Modern liberals still missing the point:
Do you think anyone that voted for Trump will listen to more than 1 minute of this? They'll only listen for however long it takes their brain to make up it's mind whether they'd "do her" or not.

Also Bernie Sanders was the most qualified candidate, not Clinton.

A true liberal would be saying that both final candidates were bad. The noise should be made about why both choices are terrible instead of comparing two terrible choices. But it's a bit late now anyway

Way to oversimplify a difficult decision. I expect she's happy to have voted for a woman who has cheer led wars and caused untold death and destruction across the middle east. A woman who was supported and was in the pocket of wall street, all the major banks, arms manufacturers, every elite American institution, and the saudis and fought dirty to deny the chance of the american public to vote for a true champion of the people, Bernie Sanders. Life is complicated and videos like this do the progressive cause no good at all.

Bernie Sanders: Now More Than Ever, It's Our Revolution has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Bernie Sanders: The Democrats Have To Become A Grassroots Pa has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Part one of the interview http://videosift.com/video/Bernie-Sanders-The-Democrats-Have-To-Become-A-Grassroots-Pa

Your video, Bernie Sanders: Now More Than Ever, It's Our Revolution, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 31 Badge!

It's crazy, she got two things right. Trump & that Bernie Sanders would have been the better candidate to go against him. I'll always despise her no matter what, though.

McKinnon has met Clinton and obviously admires her. Bernie Sanders knows her and has worked with her for years. He knows she is a good person, even as they disagree on policy points.

This was beautiful. I believe, and McKinnon believes, that this captures her true essence.

As a nation, we have much to grieve. Our loss, our loss.

Your video, Bernie Sanders CNN Full Interview After Donald Trump Victory, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

One thing I am looking forward to are good polemics as part of the election's post-mortem. In terms of video footage, both Cenk and Kyle over at TYT and Secular Talk respectively went off the rails quite nicely. But the good stuff, the really good stuff, will trickle in, and exclusively in written form.

Lambert over at NC makes a decent start, given his lack of sleep:

The Democrat establishment was warned about their weak candidate, and they were presented with a popular and well-funded alternative: Bernie Sanders. Instead, as the Podesta emails show in lavish detail, they used their control of the party machinery and their service providers in our famously free press to rig the primary in their favor at every turn. When their candidate was nominated, the Democrat establishment tacked right, and proceeded to explain to Sanders voters that their votes were not needed or even desired because, as #BernieBros, they were racist and sexist. Sanders supporters have every right to say #WeWereRight and #WeToldYouSo.

If this were Japan, we’d be seeing Democrat Party leaders committing seppuku, or cutting off their little fingers or — supposing them not to be gangsters — ritually and tearfully bowing to the people they betrayed. This being America, and these being Democrats, they are feverishly deploying the Blame Cannons at racist and sexist #BernieBros, Johnson, Stein, and the dogs who wouldn’t eat the dog food. These assclowns will only leave office if they’re whipped out with scorpions. So get to it, Sanders supporters. This is your time.

Thailand by way of Kansas. Just sent in my absentee ballot a couple days ago.

I agree that the idea of the video is to suggest that "protest votes" are either A) entirely counterproductive always, or B) particularly counterproductive in this election. And they chose to focus on Johnson because he fits their narrative of suggesting that policy-wise he is very different from Bernie Sanders, and they make the unspoken assumption that many people considering "protest votes" are Sanders fans that are disgruntled with Clinton.

I'm still very comfortable with my 3rd-party vote, and fully aware that there is a chance that it could "spoil" things for one of the main 2 candidates. Although realistically, since my vote will be counted in Kansas (very red track record, polling 47/36/17 Trump/Clinton/Undecided at the moment) that is incredibly unlikely to happen either way.

I understand people that would feel motivated to "hold their nose" and choose the lesser of two evils (whoever they determine that to be) if they were in a swing/tossup state, but personally I would stick with my vote even if I was in such a state.

If the election is "spoiled" one way or the other by 3rd party votes, it would send a pretty clear message to both parties: give us better choices, or face the consequences. Then again, maybe I'm being overly optimistic about the parties actually getting that message... Democrats should have been highly motivated to push for getting rid of the electoral college and/or considering a push for ranked-choice voting when Gore "lost" in 2000, but failed to do either.

Yeah, Trump is a complete tool. Guilty of all the stuff Maher said about him. Given that kind of "competition", what would the Democrats have to do to get those 20 states to flip their direction?

