I really wish people would stop highlighting this as something super impressive. It's nice and all, good for him, but that's really it.
Sanders supporters (NOT CAMPAIGN) creating Super Delegate Hit List
- Thread starter johnsmith
- Start date
- Status
You're downplaying it too much. People question how Bernie can get anything done in a Republican controlled Congress. His success rate compared to his peers especially as an independent shows he's smarter than you or those other people give him credit for. It speaks well to his ability to carefully negotiating with Congress to get anything done.
That's his strength while Clinton has to rely on her vast network of connections if Republicans don't control both halves of Congress.
Frozenprince
Banned
That's nice.
It still doesn't mean jack shit when he's more than just a representative from upstate fucking Vermont.
How does putting riders on bills that are going to pass help as President.
He doesn't get to do that as President because he isn't in Congress anymore and his legislative agenda cannot get passed as a rider, that would doom whatever bill it was attached to.
possiblyphil
Member
It is really funny that someone who has voted for all these wars, drone strikes ect has such a great "anti establishment" core base.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Do we know what those roll call votes were for? Because if they're similar to the bills he's gotten passed (one for increasing veterans' benefits and two for naming post offices in Vermont), it's not a massive accomplishment. Not that it's bad, but getting Congress to side with you to name a post office strikes me as a much easier task than getting them to agree to completely tear down and rebuild our national healthcare system.
Alandrus Sun
Banned
I've never understood why this is considered a positive, isn't this exactly the kind of thing we hate Republicans doing. You know suddenly tacking on a completely unrelated Amendment to a basic bill that all of a sudden strips funding to Planned Parenthood.
RustyNails
Member
Most amendments are very simple, small things. Cheap, easy to agree on. To be perfectly honest, we could probebly trade all of his amendments for CHIP and come out ahead.
It's really not at all the same as shepherding big legislation through Congress.
ShironRedshift
Member
Not sure why you quoted that post, since that doesn't actually answer the question of why he's not doing more to help downticket democrats, if he really cares about this "revolution" he talks about so much and really, genuinely wants to see it happen. Sanders being bipartisan is great and wonderful, but that doesn't answer the question of why he's so reluctant to redirect any money toward supporting downticket D's, supporting those who already agree with him and making sure he does what he can to make sure they actually get elected, so that can actually happen. The tactics he used as a senator aren't things he can do as President since Presidents don't write legislation, so that's kind of important when he's running for office as President and not re-election as a Senator.
nitekrawlwer
Member
Groups that engage in this type of harassment are precisely the nuttier supporters of Sanders that I was worried about emboldening.
Box of Kittens
Banned
I must admit I find the argument that superdelegates should vote for the winner of their state to be curious. The idea that superdelegates should respect the will of the people makes sense (and they always have), but why should that be defined by state wins? Why not the national winner (which is what they basically do now)? Or the winner of their congressional district? What's so special about the state winner? And why should they all back the state winner instead of splitting themselves proportionally? It all seems so arbitrary. Especially when you turn around and say that superdelegates from states you didn't win should still support you because of momentum or electability arguments.
As it is I'm fine with what the superdelegates have done in every election up until now, which is basically to rally around the winner. This is also why this campaign by some of his supporters to try and persuade superdelegates is a total waste. In the unlikely case that Bernie somehow turns it around and wins the most pledged delegates, then he'll get the support of the superdelegates. If not, then he won't. It's really a waste of time and energy to be doing this instead of trying to persuade voters in states that have yet to vote. And it certainly doesn't look good when persuasion crosses the line into harassment, even if it's perpetuated by a minority.
As it is I'm fine with what the superdelegates have done in every election up until now, which is basically to rally around the winner. This is also why this campaign by some of his supporters to try and persuade superdelegates is a total waste. In the unlikely case that Bernie somehow turns it around and wins the most pledged delegates, then he'll get the support of the superdelegates. If not, then he won't. It's really a waste of time and energy to be doing this instead of trying to persuade voters in states that have yet to vote. And it certainly doesn't look good when persuasion crosses the line into harassment, even if it's perpetuated by a minority.
