Hillary Willing to Work with Sanders on Shaping Democratic Platform

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

For the last time, Sanders was not running to win, unless you legitimately assumed he jumped into the race polling at 1% expecting to be able to win from the very beginning.

In 2014, Bernie said that he was thinking of running for President, but only if he could win. He was definitely not interested in being another Dennis Kucinch.

Nobody jumps into the race and proclaims publicly, "I'm in it to lose it!".

Actually he said "People should not underestimate me" when he announced.

Oh, wow: a candidate made an overly-optimistic statement regarding their chances for winning the nomination? Well then! It must be an absolutely true statement regarding belief of winning the nomination, and not indicative of anything else or misleading at all!

Come on, you don't have any evidence for the idea that he wasn't running to win. His campaign said that he needed $40 million to compete in Iowa. Just because you didn't think he had a chance doesn't mean he wasn't seriously trying to win.

If he really thought he actually had a chance of winning then, he was either prophetic or ignorant, and I didn't see him carrying around a crystal ball.

Why do you need to be either? I knew that Hillary was much more vulnerable than people though.

Maybe if Biden or Warren had run, but nobody in their right mind would have thought that an unknown 73 year old Democratic Socialist serving as an Independent could stand a chance.

I wasn't sure at first, but after maybe a month decided he had a good chance.

[IceSpear]

The platform is meaningless. What Hillary says her policies and what they actually are are two different things. Example, the Iraq surge, she was publicly opposed and privately in favor.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/

Jfern, I swear to god, you're like the human personification of r/sandersforpresident. You find a way to incorporate an attack on Clinton into every topic imaginable.

Actually, jfern wouldn't fit in there, he'd be kicked out for being too much of a Hillary hack. They still think he's going to win California by 70 points because "nobody I know supports Hillary" or "everyone I see on Twitter supports Bernie." And if somehow this doesn't happen, they think he will run as an independent and win 270+ EVs. They also think the Hillary campaign stole Arizona, New York, and most recently, Maryland. lol

No, those are the extremists. Jfern is quite literally the human form of r/sandersforpresident, he'd fit in perfectly there.

This was the top rated link a few days ago:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it appears the inmates are now running the asylum. Honestly, it's not that surprising considering the sane ones probably left.

[dax00]

To the extent that the media cared about Hillary and her supporters in 08, it was usually phrased as "How can Obama get all those dumb racists to support him in the general?" But this time from their tone you'd think they want Bernie to handwrite the platform and make Hillary sign her name at the bottom in her own blood. I recall a lot of "Hillary Clinton is entitled to nothing" sentiment despite her having a much stronger showing than Bernie did, but now suddenly it matters?

Of course, I do agree with her decision and admire her for treating him with far more respect than she was treated with. That's just the kind of person she is. But the media and "Democratic establishment's" double standard needed to be called out.

In '08, I disliked both Democratic candidates. Obama was never entitled to Hillary's voters, and the Obama supporters were wrong for calling Hillary supporters racists. Hillary gladly supported Obama, because they were just about the same anyways.

This time, Hillary isn't entitled to Bernie's supporters. The difference is that there is a big difference between the candidates, and Bernie (out of principle) will not ask his supporters to just swing along to Hillary.

Bernie has treated Hillary very respectfully. But he has to call her out. It's like prosecuting the murder trial against O.J. Simpson. You have to prove he's guilty but maintain due process. The media has been way more supportive of Hillary than any other candidate in the field of either party.

[IceSpear]

As far as who "won" goes, you know...it's actually possible for everyone to "win" based on their own criteria.

Sanders didn't enter the race expecting to be able to win the nomination. This should be very obvious - not only from his past comments, but also from tragic missteps in the form of taking certain attacks/strategy off the table until it was too late for them to derail Clinton. He entered to push Clinton to the left and to hopefully have influence on the Democratic Party platform and message. By that measurement - his measurement - he not only "won", but probably exceeded even his own expectations.

Clinton entered the race to win the Democratic nomination. This also is very obvious. By that measurement - her measurement - she won in the way she wanted to as well.

