Sanders ally pushes Dems on cutting superdelegates

Sanders is never ever going to be the candidate. Democrats will vote for Trump first. Yes, he’s that disliked.

Of course CNN gave Sanders yet another interview tonight. This time with Van Jones.

Why doesn't CNN just make Bernie their Chairman of the Board and Jane their Chief Financial Officer? They love him so much.

I hope I never have to hear the names Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton ever again. Jesus! Enough! We will sure as shit lose 2018 and 2020 if either of them is still involved.

Super Delegates should go away - never could figure out why they were there in the first place. Just seemed like the process was stacked against Bernie - how much of it was the Clinton machine....

Superdelegates would have kept Trump from being the Republican nominee. Does that answer your question?

Superdelegates are the only reason Clinton got the nomination.

Fuck Bernie Sanders, and Fuck the ignorantly gullible naive morons that form his cult, and parrot blatant lies like R6 does.

Superdelegates had absolutely nothing to do with Hillary's primary win. Period. They never even entered into it. Hillary got the nomination becaues she won 4 million more votes and earned one thousand more delegates than that old pervy intellectually dishonest empty suit known as Bernie Sanders did.

Anyone that states that one part or another of our election system is undemocratic, but believes that the use of superdelegates was okay in 2016, is a hypocrite.

The Democratic Party should ice him out. They need to be strategic and put all their support and energy behind a candidate who can not only win, but defeat the Republican Party on a historic level. All Bernie Sanders is good for is be Putin's pawn to steal a few votes away from the Democratic candidate.

Come to think of it. The Democratic Party should encourage Chris Christie to run as independent to steal some of the conservative votes and make him believe that nobody remembers Bridgegate anymore.

R6, I am really embarrassed for you. I hate to think that ignorant Americans like you say shit like this to Europeans who do not know our election process and who may actually believe you.

Dems still want Bernie. He’s #1 in every poll for 2020.

No, R8.

But anyone who supports Bernie, and claims to hate SuperDelegates (for some unspecified reason), but ISN'T bothered by the fact Bernie tried to get the SuperDelegates to flip and support him, over-turning the will of the people and the clear popular-vote winner, IS A FUCKING HYPOCRITE.

Super Delegates have never once had any impact, not even close. They've never acted against the will of the people or the popular vote. The vast majority of Super Delegates are ELECTED OFFICIALS of the Democratic Party. They have to answer to voters.

Further, Bernie became a Super Delegate when he temporarily joined the Democratic Party so he could milk them for money and media attention. He wasn't bothered by them at THAT time. Only once leaving the Democratic Party again, did he start hating on them. Only when they didn't do his arrogant, entitled bidding, did he turn on them.

Oh yeah, and the architect/creator of Super Delegates? Bernie's right-hand man, Tad Devine.

Just smell the hypocrisy.

Wrong, R11. Nobody wants that tired old pervy straight white guy... he's an empty suit and a fraud, under investigation for fraud, shady, won't release his income taxes... and only centering straight white males in all things. Everyone has had enough of bullshit like him. He will lose badly in the primary if he is dumb enough to run.

Democrats don't want Bernie. The candidates he's backed are the only Democrats losing in special elections. It's gotten bad enough that he tried to claim a guy who helped Doug Jones win in Alabama was a Berner, when the guy had actively worked for Clinton.

Clinton won the primaries because she won both the popular vote and the plain-old delegate vote. Bernie fell behind by more than 100 delegates on Super Tuesday--thanks, largely, to his ignoring the South, POC voters and the concerns of women.

The only real question is how much money did Russia funnel into his campaign with Tad Devine's help?

Someone else already said it but it bears repeating: Superdelegates would have prevented a Trump presidency.

Bernie IS not now, nor EVER WAS a Democrat! Why doesn't he go bother the Republicans about their rules!

HE WOULDN'T HAVE WON ANYWAY! That miserable old Jewish Socialist just needs to go AWAY!

I never understood why Democrats had Super Delegates but Republicans didn't - shouldn't both sides operate the same way?

R17, each party makes its own internal rules.

Yeah, Bernie should pee on the Republicans' legs for a change. Apparently POTUS likes a little bit of pee-pee every now and then.

If Bernie wants to help the country he should declare himself a Repug and run against Trump.

I’m with r13, r14, & r16.

BS is not a dem. He contributed to HRC’s devastating loss, as well as to our current ICE raids, climate negligence, war participation, etc.

His interference into the Democratic Party had horrible consequences that we will be mitigating foe the rest of my life.

