Support NeoGAF

[Dangansona]

No one can give an answer to such a question because such an answer wouldn't make any damn sense and expose people for being ideological hypocrites.

I appreciate the generalizing of Bernie supporters, but as a potential voter of Jill Stein in the GE that only comes with the caveats that Obama gets his justice approved and it's not Ted Cruz running against Hillary.

I also recognize that I may change my mind when the GE comes around and vote for Hillary regardless.

But yes, those ideological hypocrite low-informed millennial Bernie supporters!

 

[Clefargle]

I don't agree with that. I think there is a bigger divide between Hillary and Bernie supporters than there was between Hillary and Obama supporters.

You're just factually wrong here. They agree on 93% of the issues and 80% of registered dems say they're fine with either as president. You're listening to the Internet a bit too much here. The divide was greater in 2008, I'm sorry that doesn't fit your narrative. Clinton and Sanders agree on the vast majority of topics. Most of the areas they disagree on are still much closer than either of their positions compared to any republican. It's in Bernies interest to contrast himself with Clinton, its strategic but not the reality.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Any candidate whose had such a long and diverse political career as Hillary will have some baggage. She was a senator for one of the largest, most diverse states in the country. As a New York senator she had to represent Wall Street stock brokers as much as she represented Adirondack lumberjacks, Rochester engineers, Southern NY farmers, etc. Some tough positions to hold just aren't possible when you have that many people of different education, careers, race, religion and income to represent. Is she supposed to just ignore a large portion of her constituents because they work on Wall Street? No. Donald Trump was even one of her constituents! She can't just ignore them for ideological reasons.

A safe, life time, senator from a hard left, completely white, tiny, insulated state is afforded much more opportunity to not make votes he doesn't necessarily agree with, and allows him to hold opinions that might not be liked by a much larger group of people. Bernie is in the perfect position to have the opinions he has without any real consequences for having them.

 

[GYODX]

How is railing against the entities that were directly responsible for the biggest financial crisis in the US since the Great Depression somehow worthy of mockery? It's pathetic that a candidate is being put down for making what is by any objective measure a pretty big fucking deal the main issue of his platform. It's not a "boogeyman". Stop downplaying it.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Surefire way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

These people need to go back to HS History class and take note. The left loves to fracture over perceived, tiny differences in tactics and usher in terrible right / facist opponates.

History loves a rerun.

Yeah! Stupid left! Go get educated, ya big goofs!

 

[dramatis]

For those who would like to catch up but don't check the OP, the (almost) full results are up.

Delegate count is probably tentative, give a few days for Wisconsin to sort itself out according to its rules.

Aside from that, for the Wisconsin Supreme Court contest, Bradley won, which is unfortunate.

As for details on Wisconsin's turnout and other related news:

A high-profile state Supreme Court race and hundreds of local non-partisan races also were on the ballot.

Additionally, Tuesday’s voting was closely watched as the most substantial test yet of Wisconsin's law requiring a photo ID at the polls. Workers reported busy polling places and scattered problems that forced them to turn away some voters who didn't have the right identification.

With 97 percent of precincts reporting statewide, unofficial turnout was about 45 percent of eligible voters. That's a record for at least several decades in Wisconsin presidential primaries, according to the state Government Accountability Board.

Statewide turnout in presidential primaries from 1984 to 2012 has been 22 percent to 38 percent of eligible voters. In 1980, 45 percent of the electorate voted. Figures for earlier elections were not immediately available.

Poll workers Downtown reported waves of students coming to vote in between classes, as well as the usual high numbers of new voters and address changes, causing moderate lines at times.

Some problems were reported with the new ID law, which requires voters to present state, federal or tribe-issued IDs, or IDs that meet specific criteria from Wisconsin-accredited universities.

The law does not allow people to vote with IDs issued by other states, and UW-Madison’s student IDs don’t meet the law’s criteria.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

How is railing against the entities that were directly responsible for the biggest financial crisis in the US since the Great Depression somehow worthy of mockery? It's pathetic that a candidate is being put down for making what is by any objective measure a pretty big fucking deal the main issue of his platform. It's not a "boogeyman". Stop downplaying it.

