MoveOn tells Sanders to move on

boing
41

Hey, Cruz and Kasich still got votes yesterday. And they mattered about as much as the ones Bernie got. But people still had a chance to participate in the primaries.

1 Like
42

I don’t get all the comparisons between Clinton and Sanders. The two choices we have now are Clinton and Sanders.

Sanders presumably has three choices for goals:

– helping Clinton beat Trump (so we drops out)
– pushing a progressive agenda (quickly diminishing returns as he stays in the race)
– stroking his ego, cuz he’s giddy that he got 10x more votes than he expected.

We’ll get the measure of the man in the next day or two.

2 Likes
43

if he can do all that singlehandedly he must be a great leader.

Alternately, maybe he’s just the guy that the people who are not part of the party base, who focus on issues NOT focused on by the party, and who give him and not the party money, prefer?

Hillary is the one with the track record of snatching defeat. Bernie wins his elections. Time after time. If he loses this, I believe it will be a first.

But just keep on with the blaming. Go for it. Easier than embracing progressive ideas and rejecting big money politics, or so it seems.

9 Likes
44

those parts might reeeeealy need to be examined, apparently.

45

this is exactly how i feel. i’ll vote for her, because i always said i would if it came down to her being the nominee. and as bernie says, she’ll be great. but these past couple months have now started to make me wonder if the party’s values have shifted from mine, and if i should be considering switching to independent next go-round.

5 Likes
46

I think it is important to keep in mind that many voters may simply agree with Clinton and her record more than Sanders. Hard to imagine from the bernie-verse, but possible. Just sayin’

1 Like
47

Bernie has lost something like six elections, including his first four elections. I have not done the win percentage of Clinton vs Sanders, but Sanders has lost fair number of elections. The 1970s were not kind to him:

1 Like
48

Clinton has had near as many platforms as she has had microphones put in front of her by the 1% (or, more generally, by those who benefit from neoliberalism and the DLC).

8 Likes
49

Their differences are all on weird, abstract, nitpicky stuff like whether the economy should continue to benefit only the already wealthy or whether we should keep getting embroiled in more resource wars around the world.

I think you’ll need to be a bit more specific there, you’re not talking about any kind of actual policy at all there. Also the US isn’t involved in any wars for resources anywhere in the world, that’s an ignorant fantasy.

Here are actual policies they agree on in case you weren’t paying attention:

  • Global Warming (though Clinton is better with her support of Nuclear Power, both oppose Keystone, differ in the other details but both have a range of measures which would probably do some good)
  • Campaign Finance / Citizens United (virtually identical positions on all the key areas here)
  • Minimum Wage ($12 vs. $15)
  • Trade (both oppose TPP)
  • Immigration (pretty much identical)
  • Drug Reform (Bernie is better on this, but Clinton is mostly ok)
  • Criminal Justice (some difference in the details, but broadly similar, both against private prisons)

The main areas of difference are Education, Finance (Glass-Steigal mostly), Health Care, Gun Control possibly (Sanders doesn’t have a good record there) but even in those most of Clinton’s policies are to the left of Obama’s, and most of Sanders’ are completely unworkable and would never get implemented anyway.

Edit: forgot to mention Foreign Policy, where Sanders is slightly less interventionist, but not by much. There are differences in their voting record, sure, but current actual stated policies aren’t that different.

Edit #2: reply should have been to @wysinwyg, something screwed up.

2 Likes
50

What was Clinton doing in the 70s?

1 Like
51

I think it is important to keep in mind that many voters may simply agree with Clinton and her record more than Sanders. Hard to imagine from the bernie-verse, but possible. Just sayin’

“Many” is a relative term. It’s true that in some contexts, for example, 100 is a lot, but not in that of a national election.

Anyway, if anyone were to look all that carefully at her record and actions, they’re likely to think, “Well, if I want someone who’s basically a republican, I’ll vote instead for someone who actually calls herself that.”

2 Likes
52

That’s a fun diversion from your error. Thanks!

53

Now I just can’t help myself.

13 Likes
54

You should have left it with that then and not bothered replying in the first place to an insignificant parenthetical speculation.

55

BB, where rational debate goes to die.

1 Like
56

Not really, no. Both parties already pretty much decided on their candidates by the time NJ was done voting (and California was still doing so). Primaries really should all happen at the same time.

10 Likes
57

Even without that factor, keeping the media focused on the Democratic side isn’t going to hurt them any. We all know what kind of coverage Trump gets. One thing that’s become a running joke on The Young Turks is that even if other candidates are actually speaking live, CNN prefers to show an empty Trump podium for no fucking reason. Even if you don’t like TYT’s politics, that fact is infuriating.

8 Likes
58

To be fair, the 1970s were not kind to anybody.

6 Likes
59

We’re not talking about “almost all politicians”, we’re talking about Presidentiap candidates.

60

Is 56% vs 43% really a “landslide”? I recognize there’s probably no quantitative definition of the word, but 13% doesn’t seem to really hit my own mental threshold.

6 Likes