The War Between Bernie Sanders And Hillary Clinton Supporters Must Stop

hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-debateI have been writing for Forward Progressives for almost three years now. In that time, one thing that has jumped out at me most is how many people are so bound by ideology to their pet cause or favorite candidate, that they are incapable of even considering or tolerating beliefs other than their own.


All over Facebook, Twitter and the rest of the Internet, I’ve seen both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton supporters who blatantly refuse to vote for the opposite Democratic candidate, and promise to sit out the 2016 election if they don’t get exactly what they want. That’s not only politically immature, but it shows a lack of understanding about the issues America will face over the next decade. It also tosses the progress we’ve already made in several key areas completely by the wayside.

Let me be very clear on what I am about to say. It’s OK to be Ready for Hillary, and it’s OK to #FeelTheBern. I have zero animosity toward people who have decided to support Hillary Clinton, including some of my fellow liberals who like her. Even some of the left-libertarian Bernie Sanders conspiracy nuts aren’t so bad, just as long as you don’t try to talk to them about vaccinations or genetic technology.

Trust me, as a Bernie supporter, some of these people drive me to want to pour a second double glass of scotch in order to cope with their rants about technology or conspiracies by the media to marginalize Bernie. The same thing can be said for Hillary Clinton supporters who want to discount Bernie Sanders on his pragmatic approach to gun control.

I can even understand the beliefs of uninformed voters who plan on voting for Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, bless their hearts. Their political ideology is strange, often paranoid and hypocritical, or even sometimes blatantly racist. Their ideas are obviously the product of years of being stuck in the Fox News bubble, but I still understand that they would probably vote for David Duke or Cliven Bundy if given the chance.



What is infuriating is that while Bernie and Hillary represent different factions of the left, they’re both vying to be the nominee to run against the GOP nominee who could very well be Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, or even Marco Rubio.

The Republican Party is splintered badly right now, and the establishment is frantic over the possibility that Cruz or Trump could be their nominee. On the other side, Democrats have three candidates who are all far better choices than anything the GOP has to offer. As a very passionate Bernie Sanders supporter, I would gladly support Hillary Clinton or even Martin O’Malley – should they be the nominee instead – because there’s just too much at stake to throw away all the progress we’ve worked toward.

This is not the time for liberals to be fighting with each other over ideological purity, and anyone who says that they won’t vote if Bernie or Hillary isn’t the nominee is forfeiting our future to the Republican Party. Let’s do what we need to do in the primaries for the candidate we support, then worry about stopping the Republican path of destruction come November. We absolutely must be on the same page to move this country forward.




Comments

Facebook comments

  • Randee Head

    Absolutely true.

  • Sterling Ericsson

    As a molecular biologist, one of the primary ways I always judge candidates is their stance on scientific topics. It’s for that reason that all the candidates for the Republican party are pretty much perpetually not even a consideration for me (though there’s plenty of other policy issues that make them appalling as well.)

    In the beginning, several months back, I only knew about Bernie’s stance on GMO labeling. I thought he was misinformed on the subject, but forgave him for it, since a lot of politicians seemed to be misinformed on how genetics work. I considered it something that could be worked on to inform him more about it as time goes on and to bring him around to a more science based stance (like Bill Nye’s changed views on the topic).

    However, as time went on, I kept finding more and more evidence that Sanders was steeped in pseudoscience and has been for years. The first piece of evidence was directly from him and a speech he gave. See the following:

    http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/sanders-remarks-on-complementary-and-alternative-health-care

    In said speech, he expresses his support for “alternative medicine” and his desire to expand NCCAM, the organization responsible for most of the pseudoscience pushing in the US, especially homeopathy, and which has direct ties to multiple parts of the anti-vaccine movement. Not to mention that his speech also involved a number of very disingenuous, vague questions that were clearly stated to lead to a pseudoscience answer, like anti-fluoridation. One of the worst ones being “What role do chemicals play in cancer causation?”.

    So, that was a shock. Then I found more.

