Support NeoGAF

[Miles X]

In all truth, Hillary is going to end with 300+ delegates over Bernie more than likely. (That's with a 50/50 in Cali factored in).

She is only going to need 200~/715 Super delegates to vote for her. In 2008, even after Obama's surge and 100+ pledged delegate lead and final tally, she won 211 (Vs. his 562).

How is Bernie going to convince 500+ Super delegates to vote for him when he is 300+ behind in pledged? Answer is, he can't and won't.

Bernie fans that think he stands a chance still, are barking mad.

 

[pigeon]

5 actually. CT, RI, PA, MD, DE.

Media is calling it Super Tuesday again with a straight face because they are creatively bankrupt.

Some suggestions for the media for next time:

Wonder Tuesday
Bat Tuesday
X-Tuesday
Fantastic Tuesday
Justice League Tuesday
Squirrel Tuesday
Spider Tuesday
Crisis on Infinite Tuesday

 

[Damaniel]

CT I would put in the tossup column. RI, lean Bernie.

The other 3 I peg as safe Hillary.

I think that RI is the only one that could go Bernie's way - the semi-closed format means that independents can still come in and vote for Bernie as long as they're not registered with another party. That said, the few polls out there are pretty close, but even a few point win for Bernie would only net him one delegate. (Wouldn't stop his supporters from claiming 'momentum' though...)

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

I doubt RI matters much and that regard. Even if he won ALL of the delegates there, he'd still have won less of delegate advantage there than Hilary is likely to win in Pennsylvania alone. And that's absolutely not going to happen. If anything he'll win one or two more delegates there than Hilary does, but that's not a huge win when he's so far behind

Yeah, but he tied Hillary in delegates in Wyoming, but it didn't stop him from claiming "momentum" and political earthquakes. He'll take whatever he can get. I think if he wins RI and CT, there's a zero chance he'll drop out, if he wins RI then there's a 10% chance he'll drop out, if he loses all then there's 50% chance he'll drop out.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Yeah, but he tied Hillary in delegates in Wyoming, but it didn't stop him from claiming "momentum" and political earthquakes. He'll take whatever he can get. I think if he wins RI and CT, there's a zero chance he'll drop out, if he wins RI then there's a 10% chance he'll drop out, if he loses all then there's 50% chance he'll drop out.

I'm not convinced, because the message he sends to his voters has to be as positive as possible, but it doesn't necessarily represent his or his advisor's views on his actual chances. If he sees no chance, he'll drop out. I doubt he's anywhere near as optimistic on his chances as he acts like he is or as his supporters are

 

[Miles X]

I'm not convinced, because the message he sends to his voters has to be as positive as possible, but it doesn't necessarily represent his or his advisor's views on his actual chances. If he sees no chance, he'll drop out. I doubt he's anywhere near as optimistic on his chances as he acts like he is or as his supporters are

He'd literally be insane if he did think there was a more than 0.1% chance, thus not fit for presidency anyway.

 

[Dany]

Apr 26
Delaware · 21 delegates
Connecticut · 55 delegates
Rhode Island · 24 delegates
Maryland · 95 delegates
Pennsylvania · 189 delegates

I don't understand how Bernie is going to keep the campaign running if clinton has the nomination locked.

 

[noshten]

He'd literally be insane if he did think there was a more than 0.1% chance, thus not fit for presidency anyway.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

 

[TyrantII]

I'm not convinced, because the message he sends to his voters has to be as positive as possible, but it doesn't necessarily represent his or his advisor's views on his actual chances. If he sees no chance, he'll drop out. I doubt he's anywhere near as optimistic on his chances as he acts like he is or as his supporters are

The second he stops saying he can win and change minds, the second his support collapses. If you can't win, voters are not going to show up on election day.

It's really that simple. He's no dummy.

Here's the end game; sometime between now and June Clinton's campaign will be getting with Sanders camp to see what he'd like for the political capital (and support) he's gathered. A deal will be made, he will suspend his campaign, and will move to working to support the Party in Nov.

 

[Miles X]

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

At the end, before the convention, Obama had a 62 delegate lead. That's a lot but it's not 300+. She won 6 of the last 10 primaries which including delegate rich states such as Pennsylvania. In fact if she won those last 6 primaries by 5 extra points, she'd be a mere 24 points down.

