A Rant From Daily Kos: "Seriously I HAVE HAD ENOUGH WITH MOVING GOAL POSTS"

[kpete]

WED SEP 30, 2015 AT 09:45 PM PDT
Seriously I HAVE HAD ENOUGH WITH MOVING GOAL POSTS!
byChaoslillithFollow

People have sworn up and down one or all of the following since Bernie announced.

"He's a socialist he won't get any traction."
"He won't get above 30% anywhere won't even win a single state."
"He won't raise enough money."
"He's not electable."
"He's not a serious candidate."

Well people (AND YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE) you have been proven wrong. He just about tied Hillary's high powered, rich ass people, super pac fundraising campaign and EVERY LAST CENT CAME FROM US! THE PEOPLE!

He is kicking her ass in New Hampshire, catching up in Iowa and consistently gaining ground across the country. WITH NOT A SINGLE FUCKING AD AIRED!!

He is attracting the youth vote, and a lot of pissed off Independents and moderate Republicans as well.

He is doing as well or better than her against EVERY DAMN REPUBLICAN OUT THERE.

MORE:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/01/1426546/-Seriously-I-HAVE-HAD-ENOUGH-WITH-MOVING-GOAL-POSTS

[fredamae]

1. As my Dad would say:

"That's a Mighty Fine Rant there, kid! Mighty Fine!"

[Fawke Em]

2. And if everyone who likes his ideas would vote for him...

He'd win!

[sabrina 1]

16. The more successful he is, the less fear people will have that he can't win the GE. I believe he has

accomplished the goal of demonstrating that the inside-the-beltway-fear-mongers don't have a clue what they are talking about. Now it's on to the next phase of his campaign, and those goal posts are getting harder and harder to move, they are running out of places to move them to.

[Major Hogwash]

19. The beltway boys won't catch up with reality until June next year.

They live in an insulated bubble in DC.
After they all express total shock that Bernie has been chosen as the candidate for the Democrats, a few hours/days/weeks later they will announce that they "knew all along that he would be the nominee", and some will even claim that they were one of Bernie's first supporters from very early on.
Just like in 2008, when everyone wanted to claim they were Obama's biggest fan!!!!!!!!!!

[Volaris]

61. Uh huh pretty much. In other words..

'There go The People. I am their Leader; therefore, I must follow them.'

[BlueWaveDem]

3. Those numbers don't include Super PAC which raised an additional $25Million.

So she actually more than doubled him. Someone inform the author. And all the polls still include Biden.

[leftofcool]

4. Yes, thank you Emily's List, Women for Hillary etc.......

[BlueWaveDem]

14. Unions as well.

[roguevalley]

41. we concede the pac fat ass billionaire money to your side. Enjoy it.

[leftofcool]

81. Thank you. The Unions thank you. Emily's List thanks you. Women thank you.

[passiveporcupine]

88. Not all women are siding with Hillary

Much to your chagrin!

Some of us actually care about other people...not just female people.

[daleanime]

100. You can have the 'leadership'...

we'll take the members.

[Boomer]

5. Poor bang for her buck

According to conventional wisdom, Hillary shouldn't be falling while Bernie rises because of that hefty war chest. But then, Bush was supposed to be the heir apparent for the Republican party.

Someone isn't following their assigned script. Feel the Bern!

[BlueWaveDem]

11. She broke the fundraising record for 2 quarters at $75Million

And that record doesn't include PAC money.

[peacebird]

33. LOL! Way to phrase it, i would have said her recent quarter was a precipitous DROP from the previous

Which it was. yooooooooge drop from last quarter!

[Boomer]

35. That's very telling, isn't it?

Despite that huge influx of money, Clinton is barely holding her own with Bernie Sanders. The money isn't helping her nearly as much as one would expect.

Sanders is getting farther on less. That too is very telling.

[Left Ear]

58. And I've already heard through several grapevines

that HRC's burn rate is higher than expected and the funds raised was paltry.

