Support NeoGAF

[TheLostBigBoss]

But WHY? Why is she GOING to be President? Why were people racing to embrace Hillary, I mean just look at how HillGAF behaves, when they had a better option? There was no reason why Bernie couldn't have had the same upset in 2016 that Obama did in 2008. Resistance would not have been futile if people weren't in such a hurry to be assimilated by the Borg Queen for some unfathomable goddamned reason.

Because old people are anti BS apparently and are saving us from a person who has no actual plan for his main political platform and has a very high risk of a general election meltdown when someone starts to attack him.

Thank god for old people, I can't believe I fucking said that. If it wasn't for these old farts my idiot peers would be voting in some douchebag because he says "School is gonna be FREEEEEE*"

*tuition free IE like 1/8th the cost of school in many cases and what are you doing about everyone else who has a shit ton of debt?

You want healthcare, YOU GET HEALTHCARE!!!!!*

*ignoring that it took complete control of the senate and house to railroad it down congress's throat and a major supreme court verdict that ended in 5-4 that could have basically killed the ACA.

It's. Fucking. Bullshit. He's bullshit, Bernie Sanders is a bullshit candidate who talks and talks and talks but does nothing, because he is nothing. Nobody gave a shit about Sanders before he decided to completely delude a bunch of kids in college about the possibility of not having to pay for school and healthcare in four years.

--

What has he done in the last decade? Oh right he was the Chairmen of the Senate Committee on Veterans'Affairs, 2013-2014. Great job man, nice try, you had like one job and a year after you took the position the VA scandal unfolds and it turns out thousands of people have been on waiting lists for months because of how fucked the system was. And what was his response to the whistleblower report of at least 40 people actually dying?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/u...ency-clouded-bernie-sanderss-va-response.html

“There is, right now, as we speak, a concerted effort to undermine the V.A.,” Mr. Sanders said in May 2014, two weeks after the story was picked up by national news organizations. “You have folks out there now — Koch brothers and others — who want to radically change the nature of society, and either make major cuts in all of these institutions, or maybe do away with them entirely.”

Remember everyone, if you stub your toe it's actually Wall St.'s fault.


--


What, are people actually lapping up "I take money from a bunch of idiot kids who probably need this money far more than this campaign considering the mathematical outcomes that keep happening to me "? He's not supporting the downtickets of the party, because he can't and he doesn't give a fuck. OMG Clinton is smart and uses the Super PAC system to stand a chance in the election in order to fucking WIN. If the Democrats weren't using the Super PAC system they would be fucking morons. "Yes, lets just let our opponents use this system to raise untold amount of money, but it's k we have the moral highground"

And fuck you if you don't think she's not going to instate someone in the court to overturn Citizens United. Hey guys, you understand that the case was literally about her, right? No literally, it was a fucking movie that was a smear tactic that went all the way up to the Sup Court. Not a lot of people know that, because knowing these facts start to poke holes in the insane narratives that are retroactively used to keep Bernie from faltering.

Bernie Sanders, such an amazing person he was invited by the Pope himsef-

Oh wait what's that... he wasn't actually invited by the Pope? Oh... oh well I'm sure this trip is gonna really pay dividends in New York a week from now.

But man, Bernie would be doing so well, it's just he's lost all the conservative states... just ignore MA, IL, FL and NV, as well as all the other conservative states Sanders won. No no, the real issue is black people, but honestly I'm out of steam to even get into that can of worms( even if it's probably the biggest issue with him and his supporters)

Anyways, Bernie is bullshit, his message and plans are about as sturdy as my after-party shits. Loose and dissolves quickly without much effort or scrutiny. God bless old people and god bless the south.

And just a note: I was a Bernie supporter in the early game, go back to some of the earlier threads last year when he started running, I was in for that shit.

 

[Alandrus Sun]

I'm not a Hillary supporter. I am pragmatic as fuck and want a Democrat in the White House because the other side decided a murderer's row of race-baiters was somehow okay. Why is it every time someone goes in on Bernie, you're automatically counted as a Hilldawg supporter? It's like when I give one of my kids shit and he starts telling me about what his brothers did wrong. Dude, I'm talking about YOU.

