Kamikaze Bernie

Hell hath no fury like an ideologue scorned.

After the New York primary on April 19th, in which Hillary Clinton trounced Bernie Sanders 58-42, the pundits on television were using a surprisingly appropriate metaphor. It went something like this: “How will Bernie eventually land the plane” of his losing campaign? bernie planeHmm. I liked that. Bernie has a choice. He is the pilot. He can land his plane safely on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier, the USS Democratic Party, or he can do something else.

Apparently, he has chosen something else. A kamikaze attack.

Last night, Jane Sanders, earnest and able wife of Bernie, was on MSNBC’s All In With Chris Hayes. She made sure we all knew that Bernie was serious about taking his airplane all the way to a “contested convention.” He ain’t goin’ away. “There’s gonna be a fight on the issues, no matter what,” she affirmed. “Everybody knows, anything can happen in politics,” she said later. Bernie’s gassed up and ready to crash.

Well, well. What else should we have expected? He’s been telegraphing his intentions for some time now. It’s not exactly going to be a surprise attack.

In any case, I want to offer another apt metaphor for what Jane Sanders did last night on Chris Hayes’ show. She unceremoniously tossed the great liberal economist Paul Krugman under the Bernie bus. Why? Because it’s the Bernie way. If you don’t subscribe, word-for-word, to Bernie’s world view; if you don’t think Bernie’s ideas are realistic or realizable; if you don’t buy Bernie’s unique mathematical theories about delegates; then you are dead to him and his surrogates. It’s pretty much that simple.

But before I get to Mrs. Sanders running over Paul Krugman with the Bernie bus, I want to first take a quick look at who Krugman is and why most Democrats respect him. Krugman is an op-ed columnist (and a blessed blogger!) for The New York Times. He earned a B.A. in economics (summa cum laude) from Yale in 1974, followed by a PhD in economics from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT, Stanford and Princeton and currently is—let me get this right—the “Distinguished Professor of Economics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.” He has published around 20 books, from “Market Structure and Foreign Trade” in 1985 to “The Conscience of a Liberal” in 2009, a book I have in my library and from which I learned a lot of liberalology. In 2008 Krugman won a Nobel Prize and, if that ain’t good enough for ya, he holds a John Bates Clark Medal, which he got in 1991 and which The Economist says is “slightly harder to get than a Nobel prize.”

You get the idea. You may not like Krugman. You may think, as some folks do, that he is a left-wing nut. Or, you may think he is a phony progressive sellout and thus a suck-up to Hillary Clinton, as apparently a lot of Bernie fans do, including his wife, who had the following exchange with Chris Hayes on Monday night:

HAYES: I want to give you a chance to respond to critics of yours. Paul Krugman in The New York Times has been really hammering the Sanders campaign, but there are others who basically sasanders on hayesy that the Sanders campaign, by soliciting donations to make Bernie Sanders the nominee, is essentially running a con on its donors. What do you say to those people?

SANDERS: Really? What is John Kasich doing? And what is Ted Cruz been doing? No. We’re running on the issues. You know that. And I don’t take Paul Krugman seriously anymore. I used to. I think there are a lot of other, better economists and people who seem to have better critical thinking. So, that’s a disappointment. But I don’t read him, so I can’t tell you what he says anymore.

She doesn’t take the liberal economist “seriously anymore,” and there are “other, better economists and people who seem to have better critical thinking.” Now you see why I spent some time looking at Krugman’s résumé. It’s just silly for a Democrat to talk about him that way.

So, what has pissed off the Sanders team so much that they now are trashing yet another liberal Democrat, this one a distinguished economist? A blog post. Well, really, more than one blog post, but especially his latest one, “Bernie’s Bad End,” which began:

This is really depressing: Sanders claiming that there will be a contested convention, and suggesting that the nomination fight was rigged. Can someone tell Bernie that he’s in the process of blowing his own chance for a positive legacy?

