Support NeoGAF

[Suikoguy]

You're right, she only personally attacked future President Obama to such a degree that people like Donald Trump spent years trying to prove that he was actually not an American citizen. But that's okay right, because like everything else the Clintons have ever done for decades, she gets a free pass!

Citation Fucking Needed

Geeze

Yes. All the things I listed were me "whining." An unsurprising characterization if you think Sanders 2016 is even close to Obama 2008.

So you are saying Sanders was a poor candidate and did little to appeal beyond white people that he thought was the most important electorate when he started this primary?

I'm glad we are in agreement.

 

[sphagnum]

I think Sanders' implosion is a good example for the left wing for why we have to make sure our movement is one based from the bottom up, something with broad-based support. Too many of us put our hopes on Bernie and his collapse is going to do harm to the social-democratic movement because it was all so focused around his candidacy rather than focused on trying to build around smaller but widespread victories.

We need more Kshama Sawants, basically, and less grand attempts at taking the highest office, or at least a candidate who can recognize his/her flaws

 

[Fat4all]

Literally a 5 second Google search.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-2008-campaign-095035

What does any of that have to do with Trumps birther nonsense? Even when it comes to "he can't lead the right way" talk it's not a personal insult against Obama.

Got anything really?

 

[Supast4r]

Really? The DNC haven't given Bernie plenty of reason to hate them? Bernie backed Hillary up live on T.V with her email drama and the DNC threw it back in his face.

Almost like he isn't a democrat and is just an independent running as one...

 

[TheSaddestSort]

Sanders may be quick to label anyone a "DC Insider" or "Establishment Candidate" because they don't agree with his policies or criticize him, however some of his criticisms do have teeth.

Sure they do. Thing is, I've grown increasingly skeptical of Bernie's self serving morality after such highlights (lowlights?) as throwing both planned parenthood and AIDs activists under the bus. Increasingly he comes across as another politician eager to say anything that will allow him to get a sniff of greater power.

 

[Supast4r]

This is irrelevant except from a pedantic standpoint. Mathematically eliminated is mathematically eliminated.



You're right, she only personally attacked future President Obama to such a degree that people like Donald Trump spent years trying to prove that he was actually not an American citizen. But that's okay right, because like everything else the Clintons have ever done for decades, she gets a free pass!

So Benghazi and the whole email scandal on top of the decades of crap the republicans have given her are a free pass?

 

[ANDS]

So you are saying Sanders was a poor candidate and did little to appeal beyond white people that he thought was the most important electorate when he started this primary?

I'm glad we are in agreement.

Sure. And by sure I mean "If you're going to be obtuse why even bother. . ."

I think Sanders' implosion is a good example for the left wing for why we have to make sure our movement is one based from the bottom up, something with broad-based support. Too many of us put our hopes on Bernie and his collapse is going to do harm to the social-democratic movement because it was all so focused around his candidacy rather than focused on trying to build around smaller but widespread victories.

We need more Kshama Sawants, basically, and less grand attempts at taking the highest office, or at least a candidate who can recognize his/her flaws

How did he implode? He has lost at the final damn hour. A more experienced campaign certainly could have made a difference, but the guy went toe-to-toe with an insane campaign machine and didn't wilt at the pressure. That isn't even close to implosion. That is losing after a long hard fight; the only way any of this is a waste, is if in four and eight years everyone goes back to sleep and accepts a Presidential Primary Reset. For many people that is a lot of what this fight was about. It is far easier to get those social changes you are after if you have a system in place that can nominate people who will actually fight for them.

Almost like he isn't a democrat and is just an independent running as one...

You act like the guys voting record isn't damn near in sync with Democrats.

 

[And_Gignac]

I think Sanders' implosion is a good example for the left wing for why we have to make sure our movement is one based from the bottom up, something with broad-based support. Too many of us put our hopes on Bernie and his collapse is going to do harm to the social-democratic movement because it was all so focused around his candidacy rather than focused on trying to build around smaller but widespread victories.

We need more Kshama Sawants, basically, and less grand attempts at taking the highest office, or at least a candidate who can recognize his/her flaws

Do you think he has imploded? I mean, does his failed presidential will make his ideals less appealing to the electorate?

I believe he has ideologically charged a whole generation that will, with the right leadership, pick up the pieces of the failed Bernie campaign.

