Support NeoGAF

[Salvadora]

I wonder if Hilary lost the popular vote and won would republicans start seriously considering some electoral college "reform"

I would imagine obstructionism would get worse, if that is possible, as they would undoubtedly argue that Hillary has no mandate to govern.

 

[Y2Kev]

Not sure where you're seeing Sanders favorability drop. Still seems to be trending upward: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating

Ideally it would be Sanders dragging down her numbers and they reverse after the primary is over, but considering how steady she's been dropping since 2013 I'm worried the benghazi and email scandals are playing a bigger part than some would like to admit. And considering the level to which Sanders and Trump beat expectations, I really do think there's a lot of momentum behind anti-establishment feelings, which I would assume hurts Clinton quite a lot.


I was responding to someone that seems to blame Sanders for a negative trend that started years before he entered the race.

That is not among democrats and democratic leaners. Please look at my link.

Clinton's favorability among democrats has not dropped in the same way it dropped with the population in general. There's an important reason for that and this is an important distinction.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I wonder if Hilary lost the popular vote and won would republicans start seriously considering some electoral college "reform"

Too bad they wouldnt have a president to support it in that scenario LOL.

 

[Holmes]

We're seeing a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy here. Sanders goes on and on about how only he can beat Trump, he's up in the polls, Clinton is the bad choice, so what do his supporters do? They make it so. They vote for Trump in the polls over Clinton to prove this point and give her an unfavorable rating. Clinton backers on the other hand like and back Sanders in these same polls in the Sanders vs. Trump matchups. So I think we need some ~unity~ after these primaries.

 

[User 463088]

If it came down to actually having to vote for Sanders, I would be physically ill.

And that's not hyperbole. It would be...ugh. God. Thank god it won't happen.

 

[Y2Kev]

Too bad they wouldnt have a president to support it in that scenario LOL.

Wouldn't this require a constitutional amendment?

If it came down to actually having to vote for Sanders, I would be physically ill.

And that's not hyperbole. It would be...ugh. God. Thank god it won't happen.

Don't count your presidents before they get indicted!

 

[Holmes]

 

[JP_]

That is not among democrats and democratic leaners. Please look at my link.

Clinton's favorability among democrats has not dropped in the same way it dropped with the population in general. There's an important reason for that and this is an important distinction.

In a discussion about the GE, why is that distinction important? How do you reconcile that with polls that show dems don't think the continued campaign is hurting the party? Surprisingly, Clinton supporters agree with that statement more than Sanders supporters.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/191681/d...e=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

 

[SporeCrawler]

holy shit. isnt florida pretty much republicland?

 

[Y2Kev]

In a discussion about the GE, why is that distinction important? How do you reconcile that with polls that show dems don't think the continued campaign is hurting the party? Surprisingly, Clinton supporters agree with that statement more than Sanders supporters.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/191681/d...e=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

Of course it matters in the GE. You need all Democrats and Democratic leaners to support Hillary Clinton vs. her GE opponent. Right now, there's considerable unhappiness with Clinton in her own party. Do you think that will hold through the general election? If you do, that's one thing. I think it will rebound. I do not think 20%+ of Sanders voters will vote for Trump. I think that the negativity of the campaign will subside, the vast majority of people will chill out.

I do not think what you posted has anything to do with what I think. Do I think the primary is doing long-term damage to Clinton or the Democrats? No. Does it have short-term impact on the favorability of both Democrats? Absolutely. Do I think Sanders supporters will enthusiastically support Clinton in GE polling right now? No. I think they would be undecided or be spiteful. Do I think this will ameliorate over time? Yes.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

#DeadHeatOhio

haha

 

[Maledict]

holy shit. isnt florida pretty much republicland?

No - it's been very tight but has gone to the democrats last two elections.

It is impossible for the Republicans to win without it though, so it she takes it early it will be a very dul night!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

holy shit. isnt florida pretty much republicland?

No. Like much of the Midwest it's Republican on the state level but Democrats outnumber Republicans and if they vote they win

 

[User 463088]

holy shit. isnt florida pretty much republicland?

