Bernie or Bed

Will Bernie Sanders supporters be able to drag themselves out of bed to vote for Hillary Clinton this November? Seems doubtful.

20 Comments. Leave new

  • Everybody who’s been paying attention knows that the oligarchic puppetry (AKA the Republicrats and Demoblicans) are out to crush any opposition to the billionaire free riders interests.

    That’s why the Duopoly makes other parties unviable by insurmountable undemocratic laws for ballot access. Trump and Sanders had no option to get on the the ballot in all states in the elections but by running within the Duopoly. So boo hoo hoo for the R’s and D’s.

    I support anything that puts the establishment up against the wall. I voted for the Independent Sanders not because he is on the democratic ballot but because he stands against everything that the Democratic Party stands for.

    Hillary is worse than Trump. She has a proven record of psychopathic indifference to the interests of the non-billionaire class. Trump has not proven yet, but being untested, may yet prove to be factually of the same ilk as Hillary. But why vote for a certainty in Hillary, while Trump remains only a possibility?

    The news is that the Duopoly will win, so voting matters little when the difference is only one of style.

  • alex_the_tired
    May 6, 2016 11:04 AM

    I will be writing in Bernie Sanders’ name. And looking forward to the 269-269 tie.

    • alex_the_tired
      May 6, 2016 11:44 AM

      Jesus. A Trump bio? Can you whip up one about Hillary? Shouldn’t take long: anything you say about any of her opinions on anything will be true, at some point in her career.

      • I did call it! (but half-believed it at the time, to be fair…)

        Also I do remember saying that a Hillary bio would be too much even for Ted “I’m cruising through Afghanistan on the brink of war” Rall… at least in the sense of being able to make enough money off it to pay for the inevitable therapy sessions such a toil would require. But now I’m only half-believe that, too…

      • alex_the_tired
        May 6, 2016 5:28 PM

        Shit, the Hillary book can be one of those two-sided jobs. Read it from the “front” cover, it tells you one story (I’m a moderate, marriage is a sacred vow between a heterosexual man and his chattel). Flip it over and read from the “back” cover, and it’s another story.

  • michaelwme
    May 6, 2016 4:28 PM

    Hillary knows she’s got the election iced. She is no politician, but Bill is. In 2008, Bill laid low.

    As a Texan, i learned about Ma Ferguson, the First* Woman governor of Texas. Pa Ferguson was hated by the Texas legislature, and they impeached, convicted, and passed a law that Pa could never run again, even though he was wildly popular with the voters. So they put up Ma, and she won several terms. Voters figured they were putting Pa in the Governor’s Mansion, in spite of the legislature.

    So Hillary didn’t accept the Presidency in 2000, and Bill did ‘t help in 2008, so she wouldn’t be the First* Woman President, she’d be the First (without the *).

    This time, Bill is doing all he can to make Hillary the First* Woman President, since they now figure that First* is better than not at all.

    Bill managed to convince 90% of African-Americans that he was the best thing that happened to them, and he knew how to do it: he got very charismatic African-Americans to tell the African-American community that he was the best thing that ever happened for African-Americans, and 90% believe it and will vote for Hillary as a way to put Bill back in the White House in spite of term limits. Likewise, 80% of Hispanics think Bill was great, even though he sent more Hispanics out of the US than any other president (but mostly by removals that were not technically deportations, the honour of most deportations goes to Obama), but 80% of Hispanics voted for Obama in ’12, blaming the Republicans for his deportations. (Obama, like Bill and unlike Hillary, is a consummate politician, and had charismatic Hispanics tell the non-Cuban Hispanic community (en Español) that the deportations were all the Republicans’ fault, and now those charismatic Hispanics are telling Hispanics (en Español) that they must vote for Hillary, and 80% are listening.)

    And then there is women. White Democratic women under 40 mostly voted for Sanders. Women over 40 mostly voted for Hillary.

    Trump got about 11 million votes in the contest for nomination. Hillary got about 12 million. It takes at least 60 million to win the election.

    The white women who are under 40 might stay home on election day, or vote Green. The majority of white men will vote for Trump. Almost all women over 40, African-Americans, and non-Cuban Hispanics will vote for Hillary.

    So it is VERY hard to see how Hillary can possibly lose this election.

    (Trump won the nomination because the Republicans are still in 1972, the year McGovern had a plurality of about 25% of Democrat primary voters and won the nomination but then lost almost every state to Nixon, so the Democrats changed the rules so a plurality is NOT enough to win, even a slender majority is not enough to win if the Democratic Party Leaders decide otherwise.

