All these endorsements tell me is that there's a Big Club, who's in it, and who's not.

[reformist2]

On many issues, Bernie and Hillary are (on paper) so similar that there's no discernible difference between the two. (And on many issues, Bernie is way better, imo, but I'll let that go for now.) So all these people and organizations who endorse Hillary certainly aren't basing their decisions on policy positions.

Then I guess there's the electability argument. Maybe these people think that somehow Hillary is more electable in a general election than Bernie. But there isn't one single poll that they can point to for evidence of that. In fact, many polls indicate the exact opposite, that it would be Bernie that does better against the GOP candidate, whoever he may be. So all these people can't be basing their endorsement on electability, either.

So what's left? Plain old cronyism, that's what. Hillary has been in Washington for 25 years, she's raised boatloads of money for lots of these organizations and been photographed with lots of A-list celebrities. They're all connected. She scratches their backs, now they scratch hers. It has nothing to do with what's best for the country, and everything to do with not angering HRC, should she become president. Wouldn't want to be shut out from those White House parties!!!

[sufrommich]

1. Yes,it's a grand conspiracy involving thousands,

all of whom are either evil,cowardly or ruthlessly ambitious.

[zalinda]

3. There are thousands of

organizations endorsing Hillary?

Many of the organizations who endorsed Hillary, did not poll their members, so it has to be for political power gain.

Z

[Historic NY]

26. Your making those allegations based on what facebook.......social media.

In every case the organization clearly explained their conclusions that lead to the endorsement. It then turns out a "majority" agreed with the endorsements.

[reformist2]

6. It isn't a cosnpiracy, but it is pretty absurd how elite Dems are going 95/5 for Hillary.

There's no denying how different the leadership Dems are splitting, vs the 55/35 split in nationwide polls.

What explains it? I say cronyism.

Hilalry people don't even bother to try to explain it. Because they know the answer...

[leftofcool]

10. Or they all have Stockholm Syndrome.

[uponit7771]

20. Someone proffered Stockholm Syndrome for blacks, women and LGBT community and now...

... it has spread to 95% of dem constituent

[pangaia]

29. No conspiracy, just CYA.

[tecelote]

51. Yes.

War profiteers.

[Hekate]

58. Blue collar unions are war profiteers? Do tell.

[TheFarS1de]

71. Carlin said it best ...

You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. These people went to the same universities and fraternities, they're on the same boards of directors, they're on the same country clubs, they have like-interests. They don't need to call a meeting; they know what is good for THEM, and they are getting it.

[DCBob]

2. I believe the main reason is that she is the safe solid choice.

-- she can win
-- she will be ready on day one
-- she will work hard for Democratic principles
-- she is a Democrat

Bernie is still a "crap shoot" for most Democrats.

[cali]

5. I think that many who have endorsed her believe she's more electable.

I also think it's about favors, fear of being on the outside and having little influence, the insiders club and more.

[JRLeft]

11. This and DC insiders do not trust outsiders. They tend to like their bubble.

[Blue_Adept]

13. Being in washington for 25 years makes you an outsider?

Whodathunk

[JRLeft]

14. You do know being in Washington doesn't mean you're an insider right?

Obviously you're ignorant to the facts. Even Chris Matthews an insider admits Bernie isn't an insider.

[Blue_Adept]

15. I support Hillary so I know I'm ignornant and stupid and not liberal

But I also know there's variations and nuance to the phrase "insider".

I still don't believe he qualifies as an outsider.

[JRLeft]

16. You're belief isn't a fact.

[Blue_Adept]

18. I don't believe there is "fact" in this case.

Because I can easily say your belief that he's an outsider isn't fact either.

[JRLeft]

19. LMFAO SMFH

[Hekate]

57. Does that mean he can't work with people? Kind of a necessary job qual for potus....

I mean I know some people are pissed that HRC smiled and laughed with Kissinger and a host of other unpleasant types, but it's pretty much in the job description to not spit in your adversary's eye when trying to get something out of them.

Right?

[Ken Burch]

62. She has never been Kissinger's adversary

And as far as we know, she doesn't disagree with his worldview in any significant way. And there is no practical justification for cozying up to a guy like Dr K, since nothing positive came of any of his actions(we didn't have to bomb the shit out of Vietnam and Cambodia to be able to make the China trip happen, and no Democratic-voting constituency benefited from what Kissinger did to East Timor or India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

[Hekate]

63. Uh huh

[Ken Burch]

64. As SOS, she was exactly like him.

She still buys into the intrinsically right wing "we have to lead the world" thing.

And for some delusional reason, she thinks this can help women and children(even though no U.S. use of force other than World War II ever has).