Um...no? Florida is the swing state. Democrats win south Florida, and the important counties along the I-4 Corridor. I imagine that queen will have insanely good margins in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Broward, and Gadsen counties.

I expect she'll over perform Obama in Orange and Osceola based on the higher Hispanic population.

 

[Holmes]

No. Like much of the Midwest it's Republican on the state level but Democrats outnumber Republicans and if they vote they win

Florida's not Midwestern.

 

[pigeon]

The question to ask with these polls is where the undecideds really are. 42/43 leaves 15% undecided and that's not that plausible. A good percentage of those people know who they're voting for and just don't want to say.

So are they Clinton voters who are holding out because of Bernie? Or are they Trump voters who don't want to admit they're racists?

Basically the state of the race is somewhat unknown in a poll like that.

This is one reason why I expect to know much better what's going on a little later. Remember, it took til October for Romney voters to come home.

 

[DrForester]

I wonder if Hilary lost the popular vote and won would republicans start seriously considering some electoral college "reform"

I think it's possible that it could lead to some reforms. But at the same time, would Democrats want to? Electoral Map heavily favors them, and looks to continue to favor them for a long time.

 

[JP_]

Of course it matters in the GE. You need all Democrats and Democratic leaners to support Hillary Clinton vs. her GE opponent. Right now, there's considerable unhappiness with Clinton in her own party. Do you think that will hold through the general election? If you do, that's one thing. I think it will rebound. I do not think 20%+ of Sanders voters will vote for Trump. I think that the negativity of the campaign will subside, the vast majority of people will chill out.

I do not think what you posted has anything to do with what I think. Do I think the primary is doing long-term damage to Clinton or the Democrats? No. Does it have short-term impact on the favorability of both Democrats? Absolutely. Do I think Sanders supporters will enthusiastically support Clinton in GE polling right now? No. I think they would be undecided or be spiteful. Do I think this will ameliorate over time? Yes.

I mean I agree with all that, but I guess I'm looking at these larger trends and I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned that they will work against that rebound. I do expect a rebound, but I'm worried it'll be a relatively small bump and she'll still struggle to overcome the larger trends that have plagued her since 2013 unless she really pivots somehow.

 

[Manmademan]

I wonder if Hilary lost the popular vote and won would republicans start seriously considering some electoral college "reform"

you'd pretty much need a constitutional amendment to make that happen, and I don't see any support for that.

Changing to a strictly "popular vote wins the election" method would mean that flyover states would get even less attention than the currently do as politicians drove up the vote on the coasts. no doubt they'd all be against it.

 

[Y2Kev]

I mean I agree with all that, but I guess I'm looking at these larger trends and I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned that they will work against that rebound. I do expect a rebound, but I'm worried it'll be a relatively small bump and she'll still struggle to overcome the larger trends that have plagued her since 2013 unless she really pivots somehow.

I don't think you will see a general population rebound, but I don't think she needs it (we're talking about Trump, of course). For 50% of the population or maybe even more, Hillary Clinton is the worst person on earth.

 

[DrForester]

you'd pretty much need a constitutional amendment to make that happen, and I don't see any support for that.

Changing to a strictly "popular vote wins the election" method would mean that flyover states would get even less attention than the currently do as politicians drove up the vote on the coasts. no doubt they'd all be against it.

Would forcing all states to split electoral votes still keep attention on flyover states?

 

[B-Dubs]

Would forcing all states to split electoral votes still keep attention on flyover states?

Nope, it'd turn NY and Cali into big fights though. You'd see a lot more focus on urban areas.

 

[Box of Kittens]

7) the fact that all he seemed to do is host rallies, whereas I saw Clinton going into communities and meeting with people in much more intimate ways

At rallies you have a large group of people giving you affirmation. At a small meeting people might challenge you and share a perspective that doesn't conform to one's preconceived notions of how the world works. No wonder someone with as little intellectual curiosity as Sanders prefers the former to the latter.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The question to ask with these polls is where the undecideds really are. 42/43 leaves 15% undecided and that's not that plausible. A good percentage of those people know who they're voting for and just don't want to say.

