Split: Sanders impact on Abortion Laws

[Jarhyn]

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.

Not to mention that DailyKos is itself a known target for trolling and astroturfing.

It was well established that trump was not the only wound intended to be inflicted by foreign interests; creating rifts in the democrat party was also key to that effort.

Now before the primary, it was sensible to posture like that, largely because it was the only available response position to "fuck you, the democratic party won't cooperate with the campaign of someone not anointed by the establishment". After the primary, the reality is you vote for whoever is least awful.

As has been pointed out, giving full force and effect with democratic support and lively debate and not doing things like burying debates or copping out of them, would have led to a world where sanders supporters could have seen Hillary as a serious and professional challenger. What she did, however, and what her campaign did with relation to the party control structure, led to a clear failure of the democratic principles that normally win them elections.

I voted for Hillary, but actions do have consequences and honest forthright, fair action would have had far less disastrous ones. I was saying so then, I am saying so now. Accepting the possibility of a loss to her lifetime aspirations and playing fair would have prevented that loss.

 

[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

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.

Oh, understand all that. But Trump won by razor thin margins in key states like Wisconsin. And the polls putting Clinton way in the lead didn't help. Gave people a false sense of security. My recollection is that the DailyKos was still putting Clinton in the mid 90% range the day before the election, when other polls like 538 had lowered it greatly.
Tom

 

[TomC]

ETA ~In Wisconsin, Hillary lost by about 23K votes out of almost 3M. That's a fraction of 1 percent. Obama won by 7% in 2012.

A small handful of people staying home or voting third party gave all of Wisconsin's 10 EC delegates to Trump.

Of course, it didn't help that Clinton never bothered visiting Wisconsin once she'd beaten Sanders.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

I think it has to be remembered that the dems were broke and Hillary's campaign was financing dems around the whole country. There wasn't money to be spent on usually safe dem strongholds.

 

[TomC]

I think it has to be remembered that the dems were broke and Hillary's campaign was financing dems around the whole country. There wasn't money to be spent on usually safe dem strongholds.

I didn't know that. I don't believe it.

But I do know that the Clinton Campaign spent a lot of resources and time trying to flip southern states like North Carolina.
Tom

ETA ~I cannot imagine how anybody could believe that a former Obama executive, with about a 90% chance of winning the 2016 election, could possibly be "broke". I can imagine the DNC sending you fund raising pleas claiming to be broke. But that's not the same as being broke.~

 

[ZiprHead]

I think it has to be remembered that the dems were broke and Hillary's campaign was financing dems around the whole country. There wasn't money to be spent on usually safe dem strongholds.

I didn't know that. I don't believe it.

But I do know that the Clinton Campaign spent a lot of resources and time trying to flip southern states like North Carolina.
Tom

The was a bit of controversy over it, because part of the deal that was struck gave Hillary a lot of control over the party. There was one black high level party official, can't remember her name at the moment, made a lot of stink over it. If anyone can remember her name, I'd appreciate it if you posted it.

 

[TomC]

I think it has to be remembered that the dems were broke and Hillary's campaign was financing dems around the whole country. There wasn't money to be spent on usually safe dem strongholds.

I didn't know that. I don't believe it.

But I do know that the Clinton Campaign spent a lot of resources and time trying to flip southern states like North Carolina.
Tom

The was a bit of controversy over it, because part of the deal that was struck gave Hillary a lot of control over the party. There was one black high level party official, can't remember her name at the moment, made a lot of stink over it. If anyone can remember her name, I'd appreciate it if you posted it.

What do you mean by "it" in this post?
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

The was a bit of controversy over it, because part of the deal that was struck gave Hillary a lot of control over the party. There was one black high level party official, can't remember her name at the moment, made a lot of stink over it. If anyone can remember her name, I'd appreciate it if you posted it.

What do you mean by "it" in this post?
Tom

You seem to have difficulty following along.

The it is Hillary financing the party in exchange for partial control.

 

[ZiprHead]

Oh, I remembered the person's name.  Donna Brazile

 

[TomC]

Oh, I remembered the person's name.  Donna Brazile

OMG!

