2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy Hillary Clinton Supporters are Still So Angry at Bernie Sanders
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/06/the-psychology-of-why-hillary-clinton-supporters-a.htmlSome very good analysis of Sanders' true motives, as well as his supporters in this article. Much more than what I copied. Worth the read if you're interested.
1. Many of Clinton’s supporters were politically progressive before this election, and would have been quite happy with a presidential candidate like Elizabeth Warren. Happier, actually, because she embodied their beliefs—especially in the economic realm—in a way that Clinton did not. It’s the self-identified progressives, as opposed to the actual centrists, are the ones displaying the most anger today.
2. These progressive voters seized on Clinton’s candidacy based largely on identity politics. They wanted a female president, and the emergence of Sanders’ candidacy was a complicating nuisance, coming after they’d committed ideologically.
3. At the same time, they didn’t want to believe that they were supporting a war hawk and a fiscal conservative, because that ran against their progressive ideals. Life was better when Clinton was the only viable non-Republican option, because they didn’t have to explain themselves.
4. On some level, they recognized that their politics were more closely aligned with Bernie. Nevertheless, identity politics kept them in Clinton’s camp.
5. In order to erase the cognitive dissonance and justify their support to themselves, they employed several strategies, like falsely attributing widespread sexism to Sanders supporters, and trying to paint them as exclusively male in an attempt to efface the vast majority of young women and people of color who backed him. If Bernie and all his people were covert misogynists, then their progressivism was phony, and it was okay to support Hillary. It also erased the need to discuss real issues—a convenient out, since Hillary’s political history doesn’t stack up well from a progressive standpoint.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Yup, that's the whole problem. Bernie's not Bernice.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Head to head, *Bernice* or Hillary? Hillary hands down. I'd actually think *Bernice* had some good ideas but was a bit of a crack pot.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)that we'd never have loved in Bernice.
Our culture hasn't advanced that far, despite what some people think.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 1, 2016, 06:19 AM - Edit history (2)
are far less tolerated in women, for sure. Remember how Martha Stewart went to prison for the equivalent of shoplifting a candy bar while men around her were cleaning out the whole store?
Don't know who wrote this, but it's silly amateur garbage without insight. Many on DU come up with better. I wanted Bernie to be a substitute reformer for Warren, but the more I watched the more I felt that he wasn't and never could be. It also became clear to me that I could have no complaints afterward if I gave him power and then didn't like the way he used it.
Overall, I admire Hillary Clinton's competence and feel fortunate to have her as a choice, although of the three Martin O'Malley is the best fit ideologically.
Oh, and I'm not angry at Sanders. Glad that things worked out as they should, predominantly grateful to him for his tremendous contribution of revealing strong support for progressive government, and irritated and concerned in turn by his rigid thinking, vast intolerance, unjustified righteousness, and ruthless behaviors. Trying to set aside the vote would have been very bad, just seriously considering it was.
I also always have Trump for perspective--to help remind me we're very fortunate in our populist leader. Democrats would never have nominated Trump, no matter how he tailored his message to suit some, but he and the followers he picked up on the left would have been a lot more than just irritating.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)that two women would be too much, but now I'm thinking that anyone who didn't want two women wouldn't want Hillary anyway.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)overall, were commenting on the, whatever the words used were, magic, electricity of the two of them together. I was glad because I felt it, even foresaw it, but didn't want to think I was imagining such a thing just because I want Warren on the ticket. 
For me she fills in some blanks extremely well.
And I'm sure you're right. There's all the difference in the world between preferring a reassuring male presence and refusing to vote for lack of one.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)There is a big difference between Repuke Benghazi horseehit and opposing the overthrow of a government that threw Libya into the failed state category.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)The article takes the false position that most Hillary supporters are supporting her because of "identity politics-- i.e., that she's a woman.
You're writing about your continued personal gripes with Hillary, our presumptive nominee. Not the same thing.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)
sufrommich
(22,871 posts) leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)#5 for sure...
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
Cary
(11,746 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:14 PM - Edit history (1)
You suggest a team sport with winners and losers.
It isn't a game. We have serious problems to address. Our species is threatened. It's not a game. It's not a joke and if you are not part of the solution then you're not on any team you're part of the problem.
On edit: I didn't mean you, personally, in the last sentence. I know we are all walking on eggshells here and it gets confusing sometimes. Sorry if I suggested anything personal.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)
Laurian
(2,593 posts)
stopbush
(24,396 posts)into votes for Sanders.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)Gothmog
(145,156 posts)I personally doubted that Sanders was electable because of his numerous weaknesses that would be exploited in a general election. I found the claims that Sanders was electable due to silly match up general election polls to be laughable because Sanders was never vetted or challenged in the primary process. The Clinton campaign treated Sanders with kid gloves and even then I was amused to see the Sanders supporters whine about attacks.
There are good reasons why the demographics did not work for Sanders and why many voters including some African American voters did not support Sanders. There was a vast difference in how Sanders supporters and Sanders view President Obama and how other Democrats view President Obama. I admit that I am impressed with the amount accomplished by President Obama in face of the stiff GOP opposition to every one of his proposals and I personally believe that President Obama has been a great President. It seems that this view colors who I supported in the primary http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics
On one side of this divide are activists and intellectuals who are ambivalent, disappointed or flat-out frustrated with what Obama has gotten done. They acknowledge what they consider modest achievements -- like helping some of the uninsured and preventing the Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. But they are convinced that the president could have accomplished much more if only he’d fought harder for his agenda and been less quick to compromise.
