Hillary regarding Bernie in new book: "He isn't a Democrat"

[Tom Nook 37,820]

In the new tell-all book regarding the 2016 election Clinton expressed appreciation for the Vermont Senator for campaigning for her during the general election, but she also expressed her frustration that he himself wasn’t a Democrat to begin with and accused him of not necessarily wanting a Democrat to win the White House.

“But he isn’t a Democrat- that’s not a smear, that’s what he says,” she continued. “He didn’t get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party.”

She gave him credit for engaging “a lot of young people in the political process,” but he was “fundamentally wrong about the Democratic Party.” 

“I am proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie were, too,” she said.

Clinton also wrote that President Barack Obama counseled her to "grit my teeth and lay off Bernie as much as I could," according to the excerpts. That strategy, Clinton wrote, made her feel she was "in a straitjacket."

Her book is scheduled to be released on September 12.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-what-happened/index.html

https://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-throws-shade-at-bernie-sanders-in-book-fundamentally-wrong-about-the-democratic-party/

[Seeka 12,372]

It's true. I mean, he honestly should not have run for the democratic party. He should've ran independent, and maybe, he would'v more properly gotten his foot in the door, made way for third parties in 2020, and maybe we wouldn't have the giant radioactive cheeto in office.

[FATCAT 60,984]

Well no, he isn't a democrat, but he WAS a registered democrat during the primaries, and he shared a ton of the same policies as democrats. He was on the left, and he ran for president to get progressive ideas on the table and out in the open. He wasn't going to run as a republican, and third parties don't have a platform. I'm sorry Hillary had a harder time in the primaries, but she was a weak candidate, and even after consolidating the party with Bernies support, she lost to pu$$y-grabbing cheeto. 

[venusfly 17,885]

Well she is right, he's not, he ran under the democratic party but only used the party so he had major backing, his views didn't reflect theirs at all and he refused to back the party too. Whether thats a bad thing is up to your own political views but they're facts.

[Babel 41,643]

and she's not the US president. 

[socotra 3,357]

9 minutes ago, Seeka said:

It's true. I mean, he honestly should not have run for the democratic party. He should've ran independent, and maybe, he would'v more properly gotten his foot in the door, made way for third parties in 2020, and maybe we wouldn't have the giant radioactive cheeto in office.

If he had ran as an independent, Hillary Clinton most certainly would have lost the popular vote and still lost the Electoral College. Because of the way the American political system is set up, successful third-party runs are nearly impossible. It's called the "first past the post" system, or a "winner take all" system where, because you only need a simple majority to win the presidency (270 electoral votes), all the different sects and factions of voters coalesce into two massive coalitions – thus we have two "big tent" parties. Many have made the argument that Bernie should have run as an independent, or Hillary Clinton would have been more like a Republican a couple decades ago, or that Trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich really all could have been representatives of completely different parties – and there's truth to those statements. I saw an image during the election that imagines the results if we had had a parliamentary system: 

Bernie could have veritably mounted a successful campaign as an independent in a parliamentary system because a parliamentary system awards votes proportionally. Our system, however, does not and thus he really couldn't have run as a third party and been nearly as successful as he was.

A prime recent example of this is when Ross Perot ran as an independent in the 1992 election against Bill Clinton and George HW Bush. Despite having won over 19.7 million votes and 18.9% of the total popular vote, he didn't win a single electoral vote. Many analysts argue that he split the conservative vote between himself and Bush, thus handing Clinton the election (who, had Perot not run, likely would have lost against Bush). Our system essentially ignored the 19.7 million people who voted for Perot; if you look purely at the electoral map, you wouldn't even know that he ran.

That's what would've happened to Bernie if he'd ran as an independent, likely with significantly less votes (for comparison, Libertarian Gary Johnson received only 6 million votes in 2016). 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

As a true independent, it was clear to me that Bernie had won a large part of the liberal voters ... I was mildly surprised to see Hillary beat him actually.   

GGD clearly favored him over Hilary during the primaries too.  

Gaga was Hillary all the way tho and so we're her Stan's.

[Sizzily 14,574]

We been knew.

[Arturo 40,746]

The nerve of a man who spent his lifetime as an independent all while having the holier than though attitude towards Democrats thinking the DNC owed him ANYTHING. Let me spend decades dragging a political party and then all of sudden say "I need your platform so be fair to me plz". HA.

[Arturo 40,746]

23 minutes ago, Triggered said:

and she's not the US president. 

And how's that working out for the basement dwellers?

Well I guess not so bad since most Bernie Bros I knew said they'd be better under Trump than Hillary. I guess it must be....oh nvm.

[AddMeOnMYSPACE 2,097]

bill, come and collect your wife. 

[Whispering 18,865]

36 minutes ago, Triggered said:

and she's not the US president. 

And look how well that is turning out. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

54 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Well no, he isn't a democrat, but he WAS a registered democrat during the primaries, and he shared a ton of the same policies as democrats. He was on the left, and he ran for president to get progressive ideas on the table and out in the open. He wasn't going to run as a republican, and third parties don't have a platform. I'm sorry Hillary had a harder time in the primaries, but she was a weak candidate, and even after consolidating the party with Bernies support, she lost to pu$$y-grabbing cheeto. 

She f*cking "lost" (by a margin of +3 million votes) because your candidate and fellow Bernie Bros smeared the f*ck out of her and failed to rally behind her because he and his supporters are sore losers.

She also lost because Bernie put out ridiculous policies and made promises that were NEVER going to happen that sounded great to millennials but realistically had no actual plans behind them. Hillary would spend MONTHS crafting careful, step-by-step plans, and the next day/week Bernie would put out the same plan but throw something in there to one-up her but not put forth a plan to pay for it that didn't involve raising middle class taxes.

Bernie has no desire to see Democrats elected. He ran because he wanted to shake up the Democratic party and be president. 

[LordEnigma 11,313]

It's hilarious to me when people say she was a weak candidate 

She is one of the most qualified candidates on the planet and ya'll wanted Bernie.

[Morphine Prince 110,031]

She's blaming everyone else for her loss but herself. Should've campaigned harder for the white working class in the swing states you lost and Obama won. 

Don't get me wrong, her analysis has truth to it, but her and her loyalist stans are annoying af because they don't seem to recognize her flaws.