Hillairy goes 0-3 in latest Primaries by JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Meanwhile the GOP continues to back an out-and-out fascist who is openly calling for torture.

EvilJesus - who are you talking about? Hilliary?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 29, 2016 10:41 PM

ELVISCHRIST

I'm talking about Trump, you idiotic cocksucking piece of shit, but I should have remembered that you're too fucking stupid to figure that out. Pull your tongue out of his ass for a few seconds and you'd realize what you're supporting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 30, 2016 8:29 AM

REAVERFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

I'm talking about Trump, you idiotic cocksucking piece of shit, but I should have remembered that you're too fucking stupid to figure that out. Pull your tongue out of his ass for a few seconds and you'd realize what you're supporting.

Doubtful.

Reichwingers like their authoritarian father figures. It makes them feel safe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:47 PM

I have heard that Hilliary is 1-6 in the last 7 contests. And reportedly she is so far behind in Wisconsin that she has given up to go squauk at the New Yorkers who love carpetbaggers.

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
I'm talking about Trump, you idiotic cocksucking piece of shit, but I should have remembered that you're too fucking stupid to figure that out. Pull your tongue out of his ass for a few seconds and you'd realize what you're supporting.
Doubtful.

Reichwingers like their authoritarian father figures. It makes them feel safe.

So you 2 are supporting Trump?
So sad. You Trumpeteers should refrain from such uncouth language, it is unbecoming to your campaign - one of the many reasons I have never supported The Donald, along with most conservatives.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 31, 2016 4:52 PM

REAVERFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I have heard that Hilliary is 1-6 in the last 7 contests. And reportedly she is so far behind in Wisconsin that she has given up to go squauk at the New Yorkers who love carpetbaggers.

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
I'm talking about Trump, you idiotic cocksucking piece of shit, but I should have remembered that you're too fucking stupid to figure that out. Pull your tongue out of his ass for a few seconds and you'd realize what you're supporting.
Doubtful.

Reichwingers like their authoritarian father figures. It makes them feel safe.

So you 2 are supporting Trump?
So sad. You Trumpeteers should refrain from such uncouth language, it is unbecoming to your campaign - one of the many reasons I have never supported The Donald, along with most conservatives.

You're the reichwinger, not us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 31, 2016 6:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I have heard that Hilliary is 1-6 in the last 7 contests. And reportedly she is so far behind in Wisconsin that she has given up to go squauk at the New Yorkers who love carpetbaggers.

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
I'm talking about Trump, you idiotic cocksucking piece of shit, but I should have remembered that you're too fucking stupid to figure that out. Pull your tongue out of his ass for a few seconds and you'd realize what you're supporting.
Doubtful.

Reichwingers like their authoritarian father figures. It makes them feel safe.

So you 2 are supporting Trump?
So sad. You Trumpeteers should refrain from such uncouth language, it is unbecoming to your campaign - one of the many reasons I have never supported The Donald, along with most conservatives.
You're the reichwinger, not us.

Just because you support Trump does not have any bearing on whether Trump opponents like me reside on any particular spot of the spectrum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 1, 2016 5:36 PM

I heard that if Hilliary is annointed the nominee, she will have a higher disfavorable opinion from voters than any other candidate in history.
The only competition she has for that title is Trump.
The RNC is a week before the DNC.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 2, 2016 11:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Meanwhile the GOP continues to back an out-and-out fascist who is openly calling for torture.

I'm talking about Trump, you idiotic cocksucking piece of shit, but I should have remembered that you're too fucking stupid to figure that out. Pull your tongue out of his ass for a few seconds and you'd realize what you're supporting.

The flaw in your statement is that the GOP is NOT backing Trump. They're doing everything they can to create a contested convention.

OTOH, the Democratic national committee is solidly behind Hillary and she HAS killed people needlessly and wantonly in Libya and elsewhere. So you really should stop thinking in tropes and start thinking in reality.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 3, 2016 7:13 AM

She has always said that the political process must go through no matter what. But she's thinking positive, something that Trump does on a daily basis. He even states
that he should win if he has more delegates and popular votes than his opponents, despite the fact that he doesn't reach the required amount of delegates set by the
RNC rules - namely 1237 delegates.

That's not how it works, according to Rinse Prebus, or whatever the fuck his name is. And I don't hear any loudmouth screaming coming from the Dickheads Society or the Right Wing Establishment media (or Ragweed for short).

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Bernie won in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington.

But Hilliary and the MSM are still trying to convince everybody that she should be anointed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 3, 2016 7:18 AM

Oh how I do hope that they allow the Open Carry so that they shoot each other in the face, a la Cheney (The Evil Sith Lord Palpatine), then maybe this country can move forward (snort!)

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I have heard that Hilliary is 1-6 in the last 7 contests. And reportedly she is so far behind in Wisconsin that she has given up to go squauk at the New Yorkers who love carpetbaggers.

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
I'm talking about Trump, you idiotic cocksucking piece of shit, but I should have remembered that you're too fucking stupid to figure that out. Pull your tongue out of his ass for a few seconds and you'd realize what you're supporting.
Doubtful.

Reichwingers like their authoritarian father figures. It makes them feel safe.