Because he's terrible at explaining any sort of plan of action for doing what he says he wants to do. When pressed slightly for specifics, he dodges and fumbles and quickly changes the subject. He has no plan for getting congress back to the Democrats so he can implement his plans. He has no plan for convincing the Supreme Court his, potentially unconstitutional (by his own admission he doesn't know if they are or not) plans are legal. He barely even has a plan to implement at all.

He's an ideas guy. Lots of talk, but when pushed for any sort of plan for how these ideas will come to exist, he has nothing that's reasonable or even potentially legal. There's another candidate in the race who does the same thing, spouts unworkable ideas with no plan to implement them, and is ridiculed for being naive and just saying whatever he can to sway voters, whether it's legal or feasible to get passed.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Let's be honest, the Republican base will turn out no matter what. They always do.

I don't think it's at all clear that Sanders will do a better job of turning out the Democratic base than Clinton. Certainly right now Clinton is doing a better job of getting her supporters to turn out.

In any event, Republicans would be salivating at the chance to run against a self-described socialist who has praised Fidel Castro and bread lines, publicly stated that he doesn't believe in charity, and is campaigning on massive tax increases for the middle class. His favorables are high right now because he hasn't really been attacked (Clinton had high favorables as Secretary of State for much the same reason).

I think the notion that attacking Sanders as a socialist would fail because it failed against Obama is dubious. These attacks failed against Obama because people didn't believe them. They will be much more effective against Sanders, and explaining what a democratic socialist really is just won't help much.

 

[Maxim726X]

Let's be honest, the Republican base will turn out no matter what. They always do.

I don't think it's at all clear that Sanders will do a better job of turning out the Democratic base than Clinton. Certainly right now Clinton is doing a better job of getting her supporters to turn out.

In any event, Republicans would be salivating at the chance to run against a self-described socialist who has praised Fidel Castro and bread lines, publicly stated that he doesn't believe in charity, and is campaigning on massive tax increases for the middle class. His favorables are high right now because he hasn't really been attacked (Clinton had high favorables as Secretary of State for much the same reason).

I think the notion that attacking Sanders as a socialist would fail because it failed against Obama is dubious. These attacks failed against Obama because people didn't believe them. They will be much more effective against Sanders, and explaining what a democratic socialist really is just won't help much.

That's not true at all... There is a good chance that if Trump is the candidate quite a few conservatives stay home. Will it be enough to counteract the new voters he is bringing to the fold? That remains to be seen- But it's not fair to say that they'll come out to support whomever.

 

[googleplex]

So you think Trump or Cruz would defeat Bernie in a GE?
.

After this week now I do. Bernie would get crushed in the GE.

 

[Box of Kittens]

That's not true at all... There is a good chance that if Trump is the candidate quite a few conservatives stay home. Will it be enough to counteract the new voters he is bringing to the fold? That remains to be seen- But it's not fair to say that they'll come out to support whomever.

Fair enough. Nominating Trump (or, ironically, stealing the nomination from him if he clearly wins it) could make this election an exception to the general rule that Republicans usually have strong turn out. My point is more that Republican voters who are motivated to turn out against Hillary Clinton will also be motivated to turn out against Bernie Sanders. They were super motivated to turn out against Obama in 2012 and it still wasn't enough.

 

[hawk2025]

How is railing against the entities that were directly responsible for the biggest financial crisis in the US since the Great Depression somehow worthy of mockery? It's pathetic that a candidate is being put down for making what is by any objective measure a pretty big fucking deal the main issue of his platform. It's not a "boogeyman". Stop downplaying it.

Because rallying, unfortunately, is not enough if the solutions are not obvious.

I think of it this way: In the early 20th century, one could rally for leg amputations in case of infection, and that was a pretty big fucking deal to save lives.

The actual solution was antibiotics.

Did you watch the video? Sound reasoning, even if it seems like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I dont think anybody can give a great answer. But its still a tough decision for people who know and understand Hillary's past and record. It's pretty damning.

If it seems like cutting your nose off to spite your face it is not, by definition, sound reasoning.

There are no new insights in that video.

 

[legacyzero]

I understand that it's real. I question the logic and motives of those who are willing to kill their own movement for a generation.