There actually have been some reasonable discussions on reducing the number of super-delegates, which I'm fine with. If Weaver wants to go along with that, great. If not, then fuck him.

[quote] Super Delegates have never once had any impact, not even close.

That's not quite true. In 2008 Hillary was leading in the primaries when superdelegates started jumping to Obama. She withdrew because she knew it was the superdelegates that would cost her the nom.

But yes Bernie and his bros need to fuck off. They have caused my country enough pain.

I confess I don't understand you DL's - I always felt if Bernie was the candidate he would have slaughtered Trump (lord save us all) - wouldn't that have made you happy?

R24, Uh, no. Bernie couldn't win over Democrats (he lost the primaries by a lot), but somehow he was going to win over Republicans? There was and is plenty of dirt on Bernie--also plenty of anti-Semites who weren't about to vote for an old Jew from New York whose main accomplishments in the Senate were renaming a couple of post offices.

But Berners are still unable to see why their candidate was so weak.

Hillary and the DNC screwed Bernie

R26, Bernie sabotaged the Dems.

Only dems should run as dem candidates.

Bernie was an independent and should have ran as such.

R17

The dems want the process rigged.

No way in hell they want someone to come out of nowhere and win the nomination. Hence, the superdelegates.

Hillary should never have been the Democratic candidate. Bernie is popular and was the only the only candidate of the two who wanted real change. The Dems have moved too far right, like the Republicans. Superdelegates are undemocratic and must go.

[quote]Hillary and the DNC screwed Bernie

It's always amusing to read this, because these same people will then turn around and say that it didn't matter how much Russia influenced the election, Hillary did not try hard enough to win.

Well, if Bernie was a better candidate, it wouldn't have mattered how much the deck was stacked against him, he would have won the nomination. He failed.

Bernie supporters = queers & trannies

What’s the point in having superdelegates, exactly?

R28 Then how do you explain Barack Obama coming out of nowhere to win the 2008 nomination? If Hillary had that much pull, why wasn't that deck stacked against everyone in 2008?

Bernie was a lousy candidate who failed to get the nomination. But it's everyone else's fault that he was denied what should have been his. Funny how people speak of Hillary and coronations. Hillary bowed out when she lost. Bernie held on for months after it was inconceivable that he would win. And his supporters disrupted the convention by booing keynote speakers (Including John Lewis, which was fucking disgraceful). And now he thinks that the rules should be changed because he didn't get what he wanted?

He's the political Norma Desmond.

Biden will run before Bernie and will win the nomination.

[QUOTE]Hillary bowed out when she lost. Bernie held on for months after it was inconceivable that he would win.

😂 What? On what planet did Hillary bow out gracefully? She dragged the campaign on for months after she had no way of beating Barack.

R27: Which would have split the vote and guaranteed Trump a popular vote victory with the electoral college. And you'd still be screaming about him. He can't win with you people. I don't think he should run again for President, way too old, but dear god, you all need to get over it. The hatred is unacceptable.

Hillary lost too, [R30]. I guess we should just accept the current system then?

R34, you clearly either have no knowledge of what happened in 2008 or you do and you're just a liar. Either way you're an idiot.

Sanders should fuck off! He’s not a Democrat.

The Superdelegates were created to stop a black man from getting to close to the nomination. Only democrats would like their nominee to be chosen by their betters.

R37, you must know name calling is a sign of low intelligence. Hillary is not a true Democrat. Not what I call a Democrat, Miss Gypsy Rose Lee!

[QUOTEyou clearly either have no knowledge of what happened in 2008 or you do and you're just a liar.

Fuck off. Barack had Hillary beat MONTHS before she actually dropped out. You were probably just one of those PUMAs cheering her on, hoping she’d take it all the way to the convention.

[QUOTE]In the wake of her victories in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut and Delaware, some of Hillary Clinton’s top operatives are ready for Bernie Sanders to call it quits. But Clinton’s own refusal to give up in 2008, even after she had no real path forward, remains an obstacle to ramping up that pressure.

[QUOTE]Indeed, some veterans of Clinton’s 2008 campaign are urging empathy and space for Sanders, emphasizing that the decision to slog on is not about having a viable path forward — it’s about feeling that you’ve gone as far as you can go.

[QUOTE]At rallies, “women would literally grab her hand say, ‘don’t you dare drop out, don’t you quit,’ ” recalled Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s former communications director, of the 2008 end game. “Your head told you the math didn’t add up, but your heart said, we’re continuing to win states, we’re continuing to draw big crowds, and it’s very hard to walk away from a contest when you have millions of supporters who are clearly still determined to help you get elected.”

[QUOTE]”Your head told you the math didn’t add up...”