They dwell on the opportunities missed, like the lack of a public option in health care reform or the failure to break up the big banks. They want those things now -- and more. In Sanders, they are hearing a candidate who thinks the same way.
On the other side are partisans and thinkers who consider Obama's achievements substantial, even historic. They acknowledge that his victories were partial and his legislation flawed. This group recognizes that there are still millions of people struggling to find good jobs or pay their medical bills, and that the planet is still on a path to catastrophically high temperatures. But they see in the last seven years major advances in the liberal crusade to bolster economic security for the poor and middle class. They think the progress on climate change is real, and likely to beget more in the future.
It seems that many of the Sanders supporters hold a different view of President Obama which is also a leading reason why Sanders is not exciting African American voters. Again, it was difficult for Sanders to appeal to African American voters when one of the premises of his campaign was that Sanders does not think that President Obama is a progressive or a good POTUS.
Again, I am not ashamed to admit that I like President Obama and think that he has accomplished a great deal which is why I do not mind Hillary Clinton promising to continue President Obama's legacy. There are valid reasons why many non-African American democrats (myself included) and many African American Democratic voters are not supporting Sanders.
The analysis in the OP as to why Sanders lost is really wrong and ignores a host of very valid reasons that good Democrats had to not support Sanders.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Thank you. President Obama has been outstanding. In his short tenure, his accomplishments have created more progress than that of all of the previous presidents in my lifetime combined.
Gothmog
(145,156 posts)Sanders would reject and destroy that legacy and Hillary Clinton would continue it.
Many sanders supporters hate President Obama and so they do not want to preserve or discuss this legacy
greatauntoftriplets
(175,733 posts)Thanks for making it.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...do you believe Obama is the end all be all of everything policy-wise? There is a vast difference between hating Obama and believing that we can go further than where he has taken us. It sounds like you're more interested in a maintainer-in-chief than moving forward.
Gothmog
(145,156 posts)Your post explains why Sanders efforts were doomed to failure
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Gothmog
(145,156 posts)Sanders lost because far more intelligent and loyal members of the Democratic Party voted for Clinton and against Sanders. Sanders pursued a path that was based on the arrogant assumption that anyone who disagreed with Sanders positions was dumb. That campaign failed to appeal to key segments of the Democratic base and that is why he lost.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You don't really stop to think about the words you're using, do you?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...bring up race, right? Good grief.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)
What legacy? Please explain...
spud_demon
(76 posts)Hillary would leave the Affordable Care Act alone.
Bernie would try to improve on it. If successful, it might not be called Obamacare any more, ruining(?) Obama's legacy.
Of course, Repugs have always wanted to repeal it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)He wants to destroy ACA and start over with single. Clinton want to add to ACA and build off it, not leave it alone. These were basic campaign stances. Why did you present it incorrectly?
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...do you really believe that Bernie would have gotten rid of the ACA without already having something in place to move us towards single payer?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)spud_demon
(76 posts)I did not say ACA was Obama's only legacy, I said it was the only one I saw. You called it incorrect without saying what else you would include. That's not constructive discussion.
Sanders has never said he wants to "destroy" ACA. Here is a link to his official position.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)
druidity33
(6,446 posts)As a Union man who has been on Contract negotiating teams i say you take what you can get, but it's important to start from a position of strength. One of the reasons i see the sense in this analysis is that i was deeply disappointed in Obama during the ACA negotiations for dropping the Public Option pretty much right away. He should've started from the position of wanting Medicare for all, then bargained down to the PO position. You absolutely cannot start negotiations from the compromise position. Who were his advisors? (a whole 'nother issue i have with the Obama team) I am a Sanders supporter, but i will vote for Clinton KNOWING she will be so much better than any R that could ever have been her opponent. Trump is a huge impetus for people to get out and vote. I think Hillary will be responsive to public pressure on the issues Bernie folk are most concerned about. I'm not sure i want Warren out of the Senate because she's my Senator and she's been great! Really curious to see the VP pick. Otherwise, i'm looking forward to huge Dem gains in November...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's an OP about why Clinton supporters continue and persist in their white-knuckled, tooth-grinding, all-out rage about Sanders.
Gothmog
(145,156 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Else you might know better.
Gothmog
(145,156 posts)The premise of the OP is rather ignorant claim that Clinton supporters hate Sanders based because Clinton supporters are stupid. That premise is really false and in that there are really valid reasons why intelligent member of the Democratic base would not support a very weak candidate like Sanders. Contrary to the false claims in the OP Sanders was a very weak candidate who would not stand a chance in general election. The loyal and intelligent members of the Democratic base who rejected Sanders as a candidate did so for very valid reasons and not due to the sad claims made in the OP.
Sanders was a weak candidate who had no chance of being the nominee which is why he was never vetted and never attacked. The Clinton campaign treated Sanders with kids gloves because Sanders never had a chance of being the nominee VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:
When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?
But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.
His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.
The attacks that would be levied against Sanders by the Kochs, the RNC candidate and others in a general election contest would make the so-called attacks against Sanders look like patty-cakes. The GOP and Kochs are not known for being nice or honest and as the article notes there are a ton of good topics available for attack. Raising taxes is never a good campaign platform (Just ask President Mondale). The GOP would also raise the socialism and age issues if Sanders was the nominee.