So you 2 are supporting Trump?
So sad. You Trumpeteers should refrain from such uncouth language, it is unbecoming to your campaign - one of the many reasons I have never supported The Donald, along with most conservatives.
You're the reichwinger, not us.

Just because you support Trump does not have any bearing on whether Trump opponents like me reside on any particular spot of the spectrum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 3, 2016 7:33 AM

Really!? She personally went to Libya and shot somebody? News to me! Where do you get such tripe from? Curious minds want to know.

And don't tell me it's the Benghazi Bullshit again! Please, give that shit a rest.
Fucking stupid asses in Congress cut the defense and state office budget and then scream bloody murder when people are killed under their watch; and because of the hate for Obama and Hilary drum up the stupidest shit I ever heard.

Not one fucking peep when 241 military personnel were killed in Beirut. No, just the opposite - they praise Reagan and erect a library honoring the feeble SOB.
They even determined that it was the fault of American Officers...."The Inman Report is released. It finds that Marine officers did not take proper steps to protect the barracks against terrorist attacks."

Fucking jerk offs. Cowards. They actually blamed Marine officers for that shit.

Oh, and one more thing..............Iran-Contra.....look that up.

And yet, the lies and fabrications of what Hilary did to get those boys killed.
Fucking boggles the mind.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Meanwhile the GOP continues to back an out-and-out fascist who is openly calling for torture.

I'm talking about Trump, you idiotic cocksucking piece of shit, but I should have remembered that you're too fucking stupid to figure that out. Pull your tongue out of his ass for a few seconds and you'd realize what you're supporting.
The flaw in your statement is that the GOP is NOT backing Trump. They're doing everything they can to create a contested convention.

OTOH, the Democratic national committee is solidly behind Hillary and she HAS killed people needlessly and wantonly in Libya and elsewhere. So you really should stop thinking in tropes and start thinking in reality.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 3, 2016 5:33 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"She has always said that the political process must go through no matter what."

And you think that's a praiseworthy thing, even if that process is officially crooked?

I ran across this article in Salon yesterday. If I hadn’t already read other stories, I might think this was vital information.

The Strange Silence About Hillarymania Over half of Clinton supporters — 54% — rated themselves as “extremely enthusiastic” or “very enthusiastic.” Only 44% of Sanders supporters could say the same. As anyone with a computer or TV knows, the narrative has been the opposite of what this hard polling data shows. The assumption is that Sanders is the one with the enthusiastic base and that Clinton’s supporters are dragging their feet to the polls. *

But it turns out it’s only part of the story. That more of Clinton’s supporters than Sanders’ are ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ enthusiastic might be true. But, contrast that statistic with this OTHER statistic, the ‘net-negative’ ratings …

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton register net negative ratings in double digits, indicating the front-runners for each party's presidential nominations are viewed negatively at historic levels, according to a new CBS/New York Times poll. On the Democratic side, Clinton fares only slightly better (than Trump), with a net negative of -21, registering a 31% favorable rating and a (whopping, imo) 52% unfavorable rating, according to the poll. Both candidates' negatives far outweigh front-runners of the past.

A different website with a different poll reports similar numbers but also includes Sanders in the comparison …

At the same time, Hillary Clinton, the Democrats' front-runner, has an unfavorability rating of -13, a third of Trump's but well below the positive rating of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her opponent for the party's nomination.

So, the first article might be true, but it’s not the whole truth, and maybe not even the important truth. It looks like the small percentage of people who view Hillary favorably are ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ enthusiastic. But, a far larger number dislike her more than they like her. That’s a big caveat on the enthusiasm statistic.

And there are other truths to consider. The “Democratic” Party has a total of 719 superdelegates, or roughly 20% of the total, who are not obligated to vote according to the primary poll results of we, the people. At present Clinton has 1243 delegates as voted by the people, and 469 superdelegates as deigned by the “Democratic” Party. And Sanders has 1004 ‘voted’ delegates (or 10% fewer ‘voted’ delegates than Clinton, in other words he’s a meager 10% behind in the primaries’ voting) but only 29 party-assigned superdelegates (for 25% fewer total delegates than Clinton).

So by assigning a non-representative surfeit of superdelegates who favor Clinton, the “Democratic” Party has created a likely insurmountable barrier to Sanders becoming the nominee through the democratic process of simply having more people vote for him. It sure seems like the “Democratic” Party fixed the process to favor Clinton. (By contrast, by the way, the Republican Party, which we sophisticated people like think of as representing the elite 1%, has only 3 party leaders from each of the 50 states who are automatically seated as delegates. And they are OBLIGATED to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. The Republican Party rules sure seem a lot more representative of the people than those of the supposed “Democratic” Party that tells us it’s supposedly looking out for us, the 99%.) And the delegate machinations of the “Democratic” Party and its henchwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz discounting my vote are definitely one of the things that irritate me. Still, congratulations are in order Debbie, for taking advantage of those rules and writing the voters off so deftly. JOB WELL DONE!

And is there any mention of such biased superdelegate assignment in the article? No, it seems to pick the least important issue to address – how ‘enthusiastic’ Hillary’s supporters are – to try and make a case for Hillary, the nominee.

I expect this kind of information-shading from a party operative trying to put one over on us. Maybe even from a Republican politico. Not from a person ‘reporting’ on the primaries who’s supposed to be giving us the facts.

