Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Democrats haven't been voting for Bernie Sanders ...


Democrats have been voting for Hillary Clinton

And they may include, but not limited to:

  • Moderate Democrats, such as those who may have voted for Bill Clinton (ignoring all his past history).
  • Democrats who voted for Obama (excluding those who defected), and have been happy with his administration — and want to continue with his policies (such as the TPP trade deal).
  • Those whose only reason is just to have a "first woman president" to "break the glass ceiling" (many who appear hostile to men in general, which is odd, considering Bill).
  • Entrenched Democratic party officials, those who remained loyal to the party machine and expect to be rewarded if Clinton becomes President (ambassadorships, etc.)
  • Older voters, those who are more likely to already be well established in life — out of college, with good jobs or retired — and don't want to upset the apple cart.
  • African-Americans, who feel loyal to the Clintons for perceived benefits that they may have acquired through Bill and Hillary's past policy positions.
  • Corporate interests and the very wealthy, who fear tax increases and stricter regulations under a Sanders White House administration.
  • All the mainstream media corporations — The Big 6 — and most of their employees (such as the CNN and MSNBC talking heads).
  • And one can only guess, maybe some young people, who may not have access to the internet, and therefore, can't do their own research.
  • Other people who may fear any change at all.
  • Labor union leaders (but not their rank-and-file members).
  • And of course, all the bankers (but not the bank tellers).

And so far, according to the votes, they seem to vastly outnumber Bernie Sanders' supporters. But do they really? On the other hand, Bernie's Sanders' supporters appear to be (thus far, and not limited to):

  • Mostly young voters (of all races) who are struggling with low wages, part-time and temp jobs and/or high college tuitions — and may still be stuck at home with mom and dad.
  • Independent voters who are fed up with the political status quo of both the Republicans and the Democrats — many who may have once voted for Obama, until he moved to the center to be more "moderate" like the Clintons, and who felt let down by Obama's betrayal to the working-class.
  • Older voters, unlike Clinton supporters, who are also established in life, but understand and empathize more with younger people and want to see more meaningful change on their behalf.
  • Yes, even wealthy people, who realized how lucky they've been in life, and want others to have the same opportunities as they've had — and know they don't pay enough in taxes (and realize how silly it would be if only they wrote a check to the treasury if everyone wasn't also obligated to pay a higher tax rate.
  • Veterans of war, who are patriotic, but also understand the senselessness of unneeded regime changes and military interventions just to benefit big corporations, when it's not in the defense of the country or in the best interests of the country at large.
  • And of course, the Bernie bros and Bernie bots, who the establishment (and Clinton sheeple) ridiculously accuse of wanting to burn the country down to the ground.

So what's all that crap from Hillary Clinton and her supporters about "unifying the party"? Bernie Sanders already has a party — and they're already unified — just like the Corprocrats and their minions are already unified. But after all their unprovoked attacks and lies against Bernie and his supporters, now they expect them to carry Hillary Clinton through a general election. It's ludicrous, because the Democratic Party might have better luck asking Republican Lites to vote for her.

Bernie Sanders: After the DNC Convention

Bernie Sanders has to run in the Democratic primary until the very last "real" person votes in Washington D.C. on June 14th before the DNC convention in July, to show us exactly where he stands with the popular vote. This is very important for several reasons:

  • Many of the Democratic primaries and caucuses have been very chaotic, which many states had poorly managed. There were also many "irregularities" that haven't been accounted for.
  • Voting and registration "rules" by the Democratic party kept millions of voters from participating in the process. Misclassified Independents and those with no party affiliation were locked out many times, not giving us a true representation of voter sentiment.
  • The Democratic party and the media has been very actively and openly attempting to sabotage Sanders' campaign with intra-party bias, false claims, and pre-mature endorsements by party officials, long before the first vote in Iowa was even cast. The media's regular panels of pro-Hillary talking heads have been "reporting" like campaign advocates for Clinton (without giving fair and equal time to Bernie's surrogates.)
  • SuperPACs and wealthy campaign donors were also operating with an unfair advantage, which the Democrats have employed against Senator Sanders, whose majority of donations come from small individual donors.
  • During the primary season, far fewer voters participate in primary elections than they do in a general election, when Independents aren't locked out of the voting process — and as a general rule, Independents mostly favor Sanders over Clinton and Trump — combined.
  • Media and corporate-sponsored polls obviously can't be trusted for a variety of reasons. But just by judging by all the online polls, Sanders overwhelmingly won them all — and by HUGE margins over Hillary Clinton (But those results don't show up as actual votes in the primary elections.)
  • Enthusiasm for Sanders' campaign has also been much more noticeable, and his rallies have drawn many record-breaking crowds (on par with Donald Trump's); whereas Clinton's were mostly small low-energy events (with the exception of her victory parties).