And you're wrong. Bernie has had ample time to get it right with the constituencies he needs in order to win, and has squandered nearly every opportunity. On top of that, he has no allies within the party, which means none of his pie-in-the-sky rhetoric has a chance to become law, he can't answer the questions with any detail regarding the major plank his campaign has been built around, and has a voting record that doesn't inspire confidence.

Hillary got her ass whooped in 2008 and learned quickly that she had to earn that vote. Even if she doesn't mean it, she's saying it and that means she can be held accountable. She has the relationships and the ability to get shit done, and frankly, that's what matters to the pragmatic voting base.

#EarnThisVoteOrLose is right up there with #BernieSoBlack as my favourite hashtags of this campaign so far.

*Snip*

Thank god for old people, I can't believe I fucking said that. If it wasn't for these old farts my idiot peers would be voting in some douchebag because he says "School is gonna be FREEEEEE*"
*tuition free IE like 1/8th the cost of school in many cases and what are you doing about everyone else who has a shit ton of debt?

You want healthcare, YOU GET HEALTHCARE!!!!!*

*ignoring that it took complete control of the senate and house to railroad it down congress's throat and a major supreme court verdict that ended in 5-4 that could have basically killed the ACA.

It's. Fucking. Bullshit. He's bullshit, Bernie Sanders is a bullshit candidate who talks and talks and talks but does nothing, because he is nothing. Nobody gave a shit about Sanders before he decided to completely delude a bunch of kids in college about the possibility of not having to pay for school and healthcare in four years.

...


But man, Bernie would be doing so well, it's just he's lost all the conservative states... just ignore MA, IL, FL and NV, as well as all the other conservative states Sanders won. No no, the real issue is black people, but honestly I'm out of steam to even get into that can of worms( even if it's probably the biggest issue with him and his supporters)

Anyways, Bernie is bullshit, his message and plans are about as sturdy as my after-party shits. Loose and dissolves quickly without much effort or scrutiny. God bless old people and god bless the south.

So both of these sum up my thoughts. Also, as far as Hilary's use of Super-PACs I just remember Bruno's speech on The West Wing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoBA_zzmlxQ

 

[kirblar]

I feel like there needs to be a mandatory Poli Sci course to graduate HS at this point.

Public choice would be even better.

 

[FyreWulff]

Well I'm right aren't I? You aren't going to start liking Bernie even if he changed his mind on this tomorrow, right? You would still support Hillary?

Bish beat me to it, but I'm less a Hilary supporter and more going to vote for who I think is the best option, weighing all policies against each other. The two parties are distinctly not the same more than ever. The other side runs on a platform of murder, racism, dog whistles and fearphrases.

Bernie has absolutely failed to speak for anyone other than the college whites demographic. He's done nothing to call out the racism behind "black voters not getting their best candidate". He's done nothing to scrub the conspiracy theoristst and whataboutists from his base. He's suddenly switched from "winning people" to "winning states" as a metric of success in a primary process that requires you to actually win people. lol.

 

[dave is ok]

The vitriol for Bernie is unreal.

I will always vote for transformational politics over transactional politics. Remember that Obama campaigned on transformational politics, even if his presidency was 100% transactional

 

[Gotchaye]

That doesn't show it? The superdelegate count is around 469 to 31 in favor of Clinton. The vote of the population of the people is about 58 to 42% also in favor of Clinton. So if the supers were aligned with the vote, you would assume the roughly 60/40 split. That isn't anywhere close to what we have though.

I can also point out how Sanders won Washington but every superdelegate from Washington pledged to support Clinton. Same type of thing in Alaska. Look up Kim Metcalfe (a superdelegate) and what she had to say. I'm not sure if I can link huffington post articles so I won't.

This strikes me as a pretty silly way to argue that super delegates don't follow the will of the people. Like, it happens all the time in democratically legitimate systems that the outcome of some process does not come very close to tracking the margin with which the population favors an outcome. For example, the electoral college is winner-take-all by state, with few exceptions. It's not very objectionable that it can happen that a candidate can get 100% of a state's electoral votes with 55% of its popular vote. The only times really worth getting upset over are when the overall electoral college winner is different from the popular vote winner. Especially for processes where the outcome is all-or-nothing, it doesn't really matter that much if intermediate steps are exactly representative if the overall process is highly representative.