    Sanders has apparently been pushing for expanded use of “alternative medicine” for Veteran’s care for years.

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/18/bernie-sanders-veterans-health-care-uvm/27534441/

    If he had only been pushing for usage in mental and psychiatric care, that would be one thing. At least a placebo is worthwhile there. But, no, he has also been pushing for the usage of such things in actual care of physical ailments.

    Then, I ran across several articles in the science websites I frequent, all from several years ago, mentioning Bernie Sanders in a manner that shows his pseudoscience beliefs have been like this for a long time. Long enough that in science circles he is known, sarcastically, as the “champion of alternative medicine”.and how he has “helped naturopaths become players in the medical marketplace”.

    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/integrative-medicine-invades-the-u-s-military-part-one/

    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/legislative-alchemy-revisited-naturopathy-in-vermont-and-colloidal-silver/

    And, circling back to the GMO subject, I ran across this:

    http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/label-frankenfoods

    In among the many stupid statements in it, including the title, there is one line, “In the United States, Sanders said, food labels already must list more than 3,000 ingredients ranging from gluten, aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, trans-fats or MSG, but not genetically-altered ingredients.” This line is a list of basically all of the fear-mongered pseudoscience topics, all of which are made up of fear campaigns with a complete lack of science. The only thing that is argued against and backed up as being bad by science on there is trans-fats, and even those seem to be completely misunderstood by the public, who couldn’t even begin to tell you the difference between a saturated and unsaturated fat.

    With all of this, it is really beginning to look like Bernie Sanders is a anti-science candidate of my nightmares, up there with Ted Cruz currently being the head of the Senate Science Committee (shudder).

    If Sanders wins the primary, I will definitely be voting for him. The alternative is Trump and that WILL NOT HAPPEN. But as for the primaries itself…Sanders seems like he is basically the last person I would want to win, based on what i’ve discussed above.

    TL;DR Look at the links I gave above. They all seem to show an extensive back-history of Sanders being one of the pseudoscience kings in politics.

    • Linda Wade

      The Vermont Legislature earlier this year considered a bill that would have required labels on foods that contain genetically-engineered ingredients. The House Agriculture Committee heard testimony from 111 citizens and hundreds more crowded the Statehouse to show their support. Despite passing by a lopsided 9-1 vote in committee, the bill languished after Monsanto threatened to sue the state. Similar strong-arm tactics by one of the world’s leading producers of genetically-engineered foods and herbicides have been employed elsewhere. Now, Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed an amendment to the farm bill that would let states require that any food or beverage containing genetically-engineered ingredients be clearly labeled.

      Cosponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer, the amendment acknowledges that states have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered.

      The measure also would require the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to report to Congress within two years on the percentage of food and beverages in the United States that contain genetically-engineered ingredients.

      “All over this country, people are becoming more conscious about the foods they are eating and the foods they are serving to their kids, and this is certainly true for genetically-engineered foods,” Sanders said. “I believe that when a mother goes to the store and purchases food for her child, she has the right to know what she is feeding her child.”

      oh my… his stance so frightens me … not

      He didn’t say end gmo .. he said we have a RIGHT to know … I agree

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Which is why I support the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which is based around the two requirements of nutritional and health differences. So, for example, Golden rice would be labeled because it has a nutritional difference in that it has enriched vitamin A, while the Arctic Apple would not be labeled, as a non-browning trait is not nutrition or health related. And, while again, the Innate Potato would be labeled, as it has a health difference, in that it has lowered amounts of acrylamide, a carcinogen.

        Don’t you think a labeling system based on nutritional and health differences is far better than arbitrary and nonsensical opinions on what “genetic modification” means?

      • Linda Wade

        well, Hillary doesn’t Sterling…and none of the gop does

    • James

      NOTHING IS A BIGGER THREAT TO WORLD THAN WAR AND OLIGARCHY ….. your post is pseudoeducated

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Take your conspiracy government babble elsewhere.

      • Inaru

        Your love for Mansanto explains your love for Hillary.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Yawn, I support science. And the scientific consensus on topics like climate change, vaccines, and biotechnology. Every subject is going to have big companies involved, but that is irrelevant to the science.