Again, I agree with the VOX position that so far, Sanders has not been subject to negative attacks close to what the GOP would use against Sanders and the attacks against Sanders if he was the nominee would be brutal. I urge Sanders supporters to read the VOX article to start to get a feel for what real negative attacks would look like.
Re-read the OP or have someone read and explain it to you. Sanders was a weak candidate who never had a chance of being the nominee which is why he was never really confronted by the Clinton campaign. The GOP would destroy Sanders easily in a general election contest which is why the premise of the OP is simply false.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Gothmog
(145,156 posts)obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)Gothmog
(145,156 posts)Sanders supporters are still whining about not winning the support of key demographic groups who make up the base of the Democratic party
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)At all.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)and making up stats is not interesting.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)It is a bunch of condescending bullshit.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... point out the sinners among us.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)seaglass
(8,171 posts)leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)seaglass
(8,171 posts)solutions were about an inch deep. There was and is no there there.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)seaglass
(8,171 posts)Gothmog
(145,156 posts)Sanders' whole platform was based on the claim that Sanders' so-called revolution would generate so many new voters that Sanders could force the GOP to be reasonable. Sanders' platform had no chance of being adopted and was not realistic. http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what
That’s a phrase Sanders uses often, but what does he mean by it? Sanders has said that if he wins the presidency, his victory will be accompanied by a “huge increase in voter turnout”—one that he thinks might end Republican control of Congress. But Sanders acknowledges that the House and Senate could, in spite of his best efforts, remain in GOP hands come next January.
Given that likelihood, Sanders offers an alternate means for achieving his political revolution. He says he knows that a Democratic president can’t simply “sit down and negotiate” with Republican leaders and forge a series of compromises. Anyone who's observed the GOP’s behavior over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency would not dispute that, and in any event, no compromise with Republicans would ever lead to single-payer anyway.
So what then? How would a President Sanders get Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to pass any of his big-ticket items? This is the model he proposes:
What we do is you put an issue before Congress, let’s just use free tuition at public colleges and universities, and that vote is going to take place on November 8 ... whatever it may be. We tell millions and millions of people, young people and their parents, there is going to be a vote ... half the people don’t know what’s going on ... but we tell them when the vote is, maybe we welcome a million young people to Washington, D.C. to say hello to their members of Congress. Maybe we have the telephones and the e-mails flying all over the place so that everybody in America will know how their representative is voting. [...]
And then Republicans are going to have to make a decision. Then they’re going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, “You vote against this, you’re out of your job, because we know what’s going on.” So this gets back to what a political revolution is about, is bringing people in touch with the Congress, not having that huge wall. That’s how you bring about change.
The rest of the DK article debunks that concept that Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell could be influenced by these new voters but we never get to this issue and Sanders himself admits that he will not bet elected without this revolution. So far we are not seeing any evidence of this revolution. Again, Sanders's whole campaign was based on this revolution and so it is appropriate to ask where these new voters are?
It was hard for me to take Sanders' proposals seriously including the ones you want to talk about unless and until we see some evidence of this revolution.
Sanders revolution never materialized and so his platform never had a chance of being adopted in the real world
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)My my my! 
NOT A FAN!
To the article writer: here my middle finger!
Very interesting the people liking and rc'd ing the Article.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)Her Sister
(6,444 posts)leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)Her Sister
(6,444 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
Maru Kitteh
(28,339 posts)obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)I voted for SECRETARY CLINTON. I support SECRETARY CLINTON. I didn't settle. I didn't "vote with my vagina," to quote Killer Mike and Susan Saradon, and to parapgrase this OP.
I voted for the most qualified.
jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)It doesn't seem to me that Clinton is very angry at Sanders at all. Quite the contrary she seems to have moved on like the rest of us.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)In that case there's a 6th option your article failed to consider:
6.) Sanders claimed for months to be all about progressive ideals and his "movement" rather than his own egotistical aspirations, and yet when it became evident he could not win he made excuse after excuse to remain in the race. Now that he has lost he still appears more content to pout and hold on to old grudges rather than doing whatever he can to unify the party to support the nominee and defeat Donald Trump.
I admit this option is also a bit slanted but should fit right in with the garbage analysis of people's voting behavior listed in 1-5.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)He is doing it for all other human beings.
I think the Rome trip and funneling money to his family and campaign staff disagrees with you.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)When Bernie 
waylaid the Pope in the corridor, it was to try to persuade Francis that an exception should be made so that he could be canonized before he dies.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)I draw no inferences.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Response to okasha (Reply #190)
Matt_R This message was self-deleted by its author.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I guess I should have included this
I'll be more aware of the necessity next time.
Response to okasha (Reply #214)
Matt_R This message was self-deleted by its author.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)
LuvLoogie
(6,998 posts)leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)We do appreciate his efforts.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There are a lot of us. If this person actually wanted to know, instead of playing armchair psychologist, he could just ask.
And the answer is, what we care about is defeating Trump. Bernie's non-endorsement and "contested convention" theatrics are helping Trump. Fortunately Warren has stepped up, and it looks like Bernie Sanders supporters are coming over to Hillary even without his endorsement, so Bernie is drifting into irrelevance. But it's got nothing to do with "identity politics", it's got to do with stopping Trump from being president.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)It's an AGENDA and if it causes some plans to change on Clinton's that isn't the end of the world...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You're don't seriously think that the author of the article knows me better than I know myself, do you?
