The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[The Romulan Republic]

Though right now, I think the fears of party disunity may be somewhat overplayed in any case. Lots of Clinton supporters in 2008 said they wouldn't back Obama, and that worked out fine. And that was without the threat of a Trump Presidency to motivate people to rally behind the Democratic nominee (though I suppose Palin as VP helped scare Democratic voters).

[Flagg]

No, I don't think Sanders wants Trump to win, I just don't think he cares much about anything past his own ambitions, like most politicians. But since he can't win the primary, what reason does he have to not sit down and shut up, realistically? To give dolts like you false hope?

Okay, first of all, I really disagree with the "Ambitious Sanders" narrative.

Let's be honest here. One does not wait until they are in their mid-seventies to run for President, then run as a socialist in a primary that's considered pretty much a foregone conclusion from the start, for the sake of ambition.

No, Sanders is more of a crusader, a believer in the cause. That isn't necessarily a good thing, as it can lead to narrow-mindedness and refusal to compromise when you need to, but its a very different motivation than the one you are ascribing to him.

Anyway, I can think of a number of reason for him to stay in, including:

1. Its possible, theoretically, for him to win. Very unlikely, but possible. It may also be that he gives the possibility of a Clinton indictment more credence than you do, and wants to keep his name in as a viable replacement if she is unable to run.

2. He has long said that every state should have a chance to vote, and that to that end he would stay in until all the primaries were held. So he's actually keeping his word here, and reinforcing his messages about democracy and voter turnout.

3. He wants to get as many delegates as possible to wield more influence at the convention and build the strength of his movement.

4. Staying in keeps his supporters engaged, keeps their enthusiasm going, rather than petering out.

5. He right now has a very public platform to advocate the things he believes in, the likes of which he never had until the past year or so.

And that attitude, that Sanders should "sit down and shut up", is part of the problem here. Its very much in keeping with the attitude of many Clinton supporters, I think. They don't want unity, in the sense of bringing Sanders on board and working with him to achieve common goals. They want him to disappear. It is that dismissal, that palpable lack of respect, in part, that is so off-putting to many Sanders supporters.

I stopped reading because I officially cannot take seriously anyone so fucking stupid as to say that someone who runs for POTUS is not ambitious.

[maraxus2]

Anyway, I can think of a number of reason for him to stay in, including:

1. Its possible, theoretically, for him to win. Very unlikely, but possible. It may also be that he gives the possibility of a Clinton indictment more credence than you do, and wants to keep his name in as a viable replacement if she is unable to run.

On what basis do you make this claim.

2. He has long said that every state should have a chance to vote, and that to that end he would stay in until all the primaries were held. So he's actually keeping his word here, and reinforcing his messages about democracy and voter turnout.

Who said anything about other states not having a chance to vote? Certainly Hillary's campaign isn't calling on him to drop out, nor are people in the DNC. If you're talking about random people on the internet, that's one thing. But none of the actual Dem officials or Hillary's campaign are calling on him to drop out before the primaries are over.

And his message about democracy and voter turnout is completely undercut by his reliance on caucuses, which are both undemocratic and suppress voter turnout.

3. He wants to get as many delegates as possible to wield more influence at the convention and build the strength of his movement.

Which, again, is completely undercut by the fact that most of his delegates come from caucuses, which are fundamentally undemocratic. Not to mention that the two states that held "beauty pageant" primaries, namely Washington and Nebraska, both went for Clinton. Washington actually had more people vote for Clinton than caucused in the entire state. He also has far more people on key committees than his delegate count might suggest, largely a function of the Dems throwing him a bone.

4. Staying in keeps his supporters engaged, keeps their enthusiasm going, rather than petering out.

Agreed. By staying in the race, he's giving them an off-ramp for when he inevitably loses

5. He right now has a very public platform to advocate the things he believes in, the likes of which he never had until the past year or so.

Which he is using to fight a very public (and very dumb) war with the DNC over the primary process and rules. Way to fight for the little guy!

And that attitude, that Sanders should "sit down and shut up", is part of the problem here. Its very much in keeping with the attitude of many Clinton supporters, I think. They don't want unity, in the sense of bringing Sanders on board and working with him to achieve common goals. They want him to disappear. It is that dismissal, that palpable lack of respect, in part, that is so off-putting to many Sanders supporters.

Again, if you can point to recent statements from Clinton's campaign people suggesting that he should "sit down and shut up," please point to them. Nobody wants sanders to disappear; they want him to stick around and loudly endorse Clinton once she wraps this nomination up. Having him make a half-assed endorsement and then vanish into the aether.