 

[danm999]

Im not debating she won. But only the blind can claim it a fair victory.

She won the majority of states. She won the majority of territories. She won the majority of pledged delegates. She won the popular vote.

She wins if you eliminate superdelegates. She wins if you force all super delegates to vote with their state. She wins if you turn all states into primaries. She wins if you turn all states into WTA. She wins if she loses California, the largest state, by 20 points.

She wins by every relevant metric or rule change I can think of, and handily, but it wasn't fair? I must be blind then.

Or maybe someone else is.

 

[jack_package_200]

Do you think he has imploded? I mean, does his failed presidential will make his ideals less appealing to the electorate?

I believe he has ideologically charged a whole generation that will, with the right leadership, pick up the pieces of the failed Bernie campaign.

Absolutely

It has not been about the issues. Its been about conspiracy theorys and purity tests. Its about not condemning bad behavior of supporters as long as they chant his name. Its about how "if they are not with me 100% then they are my enemy"

 

[hobblygobbly]

What does any of that have to do with Trumps birther nonsense? Even when it comes to "he can't lead the right way" talk it's not a personal insult against Obama.

Got anything really?

I'm not the OP but I searched this quickly, not sure if it's the things in this article they're referring to (it's a blog article on huffpo):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/can-black-people-trust-hillary_b_9312004.html

I didn't follow the 2008 campaign that closely (I'm not American) but I do remember the part where McCain dismissed that Obama is a Muslim and my local news were talking about how Clinton used it to her advantage in her campaign as opposed to the Republican front-runner and its contrast. I guess some people see this as proliferating it.

 

[Maledict]

He didn't lose at the final hour, he lost literally months ago. I'm not sure if you are aware exactly how far behind he was - this has not been in any respect a close race. Clinton has been ahead by millions of votes since the first Super Tuesday, and that's never once shifted.

What worrie me is the talk about the convention and his plans. He really comes across as being incredibly bitter and actually a very unpleasant, spiteful person. It's telling that there was nothing like this in the media when Cliton was beaten in 2008 - even then she wasn't so insane as to contemplate deliberately fucking up the party and any chance of a better government due to her own ego.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Do you think he has imploded? I mean, does his failed presidential will make his ideals less appealing to the electorate?

I believe he has ideologically charged a whole generation that will, with the right leadership, pick up the pieces of the failed Bernie campaign.

He's spent more time blathering about super delegates than his issues for the last month. This is an implosion right before our eyes.

 

[Eric the Red]

For months he's been viciously attacking my political party. A party he only joined a year ago and only joined it because it was advantageous to Bernie.

Thats why there is so much vitriol. Fuck him.

I hear this but I don't see it. If anything he seems to talk shit the least of anyone else that ran. Even now towards the end in California all his ads I see only talk about his agenda. Seems to me the party's just mad he didn't bow his head and go away when they said so and not so much any actual viciousness.

 

[pigeon]

How did he implode? He has lost at the final damn hour.

I mean, he lost the very first day. He's been behind by a prohibitive amount since the first Super Tuesday, and he's never come anywhere close to catching up.

Not dropping out doesn't mean you don't lose. It just means you don't admit it. The treatment from media and politicians has gotten worse and more critical because Bernie's refusal to drop out has become more and more out of keeping with normal political behavior such as recognizing when you've lost.

 

[Davide]

What worrie me is the talk about the convention and his plans. He really comes across as being incredibly bitter and actually a very unpleasant, spiteful person. It's telling that there was nothing like this in the media when Cliton was beaten in 2008 - even then she wasn't so insane as to contemplate deliberately fucking up the party and any chance of a better government due to her own ego.

Hillary Clinton knew she was going to run for the next election anyway.

Bernie Sanders has to know he can't win the nomination now unless if there happens to be an indictment, and he wants to take his issues to the convention to shape the democratic party going forward.

I hear this but I don't see it. If anything he seems to talk shit the least of anyone else that ran. Even now towards the end in California all his ads I see only talk about his agenda. Seems to me the party's just mad he didn't bow his head and go away when they said so and not so much any actual viciousness.

This

In the last month I have only ever seen the vitriol directed towards Bernie.

