I'm a Sanders supporter. But his whole line about having to have only pledge delegates to secure the nomination is nonsense. I understand it, because it's a race and he's trying to win. It's what people in competitions do. I don't blame him for it, because it's par for the course. Most any politician would do the same thing. But for Sanders he's putting his message in danger. The more crazy, wild, and out there he gets, the worse it is. What was great that Sanders was doing was showing that his message isn't as crazy as everyone said it was. There was actually some sense he was making. But by going too far away from reality with his contested convention ideas that would somehow have him as the nominee will make him seem crazy and damage the positive spin on his message. If he gets dismissed as just a crazy guy, then the valid points of his message are lost.
That is what I see from both Sander and many of his supporters, they are out of touch with reality, that's why I am supporting Hillary. Oh I wonder how many voted for Trump to get rid of Cruz in Indiana like me, I know several at least.
The Democratic nominee has been established and known for over a month. Clinton didn't even spend a dime in Indiana. At this point her concern is Donald Trump. If Sanders wants to keep running, and deal with the snickers, that is his right.
Contented moderate types and the folks they hang out with are prone to snickering about changing our national politics; the lower 50% and those who have contact with them not so much.
There is a big difference between content and voting for things that will not happen. Practicality/reality means nothing to Sander supporters. Hillary is the best we have got at the moment, there is no JFK or Bill or Obama.
Well, Hillary is pretty much the same corporate Dem type as Bill or Obama which is why we have arrived at this state. If you listen to old JFK speeches he will sound much more like Sanders than the corporate Dems as issued in by old Bill the head of the conservative movement, the Democratic Leadership Council, which took over the Dem Party.
The are reasons why things can't happen. One is that people don't want them to happen. For the things that Bernie is talking about, that isn't really the case. The second reason is because people think there is no way it can happen. If people stopped with that attitude and dared to vote for what they want to happen, it can. People thought Bernie couldn't even come close to being the nominee. Yet, he got people and voters who weren't cynical or holding on the belief that we can only have what we've had recently to vote for him. Always better to vote for the best possible choice regardless of whether or not it seems realistic to you or anyone else.
I've been critical of Sanders and Sanders supporters but I have no problem with them voting for him if they like his issues. What I have been critical though is about how much he can actually get done on those issues and the vagueness of how they would actually get passed. As the campaign starts to wind down a lot of what is driving the Sanders campaign is still at play. It is the belief that somehow a revolution is going to happen that will suddenly turn the tables, in this case winning the nomination, when there never has been a clear understanding of how that would be accomplished. The questions of how Sanders is going to win over Super Delegates is really the same as how he was going to get his agenda passed through congress when in both cases he is facing people who are very skeptical about him to begin with.
Keep throwing stuff on the wall to see if it sticks, glynch. Hillary Clinton won 9 of the last 12 primaries in her much tougher battle with Barack Obama and I don't recall her threatening to contest the convention. Instead, she strongly supported him. Senator Sanders? As FB pointed out, he is endangering his message and the impact of his message on the Democratic Party by threatening to contest the convention. You might consider pondering that thought.
I think it is wrong and silly for Sanders to think that he would win over super delegates in any way other than winning the most non-super delegates, and possibly also the popular vote. I disagree with his idea of trying to make a contested convention. I understand that it isn't totally clear how he'll get things passed that he's speaking about now. But at the same time it's not clear how Hillary will get her ideas passed either. Just that for some reason, nobody is questioning her about it. Many of her ideas are ideas that the Republican congress has already rejected. Yet she's bringing them up again, and somehow this time it's supposed to pass? She doesn't face the same scrutiny as Sanders on getting her ideas passed. We could discuss the decades long animosity towards Hillary from Republicans as an added barrier to getting her ideas passed. Some of her ideas are easier than others, but like I said, a number of them have already been brought forward before.
By not stepping down after NY he didn't really leave himself an off-ramp until June 7. The Canadian's early surrender puts the Democrats behind.
Q: Where can we find out how Bernie plans to pay for all of his proposals? A: At the verybottom of his website, past all of his crap "issues". Q: What do we see? A: His first plan is too rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. Q: What exactly is "our crumbling infrastructure"? A: An overpass bridge that fell on to I-75 - due to shoddy demo work. LMAO! You can't make this up. You literally can't make this stuff up. His definition of "our crumbling infrastructure" is a shoddy demo job. The half of the bridge that they weren't currently working on collapsed - due to their demo method which the company has since apologized for. Once again: LMAO. What a joke of a candidate.
Hillary overstayed her welcome in 2008 and remained negative far too long. She was rightly chastised for it. When she quit she was 69 pledged delegates behind, and never trailed by more than 120. Her campaign claimed she won the popular vote, although it seems more reasonable to say they were tied. Sanders has no such claims.
I wonder if you are a proof reader, bookkeeper or simple coder with your focus on tiny details. I and many other people see that overall Bernie started down about 60 points and with no name recognition running against a woman with 100% national name recognition. Here it is in May and he is still winning states and he is favored in a majority of the states still to come.. This may not be precise enough for your proclivities, but many would argue that despite a blip or two like New York, where she won big the overall trend is for Bernie to be gaining, despite your focus on only the last month.
Yea, I am not really sure what he is trying to prove here. Is he denying we don't have infrastructure issues?