I can take a stab that that one, Bill -- he's sitting right next to you. If the Democrats had chosen Sanders as their candidate, I guarantee that at least some of those states would have gone blue on election day.

Firm, registered Democrats? They'd all happily vote for Bernie in the general, just like they will vote for Hillary.

Undecideds, moderates, and young people? Drastically more likely to vote for Bernie than Hillary. A huge segment of the voting population is disgusted with the two major choices, and would happily flock to a candidate that has a proven track record of honesty and integrity, instead of the dog and pony show that we have now.

Firm, die-hard Republicans? Maher is right; there is a certain percentage of people that would never vote Democrat. But, I don't think that number is above 50% of the population even in the reddest of red states. But even for many of those people that are completely dissatisfied by Trump, from their perspective Hillary is NOT a better option.


Let's consider how all the arguments against Trump play to that specific audience: (note that the responses are what *they* think, not necessarily what *I* think)

Trump is a womanizer / misogynist / predator. Yeah, and Clinton is married to a worse one who disgraced the Presidency while he was in office.

Trump lies constantly. As opposed to the Clintons, who would never lie. For example, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (Bill), "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" (Bill), and "I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time" (Hillary).

Trump has no experience with government and would make an incompetent president. What's worse: a crooked / corrupt Washington insider that knows how to game the system, or someone with no experience?

etc. etc.

Hillary goddamn Clinton is NOT going to be seen as a reasonable alternative to Trump to those people. No matter how much he goes off the rails. No matter what crazy, foul, contemptible shit he says or does. No matter how many skeletons you dig out of his closet. Why? Because they are convinced (reasonably or not) that the Clintons have done just as much questionable shit and more, they are perhaps just better at covering it up.

But if the Democrat candidate was Bernie Sanders, I'm sure a lot more of those hard-line Republicans would be way more tempted to vote blue in November.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Bros

A derogative term used by Hillary Clinton supporters to dismiss Bernie Sanders supporters. It's used to associate Sanders supporters with Bro culture and label all of them as privileged white male misogynist hipsters.

The chair throwing incident I was talking about was at the Nevada convention. No chair was thrown at all, but the media kept echoing the Democratic parties propaganda that violent Bernie bros are dangerous, need to be stopped and Bernie Sanders is not only guilty by association, but hasn't apologized for their actions.

I think it is stupid to whine about the email leaks "unfairly" damaging Hillary's campaign.

The DNC could have easily avoided the fallout / resignations / etc. by simply not doing shady, underhanded shit. When you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don't bitch about who snitched on you -- a better response would be to learn that you can't get caught if you don't do anything wrong.


Sorta reminds me of earlier in the campaign when Hillary complained that it was unfair for people to want to see her transcripts of paid speeches given to Wall Street banks. She said that other candidates weren't expected to do that, so it was an unfair double standard. Bernie Sanders response was great -- he said he'd be 100% willing to hand over any of his transcripts, except for one minor problem: he never made any paid speeches to Wall Street banks.


With regards to Wikileaks, I have zero problems with how they handled things and don't care at all who their source was -- Russia, some other very biased source with a clear agenda to damage Hillary, whatever. The only thing that matters is, are the emails true / legit? I haven't heard anyone suggest that they aren't; just bitching about it being "unfair" that all the dirt is on Hillary and the DNC.

Wikileaks relies on sources. You know, leakers. I'm confident that if they had dirt on Trump or any other candidate, they'd put it out there. But Wikileaks can't make candidates or parties do questionable shit, and even when candidates or parties do do questionable shit, they still need someone to catch them and then leak the information to Wikileaks.

Sometimes, if they don't have any dirt on somebody, it might be because there isn't any dirt to be had... Just like Sanders' transcripts of Wall Street speeches.

Eh... Sanders lost. It's probably impossible to prove that he would have won even if there wasn't election fraud--which is quite possible.

@Januari: ad hominem again, huh? How astute.

@newtboy: The talking head in this video isn't as funny as he thinks he is, but at least some of his facts check out.

What there is for actual election fraud is (AFAIK) on a correlation level, that doesn't quite prove things. The wikileaks email release however does prove a slanted bias within the DNC.

Article: Clinton Does Best Where Voting Machines Flunk Hacking Tests

Article: DNC Leak Shows Mechanics of a Slanted Campaign