      • Inaru

        Sure, make pesticide-resistant crops that then require stronger pesticides. Brilliant science! Idiot pseudo-science for mega-profits, is more like it. All you have to do to keep bugs off plants is sow bug-resistant plants and attract birds that eat the bugs. Indigenous people worldwide did it for thousands of years. But hey, have some RoundUp for breakfast, embedded in your fruits’ genes, brought to you by people who think half the world’s population needs to be annihilated to keep making mega profits. That’s smart and safe!

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Herbicide resistant crops have been a thing that was made long before biotechnology was a thing. Like these sunflowers: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/03/12/148312077/how-a-sunflower-gene-crossed-the-line-from-weed-to-crop

        It’s funny. Because trans/cisgenesis wasn’t used there, those sunflowers can be grown as organic, even though there is no difference between those and if I took a regular sunflower and inserted the gene into it.

        Also, based on the evidence, herbicide resistance traits have led to the usage of less powerful pesticides. With glyphosate being one of the lowest in toxicity ever in use. Also, I think you mixed things up. Herbicide resistance means it isn’t in the plant at all.

        I think you’re confusing that with the Bt toxin trait.

      • James

        Take your corporate bot thinking and stuff it where the sun don’t shine

      • James

        MAKE ME SLIME BALL

      • John Cross

        So you are voting for Trump? Make sense.

      • James

        JOHN GROW UP …. YOUR READING COMPREHENSION BLOWS …. MY AVATAR IS SANDERS EINSTEIN …..

    • hyperzombie

      “As a molecular biologist, one of the primary ways I always judge candidates is their stance on scientific topics.”

      And as a Canadian, and someone that wants to protect the environment, I cant support the Green party. Any party or politician that allows ideology to trump good science loses my vote.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        It’s sad. One would think they would be able to do both, since the science supports protecting the environment as well. But they have to go all conspiracy theory about it.

  • Steve_I_Am

    Manny Schewitz – You are missing the bigger picture. This election is NOT about whether Democrats are better than Republicans on issues of political policy. That is like arguing about how to “arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.”

    The last two Democratic Presidents – Bill Clinton with NAFTA, and Barracks Obama with TPP – have put us on collision course with the iceberg of global corporate plutocracy. As good as she is on some of the “deck chair” social issues, President Hillary will stay on a Big-Business-friendly course, and a collision with the Corporatist iceberg is inevitable. As a result, small “d” democracy will die – literally – in the cold waters of corporate fascism.

    Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is running on a pledge to change course, in one last effort to port around the iceberg before it is too late.

    This election presents America with a choice between two very different futures – continuation of the oligarchy (as represented by Hillary) and our last, best, opportunity to restore our small “d”/small “r” democratic republic (as represented by Bernie Sanders).

    • calijim

      Well said! “Those who do what they’ve always done, will get what they always got”. Time for a change and not just more of the same old, same old.

      • Mandy Sue

        Well said, my ass.

      • calijim

        Such a cogent comment, especially considering the well presented documentation to support it! I’m simply devastated by the wit and the breadth of intellectual ability and effort required to construct it. The only thing lacking is a strong closing statement – something like “And your momma wears combat boots”, perhaps?

      • baruchzed

        Mandy Sue do you have anything of substance to add or are you just here to whine?

    • Linda Wade

      BOOM! NAILED IT

      and exactly why I will fight to keep Hillary out of the White house…if chump is in there, democrats will REJECT TPP… if it’s Hillary they will sell us out

      • Amelia Sims

        ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

        A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
        3ytj……
        ➤➤
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsTap/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

      • nero88888

        I will fight to keep DINO Bernie out of the white house. He’s republican lite and a gun nut having voted against the Brady bill 5 times.

        Respected statistician Nate Silver said the chance of Jewish Sen.
        Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination
        are close to zero.