And so far, no one has given a good answer to this: how does turning over the judiciary to the GOP for 20+ years advance Bernie's long-term vision?

If you or anyone can come up with a sound answer, I'm all ears. But this question is dodged all the time around here, quite conspicuously. It speaks volumes.

Did you watch the video? Sound reasoning, even if it seems like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I dont think anybody can give a great answer. But its still a tough decision for people who know and understand Hillary's past and record. It's pretty damning.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Yeah, before all this Hillary vs Sanders stuff, I thought Bill and Hill were good and for the people (just the war on drugs thing seemed to cause too much problems). I was a kid when Bill was in office so I knew nothing about Hillary's stance on things, and I didn't follow her senate career. I hate the Iraq war, and it seems like it only created problems for everybody. I was looking forward to her becoming president but she seems horrible to me now. Better than the Republican options at least. We need more viable options. I don't even think I care about sticking to Democrats anymore, but yes between Hill, Drumpf, and Ted, Hill seems alright.

 

[wildfire]

Fair enough. Nominating Trump (or, ironically, stealing the nomination from him if he clearly wins it) could make this election an exception to the general rule that Republicans usually have strong turn out. My point is more that Republican voters who are motivated to turn out against Hillary Clinton will also be motivated to turn out against Bernie Sanders. They were super motivated to turn out against Obama in 2012 and it still wasn't enough.

This is laughable. Republicans hate socialists but they don't hate Sanders like they hate a "not so ladylike definitely is a crook" Clinton and black "muslim" like Obama.

You can go to any conservative forum or publication or even the whackjob versions and their commentary on Sanders is nowhere near as vitriolic as Clinton and Obama.


There are many scenarios where a significant minority of Republicans this year will sit out and some of those will actually vote Democrat even if Trump wins or in certain ways loses.

 

[Box of Kittens]

This is laughable. Republicans hate socialists but they don't hate Sanders like they hate a "not so ladylike definitely is a crook" Clinton and black "muslim" like Obama.

You can go to any conservative forum or publication or even the whackjob versions and their commentary on Sanders is nowhere near as vitriolic as Clinton and Obama.

Nonsense. Their personal hatred of Sanders may not be at the same level as their hatred of Clinton, but the idea that they won't be motivated to vote against the socialist advocating large tax increases is absurd.

If Republicans don't turn out this year, it will be due to their own internal divisions regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. I don't think it's worth trying to bank on that scenario. Also I think Sanders would be a completely ineffective president, but that's another story.

 

[Mr. RPG]

You are the one who asked for convincing to vote in the general, not the primary.

I don't want to hear "I don't have much faith in Hillary" as an answer to given evidence of her platform and stances from you especially since you're the one who asked how people like you would be convinced to vote for Hillary. If that is your answer, one based in emotion and feelings ('I don't have faith", "I love Obama"), rational argument and discussion are unlikely to change your mind unless you allow it.

Hillary released a climate change plan before Bernie realized he couldn't only stump on Wall Street issues. Who is the one that genuinely looked ahead and planned and thought about the subject proactively rather than reactively? Bernie also recently revealed his shallow knowledge of his own favored subject, what makes you think he has the knowledge to advance progressive climate change policies? If he mentions climate change in every speech, what are the specifics? The nature of having a speech that touches all bases means it is unlikely to have anything other than lofty words.

Denying a vote to both someone who has a climate change policy and a climate change denier is treating both their positions the same. If your stance in that situation is to abstain your vote, you weren't serious about your single issue anyway, you were just voting on the basis of your personal feelings about the candidates.

On top of all that, the presidency is not a single-issue office. It is your privilege to make climate change your one issue. If Bernie ever won the nomination, I wouldn't be running around flatuating about how he doesn't talk about women's issues enough, and therefore I won't vote for him. I would logically consider him the better choice over Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.

If your local candidates focus on local issues, of which climate change is low priority, would you not vote in the local race because they're "not talking about it as much"? If you live in a flippable district but the House representative candidate doesn't talk about climate change much, are you going to not vote for him or her? If said candidate is progressive on every issue but meh on climate change, would you not vote and just let the climate change denying candidate win?

