Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, July 18, 2018

“And now, the end is near, and so I face the final curtain.”

Those are, of course, the opening lyrics to Frank Sinatra’s immortal recording of “My Way.” They are also a succinct description of the state of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign.

Last week, the candidate announced he was laying off hundreds of staff members after a series of bruising primary losses to Hillary Clinton. She increased her lead in the delegate count and Sanders, who was already walking a narrow pathway to the Democratic nomination, now walks a high wire in a high wind.

Though the campaign spun the layoffs as forward-leaning strategy, it was difficult not to read them as a tacit acknowledgment that “the Bern” has all but burned out. Indeed, Sanders has begun to openly ponder — though he still rejects — the idea of losing.

It may not be over yet, but the fat lady is running the scales. Now, how to break that to Bernie Nation?

Once in a while, a politician leads not a campaign, but a movement. Think Obama in 2008, Reagan in 1980, Bobby Kennedy in 1968, John in 1960. Such candidates catch the Zeitgeist in a bottle. They have not voters, but believers, receive not support, but faith. That’s Sanders in a nutshell.

Small wonder people love him. He has spoken against the corporate hijacking of American government and dreams. And he has pulled the Democratic Party back toward progressive values of which the party has seemed vaguely ashamed ever since the Reagan tsunami rendered “liberal” a four-letter word.

But Sanders is not going to win the Democratic nomination. As this sinks in, many of his believers are declaring their intent to boycott the fall election. A recent McClatchy-Marist poll tells us that one in four citizens of Bernie Nation will refuse to support Hillary Clinton if she is nominated.

It was recently suggested on “The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore” that this may not be the smartest strategy in an election where the specter of a Donald Trump presidency looms. In response, Sanders believer Susan Sarandon invoked John F. Kennedy — “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

“This was our peaceful revolution,” she warned.

On the same program, comedian Mike Yard said, “People that supported Bernie are not people that play the game. They’re not afraid to blow (expletive) up. Maybe we need to blow this b—h up.”

They sound like Republicans did in 2008 and 2012.

They sound like the kid who snatches his ball and storms out of the park after losing a game.

But worse than churlish and childish, they sound Cruz-ish, as in Ted, who is hugely unpopular not just for his harshly conservative ideology, but even more for his hardline absolutism, his willingness to drive the nation off a cliff rather than bend. He, too, is unafraid “to blow (expletive) up.” Wasn’t that the takeaway from 2013’s disastrous government shutdown and multiple iterations of the manufactured debt ceiling crisis?

It comes, then, to this. The extreme left now mirrors the extreme right, each reflecting the anger and unbending rigidity of the other. And the idea that politics is the art of compromise, where everybody gets something but nobody gets everything, seems a lost artifact from a distant age.

How ironic that the Sanders campaign, conducted mostly on the high ground of ideas and ideals, descends to cries of boycott and even revolution as it nears its end. Granted, nobody likes to lose. But the loss was fair and square and those citizens of Bernie Nation who can’t deal with that, who want to opt out of the system or take up arms against it, should be ashamed of themselves. One feels sorry for them.

The nomination is the least of what they’ve lost.

NOTE: I made an editing error in a recent column about death row inmate Duane Buck, which made it seem as if he killed three people in his 1995 rampage. He killed two. The third person, his stepsister Phyllis Taylor, survived the shooting.

(Leonard Pitts is a columnist for The Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla., 33132. Readers may contact him via e-mail at lpitts@miamiherald.com.)

(c) 2016 THE MIAMI HERALD DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Photo: The crowd cheers as U.S. Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders speaks at a campaign rally in Fort Collins, Colorado February 28, 2016. REUTERS/Brian Snyder      TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY     

284 Responses to Bernie Nation Can’t Get Behind Hillary Clinton

  1. Don’t feel sorry for me. Feel sorry for the country. I’m not positive Bernie could have turned things around but i”m pretty damn sure HRC won’t. About winning fair and square. I don’t think so.

    • What wasn’t fair and square about it? The rules were stacked in his favour and he still lost.

      • Difficult to take your question seriously. Let me take a stab at it. MSM. If you accept the fact and it is a fact that the US is run by corporations then you will understand why all the money went to HRC. Apparrently you still believe politics in the US is fair and square. You would be correct if you think corporations owning and controlling the MSM is fair and square. I could go on but it would be futile.

        • Ignoring what I said and positing a conspiracy theory doesn’t actually constitute any kind of argument. I repeat: the rules were quantifiably in Sanders’ favour; how was his loss not fair and square?

          • The DNC visibly favored Clinton as their choice and can be
            easy seen just follow the money and influence they have on the super delegates and that a huge disadvantage. But Bernie Nation will never truly support Clinton but if she the nomine vote for her as it you civic duty and remember there more the one election on most voting days and state and local elections are also very important and lack of democratic turnout is why we have a
            republican house and senate

          • The DNC’s opinion is irrelevant; what I am saying is that the rules of the primary favoured Sanders in such a way as to give him more pledged delegates than he would otherwise have got. He lost fair and square, and it has nothing to do with super delegates or conspiracies.

          • All he “lost” was a party primary which in all honestly has absolutely nothing to do with the general election. IF any of the “losers” still wanted to run, they could. Just not under that particular party.

          • Again, that has nothing to do with what I wrote. The OP claimed that the comment in the article about him losing “fair and square” was false; it clearly isn’t.

          • Bill’s cellphone is what’s going to get Shrillery into office. Nothing fair about that.

          • I’m sorry, what will get her into office is that she is the more popular candidate.

          • But, for now, only two candidates will be viable competitors for the presidency when the nominations are complete. I’m voting for the Democratic ticket, just like Bernie will, along with most of his supporters.

          • No. There are not ONLY two viable candidates. We don’t know how many there will be because the general election hasn’t even happened yet.
            You’re telling me that there are only two candidates for an election that hasn’t started yet and you still don’t think you’re being told what to think? Seriously?

          • Your opinion is what is repeatedly irrelevant. Trollish stuff doesn’t count.

          • It is NOT our “civic duty” to vote for the people we are told to vote for. It is our civic duty to vote according to our conscious and the quality of the individual candidate.

          • of course no one should tell you who to vote for but the other option is trump who a vulture capalist or Cruz who hated by everyone he worked with

          • There will be other options from other parties or independents. We don’t know who they are because the general election isn’t even happening yet.
            The only reason people vote democrat or republican is because they accept the lie that this is all there is.

          • Don’t argue with him Blue is apparently just a troll hired to undercut any hint of Democratic party unity, first attacking Sanders and his supporters and then Clinton and her supporters. He is an anonymous cowardly Discus poster, afraid to disclose his own identity and contradictory opinions.

          • Amazing. Your correct. There is no argument. He got beat by the DNC. No conspiracy. Its a fact. DWS and company. Politics aren’t fair. Even Trump know they’re rigged.

          • Sheer nonsense. Sanders’ biggest enemy was Sanders. His campaign had weakness that were obvious at the start (such as a lack of appeal to minority voters), and he did very little to address them. He lost fair and square, as the article said, and it was because he was simply less popular.

          • No, simple: he ignored large voter demographics. Don’t blame the media for Sanders’ unforced errors.

          • He was ignored by the MSM. He made some mistakes along the way for instance by defending HRC about the emails but was for the most part ignored by the MSM. His main weakness was using the word socialist. American people are to braindead to understand the word. It turns out the young understood.

          • He’s had plenty of media coverage; his losses have not been due to being unknown, but simply unpopular with key demographics. The statement that he lost “fair and square” continues to be 100% accurate.

          • I will agree to disagree. Fair and square used to describe politics in the US? enough said, Cheers

          • About the worst you can say is that the DNC was biased in favour of the candidate who has spent decades setting up this run and supporting the Democratic Party. That’s not remotely surprising, really? Didn’t affect much in any case.

          • I agree except for the DNC and DWS and Schumer being the cause of the attack on us and on Bernie. I despise them all but pity them as well. The people who control that crowd of historic failures are the same neoliberal oligarchs who created the disaster of Citizens United in the first place.
            The neoliberal destroyers are the twenty top donors of both Bush and Clinton who have been controlling both parties. They are the names found in the Panama chronicles and Delaware deceit of corporate and personal tax avoidance developed for billionaires. The political party leaders that Sanders has been attacking are, like the Wall Street Third Way, The Triangulators and the right wing think tanks and MSM, merely effective tools of the neoliberal class.
            Our best hope is to elect the best available alternative viable candidate to continue our movement and that will be the Democratic candidate regardless of which one prevails.

          • He does but not from corporations but from small donations
            from the population but he not stupid as he know his chance is a very long one so he shedding payroll as money that left over is given to the DNC for distribution to others running

          • He is actually using his funds to continue his campaign through to the end of the nominating process. If he is successful, good for all of us. If he is not and Clinton is nominated, he can support progressive candidates who he chooses just as he has been choosing who to endorse for us to give small contributions to.
            I hope he keeps his organization, names, numbers and addresses to himself and forms an organization to continue the movement, even revolutionary movement that we have all developed with him this past year. With Hillary in office or not, we all have a hell of a lot of work to do in the next four to eight years to restore democracy back to the country and to the Democratic Party.
            For Bernie and his campaign to turn over lists of names and supporters and any remaining money after his campaign is concluded to the DNC DWS, or Schumer and his gang of failed neoliberals would be like feeding his own arms, legs and hands to the pack of wild pigs and dogs that tried so hard to kill him and us.

          • I don’t listen to the MSM because they are owned by corporations that Sanders is going after. He could have twice as much money as HRC and still lose because the money came from the people. We don’t count.

          • But with Senators and representatives like Warren, Brown, Merkley and Grayson and the rest of the progressive caucus, we can keep the movement going through a Clinton presidency than we ever could with a Fascist like Trump or a Theocrat like Cruz in the white house.