Our democracy assumes that we’re reasonably intelligent people, able to handle relevant information and savvy enough to select our leaders. So why does the author cherry-pick facts, if not to try and bamboozle the readers? And by the way, that’s the other thing I find extremely irritating – being lied to and being treated like a simpleton by someone working towards greasing the political process a particular way.

* http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/the_strange_silence_about_hillarymania
_clinton_fires_up_voters_more_than_bernie_does_so_why_is_no_one_talking_about_it/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump
-hillary-clinton/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/poll-shows-voters-view-
most-of-presidential-field-negatively
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,
_2016

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 4, 2016 6:26 AM

Oh yes, the infamous rigged elections. And Bernie has no part in it, I assume. Hilary Clinton is that powerful, is she now! Then why bother with the pretend primaries and caucuses if it's all set in motion?

And why oh why didn't she use this proclaimed power of hers to win against
Obama - who happens to be a Neo-Con (Bwha-ha-ha-ha-ha.........ha!). Oh and Hilary is a Neo-Con as well. Bernie is the only "true outside" candidate.
Oh and quoting the NY Times, which you guys claim are biased against
Bernie.........curious, they're bias against Bernie, yet you use their
poll findings to criticize Hilary and Donald's campaign and popularity.

Wait, I thought they were bias! Which is it? So, the Times, biased, but
we'll take the word for it that Bernie's numbers are fact. Hmmmmmm!

Oh, so now it's the party. The DNC has rigged the primary process against
Bernie, who's camp is claiming they have the more enthusiastic supporters.
Okay, you say the Dems don't represent the "we, the people" as much as the
Republican party. Now, I've heard it all. Trump is complaining, despite
holding the lead, that the Republican party is trying to hornswaggle the
Republican nod for president away from him. This despite their rules regarding total numbers of delegates, yet you claim that their system
is better than that of the Democratic party.

So, that means that you support Trump becoming the nominee for his party,
and that you prefer their method because it's more democratic? And that also means that you feel the DNC rigged the primary run to favor Hilary.
But you say that Bernie is narrowing the gap (10% right?). So then, in due
time he may very well pass Hilary in both categories. Were that to
happen, then that would mean that Bernie's lead would be "fixed" now, wouldn't it? And, if not, then why continue? Please explain that one to
me. Has Bernie made this known to the DNC and to the media? Oh, that's
right, I forgot....the media is also rigged against him. Curious!

If she wins, it's rigged.......and if Bernie wins, then what? Isn't it
still supposedly rigged. Then that means he too won under questionable
circumstances. Or is it that it only works if she wins? So, obviously
she's going to win, according to that logic. And this superdelegate
thing was set up this year? Set up so Hilary could win. Then why
participate? Why would Bernie submit himself to a crooked process? Why
not address this "rigged" election and expose it for what it is? Isn't
he a representative of some stature? Couldn't he affect change by
shedding light on such a travesty? Why isn't he outraged that this
could happen in the 21st century, and to a party he has dedicated his
entire political life to? Has he?

(Really, the Republicans have a better system?) That's laughable, as they try to out-maneuver Trump to the magic number of delegates.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"She has always said that the political process must go through no matter what."

And you think that's a praiseworthy thing, even if that process is officially crooked?

I ran across this article in Salon yesterday. If I hadn’t already read other stories, I might think this was vital information.

The Strange Silence About Hillarymania Over half of Clinton supporters — 54% — rated themselves as “extremely enthusiastic” or “very enthusiastic.” Only 44% of Sanders supporters could say the same. As anyone with a computer or TV knows, the narrative has been the opposite of what this hard polling data shows. The assumption is that Sanders is the one with the enthusiastic base and that Clinton’s supporters are dragging their feet to the polls. *

But it turns out it’s only part of the story. That more of Clinton’s supporters than Sanders’ are ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ enthusiastic might be true. But, contrast that statistic with this OTHER statistic, the ‘net-negative’ ratings …

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton register net negative ratings in double digits, indicating the front-runners for each party's presidential nominations are viewed negatively at historic levels, according to a new CBS/New York Times poll. On the Democratic side, Clinton fares only slightly better (than Trump), with a net negative of -21, registering a 31% favorable rating and a (whopping, imo) 52% unfavorable rating, according to the poll. Both candidates' negatives far outweigh front-runners of the past.

A different website with a different poll reports similar numbers but also includes Sanders in the comparison …

At the same time, Hillary Clinton, the Democrats' front-runner, has an unfavorability rating of -13, a third of Trump's but well below the positive rating of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her opponent for the party's nomination.

So, the first article might be true, but it’s not the whole truth, and maybe not even the important truth. It looks like the small percentage of people who view Hillary favorably are ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ enthusiastic. But, a far larger number dislike her more than they like her. That’s a big caveat on the enthusiasm statistic.

And there are other truths to consider. The “Democratic” Party has a total of 719 superdelegates, or roughly 20% of the total, who are not obligated to vote according to the primary poll results of we, the people. At present Clinton has 1243 delegates as voted by the people, and 469 superdelegates as deigned by the “Democratic” Party. And Sanders has 1004 ‘voted’ delegates (or 10% fewer ‘voted’ delegates than Clinton, in other words he’s a meager 10% behind in the primaries’ voting) but only 29 party-assigned superdelegates (for 25% fewer total delegates than Clinton).