What would you have accomplished for your single issue?

I am not a single-issue voter.

Protecting the environment and fighting climate change is a big fucking deal, by the way. I hope that you agree.

Bernie knows how important these issues are. I'm not just talking about climate change. I'm talking about every issue. He knows and understands the severity of these issues.

I will vote for the person in the general election who most closely aligns to my views. If that is Hillary, then I will vote for her.

Fun fact:
If the GOP wins, their court appointees are going to spend the next 20-30 years gutting environmental regulations like a mercury-soaked trout. The EPA will end-up toothless, with little enforcement power.

Something to consider. Perhaps.

I know.

You're just factually wrong here. They agree on 93% of the issues and 80% of registered dems say they're fine with either as president. You're listening to the Internet a bit too much here. The divide was greater in 2008, I'm sorry that doesn't fit your narrative. Clinton and Sanders agree on the vast majority of topics. Most of the areas they disagree on are still much closer than either of their positions compared to any republican. It's in Bernies interest to contrast himself with Clinton, its strategic but not the reality.

You have a rather short memory then.

 

[wildfire]

Nonsense. Their personal hatred of Sanders may not be at the same level as their hatred of Clinton, but the idea that they won't be motivated to vote against the socialist advocating large tax increases is absurd.

My point is that they numbers who will be motivated to vote against him will be smaller than those who would vote against Hitlery or the muslim.

My point wasn't they wouldn't be motivated at all.

If Republicans don't turn out this year, it will be due to their own internal divisions regardless of who the Democratic nominee is.

We mostly agree here but you are less confident in what will reduce votes and don't believe some will flip if certain conditions are met.

 

[noshten]

Nonsense. Their personal hatred of Sanders may not be at the same level as their hatred of Clinton, but the idea that they won't be motivated to vote against the socialist advocating large tax increases is absurd.

If Republicans don't turn out this year, it will be due to their own internal divisions regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. I don't think it's worth trying to bank on that scenario. Also I think Sanders would be a completely ineffective president, but that's another story.

They hate the Establishment more than Sanders, if it's not Trump on the ballot a portion of those Trump voters will stay at home. Cruz voters I'm guessing will vote Republican regardless who is the nominee.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Got my NY Registration confirmation stuff, and my polling place is kind of inconvenient.

I wish I could have set it to try and get a place closer to work.

Oh well. Guess I'll manage to find a ride somehow. I work next to City Hall, why can't I just walk there and vote and not some random church by my house!

 

[Ogrekiller]

My point is that they numbers who will be motivated to vote against him will be smaller than those who would vote against Hitlery or the muslim.

My point wasn't they wouldn't be motivated at all.



We mostly agree here but you are less confident in what will reduce votes and don't believe some will flip if certain conditions are met.

Republicans will be motivated to vote against the Castro loving Commie once the attack ads start rolling.

Oh and the DNC will backstab him like McGovern.

 

[Miles X]

Got my NY Registration confirmation stuff, and my polling place is kind of inconvenient.

I wish I could have set it to try and get a place closer to work.

Oh well. Guess I'll manage to find a ride somehow. I work next to City Hall, why can't I just walk there and vote and not some random church by my house!

Do work give you guys time off to vote?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Do work give you guys time off to vote?

Time isn't the issue, transportation is.

 

[Mr. RPG]

I haven't seen any Hillary supporters demanding that Bernie drop out in a little while.

I guess they got bored of it.

 

[Miles X]

Time isn't the issue, transportation is.

Be worth it tho, I wish I could vote!

I haven't seen any Hillary supporters demanding that Bernie drop out in a little while.

I guess they got bored of it.

Think most of us realised Bernie wasn't going to do the honourable thing and give up, instead he's doubled down (couldn't tell you why, he knows he has no shot).

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I haven't seen any Hillary supporters demanding that Bernie drop out in a little while.

I guess they got bored of it.

Well Bernie has actually gotten to a point where winning NY and CA 60-40 could put him mathematically back in contention if you put the Superdelegates aside for a moment. Hillary's guaranteed victory is getting less guaranteed, not more guaranteed lately.