I can't speak for Flagg on this one, but as a Clinton-supporter (or troll, as you like to refer to me), I'm fine with Bernie staying in until the Primary's over and he loses. I did not want him to stay in if he was going to go around and suggest that the primary was fundamentally rigged or illegitimate, since it's both not true and damaging to Hillary Clinton. I'm also annoyed that he seems to fundamentally misapprehend what it means to lose a primary; the loser ought not have much of a say over a nominee's platform or actions. You can't run for president by committee. The fact that he's: 1. got more influence on the platform committee than his numbers would suggest, 2. is (ostensibly) being given a say in post-presidential appointments, and 3. has influence on the rules committee aren't due to him because he lost; they're due to him because the DNC doesn't want him to be an asshole. This is not what I would call "sit down and shut up" behavior from the much reviled establishment, although "sit down and shut up" is really all that he's due.

As for it being off-putting; you're congenitally off-put, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Flagg]

I just hate dishonest loud mouthed twats, so Sanders is the garlic to my Vampire. I've stated several times that I despise Clinton politically, but she's the most qualified and non-crazy person running in either party.

[Gandalf]

I find it amusing that by sticking around, the story about Sanders has gone from "This guy has some interesting ideas!" to "Why is he still around?"

[maraxus2]

I find it amusing that by sticking around, the story about Sanders has gone from "This guy has some interesting ideas!" to "Why is he still around?"

That would be because the media coverage has gone from Sanders talking about Super Important Issues to Sanders picking fights with the DNC. So now he's not campaigning against Clinton so much as he's campaigning against Debbie Wasserman Schultz. A worthy opponent, but she's not running for the Presidency.

[Purple]

For the record, as far as I understand it he has zero chances right?

[Gandalf]

Barring some sort of outside intervention like this FBI thing going somewhere, it's like me fighting Muhammed Ali. Not zero, but any path to victory through conventional means is next to nil.

[maraxus2]

That's correct. It's mathematically impossible for Sanders to defeat Clinton purely on pledged delegates; he'd need the Supers to flip to his side. They are not likely to do this.

In order to beat Clinton among pledged delegates, he'd need to beat Clinton in every state by an average of around 70% of the vote. That includes CA, where he's not going to beat her by that margin, NJ, where he is not campaigning particularly strongly, and DC, where he will lose by a crushing margin.

You can stick a fork in him. He's done.

[The Romulan Republic]

On what basis do you make this claim.

That he can win? Mainly on the fact that their are enough pledged delegates for him to overtake Clinton's lead with them, theoretically, and that that would create a compelling argument for her super delegates to switch sides. Its extremely unlikely, of course, and I've never denied that, but its possible.

The indictment thing? Nothing at all. I'm simply speculating as to what Sanders might be thinking. I make no argument either way as to how likely an indictment is.

Who said anything about other states not having a chance to vote? Certainly Hillary's campaign isn't calling on him to drop out, nor are people in the DNC. If you're talking about random people on the internet, that's one thing. But none of the actual Dem officials or Hillary's campaign are calling on him to drop out before the primaries are over.

I don't know weather any Democratic Party officials have, but to my knowledge you are correct that Clinton has not. One of the relatively few points on which I respect her.

Its mostly been coming from on-line supporters, and perhaps some in the media.

However, I was responding to Flagg questioning why Sanders should stay in. This is one of several legitimate reasons I gave. That's why I brought it up here, not to accuse Clinton or her campaign of anything. Which should be obvious.

And his message about democracy and voter turnout is completely undercut by his reliance on caucuses, which are both undemocratic and suppress voter turnout.

List of primaries Sanders has won:

New Hampshire.
Vermont.
Democrats Abroad.
Oklahoma.
Michigan.
Wisconsin.
Rhode Island.
Indiana.
West Virginia.
Oregon.

Did I miss any?

Most of those were by double digit margins, by the way.

In any case, are you saying that Sanders is somehow hypocritical/dishonest because he won a bunch of caucuses? Its not his fault the system is set up the way it is. I'm sure he'd rather have won more primaries too.

It would be wrong for him to defend the caucus system. Can you demonstrate that he has done so?

But hey, if you want to bash the caucus system, you've got no complaint from me. Contrary to what you might think, I don't just base my principles on what benefits Sanders.