Some people have suggested a way for the states to do an end-run around the electoral college and establish a national popular vote as the basis for the presidential election by deciding to allocate all of their electoral college votes to the national popular vote winner rather than to the winner of their state. If enough states do this then we have a de facto national popular vote for the presidency. I think it's kind of obvious that this would overall better represent "the will of the people" even if it means that some states will likely send electors who are bound to vote for a candidate that lost their state.

The argument is that the superdelegates basically work this way. They are expected to swing heavily for the overall delegate/vote winner rather than being reflective of their particular state's vote. But it's the eventual outcome that matters here, and if the superdelegates are always voting for the candidate that would win without superdelegate involvement then it seems pretty fair to say that they're never rejecting "the will of the people", even if for aesthetic reasons you might prefer that they put on a slightly different show at the convention.

 

[kirblar]

The vitriol for Bernie is unreal.

I will always vote for transformational politics over transactional politics. Remember that Obama campaigned on transformational politics, even if his presidency was 100% transactional

The vitriol for Bernie wasn't there for me (and many others) 4 months ago. He's earned it over the past two months or so.

And in the end, Obama (and us at home) discovered he was wrong, unfortunately.

Thank god for old people, I can't believe I fucking said that. If it wasn't for these old farts my idiot peers would be voting in some douchebag because he says "School is gonna be FREEEEEE*"

And minority voters. The demographic change is allowing them to keep us white people from shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

[Matt]

That doesn't show it? The superdelegate count is around 469 to 31 in favor of Clinton. The vote of the population of the people is about 58 to 42% also in favor of Clinton. So if the supers were aligned with the vote, you would assume the roughly 60/40 split. That isn't anywhere close to what we have though.

I can also point out how Sanders won Washington but every superdelegate from Washington pledged to support Clinton. Same type of thing in Alaska. Look up Kim Metcalfe (a superdelegate) and what she had to say. I'm not sure if I can link huffington post articles so I won't.

You misunderstand the point of the Superdelegates. They are supposed to rally around the national leader. If they apportioned themselves in the same ratio as the pledged delegates, then it's possible no one would ever get the nomination.

 

[Kangi]

The vitriol for Bernie wasn't there for me (and many others) 4 months ago. He's earned it over the past two months or so.

Yep. Was pretty neutral on him (though not some of his supporters) until he went fleeing to the "smart people" in Minnesota while getting shellacked in my state. Made me glad I didn't vote for him 'cause that'd make me even angrier if I did. For someone who likes to position himself as "the people's candidate" (being, naturally, opposed to the "corporate candidate"), he sure likes to treat his supporters in states he loses like they don't matter.

 

[dave is ok]

Yep. Was pretty neutral on him (though not some of his supporters) until he went fleeing to the "smart people" in Minnesota while getting shellacked in my state. Made me glad I didn't vote for him 'cause that'd make me even angrier if I did. For someone who likes to position himself as "the people's candidate" (being, naturally, opposed to the "corporate candidate"), he sure likes to treat his supporters in states he loses like they don't matter.

This is something every candidate does. Clinton left states Sanders won to get more time in Florida and New York before the votes were counted. Time is a precious resource in a presidential campaign

 

[Piecake]

The vitriol for Bernie is unreal.

I will always vote for transformational politics over transactional politics. Remember that Obama campaigned on transformational politics, even if his presidency was 100% transactional

There is a huge difference between Obama and Bernie in that regard. Obama's policy proposals were well thought out and detailed plans that were in the realm of possibility. His change was really based on his character and his planned way of doing things (obviously didnt work out)

Bernie, on the other hand, is promising the sun and the moon. Bernie's change is actually him passing all of his unrealistic proposals.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Man like I'm extremely happy that Bernie has gotten young apathetic people into politics but shit I wish mf would actually learn something about the US political system before regurgitating tweets and facebook posts complaining about how undemocratic America is and this "will of the people" shit.

