# What would it take for Bernie Sanders to get the nomination? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 21, 2016, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813 "2016-03-21T23:55:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/181 "2016-04-07T14:29:53Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Minnesota is likely to move to primaries for Presidential election cycles. Maine is too. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/182 "2016-04-07T14:33:56Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > But some of his fans appear to have nothing but contempt for the Democratic Party. Why didn’t he _begin_ his campaign on his own? Well, doesn’t that make sense that a Bernie Sanders supporter would have contempt for the Democratic Party? He is by any measure a radical rather than a liberal. His campaign is openly calling for a revolution. He is essentially in favor of tearing down the system and starting over. Since the Democratic Party is instead primarily a liberal party that favors keeping the system in place and improving it, it seems strange that a Sanders supporter wouldn’t dislike the Democratic Party. Imagine an alternative world where Donald Trump was never a part of this campaign and we were down to Ted Cruz and John Kasich. Wouldn’t we essentially have Cruz supporters showing utter contempt for the Republican Party? The Republican Party of right now is a harder example to see since it has moved far beyond conservatism and in fact has essentially redefined the term conservative, but Kasich versus Cruz is a pretty good example of a basic conservative versus a basic reactionary. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/183 "2016-04-07T14:43:08Z")
ETA:@ **Evil Captor** I’m explaining the rules, not (so much) defending them. The Rs have the nasty situation where their rules are changed at the whim of insiders while and after the game is played but before the winner is declared. That’s oligarchy. The D’s don’t do that. Would it be ideologically purer to not have superdelegates? Yes. Congratulations Sherlock. Would it be ideologically purer to not have a mix of caucuses and primaries? Yes. Would it be ideologically purer to not have primaries spread around states willy-nilly over several months? Yes. Would it be ideologically pur_est_ to simply total the national primary popular vote and declare a winner? Absolutely. So we’re actually debating a question of degree not of kind. My whole and entire point is people need to play this game this time by this season’s rules. Pretending the rules are otherwise or acting butthurt when the rules honestly applied don’t deliver the result you prefer is intellectually dishonest. We’re certainly free to change the rules via debate and vote during the off-season. I welcome your involvement in that effort. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/184 "2016-04-07T16:52:39Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > ETA:@\*\*Would it be ideologically pur_est_ to simply total the national primary popular vote and declare a winner? Absolutely. Does this information even exist in caucus states? Case in point: Iowa. If I understand how it worked, they didn’t count the actual number of votes until after the 15% viability was checked - which means that anybody who supported O’Malley in a precinct where he didn’t get 15% had their vote counted for either Sanders, Clinton, or Undeclared (assuming they stayed for the “final” vote in the first place) instead. The real problem is, what about the O’Malley voters in precincts where he _did_ get 15%? Their votes weren’t switched. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/185 "2016-04-07T17:12:00Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Well, doesn’t that make sense that a Bernie Sanders supporter would have contempt for the Democratic Party? He is by any measure a radical rather than a liberal. His campaign is openly calling for a revolution. He is essentially in favor of tearing down the system and starting over. Since the Democratic Party is instead primarily a liberal party that favors keeping the system in place and improving it, it seems strange that a Sanders supporter wouldn’t dislike the Democratic Party. > > Imagine an alternative world where Donald Trump was never a part of this campaign and we were down to Ted Cruz and John Kasich. Wouldn’t we essentially have Cruz supporters showing utter contempt for the Republican Party? The Republican Party of right now is a harder example to see since it has moved far beyond conservatism and in fact has essentially redefined the term conservative, but Kasich versus Cruz is a pretty good example of a basic conservative versus a basic reactionary. Then why did Bernie _ever_ sully himself with that (D)? Because it was convenient. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/186 "2016-04-07T17:34:55Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Well, doesn’t that make sense that a Bernie Sanders supporter would have contempt for the Democratic Party? He is by any measure a radical rather than a liberal. His campaign is openly calling for a revolution. He is essentially in favor of tearing down the system and starting over. Since the Democratic Party is instead primarily a liberal party that favors keeping the system in place and improving it, it seems strange that a Sanders supporter wouldn’t dislike the Democratic Party. > > Imagine an alternative world where Donald Trump was never a part of this campaign and we were down to Ted Cruz and John Kasich. Wouldn’t we essentially have Cruz supporters showing utter contempt for the Republican Party? The Republican Party of right now is a harder example to see since it has moved far beyond conservatism and in fact has essentially redefined the term conservative, but Kasich versus Cruz is a pretty good example of a basic conservative versus a basic reactionary. Perhaps Bernie hopes to make the Democratic Party a little less contemptible? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/187 "2016-04-07T17:55:45Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Perhaps Bernie hopes to make the Democratic Party a little less contemptible? Doesn’t the Republican party need his selfless aid even more? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/188 "2016-04-07T18:04:07Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Doesn’t the Republican party need his selfless aid even more? Most definitely, but arguably they are beyond help. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/189 "2016-04-07T18:07:37Z")
