I love how Hilary and her team are so focused on how not to blow it while Bernie can focus on the resonating issues. Hilary trying not to lose while Bernie trying to win!!!
Kinda shows how skewed the view of the results of the primary season can be for Sanders supporters when Secretary Clinton leads Senator Sanders nationally in the vote total by nearly 2.4 million, 9.4 million to just over 7 million, yet somehow Sanders is being "screwed" by the process. A process that applies for everyone running in the Democratic Primaries. A process known by all the candidates before they decided to run for the nomination. Yeah, it's all so "confusing." Fivethirtyeight.com
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/09/47339...erdelegate-hit-list-superdelegates-not-amused Sanders Supporter Creates Superdelegate 'Hit List'; Superdelegates Not Amused
You know how you get the support of superdelegates? Supporting them, campaigning for them, raising money for them. Helping build up their party (the party you want to lead). Obama did that prior to his '08 run, which is why many superdelegates felt safe switching. They trusted him because he had put in the work. The idea that these superdelegates would switch to a person that not only was behind in pledged delegates, but had also just become a member of their party a few months ago, is nuts. Jeff Weaver is a nut.
I'm not really a fan of how the parties conduct the primaries but the rules are the rules. Sanders and his supporters both like to trumpet their outsider status while also bellyaching about how the establishment and the rules don't favor them. Those things tend to go hand in hand. Also even though Sanders has shown some good momentum as noted above Clinton does still lead in total votes, pledged delegates and super delegates. If we are talking about the will of the people (at least the will of Democrats) she does still hold the majority and there to super delegates to suddenly support Sanders or to change the rules, would at this moment go against that will. If Sanders does finish the primaries with more votes and pledged delegates I would agree that he should be the nominee even if CLinton holds the edge in super delegates. We're not there yet and given the trends so far he won't be there at the end of the primaries.
Nope, it's how you lose. Point being even if she wins her message doesn't resonate because her message is "I'm tired of Bernie, blah, blah..." Bernie is in her mind, her mouth, her entire world. She's consumed by Bernie. She's feeling the BERN!!! Stark contrast to Obama who campaigned hard on changes (liar) and issues all the way to victory. If the she devil wins, it will have won based on name, incumbency and massive big money donations. All of which built her a MASSIVE EARLY insurmountable lead that she was unable to turn into a crushing victory. Instead she is barely hanging on and only because time is on her side will she likely uphold. With all of those advantages (few earned), there is still a small chance she blows it. She took a sure fire blowout victory and gave the opponent a fighting chance. This is Tyson vs Douglas, Russia vs USA hockey, etc... Let's hope Douglas/USA can knock her devil b**** ass out!!! Americans love underdogs, get on board!!!
Bernie is in her head? She has a huge delegate lead and is entering a stretch where there is a huge number of delegates in states she is very likely to win. Even last night, when she lost, she split the delegate vote. Of course she wants to wrap up the nomination as quick as possible so she can worry about the general election and raising money for the general election. If you told her a year ago that she would have a large margin in the total vote and would have a huge lead in the delegate count going into NY/PENN, she would take it 10/10 times.
If Bernie and Hilary were stocks, Bernie would be BUY and Hilary SELL. You guys can rationalize and make excuses for her all you want but the bottom line with all the advantages I've already stated, she has already lost her platform and may end up losing the nomination. If she wins it will be because Bernie ran out of time. Scoreboard right, well yea except she has no momentum or mandate because Bernie and her scandals ruined her. I'd expect a 1-term flame out.
Keep telling yourself that. Once this all shifts back to the Eastern states, Sanders will finally shut up a bit. Good-bye to the white "progressive" (translation: we don't even know what socialism means) states. Even if the two candidates merely split the delegates, she wins; but I think she's going to get him by larger margins in NY and Pennsylvania. EDIT: Don't know what sort of idealism you think Sanders is peddling. He couldn't even articulate in a recent interview how he would go about making these sweeping changes he proposes. In other words, "Plan? What plan?" But you guys are sure eating it up.