[tblue37]

112. Because he flies coach. nt

[morningfog]

91. And she spent 90% of it already.

What to show? Trailing in the first two primaries. 0 for 2. And losing ground nationally. Against Bernie Fucking Sanders, the 75 year old white Jewish socialist.

[portlander23]

6. True

In this respect, Mrs. Clinton is indeed the candidate of Citizens United.

[KPN]

9. Deja vu all over again

True!

[BlueWaveDem]

12. Sorry, but she broke fundraising record of 2 quarters with $75Million

Not including PAC money. If Bernie did that it would have 200 recs.

[TM99]

15. Yay, it is all about the money.

[MADem]

32. Perhaps you are unclear on the political reality--it IS all about the money.

There is no path to election without it. None. Individual donors have limits--and there are only so many of them.

And a candidate who refuses to deal with PACs is going to get crushed.

Citizens United needs to be repealed, but this is the political reality that we live with, now.

There's a reason that Jeb! is keeping his powder dry, even though he is low in the polls. He's got a lot of money--his opponents don't. He can reach into your home, all day, every day, with pretty ads that are colorful with soaring music that makes him seem like a swell fellow. He doesn't have to answer to anyone--all he has to do is keep running those ads, with his Citizens United money that he got from his Conservative Cronies, make a few appearances, deliver the same stump speech over and over, and watch his numbers go up, slowly but surely, as the rest of the field runs out of cash and is left behind. Kasich--with less money--is trying the same tactic.

Existing Democratic PACS aren't going to support Sanders. They'd put their cash into Senate races if he were the nominee and hold their fire for another run in 2020.

Sanders won't allow anyone to form PACs in his name or take money from them. He's screwing himself. I think he knows it even if his staff (never mind his supporters) does not.

[roguevalley]

42. fuck the money hookers. Bernie will win the honorable way. if money was the key then why

is she falling and he rising? Check the AA pole even with its 'margin of error'. First canary in the African American mine for her.

[MADem]

47. Sure. Whatever you say!

Not sure what an "AA pole" is, but...whatever.

You might want to think about how you use language, with your likening black people to sacrificial canaries, and the whole "fuck the money hookers" stuff. It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you advocate in that fashion.

[roguevalley]

52. and you are sad. twist my words forever. Its on you.

[MADem]

66. No--I see very clearly where your words are coming from. nt

[Phlem]

73. No you don't see clearly at all.

I've had discussions with you where you cannot accept the truth, so yea, whatever you say.

Especially my place of employ that you seemed to know more about than the last twenty plus fucking years that I've worked there.

[MADem]

80. (Cough.) You are entirely welcome to your opinions.

Sorry I don't agree with your "truths" but that's the breaks.

Have a lovely day.

[Phlem]

83. Right. You should know all about "Your Truths" since

you throw them around to see what sticks.

You also had to write me back 5 times trying to convince me you knew more about my workplace than I did.

I'm sure you know about opinions.

[MADem]

93. Annnnnnnd...you have a lovely day. nt

[rhett o rick]

49. So the rationalization for taking money from the billionaires is that you have to

play the corrupt game of big money. It's situational ethics. "I don't approve of dark money but I will use it to win. Winning is more important than principles."

If big money helps Clinton win, it's naive to think that she will support legislation that negatively affects the big money donors.

The only way to get big money out of politics is to support candidates that don't love the big money.

Those on the side of big money can do their gloating now but I think they are going to be surprised. The new enthusiasm for Sen Sanders is because people are tired of the corrupt politics as usual.

[MADem]

64. Why in hell are you trying to "blame" me for reality? Why don't you blame me for the bad weather,

too, while you're at it? Make me your own personal Whipping God!

Absolutely, if a candidate wants to win--and is that not the point??--he or she will use every legal tool in the toolbox.

If you don't understand what the playing field looks like, how can you play the game?

I'm a Democrat, and I am uninterested in Don Quixote "valient attempts." I prefer success to "principled failure." If you support candidates who eschew Big Money, then the candidates WITH the Big Money will win. Right now, I am supporting a pragmatic candidate who HATES the grind of fundraising, would like to knock it back, but understands that you don't live on Love and Pale Moonlight--you just don't.

