And never did!
Iāve always preferred Hillary, flaws and all. But I used to think Sanders was alright too. Clearly, we didnāt know what we didnāt know, and you shouldnāt be ashamed for identifying a candidate with compelling policy positions, and then, discovering in the course of a campaign, the personal character of the candidate was sorely lacking. That is one of the benefits of a long campaign battleā¦ the national spotlight reveals a lot about a candidate.
As a Hillary supporter, and fellow liberal, I tip my hat to you for your active and constructive participation. That is something you need not be ashamed of.
51 Likes
Good to hear!
Sanders makes two arguments but the problem is that he at times highlights one without the other questioner pushing him: (1) superdelegates unfairly are supporting Clinton in states where he won big (2) superdelegates should vote for the candidate most likely to win / best person.
The logic of the first position would mean that superdelegates should in effect go to the person who won the state, at the very least if one candidate won it by a large margin. The problem here is if that alone was the test, Clinton would win ā she is ahead on pledged delegates and won big in some states. I think if she merely received superdelegates matching her support there that she would be able to go over the top. Sanders winning many low population states doesnāt help here.
If he simply wanted superdelegates to wait before endorsing a candidate, that is fine, but he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. As to the second point, thatās an undemocratic position, and I thought he was big on that, but it is a principled position. Might be wrong, but thatās separate. The problem is that he sometimes raises the first argument and it doesnāt hold up.
7 Likes
Actually, real journalistic ethics would have Todd reveal that he has a possible conflict of interest so that the viewing public is aware that a relative of his is connected to a campaign. Heās never done that.
20 Likes
You know it!
Just like in 2000 with nader. Where do people think his 3rd party run money came from?
Sadly, it workedā¦for bush!
14 Likes
Lol
1 Like
Bernie needs to learn the difference between a superdelegate and a pledged delegate. If a superdelegate was bound to vote the way their state voted, how is that different from a pledged delegate? The primary vote would determine both. And then the leaders of the party have absolutely no say as to who is the nominee.
22 Likes
Face it, Sen. Sanders, when even Chuck Todd can summon the cojones to call your logic bulls**t, youāre toast.
The good news is we only have about 8 more days of this nonsense to deal with. But it would be good if some more prominent Democrats - Iām looking at you, Senator Warren - would call him out on his rantings, especially about the e-mail āscandalā. He had the right tone in the first debate, and nothing heās heard since, including the IGās report, shouldāve given him reason to change his mind.
21 Likes
Itās the only argument that Bern has left and yes,it is hypocritical.
12 Likes
And the TPM war against Bernie continues. Lets forget that Hillary continued to the last contest 8 years ago when Obama had already won. An no articles about Hillaryās abysmal email issues that got a lot worse for her this week or how her numbers continue to crater. I used to love this site, but TPM should be renamed ETP, or establishment talking pointsā¦
And before anyone says it- donāt worry, Iām leavingā¦
1 Like
He already went there:
2 Likes
Was Clinton behind by 3 million votes and several hundred delegates at this point 8 years ago?
21 Likes
Been thinking that too. Time for Waren to let the air out of the puffed up buffoon Bernie has become. Of course, the Berrnie supporters probably would just throw chairs at her
16 Likes
I doubt theyāre constitutional for a federal election. cf. term limit statutes.
Yāknow, Bernie Sanders is really high maintenance!
16 Likes
I am much less worried about Sanders than I was before. He spoke with the TYT people, and they asked him about supporting 3rd party over Hillary, and he essentially said he wouldnāt do that.
He cited Ralph Nader and the 2000 elections. The fact that he is so openly aware of that disastrous elections has me pretty certain that Sandersās actions right now are simple politicking (maybe as a backup in case something does happen with Hillaryās emails), rather than him taking a hard line against Hillary.
Sanders has also started talking a lot more about the dangers of Donald Trump, so I think he will pivot to supporting Hillary fairly quickly once the last primaries are over.
While I disagree with him dragging the process through California, I can see how after having led a successful insurgent movement, although he knows he has lost, he feels he has to play the process out till the end and give every one of his supporters the opportunity to vote.
I am convinced (hopeful?) that we have misconstrued Sanders a bit, and he will come around to forcefully supporting Hillary once the primaries are over.
4 Likes
Youāre perhaps too kind - Todd accidentally stumbles into journalism once in awhile but he rarely does so without a counterbalancing idiotic question/statement within a day.
Blind squirrel, broken clock, etc.
7 Likes
Apples to oranges. First, she was less than 100 delegates behind (not 300), she stopped criticizing Obama on stage, she didnāt wrongly claim the votes she lost were all rigged, she didnāt accuse the DNC of things it didnāt do, and she didnāt try to kick respected veteran Democrats like Barney Frank off of DNC committees while giving left wing extremists like Cornell West a bully pulpit at the convention just to cause problems for the eventual nominee
40 Likes
Considering you have only made 10 posts in the 2 years youāve been here, I donāt think weāll notice.
14 Likes