So are they Clinton voters who are holding out because of Bernie? Or are they Trump voters who don't want to admit they're racists?

Basically the state of the race is somewhat unknown in a poll like that.

This is one reason why I expect to know much better what's going on a little later. Remember, it took til October for Romney voters to come home.

I think they're probably actually Sanders voters who don't want to make Clinton's figures look good.

 

[B-Dubs]

I think they're probably actually Sanders voters who don't want to make Clinton's figures look good.

This is the most likely thing given the state of the race at the moment. If these numbers don't start moving after the convention then it's time to panic. Until then, this is likely the best Trump is going to do.

 

[User 463088]

I think they're probably actually Sanders voters who don't want to make Clinton's figures look good.

I agree.

If someone wants to vote for Trump, but are worried about appearing racist, they are lucky in that they can say "I don't like Trump, but $hillary KILLED BEN GHAZI!

So...they have coverage.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Florida is closer than I would think, but the fact she is STILL ahead after Trump having a few weeks of #unification and Clinton dealing with Sanders is such a bade sign for Trump

 

[pigeon]

I think they're probably actually Sanders voters who don't want to make Clinton's figures look good.

Sure. That's kind of what I meant with the first point, except I called them "Clinton voters" because in the end I think almost all of them will be.

If that 15% is like 10% Clinton voters hiding, then we have nothing to worry about. But we need to wait for her to get a bump for them to come home.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Again, I just think there's been way too much chicken-littling going on in this thread. This has been a good primary. Pretty much everyone got what they wanted. Sanders was never likely to win, his main goal was to make an impact, be able to make demands at the end, and indicate a market for potential successors. All accomplished. Clinton was always going to win, but she's not exactly the most inspiring candidate and has really struggled to enthuse people who aren't already Democratic converts. Sanders will eventually bend the knee, and she'll get voters she wouldn't have got otherwise, and the Democrats will do better overall. It's really just a waiting game now, and the best thing for Clinton supporters to do is just smile, be patient, and take some of the stuff Sanders says on board. He won't drop out because if he did, he'd lose credit with his supporters and wouldn't be able to bring them along later, and trying to force him out early is harming the party unity you'll want later. So just kick back, chillax, and wait for July; all this "drop out now" and Trump panicking is yawn.

 

[sc0la]

Sanders is secretly trying to take over the world.

The same thing he does every night.

But is he Pinky then? Because he clearly isn't The Brain.

 

[Box of Kittens]

I went on a rant about this a couple of days ago. (Well...not rant, just kind of explaining my thought process.)

The only Bernie supporters Hillary needs to make huge efforts to win over could be swayed, I think, with the right Veep selection....especially if she positions it correctly. If she picks someone like Warren and makes it clear that Warren will be responsible for financial industry regulation or whatever, then...ya, that would placate some people. I also think it's a shortcut to party unity.

Also, my goodness. It's freaking May people. I can find you polls from 2008 that had McCain up by 10 in Ohio as late as July. Or polls from the same timeframe that had McCain up by 8 in Florida!

It's going to be okay. But, if you're worried, reach out to your local Democratic party and get involved. We always need help. If you can spare 2 hours a week between now and election day it could make a huge difference.

Let's not forget Dukakis leading in the polls from May through August, including that infamous post-convention 17-point lead.

 

[Crayons]

I turn on the TV and Trump is calling for Bernie to go third party. I fucking hate you Trump and anyone with a brain (so anyone who isn't voting for you) knows what you're doing

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Again, I just think there's been way too much chicken-littling going on in this thread. This has been a good primary. Pretty much everyone got what they wanted. Sanders was never likely to win, his main goal was to make an impact, be able to make demands at the end, and indicate a market for potential successors. All accomplished. Clinton was always going to win, but she's not exactly the most inspiring candidate and has really struggled to enthuse people who aren't already Democratic converts. Sanders will eventually bend the knee, and she'll get voters she wouldn't have got otherwise, and the Democrats will do better overall. It's really just a waiting game now, and the best thing for Clinton supporters to do is just smile, be patient, and take some of the stuff Sanders says on board. He won't drop out because if he did, he'd lose credit with his supporters and wouldn't be able to bring them along later, and trying to force him out early is harming the party unity you'll want later. So just kick back, chillax, and wait for July.