Howard Wolfson himself admitted it.

Superdelegates came in the picture in the 80s because the establishment did not want Jesse Jackson and his progressive base to hijack the party and win the Democratic party nomination

Fuck off Bernie.

Hillary fans, who loathe the Electoral College, love Superdelegates? How convenient.

Good point, R45.

Hillary fans don't love super-delegates; they just dislike Sanders. And Weaver's even worse.

Superdelegates or no superdelegates, Jesse Jackson never had a chance in hell.

When I spread my legs, it stinks of eggs. When I part my gams, it reeks of yams.

He did indeed have a chance but the party cut him off at the knees. The Dem Party got what they deserved with the two major 1980s losses due to the party muffling the Jesse Jackson progressive wave. They suffered major losses as a result. Relying on "Superdelegates" turned out so well in 2016 as well. Elections have to be about the people's choice, not the party favorite or establishment pick.

You have to give it to the Republicans. Surely, the establishment hated Trump, but they begrudingly went along and nominated the pick that their base chose. That's what democracy is all about: who the people gravitate toward. The Republicans wouldn't have won in November if they chose Bush, Rubio, or Romney and sidelined Trump. The base would have been furious.

Know he didn't have a chance. But he had an opportunity to get a relatively large amount of delegates to help influence the platform and the party officers.

While we're at it get rid of the caucus

The Democratic Party is no longer a progressive party, it's a party run by the banks so they don't want the likes of a Bernie Sanders or any other FDR style progressive. They need a neoliberal like Obama, Clinton, or someone like Gov. Cuomo or Cory Booker.

That I can definitely get on board with, r53.

Jesse Jackson doesn't even speak English and could bore the shit out of everybody and anybody.

And what’s this about superdelegates preventing a candidate like Trump from winning the nomination? Is that supposed to be a good thing? I’d love Trump if he was a liberal Democrat who actually cared what his base thinks about him all the time, rather than only when it’s election season. Like we’d hate Trump if he just put a progressive judge on the Supreme Court, raised taxes on the rich and was out there on Twitter raging about things we value? We’d think he was awesome. The problem with Trump isn’t that he’s a moron so much as the fact that he’s a rightwinger. If there’s a Democratic populist out there like Trump, then let voters decide if they want him as their nominee.

[quote]And what’s this about superdelegates preventing a candidate like Trump from winning the nomination? Is that supposed to be a good thing?

It is if you want a competent, sane, non-narcissistic, non-buffoon, non-ignorant President.

[quote]We’d think he was awesome.

No, not if everything else remained the way it is today. There is no way that I'd support someone like that. I have too much pride.

[quote]Hillary should never have been the Democratic candidate. Bernie is popular and was the only the only candidate of the two who wanted real change.

Take that up with four million more Dems who voted for Clinton and stop whining about the system.

I wish this old fuck would just go away. Him and his dumbass supporters are why we have the asshole that we have now in the White House.

Then R59, kindly tell Clinton and her supporters to stop whining about the Electoral College.

cunt!

You have to attract more than Dems to win the general election. Many independents voted third party or Trump because they wanted anything other than Clinton.

Yes, R67....

and I happen to live in Atlanta.

R46, read your own link. Clinton dropped out with a heartfelt speech and full-throated support for Obama four days after he was announced as having secured the nomination and becoming the presumptive nominee. Sanders finally dropped out at the Democratic convention but still couldn't bring himself to not act like a pissy asshole every chance he got when talking about Clinton and the Democrats in general. He is STILL doing it.

The superdelegates are to prevent a Trump-like figure from getting the nom. Do you have any idea how many Repugs were wishing they had superdelegates when Trump started winning?

The reason Sanders doesn't run as an independent is because he would have no cover when he handed the Repugs yet another election. At least when he pretends to be a Democrat, it's a little more difficult to call him the Repug-financed spoiler he was.

Caucuses and the electoral college are anti-democratic institutions. Superdelegates are not because they are internal to the party and their own processes. The superdelegates are the party elders and those that run the party. They are there to act as a steadying force against idiotic public whims, aka Trump's deplorables taking over the Repug party. That said, if someone actually had enough support nationally (which Sanders never, ever came close to having), they could easily overcome all the superdelegates voting against them.

Um, r66, superdelegates include lobbiests. Not sure where you are getting the party elders things.

R67, Super Delegates are Democratic Party members, most of whom are elected to office. Like all the Democrats in the House and Senate. How do you not know this?

R67, here, read this to educate yourself because whatever propaganda you've been reading is wrong. Was this idea that superdelegates are lobbyists some Sanders bullshit by any chance?