Bernie was't running to pressure Hillary to the left. Everyone knows that wouldn't last. Bernie was running to win. He just likes a issue based campaign rather than a negative one. Obviously he could have hammered the top secret emails, Saudi arms being used to killed Shia civilians after they gave money to the Clinton Foundation, voting against a diplomatic solution in Iraq

No - if he was running to win, then he wouldn't have taken the emails and corruption claims off the table until polling showed he had a shot. Those are issues, as he and his campaign have said as of late. They didn't want to damage the inevitable nominee in the beginning. When winning became viable, they acted just like any other campaign.

Didn't he start using those lines only after March 15th though? Which was when the contest essentially ended. His peak chance of victory was post NH/pre NV.

[IceSpear]

The media has been way more supportive of Hillary than any other candidate in the field of either party.

Based on what?

[This account no longer in use.]

So the MSM is biased towards Kasich?

[IceSpear]

So the MSM is biased towards Kasich?

According to the graphic, they just hate him least. And Hillary most. I do find it funny how the same media that is responsible for relentlessly pummeling all presidential candidates with endless negative press then turns around and writes ridiculous self pitying op-eds about "Woe is us! Why are the leading candidates so unpopular! Why oh why are we so polarized! Can't a white horse candidate come and save us?!" Of course, if said white horse candidate actually did jump in, they'd make them as popular as herpes within a month.

I wish I could've seen numbers for Obama and Lavenous Marco though. Maybe they could've gotten into the positive range, or at least more evenly split.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So the MSM is biased towards Kasich?

According to the graphic, they just hate him least. And Hillary most. I do find it funny how the same media that is responsible for relentlessly pummeling all presidential candidates with endless negative press then turns around and writes ridiculous self pitying op-eds about "Woe is us! Why are the leading candidates so unpopular! Why oh why are we so polarized! Can't a white horse candidate come and save us?!" Of course, if said white horse candidate actually did jump in, they'd make them as popular as herpes within a month.

I wish I could've seen numbers for Obama and Lavenous Marco though. Maybe they could've gotten into the positive range, or at least more evenly split.

Wasn't Walker or Rubio supposed to be the "white horse" candidate, at least for the republicans? As in, able to make both the establishment and the tea party happy? The media covered both of them fairly favorably, but it didn't actually work.

[dax00]

The media has been way more supportive of Hillary than any other candidate in the field of either party.

Based on what?

The data were aggregated from posts on Twitter.... and the majority of voters (i.e. older people) don't often frequent Twitter.
They also counted retweets to further skew the data.

The fact that the number of retweets of negative stories against Sanders is so high in such a pro-Sanders medium as Twitter goes to show how numerous the anti-Sanders stories (tweeted by the MSM, the only (re)tweets accepted for the "study") must have been.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Another thread goes down the tubes thanks to jfern and the other Berniebots.
How surprising.

[Adam Griffin]

As far as who "won" goes, you know...it's actually possible for everyone to "win" based on their own criteria.

Sanders didn't enter the race expecting to be able to win the nomination. This should be very obvious - not only from his past comments, but also from tragic missteps in the form of taking certain attacks/strategy off the table until it was too late for them to derail Clinton. He entered to push Clinton to the left and to hopefully have influence on the Democratic Party platform and message. By that measurement - his measurement - he not only "won", but probably exceeded even his own expectations.

Clinton entered the race to win the Democratic nomination. This also is very obvious. By that measurement - her measurement - she won in the way she wanted to as well.

Bernie was't running to pressure Hillary to the left. Everyone knows that wouldn't last. Bernie was running to win. He just likes a issue based campaign rather than a negative one. Obviously he could have hammered the top secret emails, Saudi arms being used to killed Shia civilians after they gave money to the Clinton Foundation, voting against a diplomatic solution in Iraq

No - if he was running to win, then he wouldn't have taken the emails and corruption claims off the table until polling showed he had a shot. Those are issues, as he and his campaign have said as of late. They didn't want to damage the inevitable nominee in the beginning. When winning became viable, they acted just like any other campaign.

Didn't he start using those lines only after March 15th though? Which was when the contest essentially ended. His peak chance of victory was post NH/pre NV.

Well, when I said "corruption", I meant it in a general and broader sense: he began really hitting her on Wall Street in general when he had his first little spike in polling in early-to-mid fall, and on Goldman Sachs speeches right before IA (I think? Maybe it was right after IA). January was when he really starting tapping her. He never really hit her on the emails, and frankly, he couldn't after he said it was a non-issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As far as who "won" goes, you know...it's actually possible for everyone to "win" based on their own criteria.

