Regarding Superdelegates -- Sanders Supporters Have Been Lied To

[Octafish]

The writer raises very important points about Superdelegates, Electability and this sudden Moving of Goalposts.

Sanders Supporters Have Been Lied To, and Here’s How

by Seth Abramson
Huffington Post, May 18, 2016

For a full year — from early 2015 to early 2016 — Sanders supporters were told that superdelegates pick whoever they believe is the strongest general-election candidate.

SNIP...

What those rules state is this: if a front-runner emerges who’s unable to secure the Democratic nomination using pledged delegates alone — and note, it only takes 59 percent of the pledged delegates available to do so — superdelegates will choose a nominee based on their assessment of each candidate’s electoral viability.

SNIP...

After winning more than 60 percent of the pledged delegates through March 1st, Clinton is now likely to lose the majority of pledged delegates awarded between March 2nd and June 14th — a two and a half month period that makes up roughly the final two-thirds of the Democratic nominating process.

But it isn’t just this — as striking a fact as it is — that has caused real concern about whether Clinton can win in the fall. It’s also that Clinton’s unfavorables have risen to historic levels; that Clinton performs consistently worse than Sanders against Donald Trump in both general election and battleground-state polling; that there are states (for instance, Georgia, Arizona, and Ohio) that polling shows Sanders would win and Clinton would lose in the general election, along with many others (among them New Hampshire and Pennsylvania) where Clinton is in a dead heat with Trump and Sanders wins handily; that Clinton loses independent voters to Trump while Sanders wins them overwhelmingly; that Clinton can’t draw crowds with even a fraction of the numbers or energy that Sanders’ crowds routinely have; that Clinton isn’t considered nearly as honest or trustworthy as Sanders, according to every poll of voters; and that a movement candidate will be needed to defeat Donald Trump, whereas, instead of a movement candidate, what Clinton is giving the Democrats is Al Gore 2.0.

The problem, in sum, is that Clinton is looking like a clear November loser, and Sanders a probable November winner.

CONTINUED...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/this-is-the-one-way-in-wh_b_10026870.html

What to do? should not be a problem. Side with DEMOCRACY -- fairly, transparently, and in the open. After all, we ARE the Democratic Party.

[CrowCityDem]

1. If that's the standard, DC is the only primary that should matter! Lol.

[Octafish]

3. No. Seth Abramson makes clear the math.

Who does better against Trump?

Bernie Sanders.

[redstateblues]

9. Bernie would be crushed once the Rs looped video of Bernie promising to raise taxes on the middle class

The last Democrat to do that was Walter Mondale. He won one State.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become one."

I will just ignore that admonition.

By what right does a white professor from a predominately white university in a predominately white state arrogate to himself the right to tell the people of color and women who have given Hillary Clinton her 3,000, 000 vote lead their votes should be disregarded?

If he lived one hundred lives he wouldn't be better than the lowliest of them.

[Octafish]

28. That doesn't sound very Democratic to me.

Thanks for putting it into words, though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. I am glad you agree that a man who wants to disregard

I am glad you agree with me that a man who wants to overturn the will of the voters is not a democrat.

Thank you for your commitment to democracy.

Seth Abramson is elitist, condescending, and patronizing.

If he lived one thousand lives, despite his education and degree, he would not be better than the lowliest person whose vote he wants to disregard.

[Octafish]

39. What if he lived 10,000 lives? and he suffered dandruff with rocks as big as cufflinks?

Would that be enough suffering for Seth to go through for disagreeing with you?

Personally, this is somebody I have a grudge with:



Rupert helped lie America into war.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Is your reliance on photos a camouflage for the paucity of thought that goes into your arguments?

The person with the most votes win. It has been thus since the ancient Athenians.

[Octafish]

56. Where did I say otherwise?

Don't get mad because I don't think Hillary is the best candidate.

The big picture of Hillary and Rupert Murdoch shows her smiling with a guy who's helping destroy Democracy.

If you don't have a problem with that, you don't know much about Rupert Murdoch. That's why I linked to a nice article about how he helped goad Tony the Poodle Blair into war.