[quote]Under party rules, all sitting Democratic governors (21, including the mayor of Washington, D.C.), senators (47) and representatives (193) automatically get their convention tickets punched. So do 20 “distinguished party leaders” – current and former presidents and vice presidents, retired House and Senate Democratic leaders, and all past chairs of the Democratic National Committee, the party’s governing body.

[quote]But most superdelegates gain that status because they’re DNC officers or members. That includes the chairs and vice chairs of each state and territorial Democratic Party; 212 national committeemen and committeewomen elected to represent their states; top officials of the DNC itself and several of its auxiliary groups (such as the Democratic Attorneys General Association, the National Federation of Democratic Women and the Young Democrats of America); and 75 at-large members who are nominated by the party chairman and chosen by the full DNC. (Most of those at-large members are local party leaders, officeholders and donors or representatives of important Democratic constituencies, such as organized labor.)

When Jane gets ahold of your money,.........

Bernbro parting with his $27 is a fool. Go buy an extra large pepperoni pizza and a liter of Pepsi instead. You ain't getting free tuition.

If superdelegates did their job, and the Republicans had them, I don’t know if they do, but the should have blocked Trump from the nomination. That’s their point.

The Repugs do not have superdelegates or anything like them. But, I bet they are considering it now.

R68/r69. Superdelegates include lobbyists. This is a fact that you can easily Google. The newest batch of Superdelegates include a lobbyist for New Corp, a lobbyist for Citgo gas (the Venezuelan gas company) and Citigroup.

In fact, there are 15 more lobbyists and political operatives in the newest batch of superdelegates than in 2016.

Bern is NOT a Democrat. Why was he allowed dance in and out of our 2016 primaries?

Why does he have any say now in Democratic business.

If the superdelegates were useful, they would have prevented the least popular politician in the last 30 years from being the Democratic candidate. She lost to Donald Fucking Trump!

[quote]these same people will then turn around and say that it didn't matter how much Russia influenced the election, Hillary did not try hard enough to win.

You will never hear Bernie lambasted for deciding not to campaign in Mississippi, Alabama, Texas.

[QUOTE]If superdelegates did their job, and the Republicans had them, I don’t know if they do, but the should have blocked Trump from the nomination. That’s their point.

And it would’ve torn the Republican Party asunder and they would’ve lost 2016 badly.

How about we start voting less for party and more for platform and person? it’s not a sports team for Christssakes. Someone is allowed to criticize something from the outside—they can even put a new and improved perspective on things. And Bernie has voting with the Dems for years. isn’t he their outreach person ?

[quote]Elections have to be about the people's choice, not the party favorite or establishment pick.

The people overwhelmingly chose Clinton.

[quote]You have to give it to the Republicans. Surely, the establishment hated Trump, but they begrudingly went along and nominated the pick that their base chose.

Because Trump got more votes than any of them!

I didn't realize this was so complicated to some people.

yes. no more superdelegates. it’s undemocratic.

Bernie dropped the ball on informing the public about the Russian ties to his campaign. Had he came out after Clinton had said it at the debate, it would have turned the tides around dramatically. He would have been hailed as a hero.

That was his chance to lead the country. Instead he dropped the ball and didn't say one word. When it was brought up last month, he blamed Clinton for not doing more. Once again, not accepting any responsibility.

But he made sure a week before the election to come out and say that he thought there were many good Trump supporters, and that the deplorable comment was off base.

Such a friend to the democratic party.

Until there has been a full investigation into the theft of Clinton campaign information, the $10 million-in-one-day-in-DC donations, the Sanders' mystery tax returns, and Tad Devine's connections to shady Slavic clients, Sanders and his minions have fuck-all standing to talk about Democratic party operations.

Honest questions for those more involved in the process:

1.) Why were the superdelegates created in the first place? I have a memory of reading/hearing they came about after Carter to prevent a “non traditional” candidate from getting the nomination again, but have no idea if that’s true, close to true, or just spin.

2.) Why on earth would/did the DNC even allow a non party member to run for the nomination? I would think being a registered party member would be a prerequisite to seeking the nomination.

R83: For Question 1, George McGovern. The Party wanted to make sure that someone like him would never win again after his 49 state loss. The 1st Superdelegate approved candidate was Walter Mondale...who lost 49 states.

