You got what you deserve, Republican Party...

[A Black Falcon]

Getting to spar with you again is so much fun!

Too bad you're still wrong, albeit much less so than before. :p

I guess there are some Sanders supporters who really don't like women, but probably not much more than there are misandrists supporting Clinton. Remember that the Bernie coalition started off as support for Elizabeth Warren. I have no doubt in my mind that should she have run instead of Sanders, her level of support would be on the same level (if not higher, she was not an independent). I mean, I'm a man, and I'm angry at Hillary, but her genitalia don't form the core of any reason why.

Sorry, but gender is at the core of why people hate Hillary. No other factor is remotely near as important.

As for Elizabeth Warren, she is a woman, yes, but she benefits from not having faced over 20 years of constant gender-based attacks. And would she really be doing as well as Bernie is? Maybe, but we'll never know. He has done an impressive job of winning over younger liberals, men particularly. If both were women, would it be as dominant a win for Warren as it is for Bernie? Who knows... And anyway, she'd never have run because she doesn't want to derail the candidacy of what will probably be the first woman to be president.

I don't really think the 's' word is such an obstacle anymore, thanks to right-wingers inadvertently devaluing the term so hard and often over the last eight years.

No, "socialist" is still one of the worst things you can call someone in American politics: http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/social...aling.aspx And there has been no sign in a dramatic shift since that poll.

Comparing Sanders to Stalin or Pol Pot falls flat within 30 seconds of listening to him talk. And, for all that, he outpolls Trump very comfortably.

Again, the "but polling says Sanders does better!" argument fails because Sanders is not being attacked. If he was his numbers would be radically different. Radically different. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016...mber-polls There is absolutely no comparison between Hillary and Bernie now because she's being attacked from all directions relentlessly in a way I have never seen in this party, while Bernie's barely even been touched by Dems while Republicans are completely silent about him. After the anti-Bernie ad campaigns he would do worse than Hillary in November, absolutely no question.

This sentiment is, in large part, the 'cucking' I mentioned previously: Dems are too afraid of Republicans (even when they are clearly falling apart at the seams, apparently) to effectively counter them. GOP gerrymandering and unlimited campaign money are some of the reason why the GOP dominates all lower levels of government, but the rest of the reason is because the Democrats lack backbone.
Living in Maine, your caveman retard governor notwithstanding, you don't really see a lot of that. Your Democrats are fairly safe. But, watch one run in Kentucky in 2014:

[video=youtube;z7Pa16JPUlY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7Pa16JPUlY

Alison Lundergan Grimes' strategy to unseat Mitch McConnell was "I'm not one of those liberals". As you might be aware, McConnell is now Senate ML. Why would any undecided or leaning voter find that message resonating? Why would any conservative voter opt to change their mind?

No spine. No principles. This is why Democrats control the White House and little else.

Someone running as a clear liberal in Kentucky would also have lost, though. Different states are different, people can't win everywhere with clearly liberal campaigns... I'd love to see a country where you could do that, but right now the South is still very conservative, unfortunately. So yeah, she lost and that campaign failed, but it's not like running left of that would have helped...

The scenario you described already happened, with Obama.

Indeed, his gender was a huge help for him, versus Hillary. She'd almost certainly have never lost the '08 Presidential nomination if she were male.

That is because Hillary supporters are Democratic partisans. A lot of Sanders supporters are new to the political process, for the first time having the sense that there was a point to it. They have little or no connection to the Party and no incentive to contribute to its success. I count myself among that number. The ones who will stick around are the ones who go along with the lesser of two profound evils. I don't think that's going to be the case this time, on either side of the political spectrum.

This is entirely true, yes. An older woman Hillary delegate commented about the hecklers that 'I wonder if I'll ever see them at one of these again', and it does seem unlikely; people who care about the party are not going to do that.