Lets not act like the two are comparable.

 

[SolarPowered]

Some suggestions for the media for next time:

Wonder Tuesday
Bat Tuesday
X-Tuesday
Fantastic Tuesday
Justice League Tuesday
Squirrel Tuesday
Spider Tuesday
Crisis on Infinite Tuesday

We gotta squeeze some astonishing and spectacular Tuesdays somewhere in there.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

I'm not convinced, because the message he sends to his voters has to be as positive as possible, but it doesn't necessarily represent his or his advisor's views on his actual chances. If he sees no chance, he'll drop out. I doubt he's anywhere near as optimistic on his chances as he acts like he is or as his supporters are

Well, there's a bunch of white, western states that vote after this, so I'm guessing his line of thinking is going to be the same as after he got mathematically annihilated after he lost Florida and Ohio.

 

[excelsiorlef]

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

Oh I can. She should have dropped out too and she was never losing by as much as Sanders was.

 

[noshten]

At the end, before the convention, Obama had a 62 delegate lead. That's a lot but it's not 300+. She won 6 of the last 10 primaries which including delegate rich states such as Pennsylvania. In fact if she won those last 6 primaries by 5 extra points, she'd be a mere 24 points down.

Lets not act like the two are comparable.

Yes lets act like Hillary Clinton in 2008 didn't say she was staying in the race in case Obama got assassinated and instead call Bernie Sanders insane.
Props Miles X your posts are always an enjoyable read.

I mean it's not inherently contradictory to simultaneously think Clinton had no business staying in back in 2008 and that Sanders has no business staying in now. Even ignoring he's losing far worse than she ever was.

I've no issue with people on a forum asking him to drop out - calling him insane is where I draw the line

 

[danm999]

I mean it's not inherently contradictory to simultaneously think Clinton had no business staying in back in 2008 and that Sanders has no business staying in now. Even ignoring he's losing far worse than she ever was.

 

[brainchild]

Yes lets act like Hillary Clinton in 2008 didn't say she was staying in the race in case Obama got assassinated and instead call Bernie Sanders insane.
Props Miles X your posts are always an enjoyable read.

I'd love to see someone try to defend that bullshit.

I'll wait.

Also, I don't see Bernie saying that he's staying in case Hillary gets indicted.

Unless the man gets mathematically eliminated (statistically impossible for him to win), everyone needs to shut up about him getting out of the race. It's not happening. Get it over it, people.

 

[eu pfhor ia]

Yes lets act like Hillary Clinton in 2008 didn't say she was staying in the race in case Obama got assassinated

do you mind posting a link to this for me? (I don't doubt you at all, but that is just fuckin' 0_o)

 

[Ryoku]

About to leave to go vote in the democratic primary. 8th congressional district in MD.

 

[Y2Kev]

Yes lets act like Hillary Clinton in 2008 didn't say she was staying in the race in case Obama got assassinated and instead call Bernie Sanders insane.
Props Miles X your posts are always an enjoyable read.



I've no issue with people on a forum asking him to drop out - calling him insane is where I draw the line

OK but Hillary Clinton is not saying Bernie should drop out. Hillary stayed in the race, so by her standard, Bernie can stay in the race. But posters saying Bernie should drop out is a little different, no? Miles X is not Hillary Clinton. If he were, I'd know. Because I am a very important Hillary Clinton surrogate.

 

[noshten]

OK but Hillary Clinton is not saying Bernie should drop out. Hillary stayed in the race, so by her standard, Bernie can stay in the race. But posters saying Bernie should drop out is a little different, no? Miles X is not Hillary Clinton. If he were, I'd know. Because I am a very important Hillary Clinton surrogate.

Except I took issue with his post because he called Bernie insane. If anyone is insane it's the candidate who's reason for staying around last primary was due to the possibility of assassination.

do you mind posting a link to this for me? (I don't doubt you at all, but that is just fuckin' 0_o)

OK

 

[Amir0x]

Except I took issue with his post because he called Bernie insane. If anyone is insane it's the candidate who's reason for staying around last primary was due to the possibility of assassination.

OK

Context is a helluva thing, and why nuance in discussion is key. It's why so many Bernie supporters failed miserably to paint Hillary as unelectable - most Democratic primary voters understand Hillary is a fine, albeit flawed, candidate. They understand the same thing about Bernie. They just want Hillary more, on average.