I would be fine if Sanders was kinda still attacking Clinton by talking about how they are different on key issues and stuff.

But he's been basically shitting on the DNC for the last month, which in my opinion is far more harmful than just continuing a campaign against Clinton till the end.

Fuck your open primary bitching, if you want that than meet halfway and talk about a legit way to get rid of caucuses in the 48 mainland states and a way for the DNC to fund them all to become semi-open primaries with reasonable registration dates.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

you'd pretty much need a constitutional amendment to make that happen, and I don't see any support for that.

Changing to a strictly "popular vote wins the election" method would mean that flyover states would get even less attention than the currently do as politicians drove up the vote on the coasts. no doubt they'd all be against it.

Yeah, and with a constitutional amendment requiring 37 states to ratify it, you just need 14 to say no. In order of population, the 14th smallest state is Nebraska. I find it hard to believe that Nebraska would be cool with a popular vote, so that means the other 13 states below them wouldn't go for it either.

I think they're probably actually Sanders voters who don't want to make Clinton's figures look good.

Agreed. They'll mostly come around after the convention, and then the polls will widen a bit more. It's all moot anyway if Trump's poll numbers are coming from hard red states and not from non-white, non-male demographics. He's not even polling with white people as well as Romney, and Romney lost by 126 EVs. Unless he can drive up white support much much higher, or chip into non-white support (HAHAHAHAHAHAH) then he'll be toast.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I would be fine if Sanders was kinda still attacking Clinton by talking about how they are different on key issues and stuff.

But he's been basically shitting on the DNC for the last month, which in my opinion is far more harmful than just continuing a campaign against Clinton till the end.

Fuck your open primary bitching, if you want that than meet halfway and talk about a legit way to get rid of caucuses in the 48 mainland states and a way for the DNC to fund them all to become semi-open primaries with reasonable registration dates.

I'm all for bitching about the DNC. It's an atrocious organization; the very structure is designed to minimize genuine democratic input, and it's not even particularly effective at mobilizing as a party. It's always baffled me that the government provides funding for closed primaries anyway - they're private organizations. Attacking the DNC isn't harmful; if anything it's a huge boon for Clinton because she can pacify Sanders supporters simply by pushing for changes with the DNC rather than having to compromise her own platform.

 

[User 463088]

Again, I just think there's been way too much chicken-littling going on in this thread. This has been a good primary. Pretty much everyone got what they wanted. Sanders was never likely to win, his main goal was to make an impact, be able to make demands at the end, and indicate a market for potential successors. All accomplished. Clinton was always going to win, but she's not exactly the most inspiring candidate and has really struggled to enthuse people who aren't already Democratic converts. Sanders will eventually bend the knee, and she'll get voters she wouldn't have got otherwise, and the Democrats will do better overall. It's really just a waiting game now, and the best thing for Clinton supporters to do is just smile, be patient, and take some of the stuff Sanders says on board. He won't drop out because if he did, he'd lose credit with his supporters and wouldn't be able to bring them along later, and trying to force him out early is harming the party unity you'll want later. So just kick back, chillax, and wait for July; all this "drop out now" and Trump panicking is yawn.

Naw, I'm going to respectfully disagree. Bernie has managed to take a giant shit on the entire Democratic party. The three candidates he's supporting down ballot are all running against other Democrats. He's totally, totally done some mind-share damage to the Democratic party. I don't know how bad it will be in the long run, but to pretend that he has been a net positive in the race doesn't jive with me.

