Hillary Willing to Work with Sanders on Shaping Democratic Platform

[IceSpear]

What a surprise: Hillary Clinton Barack Obama is willing to work with the man woman that has energized the Democratic party. The woman man should be taking notes on how to run a solid campaign, and how to attract young and disenfranchised women, Hispanic, and white voters.

She'll He'll probably end up with the nomination, but it's clear Bernie Hillary has won the day.

That's how silly you look. Actually even sillier, considering in 08 she only lost by 100 delegates and arguably won the popular vote. The stats this time? 16 point popular vote lead and a ~300 delegate lead. Despite this, I rarely heard anyone insisting that Obama needed to pander to Hillary and her supporters. They were usually just dismissed by the media as racist dead enders.

And I'm sure you'll reply with "No, Obama energized the party, not her!" So let me get this straight now...Hillary barely loses, so she is a loser, accomplished nothing, and deserves nothing. Hillary wins big, but it doesn't matter...because reasons, and she should function only as a figurehead and know her place. The double standards people and the media have for this woman are completely insane and repulsive.

Democrats made their voices heard, and they overwhelmingly chose Hillary. Obviously the people who chose Bernie matter as well, but to say he's the "real winner" is ludicrous.

[IceSpear]

It's so annoying to see people move the goalposts to make their guy look better. Seriously, he lost. Nearly 3.2 million votes down, but he energized the party so he won? Apparently not enough for them to actually get out and vote. Unless they all did, and yet he still lost, which is even more sad. Get real.

Agreed. Hillary trying to satisfy and understand the needs of all in the Democratic party is frankly disgusting. Those 9 Million and 2/3rd's of caucuses are all not needed in Hillary's great plan, actually anyone that likes Bernie should be banned from voting. Hillary only needs true Democrats like Mark Warner and Evan Bayh to win.

Were you as concerned with the nearly 18 million who voted for Hillary in 2008?

[IceSpear]

Anyone that thinks that because someone wins an election (especially a primary) they shouldn't factor in the usual half or so of people that were against them, is frankly ignorant.

Were you as concerned with the nearly 18 million who voted for Hillary in 2008?

No, because I didn't support her...?

Surely you recognize the cognitive dissonance here?

To the extent that the media cared about Hillary and her supporters in 08, it was usually phrased as "How can Obama get all those dumb racists to support him in the general?" But this time from their tone you'd think they want Bernie to handwrite the platform and make Hillary sign her name at the bottom in her own blood. I recall a lot of "Hillary Clinton is entitled to nothing" sentiment despite her having a much stronger showing than Bernie did, but now suddenly it matters?

Of course, I do agree with her decision and admire her for treating him with far more respect than she was treated with. That's just the kind of person she is. But the media and "Democratic establishment's" double standard needed to be called out.

[IceSpear]

The platform is meaningless. What Hillary says her policies and what they actually are are two different things. Example, the Iraq surge, she was publicly opposed and privately in favor.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/

Jfern, I swear to god, you're like the human personification of r/sandersforpresident. You find a way to incorporate an attack on Clinton into every topic imaginable.

Actually, jfern wouldn't fit in there, he'd be kicked out for being too much of a Hillary hack. They still think he's going to win California by 70 points because "nobody I know supports Hillary" or "everyone I see on Twitter supports Bernie." And if somehow this doesn't happen, they think he will run as an independent and win 270+ EVs. They also think the Hillary campaign stole Arizona, New York, and most recently, Maryland. lol

[IceSpear]

Anyone that thinks that because someone wins an election (especially a primary) they shouldn't factor in the usual half or so of people that were against them, is frankly ignorant.

Were you as concerned with the nearly 18 million who voted for Hillary in 2008?

No, because I didn't support her...?

Surely you recognize the cognitive dissonance here?

To the extent that the media cared about Hillary and her supporters in 08, it was usually phrased as "How can Obama get all those dumb racists to support him in the general?" But this time from their tone you'd think they want Bernie to handwrite the platform and make Hillary sign her name at the bottom in her own blood. I recall a lot of "Hillary Clinton is entitled to nothing" sentiment despite her having a much stronger showing than Bernie did, but now suddenly it matters?