Sanders didn't enter the race expecting to be able to win the nomination. This should be very obvious - not only from his past comments, but also from tragic missteps in the form of taking certain attacks/strategy off the table until it was too late for them to derail Clinton. He entered to push Clinton to the left and to hopefully have influence on the Democratic Party platform and message. By that measurement - his measurement - he not only "won", but probably exceeded even his own expectations.

Clinton entered the race to win the Democratic nomination. This also is very obvious. By that measurement - her measurement - she won in the way she wanted to as well.

Bernie was't running to pressure Hillary to the left. Everyone knows that wouldn't last. Bernie was running to win. He just likes a issue based campaign rather than a negative one. Obviously he could have hammered the top secret emails, Saudi arms being used to killed Shia civilians after they gave money to the Clinton Foundation, voting against a diplomatic solution in Iraq

No - if he was running to win, then he wouldn't have taken the emails and corruption claims off the table until polling showed he had a shot. Those are issues, as he and his campaign have said as of late. They didn't want to damage the inevitable nominee in the beginning. When winning became viable, they acted just like any other campaign.

Didn't he start using those lines only after March 15th though? Which was when the contest essentially ended. His peak chance of victory was post NH/pre NV.

Well, when I said "corruption", I meant it in a general and broader sense: he began really hitting her on Wall Street in general when he had his first little spike in polling in early-to-mid fall, and on Goldman Sachs speeches right before IA (I think? Maybe it was right after IA). January was when he really starting tapping her. He never really hit her on the emails, and frankly, he couldn't after he said it was a non-issue.

He didn't say it was a non issue. He said he was sick of hearing about them, and that it was up to the FBI.

[IceSpear]

The data were aggregated from posts on Twitter.... and the majority of voters (i.e. older people) don't often frequent Twitter.
They also counted retweets to further skew the data.

The fact that the number of retweets of negative stories against Sanders is so high in such a pro-Sanders medium as Twitter goes to show how numerous the anti-Sanders stories (tweeted by the MSM, the only (re)tweets accepted for the "study") must have been.

This was from the Vox article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not like they were measuring the sentiment of random people on Twitter. Regardless, even if it's an imperfect study, at least it's something. Do you have any evidence to show that the media is biased in favor of her? Here's just a common sense perspective: if they really were biased in favor of Hillary, they would not have spent over a year spamming us about her emails and about how she might get indicted, to the point that her opponent in the election got annoyed that they wouldn't shut up about it. They would've downplayed it or ignored it, or stopped talking about it after a week like they do with most "scandals."

Also, I'm going to plug this post as well:

Yes (not a hack)

First of all, Obama himself even admitted the media was in the tank against her in 08, and that his campaign used it to his advantage. Of course, everyone who wasn't delusional already knew it, but it was nice to close the case on that matter for good.

Secondly, remember "dead broke"? Yes, it was a dumb gaffe, but the media was literally talking about it for like a year as if it was some epic event. It would've been a week long story at most for any other politician.

Oh emailgate...literally nobody cared about this until she ran for president. Thousands of people in the government, including many of the now "indignant" Republicans, knew she was using a private email and nobody cared. But the NYT needed a new faux scandal for their precious horse race, precious right wing clicks, that sweet ad revenue, and to fulfill their vendetta. Thus, emailgate was born. And that's not even the end of it. Even if you assume emailgate is a legitimate issue, it would've been a month long issue at most for any other politician. Not only have they been spamming it for over a year, they've already tried her in the court of public opinion as a corrupt guilty criminal bitch who will soon be indicted, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. Contrast it with Rick Perry literally being indicted, when the media and all the "liberal pundits" leapt to his defense and talked about how mean the prosecution was being to poor innocent Rick Perry.

I disagree with you on Sanders though. The press doesn't care for him personally, they only "like" him as a vehicle with which they can damage their nemesis. They'd turn on him in an instant and savagely rip him to shreds like a pack of rabid hyenas if he actually won the nomination. Compare it to 08. Back then they LOVED Obama AND hated Hillary, so it was double trouble for her. Now it's basically just hating Hillary, and Bernie is their only option to hurt her. Remember when they acted like O'Malley and Chafee would hurt Hillary? Remember them pleading on their hands and knees for Joe Biden to enter? And even outright lying about the fact that he was definitely running based on his son's death just to try to force him in the race? That was sickening. There's clearly no lengths the media will not go to to try to destroy Hillary Clinton.

