Type to search

Democrats, Don’t Blow It

Campaign 2016 Featured Post Memo Pad Top News

Democrats, Don’t Blow It

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader speaking at a campaign event in Waterbury, CT at 195 Grand St.

The death of Antonin Scalia has set off yet another epic partisan struggle as Senate Republicans seek to deny President Obama his constitutional right to nominate the next Supreme Court justice. They want to wait out Obama’s last year in office, hoping his successor will be one of their own.

If the Democrats choose Bernie Sanders as their presidential candidate, Republicans will almost certainly get their wish. Furthermore, the Republican president would probably have a Republican-majority Senate happy to approve his selection.

The makeup of senatorial races this November gives Democrats a decent chance of capturing a majority. Having the radical Sanders on the ballot would hurt them in swing states.

Some Sanders devotees will argue with conviction that these purplish Democrats are not real progressives anyway, not like our Bernie. Herein lies the Democrats’ problem.

No sophisticated pollster puts stock in current numbers showing Sanders doing well against possible Republican foes. The right has not subjected Sanders to the brutality it routinely rains on Hillary Clinton — precisely because he is the candidate they want to run a Republican against. Should Sanders become the nominee, the skies will open.

One may applaud Sanders’ denunciation of big money in politics, but a moderate Democrat in the White House could do something about it. A democratic socialist not in the White House cannot. Campaign finance reform would be a hard slog under any circumstances, but a seasoned politician who plays well with others could bring a reluctant few to her side.

Some younger liberals may not know the history of the disastrous 2000 election, where Republicans played the left for fools. Polls were showing Al Gore and George W. Bush neck-and-neck, particularly in the pivotal state of Florida.

Despite the stakes, prominent left-wing voices continued to back the third-party candidacy of Ralph Nader. You had Michael Moore bouncing on stages where he urged cheering liberals to vote for the radical Nader because there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Republicans, meanwhile, were running ads for Nader. That was no secret. It was in the papers.

When the Florida tally came in, Bush held a mere 537-vote edge. The close results prompted Florida to start a recount of the votes. Then, in a purely partisan play, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court stopped the recount, handing the election to Bush.

The bigger point is that Gore would have been the undisputed winner in 2000 had Nader not vacuumed up almost 100,000 Florida votes, most of which would have surely gone to him.

Same deal in New Hampshire, where Nader siphoned off more than 22,000 votes. Bush won there by only 7,211 ballots.

Now, Sanders is an honorable man running a straightforward campaign for the Democratic nomination. One can’t imagine his playing the third-party spoiler.

But what makes today similar to 2000 is how many on the left are so demanding of ideological purity that they’d blow the opportunity to keep the White House in Democratic hands. Of course, they don’t see it that way. This may reflect their closed circle of like-minded friends — or an illusion that others need only see the light, and their hero will sweep into the Oval Office.

The other similarity to 2000 is the scorn the believers heap on the experienced liberal alternative. They can’t accept the compromises, contradictions and occasional bad calls that attach to any politician who’s fought in the trenches.

The next president will almost certainly be either Clinton or a Republican. Democrats must ask themselves: Whom would you prefer to name future Supreme Court judges?

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

Photo: Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader speaking at a campaign event in Waterbury, CT at 195 Grand St. Creative Commons, user Ragesoss.

Froma Harrop

Froma Harrop’s nationally syndicated column appears in over 150 newspapers. Media Matters ranks her column 20th nationally in total readership and 14th in large newspaper concentration. Harrop has been a guest on PBS, MSNBC, Fox News and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and is a frequent voice on NPR and talk radio stations in every time zone as well.

A Loeb Award finalist for economic commentary in 2004 and again in 2011, Harrop was also a Scripps Howard Award finalist for commentary in 2010. She has been honored by the National Society of Newspaper Columnists and the New England Associated Press News Executives Association has given her five awards.

  • 1

You Might also Like


  1. Jim Thomas February 16, 2016

    That is the only argument the pathetic Democratic establishment has to try to entice progressives to support their Neo-con and neoliberal candidates. It is fear mongering at its worst, designed to keep control of the party and not allow any progressive to gain any foothold within the party. This time I will not buy the argument and will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee. She is as bad as the Republicans on both foreign policy and economic policy.

    1. yabbed February 16, 2016

      Spoken like a true GOP operative.

    2. plc97477 February 16, 2016

      I hope you enjoy saying president trump.

    3. MVH1 February 16, 2016

      Come out of that gopper haze, friend. You stay home on election day, you might as well change your party affiliation. Don’t be ignorant and self destructive even if you don’t obviously care about anybody else. If you care anything about your country, you have no choice but to put whoever the Democratic nominee is on your ballot.