Question 2, party registration is by state. Half the states don't have party registration. My state of IL does not have it. Which means the Obamas are not registered Democrats. I'm not either. You can't do it here. Vermont is the same. On top of it, when you vote in a primary, you vote for delegates. If the delegates are registered Democrats in the states that have and require that, they're good to go and can pledge themselves to anyone. When you vote for electors to the Electoral College, same thing, it's the Electors meetings state registration rules, not the candidate. The American electoral system is completely decentralized, there is no national electoral rule for any office, it's all state based.

Fuck Bernie and his SJW flying monkeys. They are a blight on our country, they know it, the trumpkins know it, and they all revel in it.

The DNC has never used the Superdelegates to determined primaries. What is Bernie Sanders talking about ?

The closest time we had to using them was in 2008 when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the primaries over Obama but lost the Democratic nomination.

R84, he wasn't asking about voting, he was asking about the candidate. Of course a candidate running for the Democratic nomination should be a Democrat. Bernie is Bernie Sanders (I), not Bernie Sanders (D) in the Senate. He didn't run as an independent because he would have become an official spoiler and Bernie doesn't actually stand for anything enough to have to pay a personal cost for it, so he wasn't about to put himself in a position to take that blame.

If he keeps voting with the Democrats and tries to run for president as a Democrat, why the fuck doesn't he just officially become a Democrat. He'd still win in Vermont. He's a hypocrite who has accomplished nothing and has no actual plans, just a whole lot of soundbites that simpletons eat up because they can't figure out to ask one simple question, "How?".

Free college for everyone! "How?"

Universal healthcare for everyone! "How?"

When he was asked those questions, he blew the interview so badly that it was laughable. He came close to showing Palin levels of ignorance about his own policy "ideas". Bernbros are entitled white sexist males who will vote Repug when given half a chance.

Bernie is a hypocrite because in his last ditch to win the 2016 primaries, Bernie tried to force the DNC to use the Superdelegates, which had never been used before to determined a primary, so that he could snatch the win away from Hillary. By then, Hillary already had an advantage of over a million votes over her competitor.

He is trying to delegitimazed Hillary's win because he must know his campaign will be under scrutiny over the sketchy Tad Devine.

R87: He asked about the rules and I explained them to him. If he has any further questions or comments, I will wait to hear from R83. As far as you are concerned, everything you said has nothing to do with his questions or my response, and frankly comes across as unhinged. If you are not capable of having a conversation about the institutional aspects of American politics without getting so worked up over a former candidate from a race that was two years ago, then do not include my number in your responses.

Thanks R84 for your reply!

McGovern makes more sense than Carter as the impetus for the superdelegates given his landslide defeat.

Thanks for the registration clarification as well. I did know each state determines their election laws/processes, I did, however think one had to be registered as D, R, or I. I guess I just took it for granted that the DNC (or for that matter the RNC) could say “sorry, no - you’re not a D, so you cannot run in our primary” - at least for national elections.

As a political scientist R84, do you think the primaries (at least the presidential ones) should be able to limit candidates and voters to registered members? Also, while a bit off topic, curious how you feel about the length of the primaries? Personally, I wonder if we all wouldn’t be better off with a drastically curtailed primary process - announcements, fundraising, campaigning, all of it truncated say from Jan-Jun in the election year ending with all primaries (no caucuses anymore) on the same day. Conventions follow in short order to formally nominate the candidates, and then straight into the presidential campaign.

Maybe it’s too simplistic, but honestly think our election process is out of control in the length as well as the costs and I’m thinking I wouldn’t be alone in wanting a streamlined system.

Sorry! R90 is me, R83 - forgot to sign before posting!

[quote]. I guess I just took it for granted that the DNC (or for that matter the RNC) could say “sorry, no - you’re not a D, so you cannot run in our primary” - at least for national elections.

They can even though your illustrious political science "expert" seemingly couldn't explain the answer to the actual question you asked. You're too trusting of someone who just throws out a title. The DNC let Sanders run in the Dem primary. If they had said no, he couldn't have run in the Dem primary. It's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with voters in a state having to declare their party affiliation. In Illinois, the only time your party affiliation comes into play is when voting in a primary because you have to tell the which ballot you want but you can ask for a Dem ballot one election and a Repug one the next time. Your declaration is not a permanent status and isn't officially recorded anywhere.

And, "Political Scientist", this thread is discussing a lot more than what you decide we get to discuss. You are a Bernie supporter, aren't you? You actually sound like an asshole I know in Illinois. Is your name Darren and do you work at a community college? He used to call himself a Political Scientist all the time with his online Master's degree from a now defunct for-profit college. The actual PhDs in his department laughed at him.