Partly it's because some people always at least have their partisan media outlets to defend them. While the right wing media is obviously going to attack Hillary, the "non partisan" functions as their subsidiary while the left wing media is too busy trying to tear her down as a far right corporate shill to prop up their preferred candidate at the time, leaving her with no natural defenders.

In addition to Lyndon's chart, here's some more evidence:

Pundit: "Yes, the media is sexist, but deal with it"
Joe Scarborough: MSNBC was biased against Hillary in 08
Gallup poll: Hillary by far treated the most unfairly in 08, according to voters
FiveThirtyEight: Hillary's nearly endless streak of negative media coverage
Sexist comments by male pundits in 08 highlights
Former NYT Editor: NYT gives Hillary unfair scrutiny

Of course, even if every TV anchor and columnist publicly stated that Hillary Clinton is a c*nt on live TV, many of the hacks here would still live in their own fantasy world.

I look forward to your rebuttal, preferably with many sources.

[IceSpear]

Another thread goes down the tubes thanks to jfern and the other Berniebots.
How surprising.

I'll take some credit for hijacking this one as well.

[Comrade Funk]

Has she?  She may have given in on international trade and on Wall Street regulations, but when it comes to single-payer and other issues, she has (more or less) held her ground. 

I don't get why singlepayer is so necessary for a Democratic nominee, or even being used as a measuring stick for how left you are (I see it used in this fashion quite a bit). For the time being, it will not pass Congress, even if we had a supermajority in the Senate and control of the House. Democrats will not risk losing control over healthcare reform for the 3rd time. They will put their own interests ahead of that this time around, should it ever come to that.

Further proof the Democratic Party doesn't care about working people/middle class, but that's no surprise. They are politicians after all.

Who will fight for us?

[Shadows]

It's so annoying to see people move the goalposts to make their guy look better. Seriously, he lost. Nearly 3.2 million votes down, but he energized the party so he won? Apparently not enough for them to actually get out and vote. Unless they all did, and yet he still lost, which is even more sad. Get real.

The 3 Million stuff is pretty dumb as an argument as it excludes votes from caucuses - And it is up to her - She is free to ignore the 45-46% of the votes which Sanders will receive by the end of this campaign at the very least!

[Adam Griffin]

As far as who "won" goes, you know...it's actually possible for everyone to "win" based on their own criteria.

Sanders didn't enter the race expecting to be able to win the nomination. This should be very obvious - not only from his past comments, but also from tragic missteps in the form of taking certain attacks/strategy off the table until it was too late for them to derail Clinton. He entered to push Clinton to the left and to hopefully have influence on the Democratic Party platform and message. By that measurement - his measurement - he not only "won", but probably exceeded even his own expectations.

Clinton entered the race to win the Democratic nomination. This also is very obvious. By that measurement - her measurement - she won in the way she wanted to as well.

Bernie was't running to pressure Hillary to the left. Everyone knows that wouldn't last. Bernie was running to win. He just likes a issue based campaign rather than a negative one. Obviously he could have hammered the top secret emails, Saudi arms being used to killed Shia civilians after they gave money to the Clinton Foundation, voting against a diplomatic solution in Iraq

No - if he was running to win, then he wouldn't have taken the emails and corruption claims off the table until polling showed he had a shot. Those are issues, as he and his campaign have said as of late. They didn't want to damage the inevitable nominee in the beginning. When winning became viable, they acted just like any other campaign.

Didn't he start using those lines only after March 15th though? Which was when the contest essentially ended. His peak chance of victory was post NH/pre NV.

Well, when I said "corruption", I meant it in a general and broader sense: he began really hitting her on Wall Street in general when he had his first little spike in polling in early-to-mid fall, and on Goldman Sachs speeches right before IA (I think? Maybe it was right after IA). January was when he really starting tapping her. He never really hit her on the emails, and frankly, he couldn't after he said it was a non-issue.

He didn't say it was a non issue. He said he was sick of hearing about them, and that it was up to the FBI.

Yeah...when you say that you're not going to engage on an issue in a campaign, you're saying it's a non-issue in the only context that matters...

[King]

what a bunch of sad Sach negative nancies  in this thread!