Bernie Sanders' supporters should petition him to run as an Independent after the July DNC convention, because, in a true Democracy, it’s not right that a two-party political system can lock out so many people from voting. One person, one vote . . . so there's no non-pledged delegates or superdelegates that can rig a nomination of a third party candidate.

It’s been argued that the political parties aren't the “government”, and that they can make their own “rules” when it comes to delegates (etc.) – but in reality, it is two political parties within the individual states who gerrymander congressional districts, write voter suppression laws, locate polling stations, write voter ID laws, determine the hours for voting, write the rules for registering, determines who can vote (etc.)

While the Republicans are most often cited for this, the Democrats also manipulate the votes within their primaries — who have been accused of pandering to the Black and Latino vote to keep themselves in power, while ignoring the working-class (and especially the white working-class) as a whole.

In a more perfect political system, there would be the same standard uniform rules applied to all 50 states and all U.S. territories when determining federal elections for members congress and the presidency – because it has been deliberately rigged and made too confusing to keep both parties in power for much too long. We have to break this cycle of political corruption.

The primaries (in both parties) have been an utter mess in many states; and whenever there is even a hint of the appearance of impropriety, it calls into question the legitimacy of those elections.

Other than a “one-party dictatorship”, we have a two-party duopoly that borders on a dual-party dictatorship — especially when compared to other western democracies. That’s why Americans can’t get the change they seek, because the political system is so corrupt. (There is no reason why people can’t vote online, where we would also have LIVE and more accurate results).

We continue to fall for the same old trick that they have used over and over again for decades ... scare tactics ... “If you don’t vote for me (a Democrat or a Republican) Hitler or Joe Stalin will rise to power and take away your rights and lock you up in a FEMA camp” — or some other type of fear-mongering nonsense to keep a chokehold on their power (America has had many other different political parties who once held power, and a few crappy Presidents, and the country survived.)

People shouldn't have to vote out of fear, but should be able to vote for hope and inspiration. They should be able to vote for bold and big ideas, and not just settle for small and incremental and "pragmatic" 3-point plans. (Obama's campaign slogan was "Hope and Change". We had the hope, but never got the promised change — and for 8 years, the Republicans took all the blame.)

The Democrats have been saying (among other things) that Bernie Sanders' supporters are “sour grapes”. Yes, all that and more, saying they are “contemptible malcontents” and “poor losers” who are “bitterly resentful” and "unreasonably unhinged” — "those damn Bernie Bots" who are nothing more than “selfish self-centered Socialists” and “anarchists” with "pie in the sky" hopes and dreams for "free stuff". (What better way to win the hearts and minds of people you want in a general election.)

That alone should be a good enough reason to have a 3rd party: because no political party wants those type of people in their party, right? That’s why we should be promoting a 3rd Party, so that all those aforementioned "misfits" can also have a voice in politics too. And that way, the Democrats won’t have to contend with them any longer in a primary . . . and people like Hillary Clinton can “pivot” any time they want to, without being able to accuse our candidate of "attacking" her. Bernie can also "pivot" to Donald Trump in the general election.

We should also promote the most inclusive voting rules, so that all Americans will have a voice and will be welcomed to vote — where even disenfranchised Democrats and Republicans can vote for our candidate in our new Berniecratic Party's primaries. We could have SAME DAY VOTER REGISTRATION — because, a lot of people had voted early (before they even knew who Bernie Sanders was.) The new party can allow someone to change their vote, because it can all be done online. (People would also be able to vote at polls, not JUST online. It would just be another option, like absentee ballets or mail-ins.)

There are the pundits, those in the media and the "Democratic corporate whores" who are saying that Bernie Sanders will split the Democratic party. That is a totally false argument. Hardcore Democrats have been voting for Hillary. People who voted for Bernie weren’t voting for a Democrat, they were voting for a Berniecrat — a democratic socialist, a dreamer, and idealist ... whatever moniker one wishes to use.

But in reality, Bernie's supporters were voting for the only true "progressive" in the Democratic race — an actual founding member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, where Hillary was never a member. Bernie Sanders, known as The Amendment King in Congress, is the only real "progressive who can get things done" — not Hillary Clinton. But I digress, it depends on what a certain someone wants done. If you're a banker that wants to change the bankruptcy laws, then Hillary is your girl.

The Democrats have also been red-baiting too (no, not the Republicans, the Democrats), comparing Sanders' self-described political views of democratic socialism to Socialism, which is as ridiculous as comparing Social Security to communism.