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)I care about beating Trump. The article says nothing about that.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Based on what evidence?
It mattered during the primary, and it still matters in swing states.
If we are into worrying about what could happen, there is also the issue of the FBI investigation which nobody can predict the outcome.
That could potentially destroy the entire Dem ticket from the president all the way down to dog catcher across the whole country.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But like I said, that doesn't matter anymore. There is no more Bernie. There is Hillary, and there is Trump, those are the two options. Whether Bernie would have been more likely to beat Trump is now an academic question. The only person that actually can beat Trump now is Hillary.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)ps - I make decisions based on evidence.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I responded to this essay because it is a caricature of Hillary supporters which ignores the obvious fact that Bernie is now helping Trump, and that's what we care about.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)All Bernie's policy requests poll strongly with voters. For example, 63 percent of Americans think $15/hr should be in effect over 4 years. Bernie plan is over 6 years so he is actually right of center slightly.
http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/Minimum-Wage-Basics-Polling.pdf
So Bernie is actually helping Clinton win by bringing her closer to the center, where there are more voters.
As for the essay I believe it only describes a subset of Clinton voters, such as this woman:
Also what evidence do you have about your claim about me? I never got personal with you.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Fortunately Elizabeth Warren and lots of others are stepping in, but Bernie is definitely helping Trump these days. We need to be a unified party to confront Trump, and he's doing the opposite. Maybe he will eventually endorse Hillary and start pushing in the right direction, but so far he's not.
And I have no idea what that video of a Hillary supporter from 8 years ago has to do with anything. This year it's the Bernie or Bust people acting like that. Which is exactly why Bernie needs to stop playing games and start talking some sense into them.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)As a woman, she felt like she was treated like a second class citizen all her life. Her words, with truth in them.
Clinton has risen to great power and she identifies with her. Totally understandable.
You did not respond to that 63% number I gave you. I responded to your healthcare thread with some numbers on single payer(58%)
If Clinton wants to win she should take positions that are both popular and right.
The party is divided between the powerful and the masses. To fix it they need to spread some of the power around. Bernie is not to blame.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)She speaks for nobody but herself. You're not seriously trying to generalize from her to the rest of us Hillary supporters, are you?
OK, so 63% want a $15 minimum wage. And if you asked them about $16, you'd get the about the same number. Does that mean Bernie is betraying the working class? Of course not. This is silly.
The number that matters is 55%, which is the fraction of voters that chose Hillary.
And Bernie needs to accept that, endorse her, and stop helping Trump.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)It's real and many people, including DUer's have expressed similar feelings this election. The essay does not claim to generalize.
Is Bernie betraying the working class by being slightly right on center? I don't know, that is pretty emotionally charged language.
...but at least he is closer to the center on this issue than Clinton.
The next number to care about is 71%, which is the number of Americans who are not Democrats.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It says "Why Hillary supporters." It's equivalent to writing an essay saying "Why Bernie supporters are such racist tools" and basing it one a couple tweets.
And no, neither Bernie nor Hillary are betraying the middle class on the minimum wage. They are both progressives, and want large increases in it. The only thing Bernie is doing wrong is helping Trump get elected by dividing the party.
And yeah, most Americans aren't Democrats. More reason that trying for things like single payer that will alienate everyone except the far left is a losing strategy.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)How is supporting single payer, which has 58% support, alienating voters?
If 29% of voters are Democrats, then the difference between 58% is fully 29%.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And most voters don't support single payer once they find out it means increased taxes and losing their private coverage. Oh, I forgot, you think that the facts are misleading. Be sure to tell them that.
kacekwl
(7,016 posts)letting Bill meet with the Attorney General while an investigation is ongoing. Doesn't she carry enough baggage ? These kind of things cause questions and doubt and could loose the election for herself and US.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)had anything to do with Bill and Lynch running into each other on a tarmac in Phoenix?
That's no excuse for Bernie to be helping Trump.
kacekwl
(7,016 posts)Can't blame Bernie if she continues to load up more baggage to carry.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)kacekwl
(7,016 posts)If .....Never mind.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 1, 2016, 09:28 AM - Edit history (1)
Trump is loosing big. How is Bernie affecting that at all?
If the candidate is strong or even just the better of two running by a smidge the November election is a win for Dems.
Bernie is backing down ticket candidates - yes raising money for them with his emails and getting his delegates to the convention - as he should. Those of nus who supported him are contributing to those he recommends, after researching them, and helping more dems win!
Bernie started a movement and it is good!
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)That's the goal. Who gives a shit about Donald Trump? Who is scared of Trump? He is a joke who can't win. We could have put ANYBODY against him and won.
The goal is to move our party back to the left not to somehow cause Clinton to lose to the least electable person in history. If that happens it be Bernies fault. lol
Why is that so hard to understand?
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)Inconsistency number 1. During the primary and after you have called Clinton supporters not true progressives, but in the article you say we are "true progressives". I thank you for the AM.
Inconstancy number 2. During the primary you were telling HRC supporters that it wasn't your fault when she lost. Now your saying that Trump can't win.
There are others but I won't go on with a silly list. unlike others.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(31,817 posts)I'm not mad at his supporters either. What would it solve to be mad at people who are on the same side?
I've been in GE mode for awhile - so I'm just 'blah'. Take out Trump and let's get some good SCOTUS appointments in 2017 - and send that fucknut Christie out to sea (I'm in NJ - 2017 can't come fast enough).
