Politico: Inside the bitter last days of Bernie's revolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
ANDS said:
I mean this should be obvious, but Republicans don't have the same system as Democrats.
Click to expand...

No they do not. But that is not relevant here. The premise of your argument is that "people vote for inevitability." Jeb was similarly 'inevitable' until he was not. Why are Republicans able to vote against their front runner, but Democrats are for some reason mind controlled to voting only for whoever is most likely to win?
 
And people doubted that Bernie was all about burning bridges. I saw him for what he was months ago. Smfh, good to see the truth finally come to light. Feel super vindicated now. What I saw and felt about the situation was completely right on.

The worst part is his bitterness has spread to a lot of his young supporters and he's unfairly poisoned politics for many people. All to soothe his own humongous ego.
 
Drewton said:
Wrong, he also won Minnesota (62%), Oklahoma (52%), and Colorado (59%) on the first Super Tuesday. Came very close in Massachusetts with 49%. Not that it matters now, but ridiculous to say he had zero chance of winning since March 1.
Click to expand...

You're right, I was thinking of March 15th and got mixed up. Sorry!
 
SolicitorPirate said:
No they do not. But that is not relevant here. The premise of your argument is that "people vote for inevitability." Jeb was similarly 'inevitable' until he was not. Why are Republicans able to vote against their front runner, but Democrats are for some reason mind controlled to voting only for whoever is most likely to win?
Click to expand...

The premise of my argument was that people vote for inevitability, an inevitability that was reinforced by sites like CNN and the NYT consistently reporting delegate counts that "barely" made a distinction between the types.

Nevermind that Jeb's "inevitability" was never reflected in any polls among all candidates (and certainly wasn't there at the beginning start of primary voting).
 
thepotatoman said:
I guess it shows he's not completely delusional/idiotic, but it still makes very little sense to do things this way. What is the point?
Click to expand...

He's figuratively in the last leg of a marathon. Technically, nothing is written in stone due to the fluidity of super delegate votes, but I don't believe he is holding out for them to flip and override the will of the people. But he has come this far, 26 miles of a 26.2 mile marathon. He wants to run the final 0.2, the DC primary next week. There's a victory in just being in the race until the very end, and I believe he has earned the right to finish it. Let him, you know? Haven't you ever wanted to finish something for the mere sake of finishing it?

He will concede. He will endorse Hillary to beat Trump. He can do both of those things while still pushing the Democratic party further on his issues.
 
Sir Fragula said:
He should run as an independent. Mix things up a bit, get a left wing candidate in instead of two right wingers.
Click to expand...

A third party candidate with strong performance ensures the candidate least like the other two the victory.

Despite your "two right wingers" nonsense, Hillary and Bernie would be the similar candidates and Trump would be the victor.
(and as far as technique and attitude go, Bernie is faaaaar closer to Trump than Hillary)
 
Cipherr said:
No, that's not how this works. You have to apply context. Your question is like someone saying that a soccer game where the score is 9 to 0 isn't a "big lead" simply because the numbers are small when considering a different sport like Basketball.

Sure a basketball game/team can easily overcome a 9 point deficit, but soccer isn't the same sport. It doesn't typically house 100 pt tallies or greater so the comparison is wacko.

A 160 delegate gap when your Democratic opponent still has NY, NJ and CA ahead which are all strong for said opponent is a straight up losing situation. Context matters.
Click to expand...

I know the context of how many pledged delegates left up for grabs is important. And the context is that there were still over 2500 to fight for after the first super tuesday. So I'm still not seeing how impossible and prohibitive are the right words to use.
 
kirblar said:
He's not pushing the Dems further ANYTHING though.

He's just causing a riot.
Click to expand...

Not really. Hillary's supporters in 2008 were more hostile towards Obama than Bernie's supporters are towards Hillary right now. Don't get caught in the moment. Come November, these ruffled feathers will be smoothed over.
 
Sir Fragula said:
He should run as an independent. Mix things up a bit, get a left wing candidate in instead of two right wingers.
Click to expand...

