Split: Sanders impact on Abortion Laws

[Bomb#20]

I believe that Sanders and his supporters made decisions that might well result in overturning RvW.

And this distinguishes them from mainstream Democrats, how?

Nancy Pelosi Announces Vote On Bill To Codify Roe v. Wade


Why is Pelosi doing this now? It's just grandstanding. It's too late now. Why the bejesus didn't she do this back in 2010 when she could have gotten it enacted? Because back then the Democrats in Congress didn't see any personal political advantage in protecting Americans' reproductive rights.

So what are you calling out Sanders and his supporters for? All they did was behave exactly like every other political narcissist in America.

 

[Toni]

I strongly doubt that ‘we’ve seen’ that.

Actually we have.
CNN exit polling in '08 had 15% of Hillary supporters voting for McCain.

Meanwhile 12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump.

I STILL read/hear Bernie supporters/bros trashing Clinton,

Well those whiney assholes need to stop. Just like the Clinton supporters need to stop blaming Bernie for her loss.

claiming he was robbed a d how their geezer would have beaten Trump ( no, he would not have).

I believe there was a chance. Some of the Trump support was from people just disgusted with 'politics as usual' and Hillary was just another standard politician to them. Trump also had the advantage of 25 years worth of smear campaigns against Hillary. He wouldn't have either of those advantages against Bernie. Some pro-establishment dems like to say Bernie couldn't win because he is a socialist, but moderate dems like Biden and Hillary get smeared as being extreme socialists/communists/etc. so I don't see that being a disadvantage for him.

First of all: exit polls. I don't see them as an accurate measure of how people voted or would have voted.

What your polls show, though is that Hillary won over people who voted for a more moderate Republican (with a female running mate) and Sanders' voters pitched a shit fit and voted for Trump. Or said they did. Who really knows?

 

[marc]

First of all: exit polls. I don't see them as an accurate measure of how people voted or would have voted.

What your polls show,

So you reject the polls that are evidence of my position, but then use them as evidence of your position?

Hillary won over people who voted for a more moderate Republican (with a female running mate) and Sanders' voters pitched a shit fit and voted for Trump.

You reject the evidence I give, but then assert your position again without any evidence supplied. If you are trying to use the links I provided it showed Hillary voters pitching more of a 'shit fit' over loosing the nomination to Obama than the Sanders voters did.

Or said they did. Who really knows?

so if 'who really knows?' then how can you actually claim anything about that Sanders supporters did?

 

[TomC]

then how can you actually claim anything about that Sanders supporters did?

This is a huge problem discussing this sort of thing. The utter lack of hard data.

There really is no way to know who voted for who or why. I believe that a lot of Sanders support in the primaries came from people who recognized that he wasn't really electable but were annoyed by yet another old school Swamp Denizen waltzing to victory, essentially unopposed. People who really really didn't like neo-lib elitists taking them for granted. "Everybody" knew Sanders wasn't going to win, so sending a message to the DNC was the real vote. One I understood. I greatly preferred Sanders message and vision.
Tom

 

[Toni]

So you reject the polls that are evidence of my position, but then use them as evidence of your position?


You reject the evidence I give, but then assert your position again without any evidence supplied. If you are trying to use the links I provided it showed Hillary voters pitching more of a 'shit fit' over loosing the nomination to Obama than the Sanders voters did.

Or said they did. Who really knows?

so if 'who really knows?' then how can you actually claim anything about that Sanders supporters did?

In support of any position: yours, mine, anybody's--I don't think that polls are necessarily accurate measures of what people will do or what they have done. That's pre-election polls and exit polls inclusive. I think they may indicate a trend but not always. We've seen actual election results differ from polls before.

