General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRachel Maddow assumes Rush's role for the Dem Party: King Maker
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the General Discussion forum).
There is so much good that will come of Bernie staying in, arguably the most important reason of all being exposing and educating Americans on how we select a candidate. Every state is different and many elections have had disputed results on the our side; we were thought of the pure party and above election shananagins. I can't wait until the California primary and hundreds of thousands discover they are left out of the process for mistakenly registering with the Independence Party. People didn't know so this is a learning experience. But they won't learn a damn thing if Bernie drops out.
Then you have myopic Rachel slamming Bernie for not bowing out. Rachel is of the elitist, well educated 10% class Thomas Frank is calling out in "Listen Liberal."
Please note: King Maker is sexist but Queen maker is more sexiest. I know the latter is true because I read it on DU.
http://bluenationreview.com/maddow-launches-epic-rant-against-bernies-radical-convention-strategy/
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Some folks dont deserve Rachel or Obama.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)OK. She's not part of the "10% class". More like the 2 or 3%.
And she waves her hands a lot.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)Wilms
(26,795 posts)SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)He is certainly a millionaire. He owns multiple valuable properties, as indicated by his real estate tax deductions (the reason he did not want to release his full 2014 tax return listing his deductions). Sanders is a hypocrite who is railing against "millionaires and billionaires" while trying to hide that he himself is a millionaire, going so far as to move all of his assets to his wife's name. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-wife-accounts-for-reported-assets-120261
And as far as arm waiving:
Wilms
(26,795 posts)His income and his assets don't put him anywhere near that class.
You don't have to like him. But why you wanna make stuff up? Seems dumb.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)Please explain how this article is wrong:
http://time.com/money/4235986/bernie-sanders-millionaire-finances/
Wilms
(26,795 posts)I mean, other than you.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)So you now concede his is a millionaire (and you don't dispute he's a big hand-waiver) so that puts him in the same league you put Maddow in.
It appears you have now moved the goal posts. But regardless, now that you agree he is a millionaire, that almost certainly puts him in the top 2 or 3% in terms of Vermont residents. The top 5% of incomes in Vermont are those who make over $174K, which Sanders certainly does. http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/issue_briefs_and_memos/Intro_to_ITEP_and_Pew_reports.pdf The OP mocked Rachel for being in the top 10%. Sanders is certainly in the top 10%, and in fact the top 5% in Vermont.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)For anyone to have been in Congress for as long as he has and NOT be a millionaire would be pretty difficult.
And a millionaire ain't what it used to be..
Wilms
(26,795 posts)So who moved the goal post? A Hillary supporter. Can you blame them? What else have they got. Spin. Weather-vaning. Goal post moving. Etc.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Wow!
She has no integrity. She's in Hillary's camp.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Lol.
desperate times.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)my comment makes a shit ton of sense in that context. That's why I referenced him.
Gottit?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)With other false opinion stories.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)process is a disgrace, and the longer Bernie stays in, the more problems with the process get exposed.
(Obligatory sexism)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)You made my day!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)themaguffin
(3,805 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)We need more of them. I have no interest in trashing Maddow for supporting democrats. The media tilts strong to the right. Any help we can get I will take. I'm not big on the format of her show, but I support her and cheer her on. She is an extremely intelligent and well thought out woman. My kind of person.
"but Queen maker is more sexiest."
2naSalit
(86,039 posts)educator for those who have little info on how our government was set up to function and when she calls someone out, she usually gives a brief primer about why something is right or wrong before she tells us what the "t hing" is. With so many uniformed people in our country, it's quite appropriate they way she delivers her points.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)talking head.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)as a HRC supporter. In a sense she seems impartial, but somehow I think the MSNBC group has rallied around Hillary way too much. I don't know what Maddow's salary is but it damn well beats her gig at Air America or a college professor job.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I'm more than willing to agree with your first two sentences. It's better than who most of the corporate media fawn over. I do get why it would be frustrating being a Sanders supporter full well knowing Maddows ideology is to the left of Clinton. But mine is as well and I support Clinton.
onecaliberal
(32,471 posts)Should not have a say in this process. We are the BEST representation of this country with every demographic and age group. We have the population of several states, give up your own vote before you talk about ours being irrelevant. I know Hillary doesn't want to wait for California because she will lose the land of the true liberals.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bernie-sanders-over-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-us-elections-needs-to-stop-attacking-a7012796.html#
moonbabygo
(281 posts)at least he said it yesterday after his win in Indiana. This whole time I thought it would be the repugs, but they seem to be kissing and making up.