He likely wouldn't pull more than 5% as an independent. 10% tops. It'd be enough to secure Trump a victory, but that may be the most bitter thing he could possibly do and he'd be universally loathed.

When a campaign faces it's end it can be sad, but look at Clinton as an example of what to do when you lose. Obama came out of nowhere and pulled it right out from under her in 2008. She threw her support behind him (eventually) and worked on the area she got hit hardest on; Experience.

Now she's running again with tons of experience and the full weight of the infrastructure Obama built behind her.

Bernie likely doesn't have another Presidential run in him, but he could still do a lot of good in the Senate if he could put aside all of this bullshit. Getting liberals into House seats is as important if not more than the Presidency and he could make that his lasting legacy if he chose to.
 
Eric the Red said:
I know the context of how many pledged delegates left up for grabs is important. And the context is that there were still over 2500 to fight for after the first super tuesday. So I'm still not seeing how impossible and prohibitive are the right words to use.
Click to expand...

This is about the same as saying that just because you're down 50 points in a football game at halftime you're not prohibitively behind because theoretically you could just score four touchdowns a quarter and win.

Yeah, it could happen. That's why we say "prohibitively behind" and not "lost." But there is no reason to think that it will.
 
kirblar said:
He's not pushing the Dems further ANYTHING though.

He's just causing a riot.
Click to expand...

Just was watching Rachel Maddow and she makes a good point: What is he doing with his support base other than convincing them to nominate him president? Is he building an organization? How is he going to secure a legacy where this movement he's created goes idle? He's not giving them anything else to do other than elect him president. No one knows what he's doing other than trying to win the nomination.
 
pigeon said:
I feel like maybe you have been following the wrong candidate?

Every time Bernie talks about tearing down the corrupt "establishment" he's explicitly talking about the Democratic Party, the DNC, Planned Parenthood, Emily's List and all the other progressive organizations that have endorsed Hillary Clinton.

Calling them all corrupt and accusing them of betraying the people's will is an attack, believe it or not.
Click to expand...

He said he's gonna tear down Planned Parenthood? Or did he just said their endorsement of Hillary was obvious because he think's they're establishment? You seem to be conflating a lot of things together. I still wouldn't call that in particular vicious even if I disagreed or thought it was silly. You're implying a lot into the words "tear down" but that just means changing something. Tearing down our education system sounds terrible, but he really just means he wants to make universities tuition free. No school buildings are being targeted for demolishing. I'm not scared by those words.
 
Eric the Red said:
He said he's gonna tear down Planned Parenthood? Or did he just said their endorsement of Hillary was obvious because he think's they're establishment? You seem to be conflating a lot of things together. I still wouldn't call that in particular vicious even if I disagreed or thought it was silly. You're implying a lot into the words "tear down" but that just means changing something. Tearing down our education system sounds terrible, but he really just means he wants to make universities tuition free. No school buildings are being targeted for demolishing. I'm not scared by those words.
Click to expand...

He threw AIDS activists who have been leading the fight against HIV for over 30 years under the bus because they didn't endorse him. It was a despicable act, full stop.
 
3phemeral said:
Just was watching Rachel Maddow and she makes a good point: What is he doing with his support base other than convincing them to nominate him president? Is he building an organization? How is he going to secure a legacy where this movement he's created goes idle? He's not giving them anything else to do other than elect him president. No one knows what he's doing other than trying to win the nomination.
Click to expand...

This is why he needs to stay in until DC (possibly til the convention, if he cocks it up). He wants to stay in, sure, but he needs to to push his supporters into doing something useful, rather than just leaving the political process once he concedes. The longer he holds on, the more he can talk them into using their grassroots political power to push for a liberal agenda, both on the state-wide and national levels.

To contrast, if he'd conceded a few hours ago, his supporters would be (generally speaking) disenfranchised with the dems, if not the political process as a whole. Contrast his anger at the system after Nevada with his speech just a few hours ago.
 