Here's another picture that's worth a 1,000 words:



“I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people before this -- before two months ago I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. That's a broken system.” -- Donald Drumpf

And the reason it matters:

Larry Summers: Goldman Sacked

Monday, September 16, 2013
By Greg Palast for Reader Supported News

Joseph Stiglitz couldn't believe his ears. Here they were in the White House, with President Bill Clinton asking the chiefs of the US Treasury for guidance on the life and death of America's economy, when the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers turns to his boss, Secretary Robert Rubin, and says, "What would Goldman think of that?"

Huh?

Then, at another meeting, Summers said it again: What would Goldman think?A shocked Stiglitz, then Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, told me he'd turned to Summers, and asked if Summers thought it appropriate to decide US economic policy based on "what Goldman thought." As opposed to say, the facts, or say, the needs of the American public, you know, all that stuff that we heard in Cabinet meetings on The West Wing.

[font color="green"]Summers looked at Stiglitz like Stiglitz was some kind of naive fool who'd read too many civics books. [/font color]

CONTINUED...

http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-goldman-sacked/

See. I like words. I can read. And what they tell me is my eyes aren't lying.

[Nye Bevan]

34. Someone lost their alerting privileges for 24 hours:

On Thu May 19, 2016, 10:56 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become one."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2003404

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Racist and sexist remarks with direct reference to one of our candidates.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 19, 2016, 11:01 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't get which candidate is the alerter referring to, sorry. Sanders was not a professor.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't really see this as "racist".
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing racist, and nothing sexist. I'm alerting this alert to Admin.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. My fans are legion, Nye.

I will not back down. I will not be cowed. I will not remain silent in the face of intimidation.

[amborin]

38. divisive racial politics is all you've got to prop up a losing candidate

[DURHAM D]

2. speaking of lying...

That is a great bit of drivel.

[Octafish]

5. We have your word on that. LOL.

Seems Abramson has noted what you can't put into words: the national picture has changed.

After winning more than 60 percent of the pledged delegates through March 1st, Clinton is now likely to lose the majority of pledged delegates awarded between March 2nd and June 14th — a two and a half month period that makes up roughly the final two-thirds of the Democratic nominating process.

You want to say otherwise, great. Have at it. The picture painted is very different for Democrats depending on the nominee in November.

[sharp_stick]

10. So those are the only pledged delegates that now matter?

She's still ahead in pledged delegates, the total matters not some made up time period that makes Sanders look good.

The National picture hasn't changed it's the States that Sanders was expected to do well in being piled into the period between March 2nd and June 14th.

I suggest we now set a new "National Picture Period". We'll start today and count the delegates until June 14th, those we'll count as the most important.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

4. In a Democracy, the candidate with the most votes wins, yes?

At the moment, that candidate would be Hillary Clinton.

Also, let's take the SD's out of it, and just for fun assume that the convention gets through the first ballot without a nominee. Sanders and Clinton supporters assume either of them would be nominated. Might not happen. On a second ballot, anything can happen. Joe Biden might get nominated. Elizabeth Warren or Al Franken might come into the picture. Al Gore could come into play.

Going forward, it we want transparency and fairness, then we should have closed primaries in all states, districts, and territories on the same day. Everyone votes in secret; by mail; on a paper ballot.

[Octafish]

6. Wouldn't that be the opposite of Democracy?

Limiting it to those who are "inside" the Establishment? To me, Democracy means "inclusion" not "insider."

I do agree about paper ballots, though. What a different country -- and world -- this would be.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

33. This has become the contradiction of the argument Sanders supporters are making.

Sanders supporters assert that he has more support; however the tallied votes and pledged delegates don't bear that out. Hillary Clinton leads on both. So now Sanders supporters want an open convention to nominate him -- the epitome of the backroom deal his supporters purport to loathe.

[amborin]

41. LOL! You are implictly admitting that Clinton has been relying on a backroom deal

[Algernon Moncrieff]

45. Clinton leads sanders in pledged delegates, super delegates, and votes.

1768 Pledged delegates to 1494
525 SDs to 39
12,989,134 to 9,957,889 votes

Sanders only hope is a backroom deal. Even if he were to pull huge wins in CA and NJ, he'd be unlikely to close the gap.