[Hekate]

66. How old are you? 17? That's some fancy rewriting of history you're doing there. nt

[uponit7771]

46. +1

[randys1]

28. Bernie is not an outsider, but he is an irritant. He pushes against the flow

of money and power.

Money and power doesnt like that.

At the end of the day, which of these two can win in the GE, that is what matters.

The answer, is not known yet.

[reformist2]

7. Then they are collectively ignoring the polls that show Bernie does better than Hillary in the gener

In the end, it all boils down to this: Hillary is the choice of The Club. Everyone likes the network of favors and paybacks they've got going, and nobody has the guts to go against it.

[DCBob]

22. I think most who understand polling realize general election polling is almost meaningless..

at this point in time. Furthermore most believe Bernie is the clearly bigger risk. He has too many unknowns and potential major negatives that could come up in a heated and ugly general election.

[reformist2]

24. OK, if there's no guidance as to which candidate will do better in November, then why are the elites

of one mind in thinking that Hillary will do better?

The answer is they don't. It's cronyism that explains their 95/5 support for Hillary, even when the public is split 55/35/10. Nothing else adds up.

[DCBob]

36. There is plenty of guidance.

Hiilary has tons of money and a plethora of connections and extensive political experience. Futhermore she connects with women and minorities... voting groups who have helped Democrats win before. I think its a safe bet she will win.

[Betty Karlson]

8. She has a massive enthousiasm deficit - which bodes ill for the election, 2014-style.

2014 being the year that DWS showed us the success of "at least we are not as evil as the GOP".

Clinton had plenty of bad judgement - Iraq, TPP, gay rights, and has shown a worrying unwillingness to come to better judgements unless polls and focus groups pretty much forced her to do so.

Clinton is a follower, not a leader, and I don't trust the companies she might follow.

All candidates in the Democratic Primaries are Democrats.

[DCBob]

25. This year is nothing like 2014..

For one thing that was a mid-term election which almost always goes bad for the party in office. Another factor is that Hillary is seen by most like an incumbent candidate due to her long and extensive political experience. Incumbents usually do not generate the type of enthusiasm as an insurgent candidate like Sanders or Trump.. but that doesnt mean she wont win.. incumbents usually do.

[Betty Karlson]

31. The above post was brought to you by Denial- not just a river in Africa.

The writing is on the wall - but team Hillary would declare itself analphabetic in order to be able to ignore it.

[DCBob]

35. Personal insults is all you have.

Suggests lack of anything intelligent to offer.

[Betty Karlson]

37. You want counterarguments to your potamically cognitive dissonance? Here we go:

For one thing that was a mid-term election which almost always goes bad for the party in office.

No, it goes bad for Democrats generally, as the GOP's elderly voters are more regular voters. The Democrats' best assets (the young voters, the minorities) tend to stay away unless they have something or someone to really vote for.

The 2014 losses however were exacerbated by the party's attitude: "at least we are not as bad as the GOP" / "Who else are you going to vote for". That drove moderately enthoused voters (left-wing, young) away. That part of the losses, which was preventable, is DWS's responsability.

Another factor is that Hillary is seen by most like an incumbent candidate due to her long and extensive political experience.

I have not seen any evidence of a general public perception of this kind. Can you link to any evidence? If not, your argument is unsubstantiated.

Incumbents usually do not generate the type of enthusiasm as an insurgent candidate like Sanders or Trump.. but that doesnt mean she wont win.. incumbents usually do.

Clinton is well known, certainly, but she has a net negative favorability rating. Even if she were perceived to an incumbent - which is as yet an unproven statement of yours - her negative favorability would make her the equivalent of a very vulnerable incumbent. I don't know that we can risk the White House on such a weak candidate.

As for equating Sanders with Trump: shame on you.

[DCBob]

38. Now you are the one in denial.

Its a documented fact that the party in power usually does poorly in midterm elections.

Regarding Hillary seen like an incumbent. I admit I dont have any hard pollling evidence but Im convinced its true. It totally makes sense to me. But feel free to believe whatever you want.

Trump and Sanders are both insurgent candidates. Do you deny that?

[Betty Karlson]

39. "I am convinced" - it seems like you just want to believe whatever you please.

As for calling denial on me: just two posts ago, I was accused of having no argument when using that phrase. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.

The analyses of the 2010 and 2014 disasters were that key demographics stayed away, as the GOP did not actually attract any voters of ours. What documents are you referring to?

[DCBob]

40. Its called reason.

Apparently lacking in some.

[Betty Karlson]

49. Not so well-documented, then, are you?

Conventional wisdom is not the same as reason: one is conveniently conformist, the other confrontatively original. Feel free to acquaint yourself with the difference.

[DCBob]

50. Never said my thoughts on the incumbent thing was well documented.

Just my opinion based on obvious factors... obvious at least to me.