But assuming that they are accurate (which I did), it seems to me that the poll results you presented support that Hillary drew some of McCain's voters. It could be for many reasons, including some voters being happy to have a credible female candidate to vote for, or the fact that McCain wasn't a right wing nut job and Clinton was, at best, a centrist and more attractive than Sanders (if you are talking primaries) or Trump (presidential election). Or she could simply represent that faction of the GOP who is not a right wing nut job who believes in anything that is Trump. Or they were absolutely not going to vote for a black candidate. I don't know. I can only guess. Especially since I am a little unclear if we are talking primaries or general election? I am not clear about that--probably my fault as this is an extremely busy day for me.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, and if so, I really apologize, but you seem to equate the fact that a smaller percentage of Sanders' voters 'defecting' to Trump than McCain voters going for Hillary as...what? An indication of their greater loyalty to the Dems? I don't see that. I see it as a faction of Bernie Bros who are going to show her! and vote for Trump, possibly enhanced by some misogyny there. Or maybe not. I didn't get enough sleep and I've got a lot to accomplish today so maybe it's just me not understanding what you meant by what you wrote.

 

[marc]

So you reject the polls that are evidence of my position, but then use them as evidence of your position?


You reject the evidence I give, but then assert your position again without any evidence supplied. If you are trying to use the links I provided it showed Hillary voters pitching more of a 'shit fit' over loosing the nomination to Obama than the Sanders voters did.

Or said they did. Who really knows?

so if 'who really knows?' then how can you actually claim anything about that Sanders supporters did?

In support of any position: yours, mine, anybody's--I don't think that polls are necessarily accurate measures of what people will do or what they have done. That's pre-election polls and exit polls inclusive. I think they may indicate a trend but not always. We've seen actual election results differ from polls before.

But assuming that they are accurate (which I did), it seems to me that the poll results you presented support that Hillary drew some of McCain's voters. It could be for many reasons, including some voters being happy to have a credible female candidate to vote for, or the fact that McCain wasn't a right wing nut job and Clinton was, at best, a centrist and more attractive than Sanders (if you are talking primaries) or Trump (presidential election). Or she could simply represent that faction of the GOP who is not a right wing nut job who believes in anything that is Trump. Or they were absolutely not going to vote for a black candidate. I don't know. I can only guess. Especially since I am a little unclear if we are talking primaries or general election? I am not clear about that--probably my fault as this is an extremely busy day for me.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, and if so, I really apologize, but you seem to equate the fact that a smaller percentage of Sanders' voters 'defecting' to Trump than McCain voters going for Hillary as...what? An indication of their greater loyalty to the Dems? I don't see that. I see it as a faction of Bernie Bros who are going to show her! and vote for Trump, possibly enhanced by some misogyny there. Or maybe not. I didn't get enough sleep and I've got a lot to accomplish today so maybe it's just me not understanding what you meant by what you wrote.

In an effort to promote better understanding let me state some of my opinions. I believe Hillary would have been a very good president. She was one of the most experienced people I've seen run, and definitely had the ability to do the job. I felt Obama was a very good president, but he could have been better. When he was in office I felt when we needed another FDR what we got was another Bill Clinton.

Why I am commenting on the thread at all is because I'm sick of people trying to scapegoat Bernie supporters for Hillary's loss, or Bernie himself, or any other statements making accusations broad brushing them. (while at the same time complaining about any criticism Bernie supporters had about Hillary) Which is what you were doing in the first post I responded to.

You were making the claim that if Bernie had won the primary then Hillary supporters would suck it up and vote for him, insinuating that Bernie supporters didn't do that for Hillary. I pointed out in the exit polling that most Bernie supporters DID support her. And for comparison we have the '08 election where Hillary lost the primary, did her supporters 'suck it up' and vote for Obama then? The answer from those polls is yes they did, but not as many did as Bernie supporters did for Hillary. So the repeated bashing of Bernie supporters for not supporting Hillary is bullshit.

 

[TomC]

The answer from those polls is yes they did, but not as many did as Bernie supporters did for Hillary. So the repeated bashing of Bernie supporters for not supporting Hillary is bullshit.

Polls also gave Clinton a big lead. Polls aren't all that reliable.

But instead of griping at [MENTION=136]Toni[/MENTION]; you might consider reading my OP, and first few posts. I'm the one you're annoyed with. And I will stand by my opinion.

There were other reasons that Clinton lost. But the demographic group that resulted in Trump appointing SCOTUS judges was the Sanderistas.
Tom

 

[marc]

The answer from those polls is yes they did, but not as many did as Bernie supporters did for Hillary. So the repeated bashing of Bernie supporters for not supporting Hillary is bullshit.