  2. Dominick Vila February 16, 2016

    It was about time someone had the courage to point out the obvious: the Democratic party is as ideological split as the GOP is. At to this the fact that Democrats don’t seem to be as energized and determined as Republicans are, and the outcome of the 2016 election is pretty much up in the air.
    Republicans are, clearly, divided between far right Tea Party fanatics, a segment that supports a man who is anything but a conservative, and the so called establishment represented by traditional conservatives and center-right Republicans.
    Likewise, the Democratic party is split between far left liberals, progressives, and the center left.
    Cruz, Rubio, and Dr. Carson represent the far left. Trump represents himself. Kasich and Bush represents the so-called “establishment” or center-right.
    Clinton represents the center left. Sanders represents the far left.
    The question is, who among these candidates have the best chance to earn the votes of mainstream American and be elected, and which one has the best chances of having his/her policies passed by a Congress that, even if we manage to get control of the Senate, is likely to lean conservative.

    1. yabbed February 16, 2016

      Hillary Clinton, of course, is the only person who can win this election for the Democrats.

    2. Bob Eddy February 16, 2016

      Absolutely not true! Watching the Democratic debates it strikes me as how very similar the two candidates are on almost all issues and in spite of all the rhetoric, I personally have not met even one Bernie supporter who would vote for a Republican if Bernie isn’t nominated. I’m not saying there aren’t any, but even in these threads it doesn’t seem common (though talking about it is) As for appealing to “moderates,” let’s just appeal to Democratic voters. You may not have noticed, but Democrats that appealed to moderates lost heavily in 2014. Democrats who appealed to Democrats won as did every Democratic initiative from minimum wage to abortion rights. We are not divided. You may be, but we are not.

      1. JPHALL February 16, 2016

        Actually they tried to attract moderate Republicans and lost. They took most Democrats for granted. They tried to act like moderate Republicans and lost.

        1. Bob Eddy February 16, 2016

          Exactly right, the Dems that lost were the Dems that didnt have the courage to say no to the XL pipeline. That didn’t stand up for Obamacare — or for Obama for that matter. In other words were afraid to offend Republicans…apparently unaware that the Republicans would not vote for them for any reason. All Dems be aware. Republicans won’t vote for you…and Democrats won’t either if you act like a Republican.

    3. dtgraham February 16, 2016

      “Trump represents himself.” That’s about it isn’t it. I don’t know what the guy represents either. Not really.

  3. FireBaron February 16, 2016

    Ironically, many of Bernie Sanders’ supporters are afflicted with the same problem as many of the Conservatives – no compromise, no surrender, and don’t even listen to what the other guys say because they may make sense, and you cannot have that!

    1. MVH1 February 16, 2016

      You gotta hand it to the Republican trolls, who have infiltrated the Bernie supporters in particular, they know how to create anger and hate to work in their favor. If Democrats don’t find a way to unite and get behind whoever their nominee is, the Democrats are as doomed as everyone says the Republicans are. It’s horrifying how little critical thinking is going on and how much pure emotion is working on this. Better wake up before November and get on board. If you don’t, you might as well register as a Republican because if you stay home this next election, you might as well vote Republican. Think of the ramifications.

    2. RED February 16, 2016

      Weird, sure seems that HRC have more in common with the ignorant Cons to me. No, we can’t do this, we can’t do that. And btw pay no attention to the rest of the world that actually does these things, just stay in your very small world. Good thing there wasn’t a Clinton running against FDR, I guess, or maybe all our parents and grandparents would be even worse off than they already are. It’s truly fascinating to watch people interpret things in their own self centered way. For instance you have twisted what many called dedication, hard work, loyalty in to a negative, no compromise, no surrender. Of course you only feel this way when it suits your beliefs, you will of course see things completely different when it’s your principles to be surrendered.

      1. JPHALL February 16, 2016

        What principals are being surrendered? You would rather see a Republican win than support Clinton? If so you are no Democrat or Progressive!

  4. yabbed February 16, 2016

    Well put. When the Bernie Bros hit the postings, it will be denunciations and shouts of “liar” and declarations of Bernie’s destined win over both Hillary and the GOP. It is not going to happen. No one with any political savvy believes Bernie Sanders will ever be POTUS. It’s as much a pipe dream as his free everything at no cost to anyone scam.

    1. charleo1 February 16, 2016

      The descriptions of Sander’s educational, and healthcare regimes as, “free,” is the scam going on here. He doesn’t describe them as free, but paid for by public subsidy, You know, like oil companies, and corporate farms receive billions from every year. Like those the Walton family has boosted company profits with, by riding the social safety net, and relying on the gov. to subsidize their sub par, no benefit wage regimens. Do you believe all that corporate largess is free? They do. Is redistribution a dirty word, when that’s exactly what must take place, if we are to save our democracy from slipping into an Oligarchy, run by corporations, and the uber rich? One would think so listening to the Con-Right. So the truth is now so toxic we dare not speak it? Is that where we are?

  5. Wrily February 16, 2016

    The trolls are thick here.

  6. charleo1 February 16, 2016

    “But if I ever came off as not respecting you, Bernie, I apologize.” Froma Harrop, from a December column. Obviously, like a lot of Democrats who consider themselves nice fence sitting moderates, who ignore at the country’s peril the degree to which the Right has veered into extremism in the past 7 years. While their influence and power within the political process, because of Citizens United, and other factors, has increased exponentially. Some consider Sanders a wild eyed Socialist, with no hope of winning. Hillary a common sense middle of the roader, who may disagree from time to time with the Conservative Right’s tax. and corporate druthers. But who, in the end will see the easier road to the accomplishment of any sort, as going along on the big important substantive issues. And the status quo for millions of hard working people who have consistently lost financial ground for the better part of 40 years will probably continue without serious challenge. So these are the stakes. On what candidate Democrats eventually decide will probably depend on their assessment of the seriousness, and urgency of the moment. I determine it to be the most serious of moments. However, I submit to the collective wisdom of my fellow Democrats of which I have the greatest confidence. And will heartedly support their choice of nominee.