I guess it's a lot harder to heckle a candidate when he draws crowds ten times the size. Hillary supporters tend to do their dirty work on the internet. I went to Sanders' Kentucky rally last week in Lexington and I heard Hillary supporters trying to that. It's just that they were too few in size to matter.

It's not about the size of the crowds, it's about the kind of people who make up their audience, and the nature of the Hillary hate-campaign that hyas been ongoing for 24 years now since she entered the White House and dared be more than the traditional nonpartisan First Lady. Most Hillary supporters like Bernie just fine,or did until he started saying untrue things about her during this campaign.

That would be energy best spent helping your candidate win, I agree.

And then helping either one of them win in November, because that's the most important thing.

You must never visit Daily Kos anymore, then.

I read it every day, why? Mostly stick to the main page and elections page, though, not the user articles and stuff.

Yeah, he dislikes Trump, but what is there about Clinton for the Koch brothers to dislike, really? They are representative of what Sanders claims is wrong with American politics, but there isn't that much ideological conflict between them and Clinton.

:loi: What in the world are you talking about? The Kochs and Clinton disagree on almost every single issue! I mean, in that statement there he said something about 'if she changed positions on lots of issues' or something like that, and that is not going to happen. Hillary and Bernie agree on 90-something percent of issues. Hillary and any Republican today agree on very few.

You want to talk about right wing talking points? These are some I've heard from Hillary supporters, directed at Sanders:

He's a socialist!
He's going to raise your taxes!
He is soft on foreign policy (apparently, thinking before you start a war makes you 'soft')
Everything will get more expensive if the minimum wage goes up
Sanders supporters just want free stuff
Unicorns and rainbows

etc. like, are you on Kos or Free Republic? Hard to tell at times.

No, not at all.

-Socialist - They issue here isn't that he is one, many Hillary supporters like socialism too. The problem is that in our country no socialist can win a general election. And this is a huge issue, when we need to win this year, particularly to take the Supreme Court -- we have a once-in-40-year chance to turn this court around, from conservative to liberal, and we MUST take it! (Yes, the court has been conservative for that long.)

-On taxes, whether his tax plan is good or bad for someone depends on their individual circumstances. I haven't looked into it in great detail, but that does seem to be the case. And it opens him up for obvious, sure-to-work attack ads ass well, about "Bernie will raise your taxes". That kind of fearmongering works.

-Foreign policy - This has always been one of my major issues with him, yes. It's not that his positions are wrong, many of his are good. It's that he clearly does not care much about anything outside of the US, and the US banking industry in particular. I watched most of the debates, an the best he ever did at foreign policy was barely passable, while she did great every time. I disagree with Hillary on her Iraq vote of course, but she has said that that vote was a mistake, and I definitely believe that she would not do anything like that as President -- she has said as much herself, certainly. And while she should have been more credulous, she WAS lied to by Bush & Cheney, to help get votes. And more importantly, for today's foreign policy issues, she has the better and clearer foreign policy positions. She cares a lot about foreign policy, and that's a plus for her over Bernie.

- Hillary supports raising the minimum wage, as do probably all Democrats. The only issue is how much to raise it, but that's not as important as finally raising the federal minimum wage is in the first place...

- And your last two points are the same, comments pointing out how Bernie has few specifics behind his plans, only vague generalizations, while Hillary is a policy person who has much more detailed plans for everything. This isn't really an attack so much as it is a comparison of their natures. I prefer Hillary's to Bernies, myself, as policy matters... of course it's best to have both, like you see in Bill Clinton, but she doesn't have Bill's natural charm, unfortunately.

Bernie supporters use RWTP to impugn Clinton's character. Clinton supporters use RWTP to impugn Sanders' policies. I find that to be a lot more distasteful.

There are virtually no right-wing talking points against Bernie, so this is not true. The only shred of truth to it is pointing out ways that he will be ripped apart as a general election candidate, such as his embrace of socialism, raising taxes, etc. That isn't "repeating right-wing talking points", it's saying "those right-wingers will say this and Bernie has no defense against it". There's a huge difference there.

