Bernie Sanders 2016 Feel the Bern!

Does Glynch purposely screws up the quotes in his replies so that when someone else quotes him, the quote also gets messed up?

 

No, it's a function not a glynch.

 

I wasn't joking when I called them grifters.

We are still yet to find out how many Bernie Bro sacrificed lunch budgets were spent junketing to Rome to stalk the pope. And this joker wants to raise my taxes by $18,000. Get outta here.

 

Here's the data, good luck: ftp://ftp.fec.gov/

 

I guess the implication here is that because he calls himself a democratic socialist, he's not supposed to spend any money, and if he does he should spend it with little mom-and-pop shops, right.

Anyway, Obama and Romney supposedly spent $1B each in 2012, so I'm not terribly impressed by $166M. That sounds pretty frugal in today's political environment, though I recognize with the Kochs not participating this time, we probably won't hit the historic 2012 spending.

 

Obama spent $730 million. Romney spent $480 million. Where did you get the $1 billion figure?

http://www.fec.gov/press/summaries/2012/tables/presidential/Pres2_2012_24m.pdf

 

Is this some type of terrible attempt at deflection from your previous ignorant comments?

 

OMG They got to Rachel Maddow too!

 

"Libertarian"? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Wait a minute. In glynch's world, anybody one inch to the right of Fidel Castro is straight up fascist. So maybe I should wear the insult with pride.

 

Why do y'all still have hope? It's over. He should've dropped out after New York.

As much a I hate to say it, we need to unite behind Clinton. The opposing party just nominated a psychotic authoritarian figure.

 

I found my self laughing at my TV pretty hard tonight, I wasn't watching comedy central, I was watching CNN. Within a short time span I saw Cruz elbow his wife, and a side to side of Clinton. and Trump talking, this election is hilarious ****ed with TrumpVsClintonl. Such a shame Bernie didn't win the nominee.

 

Sanders won a victory last night in a state that Clinton all but conceded but still faces very long odds. Also as this piece below points out the continual, and frankly hypocritical arguments put forward by the Sanders campaign for their path to victory. What is notable about this is a campaign that has been complaining about how the rules are rigged against them and about disenfranchised voters see their path to victory as being dependent on the Super Delegates and also disenfranchising the majority of voters who have voted for Clinton so far.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...war-reality/68txAVboFpkpbLXarTH33O/story.html

Bernie Sanders declares war on reality

Instead of coming to grips with the overwhelming evidence that Democratic primary voters prefer Hillary Clinton be the party’s 2016 presidential nominee, Bernie Sanders continues to create his own political reality — devising new and creative excuses to explain why he’s losing to her and why he should be the party’s standard-bearer in November.

First there was the complaint that Southern, conservative states have their primaries early, which “distorts reality,” because these states won’t support a Democrat in November. This is certainly a compelling assertion from a candidate who has won such red-state stalwarts as Utah, Alaska, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, and Wyoming.

Next the Sanders camp argued that the primary system is unfair because places like New York have a closed primary that doesn’t allow independents to vote. By this logic, it is undemocratic not to allow voters not registered as Democrats to vote in a Democratic primary tasked with choosing the Democratic nominee for president. If independents could vote, claims Sanders, it would be a different race (even though Clinton has actually won more open primaries than Sanders).

For Sanders, it seems, the only fair and equitable manner for choosing a Democratic nominee is one that favors him.

This brings us to the Sanders campaign’s latest “the dog ate my homework” excuse. In what was a bizarre press conference Sunday at the National Press Club in Washington, Sanders took aim at a new target — superdelegates.



Sanders made three arguments, none of which are remotely consistent. First, he said that this summer’s Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia will be “contested” because Clinton will not have enough pledged delegates to win on the first ballot.

Clinton needs to get 2,383 out of 4,766 delegates to win the nomination. However, by Sanders’ argument, she should not count superdelegates toward that total (even though Sanders is still including the 715 superdelegates in that 4,766 number). I realize that math is tricky, but if you subtract 715 from 4,766 and divide it in half, Clinton would actually need 2,026 pledged delegates for a majority — a fairly achievable goal for her.

It should also be noted that under the rules of the Democratic nominating system (rules that were readily available on the Internet when Sanders announced his candidacy), a candidate can assemble a coalition of both pledged delegates and superdelegates to get the 2,383 delegates needed to win the nomination.

Second, Sanders thinks superdelegates are apportioned unfairly. He argued Sunday that they should follow the popular vote of the state they represent rather than exercising free will. It doesn’t seem fair to Sanders that, for example, even though he won 70 percent of the vote in the Washington state caucus, he doesn’t get all the superdelegates from that state.

Putting aside the fact that caucuses are not exactly a bastion of fair and democratic representation, the biggest problem with this argument is that even if they all voted the way that Sanders wants, Clinton would still have a 363-to-147 advantage in superdelegates. Overall that adds up to a more than 500-delegate lead, which makes sense, since Clinton has won the most states and the most votes.

Sanders’ third argument, however, is the real doozy, because to buy it you basically have to ignore everything else he has said about the unfairness of the primary system. According to Sanders, superdelegates shouldn’t actually be guided by the will of the people. They should be guided by who can win in November. Surprisingly enough, Sanders thinks that he would be that person.

Superdelegates should ask themselves, he said, “do they want the second strongest candidate running against Trump, or the strongest candidate?”

If your head is spinning, it’s with good reason.

The same candidate who has been railing against independent voters being disenfranchised, who has called the primary system undemocratic, and who has complained about superdelegates, in general, is now calling on those same superdelegates to vote against Clinton (that would apparently include delegates from the states Clinton has won), even though she will almost certainly have the most pledged delegates and the most votes. In head-to-head general election polls, Clinton trounces Trump, but since Sanders trounces him by a bit more, he argues that he should be the nominee.

In the realm of illogical, self-serving, hypocritical, intellectually dishonest political arguments, this is practically the gold standard. But with six weeks to go until the last primary, I have great confidence that the Sanders campaign will find some way to top it.

 

Of course they will. Glad the news media is finally starting to wake up to the reality that the Bernie 2016 campaign operation is a giant scam.

 

You don't seem to understand the concept of "run out the clock". Over the last month (9 primaries), as the clock has been running out, Clinton won more states, more pledged delegates, and more actual votes than Bernie. She's expanded her lead fairly dramatically over that period. That's not "running out the clock". That's "glynch has his head in the sand and has no idea what's actually happening in the race".

 

The only chance Bernie has is all on the DOJ