So by assigning a non-representative surfeit of superdelegates who favor Clinton, the “Democratic” Party has created a likely insurmountable barrier to Sanders becoming the nominee through the democratic process of simply having more people vote for him. It sure seems like the “Democratic” Party fixed the process to favor Clinton. (By contrast, by the way, the Republican Party, which we sophisticated people like think of as representing the elite 1%, has only 3 party leaders from each of the 50 states who are automatically seated as delegates. And they are OBLIGATED to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. The Republican Party rules sure seem a lot more representative of the people than those of the supposed “Democratic” Party that tells us it’s supposedly looking out for us, the 99%.) And the delegate machinations of the “Democratic” Party and its henchwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz discounting my vote are definitely one of the things that irritate me. Still, congratulations are in order Debbie, for taking advantage of those rules and writing the voters off so deftly. JOB WELL DONE!

And is there any mention of such biased superdelegate assignment in the article? No, it seems to pick the least important issue to address – how ‘enthusiastic’ Hillary’s supporters are – to try and make a case for Hillary, the nominee.

I expect this kind of information-shading from a party operative trying to put one over on us. Maybe even from a Republican politico. Not from a person ‘reporting’ on the primaries who’s supposed to be giving us the facts.

Our democracy assumes that we’re reasonably intelligent people, able to handle relevant information and savvy enough to select our leaders. So why does the author cherry-pick facts, if not to try and bamboozle the readers? And by the way, that’s the other thing I find extremely irritating – being lied to and being treated like a simpleton by someone working towards greasing the political process a particular way.

* http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/the_strange_silence_about_hillarymania
_clinton_fires_up_voters_more_than_bernie_does_so_why_is_no_one_talking_about_it/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump
-hillary-clinton/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/poll-shows-voters-view-
most-of-presidential-field-negatively
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,
_2016

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 4, 2016 1:28 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Hilary Clinton is that powerful, is she now! Then why bother with the pretend primaries and caucuses if it's all set in motion?

Good question. I wonder that myself. And when it comes to swinging the process to NOT represent the vote, in my previous post I even congratulated Debbie on a job well done.

But you misunderstand the process. It's not that any candidate 'runs' the assignment of superdelegates, it's that they have to befriend the power that does. For example, in the 2008 contest Obama v Clinton. Clinton won more votes,

To secure the nomination, a candidate needed to receive at least 2,117 votes at the convention—or a simple majority of the 4,233 delegate votes. This total included half-votes from American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and Democrats Abroad, as well as "superdelegates", party leaders and elected officials who were not chosen through a primary or caucus. ... Although Obama led Clinton in delegates won through state contests, Clinton claimed that she had the popular vote lead as she had more actual votes from the state contests. Obama received enough superdelegate endorsements on June 3 to claim that he had secured the simple majority of delegates necessary to win the nomination ...

but Obama got more superdelegates. At that time they - the party powers that assign superdelegates - were friends to Obama. This time around it's Clinton.

So I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to argue. That superdelegates don't exist? Because they do. That they're not assigned by the "Democratic" Party? Because they are. That they have to reflect the popular vote? Because they don't, and they haven't.

As for the NYTimes - they have PROVABLY changed headlines and text to put Bernie in a bad light. Are you saying that that fact doesn't exist? Because it does. And as for polls, while I cited the NYTimes, I ALSO cited other polls. Funny, it appears you failed to read, or understand, or be truthful about, that.

I understand you're partisan for Hillary. I get that. But when you start misrepresenting what others post, and start denying facts, you end up in rappy-land. Just sayin'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 6:45 PM

Since Super Tuesday II, Hilliary has lost every state primary except Arizona.
Losing tonight in Wisconsin gives her 1-7 in the 8 since then.
Go Bernie.
How will the MSM spin this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Since Super Tuesday II, Hilliary has lost every state primary except Arizona.
Losing tonight in Wisconsin gives her 1-7 in the 8 since then.
Go Bernie.
How will the MSM spin this?

So when Bernie wins Wyoming this Saturday, Hilliary will be 1-8 in the 9 following Super Tuesday II.
I heard MSM claim that Bernie's surge to within 4 points in the New York polls is nothing to worry about.

Isn't Vermont really just a suburb of New York?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2016 6:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Boy, I forgot about this ....!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2016 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Since Super Tuesday II, Hilliary has lost every state primary except Arizona.
Losing tonight in Wisconsin gives her 1-7 in the 8 since then.
Go Bernie.
How will the MSM spin this?

So when Bernie wins Wyoming this Saturday, Hilliary will be 1-8 in the 9 following Super Tuesday II.
I heard MSM claim that Bernie's surge to within 4 points in the New York polls is nothing to worry about.

Isn't Vermont really just a suburb of New York?

Did Bernie just win Colorado? That would give Hilliary 1-9 in the last 10.

I keep hearing that polls show Brooklyn-born Bernie is leading Carpetbagger Clinton in New York.
Is anybody expecting Hilliary to pull ahead? Or only by defrauding the election?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2016 7:25 PM

I keep hearing that Hilliary will be DONE when Bernie wins New York. Anybody here think so?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2016 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Since Super Tuesday II, Hilliary has lost every state primary except Arizona.
Losing tonight in Wisconsin gives her 1-7 in the 8 since then.
Go Bernie.
How will the MSM spin this?