          • No, that is the power of So Bernie has finally shown that there is not enough money in private hands to defeat the neoliberal establishment in one election. He has demonstrated in this election that Obama should have kept his movement separate and internal.
            Instead Obama turned his lists of names and votes and donations over to the DLC, DNC, DWS and Schumer who have used those lists to destroy the Democratic party. Those eight years have generated the worst political failures possible over the past eight years of losses in House and Senate membership an party membership in recent history.
            The most distressing reality is that they committed that destruction on behalf of the neoliberal oligarchs in the midst of those same eight years of Obama’s unanticipated successes. The neoliberals on the right continue to deny the reality of Obama’s successes because the oligarchic MSM, MIC and transnational corporations enriched by the status quo are terrified of the public becoming aware of Obama’s success against them even in the face of unrelenting opposition.

    • If she is nominated, she will be the most progressive and most viable candidate remaining in the race. A vote for her will be a vote to continue the movement that we and Bernie have created. A write in vote for him or for a third party candidate will be, IMHO, a betrayal of all that we have fought for since before Occupy Wall Street and Protest in Seattle as it will mean the likely election of a Republican determined to end our movement and destroy any possibility of a peaceful revolution.
      Beware Trump’s pandering to Sanders voters by saying nice things about him and bad things about Hillary. He has demonstrated in his campaign that his promises, like his attacks, are only good for the day he makes them. With a progressive congress we can keep the pressure on Clinton. Trump, the Fascist, will ignore us, stick us behind his wall or put us in jail. Cruz, the Theocrat in the race will just put us in stocks till he can stone us to death.

  2. First of all, it’s not about Bernie. It’s bigger than that. It’s voting against cronyism. Second, the upcoming primaries are all open, meaning Independents can vote. Bernie wins in open primaries. So no, he’s not going away no matter what the bought and paid for media says. Third, fair and square? Seriously?? When AZ goes from 400 polling stations in 2008 to 60 in 2016? When in Brooklyn alone, 126,000 voters were somehow removed from the books. And who knows how many rigged voting machines that Diebold manufactured, that had undetectable software that changes the votes!

    Sit back unless you haven’t voted yet, and enjoy the show. Then come November, after you have really done your research on the issues, get off the couch and go vote Blue, preferably Bernie. It’s better than voting for the US to be the laughing stock of the free world!

    • Ah yes, Hillary conspired with the Republicans who hate her to steal a state she was already massively winning in so that they wouldn’t get the candidate they’d prefer to run against. It all makes sense now!

    • Also your very first sentence is in error. Only three of the remaining states have open primaries, with four more being “semi-closed” and one being an open caucus. The remaining six states are closed primaries and/or closed caucuses.

      • Thank you for admitting that Shrilary is only winning the elections that independents are not allowed to vote in.
        You really do make this way too easy.

        • I’m sorry, can you even read? The open primaries have mostly been won by… Hillary, 10 to 4. Also, a political party isn’t actually obliged to appoint its leaders based on the opinions of people who aren’t part of it.

          • Again, you make the point for me. Hilary already has the superdelegates. They’ve already decided it’s going to be her.

          • No, the super delegates – as they always will – will vote for the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates. That is Clinton, by far.

          • They will vote for whoever they wish to vote for. There is NOTHING dictating how they can vote at all.

          • And yet I’m correct. Your theoretical conspiracy doesn’t matter, though, as Sanders isn’t losing because of the super delegates – he’s losing because he’s much less popular, and hence has far fewer pledged delegates.

          • You again? Go contemplate your belly button lint. He’s losing because the DNC wants him to and has told people like you to vote for Shrilary.

          • I’m sorry for pointing out the glaring error in the post you made directly in reply to me. I don’t know why you’re surprised that I’d reply to your conspiracy-mongering, except that, of course, you’re an authoritarian bully who can neither tolerate disagreement nor admit to a mistake.

            Sanders is not losing because of super delegates; he’s losing because he has got far fewer votes. At no point in this primary was Clinton not clearly the more popular candidate.

          • Repeating that like a mantra does not make it true. But go ahead. It’s what you drones do.

          • What am I repeating? You made a RIDICULOUSLY false claim – that Hillary only wins contests that are closed, when in fact she is two-and-a-half times more likely than Sanders to win an open contest. When called on that, you feebly attempted to dodge by making ANOTHER ridiculously false claim – that Sanders is only losing because of super delegates, when he’s actually losing because way less people are voting for him.

          • Hillary wins in the South. Sanders in the north. Out west will decide it. All of this is irrelevant though as the superdelegates were pledged to Hillary before this even started. ALL of them.

          • Aside from the fact that your simplification isn’t even accurate, so what? You’re arguing that Clinton wins the swing states; that’s a PLUS. And, of course, the blue states get up to double the number of delegates they would get just from population; you’re also saying that even with a huge advantage, Sanders can’t manage to win the primary.

          • No. The primary was decided already. The sheep are just following suit. You are voting the way you were instructed to. Not on merit, but on “electability”.

          • The primary was indeed decided, by way more people voting for Clinton over Sanders. Maybe if Sanders had actually somehow tried to address his weaknesses – his overwhelming unpopularity with minorities, for example – the story would have been different – but he didn’t, so it isn’t. You can blame conspiracies all you want, but Sanders lost only because of Sanders.

          • No they weren’t. Obama won his primary against Clinton; Sanders just wasn’t good enough.

          • I already have. Not my fault you’re too stupid to get it (shrugs)
            At this point you’re just another troll who exists only for my entertainment.

          • You haven’t explained why you were wrong at all; every time it’s pointed out you attempt to change the topic to a different wrong thing. This is known as a Gish Gallop and it’s entirely typical of conspiracy theorists like yourself.

          • See previous post; I understand that, as a self-righteous yet uneducated zealot, you are utterly incapable of admitting error.

          • Sorry you can’t explain why you were completely wrong! Not my fault though.

          • Nor are the parties, depending on the rules of each party, required to vote for the person selected by the voters, donors or friends. They may change the rules right until the nomination. That is one reason that the past numbers really don’t matter now.

            The reason for supporting and voting for Bernie in the coming contests is to keep the movement progressing and to keep the promises that we and Bernie have made to those voters to continue working for his election. That promise is to support his and our empowerment until the last vote is cast and for the four years after that.

          • I don’t disagree with any of that; the DNC hasn’t changed the primary rules significantly for ages, though – and its rules are vastly more fair and uniform than those of the GOP (if the Democratic primary was running under the current GOP rules, Hillary would have three times the lead over Sanders than she currently does). The least fair rules in this primary are actually the inclusion of undemocratic caucuses; without those, Sanders wouldn’t be remotely as competitive.

          • I’ll use whatever terms I feel like and you’ll either deal with the facts presented or you avoid them with statments like this as you’ve been taught.
            You’re not getting the “You’re being told what to do” thing are ya?

      • That is another big ‘so what’ comment. The question that remains is only who folks will vote for in the general election if Clinton and Trump are the nominees or if Clinton and Cruz are the nominees. The Hillary haters and no one but Bernie folks will either vote for the Republican directly on the ballot or will vote for the Republican indirectly by refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee. The grownups will, in such a case, vote for Clinton and the most progressive down-ballot candidates they can find.

      • Who really cares about which ones were won and which lost? Not many anymore. It is pretty clear that Sanders supporters will continue to vote for him where and when he can. If he wins, no problem. If he does not, most of his supporters will do as Roseanne suggests and vote blue, supporting Clinton and the Democratic slate.

        • I was just correcting the opening statement of that post; not all of the remaining primaries are open, and Sanders has no real advantage in open primaries. While Roseanne has the right idea about voting blue, her insinuation that Sanders lost because of an impossible fraud is highly offensive; progressives ought to respect the truth above everything else.

  3. You writers just don’t get it. If Clinton is nominee, she will Never ever get our support. And another thing, The end isn’t near. This is only the beginning. Bernie or Bust tells it all. The Democratic party is but the flip side of the same coin of Republicans. Trump will unload a barrage unlike the Clintons have ever seen. And it will be all truth. He is a better alternative

    • Hahaha yeah Trump is much better than a liberal, for sure. I mean, if you’re a white male guy, anyway.

    • Then stop worrying about us and move on to doing something that will produce demonstrable results for the restoration of democracy. Voting for a third party or writing in Sanders or any other name if Clinton is nominated will be exactly the same as directly voting for Trump, which sounds to be exactly what you want.
      I’m not sure who you include in your “we’ but every Sanders supporters I know will vote for the winner of the Democratic nomination, rather than let America fall from neoliberalism into Trump fascism or Cruz Theocracy. I don’t love her. I don’t even really like her much.
      But, no one promised that the progressive populist movement would succeed in one election. Movements and Revolutions are not events but processes. I will vote for the candidate who will be most likely to work with us in continuing that process. If those three are among the candidates of the two viable parties, I will vote for Clinton and against Trump and Cruz as the best alternative to keep the peaceful revolution building., Then I will vote this year and the next four elections for all of the progressive candidates in all offices around the country regardless of political label.

  4. I’m all in on Sen. Sanders. Can never vote or support Clinton. Not a Trump fan. Need a solid Independent. But I still believe we can deliver California and Oregon. Hilliary will be Indicted

      • Blessedly stupid comments are the releasing of Troll gas into the world. Initially offensive but of no lasting significance.

    • She probably will not be charged or indicted or arrested. She will probably be nominated unless Bernie sweeps the next two with huge majorities. So the question is, this year, in this presidential election, will you vote for one of the only two viable presidential candidates to support and continue the movement that we and Sanders have been expanding for the past year?
      Jill is nice and writing in Sanders or a third party is probably more comfortable than voting directly for Cruz or Trump but not any less effective in getting them elected.