Of course, I do agree with her decision and admire her for treating him with far more respect than she was treated with. That's just the kind of person she is. But the media and "Democratic establishment's" double standard needed to be called out.

...? K. She's opening the door to progressive reforms. You asked me if I was as concerned for the 18 million in 2008, no, #1 as I was 8 at the time #2 as I preferred Obama. I don't see what your point is other than "Hillary Good". She's right to do this, it's also the politically smart thing to do. In the end, Obama adopted some of her policies and picked her as SoS, it's not like the "Democratic Establishment" nor Obama really abandoned her.

She's doing the same thing to Bernie and from Holmes' post sounds, a whole lot like a "Bernie is entitled to nothing" sentiment to me.

My point is simple. By your own logic, you should've cared about Hillary and her 18 million voters even if you supported Obama, just as you now want Hillary and her supporters to care about Bernie and his millions of voters even though they didn't support him. It's just logical consistency. Fair point that you were only 8 though, but it was more of a general point rather than applying to you specifically. I'm sure there's lots of people who wanted Hillary to just go away and sit down/shut up in 2008 that are now thinking Bernie should have a major influence despite the extreme hypocrisy, the media being the biggest offender here. Daily Kos and other parts of the liberal blogosphere have the same double standard as well.

As I said in my post, I do agree with her decision and think the people who supported Bernie should have a seat at the table.

[IceSpear]

The platform is meaningless. What Hillary says her policies and what they actually are are two different things. Example, the Iraq surge, she was publicly opposed and privately in favor.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/

Jfern, I swear to god, you're like the human personification of r/sandersforpresident. You find a way to incorporate an attack on Clinton into every topic imaginable.

Actually, jfern wouldn't fit in there, he'd be kicked out for being too much of a Hillary hack. They still think he's going to win California by 70 points because "nobody I know supports Hillary" or "everyone I see on Twitter supports Bernie." And if somehow this doesn't happen, they think he will run as an independent and win 270+ EVs. They also think the Hillary campaign stole Arizona, New York, and most recently, Maryland. lol

No, those are the extremists. Jfern is quite literally the human form of r/sandersforpresident, he'd fit in perfectly there.

This was the top rated link a few days ago:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it appears the inmates are now running the asylum. Honestly, it's not that surprising considering the sane ones probably left.

[IceSpear]

As far as who "won" goes, you know...it's actually possible for everyone to "win" based on their own criteria.

Sanders didn't enter the race expecting to be able to win the nomination. This should be very obvious - not only from his past comments, but also from tragic missteps in the form of taking certain attacks/strategy off the table until it was too late for them to derail Clinton. He entered to push Clinton to the left and to hopefully have influence on the Democratic Party platform and message. By that measurement - his measurement - he not only "won", but probably exceeded even his own expectations.

Clinton entered the race to win the Democratic nomination. This also is very obvious. By that measurement - her measurement - she won in the way she wanted to as well.

Bernie was't running to pressure Hillary to the left. Everyone knows that wouldn't last. Bernie was running to win. He just likes a issue based campaign rather than a negative one. Obviously he could have hammered the top secret emails, Saudi arms being used to killed Shia civilians after they gave money to the Clinton Foundation, voting against a diplomatic solution in Iraq

No - if he was running to win, then he wouldn't have taken the emails and corruption claims off the table until polling showed he had a shot. Those are issues, as he and his campaign have said as of late. They didn't want to damage the inevitable nominee in the beginning. When winning became viable, they acted just like any other campaign.

Didn't he start using those lines only after March 15th though? Which was when the contest essentially ended. His peak chance of victory was post NH/pre NV.

[IceSpear]

The media has been way more supportive of Hillary than any other candidate in the field of either party.

Based on what?

[IceSpear]

So the MSM is biased towards Kasich?

According to the graphic, they just hate him least. And Hillary most. I do find it funny how the same media that is responsible for relentlessly pummeling all presidential candidates with endless negative press then turns around and writes ridiculous self pitying op-eds about "Woe is us! Why are the leading candidates so unpopular! Why oh why are we so polarized! Can't a white horse candidate come and save us?!" Of course, if said white horse candidate actually did jump in, they'd make them as popular as herpes within a month.

