Bernie Sanders discussion....

[Zakharra]

The other thing to consider are the superdelegates.  The number presented by Oniya a few posts back posit only the undeclared candidates remaining, not the ones who have already pledged.  Hillary has a little over 450 supers right now, compared to about 30 for Bernie.  IMO, the Sanders camp strategy has always been to secure a significant portion of the popular vote.  Why?  Because if the scenario where 'Bernie wins popular, but loses nomination' happens, you could potentially see massive political upheaval.  If he gains enough in the popular, the superdelegates might decide to switch camps and go the way the wind is blowing.

Democrat or Republican, the political establishment wants one thing: for people to keep voting for them, the party.  The young, students, and the blue-collar - who are Bernie's primary bases - constitute a couple of the traditional blocs for the Democrats.  If Bernie loses the nomination because of establishment skullduggery, then the Democrats stand to lose those bases.  Bases the Republicans would be happy to take, or a base that might end up establishing a third party.

Hannibal, I'm gonna go one step further with something you've said.  Trump has broken open the seals of secrecy surrounding not just what happens in the Republican camp, but with the political establishment in general.  And call me a fool if you must, but I would rather have someone who upends the whole establishment, breaks their power and the stranglehold they've got on how governance is handled here, than someone that I largely agree with on policy.

Do I think Trump is a good candidate?  No, not really.  He's an egotist and a blowhard and he doesn't really know a lot of things outside of business (though that would make him good for working out economics and trade, on paper).  But I would consider him over Hillary, because Trump is at least honest about what he does.  Yeah, he gave money to candidates, he went to the Clinton wedding, he's a businessman looking after his own interests.  Makes sense to me.  Hillary - and in my opinion, most politicians - aren't.  If you're going to vote no on a bill for instituting student loan debt forgiveness because the private education lobby paid you a million dollars for your last campaign and asked a favor of you this time, then don't make noises about how you're saying no because it's somehow in the better interest of the country.

And that, to me, is the problem in the halls of power today.  It has made liars out of nearly everyone because they are treating it like a typical job, where your goal is to stay employed.  But governance isn't like those jobs, it's more like being a police officer, where it's nice if you get to stay employed and go home at the end of the day, but in the end, your real work is something higher than that.  The thing stopping honesty in the political sphere is that if politicians knew they were honest, they wouldn't get re-elected, and that is their goal, so why should they do it?

I don't like Bernie or Clinton, or Cruz or Trump, for different reasons on all of them, but damned if I don't like this post. :)  I wish there was a like button to hit. I'd be hammering it right now.

[CuriousEyes]

This is kind of just going to be a rambling post. I'll try to keep it coherent, but apologies for if/when I fail.

I agree with a number of Bernie's positions as far as income inequality and the role of money in politics, admire his consistency in those positions, and think he's done a good service to the public in making some things that aren't discussed a focal point of a major political campaign. I also think there is a path to securing the nomination for him that is possible, albeit unrealistic/statistically improbable.

I don't support Bernie Sanders as the Democratic candidate at this point - although if faced with no alternative where he pulls off that upset I acknowledged above, I would vote for him in a general election.


My biggest problem is that I can't get past the fact that I find a great portion of the boldest campaign promises he's making - those that typically garner the most attention - to be complete non-starters in the current political climate. Fundamentally, I don't really see a difference between Bernie Sanders telling his supporters that he's going to pass universal health care legislation in the United States of America with the general makeup of the House & Senate and Donald Trump telling his supporters that he's going to make Mexico pay for us to build a wall that keeps out illegal immigrants forever. They're promises that appeal to people who fervently want these things, and as far as universal health care goes at least maybe it's something we should have - but what's the path forward to get it done? After six years of bickering over the Affordable Care Act to say to people that you're going to expose the whole thing to gamma radiation and watch it turn into the Hulk? I think, not to drag the needle over this one again, Bernie's interview recently with the Daily News kind of drove that point home.

In the interests of disclosure I should mention I work in the health insurance industry so you can take anything I say as regards Medicare-for-all with a grain of salt if you like. I try to be unbiased though. I've never ripped down anything about the Affordable Care Act that I didn't have a solid line of thought over, for example.