Yo you gotta take a remedial course or something in Analogies my dude.
Maybe you're confused because you're not responding to any specific argument, but a hodgepodge understanding of a not-even-organized "strategy". Firstly, it makes sense to expect your Governor or Senators to follow the state line, since they're elected at the state level. As for the Representatives, a lot of them were being contacted by their own constituents. Many of whom weren't even claiming "obey the will of the state" but sometimes even "obey the will of me or you lose my vote".
I don't really have feelings about the contacting-superdelegates thing generally, but a lot of the contacts that were (are?) happening were reasonably framed, if not persuasive.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Aside from some of the extreme anti-trade stuff and a couple of other more minor issues, it's not an idiotic view of the world, it's just unattainable without an almost impossible grassroots movement. Sometimes they over-correct, I see $15 an hour to be too much in many areas, but not enough in cities. I don't think everyone should go to, or is ready for college. But we do lag behind on health care and income inequality. The country was built on more incremental change by virtue of it's 2 party system. And significant radical change is almost impossible and requires a war or people starving to get both parties on board with radical change.
I'm not even considering Sanders's policies (that I think the fringe bernie bros don't even care about to begin with). I'm really talking about the whole primary process and the twists and turn the campaign basically saying white when it suits them and black as soon as the weather isn't blowing their way.
They're the antithesis of consistency and care little about the "will" of the people they drag about like a corpse of an idea that went horribly wrong.
Brutalitops
Banned
People still unironically say #FeeltheBern?
Cringing hard
Cringing hard
An idiotic view of the world that's reality in most of Western and Northern Europe?
You're ignorant.
It's unrealistic in the US. You should be happy with piecemeal baby steps because real change is fanciful pie-in-the-sky talk.
You know he said "world" and not "US", right? You can't call what is standard in pretty much all first world countries outside of the US "an idiotic view of the world" when you're the odd one out. It was an ignorant thing to say.
Do not presume to know how a complex system work and if it would scale on the level required for the US.
Considering the current status of the systems in the EU, the way they're financed and how they operate it would be easier to walk on the Mars with a shoe string than just transpose the amalgam of systems of the EU to the US.
I wouldn't be so quick to call others ignorant when you don't even know that the standard is really a variety of standards more than a single system replicated everywhere.
And it's not going to change for the EU as long as there's no move to push more responsabilities to the EU over member states.
And to begin with I wasn't even talking about healthcare (although it actually fit)
Frankly, I find the whole notion of American exceptionalism a much more idiotic vision of the world.
The logistics of how to implement such a system are one thing. You probably don't understand it well enough to say with any conviction that it would definitely not work, either. Or at the very least, you probably don't understand it well enough to arrogantly call everyone who wants something similar in the US people with "a stupid, idiotic vision of the world" (especially when that vision of the world is, in fact, based on what is reality in most of the developed world).
I don't know if such a system would work in the US, and neither do you. At least I'm not mocking people over something I could very well be wrong about.
And don't be so dense. Universal health coverage, paid maternity leave, free or at the very least affordable higher education: these are all standard in the developed world, albeit with different implementations. But of course, you already knew what I was referring to when I said standard. You know, it doesn't make much sense to accuse people of having an "idiotic vision of the world" when their inspiration for that vision comes from... The real world. Perhaps don't conflate your views of what is realistic in the US with what is a realistic view of the world. You're the odd one out, after all.
I quoted him because my point is that he works with everyone as well as he can.
While he is better than Hillary in many ways one definite advantage she holds depending on your view point is that she is staunchly a democrat.
He's not going to support down ticket democrats as much as Clinton and I suspect he won't support them at all. He's interested in forming coalitions across party lines instead of relying on democrats.
If Sanders is Amendment King then Hillary is Amendment Queen!
Curious. This paints the opposite picture of what I'm pointing out.
Do you have a direct link to the article instead of an imgur link?