[amborin]

66. LOL! the supers are paid lobbyists

[bahrbearian]

16. Ya Right, President Bush?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

31. It was a reference to the "side with Democracy" line in the article

As you know, we don't live in a Democracy. We vote for electors that vote for the President (hence: W Bush). We vote for delegates that select nominees.

If it were up to me, both the conventions and the electoral college would go.

[Ghost Dog]

35. In that case, could it be Kerry?

I noticed a while ago that some British/Irish bookies had him placed #2 in the running .

[Godhumor]

7. Oh lord, SA's math sucks. Since Mar 2, Hillary is +81 in delegates

The only way she falls behind for the Mar 2 to June 14th period is if she gets blown out in CA and fails to gain back delegates in NJ and DC.

That is simply not going to happen, much less being "likely".

Seth is still an idiot.

[Octafish]

14. Thanks to New York.

And that was Sec. Sen. Clinton's actual home state.

How many states has Bernie won since New York?

[Godhumor]

21. In states instead of delegates? Weird standard. But, done NY

Clinton has won 6 contests to Bernie with 4.

Clinton: PA, MD, CT, DE, Guam, KY
Sanders: RI, IN, WV, OR

Clinton should also take both the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico before June 7th.

[joshcryer]

15. +1, and the polling is highly misleading.

Obama had this exact same thing happen in 2008:



It's been a dumb drawn out primary, people falsely think that Clinton hasn't clinched it. So the polls are off and stupid.

[onenote]

8. BullSh*t

The fact that Abramson doesn't think Clinton is the best candidate doesn't mean that the Superdelegates that have committed to Clinton share that belief. At this stage of an election, there is no objective truth about who is the better/stronger candidate. There are plenty of valid reasons for superdelegates to believe that Clinton ultimately is the stronger candidate and to stick with that belief.

Abramson is a propagandist and his claim that Sanders' delegates have been "lied to" is utter crap.

[bloom]

11. Exactly n/t

[Octafish]

17. Good points. Disagree about the lying.

Sanders' supporters have been lied to.

My point: no, Bernie Sanders isn’t giving his supporters false hope.

But the Democratic Party is giving those supporters a false narrative.

It’s then asking them to be stupid enough to swallow it whole.

Rather than making Secretary Clinton spend June and most of July making the case to superdelegates and the nation that, despite having failed to clinch the nomination with pledged delegates alone and being wildly unpopular with independent voters, she’s a viable general-election candidate — which would be a tough case for her to make, given all the general-election data currently available — the DNC is going to hand her the nomination a full fifty days before superdelegates have to decide which candidate they’re going to support. In other words, the Democratic Party changed the rules in midstream; and what’s worse, they’re now lying about doing so.

It’s actually perverse: the Democratic Party is now playing the innocent in the face of a widespread consternation and sense of disillusionment that their own actions produced. There’s a term for this — treating someone poorly and then acting astonished at their all-too-predictable response, indeed doing all you can to make your victim think they must be going crazy — but as it’s never yet been successfully applied to politics, I won’t use it here.

Is that word, "Hypocrisy?"

[onenote]

30. Abramson cites exactly nothing for the claim that the DNC assured anyone that Superdelegates

wouldn't publicly declare for one candidate or another until the primaries/caucuses were done.

I'd like to see evidence of any such statement being made since it would be a departure from the reality of previous election years.
For example, you can find a list of the 2008 superdelegates at this cite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2008

Dozens and dozens of them committed in advance of the close of the primary/caucus season, many months and months before.

And if Sanders' and his supporters were "lied" to about when superdelegates would commit to a candidate, why didn't they publicly disown the superdelegates that committed to Sanders. After all, when Suprdelegate Erin Bilbray announced in December 2015 that she was endorsing Sanders, the Sanders campaign put out a press release welcoming that endorsement, not suggesting it was premature.