It's actually getting a bit alarming to the Democrats just how weak their front runner is looking. Obama only got stronger looking as the primary season wore on in 2008. Hillary is doing just the opposite despite her enormous early lead after sweeping the South.

 

[Miles X]

Well Bernie has actually gotten to a point where winning NY and CA 60-40 could put him mathematically back in contention if you put the Superdelegates aside for a moment. Hillary's guaranteed victory is getting less guaranteed, not more guaranteed lately.

It's actually getting a bit alarming to the Democrats just how weak their front runner is looking. Obama only got stronger looking as the primary season wore on in 2008. Hillary is doing just the opposite despite her enormous early lead after sweeping the South.

He isn't winning NY and Cali by 20 points, don't be ridiculous.

FYI even if he did, and all other states went how they're likely to go (when you look at things realistically), he still falls short.

You also have no idea what you're talking about, you realise Hillary won the last few states right (6/10)? And that she actually got more votes than Obama?

 

[Mr. RPG]

He isn't winning NY and Cali by 20 points, don't be ridiculous.

FYI even if he did, and all other states went how they're likely to go (when you look at things realistically), he still falls short.

You also have no idea what you're talking about, you realise Hillary won the last few states right (6/10)? And that she actually got more votes than Obama?

A lot of things wrong in one post.

Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. Remove that and he won more votes than Hillary and that isn't even including all of the caucuses he won.

 

[Miles X]

A lot of things wrong in one post.

Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. Remove that and he won more votes and that isn't even including all of the caucuses he won.

She won more votes, that is factually correct, not wrong. More people came out to vote for her than Obama. The lead was never this great for Obama than it is for Hillary right now.

She won by 270k votes, Michigan is not big enough (600k voted) for you to determine he would have won with it.

Hillary is at 9.15m~ vs Bernies 6.65m~ she's ahead 2.5m votes. That's before Cali and NY I might add ..

 

[hidys]

I haven't seen any Hillary supporters demanding that Bernie drop out in a little while.

I guess they got bored of it.

Wait until after New York. Then you'll hear it until your ears bleed.

 

[Mr. RPG]

She won more votes, that is factually correct, not wrong. More people came out to vote for her than Obama. The lead was never this great for Obama than it is for Hillary right now.

She won by 270k votes, Michigan is not big enough (600k voted) for you to determine he would have won with it.

Hillary didn't have any opposition in Michigan. She was the only major candidate on the ballot. Of course she "won".

By the way, Hillary did not win 6 of the last 10 contests. Are you talking about 2008?

 

[Miles X]

Hillary didn't have any opposition in Michigan. She was the only major candidate on the ballot. Of course she "won".

By the way, Hillary did not win 6 of the last 10 contests.

Did she not? Enlighten me?

240k of that 600k were uncommited, don't act like she swept up all the votes.

Edit - Of course I'm talking about 08, I have been following this election, I know she hasn't won the last 6 contests ......

 

[Mr. RPG]

Did she not? Enlighten me?

240k of that 600k were uncommited, don't act like she swept up all the votes.

Edit - Of course I'm talking about 08, I have been following this election, I know she hasn't won the last 6 contests ......

Obama never even campaigned in Michigan.

Are you still upset that she lost in 2008? It's been 8 years...

 

[Miles X]

Obama never even campaigned in Michigan.

Are you still upset that she lost in 2008? It's been 8 years...

Ok, say for arguments sake he won 350k of the vote, she won 250k, that means Obama would have won overall by about 150k votes (17.935m vs 17.780m) that is close.

9.15 vs 6.35m is not close. She is smashing it against Bernie.

As to the 08 thing, I barely followed and can't remember much. (I'm not American) I'm just making a point which is pretty obvious (to that guy that said it's much closer than 08 (lol), don't come out with petty taunts if you can't back up what you're saying with reasonable evidence (but I guess that flies in the face of most Bernie fans that think he actually has a shot at getting the nom).

 

[Aaronology]

Well Bernie has actually gotten to a point where winning NY and CA 60-40 could put him mathematically back in contention if you put the Superdelegates aside for a moment. Hillary's guaranteed victory is getting less guaranteed, not more guaranteed lately.