        Silver,
        the Jewish editor of the FiveThirtyEight blog who correctly predicted
        the election results of all 50 states in 2012, told Adweek on Monday
        that Hillary Clinton should win the Democratic nomination barring “some
        type of renewed scandal or health problem.”

        “I could see Bernie Sanders winning a few states,” Silver said of the
        Vermont independent. “New Hampshire is still very close. But
        [Clinton’s] chances have to be in the range of 90 to 95 percent. Trump
        has more of a chance than Bernie.”

      • Linda Wade

        you are seriously uninformed…

      • nero88888

        You are seriously DELUSIONAL.

        Respected statistician Nate Silver said the chance of Jewish Sen.
        Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination
        are close to zero.

        Silver, the Jewish editor of the FiveThirtyEight blog who correctly predicted the election results of all 50 states in 2012, told Adweek on Monday that Hillary Clinton should win the Democratic nomination barring “some type of renewed scandal or health problem.”

        “I could see Bernie Sanders winning a few states,” Silver said of the
        Vermont independent. “New Hampshire is still very close. But
        [Clinton’s] chances have to be in the range of 90 to 95 percent. Trump
        has more of a chance than Bernie.”

    • Sterling Ericsson

      If you allow Donald Trump to win due to your inaction, I would basically consider you a traitor to the United States

      • Sanity Please

        If you support Clinton over Sanders I will consider you an idiot AND a traitor to the country.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Oh please. You all were fine with Hillary before this presidential run, unless you’re acknowledging you were one of the Republicans going after her for things like Benghazi.

      • Steve_I_Am

        People were not fine with Hillary before this Presidential run. That is why she lost in 2008.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        She was a fine candidate, it’s just that Obama was able to get more momentum.

    • Mandy Sue

      How dare you be willing to sacrifice everything to make some pure political point. You need to grow the hell up.

      Hillary is not Bill, you sexist moron.

      • Steve_I_Am

        As flawed as it was in its inception, America was founded on the crazy idea that WE, THE PEOPLE, could govern ourselves without a Aristocracy made up of the moneyed and corporate elites. I don’t consider restoring small “d” democracy to be a “pure political point.”

        You, clearly, are willing to live in a corporate oligarchy (where you have no real political power) as long as the oligarchs are Democrats. I am not.

  • Inaru

    I don’t even know what to think about liberals who make excuses for supporting corporate, pro-war, pro-fossil fuel candidates. It’s as if we’re so used to being beaten, all we can say is “He hits me, but at least he doesn’t cut me.” We’ll do as we wish. That’s the point of voting. Go yell at Republicans. Some of us will lay down and let corporations rape us gently with Hillary. Some will gladly surrender to be brutally raped by corporations with some bigotry added for spice. Either way, we and our planet are screwed. Why? Because we constantly make excuses for letting any corporate pimp gain legitimacy with our votes. What are we? Russians?

    • Sterling Ericsson

      What about liberals that support candidates that are the pseudoscience kings in politics and push policies based around nonsense anti-science things like homeopathy and naturopathy?

      • Inaru

        Yes, the horror. Millions have died worldwide at the hands of our faith in homeopathy. Almost as many as have died with commercial drugs. Oh, wait! Millions more have died with commercial drugs!

      • rebeccagavin

        Ugh, did you really just say that?

      • Mandy Sue

        What a pointless response. He said it and it’s true.

      • Inaru

        I am a woman of color, BLACK NATIVE LATINA, and I think I can discern how I am treated better than you, who were not even there. And unlike many who schmoozed their way in there, I earned at-large delegate by busting hump for Obama, WORKING not bs’ing on social media 24/7. That’s what a real Dem does. Threatening people who get nothing but promises then crap from Corporate Dems is THE Republican way, so check how you good a Dem you think you are. As Hillary loves to remind us, you lose without us. Period.

      • Mandy Sue

        It’s like a cult over there lol

      • rebeccagavin

        Got any evidence that it is true, or is this just what your “gut” is telling you. Engage your brain and forget about what your gut thinks.

