Seriously democrats, this is getting out of hand.

[BlueSwan]

Seriously fellow democrats, the party really needs to come together and stop acting like republicans.

Up until a few weeks ago, things were going more or less according to plan. Clinton was winning, while Sanders was energizing the left and bringing important issues to the table and keeping Clinton sharp and in line. The debates were at least partly about actual political substance unlike the republican debates.

Then came march 15th. Clinton seemingly secured the nomination on that day. I don't think any of us expected Sanders to bow out and he shouldn't. There was no need to. He could have continued a campaign on the issues and going exclusively after the republicans without damaging the all-but-certain democratic nominee.

Instead he decided to double down against Clinton and crucially animated his supporters into ever more delusions about Clinton - often sounding more like the Tea Party than the Tea Party itself when describing Clinton. What's worse is that it worked or at least got strengthened by massive caucus wins.

Sadly, Clinton has mostly responded in kind. I really don't know why Clinton fears debating Sanders. She is a very skilled debater and people need to see her in that context rather than letting other define her.

Now, I have no problem with Sanders continuing his campaign and bringing forth his message. Nor do I have any problems with his supporters working enthusiastically for him to win. I do have a HUGE problem with the "Bernie or bust" movement and I have a huge problem with democrats sounding like Rush Limbaugh when talking about Hillary Clinton. I have a problem with the ridiculous notion that a "revolution" is possible or even desirable. I'm to the left of most Bernie bros on actual policy, but progress is made in increments, some small some larger, not by revolutions. Gay rights is a perfect example of that.

In short: democrats should come together against the republicans. By all means have a fair fight for the nomination but keep your eye on the eventual goal, which is putting a democrat in the white house and winning back the senate.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Stop with the condescension towards the Sanders supporters. I see no reason for him to drop out when he is looking to win Wisconsin and close the gap in New York. A hard fought primary is good for the party.

[Adam Griffin]

There's only a handful of bitter people on this forum, so your message is a bit in vain if directed at us.

It's important to remember that a lot of people don't follow politics as closely as we do, and even among some of the most enthusiastic primary supporters in the country right now, the vast majority don't understand political geography like a lot of us do. When you combine that lack of awareness with the exponential increase in "opinion" (s[inks]tty blog posts) available on the web today, just about anyone can find plenty of material with which to delude themselves into thinking that this primary is still competitive.

With that being said, this primary isn't anywhere nearly as nasty as 2008. The primary difference is that social media is now about 100x more potent than it was then and it is amplifying everything. Twitter was just starting to gain traction in 2008. YouTube was seeing its first presidential cycle. And on and on and on...the only potential worry is how social media - already contributing almost exclusively to the rapid spread of disinformation and BS opinion - will prevent those primary wounds from healing like they have in all past election cycles.

Just wait until June and see what happens. At that point, the disinformation-fueled will have no more primaries on which to cling for hope; I suppose they could try to cling to the "superdelegates flipping" argument if Sanders' deficit < Clinton's # of superdelegates, but I'm really going to give (most of) them the benefit of the doubt that they're not that nutty.  

[Landslide Lyndon]

Stop with the condescension towards the Sanders supporters.
 I see no reason for him to drop out when he is looking to win Wisconsin and close the gap in New York.

Now, I have no problem with Sanders continuing his campaign and bringing forth his message. Nor do I have any problems with his supporters working enthusiastically for him to win.

Reading comprehension is hard.

[BlueSwan]

With that being said, this primary isn't anywhere nearly as nasty as 2008.

True. It just didn't feel the same to me. Perhaps because the actual political differences between Obama and Clinton were minor. Perhaps because there was never any real doubt that the loser would support the winner. That race felt more like a typically close race between not too dissimilar candidates. It didn't feel like there was a real divide within the party outside of the cult of personality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This could still turn out fine, and I still believe that Sanders will do his best to get Clinton elected in the end, I just hope the party won't get even more fractured over the next few months.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Stop with the condescension towards the Sanders supporters. I see no reason for him to drop out when he is looking to win Wisconsin and close the gap in New York. A hard fought primary is good for the party.

LOL funny that wasn't you all's mantra in 2008. The long primary was "bad" for the party and just "added more bruises" to the general election nominee.

I see no condescension in the OP's post. Actually, it's the Sandernistas who are being condescending with their perpetual smear campaign against Hillary by using right-wing talking points and attacks against her (the Bernie or Bust movement is a product of this).