And besides, falsely impugning someones character is very, very bad, and Sanders supporters have done that to Hillary a lot.

Bernie is raising money solely from individual contributions. Clinton can easily raise money for others, because the majority of that cash is coming from connected and very wealthy people or SuperPACs.

What? This makes no sense. Where you get your money doesn't matter as much in the end as what you do with it. Hillary is using the money she is raising to support both her own campaign, and the campaigns of Democratic state parties around the country. Bernie is not doing this. So, in November, with Bernie we would do MUCH worse at a state level because of his refusal to raise money for and support lots of state and federal congress candidates.

Furthermore, why waste his energy raising funds for Democrats like Alison Grimes above, who have no chance of winning?

Sometimes you spend money on races like those if you think you have an off-chance of winning, as does happen sometimes -- think of how we won the North Dakota, Montana, North Carolina, Nevada, and Missouri Senate races in 2012. It will be very hard to hold those in 2018, but regardless, you can't win those in the first place if they had no money. And second, sometimes you spend a small amount of money on a race to try to get the other party to have to use resources on it that they would otherwise be spending on tougher races; this can be a good strategy.

There are obstacles energy and excitement can't overcome, such as closed primaries, people being de-registered to vote (this happened to me), votes being lost or miscounted, tremendously biased coverage in the media, and all the other tricks in a career politician's sleeve.

Bernie's the career politician in this race, more so than Hillary. But besides that, he has benefited more from our system than been hurt by it -- his numerous wins in caucus states prove this. Bernie would not have done nearly as well in most any of those states had they had primaries instead of caucuses, but at low-turnout caucuses, he can win due to his energized base. And as for closed primaries, I am quite fine with those; why should independents be allowed to choose who our nominee is? They aren't in the party! I support allowing registration on the day of the election, as we have here in Maine (same-day registration is great!), but don't like open primaries/caucuses.

How is Clinton going to accomplish anything with a GOP senate, representing an electorate that loathes her on a personal level? Even if she's sincere about half the promises she makes, it won't matter. It's going to be like Obama's first term, only much worse.

Well, we'll hopefully win back the Senate, first. And with Trump as their candidate we have a shot at this. And second, Hillary would follow Obama's lead in legislating by executive order or through the cabinet offices, when nothing can be passed. Bernie's more absolutist stances make me more skeptical about him getting things done, particularly in his main policy promises, which require impossible-to-pass legislation.

Great, I love getting to choose between which candidate I dislike less. CU was anti-Hillary in 2008, but she can't not love it now, it is largely why she is winning.

... Again, what? Hillary has made it very clear that one of her only requirements for any Supreme Court nominee she chooses is that they must be for women's reproductive rights and against Citizen's United. She greatly dislikes that decision. However, we can't win against the Kochs and such with their near-infinite floods of money unless we use what resources we have, even if they are from sources that we'd love to ban if we can get a Supreme Court in to overturn that decision. I would love to say "no, don't take any of that money", but as long as you're clear that you want it stopped once we get a court in that can do that, and you will fight for that as she will, we kind of have to; can't win otherwise.

And on that note, more reasons to support Hillary over Bernie is that she has been a lifelong advocate for womens' rights, while Bernie just votes the right way once something comes up for a vote. The former is better, of course. She also is much better on gun rights; guns are maybe Bernie's weakest point for me, he's way too pro-gun!

But, thanks to the electoral college and living in a non-swing state, I don't have to make that choice.

That's true, if you were still in Virginia your vote would matter in a way that it probably won't in Kentucky.

I saw a saying that fits well. "Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for the government we have. Bernie Sanders is the best candidate for the government we need."

There is some truth to this, but again, it depends on the issue -- regardless of our government she'd be better on women's and gun issues, and due to her caring more probably would get more done in foreign policy as well.