"So are we going to be running against Trump, Cruz or someone we don't even know yet? Makes it hard to really hard to attack without knowing who we are going to be running against in the general election." - Clinton (You asked...)
If you are saying that Clinton thought she would still be campaigning right now and not already have this wrapped up 100%. Well I will just say my opinion is different then yours.
It would take a major, as in never has happened, event for her to lose the "D" nomination. If anything she is happier right now than several months ago, because with each passing day she is closer to wrapping up the nomination.
True believers hold out hope until the final buzzer sounds. Never give up, never give in. And, every minute the crusade continues more people are exposed to the logic of progressivism and the injustice of corporatism. This game is not the whole season, there are mid-terms in 2018.
Honestly, as a Democrat I don't mind the competition between Hillary and Bernie continuing all that much. It keeps both of the Democrats in the news more and, unlike the stuff going on on the GOP side, it has not gotten to a point where it's virulent and hurting the Democratic candidate's chances in the general election. Yeah, there are the Susan Sarandons out there, but they are the exception, not the rule. My guess is that these "Bernie Only Fans"was never going to vote for Hillary anyway, even if Bernie dropped out today, or 3 months ago.
Bernie Sanders peeps want it to drag on as long as possible. The longer Hilary is in it, the more progressive her policies will become. There is also the possibility that an email server or Benghazi bomb might drop at any given moment, which puts a serious dent in her campaign. And unless there is some grave injustice, like Bernie winning the delegate race only to be screwed over by super delegates voting against their own states wishes, I doubt you will see Bernie voters not rally around Hillary.
I like Bernie but have similar concerns as others have pointed out. The problem right now is, this stuff was practically rigged for her as the establishment's choice. The DNC has been unfair to Bernie in their attempt to pave the way for Hillary. Don't screw a guy over and then ask him to roll over and endorse everything you want. Thats the part I love about Bernie, even if he doesn't win, what matters most to him is that his message gets out and that the DNC will have to accept some of those ideas since that's what has resonated with so many of his voters.
Bernie and Trump have exposed their respective parties. More than ever, people are starting to realize its the parties themselves that are the problem, not so much the candidates.
At least Trump is a Republican and has been so for years. Bernie is not a Democrat and has openly admitted to running under the D ticket solely for the purpose of exploiting party machinery. He wants to use the "establishment" for his own purposes, refuses to help D candidates out with campaigning and fundraising, continuously rails against them, and then whines about the party being more favorable to his opponent. And now he's expressing a lunatic thought about getting super delegates (who are in fact "establishment" officials) to turn the tide in his favor. Feel the BS.
He is using politics as we know it to get a message out. Independents don't get any news coverage because the viewership only knows two parties. And, no traditional Democrats were going to seriously oppose Ms. Clinton because she runs the party. You wouldn't get enthusiastic future national support in your next race since you are not a team player. It's just good solid politics on this side.
Frank is great at delivering incisive blows. The media is talking like the GOP is on its last legs, but if they somehow win the presidency, the Democrats will be locked out of every column of government on the federal level. Democrats haven't figured out how to get out the vote in off presidential years. They're somewhat in the running for census redistricting in 2020, but incumbency presidential years are generally losers on the Senate and House levels with people more likely to vote the other party as a protest vote.
The purity associated with Bernie is based on being a politician with the luxury of being in a safe seat who is far away from power. The one issue that he has to tow the line on with his voters- there are a lot of gun owners in Vermont- he absolutely compromised and made pragmatic, political decisions not to support basic gun control like the Brady Bill, or banning guns from Amtrak train service. Otherwise, Bernie has renamed a couple of post offices in his state and passed little else, all while being "pure."
Exactly how is a democratic socialist purist supposed to get legislation passed in a predominantly regressive, corporate lobbyist controlled Congress? Any hint of the correctness of his positions or compromise in his directions would be quashed as a dissolution of corporate powers. The twice elected Commander-In-Chief can't even close GITMO. Mr. Sanders is a beacon of virtue in the cesspool of politics. We don't know what compromises he would make to achieve partial victories because the politics of compromise are dead. You can look at his efforts in VA funding to see what he can get done with compromise when public opinion is behind him. The bill got done, but at funding level about 1/20 of that for the F-35.
How did the 25 years of cautious centrism by Hill and Bill and Obama accomplish much either from a progressive point of view?
Bernie raised 44.$ million in March. Even to me a bit of surprise in that it surpassed barely the $43.5 million in February his previous record. Bernie Sanders.com 538 gives Bernie a 57% chance of winning Wisconsin. Bernie is closing the gap strongly in New York Bernie can definitely beat Trump.
It would be willfully blind to argue that the Clinton and Obama Presidencies didn't make a difference in terms of progressive politics. A couple obvious things: 1) Obamacare 2) Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor and many more federal judges One only needs to compare their time in the what happened during GWB's time in the White House to see that there would have been a difference. Would Al Gore, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have invaded Iraq? Would they have appointed Justice Roberts and Justice Alito? No, progressives didn't get everything that they wanted with Democratic Presidents, but they certainly got more than they would have gotten had there not been Democrats in the White House.
Having democrats in the white house is less about pushing agenda's and more about stopping conservatives from destroying the economy.
"Purity." Gawd, there's one born every minute. Pure socialism, maybe, and this country is not ready for it, any more than it needs whatever Trump would bring. I see articles written by people from your same fan club. Huffington Post and Salon make them look as if they're actual news; click on them and you find op-eds touting the same numbers ("Sanders closed it down to such-and-so among the Latino vote, Sanders did this, Sanders would have won such-and-so state if so many hadn't sent in early mail ballots") Sanders will edge Clinton in Wisconsin but when this thing goes back East, it'll be all but over for him. Don't know what ya'll think you see in this guy.