 

[BotoxAgent]

The vitriol for Bernie is unreal.

I will always vote for transformational politics over transactional politics. Remember that Obama campaigned on transformational politics, even if his presidency was 100% transactional

Bernie is no Obama. Not even close. Obama tried to help other democrats and had a better plan to win a larger coalition with substance and style to match.

 

[Kangi]

This is something every candidate does. Clinton left states Sanders won to get more time in Florida and New York before the votes were counted. Time is a precious resource in a presidential campaign

At least she fought for NH until the bitter end. At least she thanked her supporters there and gave a rallying speech, talking about how she still loves NH. SC was dead to Bernie after he lost. Heck, even before that, he didn't write a concession speech for NV.

It's one thing during times where multiple states are voting and they can't be everywhere at once. It's another when they don't even show their face in a single state in the week leading up to it, and are on a plane while its polls close. And then there's the revisionist history Tad Devine tried about how they "didn't even try" for us states down south...

 

[ShironRedshift]

The vitriol for Bernie wasn't there for me (and many others) 4 months ago. He's earned it over the past two months or so.

Same. I started off as a rather fervent Bernie supporter and if you dig through my posts you can find some rather... embarrassing stuff from that period of time that definitely went too far. Sanders earned it over time for just proving more and more that while his heart might be in the right place, he's ultimately all fluff and no substance and hasn't done the work necessary in reaching out to the party and actually having backed up his ideals with some actual substantiative policy ideas to be anywhere near ready to actually be President.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Man like I'm extremely happy that Bernie has gotten young apathetic people into politics but shit I wish mf would actually learn something about the US political system before regurgitating tweets and facebook posts complaining about how undemocratic America is and this "will of the people" shit.

I'd never argue that attracting traditional non-voters is a bad thing, but at the same time, I have to wonder how necessary they are to the political process when they're willfully ignorant about how politics work and have taken to viciously harassing those who don't agree with them.

New voters should by all means come and join our reindeer games. But maybe know the rules of the game beforehand and don't go off all half-cocked when your team doesn't appear to be in a position to win.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

You misunderstand the point of the Superdelegates. They are supposed to rally around the national leader. If they apportioned themselves in the same ratio as the pledged delegates, then it's possible no one would ever get the nomination.

Well I'll let you all have the last word and (hopefully) not be banned but my original point is that SDs themselves are bullshit. They just shouldn't exist if things were fair.

 

[Macam]

Times like this is why Bill Maher is usually right. Liberals can be their own worst enemies. Even if Bernie doesn't get the nomination your much better off with Hillary in the Oval Office than any of the Republican candidates.

Uh, that really just depends. Emotionally, maybe; materially, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Uh, that really just depends. Emotionally, maybe; materially, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

Maybe if you're a white straight male it won't make much a difference. But to the none white straight male population there's a stark difference between the Clinton and the Republican base.

 

[Hindl]

I'd never argue that attracting traditional non-voters is a bad thing, but at the same time, I have to wonder how necessary they are to the political process when they're willfully ignorant about how politics work and have taken to viciously harassing those who don't agree with them.

New voters should by all means come and join our reindeer games. But maybe know the rules of the game beforehand and don't go off all half-cocked when your team doesn't appear to be in a position to win.

I'm more concerned that since many of them are usually very cynical about politics (both parties the same type stuff) that once Bernie loses, they'll just go back to being jaded and never get involved. Candidates like Bernie are important because they inspire people to actually engage in politics. But with Bernie it seems like he is the chosen one, and everyone else is corrupt or part of the establishment. So why would his voters bother getting involved at all after this primary?

 

[bishoptl]

Uh, that really just depends. Emotionally, maybe; materially, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

See, this is the sort of take that turns off minority voters. Materially, it makes a metric fuckton of difference who's in the White House, especially for that constituency.

Well I'll let you all have the last word and (hopefully) not be banned but my original point is that SDs themselves are bullshit. They just shouldn't exist if things were fair.

Why would you be banned just because what you said never happened? That's not how we do business

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Sure, you may be right because fairness can be disputed.