    Many, like Douthat, think that, if Republicans put up anyone except Trump, they’d win in a landslide, which ignores that almost all African-Americans, non-Cuban Hispanics, and women over 40 will vote for Hillary, and women under 40 will NOT vote for Trump, they’ll either vote for Hillary or stay home. Douthat says that, at the convention, the Republicans HAVE to give it to someone, anyone except Trump. It’s not clear if the Republican leadership will listen to Douthat.)

  • But Ted – shouldn’t Mr Sanders’ supporters be jumping out of bed with both alacrity and joy at the prospect of being allowed to vote for a necon and warmonger like Ms Clinton ? Surely you are too negative !…

    Henri

  • Trump is the winner. A few delegates more and there’s no way the Republican Party can take away his victory.

    Congratulations, Trump insurgents. Job well done!

    But now that the GOP anti-Trump oligarchy is close to being toppled, the rats are leaving the ship and they’re looking to vote for Hillary to defeat Trump in the general election.

    They’ve blown their own cover. We can see who they are now. The anti-Trump Republicans who would vote for Hillary are owned by the big money donors just like Trump said.

    The Republican Party regulars who rejected Trump in the primaries are now going to try to force Hillary Clinton on you by voting for her in the general election.

    So before they can vote for Hillary in the general election, you Trump insurgents must take her off the Democratic Party ballot by voting for Bernie Sanders in the remaining primaries before those Republican Party regulars can perform their intended malevolent obscenity of voting for Hillary in the general election.

    Don’t settle for a Hilary win by anti-Trump Republican cross voters. You can do it by voting for Sanders in the remaining primaries.

    So, for all the Republican Party Trump insurgents that hate the Democratic Party, and Hillary, just as much or more, here’s your big chance to dump the disgusting big money, job outsourcing pig Hillary out on her ass.

    Because Trump is the winner, he doesn’t need your votes anymore and you can safely give them to Sanders.

    The victorious Trump insurgents need to vote for Sanders in the remaining primaries to shake up the Democratic Party oligarchs in a way they will never forget. The same way they have shaken up the Republican Party.

    If a large number of Republicans are defecting to Hillary, then now is the historic opportunity to dump the oligarchic puppets of both parties, and prevent a Hillary win by anti-Trump Republican votes.

    There is still time for the insurgent voters to knock Hillary out of the box with a vote for Bernie Sanders.

    An election between Trump and Sanders would shake up the Duopoly like nothing else ever could. Imagine if the Duopoly actually had to pay attention to the voice of the people instead of the voice of big money talking.

    • Conservatives Rebuke Trump As He Captures Republican Nomination

      Last night, Donald Trump effectively captured the Republican nomination, successfully bullying his way through a crowded primary field. However, many prominent activists, journalists and elected officials in his own party have figured out what Hillary Clinton has argued all along: Donald Trump is too big a risk for America.

      Take a look at the large group of prominent conservatives who are already promising that they’ll never vote for Trump:

      Rep. Scott Rigell [R-VA]: “My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party, and to live with a clear conscience I will not support a nominee so lacking in the judgment, temperament and character needed to be our nation’s commander-in-chief. Accordingly, if left with no alternative, I will not support Trump in the general election should he become our Republican nominee.”

      Former Romney staffer Garrett Jackson: “Sorry Mr. Chairman, not happening. I have to put country over party. I cannot support a dangerous phony.”

      Former top Romney strategist Stuart Stevens: “I think Donald Trump has proven to be unbalanced and uniquely unqualified to be president. I won’t support him… Everyone has to make their own choice. I think Trump is despicable and will prove to be a disaster for the party. I’d urge everyone to continue to oppose him.’”

      See more at:
      https://lbo-news.com/2016/05/04/hillary-quotes-conservatives/

    • «An election between Trump and Sanders would shake up the Duopoly like nothing else ever could.» A US presidential election contest featuring Donald John Trump and Bernard Sanders as the main protagonists would, if I understand aright, do more to disturb that country’s corrupt Tweedeldum-Tweedeldee political system – and who, besides those who make a living from them, would be sorry to see the Republican and Democratic branches of the unitary oligarch party smashed ? – than almost any other conceivable event. Moreover it would be fascinating to see which way US voters would jump, were they to be offered such a choice….