No, Professor Krugman. No one can tell Bernie anything. He is not tellable. He operates in his own universe where math bends to his will; where the Democratic primary is “rigged” sanders in indianaagainst him despite his receiving a minority of votes; where the superdelegates he once loathed are now his path to victory—if they will only do what he says they should do.

Krugman noted that Bernie could have turned “defeat in the primary into a moral victory.” But, the prize-winning economist said, “he would have had to accept the will of the voters with grace.” Grace? Bernie knows no grace. He is the most graceless loser (and winner, for that matter) since, well, Donald Drumpf. You can’t beat Bernie. You can only hope to contain his Bernie-or-bust ego. You can only hope his metaphorical plane misses the flight deck and lands harmlessly in the sea.

Saint Rachel Maddow, who no one in his or her right mind could accuse of being a squishy liberal, or, Allah forbid, could accuse of being in bed with the right wing (like I have been so accused on this blog), pointed out on her Monday show that what Bernie is proposing— rachel on berniethat because Hillary Clinton can’t wrap up the nomination with pledged delegates by the last primary contest on June 14, he will essentially force a “contested convention”—represents “real radicalism.” Why? Why would Maddow say such a thing?

Because, using Bernie’s logic, Barack Obama—who did not have anywhere near a majority of pledged delegates going into the 2008 convention—would have had to suffer through a nasty floor fight with Hillary Clinton over superdelegates in order to win the nomination, which would have been quite radical, as well as a lasting disaster.

Hillary could have done what Bernie is saying he will do. She could have been a kamikaze. But she chose not to, even though she was much, much closer to Obama in the delegate count than Bernie is to her—Obama had only a 4% lead in pledged delegates and Hillary, right now, has a 11% lead—and she was actually leading the future president in the popular vote. Rachel remembered for us that Hillary went to the convention floor in Denver in August of 2008, not to fight for herself, but to certify Obama’s legitimacy as the nominee. To do anything else, she knew, would have hurt Democrats in the fall.

If only Bernie had that kind of grace, or, really, if only Bernie cared about the Democratic Party enough to be a team player and land his plane on the flight deck, long before the convention in July, rather than deliberately crash into it. But it has become painfully—and as a former fan of Bernie Sanders I mean “painfully”—obvious that Bernie is not a team player, if the team is the Democratic Party trying to defeat a Drumpf-led GOP. There may not be a clichéd “I” in team, but as all observers of this Democratic primary fight now know, there is an “I” in Bernie. A big one.

For her part, the courageous Saint Rachel, who called what Sanders is proposing “fantastical, which is not the same as fantastic,” knew there would be a backlash against her relatively aggressive segment on Bernie’s lack of grace and realism. She sweetly welcomed the “hate mail” she knew was coming. “Your accusations and swear words do hurt my feelings,” said Rachel, “but they also make me stronger.”

Well, I don’t know how much profanity-laced hate mail she has received since last night, but I will end with something posted to her MSNBC.com site, something that sort of reveals a phenomenon that Bernie didn’t necessarily create, but a phenomenon that he is certainly exploiting. Someone named LynneAlex posted:

Rachell – you have become a corporatist in your success and evident in your support of Hillary. You can no longer call your self a progressive. Hillary was a “proud” Goldwater conservative Republican along with her family. The apple has not fallen far from the tree and calls herself democrat in name only. She has a record as a hawk and has strong corporate ties. What is there to support for progressives? Nothing. I have been a very loyal viewer and sad to say you have lost at least one. Back to listening solely to Amy Goodman a true progressive.

My, oh, my. When you turn on St. Rachel, when you boot her out of the progressive tent for telling you the truth, you have to wonder if maybe your affection for Bernie has morphed into something else. But, as Jane Sanders proved, that’s the Bernie way. Paul Krugman tries to tell the truth about Bernie and, poof, he’s gone. Black voters in the South make Hillary a winner and those victories become meaningless and irrelevant. She smashes him in the New York primary and elsewhere and the excuse is that non-Democrats didn’t get to pick the Democratic nominee. The superdelegates side with Hillary and the system is “rigged.”