& if things were really fair, Sanders wouldn't need to run as a Democratic. He would be running, currently, as the nominee for the Socialist*/etc Party. Then, come general election, if things were fair, there'd be multiple parties.

If you want to play politics, then it's really weird to pick-and-choose what kind of politics you want to play. I don't mean you specifically.

*(I'm a socialist, this isn't a slur.)

I would agree with this. Looking back, it was probably a mistake trying to ally with the democrats in the first place.

*edit* forgot that would split liberal votes in the general. Nvm.

 

[Matt]

Well I'll let you all have the last word and (hopefully) not be banned but my original point is that SDs themselves are bullshit. They just shouldn't exist if things were fair.

Not that I expect you to answer, but what would be a fair system?

 

[Matt]

I would agree with this. Looking back, it was probably a mistake trying to ally with the democrats in the first place.

Better for him to try that and fail than run in the general and hurt the Democrat's chances.

 

[davepoobond]

Uh, that really just depends. Emotionally, maybe; materially, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

until people get deported en masse

 

[APF]

I mean Obama _campaigned in the dem primary_ with a more centrist and even hawkish appeal than Hillary is now, and certainly Kerry had no less of a triangulating history than Clinton, yet I assume none of us believe it would have been "materially" the same were McCain & Palin to have won, or if Bush were not to have had a second term. But sure, cling bitterly I guess.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Better for him to try that and fail than run in the general and hurt the Democrat's chances.

Yeah, good point.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Same. I started off as a rather fervent Bernie supporter and if you dig through my posts you can find some rather... embarrassing stuff from that period of time that definitely went too far. Sanders earned it over time for just proving more and more that while his heart might be in the right place, he's ultimately all fluff and no substance and hasn't done the work necessary in reaching out to the party and actually having backed up his ideals with some actual substantiative policy ideas to be anywhere near ready to actually be President.

I used to love Bernie Sanders. I kinda sorta supported him when he first announced his candidacy (in that I didn't know much about the details of what he was running on--besides Wall Street--but always loved his appearances on programs I'd watched). He always spoke to my heart and got me riled up about how the "haves" are screwing over the "have nots."

Hell, I still love Sanders as a person. He seems like a decent guy with a big heart and he obviously wants what he thinks is best for America. But I can't support him. And I haven't supported him in a long time. It started with a strong distaste for his supporters. I got tired of being shouted down whenever I'd talk to the Sanders supporters I've met. I got tired of being treated like an idiot who just isn't seeing things "the right way." And I got tired of my questions regarding his policies and plans being answered with, "Oh yeah? Well Hillary..." As someone said earlier in this thread: I'm not talking about her. I'm talking about him.

But now that time has passed, I can't even blame my distaste on his supporters alone anymore. It's his whole campaign. It's using the Democratic Party for his personal gain while refusing to do anything to help downticket. It's doubling down on the "Hillary Clinton isn't qualified to be President" line (before finally admitting he was wrong). It's doing very little to prevent the further fracturing of the Democratic Party (and encouraging it by staying in a race he's all but lost). It's Tad Devine's smugness as he answers a question on Hardball about whether or not Obama is also in the pocket of Wall Street and millionaire donors because he took SuperPAC money in 2008 and 2012 (which he answered with (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Technology is different now than it was then. It's come a long way. And I believe that if Obama were running today, he wouldn't take SuperPAC money and would use technology to raise money from the people like we've been doing." Basically driving home their point that Hillary Clinton is a crook and a shill and a criminal and simply cannot be trusted. She takes Wall Street money, you see. And neither Obama nor any other politician you love would take that money if they were running today. Because they aren't criminals). It's a hundred things, big and small, that have turned me off to the Sanders campaign completely.

I still love the man. But he's got to stop. And he's got to help the party rebuild. He hasn't shown he actually gives a damn about gaining Democratic majorities in Congress (beyond some weak lip service). Dropping out and urging his followers to vote for Clinton in November will be him putting his money where his mouth is.