This is the quote:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" Clinton said. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

She wasn't saying "My reason for staying in is in case he is assassinated", she was saying that she intended to stay into June because anything could happen, and she used the extreme example of something else that happened in June as proof that she still had odds, however long.

Although she rightly was called out on the inappropriateness of the example given it was the guy set to be the first black nominee of any presidential party, she wasn't saying Obama possibly being assassinated was why she was sticking around. Nuance is important. The why was that she wanted to be President, and anything could happen between then and the end of June. Some people have trouble with nuance, which is why Obama's "you didn't build that" got so much play despite his fully contextualized comments being factually correct.

 

[noshten]

She wasn't saying "My reason for staying in is in case he is assassinated", she was saying that she intended to stay into June because anything could happen, and she used the extreme example of something else that happened in June as proof that she still had odds, however long.

Although she rightly was called out on the inappropriateness of the example given it was the guy set to be the first black nominee of any presidential party, she wasn't saying Obama possibly being assassinated was why she was sticking around. Nuance is important. The why was that she wanted to be President, and anything could happen between then and the end of June. Some people have trouble with nuance, which is why Obama's "you didn't build that" got so much play despite his fully contextualized comments being factually correct.

So what exactly is the problem and the need to insult Sanders for doing the exact same thing?

She was sort of, maybe, kinda still in the race, and eve n then she probably should have dropped out.


Sanders is not and hasn't been for ages.


Do you think Clinton should have dropped out?

Why is it you think you need to defend someone insulting Sanders for staying in the race?

 

[excelsiorlef]

So what exactly is the problem and the need to insult Sanders for doing the exact same thing?

She was sort of, maybe, kinda still in the race, and even then she probably should have dropped out.


Sanders is not and hasn't been for ages.


Do you think Clinton should have dropped out?

 

[Culex]

Before the convention Clinton still had a mathematically probable chance of winning.

Bernie does not.

 

[stanis]

voting today after work.

im torn between will jawando and david trone.

also my homegirl Hillary gets the 2 thumbs up from me, tired of this Bernie guy and his shenanigans

 

[Y2Kev]

So what exactly is the problem and the need to insult Sanders for doing the exact same thing?



Why is it you think you need to defend someone insulting Sanders for staying in the race?

I think it's more like Clinton could win, however remote her chance was, while Bernie really can't. I don't think he's insane tho.

 

[excelsiorlef]

So what exactly is the problem and the need to insult Sanders for doing the exact same thing?



Why is it you think you need to defend someone insulting Sanders for staying in the race?

Because he shouldn't still be in the race, and the longer he's been in the race the crappier and more negative his campaign has been.

I mean fuck the dude went after a downticket fundraiser for Democrats.

I don't think he's insane though because I know why he's staying in, and it isn't to win the race.

Also conveniently you didn't answer my question.

 

[brainchild]

Context is a helluva thing, and why nuance in discussion is key. It's why so many Bernie supporters failed miserably to paint Hillary as unelectable - most Democratic primary voters understand Hillary is a fine, albeit flawed, candidate. They understand the same thing about Bernie. They just want Hillary more, on average.

This is the quote:



She wasn't saying "My reason for staying in is in case he is assassinated", she was saying that she intended to stay into June because anything could happen, and she used the extreme example of something else that happened in June as proof that she still had odds, however long.

Although she rightly was called out on the inappropriateness of the example given it was the guy set to be the first black nominee of any presidential party, she wasn't saying Obama possibly being assassinated was why she was sticking around. Nuance is important. The why was that she wanted to be President, and anything could happen between then and the end of June. Some people have trouble with nuance, which is why Obama's "you didn't build that" got so much play despite his fully contextualized comments being factually correct.

And yet, despite all of this nuance, Bernie has enough respect for Hillary Clinton to not pull the FBI indictment card or allude to anything like it. Technically, anything COULD happen to Hillary, and Bernie could end up winning the nomination by default, but that's not the argument he's making or implying.

Hillary knew exactly what the implications were when she made that statement; she's a brilliant woman and former lawyer, and knows how to say something without saying something. But let's just keep pretending that the nuance of her statement absolves her of all ill will.

 

[noshten]

Because he shouldn't still be in the race, and the longer he's been in the race the crappier and more negative his campaign has been.