But yes, for all the criticism you can levy about it, I prefer the cold pragmatism and shifting positions of Hillary Clinton. Gauge where public support is and what can be done now, and move the needle incrementally in the right direction. Small steps forward over a giant leap. Right or wrong, that's how the system works. I think the most feasible portions of Sanders' platform that garner public support - free public university is something that is very attractive to many people and could probably gain bipartisan support in some fashion, for example - is easily grafted onto her campaign.


Speaking more personally I can also say I just don't necessarily... like Bernie. I don't know what it is. I agree with a lot of what he says, but something about his delivery of the message doesn't connect to me. That's probably just a value judgment and I can't fault anyone for feeling differently or having the same reaction to my candidate of choice.


I do think the longer this goes on the more concerned I get about his supporters and the whole "Bernie or Bust" concept. Bernie has indicated he won't stage an independent campaign if he fails to secure the nomination (although that was a while ago and the situation between Clinton and he has become a bit more... tense, since then). Would anyone supporting him here refuse to vote for Clinton in the event she secures the nomination? I see a number of his supporters trying to frame a "she's exactly the same as X" stances which really bothers me - even if she's not your ideal candidate, I think it's fair to say that Hillary Clinton is politically closer to Bernie than Trump or Cruz on many issues that matter, such as LGBT protections, the minimum wage and health care, for example. Even if you needed a cold shower afterwards, I really worry that there's a chance of a large portion of voters just picking up their ball and going home if they don't get their way. That last line hopefully doesn't sound incendiary - I just can't think of a better phrasing.



Ultimately, yeah. Like a lot of what Bernie says. Don't necessarily like Bernie. Won't vote for him outside of an actual Presidential election, although in all honesty I still hold out the belief it's not going to come to that because even if not impossible, the odds are against him in completely non-stacked ways. I think Clinton gets the delegate count and I think she leads in the general vote when it's all done, so there won't be an argument that the will of the people is subverted. But I could easily eat my words.

The most positive thing about his campaign might just be that it highlights how much the needle is moving for younger segments of the population (assuming the current young voters don't just become more moderate as they age). I just think as a candidate Bernie is maybe 10 - 20 years too early for his platform - someone else will have to take up the mantle eventually, and then hopefully the country is ready to take the last few steps after earlier moderates nudge them in the right direction.

[Anteros]

Man offers free hugs at Sanders and Trump rallies and gets shockingly different responses

[Far eyes]

To be absolutely honest i dont want random people hugging me either. 

[Anteros]

To be absolutely honest i dont want random people hugging me either.

Would you insult them for offering a hug, though?

[ReijiTabibito]

This is kind of just going to be a rambling post. I'll try to keep it coherent, but apologies for if/when I fail.

Actually, you've made a fairly cogent point, and one that a lot of people have expressed as a reason not to vote for Bernie.  You should see me - I try to say one thing in a post and I end up saying six.

My biggest problem is that I can't get past the fact that I find a great portion of the boldest campaign promises he's making - those that typically garner the most attention - to be complete non-starters in the current political climate. Fundamentally, I don't really see a difference between Bernie Sanders telling his supporters that he's going to pass universal health care legislation in the United States of America with the general makeup of the House & Senate and Donald Trump telling his supporters that he's going to make Mexico pay for us to build a wall that keeps out illegal immigrants forever. They're promises that appeal to people who fervently want these things, and as far as universal health care goes at least maybe it's something we should have - but what's the path forward to get it done? After six years of bickering over the Affordable Care Act to say to people that you're going to expose the whole thing to gamma radiation and watch it turn into the Hulk? I think, not to drag the needle over this one again, Bernie's interview recently with the Daily News kind of drove that point home.

The downfall of many a presidential candidate in our history has been this idea that once they get into the White House they can go about doing what they need to do to implement policy.  If that was true, our government would not look like what it does now, and look shades closer to an elected dictator.  The phrase 'the most powerful man in the world' is incorrect when it comes to the President.  Obama had two years at the start of his term when Congress wasn't vowing to obstruct him at every turn, that's when he could have gotten stuff accomplished.

