Only an idiot would argue against this statement.

If you think those aren't going to be major issues, with HRC putting our party on the wrong side of them, you're in for a very rude awakening.

Beginning of his candidacy. At this point he's won numerous primaries//caucuses, that's how weak Clinton is.

Did you expect Clinton to win every state? Is that the bar? Because I'm fairly certain you'd be whining and moaning if she were winning every state too.

Is the Sanders campaign getting a discount on terrible logic or something? Or do Sanders supporters just have an addiction to sour grapes?

They haven't even begun to sling mud in his direction. It would not be pretty.

neck.

Personally, to me, I mean. Evidently not to her. By the way, she won Indiana in 08, which means she is weaker this time, at least here.

Because she's relying on the support of the very people who supported Obama in '08. So, naturally, she's going to win in a lot of places where he had beaten her, which is precisely what she's done.

I supported Obama in '08 and WILL NOT support Hillary. I am not alone, but she and her fans just can't admit it. She does not have a lock on Obama supporters. What she does have is tons of baggage.

And doesn't that suggest Clinton shouldn't be well on her way to the nomination, if Sanders is the stronger candidate?

I can't help but wonder why Sanders supporters keep suggesting that Clinton is a weak candidate when that clearly suggests Sanders is a weaker candidate, given that she has an insurmountable lead.

elated.

If you were old enough to vote back then, you might remember the whole country was ready and waiting to tell the Bush admin to go to hell.

Obama wasn't a super-strong candidate but he was more than good enough to get the job done in that context. That his opponent was literally insane didn't hurt, either.

No such advantage exists this time around.

I must live on a different planet from you!

But there is a faction of DEM and DEM leaning voters who want something different out of their candidate, and Bernie has reasonated with them. Hopefully this is just the beginning of a switch towards those kinds of candidates. I think the party will be better for it.

I'd call that close, and the national polls indicate it is even closer.

If they are smart, the party leadership is considering their options.

And it should be Hillary, imo, since she is well ahead in delegates and pop vote. The people are speaking, and the majority chose Hillary.

Bernie has feet and so did every previous President.

It actually hurts Hillary for her fans to keep spreading the sexism myth. I am an older Democratic woman who cannot stand her, and it's because of her policies and poor judgment, not her gender.

You're not alone in this world.

There are plenty of feminists who are not happy with her. I think she does a disservice to feminism and harm to people who actually suffer from being unfairly treated because of their gender. And, in your words, I'm not alone in this world.

"I'll vote for get in the GE".

I never ever said I don't want to vote for a woman unless I have to. I may have said I will not vote for Hillary unless I have to, but not because of her gender. Because of her baggage and poor judgement, voting record, and baggage, not to mention her willingness to change with the wind, in the direction that will be most expedient for her, on any issue. Period. I AM a woman and I have experienced sexism in the workplace more times than you will know. I know what it is and what it feels like. I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat, but not because she is a woman. You clearly don't understand anything except for gender identity if that's all you can say. I don't give a flying crap what gender the candidate is as long as s/he cares about the issues I care about.

Someone else said that to me.

My position is completely opposite. That doesn't mean that all Bernie supporters are sexist.

In the case I'm talking about, the person didn't want to be a Bernie supporter. But the polls in general seem to match up. That's why Hillary does worse with men, and if you talk to people when they're comfortable they are happy to tell you the truth.

My husband is a Bernie supporter, but it has to do with the issues, not gender. The truth, I fear, is that we have too many low-information voters who will or will not vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. And we have plenty of them who will vote for Trump because he "isn't afraid to say what he thinks."

according to party leaders Cenk spoke with at the WHCD.

If she could show she would listen.

Curious. They ought to consider Sanders as well.

Corporatism, out loud. I was surprised that Warren was one of the names but likely because she plays better with DWS than Bernie does.

I am having trouble trying to find it. Thanks!

Maybe someone here has a membership and can grab that clip.

Last edited Wed May 4, 2016, 10:33 AM - Edit history (1)

And mean nothing in the GE. . .where Bernie is the better candidate by far.

There, fixed it for you.