Response to leeroysphitz (Original post)
Post removed
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)pot meet kettle
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)For the last time my vagina doesn't vote. My brain is much smarter than my vagina and my brain decided that Hillary Clinton was the better candidate because she appeals to a broader base of the Democratic Party.
Also...VAGINA!
Response to justiceischeap (Reply #18)
Post removed
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)I'm stating that the author of the article is. Identity politics is just another way of proclaiming that most Hillary supporters are supporters because VAGINA! If you don't have one, you won't understand just how fucking infantilizing that argument is.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)I don't agree with this article because I think the real reason Hillary supporters are so angry is far more complicated than this article eludes. However because of the new house rules I shall keep my theory to myself.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)
Fla Dem
(23,656 posts)and we have moved on. We are winning big time with or without the last hold outs of the Bernie Sanders show. 80-90% of Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary. We don't really care if they love her or not. They are smart enough to know that not voting for her would be a disaster for our country. In fact many of them do respect her. Bernie offered another alternative that struck a chord in them just a little more. He's not going to be the nominee, and they are good with HRC being the nominee. So no we are not angry. What we are is tired all the Bernie petulant stunts.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Fla Dem
(23,656 posts)That's the sad part about it.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)Response to justiceischeap (Reply #18)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)
libodem
(19,288 posts)I have a pet peeve about, calling the combination of our lady parts only by the part where the man puts his penis. Probably from sex ed, girls have vaginas, boys have a penis. The sperm comes through men's uretha but its not called the uretha.
Vulva isn't a pretty word but women have vulvas with many parts. Sick of ours being defined as a hole.
Just spouting off, nothing personal about your post. 
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)To encompass the whole area but if this author is going to make us a sum of our parts then I'm gonna yell VAGINA!
libodem
(19,288 posts)To men.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)for (most) women.
libodem
(19,288 posts)
Response to leeroysphitz (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)Response to leeroysphitz (Reply #30)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)convention with 1900 delegates and he WILL SPEAK and he WILL keep pushing Clinton to the left.
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)Response to leeroysphitz (Reply #39)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Active candidates for the nomination don't get speaking slots prior to the roll call vote. And after the vote, all the prime time slots are taken by President Obama, the nominee and her running mate.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)betcha ten bucks here and now.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)If not, no speaking slot will be forthcoming.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Sanders has failed to concede and endorse. If he continues this behavior, he will get no speaking time at the convention.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Your prophecies are becoming more and more as the wings of Icarus.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,733 posts)Very poetic.
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Answer: because they realize Elizabeth Warren is smarter.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)I would have supported her just as vigorously and w'd be having this conversation about her instead.
randome
(34,845 posts)You would think that Warren and Sanders would be the best of allies in Congress, wouldn't you? I wonder why they aren't.
Response to leeroysphitz (Reply #35)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)Can't imagine why you have to resort to implying that I'm misogynist... Honestly, you really don't have anything else?
Response to leeroysphitz (Reply #50)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)Response to leeroysphitz (Reply #81)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)As fish are completely unaware of the very water they swim in...
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)
riversedge
(70,204 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Dog whistle.
That was neither as subtle nor as cunning as you thought it was.
Response to randome (Reply #31)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)to get you through this, then by all means keep on believing it.
But, I'll give you a clue. Its posts like this that keep the anger between the two camps alive.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)
jimlup
(7,968 posts)and not the Bernie Supporters. We were just trying to support our candidate and call things as we saw them. I must say correctly and perhaps more correctly than you recognize but alas such are the ways of our world.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)Or you didn't understand it.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
Gothmog
(145,156 posts)CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)About the TPP
a clear indication that Clinton’s opposition was purely opportunistic—a way to out-flank Sanders on the left, rather than a position she intended to hold beyond the primary.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #60)
Post removed
stonecutter357
(12,696 posts) leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)but then truths we cling to do not depend on my point of view...
one_voice
(20,043 posts)The Psychology of Why Hillary Clinton Supporters are Still So Angry at Bernie Sanders...
is this person a psychologist? How many interviews/studies have they done?
I think this 'writer' pulled this right out of their ass.
And don't try and paint me with with your little doodle brush. I was an O'Malley person. No identity politics here. I would have voted for Bernie if he were our nominee.
I just find this to be bullshit.
Based on your responses in this thread, maybe the problem is more with this supporters and less with Bernie. At least that's how it works for me....
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)As well, it is against the TOS to bash Democrats. I would self delete this post, link and all.
riversedge
(70,204 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)I was called a purist and a misogynist.
Response to JRLeft (Reply #72)
Post removed
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)The bullshit about "identity politics" and saying that people only voted for Hillary because she's a woman? That's literally identical to the GOP's racist narrative that people only voted for President Obama because he's black.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)folks might disagree with them. So limited.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Misogyny is the only reasonable explanation.
LexVegas
(6,060 posts)
RandySF
(58,786 posts)That. brought out the worst in me during the primary.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Yes, I can see it now.
RandySF
(58,786 posts)Some people just can't let go, can they?
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)because it means there are still those in Sander's camp who fail to hear the legitimacy of the issues of many who voted for Clinton. It is also truly offensive when applied to the many progressive Hillary supporters who are being characterized as stupid, shallow, craven and dishonest. Where support specific to Sanders was found in millenials and white, male and rural voters, Hillary's was in black, brown, women and minority communities. The writer uses the right wing charge of "identity politics" repeatedly to discredit and minimize the economic, social and political legitimacy of Hillary's progressive support.
