I like Bernie, and started this season supporting him. But it’s disappointing to read this ‘we wuz robbed’ sort of reality fudging, especially following on the heels of all the talk about how open primaries are the only ‘democratic’ kind…as if it’s more ‘democratic’ to allow Republicans and ‘independents’ to determine who runs as the Democratic nominee.
OK, I’ve run out of quotation marks.
To be honest, I do not want to bitch and moan about Bernie. I want to hear cogent discussions about steps we shoud take to achieve Democratic congress, about steps that we will take during Clinton presidency that will bring us closer to Clinton and, yes, Sanders goals. I want all like-minded articulate people to talk to the rest of the country and convince the country that Clinton presidency could be exciting opportunity even for those who are in Bernie camp and for those who don’t care about a first woman president. I want us all to convince majority of the country that Trump/Cruz presidency would be a disaster, both for the country and the world.
So no, I do not want to bitch and moan about Bernie. I am more than willing to give him credit both for the content and the tone of the early part of his campaign. But given that the results of the primary are essentially determined, I want to change the conversation.
that people just don’t like her, nor do a majority of them want her and her family anywhere near the Oval Office again in living memory
Then why are more people voting for her over Sanders??
Go the f*ck home already, man. You are TOO drunk.
Grifters keep on griftin’
Cause it won’t be too long
I call that a whiff worthy of any league you want to name!!
And I thought I was clueless sometimes!
~chuckle~ 
jw1
Yes, mathematically he can catch up with Clinton in pledged delegates. But do you really believe that Sanders will win in, say, California by 26% margin (that he needs according to 538)? He knows he won’t. He and his surrogates are explicitly talking about losing the pledged delegates yet winning due to superdelegates.
He’s been bilking the unsuspecting for a long time.
Achtung! Dead cat being swung!
I’d ask if that applied to your voting for John Kerry in 2004, but then again, 14 year olds cannot vote.
Jesus would you shut up and go away already
We hear non-stop about how Sanders is integrity personified, but with this type of stunt it is becoming clear that the guy is the biggest con-man in this race on either side of the aisle because he is a pretender. He’s making it harder and harder to tolerate his self-righteousness and the “amen chorus” of supporters he’s been swindling with stunts like the one he’s now trying to pull. With his so-called “small donations” dropping by more than 40% in April, there is absolutely no doubt that Sanders predicting a contested convention when he knows full well that there will be no such thing is a desperate attempt at reopening the floodgate of contributions to his now all but dead quixotic quest!
Poor Bernie. He never expected anyone to pay attention to him. Now that they are (but he’s losing), he has no idea what to do. Mercifully for him, it will soon be over.
And you haven’t[ really understood what he said.
The DNC, for better or worse, is run on the peimise that a simple majority of all delegates wins. 85% of the delegates MUST vote for the candidate they are pledged to vote for and 15% are able to change their minds to vote for whomever they please. that is why they are called “unpledged delegates” in the official DNC rules:
By contrast, the unpledged PLEO delegates (Rule 9.A) are seated without
regard to their presidential preferences, solely by virtue of being
current or former elected officeholders and party officials. Many of
them have chosen to announce endorsements, but they are not bound in any
> way. They may support any candidate they wish, including one who has
> dropped out of the presidential race.[7]
Up until they actually vote, super delegates may change their minds and that is what Sanders is hoping will happen.
As for it being “more democratic” to allow indpendents or Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries, the fact is that there are only 2 credible candidates in US races, and they are heavily subsidized by the federal government. This is an argument in favor of open primaries. There are arguments against, as well, such as outsiders trying to nominate a “loser” candidate.
the BEST argument in favor of open primaries is simply that independents make up 40% of the country, and a candidate that only appeals to a single party’s members will not be the most likely to win the general. A wise party leadership should want independents to have input into who wins the nomination because that will imply that such a candidate appeals to more of the voting population that a purely partisan candidate.
And that is Sanders’ point about himself: he IS such a candidate.
I love that one. I don’t like her ergo people don’t like her because I’m always right so I must be right about this too. I’m going to get a migraine from rolling my eyes so much this primary season.
And what about the most anti-democratic mechanism of all — the caucus?
Crickets. Fuckin’ crickets, man.
But she had not interest in reforming the Democratic Party and that was Sanders’ original stated reason for running. He never expected to have even a remote chance of winning the nomination -not at 35 in the polls when he started.
Since he DOES want to reform the Party, he has every reason to stay in as the better he does, the more credibility he has with the Party leadership (no matter what they say in public).
Cool, so since he never intended to win, and he isn’t going to win, he should be happy and stop trying to pretend that he can win. A man of integrity would do that.
fivethirtyeight bases its ratings (not predictions) on current polling. Do you know what their ratings for Sanders were when he was at 3% in the national pols?
THere’s a month left to go and he is barely starting his official campaign there. The polls should tighten considerably between now and the primary. Whether or not he wins is another question, of course.
I’m not talking about “ratings.” I’m talking about the current polling, a summary of which is usefully provided by 538 (with links to the sources).
Do you know anything about the Field Poll? Do you have any clue why they are so highly regarded in CA, and have been for decades? Have you looked at the crosstabs of the last Field Poll and what they say about the possibility that Sanders will sweep CA by >20 points?
And even if you were enough of an idiot to omit the Field Poll, Sanders has not been in the lead in any poll in CA in this entire race.
It simply ain’t gonna happen. Not even if you clap even harder.