Polls also gave Clinton a big lead. Polls aren't all that reliable.

Overall she did have a big lead, but not as much in certain states. And the polls have a lag time, so last minute news like Comey's announcement about her emails can make previous poll worthless. They are useful, but not a precise guide.

But instead of griping at [MENTION=136]Toni[/MENTION]; you might consider reading my OP, and first few posts. I'm the one you're annoyed with. And I will stand by my opinion.

There were other reasons that Clinton lost. But the demographic group that resulted in Trump appointing SCOTUS judges was the Sanderistas.
Tom

And yes, that is your opinion, based apparently on personal experience. And my personal experience is every Bernie supporter I know voted for Hillary. I would need some good evidence before believing that there were enough Bernie supporters who refused to vote for Hillary to cover Trump's margin of victory in those states, and taking into account other factors like Comey's monkey wrench in things.

As for Toni, the statement I was responded to was worded more as a statement of fact, rather than opinion, which is why I responded to Toni and not you.

 

[Toni]

In support of any position: yours, mine, anybody's--I don't think that polls are necessarily accurate measures of what people will do or what they have done. That's pre-election polls and exit polls inclusive. I think they may indicate a trend but not always. We've seen actual election results differ from polls before.

But assuming that they are accurate (which I did), it seems to me that the poll results you presented support that Hillary drew some of McCain's voters. It could be for many reasons, including some voters being happy to have a credible female candidate to vote for, or the fact that McCain wasn't a right wing nut job and Clinton was, at best, a centrist and more attractive than Sanders (if you are talking primaries) or Trump (presidential election). Or she could simply represent that faction of the GOP who is not a right wing nut job who believes in anything that is Trump. Or they were absolutely not going to vote for a black candidate. I don't know. I can only guess. Especially since I am a little unclear if we are talking primaries or general election? I am not clear about that--probably my fault as this is an extremely busy day for me.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, and if so, I really apologize, but you seem to equate the fact that a smaller percentage of Sanders' voters 'defecting' to Trump than McCain voters going for Hillary as...what? An indication of their greater loyalty to the Dems? I don't see that. I see it as a faction of Bernie Bros who are going to show her! and vote for Trump, possibly enhanced by some misogyny there. Or maybe not. I didn't get enough sleep and I've got a lot to accomplish today so maybe it's just me not understanding what you meant by what you wrote.

In an effort to promote better understanding let me state some of my opinions. I believe Hillary would have been a very good president. She was one of the most experienced people I've seen run, and definitely had the ability to do the job. I felt Obama was a very good president, but he could have been better. When he was in office I felt when we needed another FDR what we got was another Bill Clinton.

Why I am commenting on the thread at all is because I'm sick of people trying to scapegoat Bernie supporters for Hillary's loss, or Bernie himself, or any other statements making accusations broad brushing them. (while at the same time complaining about any criticism Bernie supporters had about Hillary) Which is what you were doing in the first post I responded to.

You were making the claim that if Bernie had won the primary then Hillary supporters would suck it up and vote for him, insinuating that Bernie supporters didn't do that for Hillary. I pointed out in the exit polling that most Bernie supporters DID support her. And for comparison we have the '08 election where Hillary lost the primary, did her supporters 'suck it up' and vote for Obama then? The answer from those polls is yes they did, but not as many did as Bernie supporters did for Hillary. So the repeated bashing of Bernie supporters for not supporting Hillary is bullshit.

You’re conflating percentage with raw numbers in both cases and that’s simply inaccurate. Also your percentages are not apples to apples or even apples to oranges—they are two different races, two different types of races and likely two different parties of voters. You simply cannot reasonably or logically draw the conclusion that you did.

 

[Jarhyn]

In support of any position: yours, mine, anybody's--I don't think that polls are necessarily accurate measures of what people will do or what they have done. That's pre-election polls and exit polls inclusive. I think they may indicate a trend but not always. We've seen actual election results differ from polls before.