The article also highlights one of the salient differences between Sander's supporter's progressive issues and Clinton supporter's progressive issues. Putting aside what millions consider Hillary's vastly superior experience, qualifications and competence, let's focus on the concept of "progressive" and the way it is embraced by various factions of the Democratic Party.
For some, it means a revolutionizing change to an economic "class" system that favors corporate interests to the detriment of the populace at large. Sanders did a very good job of harnessing the Occupy Wall Street momentum and for legitimizing that movement by bringing it into the Democratic tent. Many progressives pointed to heroes of the past, such as FDR, who were brave enough to take steps to level the economic playing field. It is taking steps to wrest the unfair advantage of a few back into the hands of many. Supporters believe the economic privilege afforded to some, with the tacit cooperation of a corrupt political system that actually mirrors it, to be worthy of a revolution. They find those who profit at the expense of so many others to be a revolting miscarriage of justice. For them, Sanders was the candidate of choice. Although Hillary spoke to all of this, it was Sander's message that was trusted and came through.
For others, a progressive is a social justice warrior. It means a revolutionizing change to a "class" system that economically, politically, legally, socially abuses those who are not white, male and heterosexual. It means working to dismantle an entrenched, corrupt system that maintains its power by taking advantage every class of people who do not fall into that category. It means taking steps to wrest unfair advantage of some into the hands of many in a way that has never happened. Supporters believe the economic, political, legal, social privilege afforded to some, with the tacit cooperation of corrupt political system that actually mirrors it, to be worthy of revolution. They find profit on the backs of and at the expense of so many to be a revolting miscarriage of justice. For them, Hillary was the candidate of choice. Although Sander's spoke to this, it was Hillary's message that was trusted and came through.
That those issues are not considered to be worthy of even being progressive and are instead fodder for derision and condescension by some on the left shows just how complacent, right wing and conservative many who claim to be progressive truly are. Especially when it comes to facing, never mind giving up, their own privilege when it comes to pushing people with less power around. A specific faction of the left does not get to define what a progressive is nor for whom they should vote, no matter how entitled to that they feel, without pushback from those with whom they do not agree.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,339 posts)Are you up to the task of engaging in discussion of meritorious argument? Or does the confirmation bias and faux analysis of pseudo-intellectual, one-dimensional clap-trap such as the OP article just prove too powerful a hold for you to break?
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)and lets see if Bernie supporters in this thread back this up with thoughtful discourse; or if they do what the OP is claiming HRC supporters do and just resort to name calling instead of having a discussion of the issues.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)I think the truth of the matter is, Hillary Clinton was the default candidate for all demographics. She started out with a 50 point lead, with Sanders being virtually unknown. She had the entire Democratic party behind her, was part of a sitting administration and wife of an ex-president. It was an up-hill battle for Sanders all the way.
As to why some demographics were faster to flip to Sanders than others, I think there is probably a large number of different reasons for this, none of which are "The behavior of his supporters in the Youtube comment section" or "A BLM activist calling him a white supremacist.". I think most people are not tuned into such things and would not care either way.
Young voters I think are easiest: They are quick to embrace new things and have little of what some would call "experience" and others would call "baggage".
If you look at how support for Sanders built up over the months, the trajectory of the curves for different demographics were similar, with slightly different slopes. Trying to read something into this, imo, leads one onto very speculative ground. In the end it boiled down to him lagging behind by a month or two with some demographics making a big difference. Such is the nature of primaries. They are highly non-linear systems, with early successes generating more successes and so on.
The question one should ask now is why so many people were willing to latch on to an alternative to the "default candidate". I think this is something the Democratic party needs to think long and hard about.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)I never said anything like that.
Are you protesting too much, there?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Now agree with what Hillary supporters have been saying all along...
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)insta8er
(960 posts)Response to leeroysphitz (Original post)
Post removed
Arazi
(6,829 posts)
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)I sure am glad she won!
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)I sure am glad she won!
Succinct & Perfect!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Thanks Leeroysphitz.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Sewing the seeds of discord, one post at a time.
libodem
(19,288 posts)It's a real depiction of laughing at you not with you. There is real condescension in being looked down
on and then laughed at.
A very passive aggressive way of bullying. It's disturbing in a thread that is trying to analyze why the winners are still hostile to the losing progressives.
You won. Go with it.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)I posted no smilie. But the thread IS divisive bullshit, which is what my post actually said.
libodem
(19,288 posts)That ROTFLMAO hideous snide laughing at you not with you, smilie .
I'm sure it gets by the jury every time because it appears happy. It's very rude.
(I'll bet I replied to the wrong post) Sorry for any misunderstanding.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)The escalating climate and environmental disasters are snowballing. Discussions on the implications of tepid action at this stage have been ignored.
Its the most pressing issue of our time yet only Bernie Sanders and the Green Party will have prioritized it globally. That's a hard truth to own when discussing one's vote in 10 years as our biosphere collapses.
Even now, when its obvious Hillary will be the nominee, the resistance to discussing issues continues - instead its more Bernie bashing as the platform is hashed out.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)That sounds so familiar. That exact point was made on the campaign trail when the discussion was pivoted away from reproductive rights to more "important issues".
Even now, when its obvious Hillary will be the nominee, the resistance to discussing issues continues - instead its more Bernie bashing as the platform is hashed out.