 

[royalan]

Again, I just think there's been way too much chicken-littling going on in this thread. This has been a good primary. Pretty much everyone got what they wanted. Sanders was never likely to win, his main goal was to make an impact, be able to make demands at the end, and indicate a market for potential successors. All accomplished. Clinton was always going to win, but she's not exactly the most inspiring candidate and has really struggled to enthuse people who aren't already Democratic converts. Sanders will eventually bend the knee, and she'll get voters she wouldn't have got otherwise, and the Democrats will do better overall. It's really just a waiting game now, and the best thing for Clinton supporters to do is just smile, be patient, and take some of the stuff Sanders says on board. He won't drop out because if he did, he'd lose credit with his supporters and wouldn't be able to bring them along later, and trying to force him out early is harming the party unity you'll want later. So just kick back, chillax, and wait for July; all this "drop out now" and Trump panicking is yawn.

Question, since you're so sure of this.

What incentive will Bernie have to bend the knee? He's 74 years old. He could retire tomorrow and still have one of the longest political careers behind him. Leaving the door open for a future within the party is simply not going to be as strong an incentive for Bernie as it has been for previous contenders for the nomination.

Where in his rhetoric leads you to believe that it's so obvious that he will do his part, and that people in this thread, the media, and within the party itself are growing increasingly concerned over nothing?

I'm all for bitching about the DNC. It's an atrocious organization; the very structure is designed to minimize genuine democratic input, and it's not even particularly effective at mobilizing as a party. It's always baffled me that the government provides funding for closed primaries anyway - they're private organizations. Attacking the DNC isn't harmful; if anything it's a huge boon for Clinton because she can pacify Sanders supporters simply by pushing for changes with the DNC rather than having to compromise her own platform.

This is ridiculous. I'm not really of the mind to call the party that actively advocates for my rights (the only party in this country) an "atrocious organization." That's hyperbole of the sort you seem to only post in this thread to criticize.

I don't think recent events lead much credit to the idea that what Bernie is encouraging is healthy for the party or its ideas.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yeah, and with a constitutional amendment requiring 37 states to ratify it, you just need 14 to say no. In order of population, the 14th smallest state is Nebraska. I find it hard to believe that Nebraska would be cool with a popular vote, so that means the other 13 states below them wouldn't go for it either.

You don't actually need a constitutional amendment. States are free to determine how their electoral college votes are pledged, so all you need is for states representing 50% +1 of the electoral college to all agree to give all their electoral college votes to the winner and you have de facto popular majority. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact currently has 30.7% of the electoral college vote, and Michigan and Missouri should be joining quite shortly to drive it up further. I don't think it will be more than two decades until the United States uses popular vote proper.

 

[pigeon]

I'm all for bitching about the DNC. It's an atrocious organization; the very structure is designed to minimize genuine democratic input, and it's not even particularly effective at mobilizing as a party. It's always baffled me that the government provides funding for closed primaries anyway - they're private organizations. Attacking the DNC isn't harmful; if anything it's a huge boon for Clinton because she can pacify Sanders supporters simply by pushing for changes with the DNC rather than having to compromise her own platform.

Parties mainly just can't afford to run primaries. They're like $10 million a pop. The Dems may have a good fundraising operation but they can't start half a billion in the hole. Bullock v. Carter says that it's constitutional for states to run primaries for them, so that's mostly what happens. It's also probably an economic choice to have the same organization run the Dem and GOP primary -- they'd be like twice as expensive otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Question, since you're so sure of this.

What incentive will Bernie have to bend the knee? He's 74 years old. He could retire tomorrow and still have one of the longest political careers behind him. Leaving the door open for a future within the party is simply not going to be as strong an incentive for Bernie as it has been for previous contenders for the nomination.

Where in his rhetoric leads you to believe that it's so obvious that he will do his part, and that people in this thread, the media, and within the party itself are growing increasingly concerned over nothing?

Because he genuinely prefers Clinton to Trump? Come on, he's always worked closely with the Democratic Party and opposed the Republicans. His policy platform is obviously much closer to Clinton than Trump, and he consistently talks about how awful Trump is - he attacks Trump much more strongly than he ever does Clinton. Regardless of what else you think of Sanders, he is a man of principle and has a long career that attests to that. He's not going to risk a Trump win.