I mean fuck the dude went after a downticket fundraiser for Democrats.

I don't think he's insane though because I know why he's staying in, and it isn't to win the race.

Also conveniently you didn't answer my question.

So? He is no where near the Clinton 2008 level of nasty.

And the person who hosted the fundraiser didn't seem too happy about the current state of money in politics.

So you agree with me, but yet fail to call out similar posts from Miles X whose sole purpose is to make pathetic posts about Sanders?

I didn't care back than, I don't care now.

I think it's more like Clinton could win, however remote her chance was, while Bernie really can't. I don't think he's insane tho.

By April 22nd in 2008 literally every big State had voted - so comparing the two primaries is apples to oranges - Hillary's only chance was the unthinkable happening and she actually said it. Mathematically she was eliminated on Super Tuesday. Sanders would have been eliminated on Super Tuesday if the Democratic Primary had the same structure as it did in 2008 - however he doesn't.
Like I said I've no problems calling him to drop out - I have problems with people insulting him for doing the exact same thing Clinton did in 2008.

 

[shinra-bansho]

They were essentially tied after Super Tuesday 2008. Clinton was ahead by a dozen or so.

Obama amassed his delegate lead of about 100 through a string of victories following Super Tuesday. That effectively eliminated her.

The calendar was more compressed in 2008.

He has already been mathematically eliminated.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

They were essentially tied after Super Tuesday 2008. Clinton was ahead by a dozen or so.

Obama amassed his delegate lead of about 100 through a string of victories following Super Tuesday. That effectively eliminated her.

The calendar was more compressed in 2008.

He has already been mathematically eliminated.

Yeah we're at the point where College Humor saw the market for a Bernie Math skit because it's so ludicrous.

He can stay in if he wants. It just makes him look like an idiot though. (this was true of Hillary too)

 

[brainchild]

He has already been mathematically eliminated.

This is patently false unless you want to add a 'for all intents and purposes' clause to that statement.

Mathematical elimination is not just a matter of likelihood, it's a matter of possibility. In the event of some catastrophic event that would rapidly and seriously damage Hillary's reputation in the primaries, Bernie could sweep the rest of the delegates and win the nomination. That would not be possible if he were mathematically eliminated, because if he were, not even Hillary revealing herself as a Republican coming out of the closet could change the math for Bernie going forward.

 

[dramatis]

Bernie is not insane, he's just being stupid.



Today is Primary Voting Day for the 5 states at the top of the OP now, check if you are in a state and remember to vote if you are eligible.

What to Watch For in Primaries in Pennsylvania, Connecticut and 3 Other States [NY Times]

Mrs. Clinton’s greatest strength in the primary has been her support from black and Hispanic voters, partisan Democrats and older women of all backgrounds. These groups are often most powerful in big cities, and Mrs. Clinton’s winning record has often correlated with the strength of the urban vote: She won Illinois thanks to Chicago and Nevada thanks to Las Vegas, and took New York by 15 points thanks to New York City.

If she keeps up that streak in Baltimore, Bridgeport, Philadelphia and elsewhere on Tuesday, Mr. Sanders could wind up getting crushed. His best shot at avoiding a shutout might be Rhode Island, with Providence and its sizable student population as a lifeline.

Mr. Trump is expected to carry Pennsylvania easily, but the state’s quirky delegate rules mean winning isn’t everything — or even the most important thing. Pennsylvania will award only 17 delegates to the winner of the popular vote statewide; it will send an additional 54 unbound delegates to the convention in Cleveland, all of them free to vote for their own preferences.

With Mr. Trump favored to win all five states voting on Tuesday, the challenge for his two opponents is once again to hold down his margin of victory and snatch away whatever delegates they can. That task is most urgent in Connecticut, Maryland and Rhode Island, three states that lean strongly to Mr. Trump but where many delegates are awarded according to the vote in each congressional district.

You have your primary forecasts at FiveThirtyEight.
You can have a gander at the ads that candidates or super PACs are putting out at New Republic.
If you would like to see some ad analysis, NY Times has a section for that.
You can follow happenings using Twitter with the hashtag of the day: #PrimaryDay. (More original than Super Tuesday (n+1))

All states active today will be closing at 8PM Eastern.

 

[shinra-bansho]

For all intents and purposes. Hooray. Now your post is rendered an utter waste of time.