      • John Cross

        And you don’t care about repugs ordering women to go back to hangers in order to have “choice”? And you don’t care much for civil rights, and you don’t care much whether we have a moron in office who is liable to get us involved in 2-3 wars at once again? People who support Bernie b/c they support his policies, fine. But you reject someone with almost identical policies out of hand and prefer a Trump or a Cruz? Good for you, now go back to your cave.

      • Inaru

        You must think we women are helpless without the corrupt and self-serving Planned Parenthood?! It’s grown rancid. They do not fight to kill the Hyde Amendment that forbids federal funds to cover poor women who need an abortion, a “mere medical procedure” as they like to say, because it keeps poor women dependent on them, so they have insurance-covered or merely pay-in-cash abortions for the rich, and only PP for poor women, and they want to KEEP it that way. It’s become a PAC for rich white women and the women of color who get razzle-dazzled by the Foundation and SuperPACs to elect women that only serve them, with official positions and invites to collect those sweet speaking fees, not the majority of us women who are nowhere near rich.

        Fact is, it’s not the 19th or 20th century, and even back then I helped women get abortions with trained experienced nursed practitioners. I might be an interracial mutt, but I’ve done great at learning how white people take care of their own needs. Only a male yuppie would imagine you can replace taxis with Uber but not PP with independent and much more dedicated practitioners, without the added benefit of not drawing any attention to prove a political point for politicians that use the issue for pure personal benefit. Do you think we’re incapable of gathering the needed materials, knowledge and underground network? We did it in the 1960s 1970s and 1980s, before we had cell phones or the internet or could order anything we need online.

        I busted hump for Obama in 3 states, was voted at-large delegate, and have recruited 6 PCOs for my LD. WTH have you done for the party, talking so much shite? Pimping a multimillionairess who screws the poor and even those on death row for political points? Congrats. Go join the Repubs. It’s where she and her followers belong, as they’re the moderate Repubs they’re secretly wishing for.

        Everyone who sees what she’s really done – not the bogus bs conspiracies by FOX fools but the real actions and real friends of Hillary that screw the poor and laugh all the way to the next $200,000 “speech” in their private jets – and still supports her should join the GOP. New Dems are Republicans in Dem drag who pimp abortion to get the women’s vote. They are 150% corporate run, go google their darn board of directors, and they put up pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, corrupt and even racist ass candidates in the south especially, whatever makes the 1% happy, and we are sick of them. Good god, man, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, CHAIR of the DNC, refused to endorse or lift a finger for Dem candidates in FL because the Republicans running were her personal, anti-Castro Cuban, anti-Dem friends!

        The day Hillary threw Children’s Defense Fund under the bus for Welfare Reform – CHILDREN’S, not fetuses, real living breathing usually already walking talking children – is the day she lost me forevermore. And that she has the stinking cojones to still use their name as proof of caring simply makes her more repulsive. I don’t even hate her. I am merely repulsed by her, as I am by a crushed snail under my bare feet. http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/how-hillary-clinton-betrayed-the-childrens-defense-fund-for-political-gain/3862-how-hillary-clinton-betrayed-the-childrens-defense-fund-for-political-gain

      • Inaru

        Poor women still could get safe abortions with trained practitioners when Dems caved and passed – and they still let it stand btw and say nary a peep – the Hyde Amendment banning poor women from federal funds for an abortion, a “mere medical procedure” as PP likes to say, that somehow it’s okay to ban for the poor only. No Planned Parenthood raising mega bucks for their SuperPac in posh fundraisers. We just took care of each other, from trained nurse practitioners to the clerks working in clinics, working off the clock to help women left with no access by “compromising” DLC/NLC not real populist Dems. Funny how their compromise always only screws the poor. Just hilarious. And civil rights? If it gets her elected or mo’ money, Hillary will turn on those. It only takes half a brain to see her life ambition is money for power for its own sake. When the LGBT community had no clout, we had no right to marry in her eyes. We got clout and raised hell’a money, and she adores us and we’re equals now. She can kiss my ass.

      • Sanity Please

        How much is the Clinton campaign paying you to troll this site?