In 20 years (maybe less) the word "socialist" won’t be a dirty word any more. Even Russia isn’t a purely Socialist country. Is there really any Socialist Party ruling a modern developed nation today? Besides, what’s in a name or label. Just go to Bernie’s website to see where he stands on the issues. To any reasonable and objective person, he sounds more like a combination of FDR and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Were THEY also the dreaded “Socialists” — with a big capital “S” of course, because the Democrats like to red bait in that way — just like the Republicans do.

Speaking of which, both parties have so much in common these days — such as "free" trade deals, tax laws that benefit the rich and large corporations, corporate welfare for tax dodgers (etc.) — that sometimes (excluding the social issues like abortion and gay rights) it’s almost hard to tell them apart any more.

Most people's gripes about "Independents" were that of the restrictions placed on them in the primaries, although not usually in a general election. That’s why Bernie should run as an Independent in the general. He’s not a Democrat, and he shouldn’t be running as one. He only ran as one to push Hillary more left; but in the very beginning (when he first ran,) he didn't know how popular his message would be. Or how HUGE his rallies would become!

Bernie Sanders would fare a 100 times better than Ralph Nader or Ross Perot did when they ran as Independents — when Independent voters are also allowed to vote in a general election. Hillary might be able to get more votes within the established Democratic Party, but we can bet one $225,000 speech that she won’t get more votes than Bernie Sanders if he runs against her as an Independent candidate.

And the most perfect thing of all — in our new party, we can shout at each other all we want to without being called a "sexist".

August 7, 2014 - President Barack Obama signing the

The Obama Syndrome

Back in 1988, when the Reverend Jesse Jackson had ran for President in a very close contest with Governor Michael Dukakis, the mayor of Burlington Vermont, Bernie Sanders, had endorsed Jackson, who had said at the time, "When it mattered, Bernie stepped across the color line." 

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton had endorsed Jackson's opponent, Michael Dukakis. But Bernie's endorsement of Jackson ended up being an ungrateful slap in his face, as Jackson didn't return the favor in 2016. And neither did most African-American voters, they voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

In 2006 Obama campaigned for Bernie Sanders (knowing full well what his politics were at the time.) Chuck Schumer, the Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee — Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada — and the Democratic National Committee chairman (and former Vermont governor) Howard Dean — had all endorsed Bernie Sanders. They didn't in 2016.

Two years later in 2008, Obama ran in a very bitterly contested race against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary (the way Bernie is now) — and back then, even Obama thought she was liar — before winning the nomination and offering her a job as his Secretary of State to get Bill’s endorsement at the DNC convention. (That job was only to beef up Hillary's resume and standing within the Democratic party so that she could run for POTUS after Obama's term/s. That was her "Plan B". Her "Plan A" was after being a New York senator, she could then run for POTUS. But that was before that pesky Obama decided to run and killed that dream. Now she's on "Plan C" against Bernie Sanders.

Obama first campaigned as a "progressive" (quoting Theodore Roosevelt and FDR in his speeches) — but by 2012, he was total sellout. That was why Bernie Sanders thought Obama should have been primaried in 2012 — to move Obama back to the left. In Obama's own words (back in the old days):

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."'

Now Obama's just another "Democratic corporate whore", like most other Democrats (and Republicans) in Congress — just look at the TPP trade deal he's been trying to shove down our throats.

And Hillary’s voters just voted for more of the same. And if NOT, then what exactly are they voting for? What will Hillary Clinton do that Obama didn’t, or wouldn’t, or couldn’t? If the Democrats don’t take back both the House and the Senate, she will just blame the GOP — just like Obama did. Nothing will change.

So she's the one who’s been "making promises" that she can’t keep. Bernie made no promises to anyone. He only offered bigger and bolder ideas, and tried to move the country more to the left (where Obama used to be). But Hillary, Bill and Chelsea have all been making that lie routinely, that Bernie has been us promising the Moon.

After Hillary Clinton recently won her home state of New York in the Democratic primary, it was touted as "a big win" for her, even though she SHOULD have won that state (all things considered). The media was gushing all over her, and never mentioned that, not only did Bernie Sanders win more votes in New York than Obama did in 2008 when he ran against Hillary, but Obama also lost to her by a wider margin than Bernie Sanders. And to top it off, that night Bernie Sanders also won more vote than both Donald Trump and John Kasich — combined!

