Bernie Sanders

Dem Senators to Sanders: You've Had Your Fun, Time to Fall In

Hillary Clinton backers "impressed" by Sanders, want him to stop focusing on Clinton.

|

PBS

A number of Hillary Clinton's supporters in the Senate say they are ready to reel Bernie Sanders in, encouraging the Independent senator who caucuses with Democrats to be realistic about his chances at the Democratic nomination, as Politico reports.

Hillary Clinton is projected to have won 1,147 delegates so far, compared to Sanders' 830, with more than 2,000 delegates still available via state nominating contests. There are also more than 700 superdelegates available. Nearly 500 have pledged their support to a candidate, with the vast majority of them (467) endorsing Clinton publicly. Yet those endorsements come with no legal obligation or recognition from the Democratic National Committee—the superdelegates are free to vote however they wish once the Democratic convention begins in Philadelphia.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) said she was more concerned about how Sanders campaigns—targeting his opponent, Clinton—rather than whether he actually drops out. "If the contrast is now about what separates us from Donald Trump, then I think it's fine," McCaskill said. "I just hope that we can begin to focus on unifying because obviously a lot of us are perplexed that we could be facing a country led by someone who seems to be a buffoon."

McCaskill would be well-served by the maxim about throwing stones in glass houses. Nevertheless, her comments belie the idea that a significant portion of Democrats are unwilling to support Clinton, as polls mightsuggest. One recent poll had a full third of Sanders supporters saying they would not support Clinton in a general election, and a majority of Democrats consistently find Hillary Clinton untrustworthy.

Yet for all the apparent distaste for Clinton's transparent politicking, it's hard to imagine Democrats won't fall in behind her in November. And while Donald Trump may seem like a powerful motivator to get Democrats behind a deeply flawed candidate, it's important to recognize that Democrats (and Republicans!) have consistently painted their opponents as extremists in an effort to avoid engaging their own flaws.

If Barack Obama is a socialist, what does that make Bernie Sanders? If Mitt Romney is a bigot, what does that make Donald Trump? Remember, until the clashes at Trump rallies started to resemble something you'd see in a third world shithole, liberal "thinkers" like Ezra Klein were arguing Ted Cruz was "scarier" than Trump. Last month, Vox.com was more (troll) concerned about Marco Rubio, the "Republican Obama," than the demagoguing Trump.

Then there's the "chaos scenario" for Democrats—what happens if Clinton is indicted in relation to the investigation into her e-mail security breaches. "That's not going to happen," Clinton said at the last Democratic debate. Yet the Obama administration has been aggressive in prosecuting government employees it accuses of leaking classified information or facilitating such leaks. It remains to be seen whether that will extend to Clinton.

NEXT: SCOTUS Declines Opportunity to Limit Random Border Patrol Stops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ” Time to Fall in” what? Fall in Hillary? Is suicide not an alternative?

  2. Yet the Obama administration has been aggressive in prosecuting government employees it accuses of leaking classified information or facilitating such leaks. It remains to be seen whether that will extend to Clinton.

    No it doesn’t. The Obama Administration aggressively prosecutes leakers who make it look bad. You’ll notice the number of “high ranking officials speaking on the condition of anonymity” who appear in stories about Obama’s domestic policies or his beloved armada of flying death bots. How many of those people are ever prosecuted?

    Hillary’s email thing is all on her, so Obama couldn’t care less. Besides which, she has too many friends and favors in both Teams and the Executive bureaucracy to ever come close to facing real charges. Which is not to say that Team Red won’t continue to dash themselves headlong into the rocks of trying to bring down the Clintons if it continues to distract the great unwashed from the real problems the government can’t solve.

    1. What we need is a smoking gun. A blue dress so to speak. Purple pants perhaps?

  3. is there a fancier term for “Hot Mess”?

    1. Maybr it’s not fancier but Dumster Fire comes to mind.

      1. *Maybe.