  5. Sorry, Most Bernie supporters are not that stupid. Get out the vote, show Clinton she may have delegates, but she needs all of us, so she can’t attempt to migrate back to the right once the nomination is sealed after the convention.

    The GOP current candidates are a total disaster, bad, and worse. Anything Clinton would be much better. Not voting in the General election would be like shooting yourself in both hands. Keep up the pressure, get out the vote, support the eventual Democratic Candidate, and most importantly, insure those same voters vote the Radical Right Cruz wannabees out of office. Neiither Clinton or Sanders can do much without changing the GOP’s majority makeup in the Senate and House. The Bernie movement is far from over, just possibly changed in purpose.

    I would much rather have 3/4th of a loaf of bread than be left with only the crumbs after Trump or Cruz finished pushing it over to the top 2%.

    Think about it.

    • I find this idea that she will “migrate back to the rght” so baffling. She hasn’t really moved to the left; her policies are nearly identical to the ones she ran on in 2008.

      • To be clear, I think she’s moved a little to the left, but she started out pretty lefty already. I haven’t got any issue with anything else you said, though.

      • Not according to most commentators, who have picked up on the fact that she is appropriating some of Bernie’s themes.

        • Don’t make nebulous claims; name these “themes” and show how it represents a significant shift from 2008.

      • Once again you are wrong and you are trolling anonymously saying stuff that is simply not true.

  6. We don’t even know who all the players in the general election are yet.
    IF the Democrats won’t give us what we want, then we’ll find someone else who will, and it won’t be Clinton, it won’t be Cruze and it certainly will not be Trump.
    Last presidential election there were 7 candidates on the ballot. I’m betting most of you can only name me two. Why? Because you were brainwashed into thinking they were the only votes that were valid. You were TOLD who to vote for and just like good little sheep, you did.
    If Sanders isn’t the Democrat nominee and Trump isn’t the Republican one, they could very well both be unwilling candidates outside the buzzard that controls the left and right wings.
    Either things will start turning away from global corporate America or we aren’t going to be here to complain about it. Something else will be. Either formed from the corporate will with the same name as the US or something else that arises from the ashes and blood of its demise.

    • So you’ll not only throw away your vote in the general, but diminish its value in the next primary (Democratic primaries are weighted by how a state votes in the general – the bluest states get up to double the number of delegates that they would otherwise have). Good job.

      • I’m an independant and I’m not throwing ANYTHING away. Contrary to your programing, there ARE viable candidates other than Democrats and Republicans. Once you realize that, you’ll be intelligent enough to continue this conversation. Until then you’re just another Shillery troll.

        • All of the third-party candidates votes COMBINED come to around 1% of the vote. So, not “viable” in any sense.

          • Like I said, you aren’t smart enough for this conversation. Thanks for proving my point and completely missing the actual subject. To be fair though, your only real fault was believing and accepting the brainwashing in the first place.

          • I see; in lieu of any possible argument you resort to insults. 1% still isn’t very much though.

          • Oh that wasn’t an insult. That was a statement of facts. You have bought into the propaganda that sustains the left-right paradigm. You are voting for who you are told to vote for and this conditioning is so ensconced in you that you are mentally incapable of thinking any other way without being told to do so.

          • Yes yes I have bought in to the propaganda that 1% of voters isn’t very many. It’s all a conspiracy to make tiny numbers of voters seem unimportant.

          • Look, I’m not wasting any more time on you. You’re going to have to kiss our ass come November if you want the WH and the problem is, we just don’t like your candidate. We don’t like any of them offered right now (with one exception). Class dismissed. Don’t come back without your homework.

          • No, sorry – you’re completely unimportant, dude. If you want to waste your vote because you’re having a tantrum, be my guest – just bear in mind you’re making your primary vote count for less next time, too.

          • (facepalm) pay attention child. I’m an Independant. I do not believe nor support the left-right paradigm or the two party system. I don’t vote in the primaries. I only vote in the general election and I vote for the person who has convinced me they are most qualified for the job. I do NOT vote for one of the people I was TOLD to vote for. That would be you.

          • Yes I get that as an Independent with a capital I you think you have the right to demand that everyone listen to you. It’s hilarious.

          • “I know you are but what am I”. It’s always glorious to see someone claiming to be an adult yet using that one.

          • David, bite me. I do not vote for who I’m told to vote for like you and the troll with the delusions of monarchy over there. I vote for who I think is most qualified for the job. And if that happens to be someone who does not have a (D) or (R) behind their name, then so be it.
            As for where YOU are, ask yourself why both the Democrats and the Republicans had a presidential candidate removed from the property and arrested for disturbing the peace and trespassing when she showed up as a presidential candidate who was on the ballot in 48 states at the time?

          • Perhaps the least appetizing suggestion you have made yet. Rabies works both ways and biting a rabid person would be just as bad as being bitten except for the slime your illness generates. It is often called santorum – look that up puppy. Three gets five that you don’t even know what was in the principal article here today. That is a mark of destructive anonymous cowardly trolling.

          • The article was a piece of propaganda stating that anyone making up their own mind is a detriment to “the cause”. That you HAVE to vote for who you are told to.
            But that’s not what you see. You see it as your “civic duty” to vote for who you are told to vote for. That could not be farther from the truth.

          • Viable. used as an adjective meaning practicable or workable. Anything else you’d like to have explained for you I’ll be happy to do so, you don’t have to be embarassed and go about it like this. The only way a democratic form of government works is if the people are educated so I am MORE than willing to do my part.

          • Took you long enough to look it up, doofus anonymous. Good luck with the kindergarten upgrade. Elementary will be such fun for you.

  7. He got blasted for it, but Romney was right about one thing.
    47% of you are going to vote Democrat even if the DNC runs a trained monkey.
    47% of you will do the same with the RNC.
    That leaves 6% of us that decide EVERYTHING for you. WE make the decision. Don’t like that? Then make that 6% bigger by dropping the party system and voting for the most qualified candidate instead of the most politically popular.

  8. was big for McCarthy in ’68 but didn’t sit out. was big on John Anderson in ’80 and got Reagan for my trouble.

    • You spoke your mind. You voted for who you thought was best for the job and not who you were told to vote for. Just because you feel you are the only one doing the right thing doesn’t mean it’s futile. It means you’re doing the right thing. That’s all the reason needed.

        • She’s not. She failed at healthcare reform. She failed at campaign reform (she’s been sued for it and lost). She’s failed on the international front and she has a history of business scandals and “coincidences” littering her past.
          And the scary part is that she is the more qualified of the 2 you’re being told to vote for.
          I’m not being told. I’ll look at everyone and make up my own mind.
          And no. you aren’t.

          • For my vote? You’re damn right my opinion is the only one allowed. NO ONE will tell me who I will and will not vote for. Not the buzzard running DC and certainly not some conglomeration of pixels with delusions of monarchy.
            I demand that the truth be heard, And you have acquiesced to those demands just like a well trained sheep would.
            See, there’s always a troll like you who will present the means to convey information to the people just ghosting and reading here. You’ve served that purpose very well.
            (patts you onna head) goooood boy.

          • You are literally saying that nobody is allowed to think different to you while claiming a Big Conspiracy is working against you; what on Earth makes you think that you’re going to be taken seriously?

          • No, that’s not what I said. Go back, read again and possibly brush up on your comprehension skills. But hey, I was waiting for the word twisting. (smh) so friggin predictable. Discredit, mock, remove from the “heard mentality” so that no one else starts thinking. STandard strategy.

          • Really? Ok.
            Cut and paste where I said the EXACT words you’re putting in my mouth. I’ll wait.

          • I’ll take that as acquiescence.
            You’ve served your purpose child, consider yourself dismissed. And yes I know you’ll keep posting and yes I know you’re a legend in your own mind and you’ll keep thinking that there’s no possible way that I could ignore YOU. But I can.
            Laters. 🙂

          • OK sorry that you’re mad about mythical conspiracies; doesn’t excuse your breathtaking hypocrisy or unjustified self-righteousness, though!

          • You describe yourself with precision. The mark of a loser in a debate or an election is when the loser starts accusing the winner of his or her own failures and conduct, becomes irrationally personal (and cannot even figure out to make smiley faces without help.)

          • Kinda like you’re doing here? And yes, “I know you are but what am I” IS gradeschool. But hey, if the shoe fits? Lace that badboy up drone.

          • AAAAAAnd we go right to this again.
            Don’t you sheep have any other responses when you don’t have a response?

          • He is far worse than oblivious. I doubt that he even understands the word. But he will continue emphasizing the importance of ‘him’ and his ridiculous semi-political opinions.

          • It appears to be easier for a person like yourself to be rude as well as wrong and misleading when you hide behind Discus anonymity. If you are actually old enough to vote and American and registered to vote, it is very clear that your vote, like your voice online, will be minimally significant other than as a rapidly disappearing footnote in electoral history.

          • You’re just as much a drone as he is. You’ll vote for whoever they tell you to. NO voice is insignificant. Our first president tried to warn us about the pitfalls of the party system and no one listened to him either.
            Don’t worry about me, I’m in good company with a clear conscience. The same cannot be said for you.

          • Each of your comments is trollish and demonstrably wrong. You make allegations without facts or data and make personal attacks without even cleverness or signs of intelligence.

          • Fact, The Southern states favor Shrilary. The Northern states favor Sanders. The west is tight. right now the south has been having their primaries.
            Fact, the Clintons have a verifiable history of double dealing and questionable coincidence. Sanders has been saying the same thing the same way for decades where Hilary will say whatever she thinks she has to to get the vote.
            Fact, the super delegates pledged to Clinton before ANY of the primaries started.
            Fact, this is rigging the nomination. The parties put who they want out there, Period.