ICYMI, this thread is about a divisive article (which you have recommended) that actually enumerates ways to bash not just Hillary but her supporters as well. Maybe you want to take up your concern about resistance to discussing real issues with the OP and those who are promoting division and attacks on our nominee and her supporters.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)So were other prominent environmentally concerned posters like GliderGuider.
The issue was (still is) buried.
Its an example Haveadream. Hillary's won. I have no problem saying that. Now its time to try to influence the party going forward - the platform, committees, powerful Cabinet appointments etc.
Is the Hillary Clinton campaign forcefully, relentlessly arguing for the drastic, immediate action that must be initiated asap to try to turn this catastrophe around?
This is an "important" issue - arguably the most important for the survival of everyone on the planet. But yeah, little to no discussion of this. And I did take this up with the OP - I responded to their OP.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)for posting a distracting and divisive article rather than the Hillary supporters who are being bashed. I have heard not one Hillary supporter who believes that climate change is not an important issue. What I have heard repeatedly and in this OP in particular, is that HRC supporters concerns are, at best, unimportant and at worst, craven and disingenuous. Having to defend the supporters of the Democratic nominee from attacks by other Democrats is a massive waste of time when working to prevail in the general election.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)and is continuing to do so by promoting an agenda that is unattainable. While it is clear that idealism is not generally a winning strategy, Sanders form of idealism is so ridged that it only serves to turn people away from political philosophies that are more realistic.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)That's what created some anger.
Sanders not endorsing - or even recognizing the historic achievement of Hillary's victory. Some slight anger.
Ongoing passive aggressive attacks - some anger.
Irrelevancy? Makes it all better!
apnu
(8,756 posts)... Bernie's people made Hillary out to be the Devil herself. It was the campaign of smears and retreading of 90's lies about Hillary that pissed them off. Pissed me off too, and, in the end turned me off from Bernie. I voted for Bernie in my state's primary election, I think we could do with a bit of the economic change he, and Elizabeth Warren, advocate. But as I listened to Bernie people I could help hearing the same things said in the 90s by conservatives come out of the mouths of these progressives. I found that, increasingly, the retreading of conservative talking points about Hillary Clinton were said by millennials who where children at the time all that went down. I wasn't, I was an active voter in my 20s, then, and I remember that bullshit.
Specifically the William Safire's "Buzzard of Lies" echo chamber that went on in the Bernie camp.
I don't know if Bernie people are the real deal progressives or not. I know a few of them who are, and I know a few of them who's progressiveness is not in doubt but also believe Hillary is the Devil. I have some suspicions of other Bernie posters who's comments eerily echo Rush Limbaugh talking points from the 90s and I regard them with great suspicion.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,368 posts)hit piece - basically against ALL HRC supporters, which I thought was supposed to be against the new rules - need to sit back and take a good look at yourselves.
Perhaps reading this will help: http://pleasecutthecrap.com/neoliberalism-my-ass/
I do not have to justify my support for the best qualified candidate for President in 2016 in any way whatsoever. I am VERY proud to support Hillary Clinton for President and will be working as hard as I can to get her elected.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Antonio Porchia:
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)And let's get a couple things straight, just a little sidenote - the burden of the brutalized is not to comfort the bystander. That's not our job, alright - stop with all that. If you have a critique for the resistance, for our resistance, then you better have an established record of critique of our oppression.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)crock of shit. Lovely mansplaining, though. Jeezus. Yet ANOTHER man telling me why I may be angry, or what I'm thinking. I guess he's a mind reader....
Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)Do the authors of the articles linked to know any Clinton supporters that aren't fever dreams.
This says it all.
2. These progressive voters seized on Clinton’s candidacy based largely on identity politics. They wanted a female president, and the emergence of Sanders’ candidacy was a complicating nuisance, coming after they’d committed ideologically.
This idea that the only reason people supported Clinton was because of her sex is incredibly tone deaf. Even a few minutes honest talking to a Clinton supporter would prove that it isn't the case.
Yet month after I first read this insulting talking point it still goes on.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)"Anyone who prefers Sanders to Clinton is a shill, ignorant, low-information, voting against their own interests, have Stockholm Syndrome, are vagina voters...am I missing any?"
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)OTOH Bernie Sanders progressives are not happy with Obama. Remember, Sanders wanted to primary Obama. Those same progessives are mostly for HRC.
840high
(17,196 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
tandem5
(2,072 posts)I'm not a centrist and I'm not engaging in identity politics. I align with a lot of his goals (really what progressive doesn't) but I know that in the worst case a wrong approach can actually have the opposite effect in achieving those goals. His tact of demanding the ultimate objectives now without regard to reality of the political landscape would either lead to complete intractability where conservatives use him as the symbol of what must be blocked at all costs or a true or quasi-revolution that creates a power vacuum that gets filled by despots that most certainly would not continue the original cause.
You don't have to agree with my reasoning, but since this topic is concerning my (a progressive Clinton supporter's) true reasoning -- there it is.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)very intelligent. I like that. Her gender doesn't have anything to do with why I support her. I want the very best, smartest, Liberal we can find to be President. (Okay, I'd like to see how SHE handles Repugnants, too.)
Response to leeroysphitz (Original post)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts) AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Reminds me of the Republicans, trying to impeach Clinton after he was out of office. Hatred and anger poison everything they touch. Especially integrity.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)This article, it happens Hillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate running, she got the most votes, the most pledged delegates and the mostv super delegates. She will be the nominee, on the first vote, i am working on the GE and defeating Trump.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I like Hillary & trust her to be able to beat the GOP, and the polls showed the Obama coalition was already with her and not budging.