      • nero88888

        Bernie is republican lite.

        Respected statistician Nate Silver said the chance of Jewish Sen.
        Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination
        are close to zero.

        Silver,
        the Jewish editor of the FiveThirtyEight blog who correctly predicted
        the election results of all 50 states in 2012, told Adweek on Monday
        that Hillary Clinton should win the Democratic nomination barring “some
        type of renewed scandal or health problem.”

        “I could see Bernie Sanders winning a few states,” Silver said of the
        Vermont independent. “New Hampshire is still very close. But
        [Clinton’s] chances have to be in the range of 90 to 95 percent. Trump
        has more of a chance than Bernie.”

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Always have to go for the shill gambit fallacy, huh? It’s impossible for types like you to think people have a different opinion.

  • Sanity Please

    Hillary is free to withdraw anytime she wants and throw her support to Sanders

    • Sterling Ericsson

      I’m interested in what all you Bernie supporters will do when she gets the nomination and Bernie throws his support behind her.

      Since he understands that Donald Trump is just not an option.

      • baruchzed

        If that happens, which frankly is doubtful, I will vote for Jill Stein or I will write in Bernie.

      • nero88888

        Doubtful? Not according to Nate Silver

        Respected statistician Nate Silver said the chance of Jewish Sen.
        Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination
        are close to zero.

        Silver,
        the Jewish editor of the FiveThirtyEight blog who correctly predicted
        the election results of all 50 states in 2012, told Adweek on Monday
        that Hillary Clinton should win the Democratic nomination barring “some
        type of renewed scandal or health problem.”

        “I could see Bernie Sanders winning a few states,” Silver said of the
        Vermont independent. “New Hampshire is still very close. But
        [Clinton’s] chances have to be in the range of 90 to 95 percent. Trump
        has more of a chance than Bernie.”

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Even if Bernie himself asks you to vote for Hillary?

      • Mandy Sue

        If Bernie is the nominee, I absolutely would vote for him. That’s not in question, is it? The question is will all you people devoted to him listen to HIM when he endorses Hillary and asks YOU to vote for her.

        That’s where the problem lies.

      • Mandy Sue

        I just want to tell all of you “Bernie or Bust” morons, Eff you and thanks for nothing. Better you stay home because the effect will be the same. Or better yet, campaign and fundraise for more tea partiers because that’s probably who you really are after all, a troll working for tea partiers.

        Because you’re stoopid enough.

      • Linda Wade

        that’s ok… you’ll thank us in November with Bernie’s landslide election

      • Mike Barbeau

        I for one will write in Bernie before I leave the party for the green party.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Even if Bernie himself asks you to vote for Hillary and doesn’t want you to waste your vote?

      • Linda Wade

        there is going to be lots of that if they insist on coronating Hillary…

      • Mandy Sue

        You all are part of the problem.

        The biggest majority EVER gotten by an independent was 20% and it was Ross Perot. Our system isn’t set up and never has been set up for a viable third party run. Sure, you can do it, but it just hurts one or the other party.

        I seriously doubt Bernie would make a third-party run bc at least HE understands what that would mean. All the rest of you voting for Jill Stein (haha) or writing in your grandmother take the republicans a step closer to the office with every vote you waste.

      • Inaru

        I guess you’ll be curious until 2020, when she tries again. And again. And again.

      • Sanity Please

        Well, for starters, Trump will never be the Republican nominee. The Republican leadership will never allow it, especially since they control a large block of delegates. Second, I’m not prepared to concede that Clinton will get the nomination. If she does, I’ll vote for Jill Stein or write in Bernie Sanders.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        I am indeed interested in what exactly the RNC will do when it comes down to it, since it certainly seems like Trump will win the primary public vote.

        And if Bernie wants you to vote for Hillary if he loses the primary?

      • Linda Wade

        my life… my vote… better to vote for a candidate that represents my values than to keep propping up democratic avarice

      • nero88888

        their heads will explode. Bernie will endorse Hillary after she crushes him easily in the primaries.

