"Feel the Bern": The BERNIE SANDERS Thread - Part 2

[Matt]

PLEASE.... let Shultz lose her seat.....I cannot stand that woman. She does little to further the Democrat party or women.

Not exactly my point. I don't disagree that she is useless as a Congresswoman, though.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think Clinton will reward her for her services. Secretary of the interior or something like that.

 

[Marvolo]

So i was at mcdonalds in the drivethru. Its one of those two speaker setups. Well I ordered and the guy at the other one ordered after me. So when the line moved I went to go first and tried to pull in fron the other guy. Well he tried to get in front of me and he got furious. We set there for a few minites waiting in line and the whole time he is just staring at me like he wanted to hurt me. So I decide to be the bigger man and I let him pass me. He mouths, Thats what I ****ing thought." and smirks at me. Well when I got to the window the girl at the cash register said, "Man forget that guy. He was saying some awful things about you. Im not going ro repeat them, but just be safe ok."

So apparently this guy was telling a complete stranger how he was going to hurt me and was talking **** about me... because I was doing what I was supposed to do in the drive thru line at a ****ing mcdonalds. And to beat it all, he had a ****ing Bernie sticker on his car. The entitled prick.

There are times when I legitimately despise my own species.

 

[Matt]

Nate Cohn of the New York Times tweeted this:

"A fun thought experiment: imagine Sanders winning but Clinton refusing to endorse unless he adopted her views, etc"

Something to think about...

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think Clinton will reward her for her services. Secretary of the interior or something like that.

I doubt it. While the Clintons value loyalty, Wasserman-Schultz has been an absolutely abysmal DNC chairman. Democrats have lost hundreds of seats of power from the House, Senate, governorships, state legislatures, and local seats. She was bad at PR for the party with how poorly she managed messaging and even down to making Sanders look like he had a legitimate point when he really didn't. And she isn't really liked by the party either, including Obama himself, and she has a reputation of only being out for herself.

I just find it highly unlikely that the Clintons would reward such ineptitude.

 

[Matt]

I doubt it. While the Clintons value loyalty, Wasserman-Schultz has been an absolutely abysmal DNC chairman. Democrats have lost hundreds of seats of power from the House, Senate, governorships, state legislatures, and local seats. She was bad at PR for the party with how poorly she managed messaging and even down to making Sanders look like he had a legitimate point when he really didn't. And she isn't really liked by the party either, including Obama himself, and she has a reputation of only being out for herself.

I just find it highly unlikely that the Clintons would reward such ineptitude.

Handing her the DNC was more or less her reward in the first place. She was one of Clinton's most loyal surrogates in 2008. I believe she was the co-chair of Clinton's entire campaign. The Clinton's expended political capital to get her elected as head of the DNC in 2011. While she hasn't been very good at it, it turned out to be a brilliant move for them. Not only did she push the primary in their favor (she didn't rig it but she also didn't make it easy for anyone else), she has also become the scapegoat that Clinton can push all of the Bernie Bros' ire onto. Sanders himself seems to be shifting toward attacking Wasserman Schultz and blaming her rather than Clinton at this point.

I think if Wasserman Schultz is a good soldier and takes heat off of Clinton, she will be rewarded. I am sure the Clintons will dump some money into her re-election campaign to help fight off the money Sanders is dumping into her primary opponent. Beyond that, should Clinton win, I could see her getting some sort of appointment. She won't get a cabinet post. But she will get a deputy-secretary position (probably in a policy area that she is very passionate about) or maybe an ambassadorship.

 

[chaseter]

It's a disgusting, incestuous topic so why even fantasize scenarios?

 

[Victarion]

Nate Cohn of the New York Times tweeted this:



Something to think about...

Realistically - what would stop Hillary from verbalizing her agreement, gaining his supporters, and then going on with her plans without giving Bernie's demands another thought?

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Realistically - what would stop Hillary from verbalizing her agreement, gaining his supporters, and then going on with her plans without giving Bernie's demands another thought?

The DNC can see the writing on the wall with what Bernie was able to do and how the youth responded. Thanks to Obama they already have a very good infrastructure when it comes to social media and being pretty current with being able to digitally reach the target demos. If they don't attempt to appease that crowd slowly they are going to lose or disenfranchise a large swath and will become as irrelevant as the GOP is now.

Old folks die every day and lots of youngins are born to take their place. You want to be the party of progressives you best pay attention to what they want.

 

[Kelly]

I think Clinton will reward her for her services. Secretary of the interior or something like that.

That's fine.....

 

[Kelly]

The DNC can see the writing on the wall with what Bernie was able to do and how the youth responded. Thanks to Obama they already have a very good infrastructure when it comes to social media and being pretty current with being able to digitally reach the target demos. If they don't attempt to appease that crowd slowly they are going to lose or disenfranchise a large swath and will become as irrelevant as the GOP is now.

Old folks die every day and lots of youngins are born to take their place. You want to be the party of progressives you best pay attention to what they want.

The millennial generation, sure they have increased slightly since 2004, between 2008 and 2012 they went from 18% of the vote to 19%. But,
65% of the vote is still in the ages between 30 and 64....64 is NOT old anymore, they will live for quite awhile longer.

NOW, had Romney split the youth vote with Obama in 2012, he would have won the election....so is it an important demographic, you bet.