 

[HylianTom]

Uh, that really just depends. Emotionally, maybe; materially, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

*cough*judiciary*cough*

The ballot itself will have one mere four-year Presidential term on it. But not appearing on the ballot will be, on average, 150-200 judges put on the bench in that four year span. And they will be with us for decades, either hindering progressivism or helping it withstand challenges from the right.

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

There are judges with us today who were put in place 30, 35 years ago. And people are living longer than ever.

2051.

 

[Matt]

Uh, that really just depends. Emotionally, maybe; materially, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

That is a insane statement. I don't know how you can think that. It truly defies reasoning.

 

[LiquidSolid]

Uh, that really just depends. Emotionally, maybe; materially, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

Christ. Bernie fans are their own worst enemies. Anyone with some real skin in the game (minorities, poor, women, etc) can read this shit, look at the policies being proposed on the other side, remember back to the Bush presidency and come out of it thinking "fuck these guys."

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

No, it's not.

Not in reality.



Sanders has spent his entire political career allying with the Democrats.

It's really not hard to see why it's better to ally with the Democrats and form a stronger, progressive/liberal voice.

Just look at the shit that happens in Republican controlled places.

Fucking horrible, terrible, awful shit.

*edit: To be totally honest and frank with you- if a person, truly, is for "progressive" values (socialism, equality, anti-discrimination based on gender/skin color/sexual orientation) in the United States, they would never make such a statement. I'm placing this in the context of the reality of the US Party system.

In no way is it better to splinter the socially progressive group, and weaken it, only for the regressive right/hardcore religious & Christian values to win. It will never be better, generally speaking, for the people in the US.

Sanders himself knows and understands this, which is why Sanders has explicitly said, over and over, that regardless of WHO the nominee is for the Democratic Party, that they should be supported.

Yeah i didnt think that post through. Just fed up with the dems is all, but of course i would never want to do anything that would help the republicans.

 

[RustyNails]

Uh, that really just depends. Emotionally, maybe; materially, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

Materially speaking suppose Garland doesnt get confirmed this year and somehow Republican wins the white house. Do you think President Cruz is going to nominate a liberal justice?

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

*cough*judiciary*cough*

The ballot itself will have one mere four-year Presidential term on it. But not appearing on the ballot will be, on average, 150-200 judges put on the bench in that four year span. And they will be with us for decades, either hindering progressivism or helping it withstand challenges from the right.

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

There are judges with us today who were put in place 30, 35 years ago. And people are living longer than ever.

2051.

This is the one thing I hope all bitter Sanders/Clinton fans remember come November. Even if you hate the winning Democrat, there's more on the line than your ego. The future of human rights and equality in our country for the next several decades rests on getting a Democrat in the White House.

Otherwise, every socially progressive step we've taken recently will be lost to history.

 

[Blader]

The vitriol for Bernie is unreal.

I will always vote for transformational politics over transactional politics. Remember that Obama campaigned on transformational politics, even if his presidency was 100% transactional

Remember that Obama himself dismissed the Bernie/Obama comparisons.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

Why would you be banned just because what you said never happened? That's not how we do business

Maybe we aren't even talking about the same thing here? As far as I can see I am saying that SDs can and in some cases do vote against the will of the people and you and others are saying that doesn't happen? Or am I misunderstanding the argument?

If I am not, it happened in 2008. I didn't check 2012. But for 2008 a quick look shows in CA Dianne Feinstein did it. So did Doris Matsui. And that's just with a quick look at California. It happens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2008

 

[Puppen]

I used to love Bernie Sanders. I kinda sorta supported him when he first announced his candidacy (in that I didn't know much about the details of what he was running on--besides Wall Street--but always loved his appearances on programs I'd watched). He always spoke to my heart and got me riled up about how the "haves" are screwing over the "have nots."

Hell, I still love Sanders as a person. He seems like a decent guy with a big heart and he obviously wants what he thinks is best for America. But I can't support him. And I haven't supported him in a long time. It started with a strong distaste for his supporters. I got tired of being shouted down whenever I'd talk to the Sanders supporters I've met. I got tired of being treated like an idiot who just isn't seeing things "the right way." And I got tired of my questions regarding his policies and plans being answered with, "Oh yeah? Well Hillary..." As someone said earlier in this thread: I'm not talking about her. I'm talking about him.