 

[sphagnum]

I wonder how much cheaper it would be if they switched to electronic voting, notwithstanding all the problems they'd have to work out first.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Parties mainly just can't afford to run primaries. They're like $10 million a pop. The Dems may have a good fundraising operation but they can't start half a billion in the hole. Bullock v. Carter says that it's constitutional for states to run primaries for them, so that's mostly what happens. It's also probably an economic choice to have the same organization run the Dem and GOP primary -- they'd be like twice as expensive otherwise.

Oh, I don't oppose the idea of the states providing funding for primaries, I'm saying that if you're arguing they're effectively a public good that is deserving of state funding, you need to actually make them public. Semi-open with same day registration, all primaries no caucuses, ought to be mandatory to be eligible for funding.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Would forcing all states to split electoral votes still keep attention on flyover states?

Ultimately I don't think there's a system which will lead to all parts of the county getting attention. The focus will either be on swing states, swing districts, or large population centers.

I'm opposed to splitting by district, since that amounts to gerrymandering the presidency. In fact, Romney would've won in 2012 if electoral votes had been split by district.

Proportional could work better, but there's some difficulties that would need to be overcome. Straight proportionality would be more likely to lead to no one getting to 270, and I think it's really best to avoid that scenario.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Parties mainly just can't afford to run primaries. They're like $10 million a pop. The Dems may have a good fundraising operation but they can't start half a billion in the hole. Bullock v. Carter says that it's constitutional for states to run primaries for them, so that's mostly what happens. It's also probably an economic choice to have the same organization run the Dem and GOP primary -- they'd be like twice as expensive otherwise.

why can't they just hold mail-in primaries for the states that can't afford real ones?

Surly that's not as costly as a full state run primary?

 

[Crocodile]

You quoted my reasons.

And it's only a dramatic change if you think Sanders and Clinton are diametrical opposites


But in depth it was this:

Data theft, his team did wrong, and he played victim and attacked the DNC, instead of accepting responsibility

My first indication that A) He had incompetent Staff and B) He is unable to take responsibility and may in fact lack integrity

That was a huge moment for me because it was the first time I got an indication of who Bernie Sanders the candidate was, prior to that I had thought of him solely as a set of ideas if that makes sense.

So the shift began, I still agreed with ideas but started to think that he might not be the right person to put them into action.

Then he completely lost me with the Planned Parenthood fiasco. Where he called them the Establishment, doubled down, tripled down and then finally said oh wait I meant the leaders are, not the organization itself, which in itself was a back track and a quadruple down.

There was absolutely no reason to go after Planned Parenthood, they endorsed Clinton because of her track record in the Senate and her proactive nature on the issues important to them. They were polite and quite positive towards Sanders and yet Sanders turned around and flipped out on them tossing them into the Establishment he was fighting.

That was it for me, I have no time to support a guy who attacks arguably one of the most persecuted organizations in the country just because they endorsed his opponent, while complimenting the hell out of him. The thread I made about it here didn't help either as pro Sandesr people absolutely joined in on attacking PP as part of the establishment and questioning their integrity, and mine, including a few calling to have me banned over it.

The rest is history, he's proven to me since that I was absolutely correct to get off that band wagon.

I mean it's a laundry list:

1) His reaction post South-Carolina, where he simulatenously dismissed the south as "conservative", didn't thank his supporters in those states or really acknowledge what those losses meant.He went to Super White Minnesota I believe that night and called them too smart not to vote for him, which is a terrible thing to say post a major loss in a state where the black vote was a huge factor in his loss.

2) He also managed to claim that had he tired harder he'd have won, which basically implies he didn't consider the South worth his time, and that he lost because they (which includes a lot of minorities) just didn't know about him. It's also a lie, he out spent Clinton in South Carolina.