All of us who once so respected Bernie Sanders and admired his vision for a future America are, or have a right to be, disappointed with the way his story, and possibly the Democratic Party’s November story, looks like it will end. We can only hope, and at this point it is a faint hope, that someone will convince him to abandon his crash-and-Bern approach before it is too late.

35 Comments

  1. Seems to me that this is an unusual presidential election year. Usually there has been some big event to steer voter sentiment, things like 9/11, the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the Cold war, the Great Recession. Not so much this year. We have emerged from the GR, no thanks to the Tea Party and nutcases like Ted Cruz, and I think the pols sensed chum in the political waters. The electorate needed a cause around which to rally. Maybe that’s why the GOP field was so large this year? And maybe that’s why Bernie thought the idea of a “revolution” might excite the Democratic base, “income inequality” being an emerging thing. I think he senses that plodding progress through political gamesmanship is way too dull. He wants an atomic bomb to win the war. Or, at least crash into some ships. Problem with that approach is that you quickly run out of airplanes and damage your credibility.

    Like

    • Something has happened. It’s called a tipping point. It’s the same thing that caused the fall of the Soviet Union just a couple of decades ago.

      It’s sad to see that Duane still hasn’t learned anything. Nothing but one pathetic whine about “Bernie” after another.

      Like

      • It’s sad I’ve had such a poor teacher.

        Like

      • King Beauregard

         /  May 3, 2016

        I’d be much more convinced of this tipping point if the voters were behind Bernie, rather than resoundingly voting against him.

        Like

        • What cartoon world you live in where people are resoundingly against Sanders?

          The tipping point was actually reached quite some time ago despite your refusal to acknowledge it. I introduced this expression here only because of Duane’s hamfisted attempt to deny that it’s a “revolution” while being blind to what already happened on the ground. It’s what allowed Obama to get elected in the first place. Obama squandered his presidency and those people who are not resoundingly voting against Sanders don’t want to see Democrats squander yet another term on a right leaning coward. The fact that you are dismissive of something that is now history tells of your own fear, cowardice, ignorance, and general spitefulness. With these qualities it begs the question why you aren’t supporting Drumpf.

          We lack a candidate that genuinely inspires people and it has to do with how stagnant the Democratic party has been. Bernie tries but his real disadvantage is being an old white man which is symbolic of the problem. He attracts anti-woman voters despite not being anti-woman himself but because his opponent is a woman even though she is to the right of him. Being a woman is not sufficient proof of progressiveness.

          Like

          • King Beauregard

             /  May 3, 2016

            “What cartoon world you live in where people are resoundingly against Sanders?”

            The one where Hillary is beating the pants off him. Without even having to go negative or sling mud, the way Bernie has.

            You keep spinning all sorts of mini-conspiracies about Duane, me, and Bernie’s resounding failure as a primary candidate. How about: Bernie is a career politician who has been in Washington longer than Hillary yet has virtually no accomplishments to his name, can’t talk intelligently about even his alleged area of expertise when interviewed, has done nothing to build the sort of Congress even remotely willing to pass his agenda, immediately abandoned his pledge to run a clean campaign as soon as things got difficult, and makes nothing but excuses for his own poor performance. I see right through him; it’s you who who have invested so much in him emotionally that you cannot. Must be crippling for you to contemplate that not only is your boy going to lose, but his own poor behavior guarantees he’ll be remembered poorly.

            Like

            • Honestly, see a psychologist or psychiatrist. You have problems. There’s no conspiracy, you just have problems. You don’t even realize that the dirt all over Clinton is and has always been Clinton’s problem not Sanders’. Even if Sanders’ never existed Clinton would be covered in crap.

              Sanders isn’t my boy. I don’t even care. That’s your mental problem bleeding through again as it always seems to be doing lately. The only reason I even came to Duane’s blog was because he was acting so strangely. You have the same problem. You’re aping him. You’re aping someone with mental problems. If I didn’t know you were Clinton supporters I’d swear you both were Republicans.