To the OP: Thank you! It's about time somebody said it. The Sandernistas don't get that they are just rewarding the right wing every time they demonize Hillary. All the epithets and smear tactics they throw at her just reinforces all the myths and lies that the Republicans have spread about her. These B-list celebrities like Susan Sarandon and C-listers like Rosario Dawson who are fanning the flames of the Bernie or Bust movement are not helping, either. I doubt the true believers will have as much influence as the PUMAs did in 2008. But it's interesting how the media isn't condemning these Bernie or Bust nuts but instead putting them up on a pedestal, whereas in 2008 the PUMAs were called everything from sore losers to dumb racist rednecks.

Since the primary is all but over, she needs to just start switching to general election mode. Let Bernie have a few more sympathetic wins (Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Wyoming) while she just increases the delegate lead with big victories in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, etc.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

There's only a handful of bitter people on this forum, so your message is a bit in vain if directed at us.

It's important to remember that a lot of people don't follow politics as closely as we do, and even among some of the most enthusiastic primary supporters in the country right now, the vast majority don't understand political geography like a lot of us do. When you combine that lack of awareness with the exponential increase in "opinion" (s[inks]tty blog posts) available on the web today, just about anyone can find plenty of material with which to delude themselves into thinking that this primary is still competitive.

With that being said, this primary isn't anywhere nearly as nasty as 2008. The primary difference is that social media is now about 100x more potent than it was then and it is amplifying everything. Twitter was just starting to gain traction in 2008. YouTube was seeing its first presidential cycle. And on and on and on...the only potential worry is how social media - already contributing almost exclusively to the rapid spread of disinformation and BS opinion - will prevent those primary wounds from healing like they have in all past election cycles.

Just wait until June and see what happens. At that point, the disinformation-fueled will have no more primaries on which to cling for hope; I suppose they could try to cling to the "superdelegates flipping" argument if Sanders' deficit < Clinton's # of superdelegates, but I'm really going to give (most of) them the benefit of the doubt that they're not that nutty.  

Your points on the nastiness of 2008 and the potency of social media today are well-taken, but I wonder if you're actually skirting around an interesting dynamic.

While it's true that both campaigns were slinging really terrible personal insults at each other in 2008, it was perhaps less grating/infuriating for the supporters of each candidate because these people weren't exposed to it from all sides at all times. Today, the candidates are remaining a bit more civil than they were in 2008 (although to be frank I think anyone who can't see that Bernie is resorting to unfair character assassinations is fooling themselves), but the supporters are getting out of hand. In other words, they are the arbiters of the real nastiness on social media, and it's almost impossible to avoid. Add to the mix the fact that one camp's supporters are mainly young and tech-savvy, and it's no surprise that the other side is feeling victimized. I'd say they're right to feel that way, too, because it's basically been the reality for anyone who's stood with this person for the last 25 years.

In the end, it's true that the desperate losing candidate isn't being horrible. But he's certainly fueling the fire, and it's doing damage. It's especially bad because this candidate honestly has already lost the nomination, which makes it a bit unbelievable to see how much he's still digging his feet in. In 2008 Hillary started to lay off when it became clear that the writing was on the wall.

Seeing how things have developed... well, I'd argue that we've got a sore loser situation going on here. That, or the guy is just delusional.

[windjammer]

I quite agree with Adam,
I don't think this is a so nasty primary.

You just have Sanders supporters on the internet who keep whining, not representative of anything.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the SuperPAC you're coordinating with is run by David Brock, it's no surprise when the election turns to a sh**t fest. That's what David Brock does, make up lies to attack his opponents with.  Any Hillary supporter upset with the tone of this primary needs to call on Hillary to disassociate herself with David Brock. He's no better than Karl Rove or Lee Attwater.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Exclusive image of jfern while writing one of his pro-Bernie rants.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Exclusive image of jfern while writing one of his pro-Bernie rants.

Lyndon obviously loves David Brock.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

A fight to the end makes a better looking county map. Isn't that what's most important at the end of the day?

[Meclazine for Israel]

I like Bernie over Hillary.

He should stick it out to the end.

[DS0816]

Seriously fellow democrats, the party really needs to come together and stop acting like republicans.

That's David Brock and the overall Hillary Clinton Camp. I have come across those who like to condescend to Millenials, with their overwhelming support for Bernie Sanders, with wanting "free stuff." That garbage comes across as the work of Republican trolls and/or Democratic voters who may as well be Republicans (if that party changes their current brand). Remember—this "free stuff" comment, really an insult, came from Bill O'Reilly on Fox News's Election Night coverage in 2012.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If by "plan" you mean rubber-stamping Hillary Clinton for nomination throughout all Democratic contests en route to a sweeping nomination…she, just like everyone else, is not entitled.