        God. Damn. It.

        1. *Dumpster

          Jesus H Christ. I’ll just shut up now and leave the conversation to people with a firmer grasp of the English language.

      2. “this article is a journalistic dumpster fire of every paragraph Ed forgot to use last week”

        it works

    2. Chien chaud?

      No wait, that’s Hot Dog.

      Never mind.

  4. I mean, let’s be real. There was a zero point zero zero (repeating of course) chance that the email scandal was going to result in indictment of a presidential nominee. Either they would have already done it early enough to destroy her primary campaign and let everyone be Ridin’ for Biden, or it ain’t happening, Jack.

    1. Given the clown-show campaign going on right now, I bet something happens before the convention. My money is on the FBI Director resigning in protest when they present a case and Justice squashes it.

  5. Yet the Obama administration has been aggressive in prosecuting government employees it accuses of leaking classified information or facilitating such leaks. It remains to be seen whether that will extend to Clinton.

    No, it really doesn’t. Having a felon liar follow Obama into office is far less damaging to his legacy than being blamed for President Trump.

    The only way she gets indicted is if she loses and if she loses who cares about her being indicted? She’s never going to jail. Ever. It will not happen, no matter who controls the government. The only use of an indictment is to keep her from being President.

    1. It’s laughable to think that Obama would go after Clinton over the emails at this point in the election season. Maybe 6 months ago but it didn’t happen, so it won’t.

    2. Yet the Obama administration has been aggressive in prosecuting government employees it accuses of leaking classified information or facilitating such leaks only when they don’t facilitate the administration’s needs.

    3. There is always the possibility that one of “her people” is indicted. (huma, cheryl mills, sid blum etc)

      and that person’s problems will drag her down via association.

      it doesn’t even have to be that scenario, exactly. i just think there are alternatives to the binary idea of “Either a) Hillary is indicted, or b) Nothing Happens”

      1. I will be very interested to see if the Clinton Family omerta will actually stand up to a federal indictment and pending jail time.

        If not, then having one of her insiders roll over on her will be catastrophic for the entire clan.

      2. I was only really talking about her indictment, but one of her inner circle could be indicted instead, but I’m not sure it will be enough.

        She has the following assets:

        -Her core supporters, who wouldn’t care if she ate an aborted fetus on stage in a Stalin costume

        -Bernie voters, who are obviously deluded in the first place, certainly enough to vote for her

        -Trump

        I predicted weeks ago that this election will be about which candidate turns off their supporters the least in the general. Both of them will dial back the general tone, but increase personal attacks on each other. It’s going to be a bloody summer.

        1. Where the hell do you find a Stalin costume in aborted fetus-size? And how do you make the mustache stick?

          1. I had to go with Stalin since she already dresses like Mao.

            But, a) Esty, duh and b) staples.

            1. Do they offer Mao, Lenin, Idi Amin, Mugabe and Pol Pot costumes too?

      3. Yeah, I think Huma Abedin is going to take the fall for this.

      4. I’m surprised we haven’t heard about the FBI going after the company that set up and managed the server.

    4. The only way she gets indicted is if she loses and if she loses who cares about her being indicted?

      Because like a Zombie, she’ll be back in 2020. How many times do I personally have to see Hillary “come back” before I can declare my eyeballs and earballs to be “done” with the Clintons?

      1. I want to see her indicted, I just don’t see how it will happen.

      2. HIllary only runs in 2020 if she wins this year.

        However Chelsea Clinton is 36, she could carpetbag a run for Senate in 2018 and parlay that into a Presidential run in 2020, although 2024 would be more likely.

  6. “McCaskill would be well-served by the maxim about throwing stones in glass houses. Nevertheless, her comments belie the idea that a significant portion of Democrats are unwilling to support Clinton, as polls mightsuggest. One recent poll had a full third of Sanders supporters saying they would not support Clinton in a general election, and a majority of Democrats consistently find Hillary Clinton untrustworthy.”

