Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Oh, let me just run the arithmetic.

The numbers are in flux, but after Kentucky and Oregon Clinton has about 1,767 delegates while Sanders has about 1,488. It takes 2,383 for nomination. Polls for California have been all over the map (so to speak), but assuming Clinton has a 10% lead, California would net her 329, bringing her up to roughly 2100. So even with California in the bag with a 10% lead, according to HOW PEOPLE VOTED, Clinton couldn't get the nomination.

But then, there are SUPERdelegates! The 'democratic' party big fu to democratic voters.


With that in mind, I expect her to get the nomination, as ordained.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Oh, let me just run the arithmetic.

The numbers are in flux, but after Kentucky and Oregon Clinton has about 1,767 delegates while Sanders has about 1,488. It takes 2,383 for nomination. Polls for California have been all over the map (so to speak), but assuming Clinton has a 10% lead, California would net her 329, bringing her up to roughly 2100. So even with California in the bag with a 10% lead, according to HOW PEOPLE VOTED, Clinton couldn't get the nomination.

But then, there are SUPERdelegates! The 'democratic' party big fu to democratic voters.


With that in mind, I expect her to get the nomination, as ordained.

---

Super delegates were intended to keep Republicans from flooding into the Democrats' open primaries and picking who runs as the Democrat for President. Bernie is not a Democrat; he just caucuses with them. If he gets 50% of the popular votes and he can give a convincing demonstration he is a Democrat, then the Super Delegates will vote for him. But he is not very convincing.

Yesterday's Democratic primaries basically ended in a tie.

The one thing I do keep wondering about is what happened to Bernie Sanders. Before this campaign, he was a gadfly, he was a critic of the system, and he was a man of strong principles. He still is, but he's also obviously very, very bitter. I wonder if all this was worth it for him? By all objective measures he did way better than anyone expected and had far more influence than anyone thought he would, and he should feel good about that. Instead, he seems more angry and resentful with every passing day.

I know this happens all the time in presidential primaries. Everyone starts out promising to run high-minded campaigns, but the attacks always come sooner or later—and the targets inevitably believe the attacks are unfair and slanderous. As a result, the losers develop a deep personal disdain for their opponents.

That's what's happened this time, and I suppose there's nothing unusual about it. I don't even blame anyone in particular. Maybe Hillary's team played too rough. Maybe Bernie's team is too thin-skinned. I just don't know. But it's sort of painful to see a good person like Bernie turned into such a sullen and resentful man. And doubly painful to see him take his followers down that path too.

Usually these things fade with a bit of time. Politics is politics, after all. But for Bernie, it's always been more than politics. I wonder if he's ever going to get over this?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Bernie Sanders is pushing the Democratic agenda that was in place before the Clintons and Bush's took control of the countries agenda. It is what the Demarcates stood for before, as I said, the Bush's and Clintons came to power.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Bernie Sanders is pushing the Democratic agenda that was in place before the Clintons and Bush's took control of the countries agenda. It is what the Demarcates stood for before, as I said, the Bush's and Clintons came to power.

---

At the 1972 Democratic National Convention, previously excluded political activists gained influence at the expense of elected officials and traditional core Democratic constituencies such as organized labor. It nominated Senator George McGovern of South Dakota for President.

And Nixon crushed McGovern like a bug. That is what the Democrats stood for, as you said, before the Bushs and Clintons came to power. Squashed bugs on the windshield of Nixon's Republican Party campaign bus. Trump is Nixon for the 21st century and Bernie is the next McGovern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_197
2

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Excuse me, Vietnam America wanted out and Nixon was the one going to do it. I know, I was stationed in Hawaii at the time. Bernie beats Trump in all the poles. He trounces him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
Not exact equivalences.

Trump isn't an incumbent, therefore no POTUS experience, or ultimate campaign high ground. I'd even bet Nixon's trustworthiness (at that point, before Watergate) was far higher than either Hillary's or Trump's.

I wonder how Carter ranks on the "Centrist" scale.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Excuse me, Vietnam America wanted out and Nixon was the one going to do it. I know, I was stationed in Hawaii at the time. Bernie beats Trump in all the poles. He trounces him.

---

Excuse you, but baby boomers don't remember the past the way it actually happened. Let's rewind to 4 years before McGovern. Nixon, as a candidate in 1968, sabotaged a ceasefire with N Vietnam. It is in the books:
www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/disaster-of-richard-nixon/
www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-viet
nam-treason

Nixon “was able to get a series of messages to the Thieu government [of South Vietnam] making it clear that a Nixon presidency would have different views on peace negotiations.”

Johnson was livid. He even called the Republican Senate Minority Leader, Everett Dirksen, to complain that “they oughtn’t be doing this. This is treason.”

“I know,” was Dirksen’s feeble reply.