So when Bernie wins Wyoming this Saturday, Hilliary will be 1-8 in the 9 following Super Tuesday II.
I heard MSM claim that Bernie's surge to within 4 points in the New York polls is nothing to worry about.

Isn't Vermont really just a suburb of New York?

Did Bernie just win Colorado? That would give Hilliary 1-9 in the last 10.

I keep hearing that polls show Brooklyn-born Bernie is leading Carpetbagger Clinton in New York.
Is anybody expecting Hilliary to pull ahead? Or only by defrauding the election?

Sounds like she took this advice to heart - defrauding the election was the path to victory in NY.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2016 3:40 AM

Bernie, and some of his followers, are starting to sound like Trump.
Boo hoo, they're not letting me win, Boo hoo!

It's been said that Bernie is a stand-up guy, and that he tells it like
it is. What a Democrat! What a leader!

Didn't I hear that a certain Vermont native declare he would beat Hilary
in NY, the Big Apple? What ever happened to that guy? Oh, right.....he
blamed the media; no wait...................he blamed a rigged election.

I'm going to run a clean campaign.............and what happened to THAT
guy? He loves NY alright. So much so, that he held Yuge Rallies........
no wait, that was Trump!

What a charmer Bernie is, real smooooooth! More and more each day he
reveals that he's just another douchebag.

http://usuncut.com/politics/something-amiss-new-york/

Take it like a man! Stop your bellyaching and griping Bernie, man up!
You got served! Now just pack up your fake NY attitude and go away,
quietly.

His campaign was so full of themselves that they didn't bother to check
the state's primary rules of engagement. Same thing with Trump and his
whiney self. Schmuck! Just like in baseball, you find out the ground
rules before you play the game so you know where you stand. In New York
you have to be registered before you vote. In this case, as a Democrat.
Well, Duh!

This is not controlled by the candidates running for office, this is
controlled by the state board of elections. Now it seems that the NY
Attorney General is going to investigate the mess that happened on
Tuesday. My son's name (he used to live with me) still appears on the
voter rolls. I told them to correct that, because he now lives in Jersey.
I got to vote because I registered to vote as a Democrat, a legitimate
democrat. Poor Bernie, too busy watching himself on TV to check the rules
so that his hundreds of followers could vote for him.

Well, he deserves the best, doesn't he?

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Since Super Tuesday II, Hilliary has lost every state primary except Arizona.
Losing tonight in Wisconsin gives her 1-7 in the 8 since then.
Go Bernie.
How will the MSM spin this?

So when Bernie wins Wyoming this Saturday, Hilliary will be 1-8 in the 9 following Super Tuesday II.
I heard MSM claim that Bernie's surge to within 4 points in the New York polls is nothing to worry about.

Isn't Vermont really just a suburb of New York?

Did Bernie just win Colorado? That would give Hilliary 1-9 in the last 10.

I keep hearing that polls show Brooklyn-born Bernie is leading Carpetbagger Clinton in New York.
Is anybody expecting Hilliary to pull ahead? Or only by defrauding the election?

Sounds like she took this advice to heart - defrauding the election was the path to victory in NY.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2016 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Since Super Tuesday II, Hilliary has lost every state primary except Arizona.
Losing tonight in Wisconsin gives her 1-7 in the 8 since then.
Go Bernie.
How will the MSM spin this?

So when Bernie wins Wyoming this Saturday, Hilliary will be 1-8 in the 9 following Super Tuesday II.
I heard MSM claim that Bernie's surge to within 4 points in the New York polls is nothing to worry about.

Isn't Vermont really just a suburb of New York?

Did Bernie just win Colorado? That would give Hilliary 1-9 in the last 10.

I keep hearing that polls show Brooklyn-born Bernie is leading Carpetbagger Clinton in New York.
Is anybody expecting Hilliary to pull ahead? Or only by defrauding the election?

Sounds like she took this advice to heart - defrauding the election was the path to victory in NY.

Bernie, and some of his followers, are starting to sound like Trump.
Boo hoo, they're not letting me win, Boo hoo!

It's been said that Bernie is a stand-up guy, and that he tells it like
it is. What a Democrat! What a leader!

Didn't I hear that a certain Vermont native declare he would beat Hilary
in NY, the Big Apple? What ever happened to that guy? Oh, right.....he
blamed the media; no wait...................he blamed a rigged election.

I'm going to run a clean campaign.............and what happened to THAT
guy? He loves NY alright. So much so, that he held Yuge Rallies........
no wait, that was Trump!

What a charmer Bernie is, real smooooooth! More and more each day he
reveals that he's just another douchebag.

http://usuncut.com/politics/something-amiss-new-york/

Take it like a man! Stop your bellyaching and griping Bernie, man up!
You got served! Now just pack up your fake NY attitude and go away,
quietly.

His campaign was so full of themselves that they didn't bother to check
the state's primary rules of engagement. Same thing with Trump and his
whiney self. Schmuck! Just like in baseball, you find out the ground
rules before you play the game so you know where you stand. In New York
you have to be registered before you vote. In this case, as a Democrat.
Well, Duh!