Bernie's proponents - though I'm not sure if he himself has said this - have noted that just voting for him is worthless, if there isn't a Congress in place to help support the kind of legislation he wants to pass.  You could make Abraham Lincoln President again, and he would have the same problem - if Congress doesn't want to go with him, it's an uphill battle.

Voting for Bernie means more than just putting him in the Oval Office.  It means paying attention to future elections, Congressional ones, and putting in place people who will support his initiatives.  I think that's primed to happen, too.  It's finally dawned on at least enough of us that the reason for Congress never getting anything done is because of all the obstructionism, and that it's largely the Republicans' fault for blocking the road.

But yes, for all the criticism you can levy about it, I prefer the cold pragmatism and shifting positions of Hillary Clinton. Gauge where public support is and what can be done now, and move the needle incrementally in the right direction. Small steps forward over a giant leap. Right or wrong, that's how the system works. I think the most feasible portions of Sanders' platform that garner public support - free public university is something that is very attractive to many people and could probably gain bipartisan support in some fashion, for example - is easily grafted onto her campaign.

Something here.  Why do the positions shift, why does she revise them?  Is it because she's really thought over the positions she's held, looked at the evidence, and said 'no, I've been wrong,' or is it simply adopting the popular stance of the time in order to cynically manipulate voters?  Or is it something else altogether?

My #1 criticism on Hillary isn't that her positions change - people do that all the time.  My criticism is why they change.  People are starting to realize that the people we elect to office are treating this job - this very important job - a bit cynically.  They'll come around and say all the right things at election time...but that's it.  No serious effort is actually invested in keeping their promises.   And to be fair, for the mindset they've got, why should they?  If I get elected by a landslide to the Senate over Ex-State Representative Buttface on the issue of health care, and my goal is to be re-elected for the next thirty years, precisely what motivation do I have to actually fix the problem?  I can just keep campaigning on health care reform and nobody can touch me.

And that's ignoring the powerful influence that the various lobby groups wield in DC.

Trump and a lot of the shenanigans during the Obama years have caused people to start waking up - we don't want people who will just say the right things, we want people to do them, too.  A lot of people are coming to the conclusion - and a bit rightly - that the politicians in DC just want to show up, collect their paycheck, and go home for the day.  They do not want to do the job at best, at worst they are bought and paid for by someone that isn't the people.

I do think the longer this goes on the more concerned I get about his supporters and the whole "Bernie or Bust" concept. Bernie has indicated he won't stage an independent campaign if he fails to secure the nomination (although that was a while ago and the situation between Clinton and he has become a bit more... tense, since then). Would anyone supporting him here refuse to vote for Clinton in the event she secures the nomination? I see a number of his supporters trying to frame a "she's exactly the same as X" stances which really bothers me - even if she's not your ideal candidate, I think it's fair to say that Hillary Clinton is politically closer to Bernie than Trump or Cruz on many issues that matter, such as LGBT protections, the minimum wage and health care, for example. Even if you needed a cold shower afterwards, I really worry that there's a chance of a large portion of voters just picking up their ball and going home if they don't get their way. That last line hopefully doesn't sound incendiary - I just can't think of a better phrasing.

Two things here.

A: Overall speaking, yes, Clinton is politically closer to Bernie than she is to Trump or Cruz.  But is that because she's a real liberal, like Bernie, or because Trump and Cruz are so far off to the right that it wouldn't surprise you if they wanted to strike out the 14th Amendment?  I think most people would answer the latter, rather than the former, especially with decisions Hillary's made about things like the TPP, the Iraq War, and others.

B: Taking their ball and going home if Bernie doesn't succeed may very well be what they do.  This time.  Regardless of what you think about either of them, Bernie and his right-aligned counterpart Trump (I say this because they are quite similar in key core aspects) have both done something.  They have let us know that we are We the People, that we're the ones who decide what goes on here, the political establishment does not own everything.  They have changed the game in a big way that is good for us down here on the ground.  Maybe next election cycle, there's a new political party, or maybe Bernie runs again, or something.  Just because we choose to do something this time does not mean we do the same thing every time.