          • The last thing we want is for Bernie to drop out and not compete in CA. Here is why. The CA primary is screwy in that it is an open primary where all of the candidates are listed and only the two of the largest vote getters then proceed to the general regardless of party. Expect record primary turnout for the GOP. If the democratic side is not contested many will not bother to turn out which will lead to contests in November where Dems will not be on the ballot even in dark blue districts. You could even see 2 Republicans running for US Senate and House seats. Even if Bernie wins big and manages to surpass Hillary in pledged delegates there is no chance the Superdelagates will switch. This nomination was decided more than a year ago when 400+ Superdelegates committed to Hillary before any primary votes were cast. Do yourself and Hillary a favor and shut up for now. Their will be plenty of time to take victory laps and gloat later.

          • Again, Sanders is not losing because of super delegates; he’s losing because far less people have voted for him. It’s that simple.

          • You are obviously a retard. You did not read my post before responding. Do you think it is good idea to have all Republicans on the CA ballot down ticket in November? Pull your head of your ass, please.

          • I did read your post; what you wrote was wrong:

            This nomination was decided more than a year ago when 400+ Superdelegates committed to Hillary before any primary votes were cast.

            This is an idiotic claim. The nomination was decided when WAY MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR CLINTON; the supers are not why Sanders is losing.
            Sorry that you think that mindlessly insulting people will make what you said less dumb – it won’t, though.

          • Hey idiot.

            I am no longer talking about why the DNC rigged this primary. I am trying to explain you how important it is that Bernie and Hillary campaign and challenge each other in CA so that Democrats finish 1 or 2 in each of the down ticket elections. Otherwise we will not have any democrats running in CA in November because of the screwy primary system in CA that only selects the two top vote getters to run in the gGeneral in November regardless of party(not in the Presidential) . There are going to be a gazillion Republicans turning out to decide Trumps fate. We need to match that turnout or traditionally Dem seats will go GOP. If Bernie concedes early then to many Dems and indies will will stay home. Hillary will be the nominee unless she gets indicted. We get it. Spread the word to all progressives to make sure they fully participate in CA primary.

          • Hey insulting guy; I don’t care. You said something that was 100% false and I pointed it out. Maybe if you stopped lying people would take you seriously?

          • You should care. Hillary will not accomplish anything legislatively without a Dem House and Senate. Do you want GOP Senators and House Reps from CA? Do you want CA to be full of GOP state office holders?

          • Also you are 100% wrong about the law in California; it specifically does NOT apply to Presidential elections.

          • That is what I said but thank god you seem to be getting it through your brain how important a competitive primary between Bernie and Hillary in CA is for the party. The presidential race is over. I hope she draws Trump otherwise she is going to get killed. Trump will be tight race.

          • To be fair I don’t really bother to read what you write, since you’re both abusive and obnoxiously wrong about everything.

          • Yes it applies to all of other primary elections that are going on that day on that ballot. Now do you understand why we need Hillary to battle with Bernie there on June 7? We need the dem turnout for the other elections THAT DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
            Sheez.

          • Lastly, the DNC did not “rig” the election; Sanders lost because he never did anything about the huge demographics that didn’t care for him – Latinos because he voted against immigration reform, and African Americans, who prefer Clinton’s stronger civil rights record.

          • She failed at healthcare reform partly because of Bernie – he was so determined to get single-payer going when Hillary was working to get a national healthcare law going, that he syphoned off a handful of legislators to his failed cause and then refused to support her effort at getting a healthcare law going or let his supporters vote for her either.

            But she didn’t fully fail at getting some healthcare going, she’s the one who negotiated the creation of CHIP, And she’s nowhere near the loser that you losers try to make her out to be!! (if any people are losers these days it’s idiots like you!!)

            From the SunSentinel endorsement of Hillary’s campaign:

            Overall, however, Hillary Clinton is smart, steady and able to rebound quickly from defeat. When her attempt at health care reform failed during her husband’s first term, Clinton worked with senators from both parties – Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican Orrin Hatch — to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which cut the uninsured rate of American children in half. More than eight million children have coverage because of the program.

            And this:

            Critics who claim Clinton has no record of accomplishment despite her sparkling resume need to look closer at her record.

            She helped secure more than $21 billion for World Trade Center redevelopment. She led investigations into the health problems of 9/11 first responders. She promoted increased National Institutes of Health funding for research into cancer and asthma. She was the principal author of sanctions – particularly on oil imports to the European Union — that brought Iran to the negotiating table. She helped bring about a 2012 cease-fire between Hamas and Israel that headed off an Israeli invasion of Gaza. She named an “ambassador at large” for women’s rights.

            “Nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama’s second term,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., “has Secretary Clinton’s fingerprints on it.”

            http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/endorsements/fl-editorial-hillary-gs0306-20160304-story.html

          • She did NOT do those things. All she did was broker the compromise to simply attaching her name to it.
            Yet again, someone being told what to think and trying to pass it off as original thought.
            The ACA was SUPPOSED to be the first steps to single payer. What it ended up being was a captive consumer base for the insurance companies and a dozen get out of jail free cards.

          • It proves that I actually paid attention at the time to what was happening instead of letting someone else tell me what to think.

          • The facts for the left-right paradigm are just as evident as the damage we’ve done to our climate. All you have to do is stop doing as you are told, open your eyes, and THINK!

          • And if you’re looking for a really big loser, his name is Bernie Sanders. Hillary accomplished more in her 8 years as a senator than Bernie has accomplished in all his years in Congress.
            And unfortunately, he’s turned into someone very close to a Mitt Romney – he campaigns on promises he can’t deliver or on the wrong issues.

            See this from the NYTimes:

            Sanders Over the Edge

            From the beginning, many and probably most liberal policy wonks were skeptical about Bernie Sanders. On many major issues — including the signature issues of his campaign, especially financial reform — he seemed to go for easy slogans over hard thinking. And his political theory of change, his waving away of limits, seemed utterly unrealistic.

            Some Sanders supporters responded angrily when these concerns were raised, immediately accusing anyone expressing doubts about their hero of being corrupt if not actually criminal. But intolerance and cultishness from some of a candidate’s supporters are one thing; what about the candidate himself?

            Unfortunately, in the past few days the answer has become all too clear: Mr. Sanders is starting to sound like his worst followers. Bernie is becoming a Bernie Bro. Let me illustrate the point about issues by talking about bank reform.

            The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?

            Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point.

            Yet going on about big banks is pretty much all Mr. Sanders has done. On the rare occasions on which he was asked for more detail, he didn’t seem to have anything more to offer. And this absence of substance beyond the slogans seems to be true of his positions across the board.

            For more on Bernie’s snakeoil salesmanship, go here:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?_r=0

          • Why are you hiding behind other people’s instructions on how you should think? Do you think this validates your position? Do your own research and find out just how far off these “news sources” are about both sides. AND look at their ownership.

          • By the way, are you aware of Bernie’s radical past?

            This for example:

            Sanders served as an elector for the Socialist Workers Party, which was founded on the principles of Leon Trotsky. According to the New York Times, that party called for abolishing the military budget. It also called for “solidarity” with the revolutionary regimes in Iran, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Cuba; this was in the middle of the Iranian hostage crisis.

            If Sanders ever truly supported disbanding the Army and defunding the Defense Department, he abandoned these positions when he got into national politics. Nevertheless, Republicans will be able to run ads saying that Sanders was part of a communist political party that called for eliminating the military budget, and fact-checkers will not be able to contradict them.

            Or this:

            In the 1970s, Sanders chaired the left-libertarian Liberty Union Party and competed in two Senate campaigns and two gubernatorial campaigns under its banner. “Liberty Union calls for a reduction of the U.S. military,” said the party’s statement of principles. That’s a wholly reasonable position, but it continued, “A return to the system of local citizen militias and Coast Guard would provide our nation with ample protection and also protect us from the imperialist impulses of our leaders.” That sounds a lot like getting rid of America’s standing Army.

            Go here for more on Bernie the GOP could use against him:

            http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/bernie_sanders_radical_past_would_haunt_him_in_a_general_election.html

          • … and? The founding fathers didn’t WANT a standing army. Jefferson argued VEHEMENTLY against. it. Right now we have military bases all over the globe. How is that defending our country? It isn’t. It’s perpetuating an empire.
            Oh and the Socialist Workers Party during that time opposed the Vietnam war, held rallies for the legalization of safe abortion. AND worked for strikes to improve the conditions of coal miners.
            The far right has gone to great lengths to make words such as “socialist”, “elite”, “excellence”, and “educated” to be bad things. They are anything but. They are the very ideals this country was built on.

          • Like I just told Rich a couple comments above: Sure, you’d just love calling Putin ‘Comrade’ wouldn’t you. Only people as ignorant as you believe America could have survived the past 50 years as it is without it’s world-dominating standing army!!! Someone was correct when they said “There’s a fool born every minute.”

          • You really have bought into all the crap that’s been spewed since the 1950s. Fine, you’re the enemy. Happy now?

          • Sure, you’d just love calling Putin ‘Comrade’ wouldn’t you. Only people as ignorant as you believe America could have survived the past 50 years as it is without it’s world-dominating standing army!!! Someone was correct when they said “There’s a fool born every minute.”

          • Someone’s also correct when they tell you to calm down, you quavering, fearful hysteric.

      • But, my anonymous friend, it does mean that it was both right and that it was futile. People hear BS about ‘the lesser of two or three evils still being evil’ ignore the reality that the best of the available viable candidates is still the best available candidate. In this case, if Sanders does not get nominated, the best available candidate for advancing the progressive movement will be Hillary Clinton.