But in this election I believe it is going to be that 29% of independent voters that will be the ones to watch. And the polls are showing a turn towards Clinton as a whole, and I believe that is the independent voters seeing just how crazy Trump is....

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Independents aren't falling over themselves to support ideologue who uses extremist rhetoric?

I'm shocked I say. Shocked!

 

[souvlaki]

I can't believe the big speech tonight was basically a glorified stump speech. What is the purpose of giving any speech at this point where he doesn't say, "I am suspending my campaign" and "I am endorsing Hillary Clinton"?

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The millennial generation, sure they have increased slightly since 2004, between 2008 and 2012 they went from 18% of the vote to 19%. But,
65% of the vote is still in the ages between 30 and 64....64 is NOT old anymore, they will live for quite awhile longer.

NOW, had Romney split the youth vote with Obama in 2012, he would have won the election....so is it an important demographic, you bet.

But in this election I believe it is going to be that 29% of independent voters that will be the ones to watch. And the polls are showing a turn towards Clinton as a whole, and I believe that is the independent voters seeing just how crazy Trump is....

It pains me to say this but I'm 32 and technically part of the millennial generation. That is anyone who was born between 1980-2000. So 36 and under are all millennials believe it our not Kelly.

 

[Kelly]

The statistics I gave from 2012 will of course cross generations....doesn't make my point wrong....the vast majority are still between gen. X and midway baby boomers....you are actually considered an in-between-er haha....and yes mils have surpassed baby boomers in eligible voters as of April 26th........but not registered voters... : )

 

[moviedoors]

It pains me to say this but I'm 32 and technically part of the millennial generation. That is anyone who was born between 1980-2000. So 36 and under are all millennials believe it our not Kelly.

Same age, and I also have trouble identifying as a Millenial. I watched cartoons on 8mm projectors in kindergarten for crying out loud.

 

[Kelly]

Same age, and I also have trouble identifying as a Millenial. I watched cartoons on 8mm projectors in kindergarten for crying out loud.

That is why y'all are called the in-between-ers.....

And a good article to explain all of this generational stuff and where they begin and end.....according to the Census Bureau and people that actually think about this stuff.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...on-begins-and-ends-according-to-facts/359589/

Save</span>

 

[moviedoors]

That is why y'all are called the in-between-ers.....

And a good article to explain all of this generational stuff and where they begin and end.....according to the Census Bureau and people that actually think about this stuff.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...on-begins-and-ends-according-to-facts/359589/

Save</span>

Nice. Thanks. So I'm on the cusp of Gen X and Millenial. I can roll with that.

 

[Smashlilman]

When I was in Elementary school my teachers told me I was Generation Y. When I got to high school they told me I was a Millennial.

 

[Matt]

May I ask just what the hell Bernie Sanders is playing at? On Late Night with Stephen Colbert he says he will not endorse Clinton. The next morning he says he is voting for her, but still won't endorse her.

He says he is voting for her and will do anything to stop Trump. But not only is he refusing to endorse her. His campaign is planning a protest march on the Democratic Convention.

He is burning any political capital he could have had by exiting the race graciously. If the Democrats either win a majority in which they don't need him or if they don't take a majority and he doesn't matter, I think the Democrats should take away his committee seniority and just stop caucusing with him.

 

[Kelly]

May I ask just what the hell Bernie Sanders is playing at? On Late Night with Stephen Colbert he says he will not endorse Clinton. The next morning he says he is voting for her, but still won't endorse her.

He says he is voting for her and will do anything to stop Trump. But not only is he refusing to endorse her. His campaign is planning a protest march on the Democratic Convention.

He is burning any political capital he could have had by exiting the race graciously. If the Democrats either win a majority in which they don't need him or if they don't take a majority and he doesn't matter, I think the Democrats should take away his committee seniority and just stop caucusing with him.

He does not give a "rat's patootie" he isn't a Democrat. He does not care about political capital.

 

[Matt]

He does not give a "rat's patootie" he isn't a Democrat. He does not care about political capital.

True, but he should. He has (or perhaps, at this point, had) quite a bit of capital. He could've leveraged his endorsement into favorable platform positions, his choice of committees, leadership positions, policy compromises, perhaps even real legislation. If he really wanted to further his movement, he had the ability to use this moment.

But now, Clinton is beating Trump readily in every poll. Every day that passes it becomes more and more apparent that Sanders loyalists are coming into the Clinton fold and begrudgingly voting for her on their own. And those who aren't....well, if the polls are right, Clinton doesn't need them to win: Ergo, the Democratic Party doesn't need them.

Sanders could have really capitalized on this moment and leveraged his support. He's overplayed his hand, waited too long, and now his support doesn't matter all that much.

Of course, all of that is assuming that Bernie Sanders actually cared about the "movement" and not simply self-aggrandizing.

 

[Kelly]

Your last sentence speaks volumes....

 

[Bruce Banner]

Considering the general condescending nature of most Clinton supporters and their general snootiness. Hell, every comment section in every article for a while now has some variation of the "fall in line" comment. I can't fault them for not wanting to vote her at all. Much like Bernie's rabid fan base surely turned off some from him.

She may be more qualified than Trump, but that's not a high standard by any means.

 

[Matt]

Page bump