On the “qualified to be President” debate. A mistake for both Sanders and Clinton. It reeks of “gotcha” journalism and superficiality, just fuel for the Washington talking heads to babble about. Both candidates are obviously qualified to be President. They should both shut up about it and move on. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/190 "2016-04-07T19:45:12Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Then why did Bernie _ever_ sully himself with that (D)? Because it was convenient. I think he was pretty up front on that. He needed the exposure that you get running under a major party’s name. His ideology overlaps some aspects of the Democratic party and just goes further on others. I think it’s pretty damn similar to the Ron Paul situation. He isn’t a Republican and his ideology doesn’t fit that well with them, but he ran as a Republican for exposure and all the other advantages that you get running under their banner. His positions were similar enough that he could get by. ---
**Author:** ![harmonicamoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@harmonicamoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/harmonicamoon)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/191 "2016-04-07T21:16:22Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > On the “qualified to be President” debate. A mistake for both Sanders and Clinton. It reeks of “gotcha” journalism and superficiality, just fuel for the Washington talking heads to babble about. Both candidates are obviously qualified to be President. They should both shut up about it and move on. I was sad to see this discussion. The obvious objective for C and B is a Demo in the white house. Anything that disrupts that objective is not good. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/192 "2016-04-08T01:45:10Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > On the “qualified to be President” debate. A mistake for both Sanders and Clinton. … How was what Clinton said a mistake for her? Is it off-limits to point out that he has not done his homework and to suggest that she is better prepared to actually get things done? How dare she suggest that she might be a better person for the job. Unfair! There is no both sides made mistakes going on here. Sanders has been persistent with his attacks on Clinton. She is asked to call him not qualified and refuses to. She does no more than suggest that he does not seem to really understand “either the law or the practical ways you get something done.” And he then falsely claims she said he was unqualified to be president, making up a quote, and declares her to be unqualified for the job. Then he whines, and I [quote] ([Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Spar Over Presidential Qualifications - First Draft. Political News, Now. - The New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/07/bernie-sanders-and-hillary-clinton-spar-over-presidential-qualifications/)) > [@Sanders](#): > > I’m not going to get beaten up. I’m not going to get lied about. We will fight back What. The. Fuck. After all the shit he’s been throwing at her, she points out that he has not done his homework and that she believes she is better prepared to do the job, after he lies about her taking money from the oil and gas industry and he lies about what she said, he declares that he is being unfairly “beaten up” and “lied about”?!? Her reaction? > [@Clinton](#): > > Well, it’s kind of a silly thing to say … I don’t know why he’s saying that, but I will take Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump or Ted Cruz any time … What “mistake” has she made here? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/193 "2016-04-08T01:55:52Z")
The mistake, I think, was the campaign’s press release saying they were going to go negative. I don’t quite get what the point of that was anyway. It gave the opening for uninformed people to believe that Bernie’s lie was true. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/194 "2016-04-08T03:08:36Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > How was what Clinton said a mistake for her? Describing Sanders as “unqualified to be President” was a mistake because he has served in Congress for many years, he is clearly qualified to serve as President. Whatever Hillary meant by that, it was extremely bad phrasing. You can be sure the pundits will use it against both her and Sanders. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/195 "2016-04-08T03:31:33Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Describing Sanders as “unqualified to be President” was a mistake because he has served in Congress for many years, he is clearly qualified to serve as President. Whatever Hillary meant by that, it was extremely bad phrasing. You can be sure the pundits will use it against both her and Sanders. Except that she _didn’t_. Sanders used the phrasing. Hillary never said that. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/196 "2016-04-08T04:33:52Z")
