It’s not that funny. You seem here to be coming from the idea that Hillary supporters now were Hillary supporters then but that is not necessarily the case. I know specifically of a couple current Clintonistas on the board who were Obamaists in 2008.
Like me. I was annoyed when Hillary kept slogging on long after it was obvious she had lost, and I’m annoyed with Sanders for the same reason. (And I was really annoyed when, after Clinton finally dropped out, Obama’s campaign sent out an email soliciting for funds to help pay her campaign debt. I think I actually gave my screen the finger.)
And not all 2008 Hillary Clinton supporters are calling for Sanders to drop out. I backed Clinton in 2008 and I have no issues with Sanders staying in.
That’s a ridiculous comparison. Right now the support Bernie has can allow him to go to the convention and have an impact on the issues that the DNC take on and stances Hillary will take.
That influence is not only important for Bernie, but also for the Democrats who should want and definitely need for the future that young block coalition that Bernie has fostered.
If Bernie runs as a third party competing against Hillary, then that would be a valid comparison. That hasn’t happened yet and I do not believe it will.
Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk
For what it’s worth here are the win probabilities for the 4/26 primaries derived from PredictIt and 538’s polls plus model where available.
PredictIt 538
Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders
Connecticut 90.10% 9.90% 93% 7%
Delaware 94.06% 5.94%
Maryland 98.00% 2.00% 99% 1%
Pennsylvania 91.09% 8.91% 94% 6%
Rhode Island 54.90% 45.10%
I agree; I like Clinton more, and hope that she wins and am happy that it seems more and more certain, but I don’t mind if Sanders stays in. I do very much mind that he’s doing negative campaigning while he stays in, doing things like accusing Clinton of violating campaign finance law, accusing Clinton of calling him unqualified (which she didn’t) and then saying that she’s unqualified, and basically saying that when he’s lost it’s because the election was stolen or it’s some conspiracy from the establishment. And while Sanders hasn’t been sexist against Clinton, I’m bothered by the sexism of some of his supporters, and how he’s not tried more to get that to shut down.
If he keeps campaigning and kept things on the issues, I think that would be great. But the negative campaigning against Clinton only helps Trump or Cruz, and that’s what’s bothersome.
What the fuck does it matter whether the Establishment agrees?
Because you were refuting my post on the Establishment - the Dem Supers. And talking yourself about the Establishment. If you suddenly switched topics from one post to the next, I missed it.
That’s why it fucking matters, because that was the topic.
No, I was talking about the base, not the Establishment. Sanders has expanded the Dem base and all the augmentation has been on the left side. That will help the Dems win in November but it will also change the nature of the party in future cycles, and even the Establishment will have to change whether the Establishment likes it or not.
How do you think he can do that? All that happens at a convention that anybody notices or cares about is the nomination. The nominee sets the platform and the tone, and everybody gets behind him/her or they simply look like assholes. A failed challenger gets nothing but a capital L on the forehead.
Or perhaps you have a recent historical comparison to offer.
She *did *have a real chance right up until the day she dropped out. For Sanders, that day is long past already.
Well I was talking about the establishment, the fact that to win, regardless of other counts, Sanders needs the Supers, and the establishment is pissed at him right now. Unless something huge happens, Sanders will not convince the Supers to move.
And I think it remains to be seen if there has been any change in the base. There was a shift in 2008 when Obama won, but it didn’t hold up for midterms. Progressives have to deliver votes - all the way down ballot - it they are going to get taken seriously by the establishment. If they don’t show up in 2018, they are dilettantes. The base shows up, every election, and votes for the Democrats on the ticket - that is why they are the base - a base of dependable voters for the party that you can count on.
She also had a point with the Michigan thing. Granted it was a point that worked to her advantage, and didn’t in the end turned out to be moot, but it was a pretty strong point.
(And I supported Obama in 2008)
Just ftr, Sanders needs to get 73% of the remaining delegates just to draw even. Who here thinks that’s a real non-zero possibility? Anybody?
1/10 of millions of voters is a significant amount. It’s enough to flip some swing states, especially combined with 10-20% of the black vote. And Trump has only just begun to pivot to the middle and started to court them. This fraction will increase over time. Note the new ad the other day that associates the negative attention Trump has received from the media and establishment first and foremost with Carl Rove.
Sander’s continuous portrayal of Clinton as bought and paid for by big moneyed interests plays perfectly into Trump’s hand. At this point his campaign is essentially an auxiliary of Trump’s.
Look at it this way. Sanders needs to get 3 delegates for every one Hillary gets, from here out. That requirement will probably be something like 5 to 1 by this time next week.
And that’s the frustrating part of the Sanders campaign. If California was a winner take all state for the Dems and he could come from behind and grab 476 delegates, then it would make a great movie. But, it isn’t.
I am seeing theMedium.com “On Becoming Anti-Bernie” article from three days ago passing around like crazy on social media, with people abandoning and disavowing Bernie in droves.
So because CNBC is stupid enough to ask some British animal rights guy for some American voting predictions, we should all take note?
From your second link:
That’s some serious flailing you’re doing, my friend.
Polling and anecdotal evidence support his opinion.