        Respected statistician Nate Silver said the chance of Jewish Sen.
        Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination
        are close to zero.

        Silver,
        the Jewish editor of the FiveThirtyEight blog who correctly predicted
        the election results of all 50 states in 2012, told Adweek on Monday
        that Hillary Clinton should win the Democratic nomination barring “some
        type of renewed scandal or health problem.”

        “I could see Bernie Sanders winning a few states,” Silver said of the
        Vermont independent. “New Hampshire is still very close. But
        [Clinton’s] chances have to be in the range of 90 to 95 percent. Trump
        has more of a chance than Bernie.”

      • Mandy Sue

        I look forward to that. I may unfriend more friends then, when they start whining about how unfair it all was, than I have already LOL

      • baruchzed

        Sterling, if/when Bernie gets the nomination, how will you handle it?

      • nero88888

        Nate Silver gives your UNELECTABLE DINO Bernie a close to zero chance of winning the nomination.

        #feelthebernout you delusional moron

      • Sterling Ericsson

        I will vote for him, as I will vote for whomever gets the Democratic nomination. As the alternative is Trump and that cannot be allowed to happen.

    • nero88888

      Bernie the OLD DINO will be endorsing Hillary as POTUS after Hillary crushed the DINO in the primaries.

      Respected statistician Nate Silver said the chance of Jewish Sen.
      Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination
      are close to zero.

      Silver,
      the Jewish editor of the FiveThirtyEight blog who correctly predicted
      the election results of all 50 states in 2012, told Adweek on Monday
      that Hillary Clinton should win the Democratic nomination barring “some
      type of renewed scandal or health problem.”

      “I could see Bernie Sanders winning a few states,” Silver said of the
      Vermont independent. “New Hampshire is still very close. But
      [Clinton’s] chances have to be in the range of 90 to 95 percent. Trump
      has more of a chance than Bernie.”

    • Mandy Sue

      And vice versa. What would you do then? Besides cry and pout and vow not to vote for her?

      • Sanity Please

        Vote for Jill Stein or write in Sanders.

  • baruchzed

    This is not about ideological purity. Clinton is so corrupt I could never vote for her in good conscience. I will not vote for someone I don’t want in office. Why would I do that?

    • John Cross

      Please do enlighten me by proving one accusation of “corruption” against Hillary. Oh, and Tin-foil Hats are not allowed.

      • baruchzed

        Here’s just one…she and Bill own stock in a Columbian oil company…when she was Sec’y of State that company murdered union organizers…HRC said and did nothing…nor did she divest. That’s just one instance of corruption. Your willingness to stoop to insults instead of staying focused on the information…well that says plenty about you, and nothing about anyone else.

    • Mandy Sue

      It is exactly about ideological purity. And I bet you cannot point to one election throughout our entire history where one candidate was the perfect candidate. George Washington doesn’t count because that wasn’t an election.

      I’ll wait so you can point one out.

      • baruchzed

        It is you who are looking for ideological purity…as evidenced by your post.

  • nero88888

    Bernie is an OLD, unelectable DINO. He’s republican lite.

    Respected statistician Nate Silver said the chance of Jewish Sen.
    Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination
    are close to zero.

    Silver,
    the Jewish editor of the FiveThirtyEight blog who correctly predicted
    the election results of all 50 states in 2012, told Adweek on Monday
    that Hillary Clinton should win the Democratic nomination barring “some
    type of renewed scandal or health problem.”

    “I could see Bernie Sanders winning a few states,” Silver said of the
    Vermont independent. “New Hampshire is still very close. But
    [Clinton’s] chances have to be in the range of 90 to 95 percent. Trump
    has more of a chance than Bernie.”

    • John Cross

      LOL, say it once, dude. You are gonna make even me vote for Bernie if you repaste this one more time.

    • baruchzed

      You couldn’t be more incorrect in your assessments. HRC is a neocon. There is nothing about Bernie that says “republican lite” as you asserted. In fact he is beating Clinton in the polls, his rallies draw more people, he has more donors, and more money…none from wall street or the private prison industry, where Clinton is getting her money.