    I personally think that poll about Sanders supporters not supporting Clinton is total bullshit based on the petulance that tends to exist during a contested primary.

    If it’s Hillary vs. Trump, there is no way Bernie supporters stay home.

    1. Some of them, of course, will vote for Trump though.

    2. If it’s Hillary vs. Trump, there is no way Bernie supporters stay home.

      Perhaps.

      No way” assumes that there’s some kind of essential ‘Party-Democratness’ of millenials and old-lefties (Bernie’s main body of supporters); that they are party people first and foremost, rather than people for whom politics is more something to wear on one’s sleeve

      i think that’s a mistaken assumption, personally.

      but even if your assumption has some truth to it – that she’ll keep most of those – there’s the bigger reality that even Hillary + Bernie voters so far have significantly under-counted previous Dem primary vote turnouts.

      meaning, even when you factor in Bernie’s cadres of ex-hippies and college commies = the total Dem #s are weaker

      its not “failing to get (some?most?all?) bernie voters” that would necessarily doom clinton. Its failing to get “everyone else” to show up. Some of those ‘everyone else’ are your mid-western “Reagan Democrats” or MARS or whatever the hell they call them.

      She will certainly attract a majority of people who are invested deeply in democrat politics who had previously been strong supporters of Bernie.

      But the real critical mass of people needed to win are often people who normally ‘don’t give a shit’ and will only be motivated to vote by a candidate’s personal appeal.

      those last 2 words there are not generally associated with hillary clinton so much

    3. If it’s Hillary vs. Trump, there is no way Bernie supporters stay home.

      Not every single one. But if 5% vote for Trump, and another 10% just blow off voting, that’s, what’s the word? ‘Uuuuuge. These are Dem Party stalwarts. Erosion of the base is fatal for Presidential campaigns.

      1. At least 5-10% of a party’s membership votes for the other candidate in any election. That’s not that significant. All the data points to Trump being the one having a bigger issue with maintaining the loyalty of the base. A recent poll came out from Utah that showed Trump losing to Sanders and Clinton, even though Cruz and Kasich were up 20-30 points. That is yuuuuuuuuuuge.

        1. A recent poll came out from Utah that showed Trump losing to Sanders and Clinton, even though Cruz and Kasich were up 20-30 points. That is yuuuuuuuuuuge.

          I love how everyone acknowledges that polls from 6 months ago were utterly and completely useless, but now argue that polls today are definitive regarding an election 8 months from now.

          1. Polling is always accurate, even when it has been shown to be extraordinarily and recently inaccurate.

      2. Also don’t forget, Trump would actually be pretty popular among blue collar union workers. Not the SEIU and government employee union types but the Teamster and contractor union types. I’m sure the unions themselves will come out for Hillary but I could easily see a sizeable portion of their rank and file going for Trump

    4. I also submit that a huge number of Bernie supporters were never going to vote in the general election in the first place. I can’t say for sure about the older Bernie supports, but the young vote isn’t going to materialize just like it hasn’t in virtually every other modern election. They like the idea of free shit, obviously, but I seriously doubt they’ll be motivated enough by ‘free shit’ to actually do anything about it.

      1. I disagree with ya on that. If they are motivated enough to show up to upset the Queen’s Coronation Primary, then they should at least theoretically show up to the general election as well.

  7. The notion that the outcome of the next election will or could result in anything but a buffoon holding the presidency is, frankly, cute, but extraordinarily juvenile..
    The major candidates are all buffoons, just in different ways. One is a buffoon in ways that run counter to the preferred narrative and thus attracts attention. But the others are very bit the buffoon ‘the Donald’ is. They just toe the narrative line much more closely. Plus they’re on team ‘but we mean well’.

    1. Trump and Sanders actually agree on a handful of issues. Pointing this out to their supporters is a fun way to watch first-hand as a person’s brain attempts to escape through their eye socket.