I don't really care about Sanders. He's yesterday's news at this point.
Night Watchman
(743 posts)Hey, you brought it up, not me.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)What a patronizing, PA, insulting, totally clueless article.
cloudythescribbler
(2,586 posts)... Bernie and his base. It has been clear since March 16 at least that Hillary would almost surely be the nominee. Therefore the issue is winning over Bernie's base -- NOT WHETHER BERNIE WOULD ENDORSE THE TICKET OR WHEN. If the election is at all close and one recent poll showing Trump ahead even after such a terrible month regardless of whether you think the poll is biased, should spell caution, then the precise percentage of Bernie's base that votes for Hillary could be important. For example, on TPP, it was politically a strategic blunder to leave that issue open for Trump to exploit (in addition to my opposition to the measure) -- and exploit it he surely will. ANYTHING in the platform that would NOT cost any significant number of swing votes, cumulatively, should presumptively have been acceded to; the attitude now seems to be negative at too many levels for a psychological explanation to suffice
I am also doubtful (although hopeful) that a full 81% of Bernie's base is really already behind Hillary.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)We learned well, it does not behoove us to ignore such caricatures, see Kerry.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)do not condescend to tell me who I am, what I think, and what my motives are. Ask, and I will answer.
Skid Rogue
(711 posts)The problems he pointed out within our society were obvious ones. However, his solutions to these problems were almost completely unworkable. He hodgepodged together an unrealistic series of massive tax increases that would never make it through congress -- and he had no plan B. That made his proposals sound like empty sloganeering.
I like Sanders, I like his message, but I have never trusted his solutions.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that are doable. Sanders positions are Democratic issues, as are Clintons. Sanders proposals are not well thought out and doable, while Clintons are. So, people chose Clinton.
I am agreeing with you, btw.
Skid Rogue
(711 posts)I think we can all agree that universal health care and a much higher minimum wage are our ultimate goals. Those are things us Democrats would love to see. What's the smartest way to achieve those goals is the crux of the matter.
Also, the issues surrounding "identity politics," (I hate that phrase) didn't totally come into play until the approach of Super Tuesday, when Sanders failed to make any real inroads with African American voters. Then, when other groups like LGBT folks, women and Latinos were also seen to be favoring Clinton, our support suddenly started being labeled as "identity politics." In fact, if you were not a white male and you supported Clinton it "had" to be "identity politics." So, that label started to sound like an excuse not to answer sincere questions, or deal with non-economic concerns.
The turning point for me during the campaign was when the oligarchy, third-way word salad was thrown at John Lewis. I didn't mind Sanders supporters disagreeing with his opinion, but they questioned his honesty and integrity. Give me a break.
Emma Goldman said, " If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution." Well, I don't want to join an American revolution where I'm not dancing alongside John Lewis. If one wants to label that as "identity politics," I couldn't care less.
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)View profile
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/06/the-psychology-of-why-hillary-clinton-supporters-a.html
Some very good analysis of Sanders' true motives, as well as his supporters in this article. Much more than what I copied. Worth the read if you're interested.
1. Many of Clinton’s supporters were politically progressive before this election, and would have been quite happy with a presidential candidate like Elizabeth Warren. Happier, actually, because she embodied their beliefs—especially in the economic realm—in a way that Clinton did not. It’s the self-identified progressives, as opposed to the actual centrists, are the ones displaying the most anger today.
2. These progressive voters seized on Clinton’s candidacy based largely on identity politics. They wanted a female president, and the emergence of Sanders’ candidacy was a complicating nuisance, coming after they’d committed ideologically.
3. At the same time, they didn’t want to believe that they were supporting a war hawk and a fiscal conservative, because that ran against their progressive ideals. Life was better when Clinton was the only viable non-Republican option, because they didn’t have to explain themselves.
4. On some level, they recognized that their politics were more closely aligned with Bernie. Nevertheless, identity politics kept them in Clinton’s camp.
5. In order to erase the cognitive dissonance and justify their support to themselves, they employed several strategies, like falsely attributing widespread sexism to Sanders supporters, and trying to paint them as exclusively male in an attempt to efface the vast majority of young women and people of color who backed him. If Bernie and all his people were covert misogynists, then their progressivism was phony, and it was okay to support Hillary. It also erased the need to discuss real issues—a convenient out, since Hillary’s political history doesn’t stack up well from a progressive standpoint.
Good to know!
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I can see certain supporters of a particular candidate seeing this as some sort of intelligent analysis, but let's face it, it's written like a 6th grade polisci paper.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)moonlighting as a political writer for a music magazine.
robbedvoter
(28,290 posts)So, I am not angry about the refusal to accept this historical moment or constant bullying of Hillary supporters - on line.in person, by phone. I feel so relieved to be mansplained! I am not angry about stuff like that http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/worlds_largest_fart-in_planned_for_hillary_clintons_acceptance_speech_in_ph (good luck with it - it will be outdoors)
frazzled
(18,402 posts)It was always first and last about competence. She was and remains head and shoulders above her challengers of either party. That was not true in the 2008 race, where she was evenly matched with Obama in that domain. This time around? Sorry, most people chose her because they saw her as smart enough to handle the complexities of governing the nation. You can make the resulting inferences yourselves.