Regardless I'll still look into the matter later if you don't.
Not understanding the unique role the United States plays in the world makes it an idiotic world view.
Great, a bunch of nations that get away spending next to nothing on defense, that are routinely handed substantial technological advancements from the U.S., and who's governments literally looted the world within the last ~100 years can afford expansive social services. That's nice.
As long as the rest of the western world wants to have their cake and eat it too, relying on the U.S. to carry their water on defense and responding to human crises it is incredibly naive and childish to compare what the U.S. deals with to what western and northern Europe are faced with as nations.
That doesn't stem from any notion of American exceptionalism either. It is entirely a product of those European nations wanting, requesting, and encouraging U.S. protectionism when it is to their benefit and then decrying the military industrial complex that is spawned from their needs being met.
Not being able to see this, one of the most basic truths of global politics, is aptly described as having an "idiotic world view".
Bel Marduk
Banned
Oh look
Another victory for Sanders
and by 11 points
buuuuuuuuut Clinton gets the same amount of delegates he does
After this election I hope there is a complete overhaul of this unDemocratic process
Another victory for Sanders
and by 11 points
buuuuuuuuut Clinton gets the same amount of delegates he does
After this election I hope there is a complete overhaul of this unDemocratic process
Frozenprince
Banned
Bel Marduk
Banned
and Idaho and Utah and Washington and Alaska and Hawaii and Wisconsin
You are right, it is very undemocratic.
Bernie Sanders has more delegates than he should have, in comparison to the total number of votes cast. He has benefitted unfairly, and undemocratically, from the structure of the process. Particulary caucus states.
Velcro Fly
Member
The person with the most votes in this primary season is going to be the nominee
Dash_Riprock
Member
I like how you think individual states are more important than the actual populations within them.
Frozenprince
Banned
I look forward to next week when he loses by 25 points in New York.
Yep. He continues to win states, yet he should drop out. Nah, screw that! We shouldn't have to settle for Hillarly, when we have better options
Bel Marduk
Banned
That's all I'm asking for
I don't understand what you're trying to say
because these states have low populations? Are you talking about demographics?
Not everyone agrees that he's the better option which is why he's so far behind.
Hillary Clinton still has the most votes.
And yes, Wisconsin doesn't have much of a say (that is, it has only 14 delegates) and while Sanders won by 11 points, he still missed the threshold at which the delegates are distributed 8-6. Which means that Sanders actually lost, because he failed to take advantage of an opportunity to close Clinton's historically insurmountable delegate lead.
If that frustrates you, then blame the Sanders campaign for doing such a poor job at appealing to larger states, urban voters, and non-white minorities.
Also...
I'd like to think that a 20 plus year veteran of the Senate would not be this fucking stupid.
Phil N DeBlanc
Member
Given that there are only 14 delegates in Wyoming, an 11 point different would still result in a 7/7 split. Sanders would needed to have acquired 57% of the vote in order for him to get an 8th delegate. He failed to do that, so Clinton gets same amount.
Bel Marduk
Banned
I think you meant to say Wyoming - I believe Wisconsin had 86 delegates at stake
Actually I would never have expected a candidate with such far left views to do so well in the primaries - It would be unthinkable even a few elections ago
Holy crap you are absurdly dense.
We're in a thread where Sanders supporters shows a total disregard for the democratic process and you rant about Sanders policies?
I'll say it again, they do not know how democracy work.
I said nothing about American exceptionalism, I actually do not even believe there is a country that is "special" beyond the circumstances of its economy, population, etc.
A country like Denmark cannot be run the same way Germany, Luxemburg, New Zeland or Spain is for various reason. Why you think that position is somehow trying to paint the US has exceptional I have no idea.
Sanders policy ISN'T Universal health coverage, it's a specific single player plan.
It isn't affordable higher education, it's free college (which is all kind of hilarious when there are more issues with education than "college" but hey if you don't want to reform one of the worst pre higher education system in the world...).