This is not controlled by the candidates running for office, this is
controlled by the state board of elections. Now it seems that the NY
Attorney General is going to investigate the mess that happened on
Tuesday. My son's name (he used to live with me) still appears on the
voter rolls. I told them to correct that, because he now lives in Jersey.
I got to vote because I registered to vote as a Democrat, a legitimate
democrat. Poor Bernie, too busy watching himself on TV to check the rules
so that his hundreds of followers could vote for him.

Well, he deserves the best, doesn't he?

SGG

Geez, talk about a sore winner - you take the cake.
You're worse than that sports guy a few months back - Cam newton at the Super Bowl.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 25, 2016 8:24 PM

Late polls show Hilliary has a 6 point lead in Indiana and California, barely clearing the purported Margin of Error. A 3 point swing gives Bernie the win, and the polls have been been heavily biased towards Hilliary so far, so these might mean Bernie really has the lead.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 25, 2016 10:45 PM

RIVERLOVE

Gimme my free stuff!

Gimme Bernie!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 4, 2016 7:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Late polls show Hilliary has a 6 point lead in Indiana and California, barely clearing the purported Margin of Error. A 3 point swing gives Bernie the win, and the polls have been been heavily biased towards Hilliary so far, so these might mean Bernie really has the lead.

And she loses Indiana as well.
Bernie had 5.4% more than Hilliary.
So the media polls are biased 11% toward Hilliary.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 5, 2016 7:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Late polls show Hilliary has a 6 point lead in Indiana and California, barely clearing the purported Margin of Error. A 3 point swing gives Bernie the win, and the polls have been been heavily biased towards Hilliary so far, so these might mean Bernie really has the lead.

And she loses Indiana as well.
Bernie had 5.4% more than Hilliary.
So the media polls are biased 11% toward Hilliary.

This would suggest California goes to Bernie.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 9, 2016 7:36 PM

It sounds like West Virginia (37) will be going to Bernie, and perhaps Kentucky (60) as well.

Hilliary has about 1705 delegates, and Bernie has about 1415 so far.

Upcoming are NJ, CA, NM, PR, DC.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 18, 2016 6:44 PM

Yesterday in Kentucky Hilliary claims to have a slight lead of 0.3% of the vote, with both her and Bernie between 48% and 49%, and reports today are saying the race is not called.
It sounds like with the votes only separated by 1,923, the delegates awarded will be 27 for each of them.

But Bernie won Oregon, which Hilliary supporters said he could not do, and many consider this a prelim for the California race next month. But Bernie only gets 28 vs. Hilliary's 24 here.

If these results hold up, Bernie has 1488 and Hilliary 1767, with 2382 needed to win.

I keep hearing that Hilliary has about a 4% lead when matched against Trump, which would mean that Trump would win. But it sounds like a Bernie-Trump race would result in Bernie winning.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2016 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Yesterday in Kentucky Hilliary claims to have a slight lead of 0.3% of the vote, with both her and Bernie between 48% and 49%, and reports today are saying the race is not called.
It sounds like with the votes only separated by 1,923, the delegates awarded will be 27 for each of them.

But Bernie won Oregon, which Hilliary supporters said he could not do, and many consider this a prelim for the California race next month. But Bernie only gets 28 vs. Hilliary's 24 here.

If these results hold up, Bernie has 1488 and Hilliary 1767, with 2382 needed to win.

I keep hearing that Hilliary has about a 4% lead when matched against Trump, which would mean that Trump would win. But it sounds like a Bernie-Trump race would result in Bernie winning.

Another source reports Bernie gets 35 vs Hilliary's 26 in Oregon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2016 5:57 PM

CBS poll has unfavorables Trump 55%, Hilliary 52%, Bernie 33%.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 23, 2016 7:06 PM

Looks like Bernie has 1499 delegates and Hilliary has 1771, for a lead of 272 delegates. Needing 2384.

Washington is tomorrow, but the rest are June 5.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 27, 2016 5:40 PM

It looks like Bernie has been able to deny Hilliary the outright nomination with elected delegates - they will need to duke it out for the super delegates.
If Hilliary gets indicted, will the super delegates go to Bernie, or to Biden?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 27, 2016 10:32 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 28, 2016 4:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:

Perhaps I have not been paying attention.
Have you been trying to infuse Trump into every Hilliary or Bernie discussion?

This thread is about the Democrap Primaries Elections. Trump is not on the Democrap ticket, this year.

Do you feel a Trump/Bernie debate will affect Hilliary?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 31, 2016 7:02 PM

It sounds like Hilliary has focused upon Trump as her opponent, assuming she avoids indictment.

And she is working the same old Slick Willie tricks. For those who forget, whenever Bill needed cover from a news release about more of his Oval Office BJs, or his rapes, or his valued associates dying (Vince Foster faked suicide, Ron Brown's brainpan bullet in "plane crash"), he would drop a million dollar bomb on an empty tent somewhere in the Middle East, claiming it was Bin Laden's hangout. His allies in the media would cover the story he preferred, and bury the embarrassing story deep in the paper.