 

[Alrus]

How did he implode? He has lost at the final damn hour. A more experienced campaign certainly could have made a difference, but the guy went toe-to-toe with an insane campaign machine and didn't wilt at the pressure. That isn't even close to implosion. That is losing after a long hard fight; the only way any of this is a waste, is if in four and eight years everyone goes back to sleep and accepts a Presidential Primary Reset. For many people that is a lot of what this fight was about. It is far easier to get those social changes you are after if you have a system in place that can nominate people who will actually fight for them.

March 15 isn't the "final hours" to be honest.

 

[Maledict]

I hear this but I don't see it. If anything he seems to talk shit the least of anyone else that ran. Even now towards the end in California all his ads I see only talk about his agenda. Seems to me the party's just mad he didn't bow his head and go away when they said so and not so much any actual viciousness.

Have you actually read the article, read his press statements or read his demands for the convention? The guy is demanding the head of Barnie Frank, a liberal icon, because he upset him? The guy who justified violence in Nevada over two delegates? The guy who, after being given unprecedented input into the party platform, then nominated Cornell fucking West as a spokesperson?

 

[Riposte]

Unfortunate that Sanders imploded like that. Chomsky said it best when he advised Sanders to turn his run into a movement that would last beyond the election. His recent actions lack foresight.

 

[sphagnum]

How did he not implode? Had he continued to run a clean campaign like he started off with, just promoting his ideals rather than flipping out at Planned Parenthood and AIDS activists, trying to get Frank thrown off his post at the convention, constantly tearing into Hillary when he didn't really need to because he had no mathematical chance at winning, etc. then he would have emerged from this process as someone with stature in the party or at least in the Senate. Now he's burned every bridge with basically everyone - in the party, in his own campaign, among many former supporters - and he's going to go back to the Senate and nobody will want to work with him. I mean, I get the appeal of sticking to your ideological guns until the end, but socialism isn't about lone wolfism it's about mass support and people power, and currently the closest thing in the US to a party that could achieve that is the Democratic Party.

He did a lot of good destigmatizing the word socialist, and that's why I've continued to support him this entire time, but it's become more and more frustrating. I'm still not happy with Hillary and I never will be, and I'll probably vote third party in the fall because I'm in a safe blue state anyway so I don't have to worry about Trump winning here, but Bernie should have learned at some point that if you're going to try to build leftism within a bourgeois democratic framework then have to be willing to work alongside these bourgeois democrats. Instead now we're just going to be the laughing stock, the Paulites, while the neoliberals continue to hold power without challenge, and we're going to have to go back to the drawing board. I just don't want "democratic socialism" to end up meaning "what that crazy Bernie Sanders supported" instead of being a viable alternative bloc within the party.

 

[pigeon]

I hear this but I don't see it. If anything he seems to talk shit the least of anyone else that ran. Even now towards the end in California all his ads I see only talk about his agenda. Seems to me the party's just mad he didn't bow his head and go away when they said so and not so much any actual viciousness.

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.

 

[Maledict]

Hillary Clinton knew she was going to run for the next election anyway.

Bernie Sanders has to know he can't win the nomination now unless if there happens to be an indictment, and he wants to take his issues to the convention to shape the democratic party going forward.



This

In the last month I have only ever seen the vitriol directed towards Bernie.

His issues appear to be:

1) fuck Barnie Frank
2) fuck Debbie
3) fuck Malley
4) rearrange the states so he would win next time even though he wouldn't be uses he doesn't understand basic maths. His constant statements of 'we win when turnout is up' and 'we win when independents vote', both of which are simply and flatly untrue.

And how you can say you've only seen vitriol directed at Bernie given what his campaign has said and done is beyond me. I mean, we've had numerous threads here every time it goes off the rails, which has been more and more common?

 

[Davide]

His issues appear to be:

Yeah, no.

(As far as main issues are concerned)

 

[Suikoguy]

Sure. And by sure I mean "If you're going to be obtuse why even bother. . ."

Hey, i'm not the one whining that Sanders was not given a fair chance. He was. Let's go point by point:

He was a long shot not because he didn't have a chance, but because from day one there was only one presumptive nominee. In a fair fight things could have been quite different. When you start primary season HUNDREDS of delegates in the hole, with little early opportunity to get your message to the actual voters and not party insiders it's hard to not end up bitter.