What matters more is the total pledged delegates and super delegates at the end of the primary voting.

relatively speaking.

but go ahead and keep trying to downplay what a great campaign she's run and how pathetic Sanders' campaign has been.

popular vote myth eh?

then he could turn out more than the low five figure turn out. the simple fact is he wouldn't have have won those state by those margins if they didn't have undemocratic, elitist, and stupid ways of choosing their presidential nominees. It should be noted that none of them use this horrid way to choose their local or state level nominees.

If Clinton wins, it is a 'fair and blessed' thing. If he wins, it is 'undemocratic, elitist, and stupid'. Just listen to yourself and walk away with your head in shame where it belongs!

I am going to copy this so I can use it in the future against that incredibly lame argument!

of the Democratic party, which is a big-tent party.

So, I'm an idiot.

I'm also right.

And, not an idiot.

Not a lot of us, unfortunately.

In 2008 the pledged delegate difference was about 100 and the popular vote was a near tie. And yet that race was not in any doubt.

In 2016, the pledged delegate difference is about 300 and the popular vote is nowhere near a tie, but that shows the person in the lead is a weak candidate in your mind.

Perhaps you should work on your basic logic skills before you call other people idiots. Because as candidates go, it's Obama, Clinton and somewhere trailing behind is Sanders.

resources our country has put toward education. We have large swaths of our population that have not received an adequate education to logically evaluate how various candidates could represent their own interests. So many people are deciding with their emotions, or are swayed by celebrity or fantastical promises. And once offered these enticements, they are unable to evaluate the candidate's plans to accomplish them.

This is exactly what the repubs wanted when they continually reduced funding for education. They know that a poorly educated lower class is much easier to control. In the case of the repubs, it is funny how this backfired on them...but in our case, it has served to divide people who really have the same basic values.

No candidate would ever say out loud that the electorate lacks intelligence, but the mere fact that elections tend to be won by the candidate or issue spending the most on political ads points to a population that is easily swayed, since ads are notoriously low in substance.

leader to tell them what to do.

repeating over and over, "Hillary will really help the 99%, Hillary will really help the 99%."

Well after goldman-sachs makes their huge profits there might be some cake left for the poor. Not that you care.

Except how we vote and our ability to shut up and let things happen. After all, we're not real people unless we have bank accounts larger than Trump's ego.

will stand up an fight the corrupt culture of the Clinton Family and their huge personal wealth.

nevermind

It looks like Hillary could lose the remaining primaries. Contested convention here we come...

They don't know the Left. The hubris of the Party Elite gave us Bush in 2000.

I suspect she'll win about half of the remaining pledged delegates and finish with nearly 2200 pledged delegates. From there it's a mere formality to get her to 2383.

up the nomination, but then Bernie wins another primary and we're back at uncertainty.

Certainly not those who have been saying and still are saying that she'll be the nominee. Nobody, as far as I can tell, is "back at uncertainty." There are those who have always been uncertain, and there are those who realized back in mid-March that the race was essentially over.

The percentage of remaining delegates that Sanders needs actually *increased* following his win in Indiana. In other words, a Clinton victory became *more* certain following the Indiana primary.

Indiana fit the profile of a Sanders state, regardless of what an aggregate of polls suggested (open primary polling is certainly problematic).

NJ and DC fit the Clinton profile.

Hillary has the kinds of advantages most candidates could only dream of. Near 100% name recognition. A perfect on paper resume. She was actually in the WH for 8 years, and a close second during the Obama Admin. She has the entire media eating out of her hand. The DNC is fully in her court. She has wealthy donors coming out her ears. The 1%/"Elite" love her. She has pay to play down to a science, and everyone is standing in line...

And a cranky old white guy who believes in such trite ideas as social justice and economic fairness is stealing her thunder.

How can they explain that?

He has incredible public charisma. She doesn't. Even when he did things I hated, he was still a charmer.

All the independent people from all over the world who wanted to escape oppression, self selected to come here. It's our gene pool. We're the children of people who chose freedom above all else.

She had the DNC all preppedr, she had high money donors, a super pac, the MSM, she had super delegates, "Ready for Hillary," the media, she even had 33 state Democratic parties all bought up for herself.