Your mileage may vary and whoopee for you. I happen to understand that you can only make CHANGE if you are IN CHARGE.

[A Simple Game]

75. "I'm a Democrat", I used to be and am once again. But I'm old enough to

remember when being "a Democrat" stood for more than winning by any means. Perhaps it will again.

By the way I probably will not be a Democrat again after the New York primary next year. But we'll see.

[MADem]

79. I'm not interested in being a Principled Loser. Sorry. And you're welcome to go where you need to

go to make yourself happy, I don't think anyone here who is a sincere Democrat would argue with you about that--that's the great thing about America, you can support whosoever you choose.

Follow your heart and good luck to you.

[rhett o rick]

76. I don't blame you for reality. I just would like you to fight to change the reality that

gives us 16 million American children living in poverty. Supporting candidates that live in the corrupt reality of big money politics isn't the way.

We need change and some of us are willing to fight for it. Those that support Clinton are accepting the status quo using pragmatism as the justification. There is not any evidence that she will do anything to change an economic system that's put her and Bill in the top 1% wealthy Americans. An economic system that will donate millions, maybe billions to push her into the WH.

16,000,000 American children live in poverty. That's almost 1/4 of all American children. 32,000,000 American children are living in low-income families. That's almost 1/2 of our children. Shall we tell them we can't help them because we are being "pragmatic"?

Pragmatism be damned, it's time to fight for change. Wall Street and the billionaires don't give a crap about the 32 million children, they care about larger and larger and larger profits. When they donate to a candidate they expect quid pro quo.

[MADem]

78. NO. Not THIS election cycle. Sorry if you don't like that.

I will vote for him if he gets the nomination, but he won't get the nomination.

He'll be bigfooted out of the way.

I'll probably get shit on for telling the truth, here, but that's how it is.

Yeah, we "need change" and no one is stopping you from fighting for it. Don't ask me to play Sancho Panza, though. We need at least one chamber in the legislature, and we could really use the Presidency.

Jeb Bush is raking it in, he's sitting on a MOUNTAIN of money he's barely touched, and I suspect that he's being funneled to the Catbird seat. We're not the only party with super delegates, ya know--even if they call them something else. All this Trump nonsense is just a distraction, so no one looks too closely at Jeb's shortage in the charisma department. After awhile, he WILL sound like the 'conservative adult in the room' like Kasich is already transmitting (and rising in the polls because of it). In fact, Jeb!-Kasich sounds like a ticket to block in FL and Ohio, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen. That will be one HELLATIOUS battle, and Sanders would be crushed against that team early and easily. He'd be goaded by GOP - friendly "press." he'd lose his temper, he'd mouth off, and it wouldn't sound "spontaneous and unscripted" it would sound "querelous and unhinged." If you think they haven't already done the research on his past, dream on--they've got all the juice, and they'll make it all sound dire and horrible, not "flowers in your hair" or fancy-free.

So fine--you go on and damn that pragmatism all you want. It doesn't bother me at all. Please, you're welcome! Just don't get all high horsey because I don't buy off on your dreams. I'm old--I've seen this shit before:

[center]



[/center]

Never again...!

[Phlem]

84. Let me Guess. YOUR TRUTHS!?!?

[MADem]

92. Go be snarky with someone else, OK?

I get it--you don't LIKE my opinion.

How many times do you have to chase me around and express the same thought? Hmmm?

Enough, already.

[rhett o rick]

87. I'm older and I've been putting up with the pragmatism bullcrap tooo long.

We need to stand and fight while we still can.

I am glad our founders didn't have such a defeatist attitude. Had they been "pragmatic" we'd still be under British rule.

[MADem]

90. Like I said, best of luck to you. I just don't have the same perspective you have.

I want to win the WH and I think my candidate can do it. I also think my candidate has coattails to flip a few seats in the legislature. I do not think Sanders has that ability. He's never, ever--not once--campaigned on behalf of any of his peers. NEVER. In a quarter century.