              Like

              • King Beauregard

                 /  May 3, 2016

                “I don’t even care.”

                HAHAHA

                Like

                • Fake laughing isn’t funny. It’s pathetic. I already knew you were pathetic.

                  Like

                • Oh, seriously, seek professional help. Trying to laugh at people who point out your symptoms is a symptom.

                  Like

    • Your point about this election demonstrates why it is not a sure thing that Hillary can win in November, even with a buffoon like Drumpf saying stupid things like Ted Cruz’s dad was somehow involved in the JFK assassination, among other equally outrageous and stupid things he has uttered. And your assessment is why it bothers me so much that Bernie seems intent on taking his fight to the bitter end and why it matters that he has spent a good deal of his time calling into question her integrity.

      It’s hard to make the case that Hillary has to make, to wit, that she will build on Obama’s successes. That’s the dreaded “incrementalism” that the Bernie folks abhor. It doesn’t matter that such is the way progress is usually made. Also complicating matters is the message that both sides are communicating to voters, as they try to get their attention. Drumpf and most of the other Republicans say the country has gone to hell. Hillary and Bernie say that things are headed that way. People, generally, think there own situation is pretty good but think the country’s situation isn’t. That’s why both sides are playing down what is obviously real progress with the economy. 

      An unusual election? It sure is. 

      Like

      • You are blind to the obvious fact that the American economy is cracking under the weight of decades of tax cuts for the rich. Everything that could be bled out of the U.S. economy through tax cuts has run out which is why we see things like “Right to Work” and budget shortfalls in several states with no options left to appease the rich. As it was when the wall came down, those who do live comfortably such as yourself are actually totally oblivious to how bad it actually is for most people. Many people won’t bite the hand that feeds them until that hand outright stops feeding them and that’s what’s starting to happen now. Many people do not make enough money to barely survive and have to make tough choices. But you personally are doing very well and feel comfortable attacking the only candidate who declares his policy to help those people.

        The buckling effect bounces around between other countries as corporations and wealthy individuals desperately seek out ways to protect their money. The United States is the elephant in the room when it comes to financial irresponsibility. It’s very difficult for other countries to assume responsibility when they get burned fast by their good faith.

        But somehow in your delusional state you think that Bernie is the cause of the problem and must be dealt with harshly. You don’t seem aware of the problem or its severity which is crazy considering how much attention it gets particularly among Sanders supporters. It’s like you don’t actually know what the real appeal of the guy is and just want to dismiss it as ideology because you personally are doing well so nothing is wrong.

        Eventually Bernie really will be out of the picture, but the real underlying cause which you pretend doesn’t exist will only grow. It doesn’t matter if Clinton or Trump win, neither of them will do what needs to be done. You know Clinton won’t do anything, that’s why you think she has to win, but the problem will get worse under her because dealing with it is not a priority for her. As long as you don’t see there’s a problem you will support incremental change in the wrong direction.

        Like

  2. I have a dear friend of 30 years who is a very solid conservative from Kansas (originally). He started out liberal but became disillusioned by his participation in the McGovern campaign. He has been solidly and loudly conservative since I’ve known him.

    I talked to him recently and he surprised me, actually both he and his wife surprised me, by indicating that they thought that Hillary was the only qualified candidate in the race, and that they were going to vote for her. I was astounded at this “about-face”. Both of them think that Trump is a buffoon ,and would not vote for any of the Republican candidates. The only one who was even a possibility to them was Kasich, but they preferred Hillary’s qualifications.

    I am an optimist by nature. I wonder how many thoughtful people are out there looking at this circus of a campaign and deciding to vote for the most qualified candidate, which in my mind is Ms. Clinton. I think when you come to that moment when you have to “check the box” or whatever activity constitutes voting where you are, you might come to make a more pragmatic, thoughtful decision.