Now when Hilliary faces embarrassing stories, like the recent release of the coddling inter-department "Investigation" into her emails illegal practices and rampant security failures, she asked her allies in the media to cover for her, so they put out a hit piece on the Friday before Memorial Day with fake stories about Trump and his donations to Veterans. Apparently they claim that when he mentioned how much he raised and gifted to the Vets, at the moment he gave the figure he was about 7% short of collecting the actual figure, even though when the pledged donations finished trickling in it will be over that amount.

This is unfortunate that I have been and will be ignoring Trump stories, so that when Hilliary continues this practice I won't even notice.
But those of you who do pay attention, when hearing a Trump hit piece, you should be thinking "what Hilliary story is she trying to hide from this time?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2016 8:04 PM

Tomorrow is the CA Primary.

Clinton has leads of:
5%
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/cal
ifornia-democratic/

1% to 18%
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-california-democrati
c-presidential-primary

Have not found any showing that Bernie could win CA.

For NJ, Clinton shows at least 9% win in polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nj/new_jersey_d
emocratic_presidential_primary-3443.html

and 14% here:
http://www.electionprojection.com/latest-polls/new-jersey-presidential
-primary-polls.php

21%
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-jersey-democrati
c-presidential-primary

27%
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new
-jersey-democratic/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2016 8:16 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/cal
ifornia-democratic/

Clinton 48.3 Sanders 43.2

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new
-jersey-democratic/

Clinton 60.3 Sanders 32.9

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2016 6:21 PM

On Sunday, June 5th, Puerto Rico added enough for Hilliary to get to 1812 delegates, compared to Bernie's 1521. So Libtards have anointed Hilliary the winner because she only needs to get to 2382 delegates.

So far, Hilliary has won 24 states and Bernie has 20 states.
Hilliary's wins include Kentucky, Connecticut, Missouri, and Massachusetts by one delegate each, as well as Illinois and Iowa by 2 delegates each.
So decisive wins of 18 for Hilliary, and Bernie also has 18 without Rhode Island and Wyoming.

If Bernie wins the 6 states today, his total of 26 states will be more states won than any Democrat in a general election before 2012. No Democrat won more than 24 states prior to 2012, in a general election.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2016 10:54 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/cal
ifornia-democratic/

Clinton 48.3 Sanders 43.2
with 99% reporting
Clinton 55.8 Sanders 42.3

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new
-jersey-democratic/

Clinton 60.3 Sanders 32.9
with 99% reporting
Clinton 63.3 Sanders 36.7

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2016 12:47 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11878108/bernie-sanders-lost
Bernie Sanders ran four statewide races — twice each for governor and senator — in Vermont in the mid-1970s as the nominee of the Liberty Union Party. He lost all four but secured some upward momentum across the races.

Four years later, in 1980, he found a better opportunity. Burlington is left-wing even by Vermont standards, but its incumbent Democratic mayor had grown very close to the local business community and faced no Republican opposition. Sanders was able to run and win against him as the progressive candidate in a two-way race. Years of service as mayor then proved that beyond ideology, Sanders actually knew how to serve in office and get the job done.

That set him up for a 1986 gubernatorial bid that he, again, lost — finishing in a distant third place but considerably less distant than before.

In 1988 he ran for a US House of Representatives seat in a three-way race and, again, lost. But this election — his sixth statewide bid — was different from the early five in that he finished in second place rather than third, ahead of the Democratic Party's nominee.

That meant that when Sanders ran again in 1990, he'd established the idea that it was the Democratic nominee — not Sanders himself — who was the potential spoiler in the race. And he won! And then in his first 15 years in Congress he cooperated enough with the Democratic leadership that they stopped running candidates against him and cleared the field in 2006 for him to run and win a Senate race.

The point is that the political world is tough. It's particularly tough for people who want to come in from the outside and shake things up. You need high aspirations to achieve anything, but you also need to take punches and get back up again — not go on a roller coaster of excessive optimism and excessive bitterness.

Most of all, you can't invest your energy in whining that the system isn't fair. After all, if the system were totally fair, there'd be no need for outsiders to come in and shake things up.

To live, the political revolution needs to die

The real choice facing Sanders over the next couple of weeks is what kind of lesson he wants to impart to his supporters.

Does he want to tell them that the system is rigged, and that candidates worth rallying for don't have a chance to win? That they may as well join the large group of Americans who don't really participate in the political process at all?

Or does he want to tell them that when you fight the good fight, you sometimes lose, and then you stop and think about how to win next time? There are literally thousands of elected offices in the United States of America, virtually all of them easier to win than the White House. And there are millions of Americans — largely people of color — who seem broadly amenable to the main themes of Sanders's campaign but who didn't buy into the particulars of Sanders's persona.

If the people who bought unprecedented fundraising success to the Sanders campaign turn that passion and commitment to other, more winnable contests, they will score some wins. If they recruit a broader base of champions, they will gain more allies.

But to succeed, they need to do what Bernie's done over the course of his career — work hard and keep trying

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2016 7:54 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Bernie accomplished a helluva lot. He wanted to move the Democratic Party to the left, and every hack in the party is now keenly aware that young voters bought Bernie's message en masse—young voters who, in a few years, will be middle-aged voters that form the core of the party's base. Sanders has taught the hacks not only that it's safe for the Democratic Party to move to the left, but that it's going to whether they like it or not. How many losing candidates can say they accomplished that? Reagan who lost in 1976! And then Reagan won in 1980! Bernie may have lost the primary, but he won the more important battle. He should be proud as hell. Bernie in 2020!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2016 8:50 PM

The only remaining Primaries for Hilliary are D.C. and the Email Primary.