The most positive thing about his campaign might just be that it highlights how much the needle is moving for younger segments of the population (assuming the current young voters don't just become more moderate as they age). I just think as a candidate Bernie is maybe 10 - 20 years too early for his platform - someone else will have to take up the mantle eventually, and then hopefully the country is ready to take the last few steps after earlier moderates nudge them in the right direction.

Interestingly enough, there are actually some people who have said he should have run back in 2008, right after the financial crisis, and that no one could have stopped him then - Bernie isn't too early, he's too late.  I'm not one of those people, but I can see their point.

As far as most discussions I've heard, the person to take up Bernie's mantle after he passes is Elizabeth Warren - she's insisted she wants to stay in the Senate, not run for President (or be Bernie's VP), but that hasn't stopped people from trying to persuade her.  I know I would vote for her!

[Far eyes]

Would you insult them for offering a hug, though?

For just offering no naturally not, its prty much how i reacted during new years when i was offered promo pictures for some random stuff that was happening i forget what company it was. (To clarify it involved two fairly good looking girls hugging you while wearing the company's logo) i think it was some insurance firm i am not 100%

[Oniya]

For just offering no naturally not, its prty much how i reacted during new years when i was offered promo pictures for some random stuff that was happening i forget what company it was. (To clarify it involved two fairly good looking girls hugging you while wearing the company's logo) i think it was some insurance firm i am not 100%

I see 'free hug' people a lot at conventions.  A simple 'No thank you', shake of the head, or such is more than sufficient to refuse a 'free hug' - heck, even just walking by without stopping will do.  There's no fault found or implied. 

Choosing to hurl invective instead is where it moves into the range of animosity instead of 'yeah, not my thing.'

[Merah]

Well I think it's safe to say that that is that. I will still vote for Bernie in my home state California's primary, but he needed another upset in New York, and instead he got trounced. So when it comes to the general, yes, I'll vote for Hillary. However flawed the primary system may be and however skewed the odds were for her, people did have the choice and they did choose Hillary.

Greatly disappointed in the judgment of the American voter right now... but hey, life will go on in this messy, dysfunctional country of ours. More of the same, yay!  :-(

[Oniya]

Obama lost New York by a larger margin, and had a lower delegate total after the NY primary in 2008.  Also, the mayor of New York is investigating the fact that tens of thousands of people were unable to vote due to their names being removed from the rolls.

[ReijiTabibito]

I wouldn't call 58-42 trounced.  Trounced would be what Trump did in NY.  And even so, the delegates in NY were handed out nearly proportionally to Clinton and Sanders - Bernie walked away with 106 delegates, which is about 43%.  Compare that to states earlier on the trail, like NH, MN, CO, MA.

And NY is hardly what I would call a 'fair' state for voting.  For one, it's a closed primary, meaning you have to have registered to vote as a Democrat for the upcoming primary.  That bars independents, and people who don't want to declare an affiliation.

Couple that with the fact that you have to register by October the previous year.  Trump's own kids couldn't vote for him because they didn't register in time for the primary - because at the time the deadline passed, people thought Trump was still playing around, that he was joking.

And people complain about Republicans causing voter suppression.

As for NYC, this is the kind of political skullduggery that's going to cause an implosion in the Democratic party.  For all we know, every last one of those people could have voted for Sanders and it wouldn't have mattered one iota.  But the fact that it did happen gives people reason to think the Party is putting in the fix.

As for me?  I'm not voting for Hillary.  I will not vote for her.  I may not like Trump much better, but I refuse to follow the option that's been forced down the throats of the American people for the last decade.

[Merah]

Sure, it's theoretically possible Bernie could still take the pledged delegate count. But unless emails of Hillary selling state secrets to the Russians are found on her private server (or she suddenly gets vaporized by a meteorite), I don't see it happening.

And even then...

[Oniya]

Hey, my state votes next week.  We've got a lot of delegates, and I've seen a lot of Bernie supporters around. 