He just doesn't do that stuff and he wouldn't be believable if he started up now.

There is a difference between pragmatism (which is not "bullcrap&quot and defeatism.

I don't see any point in continuing on with this conversation--you don't like my opinion, so you're dropping down and calling me names. It's not a very positive message you're transmitting to me, you're basically saying "If you don't see things my way, you're a defeatist, moneygrubbing asshole." But I'm not--I am simply someone who wants to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to public office and I think my candidate has the best resume to make that happen.

[rhett o rick]

94. Oh stop with the victim stuff. I didn't call you any names. I want to do more than merely

electing Democrats. I want to elect Democrats that will solve the problems of 16,000,000 children living in poverty and 32,000,000 living in low income families.

[MADem]

95. Now you are calling me a "victim."

Look, when I give you my POV, I'm not talking about YOU. I am not characterizing your support for your candidate. Why do you need to take repeated potshots at me? I tell you why I support my candidate, you reply by talking about what a shit you think I am for my views.

Getting personal with people who don't agree with you ain't the way to make it work--it'll get you high fives and plus ones and yee-haws from the already converted, but it's a real turn-off to undecideds or people on the other side of the fence.

And telling you that is not playing the victim. That's just telling it like it is. If you don't like that, that's life--I am expressing my POV and my reasoning, I'm not trying to insult you for your views, or even tell you that you "have" to support a particular candidate or little Tommy will go to bed hungry.

As for your repeated sales play with the starving poor low-income children/families, I will reply by telling you that Jeb! ain't gonna do a single thing for them. Clinton will. And she can win.

[rhett o rick]

98. So let's look at what you really said, " so you're dropping down and calling me names."

Nope, didn't call you any names.

Then you said, "It's not a very positive message you're transmitting to me, you're basically saying "If you don't see things my way, you're a defeatist, moneygrubbing asshole."

Nope, I did not call you "a defeatist, moneygurbbing asshole." You made that up.

Obviously we've gotten to the point again where you feel you have to make up things that I say.

Goodbye.

[MADem]

104. People can read our exchange and come to their own conclusions. Goodbye back at you. nt

[NealK]

107. +1

[beam me up scottie]

109. That's an old trick, some people try to set posts up to be hidden.

Hopefully the jury will read the entire exchange and realize that you never said that.

[artislife]

114. That one is a classic baiter. nt

[rhett o rick]

115. There are a number of them here. I have most on ignore. I should use it in this case also. nm

[The Green Manalishi]

62. Then the problem is these ALLEGEDLY Democratic PACS

If they won't support the nominee then to hell with them, sic the IRS on 'em.

I'm strongly for Bernie, but will vote for HRC if she's the nominee; anyone who is for HRC but won't support Bernie if HE'S the nominee should be considered a piece of shit and have their registration changed to Republican.

[MADem]

63. PACS often support specific candidates. That RIGHT TO RISE GOP PAC is for JEB--no one else.

You can't "sic the IRS on 'em." What they are doing is LEGAL.

Sic a pitbull on the Supremes, maybe, but that's how it goes down until we get the law changed--no shooting the messenger!

Like it or not, there are some people --and they control the money--who would rather support what they perceive as a chance to take back the Senate rather than throw their money at a candidate who just can't grab the demographics needed to pull in a win.

They want winners--that's why they play the game.

[druidity33]

71. you can't have it both ways

If she raised 25 Mil more (via PAC money), then it's "her" money. But she can't "use" that money. It will be used for her "benefit". By people who are not supposed to coordinate with her campaign. Bernie can use every dollar raised for the things he needs. Hillary can only hope that the PACs fighting for her will choose the right fights. I say your insistence that money rules this game is misplaced. I say the paradigm has changed and people are just starting to figure that out. Of course, that's just my opinion.

[MADem]

82. Who's trying to have it "both ways?"

PAC managers know what they want--and they are the ones who will make the call. I can gar-on-tee you that should HRC not get the nom, that dough is going straight into challenge-able Senate races, and if there's enough of it, House races too. Sanders will be sacrificed completely--they won't throw good money after bad--and the effort of those PAC managers will pivot to taking back the Senate, and gaining in the House.