Johnson blasted Nixon about this on November 3rd, just prior to the election. As Robert Parry of Consortiumnews.com has written: “when Johnson confronted Nixon with evidence of the peace-talk sabotage, Nixon insisted on his innocence but acknowledged that he knew what was at stake.”

Said Nixon: “My, I would never do anything to encourage….Saigon not to come to the table….Good God, we’ve got to get them to Paris or you can’t have peace.”

But South Vietnamese President General Theiu—a notorious drug and gun runner—did boycott Johnson’s Paris peace talks. With the war still raging, Nixon claimed a narrow victory over Humphrey. He then made Kissinger his own national security adviser.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Comparing re-elections to non-incumbent elections is poor practice.

2. The disastrous Carter in 1980.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
McGovern losing didn't seem to hurt congressional makeup.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Comparing re-elections to non-incumbent elections is poor practice.

2. The disastrous Carter in 1980.

---

Comparing any event to any other is poor practice, but despite that, I'll do it: the American hostages held by Iran blah blah blah...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Sure you're right.
Carter's destruction of the economy had nothing to do with it.
right

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Comparing re-elections to non-incumbent elections is poor practice.

2. The disastrous Carter in 1980.

---

Comparing any event to any other is poor practice, but despite that, I'll do it: the American hostages held by Iran blah blah blah...

---

Sure you're right.
Carter's destruction of the economy had nothing to do with it.
right

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Comparing re-elections to non-incumbent elections is poor practice.

2. The disastrous Carter in 1980.

---

Comparing any event to any other is poor practice, but despite that, I'll do it: the American hostages held by Iran blah blah blah...

---

Sure you're right.
Carter's destruction of the economy had nothing to do with it.
right

---

The destruction of the economy took place with the two previous presidents (Ford and Nixon). To say Carter destroyed the economy having served such a short period of time is absurd.

What Carter did was take the advice of "Paul Adolph Volcker, Jr. He is an economist who was Chairman of the Federal Reserve under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan from August 1979 to August 1987. He is widely credited with ending the high levels of inflation seen in the United States during the 1970s and early 1980s. He was the chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I originally posted this under the Hillary thread, under an intense discussion about how undemocratic the Democratic party has become, but it belongs here too:

I heard an interesting live stream yesterday from the Left Forum. One of the speakers was Chris Hedges, who is always worth listening to even if I don't always agree with him.

This professor detailed the surveillances that he and other were under; and not only that he detailed the twists and turns that his lawsuit underwent as the Obama administration ("Democrat") forcefully imposed its will on the courts in favor of more surveillance and indefinite detention without trial.

Hedges had some unkind things to say about Sanders and Sanders' relationship to the Democratic Party. Hedges pointed out that Sanders had supported Bill Clinton (even after NAFTA), and after a list of other examples, described Bernie Sanders' relationship with the Democratic Party as follows (paraphrased):

Sanders is the watchdog of the Democratic Party. The arrangement that Sanders has with the Democratic Party is that they don't make a serious attempt to dislodge him from his seat, and he quashes every other independent candidate in VT.

According to Chris Hedges, who had advised Sanders to run as an Independent, Sanders thought he might really have a chance at winning running on the Democratic ticket. That the anger in Sanders' campaign is genuine, because of the undemocratic processes that are being used against him were unexpected, such as the exclusion of Independent and npp voters from the primaries.

According to Chris Hedges, if Sanders really wants to create a political movement, he has to get out from under the ass (my words) of the Democratic Party, repudiate his pledge to support the Democratic candidate (Hillary) and run under a different political party.

I agree.

The Democratic Party is there to co-opt any movement towards the left, and smother it in Party process. As long as people look to the Democratic Party to fulfill their yearnings for a better society, they'll be constantly thwarted.

I've been looking for a video of the forum, if I find one I'll post a link.


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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Oh, let me just run the arithmetic.

The numbers are in flux, but after Kentucky and Oregon Clinton has about 1,767 delegates while Sanders has about 1,488. It takes 2,383 for nomination. Polls for California have been all over the map (so to speak), but assuming Clinton has a 10% lead, California would net her 329, bringing her up to roughly 2100. So even with California in the bag with a 10% lead, according to HOW PEOPLE VOTED, Clinton couldn't get the nomination.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
How many more states will Bernie win today? All 6?
I have heard reports that he'll win all 6, or else only 5.
But all polls show him behind Hilliary in CA - and we all know they are never biased, trying to convince non-Hilliary voters to stay home, give up.

When was the last time a Democrat candidate who won the CA primary was not the nominee?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Poor Bernie- he caved.

How can you helm a "political revolution" when you're a creampuff? Isn't the idea of a "revolution" to overturn the current power structure?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/
8/9/1439099209471/87ad98ef-9426-4599-9134-aedbe9ad1433-2060x1236.jpeg



Progressive or Regressive? Bernie Sanders slams Tesla CEO Elon Musk

Sanders' tax returns revealed millionaire status?

---