General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 93

This is why Bernie NEEDS to drop out. He needs to realize that he's not winning the hearts of superdelegates after openly talking about how awful and corrupt they all are; as well as the fact that it seems like he's not well-regarded by others in congress.

I get the importance of pushing the DNC and the conversation to the left; but the way he's acting is not the way to do it. What should he be doing? He should drop out, and focus everything in the context of Trump not winning the GE. Obviously endorsing Hillary would be ideal, but he doesn't even need to do that. He needs to stop focusing on the idea that he's "the best chance at defeating Trump", but on the idea that Trump needs to be stopped

 

he explicitly says he doesn't expect enough delegates to flip to sanders to hand him the nom, he actually goes into a hypothetical he admits is highly unlikely and which depends on things like "momentum" and predicted future performance to justify any kind of switch. he says super delegates switching to be in line with their state outcomes is possible, and i dont think anyone would argue that the superdelegates from states he won with huge margins switching their support to him is anything other than representing the will of their voters (unless it was a caucus, which is a whole other can of worms).

point is, no one in here is going nuts saying that superdelegates, in this reality, should support bernie and give him the nomination.

 

He is arguing that California still matters to Sanders hopes of winning the nomination. The only way that happens is with the help of super delegates...

But you clearly aren't the type to admit when you're wrong so I'm done here with you for today

 

Question, and it's not be argumentative. If Sanders is, at least, seen as the candidate with a solid and consistent value set isn't it more important to continue to promote that ideology than it is to fall into the party line?

I'm not Bernie supporter, but if I were it would be really deflating to see him essentially say "Alright guys, this little political revolution was great and all, but Hillary has a D next to her name so it's time for all of us to sit down and shut up."

 

That's kinda what I was trying to say in regards to not having to endorse her, but I kinda faltered in explaining that. The point I was trying to make was that instead of saying, "I need to be the nominee because only I can destroy Trump", he should be, "Trump wants this, but we need *left policy that he and Hillary aren't far apart on*". He's running his race at this point as if he's the nominee; it's damaging because he will not be the nominee

 

I'd really love him to say "yeah vote for hillary" when he drops out without some long speech that makes him walk back his stances to support her, spend the next few months campaigning hard in Democratic primaries for far left candidates around the country, and then knock it out of the park at the convention.

 

"unless Bernie pulls out some crazy miracle" is what he said about california and every other primary today. if you think that is him saying california realistically matters...

 

Is it possible Sanders believes that Clinton isn't any better than Trump?

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This article always sticks out to me in summarizing Sanders' opinion of other politicians - and the attitude that is why he isn't suited for the Presidency
Bangor Daily News - Google News Archive Search

 

I think Sanders should refuse to endorse Hillary, make an indictment of the DNC, and then call on people to leave the party to the careerists and technocrats. That would earn him my endorsement.

Also, and I feel the need to reiterate this, Clinton wants to put a rapist in charge of the economy.

 

But there is a middle ground between "sit down and shut up" and "throw a temper tantrum" and by refusing to get out of the race now that it is actually over, he is simply alienating the rest of the party and making it that much harder for him to get an opportunity to help effect policy at the convention

 

Well, whatever we all think of Clinton, a woman getting the presidential nomination for either party is a pretty big deal. Here's to hoping better women are able to do so in the near future, because I think at this point we've proven the men getting the job these days are disappointing at best.

 

Great article, thanks!

 

I don't think that's enough. If Palin or Bachmann was the presumptive nominee for the GOP her being a woman would not stop me from vomiting at the thought of voting for her.

 

Well, that's why I said "better women" lol

 

Sorry, it sounded like you were saying "well at least she will be the first woman president"

 

I think Glenn Greenwald said it best:

"That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance — rallying behind a Wall Street-funded, status quo-perpetuating, multimillionaire militarist — is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved."

Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media

 

Let me just say this. Obviously I would rather the superdelegates not exist and it just goes by whoever has more pledged delegates. That would be a fine system. But that is not the system that they have. The system they have is one where superdelegates are allowed to vote for who they want to. So yes, if Bernie were to pull up some huge upsets tonight and cut her delegate lead, popular vote lead, and become almost tied in states won, then yes, I would support the superdeleates to switch to Sanders if they came around to feel that he was the stronger candidate, because that is how the system works.. Obviously, that will very likely not happen, therefore Clinton will still have big leads in delegates, popular vote, and so on, in which there is no reason to believe that the superdelegates should all switch over to Sanders. Again, the system should be having no superdelegates at all. But while we still do have them, if this were to be a close race (which it won't be), I would support the idea of superdelegates to switch to Sanders. Like I said in the other post, it would take some crazy miracle for that to happen. Am I making any sense here or did I type all of that for nothing?

 

@MysteryKnight you're making sense. For the most part I feel the same.

@clucky I want Sanders to do what he believes is best for both himself and his followers. Conceding is one thing, endorsing Hillary is another. The only candidate I've supported in this election cycle is Sanders and I don't plan on rallying behind Hillary once Sanders drops out. If he wants to take it to the convention, I'll follow him. If he concedes tonight or tomorrow, I'll deal with it.

 

Might be a petty question, but when you say "cut her delegate lead, popular vote lead" by how much? And I couldn't find anything better that was recent enough, but thoughts on this:
Changing superdelegate rules would still leave Bernie Sanders behind - CNNPolitics.com

Also, how would you feel if he does close the gap, but Clinton still gets the 2026 pledged needed to win?

 

Sanders endorsing Clinton is a rather different tactic than Sanders dropping out. Whether or not he should endorse Clinton is not a topic I feel like getting into again, but it seems to me that if a) super delegates bad and b) the only way Sanders can win the nomination is with super delegates; then Sanders has no true route to the nomination and as such should drop out. To claim otherwise requires you to argue that super delegates aren't always bad.

So you think having super delegates that can override the people's vote is wrong, but if they exist you might as well use them to your advantage? This strikes me as a flawed argument. The law shouldn't be the reason that keeps you from doing something that is wrong, your principles should. Or are you okay with Clinton's email practices because everything she did was technically legal, even if it showed a severe lack of judgement and foresight?

 

And honestly I don't know why any super delegate receiving death threats or constantly being told how awful and corrupt they are on their facebook pages would flip.
That's what super delegates are seeing of the Bernie campaign. And-if I'm not mistaken-Bernie hasn't flat out condemned them and has generally taken a 'not my problem' attitude.

 

This article summarizes my Facebook feed today particularly well:

Media Silent As Annoying Friend Tries to Explain Sanders’ Path to the Nomination

 

The difference here is that Clinton DID break the rules with her email server. Again, the system of the democratic party is that the superdelegates can vote for whichever candidate they feel is strongest. I feel like I am just repeating myself. Again, if Clinton does as expected tonight, meaning winning NJ, NM, and keeping it close in CA, it would be absoutely wrong for the superdelegates to switch. If Bernie pulled out huge upsets and won every state, soe of them by large margins, cutting significantly into the delegate lead, making it a much closer race, the superdelegates should have the right to switch to the candidate they feel is strongest.

 

Regardless of how close things are, would Bernie losing the pledged delegate count but winning the nomination by super delegates be a good thing or a bad thing?

If your answer is "a good thing" I don't see how you can argue that super delegates are a bad thing, given you've constructed a very real scenario where having super delegates can lead to a favorable outcome.

If your answer is "a bad thing" then I'm not sure what you're arguing here.