R92: My name is not Darren and you desperately need to calm down. No the DNC could not tell him not to run, there were no rules as such. Presidential primaries and caucuses are state-run affairs within National Committee guidelines but declaring one's candidacy is done state by state by state. If you want that to be different, work to change the system to a more national electoral system, a reform I would support. But don't get up on here pretending that the DNC bent rules for him that didn't actually exist in the first place.

R90/R91: Don't be sorry, I totally knew it was you. The process is too long, but Iowa and New Hampshire cling to their status as first which always is a stumbling block to any attempts to move the process later. Smaller states like the step-by-step voting as it forces candidates to come to them. It's very difficult to have one national primary day because of these factors.

As to parties, I would like to see more national parties with paid membership a la Europe and Canada. And I would like to see a national uniform electoral system in the country. I also support electoral fusion and coalition building, a lot of countries that elect Presidents do so with candidates having endorsements/nominations form multiple parties, not just their own. Hope this answers your questions.

Get lost, Bernie Bros. He's not now or ever a Dem. He's a Putin stooge, nothing more.

California is moving up its primary in 2020, which will totally change things around. The move will work against fringe candidates like Bernie.

Sanders actually gives a shit about justice for the people. If he isn't the nominee for 2020, if Democrats don't rectify the wrong they did to him and to is then I'm voting for Trump. Let this country burn - we don't deserve Sanders.

It's sad that you can't tell if R97 is a troll or an actual Bernbro.

or both

Guess u care nothing about true justice, r98. And I'm neither, r99. Bernbro is a derogatory term used by those who would rather our democracy be used as an annointmnt for th e latest neocon. Guess you want Trump to have another term. U are truly frightening.

The DNC was very concerned about looking like they were just going to hand the nom to HRC, r83. Remember, we all thought it was going to be Clinton vs Bush again (Hillary vs Jeb) so both parties were going out of their way to show that they had left the door open for other candidates.

For the Repugs, that meant giving Trump the opening he needed and icing out traditional Rep candidates. For Dems, it meant letting a non Dem bash an actual Dem until it affected her candidacy.

Much of the dissatisfaction in 2016 stemmed from the whole "beltway insider" and "political family dynasty" talk when Bush v Clinton was assumed. It stuck to Clinton after Bush was eliminated.

R101 And yet without all the dirty tricks from bogus email investigation memo, Russian DNC hacking and Bernie bro bullshit, Trump wouldn't have had a chance. No, most Americans weren't sick of Hillary, but a minority got conned by the talking point and manufactured hate to tip it to a doofus like Trump.

Could a politician have a more offensive and, ultimately, ineffective representative than Sanders has in Jeff Weaver? He is incapable of persuading anyone on any topic.

Only Kellyanne Conway beats him for awfulness.

I support superdelagates. They could have been used to stop the orange monster. They have NEVER swung a primary away from the popular vote, not once. I don't see any reason to think they would unless the popular vote winner was truly horrific.

I DO think they should be cut to just elected officials, no donors. And also banned from declaring how they will vote as superdelagates until a certain point before convention. These are smart and reasonable reforms

R103 Sanders has a small cult just like Trump and their only contribution to politics is to spread lies.

I would sit out an election if it were between Trump and Sanders. Sanders' platform was fiscally irresponsible to the point that he'd run up the deficit where we'd have trouble covering interest. And, no, I don't agree with what the republicans are doing to the deficit either -- I also didn't vote for Trump.

I don't like Bernie, and I agree his plans would hurt more people than they would help if he tried to enact them. but it's an easy vote between him and Trump. Far too many people are already being hurt by Trump. The only Dem I could fathom running that I wouldn't vote for is Tulsi Gabbard who is utter slime. She's literally the only person for whom I don't know if Trump would be better or worse

R107 The Dems will not nominate any fake Dem like Bernie. If they wanna run a senile white man, they got Biden. So short of running on a third party, Bernie is not going to be a factor in 2020. But hopefully, he'll be dead by then, so we don't have to listen to the Bernie Bro moan about how "unfair" the Dem Party is.

R107, a United States unable to make interest payments hurts the entire world. So, no, I wouldn't vote for either. You'll be able to undo a lot of what Trump put into place (except the courts) with a democratic or moderate majority. Fixing what effectively is a bankrupt country takes a long time to fix. So, no, I'll sit it out -- guilt free.

R109+ And not voting for either, or "the lesser of two evils" is how we got into this mess and why you will enable Trump and his cadre of supervillians to win again.

The Republicans are counting on you to sit it out. It worked for them for the last 8 years when you didn't like either candidate. And you will help them win again by not voting because neither is perfectly acceptable.

this is how we loose the country to fascists. People too caught up in the specifics, or too apathetic, to see the bigger picture.