Which, again, is completely undercut by the fact that most of his delegates come from caucuses, which are fundamentally undemocratic. Not to mention that the two states that held "beauty pageant" primaries, namely Washington and Nebraska, both went for Clinton. Washington actually had more people vote for Clinton than caucused in the entire state. He also has far more people on key committees than his delegate count might suggest, largely a function of the Dems throwing him a bone.

See above reg. caucuses.

Also, Sanders, last I saw, had one third representation on the platform committee.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11760754/b ... ornel-west

And less on the rules committee, I believe.

For one third to be greater representation than his share of the delegates, Clinton would have to be beaten him by more than two to one. She isn't.

And for it to even match his share of the vote (remember, how closely the delegate count represents the vote is skewed by super delegate support for Clinton), he would have just shy of 45% of both committees (rounded to the nearest committee member).

Agreed. By staying in the race, he's giving them an off-ramp for when he inevitably loses

Nothing to say here that I haven't already said.

Which he is using to fight a very public (and very dumb) war with the DNC over the primary process and rules. Way to fight for the little guy!

Their are serious, serious problems with the primary process, ranging from super delegates (inherently undemocratic, as they exist only to overturn the voters' choice), to the caucus process, to voter suppression issues, to allegations of outright fraud in some cases.

If Sanders wants to make an issue of that shit, good for him.

And yes, I'd say fighting for the integrity of the democratic process is pretty integral to fighting for the little guy. Why do you have such contempt for the democratic process? Or do you really believe the primary system is just fine and dandy?

Again, if you can point to recent statements from Clinton's campaign people suggesting that he should "sit down and shut up," please point to them. Nobody wants sanders to disappear; they want him to stick around and loudly endorse Clinton once she wraps this nomination up. Having him make a half-assed endorsement and then vanish into the aether.

I've been over this already.

Its more people outside the campaign's upper levels. But while we're on the subject, the campaign contributes to the problem because they seem unwilling to actually offer Sanders and his supporters much. They want his support, but don't seem to want to do much to earn it.

I can't speak for Flagg on this one, but as a Clinton-supporter (or troll, as you like to refer to me), I'm fine with Bernie staying in until the Primary's over and he loses. I did not want him to stay in if he was going to go around and suggest that the primary was fundamentally rigged or illegitimate, since it's both not true and damaging to Hillary Clinton. I'm also annoyed that he seems to fundamentally misapprehend what it means to lose a primary; the loser ought not have much of a say over a nominee's platform or actions. You can't run for president by committee. The fact that he's: 1. got more influence on the platform committee than his numbers would suggest, 2. is (ostensibly) being given a say in post-presidential appointments, and 3. has influence on the rules committee aren't due to him because he lost; they're due to him because the DNC doesn't want him to be an asshole. This is not what I would call "sit down and shut up" behavior from the much reviled establishment, although "sit down and shut up" is really all that he's due.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that the primary as a whole is rigged or illegitimate, but their are some serious issues here which should concern anyone, regardless of which side they're on.

Also, on what do you base the claim that Sanders' representation on the platform committee is greater than his numbers?

As I explained above, his representation on key committees is disproportionately low compared to his support in the primary.

And this is after their was an outcry over Debbie Wasserman Schultz allegedly trying to all but lock his people out of the committees.

I'd also like a source for the claim that he is being offered a say on Presidential appointments, because its not something I've seen before. If its true, I'm delighted to hear it, and think that it should be getting more press because it will aid in party unity.

And again, this attitude that "...all that he's due." is "sit down and shut up"...

Okay, so its likely Clinton will be the winner. But their will still be about 45% of the primary voters who didn't pick her. Is it unreasonable to expect her to make some concessions to get their support? Part of politics is compromise. The same would be true if the positions were reversed, if Sanders were leading Clinton.

[The Romulan Republic]

For the record, as far as I understand it he has zero chances right?

Mathematically possible, but unlikely.

To take the lead in pledged delegates, he'd have to win between 65 and 70% of the remaining pledged delegates. This would be difficult even without New Jersey and DC, which are very likely to both go to Clinton.

If he took a narrow lead in pledged delegates, he would then have to persuade a significant number of Clinton super delegates to switch sides. Possible, but again difficult, given her strong backing from much of the party establishment.

So short of a Clinton indictment, its very unlikely.

[Flagg]

For the record, as far as I understand it he has zero chances right?

There's a better chance of Elvis Presley and Lyndon B Johnson getting gay married in Iran.

