MoveOn tells Sanders to move on

[Phrenological]

I think America has realized where it needs to go more than the Democrats have gotten any more center-right than they ever were.

[john_c]

I’m beginning to wonder, myself. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-primary-wednesday-s-big-question-how-many-1465375928-htmlstory.html

If they can’t even say how many remain uncounted, then we can’t really know that it’s less than the margin of Clinton’s win, can we?

[anon26940528]

@Phrenological

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

Maybe my Sarcasmo-tron 3000 needs calibration but I read @InfrequentCommentor’s statement as sarcastic…

[caze]

even if Sanders had 80% of the uncounted ballots it wouldn’t have made much of a difference, and that’s basically impossible with that many ballots. I’d say the probability of it affecting the final delegate count at all is tiny.

[Jabberwocky]

@milliefink

it’s a damn shame that so many voters are similarly simpleminded

All those simple minded women and POC, they just don’t know what’s good for them!

[Brainspore]

@ActionAbe

Even without that factor, keeping the media focused on the Democratic side isn’t going to hurt them any.

Right. Some people seem to think that “continuing the debate right up to the end of the primary process” means something is going wrong or that the party is hopelessly divided. I feel the opposite; this is the way it’s supposed to work.

[anon26940528]

@Jabberwocky

women and POC

She’s a woman, I’m a POC. Jointly we thank you for irony of that remark.

[milliefink]

@Jabberwocky

All those simple minded women and POC, they just don’t know what’s good for them!

Why are you picking on women and POC? Most Americans vote against their own interests.

[thaumatechnicia]

“Progressive political advocacy group MoveOn.org”?

That word, you keep using it…

[GideonTJones]

[quote=“caze, post:13, topic:79353”]
Except for most of them that is, which are almost exactly the same. Of course there were a couple of big differences in a few areas, but for the most part they’re on the same page.
[/quote]You put their platforms side by side, and they’re largely the same (apart from being a lot more detailed one side…) . A lot of Bernie’s people need a better grasp on the fact that the party has moved significantly to the left since the Clinton Administration, and the policies that are expected from a candidate aren’t the same as they were 8 years ago, much less 20 years ago.

[wysinwyg]

@caze

Also the US isn’t involved in any wars for resources anywhere in the world, that’s an ignorant fantasy.

Please go on. Why did the US unilaterally foment a war with Iraq?

If you think it was for humanitarian reasons, please explain why the US did NOT intervene in the Rwandan genocide.

@caze

though Clinton is better with her support of Nuclear Power

It’s a matter of opinion whether nuclear power is actually better. I think that one could make a good argument that the worst case scenarios for global warming aren’t actually quite so bad as worst case scenarios for nuclear power. (If you can’t accept even the possibility of that statement, then I feel pretty comfortable dismissing you as an ideologue.) Under a risk assessment framework like that, it’s only clear that best case nuclear is better than worst case global warming.

@caze

Trade (both oppose TPP)

State Department Blocks Release Of Clinton’s TPP Emails

Isn’t Clinton’s state department one of the biggest contributors to the content of the TPP? But now she’s against it?

@caze

Criminal Justice (some difference in the details, but broadly similar, both against private prisons)

Bill Clinton was instrumental in the privatization of the prison system in the first place, and supported the “tough on crime” policies that made it profitable in the first place. For someone living in fantasy land, one can argue that maybe Hillary Clinton has legitimately different views on this now than her husband did 20 years ago. Here in reality, I think the most sensible conclusion is to assume Clinton will vocally oppose private prisons while doing fuck all to actually end the practice.

@caze

Finance (Glass-Steigal mostly)

This seems like a hugely important issue to me. Why should I consider this a minor difference considering Clinton’s close relationship with the biggest investment banks and Sanders’ much more adversarial attitude towards them?

@caze

Gun Control possibly (Sanders doesn’t have a good record there)

That depends on how you feel about guns. But before you conclude anything about Sanders’ record on gun control, maybe you should compare the statistics for gun deaths in VT to those of other states with more stringent gun control laws. I think you’ll find that VT’s liberal gun control policies have not resulted in a disproportionate number of suicides or homicides due to firearms.

Also, interesting to me how consistently you’re presenting your opinions as fact.