[Merah]

Obama lost New York by a larger margin, and had a lower delegate total after the NY primary in 2008.  Also, the mayor of New York is investigating the fact that tens of thousands of people were unable to vote due to their names being removed from the rolls.

New York voted on February 5th in 2008, so yes, he had a lower delegate total at that point. And although he lost in New York, overall that Super Tuesday was a solid win for him, catapulting him ahead with pledged delegates.

Look, I'm sorry to be such a downer about Sanders' chances following the New York loss... What can I say? I hope I'm wrong. Like I said, I'll still be voting for him in my state's primary as well.

[Nachtmahr]

It's hard not to loose hope in the face of this. If this is the end for Bernie though, then I am sad not only for Americans who will have to go on living in a country that's so broken, but I'm also sorry for the world. Seeing the U.S. radically change for the better would have been a great way for it to lead by example. With the prospect of Hillary winning, I don't see anything changing. Not the sort of change that the world at large needs, let alone the U.S.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but from an outsides perspective it's just another corrupt puppet-government that's going to make nonsensical decisions that hurt the global community because they've been bought out by people who don't seem to care that they're killing us all.

[elone]

Bernie needs the FBI to get off their asses and indict Hillary. However, that will never happen, the probe will never be completed until after the primaries are over. Funny how she is now on the anti gun kick since Bernie voted to not hold manufacturers liable. Really, this from the woman who Obama referred to as Annie Oakley for her pro gun stance in 2008. Another thing as far as guns are concerned, how could a manufacturer of a legal product be held liable for something illegal done with that product. Does Ford have liability for a car that someone decides to drive into a crowd. The whole issue is ridiculous and would never survive the Supreme Court.

The republicans are not as nice as Bernie as far as Hillary is concerned. They will crucify her and her positions.

[Merah]

I'm fairly sure she can still crush Trump, assuming he's the other nominee and barring an indictment over her emails. But then, I've overestimated American voters before.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

I'm fairly sure she can still crush Trump, assuming he's the other nominee and barring an indictment over her emails. But then, I've overestimated American voters before.

I wouldn't be so sure. Tons and tons of Bernie supporters have pledged to not vote for her if she wins the primary. If she's abandoned by most Bernie supporters and the independents who like him don't show up to the polls as much because they don't feel like there's a good option on the table, she's going to have a hard fight ahead of her. At this point, I can't really feel bad for her or her supporters (or the nation as a whole, really) if she loses to Trump or another Republican. Much as I might not want to see a Republican in power, I refuse to vote for her and I think this might be what the DNC needs to wake them up to the fact that people meant it when they said they wouldn't settle for the status quo anymore.

[Far eyes]

If Trump wins because Bernie`s supporters are feeling..   vindictive it will be a face palm worthy moment for everybody involved.

Nachtmahr mentioned how the rest of the world views this, from my view of it and looking around me its been a joke for a long time. Its a mixed emotion of expecting big things because of what by this time are historical reasons then looking over and just...   *Sigh* yah never mind.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

It's a mistake to look at it as us "feeling vindictive". It's not about that at all. We'd do it with basically any establishment candidate the DNC put forward, especially if they rigged the election in favor of that person the way they have with Hillary. It's about a refusal to settle for the two party system that doesn't serve us. It's about living up to the promise of a political revolution we gave when we threw in our lot with a guy who only showed single digit numbers in basically every state but his own. It about making it absolutely clear that we're not going to allow the DNC to be hijacked by neo-liberals that are two steps away from Republicans any more. We're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, which is exactly what a vote for Hillary is. She's backed literally every major bad decision (Iraq, NAFTA, the TPP, etc) and been on the wrong side of history up until the time it was politically expedient for her to be on the right one (civil rights issues - no one talks about the fact that she campaigned for a segregationist, gun laws, gay marriage, etc). And instead of making an honest attempt to win us over and show that she really IS "on our side" as she likes to put it, she belittles us as voters. We're "unrealistic" for wanting universal health care. We're "unrealistic" for wanting public colleges to be free. And for no other reason than the fact that we're voting for Bernie and not her, she accuses us of not doing our own research. Never mind the fact that the independents... who make up HALF the voters in the country and are heavily swayed toward Bernie, are historically the most well informed demographic out there because we aren't beholden to a party color.