      Alas, such a dénouement seems unlikely, and after the July conventions, the choice before US voters will probably be between Mr Trump and Ms Clinton. Which of these two represents a greater danger to the people of the US and the world is not easy to say : Mr Trump has no record on which to be judged, and his comments during the Republican primary campaign are at best a mixed bag, while Ms Clinton remains the neocon and warmonger she seems to have been ever since her salad days as a Goldwater girl….

      I don’t know about Republicans crossing the line to vote for Mr Sanders in the remaining Democratic primaries, but as a citizen of a country which, like all others, will be greatly affected by the results of the coming contest, I’d love to be able to do so myself. Alas, I do not possess the franchise….

      Henri

      • Hillary is only 285 pledged delegates ahead of Sanders.

        There are 694 pledged delegates to be chosen in the June 7 primaries.

        Trump says that more have voted for him than for any other Republican candidate in the history of the primary elections.

        A massive turnout of Trump supporters for Sanders could wipe out Hillary’s lead in the June 7th primary alone.

        Even if Hillary remained ahead by Super Delegates there could be a convention floor fight between the Super Delegates and the Super-Screwed of the 99%.

        Hillary could be wrecked by a convention “win” brought ONLY by the UNDEMOCRATICALLY UNELECTED delegates to the Democratic Party convention.

        I would like to have both R’s and D’s oligarchies knocked out of power and then have the new government write laws that would exclude both Oligarchic Puppet Parties from the ballot, just as the third parties have been obstructed by them.

    • @ Jack Heart

      What do you think?

      Would you have Hillary as president by means of Republican cross-over votes in the general election?

      Will you allow the Republican Party establishment (one that is working to deny Trump his legitimately won candidacy) to deny Trump the presidency by their support for Hillary?

      Here now is the opportunity to dump Hillary from the ballot before the Republican Party defectors from Trump install her as the Commander in Chief.

      • Jack Heart
        May 8, 2016 7:24 PM

        I think that was a pretty good pitch. And that the GOPe is hallucinating if they think conservative voters are going to back Hillary in any meaningful number. And that Trump/Sanders would make a much more interesting contest. Unfortunately, I’m not in this for entertainment. America is at stake here and Trump has a much better chance against Hillary. Even with all the mooching, brainwashed dimwits America has accumulated, I don’t see how she wins. And frankly, whether she is a warmongering neoconservative or a progressive feminazi makes little material difference to me. And America would do little better under a Socialist Zionist with whom I admittedly agree that big corporations are the problem and the big trade deals are terrible, which is far more than I am comfortable having in common with a Marxist Jew.

        I am much more concerned with the Koch/Soros’ and who knows who esle’s operatives infiltrating and sabotaging Trump’s campaign. Even more worrisome is the extremely high probability an attempt on his life will be made.

        Trump is the first candidate since JFK I am confident loves this land and considers it first. And that’s exactly why the establishment is losing their shit. I can finally allow in my mind the possibility that we will pull out of at least some of our myriad foreign entanglements and maybe a Trump/Putin partnership can walk back the machinations of the anti-human globalists…

      • @Jack Heart

        As for your concern about Sanders being a Jew, do not miss the distinction between being born in the Jewish faith and being a warmongering Zionist fanatic.

        “As to Israel, [Hillary] Clinton is cravenly a creature of Aipac lobbyists,” states Patrick L. Smith of Salon, whereas Sanders did not deign to attend the April AIPAC convention, and AIPAC reciprocated by not allowing Sanders to speak by means of a remote telecom link.

        If being independent of Israel is your concern, Sanders is more favorable to you on that issue than is Hillary.

        Of course that may be another reason the anti-Trump Republicans will find a vote for Hillary to be an acceptable alternative to one for Trump.

      • «Trump is the first candidate since JFK I am confident loves this land and considers it first.» I note that self-delusion is alive and well in certain quarters. Mr Trump may well be a better choice – or a less bad choice – than a neocon warmonger like Ms Clinton, but the notion that Mr Trump’s first consideration is anything but Mr Trump is simply absurd….

        If «love of country» (a rather difficult notion to define – who’s country ?) is your criterion, «Jack Heart», than you’d do better with the «Marxist Jew»….

        Henri

      • Jack Heart
        May 9, 2016 2:54 PM

        All healthy people consider themselves first by default so I don’t really count it. But if I were to, valuing country is a part of valuing self as it is part of our identity. Trump loves himself *and* unlike many in our elite for whom country doesn’t even make the list, he considers his country part of himself, ergo America First.