[amborin]

43. Many, if not most, Supers were paid handomsomely to select that belief

[onenote]

50. If you have evidence of that, I suggest you present it.

If not, you should stick it back where it belongs.

[Octafish]

68. Lobbyist Superdelegates Tip Nomination Toward Hillary Clinton

Lobbyists are not only staffing and financing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, they’re also tipping the nomination process in her favor by serving as so-called superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/17/voters-be-damned/

[joshcryer]

12. Hillary Clinton made that exact argument to the supers in 2008.

The irony here is hilarious.

[Octafish]

18. Irony is a good word.

Hypocrisy also fits.

[joshcryer]

19. She was wrong about Obama's electablity, though.

As is every single person using this dumb argument against Clinton.

You do what you gotta do, I suppose.

[Octafish]

26. She was wrong about a lot.

Her friends, for instance.



That guy and her husband work together under Phil Gramm at UBS.

[YouDig]

13. Siding with Democracy means supporting Hillary, who the voters choice.

It sounds like what you want is for the superdelegates to side against democracy.

[Octafish]

22. I'll go with that. So how about letting all the voters decide?

You know, wait until California and the good folks in D.C. cast a ballot.

Superdelegates can make up their own minds, based on what's best for the Party.

FTR: Best for the Party, as I see it, would be to vote for the candidate they see best representing Democratic ideals, not just victory in the fall. Among those ideals are equal justice under law; no more war for profit; and standing for all people, not just the rich.

[YouDig]

23. Sounds good. And after that I hope and expect that the superdelegates will side with whoever

ends up with more elected delegates, instead of placing their own opinions ahead of the opinions of the voters. How does that sound to you?

[Octafish]

27. Sounds like a deal.

Bigger for some than others, though.

[Demsrule86]

42. Overturning the will of the voters?

Sorry...completely wrong. The voters have spoken and Bernie lost.

[Octafish]

46. Not in the Virgin Islands.

Not in Puerto Rico.
Not in California.
Not in Montana.
Not in New Jersey.
Not in New Mexico.
Not in South Dakota.
Not in District of Columbia.

So, no. The voters have not spoken.

[Demsrule86]

62. The supers vote with the delegate winner

That would be Clinton. The switched to Obama last time when won by less than 100 delegates.

[onenote]

51. I must have missed it when the Sanders campaign told Erin Bilbray

she should wait before endorsing Sanders (which she did in December 2015) since she's a superdelegate. Or, for that matter, when the Sanders campaign ever suggested that any of the superdelegates endorsing Sanders were acting prematurely.

If there is hypocrisy here, its from those who didn't criticize the Sanders campaign for accepting early endorsements from superdelegates but who now complain there is something wrong with superdelegates having endorsed Clinton before the last primary/caucus.

[Octafish]

58. Interesting observation. What is the point of having Superdelegates if not to use them, though?

Looks like she's almost there! With Superdelegates. As of today, per GOOGLE.

From what Abramson wrote in OP:

It’s actually perverse: the Democratic Party is now playing the innocent in the face of a widespread consternation and sense of disillusionment that their own actions produced. There’s a term for this — treating someone poorly and then acting astonished at their all-too-predictable response, indeed doing all you can to make your victim think they must be going crazy — but as it’s never yet been successfully applied to politics, I won’t use it here.

Hypocrisy is all over the place, onenote.

[Demsrule86]

64. Obmama faced the same thing

The fact is when Obama won ...they switched to him... the same thing would have happened had Bernie won, but he did not win. Bernie lost by all measures...including popular vote which Hillary won. Hillary tried the I can win the GE card before dropping out ...sited more impressive polls then Bernie polls today...and won nine primaries at the end including Ohio and Pa...and the Supers were unmoved.

[JTFrog]

20. Lol. Ok.

[Octafish]

25. Now THAT is funny.

Here's something serious:

Super-delegates will fall into line — the thinking goes — not because Clinton is a strong general-election bet, or liked by many people, or a real spokeswoman for the ideology of the Party base, or able to win independents, or nearly the same candidate in May that she was in February, or capable of winning over her current Democratic opposition the way Obama did after the primary in 2008, but because Democrats in Washington have made clear that any super-delegates who back the now-stronger horse in Philadelphia this July — Sanders — will be ostracized from the Party. Fear, then, is what could make Clinton the Democratic nominee even if (a) super-delegates are officially charged with voting for the strongest general-election candidate, and (b) Clinton goes on a historic losing streak in the back half of the primary season election calendar.