  8. until the clashes at Trump rallies started to resemble something you’d see in a third world shithole

    Europe?

    1. I like the value-neutral “clashes”.

      It would be interesting for somebody to catalog these incidents, and identify who started it, and how. I’m betting the vast majority are provocations by lefty apparatchiks. If so, a better word would be “disruptions” or “provocations”, no?

      1. There’s no real point to this, is there? I mean, there already exist such lists, there are almost no credible reports of “lefty apparatchiks” starting anything before the Chicago rally, and you’re still posting this comment.

        1. No reports.

          Until….

          Hmmmmmmmm.

        2. I mean, there already exist such lists,

          Where?

          My vague recollection is that, at least before this weekend and Chicago, there were apparatchiks inside some of the rallies who were shut down with more or less violence when they tried to start their heckler’s veto routine.

          There was the one Secret Service agent who roughed up a reporter, but that’s on him, not Trump. And there’s the genuine fake scandal around the Breitbart reporter. The video I have seen of that does not suppport her claim that she was thrown to the ground. Hell, in the video I’ve seen, she’s barely touched, and well within the expected contact in a press scrum.

          But I haven’t seen a decent listing of violence at Trump events.

          1. Because she did not claim to be thrown to the ground.

            1. Here’s the standard take on the encounter:

              Before Trump could answer, Lewandowski grabbed Fields from behind, taking hold of her left forearm and “yanking her down toward the ground like a ragdoll,” a witness told The Daily Beast.
              Fields?who on Wednesday was sporting a purple bruise as a result of the encounter?was shocked and shaken, barely managing to keep her footing as Lewandowski and the Trump scrum headed out the doors, according to colleagues.

              http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..-aide.html

              You’re right – she didn’t claim to be thrown to the ground. Base on the video I have seen, there wasn’t much if any contact at all, and certainly nothing outside of the norm for a press scrum. A quick search doesn’t show the best video, unfortunately.

              To me, this is a tempest in a teapot – worst case, reporter gets grabbed in a press scrum. Stop the fucking presses. I’m more concerned about the Secret Service agent who dropped a photographer (?) for stepping out of the press box.

  9. “Yet the Obama administration has been aggressive in prosecuting government employees it accuses of leaking classified information or facilitating such leaks. It remains to be seen whether that will extend to Clinton someone who is not one of the disposable class.”

  10. BTW, I still can’t believe there’s a Democratic senator from Missouri. There is no better proof that the Republicans are the Stupid Party than the fact that they threw away an ardent Red State Senate race by running Todd Akin.

    I would say that they’ll probably take that seat back in the mid-term election in 2018 since Democrats notoriously fail to show up for mid-terms, but the Missouri Republicans are morons so they’ll probably run another Akin.

    1. Even in a legitimately red state, the stupid party has ways of shutting that down.

    2. they’ll probably run another Akin.

      I heard they are in discussions with Clay.

  11. “Okay, Granddad, you’ve had your fun. Now get back to your rocking chair, like a good boy. Here’s your cake.”

  12. a lot of us are perplexed that we could be facing a country led by someone who seems to be a buffoon

    You’re a bit late to the party, but welcome to my world.

    1. “Could be”?

      What’s President Selfie? A paragon of statesmanship?

    1. Damn squrllz…

      “I just hope that we can begin to focus on unifying because obviously a lot of us are perplexed that we could be facing a country led by someone who seems to be a buffoon.”

      You’re going to have to be more specific…

  13. Sanders does present some awkward talk for Obama trying to talk about how great his presidency is:

    – oligarchy
    – middle class being destroyed
    – healthcare still terrible
    – unemployment numbers are a lie
    – income inequality rising

    I wonder how obama supporters who also like sanders square this in their heads? They want to give obama credit for how great the economy is, how amazing but yet if you listen to sanders we are a third world country where the middle class is being destroyed

    1. I know…blame republican obstructionists!

    2. All of the Obama supporters I know… Ok, I’m talking the real Obama supporters, not all of the ones who voted for him to prove they’re not racist or just because they’re lifetime D voters, but because they’re true leftists and really love the guy, are also big time Bernie supporters.