Only cunt clinton supporters are mad because someone actually ran against her.

R110, I don't think you understand my point. I don't consider Sanders to be a "lesser of two evils". I think he would be just as bad for the country but in a very different way. Sorry, but bread lines and soup kitchens aren't my thing and that's where we'd be heading under Sanders.

Also, aside from the SC, every thing else that Trump and and cadre of super villains as you put it, can be undone, much like what Trump is doing to Obama's legacy, with a democratic majority.

Again, I'm okay with sitting out a Trump/Sanders election. I actually shake my head at people like you.

Oh, bullshit, R112. Sanders had no prayer of implementing his proposals or his budget. Everything would have been dead in the water heading to Congress. He would have blocked the worst of the Republican harm and would have been unable to inflict any harm of his own. Clearly, by any metric you care to name, he would have been the lesser of two evils.

Um, r113, I'm talking about 2020 not this past election.

R97, are you for real?

Considering their age, it's obscene that Biden or Sanders want to run for President in 2020. Biden will be 78 and Sanders 79.

Okay, my apologies for missing that. However, that doesn't change my point, R114. Sanders has no prayer of implementing his proposals or his budget. Everything would be dead in the water heading to Congress. Etc., etc. There's still no contest.

Yes, R115, R97 is among the 10 or 12% of BernieBros who voted for Trump in 2016.

He probably would have know to campaign in MI and WI.

R117, the democrats may take both houses by 2020, so, yes, there is a prayer. And if it is Sanders v. trump then I'll sit it out.

You're assuming, without evidence to back it up, that Democrats will slavishly do whatever Sanders wants. Of course they won't; they never do. Just ask Obama, Clinton, and Carter.

You are, of course, free to do whatever you want. You are not free to pretend that there is no difference and there is no "lesser evil."

[quote]He probably would have know to campaign in MI and WI.

Not this tired old bullshit. He certainly didn't know enough to campaign in a way that would win the majority of Democratic primary votes. It wasn't even close.

[quote]Now whenever I say Russian hacking, Russian fake news propaganda, and the partisan tactics of James Comey led to Hillary's loss, they say 4/

[quote]"James Comey and Russia didn't stop Hillary from campaigning in Wisconsin." EVERY SINGLE TIME 5/

[quote]Yes guys you're right. The unprecedented partisan tactics of the FBI head and Russia's targeted propaganda war had NOTHING to w her loss. 6/

[quote]Wisconsin was the only thing that mattered. #NailedIt

[quote]Has a single Wisconsin voter ever said Hillary not campaigning enough there influenced their vote? (No). Hillary campaigned heavily in Florida and PA, did she win those? (No; and all 3 were pretty close). The Wisconsin narrative is so wrong.

It's also worth noting that Clinton did better than Feingold did in Wisconsin.

Morally, r122, Trump wins the moral race to the bottom hands down. But if my choice is between a man whose policies can be undone with democrats in both houses and a man who will blow the deficit past $21 trillion in 10 years...I'll sit it out.

I don't think you have any idea how bad it would be like if Bernie does what he wants to without regard for the deficit.

I know precisely what it would be like, since that's the scenario we have right now with Republican policies. I also know that there is zero chance that Sanders' proposals will make it into law. Your concern trolling and hand-wringing are duly noted.

R125, I already said unthread that I'm not happy with what the republicans are doing with the deficit.  I also said in the same post that I didn't vote for them either.  And, no, r125, you clearly don't know what it would be like.  A $21 trillion deficit in 10-years isn't what we have now.

Your post embodies just how much this country is going into the shitter if stating an opinion or trying to have a discussion is concern trolling and hand wringing.

I'm calling you out for concern trolling and hand-wringing because that is precisely what you're doing. And you still have no answer for the fact that Sanders would have no prayer of getting his agenda passed. There is always a lesser of two evils. You pretending otherwise is what gets you labeled for what you are.

As we've seen with Trump, a hell of a lot of damage can be done by judicial nominations and by Executive Branch policies and who is put in charge of the various cabinet posts. Such things cannot easily be overturned by Congress, particularly with Republicans able to block any such attempts in the Senate (and that's even assuming that Democrats can win back the Senate). Trump in 2020 would still have enormous power to do harm.

Dismantling regulation and oversight can be done by a President. Raising taxes and passing such things as free college and Medicare for all cannot.

R127, unless you have a crystal ball then you have no more of a way of proving that Sanders won't be able to pass his agenda than I have a way of proving he will.

So, your constant drumbeat of it will never happen is as valid as the drumbeats that Trump would never be elected. Time will tell who is correct and I'm not about vote for someone who stands a chance of passing a fiscally disastrous agenda and I wouldn't vote for Trump either.

Just because someone doesn't share your opinion, r127, doesn't make them concern trolls. Assholes like you are the reason everyone lives in their own little bubbles to insulate themselves from critical thinking.

[quote] unless you have a crystal ball then you have no more of a way of proving that Sanders won't be able to pass his agenda than I have a way of proving he will.

Of course we do; we can look at how much support he got for these issues while he campaigned. We can look at the official Democratic Party platform. We can look at the bills sponsored by Democratic lawmakers. And we can look at the absolute certainty that the agenda would be blocked by Senate Republicans. You, on the other hand, have nothing.

[quote]So, your constant drumbeat of it will never happen is

true, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

[quote]Just because someone doesn't share your opinion, [R127], doesn't make them concern trolls.

No, being a concern troll, and an idiot, is what makes you a concern troll. Not to mention pretending that there really is no lesser evil in that case. You completely ignored the post about the damage that Trump has done and would continue to do, damage that does not need Congressional approval.

[quote]Assholes like you are the reason everyone lives in their own little bubbles to insulate themselves from critical thinking.

Concern trolls like you are one of the reasons we have Trump. And I really wouldn't talk about "critical thinking" if I were you, given your complete lack of that quality on this thread.

Cupcake, you don't have a crystal ball. And any claim that you know the future is hysterical. But quote away, qween! Quote away!

The funny thing is, even without the superdelegates, Clinton had enough pledged delegates behind her to move forward towards the nomination.

[italic]"Clinton is going to win the nomination because she is getting many more votes than her rival — and thus winning the pledged delegate total. There is a theoretical world in which the superdelegates subvert the will of the voters and give Clinton the nomination over the will of the voters. We are not living in that world. Sanders is losing the nomination because he is losing at the ballot box; for the superdelegates to "decide" the nomination in any meaningful sense, they'd have to ignore the voters and undemocratically hand the nomination to Sanders.

[bold]In other words: If all of the superdelegates were eliminated overnight, Bernie Sanders would still be losing the race. Blaming them for his pending defeat isn't just missing the point — it's objectively wrong.[/bold][/italic]

[quote]Cupcake, you don't have a crystal ball. And any claim that you know the future is hysterical. But quote away, qween! Quote away!

LOL... Thank you for confirming that you cannot back up your bullshit.

I do love how you're so predictable, though. You get your ass handed to you, as usual, and you have no response, so you have to attack. It's a cycle we've seen over and over again and it's hilarious every time.

Did you all hear about cunt clinton's latest? She's selling her email list to the DNC for over 2 million dollars. Obama gave his.

Our girl Hillary can be a bit greedy. It is one of her weak spots.

Um, she turned her email list over to the DNC over a year ago. Free. With ten million names not on the the DNC's list. It was an in-kind contribution valued at $3.5million.

No. She's selling it.

How can she "sell" something she's already given away, R138? What they're paying for, apparently, is the infrastructure, campaign software, and voter data, not the email list. And it's not "over 2 million dollars." It's $1.65 million.

Isn't the Intercept a Glenn Greenwald/Vladimr Putin Production?

Bernie also didn’t think campaigning in the south wasn’t worth his time and didn’t connect with black voters.

And Bernie is regularly excoriated for those mistakes. They're the big reason people give for why he lost. They always say he blames everyone but himself for losing a race he should have won, easily.

Snort.

[quote] She's selling her email list to the DNC for over 2 million dollars. Obama gave his.

And they had to go deeper in debt to pay for it. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) took out a $1.7 million loan in February, pushing their total debt to more than $6 million according to the FEC.

Several Democratic officials are asking Hillary Clinton to return the money that the Democratic National Committee paid her political group for her campaign email list and other resources.

In February 2017, the DNC agreed to pay Clinton’s group Onward Together $1.65 million for her campaign email list, analytics, donor data and related items, The Intercept reported on Wednesday. The cache of material was worth more than $5 million; Clinton’s campaign made an in-kind donation of resources worth $3.5 million, and the DNC paid for the rest.

Now a number of Democratic Party officials, including some state party chairs and DNC members, want Clinton to retroactively donate the campaign materials to the DNC and return the money that the party organ gave Onward Together.

Feel the Bern?

Obama also left the dnc in deep financial debt which Donna Brazile confirmed in her book.

Bernie split the Democratic Party; then was slow, reluctant, and unenthusiastic in endorsing the 2016 nominee. Make him Grand Potentate of CNN; they love him so much.