Looks like both parties will be morphing into something different. Which may not be a bad thing
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)Sanders won Indiana by just 5 percentage points, in a open primary tailor made for him, after spending $1.8+ million in ads and Hillary did not spend a penny. He needed to win by a lot more.
Even after Sanders got +5 delegates vs. Hillary last night, in order to go into the convention with more pledged delegates (ignoring that Clinton will already have more total delegates to lock the nomination on the first ballot), Sanders would need to win the following contests by the vote margins indicated:
Guam: Sanders +43
West Virginia: Sanders +52
Kentucky: Sanders +35
Oregon: Sanders +57
Virgin Islands: Sanders +43
Puerto Rico: Sanders +17
California: Sanders +31
Montana: Sanders +62
New Jersey: Sanders +13
New Mexico: Sanders +18
South Dakota: Sanders +40
North Dakota: Sanders +67
District of Columbia: Tie
Sanders' IN win still puts him further behind pace than he was yesterday.
As Rachel Maddow explained, in 2008 Obama only had a 4% lead in pledged delegates, and needed SDs to get a majority, yet before the convention Hillary conceded even though she had the majority of popular votes. She did not contest the convention -- she conceded well before the convention and stood firmly in support of Obama at the convention, uniting Democrats.
Rachel went on to point out that Hillary is 11% ahead of Sanders in pledged delegates.
And of course, Hillary has millions more in popular votes than Sanders.
Yet Sanders insists on a divisive "contested convention" unless Hillary attains the majority of unpledged -- even though 15% of total delegates are SDs. The only way a Dem candidate could get a majority of pledged delegates is by having an utter blowout in the primary. Obama didn't have that. He needed SDs to get a majority of total delegates. Yet Hillary conceded. As she should have. As anyone in Hillary's position should have. Sanders is nowhere near in as strong a position as Hillary was in 2008, yet he won't concede before the convention.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Long after it became clear the math didn't work for her. By Hillary's standards he still has a month to go. Not to mention Hillary had no problem with all kinds of shenanigans trying to make Obama's nomination seem illegitimate.
She will live if Sanders stays in at least till June.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)She said in 2008, Obama only had a 4% lead in pledged delegates, and needed SDs to get a majority, yet before the convenction Hillary conceded even though she had the majority of popular votes. She did not contest the convention -- she conceded well before the convention and stood firmly in support of Obama at the convention, uniting Democrats.
Rachel went on to point out that Hillary is 11% ahead of Sanders in pledged delegates.
And of course, Hillary has millions more in popular votes than Sanders.
Yet Sanders insists on a divisive contested convention unless Hillary attains the majority of unpledged -- even though 15% of total delegates are SDs. The only way a Dem candidate could get a majority of pledged delegates is by having an utter blowout in the primary. Obama didn't have that. He needed SDs to get a majority of total delegates. Yet Hillary conceded. As she should have. As anyone in Hillary's position should have. Sanders is nowhere near in as strong a position as Hillary was in 2008, yet he won't concede before the convention.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)everyone in media has been ruminating on for months. She and the others are myopically focused on numbers.
Man, it's bigger than percentages, and if you didn't know that before, you just learned something new. That's more than you can say by watching Rachel. You can watch any talking head on any network spew out the exact same piece verbatim. She's even reading from the New York Times. How stupid is her audience that she believes they need to be told the math every day. The math hasn't changed for months. Months ago she was reading Nate Silver to you, and he told you Bernie's route was impossible. She treats you all like you have ADD.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)it's clear to her that her viewers don't understand probabilities and need reassurance daily.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Hillary did not concede untill Obama passed the Delegate count needed to secure the nomination. She is still 180 delegates short.
She will likely get them but why should Sanders drop out any sooner than she did? Why shouldn't the rest of the country get a chance to weigh in?
spanone
(135,632 posts)Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Party as Fox is to the Republican Party. Rachel is arguably top dog at MSNBC and has been in Hillary's camp, like Matthews, like Capehart. Biased ramblings not objective journalism.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Editorials do not equate to king-makers and power-brokers. Two wholly separate concepts conflated for convenience. A logical fallacy not objective observations.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,059 posts)Statement of Purpose
Discuss politics, issues, and current events. Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum. Posts about the Democratic primaries, conspiracy theories and disruptive meta-discussion are forbidden.