Hillary Clinton finished a very close second to Obama in 08, it stands to reason that she would have a headstart with the party. She got no head start with votes. Nothing was done to hinder Sanders. (This is where you need to provide proof btw) Also, which is it, do the Supers count at the start, or at the end, or at the convention or when do they count in the Sanders camp? You seem to like to count them selectively when it's convenient for you.

Sanders definitely made a lot of mistakes (he'll regret that email comment for a long time), but you compound it with the Democratic party doing Clinton's dirty work for her (John Lewis essentially claiming on national television that Sanders had no interest in fighting for minority rights is easily one of the most shitty things I've seen in a campaign) and the media consistently framing Clinton's campaign as "inevitable" and Sanders as a "spoiler" - what did people expect.

Sanders made his own bed with African Americans, his plan from the beginning was to appeal to White Working Class voters the largest electorate, in his own words. He went to arguably the whitest state he could to be mayor and Senator. It's no surprise people were skeptical, and he did little to persuade them other than his standard stump speech. Then he even had the gall to use surrogate Cornel "Obama is a niggerized president" West, and wonder why he can't appeal to them.

At the end of the day Sanders took the fight to Clinton and actually gave people hope that they might actually have a voice in the political process. He finishes double digits ahead of Donald Trump in a general election matchup (a matchup I think he's only lost once in polling) while Hillary Clinton has seen the entirety of her lead against Trump evaporate.

Because Clinton would not attack him from the right out of fear of pissing off his supporters, Republicans want to face him in the election and would not attack him, the Media wanted a close race so they were soft on him.

The most damning evidence is why Republicans never attacked him to any degree worth mentioning, ever stop to think why that might be?


So yes, my original argument is sound.
Sanders is a poor candidate, who did little to appeal to anyone but white people. His loss had nothing to do with mistreatment from the DNC.

 

[thepotatoman]

This was as close to a concession speech as he could get without actually conceding. The real thing is coming next week, but that doesn't mean he is going to or even should abandon the idea of championing his ideas.

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?

 

[ANDS]

I mean, he lost the very first day. He's been behind by a prohibitive amount since the first Super Tuesday, and he's never come anywhere close to catching up.

With that logic Donald Trump lost the first day day. Sanders wasn't blown out early in the contest, and even when he was behind by about 300 around March he still wasn't out of the race.

Not dropping out doesn't mean you don't lose. It just means you don't admit it. The treatment from media and politicians has gotten worse and more critical because Bernie's refusal to drop out has become more and more out of keeping with normal political behavior such as recognizing when you've lost.

Dropping out means that Sanders essentially says "Your process is fine" to the DNC. It wasn't. He also doesn't completely throw away the millions of people who actually voted for him.

 

[Suikoguy]

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?

I don't blame him for not wanting to concede in front of a brainwashed crowd.
But, letting the audience boo the first ever Women Nominee of a major party and doing nothing, then say he plans to continue on to the convention? It just was not needed.

It's one thing to say say I'll continue on to the vote in DC, then drop later in the week. But the other stuff is a lie, and disgrace to the party he is supposedly a part of.

With that logic Donald Trump lost the first day day. Sanders wasn't blown out early in the contest, and even when he was behind by about 300 around March he still wasn't out of the race.

You can't compare the Republican primary to the Dem primary, the Dem primary is 100% proportional, and the GOP side is mixed winner take all and and proportional.

 

[Alrus]

Dropping out means that Sanders essentially says "Your process is fine" to the DNC. It wasn't. He also doesn't completely throw away the millions of people who actually voted for him.

What wasn't fine about the process?

 

[jack_package_200]

What wasn't fine about the process?

Bern didnt win

It only counts as democracy if my guy wins DUH

 

[pigeon]

With that logic Donald Trump lost the first day day. Sanders wasn't blown out early in the contest, and even when he was behind by about 300 around March he still wasn't out of the race.

What are you talking about? Sanders was blown out early in the contest. He lost every single state except Vermont on March 1st, the very first Super Tuesday primary, and he's had zero chance of winning since then. Again, he wasn't "out of the race," but that's only because he refused to quit, not because he had any genuine reason to expect he'd win.

Donald Trump won almost every primary, so your comparison makes no sense at all.

Dropping out means that Sanders essentially says "Your process is fine" to the DNC. It wasn't. He also doesn't completely throw away the millions of people who actually voted for him.