It's actually getting a bit alarming to the Democrats just how weak their front runner is looking. Obama only got stronger looking as the primary season wore on in 2008. Hillary is doing just the opposite despite her enormous early lead after sweeping the South.

This is either dishonesty worthy of Fox or pure ignorance. Either way it's false. Clinton won a slew of states shortly before conceding and that this "Clinton is no Obama!" narrative keeps being repeated in these type of threads just reveals how little you all paid attention to 2008's primary and how little you know about the process in general. Hillary Clinton is winning by margins Barack Obama never came close to against her in 2008. Fact.

 

[Miles X]

I crunched the numbers. When Hillary wins NY and the following weeks NE states by expected and reasonable margins ...

NY: 10p
MD: 20p
PA: 6p
DE: 8p
RI: 2p
CT: 4p

Bernie has to win all remaining states by 20 points, and his favoured states (South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Indiana and Oregon) by 40 points.

Even then he falls short 25 delegates.

These are all primaries btw, no more blowout wins thanks to crazy caucuses.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

It's actually getting a bit alarming to the Democrats just how weak their front runner is looking. Obama only got stronger looking as the primary season wore on in 2008. Hillary is doing just the opposite despite her enormous early lead after sweeping the South.

At least look up shit before you just type away. My goodness.

 

[Mr. RPG]

Ok, say for arguments sake he won 350k of the vote, she won 250k, that means Obama would have won overall by about 150k votes (17.935m vs 17.780m) that is close.

Michigan wasn't counted until Hillary begged the party to reverse their decision and even then almost all sites that list the popular vote from 2008 that I have seen don't include Michigan's votes in the total popular vote.

But yes, the popular vote was close in 2008.

9.15 vs 6.35m is not close. She is smashing it against Bernie.

You're right, Bernie is getting beat in the popular vote. I'm not denying it, although it is a bit closer than what you posted.

If we had voting results from the caucuses though, I think it would be much closer. Bernie is actually doing better than Obama in most of the caucuses.

As to the 08 thing, I barely followed and can't remember much. (I'm not American) I'm just making a point which is pretty obvious (to that guy that said it's much closer than 08 (lol), don't come out with petty taunts if you can't back up what you're saying with reasonable evidence (but I guess that flies in the face of most Bernie fans that think he actually has a shot at getting the nom).

That is why Bernie will achieve the greatest upset in American politics when he overtakes Hillary in pledged delegates in June.

 

[Ogrekiller]

That is why Bernie will achieve the greatest upset in American politics when he overtakes Hillary in pledged delegates in June.

No, that will be when Trump crushes Bernie 55-45 this November.

 

[Miles X]

Michigan wasn't counted until Hillary begged the party to reverse their decision and even then almost all sites that list the popular vote from 2008 that I have seen don't include Michigan's votes in the total popular vote.

But yes, the popular vote was close in 2008.



You're right, Bernie is getting beat in the popular vote. I'm not denying it, although it is a bit closer than what you posted.

If we had voting results from the caucuses though, I think it would be much closer. Bernie is actually doing better than Obama in most of the caucuses.



That is why Bernie will achieve the greatest upset in American politics when he overtakes Hillary in pledged delegates in June.

I can't tell if you're just a defeated Bernie fan trying to be funny (why not ) or serious. Reminds me way too much sometimes of when people thought WiiU could actually beat XB1 (and XB1 beat PS4) people just suspend all common sense and logic to get to their ideal outcome I guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democ...d_current_standings_of_primaries_and_caucuses

Wiki has numbers for the caucuses, it barely changes anything let alone "much closer".

 

[Mr. RPG]

I can't tell if you're just a defeated Bernie fan trying to be funny (why not ) or serious. Reminds me way too much sometimes of when people thought WiiU could actually beat XB1 (and XB1 beat PS4) people just suspend all common sense and logic to get to their ideal outcome I guess.

I'm hopeful sure, but I'm also realistic. Bernie still has an almost insurmountable delegate gap even after his recent winning streak, but to say that he doesn't have a path isn't accurate.

I've looked at the remaining states and I think he still has a chance and I'm not going to give up.