      I get it that you support Hillary. I hope you are willing to deal with real facts, because the facts show her losing the nomination, and if she were to be nominated the facts show her losing to any republican, while Sanders is shown to beat all of them.

      • nero88888

        Nope moron, the facts show your unelectable DINO SOCIALIST LOSING THE NOMINATION.

        Embrace the suck you low info parasite. Bernie is FINISHED. HAHAHAAH

        http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/538-cruz-clinton-trump-sanders-rubio-217901

      • Ivy Mazzola

        The democratic nomination is not the presidency. If Hillary wins the primary she will lose democrats the general election. If Bernie wins the primary he will win the general.

        This is why, no matter your political scientists predict, I believe it is every democrat’s responsibility to get out there and vote for Bernie this year. That is if you prefer Hillary or Bernie over a Republican. You may call Bernie a republican lite, but I hope you prefer that over a republican heavyweight, because those are your two options, and her is why:

        When we check the latest polls on all the candidate’s national popularity (the people that show up to general election, not just the dem primaries), we see that Hillary may be favored by most strict dems but she is still hated by most Americans. That is why she is slated to lose against Rubio or Cruz. She may barely beat Trump but personally he has proved crafty so I think he will beat her too.

        Thank goodness we do have a way out of a Republican president still. Bernie has the trust of the people and is slated to beat Trump, Cruz, or Rubio.

        I myself and very sorry to say it but Hillary is not electable. Let’s make our peace with it and
        vote Bernie for a more-liberal-then-the-alternative 2016 president.

      • nero88888

        Bernie the UNELECTABLE DINO IS FINISHED. Cry all you want wacko.

        If you had to bet $100 on any single person to win the 2016 general
        election — to win $100 if you guess correctly — every rational gambler
        would chose Clinton. According to online betting markets, she remains
        the overwhelming favorite
        to win the nomination of the Democratic Party, which is the party that
        is favored to win the general election. There is no clear favorite in
        the very crowded field for the Republican nomination. As such, bettors
        see Clinton as more than four times as likely to be the next president
        as her closest rival, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

      • nero88888

        Bernie is republican lite AKA A DINO.

  • nero88888

    Hillary Clinton=ACTUAL DEMOCRAT and has been for many years

    Bernie=DINO who just became a registered democrat not too long ago

    Bernie is republican lite. He’s a gun nut having voted with the radical NRA against the Brady bill 5 times. bernie is weak on guns.

    Respected statistician Nate Silver said the chance of Jewish Sen.
    Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination
    are close to zero.

    Silver,
    the Jewish editor of the FiveThirtyEight blog who correctly predicted
    the election results of all 50 states in 2012, told Adweek on Monday
    that Hillary Clinton should win the Democratic nomination barring “some
    type of renewed scandal or health problem.”

    “I could see Bernie Sanders winning a few states,” Silver said of the
    Vermont independent. “New Hampshire is still very close. But
    [Clinton’s] chances have to be in the range of 90 to 95 percent. Trump
    has more of a chance than Bernie.”

  • Ed

    While Bernie and O’Malley talked to the Families First Forum in Iowa, Hillary was in the Bay Area charging $2 700 per head at a dinner. She must know how to cook really well!
    http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Hillary-Clinton-Back-in-the-Bay-Area-for-First-Campaign-Visit-of-2016-364686641.html

  • John McAndrew

    Hear hear! We need to be looking for allies among our opponents, not enemies among our allies.

  • baruchzed

    The disagreement (it’s not a war!) between supporters of Clinton and supporters of Sanders is a GOOD thing. It’s called “public debate” and any efforts to quash it are fear based and not productive.

  • Dart

    After 40 + years, I’ve had it with peiople like Hillary–she’s done good and is also a creature of Wall St.,wholly owned and all the Clinton’s are very clulessly corrupt…I’m out, if the Bern is extinguished by the in- the- tank DNC, NYT, Establishment Super Delegates, etc.