Also no one wants a Vita.

 

[dramatis]

For all intents and purposes. Hooray. Now your post is rendered an utter waste of time.

Also no one wants a Vita.

You in the wrong thread shinra?

 

[Amir0x]

And yet, despite all of this nuance, Bernie has enough respect for Hillary Clinton to not pull the FBI indictment card or allude to anything like it. Technically, anything COULD happen to Hillary, and Bernie could end up winning the nomination by default, but that's not the argument he's making or implying.

Hillary knew exactly what the implications were when she made that statement; she's a brilliant woman and former lawyer, and knows how to say something without saying something. But let's just keep pretending that the nuance of her statement absolves her of all ill will.

You're so incapable at this point of actually seeing the world in anything but black and white that you didn't even notice that even in the very comment you quoted I didn't absolve her. Let's rewind the tape, so you can roll back your comically misguided rhetoric and you can get back to nuance:

Although she rightly was called out on the inappropriateness of the example given it was the guy set to be the first black nominee of any presidential party, she wasn't saying Obama possibly being assassinated was why she was sticking around. Nuance is important.

In other words, it was an inappropriate example and she was right to be called on using that example for that purpose given that unique moment in history she was dealing with. It was not, however, said because she was staying in the race in case Obama was assassinated (in other words, she was wrong, but for a different reason than the one stated). This distinction may be small to you, but it's hugely significant and it changes the entire meaning and motivation of such a comment. That's what nuance does, and it's why many supporters of pie-in-the-sky candidates who refuse to budge and compromise so often miss it. They're used to broad strokes, not minutiae.

Additionally...

Hillary knew exactly what the implications were when she made that statement; she's a brilliant woman and former lawyer, and knows how to say something without saying something.

This is a hilarious reason why you think someone couldn't have simply chose a poor example rather than staying in a race in case someone is assassinated. As if being brilliant means you cannot make linguistic mistakes or choose a poor example when your point was somewhere else. Bernie has made a ton of such mistakes this campaign alone, and Hillary has made more again.

You can be the MENSA certified genius of the world and still fall into such pitfalls during a political campaign. Because they're human beings.

 

[shinra-bansho]

You in the wrong thread shinra?

No, just responding to pointless pedantry about Sanders already being eliminated... for all intents and purposes... with examples of other super literal statements.

 

[royalan]

So? He is no where near the Clinton 2008 level of nasty.

And the person who hosted the fundraiser didn't seem too happy about the current state of money in politics.

So you agree with me, but yet fail to call out similar posts from Miles X whose sole purpose is to make pathetic posts about Sanders?

I didn't care back than, I don't care now.

Not only is he implying that Hillary Clinton and everyone who supports her are corrupt as part of his stump speech (and lets not forget his rally openers and surrogates calling Hillary supporters "Democratic Whores" and name-dropping Monica Lewinsky), but now he's actively campaigning AGAINST the DNC and poisoning his voters by implying that the DNC itself is corrupt for how it fundraises.

He eclipsed the nastiness of Hillary's '08 campaign a while ago.

 

[teruterubozu]

It's nowhere near as exciting as 2008. I think most people are bored out of their fucking minds about this already. Only the hardcore are agonizing over this day-in-day-out.

 

[rjinaz]

Oh goodie, the knives are out. Looks like a Super Tuesday on gaf.

I'll be watching MSNBC with a drink in my hand tonight, happy that two great candidates are running in my party and enjoying the outcome of the other race more than anything.

 

[Leona Lewis]

Not only is he implying that Hillary Clinton and everyone who supports her are corrupt as part of his stump speech (and lets not forget his rally openers and surrogates calling Hillary supporters "Democratic Whores" and name-dropping Monica Lewinsky), but now he's actively campaigning AGAINST the DNC and poisoning his voters by implying that the DNC itself is corrupt for how it fundraises.

He eclipsed the nastiness of Hillary's '08 campaign a while ago.

No way sis

Remember when Hillary implied that McCain was more qualified than Obama? Or "Shame on you, Barack Obama?"

Not even close. Plus, Bernie's words won't come back to haunt Hillary the same way Hillary's "experience" and 3am phone call line of attacks gave McCain ample ammunition (which he, of course, set on fire by choosing the most unqualified of all as his running mate, but that's neither here nor there...)

