It has been game over since early march technically. At this point Bernie is just in to build support for his ideas.
Yeah, well stop building. Start supporting. Bernie’s not the only guy on the planet with ideas.
No they aren’t all WTA, they’re all different. See post 35 or 36 for tonight’s states.
Trump is maintaining the run he needs to scrape up to 1237. Still gonna be tight.
Sheesh, the only thing hurt by Sanders’ continued candidacy- the only thing hurt- is the pride of Hillary Clinton supporters.
A guy who you don’t like wants to make some speeches and appear on T.V. and say some stuff about some things. That’s something that happens every day of the week every week of the year whether it’s an election year or not.
Even if Sanders never supports Clinton, even if he takes his ball and goes home, it doesn’t matter because Clinton has her own balls and they’re big balls and she in no way needs to play with Bernie’s balls!
What exactly do you want Sanders to do, as opposed to his current actions?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk
Someone please fill me in on “Bernie Bros”.
Is “Bros” an abbreviation for brothers?
I wouldn’t say that. The breaking point in my view was last week in New York. There still was a faint chance before that.
Time for Bernie to exit gracefully. He ran a great campaign and brought forth some important ideas to add to the national discourse. But the fat lady is up on stage taking a deep breath.
I heard an interview with a 2008 superdelegate. He had started out pledged to Clinton, but as it became clear that she couldn’t win the nomination, she called him and all the other superdelegates pledged to her and asked him to swing his support to Obama.
Now, Bernie really doesn’t have any superdelegates, so that won’t work here. And his own towering narcissism probably won’t let him call out support for Clinton directly. What he could do, however, is spend his time and energy motivating all those kids to fund or work for downticket Democratic or progressive candidates. Do I think he’ll do that? No chance in hell.
It’s pretty stupid IMHO.
bienville, FightMyIgnorance … there are potential impacts for the general and for “the progressive cause” resultant of how he loses.
From simply having both teams spend lots of money that won’t be helping make a difference in November, to the degree that some of his supporters who right now are thrilled to be booing Clinton are able to become her supporters or at least still come out and vote for her or alternatively if the process turns off some of the swingables who might vote GOP usually but maybe not this time, to what sort of influence those who think of themselves as of “the movement” have in the future administration and how they position themselves for having more influence in government overall (and not just the party) beyond.
Only if he hadn’t resorted to negative, destructive campaigning. As it is, he’s actively hurting the Democrats’ chances in November. And for what?
It is their *own *decision to make, not Sanders’ or Clinton’s. It’s an easy one, too - the alternative is President Trump.
It’s foolish to base your voting to spite people you don’t like. You’d vote for a candidate that you feel less fit to be the president just because you want to stick it to what you view as some entitled kids? That’d just being an irresponsible voter and citizen.
Plus your analysis of their attitude is just bizarre. Why does anyone owe any allegiance to Hillary Clinton? Are you all so rigidly partisan that you can’t imagine someone who isn’t? I’m not a democrat, I have no loyal to the democratic party, and I think Hillary Clinton is a corrupt politician who has accomplished almost nothing, and what little she’s had to accomplish shows bad judgment. The weirdest thing to me is that the idea that experience is a good thing, even if that experience shows you making disastrous decisions like voting for the Iraq war.
That’s my only explanation to attitudes like yours. You expect someone to decide if they’re (R) or (D) at 18, and for the rest of their life they’re obligated to vote for their party’s candidate no matter the suitability of that candidate or their personal beliefs. And why? Because you, yourself, are so rigidly partisan that you can’t imagine anyone who isn’t?
Quite frankly your attitude disgusts me more than anyone who says “a candidate should support things that I support if they want me to vote for them, otherwise why would I?”
I’d say someone who would vote for Sanders, and agrees with him, would be irrational in the extreme if they didn’t vote for Hillary, who probably agrees with Sanders on 90% of the issues. Since the alternative is a know-nothing, trust-fund baby, who thinks bluster is the same thing as competence, or a sneering fart golem, with a bible in one hand and the nuclear codes in the other.
Hillary is going to be the nominee on the Dem’s side. She’s 90% in agreement with Sanders. The places she disagrees, she’s usually only a few steps behind him. Trump and Cruz probably don’t agree with Sanders on 10% of the issues.
Remember when the left (of whom I’m an unapologetic member) scoffed at the GOP candidates in the last election saying they wouldn’t take a 10 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases? Getting 90% of what they want wasn’t good enough. And we laughed, and laughed at how utterly hidebound and unthinking they were. And now, the Dems are doing the same thing. Sanders was never going to win. Period. I supported him, but his star has fallen.
If the Bernie fans don’t vote Dem, they’re saying 90% of what they want isn’t good enough. And worse, they’re going to increase the chances for Ted Cruz to choose the next 4 SCOTUS judges. And that will fuck this country for two generations. But, oooo, it’ll feel so good to click that switch for the Green Party candidate. That’ll show Hillary!
Would that be the same disastrous decision that 70% of the rest of Congress (and 72% of the public) made?
Get a new talking point; that one’s old, tired, and disingenuous in the extreme.
This is bullshit. I’m sure you could create some kind of curated checklist in which Clinton and Sanders match up, but in practice they’re polar opposites. Sanders has spent his whole life in good-faith genuine public service and is concerned about the corruption and the plutocratic oligarchy which controls our government. Clinton is the biggest tool of those same people. She’s the consumate slimy politician. Whatever you think of Bernie’s policies, he’s earnest and he’s lived his life dedicated to what he believes. Clinton changes what she believes based on the audience she’s facing or her biggest donator that month.
Sanders is a revolutionary candidate, with the potential to be as transformative as FDR. Clinton is business as usual, barely distinguishable from the the Bush years.
Clinton has none of what appeals to people about Bernie, and quite the opposite. And for all your condescending approach, I hope you alienate all of these young, empassioned Bernie supporters and they leave your shitty party and you get destroyed along the the republicans. No one owes your corrupt plutocrat any allegiance, and you’re morally wrong for suggesting that they are “extremely irrational” for feeling otherwise.
Not far from 72% of Americans believe in creationism and other incredibly stupid things, too. What’s your argument? “Hillary is only as vile and dumb as a majority of our population!”?
I want more from the president. I want them to be the ones who show judgment in the face an irrational public. I want them not to go along with something they know is a lie, which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, the reputation of the United States, and the opportunity cost of countless treasure. Somehow Bernie is a radical moron for suggesting that post-secondary education might benefit the public interest in the same way we all decide that primary and secondary education do, but if you use more money than that to blow up foreigners across the world for no reason, that’s totally fine.
Woops, sorry about the last few lines in post #95. That was an end to quote which I forgot to delete. I’ll report it.
This is one of the best posts ever written. I applaud and agree with every syllable.
I am sure you meant it as slight hyperbole,SenorBeef, but do you have a favorite example of “Clinton chang[ing] what she believes based on […] her biggest donator that month.”?
What a surprise, a die-hard partisan thinks that something someone wrote that agrees with what he means is brilliant. You’re the equivelant of people who hear Rush Limbaugh tell them what they want to hear and uncritically praise it as genius because it resonates with them. The idea that Sanders and Clinton are near-identical politicians is utterly ridiculous, and yet you nominate it for “one of the best posts ever written”
It’s ironic, because it’s this sort of partisanship and its follies that keeps smarter people from buying into your cause. No one with the sense and introspection not to be a rabid partisan wants to inflict that upon themselves.