[Betty Karlson]

68. Yeah, now you are downright abandoning your earlier words:

"Its a documented fact that the party in power usually does poorly in midterm elections." (response # 38)

If all this is just your unsubstantiated opinion, then I feel free to ignore it.

[DCBob]

70. Sorry but you are confused. That's a different topic.

I was referring to the incumbent topic regarding being documented. Please go back and re-read and it should become clear.

[Betty Karlson]

72. No Bob, I am far from confused. eom

[Historic NY]

27. Sounds just like RW talking points......

you facts just don't stand up, enthusiasm gap please.

[Betty Karlson]

30. Your grammar doesn't stand up. And calling someone right-wing

is considered bad form on this forum. Implying it is hardly better.

[Historic NY]

54. My spelling does...thank you.....I said RW talking point..

if your talking about younger voters then, answer this why BS people are so desperate to engage them in Iowa...been lots of little memos out there. A lot of crap leaks out in twitter. EOM.....

[Betty Karlson]

69. we are in word salad territory now.

Care to rephrase your question and / or argument?

[onecaliberal]

4. The corporate web is vast and will not go quietly.

Glad some of them showed their hand early. Frees up more money for Bernie.

[reformist2]

9. That's a good way of putting it - it really is a 'corporate web'

[uponit7771]

12. OOOOOOrrrr, SBS is horrible at relationship building outside of his comfort zone? tia

[99Forever]

32. Well if...

... you look at cronyism, nepotism, corporate buttkissing, sleazy pay-for-play political favours, and corrupt arm-twisting as "relationship building," then you are absolutely correct, Senator Sanders really sucks at it.

[uponit7771]

42. Nah, Sanders just spent the last 5 years dissing the DNC and proffering their prez get primaried

.... cause that wins friends and influences people :rolleyes:

Sanders CAN NOT throw a stone

[99Forever]

43. Nice sidestep you've got there.

Senator Sanders throws truth.

Residents of Camp Weathervane don't like it and fling poo, because it's all they've got.

[uponit7771]

44. No sidestep, Sanders dissed vs build relationships and he throws truth and being human....

... along with human frailties.

Stating that Sanders can't throw stones isn't flinging anything... but o well...

[99Forever]

45. Bullshit.

It's all you'got. Weak bullshit at that.

[uponit7771]

47. So Sanders CAN throw stones politically?1?!!? Really!?

[99Forever]

48. Make shit up, much?

Kick that strawman's ass, tough guy.

[uponit7771]

55. Deflection noted, you're the one that said what was posted was BS... whatever

[JoePhilly]

17. So Hillary has been helping other Dems get elected for decades ...

... and you are upset about it.

Ok.

[uponit7771]

21. +1, this should be an OP... the relationship building HRC has done inside the party and among

... dem constuents is something her opponents want to minimize

[JoePhilly]

23. It reminds me of a great movie line ...

... in the third Indiana Jones movie, a young Indiana Jones gets separated from his boy scout troop in a remote location ... he runs out sees that he's all alone, and declares ... "Everyone's lost but me!!!"

Apparently, they see great virtue in being alone.

[pangaia]

33. The funny thing is, they all ARE lost except for Bernie.

[JoePhilly]

41. Very good point.

Honestly some of them come across like angry right wingers.

[Hekate]

59. Yep, it's all just been 30 years of butt kissing & cronyism & stuff like that. DU BSers haz a sad.

Jurors: From this very thread:

99Forever
32. Well if...
... you look at cronyism, nepotism, corporate buttkissing, sleazy pay-for-play political favours, and corrupt arm-twisting as "relationship building," then you are absolutely correct, Senator Sanders really sucks at it.

Note: It is an effing sad day when I have to be sure to quote in full the post I am referring to so that I don't get into trouble. Oy.

[JoePhilly]

60. Some of them are starting to lose it.

They find new outrages in the most unusual places.

[azmom]

34. The whole system is corrupt and they are

All players. They are getting rich off of it so they see no need to change the game. we will need to work together to change it for them.

In solidarity!

[840high]

53. ...^ that

[Thinkingabout]

52. If it is wrong to be in Washington for twenty five years, then Sanders is

Wrong. He has been in Congress for twenty five years. He meets with lobbyists, there is a good reason lobbyists meet with congressional members.

[Hekate]

56. Ooo yeah, those unions are bought and paid for

[Ken Burch]

65. There is no non-corrupt reason for a union leadership ever to endorse the least-progressive Dem.

No such endorsement has ever produced results that were to the good of any union's rank-and-file.

[Hekate]

67. And yet the rank and file elect their leaders and vote on issues like this. Mmmmm-mm. nt

[NurseJackie]

61. Bitter? (Or trying too hard?)