        • We don’t know that. WhY? Because we’re not in the general election yet and we don’t know who all the candidates are. And no, the D’s and R’s are not the only “viable” candidates.

          • Again, the other candidates you keep calling “viable” are absolutely not viable; they have an insignificant fraction of the total vote. The Greens, for example, didn’t even manage 500K votes in 2012; Obama got around 66 million.

          • The Green party, the Constitution party, The LIbertarians. and two independent candidates had a debate that the Democrats and Republicans were invited to that covered all the pertinent issues, including the ones that the Dems and GOP agree on. They hid.
            Jill Stein showed up to the 1st presidential debate as a presidential candidate on the ballot in 48 states and was escorted off the premises and arrested for disturbing the peace and trespassing.
            These are not the actions of someone that considers another insignificant. These are the actions of fear. You are told that you WILL vote for either Democrat or Republican. Because of that you follow what you are told and ignore all else.
            You keep spouting these figures as if they justify your brainwashing when all they do is underscore it.
            The Left and Right wings of the vulture are terrified of the independent parties and will do anything, spend any amount (over a trillion a year) to make you believe that they are not to be looked at.
            Why? Because they know what will happen if you do.

          • Because they constitute one or two percent of the electorate, in total. Because they have demonstrated over and over that they cannot build a constituency, like you say, not enough believe in what you say to make a difference except perhaps as a spoiler from time to time, usually to the great detriment of US democracy an populist control of the government.

          • You’re still proving my point and you can’t even see it. You are being told who you can and cannot vote for.

          • You’re just stuck in posting that hogwash comment, aren’t you?? You’re the one that’s been brainwashed.

          • I’m not the one who is accepting that I HAVE to vote for only one of two people when I can damn well see there are more.

          • This issue isn’t as much whom you’re voting for this election cycle, as much as whom you’re determined should not get elected. So if people are totally clueless like you, they totally ignore the great danger that a GOP candidate would present for the American way of life, and are determined to throw away their vote on a minor party candidate who doesn’t have a prayer of even getting close to being elected. So it’s idiots like you who are determined to just THROW AWAY YOUR VOTE!!!

          • If either the GOP or the Dems are “in control” this country is in danger. Why can’t you see that? You’re just as bad as the GOP with your false “Us. vs Them” mentality. The Dems and GOP agree on 80% of the issues that affect this country. And what they’ve been doing with that 80% is the issues. But hey, drink your koolaid. “they” will drink their tea and the rest of us will suffer for it.
            I mean hey, that’s what you want.

          • I’m not the ignorant one here slick. I’m the one who actually sees the options available. You’re the one with the pre programmed tunnel vision.

          • Really?? For me, anyone who wastes his votes on a 3rd party candidate who will likely get less than 5% of the vote is nothing short of insane!!! You belong in an asylum if you think any 3rd party candidate is really a ‘viable candidate’. That is beyond stupid!!!!!

          • … and we’re back to you proving my point again.
            You were told there are ONLY two people you can vote for, therefore, there are only two people to vote for.
            What is beyond stupid is believing that your vote counts for anything thinking like that. You aren’t making any decision. It’s being made for you.

          • Wasting a vote on a GUARANTEED LOSER is simply beyond stupid and borders on the INSANE!! GOODBYE! I refuse to blog any longer with someone who is outright stupid!!!

          • Then you should turn your computer off and never sign on again. I’d also avoid all mirrors if you really don’t want to see someone who is outright stupid.
            Nice to know you can do as you’re told though. At least NOW we’ve gotten an honest answer out of you.

          • I could have somewhat accepted your position 3-4 decades ago before Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and a number of other wacko right-wingers completely corrupted America’s politics. But the situation has gotten so dire today with so much at stake with respect to the long term survivability of America as many of us have known it; that deliberately throwing away one’s vote on someone who it is clear is not going to even come close to winning an election, is in my mind, almost criminal.

            We simply cannot afford to not defeat the candidates representing the Devil’s party, aka the GOP. Even if the alternative vote isn’t exactly whom you’d wish was running; every vote is critical and has to be concentrated on stopping the GOP from maintaining or getting more control of America.

            Even just the enormous income inequality we have today is the doings of Ronald Reagan and the GOP – it’s imperative to stop the GOP from destroying the American middle class any more than it already has. See how the income inequality really skyrocketed with Reagan in the attached graph – and look at what the inequality was like back in 2010:

          • Good thing for me the constitution guarantees that it is NOT criminal and that you cannot force me to vote any other way than I want.
            I can, however, be convinced.
            And you know what it’ll take.

          • And despite your mindlessness, the problems we have today are in no way the doings of the Democrats. Our economy significantly performs much better under Dems (job growth and gdp under every dem president since Hoover has been better than under every republican) :

          • “Facts are stubborn. But statistics are more pliable” ~ Mark Twain.
            “There are two kinds of statistics. Those you look up and those you make up” ~ Rex Stout.
            The economy expands and contracts on a predictable basis. That is all your “statistics” show. They offer no validity to one party being more fiscally responsible than the other. The difference is that only one actually claims to be (when neither one are).

        • Hillary is not any kind of progressive (Google Hillary NPR Interview 1996). She supports trickle down economics, corporations rights superseding the
          rights of the individual, Wall Street over main street, more wars and
          human suffering through more US military interventions for the
          betterment of the military complex, the removal of democratically
          elected leaders in other nations so that US businesses may benefit,
          which are all policies that Hillary stands for. She will never get my vote. I will write in Bernie first. If I could not write in Bernie I would vote Jill Stein or the Green Party candidate.

          The unpledged delegates will decide who the Democratic Party nominee will be. They will be the deciding factor on who wins in November.

          • A write-in for Bernie or anyone else or a vote for Jill Stein will be a betrayal of everything that Bernie has stood for and that we Bernie supporters have worked so hard for this past year.

          • Then the Democratic party should start to get serious about keeping the support only Bernie can convince us that she isn’t as bad as anyone from my old party.

          • Perhaps we should call Unpledged delegates as seeming to be “Unplugged” delegates.

            They seem to have finally plugged into public opinion in the 2008 election, and suspect they finally will in this election.

            We hope to convince the currently elected representatives (that are almost exclusively party/Hillary supporters) that, while we are glad they at least accomplished 75% to 85% of what we support, we will support anyone we see as even more Progressive.

            There are a few key issues like climate change, allowing solar a fairer playing field, and “real” regulation of fracking, that will tip us away from them if they don’t consider our concerns and take advantage of the public support we hope to make it not only easier for them to support but imperative to do so.

    • “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc284ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc284:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsMagazineGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc284……….

  9. This is the cold hard truth that Democrats will have to deal with.
    Most of us who support Sanders aren’t Democrats. HE was the ONLY way we would have voted Democrat.
    That has been thrown away. You don’t want us? No problem. Come the general election you will be promising anything that you think we want to sway us. Then after the election you’ll forget about us again.
    Well, that’s how it used to go. There are a LOT more than 6% of us now and we are not voting for D or R.
    Sorry Dems, ya blew it.

    • Yes yes you’re very important, if only we had ignored the popular vote and just awarded the candidacy to the loser instead of the winner. What will we do without you.

      • Look troll we get it. You’re a Shrilary drone. You think that if you insult, berate and mock people that you’re going to make us vote for your candidate.
        Not going to happen. She probably will be the Democrat candidate. But it’s not because of the “will of the people”. It’s because of Bill’s Cell phone. 😉

          • I get that you are incapable of mounting an argument and merely want to shout at and insult people for not understanding how Righteous you are; I just don’t care.

          • And yet here you are begging for my attention. Go away. I’m starting to think you LIKE being made to look the fool you are. (shrugs) I have no problem with that.

          • Yeah, that’s why I laughing at you doing exactly what you’re supposed to do. 😉

          • Ah yes, the ever-popular “I’m just laughing at you!” gambit. That might work one day.

          • Welcome to that day slick. And when you reply (and you will reply) try harder. Your comebacks have gone from programed and predictable to boring.

          • Funny how people like you always go to that as the default. I’m making perfect sense. I mean right now I’m mocking you and you’re too stupid to get half of what I’m saying to YOU, but that’s your problem. Others reading get it.
            They also get that you are the poster child for the corporately brainwashed sheep voter. You can justify ANYTHING and ignore all sorts of crime just because you’ve been told to do so.
            And good job boy (scratches your ear), at least you’re back up to predictable.

          • Yes yes it’s all a conspiracy. WAKE UP SHEEPLE & etc. Sorry your candidate legitimately lost; not my fault & don’t care.

          • Blue is simply a troll. Likely from India practicing his English, and making pennies per post.

          • It does not even require a very extensive research to find on Wikipedia a definition of Internet Troll that describes you to a T. Deflecting comments into personal attacks on candidates, making arguments personal when facts fail and consuming the time and energy of people who have something of intelligence and value to present to the public, distracting and denying. But you are only doing a good job because it is a slow news day for me and King.

        • Normally, the first person to call the second a troll, is a troll being defensive. The diminutive reference to Clinton stopped being cute a couple of months ago. The only mockery I have seen here has been justifiable mockery of you. Your insistence that you don’t care at the same time you continue to attack and respond to reason with your blather is trollish in itself.

          • I’m an ass. The only time most people are honest is when they get pissed. You’re not even close so you’re still lying. When you get your head out of your ass and actually start getting to the point, THEN I’ll stop the ass part. Not until.

          • Whoops, you just did it again. Will not argue with your being an ass of a troll or troll of an ass.

    • Your effort to convey a tone of authority is belied by your unwillingness to disclose who you really are. Hiding behind anonymity immediately reduces your credibility and authenticity by more than half. You are a minority of a minority within the Sanders campaign. The sanders or bust and never Hillary whines are a sign of incompetence in both political awareness and common sense.