After Obama was elected in 2008, he nominated Eric Holder to be his U.S. Attorney General. Holder has known the Clintons for 25 years and had previously worked in Bill Clinton's administration. He had refused to prosecute a single banker while working under Obama, claiming that he feared it could wreck the already wrecked economy — hence the phrase, "banks too big to fail and bankers too big to jail". Now Eric Holder endorses Hillary Clinton, who regularly says during the debates, in her interviews and at her rallies: “No bank is too big to fail and no executive is too big to jail.” 


Of the 91 speeches Hillary Clinton gave between leaving the State Department and running for president (averaging $225,000 a pop), 3 were to Goldman Sachs, who was just fined $5 billion for fraud — but that CEO must have been too big to jail — because he donated to the Clinton Foundation (where Obama appears every year at their annual get-together). Do you really believe Clinton will put him behind bars? Really!?!? Hill no she won't. But the majority of the Democratic voters are "true believers".

When Senator Elizabeth Warren had chosen not to run against Hillary Clinton, almost as though it were his duty, Senator Bernie Sanders had announced that he would also run for President. And ever since then, the Democratic Party had viciously turned on him — just because he had the utter audacity to primary Hillary Clinton in an attempt to move her farther to the left — when the moderate Democrats were already comfortable with how things already were.

UPDATE - From an article at the Huffington Post on April 22, 2016:

Hillary-2008 might have said eight years ago, had she not already been planning a Hillary-2016 — demand the following of Democratic primaries going forward:

  • Abolition of super-delegates.
  • Abolition of closed primaries.
  • Abolition of super-PACs.
  • Abolition of regulations prohibiting same-day party registration.
  • Abolition of inconveniently timed primary debates.
  • Abolition of artificially limited debate schedules.
  • Abolition of shady “joint fundraising” efforts like those of the DNC and HVF.
  • Abolition of caucuses (assuming no more closed primaries, either).
  • Abolition of a set (rather than rotating) state primary schedule.


  1. Politicususa is reporting that Bernie Sanders will support Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee. I don't believe it ... I refuse to believe it ... and if it's true, I will try to convince Bernie otherwise. And if I can't convince him, I will try to convince his supporters: "DO NOT SUPPORT CLINTON".

    On Bloomberg News Mark Halperin asked Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign manager Jeff Weaver, “If Sen. Sanders is not the nominee, will he stay in the Democratic Party forever now?”

    Weaver answered, “Well, he is a Democrat. He’s said he’s a Democrat, and he’s going to be supporting the Democratic nominee, whoever that is.”

    Halperin followed up, “But he’s a member of the Democratic Party now for life?”

    Weaver said, “Yes, he is. Yes, he is.”

    Here's how two articles read at Politicususa:

    Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign manager Jeff Weaver announced this evening that Sen. Sanders will be a member of the Democratic Party for life, and he will support Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination.

    Newly minted Democrat for life, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) announced tonight that his presidential campaign's army of small donors raised an eye-popping amount of nearly $46 million in March.

    I watched the whole Bloomberg interview. Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver seemed put on the spot at the very end of the interview with that "got ya" question; but judging by the “tone” and the rest of the interview, I don’t believe he thinks Clinton will be the nominee, so the question and answer was hypothetical.

    What was Weaver supposed to say while Bernie is in the middle of a race in the “Democratic” primary? If Bernie had said he wasn’t a Democrat, couldn’t he be disqualified from any further primary contests – forfeiting to Clinton?

    As far as being a Democrat for life, that would easy:

    1) If Bernie wins the Democratic nomination, but loses the general, he can stay in Congress as a Democrat.

    2) If Bernie wins the Democratic nomination, and wins the general, he can govern as a Democrat.

    3) If he decides not to run as an Independent, or not win the general, he could retire.

    Politicususa (specifically the author Jason Easley) is putting out this propaganda. You'll also notice that readers can't comment on those articles. I wonder why, hmmm?

    Bernie or Bust --- If Bernie can't win the Democrat nomination, it has NOTHING to do with his chances of winning the general election.

  2. At The Guardian, there's a post by Richard Wolffe titled: "Clinton triumphs; Sanders slumps. Now the real contest can begin."

    He writes: "Like the Monty Python parrot, the Bernie Sanders campaign is no more. It has ceased to be. Its metabolic processes are now history. It’s kicked the bucket and shuffled off its mortal coil. Winning never really mattered to Bernie Sanders. The exercise of power was never the point, even if it became a self-delusional diversion along the way. Like all good Cold War-era socialists, Sanders was far more interested in critiquing the system than running it. It was always easier to feel morally superior than engage in the messy business of building a winning and governing coalition. Sanders claimed in recent days that New York’s closed primary – where only Democrats could vote – was itself undermining democracy. This is the kind of thing you say if you haven’t lived your life as a Democrat. Sanders has traditionally counted himself as an independent, with an alignment – but not an identification – with the Democratic party. That history does not bode well for those who argue he should tone things down for the good of the party. In contrast, Clinton started her victory speech by reaching out to her opponent’s voters. “To all the people who support Senator Sanders, I believe there’s much more than unites us than divides us,” she said. It’s past time for Clinton and the Democratic party to turn towards the general election. They have an unexpected and historic opportunity to turn a victory into a rout: to win not just the White House, but to take back the Senate and quite possibly the House."