      Obama is swell and all, but he didn’t go nearly far enough. It’s time for the real commie messiah to arrive and finish off the job. Then after Bernie, the REAL REAL commie savior can appear, complain about how we are now a 3rd world nation with no employment, soaring inflation, and massive poverty, and vow to do MOAR OF THE SAME to fix it.

      1. Yeah it amazes me… All of bernies proposals don’t address the problem.

  14. “…a lot of us are perplexed that we could be facing a country led by someone who seems to be a buffoon.”

    Well, Senator, looking at the current crop of candidates, i’d say the chances are quite a bit higher than “could be.”

  15. I know it’s been said before, but how do two candidates lead parties of which neither are members? This is cats and dogs living together shit right here.

    1. I can go register as either a democrat or republican tomorrow. I wouldn’t ever consider doing either, but I could.

      1. As far as I know, Bernie hasn’t registered as a Democrat. An enterprising journalist could probably squeeze a column out of it either way, if they could be arsed to do some, you know, reporting.

        1. Do you think for some reason that journalists haven’t been reporting on this? It’s the lede on this story, for example.

          1. Thanks, Nikki. Hadn’t seen that.

        2. I wasn’t aware of that. I was thinking that the rules would mean he had to have done so.

        3. With all of the crazy rules the R and D establishments have going for elections, you would think they’d have thought of not letting someone not even registered with their party, run for office as one of their candidates. It’s impossible to know how these sociopaths think.

        1. After he won a seat in the House of Representatives, he continued to hold the Democratic Party at a rhetorical arm’s length even as he moved closer to them.

          I’m not sure I have the stomach for the research, but I can honestly say the Democrats have been moving closer to him, certainly since 1989.

  16. So it’s the opinion of the writer that this type of political strife and worse only occurs in 3rd world ‘shitholes’ and never has occurred here in the USA? But that’s not really case is it? Sure, we’re more divided than we have been in a long time, and that’s because the leftists have seized too much power. They have a complete stranglehold on the media and academia and it’s causing a long overdue backlash from all the people it’s attempting to disenfranchise.

    The left is going to paint any person who runs as a republican as a bigot extremist. That’s apparently not working out well enough since the GOP now has both houses of congress and a majority of states with GOP governors. So it’s time to pull out the big words now and start labeling people Hitler. And if those words don’t get the PC narrative working, time to block roads and stop candidates from even talking at all.

    The GOP is a big pile of shit, but the leftist democrats are far worse.

    1. Ed Krayewski, his byline is right under the headline.

      1. I saw this:

        “He spent two years as a Seventh Grade Language Arts & Social Studies teacher in his native Newark before completing an M.S. in Journalism at Columbia University. He teaches at the Seton Hall University College of Communications and the Arts.”

        And I thought that’s all I needed to know… but then I saw this:

        “and lives with his wife, Richara, and their cat, Bricks.”

        Fucking commie!

    2. I thought the over-arching goal of the DNC was to transform the U.S. into a Third-World shithole?

      Obama said he was fundamentally transforming the country and seems to have been working towards that goal ever since. They should view election mob violence as a sign of progress.

    3. Glad it’s the leftists’ fault.

  17. “I just hope that we can begin to focus on unifying because obviously a lot of us are perplexed that we could be facing a country led by someone who seems to be a buffoon.”

    But that’s who you’ve offered us, two buffoons. And the other team has three buffoons. Your outrage is noted.

    1. Well “you know who” got the ‘clown’ rating first.

  18. Come on Bernie, it is the criminal’s turn!

  19. When it comes to throwing scum and making it stick. Donald is THE MASTER.

  20. Would it be rude to point out that Hillary didn’t suspend her 2008 campaign until FREAKING JUNE 7th of 2008?

  21. Read an article today where Clinton plans to run on her platform. All reasonable and logical like.

    She is an idiot.