Their inspiration comes from a guy who are selling them an ideal vision of the world that is absolutely not based on reality, it's a made up view of the world that doesn't even care about the population's opinion on various issues.
With the GOP currently getting strongarmed by a group like Sanders's that is basically "my way or bust"?
Did you happen to follow US politics during the last 6 years or something?
e: and the whole amendmant king thing is a whole lot of nothing.
He hasn't been able to reinstate GlassSteagal or push anything his platform his pushing(or he was pushing for the last 20 years) and we're supposed to believe that this means something?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I'm late to the thread, but this is more interesting as a hallmark of current fringe culture than as a Bernie-specific thing. Seems like the combination of outrage, Internet access, and righteousness and a new sort of Internet mob mentality at work. GG was an early example, but it seems to becoming more common.
And, correct me if I'm wrong. But that is a geographical distinction not a racial one. It's not inherently wrong to point out someone voting in ways that compromise things that are important to them. If those things that are fundamental and broad like education, infrastructure, and higher wage, then you could make the case that they are clearly voting against their own well being in return for other (usually social) issues. In the case of Black voters the insinuation is that you as potentially an outsider, do not understand their struggles or priorities in the way they do. And also that grouping them in such a way is wrongheaded and counterproductive while geographical groups could be much more easily defined,( by state lines or lat&long) I can make a case for calling people in Alabama voting for evangelicals as voting against their interest because of their track record of trying to snuff out abortion rights and gay marriage. I am from that state and even if I weren't the issues facing the average alabamian are pretty homogenous. (Excluding police brutality toward black people and racist targeting). It isn't an issue that I needed to be intensely familiar with. I could make the same statements about people in Mississippi even though I never lived there. But for me to comment on what the interests of a black southerner are and when they vote against it, I would have to take what they individually say are their interests at face value because I don't have the experience to offer proscriptions on how they should vote. How do I know one black person's interests are as representative of another? I can't so making statements about large poorly defined racial/ethnic groups like that would be small minded, incongruent with reality, and frankly offensive for me to do so. There is a bit of nuance here.
Box of Kittens
Banned
I think you missed the point of what I was saying. The two arguments I was really responding to were that superdelegates should support the statewide winner and that they should support the more electable candidate or the one with momentum. Both of those arguments were made simultaneously by the Sanders campaign itself. The argument that they should support the winner (i.e. the person with the majority of pledged delegates) is one I actually agree with and, historically, what the superdelegates have always done. Other arguments I put forth (e.g. congressional district, proportional) were meant to illustrate how arbitrary the state winner is as a measure of the will of the people and, consequently, a guide for superdelegates.
My larger point is that this whole effort is a non-strategy. The superdelegates have always rallied around the pledged delegate winner. They really don't want to deal with the backlash of essentially overturning the election. That they would do it to take the nomination from someone who has literally spent decades working for the party and building relationships and give it to someone who has really done neither is pure fantasy. It's not going to happen. Having a significant minority of that effort be made in an obnoxious way and in some cases crossing the line into harassment isn't really helpful, but this effort was doomed from the get-go. It's a waste of time to try and persuade the superdelegates when the way to do it is to win the pledged delegates.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/07/hillary-clinton-was-a-more-effective-lawmaker-than-bernie-sanders/
All it took was googling the name at the bottom plus the words "Clinton" and "leislative". Hope it helps
It's really weird that Bernie supporters want to do what they claim Hillary is already doing.
The cognitive dissonance is amazing
They should be mad at Ted Devine for not knowing how a system he help create worked
And at Bernie for having such a poorly run campaign. He let Hillary lap him early on thinking he can make it up on the back end.
Even if you know you are not going to win a state you got to remain competitive, Instead they looked at the south and was like "Nah, don't need none of that. North Dakota and Alaska will put me in the white house!!"
RustyNails
Member
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
math is a whore for Clinton
bring down math, if it wasn't for math Bernie would be winning!!!!
Have you actually looked at the populations of most of those states
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked