Here's why I still think Bernie Sanders should be the nominee...

[tom-servo]

It's a tall order for him to become the nominee, but I still think he should be for following reasons:

1. We are coming off of two terms of a democrat. People want something different and unfortunately the bigger-than-life, reality-talk-show-starring, successful businessman would be that. Bernie Sanders can also fill that role.

2. I don't feel like the democratic primary voters have had enough fair exposure to Bernie Sanders message to call the primary representative of the people. Most of his exposure has been on New Media. That may be enough eventually, but not quite yet.

3. Most, if not all, Hillary Clinton voters would vote for Bernie Sanders, but I'm not sure the reverse is true. Sanders would probably bring in some new independents and even republicans.

4. Hillary Clinton, a household name with full backing from all traditional sources has struggled against a no-name, independent, democratic socialist mostly because he is being honest and unapologetic about fielding a platform that pretty much defines progressive goals.

I respect Hillary Clinton and would really like to see the US elect its first woman president, but Bernie Sanders is a unique candidate and this election may also be unique.

[RealAmericanDem]

1. Bernie will win. Here is exactly why

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511997316

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Here's why I still think Hillary Clinton should be the nominee...

She won more votes.

[tom-servo]

4. Yes, but...

... she really should have much more of a lead, shouldn't she?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. If Team A beats Team B...

If Team A beats Team B by thirteen points when they "should have" won by twenty points should Team B be given the victory?

[tom-servo]

12. This is more like a job interview...

... than a sporting event.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. The primary was an ersatz job interview and 3,000,000 more of the interviewers gave her the job.

[yardwork]

24. Then who would make the decision?

The Democratic Party chooses the nominee with the most votes. Millions more people have voted for Hillary instead of Bernie.

Who are you suggesting should step in and overturn the will of the majority of voters?

[tom-servo]

34. The superdelegates

[yardwork]

39. Ok. It's up to them. Go talk to them.

Hint - calling them repeatedly in the middle of the night and leaving threatening voice mail messages if they don't vote the way you think they should might be counter productive.

[-none]

154. The FBI

When they finish their investigation into her illegal use of her private server for classified documents, for her job as SoS

[leftinportland]

60. We don't count votes in the primary...

Delegates count and at the moment not all of them have been accounted for. You know, at least you should know, as wel as I, no Super delegate has voted and will NOT vote until the convention.

Believe it or not the final nominee could be someone not currently in the running. So all your talk of this being over because Hillary has more votes is just a lot of talk.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. If it's a lot of talk put your money where your mouth is. I will...

So all your talk of this being over because Hillary has more votes is just a lot of talk.

If it's a lot of talk put your money where your mouth is. I will... A one hundred dollar donation to the charity of the winner choice's ... I will take Hillary.

[leftinportland]

165. One hundred dollars...too steep for me...

Make it $10 and you're on...even though I support Bernie, my money is on 'anyone other than Clinton or Sanders'.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

166. I don't have much money but I will donate 20 to your 10

Please shoot me a pm on 11/9. I will even verify the contribution. Charity is good.

[leftinportland]

167. Confused...

This is the primary race and who the Dem nominee will be...yes? I'll PM you after the Convention...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

168. This is even easier... Sure... Please remind me... If I win I will let you go double or nothing ...

This is even easier... Sure... Please remind me... If I win I will let you go double or nothing in the GE.

[tritsofme]

91. Bernie beat the spread! Doesn't that mean he deserves the nomination?! Or something!!?!

[tom-servo]

108. Beating the spread is an understatement...

... it means that his campaign is a significant force in the current election and the party leadership should consider carefully what they do with it.

[Arkansas Granny]

11. Her lead now is larger than Obama's lead in 2008. How big does it need to be?

[tom-servo]

16. The existence of superdelegates seems to imply...

... that the party wants to be able select a good candidate using the primary results as a guide. The democratic party isn't a governmental body. I'm not sure I agree with that, but that's not really my point.

[Arkansas Granny]

18. Then, what is your point? It appears to me that the SD's are aligning with primary results.

[tom-servo]

29. My point is...

...that as long as the party admits to not being "democratic" by the existence of superdelegates, they might as well use them to select a better candidate.

[Arkansas Granny]

31. I believe they have selected the better candidate.

[tom-servo]

35. I do hope you're right, if she is the nominee.

[pangaia]

51. I don't, not by a long shot. And THAT is the entire point.

[tom-servo]

75. Yeah...

... I think maybe the "known" candidate is about to be selected, not the "best" candidate. There are a lot of people that don't like "known" democratic candidates.

[appalachiablue]

115. Exactly. I like your OP, well written and to the point. Lack of exposure except

for the New Media is the truth. And it's a damn shame but won't hold him back.

K & R

[tom-servo]

121. Thanks...

...he's done exceedingly well with New Media, and I hope that continues.

[appalachiablue]

122. Same for me and millions!

[lunamagica]

142. If after decades in congress, SBS is not "known" by the SDs, well, he has a big problem

[tom-servo]

143. I didn't mean known to the super delegates...

... I meant to the general public. I didn't know who he was.

[lunamagica]

140. Much more? She's millions of votes and hundreds of PDs ahead. She's way, way more ahead

than Obama was with her.

This primary is not even close

[asuhornets]

77. I concur...n/t

[workinclasszero]

78. Damn good reason right there!

Thank you DSB

[tom-servo]

82. So you think this has been a fair and "democratic" primary so far?

[workinclasszero]

83. As fair as any other we have had

Well there was the Berner shenanigans in Nevada but Hillary got her fair share there in the end so all is good.

[tom-servo]

88. Exactly the point...this isn't a fair process...

...the party leadership wanted Hillary Clinton and pushed hard for her. That's why she's winning. I think the the party leadership should rethink it, given the extraordinary success of Bernie Sanders.

[workinclasszero]

93. They should rethink what exactly? The majority vote of democrats? Really?

Do you want a return to the smoke filled backrooms where TPTB (old rich white men of course) pick who gets the nomination and the popular vote be dammed?

Oh hell naw.

I see all this whining about Sanders deserving the nomination as a blatant attempt to disenfranchise the base of the democratic party frankly and it makes me sick.

[tom-servo]

97. I think we've been there for awhile...

...but the rooms aren't smoked-filled, they are very clean and well-catered and participants have a lot of money.

[workinclasszero]

102. So let me ask you this

Who paid the 3 million voters that Hillary is ahead by?

I voted for her and I sure as hell didn't receive any compensation for it.

You can place blame for those 3 million anywhere it feels good to you but the fact remains that millions more democrats want Hillary as our candidate vs Bernie.

Seems to me Bern fans should be trying to get his views and programs in front of the party and advocate for them instead of beating your heads against the wall for a lost cause.

[tom-servo]

113. Bernie Sanders supporters should at the very least try to affect the platform...

...I agree with that, but the nominee hasn't been selected yet. Why should they stop trying?

[workinclasszero]

120. Who's stopping him?

I do wish his attacks against fellow democrats would end though.

There is a fascist monster out there running on the republican ticket.

How about directing that fire toward him?

[tom-servo]

137. It sounded like you were suggesting Bernie Sanders supporters...

... should stop trying to get him the nomination.

[workinclasszero]

148. Well hey I wish he would

I also wish I'd win the powerball

Really at this point its probably up to Sanders supporters, moneywise, so to speak.

[Todays_Illusion]

87. I consider Hillary's campaign to be one dirty trick after another and so will her Presidency be one

dirty trick after another. I don't see how anyone would vote for such a deceitful and corrupt candidate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. Yeah, she stole data from her opponent, her supporters impersonated union members...

Yeah, she stole data from her opponent, her supporters impersonated union members, her campaign is plagued by financial campaign contribution irregularities, and she claimed to have important newspaper and group endorsements she never had.

Wait. That's her opponent.

[Todays_Illusion]

92. Never mind, that talking point lie posted has been debunked.

And really what is the point posting that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. Wasn't too hard/True/True/True/Mostly True

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-union-workers_us_56aa7ed6e4b05e4e3703b874


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/



http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2016/feb/04/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-ad-claims-endorsements-valley-news-/



http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-data-breach-controversy/

[Todays_Illusion]

98. Impressive, 3 unrelated posts and one that contratdicts the talking point lie.

From your Snopes link:


>WHAT'S FALSE: The data were accessed over a lengthy period; the data were "exported" or otherwise extracted; the data were of high value to the Sanders campaign.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. I cited data pilfering, campaign finance irregularities, impersonating union members, and ...

I cited data pilfering, campaign finance irregularities, impersonating union members, and falsely claiming endorsements.

Anybody can see by the links three of the allegations have been substantiated and one is in dispute.

[Todays_Illusion]

104. you are denying what your own link said about the data theft lie. FALSE

As for the union thing, impersonating union members. LOL

[DemocratSinceBirth]

106. I am content to let the readers decide.

Three allegations that were proven true and one that is in dispute. I would encourage readers to lean more about the allegation in dispute.

[CrowCityDem]

3. You're kidding, right?

"Hasn't had enough fair exposure"?

His rallies have been covered on cable second only to Donald Trump. Hillary gets a fraction of the attention with the networks that Bernie does, and rarely in any positive light.

Bernie has also appeared on the Sunday shows more than ANY other candidate on either side. If that's not 'fair exposure', I don't know what it.

Between the debates, cable news, and he and his campaign staff being on tv nearly every day of this process, I think it's fair to say anyone who's been paying attention has heard plenty to know whether they like Bernie or not.

[tom-servo]

7. The narrative has been that...

... Hillary Clinton is the real candidate, and I don't think his rallies have gotten nearly enough attention.

[MyNameGoesHere]

47. Ok then Sanders needs a better event promoter.

Or he could have been a candidate that had more than one line. Which do you think?

[tom-servo]

61. I think a fairer, less entertainment-centered media...

... would have helped him immensely. At least I would feel better about the result if I thought that Senator Sanders and Hillary Clinton had an equal hearing. I just don't feel that that's the case. Maybe a better "campaign" organization would have helped, but they have done amazing things given their handicaps.

[MyNameGoesHere]

84. No you just needed a better

candidate. One tone Sanders didn't resonate as much as you thought he did.

[Henhouse]

86. I don't have the link but, Obama in 2008 had a few big rallies but,

after the first few contests he stopped the rallies. Big rallies, as Sander has discovered, do not translate to votes.

[tom-servo]

90. That would be an interesting link...

...I think they are good if you want to spread a message to the people.

[pangaia]

54. I think maybe you have been asleep in the back seat if you think all that is true.

Short term memory... the proverbial 6 second attention span.


I almost makes me laugh..

[CrowCityDem]

59. Sorry, is it not a FACT that he's been on more Sunday shows than anyone?

[tom-servo]

64. That's possible and maybe worth verifying...

...but every one that I've seen attempted to paint Hillary Clinton as the obvious candidate and him as a gutsy, but slightly pathetic long shot. That's hardly equal footing.

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

5. So...we should invalidate the primary results?

So, let's invalidate the primary process and the votes cast in order to nominate a candidate, for all his virtues, who won fewer votes?

And how is that democratic?

So, let's just let the party pick a candidate based on who is the most different and least well known?

I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I just don't see the logic in this.

[Hiraeth]

8. we should let the primary play out as fairly and trasnparently democratic-ly as possible.

that is what we should do. we should hold a fair and responsible convention and let dissenting voices be heard.

This is the time when we are supposed to be arguing among ourselves.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. "So...we should invalidate the results? "

Isn't that what happens when authoritarian regimes lose elections?

[greatauntoftriplets]

153. Isn't that what is usually called a coup?

Yeah, I don't get it either. It's rather like what the Supremes did for GW Bush in 2000. I don't want a repeat of that.

[tom-servo]

10. Yeah, it's a difficult question...

...but the race is close enough to consider the question of whether a candidate with a weak majority should be prevented from being a nominee.

[Arkansas Granny]

14. The race is not close. Hillary has won a clear majority of votes, delegates and super delegates.

[tom-servo]

17. I disagree...

I think Hillary Clinton should have slaughtered Bernie Sanders. The fact that she hasn't is telling.

[yardwork]

25. That's your opinion but the fact is that one candidate holds a clear lead.

[tom-servo]

58. I'm just not convinced it's a clear lead given the circumstances.

[griffi94]

110. Then you need an abacus

Hillary is ahead by hundreds of pledged delegates.

It's pretty clear.
That's not open to interpretation.

The larger number is just larger.

The one with the largest number wins.

It's pretty simple really.

[tom-servo]

138. Given their relative advantages/disadvantages at the start...

... there would have been very long odds on Sanders being this close to her by now. Sorry, that matters.

[Fresh_Start]

157. Obama started as a virtual unknown with far less than 25 years

on experience on the national level....
and he beat Clinton

so your argument about they started unequal really doesn't hold much water

[tom-servo]

160. Obama was a "rising star" for a few years before he ran...

...I had heard of him and I hadn't really been paying much attention. Bernie Sanders seems very different to me.

[griffi94]

161. It only matters to you

and a few other of Bernies more breathless supporters.

She's the stronger candidate to the majority.

You can accept that or not but your opinion has no effect on reality.

Kinda of the same way the Bundy Militia doesn't accept that
the Federal Governtment has authority over Federal lands.

Their opinion in no way effected reality either.

[workinclasszero]

79. She did obviously

3 million more votes to date and 200 plus delegates = asskicking in my book.

[tom-servo]

85. Not in mine...

...When you compare the initial advantages and disadvantages of each candidate, Hillary Clinton "held on" instead of "kicked ass".

[workinclasszero]

109. "Held on" by 3 MILLION

"Held on" by 270 more delegates LOL

Oh wait! I know that this is!!

For a WOMAN to be successful..she has to be 3 or 4 times better than any random male opponent, am I right?

That's it right?

[tom-servo]

141. I don't think the fact that she is a woman...

...has anything to do with it. Her current lead isn't much given her initial advantages.

[workinclasszero]

146. I don't remember all this stuff going on when

BHO beat Hillary by a much, much smaller margin.

Male vs female is the only difference I see.

I hope Hillary backers move heaven and earth so she can shatter that unfair as hell glass ceiling and get elected POTUS!

[tom-servo]

162. I'm pretty sure that my opinions aren't based on gender...

...but it is possible her gender has hurt her in this primary. I would have thought it would help since woman are more than half the population.

[workinclasszero]

163. I'm just saying a woman seems to have to do more

than a man to get acknowledged.

As for you though, I appreciate this thread. Its not the usual conspiracy theory BS that is common on DU.

Thanks.

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

20. Not a difficult question at all...

Overthrowing the majority vote, however "weak" of a majority it might seem to be to any individual is NOT a democratic principle...overthrowing the results of an election is fascism.

I am not a fan of the power of the super-delegates in the first place...and for them to go against the majority of primary voters would be unprecedented and undemocratic. I would feel that way regardless of who is in the lead.

[tom-servo]

45. If the democratic party were a governmental body...

... I would agree with you, and I do wish our elections were more democratic. Having only two parties dominated by money makes democracy difficult.

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

69. I'm seriously confused by this...

So the primaries should be more democratic if they work in your preferred candidate's favor, but it's okay if they're less democratic because there's only two major parties and they're dominated by money?

Shouldn't the primaries be MORE democratic to reduce the influence of money and the power of the party elites regardless of which candidate is leading? Overturning the majority of voters doesn't make the primaries more democratic...and doesn't reduce the influence of money and power. That's a real slippery slope and a dangerous precedent.

Democracy doesn't always result in the election of the best candidate (although that judgement is very subjective)...but it's definitely better if the people select their candidate of choice rather than a small group of people selected by the party power structure.

I certainly wouldn't be supporting the idea of superdelegates overturning the pledged delegates and popular vote if Bernie was in the lead just because Clinton is my preferred candidate.

[tom-servo]

81. I'm saying that...

... the democratic party leadership has already selected Hillary Clinton and promoted her solidly into winning for the entire primary. They still have time to change their minds. To say that she was "democratically" elected is overstating it by quite a bit, given her advantages. I think, given the two candidates, the "people" have spoken for Bernie Sanders, and given this particular moment in time he's a good bet for the general election.

[mythology]

107. That's some serious cognitive dissonance

From what you've written it wouldn't have mattered to you if Clinton won by 30% because it should have been more. Obama beat Clinton decisively in 2008 under the same system. Sanders will lose by a wider margin than Clinton did in 2008.

[tom-servo]

123. Where's the cognitive dissonance?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. She win winning the popular vote 57-43. That's not a weak majority. That's a blow out.

[tom-servo]

42. The popular vote in a primary with caucuses...

... isn't a great metric, but yes, she is in the lead.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. That is with caucus votes allocated

3/ Clinton's (2-person-vote) lead in the known popular vote is 56.6/43.4. After including these estimates from IA/NV/AK/WA/ME/WY: 56.1/43.9.

https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/733374726119247875

[tom-servo]

53. They're estimates...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. So

[tom-servo]

56. So the best metrics are the real thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. So she is winning by 11% in pledged delegates. Does that seem close to you?

If Basketball Team A had 111 points and Basketball Team B had 100 points should Basketball Team B be declared the winner?

What would you tell the players on Basketball team A?

[tom-servo]

66. I still don't understand the sports analogies...

... gauging whether someone is more likely to be elected isn't as straightforward as counting points scored in a game.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Precisely.

In elections the winner is the man or woman who garners the most votes.

[tom-servo]

68. Gets the most votes in the general election...this is still just party candidate selection.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. And in party elections it is customary for the nominee who has garnered the most votes.

We have to go back to 1968 to see an instance where it didn't occur...

Hillary Clinton has built her 3,000, 000 vote lead by crushing Senator Sanders among African Americans, Latinos, and women over thirty. Are you going to tell them the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act was all a big ruse and their votes should be disregarded?

Do you think they will react kindly?

[tom-servo]

72. I actually didn't realized there was a precedent that recent...

There are two strong factions right now in the party...one of them is going to be upset.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. Not as upset as the faction that has 3,00,000 more votes would be if it was stolen from them.

I actually didn't realized there was a precedent that recent...

Humphrey won the nomination because the candidates with the most votes was assassinated and the rules were much more arcane.

There are two strong factions right now in the party...one of them is going to be upset.

Not as upset as the faction that has 3,00,000 more votes would be if it was stolen from them.
Throw in the fact that the last Democratic president to win a majority or plurality of the white vote was Lyndon Johnson which means the vote from people of color in indispensable to a Democratic victory and you have a combustible situation.

The suggestion the Supers are going to give the nomination to a man who just joined the party, is already lambasting it, and is behind by nearly 3,000, 000 votes, and 300 pledged delegates is preposterous.

This will all be over on 6/7. She will be named the presumptive nominee by the media, the press will contact the Supers to double check, and to a one the Supers will say they will vote for her on the first ballot in Philadelphia.

You can bookmark this post and thank me for telling you how this primary season ends.

[tom-servo]

74. If I was a betting man...

... I would place money on the outcome you suggest. If you want to take credit for stating a likely outcome help yourself. What I'm saying is that I think the party is making a mistake.

[tom-servo]

105. That's a clever twist, but not really accurate...

...party politics are ugly and Hillary Clinton is a deft player.

[wyldwolf]

13. Here's why I still think the Carolina Panthers should be this year's Super Bowl champs

Even though they were soundly thrashed by the Denver Broncos 24-10...

1. People are tired of establishment teams like Denver
2. The Panthers had bigger crowds at games this year
3. I liked them better, and everyone I know liked them better.

[tom-servo]

19. That is pretty funny...

but I still don't see this as a sporting event. Implementing better ways to play football isn't the intent of the Super Bowl. It is the intent of a presidential election.

[wyldwolf]

21. You're proposing one of two things, possibly both

1. A backroom selection process
2. The nomination goes to whichever side's supporters yell the loudest.

[tom-servo]

22. You mean I'm proposing...

what this election already is.

[wyldwolf]

23. of course now. Hillary has won the most votes, the most states and the most delegates

That's called Democracy, silly.