    I hope so.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Anonymous

       /  May 4, 2016

      Mr. Gaden,

      Your conservative friends support of Clinton is not a surprise. Hillary’s hawkish foreign policy views fit nicely with their values. She is also fiscally conservative as this article states:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-is-a-fiscal-conservative–look-it-up/2016/05/02/62350526-109f-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html

      It is a strange election indeed as both front runners are under criminal investigations.

      Like

      • @ Anonymous,

        You say Hillary is “fiscally conservative” but the article you link, which is a very good analysis, shows that her quite-detailed fiscal proposals stand alone in not ballooning the federal debt. The proposals from every other candidate blow trillion-dollar holes in it, excepting Kasich who is irresponsibly vague on the matter. If she’s “fiscally conservative”, I’ll take it.

        As far as Hillary being “under criminal investigation”, that whole server thing is nothing more than one poor judgement, not criminal. What I wish the FBI could do is indict the whole absurd classification system. It is pretty-much as confused a mess as the tax code, something I have posted on recently.

        Like

        • Anonymous

           /  May 4, 2016

          @ Jim,

          I am not so cavalier as to say a FBI criminal investigation is “nothing”. Upon entering office, Clinton signed a nondisclosure agreement vowing to protect classified information, whether it is “marked or unmarked. Then she set up a private e-mail server which could be hacked by China, Russia, or anyone according to Defense Secretary Gates. Is this the one poor judgement? Clinton didn’t acknowledge the private server until March 2015 after 5 years of delay to AP requests under the FOIA Act after filing suit.
          The Milwaukee Journal published an editorial stating, “No president, no Secretary of State, no public official at any level is above the law. She chose to ignore it and she must now face the consequences.”
          Dana Milbank at the Chicago Tribune wrote…”the email fiasco shows she is her own worst enemy”, pointing out that Clinton had justifiably criticized the Bush administration in 2007 for its “secret” White House email accounts.
          This is not a “security review”, this is a criminal investigation.

          Like

          • I didn’t say the FBI investigation was “nothing”, but i tried to say that what she did by using a private server was not “criminal”. Criminal is when someone discloses classified information that hurts the national interest. You know, like revealing a spy or giving weapons plans to the enemy. You give me the impression you didn’t read my post on the total mess that is our classification system. You should also realize that as Secretary of State, H.C. had the authority to determine what material could be classified or declassified. It’s a matter of judgement as to what should really be classified and 98% of what is, shouldn’t be. No, the email thing is like the Benghazi thing – a tempest in a teapot.

            Like

            • Anonymous

               /  May 5, 2016

              Jim,

              You may be correct, but there are far greater legal experts making that determination than ourselves. I defer to the statement made by the judge that ordered the investigation.
              On August 20, 2015, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan stated that Hillary Clinton’s actions of maintaining a private email server were in direct conflict with U.S. government policy. “We wouldn’t be here today if this employee had followed government policy,” he said, and ordered the State Department to work with the FBI to determine if any emails on the server during her tenure as Secretary of State could be recovered.
              I don’t think Hillary “willfully” made state information available, but negligence can be applied as well. We cannot be sure as to what the investigation will reveal, it is certainly above my pay grade.

              Like

              • We cannot be sure as to what the investigation will reveal, it is certainly above my pay grade.

                But, see, it should not be above your pay grade. As I said in my post on classified material, this is not rocket science, it is a screwed-up system in which everybody and his brother can classify stuff and does so routinely for bureaucratic and political purposes. Jobs like Secretary of State are political in nature so it’s easy for me to understand HC’s motivation for the server, even if it was a poor one in retrospect. When they show me real damage was caused by it, then I’ll get on the criminality wagon, but not until.

                Like

                • I will butt in here and mention something to both of you related to classified information. Believe it or not, Drumpf will soon begin to get classified briefings. If that doesn’t scare the shit out of people, nothing will. I can only hope that Obama will break with tradition and refuse to give him anything. Or feed him some bullshit that he will blab to the world and make a fool of himself. That would be sweet.