It’s what you call, most generously, an untrue statement, that he made. He “quoted” her (literally saying “quote” and “unquote”) saying something that she NEVER SAID … that she was asked to say and _refused_ to. Here’s the thing - maybe it was not _a lie_. Maybe he read a headline portraying her statement as that and since it comported with what he believed she would say just accepted it uncritically without actually reading the article, let alone the transcript or listening to the interview. Could be. But then _own up_ to your fuck up and apologize for the false statement. Did he? Nope. [Today](http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/07/sanders-vows-fight-back-battle-over-most-qualified-roils-democratic-race), long after it has been pointed out in multiple media sources that she NEVER SAID THAT despite his “quote”, he kept up the line. > [@](#): > > “If you want to question my qualifications,” Sanders said, flanked by labor leaders at the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO’s annual convention, “then let me suggest this: Maybe the American people might wonder about your qualifications, Madam Secretary … I’m not going to get beaten up, I’m not going to get lied about. We will fight back.” So let me be very clear. **Bernie Sanders is now explicitly lying.** Lying as badly and in as bald-faced of a manner as Trump or Cruz ever have. This next-day statement can no longer be excused as a simple mistake, sloppily making an untrue statement that he did not know was untrue. It is something that he now surely knows is untrue and he is persisting in repeating it. **Johnny Ace** , do have a link to that press release? Because [the CNN report](http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-democrats-unity/index.html) that is often linked to is another example of something being claimed to be said without any reality. The closest I can come to finding a source for it is [this](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2016/04/06/liberal-media-mobilizes-hillary-blitzkrieg-sanders): > [@](#): > > During CNN’s Tuesday night Wisconsin primary coverage, correspondent Jeff Zeleny reported on the Clinton campaign’s new attack strategy, “they’re running out of patience. So they’re going to begin deploying a new strategy. It’s going to be called: “Disqualify Him, Defeat Him” … I’m told, beginning here in the New York primary in two weeks on his gun record, on other things.” Yes, a reporter saying, without attribution, that the campaign is going to actually point out Sanders weaknesses to solidly defeat him, and no longer handle him with kid gloves as he hits on her hard. You know actually campaign like normal, make honest compare and contrasts of where your opponent is weak and you are strong, and make the case of why you are the better person for the job. Probably true that they have decided that continuing the relative kid glove approach is causing her more long term harm than going after his negatives as he goes after hers. But a press release announcing a plan to more fully fight back, to “go negative”? Seems to be a fictional thing. Happy to be corrected if you have an actual cite. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/197 "2016-04-08T04:41:55Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > So let me be very clear. **Bernie Sanders is now explicitly lying.** Lying as badly and in as bald-faced of a manner as Trump or Cruz ever have. This next-day statement can no longer be excused as a simple mistake, sloppily making an untrue statement that he did not know was untrue. It is something that he now surely knows is untrue and he is persisting in repeating it. **YES.** This is really despicable and unacceptable on his part. Yet when I complained about this on Facebook, a Bernhead friend insisted that I was making much ado about nothing. He even asked, “if you take out the ‘quote-unquote’ part”, is it really so inaccurate? I was like, WTF: you can’t “take out” that part unless Bernie takes it back! When you use that verbiage, you are making a point of saying to your listeners, “check it out–these were her EXACT WORDS”. He just shrugged it off, as though using “quote-unquote” followed by something she didn’t say is no big deal. The friend in question is my age and has spent his entire career, since graduating college, as a newspaper copy editor. :smack: Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid! ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/198 "2016-04-08T05:13:22Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Johnny Ace** , do have a link to that press release? Because [the CNN report](http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-democrats-unity/index.html) that is often linked to is another example of something being claimed to be said without any reality. Sorry, I’m coming up with bupkis too. The closest I’m finding is that Christina Reynolds _did_ say it. So I guess it is _sort of_ justifiable for Sanders, in a way, assuming that’s true. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/199 "2016-04-08T05:31:23Z")
Speaking untruths seems to be becoming a knee jerk response for Sanders, even when there is likely no good reason to. [Tax returns.](http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/sanders-evades-tax-question/) Really, I highly doubt there is anything juicy in Sanders tax returns. But why not only _not_ release your full tax returns but also make the demonstrably untrue statement that you have in the past? No it is not in the same ballpark as the oil and gas industry lie, let alone this last false quote, but the triviality of it, the likely lack of any reason to not be forthwith and honest about it, is all the more damning. It demonstrates that being truthful and accurate is just not something that is of significance to him. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/200 "2016-04-08T05:35:16Z")
Well, I found something a little more specific, anyway: [http://http://www.mediaite.com/online/bernie-lied-hillary-clinton-actually-refused-to-call-him-unqualified-three-times/](http://http://www.mediaite.com/online/bernie-lied-hillary-clinton-actually-refused-to-call-him-unqualified-three-times/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813.md?page=11)