But now that time has passed, I can't even blame my distaste on his supporters alone anymore. It's his whole campaign. It's using the Democratic Party for his personal gain while refusing to do anything to help downticket. It's doubling down on the "Hillary Clinton isn't qualified to be President" line (before finally admitting he was wrong). It's doing very little to prevent the further fracturing of the Democratic Party (and encouraging it by staying in a race he's all but lost). It's Tad Devine's smugness as he answers a question on Hardball about whether or not Obama is also in the pocket of Wall Street and millionaire donors because he took SuperPAC money in 2008 and 2012 (which he answered with (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Technology is different now than it was then. It's come a long way. And I believe that if Obama were running today, he wouldn't take SuperPAC money and would use technology to raise money from the people like we've been doing." Basically driving home their point that Hillary Clinton is a crook and a shill and a criminal and simply cannot be trusted. She takes Wall Street money, you see. And neither Obama nor any other politician you love would take that money if they were running today. Because they aren't criminals). It's a hundred things, big and small, that have turned me off to the Sanders campaign completely.

I still love the man. But he's got to stop. And he's got to help the party rebuild. He hasn't shown he actually gives a damn about gaining Democratic majorities in Congress (beyond some weak lip service). Dropping out and urging his followers to vote for Clinton in November will be him putting his money where his mouth is.

Agree with every word of this.

 

[Somnid]

It's sad to see that this is all so circular. The winner-take-all-ness makes people fear Republicans to the point where we're forced to settle but the arms race nature of party unity, downstream candidates etc means we're just re-enforcing that system and it's "bad" if you're not participating in that. I'm starting to wonder if it's almost necessary political revolution comes from rich whites who either win morally or win materialistically and therefore don't have to risk themselves in the system. In terms of material benefit, Bernie's core constituency gains the most from Trump and loses the most from Bernie but they're clearly energized over the morality of it. Sadly people with risk can't even go along with that even though it works for them.

At this point I just hope Bernie serves as a beacon for new candidates to lean harder left. People will go for it, socialism isn't a dirty word anymore.

 

[RustyNails]

Maybe we aren't even talking about the same thing here? As far as I can see I am saying that SDs can and in some cases do vote against the will of the people and you and others are saying that doesn't happen? Or am I misunderstanding the argument?

If I am not, it happened in 2008. I didn't check 2012. But for 2008 a quick look shows in CA Dianne Feinstein did it. So did Doris Matsui. And that's just with a quick look at California. It happens.

Yo what. SD's trickled over from Clinton to Obama because Obama started leading the pledged delegate count. All of her SD's eventually went to Obama as he kept winning.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

The vitriol for Bernie is unreal.

I will always vote for transformational politics over transactional politics. Remember that Obama campaigned on transformational politics, even if his presidency was 100% transactional

I don't even know what this part means considering he's honored most of his campaign promises

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Maybe we aren't even talking about the same thing here? As far as I can see I am saying that SDs can and in some cases do vote against the will of the people and you and others are saying that doesn't happen? Or am I misunderstanding the argument?

If I am not, it happened in 2008. I didn't check 2012. But for 2008 a quick look shows in CA Dianne Feinstein did it. So did Doris Matsui. And that's just with a quick look at California. It happens.

I may be wrong, but I think the confusion is coming from you talking about individual superdelegates while others are talking about the group as a whole.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Matt]

Maybe we aren't even talking about the same thing here? As far as I can see I am saying that SDs can and in some cases do vote against the will of the people and you and others are saying that doesn't happen? Or am I misunderstanding the argument?

If I am not, it happened in 2008. I didn't check 2012. But for 2008 a quick look shows in CA Dianne Feinstein did it. So did Doris Matsui. And that's just with a quick look at California. It happens.

...seriously? The point is that the Superdelegates won't overturn the winner of the pledged delegate race. Feinstein voting for Hillary in 2008 did absolutely nothing to change anything. If the vote had some down to her somehow, she would have voted for Obama.