I switched my registration from independent to democrat to vote for Bernie. Once this primary is over, if he loses, I'll be switching back to independent and I will be writing him in. Why? Because I refuse to abandon my morals. I meant what I said when I said I want a political revolution. Hillary cannot and will not ever give us that, it would mean she loses most of her power. It means her bread and butter, her way of life will no longer fly. I refuse to allow the threats of a Trump presidency to force me to abandon what I stand for. I don't owe Hillary or the DNC anything. Early polls, before primary voting even began, showed Bernie was the better candidate to send up against anyone on the Republican side. The DNC and their bought and paid for corporate media ignored that and stacked the race against Bernie, assuming we'd all fall in line once Bernie lost the race. It's on them if Trump or Cruz wins. Not us. We owe them nothing because they've done nothing to represent us.

[Far eyes]

Oh i get that, but you will have to live there. Me, and other non us citizens we will not we will just have to deal with the occasional dumb shit and maybe occasionally roll our eyes at the slapstick worthyness of it. I dont quiet expect Bush levels of herp a derp but Trump is the best thing to happen to stand up comedians since Bush. But again i am not going to have to actually live there, just deal with some of the occasional spill over.

   

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Yeah, I will have to live here. You're right about that. But you know what I won't have to do? I won't have to live with a guilty conscience. If 4 years (though I doubt he'd last that long... the man's a world class moron, I suspect he'd do something impeachment-worthy fairly early on) of Trump is what it takes to teach the DNC that the progressive, truly liberal side of the party either a: isn't fucking around any more or b: has abandoned them, then so be it. Sometimes you have to raze a building to the foundation and rebuild if you want it to be structurally sound. I will be able to sleep at night, content in the fact that I'm standing for the right things while I weather the storm and the DNC either falls apart or gets rebuilt.

I could go in to how I really don't think Trump will be the guy to get the nomination, nor Cruz, because the GOP is just as corrupt and hate them both and will most likely steal it from them at the convention, but that's neither here nor there, cause it's not a Bernie topic. :p

[Lustful Bride]

@ BP

At this point I think both parties need to be completely rebuilt from the ground up. They are both corrupt and broken to the point their janitors get more work done. Everyyear its more bullshit, more tantrums,  more lies, less work and less talking.

The parties themselves have stopped working.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

@ BP

At this point I think both parties need to be completely rebuilt from the ground up. They are both corrupt and broken to the point their janitors get more work done. Everyyear its more bullshit, more tantrums,  more lies, less work and less talking.

The parties themselves have stopped working.

Completely agreed. I think the republicans are doing it on their own though, and I only have one vote, so I'm choosing to work on the party that's a bit too happy being stagnant. Ideally, if Bernie doesn't take the nomination, I'd like to see both parties fall apart because they both lose a ton of support (Remember that Trump supporters and Bernie supporters have the biggest, most important issue in common: they both want big money out of politics) because they pushed their establishment nominees, and a strong, single minded third party came together. It's how we got rid of the Wig party. I'd love to see it happen again. I just worry most Americans are too complacent and too easily bullied by fear tactics ("If you don't vote for Hillary you're giving the presidency to Trump!" is a fear tactic, pure and simple).

[Cassandra LeMay]

At this point I think both parties need to be completely rebuilt from the ground up. They are both corrupt and broken to the point their janitors get more work done. Everyyear its more bullshit, more tantrums,  more lies, less work and less talking.

The parties themselves have stopped working.

This is something that I have been wondering about, on and off, for a while now while following the primaries: What exactly is the role of parties in American politics? I know that party affiliation can be as easy as ticking a box on a registration form, even as easy as just saying "I am a member of the Fictional Example Party", but to say that parties have stopped working implies some idea of what the parties should actually be about.

What is that? What would mark a party that actually "works"?