        You should like this henri as it means we won’t have to fight wars for Israel or Saudi Arabia. We won’t antagonize Russia or China at least militarily. Hell we might even stop some of the foreign aid to tyrants.

      • To my mind, «Jack Heart», there is a rather large distinction between putting one’s country first and conflating one’s own interests with those of the country as a whole. The locus classicus of such conflation is Charles Erwin Wilson’s (in)famous comment to the effect that «For years I thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country. Our contribution to the nation is considerable». From the evidence, there seems to be no doubt whatever that both Donald John Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton exhibit the same failure to differentiate between their own personal interests and those of the United States….

        With Ms Clinton, we have good reason to assume that we – i e, not merely residents of the USA, but of the whole world – know pretty well what her foreign policy would be, in the event she becomes president of the US, and it isn’t (as you seem to acknowledge) a pretty picture. With Mr Trump, the situation is different ; he possesses no record regarding such matters which would allow us to base an informed judgement. Moreover, his various statements on such matters during the current campaign have not been precisely models of coherence. I think it possible that Mr Trump, who seems to recognise that even parties other than the United States have the right to promote their own interests in negotiations and that both parties to an agreement must win something for it to be successful, would promote a foreign policy better for both the people of the United States and those of the world than that we are likely to see from Ms Clinton (which, to put it mildly, is not setting the ribbon very high). But alas, we don’t know ; Mr Trump’s campaign hitherto simply doesn’t provide us with sufficient evidence….

        Henri

      • An uncharacteristically fair post, Henri. A successful deal maker by necessity acknowledges the concerns and goals of other parties. And no one can predict with certainty what he will do once president, but I have many strong reasons to believe he will be the best in modern times. The bar is embarrassingly low after all; is it not?

    • alex_the_tired
      May 8, 2016 12:22 PM

      Remember how Dubya was born on third and thought he hit a home run?

      Look at HRC’s career. It is, with a couple of exceptions, remarkably unexceptional. She’s book smart. I don’t dispute that. But she has no capacity to look to the long game. And she has no capacity to look backward, either. She has been in the right place, married to the right man, at the right time. She has accumulated contacts and power over a 30-year career and, as Ted has pointed out, it cost her about $100 million to win the only elected position she ever won (against Lazio). And we’re seeing her, again, barely winning, despite having every single goddamned bennie in the package. She’s been airlifted to third and told to run from home, and some old guy in the dugout stepped onto the field, bunted, and is now rounding third and still coming up fast.

      What should have been shooting a fish in a barrel turned into one of the most expensive and lengthy primaries in political history. HRC versus an old Jewish socialist from Vermont whose probably a closet atheist? Sanders should have won Vermont, come a close second in Florida, gotten a few regions of New York, and a couple of college towns around the country.

      He beat the fricking shit out of her. His campaign’s popularity forced her to start lying about how she, too, is for the things Sanders is for. If the Southern states had primaried in late May, Clinton would have given her concession speech sometime back in mid-April.

      Trump is crazy. His wall can never be built. It’s physically impossible. And, even if, somehow, he did get it done? People would simply go AROUND it. This isn’t the Dark Ages. Build a 40-foot wall and someone will go over it with a 40-foot length of rope and a 41-foot ladder.

      However, Trump will probably win. Why? Because his supporters don’t care if he contradicts himself. But they sure as shit do care if Hillary contradicts herself. And she will be crucified for it by the campaigning. It will make Lee Atwater look like Ned Flanders.

      The only way Hillary will win is if the Republicans come out in force to vote for her. I want everyone to think about that and what it means about who Hillary is. She’ll win not because of who she is and what she stands for but because the other guy is a complete nutjob. She’ll win not because of her qualifications but because, again, she was in the right place at the right time and her ineptitude will be overlooked.

      • No doubt, alex_the_tired, it’s comforting to believe that those we oppose are «crazy» and «nutjob[s]» – how many foreign leaders have not been characterised in that manner by Washington’s propagandists ? – but abuse is no substitute for analysis. That Mr Trump is, to use a convenient euphemism, self-centered – and to a degree which could render a Trump presidency dangerous to both the United States and, not least, the rest of the world – is beyond doubt, but «crazy» ? Like a fox, perhaps….

        Henri

You must be logged in to post a comment.
css.php