Bearing in mind that Sanders knew about the process before he chose to run and voluntarily chose to do so anyway for the benefits of running as a Democrat, what were the substantive process objections?

I have no idea what your second point even means.

 

[thepotatoman]

Dropping out means that Sanders essentially says "Your process is fine" to the DNC. It wasn't. He also doesn't completely throw away the millions of people who actually voted for him.

Staying in says "Your process is fine" way more than dropping out at this point. Literally the only reason he isn't mathematically eliminated is because he could theoretically get the super delegates to overturn the will of the people that voted.

 

[And_Gignac]

He went negative towards Hillary because he actually had a chance after Michigan. There was a path there (not counting superdelegates). Not like Clinton didnt also attacked him plenty of times, like when she blamed him / Vermont for murders in New York.

But...

He did a lot of good destigmatizing the word socialist, and that's why I've continued to support him this entire time, but it's become more and more frustrating. I'm still not happy with Hillary and I never will be, and I'll probably vote third party in the fall because I'm in a safe blue state anyway so I don't have to worry about Trump winning here, but Bernie should have learned at some point that if you're going to try to build leftism within a bourgeois democratic framework then have to be willing to work alongside these bourgeois democrats. Instead now we're just going to be the laughing stock, the Paulites, while the neoliberals continue to hold power without challenge, and we're going to have to go back to the drawing board. I just don't want "democratic socialism" to end up meaning "what that crazy Bernie Sanders supported" instead of being a viable alternative bloc within the party.

This is also very true. What have you done Bernardo.

I can´t keep up with this...

 

[Davide]

Sanders was blown out early in the contest. He lost every single state except Vermont on March 1st, the very first Super Tuesday primary, and he's had zero chance of winning since then. Again, he wasn't "out of the race," but that's only because he refused to quit, not because he had any genuine reason to expect he'd win.

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.

 

[ANDS]

Hey, i'm not the one whining that Sanders was not given a fair chance. He was. Let's go point by point:

I reject your petty characterization of my post as whining.

Hillary Clinton finished a very close second to Obama in 08, it stands to reason that she would have a headstart with the party.

She had more than a headstart. She all but had the entirety of the superdelegates wrapped up before a single vote had been cast.

She got no head start with votes. Nothing was done to hinder Sanders. (This is where you need to provide proof btw)

People vote for inevitability. Very few news sites made much of a distinction (or case to highlight it) between pledged and unpledged delegates. Are you honestly suggesting someone who sees Clinton 600 vs Sanders 70 (or whatever) isn't going influence the electorate?

Also, which is it, do the Supers count at the start, or at the end, or at the convention or when do they count in the Sanders camp? You seem to like to count them selectively when it's convenient for you.

This is the first time I've mentioned the superdelegates to the best of my knowledge, some I'm not sure where this indictment on my "history" is coming from.

Sanders made his own bed with African Americans, his plan from the beginning was to appeal to White Working Class voters the largest electorate, in his own words. He went to arguably the whitest state he could to be mayor and Senator. It's no surprise people were skeptical, and he did little to persuade them other than his standard stump speech. Then he even had the gall to use surrogate Cornel "Obama is a niggerized president" West, and wonder why he can't appeal to them.

Your comment addresses NOTHING I actually brought up.

Because Clinton would not attack him from the right out of fear of pissing off his supporters, Republicans want to face him in the election and would not attack him, the Media wanted a close race so they were soft on him.

Complete and utter nonsense. Clinton never attacked the guy? What campaign were you watching. And Republicans wanted Bernie? Right. Nevermind this ignores how poorly Clinton was doing against many of the other Republican candidates during the middle of the primary.

The most damning evidence is why Republicans never attacked him to any degree worth mentioning, ever stop to think why that might be?

Because they knew he wouldn't be the nominee and hammering Clinton is a better conservative dog whistle than Sanders.

So yes, my original argument is sound.

No. It really isn't.

Sanders is a poor candidate, who did little to appeal to anyone but white people. His loss had nothing to do with mistreatment from the DNC.

So he was or he wasn't mistreated by the DNC?

 

[sphagnum]

This is also very true. What have you done Bernardo.

I can´t keep up with this...

The good news is, much like pretty much everything else in leftist history, we can look back at the campaign and see what went wrong and learn from it for next time. Hopefully that's the lesson that the youth who have been berned out take from this rather than getting spiteful and despondent and giving up.