I wouldn't expect any of Hillary's supporters to give up either if the roles were reversed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democ...d_current_standings_of_primaries_and_caucuses

Wiki has numbers for the caucuses, it barely changes anything let alone "much closer".

Those aren't actual votes, they are state convention delegates won if I recall correctly.

 

[seat]

The #BernieOrBust thing is real, and depending on who you are, a little hard to disagree with
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLNfId2n74

Damn, that was incredibly well-said.

I'm really glad Bernie has stayed in the race because Hillary's bad side has started to expose itself in a spectacular way since March 15th. Her behavior towards Bernie has been deplorable and embarrassing for her as shown by her plummeting popularity. If she or her supporters expect everyone to roll over and give her an easy ride to the nomination, by now they should realize they need a huge dose of reality shoved down their gullets. Just because she's better than Trump doesn't mean she's a good candidate. She has a shitty track record. Her handlers need to rein her in and she needs to change her tune or else her ride is going to get a hell of a lot worse before it gets better.

 

[HylianTom]

I haven't seen any Hillary supporters demanding that Bernie drop out in a little while.

I guess they got bored of it.

I don't care if he stays in. Just stop saying stupid, poisonous shit. Once it's apparent that he's not going to be the nominee - and let's be brutally honest here: #FeelTheMath - don't sabotage the person who'll win nomination, the person who will keep your ideals viable for future contests.

 

[Miles X]

I'm hopeful sure, but I'm also realistic. Bernie still has an almost insurmountable delegate gap even after his recent winning streak, but to say that he doesn't have a path isn't accurate.

I've looked at the remaining states and I think he still has a chance and I'm not going to give up.

I wouldn't expect any of Hillary's supporters to give up either if the roles were reversed.



Those aren't actual votes, they are state convention delegates won if I recall correctly.

@ caucus votes, fair enough. I read an article earlier tho (here) that suggests the lead would still be 2.4m+

A path for Bernie to get 1,237 is not remotely realistic. So no, you're not being realistic. He isn't winning Cali or New York, or Penn, Maryland, Connecticut ... Super delegates are not going to change their minds either. It's not impossible, but then a lot of things are not impossible.

Edit - I'd love to see your predictions for Bernies path for the remaining states tho!!

Wyoming -
New York -
Connecticut -
Delaware -
Maryland -
Pennsylvania -
Rhode Island -
Indiana -
Guam -
West Virginia -
Kentucky -
Oregon -
Virgin Islands -
Puerto Rico -
California -
Montana -
New Jersey -
New Mexico -
South Dakota -
North Dakota -
District of Columbia -

 

[Mr. RPG]

don't sabotage the person who'll win nomination, the person who will keep your ideals viable for future contests.

Why are you worried that Hillary will lose the general election if she becomes the nominee? I already said it before. We aren't voting for Trump.

@ caucus votes, fair enough. I read an article earlier tho (here) that suggests the lead would still be 2.4m+

Your link needs fixing.

A path for Bernie to get 1,237 is not remotely realistic. So no, you're not being realistic. He isn't winning Cali or New York, or Penn, Maryland, Connecticut ... Super delegates are not going to change their minds either. It's not impossible, but then a lot of things are not impossible.

Well, I'm not going to change your mind. I guess we'll find out who is right!

Edit - I'd love to see your predictions for Bernies path for the remaining states tho!

Ask me again after New York. Some of those contests are still months away and most of them don't even have any (or little) polling.

I'll repeat what I said before though. He isn't going to lose another contest by 30 or 40 points. I just don't see that happening.

 

[Elfforkusu]

You're just factually wrong here. They agree on 93% of the issues and 80% of registered dems say they're fine with either as president. You're listening to the Internet a bit too much here. The divide was greater in 2008, I'm sorry that doesn't fit your narrative. Clinton and Sanders agree on the vast majority of topics. Most of the areas they disagree on are still much closer than either of their positions compared to any republican. It's in Bernies interest to contrast himself with Clinton, its strategic but not the reality.

A decent % of Bernie's support comes from independents. i.e. people who don't identify as Democrats. i.e. people who the Democrats like to write off as closet Republicans, a lost cause, wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.

People like me!