@caze

BB, where rational debate goes to die.

I can’t help but notice you smugly dismissed the idea without actually presenting a case against it. If this is indeed where rational debate goes to die, you are doing your fair share of the stabbing my friend.

[GideonTJones]

[quote=“milliefink, post:68, topic:79353”]
Why are you picking on women and POC? Most Americans vote against their own interests.
[/quote]Only when you accept the Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas” false-consciousness bullshit, rather than understanding that white people are voting to protect white supremacy, which they find very, very valuable.

[kpkpkp]

@lamaranagram

He’d make a great secretary of housing.or something.

or maybe a pretty good Senator :-/

[wysinwyg]

Here’s another aspect: the left in the US has been in an abusive relationship with the democratic party for decades. The result of the party’s “you need us to save you from the awful boogeyman so vote D you dirty hippies” is that a lot of us are feeling pretty fucking disillusioned about any mainstream Democrat, especially one who is part of a political dynasty, especially one who seems as crooked, nasty, dishonest, and venal as the Clintons.

[GideonTJones]

[quote=“AcerPlatanoides, post:50, topic:79353”]
What was Clinton doing in the 70s?
[/quote]Working for the Children’s Defense Fund. Working for Walter Mondale in congress. Working for George McGovern’s presidential campaign. Getting a law degree. Putting it to use prosecuting Nixon for Watergate…So… not much.

[milliefink]

@GideonTJones

Only when you accept the Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas” false-consciousness bullshit, rather than understanding that white people are voting to protect white supremacy, which they find very, very valuable.

?

Yes, it’s obvious that those who vote republican do that, but the issue here is those voting for Sanders versus those voting for Clinton.

If you’re claiming it’s also true that those white people who vote democratic are also voting to protect white supremacy, in what sense are the larger percentages of white people who voted for Sanders instead of for Clinton voting to protect white supremacy?

(Seems to me that when one takes into account Clinton’s comments about “super-predators” and her bellicose, one-sided defense of Israel’s racist aggression against Palestinians, those white people who voted for her are the democrats we can more fairly label voters for white supremacy.)

[GideonTJones]

[quote=“milliefink, post:76, topic:79353”]
Yes, it’s obvious that those who vote republican do that, but the issue here is those voting for Sanders versus those voting for Clinton.

If you’re claiming it’s also true that those white people who vote democratic are also voting to protect white supremacy, in what sense are the larger percentages of white people who voted for Sanders instead of for Clinton voting to protect white supremacy?
[/quote]For the record, I’ve never had a problem calling Hillary racist. In fact, I spent most of 08 doing so after she and Bill went all in on her “hard working white people” campaign across Appalachia. She learned an important lesson that year, which is that there aren’t enough “hard working white people” to power you to victory, and this year she didn’t pull that crap. Now Bernie’s learned that lesson too. I hope the rest of the party has got the message, though I suspect many haven’t.

[Jabberwocky]

I think it’s unironic that the side that draws most of its’ support from white men is just so sure that they know whats good for the “simpleminded” side that is largely women and POC.

[art_carnage]

@funkboy3

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.

Reagan v Mondale was the biggest presidential landslide victory in modern history, and that only had a popular vote separation of 18%. So, yeah, 56% v 43% definitely qualifies.

[anon26940528]

@GideonTJones

Only when you accept the Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas” false-consciousness bullshit, rather than understanding that white people are voting to protect white supremacy, which they find very, very valuable.

Except that I have yet to understand the sub-stratum motivations that differentiate these candidates to white voters sufficiently to make it clear that either supports white supremacy more (or less) than the other. For the record, while I feel like Clinton will have a poorer impact on POC, I don’t detect sufficient coding in either candidate’s expression to indicate even to white voters that they better represent their interests vis-a-vis supremacy. And these motivations would have to be sub-stratum, because as you yourself stated, there is no substantive difference in explicit policy. This also doesn’t account for the POC who did vote for Bernie. What are we? Are we all Uncle Toms, Aunt Thomasinas, and Baba Ganoushes? The insinuation seems to be that we’re worth dismissing in this calculus. Not just as an afterthought, but completely. This is especially embittering when polls show that among minorities, there’s a significant age divide. This isn’t a trivial point.