Demographics favor a swing to the left. We can still push things further. We just need to not be dicks about it.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

You're right, she only personally attacked future President Obama to such a degree that people like Donald Trump spent years trying to prove that he was actually not an American citizen. But that's okay right, because like everything else the Clintons have ever done for decades, she gets a free pass!

Jesus, dude, calm down.

 

[Piecake]

She had more than a headstart. She all but had the entirety of the superdelegates wrapped up before a single vote had been cast.

That is simply wrong. The Superdelegates vote for the candidate who has the most pledged delegates. If that was Bernie then he would have had the Superdelegates on his side.

People vote for inevitability. Very few news sites made much of a distinction (or case to highlight it) between pledged and unpledged delegates. Are you honestly suggesting someone who sees Clinton 600 vs Sanders 70 (or whatever) isn't going influence the electorate?

No they don't. No one in their right mind says, I really like Bernie more than Clinton, but Clinton is going to win so I will vote for her. It makes no sense. And you have a misunderstanding of super and pledged delegate

Complete and utter nonsense. Clinton never attacked the guy? What campaign were you watching. And Republicans wanted Bernie? Right. Nevermind this ignores how poorly Clinton was doing against many of the other Republican candidates during the middle of the primary.

Clinton certainly attacked Bernie far less than Bernie attacked Clinton. And a republican insider admitted that they did not go after Sanders at all because they liked their chances far better with him than Clinton.

 

[Suikoguy]

I'm going to delete the parts you never bothered to actual address or backup.

She had more than a headstart. She all but had the entirety of the superdelegates wrapped up before a single vote had been cast.
People vote for inevitability. Very few news sites made much of a distinction (or case to highlight it) between pledged and unpledged delegates. Are you honestly suggesting someone who sees Clinton 600 vs Sanders 70 (or whatever) isn't going influence the electorate?

Care to provide some examples, the vast majority of sources i've seen ignored the supers early on, or only gave them a passing mention.

This is the first time I've mentioned the superdelegates to the best of my knowledge, some I'm not sure where this indictment on my "history" is coming from.

Odd, you might look at your previous sentence about SUPERDELEGATES. As they seem to the crutch of your argument.

Your comment addresses NOTHING I actually brought up.

You are not following. Obama beat a very similarly positioned Hillary back in 2008. Why could he do it? You have yet to answer that so I answered it for you.

Complete and utter nonsense. Clinton never attacked the guy? What campaign were you watching. And Republicans wanted Bernie? Right. Nevermind this ignores how poorly Clinton was doing against many of the other Republican candidates during the middle of the primary.

Going to need to provide some evidence of these attacks. Policy attacks don't count as that's what the contest is about.
The GOP would love to go against Bernie. Have you seen the list of shit that never made it to mass media that Republicans can dip into?

Because they knew he wouldn't be the nominee and hammering Clinton is a better conservative dog whistle than Sanders.

When did you agree that he would not be the nominee, before after he went personal and said she was unqualified?

So he was or he wasn't mistreated by the DNC?

My final statement was pretty clear, i'll repeat it for you.
Sanders is a poor candidate, who did little to appeal to anyone but white people. His loss had nothing to do with mistreatment from the DNC.

I'm going to bed, one last thing there was one unfair attack that was misleading and that was over gun trafficking from Vermont. I can't think of any other personal attacks Hillary made about Sanders. Feel free to leave them and i'll own up to them tomorrow.

 

[_Ryo_]

Wow. Bernie sounds like a fucking asshole. Thats a lot of If you're not one hundred percent with me, you're one hundred percent against me bullllshit.

 

[Eric the Red]

I mean, he lost the very first day. He's been behind by a prohibitive amount since the first Super Tuesday, and he's never come anywhere close to catching up.

Not dropping out doesn't mean you don't lose. It just means you don't admit it. The treatment from media and politicians has gotten worse and more critical because Bernie's refusal to drop out has become more and more out of keeping with normal political behavior such as recognizing when you've lost.

How is a difference of 160 delegates prohibitive? Isn't it more accurate to call it an uphill battle not prohibitive?

 

[Maledict]

Yeah, no.

(As far as main issues are concerned)

So you haven't read the article then? I mean, we *know* that his written demands to the DNC for the convention were to get rid of Frank and Malley on the committee.