                  Liked by 1 person

    • Michael, I hope you’re right. I can only say that when I was knocking on doors for Claire McCaskill, who was running against Todd Akin, I ran into some Republican women who said they would vote for her because he was simply unacceptable. I hope that is what will happen with Hillary-Drumpf, but before it does, there will be a coming together time for most Republicans, at least publicly, and it will look like Drumpf has some momentum. We have to be ready for that phase. And then we can hope that, as time passes and Hillary’s campaign points out the absurd things he has said and done throughout his public life, the tide will turn against him, at least when people cast those votes in private.

      Like

  3. Anonymous

     /  May 3, 2016

    Not all Bernie’s supporters fear incrementalism in progress. Although Bernie hasn’t made it an issue, some of us don’t share your conviction that the FBI investigation will end well for Hillary. Many people would find it difficult to vote for a candidate if criminally charged in a federal investigation. If uncharged, you will endure the “cover-up” conspiracy theorists for years. That is what I find fault with from the DNC and it’s super delegates, as they are charged with protecting the party. I get the socialist only shares progressive ideas or hasn’t paid his dues to the party, but, our only choice is under federal investigation? The closer to the election that the matter is resolved, could cause serious damage to not only the Presidential election, but the party itself. We do know voters are becoming more progressive as evidenced by Al Gore’s popular win and Obama’s election, but the DNC seems to be going backwards toward a centrist candidate. We could have had a progressive candidate like Sherrod Brown or Liz Warren, but we’re stuck with Hillary, because the DNC is very definitely “all-in” with Clinton.

    Liked by 1 person

    • King Beauregard

       /  May 3, 2016

      Sherrod Brown was one of the first to endorse Hillary. I’m just sayin’.

      http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/sherrod-brown-backs-hillary-clinton-2016-215188

      Like

      • Anonymous

         /  May 3, 2016

        And Warren hasn’t endorsed Clinton. Just saying others could have been persuaded to avoid the however remote chance that charges are referred.

        Like

    • I have seen no data to support the idea that people are worried about the email issue and that is holding them back from supporting Hillary. If you can find some, send me a link. You may be correct, I just don’t know.

      Generally, I think you are right that the electorate is moving our way. But I think you are wrong that Hillary represents a roadblock, at least on the big domestic issues. Go read her policy positions on just about any issue. You will find her to be quite progressive on the biggies. 

      As for Sherrod Brown, as you know he is my favorite U.S. Senator. I wish he were our candidate for president. But he didn’t run. He did, though, come out of the box and support Hillary and there are rumors that he will be her VP pick. Elizabeth Warren will eventually endorse her, but most notably, she has not endorsed Bernie Sanders. Have you ever wondered why? My guess is because she, like other people sympathetic to Bernie’s policy positions, don’t think he can win. I can’t think of another reason, can you? She’s been fairly courageous, so crossing Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be much of a factor I wouldn’t think.

      Which brings me to the DNC. Of course the party regulars are going to support a party regular. What is wrong with that? That’s part of what the party does, support people who have supported it. Bernie hasn’t done much of that, as we have discussed. Thus, he is reaping what he sowed. I find no mystery in that.

      Like

      • King Beauregard

         /  May 4, 2016

        “Elizabeth Warren will eventually endorse her, but most notably, she has not endorsed Bernie Sanders. Have you ever wondered why? My guess is because she, like other people sympathetic to Bernie’s policy positions, don’t think he can win. I can’t think of another reason, can you?”

        I can! I bet she thinks he makes for a fine Senator but not necessarily a good president. She is smart enough not to promote Bernie to his level of incompetence.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Possible, granted. She would know him better than we do, since she’s worked with the guy. I still think, though, it is the electability issue. She is well aware of how the conservative media and GOP attack machine can mount up and ride an issue to death, even when there is nothing to it (“She claimed to be an Indian!”). Imagine what Bernie would go through on a scale unimaginably larger.