[tom-servo]

27. Heh...

... if you say so.

[wyldwolf]

30. Heh

I do say so. The United States is not a banana republic - apparently that is how some progressives would like to elect a presidents.

[tom-servo]

38. We are also not a democracy...

... though it is quaint to think so.

[wyldwolf]

41. How cute a standard libertarian response

[tom-servo]

43. Do libertarians normally say we are not in a democracy?

[wyldwolf]

46. yup. Like most of what they say, it isn't grounded in fact.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. We are technically a democratic republic.

[wyldwolf]

50. exactly. We're a type of Democracy, but still a Democracy

Rotisserie Chicken is still chicken - it's prepared differently.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. The person with the most votes gets to represent us and express our will...

[tom-servo]

49. This is why I don't think we are living in a democracy...

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310

[liberal from boston]

152. Go Bernie

Hillary is the candidate for the status quo, incrementalism. I would never vote for Hillary due to her hawkish Foreign Policy. President Obama has admitted Hillary has problems.

[wyldwolf]

159. And take Ralph Nader with you

[workinclasszero]

80. And both anti-democratic as hell

Why are the great protectors and defenders of the right to vote and the will of the people over everything suddenly wanting to throw all that out the window?

hmm...

[tom-servo]

95. And both are directly relevant to this primary...

... Hillary Clinton is very well connected both commercially and politically, and I'm sure she's worked back-room deals with as many of those connections as possible. I think that's what a "corrupt" political system means.

[YouDig]

28. Here's why I still think the world is flat.

[tom-servo]

32. That's cute...

... but you forgot to post your reasons.

[YouDig]

33. Because I don't think the world is flat. And also I believe in democracy.

[tom-servo]

36. So do I, we just aren't really living in one at the moment.

[YouDig]

37. 3 million more votes. 270 more elected delegates. The democratic will prevails.

[tom-servo]

40. Sure, of course... will of the people.

[Time for change]

62. Yes, and let's not forget that his national favorability ratings are far higher than hers

+7 vs. -15, and that he consistently does far better than her in head to head competition vs. Trump, and that she has scandals brewing that could make her favorability ratings so low that she couldn't win a GE against anyone.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/favorable_unfavorable.html

I especially agree with your reasons 2 and 4.

[tom-servo]

70. Yes those are all also strong arguments...thanks.

[pdsimdars]

65. It's really simple for me. . . Trump would be a disaster as President. Hillary won't beat him.

Just That Simple

[SFnomad]

76. So you want to disenfranchise the 13+ million voter that have clearly said no to BS? n/t

[hrmjustin]

96. People who come in second place should not expect to win.

[tom-servo]

101. That would make sense to me if it were a foot race.

[hrmjustin]

103. So basically you think the will of the people means nothing because you like Sanders

How very Democratic of you!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

112. The poster could have tried to outwork you when you delivered NY for Hillary.

That blow out didn't help Bernie.

[hrmjustin]

114. Lol you give me too much credit.

[tom-servo]

116. That's also a clever twist, but again not accurate

... I don't think the will of the people has had much to do with US politics for quite a while now, but I would like to see us actually achieve that.

[hrmjustin]

119. That is exactly what you are saying.

I am sorry it doesn't sound pleasant to you but you want to overrule the will of the people.

Hillary won more votes and delegates. We will not let anyone steal this election.

[tom-servo]

128. I'm glad there are still believers.

[k8conant]

133. So, why does Hillary think it's her turn after she came in 2nd in 2008?

[hrmjustin]

134. She said it was her turn?

[Squinch]

111. Why would your opinion about this matter more than the fact that BS lost in a democratic election?

And he lost big.

Your opinion doesn't matter more than that.

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you that, but better you hear it sooner than later.

[tom-servo]

117. Well... it matters to me.

[Squinch]

118. But he lost the primary. No one person's opinion matters more than the majority. The very large

majority.

That is the way Democracy works.

[tom-servo]

124. I think the democratic party disagrees...

...otherwise they wouldn't have superdelegates.

[Squinch]

125. Hillary is demolishing BS in the popular vote and the pledged delegate vote. Demolishing him.

I guess no matter how often you guys hear that, it just doesn't get through.