The notion that Barnie fucking Frank shouldn't sit on the DNC platform committee is disgusting by the way. It's the most naked tea party attack I've seen the left engage in. He's been a champion of left wing issues and LGBT rights for decades, has accomplished far more than Sanders ever did, and now he should be thrown under the bus because he upset Sanders 25 years ago? It's frankly appalling.

 

[GaimeGuy]

policy wise, I match extremely well with both Hilary and Bernie. On Isidewith, I was at like 98% for Bernie, and 96% with Clinton. I caucused for Bernie in MN, but seeing Bernie's behavior in the last few months has really disappointed me. The way he has conducted himself has been completely unpresidential. His heart is in the right place, but man, he's so bitter and spiteful.

 

[Maledict]

How is a difference of 160 delegates prohibitive? Isn't it more accurate to call it an uphill battle not prohibitive?

No, because of the way the democratic process works. It's basically impossible to come back from that sort of lead. Bearing in mind that at *no* point in 2008 did Obama have a lead of 160 over Hillary, and yet he was a mathematical lock to win after the first super Tuesday. The democratic process makes come backs on that scale impossible without a candidate being arrested or dying.

That's the curse of a proper, democratic, proportional system. The lead Clinton established on the first Super Tuesday guaranteed the win.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

I reject your petty characterization of my post as whining.



She had more than a headstart. She all but had the entirety of the superdelegates wrapped up before a single vote had been cast.



People vote for inevitability. Very few news sites made much of a distinction (or case to highlight it) between pledged and unpledged delegates. Are you honestly suggesting someone who sees Clinton 600 vs Sanders 70 (or whatever) isn't going influence the electorate?



This is the first time I've mentioned the superdelegates to the best of my knowledge, some I'm not sure where this indictment on my "history" is coming from.



Your comment addresses NOTHING I actually brought up.



Complete and utter nonsense. Clinton never attacked the guy? What campaign were you watching. And Republicans wanted Bernie? Right. Nevermind this ignores how poorly Clinton was doing against many of the other Republican candidates during the middle of the primary.



Because they knew he wouldn't be the nominee and hammering Clinton is a better conservative dog whistle than Sanders.




No. It really isn't.



So he was or he wasn't mistreated by the DNC?

Sure worked out for Jeb. Or does he not count because he's not the Great and Mighty Sanders who will deliver us from evil?

 

[ANDS]

Sure worked out for Jeb. Or does he not count because he's not the Great and Mighty Sanders who will deliver us from evil?

I mean this should be obvious, but Republicans don't have the same system as Democrats.

 

[Phased]

Every time Sanders got into a knife fight, aides say, they ended up losing

Yeah he did. In the last month or two he's been throwing passive aggressive insults at the DNC and Clinton, and every time they throw a softball response his way he's ended up fumbling it bad.

The Castro thing in the Florida debate/town hall (I forget which it was)? His recent Univision fumble? He appears completely unable to think on his feet if confronted.

This says to me that he'd likely get eviscerated in a real campaign. If he made it to the General I don't think he's equipped to handle Trump like Clinton is.

 

[Cipherr]

How is a difference of 160 delegates prohibitive? Isn't it more accurate to call it an uphill battle not prohibitive?

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.

 

[Dan]

Wow. Bernie sounds like a fucking asshole. Thats a lot of If you're not one hundred percent with me, you're one hundred percent against me bullllshit.

It's what Barney Frank and some Vermont reporters tried to warn people about. He's been that way forever.

 

[Toxi]

I mean this should be obvious, but Republicans don't have the same system as Democrats.

Well yes, if the Democrats' system were like the Republicans', Sanders would be officially out of the race already with no excuse of waiting for super delegates and we could actually focus on important shit.

 

[Palette Swap]

He went negative towards Hillary because he actually had a chance after Michigan. There was a path there (not counting superdelegates). Not like Clinton didnt also attacked him plenty of times, like when she blamed him / Vermont for murders in New York.

Honestly, to me, the issue isn't so much him attacking Hillary (let's call it karma for 2008) as it is the attacks on liberal allies, from planned parenthood to AIDS activists, including the DNC. These were nasty and really fed into the "angry young white men" narrative.

No one should wish for that particular aspect of his campaign to be perpetuated.