What do you think she "made a stink" over?
Tom

 

[TomC]

The was a bit of controversy over it, because part of the deal that was struck gave Hillary a lot of control over the party. There was one black high level party official, can't remember her name at the moment, made a lot of stink over it. If anyone can remember her name, I'd appreciate it if you posted it.

What do you mean by "it" in this post?
Tom

You seem to have difficulty following along.

The it is Hillary financing the party in exchange for partial control.

I asked because you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

You said "it".
You might have been talking about
1) the dems are broke
2) Clinton was spending time and money in southern states, not Wisconsin and such
3)some vague deal that you didn't describe

Feel free to explain what you meant by"it".
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

You seem to have difficulty following along.

The it is Hillary financing the party in exchange for partial control.

I asked because you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

You said "it".
You might have been talking about
1) the dems are broke
2) Clinton was spending time and money in southern states, not Wisconsin and such
3)some vague deal that you didn't describe

Feel free to explain what you meant by"it".
Tom

Sorry. I'm not here for your edumacation. If you're having difficulties ask a first grader for help.

 

[TomC]

You seem to have difficulty following along.

The it is Hillary financing the party in exchange for partial control.

I asked because you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

You said "it".
You might have been talking about
1) the dems are broke
2) Clinton was spending time and money in southern states, not Wisconsin and such
3)some vague deal that you didn't describe

Feel free to explain what you meant by"it".
Tom

Sorry. I'm not here for your edumacation. If you're having difficulties ask a first grader for help.

I don't need anyone to explain your answer.
It's obvious.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Sorry. I'm not here for your edumacation. If you're having difficulties ask a first grader for help.

I don't need anyone to explain your answer.
It's obvious.
Tom

Then why did you keep asking for an explanation?

 

[TomC]

Sorry. I'm not here for your edumacation. If you're having difficulties ask a first grader for help.

I don't need anyone to explain your answer.
It's obvious.
Tom

Then why did you keep asking for an explanation?

I might have been wrong.

Oh well...
Tom

 

[Lunawalk]

This is a rant. And a bit of a derail.
But I just can't help myself.

Back in 2016, I had a lot of conversation with people who disagreed with me. The most frustrating weren't with the conservative Christian Republicans. It was with the Sanders supporters.

A ton of people were convinced that Sanders was the only solution to the problems. So much so, that if they couldn't vote for him, they wouldn't vote or they'd vote third party or something. They were just too ideologically pure to soil their fingers with a Clinton vote.

I believe enough of them followed through to give Trump the win in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. By razor thin, but undeniable, margins. That gave Trump the win in the EC. That gave Trump the power to appoint SCOTUS judges.

And here we are.

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

The most charitable thing I can think of to say about that is "Don't believe that your vote doesn't count, it does."
Less charitable would be, "Hope you're happy, BernieBros!"

Tom

I Agree voting or the lack thereof has consequences. The attack on Abortion and voting rights for example. Ruth Bader Ginsberg waiting too late to resign is also a factor.Sometimes you just have hold your nose when voting. I know this is because of our system.

 

[untermensche]

The idea that Bernie Sanders or his supporters have anything to do with Trump is pure stupidity.

It is Hillary and her supporters that gave us Trump.

They colluded and through undemocratic means stole the nomination from Bernie.

 

[Toni]

The idea that Bernie Sanders or his supporters have anything to do with Trump is pure stupidity.

It is Hillary and her supporters that gave us Trump.

They colluded and through undemocratic means stole the nomination from Bernie.

yawn

 

[untermensche]

The idea that Bernie Sanders or his supporters have anything to do with Trump is pure stupidity.

It is Hillary and her supporters that gave us Trump.

They colluded and through undemocratic means stole the nomination from Bernie.

yawn

I know there are many who don't support democracy and find the lack of democracy, in other words, authoritarianism, a bore.

Democracy means the people decide, not the party.

 

[TomC]

The idea that Bernie Sanders or his supporters have anything to do with Trump is pure stupidity.

It is Hillary and her supporters that gave us Trump.

They colluded and through undemocratic means stole the nomination from Bernie.

yawn

I know there are many who don't support democracy and find the lack of democracy, in other words, authoritarianism, a bore.

Democracy means the people decide, not the party.

Expecting democracy from a political party is like expecting locally sourced produce at McDonald's. They aren't government agencies and have no mandate for internal democratic process.
Tom