I’m pretty sure Trump is taking care of that all by himself. I expect heavy Dem turnout for the general election, assuming he’s the Republican nominee, which will dilute that small Bernie minority beyond any significance.
Since you yourself seem to have forgotten what you said a few hours ago, here it is in full:
In a democracy, the people lead.
If you wish to invent a definition of “direct” that helps you wiggle out of your own poor understanding of democracy, without explanation, you may, but you may not pout about anyone using a more conventional one. You could easily have said “*ask *his supporters”, which would have been correct and unexceptionable, but you did not. Even then the choice would be up to the supporters, which of course it is no matter what the candidate, or you, may have to say about it.
Your middle option does not exist during a campaign. Being destructive, and counterproductive to the goals one aspires to (something which in the US system is done through the parties and their nominees, since you’re unclear on the concept), means it cannot be honorable.
IOW, Bwahahahaha!
The Cruz minority is probably even larger. No guessing how many of *them *are going to sulk and stay home, but it may be a larger number in the end.
Seriously? You are seriously bemoaning that a thread in the Elections forum of the SD is discussing a political horse race issue rather than staying pure and above such pedestrian pontifications instead preferring to only discuss the stump speech issues yet another time?
Sanders has repeated his stump speech many many thousands of times and his supporters can recite them like they are at Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Sorry.
This is exceptionally stupid shit to get upset over, with all the hyperbole.
The story is this: a candidate, asked how he’ll convince all his supporters to vote for his opponent, turns the question instead to his stump speech.
WOOOOO! ALARM! ALARM!
If the OP confined itself to discussing that story, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Instead, Sanders is accused of extortion.
That’s fripperous bullshit, emphasis on the bullshit.
This would only be true if your philosophy was party over platform. If you have a platform that you believe in that neither party is willing to advocate why should it matter to you to support either party?
Why should we believe that Bernie Sanders, who is not a democrat, should be obligated to support that parties candidate if the issues he feels strongest about aren’t supported by that candidate? Those things would have to be negotiated. I don’t see that as reprehensible, disgusting or stupid.
So, why run as a democrat in the first place? Because he believed that enough people in that party supported his agenda and would support him. If this turns out not to be true then he doesn’t really owe any allegiance to that party. Why should he?
The fault is squarely on the party who is not willing to represent the needs of a sizable enough part of their party to keep their votes in the first place. Votes are earned not given after all. If they were pleasing these people they wouldn’t be defecting to the outsider in the first place. How is this the outsiders fault exactly?
For the record, I am a Sanders supporter who doesn’t support him enough that I would not vote for Hillary when she wins the primary. I’m pretty sure most Sanders supporters are the same just like the Puma’s were. Who really cares about endorsements in 2016 anyway? If they did Jeb would be our president.
This has always been the game. The progressive part of the coalition want concessions to keep the coalition together, just as Southern blacks want certain concessions, just as centrists want certain concessions, just as well-heeled gays want certain concessions. Why does that suddenly sound too real for you?
I think it’s hilarious that a bunch of conservative-to-moderate Democrats in heavily GOP states thought they could hand the nomination over to Hillary & tell the majority of the base to simply accept it. Bernie is now getting the kinds of blowouts that Hillary was getting earlier in the process.
Which might make it look like a lot more competitive race than it really is, unless you look at the facts of those victories. Bernie is winning big in states with very low populations of minorities (mostly under 10%), and in caucuses (of which there are exactly two left, with a combined total of the order of 40 delegates). Of course, that Sanders minority of which we were speaking will paint it as the tide turning, but it really isn’t. Watch what happens in those big blue states down the road.
We have people calling Bernie potentially not endorsing Hillary called ‘extortion’, the defense against charges that Carson’s Trump endorsement was bought with promises of a position if he gets elected president was ‘but he HAD to endorse him, so the promise couldn’t possibly be to buy it’. Meaning that the endorsements are mandatory.
Mandatory endorsements of a specific candidate are the opposite of democracy.
You are conflating endorsements of specific candidates, before the nomination is secured, with the expectation that everyone in the party endorse the nominee once that nomination has been secured. Very, very different things.
QFT
Bernie has 0 leverage and Hilary knows it. What are disaffected Democrats going to do? Leave the plantation and vote Republican?
Aren’t you giving 19 year old true believers too much credit for hardheaded pragmatism?
“These are the people you have to win if you’re a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that.”
And this from Paul Begala:
I will be going Jill Stein should Bernie not get the nomination.
Quick, bring the smelling salts …
** faints **
And then there’s women, and pretty much every minority there is. Who was it again who owns them? Oh, yeah. Hillary.
Quote whoever you want, Hillary or otherwise. She will be the nominee, and she will win those of the Caucasian persuasion quite handily, because there is still a majority of sane voters who will never trust the Donald.
I am serious when I say I would vote for Trump over Clinton at this point. What ever shitstorm Trump could bring into office cannot possibly be worse in the long run that putting yet another bought and paid for Republicrat/Democan into the oval office. Even if hes truly insane the backlash would end up being a net positive.
That’s pretty twisted. Good luck with it, though. I’ll be posting from my new homeland of Bora Bora if it happens.
She owns them? Interesting. Does she own you too, or just the minorities and women? What about the women and minorities that didn’t vote for her? Are they runaways? And what about all the white people she claimed she owned in 2008?
You’re not big on irony I see. Of course she will most likely win the nomination, that wasn’t really the point of my post.
And btw, you might want to rethink your idea that Hawaii is a “low minority population” state (of course, the GOP thinks it’s Kenya - because Obama - but in fact it is only about 24% “Caucasian persuasion”, as you call it).
That Bernheads have been gleefully playing this “gotcha” card in recent days is kind of sad. Okay, Bernie’s terrain is not just “white states”. It’s states dominated by whites, and/or any other ethnic group with a higher median income and educational attainment than whites (a category of one: Asian Americans). States with above average numbers of black or Hispanic voters are Hillary turf.