reserve, in case. And there's still the fight for leverage regardless.

But barring something unforeseen (which is always possible) the formal coronation will start tomorrow night, and the momentum of that will overtake everything.
'
I wish it were otherwise.

[magical thyme]

63. well certainly the msm plans to declare her the winner tomorrow

but anything can happen between now and the convention.

And anything can happen between the convention and the GE.

[Lord Magus]

76. Because she will be the winner tomorrow evening. -nt-

[magical thyme]

78. Neither candidate can achieve the requisite delegates until July 25

anything can happen between now and then.

[Lord Magus]

79. One candidate WILL achieve the requisite delegates tomorrow.

Bernie doesn't get to invent special 2016-only rules where only pledged delegates count toward the candidates' totals but supers still count toward the amount needed for a majority. Either superdelegates count or they don't, you can't have it both ways. If supers don't count then a majority is 2026, not 2383.

[Lord Magus]

77. Few things are more offensive than your dismissing the will of the voters as a coronation.

What is it about democracy that bothers you so much?

[Armstead]

86. Only thing more offensive is an actual pre-determined coronation.

[Lord Magus]

88. Which hasn't happened. What part of democracy so offends you? -nt-

[ladjf]

82. Too late. nt

[Skwmom]

90. Like the Democratic Party won't be Clinton Inc.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. Or, a Wall Street franchise.