There's a tendency from folks on the left to take votes for granted, and blame people for not participating in the process (e.g. during midterms). My counterargument is that if the party brings forward candidates with compelling ideas, your voter turnover problem will go away. When the party doesn't, it only has itself to blame.

 

[Miles X]

Why are you worried that Hillary will lose the general election if she becomes the nominee? I already said it before. We aren't voting for Trump.



Your link needs fixing.



Well, I'm not going to change your mind. I guess we'll find out who is right!



Ask me again after New York. Some of those contests are still months away and most of them don't even have any (or little) polling.

I'll repeat what I said before though. He isn't going to lose another contest by 30 or 40 points. I just don't see that happening.

BIB: She doesn't need to win by 30/40 points ..


Here you go (here) should work now.

The only real game changer after the April NE contests is California, and he certainly isn't winning that by a huge margin (if at all). Next biggest is New Jersey, which Hillary should win easily as well.

Your path flies in the face of everything that has happened thus far, like the highest win Bernie having in a primary (outside of Vermont) being 13% (Wisconsin) which has polled in his favour unlike the majority of states to come. Before that it was Oklahoma 10%~.

He needs 30 point wins, in delegate rich states that Hillary has polled strongly in and won in 08 against Obama.

She's lost 2 states so far that she won in 08 btw, 1 is Vermont (obvious reasons) and the other Michigan, which she lost by a tiny fraction.

She won California, New York (by a huge margin) New Mexico, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico and South Dakota.

Now, that doesn't mean she is guaranteed to win those, can see her losing South Dakota, but given she has won every other state she won in 08 so far (bar the two I mentioned, 1 being totally out of her reach) it's not realistic to think she'll start losing them now.

I definitely think you should plot out your path tho, if you have hope and faith like you say you do, you shouldn't be worried about it being torn to pieces and losing faith

A decent % of Bernie's support comes from independents. i.e. people who don't identify as Democrats. i.e. people who the Democrats like to write off as closet Republicans, a lost cause, wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.

People like me!

There's a tendency from folks on the left to take votes for granted, and blame people for not participating in the process (e.g. during midterms). My counterargument is that if the party brings forward candidates with compelling ideas, your voter turnover problem will go away. When the party doesn't, it only has itself to blame.

When you have someone offering pipe dreams, no way is a realistic candidate going to be able to match that, especially when it's young people who are more easily influenced (so it seems). If those people on the left really cared about Bernies vision, they would vote Hillary. It really is that clear cut.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

A decent % of Bernie's support comes from independents. i.e. people who don't identify as Democrats. i.e. people who the Democrats like to write off as closet Republicans, a lost cause, wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.

People like me!

There's a tendency from folks on the left to take votes for granted, and blame people for not participating in the process (e.g. during midterms). My counterargument is that if the party brings forward candidates with compelling ideas, your voter turnover problem will go away. When the party doesn't, it only has itself to blame.

Your argument of bringing forth compelling ideas changing turnout is disproven by history. Unless you think no president in the last 100 years has ever had compelling ideas.

Directing your government is it's own reward. Americans being stupid enough to not participate are exactly who are to blame.

It's a shame universal health care and better education and cheaper secondary education aren't considered compelling.

 

[InsaneZero]

A decent % of Bernie's support comes from independents. i.e. people who don't identify as Democrats. i.e. people who the Democrats like to write off as closet Republicans, a lost cause, wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.

People like me!

There's a tendency from folks on the left to take votes for granted, and blame people for not participating in the process (e.g. during midterms). My counterargument is that if the party brings forward candidates with compelling ideas, your voter turnover problem will go away. When the party doesn't, it only has itself to blame.

In reality, your unwillingness to participate in government simply means that the government has no obligation to listen to what you want either. It's a mutual relationship.

You get what you put into the system. If you don't put anything into it, you're probably not going to get anything either.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

for bernie attracting a lot of college students, it's sad to see how weak at math some of his supporters are. you guys throwing down the statistics and odds, keep it up. if you want to believe he has a chance, no matter how small, fine, but ignoring numbers to fit a narrative is a bad look.

it's amazing how people can ignore facts and data when their positive-affirmation bubble they surround themselves in deflects them away. on both sides of the aisle