And so a 73 year old guy shows up with no organization, no super pac, no big donors, no name recognition, just a penchant for caring about human beings and telling the truth, and she's been limping toward the finish line ever since.

You do too!

In a lesser of two evils election, the wind is at the back of those with the most loyal and fanatical base. Hillary will likely limp her way to a nomination, but that is a weak showing for someone with 100% institutional backing, plausibly rigging in her favor, and constant favorable coverage, and every possible advantage one could imagine and she still is doing poorly and may go into a contested convention.

Trump will have an outright win, A base that loves him, for whatever reason, and with independents disliking Hillary as well as Trump it is unlikely many will vote.

My prediction is that this will be a low turnout election with most people considering this a lesser of two evils election. Bernie brought a lot of independents to his cause, but with the way he has been treated by Hillary and Hillary supporters most will likely just not vote. Some might go spite and vote Trump, but I scoff at the notion. Some Republicans might switch, but that is a tad like Trump hoping Bernie supporters will switch out of hate for Hillary. Republicans disasitisfied with Trump will more likely not vote then vote Hillary.

"Only an idiot would argue against this statement..."

Lacking rational or objective thought, I'd most likely make the same allegation too. I'd also make a point to provide no objective evidence, relying instead on bumper-stickers and logical fallacies as well.

The reason no one expected Sanders to get this far is because there is no way he should have been able to, for all those reasons that've been explained over and over.

Sanders brought a knife to a gunfight and a year later he's still standing, albeit with some "flesh wounds". That says the person with the gun isn't very good at the task at hand.

A middling strong candidate with HRC's built in advantages should have been able to crush him from the very outset. That didn't happen. That should tell you everything you need to know about HRC's future.

Your OP implies that you have an opinion on this. What should the party do, and what is the justification for the course of action you propose? Keep in mind that anything you propose would require going against the will of the people who participated in the Democratic primary process, which is kind of a big deal.

It's a political problem that requires a political solution.

At the convention, the party should withdraw support from both Clinton and Sanders. Both are somewhat contrived reasons, but the party should withdraw support (what little they offered) from Sanders because he lacks the votes, and withdraw support from Clinton because of the email albatross around her neck.

They then run Warren as a unity candidate to face Trump.

As far as going against the will of the people who participated in the primary process, all actions go against that will, given the outside corporate money pumped into the election, the bizarre shenanigans with the debate schedule and the vote suppression that occurred over this past year.

Regardless, if they go with Clinton in this election, the voters will not come out on election day for her in sufficient enough numbers to defeat Trump.

insurgent candidates like Sanders to get anywhere in the party's primary season.

Yeah, I'm not seeing how this is a plus for Bernie.

prima facie evidence of the inherent weakness of Barack Obama as a candidate? Recall that he never once had the sort of lead Clinton has maintained over the Vermont Independent in either delegates or popular votes, not even close.

because the primary season in 2008 was hugely closer than it is in 2016.



Sid

That she didn't beat a strong candidate by more or that she didn't beat a weak candidate by more.

Media, DLC, DWS, DNC, Wall Street, PACS, and on and on

Despite all that, a relatively unknown candidate with essentially nothing from the party to back him and opposition from all the financial and influential resources behind Clinton has upset the plans for a coronation.

Sanders is a strong candidate, but in contrast to Clinton, he is more than strong. He reveals her weakness in stark relief.

Assuming she's nominated ; and frankly, at the time he was nominated, Dukakis didn't seem all that weak. He certainly started out w. many fewer negatives than Clinton.

The question is: will Trump prove weaker?

Nominating Clinton is a shot in the dark.

In SO many ways.

But these are dark times.

or maybe it's just more bullshit

btw .... The 2008 primary was "closer".

Give it up.

... because they aren't capable of - or aren't willing to engage in some - critical thinking.



Benghazi Biopsy: A Comprehensive Guide to One of America’s Worst Political Outrages

of being a president? He has not presented a clear foreign policy, must not know trade is an important part of being president, he needs to present his policies on these issues.

Maybe I misheard you, did you say close? Oh, wait. You are a Bernie supporter. Sorry about your math affliction.

I'll wait....