He lost. He lost by every metric. He lost BIG.

Your opinion doesn't change that.

The losing candidate does not win the primary. That's why we call him the losing candidate.

And you all need to fix up your "complicated" relationship with super delegates. First BS was too pure to get them. Then, when it was too late to get them, he realized he needed them (because BS is always caught by surprise by the rules that have been in place for decades). Now, what? They are bad again? Which is it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

126. Because Situational Ethics.

[Squinch]

127. And Mom always got me a prize whether I won or not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

129. He can get one in Philadelphia

[Squinch]

132. That's not the one they want. And see, they are holding their breath till they turn blue

till they get that trophy.

We better give in to them!

Not.

[tom-servo]

130. I don't have a complicated relationship with super delegates...

...I know exactly what they are, a way for the party leadership to control who is nominated. I'm suggesting they use that power to nominate Bernie Sanders. I'm not arguing anything else than what is in the post.

[Squinch]

131. Whatever dude. It's over and that's not going to happen. Have a nice day.

[hrmjustin]

135. You are arguing they overrule the voters.

[Squinch]

136. He knows. Doesn't care. He wants his opinion to override that. Because reasons.

[tom-servo]

147. I would like a democracy...

...but I suspect that we do not have one. I'm just saying that Hillary Clinton was the golden candidate pushed hard by the party leadership and she may end up just barely winning. It doesn't bode well.

[hrmjustin]

149. You do realize Clinton supporters would stay home on election day if tthey steal the nomination

from her?

[tom-servo]

150. I don't think so...

... I think Clinton supporters are mostly loyal democrats.

[hrmjustin]

155. I would not vote for him if he steal the nomination and yes other HRC supporters would stay home.

Sorry but i believe in Democracy.

[lunamagica]

139. &1% of Sanders supporters say they would vote for Hillary. very hight percentage, and this

is without even his endorsement.

[barrow-wight]

144. Will you be posting this kind of stuff long after November?

[tom-servo]

145. What do you mean?

[onecaliberal]

151. Millions were locked out of the primary process.

[Fresh_Start]

158. by their own choices

the difference between registering to vote as ________ versus registering to vote as democratic...is less than 5 minutes effort

heck I've changed three times in the last 2 months

[Bill USA]

156. I applaud your positive appeal for Bernie's candidacy, devoid of McCarthyist character assassination

of Clinton.

I would like to point out one problem with the case you are making for Sanders. That is that Clinton has a much larger popular vote than Sanders. Real Clear Politics has the popular vote totals for the primaries at

12,989,134 for Clinton and 9,957,889 for Sanders. there are those who argue Bernie did better in caucus states. But even if you convert those caucus %s to popular votes, Clinton still comes out way ahead.

you said that Clinton -

"has struggled against a no-name, independent, democratic socialist mostly because he is being honest and unapologetic about fielding a platform that pretty much defines progressive goals."

I think you have discounted the effect of the two to three decade disinformation war on both Clintons - especially, the 8 Benghazi Political show trials of Hillary - for programming the thoughts and impressions of those who either can't or won't think critically for themselves. Unfortunately, this McCarthyist campaign against Clinton has been quite successful with the impressionable and easily lead. I think it's very obvious, that this campaign of innuendo and false claims of multitudinous nefarious activities (always implied never proven) has hurt Clinton. All this makes me wonder if Democracy can survive a Republican party totally opposed to government of, by and for the people when their is much money (and ersatz status) to be made from being whores for Corporate Feudalist system they are working to achieve with such large numbers of people who are so easily bamboozled.

But again, it is certainly a breath of fresh air to see a positive appeal for Bernie that is not based on character assassinations of Clinton and charges of hypothetical crimes she is supposed to have committed.

I applaud you for that.

[Lucinda]

164. Fortunately for the country, it's not up to you. n/t

[tom-servo]

169. I guess we can hope you're right about that if Clinton wins.

[Demsrule86]

170. Here is why he won't

Delegate math.

[tom-servo]

171. You do understand that math can't be used...

...to tell the future, right?