3) His surrogates have been horrendous and he's never really held them accountable. I mean his response to Killer Mike's Uterus comment was to say "I'd never say vote for me because I'm a man". Then there's the Establishment Whores moment, the Rosario Dawson shit, the Cornel West stuff

4) The John Lewis incident

5) Blaming the DNC for the Arizona issues, and claiming somehow that it only hurt him, never mind that in many of those places it likely hurt Clinton more

6) Demanding debates and then complaining because he didn't get his desired dates, or that he'd have to change a date of one of his million and a half stump speech rallies

7) the fact that all he seemed to do is host rallies, whereas I saw Clinton going into communities and meeting with people in much more intimate ways

8) His refusal to do fuck all for the downticket

9) His attack on Emily's List when he finally sort of kinda did a tiny thing for the downticket

10) His camp's insistence that he didn't need to really help monetary wise wtith the downticket because just being on the same ticket as Bernie fucking Sanders is enough. No cult of personality for me please.

11)That disastrous NYDN interview where he was frankly exposed as not having much of a plan of action, just a lot of core ideas.

12) His ridiculous policies on free trade and his inclination to give anti-GMO zealots any credibility.

13) Everything to do with his fucking Clinton speeches bullshit. Especially given that when asked to pinpoint even one time Clinton was "bought and paid for" he couldn't. Not to mention he sure as shit managed to only release a tiny fraction of his tax return

14) How he fucked up the Castro and Ortega question in the Florida Debate

15) How we went to the fucking Vatican on his campaign's dime in the middle of a fucking primary

16) How he came back and immediately criticized Clinton for the Clooney predominately downticket fundraiser, eventually calling it and other fundraisers like it money laundering.

17) His repeated claims that he represents the will of the people, despite being currently decimated in the popular vote.

18) His disinterest in foreign policy, beyond I was against Iraq. He hired advisers way too late, by then he'd already propose that the solution to fighting ISIS was for Saudi Arabia and Iran to create a coalition... which is fucking asinine. That and it's clear that he has never been all the interested in foreign policy. In a Senate briefing about Libya, Sanders took the floor and talked about Democratic messaging on the economy.

19) How almost every loss is somehow because the election was stolen from him and not because people sincerely voted against him

20) His obsession with yelling fraud at everything

21) His constant attack on the Democratic Party and the DNC which in the end turned out to be the only actual target for his "revolution" to the point where his supporters booed the Democratic Party at his latest stump rally. Shouldn't have been a surprise in retrospect, since he's the guy that wanted someone to primary Obama in 2012

22) Which is exactly why what happened in Nevada as his response to it is no surprise. It was a culmination of so much of what I've listed above. He has whipped a lot of people into a detached from reality frenzy, his "everything is fraud and theft" behaviour has convinced a subset of his followers that an election is literally being stolen from him. I mean again look at his press release, after walking away from the question like a fucking coward, he releases a statement that basically blames Roberta Lange for her own harassment, I'd argue in fact that in focusing the bulk of the release on making false accusations that she was corrupt and committing fraud and stealing a win from Sanders that he in fact was essentially just giving more ammo for people to either harass her more or feel justified in their harassment, and frankly that seems evident when you read the interviews of some of those people who harassed her

23) Oh and now he's actually called Clinton the lesser of two evils, while trying to pretend he didn't like a fucking weasel.

24) He's run his campaign as a litmus test for getting to call oneself a progressive.

25 ) He pretends to not be a politician but absolutely is one.

26) His inability to ever truly admit fault, it's always someone else's.

27) Everything to do with Super Delegates, first hating them despite hiring the guy who helped create them, and then going oh wait they should be allocated by the outcome of the primaries, oh wait by that I mean the states that I won, the ones in states that Clinton won should vote for me because meaningless GE polls. He's essentially claiming to be the will of the people while arguing to over turn the will of the people

He's proven to me that he's not fit to be President.


That said if he somehow was the nominee I'd cheer for him in an instant, but I'm glad he's not the nominee.

Bless this wonderful post <3

 

[pigeon]

Ultimately I don't think there's a system which will lead to all parts of the county getting attention. The focus will either be on swing states, swing districts, or large population centers.

It is important to understand that, in our current system, swing states are swing states because they're demographically representative of the country as a whole.

Ohio isn't a swing state because it pulled a sword out of a stone, it's a swing state because it's a state with a mix of white and black laborers, with some tech and finance activity, that's received an influx of Hispanic workers. It's a microcosm of America.