Money DOES rule this game. You're welcome to disagree, but I find it unlikely that this paradigm will be turned on its head this cycle.

[Ed Suspicious]

69. Thank you for making the choice crystal clear. Hillary: It is about the money so hold your nose and

cast your vote for the candidate of the rich.

Great slogan. Inspiring.

[PatrickforO]

101. Votes are the path to election. Yours and mine.

If we choose to vote for Bernie, he'll win no matter how much money the Koch brothers and other twisted billionaire freaks throw at negative ads.

Votes, MADem.

[MADem]

103. And John Kasich went from unknown to 2nd place in NH with ad buys in heavy rotation.

Then, the money got a little thin, and he cut back a bit...and his numbers dropped.

He did "prove" to his sponsors that he can draw 'em in, though.

Money changes everything. Not everyone has the high-minded, above-the-fray attitude that you enjoy. In fact, the vast majority of voters are readily influenced by media coverage, catchy ads, celebrity endorsements, and all of that fluff that you would likely eschew. You can wag your finger all day, but you aren't going to shame those people into getting all high minded just because you think they should.

He simply has no path. He doesn't have the demographic sectors, he won't take the big money to obtain those sectors, the Democratic PACmen won't shove any money his way, and with this latest incident of extreme gun violence in Oregon, he's got a massive problem with that plank in his personal platform.

Votes? He just won't get them--no where near enough to win.

[PatrickforO]

111. Maybe. But I'm still supporting Bernie.

Because he's honest and he's right.

[Plucketeer]

29. Yeah! That's MY focus.

I wanna back the candidate that commands the most cash. In fact, maybe I should start thinking about Trump. I mean - if coffer count is the primary focal point. Why fret about visions and aspirations and who a candidate might be beholden to? It's the CASH baby! The cash and the DNC's chartered flight to the Oval Office that we need to hook our noses to. No need to disrupt DWS's pre-fabbed plans! C'mon! Be a REAL Democrat!

[sabrina 1]

37. Well, Bernie is still an unknow to millions of Americans. So for a virtual unknown to match someone

with the kind of name recognition Hillary has, DOES deserve recognition.

As for the amount she raised, Bernie will not take any donations over $1,000 and has sent back money that went over that amount.

If he did, he'd be way ahead of her by now as many of his supporters, his increasing support from celibrities eg, would like to give him more but has been insistent, he doesn't want to do that.

Hillary's donations come from pretty wealthy donors at private fundraisers. I know, I worked for someone who organized these private fundraisers at their home for Dems. Those who attended were millionaires and paid thousands just to be there.

Bernie has had a few private fundraisers, but did not take the kind of money Hillary does.

[aidbo]

7. Those goal posts just won't hold still!

[ibegurpard]

10. Yes tout the money her Super PACs are raising..

That's the ticket!

[kenfrequed]

34. I know!

It is like they seem to think that raising money from shady, secretive, untracable funds is a good thing for democracy.

[sabrina 1]

17. You are boasting about that dark money, one of the biggest issues in this campaign since 80%

of the public want it OUT of our system?

That is WHY they didn't mention it, for the first time Corporate Dark Money secretly funding the Super Pacs of Corporate Candidates has become a real issue in this campaign and candidates are not going to want to draw attention to this money, which even Biden has stated must 'be the most important issue of this campaign' because he says 'until it is dealt with, nothing else can be accomplished'.

I just objected to the fact that they left out that little bit of information. That SHOULD be included since it's such a huge issue now in this campaign.

[Volaris]

67. '..until it is dealt with, nothing else can be accomplished..'

Absolutely correct.
Publicly-funded elections are the keys to the kingdom, if we don't get that done, all else is just Drama and Fluff now.

I for one am willing to die on this hill. If it takes losing the next 3 elections because I backed the candidate(s) that DIDNT take the Dirty Money, then so be it.