Were you under the impression that Bernie Sanders was never running for president of the United States? He's not there to … "encourage the left." (You're mentioning of that makes it sound like Hillary Clinton is not at all on the left.) He's not there to be … "bringing important issues to the table." (All presidential candidates should be doing that.) He's not there to keep Hillary Clinton "sharp and in line." (That's the responsibility of each candidate.) He is not there to prop up Hillary Clinton and, after that, *f* off.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. She did not, and still has not, reached the delegates amount necessary for nomination. And, no, the superdelegates do not count. They are framed as being counted. We are dealing right now with pledged delegates.

And you are wrong about expectations. A lot of arrogant people, a lot of party establishment figures, wanted it done with by March. And they believed this would be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bernie Sanders is running for president of the United States.

Bernie Sanders is running for president of the United States.

Bernie Sanders is running for president of the United States.

Bernie Sanders is not required to bow to Hillary Clinton.

And Bernie Sanders's supporters are not delusional about Hillary Clinton. Many of Hillary Clinton's voters are delusional about her. Her record. Her ties to Wall Street. Her speeches made to financial institutions like Goldman Sachs while the country was going through the Great Recession. Her lack of a platform which, when she finally got one, was ripping off part of Bernie Sanders's platform. (She's not with it on free college tuition.) And her support for the war in Iraq. She is a politician who recalibrates. A position she has (like with free trade and with fracking) becomes deeply unpopular, she changes it. Bernie is there first. Hillary comes second. After having recalibrated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She fears losing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I get the sense that you do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Continue having this problem. If Hillary Clinton ends up nominated, she will not hold 100 percent of the numbers that Bernie Sanders ends up receiving to transfer that into support for her general-election performance. And, if you remember 2004, the one voting-age group which nationally carried for John Kerry, who lost not only in the Electoral College but also in the U.S. Popular Vote by 2.46 percentage points, was 18 to 29. (Also: The divide between the four voting-age groups has Bernie Sanders consistently winning the younger half which carried for the re-election of Barack Obama in 2012; whereas Hillary Clinton has the older half which carried for Mitt Romney.) A statement about the long-established frontrunner is made when she is losing, state after state, by 4 to 1 margins with the youngest age group which is routinely the first to back the Democratic Party in presidential elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't seem to be all that much on the left. You seem to be a neoliberal.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The type of "Democrat" nominated matters.

I have already stated, on some other thread, that if the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination goes to Hillary Clinton, I don't intend to vote for her in the general election. (I would vote instead for the nominee from the Green Party. I did that with the Michigan U.S. Senate race in 2012. It's not a problem for me.) This isn't because of any personal animosity toward Hillary Clinton specifically. It has do with neoliberalism being disastrous to this party. (Thomas Frank writes much about it in his new book.)

[Mehmentum]

This isn't even as close to as bad as the Democratic race in 2008 was, let alone the current state of the Republican side.

Yes, its a little nastier than I'd like it to be, but ultimately the Democrats will have no problem rallying around the eventual nominee.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Not voting for Candidate A =/= Voting for Candidate B.

[Torie]

Stop whining. As compared to this little bit of Dem pugilism, the Pubs are involved in thermonuclear war relatively speaking.

[ProudModerate2]

Seriously fellow democrats, the party really needs to come together and stop acting like republicans.

They are not acting anything close to the Republicans.
Not comparable at all !

[dax00]

Never thought I'd say this: It's come to the point where I'd vote for that mule Cruz over Hillary.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Seriously fellow democrats, the party really needs to come together and stop acting like republicans.

They are not acting anything close to the Republicans.
Not comparable at all !

To be fair, there are very few anti-Clinton right-wing smears the Sanders campaign hasn't embraced.
Maybe during the run-up to the New York primary we'll see ol' Bernie start talking about Vince Foster's murder.

[Fubart Solman]

A fight to the end makes a better looking county map. Isn't that what's most important at the end of the day?

Finally, someone understands. 2012's map for the Republicans was pretty awful after Santorum dropped.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Exclusive image of jfern while writing one of his pro-Bernie rants.

Exclusive image of Lyndon while writing one of his pro-Hillary rants.

[Xing]

If you're addressing people on this forum, I'd specifically address the 2-3 Clinton supporters who make 4-5 threads a day about various Sanders "scandals".

[The Other Castro]

When Clinton hints that Sanders has a small member, and Sanders rejects that notion during a live presidential debate, then we will know it is getting out of hand.

[Crumpets]

When Clinton hints that Sanders has a small member, and Sanders rejects that notion during a live presidential debate, then we will know it is getting out of hand.

"And you know what they say about a man with a small, white constituency..."