-- Seth Abramson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/make-no-mistake-sanderism_b_10008136.html

Which will bring this actuality in some better universe than that:

[amborin]

32. K&R

[Octafish]

47. I don't know why discussing politics with my friends gets them so angry.

Imagine if I'd brought up PNAC? Then they're nowhere to be found.

[brush]

36. It keeps getting repeated that Clinton is wildly unpopular. How does she lead in votes? Explain pls.

[Octafish]

48. That is a great question.

I imagine it has to do with how the votes are counted.

For instance, the totals often leave out the votes in caucuses. Other times, voters get left off entirely, like in Brooklyn.

Perhaps one day, maybe after a presidential election is overturned by the rule of the Supreme Court say, we'll repair our voting system so it's transparent and fair and accountable.

Remember the guy who created a combination of the two? Athan Gibbs found a way to tabulate votes electronically and then generate a paper ballot for the voter and the precinct records. He died when a semi-truck smashed his car against a guard rail.

Death of a patriot: No more

By Bob Fitrakis
March 17, 2004

The subject line on yesterday’s email read: “Another mysterious accident solves a Bush problem. Athan Gibbs dead, Diebold lives.” The attached news story briefly described the untimely Friday, March 12th death of perhaps America’s most influential advocate of a verified voting paper trail in the era of touch screen computer voting. Gibbs, an accountant for more than 30 years and the inventor of the TruVote system, died when his vehicle collided with an 18-wheeled truck which rolled his Chevy Blazer several times and forced it over the highway retaining wall where it came to rest on its roof.

Coincidence theorists will simply dismiss the death of Gibbs as a tragic accident – the same conclusion these coincidence theorists came to when anti-nuclear activist Karen Silkwood died in November 1974 when her car struck a concrete embankment en route to a meeting with New York Times reporter David Burnham. Prominent independent investigators concluded that Silkwood’s car was hit from behind and forced off the road. Silkwood was reportedly carrying documents that would expose illegal activities at the Kerr-McGee nuclear fuel plant. The FBI report found that she fell asleep at the wheel after overdosing on Quaaludes and that there never were any such files. A journalist secretly employed by the FBI, and a veteran of the Bureau’s COINTELPRO operation against political activists, provided testimony for the FBI report.

Gibbs’ death bears heightened scrutiny because of the way he lived his life after the 2000 Florida election debacle. I interviewed Athan Gibbs in January of this year. “I’ve been an accountant, an auditor, for more than thirty years. Electronic voting machines that don’t supply a paper trail go against every principle of accounting and auditing that’s being taught in American business schools,” he insisted.

SNIP...

Gibbs’ TruVote machine is a marvel. After voters touch the screen, a paper ballot prints out under plexiglass and once the voter compares it to his actual vote and approves it, the ballot drops into a lockbox and is issued a numbered receipt. The voter’s receipt allows the track his particular vote to make sure that it was transferred from the polling place to the election tabulation center.

My encounter with Gibbs led to a cover story in the Columbus Free Press March-April issue, entitled, “Diebold, electronic voting and the vast right-wing conspiracy.” The thesis I advanced in the Free Press article is that some of the same right-wing individuals who backed the CIA’s covert actions and overthrowing of democratic elections in the Third World in the 1980s are now involved in privatized touch screen voting. Additionally I co-wrote an article with Harvey Wasserman that was posted at MotherJones.com on March 5, 2004. Both articles outlined ties between far right elements of the Republican Party and Diebold and ES&S, which count the majority of the nation’s electronic votes.

CONTINUED...

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/853

If you have a resource that tabs caucus votes, please let me know. I'll help you add it up and see what the results are.

Thanks for standing up for Democracy. Let me know what you find.