 

[Byakuya769]

I support Bernie staying in, but I don't like the increasingly negative rhetoric and desperation. Speech transcripts aren't winning him democratic voters that he doesn't already have. Such does run the potential of affecting a large enough contingent of low-information anti-establishment voters to see the "buyer" (Trump) as superior to the "bought" (Clinton). Or at least a mathematically more likely chance of that than him winning.

 

[dramatis]

I caught this article on NY Times, and it is probably something people should take note of.

To many, there’s no better celebration of democracy than a voting booth photograph.

But in several states, the right of free speech has clashed with the question of whether allowing photographs in the voting booth, a typically private space, could compromise elections. Some states, like Pennsylvania, have banned the practice. Last year, a federal court in New Hampshire overturned a ban on such photos, a decision still being appealed.

Snapchat, the social network of choice for many younger voters, joined the fray on Friday, filing an amicus brief in New Hampshire arguing against the ban. It called ballot selfies “the latest way that voters, especially young voters, engage with the political process.”

Both supporters and detractors of the restrictions agree that there are significant freedoms at stake. They just disagree on which freedoms to focus on.

In NY you're technically not permitted to photograph inside a voting site at all without permission from the Board of Elections, but it's up to poll workers and the police officer on duty to enforce this and there's no real punishment. Don't know about the rules in other states, but be advised that you may not be allowed to snap photos at your polling site.

 

[brainchild]

You're so incapable at this point of actually seeing the world in anything but black and white that you didn't even notice that even in the very comment you quoted I didn't absolve her. Let's rewind the tape, so you can roll back your comically misguided rhetoric and you can get back to nuance:



In other words, it was an inappropriate example and she was right to be called on using that example for that purpose given that unique moment in history she was dealing with. It was not, however, said because she was staying in the race in case Obama was assassinated (in other words, she was wrong, but for a different reason than the one stated). This distinction may be small to you, but it's hugely significant and it changes the entire meaning and motivation of such a comment. That's what nuance does, and it's why many supporters of pie-in-the-sky candidates who refuse to budge and compromise so often miss it. They're used to broad strokes, not minutiae.

Additionally...



This is a hilarious reason why you think someone couldn't have simply chose a poor example rather than staying in a race in case someone is assassinated. As if being brilliant means you cannot make linguistic mistakes or choose a poor example when your point was somewhere else. Bernie has made a ton of such mistakes this campaign alone, and Hillary has made more again.

You can be the MENSA certified genius of the world and still fall into such pitfalls during a political campaign. Because they're human beings.

I saw and understood your post the first time that you posted it. Nowhere in my post did I say that you absolved her. I said that the nuances of her statement doesn't absolve any ill will that might have fueled that statement. And I wasn't saying that because I didn't think you acknowledged her mistake, I said it because I believe the motivation behind her statement is a bigger deal than the way she chose to convey it.

Anyway, let's dispense with the insults of who is incapable of what, and converse as mature adults. If you didn't think I picked up on the nuance, you could have just asked me to articulate my understanding of it instead of assuming that I'm selectively mentally challenged.

Anyway, if the argument is that her statement was merely a poor choice of words and she didn't realize the farther reaching consequences of those words, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Given the context at the time, I believe she took a calculated risk and decided to let the chips fall where they may. Of course, this is only speculation either way you look at it, so I'll drop this particular conversation for now.

 

[rjinaz]

I support Bernie staying in, but I don't like the increasingly negative rhetoric and desperation. Speech transcripts aren't winning him democratic voters that he doesn't already have. Such does run the potential of affecting a large enough contingent of low-information anti-establishment voters to see they "buyer" (Trump) as superior to the "bought" (Clinton). Or at least a mathematically more likely chance of that than him winning.

Agreed. I wish Bernie would do something more positive with his platform instead of going negative and running with excuses. He has every right to stay in it though until he is mathematically eliminated. As a Bernie supporter, I don't agree with that decision though, or rather, I would have rather seen him trying to spread a message, than fighting to the tooth and nails in a hopeless race. The Democratic party will be fine regardless, but it could have been better than fine.

 

[royalan]

No way sis

Remember when Hillary implied that McCain was more qualified than Obama? Or "Shame on you, Barack Obama?"

