You sound like a Trump supporter.
Now THAT I take offense at.
Wasn’t support of either Trump or Sanders based mainly on personality and superficial expectations of how they’re going to somehow fix everything, rather than on all that experience and qualifications and thought-out policies stuff that their supporters both scorned, out of the realization that their guy didn’t have any?
You mean the no experience Sanders had in government since 1981? As a mayor and a congressman and a senator? That kind of no experience?
He had more experience than Clinton did who did not hold a public office till 2001. I’ll do the math for you…20 years in public office more than Clinton had.
And he’s still in office. Clinton is not.
The experience of getting anything substantive done, beyond voting for renaming a few post offices? No, he did not. And FTR Trump has done a whole lot more than that.
But I’m glad you had the feeling of having someone understand you and speak for you. Just like Trump’s voters did.
Sanders was about average when it comes to legislative accomplishments in congress. So was Clinton. My understanding is he was a good and well liked mayor in Burlington and made the city a better place.
Well below average. Been over that.
Who had done a lot of other things in her life, too. Perhaps you’ve heard of a few.
That’s nice.
No, you haven’t.
If you’ve got better than university researchers put it out there. Show us how Clinton was a whirlwind of legislative achievement where Sanders was just collecting a paycheck and phoning it in.
You are all assertions, no facts. I’ve showed you mine. Your turn to show me yours or you’ve got nothing.
Fact is Sanders has been in public service far, far longer than Clinton so your assertion of Sanders’ lack of experience fails right out of the gate.
If you honestly believe this then you either didn’t pay attention to the campaign or are aggressively in denial of reality.
Yes, you could legitimately argue after Iowa and NH they were extremely close, but once they moved out of the lilly white states where the candidate who had the support of affluent college students had an advantage, things went quickly south for him.
He was obliterated in South Carolina and destroyed in Super Tuesday States as soon as black voters were allowed to express how they felt about him and she built up a huge delegate lead which he never overcame.
This was very similar to Obama v. Clinton in 2008.
Now, like Clinton in 2008, Sanders chose not to give up but to fight on, as was his right but he never came close to her delegate lead advantage.
If anyone doubts me, go back to 2008 and you’ll see that Clinton actually came closer to catching Obama. At the time she quit she was far closer in the delegate count to Obama than Sanders was to her when he finally gave up.
What you should look at is why he didn’t do better.
People keep talking about “the super delegates” who never voted and she’d have won without and who did nothing to stop Obama, or “the DNC”. Well, those same factors were in play in 2008 against Barack Obama, a first term Senator who was a black man with “Hussein” for a middle name. To suggest that somehow it would be easier to rig against Sanders is moronic.
Hell, you could argue that he huge number of caucuses was a grossly unfair advantage for him. Caucuses always have extremely low voter turnout, are grossly undemocratic and cater to people with large amounts of time on their hands.
People will notice that 11 of the 23 contests he won were caucuses. If you only counted delegates from primaries, which are vastly more democratic and representative, the gap between him and Clinton would have been even more dramatic.
Married a president.
Supported and took credit for centrist ‘Triangulation’ feats such as ending Welfare, Three Strikes, and putting a generation of black men in jail.
Miserably failed to get Healthcare Reform.
Voted for Iraq II
Helped write Free Trade Agreements that she then condemned.
Gave speeches at a quarter million a pop to financial institutions.
Turned Libya into a hellhole.
Why, yes, I remember it well…
I have family from Vermont and they’d back that up that he was and still is extremely popular in Burlington.
Really?
He was in the House of Representatives, how many bills did he sponsor or co-sponsor and what did they do?
Not to be rude, but may I ask how old you are?
The large scaling jailing of African-American men started long before Bill Clinton took office or before the 1994 crime bill which was supported by the then Congressman Bernie Sanders and virtually the entire Black Congressional Caucus.
I was a freshman in college when I went to a lecture by a fairly distinguished professor talking about how there were more black men of college age in jail than in college. That was in 1991 before Bill Clinton was even the nominee for President.
Hell, when I was in high school we had a presentation from Clarence Page discussing how one in four adult black men in the US were convicted felons. That was in the 1980s.
That is something that should be condemned but you’ll notice that it’s not something you can blame on Bill or Hillary Clinton and you’ll notice how both may be hated by many privileged white leftists but they were and are extremely popular among African-Americans.
Very well laid out; yes, the wildly disproportionate jailing of black men started long before Bill Clinton was considered a viable Presidential candidate.
But for those with either an imperative emotional need ('Trump isn’t my fault in even the slightest degree; Trump is 100% HER fault!!!1!!!') or a paycheck dependent upon it,
is a challenge that can always be met. History’s greatest monsters can be blamed for everything.
Did you see my previous citation that as compared to all congresscritters Sanders lands roughly in the middle?
So, in 16 years in the House of Representatives, how many bills did he sponsor or co-sponsor?
It should be very for you to answer.
Just one word, or to be more precise, one number will do?
I do believe this.
That he closed the gap at one point in the race to single digits is a huge accomplishment. Who thought he’d be a chapter in textbooks on the election rather than a footnote?
As has been noted earlier in this thread the DNC was leaning heavily on the scales for Clinton. Remove that and Sanders might well have pulled it off. No way to be sure but he came way closer than anyone thought possible and as a result he is still relevant now and affecting the political landscape in a significant way.
You want a quote of a low number to be able to say, “See! It’s not much is it!”
Yet you ignore the context that it is par for the course.
What do you mean by “single digits”?
Moreover, do you think that Hillary Clinton “barely lost” to Obama in 2008?
I don’t, he racked up a huge delegate lead in both South Carolina and Super Tuesday and she never came close after that.
Sanders had the same problems except worse.
Please show me where after Super Tuesday where he was close to her.
How exactly were they doing that?
By having such a huge number of caucuses which were grossly undemocratic and favored him?
By not attacking him for his past comments about 16 year old girls and other issues that would come back to haunt him if he made it to the General election?
Perhaps you might ask yourself why African-Americans and Latinos were so turned off by him and voted against him in such huge numbers?
Have you ever tried to examine why this is?
Beyond that, once again, do you realize how silly you sound claiming the DNC was able to rig the election against Sanders, a wealthy White guy who’d been in Congress for over 25 years but couldn’t against a black man with the middle name of Hussein and just four years in Congress?
After Iowa he was within 8 delegates (I am not counting superdelegates).
After New Hampshire he was within 7 delegates.
Looking at the table for this it gets hard to do the math in my head but the above is single digits.
I do. By the end Clinton was regaining what she had lost to Obama as was within striking distance of winning. As I recall, at the end, it was a negotiation between her and Obama and she got Sec State to pull back.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20187305&postcount=68
Undemocratic how? Those states seem happy with it and the constitution mandates a republican form of government (not to be confused with the republican party). If it was so undemocratic surely it would have been stopped.
Things are not undemocratic because you do not like the results.
It is a mystery. Sanders was better for minorities by a LONG SHOT than Clinton was. The Clintons somehow locked in the African American vote and have always had it despite them not doing well for African Americans (remember her calling the “superpredators”?). Sanders has a lifetime of working with minorities Clinton can’t match. My guess is the Clintons got church pastors on their side and they pushed them in church. Just a guess though.
Sanders is not poor but he is one of the least wealthy people in congress. He is upper-middle class by most standards.
And the DNC had their thumb on the scale. Wasserman-Schultz had to resign over it. Donna Brazile got fired (“resigned”) from CNN for it.
(bolding mine)
There were? I frequent the Elections forum regularly and I don’t recall seeing that.