[sabrina 1]

70. You're not alone. Polls show it is the #1 issue for them in this campaign. First time I believe, it

has been brought into focus in a major election. Across the political spectrum it has become a major issue and OWS highlighted it and raised awareness of just how rigged our system is.

Interestingly, Sanders was one of the first elected officials to publicly support OWS, they were talking his language, and the rapid spread of that movement showed that people ARE aware of the 'corrosive effects of money' (Biden's words btw) on our system and many of us pined for a candidate who would take it head on and make it almost a crime to accept it. But I never dreamed it would actually happen.

And then Bernie agreed to run and my dream came true. Corporate Dark money in politics is now a #1 Issue in this campaign for the very first time.

[Volaris]

89. The GOP will fight to the last to defend it...

They know if everyone were required to play on an equal field, it would be about winning the argument (they can't right now )
Fundraising would be about how many actual people support you and send small donations (like bernie is doing now) and if the idiots they claim to represent are 20% of the electorate, then the other 80% will be going to the other guy.

You can't win elections with 20% of anything. =)

[frylock]

39. I'm certain he'll point that out in the debates..

That PAC money will probably buy a lot of '3 AM' ads, but people want Super PAC money out of politics, so I don't think that cash is necessarily going to work in Clinton's favor.

[Ed Suspicious]

68. Look for Hillpac to form Bernpac in order to wipe the stink unto Bernie whether he likes it or not.

Watch Hillpac run negative ads from Bernpac against Hillary. The universe is about to fold in on itself.

[NealK]

106. Super PACs, corporations etc donations have big strings attached to them.

They expect big favors in return and always get them if the amount is right. It used to be called corruption.

[WillyT]

8. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[GitRDun]

13. The dumb attacks on Bernie and Hillary are just that....dumb

Bernie's mayoral record is something to be proud of.

Let's just see if he can build a big coalition. If he can do that, he'll steamroll everyone.

[brooklynite]

18. Fundraising is a threshold item; it's not a bellweather of voter turnout. Neither are rally crowds.

Sanders is still ahead in -1- State and close to Clinton in -1- State. He's not showing similar strength in the South or the battleground States.

FWIW, I spoke to a friend who used to run the Ohio Democratic Party. Her expectation is that voters will remain loyal to Clinton.

[floriduck]

27. Let's see how much further

Hillary plummets in the polls and more and more people learn about what Bernie stands for between now and Super Tuesday. Don't hatch your chickens too soon. Ohio could look much less appealing to your friend by then.

[Armstead]

30. The two states where there are active campaigns going on

[sabrina 1]

38. It used to be just the crowds that didn't matter. Goal post moved again, now it's fundraising, not a

marker of support! Lol! When he wins several states on Super Tuesday, you'll need an army to shove the goalposts out of wherever they have been moved to, again.

Last month it was 'Look, even if Sanders did win the nomination, he doesn't have the ability to raise enough money to beat the Repubs in the GE'. What happened to that argument?

Sometimes it's best to just admit, Bernie speaks for and to the people. He rejects Corporate Dark Money, which happens to be a top issue for over 80% of the American people.

He's not just saying 'I oppose CU' he's demonstrating how to neutralize it and putting the lie to the claim that no one can get very far WITHOUT taking Corporate money. Yes they can and now we have proof.

And the more his support increases, the more donations he will get.

Why are these highly paid political operatives so out of touch with Americans and why are they unable to see what millions of NOT highly paid operatives can see so clearly?

Otoh, I'm glad they are so puzzled and so much in denial. Because when they finally grasp WHY this is happening we know they will be spending even more of that Dark Money on smear campaigns.

[Demeter]

44. Mars--that's where they will put the goalposts next

Mars is all the rage, right now. The Elite are champing at the bit to flee there with all their paper trillions....and I think we should send them, ASAP! They can use the fiat paper for toileting.

[sabrina 1]

54. I would donate to that. Sending all the greedy to Mars. When I was a kid I used to think we

originally came from Mars. After destroying the planet, rich people were able to escape to Earth. I guess I read too many Superman comics! Lol!