Pixieking said:
This is why he needs to stay in until DC (possibly til the convention, if he cocks it up). He wants to stay in, sure, but he needs to to push his supporters into doing something useful, rather than just leaving the political process once he concedes. The longer he holds on, the more he can talk them into using their grassroots political power to push for a liberal agenda, both on the state-wide and national levels.

To contrast, if he'd conceded a few hours ago, his supporters would be (generally speaking) disenfranchised with the dems, if not the political process as a whole. Contrast his anger at the system after Nevada with his speech just a few hours ago.
Click to expand...

The problem though is that he's basically already convinced his most hardcore supporters that everyone else other than him is corrupt establishment shills. Even if he does try to mobilize his fanbase to fight the good fight with congress and local elections, I feel it may ring hollow.
 
pigeon said:
This is about the same as saying that just because you're down 50 points in a football game at halftime you're not prohibitively behind because theoretically you could just score four touchdowns a quarter and win.

Yeah, it could happen. That's why we say "prohibitively behind" and not "lost." But there is no reason to think that it will.
Click to expand...

First someone says it's like 9-0 in soccer, now it's like being down by 50 points in football. Can I abstract it less by saying it's like a game with 4000 points? And by the end of the first quarter it's 519 to 359. That looks like Clinton will probably win but in no way does that look prohibitive when there's so much more time and points up for grabs. (And then the supers at the end based on the results I know.)
 
Whilst (like many people), I am pissed at Sanders right now for his behaviour over the last few months and how he's handling this, pixie King is right that he shouldn't drop today. Clinton gave an incredibly ungracious speech on the day Obama secured the nomination, and only conceded 4 days later after she had time to cool down, assess what she wanted, and sort things out.

I absolutely, *absolutely* think this needs to be done before the convention, but giving Bernie a few days before he backs Clinton is fine. I just hope the politico article is wrong, and we aren't going to see the incredibly ungracious, shitty, petulant demanding behaviour it outlines.
 
WhiteRabbitEXE said:
The problem though is that he's basically already convinced his most hardcore supporters that everyone else other than him is corrupt establishment shills. Even if he does try to mobilize his fanbase to fight the good fight with congress and local elections, I feel it may ring hollow.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's worrying - the people who have bought big into the whole "The system is broken" are probably lost here. More than being worrying, it's pretty disgusting to feel that he's disenfranchised so many with the political process. But if he can mobilize people who are willing to recognize that a vote for Hillary is a vote for a liberal SCOTUS, then it'll salvage something. He's going to lose the die-hard believers, who will feel it rings hollow, but that's what he gets for courting them so hard with his "establishment shills" rhetoric.
 
Eric the Red said:
First someone says it's like 9-0 in soccer, now it's like being down by 50 points in football. Can I abstract it less by saying it's like a game with 4000 points? And by the end of the first quarter it's 519 to 359. That looks like Clinton might win but in no way does that look prohibitive when there's so much more time and points up for grabs. (And then the supers at the end based on the results I know.)
Click to expand...

No. Because that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how a proportional electoral system like the democratic primaries works.

It is almost impossible to come back from a 160 lead. In 2008 Obama *never* had a lead that large on Clinton, and yet he was pretty guaranteed the nomination from Super Tuesday onwards. Clintons lead during the process has been double that at points.

In order to come back from a 160 lead early on, it means you need to win every race 70-30 or so. In a proportional system with two candidates, that simply doesn't happen often enough to matter. There is a reason every pollster and every commentator has been saying this race was over months ago.

Quoting the figures like you have done belies the reality of the contest. The only way Bernie was winning after she established that lead was for her to die or go to prison or some horrific scandal to engulf her. It hasn't, so she won.

(538 did a piece of research on the process, and they showed that no-one has ever come back from a 50 point delegate gap on the democrats side. That's how harsh it is).
 
Maledict said:
Whilst (like many people), I am pissed at Sanders right now for his behaviour over the last few months and how he's handling this, pixie King is right that he shouldn't drop today. Clinton gave an incredibly ungracious speech on the day Obama secured the nomination, and only conceded 4 days later after she had time to cool down, assess what she wanted, and sort things out.