      The progressive movement generated by Bernie and the rest of us this year is not and was not ever about an event or a single election. The movement is a process that will continue regardless of who is nominated or elected this year. The simple truth to which you allege is that there are two or perhaps three viable candidates if Clinton wins the nomination, Clinton, Trump and Cruz.

      Of those three viable candidates, only one person will work with us to continue the progress we have made rather than do everything he can to destroy our past and future work, that is Hillary Clinton. So spew on with your denial and attacks, encouraging the destruction of both the progressive movement and the one possible home for it, the Democratic Party.

      God knows, my anonymous Discus friend, no one would ever expect you to continue the hard work of growth and conversion to bring about change. We realize that it is so much easier for you and your few friends to just walk away pouting and promising the revolution that you do not have the heart or cajones for.

      • The founding fathers used anonymity to convey a message without the entanglements of the cult of personality working either for or against it.
        And we don’t know what all the candidates are yet. And as for that revolution? Where do you think this movement came from? We’ve been working against the left-right paradigm as long as the megacorporations have been using them to control you.
        It’s not about titles or parties or terms. It’s about who is best for the job and no, it’s not about just this election. The one guy in the WH is a great target, but the 535 on the hill are where the changes really need to happen. Until we replace them there is no way to reinstate the treasury to its duties instead of the reserve doing it and there is no hope of eradicating the lobbies.
        This is a long game. And voting for whoever you’re told to vote for is NOT part of it.

      • Every Bernie supporter – money and votes – I know, intends to gladly vote for Hil. Thinking otherwise indicates that poorly sourced 3rd hand data is being used. Voters for Bernie are less like the cartoons the media gives us than any camp I’ve known or been part of.

        • Then you don’t know about 20% of those that will not under any circumstances.

          We are 5th Generation Republicans turned No Party Preference 20 years ago, and Democrat last week (me), and last month (my wife), Like many of the new or other party voters that are registering as Democrats for this California Primary, where I think 80% of us go after the primary depends a great deal on what Bernie suggests. He doesn’t control us, and certainly not the 20% who will only support him.

          How much difference has those who have already switched at least temporarily made?

          Hillary was ahead in Indiana polls, but lost it. She was ahead of Bernie by 6% in the last Field poll for California, but consider this.

          She was ahead by:
          63% in Feb 2015
          57% in May 2015
          12% in Oct 2015 (long before registration ended in NY but not CA)
          11% in Jan 2016
          6% in April 2016

          That poll was before we got a majority of new or temporary Democrats hoping to have a voice expressed for their communities in our (1 of 80) state Democratic delegate selection caucus.

          Wait until we see how many Republicans want major changes, but would rather the Non-Trump change enabler (Bernie), sign up to stop the corporate dependent Hillary from inflicting TPP on us.

      • Ahh… you must be a Party supporter above all else. I personally place country before any Party. You think that we only have two options which is one who only sees what the Republican and Democratic Parties want you to see. yet there are so many complaints from Party loyalists about Ralph Nader. Guess what? We do have other options.besides voting for Party.

        our options are voting our values, our morals, and our principles. Hillary supports trickle down economics, corporations rights over the rights of the individual, Wall Street over main street, more wars and human suffering by the expansion of US military involvement that will enrich the military complex, the removal of democratically elected leaders in other nations for the betterment of US businesses, and the interference in other countries legislative process that would hurt the poor to help enrich US manufacturing. All of these actions I could never support so Hillary would never get my vote.

        Why you would vote for the continuing demise of the middle class to enrich the 1% is your business, but to call it progress is to deny reality, or at least a major part of it. What progress do you speak of? LBGT rights? Those are rights that they worked and for on their own and in part received many many of the 1% are or have gay friends and/or family. Voting rights are diminishing for the poor, which gives more control of the 1% over the political process.

        So just what progress are you talking about? The only real progress I see is the top 1% and their wealth growing at the cost to everyone else. All the rest of the wealthy industrialized nations in the world see health care and education as a right, which shows in their superior overall results in those two areas. All I see is the US falling farther and farther behind in comparison to the rest of the wordl, that is except our wealthy are seeing their wealth grow at leaps and bounds compared to all the wealthy in the rest of the world.

        Nope, you will not ever see my vote go for the continuation of the status quo. if I couldn’t write in Bernie, I would vote Jill Stein of the Green Party. If Bernie does not win the Democratic Party nomination I will leave the Democratic Party and throw my support, both financially and morally, behind the Green Party. The DNC can get their funding form those they represent, the bankers, Wall Street and the top 1%.

        #bernieorbust

  10. Leonard, Leonard, Leonard. Bullshit. You are creating a crisis that will not exist by the time of the nomination there will be much disappointment if Sanders does not win. By the time of the general election most of us supporting Sanders, especially the Democrats, will be supporting Clinton if she is the nominee who is most likely move us toward the restoration of democracy in both the Democratic Party and the country at large.
    Sanders supporters will stay loyal to the movement that we and Sanders together have built from the building blocks of Occupy Wall Street, the earlier WTO protests in Seattle and Black Lives Matter in this election. We will stay true the progress that has come from the ‘Warren Wing’ of the party and of the Progressive Caucus that Bernie has helped to build.
    If Clinton is nominated, we will work to build a progressive platform and to elect her and a slate of progressive candidates from city council to Congress across the country. We will use the building movement and keep pressure on Clinton and her administration from allowing the restoration of the party to the neoliberalism that has been corrupting America and the party for decades.

    • I concur that the article is somewhat alarmist and click-baity. There’s nothing that unusual about the numbers of Sanders supporters claiming they won’t vote for Clinton – in fact, there were polls showing exactly the same thing about Clinton supporters in 2008 (I believe an even higher percentage), and in the end most of them did vote for Obama.

      There’s definitely a very loud contingent of anti-Hillary supporters (or people pretending to be the same) in the Sanders camp; I suspect almost none of them were originally Democrats or progressives (many appear to have previously been Ron Paul supporters). I doubt that this article will change a single one of their minds, however.

      • Let me get this straight. You actually want to make the case that the Sanders supporters aren’t in the progressive camp at all, and are largely Ron Paul libertarian Republicans.

        You stupid, duplicitous, deceitful, lying, a$$hole. You know full well that’s sheer BS, and you’re the same guy who once told me that you didn’t care whether Hillary was progressive or not. I questioned you at the time and wondered why you weren’t making the case that she really is progressive. You told me, “why should I?” Remember that? I know you’ll lie about it, because that’s just what you do. I remember it though.

        • Yes that was EXACTLY something I didn’t write, crazy person. Sorry that you have enormous problems with basic literacy!

        • Also I love that you not only invented a strawman here, but brought back a previous failed strawman from months ago. You are nuts.

      • It will be the unpledged delegates at the Democratic Convention that will make the determination of who will represent the Party come November. Bernie does far better in every poll against any Republican candidate because he has a much wider base and Hillary will definitely energize the Republicans. Even Rubio has endorsed Trump because of Hillary. If the unpledged delegates take Hillary as their candidate of choice and they were wrong about Bernie supporters falling in line, then you will see a Republican President that will be the fault of the unpledged delegates choice.

        This election cycle is most certainly different from the one in 2008. Bernie has had record numbers of people at his rally’s and has proven that he can campaign without funding from the 1%. That means he clearly has a huge following of the middle and lower classes that fervently supported him by giving what little they have extra. These people will not fall in line to vote against everything that Bernie and they stand for. Hillary and the Republicans are everything they stand against. I wouldn’t count on very many Bernie supporters voting for Hillary, ever, for it would be a vote against everything they believe in.

        • Nope; it’ll be the pledged delegates, as it has been every single time. Bernie might have “record” numbers of people at his rallies (not actually true), but what he doesn’t have is voter support.

          • We’re working on that, and getting many persistent Progressives that will stay the course even after the election (whoever wins) to reign in the “Super Predators” of Wall Street, end Citizens United, and take us back to at least the Progressive policies that kept us on a rising path earlier in our history.

          • Ah, so you want the agenda Clinton has been pushing since 2008. Good news, then – she’s going to be the candidate!

          • How wrong could you possibly get? You should get out more, and talk to real people.

          • You mean the happy talk, while Bernie did more of the actual walk than she did, no matter how much spin the DNC tries to put on it?

            We do appreciate some areas Hillary has contributed her leverage to get supported and passed, but are so completely against her likely real desire to pass the secretly negotiated, super corporate predator enabling, TPP.

            Happy talk about ending Citizens United sounds good, but she still plays the game with huge donations. Bernie has been proving that you can do so much better with real people by not taking their money.

            Perhaps Hillary’s accepting so much from the big donors (still only 1/5th of what Republican Billionaires and Millionaires give their candidates and benefiting from some super pacs (not as much as Republicans and corrupted mass media), has helped raised the much more “grown up” debates on the Democratic side.

            Both Hillary and Bernie might not have had the greater public exposure (and support), if they didn’t have each other to bounce off of.

            Perhaps I should look at more like a “good” cop, “bad” cop combination that is still much better than an all “bad” cop team like my old party has become so much closer to.

            P.S. TPP is like no cops, just corporate “enforcers,” hence our fear of it ever getting passed (and signature issue where the greatest disagreement exists).

            Hillary does at least come closer, at least in words, on even more important issues like Citizens United, where I would hope we could more easily overcome our mistrust.

          • Baseless? Conspiracy theory?

            Now why would anyone think that after 5 years of secret negotiations where only 600 or so corporate schemers get to decide how to write the rules massively in their favor.

            Then they also want to take the “arbitration” fiascos transnational in a subset of countries that want to skip the broader pesky rules of the more comprehensive world wide agencies like the WTO (which is already bad enough, as in terminating Country Of Origin Labeling “COOL” requirements).