Florida is a swing state because it's both heavily minority and full of old people.

Etc., etc.

So by campaigning to Ohio and Florida, sure, those states get a lot of state-specific attention. But by hitting the demographic expectations of those two states they also hit the country as a whole.

 

[royalan]

Because he genuinely prefers Clinton to Trump? Come on, he's always worked closely with the Democratic Party and opposed the Republicans. His policy platform is obviously much closer to Clinton than Trump, and he consistently talks about how awful Trump is - he attacks Trump much more strongly than he ever does Clinton. Regardless of what else you think of Sanders, he is a man of principle and has a long career that attests to that. He's not going to risk a Trump win.

"Man of principle" my black ass.

Sorry, but a man of principle would have come out strongly, and with no conditionals attached, against his supporters when they started openly doxxing and harassing party leaders.

A man of principle would have at least offered an apology or toned down his words when his excuses for losing the South got so offensive, so dog-whistle, that Southern party leaders had to write him an open letter asking him to stop trashing a demographic of the Democratic party that already faces overwhelming discrimination and marginalization within their own states. Bernie did neither.

It's easy to be a "man of principle" when you're not being challenged. Once under fire, his principles seem to be the first thing Bernie throws off the boat. So excuse me if I'm not comforted by the idea that his principles alone will be the thing that makes him properly support the woman he just referred to as "the lesser of two evils."

 

[JP_]

Naw, I'm going to respectfully disagree. Bernie has managed to take a giant shit on the entire Democratic party. The three candidates he's supporting down ballot are all running against other Democrats. He's totally, totally done some mind-share damage to the Democratic party. I don't know how bad it will be in the long run, but to pretend that he has been a net positive in the race doesn't jive with me.

From the OT thread about DWS challenger endorsement:

I don't wish to adjudicate Bernie's broader conduct, but it cannot be the case that Bernie is rightfully attached for proposing policies that can't get through congress and then attacked for favouring challenges to key establishment Democrats from the left.

The coalition to enact Bernie's policies, were it to exist, won't come from challenging Republicans in Utah, it'll come from dragging Democrats to the left across the country. When Obama had a supermajority in the Senatw, the obstacle to his ability to enact legislation wasn't Mitch McConnell, it was Bill Nelson.

Moreover, the DNC Chair along with the D Triple C head wield enormous power over open seat primary endorsements over the party, which is the main mechanism by which it is possible to drag the party to the left (because it's easier to have the party express guidance for an open primary than it is to primary an incumbent or flip a Republican seat).

If people disagree with Bernie's policies then whatever, but if people agree with Bernie's policies then they must recognize that passing then will require a major recruiting effort of candidates to drag the party to the left. To be honest, Bernie should have been doing this a lot earlier in the campaign for a few reasons. First, to help bolster his claims that he would be able to deliver the change necessary to pass the policies he argued for. Second, so that if/when he lost, his ideas would still have had down ticket pull. He came relatively late to down ticket support and only through ActBlue. This is probably because Sanders has never been a national political actor or a Democrat before now.

Short version: Setting aside his personal bad blood with her, to deliver on his promises Bernie would have to remake the DNC and other institutions within the Democratic Party to deliver his proposed policy changes

 

[Deleted member 231381]

"Man of principle" my black ass.

Sorry, but a man of principle would have come out strongly, and with no conditionals attached, against his supporters when they started openly doxxing and harassing party leaders.

He did speak out against this.

It goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals.

A man of principle would have at least offered an apology or toned down his words when his excuses for losing the South got so offensive, so dog-whistle, that Southern party leaders had to write him an open letter asking him to stop trashing a demographic of the Democratic party that already faces overwhelming discrimination and marginalization within their own states. Bernie did neither.

This is untrue, and a cheap piece of political chicanery at that.

 

[B-Dubs]

He did speak out against this.

His statement condemning the shit in Nevada spent more time complaining about the process, where nothing was done wrong, than actually condemning the threats and actions of his supporters. There's a reason you only posted that sentence and not the rest of the statement.