But now I'm thinking, maybe that is what happened and wouldn't it be ironic to send them all back where their paper money won't do them much good.

[Mnemosyne]

102. Remember how G.W. Bush, war criminal, was so excited about Mars? He believes he is going, imo. nt

[Demeter]

105. We could take up a collection, and send him

as a retirement gift...

[Mnemosyne]

116. That would be wonderful, sooner the better. nt

[NealK]

108. We should send them to the center of the sun.

[frylock]

40. Yes, it's cash money and polling that ultimately determines the winner.

Massive crowds and enthusiastic social media presence? pffft.... puh-lease.

[Divernan]

77. FWIW, I spoke to 3 Ohio female friends; all support Sanders.

[Uncle Joe]

20. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[SoapBox]

21. The Sanderstorm is spreading!

Keep it up Berners!

[Demeter]

45. Cute!

/revision/20091012222330

[libodem]

22. Hubba hubba ding ding

Baby you got everything!!!

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

23. Over 1 million people have donated to Bernie so far that is 1 million votes

Even tho the 1% and corporations are backing her they still only get 1 vote each and she does not have that many people who are willing to donate to her either

I bet she wishes she could buy votes like Facebook likes

[RichVRichV]

36. Not quite yet.

He's had over 1 million donations from 650k individuals. He's on his way to 1 million donors but not there yet.

[Prism]

24. They were expecting a Kucinich. Now they are freaking out.

Sanders wasn't the low percentage fringe candidate many Establishment supporters thought he would be. He is now a threat to the Inevitable Crown, and I don't think a lot of people were prepared for it. I put myself in that category. I really didn't think he'd get this far, this quickly.

All the goalposts, the relentless memes about "the problem with his supporters" (note: they can rarely touch the actual guy on policy), the amorphous whispers and mutterings that he has "problems" with various minority constituencies.

These are people who are 1. panicked and 2. incredibly pissed that anyone dared do this to Clinton.

It reminds me of when LGBTers were pissed at the choice of Rick Warren at the inauguration. Some "supporter of the community" indignantly lashed out in a rage, "You are ruining this for us!" Their enjoyment in basking in the glow of a famous person they identify with is more important than, you know, policies or the right thing to do.

Sanders is ruining this for Clinton's ardent supporters. She has to work and defend herself and answer for a long list of anti-liberal attitudes and policies.

That's no fun. No fun at all. How dare he!

[Warren DeMontague]

26. She was really supposed to be inevitable, this time. And, it's her turn.

At least Bill Clinton -savvy politician that he is- understands that she needs to actually win this deal, she's not entitled to it by default.

The stompy-foot "its not faiiiiir" throw the bowl of creamed corn at mommy tantrums of some of her followers, though...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. The latest email dump isn't happy for her either.

As another OP points out, it shows she was willing to axe an advance for LGBT simply to avoid having Sarah Palin and Fox call her names. I don't want any more politicians who refuse to be progressive out of fear of the RWers getting upset.

[John Poet]

60. Amen. We don't need politicians willing to start wars

due to their own cowardice, landing in the Commander-In-Chief's chair.

And when I say that, I mean HILLARY.

[Puglover]

50. And many of those same people now proudly sport

LGTB avatars and their behavior has not changed. More rage only this time directed at Bernie and his supporters.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. "I would totally vote for him, but his supporters are awful horrible doodyheads!"

[floriduck]

31. I worked in the financial sector before retiring.

My company put their PAC money on the repubs and policies detrimental to the middle class. But workers and mid-level manages like me voted Dem. Our interests and priorities were different than senior management and the board of directors. The reason I believe that still applies is due to Obama's two wins and the popular vote demonstrating the individual support.

My point is that big money represents a large organization made up of numerous votes opposing it. I hope you get my point.

[Go Vols]

43. K&R

[pinebox]

46. Fundraising you say?

Hmmmm ok.....