 

[Aureon]

I don't even know what this part means considering he's honored most of his campaign promises

People figured CHANGE was the exact brand of radical change they personally liked, and got pumped for that.

Then lofty expectations about things that Obama never said, obviously, backfired.

 

[kirblar]

People figured CHANGE was the exact brand of radical change they personally liked, and got pumped for that.

Then lofty expectations about things that Obama never said, obviously, backfired.

Obama's fundraising restrictions appear to have also backfired.

 

[Piecake]

It's sad to see that this is all so circular. The winner-take-all-ness makes people fear Republicans to the point where we're forced to settle but the arms race nature of party unity, downstream candidates etc means we're just re-enforcing that system and it's "bad" if you're not participating in that. I'm starting to wonder if it's almost necessary political revolution comes from rich whites who either win morally or win materialistically and therefore don't have to risk themselves in the system. In terms of material benefit, Bernie's core constituency gains the most from Trump and loses the most from Bernie but they're clearly energized over the morality of it. Sadly people with risk can't even go along with that even though it works for them.

At this point I just hope Bernie serves as a beacon for new candidates to lean harder left. People will go for it, socialism isn't a dirty word anymore.

If you actually read this thread you would have understood that the reason why people are not supporting Bernie is because of Bernie. It is not because they are afraid of Republicans. It is that they think Clinton will be a better president than Bernie.

Your post reeks of arrogance and superiority. And why would a proportional system result in a more left/progressive political climate? Again, if you read through the posts you will see that people are not supporting Bernie because of Bernie. Not because they are afraid of republicans and are just going with the best chance of beating them.

And I really don't understand how white college students will lose more with Bernie than with Trump. I mean, shit, doesn't Bernie want to make college free and do something about their debt?

 

[Frozenprince]

Bernies primary demo is 18-30 year old white men.

He's losing because other than that, Hillary is beating him in every other demo.

How is a socialist who refuses to actually talk about how he'll pragmatically pass all his legislation going to tilt the scales further left? What he's proposing is IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOMPLISH.

 

[johnsmith]

Bernies primary demo is 18-30 year old white men.

He's losing because other than that, Hillary is beating him in every other demo.

How is a socialist who refuses to actually talk about how he'll pragmatically pass all his legislation going to tilt the scales further left? What he's proposing is IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOMPLISH.

He actually has said exactly how he intends to pass his plans. Whether it's realistic (it isn't) is another story.

"What we do is you put an issue before Congress, let’s just use free tuition at public colleges and universities, and that vote is going to take place on November 8 ... whatever it may be. We tell millions and millions of people, young people and their parents, there is going to be a vote ... half the people don’t know what’s going on ... but we tell them when the vote is, maybe we welcome a million young people to Washington, D.C. to say hello to their members of Congress. Maybe we have the telephones and the e-mails flying all over the place so that everybody in America will know how their representative is voting. [...]

And then Republicans are going to have to make a decision. Then they’re going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, “You vote against this, you’re out of your job, because we know what’s going on.” So this gets back to what a political revolution is about, is bringing people in touch with the Congress, not having that huge wall. That’s how you bring about change."

 

[Piecake]

Bernies primary demo is 18-30 year old white men.

He's losing because other than that, Hillary is beating him in every other demo.

How is a socialist who refuses to actually talk about how he'll pragmatically pass all his legislation going to tilt the scales further left? What he's proposing is IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOMPLISH.

All hail dictator Bernie

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

I may be wrong, but I think the confusion is coming from you talking about individual superdelegates while others are talking about the group as a whole.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

...seriously? The point is that the Superdelegates won't overturn the winner of the pledged delegate race. Feinstein voting for Hillary in 2008 did absolutely nothing to change anything. If the vote had some down to her somehow, she would have voted for Obama.

Yeah, I'm talking about each single SD. Not all superdelegates combined as a whole.

 

[pgtl_10]

I think this thread is why I can't vote Democrat. It's hard to vote for a party who seems to compromise before even getting to the voting booth.

I never voted for Bernie because I don't believe him but I feel the rhetoric from GAF simply because they support Hilary is hard to watch.

I can't wait till GAF post election because this board goes insane during election time.