Not even close. Plus, Bernie's words won't come back to haunt Hillary the same way Hillary's "experience" and 3am phone call line of attacks gave McCain ample ammunition (which he, of course, set on fire by choosing the most unqualified of all as his running mate, but that's neither here nor there...)

But Donald Trump has already used both Bernie calling Hillary "unqualified" and his campaign's crying that the system is rigged against Hillary.

 

[noshten]

Not only is he implying that Hillary Clinton and everyone who supports her are corrupt as part of his stump speech (and lets not forget his rally openers and surrogates calling Hillary supporters "Democratic Whores" and name-dropping Monica Lewinsky), but now he's actively campaigning AGAINST the DNC and poisoning his voters by implying that the DNC itself is corrupt for how it fundraises.

He eclipsed the nastiness of Hillary's '08 campaign a while ago.

2008 didn't happen.
Her 3AM campaign ad wasn't her doing. She didn't on multiple occasions put forth how Obama was unqualified. Her surrogates and campaign didn't imply Obama Bros were sexist. Bill didn't make claims that a few years ago, this guy(Obama) would have been getting us coffee. Bill didn't claim that Obama's campaign was the biggest fairy tale he had seen. Her campaign didn't put forth a memo detailing Obama's lack of American roots. Her campaigns co-chair didn't raise the issues of Obama's drug use as a young adult. Her surrogates didn't imply Obama was a native Kenyan. She didn't purposely say he wasn't Muslim as far as she was aware. She didn't attack Obama's association with Rev. Wright. She didn't also imply Obama was unelectable due to loosing the white vote. He surrogates didn't imply the very same things about how white people wouldn't vote for Obama in a GE. She also wasn't talking about hard working white Americans.

 

[Miles X]

Yes lets act like Hillary Clinton in 2008 didn't say she was staying in the race in case Obama got assassinated and instead call Bernie Sanders insane.
Props Miles X your posts are always an enjoyable read.



I've no issue with people on a forum asking him to drop out - calling him insane is where I draw the line

That was stupid of her, no question. She blatantly didn't think that was going to happen though imo. I don't know why she even said that, she could have easily argued the math going her way as I did in my previous post. Even then that was a more likely scenario than Bernie getting enough pledged delegates ... he's gonna have to win Cali 80/20.


Sanders isn't giving any radical excuses tho (which is good in itself) but he's thinking he can make up that massive delagate gap)

Crazy.

2008 didn't happen.
Her 3AM campaign ad wasn't her doing. She didn't on multiple occasions put forth how Obama was unqualified. Her surrogates and campaign didn't imply Obama Bros were sexist. Bill didn't make claims that a few years ago, this guy(Obama) would have been getting us coffee. Bill didn't claim that Obama's campaign was the biggest fairy tale he had seen. Her campaign didn't put forth a memo detailing Obama's lack of American roots. Her campaigns co-chair didn't raise the issues of Obama's drug use as a young adult. Her surrogates didn't imply Obama was a native Kenyan. She didn't purposely say he wasn't Muslim as far as she was aware. She didn't attack Obama's association with Rev. Wright. She didn't also imply Obama was unelectable due to loosing the white vote. He surrogates didn't imply the very same things about how white people wouldn't vote for Obama in a GE. She also wasn't talking about hard working white Americans.

I could believe every last one of those, I'd like you to back them up though.

 

[royalan]

2008 didn't happen.
Her 3AM campaign ad wasn't her doing. She didn't on multiple occasions put forth how Obama was unqualified. Her surrogates and campaign didn't imply Obama Bros were sexist. Bill didn't make claims that a few years ago, this guy(Obama) would have been getting us coffee. Bill didn't claim that Obama's campaign was the biggest fairy tale he had seen. Her campaign didn't put forth a memo detailing Obama's lack of American roots. Her campaigns co-chair didn't raise the issues of Obama's drug use as a young adult. Her surrogates didn't imply Obama was a native Kenyan. She didn't purposely say he wasn't Muslim as far as she was aware. She didn't attack Obama's association with Rev. Wright. She didn't also imply Obama was unelectable due to loosing the white vote. He surrogates didn't imply the very same things about how white people wouldn't vote for Obama in a GE. She also wasn't talking about hard working white Americans.

And yet I don't recall any of those things being a ploy to get her voters to believe that the Democratic Party itself is a corrupt institution.

 

[giga]

When do polls close