[onenote]

52. Totaling up the votes cast in caucus states requires some work but is possible.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1949958

There are other posts in the same thread that come up with somewhat different totals, but not different enough to change the conclusion: including the number of votes cast in the caucus states does not cut into Clinton's popular vote lead in a significant or material way.

See also:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/06/is-hillary-clinton-really-ahead-of-bernie-sanders-by-2-5-million-votes/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511949686

[Octafish]

59. Thank you!

Much obliged.

[brush]

54. What? No credit to the base of the party that voted for her over and over?

Everything was rigged?

Ok, go with that, but I think the Obama coalition, who elected Obama twice, has supported Clinton in this primary season.

Deny that all you want and keep on with the rigged meme if it makes you feel better, but she has more votes and delegates.

And the so-called "bribing" of super delegates, it might have something to do with having years of forming relationships in the party nationally, raising money for down-ticket candidates for years, many of whom are the very super delegates she allegedly "bribed", and forming relationships with major base constituencies like African Americans and Latino Americans.

It just might have something to do with those things. Things that Sanders, a party member for, is it even a year yet, hasn't done, so why fault Hillary for knowing how party politics work?

Bernie choose to stay out of the party for years, that is until he needed it for national brand recognition and to be included in the TV debates.

There's a term for that.

[Octafish]

61. ''Rigged'' is a word you brought to the discussion.

I wanted to remind readers about Athan Gibbs.

He worked to create a machine that would give us the best of both worlds: Easy and fast electronic tabulation of elections that also were verifiable by a paper trail.

The Democratic Party could have done something concrete to guarantee fair elections.

You may not like the video, as it includes Cynthia McKinney. To me, though, she's a real Democrat.

[brush]

63. The article referenced in you post says the Dem party "changed the rules". That's the same as . . .

saying "rigged" wouldn't you say?

Thanks for the video, btw. I'm a fan of Cynthia McKinney and it's gratifying to know that she was backer of Athan Gibbs and his machine.

She was ahead of her time, especially for the state she's from.

Gibbs' death seems suspicious to me. I don't put anything past his political enemies. Diebold, the rival voting machine maker is repug owned. The Rove political machine and all the other repugs against paper trails in voting machines should also be suspect.

Blaming the Dem party and Clinton and tying it to this primary fight with Sanders is far fetched however, especially in light of what just happened in Nevada where Sanders supporters tried to change the results of Clinton's win on election day.

[Demsrule86]

40. not true

Sanders supporters have been told over and over that the Supers go with the candidate with the most votes

[Octafish]

49. So Superdelegate System IS an undemocratic process.

Thanks.

[2banon]

53. Kickin' & a Recken'

[FlatBaroque]

55. The lobbyists will vote for Her

the career politicians will consider what is worse, losing with her, or suffering her revenge.

[MaeScott]

57. Should call the New Democratic Party aka DLC party.

[Exilednight]

60. all delegates are equal

Some are just MORE equal than others.

[Beacool]

65. I wish there was a policy this election: no articles from Goodman and Abramson.

They appear to live in a parallel world.




P.S. I'm joking about banning those two, but they are nuts.

[Octafish]

69. Thanks!

I had noticed over the years you support Democracy. Heartened to see you still do.

[AzDar]

67. Debbie WantsToRigIt Schultz ('08 Version):

[Octafish]

71. Wow!

Selective memory is one thing, selective history is another.

Thank you, AzDar. That is another critical story for Democracy Rachel missed.

[boston bean]

70. The strongest candidate is the one who actually wins.

Boy you Sanders supporters who are upset about Nevada, want Super Delegates appointed by the establishment to decide this and give it to bernie.

The cognitive dissonance on display here is almost mesmerizing.

[Octafish]

72. So take money out of the process and make it fair.

That would take out the PACs, lobbyists and corporations and let the people decide.

Do you Hillary supporters think her message can convince a majority to support her?

[boston bean]

73. Yes, I do. thanks for asking.

[BernieforPres2016]

74. The DNC would rather have President Trump than President Sanders

Sanders is the biggest threat to money in politics and that's the only thing most politicians care about.