    1. MVH1 February 16, 2016

      That’s fine as long as Democrats consider every aspect of the choice they make. I would ask this question and expect an informed response; What of Bernie’s promises can he keep considering he will run most likely into the same obstruction Obama has encountered, because once the Republicans chart a course and press in, they do not back off to a more reasonable position later. They now hate and despise all Democrats, even though that’s at least half the country and possibly many more. So in their death throes, they can still hang onto power for a very long time. I like Sanders. I like the excitement he’s stirred, exposing just how big a part of the country is sick to death of the fossilized and atrophied and hateful turn in Washington. Obstruction all the time without relief. Hyper partisanship that damages the citizens of the country just to get their way. So love her or hate her, at this time it seems Hillary knows her way through the land mines better than just about anybody. And rather than look only at the barrage of attacks instigated by the Republicans so many years ago, do some deep research. This is a good woman. She is battle tested and she’s realistic and smart. Whatever happens, if the Democrats don’t find a way to bridge their divide, we will find ourselves with a Republican president and if you think it’s been destructive so far, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

      1. RED February 16, 2016

        Ok, but what if you don’t want a President who is ready to use military force to solve any problem even to prove how “tough” they are? Or how can actually expect a candidate who benefits greatly from the status quo to do anything to change it? How can they? Hillary may very well be “battle tested & smart,” in fact I’m certain she is. But that same “smart” is being used to pretend that she is more progressive than she really is. And so many of us are so tired of the “safe” option. I mean what has gotten us here? Is it because we haven’t been choosing the safe smart option? No, we’ve allowed our party to drift so far right and turn it’s back on economic issues in favor of the wealthy and the donors that we have no one left to defend us or fight back against the onslaught. Even now, watch how Clinton centers on social issues, economic not so much. Now, all of us liberals believe in the social issues but we’re are sick and tired of the economic ones being ignored. Btw do you know Hillary’s plan to get us to universal healthcare? Or to lower prices? I don’t. And you can’t without getting the government more involved because healthcare is not a free market.

        1. dpaano February 16, 2016

          Unfortunately, as I said above, I like some of what Bernie says, but I don’t think now is the time for an unproven politician to be running the country. Hillary knows where the land mines are and can navigate them. At this time, she’s the best person for the job. Maybe with Bernie as her VP, things would get done.

          1. @HawaiianTater February 16, 2016

            “unproven politician”

            How many times has Hillary won an election?

            Think about your answer.

          2. Paul Bass February 16, 2016

            Didn’t she win both her 2000 and 2006 NY senate seat? (Yes, she won both)

            These are the ONLY 2 elections she has stood for, and she won them both.

            She DID run as a presidential nominee, but never went to a single election as a presidential candidate, and BTW Presidential elections take in November, not during ANY primary in any state.

          3. MVH1 February 16, 2016

            Politician is an all-encompassing description of Washington players. Lots and lots of them haven’t been elected to anything at all. Washington is all politics all the time. And she ran for Senate and was elected. Then she ran for president, lost and was appointed Secretary of State, which is a political job. How dumb could one possibly be to think people who know their way around Washington in many different positions for years and years and years is not a politician and knows how to maneuver it. Because a lot of the problem is the only people who get elected do only what their constituents want and line their pockets at the same time. And right now, it’s the Evangelicals and nut jobs running the Republican party.

          4. @HawaiianTater February 16, 2016

            “How dumb could one possibly be to think people who know their way around Washington in many different positions for years and years and years is not a politician and knows how to maneuver it”


          5. MVH1 February 16, 2016

            Exactly what, Tater? What is it that that means to you? That you need someone who knows Washington so they don’t stumble around all over the place for four years or someone who can get down to it and hit the ground running?

          6. @HawaiianTater February 17, 2016

            I dunno, MVH1. How dumb COULD one possibly be to think after a quarter century in Congress that someone doesn’t know how to maneuver it? Inquiring minds want to know.

          7. MVH1 February 16, 2016

            No matter how much we all love Bernie’s positions, people need to ask what exactly is in the realm of possibility to achieve and how much will it cost. Because I guarantee you any new taxes to pay for all that will come from the middle class, what’s left of it, on down. Not the 1% who are thoroughly protected by the GOP. Bernie is not that well liked by Congress. He’s really not that accomplished and hasn’t achieved that much. Don’t we want somebody who knows how to tangle with and negotiate something. We’re doomed no matter which Republican if they win.

          8. Bob Eddy February 16, 2016

            Not true. His programs are spelled out in detail and most of it can be paid for by merely returning to pre-Reagan tax base. Where he has proposed races on the middle class, his proposals will save tax payers much more than the tax increases. What is in the realm of possibility? John Kennedy said we could go to the moon…and we did. I don’t think its unreasonable to think we can accomplish great things again.

