The desperation is really thick around here today.

But you gave it your best shot so...

if by some miracle he were to do that, wouldn't be the same as igniting a revolution. Now would it?

This is just the beginning, and it is an impressive beginning.

Very soon, all of the snark will be drained out of the Hillary supporters.

they think He's better than Obama in everyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1241328

I would expect nothing less from team nope, no change.

igniting a political revolution.

Thwarting the financial mafia's hand-picked, "inevitable" nominee is a necessary first step for starters, and the strongest single message voters can give that business-as-usual will no longer do.

There is no doubt that a President Sanders would have nothing short of a Herculanean task in any getting any reform past the bribed savages in the GOP - but it's our only real chance at getting anything substantive done.

That's the size of a mid sized town in Florida. Nice number for NH - but elsewhere? Not so much.

do percentages confuse you intellectually?

And they both got delegates.

And I'll same the same thing in South Carolina if Hillary has a huge win. The percentages may be awesome, but when you look at total votes and the delegates they split, it wont be that big of a deal.

I am not the only one wondering about the effectiveness of the revolution concept http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/bernie_sanders_revolution_isn_t_good_enough.html

But Hillary would face the exact same obstacles for even the mildest changes.

I for one would rather see a fight over real, substantive reforms. If one must fail, make it a noble failure - not the pathetic spectacle of seeing Hillary's weak-tea proposals be defeated by McCocaine and his gangsters merely because they have her name on it.

People act like Clinton isn't going to face any challenges. And with her pro-corporate agenda, she will face challenges from voters and from other Dems.

He said the way to make change is to have millions . . . if you can't get it straight, then how about asking somebody for help?

Without these new voters, Sanders can not hope to keep his campaign promises

On the ground in Texas....Feelin' The Bern

It IS a POLITICAL REVOLUTION

Millions upon Millions of new voters, energized by the very sound of his voice, I guess. So far, as revolutions go, it's kind of a big fizzle. Even if he beats Hillary in a few more primaries, doesn't look like much of a revolution.

So I'll await one single link to ANY speech where he claims he will "Call forth millions upon millions of new voters" and I'll even leave off the part where you claim they would be "energized by the sound of his voice". Because otherwise this whole post is just nonsense you made up.

Waiting....

No, REALLY think about it

A revolution about me really thinking about it.

IF ya just think about it.....

I tried for weeks.

The Revolutionary Vanguard.

You know, the elite few, who speak on behalf of the masses at large, whose class consciousness is not yet fully developed enough to get them off their duffs and into the streets.

That must be the ticket.

Hillary is standing alone in cafeterias. but nice try.

bread and circuses.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/02/us/thousands-crowd-garment-district-to-cheer-mondale.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/03/us/mondale-attracts-big-crowd-to-his-rally-in-boston.html

can't judge a revolution by rallies.

What % of people who eventually vote do you think actually show up a rally? And do you think they are representative of the voting population at large?

Maybe in small states like NH or IA, where candidates spend a lot of time, and do a lot of retail politics. But that isn't how the great masses of people are moved.

but where are Hillary's transcripts?

No one has seen any evidence of the so-called Sanders revolution https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/sorry-bernie-sanders-there-is-zero-evidence-of-your-political-revolution-yet/

Bernie Sanders recorded a resounding victory in New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday. He crushed his rival, Hillary Clinton, with no less than 60 percent of the vote. If Sanders hopes not only to win the election but to achieve his ambitious progressive agenda, though, that might not be enough.

To succeed, Sanders might have to drive Americans who don't normally participate to the polls. Unfortunately for him, groups who usually do not vote did not turn out in unusually large numbers in New Hampshire, according to exit polling data.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

...As for Sanders, he credited his victory to turnout. "Because of a huge voter turnout -- and I say huge -- we won," he said in his speech declaring victory, dropping the "h" in "huge." "We harnessed the energy, and the excitement that the Democratic party will need to succeed in November."

In fact, Sanders won by persuading many habitual Democratic primary voters to support him. With 95 percent of precincts reporting their results as of Wednesday morning, just 241,000 ballots had been cast in the Democratic primary, fewer than the 268,000 projected by New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner last week. Nearly 289,000 voters cast ballots in the state's Democratic primary in 2008.

To be sure, the general election is still seven months away. Ordinary Americans might be paying little attention to the campaign at this point, and if Sanders wins the nomination, he'll have the help of the Democratic Party apparatus in registering new voters. The political revolution hasn't started, though, at least not yet.

Put a guillotine in the town square?

We will be satisfied for our first step to beat the other candidates. And we are aiming at hillary first.

Where are the promised voters?

They are coming out of the woodwork
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511242340

Funny how every anti-Sanders article comes from the WP these days

His ideas sound fine. They are generally what Democrats want, including Hillary: despite minor differences between them, their ultimate goals are very similar.

But electing Bernie as president should not be the starting point. It should be the culmination of years of building up a progressive coalition. Bernie has never done that.

And now that ignorance by the party elite (and I'm a long-time, frustrated progressive Democratic party person) has come home to roost. And I'm glad!

(And, by the way, there's only "minor differences" between Bernie and Hillary right now because she keeps changing to his positions. I haven't seen him change to any of hers. Doesn't that tell you something?)

like 40 years, so of course he doesn't change his positions. he's got hardening of the intellectual categories.

If you can't see it, I can't show it to you.

Thanks.

do you not understand?

Thanks for that

weather in Ypsilanti. It's in the hundreds who packed into a Chicago bar as the campaign opened it's first Illinois office. It's on reddit where they've raised over $1.5 million and made 68,000 phone calls. It's in the 3 million contributions. Look around. You have to be willfully blind to be sneering.


And do try to improve your political "analysis". In 2008, dems were fired up after 8 years of Bush. Can you put 1+1 together here, ken?

Try.

We all do. My life has screwed by what happened in 1999. We're not playing.

Is home trolling reddit.

It's a keyboard revolution.

Or raising $1.5 million, or canvassing?


Grab a clue, zero.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/

... derp derp.

Sanders' plans for adopting his proposals depend on these new voters. Here is how Sanders thinks that he will be able to force the GOP to be reasonable http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what

Of course, we all know how Clinton will get Ryan and McConnell on board: propose legislation they like.

What a "victory" that will be!!