But assuming that they are accurate (which I did), it seems to me that the poll results you presented support that Hillary drew some of McCain's voters. It could be for many reasons, including some voters being happy to have a credible female candidate to vote for, or the fact that McCain wasn't a right wing nut job and Clinton was, at best, a centrist and more attractive than Sanders (if you are talking primaries) or Trump (presidential election). Or she could simply represent that faction of the GOP who is not a right wing nut job who believes in anything that is Trump. Or they were absolutely not going to vote for a black candidate. I don't know. I can only guess. Especially since I am a little unclear if we are talking primaries or general election? I am not clear about that--probably my fault as this is an extremely busy day for me.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, and if so, I really apologize, but you seem to equate the fact that a smaller percentage of Sanders' voters 'defecting' to Trump than McCain voters going for Hillary as...what? An indication of their greater loyalty to the Dems? I don't see that. I see it as a faction of Bernie Bros who are going to show her! and vote for Trump, possibly enhanced by some misogyny there. Or maybe not. I didn't get enough sleep and I've got a lot to accomplish today so maybe it's just me not understanding what you meant by what you wrote.

In an effort to promote better understanding let me state some of my opinions. I believe Hillary would have been a very good president. She was one of the most experienced people I've seen run, and definitely had the ability to do the job. I felt Obama was a very good president, but he could have been better. When he was in office I felt when we needed another FDR what we got was another Bill Clinton.

Why I am commenting on the thread at all is because I'm sick of people trying to scapegoat Bernie supporters for Hillary's loss, or Bernie himself, or any other statements making accusations broad brushing them. (while at the same time complaining about any criticism Bernie supporters had about Hillary) Which is what you were doing in the first post I responded to.

You were making the claim that if Bernie had won the primary then Hillary supporters would suck it up and vote for him, insinuating that Bernie supporters didn't do that for Hillary. I pointed out in the exit polling that most Bernie supporters DID support her. And for comparison we have the '08 election where Hillary lost the primary, did her supporters 'suck it up' and vote for Obama then? The answer from those polls is yes they did, but not as many did as Bernie supporters did for Hillary. So the repeated bashing of Bernie supporters for not supporting Hillary is bullshit.

You’re conflating percentage with raw numbers in both cases and that’s simply inaccurate. Also your percentages are not apples to apples or even apples to oranges—they are two different races, two different types of races and likely two different parties of voters. You simply cannot reasonably or logically draw the conclusion that you did.

So drawing that conclusion from a single data point is even less appropriate?

 

[Toni]

You’re conflating percentage with raw numbers in both cases and that’s simply inaccurate. Also your percentages are not apples to apples or even apples to oranges—they are two different races, two different types of races and likely two different parties of voters. You simply cannot reasonably or logically draw the conclusion that you did.

So drawing that conclusion from a single data point is even less appropriate?

In essence, that is what he did. Twice. IN the same post.

In my original post in this debacle (#42), I stated my belief that polls, especially exit polls are not reliable.

Then I disagreed with marc's conclusions were wrong, even if the polls were reliable. He compared two different races/circumstances and misunderstood what the polling numbers meant. It is actually more plausible that Hillary drew some voters from voters who previously voted for John McCain, either because they wanted to vote for a female candidate or because she is mostly a centrist in many respects. This says nothing about what Saunders' supporters did or did not do or why. It's like saying that Dr. Suess was a marine biologist but also an authority on home invasions and so therefore, landsharks. It just didn't make sense.

I actually do not think that polls are particularly accurate, especially exit polls. Even if those exit polls were highly reflective of actual voter behavior, they aren't comparing the same candidates nor are they about the same races. It is logically impossible to draw any kind of conclusion about the behavior of Clinton's supporters or Saunders' supporters from those polls. At best, one could conclude that Sanders' supporters tended to vote against Clinton rather than FOR Trump but that might not be accurate. That's my best guess: they were angry that a non-Democrat failed to win the Democratic party nomination and they decided to show us all and vote for Trump who might be a lot of things but at least he has a dick. But that's just a non-scientific conclusion that I might draw, if I actually cared about what the bros do.

Please note: by bros, I mean those who supported Sanders period and were out for revenge when he didn't get the nomination. Judging by posts that many of these bros wrote, misogyny played a huge part. And to be clear; by judging, I meant in MY judgment.