            They want to add even more coercive massive lawsuits for loss of potential profits, seemingly to be made easier than the Keystone XL $15 Billion suit.

            When do real people get to sue the transnationals with any hint of fairness, much less equal power?

            Perhaps it is because many more people are becoming critical thinkers and rejecting the deals that not even the legislators can get enough access to (locked in a limited access room, allowing no notes to be taken), and which the public only gets frightening hints of through some leaked sections.

            Who do you expect to trust that process?

            P.S. I find myself smiling more than ever now, confidant that the worst of the big money powered politics in both parties may win another battle, but will lose the war much sooner than you think.

          • You stated; “Bernie might have “record” numbers of people at his rallies (not actually true),”. Please post primaries rally’s that have produced bigger numbers that Bernie. Facts please.

            Voter support? Are states that have caucus’s have their votes counted the same way as the states that have primary states? If not, then how can you state what an accurate count is?

            Further note that lawsuits have been filed in at least two states that are primary states because of voter suppression and election fraud, New York and Arizona.

            Further note that exit polling has not been close to the actual election results. When exit polls are that far off in foreign countries elections, that is a clear sign of election fraud. This seems to be the case in numerous states. It should be incumbent of all Parties to ensure that there are verifiable paper ballots in every election and should be taken up as national legislation.

          • OK sorry, I’m not really interested in arguing with a conspiracy theorist for whom no amount of evidence will be enough.

      • Why we want a newly conceived Universal Open Primary Ballot (UOPB)

        I think you are right about many of them not having been Democrats, which to me is a good thing. Most of us see the Democratic party as more willing to (or desperate to) draw in all the disenfranchised real people (including a lot of moderate Republicans effectively kicked out of our old party).

        Does the Democratic party want to remain top down (though less so than my old party), or do they want greater, broad and deep, bottom participation that comes from listening to the many people that like some parts of what Ron Paul, for example, championed.

        I think we met a higher percentage of Ron Paul supporters at the Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Riverside, etc, general assemblies. The assemblies were very diverse, including Peace and Freedom, and Green party supporters, for example. When you add up all of those that support such smaller parties (we’ve had something like 92 in our history) and the current 40% plus true independents/No Party Preference in California, you get a lot of people with concerns that are not being sufficiently addressed by the Democratic (or Republican party).

        We think it is time to give them a bigger voice, and better opportunity to see issues they agree on within other groups.

        A Universal Open Primary Ballot (in addition to any single party ballots a party might want to continue using) would seem a way to improve that. List all candidates that gather the required signatures (like 3% of the number of voters in the last off year or 4 year election) from their parties (or no party) and provide the number of signatures gathered by a cut off date on a voter information pamphlet before the election (as California does).

        The two major parties would probably want to keep their exclusive ballots to better control selection of their list of candidates.

        We wouldn’t change that, but the party might be more enlightened in their selection if they see surprising results on the UOPB, like their party members picking some candidates from different parties, and like Bernie, whom of their candidates can bring far more voters and votes their way.

        It would be up to the party on how they want to use the information, perhaps as a weighted/handicapped influence somewhat like super delegates, but representing far more real people.

        No matter how much or little the major parties would choose to use the information, the minor parties, and under represented real people, could see who might be effective allies in the general election.

        • I think we should simply remove caucuses, which serve no purpose but to disenfranchise voters. Of course, Sanders would have lost almost immediately without caucuses. There’s no particular advantage in making the primaries open.

          • King says “…There’s no particular advantage in making the primaries open…”

            I think you should ask some of the hundred that voted in our district’s Bernie delegate selection caucus.

            Even the few veteran Democratic party members were surprised to learn what I did by asking as many people as I could. I’d say most were like My wife and I, very recently registered Democrats (me a week, my wife a month), coming from very diverse background (No Party Preference, Green Party, Libertarians, lapsed Republicans, etc). Some were very concerned that registering as a Democrat (to participate in the delegate selection, and vote for Bernie in the Primary) would be hard to reverse if Democrats don’t respond to the will of the real people. We explained they only had to be registered as Democrats in time to vote in the Bernie delegate caucus, and could switch back to (or select) No Party Preference for the Primary (if they wanted to vote for Bernie on the Democratic Party Primary ballot).

            Republicans accept no one but their own registered party members, so they would not have that bit of an extra opportunity to influence the party selection.

            The Democrats are the only major party to allow the NPP people (like my wife had been for 20 years after giving up our old party 5 generations had been loyal to) to participate in the middle selection process, (Democrats only for delegate selection, NPP and Democrats for the “middle” Primary, then, finally, everyone left that they can get in the General Election).

            If they even hint of throwing all of us willing to participate in the initial process (delegate selection), middle (primary), final election (General election), and much stronger, wider based support than Obama ever got (except perhaps the financial and health insurance profit privatizers) under the bus, they will have many more determined opponents than just the ones of us so disappointed by how limited and compromised Obama was either forced or chose to be.

            I wouldn’t blame him too much, given the rabid opposition from what my old party turned into, but his appointees have been atrocious in too many cases to think that all of it was forced on him.

            We never want to see either party force the even worse ones on us like Cheney/Bush, or the finance and trade ringers that are supposed to be slightly more tolerable.

            P.S. I only talked to 25 or so, including about 12 of the 20 candidates considering running to become one of the 5 Bernie delegates, and visitors that didn’t or couldn’t vote, but wanted to learn more how they could get a more active in expressing their personal and community agendas. I’m sure there were more that Democrats are rather clueless about.

          • Yeah, anecdotes don’t really prove anything. There’s no particular reason why the Democratic Party should open the primaries to just anyone, and strong reasons not to.

          • Keep on ignoring ground truth at your peril.

            I am a big fan of the way Tim Russert and his team checked with lower echelon people (the ones that don’t get the talking points memos), others that were often mid level civil service, or industry types that did the nuts and bolts work, and interested local observers.

            They may be “anecdotes” you’d like to dismiss or suppress, but when he and his team compiled them into articulate overall observations and questions to the would be spin doctors and talking heads, a much truer picture developed.

          • Do you have a better place to start? We didn’t invent the system, and are just looking for something more civil than just protesting and having ideas and concerns exchanged more productively than just feeling good about the many people we find that want very much more representation.

            I haven’t thought much about caucuses per se, but it did seem more like New England Town meetings, which to me, in their best form, letting everyone have their say and concrete actions were initiated more in line with the will of the real people.

            Can you show me working examples of anything better?

          • How about for delegate selection? And, no, it isn’t obvious that you skip the local interaction at an earlier stage than primaries that have had the potential candidates whittled down to too restricted choices.

          • Tax payer funding is why. If the Democratic and Republican Party’s want closed primaries, then no tax payer funding and each Party can fund their own primary. Tax payer funded primaries then should be open primaries to the tax payer.

          • OK sure. That doesn’t have anything to do with what we were talking about, but if you want to disenfranchise the poor so badly don’t let me stop you.

          • And the very fact that you’re using a CAUCUS to argue about opening the primaries is jaw-dropping. If you were in any way serious about actually making the primaries fairer, and not simply trying to retroactively change the rules so that Sanders can be competitive, you’d be calling for their removal well before opening the primaries to everyone.

          • You have to start somewhere, to actually do something.

            Even as an old republican fan of Herbert Hoover (who’s picture was on the wall of the Baily Building and Loan, i It’s a Wonderful Life,by the way), I greatly appreciated the initial rumblings in the Occupy Movement “General Assemblies” that reminded me of New England Town Meetings.

            Everyone got 3 minutes to voice their concerns and suggestions.

            Great for hearing from everyone, but with no specific action path. Seems many of those that participated in Occupy Movements, stayed interested, interested others that were too unsure of what could be done that early, etc, kept at it and in some small way influenced many more to find some way to take action that would get the attention of the major parties.

            You might be surprised by how many of the original Tea Party movement share our concerns (not the sponsored Tea Party’s) and seem to show up to take some action they hope will be more effective than just blogging.

          • Why does anything need to be done at all? The Democratic primaries are about as fair as it’s possible to be; the only improvement that needs to be made is to remove caucuses. In this particular primary, true, they have been a little lop-sided – Sanders has way more delegates than he should have got.

          • If New York had allowed something less than 6 months previous registration, and had accepted the huge percentage of No Party Preference people that refuse to be too tightly bound to one party, Bernie would have gotten far more delegates.

            If the party doesn’t want most of the 40% plus “independents” that would rather vote for Democratic candidates that really will represent a much higher percentage of real people, than keep on trying to over control it.

            Seems most independents choose to caucus with Democrats over Republicans, so it seems you have far more potential supporters if you just simply start representing more of the real people.

          • And still lost. Also, FYI Clinton is way more likely to win an open primary than Sanders; she’s won ten so far, and he’s won four. Sanders is only in the race because of undemocratic caucuses.

    • You’re dreaming if you believe that either (a) Sanders supporters will ultimately stay loyal to the Democratic Party and support Clinton like nice little sheep, or (b) Clinton, if elected, will ever lift a finger to restore democracy to the Democratic Party. Clinton is the very EPITOME of the corrupting neoliberalism we are against, and we are not married to the Democratic Party. If Sanders wins this nomination, the Democratic Party might be restored as you describe. If he does not, all those progressive movements you mention will need to mobilize as far as possible from the Democratic Party, with or without Sanders, and continue to apply pressure in other ways.

      • It is not really a dream. I believe it is logic and reality. While many independents, especially new voters, may choose to write in Bernie or vote for Jill if Clinton is nominated with the majority of the earned primary votes, I think most Democrats who support Sanders will vote for Hillary if she receives the majority of earned delegates for the convention.