I absolutely, *absolutely* think this needs to be done before the convention, but giving Bernie a few days before he backs Clinton is fine. I just hope the politico article is wrong, and we aren't going to see the incredibly ungracious, shitty, petulant demanding behaviour it outlines.
Click to expand...

People are too busy with the two minute hate for that. I got tired of Bernie supporters months ago, but now I'm tired of Clinton supporters just non stop hatejerking. Its exhausting to read and shuts down discussion. I hope Bernie doesnt whine into the sunset but raging on an internet forum is not actually helping and is more for self gratification than anything.
 
Eric the Red said:
He said he's gonna tear down Planned Parenthood? Or did he just said their endorsement of Hillary was obvious because he think's they're establishment? You seem to be conflating a lot of things together. I still wouldn't call that in particular vicious even if I disagreed or thought it was silly. You're implying a lot into the words "tear down" but that just means changing something. Tearing down our education system sounds terrible, but he really just means he wants to make universities tuition free. No school buildings are being targeted for demolishing. I'm not scared by those words.
Click to expand...
To me it's a problem because of Sanders' rhetoric. The "establishment" is not a group that he wants to work with, that he wants to convince that his policies are politically viable in this country, they're an entity to be beaten. To him, perhaps, he can make the distinction between different establishments but to me I think it's dangerous to equate organizations like Planned Parenthood with Wall Street banks and the like with his language. To me it also showed a clear lack of leadership. He should not have taken an organization endorsing his candidate as a sign the nebulous establishment is out to get him but rather as evidence that he has not yet proved to them that he was a viable candidate that would further their goals.

And to me that's what's dangerous because the military's not coming in, removing the whole establishment and replacing them with Bernie Bros, he would have had to work with them. Some of the people and organizations he's accused of being part of the establishment are people that he should support. That his supporters should support.

Throw in that later he definitely went personal, not just verbally but with action backing DWS(who's not a hero of mine) showing that he takes things personally and is willing to retaliate and to me that gave me a pretty clear picture of who he is as a man.
 
WhiteRabbitEXE said:
The problem though is that he's basically already convinced his most hardcore supporters that everyone else other than him is corrupt establishment shills. Even if he does try to mobilize his fanbase to fight the good fight with congress and local elections, I feel it may ring hollow.
Click to expand...

Randolph Freelander said:
Not really. Hillary's supporters in 2008 were more hostile towards Obama than Bernie's supporters are towards Hillary right now. Don't get caught in the moment. Come November, these ruffled feathers will be smoothed over.
Click to expand...
This is the difference. Sanders has repeatedly attacked the credibility of the process.

That's completely fucked up and poisonous not just for this election, but for subsequent ones as well.
 
The problem with sports analogies is that it treats every state as a new, consecutive round, inning, or game in a series, where everything can potentially reset each time, and a team down in the first 4 innings may clean up in the next 5. And that's a tempting analogy when each set of states may be days or weeks after the last. So that's how you get people saying "well, he could knock it out of the park in California and New Jersey and reset the balance".

Except, primaries aren't the World Series or a game of tennis or whatever. Because while a candidate can always fight hard and try to take a big point state later in the election, and maaaaybe they can change the skews a little more in their favor, it's not like a new game where anything can suddenly happen. It doesn't work that way, because a state's demographics, beliefs, and ideals don't just magically reset. Those things are locked in. And those are the most important parts. So you can't just say "well, yeah, my candidate is down, but they still have a chance to win because X delegates are left" because while player Y may play a better game in the third quarter, the demographics of say, California, isn't going to spontaneously change wholesale in order to grant your candidate the nomination.
 
kirblar said:
This is the difference. Sanders has repeatedly attacked the credibility of the process.

That's completely fucked up and poisonous not just for this election, but for subsequent ones as well.
Click to expand...