 

[Jarhyn]

You’re conflating percentage with raw numbers in both cases and that’s simply inaccurate. Also your percentages are not apples to apples or even apples to oranges—they are two different races, two different types of races and likely two different parties of voters. You simply cannot reasonably or logically draw the conclusion that you did.

So drawing that conclusion from a single data point is even less appropriate?

In essence, that is what he did. Twice.

In my original post in this debacle (#42), I stated my belief that polls, especially exit polls are not reliable.

Then I disagreed with marc's conclusions were wrong, even if the polls were reliable. He compared two different races/circumstances and misunderstood what the polling numbers meant. It is actually more plausible that Hillary drew some voters from voters who previously voted for John McCain, either because they wanted to vote for a female candidate or because she is mostly a centrist in many respects. This says nothing about what Saunders' supporters did or did not do or why. It's like saying that Dr. Suess was a marine biologist but also an authority on home invasions and so therefore, landsharks. It just didn't make sense.

My point is, he demonstrated that cross-candidate support is shitty. Claims were made that sanders supporters cost important elections. Regardless of whether the data points created by the studies measure what the respective posters here claim they do, or whether they don't, you and anyone else who would impugn sanders' supporters for a game theoretic failure must acknowledge that you have *no* evidence that, were the tables turned, things would have proceeded any differently; at the very least you have poor evidence that they would not.

I would say the failure was in the refusal to break bread with the progressives, offering them venom instead of wine.

 

[Toni]

In support of any position: yours, mine, anybody's--I don't think that polls are necessarily accurate measures of what people will do or what they have done. That's pre-election polls and exit polls inclusive. I think they may indicate a trend but not always. We've seen actual election results differ from polls before.

But assuming that they are accurate (which I did), it seems to me that the poll results you presented support that Hillary drew some of McCain's voters. It could be for many reasons, including some voters being happy to have a credible female candidate to vote for, or the fact that McCain wasn't a right wing nut job and Clinton was, at best, a centrist and more attractive than Sanders (if you are talking primaries) or Trump (presidential election). Or she could simply represent that faction of the GOP who is not a right wing nut job who believes in anything that is Trump. Or they were absolutely not going to vote for a black candidate. I don't know. I can only guess. Especially since I am a little unclear if we are talking primaries or general election? I am not clear about that--probably my fault as this is an extremely busy day for me.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, and if so, I really apologize, but you seem to equate the fact that a smaller percentage of Sanders' voters 'defecting' to Trump than McCain voters going for Hillary as...what? An indication of their greater loyalty to the Dems? I don't see that. I see it as a faction of Bernie Bros who are going to show her! and vote for Trump, possibly enhanced by some misogyny there. Or maybe not. I didn't get enough sleep and I've got a lot to accomplish today so maybe it's just me not understanding what you meant by what you wrote.

In an effort to promote better understanding let me state some of my opinions. I believe Hillary would have been a very good president. She was one of the most experienced people I've seen run, and definitely had the ability to do the job. I felt Obama was a very good president, but he could have been better. When he was in office I felt when we needed another FDR what we got was another Bill Clinton.

Why I am commenting on the thread at all is because I'm sick of people trying to scapegoat Bernie supporters for Hillary's loss, or Bernie himself, or any other statements making accusations broad brushing them. (while at the same time complaining about any criticism Bernie supporters had about Hillary) Which is what you were doing in the first post I responded to.

You were making the claim that if Bernie had won the primary then Hillary supporters would suck it up and vote for him, insinuating that Bernie supporters didn't do that for Hillary. I pointed out in the exit polling that most Bernie supporters DID support her. And for comparison we have the '08 election where Hillary lost the primary, did her supporters 'suck it up' and vote for Obama then? The answer from those polls is yes they did, but not as many did as Bernie supporters did for Hillary. So the repeated bashing of Bernie supporters for not supporting Hillary is bullshit.

Actually, your exit polls demonstrated that 12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump. That's all that your poll indicated. It is not reasonable to conclude that the remaining 88% voted for Hillary and did not decide not to cast a vote at all or decided to vote for a third party--something that I know did happen as I have family members who were strong Bernie supporters and voted 3rd party rather than vote for Hillary or Trump.

You're attempting to make conclusions that cannot be made from the 'data' you presented.