    Richard Wolffe is an MSNBC political "analyst" and the vice president and executive editor of — which is owned by Comcast, one of the "Big 6" media corporations that also donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign. So how can someone who works for MSNBC/Comcast/Clinton claim objective, honest and unbiased reporting? They can't. MSNBC has been operating as a propaganda arm of the Democratic party machine.

    Also, not only did Bernie Sanders recently win more votes in New York than Barack Obama did in 2008, but also in New York, Bernie also won more votes than both Donald Trump and John Kasich combined. And Bernie Sanders had also lost by a narrower margin than Obama did in 2008 against Hillary Clinton. Of course the media, by not reporting these little tidbits, is attempting to kill voter enthusiasm and influence voter sentiment.

    Bernie should run as an Independent in the general election, and then once elected, have the IRS audit Richard Wolffe — then double the tax rate for him and Comcast.

    @CA4Bernie @laforbernie @BernieSandersCA @BayArea4Bernie

    1. IMHO, having people like this write opinion pieces for The Guardian damages their journalistic credibility and integrity. If you wish to contact The Guardian:

  3. If #HRC picks #ElizabethWarren as running-mate 4 #BernieSanders votes, that would be the ultimate pander & betrayal

  4. Those people who claim to be "Democrats" are in fact moderate Republicans, who have fled the GOP since the 1990s (due to Newt Gingrich & Tom Delay) and landed in the Democrat party due to Bill Clinton). There is only a Democrat party in name only, certainly not the FDR edition, even though people want one. What I'm wondering now is if Hillary gets the nomination, do I sit out November, do I vote for the Greens, do I write in Bernie, or since I think the Clintons (Obama) have done so much damage to the Democrat party it cannot be saved at this point, then do I vote for Trump to end the Clintons? What makes me wonder even more is, the people - do they really want the status quo since they keep voting for establishment candidates? Very puzzling! And besides, Bernie will have to do something, because if he endorses Hillary then all that he's accomplished so far will be lost by backing Hillary. He'll have to run in November as an independent and then start a new party to carry on. We need a new government because the one in Washington DC has lost its legitimacy by not representing the voters.

  5. Two articles on the NY vote fraud:

  6. Critics, including Bernie Sanders, argue that because the registration deadlines for many states fall months before the primary vote, it effectively bans independents or others hoping to vote in the Democratic primary from participating. Many Republicans might have voted for Sanders, too, given their field of candidates. Clinton has won every state so far that's held a closed primary.

    Shaun King (New York Daily News) April 20, 2016: We have 19 primaries and caucuses remaining — many of them with far more progressive and fair voting laws in place than New York. While Bernie Sanders is running as a Democratic candidate, a strong percentage of his supporters don't identify with any party. Many of the upcoming states have open primaries that allow such voting. People should be able to vote in whichever primary they want for whatever candidate they prefer. I'm not saying he would've won New York with less restrictive laws in place, but it certainly would've been a lot closer.

    The Week (April 21, 2016): New York's decision to have a closed primary is fine. But what's not defensible is how hard New York makes it to join a party. Its unnecessarily early deadlines unquestionably have the effect of disenfranchising voters...The New York electoral system is a mess, designed to protect incumbents rather than facilitate voter participation. There's nothing wrong with New York having a closed primary system. But it needs to make it easier for registered voters to switch parties.

  7. How Sanders Could Lay the Foundation for a Third US Political Party

    Enough with the Hillary cult: Her admirers ignore reality, dream of worshiping a queen

    Sanders Campaign’s Commitment To Victory Irritates Media, Offends Clinton Campaign

    Hillary Clinton Won New York, But Her Image Is Underwater

    Reuters Poll

    Sen. Bernie Sanders offends some with comments about South (For saying what everybody already knows to be the truth.)

    Election Fraud Proven at Audit by Chicago BOE - flipped precinct by 18 pts from Bernie to Hillary

    Provisional Ballots Poised To Rock The Vote: Brooklyn Protested Board Of Elections, Voters’ Lawsuit Moves Forward

  8. President Harry S. Truman (May 17, 1952)

    "I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign. But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again."