"Berniebros" Sam, finally returning to his Southern roots. FYI, among the under 35 and possibly under 40 or so crowd more woman Democrats prefer Bernie to Hillary.
Yea, it's not rigged at all that there are multi-state super Tuesdays that handily favor establishment politicians with greater name recognition and greater funding. There's no way that candidates that have corporate backing (and consequently greater funding) might be favored in those scenarios. There's no reason to believe that the DNC's scheduling of only 6 debates in 2016 vs 26 in 2008 played a role in diminishing the staying power of other candidates. There's no reason to believe that scheduling the 6 debates they did have in low-traffic time slots may have hurt the visibility of candidates not named Hillary Clinton. People seem to forget history and not understand that the democratic party reformed their primary process not just by adding superdelegates, but by making the schedule so that candidates with little funding or name recognition were unable to compete come Super Tuesday. The bias was even more pronounced this year since its obvious the chair of the DNC is in Hillary's pocket, much like many of the other superdelegates. There is no Anti-Bernie Sanders bias, there IS an anti-establishment bias. Anybody who doesn't see it is blind.
Actually, he articulated it very well, there was a New York Times editorial explaining the misconception that occurred during the interview. There have also been many other articles and online news sources that have discredited that interview. The source of the interview itself, was the New York Daily News, a newspaper that has consistently lost money over the last few years and is extremely sensationalist and hyperbolic in its headlines and articles. The owner of the Daily News is a billionaire that has donated to the Clinton foundation, and stands to lose a lot in the way of taxes if Bernie becomes president. There was a clear agenda in that interview if you took the time to reading the entire transcript prior to reading an analyses. People who aren't skeptical of this interview are the ones who are really "eating it up"
Well hopefully Clinton doesn't win by more than 12%, like Sanders did in Wyoming and they can split the pledged delegate count.
Just because it's the rules doesn't make it right. Folks votes don't matter, quit telling them that it does. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dGeyhgp2N8A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...called-for-still-more-mass-incarceration.html But third and biggest by far is Sanders’s continuing hypocrisy regarding the 1994 crime bill. Hypocrisy is a strong word. Is it fair? Well, he’s been going around for months criticizing both Clintons on the bill. But of course, as we know, he voted for it. And as we learned Sunday from Clinton surrogate John Podesta on ABC, Sandersboasted as recently as 2006*that he was tough on crime because he supported the ’94 bill. Say what you want to say about the bill. It was really bad in many respects. It did help contribute to mass incarceration, especially of young black men. These arguments weren’t secrets at the time. Many people made them. In the House, about one-third of Democrats*voted against the bill, most of them liberal or African American (or both) critics of the bill on exactly these grounds. So Congressman Sanders was sitting on the House floor, or in the Democratic cloakroom, being exposed to these arguments, and he still voted for it. He says it was because of the provisions that cracked down on violence against women. Fine; laudable, even. But if he gets credit for the good parts, don’t Bill and Hillary get that credit, too? The story gets worse for Sanders. Over the weekend, an excerpt of remarks Congressman Sanders had inserted into theCongressional Record*in 1995 started making the rounds. A debate was raging at the time about the crack-powder cocaine sentencing disparities (black people were more often arrested on crack charges, for which the sentencing guidelines were much harsher). The U.S. Sentencing Commission had recommended to Congress that it eliminate the disparity (PDF).*It meant that Congress should do so by lowering the guidelines for crack so that they’d be equal to those for powder. Most Democrats, of course, supported this change. Sanders? Well, he wanted to eliminate the disparity—but by raising the powder guidelines to those for crack! Here are the salient sentences, from the*Record*of Oct. 18, 1995, tweeted over the weekend*by James E. Carter IV, President Carter’s grandson: “This Congressman thinks that drugs are a scourge on America, and I strongly believe we must fight cocaine use in any form. We should be addressing the fairness issue by raising the punishment for powder cocaine, not lowering the sentence for crack offenses. I am deeply disturbed that this was not given as an option today.”