          Like

      • Anonymous

         /  May 4, 2016

        I have no data to support the email issue, but I am not alone that being a problem for voters. I have spoken with friends that share that concern, and I doubt we are alone there.
        My only domestic issue with Hillary would be the lack of mention in her campaign of killing Citizens United. It’s on her platform, but I haven’t heard her address it at all campaigning.
        I hope Hillary does pick Brown, because I’m pretty sure Warren doesn’t have a chance in hell, because of her continuing lack of endorsement. Fair enough. Brown might be President sooner than thought, pending investigation.
        As for the DNC, I support it, perhaps they thought the investigation would have ended by now and it would be all good, but it hasn’t and we are not. I truly hope your conviction that this will end well is correct.

        Like

        • The problem with both Brown and Warren is that we would lose a Senate seat for some time. Both states have GOP governors (and right now I don’t know what the rules are for replacements in each state). So that has to be part of her calculation. We can’t afford to lose even one seat even for a short time. The window to get anything done, if there is a window, will only be open for a short time. That is assuming Hillary wins, of course.

          I initially thought a Clinton/Warren ticket wouldn’t work out, but I am more and more sympathetic to the idea. Warren has been very aggressive against Trump lately and I think she would be a helluva campaigner against him, which is traditionally the role of the VP during the general election. It might be worth the loss of her seat, temporarily, in Massachusetts to have her on board. I just don’t think she’d do it.

          Obviously, I don’t know how the email thing will end. I do know that Drumpf will make it an issue night and day no matter what. He doesn’t subscribe to the idea that one needs facts to make claims, so he will likely do some serious overkill on the issue. But everyone who cares has already heard all that stuff. It is factored in. I can’t imagine there is anyone out there who would turn to Drumpf just because of the email carelessness. There will be a lot more on the table than that, before this is all over.

          Like

          • Anonymous

             /  May 5, 2016

            This election has certainly not helped our world image, when the GOP and DNC have nominated two people under criminal investigations. People that I have spoken with have asked, “Which criminal are you voting for?”. It doesn’t matter that neither has been officially charged or convicted, the assumption is guilt to many. Whichever investigation breaks first, could have damaging consequences. That is bothersome as Trump seems to be the “Teflon Don”, as he wasn’t expected by you or anyone to receive the nomination. Even if convicted of fraud, he may not bow out. If neither case is resolved prior to the election, Hillary should win handily.

            Like

            • Hillary may or may not win handily. I have no real idea right now. I know the demographics favor her nationally, but I’ll have to look more closely at the key states and what voters Drumpf is attracting, which will change over time, as the party apparatus gets going behind him. 

              “Which criminal are you voting for?” Really? You meet that many people with that attitude? Funny thing, I have yet to speak to anyone who has said anything like that. Most people, other than Republicans, aren’t interested in the email stuff. And most people don’t even know about Drumpf’s battle over his phony university or care that much about it. And if you are hanging around with people who make careless “assumptions,” perhaps you can help them with their logic. Perhaps you can tell them that it does matter if someone has been “official charged or convicted.” This is, last time I checked, still a country where guilt has to be proven, not assumed.

              And if you think that world leaders view Clinton and Drumpf the same way, you need to do some research. Clinton doesn’t scare any friendly foreign leader. Drumpf scares the hell out of them.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Anonymous

                 /  May 5, 2016

                I have heard this stated four times on crowded job sites. Twice it was easily dismissed as they were referring to the Benghazi “investigation” which is a partisan witch hunt. But twice they referred to the email issue. I tried dismissing it as poor judgement, stating expert opinions that there is nothing there according to their interpretations of law, and that charges have not been made. But twice I have been told that negligence is not a defense. I am not a lawyer, my response was as stated before, nobody has been charged or convicted. My confirmation bias tells me Trump IS guilty of fraud among other things. Theirs tell them Hillary is guilty. It’s a hot mess, and won’t be resolved until the investigation are completed.

                Like

  4. Anonymous

     /  May 4, 2016

    Bernie’s level of incompetence has not landed him under a criminal federal investigation as Hillary’s has done to herself. Warren has cheered Sanders on publicly, but hasn’t endorsed either.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: