So what Bernie is essentially saying is --

[pnwmom]

forget all the primaries, in which Hillary has won millions more votes -- especially among women, African Americans and Hispanic people -- and hundreds more delegates.

And INSTEAD, have the nominee decided by un-elected Super-delegates who will pick a nominee (him) based on the polls.

And he is running as a progressive. Right.

[redstateblues]

1. Bernie is just another politician

[anotherproletariat]

8. Yup...his ego is obviously in control.

He is giving me a very sour taste for the far left of our party. I used to be very sympathetic, but the more I hear him, the more I will never support his infantile revolution. I feel like this has been a coming of age election cycle, the time when I learned to put aside childish things.

[JPnoodleman]

22. You were never sympathetic, don't kid yourself.

If refusal to swear fealty is your requirement you never gave cared.

[anotherproletariat]

24. True, it's hard to be totally sympathetic as a 1%er... nt

[Hortensis]

88. JP, "fealty?" What's in your head?

By far most Democrats are liberals, and liberals just aren't personality cultists. We don't follow leaders, we elect representatives. We leave the loyal follower behaviors to other sorts.

And I was and am extremely sympathetic to Sanders' call to fix certain of America's problems. I am, however, extremely unsympathetic about lying to the electorate about what he can accomplish and how.

Given this basic unsuitability to the task, I believe Sanders can serve America best by rallying us both to vote for Democrats and demand the Democrats fix this nation.

[Stand and Fight]

141. Fealty??? Have you lost your mind? I swear fealty to no one - not Hillary or Bernie.

My true loyalty is to my family and friends, this country, and then my party... Even with that said, it's NEVER fealty. Good grief, man.

[uponit7771]

47. I said similar yesterday, Nader and Sanders seem very self centered and non team players

[Armstead]

74. yeah he's not on the Monsanto/Goldman/Comcast/UBS/Clinton team

And I and many many millions of others are damn glad for it

[Demsrule86]

75. In effect

From this moment on, he is on Trump's team.

[Armstead]

82. I'm glad you exhibit such "kindness and love" towards a legitimate Democratic candidate who....

is respectedf and supported by a significant share of Democrats and otehr voters.

That's a real winning strategy for November.

[Demsrule86]

163. He wants to overturn

the primary vote thus he is not legitimate...but anti-democracy.

[Armstead]

164. Clinton said similar things in 2008 -- and the primary is still going on

[uponit7771]

86. Yeap, a notable number of Sanders folk will vote for Trump too... not really impressed with the left

[floriduck]

109. At least you're honest. You, like your Clinton supporters are not left leaning. nm

[uponit7771]

117. sanctimonious much?

[Sparkly]

145. Yup.

Agreed.

[uponit7771]

85. He's on the "we'll see" team in regards to supporting down ballot dems the rest of your post

... is wingerish trip that we've come accustomed to ignoring when it comes to Hillary

[Armstead]

73. Yeah, I'm sure you really were "sympathetic" to the dirty hippies and commies on the left

[uponit7771]

87. I'm not aware of the context of those terms, I'm too young but my exposure to the far left isn't

... positive so far, first Nader now Sanders.

Seems they're willing to burn the village down to save it

[Armstead]

93. If you're not aware of the context.....

I sincerely suggest you read up on political and economic history. The context of the 50's, 60's, 70, 80's and beyond is absolutely essential to understanding what is happening today. There are a lot of complex forces in motion that are much larger than whether one prefers Bernie or Hillary as individual candidates.

I am not being condescending when I say that. There are many reasons diverse people either actively support Sanders or say things like "I prefer Bernie's positions and values but I have to support Clinton because we can't achieve what I really want."

I don't know what you consider "far left" but I'm a 64 year old, and my views are what were once considered mainstream liberal Democrat. Now, those same positions are consider "Too far left." because the political spectrum has been pushed so far to the right since 1980.

[uponit7771]

105. I did, still doesn't change the fact that in my life time the far left efforts have been pyric at...

...at best.

Complete turn off after Sanders who I at one time claimed was a once in a life time candidate right here on DU

I no longer think that and see Sanders and Nader as the ones who think burning down the villiage will save it

[Sparkly]

153. I'm right there with you.

[Sparkly]

146. What is this constant nonsensical zero-context preaching about "The Left?"

White suburbanites now = The Left, and women and minorities = The Establishment?!

[Armstead]

148. I'm not the one who was sniping at "the Left"

Put your fucking violin away. it's not cute not clever.

It's a narrator minded view that everyone who does not like Clinton, who has problems with the current concentration of wealth and power, who believes that things like education and health should be affordable to everyone..... and believes the Democrat Party has has not effectively formed an opposition to the GOP and excessive corporate power is "the left."

And now you say "the left" is against women and minorities?

You can take your goddamn violin and place it where the sun don't shine.

[Sparkly]

151. Pardon me.

I thought it was you who said, "Yeah, I'm sure you really were "sympathetic" to the dirty hippies and commies on the left."

The discussion, from the OP, is about the irony of complaining of disenfranchisement in an effort to disenfranchise women and minorities.

I did not think you were sniping at "the left," but I thought you were complaining that "the left" was disregarded by people who support Clinton or who see some naiveté in the steadfast belief that Sanders' words = what Sanders would accomplish.

No need to be nasty.

[Armstead]

158. I am the one who said that-- Please read what i was responding to

I did not drag the use of "the left" in disparaging ways out of thin air

giving me a very sour taste for the far left of our party. I used to be very sympathetic, but the more I hear him, the more I will never support his infantile revolution.

And the OP, yet again, equated the Sanders campaign with racism and sexism.

Sorry if that makes me respond in a nasty way -- but it does.....I don't care if someone prefers Clinton. That's fine...But I'm not going to accept bullshit distortions.


(And please note my less vituperative response to Uponit.)

[Sparkly]

160. I can understand

the feeling expressed, however, that this campaign leaves some with a "sour taste for the far left of our party." That is an honest thing to say.

I am just sorry that some people call themselves "left" when they're something else. And yeah -- when there's sanctimony about it, I get a "give me a break" attitude and take out the violin.

[Armstead]

161. All right...as my brother and i used to say after walloping each other...."Truce"

I get angry sometimes, but I much prefer to discuss things reasonably. I don't mind a heated discussion on actual content (and the occasional snark) but I don't like to make things personalized.

So let's just agree to disagree and move on from it.

[GulfCoast66]

175. I like both our candidates

So rarely post on these pissing match type post. But your comment about healthcare struck a nerve. Hillary Clinton went all in for a progressive health care plan in the early 90s. I mean all in. No compromises, just like Bernie supporters want. And that plan was defeated by a Democratic Congress. So perhaps Secretary Clinton knows a little bit more than you about what it actually takes to get things done.

If you are hoping for a candidate who will not compromise then you are looking for a left wing version of Ted Cruz.

[Armstead]

182. I am familiar with that plan and what happened

It's one of the reasons I am critical of Clinton about it. Democrats seem to have an unerring instinct for combining the worst aspects of "private enterprise" health insutrance with the worst aspects of bureaucratic government overreach.

And as for "compromise," you have the wrong comparison. Rather than Ted Cruze, I'd like to see a truly progressive Democratic version of Ronald Reagan. He set up a clear ideologocal framework and message and, but was also willing to compromise and make deals. As a result, he transformed the country -- both in small steps and the whole framework of politics and government.

We need that to actually push the pendulum in a leftward direction.

[NWCorona]

16. Has anyone said otherwise?

[uponit7771]

45. +1

[cali]

72. Lol. Bitter.

[Buzz Clik]

79. An average politician with all the accompanying flaws.

[Renew Deal]

2. That's called Undemocratic Socialism

It's where the voters pick someone else and Sanders begs the powers that be to pick him

[Armstead]

84. Reminds me of someone in 2008

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511890934

[GreatGazoo]

3. strawman

[Buzz Clik]

80. Bernie's strawman. Obnoxious, isn't it?

[Ron Green]

4. It sounds entirely reasonable to me.

What he's calling for is no more drastic or crooked than what the DNC has visited upon democratic values, and in the bargain Bernie's scheme gives us a chance at a future!

[Buzz Clik]

81. Cool. So, in order to win, you encourage Bernie to rig the system in his favor. Oh, dear.

How the mighty have fallen; how easily the pure of heart become corrupt.

[Ron Green]

92. Let's not pretend the system is other than rigged now.

I'm interested in a world my grandkids can survive.

[Buzz Clik]

95. Unlike the rest of us who want our kids and grandkids to rot in an environmental and social hell.

[Ron Green]

96. To be honest I can't tell why anyone with grandkids would want

the kind of world we're on track for, and that only a major shift will mitigate against.

Hillary, in her sameness, is the worst choice of all.

[Buzz Clik]

97. Yep. Mass suicide is the only solution.

[Ron Green]

98. Your sarcasm may work for you somehow,

but it is really a serious matter.

[seekthetruth]

156. WHY WHY WHY?

Why do we Progressives always hit a brick wall when we bring up the fracking issue with Clinton supporters!!?? Honestly, any Clinton supporter reading this.....DEFEND HER!

Heck, if she comes out against fracking and puts a solid plan to pursue renewable energy on the table, and adopts the progressive platform, I'LL VOTE FOR HER BECAUSE, YES, IT'S TIME FOR A FEMALE PRESIDENT!

I don't get it.....

[AgingAmerican]

131. Projection

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/25/remarkable-bernie-sanders-journey-will-overcome-crowning-clinton

[Buzz Clik]

133. You're clinging to that 6-week old article? He was 286 delegates down the day that was written.

He is down 290 delegates now, but there are 900 fewer delegates to capture.

Project that.

[truedelphi]

176. But in order for yr caniddate Hillary to win, she is now

Calling on Big Shot Republicans to send her Big Shot sized checks.

So how likely is it that she will adhere to the rather radical (for her) platform -- if she owes actual Big Time Republicans for her shot at the Presidency?

[timmymoff]

5. Can you hear the sirens of countless wahmbulances tonight?

It's her turn. Man the independents really love Hillary eh, they should be a big boost in the general. Oh wait, they aren't into her, better get volunteering, she is going to need you, and you don't need us Bernie supporters. I don't know how many threads I've read about that. Don't worry she's been vetted. Nothing but smooth sailing when the independents can't stand you.

[Buzz Clik]

83. Check the scoreboard, timmy.

And, yeah, we hear the wahmulance blaring in every word of your post. It's deafening.

[timmymoff]

118. Enjoy the two republican frontrunners

Clinton and Trump, the latter being able to run to the left of Clinton on economy and war. Great.

[Buzz Clik]

120. If Clinton is not a Democratic, and Sanders never has been, ....

[AgingAmerican]

132. Bernie Sanders is a small d Democrat

Hillary is a 'Moderate', whatever that is...

[Buzz Clik]

134. "Whatever that is." It's been in the political lexicon for 200 years.

[AgingAmerican]

135. What is the ideology of 'Moderate'?

What does a 'moderate' believe?

[Buzz Clik]

136. Let me explain:

www.google.com

[AgingAmerican]

138. So you have no idea either...

You don't even know what your own candidate believes? Wow!

[Buzz Clik]

139. No. It's time for you to do your own research. I don't play fetch.

If you've this long happy in you ignorance, I will not raise a finger to change that.

Clear?

[AgingAmerican]

140. I googled it

Moderates believe in nothing. Thanks for the link...

[Buzz Clik]

142. I googled "bullshit." Your picture popped up. How odd.

[AgingAmerican]

143. See for yourself...

In politics and religion, a moderate is an individual who is not extreme, partisan, nor radical. In recent years, the term political moderates has gained traction as a buzzword. The existence of the ideal moderate is disputed because of a lack of a moderate political ideology.

They have NO ideology, just as I thought.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22what+is+the+ideology+of+moderate%22

Now I know why you attempted to deflect it...

[timmymoff]

144. One has democratic principles

the other calls herself a democrat, right of Nixon is now democratic .

[all american girl]

112. Yep it's her turn. She has almost 300 more delegates than Bernie. She has around

3 million more voters than Bernie. That makes her winning, and makes it her turn. I'm kind of confused why some think that it's OK that she does the hard work but he should win it all. In my world we call that stealing....and I don't like people who steal.

[AntiBank]

7. I second the strawman call nt

[Buzz Clik]

78. Bernie's strawman. Second away...

[AntiBank]

99. I think you need to look up the definition of strawman

The OP is setting up a false premiss to try and discredit Sanders.

Two other logical fallacies used are:

1. Appeal to emotion. ie. "especially among women, African Americans and Hispanic people"

and

2. Ad hominem attack. ie. "And he is running as a progressive. Right."

The second is also patently untrue, as if one were benchmarking positions taken over their respective careers, (and I mean votes and legislation, NOT just flip-flopping sloganeering) Sanders is far more in the progressive camp than Clinton.

I do not understand why her multiple, fundamentally corporatist positions and actions are simply wished away or ignored or rationalised by so many on this board.

[Buzz Clik]

101. It's not a false premise -- it's what Sanders said. Jeebus. Look it up.

Sanders set up the STRAWMAN in national media interviews.

[AntiBank]

103. no, it's a strawman argument because it is laden with false logical fallicies

It "repurposes" his premiss, and using slanting linguistics.

[Buzz Clik]

104. Hey -- I just noticed. Your tenth post at DU was in response to me!

How sweet.

Anyway.... you were saying something about how you don't like the OP because it repeats what Bernie said but jabs him at the same time. Whatever.

[AntiBank]

108. thanks for being my tenth

we shall see how this all plays out

[apnu]

115. Question: How are "women, African Americans and Hispanic people" emotion?

Its is proven they've flocked to Hillary, and the OP is saying their numbers count. You are saying by citing those groups and their voice is an emotional plea?

[Cheese Sandwich]

9. What you are essentially saying: Fuck the elections drop out now losers

It's an election. We fight to the last vote. If we lose, we lose. We never were favored to begin with. Badgering candidates to drop out before the end of the process is stupid. It's against democracy.

[NanceGreggs]

10. What the OP is essentially saying ...

... is what the OP actually said - and it has nothing to do with "badgering candidates" to do anything.

I keep noticing - its hard not to - that the BSers here refuse to comment on the fact that Bernie, who once vehemently railed against the idea of SDs ignoring the will of the people, now wants them to do exactly that.

Doesn't that kind of blatant hypocrisy kind of stick in your craw, even a little bit?

[pat_k]

11. "who once vehemently railed against the idea of SDs ignoring the will of the people"

Quote?

[mythology]

15. Here you go

"And then you've got superdelegates in states where we win by 40 or 50 points. I think their own constituents are going to say to them, 'Hey, why don't you support the people of our state and vote for Sanders?'"

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/274402-sanders-superdelegates-may-jump-from-clinton

MADDOW: I just want to be super clear with you about that, just to make sure that I understand. Are you saying that even if you were behind in pledged delegates, I know you think you won’t be, but if you were behind in pledged delegates, you would still take that case all the way to the convention and try to convince the supers?

SANDERS: Well, we’re going to do the best we can in any and every way to win. But I think when you have states, for example, say in New Hampshire where we won by 22 points, in other states where we won by 25 or even 30 points, I think it is not unreasonable for the people of those states to say to their super delegates, hey, how about representing the people of our state and the outcome of the caucus or the primary?

MADDOW: I’m just going to push you and ask you one more time. If — I’ll actually ask you from the other direction. If one of you — one of you — presumably, there won’t be a tie. One of you presumably will be behind in pledged delegates heading into that convention. Should the person who is behind in pledged delegates concede to the person who is ahead in pledged delegates in Philadelphia?

SANDERS: Well, I — you know, I don’t want to speculate about the future and I think there are other factors involved. I think it is probably the case that the candidate who has the most pledged delegates is going to be the candidate, but there are other factors. And the other factors will be the strength of each of us in taking on the Republican candidate.

What I think is most important to all of the delegates, including the super delegates, is that we have a candidate who will win and not allow Donald Trump to end up in the White House.MADDOW: I just want to be super clear with you about that, just to make sure that I understand. Are you saying that even if you were behind in pledged dell gates, I know you think you won’t be, but if you were behind in pledged delegates, you would still take that case all the way to the convention and try to convince the supers?

SANDERS: Well, we’re going to do the best we can in any and every way to win. But I think when you have states, for example, say in New Hampshire where we won by 22 points, in other states where we won by 25 or even 30 points, I think it is not unreasonable for the people of those states to say to their super delegates, hey, how about representing the people of our state and the outcome of the caucus or the primary?

MADDOW: I’m just going to push you and ask you one more time. If — I’ll actually ask you from the other direction. If one of you — one of you — presumably, there won’t be a tie. One of you presumably will be behind in pledged delegates heading into that convention. Should the person who is behind in pledged delegates concede to the person who is ahead in pledged delegates in Philadelphia?

SANDERS: Well, I — you know, I don’t want to speculate about the future and I think there are other factors involved. I think it is probably the case that the candidate who has the most pledged delegates is going to be the candidate, but there are other factors. And the other factors will be the strength of each of us in taking on the Republican candidate.

What I think is most important to all of the delegates, including the super delegates, is that we have a candidate who will win and not allow Donald Trump to end up in the White House.

http://americablog.com/2016/03/sanders-take-hillarys-superdelegates-cant-win-popular-vote.html

[pat_k]

39. Where's the vehement railing?

I think it is probably the case that the candidate who has the most pledged delegates is going to be the candidate, but there are other factors. And the other factors will be the strength of each of us in taking on the Republican candidate.

Sounds exactly like what he is saying today.

[SwampG8r]

94. He also said

That those superdelegates would be following the votes of those states
Why should superdelegates vote against the states voters wishes?
If this is what they got to say bernie is trying to " overturn the will of the voters" then they got nothing

[pat_k]

119. I ask again, where's the "vehement railing."

"And then you've got superdelegates in states where we win by 40 or 50 points. I think their own constituents are going to say to them, 'Hey, why don't you support the people of our state and vote for Sanders?'"

He expressed the view that voters in the states he won overwhelmingly are going to question the superdelegate's who ignore their clear choice. That's not many states, It follows that the voters in states that Clinton won overwhelmingly are going to question any superdelegates who endorse him.

It also follows that voters in states in which the race was close would have no cause to question the choices of the superdelegates in their states. Without a decisive winner, there's no expectation either way.

Of course, it would certainly be reasonable for any of them to make their choice based on their judgment of which candidate will be stronger against Trump. Just as it would be reasonable for them to go with the winner of the pledged delegates. His point has always been simple: "Wait 'til voters in every state have their say, and then give the superdelegates a chance to consider -- and perhaps change their minds. There is no doubt that the race changed after most of the superdelegates came out and endorsed Clinton.

It's perfectly reasonable to assert that those who currently endorse Clinton -- particularly those who endorsed her when they believed he has "no shot" should have a chance to change to him if he demonstrates an upward trajectory. If he lost every remaining state by large margins he'd expect his superdelegates to abandon him.

And if he did lose the remaining states by large margins, he'd just be calling on the delegates he won to go to the convention and make their voices known; to make it clear that there are substantial numbers who believe this nation desperately needs a New, New Deal. (A position that many Hillary delegates are likely to join in, particularly given that exit polling shows that many made their choice not on positions, but rather on their belief about "electability."

I see no inconsistency, and certainly no "vehement railing."

[morningfog]

17. The nomination process is rife with undemocratic aspects.

Unequal delegate allocation among states, caucuses, varying standards for voter eligibility and 15% of the nominating power in the hands of a few with unfettered discretion (and who get to vote twice).

The process is not a fine, accurate democratic exercise. It is a quasi-democratic generalized selection process.

Should the nomination be strictly tied to the popular vote? Probably, but it isn't. Should voters from different states have their votes weighted the same? Probably, but they don't. Should a select group have 15% of the vote free to vote on any grounds whatsoever? No. But they do.

[NanceGreggs]

25. All of that being said ...

... and I don't disagree with you on some points - I am still wondering what Bernie supporters think of his campaign appealing to the SDs, even if he is clearly far behind HRC in votes and delegates (which he is, and still will be at the time of the convention), and asking them to overturn the will of the people and hand him the nomination.

I remember Bernie saying - when he thought he would be the frontrunner, and the SDs might hand the nomination to Hillary anyway - that the SDs should follow the will of the people. Now he's saying the exact opposite.

Does that not strike you as being blatantly hypocritical?

[Jack Bone]

35. I think Bernie's saying what he's always said.

SD's should be locked in to a candidate, when that candidate wins that state by a margin of 20% or more... Otherwise those SD's should be open to argument..

They shouldn't line-up behind any candidate before the election even happens.

I think if you are a SD, you should keep your vote preference silent until the convention...NO ENDORSEMENTS...the same way President Obama has done...If you wanna endorse someone...you lose your SD vote.

[NanceGreggs]

38. That doesn't answer the question.

You're giving me your opinion of what you think should be, instead of dealing with what actually is.

Do you not think it hypocritical of Bernie to be making a case to the SDs that he deserves the nomination, despite the fact that he isn't (and won't be) the candidate with the most votes/delegates as decided by the people?

[Jack Bone]

41. I don't have a crystal ball..

No one knows who will have the most delegates...that's why we vote...like we did today.

Hillary doesn't have the requisite delegates..neither does Bernie. Until then, we'll keep voting...if no one get's the requisite number..it goes to convention...it's really not that difficult of an idea to follow

Overall Vote count matters about as much as overall money raised...it doesn't.

Bernie's said what he's said...it's not confusing, unless you wish to make it so.

[NanceGreggs]

43. In other words ...

... you can't/won't answer the question.

"No one knows who will have the most delegates." Actually, we do know. But let's put that aside.

Bernie plans to "make a case" to the SDs to give him the nomination even if he doesn't have the majority of votes/delegates.

How does that square with his previous contention that the SDs should not vote against the will of the people, when that is exactly what he is planning to ask them to do?

[Jack Bone]

50. Yes in states w/ +20% margins, Bernie considers that

"The will of the people" ....those super delegates should lock into the winning candidate.

Other than that it's open to argument.

*and delegates shouldn't declare before their state votes/caucuses

That's what Bernie has said over & over..I can't see where that's so difficult to follow.

[NanceGreggs]

53. I'll try once more ...

... and see if you can answer a direct question.

Bernie's plan is to "make a case" to the SDs that despite being behind HRC in votes/delegates, they should vote for him anyway as the "better candidate" in the GE.

This is the exact opposite of what he's said all along, that the SDs should vote in accordance with the will of the people, as expressed by which candidate has the MOST votes/delegates.

THAT is Bernie's current plan - to convince SDs to ignore the voters and hand him the nomination.

Does Bernie's complete about-face on the SDs, and his contention now that the SDs should ignore the voters and choose him even though he's not the people's choice, strike you as hypocritical?

[Jack Bone]

60. I'll try..

Yes, that's Bernie's case to the SD's ..he's the better candidate! (He may still get the most delegate count..."the wheel's still in spin&quot

No, it's not opposite of what he has said, or what he is saying now..

Like I posted earlier...Bernie considers "will of the people" to be a state by state basis (the way they vote @ convention)...over a 20% margin of victory...He won Vermont by +20 % pts...he should get all of the SD's for Vermont...the states where Hillary won over 20%, she should get...everything else should be open to argument, where they could use an overall delegate count...(which he may still win), overall vote total, money raised, current polls, who's more photogenic, etc....all of which can be used to sway a SD's vote prior to, or @ the convention.

No...I don't think it's hypocritical...he's saying, and plans to do...what he's always said.

[NanceGreggs]

61. What he's "always said" ...

... is that the SDs should vote in accordance with the will of the people - i.e. votes/delegates.

There was nothing about "state by state basis", "margins of victory", "+20% pts" - nothing.

You're skating. Mr. "I represent the People" Sanders now plans to ask the SDs to ignore "the People" and give him the nomination whether he has the votes/delegates or not. You keep ignoring that point.

But I DO have my answer, thanks. The answer is that Bernie supporters are going to ignore his hypocrisy, and try to rationalize/justify it instead.

BTW, saying that BS "can still win the overall delegate count" was a dead giveaway that you can't be taken seriously in any event.

[Jack Bone]

63. If he wins the nomination...guess what?

He won the overall delegate count..

As for what he's said...taken from post #15


SANDERS: Well, we’re going to do the best we can in any and every way to win. But I think when you have states, for example, say in New Hampshire where we won by 22 points, in other states where we won by 25 or even 30 points, I think it is not unreasonable for the people of those states to say to their super delegates, hey, how about representing the people of our state and the outcome of the caucus or the primary?

"it's not me....it's we"

[uponit7771]

48. or the willingness to answer a straight forward question either. Sanders is a hypocrite period EOS

[chwaliszewski]

55. I would recommend not voting for him then.

[Iliyah]

12. HRC has the PD and will remain the front runner with it.

HRC has the SD, and will win the nomination. It's the math. And to put icing on it, she has the popular votes as well. Plus, cash on hand and helping the Dems down ticket (it's a lie about money laundering crapola).

Truth meet reality.

[baldguy]

13. The Superdelegates supporting Clinton are authoritarian neofascist oligarchs.

And Sanders is seeking their support. Why would Sanders want the help of such evil people?

(Of course, the Superdelegates supporting Sanders are modern-day Paul Reveres om a par with the archangels.)

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. Quote?

[Hiraeth]

18. but, it is okay if those super delegates vote for Hillary. you are alright with that. got it.

[pnwmom]

19. Bernie wants to have it both ways.

He counts the 750 supers when stating the total number of delegates -- but removes them when calculating how many delegates she still needs. IOW, he objects to her including any of her super-delegates in her personal total, even though the overall total includes 750 supers.

If we are only looking at pledged delegates, Hillary is more than 300 ahead. He would have to get 67% of all the remaining pledged delegates to win. This is about as likely as winning the lottery.

[Hiraeth]

23. your math is screwy.

[JDPriestly]

29. Hillary's situation could change a lot between now and the convention.

[pnwmom]

30. And so could his. n/t

[JDPriestly]

37. He is not under an FBI investigation and hasn't taken a lot of money from people.

[pnwmom]

40. How do you know?

[JDPriestly]

42. Do you have any reason at all to think he is?

We know that Hillary is?

Why in the world would Bernie be under investigation?

He doesn't take money from rich people.

He doesn't have any secrets to give away or sell.

There is absolutely no way he could be under investigation for anything.

[pnwmom]

46. Cali posted this.

S/he says all the top Dems in Vermont are connected in some way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7802436

Bernie hasn't had anything to say about it . . . yet. Strange.

http://digital.vpr.net/post/bernie-sanders-wont-talk-about-alleged-corporate-corruption-his-home-state#stream/0

Bernie Sanders Won't Talk About Alleged Corporate Corruption In His Home State

Virtually every prominent Vermont politician condemned the alleged multimillion-dollar fraud in the Northeast Kingdom after federal authorities charged the developers last week, but Vermonters have yet to hear what Sen. Bernie Sanders thinks about it – or how he might vote on a key reform bill.

Sanders, a Democratic candidate for president, has been silent about the fraud allegations and the federal EB-5 program, even though he endorsed the EB-5-funded projects as an example of good government in the past.

Sen. Patrick Leahy said last week that he hopes Congress will help him pass a bill to reform the federal EB-5 program that allegedly allowed Jay Peak owner Ariel Quiros and CEO Bill Stenger to dupe hundreds of foreign investors out of millions of dollars.

Leahy said his bill would help prevent that kind of fraud, but Vermont's other senator hasn't weighed in about Leahy's bill or the fraud allegations that surfaced nearly a week ago.

After landing at the Burlington airport Tuesday evening, Sanders briefly addressed reporters about his loss in the New York primary, and he refused to answer any questions about the EB-5 issue.

SNIP

After seeing Sanders refuse to address the issue, Buxton took to Facebook to show her displeasure.

Sanders just asked by local reporter what he thinks of Leahy's EB5 reform plan and he says "Let me stay off that for now and focus on this election." Must be nice to be a big powerful Senator who picks and chooses which cases of fraud, greed, and ponzi-like schemes to rail against. I guess the ones that happen in your own back yard, using policies and programs you voted for aren't all that important? Looking forward to understanding how Bernie benefited from donations made from these crooks during his 2012 election. Bah!

[rhett o rick]

20. So do you support the Super-Duper Delegat system or not? It was designed to

stop progressives from winning and that's what you want. You want Citibank, Goldman-Sachs and the Koch Bros to steal more from the poor.

[oasis]

21. Hand him the nomination "based on the polls"?

The polls are NEVER wrong. We all know that, right?

[northernsouthern]

34. Actually they denote trends, and it is denoting that she is losing despite all of the claims...

...they talked trash about trump for ages...I would not trust your talking heads after today.

[Thinkingabout]

128. The poll which counts now is over three million ahead in votes, a poll you can count on.

[northernsouthern]

162. WRONG.

Last edited Fri May 13, 2016, 12:30 AM - Edit history (3)

That is one they say that does not count. If you want to play that game, democrats have already lost. Far more republican votes were cast.