          9. MVH1 February 17, 2016

            You are deluded, Pal. God help us if your paranoid and uninformed wishes and hopes for the U.S. should in fact take place. “His programs.” Gad, what a tool.

          10. Bob Eddy February 16, 2016

            An “unproven politician” who has spent the last 25 years in congress, managed to get elected as an independent, winning out over the political machines each time. Who as sponsored AND PASSED more amendments to legislation than anyone else during that period and has successfully taken on one of the most potent political organizations there is. Bernie Sanders may be new to your world, but he us anything but an “unproven politician.”

          11. MVH1 February 16, 2016

            You do realize it was a state election, right? Not a national election. Surely you’re not taking a state’s election, a rather small state and blowing those facts into a national situation? Bernie is doing a great service. He is bringing front and center the problems real Americans are concerned about and angry about. Now, what can he get done that he’s promising? What can any of them do? It just means a lot of people are going to be super angry again the first two years into any new president’s term when he can’t fulfill all those promises? How do you think things get done in WAshington? There are still way more establishment types there with power than anybody else. They have to be dealt with.

        2. MVH1 February 16, 2016

          Where is the evidence she is ready to use the military to solve any problem? That’s something the Republicans have driven in and the Bernie supporters have latched on to as a fact and it’s not. You can hate her and build all the cases you want against her but if she’s the nominee to run against the Republican nominee, what is the sense of staying home and casting a vote for the Republican candidate you hate just to prove what exactly? That you hate her? Principle is a lovely thing. Reality and practicality are my preferences for day to day living. There are times when principle is only a concept. It’s good to have principles but at that point what do you do, choose one whose principles are not exactly the same. And when you keep saying what is she going to do about this and that, you do realize the president’s powers are limited, right? We get things incrementally. There is never a big Eureka moment where suddenly everybody cooperates at once and gives you universal health care that’s single payer. You get the best you can get through. Obama wanted lots more in the health care plan but Republicans butted heads immediately. That’s why Big Pharma is charging through the roof. The Republicans insisted prices not be negotiated. That doesn’t have anything to do with controlling prices, it has to do with simple negotiation. You think any president can snap their fingers and get whatever they want or promised? This is what is so distressing about people who’re livid with Hillary because they believe that constant drip drip drip Republicans have been putting out there for years. You think they won’t obstruct the heck out of Bernie? Surely you aren’t that naive. I’d be happy to think everybody voting was doing some serious critical thinking and just realize 90% of what you think you know you don’t. And all the things you’re stressing up there, like the economic ones being ignored, are you serious? Honestly, you’re serious? Economic issues are being ignored. Wow. How does one have a conversation with somebody who is so intentionally ill informed and misinformed? This country is doomed. Do the research. It’s out there. People who are supporting one candidate or the other are never going to tell you anything except what flatters and supports their candidate, whether it’s true or not. So vote for Trump. You think Hillary is the worst that could happen to you? Look at the Republican line-up. I’m getting too old to keep being this aggravated. This country will go down the tubes in every way if you get a Trump or Cruz or Rubio. You better ask yourself what are Trump, Cruz and Rubios plans to do all the things you want, because if you stay home because you don’t like HIllary if she’s the nominee, you essentially elect one of those monsters.

      2. Bob Eddy February 16, 2016

        And do you harbor some delusion that Republicans will not dig in just as fiercely against the first female president? We have no divide. We support who we nominate and we get off our lazy a55es in 2018 and support our Democratic President….even if he/she hasn’t fulfilled all of our personal wish list. Without the lazy Democrats that didn’t bother to vote in 2010 no one would even know what “Republican obstructionism” meant.

        1. MVH1 February 16, 2016

          I said earlier the Republicans never back off. Once they ratchet up to the degree they have against Obama, you think they’ll reduce the venom for any other Democratic president in the future? When have they ever dialed it back? I think Hillary can handle them without going ballistic. You can’t get anything done all by yourself. It’s impossible. Of course they’re going to dig in against her or Bernie since those are the only two offerings from the Democrats. I prefer Hillary because I believe she is fully aware how obstructionist it will always be and realistic about what she can get done and can’t. When she was a Senator, even the Republicans complimented her. They were impressed that she came to work, not to be some prima donna celebrity politician. The Republicans will never, ever dial it back until they reduce themselves to no power at all. I’d say they keep ratcheting it up against all the voters who don’t vote for them. I think they are guilty of rank voter suppression everywhere they can get away with it. And I’m mad at the lazy Democrats who stay home unless it’s a presidential year or they don’t like the other candidate and keep turning over control to the craven Republicans.

  7. harleyblueswoman February 16, 2016

    Bernie will win….but vote Blue no matter who wins….vote Blue!!!!!

    1. MVH1 February 16, 2016

      You’re smart and you’re realistic. There is a big picture and you got it.

  8. dpaano February 16, 2016

    I like some of what Bernie is saying, but I have to agree with the article….he would NOT be the person I would want to be president at this time. The Republicans are hoping that he’s the nominee because they know they can most likely win against him, and if that happens, we’re all in big trouble! Our current government will become the government of the 1% and the people will all be left at the wayside!

  9. Bob Eddy February 16, 2016

    For those, like the author, who have forgotten. Al Gore lost because in some moralistic snit he refused to allow a very popular Bill Clinton campaign for him…apparently thinking some Republicans would appreciate his haughty moralistic stand. They didnt! Face it. There are no “moderate” Republicans left for us to appeal to. We will have to win this election on our own, so rather than fretting about how many Republican votes we can win, let’s just nominate and support anyone we damn well please. I think if we really put it to the test and pit a “radical” like Sanders against a hard right Cruz we will once and for all find out that the Fox “News” meme about this being a “center right nation” is not entirely true.

    1. ralphkr February 16, 2016

      Actually, Bob, what is decried as far left Communist in the USA would be termed as “center right” in Europe.

      1. Bob Eddy February 16, 2016

        How true. The Clinton’s have always been in that center right area until Hillary was tugged to the left, I think by her own rather consistent drift from her republican roots over the decades as well as by the Sanders campaign. And I don’t mean that as a knock on Hillary. It appears to me that her years as Secretary of State opened her eyes to many of the injustices she has never had to respond to before. On the other hand, so many of Bernie’s positions are not far from where this nation stood (or was headed) before it was side tracked by the “Reagan Revolution” that hopefully we are seeing in its last miserable years.

        1. Theodora30 February 17, 2016

          It is ridiculous to refer to her Republican roots when she was young. Many many kids were like that before they became hippies in the 60’s. The Children’s Defense Fund was a very liberal organization. When Bill was President Hillary was routinely trashed for being too left wing and trying to pull Bill to the left. She became such a lightning rod that she had to stay low. Her voting record as a Senator is very close to Bernie’s. She has consistently been to the left of him on gun control.

          Of course she is not as far last as Bernie but she is nowhere as conservative as people think. She has not had the luxury of running in a state that is as liberal as Vermont – upstate NY is Republican and she had to work really hard to win them over in order to get elected. On the one issue that hurt Bernie, gun control, as he said bucking the NRA cost him his first try at Congress. He trimmed his sails after that. If he hadn’t he probably would not have been elected. But unlike the case for many other Dems there are very few liberal issues that are losers in his constituency. For him to play the purist is either hypocritical or naive. Gun control is a huge issue, not just some minor problem.

    2. Theodora30 February 16, 2016

      That would not have come close to making up for all those votes Nader captured. What really hurt Gore was the disgraceful way the MSM played along with right wing smears and mocking of him instead of setting the record straight. Couple that with their refusal to tell the truth about Bush – the “successful businessman” who had both of the companies he started going bankrupt (though he lost no money himself), insider trading at Harken, getting the State of Texas to use eminent domain to condemn property so the Rangers could build Texas Stadium, getting the city if Arlington to raise taxes to pay for said stadium and the granddaddy of them all, walking away from his cushy National Guard gig.

      1. MVH1 February 16, 2016

        We can’t count on the MSM to ever be an honest broker in politics ever again. They weren’t but they’re worse now. Most of them have to be sensational to have a job at all.

      2. Bob Eddy February 16, 2016

        But he didn’t have to make up all those votes Nader got. He lost by 4 electoral votes. Gore lost by 50 thousand votes in Arkansas with 6 electoral votes. Clinton won by 150 thousand in ’96. He lost by just a couple thousand in Florida. With Clinton’s help Florida would not have been close and Gore would have won the electoral vote by 27 electoral votes instead of losing by 2. That loss was entirely on Gore and his sanctimonious rejection of Clinton’s help.

        1. Theodora30 February 17, 2016

          In a sane world Clinton could have helped. But whenever he gets involved both Repiblicans and the media bring up Monica and trash him any way they can. Just look at the controversies stirred up when he campaigned in ’08. His every word was parsed to see if it could be twisted into something wrong or even racist. It is a question if he actually helped Hillary.
          Gore’s avoidance of Clinton may have been sanctimonious but I bet his advisors also told him to distance himself. The MSM has a bad case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

  10. anon1775 February 16, 2016

    The hubris of Clinton’s supporters is incredible. We get it, “Resistance is futile” and no matter what, Clinton will be president so we liberals and progressives better assimilate. Maybe it is absurd and idealistic to pretend there is a chance we could have a representative government. For Clinton (and, to a much greater extent, her supporters) to denigrate and pigeon-hole us as “GOP operatives” and sexist trolls, while also demanding our support, is equally (if not more) absurd.

    Obviously, most of us will rally behind the nominee, but these conversations (mostly in the comments of “Hillary is inevitable” articles like this one) only push Sanders’s supporters away and leave us with the feeling that there is no place for us in the DNC. At the end of the day, you’re free to keep insulting millions of people whose support you’re counting on. Just don’t be surprised if we’re not in a hurry to play nice afterward.

    1. Jake February 16, 2016

      To be fair, resistance is futile. Bernie won the white kids. That’s about all he’s got.

      1. dtgraham February 16, 2016

        Way off Jake. Exit polling data showed Bernie winning every demographic group in New Hampshire, which was a stunning result. I don’t personally think that Bernie is going to get the nomination, as much as I’m rooting for him, but if he did he’d have as good a shot at it as Hillary would in my opinion.

        1. Theodora30 February 16, 2016

          What the media is ignoring is that turnout for Dems was down significantly from the last primary in both Iowa and NH. Bernie is not generating record turnout but Trump and Co. did for Republicans. Very disturbing.

        2. MVH1 February 16, 2016

          What happened in Iowa and New Hampshire is such a small small drop in the bucket. Yes, it was a stunning result. So what? If he runs the table, it will then be a stunner. It’s just way too early to call it for anybody. There are many states where Hillary will be ahead. It’s wonderful to see no matter what that huge numbers of people are sick to death of Washington and the way it works. It says it loud and clear. The Republicans are having the same message flashed to them, Trump and Cruz, the “outsiders”, really says the people are sick of getting trashed and used and abused by Washington types. But Washington types still control national government so somebody needs to know how to navigate the waters after this is all over. I will vote for Bernie if he’s the nominee. No matter what, he would be a better choice than handing the election to the Republicans.

    2. JPHALL February 16, 2016

      They are not being insulted. Get over your hurt feelings and think ahead! They are being informed of one of many realities. Pie in the sky is great, but come November remember the alternatives. We need more than one person no matter what they say. Too many disappeared after Obama’s election and we got this rotten Congress.

      1. Bob Eddy February 16, 2016

        Exactly…in 2012 all I heard from Democrats was how Obama didn’t do enough for their particular cause. They stayed home (something like 20% turnout for Democrats) and we ended up with this mess. Pie in the sky is great and pie in the sky is attainable…but only if we work as hard as the Republicans to bring our visions to life.

    3. MVH1 February 16, 2016

      It’s not hubris for the most part. It’s fear that the Republicans are going to steal this election with their dirty tricks and that people who are new to the voting scene are not going to see how it works. Being idealistic is a lovely thing but most older voters know it’s hard to win elections with that these days. Nobody should be trashing the other candidate in the Democratic race. It’s gotten way over-heated when there should be a common goal. The last thing Democrats should do is play into the hands of the Republicans who just love watching them rip and shred each other. Republicans get on board. They won’t sit home if their candidate is not the nominee and that is what they know the Democrats will do. Stay home. They do it every mid term election when their president doesn’t get every little thing he wanted but discovered he couldn’t just go take it because he was the president. It means people aren’t paying attention to what’s being done to Obama and how. Democrats are supposed to be the smart ones.

      1. anon1775 February 17, 2016

        I can understand that reasoning. However, I think you’re over-estimating the number of Sanders’s supporters who would either stay home or, for some reason, vote for Trump if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination. I’m sure there’s some polling that shows a non-insignificant number of Sanders supporters staying home, but I don’t think they will. This same thing happened in 2008. It’s just getting more attention this time.

  11. @HawaiianTater February 16, 2016

    Hillary propaganda is becoming pretty regular here at NM. It’s sad but expected.

    It really is somewhat amusing to me that Hillary surrogates are still trying to use the electability argument after everything that has happened so far in this election cycle. Just for starters, you’re seriously underestimating just how unelectable Trump and Cruz are. You’re trying to make the case that Bernie is unelectable because he is too far to the left… so people are going to vote for Trump or Cruz instead? That’s laughably stupid. It’s not like the GOP is fielding a strong candidate here. Their entire party is imploding.

    Also, if you’re insistent on making the electability argument, I can just as easily turn that around on Hillary. She has high unfavorability ratings. She doesn’t do well with younger voters. She is surrounded by scandal. She is the establishment candidate in an election cycle where both sides of the aisle are fed up with the establishment. Republicans hate her even more than they do Obama. And most importantly, she struggles with independent voters.

    All that said, keeping the WH in Dem hands is a lock. The next POTUS will be whoever wins between Bernie and Hillary. You can stop with this electability BS. It only makes you look weak and desperate.

    1. Paul Bass February 16, 2016

      HT, Hawaii is wonderful, but far removed from the yahoos here in the American South, I disagree with your appraisal, and am therefore voting for HRC, but I certainly hope you are correct in your opinion of a Democratic President. You have a fantastic day. (I’m on the KTM today, and life couldn’t be sweeter!)

      1. @HawaiianTater February 16, 2016

        Yes, Hawai’i is wonderful indeed. It’s especially wonderful being 4000 miles away from the American South where I grew up in Alabama. Trust me, you don’t have to tell me. I know. I know all too well. Why do you think I’m in Hawai’i? lol

        You have a groovy day yourself!

  12. Otto Greif February 16, 2016

    Do Hillary’s bidding or else, Democrats. Your job is to serve Hillary and the DNC donors, not the other way around.

    1. Jake February 16, 2016

      Found the Berniebro

        1. JPHALL February 16, 2016

          Typical right wing BS!

        2. MVH1 February 16, 2016

          It was cute and funny and she did a great rendition of a dog barking and proved her point beautifully.

        3. David February 23, 2016

          Because she is a female dog…

      1. Bob Eddy February 16, 2016

        Otto grief… A well documented right wing troll.

    2. MVH1 February 16, 2016

      If you believe that then you might consider it the same on the Republican side. So you’d rather do Trump or Cruz’s bidding or else? You really will have to serve Cruz and his Dominionism. I don’t know about you and what you fear but if Bernie is the nominee I will vote for him. If Hillary is the nominee I will vote for her. Otherwise you will serve the interests of the 1% for as long into the future as anyone can see. I’m too old to want to do that.

    3. David February 23, 2016

      They bow to her every whim.

  13. Jake February 16, 2016

    The butthurt is strong in here.
    If you disagree with the BernieBorg hive mind, you are an establishment crony.
    I like Bernie, but his supporters are just awful people.

    1. dtgraham February 16, 2016

      I wouldn’t put too much stock in these so-called anonymous internet Bernie Bros. If they do exist and are really Republican trolls trying to sway voters to Bernie because they want him as the nominee, as was suggested here recently, that’s not his supporters’ fault.

      Anyway, you can find plenty of trash directed at Bernie by Hillary supporters right here at the National Memo. It’s just politics.

    2. Bob Eddy February 16, 2016

      No they aren’t. The vast majority of Bernie’s supporters will be, without reservation, be supporting Hillary if she wins the nomination. And u suspect many of those who rant like right wing blowhards are, indeed right wing blowhards.

  14. dtgraham February 16, 2016

    This has become the ‘please don’t vote for Bernie Sanders’ website. This is getting amazing. Bernie is constantly being compared to George Mcgovern, but this is the first time that I’ve seen Ralph Nader as a comparison. Look at it this way:

    Would a 47 year old black man talking about hope and change and how “we’re going to change this country”, ever have been elected President in 1972? Of course not. He wouldn’t even have gotten the Democratic nomination. That same man did get the nomination and go on to win the Presidency in 2008 though. This isn’t 1972. There’s a new wave of progressive voters now who are stronger, diversified, and more mobilized. Bernie can win this thing in November.

    1. Paul Bass February 16, 2016

      If you believe that, I have a bridge to NYC I want to sell you.

      Did you not notice the GOP SLAMMED the DEMs in 2014? Remember 2000? Ohio voting “irregularities”? Hanging Chads? The GOP still OWN the company that makes the voting machines, you think they aren’t above “losing” a few hundred (or thousands) votes here and there? If the DEMS aren’t overwhelming in their numbers the GOP will steal the election again!

      1. dtgraham February 17, 2016

        No argument there. In fact, Bernie’s argument is that he will drive the turnout in an anti-establishment election better than Hillary ever could. Look at the crowd sizes at his rallies compared to Hillary.

    2. JPHALL February 16, 2016

      The same was said about McGovern and Dukakis. All the talk about not voting if Clinton is the nominee plays right into the hands of the Republicans. The same with the third party run of Bloomberg. Remember Nader?

      1. MVH1 February 16, 2016

        Absolutely it plays into the hands of the Republicans, who are trolling and presenting themselves as Bernie supporters and whipping anger and hatred and creating stay-at-homes. They can’t win fair and square. Their history is rich with dirty tricksters. If anyone wants to be reminded just how dirty they play, they could Google Karl Rove.

      2. dtgraham February 17, 2016

        Obama and his supporters have proven that times have changed, and a McGovern or Dukakis could win now. Especially since they’re now running against Republican tea party fruit loops.

        1. JPHALL February 17, 2016

          Yes, but only when the Dems vote. This election we already see Dems trying to use Repub reasoning for not voting for cClinton if she is the nominee. Also Bloomberg is thinking about a third partyrun which will siphon off more Dem votes. This garbage happened in 2000 and we got Bush!
          Subject: Re: Comment on Democrats, Don’t Blow It

    3. MVH1 February 16, 2016

      People are getting too concerned about the rabid Bernie supporters who say they’ll stay home if he’s not the nominee. It’s getting way too over the top in either camp. Lots of us believe Hillary is a better candidate overall. Most people who understand the jobs these people are running for know how limited power is for the presidency and for the Congress except for clusters. I think everyone should be most afraid of any of the Republicans who are leading. If Bernie is the nominee, though I prefer Hillary, I will vote for Bernie. I’m not sitting home pouting and essentially handing another vote to the Republicans because I might believe she would be a better president than Bernie. And I would rather have any Democrat than any one of the Republicans in the race.

    4. charleo1 February 17, 2016

      Good point on ’72. Outside of the worries over involvement in a dead end war, this country is on another planet compared to what our deepest concerns were in 1972. I think it might be more instructive if we reversed the question. Could George McGovern win the Democratic nomination today? I’m thinking yes, he could. With the advantage of Democrat’s retrospect, and Nixon, who can argue that McGovern would not have been the far better choice? A better question is, will Democrats make much the same mistake again, by nominating what seems like a safer, but less inspiring (Humphrey) and go with Hillary, but lose in the end Another comparison that is more relevant in 2016 than Barack Obama, is George Wallace, Could GW win the Republican Nomination if he were running today? Again, I have to say yes. I think he might have been years ahead of his time. Before the Southern Strategy, and a second Civil War, this one political, that turned millions of Southern Democrats into Republicans, and won Nixon the Presidency. But yes, Wallace could win today, especially if he substituted his segregationist platform of, 1968, for the race tinged demagoguery, and flag waving faux economic populism of Trump, he could be topping the polls right now as the top GOP contender for the Republican Nominee in 2016.

      This will never become the don’t vote for Burnie website. First of all, because whether or not Hillary Clinton supporters will admit it, without Burnie, there would be no Democratic Primary race for President. And without a race, there would be very little to talk about from the Left, no energy, and exactly zero excitement. Just the occasional update on the latest gossip about Hillary’s e-mail scandal, or Bill’s past infidelities, and speculation about Hillary’s Wall Street connections. As the Left marched in dull as dishwater lockstep to her inevitable coronation as Party leader. Heck. isn’t that the way the Republicans do it! Okay, you came in second last time, so it’s your turn. So we’ll all fall in line behind Papa Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and so they hoped, Jeb Bush. Republicons fell in line like robots, until W. screwed the pooch, and Democrats elected a Black President. Democrats for their part may fall in love like smitten school girls. But at least Democrats have passion, and are concerned about higher callings than lowering corporate taxes, running financial scams to bilk the working class, and polluting to boost profit margins. So this scary tale they’re hawking about Burnie splitting the Party like Ralph Nader, and so the radical retards win. Is as ridiculous as predicting since the girl can’t have Brad Pitt, she’s going to settle for Charley Manson.

      1. dtgraham February 17, 2016

        One more reason why your posts are one of the must reads for me. Well put charleo.

        Yes I also believe that a George McGovern or Hubert Humphrey could win today. The one thing that’s concerning though is the Republican primary turnout being up while the Democratic primary turnout is down. Still, it’s hard to see Americans electing a Trump over Hillary or Bernie this November when push comes to shove.

        These are scary and unusual times.

        1. charleo1 February 17, 2016

          Well thanks of course. I responded to your comment, because it was so spot on. Not only in pointing out this is definitely not 1972, (fairly obvious one might think) But also, because you drew the distinction so well between the politics of 1972, and the huge difference in acceptance of progressive politics today toward candidates that are not only different, like Obama. But also like Sanders, who aren’t afraid to take on the pay to play system, and tackle the big issues that affect everyday working folk. Like healthcare, cracking down on too big financial firms. Standing up to the oil cartels, and demanding action on climate change, investing billions into renewable energy, rebuilding the nation, and raising taxes on the richest 1% to pay for it. For me, these are the issues that should define the Democratic Party. Big, bold, broad, substantive issues in these areas that have for so long been neglected as the investor class was allowed to run the country into a swamp. Issues where ordinary people have lost so much over the past 40 years. I want a Party that unashamedly demands that what has been pilfered by a wealthy elite, buying the people’s government, to be returned forthwith, to it’s rightful owners. And I want leaders with the courage to put their candidacy on the line on the biggest stage in the World, against all the money in the World, and proudly proclaim, we are Democrats, and this is what we stand for. And finally, we must have a Democratic voter-ship with the courage to support such candidates. Or else, it’s going to be very tough slog indeed for the most part, for a long time to come.

  15. Mary Bell Lockhart February 16, 2016

    Excellent article. This election is NOT just about the presidential candidates and too often we act as if it is. We must roll back Republican dominance in the Senate and the House. Clinton is applying her campaign across the country to help Democratic candidates, especially in swing districts. Many of them would prefer her at the top of their ballot in November. She is spending millions of those “ill-gotten gains” on the other candidates in her Party. Bernie is not.

    And let’s talk about those “ill-gotten gains.” Sanders attacks Clinton for taking contributions and speaking fees from big money. It’s not only wrong, it’s wrong-headed. The truth is that big money has always contributed across the board,
    salting funds everywhere for a reason: It gives them what they want from their Republican candidates and puts the Democrats in the position of either having to unilaterally disarm or face accusations from their own that they are on the take and thus must be corrupt.

    Sanders claimed he didn’t know any progressive candidates who took such contributions. The truth is almost all of the successful progressives have and many of
    our most effective progressives have been out and out wealthy elitists. It matters a little where you get the funds; it matters most what you do with them. The origin of funds doesn’t define one as a progressive; what you say you want to do, what you try to do and what you accomplish doing define the progressive.

    The Sanders attack also helps the Republicans, should Clinton face Trump in November. Trump can claim purity on that issue because he didn’t take any of those
    contributions, while at the same time he is his own “special interest group” and we know what he’s going to do with his money.

  16. Elliot J. Stamler February 17, 2016

    Forget 2000…the leftists in my Democratic Party reelected Richard Nixon in 1972 by nominating the hard-left George McGovern who proceeded to lose 49 out of 50 states including his home state.
    The leftists are poison in our party. They are our version of the Tea Partiers…delusional extremists who are perfectly willing to have no loaf of bread at all rather than half. People like this are who through their pigheadedness brought Hitler to power in Germany in 1933.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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