    Well she could take training from the Libertarians.

  22. Republicans should demand that Obama appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary Clinton’s emails. As it stands how there is a massive conflict of interest. Clinton is a a former member of the administration, and likely presidential nominee and successor to Obama. You can’t truth the administration to investigate itself. This situation demands an independent investigation. it’s what they did for Watergate and Iran Contra and any number of other cases.

    1. how = now, truth = trust …. black.

  23. “I just hope that we can begin to focus on unifying because obviously a lot of us are perplexed that we could be facing a country led by someone who seems to be a buffoon.”

    Keep it up with the name calling, hon.

    One guy is up front with his buffoonery while the other side hides their buffoonery in a refined series of empty platitudes.

    People like it when their politicians don’t hide their buffoonery.

    1. To me, if I may add, the fact Americans view Congress so poorly for so long IS connected to the fact politicians are buffoons.

  24. I don’t expect it, but I hope that commie rat bastard tells the party apparatchiki to go fuck themselves.

    -jcr

  25. Huh:

    Taking the stage at 5:40 p.m. to deafening cheers, Sanders immediately launched into an attack on Trump, saying the U.S. will never elect someone “who insults Mexicans, who insults women, who insults African Americans.”

    “If we stand together and we don’t allow the Trumps of the world to divide us up, there is nothing we cannot accomplish,” Sanders said. “This campaign has enthusiasm and the energy to carry us to victory, because we are doing something very unusual in American politics: We are telling the truth.”

    Crowds lined up early in the drizzle at Seattle Center to hear Sanders’ anti-billionaire message. By midafternoon, the line coiled from the Space Needle and EMP Museum and along Fifth Avenue.

    With many told the 17,000-seat arena had reached capacity, a big screen and loudspeakers were set up at the International Fountain.

    KeyArena was not entirely full, however, as some upper-deck sections were left largely empty.

    Seattle Center staff later estimated the crowd for the speech at 10,300 inside the arena, with 5,500 more outside. Another 1,500 left after Sanders briefly addressed the overflow crowd outside.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/se…..-keyarena/

    1. When has Trump insulted women and African Americans? Trump probably would get the most black vote of any of the pub candidates

      1. He tweeted inaccurate statistics (with images of stereotypical black gangbangers) about interracial crime that indicated that the vast majority of white murder victims are killed by black people (when in reality the vast majority are killed by other white people). A lot of black people were insulted by that.

        1. Ah thanks I appreciate it

    2. I wish folks would call him out on his claims…i think he just does the stump speech cause he knows he is a demagogue or is just stupid

      1. The Party told Sanders to focus on Trump not Hillary. He followed orders.

        The veracity of my assertion (the first part) can be checked.

        1. I agree. I just haven’t seen anywhere where Trump has said anything regarding women or blacks….muslims and mexicans yes. I don’t get why people think Bernie is honest and genuine.

          1. Well, he does have a spat going with that chick from Fox News, the one bleeding out of her whatever.

            Other than that, I got nuthin’ against women or blacks.

  26. I’d say no matter barring a Sanders miracle a substantially worse person will assume the presidency come January 20th, 2017 and I see no reason to drag my butt to the polling place to vote for my preferred fallback– Hillary Clinton. It’s all those damn wars you voted for Hillary.

    Still I won’t say that it isn’t fun witnessing the crackup of the political right. Consider this article, http://www.nationalreview.com/…..id=903320. The thing about right-wingers is that they just think that politics and society would be so much better if we had something other to work with than the species, Homo sapien. Too bad, I guess.

    1. The thing about right-wingers is that they just think that politics and society would be so much better if we had something other to work with than the species, Homo sapien.

      ?1 New Soviet Man

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.