[Figueira]

It's so annoying to see people move the goalposts to make their guy look better. Seriously, he lost. Nearly 3.2 million votes down, but he energized the party so he won? Apparently not enough for them to actually get out and vote. Unless they all did, and yet he still lost, which is even more sad. Get real.

Uh...were you here in early 2015? No one actually expected Sanders to win. The goalposts are simply being returned to their original positions. Stop being such a sore winner.

[BundouYMB]

It's so annoying to see people move the goalposts to make their guy look better. Seriously, he lost. Nearly 3.2 million votes down, but he energized the party so he won? Apparently not enough for them to actually get out and vote. Unless they all did, and yet he still lost, which is even more sad. Get real.

Uh...were you here in early 2015? No one actually expected Sanders to win. The goalposts are simply being returned to their original positions. Stop being such a sore winner.

No one expected him to win... and he didn't. He got his ass kicked in an absolute double digit landslide and has only achieved something in the deluded minds of his supporters.

[MK]

Hillary and the DNC really shafted Berine.   He should consider running 3rd party he was already an independent.

[Figueira]

It's so annoying to see people move the goalposts to make their guy look better. Seriously, he lost. Nearly 3.2 million votes down, but he energized the party so he won? Apparently not enough for them to actually get out and vote. Unless they all did, and yet he still lost, which is even more sad. Get real.

Uh...were you here in early 2015? No one actually expected Sanders to win. The goalposts are simply being returned to their original positions. Stop being such a sore winner.

No one expected him to win... and he didn't. He got his ass kicked in an absolute double digit landslide and has only achieved something in the deluded minds of his supporters.

No one expected him to win anything except Vermont and maybe New Hampshire and a few caucuses.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's so annoying to see people move the goalposts to make their guy look better. Seriously, he lost. Nearly 3.2 million votes down, but he energized the party so he won? Apparently not enough for them to actually get out and vote. Unless they all did, and yet he still lost, which is even more sad. Get real.

Uh...were you here in early 2015? No one actually expected Sanders to win. The goalposts are simply being returned to their original positions. Stop being such a sore winner.

No one expected him to win... and he didn't. He got his ass kicked in an absolute double digit landslide and has only achieved something in the deluded minds of his supporters.

The pledged delegate margin is less than 10%.

[BundouYMB]

It's so annoying to see people move the goalposts to make their guy look better. Seriously, he lost. Nearly 3.2 million votes down, but he energized the party so he won? Apparently not enough for them to actually get out and vote. Unless they all did, and yet he still lost, which is even more sad. Get real.

Uh...were you here in early 2015? No one actually expected Sanders to win. The goalposts are simply being returned to their original positions. Stop being such a sore winner.

No one expected him to win... and he didn't. He got his ass kicked in an absolute double digit landslide and has only achieved something in the deluded minds of his supporters.

The pledged delegate margin is less than 10%.

You really are such an incredibly miserable hack.

Why? Because the only reason you want to talk about delegates instead of the popular vote here is so that you can disguise the margin of Hillary's victory in actual mass elections by including the results from caucuses attended by five unemployed white guys on the government dole who could afford to sit around and whinge about politics for eight hours.

Of course, you had to specify "pledged" delegates because Hillary currently has 60.52% of the delegates overall, a more than 20 point margin, a very inconvenient little reality for you and your shilling. Of course, there's no good reason for this specification. If we're going to include the gross offenses against democracy called caucuses there's no reason why super delegates should be excluded.

It's actually quite funny. Sanders is getting his ass kicked by double digits both in votes and in delegates, and he's frankly getting his ass beat so incredibly hard that I wouldn't think there would be any way you could spin it, but I should have known you'd find a way. You managed to twist and turn and bend yourself over backwards to find a way to exclude all of the undemocratic elements of the process that have benefited Clinton while simultaneously including all of the undemocratic elements of the process that have benefited Sanders to somehow to come up with some bizarre, arbitrary measurement where he's "only" losing by 9.72%.

That, of course, in and of itself, speaks volumes about how badly Sanders is actually losing.

[Yank2133]

What a surprise: Hillary Clinton is willing to work with the man that has energized the Democratic party. The woman should be taking notes on how to run a solid campaign, and how to attract young and disenfranchised voters.

She'll probably end up with the nomination, but it's clear Bernie has won the day.

What?

I know you hate Hillary, but this is beyond stupid.