I wish I could've seen numbers for Obama and Lavenous Marco though. Maybe they could've gotten into the positive range, or at least more evenly split.

[IceSpear]

The data were aggregated from posts on Twitter.... and the majority of voters (i.e. older people) don't often frequent Twitter.
They also counted retweets to further skew the data.

The fact that the number of retweets of negative stories against Sanders is so high in such a pro-Sanders medium as Twitter goes to show how numerous the anti-Sanders stories (tweeted by the MSM, the only (re)tweets accepted for the "study") must have been.

This was from the Vox article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not like they were measuring the sentiment of random people on Twitter. Regardless, even if it's an imperfect study, at least it's something. Do you have any evidence to show that the media is biased in favor of her? Here's just a common sense perspective: if they really were biased in favor of Hillary, they would not have spent over a year spamming us about her emails and about how she might get indicted, to the point that her opponent in the election got annoyed that they wouldn't shut up about it. They would've downplayed it or ignored it, or stopped talking about it after a week like they do with most "scandals."

Also, I'm going to plug this post as well:

Yes (not a hack)

First of all, Obama himself even admitted the media was in the tank against her in 08, and that his campaign used it to his advantage. Of course, everyone who wasn't delusional already knew it, but it was nice to close the case on that matter for good.

Secondly, remember "dead broke"? Yes, it was a dumb gaffe, but the media was literally talking about it for like a year as if it was some epic event. It would've been a week long story at most for any other politician.

Oh emailgate...literally nobody cared about this until she ran for president. Thousands of people in the government, including many of the now "indignant" Republicans, knew she was using a private email and nobody cared. But the NYT needed a new faux scandal for their precious horse race, precious right wing clicks, that sweet ad revenue, and to fulfill their vendetta. Thus, emailgate was born. And that's not even the end of it. Even if you assume emailgate is a legitimate issue, it would've been a month long issue at most for any other politician. Not only have they been spamming it for over a year, they've already tried her in the court of public opinion as a corrupt guilty criminal bitch who will soon be indicted, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. Contrast it with Rick Perry literally being indicted, when the media and all the "liberal pundits" leapt to his defense and talked about how mean the prosecution was being to poor innocent Rick Perry.

I disagree with you on Sanders though. The press doesn't care for him personally, they only "like" him as a vehicle with which they can damage their nemesis. They'd turn on him in an instant and savagely rip him to shreds like a pack of rabid hyenas if he actually won the nomination. Compare it to 08. Back then they LOVED Obama AND hated Hillary, so it was double trouble for her. Now it's basically just hating Hillary, and Bernie is their only option to hurt her. Remember when they acted like O'Malley and Chafee would hurt Hillary? Remember them pleading on their hands and knees for Joe Biden to enter? And even outright lying about the fact that he was definitely running based on his son's death just to try to force him in the race? That was sickening. There's clearly no lengths the media will not go to to try to destroy Hillary Clinton.

Partly it's because some people always at least have their partisan media outlets to defend them. While the right wing media is obviously going to attack Hillary, the "non partisan" functions as their subsidiary while the left wing media is too busy trying to tear her down as a far right corporate shill to prop up their preferred candidate at the time, leaving her with no natural defenders.

In addition to Lyndon's chart, here's some more evidence:

Pundit: "Yes, the media is sexist, but deal with it"
Joe Scarborough: MSNBC was biased against Hillary in 08
Gallup poll: Hillary by far treated the most unfairly in 08, according to voters
FiveThirtyEight: Hillary's nearly endless streak of negative media coverage
Sexist comments by male pundits in 08 highlights
Former NYT Editor: NYT gives Hillary unfair scrutiny

Of course, even if every TV anchor and columnist publicly stated that Hillary Clinton is a c*nt on live TV, many of the hacks here would still live in their own fantasy world.

I look forward to your rebuttal, preferably with many sources.

[IceSpear]

Another thread goes down the tubes thanks to jfern and the other Berniebots.
How surprising.

I'll take some credit for hijacking this one as well.