D.C. is in the bag for the Liar, but the Email Primary is yet to be seen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2016 8:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/cal
ifornia-democratic/

Clinton 48.3 Sanders 43.2
with xx% reporting
Clinton xx.x Sanders xx.x

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new
-jersey-democratic/

Clinton 60.3 Sanders 32.9
with 99% reporting
Clinton 63.3 Sanders 36.7

Hmmm. Not the returns I saw posted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2016 9:47 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The only remaining Primaries for Hilliary are D.C. and the Email Primary.

D.C. is in the bag for the Liar, but the Email Primary is yet to be seen.

Still whining about email? Last year, ex-CIA Director Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling government documents and was fined $100,000. That’s the worst that could happen to Hillary.
www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article82460877.htm
l

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2016 3:25 AM

Good points all, but Bernie will be 79 in 2020. You think he'll be healthy enough?

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Bernie accomplished a helluva lot. He wanted to move the Democratic Party to the left, and every hack in the party is now keenly aware that young voters bought Bernie's message en masse—young voters who, in a few years, will be middle-aged voters that form the core of the party's base. Sanders has taught the hacks not only that it's safe for the Democratic Party to move to the left, but that it's going to whether they like it or not. How many losing candidates can say they accomplished that? Reagan who lost in 1976! And then Reagan won in 1980! Bernie may have lost the primary, but he won the more important battle. He should be proud as hell. Bernie in 2020!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2016 4:10 AM

I'm replying to you because I feel that you look at things dispassionately and with reason. I'm going to attempt to do the same in my response to your post.

Here's my problem with the whole "it's rigged" argument: If indeed it is, then why run? If the odds are in their favor, and you choose to go full steam ahead anyway,
aren't you running a foolish race - you're doomed before you start. In other words,
you haven't a chance, why bother?

It seems to me I remember Hilary making a similar noise back in 2008. So now, magically, those superdelegates have seen the light and find Hilary a fantastic
candidate? Am I being naive here?

Back to Bernie: If what he says about the rigged elections is true, then why court the superdelegates? Why try to convince them to switch and support him in his fight
to gain the White House? Then why go all the way to the Convention, as I have often heard him say, to try and win them over. I don't get it. Is or isn't it rigged?

But I think, were he to re-position himself, he could bring his movement to the forefront of American politics and affect change. Maybe not as POTUS, but he could
be a major player within the system. He would have the freedom to pound the podium,
while having the president's ear. This could turn out to be a good thing.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11878108/bernie-sanders-lost
Bernie Sanders ran four statewide races — twice each for governor and senator — in Vermont in the mid-1970s as the nominee of the Liberty Union Party. He lost all four but secured some upward momentum across the races.

Four years later, in 1980, he found a better opportunity. Burlington is left-wing even by Vermont standards, but its incumbent Democratic mayor had grown very close to the local business community and faced no Republican opposition. Sanders was able to run and win against him as the progressive candidate in a two-way race. Years of service as mayor then proved that beyond ideology, Sanders actually knew how to serve in office and get the job done.

That set him up for a 1986 gubernatorial bid that he, again, lost — finishing in a distant third place but considerably less distant than before.

In 1988 he ran for a US House of Representatives seat in a three-way race and, again, lost. But this election — his sixth statewide bid — was different from the early five in that he finished in second place rather than third, ahead of the Democratic Party's nominee.

That meant that when Sanders ran again in 1990, he'd established the idea that it was the Democratic nominee — not Sanders himself — who was the potential spoiler in the race. And he won! And then in his first 15 years in Congress he cooperated enough with the Democratic leadership that they stopped running candidates against him and cleared the field in 2006 for him to run and win a Senate race.

The point is that the political world is tough. It's particularly tough for people who want to come in from the outside and shake things up. You need high aspirations to achieve anything, but you also need to take punches and get back up again — not go on a roller coaster of excessive optimism and excessive bitterness.

Most of all, you can't invest your energy in whining that the system isn't fair. After all, if the system were totally fair, there'd be no need for outsiders to come in and shake things up.

To live, the political revolution needs to die

The real choice facing Sanders over the next couple of weeks is what kind of lesson he wants to impart to his supporters.

Does he want to tell them that the system is rigged, and that candidates worth rallying for don't have a chance to win? That they may as well join the large group of Americans who don't really participate in the political process at all?

Or does he want to tell them that when you fight the good fight, you sometimes lose, and then you stop and think about how to win next time? There are literally thousands of elected offices in the United States of America, virtually all of them easier to win than the White House. And there are millions of Americans — largely people of color — who seem broadly amenable to the main themes of Sanders's campaign but who didn't buy into the particulars of Sanders's persona.

If the people who bought unprecedented fundraising success to the Sanders campaign turn that passion and commitment to other, more winnable contests, they will score some wins. If they recruit a broader base of champions, they will gain more allies.

But to succeed, they need to do what Bernie's done over the course of his career — work hard and keep trying

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2016 4:14 AM