I'm not at all interested in blaming Sanders or Clinton. It's clear that the current crisis with regards to health care choices made by women rests squarely on the shoulders of all of those who supported Trump.

 

[Jarhyn]

In support of any position: yours, mine, anybody's--I don't think that polls are necessarily accurate measures of what people will do or what they have done. That's pre-election polls and exit polls inclusive. I think they may indicate a trend but not always. We've seen actual election results differ from polls before.

But assuming that they are accurate (which I did), it seems to me that the poll results you presented support that Hillary drew some of McCain's voters. It could be for many reasons, including some voters being happy to have a credible female candidate to vote for, or the fact that McCain wasn't a right wing nut job and Clinton was, at best, a centrist and more attractive than Sanders (if you are talking primaries) or Trump (presidential election). Or she could simply represent that faction of the GOP who is not a right wing nut job who believes in anything that is Trump. Or they were absolutely not going to vote for a black candidate. I don't know. I can only guess. Especially since I am a little unclear if we are talking primaries or general election? I am not clear about that--probably my fault as this is an extremely busy day for me.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, and if so, I really apologize, but you seem to equate the fact that a smaller percentage of Sanders' voters 'defecting' to Trump than McCain voters going for Hillary as...what? An indication of their greater loyalty to the Dems? I don't see that. I see it as a faction of Bernie Bros who are going to show her! and vote for Trump, possibly enhanced by some misogyny there. Or maybe not. I didn't get enough sleep and I've got a lot to accomplish today so maybe it's just me not understanding what you meant by what you wrote.

In an effort to promote better understanding let me state some of my opinions. I believe Hillary would have been a very good president. She was one of the most experienced people I've seen run, and definitely had the ability to do the job. I felt Obama was a very good president, but he could have been better. When he was in office I felt when we needed another FDR what we got was another Bill Clinton.

Why I am commenting on the thread at all is because I'm sick of people trying to scapegoat Bernie supporters for Hillary's loss, or Bernie himself, or any other statements making accusations broad brushing them. (while at the same time complaining about any criticism Bernie supporters had about Hillary) Which is what you were doing in the first post I responded to.

You were making the claim that if Bernie had won the primary then Hillary supporters would suck it up and vote for him, insinuating that Bernie supporters didn't do that for Hillary. I pointed out in the exit polling that most Bernie supporters DID support her. And for comparison we have the '08 election where Hillary lost the primary, did her supporters 'suck it up' and vote for Obama then? The answer from those polls is yes they did, but not as many did as Bernie supporters did for Hillary. So the repeated bashing of Bernie supporters for not supporting Hillary is bullshit.

Actually, your exit polls demonstrated that 12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump. That's all that your poll indicated. It is not reasonable to conclude that the remaining 88% voted for Hillary and did not decide not to cast a vote at all or decided to vote for a third party--something that I know did happen as I have family members who were strong Bernie supporters and voted 3rd party rather than vote for Hillary or Trump.

You're attempting to make conclusions that cannot be made from the 'data' you presented.

I'm not at all interested in blaming Sanders or Clinton. It's clear that the current crisis with regards to health care choices made by women rests squarely on the shoulders of all of those who supported Trump.

I can stand behind this. THIS is a sane view of the situation.

Even so, animosity and even derision existed against Sanders' supporters and this undeniably hurt Hillary. There was a failure to break bread and make concessions, and it is clear this made some manner of impact. Sanders himself did all he could to prevent Trump. I don't really think Clinton did.

 

[Toni]

In essence, that is what he did. Twice.

In my original post in this debacle (#42), I stated my belief that polls, especially exit polls are not reliable.

Then I disagreed with marc's conclusions were wrong, even if the polls were reliable. He compared two different races/circumstances and misunderstood what the polling numbers meant. It is actually more plausible that Hillary drew some voters from voters who previously voted for John McCain, either because they wanted to vote for a female candidate or because she is mostly a centrist in many respects. This says nothing about what Saunders' supporters did or did not do or why. It's like saying that Dr. Suess was a marine biologist but also an authority on home invasions and so therefore, landsharks. It just didn't make sense.