        While I agree with you about all of the Sanders supporters likely not being loyal to the Democratic since many have not been D voters in the past. I don’t think that those who do decide to vote for her can fairly be considered sheep but voters who looked at their alternatives and made a reasoned choice to vote for one or another candidate just like those who choose to write in Bernie or someone else.

        If, however, Bernie earns more delegates for the nomination through the primaries and caucuses and super-delegates over-ride the decision of the people, all bets are off for any support for Clinton by me and, likely, most Sanders supporters.

        I am sure that I am one of many Democrats who will be looking at my continued membership in the party if Clinton is nominated and elected. However, the votes for progressive Democratic House and Senate candidates and candidates, for Governors and Mayors and city and county council members and School board members are important regardless of who is elected president. Almost all of those progressive candidates are running as Democrats and on Democratic tickets. To desert them would be a betrayal of everything that Sanders has fought for.

  11. The one thing that Bernie did was change some of Hillary’s views and if she wins the nomination I hope she smart enough to take him as VP

    • That’s pretty unlikely – for a variety of reasons, the usual pattern for VP pick is to choose someone who’s at the other end of the age spectrum (in other words, Clinton is likely going to choose someone a fair bit younger than her, as Obama chose someone a fair bit older).

    • That is just silly. She wants assassination insurance not assassination assurance. That is the same reason she will not pick Warren.

    • I don’t believe it changed any of her views. It only changed what she said to get votes during these primaries.

  12. Bernie’s greatest accomplishment is to prove that people are waking up to the long con, and we can compete on the money if we hang together. We’ve shown that woke mortals can outraise even as great a power as the Clintons. We now know that we ARE players in this game if we determine to show up.

  13. “But the loss was fair and square and those citizens of Bernie Nation who can’t deal with that, who want to opt out of the system or take up arms against it, should be ashamed of themselves. One feels sorry for them”.

    I really don’t know why that’s in your piece. It’s clearly not factual.
    1. The process wasn’t democratic, especially were closed primaries were held. The evidence is quite overwhelming. Arizona, NYS and Rhode Island to name a few.
    2. Money dominates politics, I know that money is seen as Freedom of Speech, but I only know one country in the world that uses that argument to corrupt the democratic process.

    Apart from that, your statement mr. Pitts is about the election of a Democratic candidate. I care about the young people who came out to participate and are awake now. Very awake. They will never support any establishment candidate, since they know that their chances of a decent live will be zero to none if they do. They won so much since Reagan and they will not go away.

    “And now, the end is near, and so I face the final curtain.” No mr. Pitts, the Frog is heating up, just look at history and all the power systems that came to an end. All you have to do is look at history and step out of the paradigm were you so clearly live.

  14. Everything in life is about reasonable compromise. Hell you can’t get to the store without compromising with other drivers and stopping at a red light lol It’s how life works and we as a species get to live on.

    • Driving to a store is compromise? No, those are laws that have been established to prevent anarchy.

      You may be willing to compromise on your values, principles, and morals, but there are many that will not do so. I for instance will never support trickle down economics, corporations rights superseding the rights of the individual, Wall Street over main street, more wars and human suffering through more US military interventions for the betterment of the military complex, the removal of democratically elected leaders in other nations so that US businesses may benefit, which are all policies that Hillary stands for. So plain and simply Hillary or anybody else that stands for those policies will not get my vote.

      If you so choose to vote for the policies that I have mentioned above, you have no right to complain about the results of such, or if you so choose to complain about them then you can wear the tag ‘hypocrite’.

      “What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.”. — Ralph Waldo Emerson

  15. Clinton henchmen have stolen – yes I said stole – several primaries from Senator Sanders. Election statistician Richard Charnin has been paying close attention and is certain Sanders has won many of the contests Clinton has claimed.

  16. What is funny is there is no loss by Bernie. Neither candidate has the number of pledged delegates to win the Democratic nomination before the Convention. The Convention will be a contested Convention. It will be the unpledged delegates that will decide who will represent the Democratic Party this coming November. That decision has not been made until the unpledged delegates votes and who they favor can change until their actual vote is cast.

    This establishes that the author of this article does not now how the Democratic Party bylaws work in so far as their selection of the Democratic Party nominee or it is a propaganda piece drawn up by a Hillary supporter. In either case, the author has done a disservice to getting the whole truth out to their readers.

  17. We are 5th generation Republicans, 20 year No Party Preference, and less than a month old Democrats who will do everything we can to shift the “Overton Window” far more back into the Progressive direction, hopefully with a Bernie nomination, but at the very least to create far more room for Hillary or Bernie to run on the most Progressive platform they can. If Hillary chooses to ignore us, thinking it safer to take tiny steps, she will (in our opinion) be losing far more support than the Republicans she gains by courting them more than us. (Yes, she does appeal to a lot of Republicans in our old party, but perhaps not enough.)

    We attended a Bernie Delegate caucus that drew in 100 people that voted, and a good percentage more (maybe 130 to 180 in all) that wanted to see and hear the types of people Bernie was attracting. We had 20 candidates listed, though a few dropped out before the voting for 5 of them to represent our district. Most by far were new to the process, some just getting fired up make sure we would have every possible position filled, stepping up to the line as it were, to put their bodies on the line in case too few others did.

    I was amused by a little seeming discouragement by the older hands when only 4 new voter registrations were filled out as the people came in. They were much encouraged though, when I pointed out almost all the 25 or so people I talked to said they (like my wife and I), had just registered as Democrats in the last week or month. Does the party want these new Progressive voters or not?

    All seem very determined to get far more involved and active in guiding, advising, and supporting the “Progressive” platform and down ticket candidates that they see as addressing the real concerns of their communities and the similar concerns of all real people across the land.

    Some had been registered as Republicans “forever” (though the younger ones that followed their parents’ lead, hadn’t voted in many elections).

    Most were No Party Preference, with some very leery staying registered as Democrats if Bernie doesn’t get nominated.

    As a former Republican (until they asked me to fight dirtier than Democrats), I followed William F Buckley, Jr, I remember his answer to the extreme “conservative” that asked him if he had read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.” He said he had, but he had to flog himself to do it. That’s the way I feel about any desperate vote for Hillary, I’d have to flog myself to vote for her.

    I’d likely do so (if she stops the TPP, ends Citizens United, and gets serious about clearing out the super predators of Wall Street), but can’t guarantee it.

    A good percentage of the new voters (and newly registered Democrats) seem unlikely to vote for Hillary. I

    just hope they don’t vote against her, if Bernie asks them not to.

  18. Oh, please, people say a lot of things when they are disappointed. I had lots of friends who were angry when President Obama won over Hillary in 2008. Most claimed they would not vote for him. It didn’t make them monsters nor did it change the election results. Nor are the Bernie Sander supporter from the extreme Left, if wanting social and economic justice in terms of share of taxes, access to education, and health care is the far Left, this Country is truly headed in the wrong direction and that needs to change.

  19. I am happy to vote against #crookedhillary, anytime, against anyone, #neverhilLIARy Bern Baby #bern

  20. We Bernie supporters are far surer of our cause than we are of “winning” the way the DNC scores the primaries.

    We do hope for, and are prepared for the cause to continue, grow, and win in shorter term than imagined, but will stick to it until it overwhelms the manipulating parties with a real peoples’ agenda.

  21. We can at least send a message from California, with all the new voters and No Party Preference voters that appear to have increased the Bernie support by 20 to 24%, theway I interpret the latest Field Poll. Hillary was ahead in Indiana polls, but lost it. She was ahead of Bernie by 6% in the last poll, but consider this.

    She was ahead by:
    63% in Feb 2015
    57% in May 2015
    12% in Oct 2015 (long before registration ended in NY but not CA)
    11% in Jan 2016
    6% in April 2016

    We got a lot of our district new Democrat registrations (at least through the Primary) that see Bernie as a truer representative of real people, even if they don’t want to be seen as close to the tiny bit of democratic socialism that was better supported and tolerated in the Eisenhower administration.

    We believe many of the nominal Republicans that are as frustrated with my old party as we are, could make a better choice than Trump to start taking our country back to what the 40% of real independents would support.

    Seeing the poll mismatches compared to results (especially in the more open primaries where more voices are heard), makes us very confidant of a great showing in California.

    A win big enough to contest the convention, would open up access to a lot more voters that will stay the course, once they see they will actually be listened to, and far better represented in their communities’ interests.

  22. First of all, Mr. Pitts, there has not been a loss. Neither Hillary nor Bernie will have enough delegates to win the nomination before the convention, and the convention is going to be contested. Secondly, the primary voting has not been “fair and square” and the honest among us know it.

    You Hillary supporters are determined to spin this nomination as a done deal, and it’s as despicable as all the other tactics you’ve used in an attempt to cram Hillary down our throats. Here you’re trying to invoke shame and guilt, patronizing as though we were toddlers.

    Mr. Pitts, we would love to play fair if you people were fair players who treated us and our values with respect. However there is no virtue in compromising with bullies and manipulators like yourselves. It is you and your detestable candidate who should be ashamed, for reasons that multiply daily. My conscience would NEVER allow me to vote for Hillary Clinton.

    • Okay, A vote is always taken to include the super delegates, the pledged delegates have to stay with their candidates. Hillary is less the 100 delegates away from the magic number. There will be no contested convention, the usual one vote will send that malicious gnome bernout back to irrelevence.You complete and utter lack of knowledge and your display of willfull ignorance is astounding, but typical of the berniebros.

      • “…A vote is always taken to include the super delegates…”

        Superdelegates are not supposed to be included until the convention. Inclusion of them now by the mainstream corporate media is a device to make the ignorant believe that Hillary is farther ahead than she is, and that Bernie is always hopelessly losing. There WILL be a contested convention.

        BTW, I’m no “berniebro”. I’m a 67-year-old woman and a former schoolteacher.

Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.