It was my impression that most people think the primary process is dumb and needs to be changed with open primaries some states, closed in others, caucuses in others, and combinations of them in still others. Its just that once the primary season is over people stop caring enough to change it.
 
Eric the Red said:
It was my impression that most people think the primary process is dumb and needs to be changed with open primaries some states, closed in others, caucuses in others, and combinations of them in still others. Its just that once the primary season is over people stop caring enough to change it.
Click to expand...
It's not that. It's the narrative of "If it weren't for those meddling DNCs, I would have won!"
 
No one was even calling for him to drop and concede tonight. He has every right to compete until DC. But what was most disappointing was his complete refusal to set his supporters right and to have them recognize Hillary's achievement. Even John McCain came to Obama's defense when one of his supporters said something nasty about him.

Bernie's just inflaming a bad situation for no real reason except bitterness. I suppose he truly believes the bullshit he preaches about everyone else being an establishment shill except him. Just a completely obnoxious attitude that he's passing down to an unfortunate amount of young voters. Their first exposure to politics is immediately setting them down this worrisome path and it's completely unnecessary.
 
The ideas that Bernie brought to the forefront will live on despite him. Good ideas cannot be killed or suppressed.

America wasn't ready, yet.
 
E-Cat said:
The ideas that Bernie brought to the forefront will live on despite him. Good ideas cannot be killed or suppressed.

America wasn't ready, yet.
Click to expand...
Agree on many points but did also propel a few bad narratives . Those can be killed and should and thankfully probably will be .
 
E-Cat said:
The ideas that Bernie brought to the forefront will live on despite him. Good ideas cannot be killed or suppressed.

America wasn't ready, yet.
Click to expand...

I really hope so. While I'm not happy about some aspects of the Sanders campaign, I was happy how he was able to shift the conversation a good bit left of center. Socialism is a good bit less of a dirty word too because of him in some circles.
 
WhiteRabbitEXE said:
Right.

Except that part where you're wrong.

But please, feel free to explain.
Click to expand...

Big Baybee said:
She's really fucking not.
Click to expand...

exmachina64 said:
So if the Republican nominee had been Kasich or Rubio, we might not have been able to tell them apart from Clinton?
Click to expand...

Spuck-uk and Sir Fragula are European that I'm aware of, here in Europe Hillary Clinton is what you consider right-wing on fiscal and foreign policy for example. She is left on social issues obviously. However with this campaign she has gone more to the left on these issues than she was in the past so it's disingenuous for them to say she is outright right-wing as of this moment if they have paid attention. She definitely was in the past though but it's not really appropriate as a basis for her current campaign although many may disagree with that.
 
E-Cat said:
The ideas that Bernie brought to the forefront will live on despite him. Good ideas cannot be killed or suppressed.

America wasn't ready, yet.
Click to expand...

This is the hope.

With any luck, there will be a younger, more inspirational figurehead that'll pick up the torch that Sanders left on the floor.
The fact that Sanders even got this far with the ideas he had was pretty crazy considering the country he's running for office for.
 
Doctoglethorpe said:
Id be salty too if I lost a game that was rigged against me from the start, especially if I still came close despite it.

Idk why anyone was expecting him to bow out peacefully after all the bullshit the party and media has put him through.
Click to expand...




By rigged you mean by losing terribly in terms of votes.
 
E-Cat said:
The ideas that Bernie brought to the forefront will live on despite him. Good ideas cannot be killed or suppressed.

America wasn't ready, yet.
Click to expand...
Electing a president is more than just voting for a culmination be of ideas.

America is at least ready to talk about the issues, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NBA's top 100 dunks of the last 25 years
20
970
fallingdove replied
Do you day drink on your days off?
2 3
102
3K
Nocty replied
Scientist discovery quantum signals inside life.
15
1K
Days like these... replied
  • Locked
Star of Last of Us HBO series, Bella Ramsey Celebrates Her Autism
NSFW  2 3 4
190
12K
_Blackberry_ replied
Anyone here deal with increasingly angry and bitter parents the older they get?
2
51
2K
Braag replied
Top Bottom