My point is, he demonstrated that cross-candidate support is shitty. Claims were made that sanders supporters cost important elections. Regardless of whether the data points created by the studies measure what the respective posters here claim they do, or whether they don't, you and anyone else who would impugn sanders' supporters for a game theoretic failure must acknowledge that you have *no* evidence that, were the tables turned, things would have proceeded any differently; at the very least you have poor evidence that they would not.

I would say the failure was in the refusal to break bread with the progressives, offering them venom instead of wine.

Hillary was venom?

From where I sat/am sitting, it was the derision of Sanders' supporters which hurt Hillary and also, at least in my personal estimation, Sanders. It actually did make me think less of him as a candidate. I read a lot of very misogynistic remarks directed towards Hillary and her supporters from people who at least purported to be supporters of Sanders.

Honestly, I've done more than my share of voting third party when I didn't like the major party candidates. At least with regards to my personal 3rd party votes, every single time, the very worst candidate won. And now, I don't do that any more. I find it absolutely crushing that there are those who looked at Trump and did NOT realize that refusing to vote for Hillary was absolutely the worst possible outcome, probably since the formation of the US as a nation. I have been crushed when candidates I fervently believed in lost to people I thought were bad choices--sometimes horrible choices. I understand the disappointment and feeling that something wasn't 'fair.' But in each case, the elections were held according to the laws of our nation. Some states do a better job of getting out the vote than other states; some states seem to deliberately suppress the votes of certain voters. I think those are things that need to be addressed at a national level.

 

[TomC]

I read a lot of very misogynistic remarks directed towards Hillary and her supporters from people who at least purported to be supporters of Sanders.

Back during the 2016 campaign I regularly read a super liberal forum, DailyKos. The vitriol directed a Clinton and her supporters was appalling. And it went on right up to and past the election.
People who swore they'd vote for Trump before they'd vote Clinton then blamed her for losing!

I drew some very clear opinions about the Sanderistas, and I've not seen reason to change them since.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I believe that Sanders and his supporters made decisions that might well result in overturning RvW.

And this distinguishes them from mainstream Democrats, how?

Nancy Pelosi Announces Vote On Bill To Codify Roe v. Wade


Why is Pelosi doing this now? It's just grandstanding. It's too late now. Why the bejesus didn't she do this back in 2010 when she could have gotten it enacted? Because back then the Democrats in Congress didn't see any personal political advantage in protecting Americans' reproductive rights.

So what are you calling out Sanders and his supporters for? All they did was behave exactly like every other political narcissist in America.

It's grandstanding anyway--no way to get it through the Senate without nuking the filibuster. All she's going to do is make the Republicans vote no.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's grandstanding anyway--no way to get it through the Senate without nuking the filibuster. All she's going to do is make the Republicans vote no.

Right. My point was, in 2010 there were two independents who caucused with the Democrats, plus 58 Democrats. Pelosi could have gotten it through the Senate without nuking the filibuster if she'd acted then, for the benefit of the American people, instead of waiting until she saw a political benefit to herself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's grandstanding anyway--no way to get it through the Senate without nuking the filibuster. All she's going to do is make the Republicans vote no.

Right. My point was, in 2010 there were two independents who caucused with the Democrats, plus 58 Democrats. Pelosi could have gotten it through the Senate without nuking the filibuster if she'd acted then, for the benefit of the American people, instead of waiting until she saw a political benefit to herself.

There was a very narrow period where it might have been possible, they used that period on other legislation. I won't object to her not pushing through something that didn't appear urgent.

 

[Toni]

I read a lot of very misogynistic remarks directed towards Hillary and her supporters from people who at least purported to be supporters of Sanders.

Back during the 2016 campaign I regularly read a super liberal forum, DailyKos. The vitriol directed a Clinton and her supporters was appalling. And it went on right up to and past the election.
People who swore they'd vote for Trump before they'd vote Clinton then blamed her for losing!

I drew some very clear opinions about the Sanderistas, and I've not seen reason to change them since.
Tom

I definitely know some Sanders supporters who DID vote for Clinton because they could see and care enough that if Sanders voters did not suck it up and vote for Clinton, Trump would win. I think that the majority of Sanders voters were rational. But as with any canddate, there are some fanatics who are willing to set fire to the world rather than compromise.