[Thinkingabout]

169. Hillary has the most votes, no games, no lies, BTW, it was three million more than Sanders.

[northernsouthern]

170. You do know that is not how a poll works right?

Polls don't rely on people not being able to reply because they are not in a party, have a closed station, no ID, long lines, can't make it in...etc. The one thing they have all said is that primaries elections DO NOT count for general. Polls however do, they show trends, and right now the trend is Hillary crashing and burning in most of the battleground states. BUt hey, I am sure the denial vote counts for something, and if anyone can play it, it is Hillary.

[Thinkingabout]

171. Polling places, maybe you don't know what a polling place is, polling places where elections are

determined, polling places where voters goes to vote, yes the polling places where elected officials are determined.

[northernsouthern]

174. Yeah again google is your friend.

A poll is not the same thing as a polling place, I see where you can get confused as they use some of the same letters. But like with many words in English they have multiple meanings.

poll·ing place
noun
a building where voting takes place during an election, typically one that normally has another function, such as a school.

vs

poll
pōl/Submit
noun
1.
the process of voting in an election.
"the country went to the polls on March 10"
synonyms: vote, ballot, show of hands, referendum, plebiscite; election
"a second-round poll"
2.
dialect
a person's head.
verb
1.
record the opinion or vote of.
"focus groups in which customers are polled about merchandise preferences"
synonyms: canvass, survey, ask, question, interview, ballot
"most of those polled supported the vice president"
2.
cut the horns off (an animal, especially a young cow).

I see where you got confused as the first definition of poll coincides with that of the other, but words have multiple meanings. In an election they have set rules in place to prevent many people from voting, while in polls they try to reach a larger group and not try to shut them out for being independents. You see the problem is the Primaries are not the actual end of the election, there is another set later where more people are allowed to vote, and where people are not allowed to vote the democratic party actually does something about it and does not just sweep it under the rug. If you need more explaining I will do my best, but you may just want to do some basic reading on what a poll is and what a primary is.

[Thinkingabout]

178. As I say the most important poll has taken place in many states, pledged delegates have been

Tallied, super delegates have or will be endorsing. These crap online polls are just that crap

[northernsouthern]

180. Lol, they are far more accurate than the primary.

They showed Obama beating McCain for the majority of the election in 2008...but Hillary pretty much tied with McCain. The primaries are not statically relevant as they block many voters, many do not turn out, and they are given far less importance.


But if you like I did a google search just for you, here is one of the many articles about how you are 100% wrong. The Primary holds far less weight than actual polls, again you need to read in to how polls are conducted and how primaries are. One is done to get the most accurate information (with in it bias) and the other is paid for by the Hillary Victory funds and is basically a sham in many respects.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/mar/06/david-brooks/david-brooks-said-primary-turnout-doesnt-predict-g/

[Silver_Witch]

26. Ohh that is so cute...

...look who is mad about super delegates now! I believe Hillary supporters are the ones that say Super Delegates are totally cool and groovy....shoe on other foot!

[pnwmom]

27. Hillary supporters have always thought that the votes of super delegates were important

and would be counted.

It is Bernie who wanted to sideline them -- till he realized it was impossible for him to get a majority of pledged delegates. So now he's after the supers. But his change of heart won't help him. Her supporters have no reason to desert her now.

[LuvLoogie]

36. And therein lies the difficulty they have. Their flawed

application of logic, and cause and effect, is in direct conflict with reality. When faced with outcomes that run counter to their interpretations, they blame it on oonspirators, rigged games and evil.

[JDPriestly]

28. Please let us who live in California vote like everybody else has.

Please. You got to vote your choice. We want to vote for ours.

Thanks for your patience.

Oregon and California, two of the most liberal states in the Union.

And, coincidence of coincidences, we vote last or nearly last.

The system is rigged. And I will not support such a rigged system.

Please let us have our right to vote.

[tirebiter]

31. Sanders is a super delegate

So that makes at least one on his side.

[ucrdem]

32. #BernieLogic.

Aided and abetted by the usual suspects yakking about their latest Benghazi. Yes I mean you CNN.

[northernsouthern]

33. Wow you love to waive that minority flag don't you.

Just like the rainbow HRC logos...that is about as much as they care about them. But hey good for you, you are using that card Trump talked about, let's see how that works out for you. Also what do you think about the fact the Dems are floating to elect Biden if Hillary get's taken by the feds by using using the Super Delegates?...and que fake rage now...

[uponit7771]

44. exactly, progressive my ass... he's acting just like the people he demagogues regularly

[Betty Karlson]

49. gender card, hispandering and race card all played at once?

With added projection about superdelegates (which Clinton was happy to tout because they made her lead look bigger; talk about foregoing conclusions)? You guys must be pretty desperate.

Fun fact: most women actually prefer Sanders - especially women under 50, who are the future of the party. Clinton polls abysmally with women under 35. The gender card is only responded to by have-beens like Steinem and Albright, who spend their days obsessing about my lust for Berniebros and predicting my Hellbound afterlife.

Polls (most of them bought and paid for by David Brock and Clinton's corporate bundlers) are now suddenly to be disregarded because Clinton is now shown to be the weaker candidate - against the GOP - in poll after poll? And nationally she is being overtaken by Sanders, let's not forget about that. Oh no, we are to forget about that, because it IS HER TURN or something. Also 9/11 and a gender. And math. Did I mention Clinton has ovaries?

Clinton takes three months to release a single Goldman Sachs transcript. She voted for the Iraq War. She opposed gay marriage. She disobeyed Obama, consulted Blumenthal, and turned Libya into an ISIS breeding ground. She let Syria go to Hell. She is in favor of NSA spying on innocent civilians. She touted democracy-undermining and health-endangering things like TTIP and TPP as a "golden standard". She praised Nancy Reagan for deadpanning the national conversation on AIDS ("silent activism&quot .

Yet somehow, we should have doubt over Sanders' progressive credentials, because he plays by the rules the Democratic Party has designed.

As long as Clinton was winning, we all heard: these are the rules, suck it if you don't like them. But now that Sanders may very well win, playing by the rules, the rules must be changed! Changed!