Sanders nearly matches Clinton in fundraising for third quarter
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/heading-into-primaries-sanders-raises-24-million-in-3rd-quarter/2015/09/30/ef061a36-67ac-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html

Oh oh......for a candidate with little name recognition to get that? Compared to a candidate with 99% name recognition among all American's? You better start shitting your damn pants Hillary supporters. Your time is almost done.


Is it any wonder why?
Hillary can't even give straight answers, again.

Sanders’s campaign said it has more than $25 million in the bank, a reflection of a more thrifty campaign and one that has yet to start airing television ads, as the former secretary of state has.

Devine questioned why Clinton has not yet released how much cash she has on hand.

“It’s not just how much money you raise,” he said. “It’s how you spend the money.”

Clinton’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

[valerief]

48. Funny how the truth lures people more than false promises and poutrage bullshit. nt

[zentrum]

51. The women in my family...

…and myself, were in the Bernie for President movement before there was a Bernie for President Movement!

We love the guy, and need his policies.

[cheapdate]

53. Everybody talking smack.

It's like the college football rivalry smack sessions on Friday afternoons at my office.

[Enthusiast]

55. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[moobu2]

56. He's not a Democrat though.

[ibegurpard]

57. Is that your final answer?

[Boomer]

59. Shame on the Democratic party then

I'm a lifelong Democrat and Sanders embodies the principles I once associated with the Democratic party. If Sanders is not a Democrat, that's an indictment on the party and how far right it has drifted in this country.

[moobu2]

65. What difference does it make

if Bernie Sanders exemplifies the ideals of liberalism or the Democratic Party, or not, if all he's going to do is throw the election to the republicans? Ever hear of George McGovern? George McGovern was a perfect liberal candidate for the general election in 1972. McGovern was anti war, pro gay rights, liberal on welfare issues, wanted to drastically reduce military spending and spend that money on infrastructure, was pro women's rights, wanted national healthcare and on and on.

Here's the electoral map that year. So, what did it matter that McGovern was the near perfect liberal candidate since he lost the election and the Supreme Court lurched right, women's rights were set back, gay rights didn't exist until recently, more poverty etc...



This is what will happen if Bernie Sanders is the nominee for the Democratic Party. And Bernie Sanders isn't even a Democrat.

We need an acceptable nominee that can win not a perfect candidate that can not.

[Boomer]

72. I don't agree with your conclusion

Your prediction is that Sanders will lose in a general election, and mine is that he would win. The world and this country has changed considerably since the time of McGovern (I was of voting age back then, so I know first hand). The 1% has been grinding down on the 99% for decades now.

Despite the dreaded socialist label, which is supposedly anathema, Sanders is pulling in progressives, independents AND Republicans with his message.

Conventional wisdom is shattered, old political patterns are collapsing, on both sides of the aisle. Hold on to your hats, because this will be a wild ride toward the elections of 2016.

[Phlem]

85. Neither is Hillary.

She's Third Way. Like Barrack, Like Bill. So doing that again is going to fix things that have gotten worse since Bill?

Wow.

[rocktivity]

86. Deployment Accomplished

rocktivity

[beam me up scottie]

96. K & R!

[Thespian2]

97. Solutions to US problems matter...

Bernie has the solutions and will fight for them...

ELECT BERNIE...A MUST FOR AMERICAN VOTERS...

[sabrina 1]

99. We're at the 'then they attack you' stage, next, 'then you win'!

[NealK]

110. K&R

[raouldukelives]

113. K&R Biggest obstacle to democracy is Wall St shareholders.

There are those that invest in assuring nothing changes and there are those who fight for democracy for all people, not just those designated by Citizens United.

The next time you hear someone wax eloquently about addressing climate change, war for profit, gun control, education, corporate prisons, equality for all people, truth, justice, liberty and apple pie, ask them which side they work for and invest in.

Democracy isn't a game. Every action has a reaction. The more wealth in Wall St, the less of a chance for reality to be addressed. Some feel they cannot afford to not profit from ignoring the facts, some feel we cannot afford to continue ignoring the facts.