"Feel the Bern": The BERNIE SANDERS Thread - Part 1

[Marvolo]

Once again, the super delegates have never swung a vote away from pledged delegates. It would actually be more unlikely for them to not side with whoever wins the most pledged delegates, and actually prove Bernie's point.

The people would be incredibly angry, and it would pretty much undermine democracy, something democrats are currently laughing at Republicans for even suggesting when it comes to Trump. Sure, the DNC is doing everything they possibly can to get her elected, but I find it more likely than not that they will stick withoever actually wins the most pledge delegates, even if they don't like it. I think we all agree that it's incredibly tough for Sanders to make up the ground, but there is a big difference between statistically unlikely and statistically impossible.

I didnt say anything about them swinging the vote away from pledged delegates. I was speaking about the chances of them supporting Bernie which is zero. There is no point in even entertsining the notion that he will have more delegates than Hillary by the time of the convention so the only way Bernie can pull ahead is with the Superdelegates and they arent going to abandon Hillary.

And no it doesnt undermine democracy for the superdelegates to go against the people. The Parties are private organizations. Who they run as their candidates is ultimately the Party's choice. Both parties give the people a say, because usually it is in the party's best interest to do so, but its not required. Especially if they think the people's choice is extremely foolish or endangers the party. When that happens they can ignore the people, choose their own candidate, and then the people can either vote for that candidate or not in the General Election.

Like a GOP delegate said,

The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That's the conflict here," Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries and caucuses are held.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html

The party lets the people have a say but the party is not legally or constitutionally bound to choose the candidate the people want them to choose.

As a private entity it is the party's decision, ultimately.

 

[TheBat812]

I didnt say anything about them swinging the vote away from pledged delegates. I was speaking about the chances of them supporting Bernie which is zero. There is no point in even entertsining the notion that he will have more delegates than Hillary by the time of the convention so the only way Bernie can pull ahead is with the Superdelegates and they arent going to abandon Hillary.

And no it doesnt undermine democracy for the superdelegates to go against the people. The Parties are private organizations. Who they run as their candidates is ultimately the Party's choice. Both parties give the people a say, because usually it is in the party's best interest to do so, but its not required. Especially if they think the people's choice is extremely foolish or endangers the party. When that happens they can ignore the people, choose their own candidate, and then the people can either vote for that candidate or not in the General Election.

Like a GOP delegate said,



The party lets the people have a say but the party is not legally or constitutionally bound to choose the candidate the people want them to choose.

As a private entity it is the party's decision, ultimately.

And yet, they never have. Given history, IF Bernie wins, they will support him, if Hillary wins, they'll support her. It's simple pragmatism, if they go away from who people voted for, they will probably lose many many democratic votes from people who'll feel like their voice was ignored, ultimately severely damaging the Democratic Party.

 

[souvlaki]

And yet, they never have. Given history, IF Bernie wins, they will support him, if Hillary wins, they'll support her. It's simple pragmatism, if they go away from who people voted for, they will probably lose many many democratic votes from people who'll feel like their voice was ignored, ultimately severely damaging the Democratic Party.

I dont think there is argument over superdelegates supporting whoever is leading in delegates in June. The Sanders campaign is actively encouraging superdelegates to switch loyalties despite who is leading at the end of the process which is something else entirely. If Sanders is in the lead (huuuge if btw) they will switch loyalty but it will never happen if Sanders is trailing even if he does have the momentum in the final states.

 

[SV Fan]

And yet, they never have. Given history, IF Bernie wins, they will support him, if Hillary wins, they'll support her. It's simple pragmatism, if they go away from who people voted for, they will probably lose many many democratic votes from people who'll feel like their voice was ignored, ultimately severely damaging the Democratic Party.

Aren't alot of these "super" delegates congressmen and governors? I am guessing a good number of these people are going to do what they believe is the best thing for their personal race(ie If I am a southern congressman in a close district I much rather go to war with Hillary then Bernie)

 

[Chance Jackson]

You need ID to buy adult items like booze, or smokes. You need a ID to get into a bar. You need ID to apply for a job, food stamps, rent a hotel room, rent a car, the doctors office, and many more.

many of those things your good with an SS card and/or birth certificate no waiting at the DMV/RMV necessary

 

[Kelly]

Which of those would you not need a picture ID for?

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

[YT]1L_UKv19P9E[/YT]

 

[Marvolo]

And yet, they never have. Given history, IF Bernie wins, they will support him, if Hillary wins, they'll support her. It's simple pragmatism, if they go away from who people voted for, they will probably lose many many democratic votes from people who'll feel like their voice was ignored, ultimately severely damaging the Democratic Party.

Because they have never needed to.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Which of those would you not need a picture ID for?

You don't need an ID to buy alcohol, ciggs, or getting into a bar if you look like your over 30 like most adults do.

 

[TheBat812]

Guys, what the hell is this. I mean, come on, that's just insultingly blatant.

As a result of a registration error committed by the District of Columbia Democratic Party, Sen. Bernie Sanders won't appear on the Washington D.C. ballot.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-district-columbia-ballot-221398#ixzz44QzMFlkV
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
​

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-district-columbia-ballot-221398?cmpid=sf

 

[Kelly]

You don't need an ID to buy alcohol, ciggs, or getting into a bar if you look like your over 30 like most adults do.

BUT, they can ask you and deny you if you can't produce proof.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

BUT, they can ask you and deny you if you can't produce proof.

Sure but most adults don't have a problem unless the older person has a baby face.

I've bought beer and ciggs countless times without being asked for ID.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I've driven thousands of times without being asked to provide proof.

I know people who've carried firearms without having to provide proof.

So maybe when voting they should only require you to provide proof if they have a reason to suspect you aren't legally allowed to vote. (i.e. you aren't a human citizen of the US.)

 

[Kelly]

You've been lucky....

 

[hippie_hunter]

Guys, what the hell is this. I mean, come on, that's just insultingly blatant.



http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-district-columbia-ballot-221398?cmpid=sf

Considering that the mistake was made by the DC Party and not by the Sanders Campaign, I would be surprised if the DC City Council did not rectify it by putting him on the ballot. DC is such Hillary territory to the point where there is no need for her to cheat and she will still will the contest by a massive margin.

 

[Marvolo]

Considering that the mistake was made by the DC Party and not by the Sanders Campaign, I would be surprised if the DC City Council did not rectify it by putting him on the ballot. DC is such Hillary territory to the point where there is no need for her to cheat and she will still will the contest by a massive margin.

At the very least the Democratic Party should admit they made an error. Because if Bernie isnt on the ballot its going to cause Bernie supporters to claim its a scandal and foul play is involved. Like you say, Hillary will take DC regardless, but she shouldn't win the state because of what is apparently a stupid clerical error.

 

[Slushy]

Its moments like Birdie Sanders that make me believe there might be hope after all.

 

[Matt]

At the very least the Democratic Party should admit they made an error. Because if Bernie isnt on the ballot its going to cause Bernie supporters to claim its a scandal and foul play is involved. Like you say, Hillary will take DC regardless, but she shouldn't win the state because of what is apparently a stupid clerical error.

I think the party has already taken blame and said that it is a clerical error on their part, one which they intend to rectify.

Its moments like Birdie Sanders that make me believe there might be hope after all.

Umm...what?

 

[chaseter]

Its moments like Birdie Sanders that make me believe there might be hope after all.

Hope for t-shirt makers to make coin off of political fanboys.

 

[Matt]

Some hard truths that the Sanders campaign needs to hear

 

[Fenrir]

Some hard truths that the Sanders campaign needs to hear

I don't know what happened to Krugman - he's a much better economist than he is a political commentator and it is really disappointing to see him become a stooge for Hillary Clinton after being one of the more popular and well-spoken proponents of Keynesian-esque big government and Wall Street regulation on business news channels. His spirited defense of the economic rationale behind a nationalized healthcare program as purported by the likes of Kenneth Arrow was what motivated me to study his work and Stiglitz's at university. Guess everyone has a price...or a breaking point.

 

[Kelly]

I don't know what happened to Krugman - he's a much better economist than he is a political commentator and it is really disappointing to see him become a stooge for Hillary Clinton after being one of the more popular and well-spoken proponents of Keynesian-esque big government and Wall Street regulation on business news channels. His spirited defense of the economic rationale behind a nationalized healthcare program as purported by the likes of Kenneth Arrow was what motivated me to study his work and Stiglitz's at university. Guess everyone has a price...or a breaking point.

Exactly what in that article makes him a stooge for Clinton? The facts he states are facts that we have known for over a month now...some choose to keep talking about super delegates, but the facts are the facts.

 

[Fenrir]

Exactly what in that article makes him a stooge for Clinton? The facts he states are facts that we have known for over a month now...some choose to keep talking about super delegates, but the facts are the facts.

Because of this:

"First, the Sanders campaign needs to stop feeding the right-wing disinformation machine. Engaging in innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt is, at this point, basically campaigning on behalf of the RNC. If Sanders really believes, as he says, that it’s all-important to keep the White House out of Republican hands, he should stop all that – and tell his staff to stop it too.

Second, it’s time for Sanders to engage in some citizenship. The presidency isn’t the only office on the line; down-ballot races for the Senate and even the House are going to be crucial. Clinton has been raising money for other races; Sanders hasn’t, and is still being evasive on whether he will ever do so. Not acceptable."

If that doesn't sound like a Clinton stooge, I don't know what is. Pity Paul Krugman. He used to be so much more respectful than that.

 

[Kelly]

Well, I have to agree with what he is saying, the best way to defeat a group that is fighting among themselves is to show solidarity in your own group. I think now is the time to do just that....

I was one that was all for Bernie staying in, even past the facts showing that there was no way he could win the nomination, but NOW....that time has also past and he needs to either move on quietly, or stand behind the one that is going to get the nomination. At THIS POINT in the campaign, Paul is right, any discourse from this point on plays into the hands of the Republicans.

And no, that doesn't sound like a Clinton stooge to me, it sounds like someone who has been in this business of politics a long time and knows what they are talking about. He's right...

I really like Bernie, and if he was the Democrats candidate, I would probably vote for him....but that is not the case, and will not be the case at this point...he is now coming off as a child wanting all the toys, and that is not going to help the Democrats in the end....BUT, LET US BE CLEAR, he isn't a Democrat....he is simply using the title in order to run for 1 of the 2 big parties. If he was willing to stand by "who and what he is" he would run as a Socialist, and own that title. I know that that just is not feasible but, the fact is, you have someone that doesn't seem to be willing to dance with the ones that brought him to the dance in the first place. He sure as hell would be willing to use the Dems money if he won the nomination, but I guess its just not a big deal to help raise that money unless its for you.

 

[Fenrir]

Well, I have to agree with what he is saying, the best way to defeat a group that is fighting among themselves is to show solidarity in your own group. I think now is the time to do just that....

I was one that was all for Bernie staying in, even past the facts showing that there was no way he could win the nomination, but NOW....that time has also past and he needs to either move on quietly, or stand behind the one that is going to get the nomination. At THIS POINT in the campaign, Paul is right, any discourse from this point on plays into the hands of the Republicans.

And no, that doesn't sound like a Clinton stooge to me, it sounds like someone who has been in this business of politics a long time and knows what they are talking about. He's right...

I really like Bernie, and if he was the Democrats candidate, I would probably vote for him....but that is not the case, and will not be the case at this point...he is now coming off as a child wanting all the toys, and that is not going to help the Democrats in the end....BUT, LET US BE CLEAR, he isn't a Democrat....he is simply using the title in order to run for 1 of the 2 big parties. If he was willing to stand by "who and what he is" he would run as a Socialist, and own that title. I know that that just is not feasible but, the fact is, you have someone that doesn't seem to be willing to dance with the ones that brought him to the dance in the first place. He sure as hell would be willing to use the Dems money if he won the nomination, but I guess its just not a big deal to help raise that money unless its for you.

You don't understand my point. As I said in my first post on the topic, it's not about what Krugman said in that link, but more about what used to stand for before he became a shill for Hillary. I gave you two examples:

1. Nationalized healthcare: Krugman quoted Kenneth Arrow's work on healthcare as an industry that simply does not fit the axioms of utility theory that is the backbone and foundation of both classical and modern economics, resulting in "irrational behavior" of key parameters such as prices, demand and supply in the healthcare industry, why the private sector will always be a poor supplier and why there needs to be a nationalized government healthcare program.

2. Wall Street Regulation: Krugman was one of the most prominent voices in raising awareness about how Dodd-Frank was being gutted by lawmakers under the influence of Wall Street. He was using terms like "crony capitalism" and "corporate welfare" on mainstream business news channels. He was calling for the criminal prosecution of all the parties involved in the 2008 crash, saying how shocked he was how nobody went to jail for it, years before it gained populist fervor. And if I remember correctly, he was one of the first well-known personalities in the financial world who sounded the alarm about the "too-big-to-fail" banks becoming even bigger less than five years after the crisis.

Sound like someone you know?

That is why I find it so disappointing that he is now peddling Hillary's canned talking points about how Dodd-Frank is working (despite the fact that risk management textbooks from GARP and PRMIA - the world's leading professional risk management accreditation bodies, clearly state just how toothless the bill is due to mind-blowing number of exemptions - it spans 2,300 pages for a reason), that Obamacare is all good and dandy and all we need to do is to simply incrementally improve upon it. And yes, he COMPLETELY sounds like a Clinton stooge precisely because of statements like "engaging in innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt is, at this point, basically campaigning on behalf of the RNC"...are you f**kin' kidding me, Paul?