Hypocrisy: thy name is Myriad, and thou hath taken possession of Camp Weathervane.

[pnwmom]

52. No. There is a large gender gap, with women strongly supporting Hillary.

It is only under the age of 30 that he has majorities of women.

Bernie has a mathematical possibility of ZERO of getting half of the pledged delegates, because he needs more delegates to get to 2026 (half of pledged delegates) than remain in all the primaries.

And there is no chance at all that hundreds of Hillary's endorsing supers will desert her for Bernie -- disregarding the millions of voters who have already chosen her.

[Betty Karlson]

54. Sorry, but your talking points seem to be outdated by now.

The desperation in camp Weathervane to pretend that she still has a chance to win outright (she hasn't) can only be taken as a silent admission that the party elite is (finally) starting to read the writing on the wall: Clinton is the only Democratic candidate weak enough to lose to any and all GOP candidates. Her abysmal polling among independents and new voters attest to that.

The party elite may be fond of the status quo, but for the good of the party, they may well consider fielding the canidate who'd make Louisiana a swing state (Sanders).

[pnwmom]

56. If it "seems" that way to you, it's because you can't count.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/math-says-bernie-sanders-is-finished-222775

There’s one more reason for Bernie Sanders focus his energy on winning over super delegates — it's now mathematically impossible for him to reach the magic number for the Democratic nomination by winning the remaining pledged delegates alone.

Here's how it works: After winning Indiana, Sanders has 1,399 pledged delegates and superdelegates to his name, according to the Associated Press' count. That means he needs 984 more to reach the threshold of 2,383 needed to win.

The remaining contests, however — Guam, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the District of Columbia — only have 933 pledged delegates to offer.

So even if Sanders were to win 100 percent of the pledged delegates in each of those states, he wouldn't make it past the mark.

[Betty Karlson]

57. And we are back to that mythical creature called math. Which is part of the Cult of Saint Hillary.

Why is Camp Weathervane so desperate to have only ONE candidate on the California ballots? Is the internal polling so worrying for you guys?

Fun fact: it is mathematically unlikely for Clitnon to get to 2,383 as well.

[pnwmom]

58. The critical difference: Hillary won't have to "flip" any of Bernie's 39 supers to cross the finish

line. She's got hundreds.

So she'll win with a majority of the pledged delegates -- 2026 or more. And then most of her supers will be icing on the cake.

[Betty Karlson]

59. Nobody has GOT supers. That's the point about Supers: they are uncommitted.

(at least until the convention)

The supers won't go with a candidate who is so weak that she could lose to Trump. That would be Kamikaze. If California comes out for Sanders, do you really think the Democratic Party is going to risk 55 electoral votes because "it is her turn"?

The supers are there to prevent follies and candidates who are alienating key parts of the base (like anyone under 30). Those are the rules.

[pnwmom]

62. The supers have had months to switch to Bernie. Face it. They're not interested, no matter

what happens to CA.

Do you think they're going to ignore all the voters in NY, Florida, Maryland, Texas, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and all the other millions of voters who voted for Hillary because of anything that happens in California?



She is millions of voters and hundreds of delegates ahead.

Bernie can't win the majority of pledged delegates, so he has to depend on flipping hundreds of Hillary's supers. She CAN and WILL win the majority of pledged delegates, no matter what happens in CA, and the supers who have been supporting her all along aren't going to desert her.

If you think they will, when in history have supers overturned the will of a majority of pledged delegates?

The answer is never. And this year won't be the first.

[Betty Karlson]

64. Supers justify themselves by preventing disaster candidates. If they fail to do so this year,

that's the end of the party as we know it.

[pnwmom]

65. LOLOLOL They wouldn't have endorsed her if they thought she was a "disaster candidate."

She's not some outsider candidate, coming from nowhere to grab the nomination -- like Trump. Or that other guy.

[Betty Karlson]

100. And now we are back to comparing Trump with Sanders. Just low.

But then: the Clinton campaign is well known to prefer the low road over the high road.

They endorsed her prematurely.

[Sparkly]

147. None of them are saying that.

Speaking of the low road, polls have shown many Sanders supporters said they might vote for Trump if Sanders doesn't get the nomination, and many Trump supporters said they might vote for Sanders.

Does that tell you anything?

[Demsrule86]

166. They will vote for the one with the most delegates

I predict Bernie gets out after California...he knows he won't get the supers.

[quaker bill]

67. not in indiana

women went for Bernie there....

[pnwmom]

68. Nationally. n/t

[basselope]

51. Results of closed primaries mean 0 to me.

[Demsrule86]

76. You don't get to make up the rules as you go along

Bernie knows he has lost. He is hoping to convince the supers into voting for him...won't happen.

[basselope]

110. Clinton did.

That's kinda the problem.

[Demsrule86]

114. She did no such thing

The primary rules were the primary rules...Bernie knew what they were. He lost. He needs to suspend now. The Indiana 'victory'...
too late too small. Obama lost Indiana too as well as Ohio and Pennsylvania...he is the president as you may have noticed.

[basselope]

116. Of course she did.

The DNC set it up to be stacked against any challenger.

The fact that someone who wasn't a democrat was able to come in and do as much damage as they did, shows just how weak she is.

Obama became president on the promise of hope and change. His failure to live up to those promises is why he lost the independent vote in 2012 and why Clinton will do even worse.

She will not be president... she has no viable path.

[JoePhilly]

90. Which candidate has won more open primaries?

Be careful, its a trick question.

[basselope]

111. Bernie.

[DLCWIdem]

172. open primaries

Last edited Fri May 13, 2016, 01:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Clinton
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Tennesee
Texas
Virginia
Mississippi
Illinois
Missouri

Sander
Indiana
Wisconsin
Michigan
Vermont

Semi-open/closed primaries
Clinton
Massachusetts
Ohio
No. Carolina

Sanders
RI, NH,OK

[quaker bill]

66. what he is actually saying is

let everyone vote, then listen to them.

[pnwmom]

69. No, he's actually saying "let everyone vote -- and then go by what the polls say." n/t

[quaker bill]

70. you mean kinda like signing up for Team Hill

before the first vote was cast?

[pnwmom]

71. Nope. He's waiting till she has a majority of pledged delegates and then he thinks

he'll get the supers who've endorsed her to switch to him.

[quaker bill]

121. But what's voting got to do with it?

That is the point you deliberately miss. When the vote was 0 to 0, (no votes cast yet) team Hill had a 500 SD lead. So it is ok that voting meant absolutely nothing then, but it is critically important that it mean something now? You are not making sense.

If they are free to do anything they want whenever, then that is what they are, even now.

[pnwmom]

122. They were free then and they are free now -- to do what they want, which is to vote for Hillary

for President.

[quaker bill]

123. This is true, but there is no reason one cannot offer an argument

if they are truly free, then any reason offered to vote in any direction is perfectly legit. This blows your premise. Bernie can say what ever he likes, no harm, no foul.

[pnwmom]

124. He can ask but he's deceiving his followers into thinking that he will succeed. n/t

[quaker bill]

125. I am not deceived.

you underestimate people. No one is confused here.

[pnwmom]

126. Many young people are being deceived into sending donations to a campaign

that has zero chance of winning. The money would be better saved and spent later on the college loans most of them already have.

[quaker bill]

129. Do you only support Hillary because she is winning?

Or do you imagine that many people are just not as smart as you?

You get to pick.

I think most people support candidates they think offer the best ideas, even if they are losing. I actually think most folks are sufficiently bright and well enough informed to make reasonable choices about this. (at least on the blue side of the aisle)

I expect you support Hillary because you think she has the best ideas. On this I would beg to differ. All that aside, you have the right to your choice for your own reasons. I would recommend giving others a similar level of credibility.

I have never been a Hillary fan and am not more inclined in her direction because she is winning. I will vote and I will vote for Trump's opponent, because it would not be moral to do otherwise. That does not mean I will come to love it.

[Buzz Clik]

77. ... based on the polls he likes to believe, disregarding the majority of the polls.

[In_The_Wind]

137. Oy

[Gothmog]

91. Sanders is delusional

[EndElectoral]

102. If that's the only thing you're getting out of what Bernie is saying than you're not listening

[CrowCityDem]

106. He loves democracy, until he loses.

[NurseJackie]

107. Well, that's Bernie!

[The Second Stone]

113. Perfectly consistent for a socialist admirer of Castro

and the Soviet Union. Elections for socialists are just for show, a small elite get to determine who the winner is, not the voters. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[jillan]

165. Are you trying to say Bernie is a communist? Or are you willfully ignoring the definition of

democratic socialism because it has nothing to do with Castro FFS!

Hurry! Hurry! Get your right wing talking points right here at Democratic Underground

[The Second Stone]

168. Please link or copy and paste your definition of "democratic socialism"

I think when you read it, you will find that it is plain old socialism. Sanders has been and is a Castro fan.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article62748002.html

I don't want the government having a vote in my business decisions. That's what socialism is. It is not passing laws that say how run a law abiding business, it is having government having a say in how individual businesses are run.

Interesting that so many Sanders supporters have no idea what socialism is.

[Aerows]

127. Bernie Sanders has won 19 states.

That isn't an insignificant number, no matter how desperately Hillary Clinton and her supporters would like for it to be. We still have some states to go, too.

Buckle up, the ride isn't over yet.

[redstateblues]

177. Too little too late

[DLCWIdem]

179. Clinton has won 22 + 3 others Guam N Marianas A Somoa

[AgingAmerican]

130. WRONG as always

[PowerToThePeople]

149. Primary is not over yet

If Clinton ends up with more pledged delegates, I will concede that she has the nomination. That will be the last of me on DU and the last I will consider myself a Democrat.

[pnwmom]

150. Then I'll say goodbye now.

[Sparkly]

155. Democracy means not always getting what you want.

Sorry.

[seekthetruth]

152. Uhm.....he kinda is.

Stop fracking, increase investment in renewable energy, decrease vs. increase our involvement in Mid-East affairs, universal healthcare, against the death penalty, could go on and on. Sounds like a progressive to me.

The thing is, the cards are stacked against the guy. I assume you're in the Pacific Northwest, yes? I think you should talk to more of the people out here.....there's a lot to learn. Seattle is hands-down 100% BERNHEADS!

[pnwmom]

154. The caucus attenders do not represent all of Seattle.

It will be interesting to see what the primary results are in May.

[seekthetruth]

157. Didn't Sanders take WA in a landslide?

Seriously here....we get so freaking ugly towards each other. There were some very cool Clinton supporters in my caucus. Good peeps, just disagree.

[pnwmom]

159. Yes, in a caucus landslide. And I've been fighting the non-inclusive, non-representative

caucus system for at least ten years.

And talking about "freaking ugly" -- this came off as very condescending to me.

I assume you're in the Pacific Northwest, yes? I think you should talk to more of the people out here.....there's a lot to learn.

[Prism]

167. I enjoy the hypocritical flip here

For the entire primary, when Clinton got a lot of very early endorsements, Clinton supporters have cried, "Bernie knew the system when he entered the race!"

And the very second Bernie attempts to work that system, suddenly it's "How dare he?'"

Lol. C'mon. So transparently pointless and without any solid idea or principle.

Btw, I hate super delegates, and I just want a straight up popular vote. Clinton is winning that. So be it. She'll be the nominee. I won't complain about the result insofar as she won the most votes. I'll complain about her nomination, but the voters are speaking, whether I like it or not.

I do not want a Bernie nomination determined by undemocratic super delegates. The one bar to this is if Clinton were actually indicted. Then the party would need to act.

[Bonobo]

173. Weasel word "essentially" is the reveal on your OP. nt

[AgingAmerican]

181. No

He isn't saying that. You said that.