[The Romulan Republic]

Several animal rights protesters were apparently arrested after they tried to rush the podium at a Sanders rally in Oakland:

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Pr ... 33601.html

Protesters jumped barricades and interrupted a Bernie Sanders rally late Monday in Oakland.
The Democratic presidential hopeful was addressing supporters at Frank Ogawa Plaza at City Hall when at least four people hopped over barricades and attempted to rush the podium.
VIDEOSanders Visits Church to Court Black Voters
The group was stopped by secret service and agents also immediately surrounded Sanders during the incident.
Video appears to show secret service strike one of the barricade jumpers several times with a night stick. The protesters were detained by authorities.
Highlights From the 2016 Campaign Trail[NATL] Highlights From the 2016 Campaign Trail
"We don't get intimidated easily," Sanders said after the incident.
Sanders' campaign said the group who jumped the barricades appear to be animal rights protesters.
Sanders Keeps it Nonpolitical at Presidio Ceremony
Authorities said 20,000 people attended the rally.
Earlier in the day, Sanders visited one of Oakland’s most influential black churches – Allen Temple Baptist along International Boulevard – with actor Danny Glover.
Bernie Sanders Wears Warriors Hat at Oakland Rally
Sanders spoke to about 200 people inside the church, stressing economic equality and more access to education.

Assholes. Glad they were arrested.

Not sure why animal rights activists would go after Sanders. Probably just attention whoring. Clinton doesn't hold a lot of big rallies, and at Dickless Donald's rallies they'd be at risk of being attacked by the crowd, so I guess that leaves Sanders as a target.

[Flagg]

Animal rights activists disrupt everyone's rallies. Why did you post this? It's not the fucking Bernard Sanders Fan Club where we all wait with baited breath on all news related to the Independant Democratic Senator from Vermont.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I just love that Bernie running as a Democrat makes him an evil opportunist, yet if he had run as an independent and gained even half this much traction he'd be evil for stealing votes from Hillary. Is there any way at all Bernie wouldn't be a supervillain while running for president?

[maraxus2]

I just love that Bernie running as a Democrat makes him an evil opportunist, yet if he had run as an independent and gained even half this much traction he'd be evil for stealing votes from Hillary. Is there any way at all Bernie wouldn't be a supervillain while running for president?

I mean, he would be? Stealing votes from Clinton at least.

I dunno who's calling Bernie evil or a supervillain. Projection much?

[Terralthra]

He wouldn't be stealing votes from Sec. Clinton. They're not hers. They belong to voters, who can cast them for whomever they want. She earns them, or Sen. Sanders earns them, or whoever else earns them. Someone voting for Sen. Sanders or Donald Trump instead of Sec. Clinton isn't anyone stealing anything. Using language like that implies the sort of entitlement which enflames the resentment driving part of the dislike for "establishment" candidates.

[The Romulan Republic]

Animal rights activists disrupt everyone's rallies. Why did you post this? It's not the fucking Bernard Sanders Fan Club where we all wait with baited breath on all news related to the Independant Democratic Senator from Vermont.

Referring to Sanders as an Independent Senator is a lie. He is officially a registered Democrat now.

But you keep peddling your sad little grudge.

As to why I posted it- I am under no obligation to justify myself to you, but I would think that a violent disruption at a campaign rally is worth at least a mention under election news.

That and I make a habit of covering and calling out political violence in my posts, and it would be hypocritical to only call it out when Right wingers do it. So I'm being consistent here.

Edit: My apologies. I was sloppy and misread your post. You didn't actually call Sanders an Independent. So not lying. Just being snide. So I retract that part of my post.

[Flagg]

I just love that Bernie running as a Democrat makes him an evil opportunist, yet if he had run as an independent and gained even half this much traction he'd be evil for stealing votes from Hillary. Is there any way at all Bernie wouldn't be a supervillain while running for president?

If he were running as an independent he wouldn't be in the primary for democrats, would he?

[Flagg]

Animal rights activists disrupt everyone's rallies. Why did you post this? It's not the fucking Bernard Sanders Fan Club where we all wait with baited breath on all news related to the Independant Democratic Senator from Vermont.

Referring to Sanders as an Independent Senator is a lie. He is officially a registered Democrat now.

But you keep peddling your sad little grudge.

As to why I posted it- I am under no obligation to justify myself to you, but I would think that a violent disruption at a campaign rally is worth at least a mention under election news.

That and I make a habit of covering and calling out political violence in my posts, and it would be hypocritical to only call it out when Right wingers do it. So I'm being consistent here.

Edit: My apologies. I was sloppy and misread your post. You didn't actually call Sanders an Independent. So not lying. Just being snide. So I retract that part of my post.

Yeah, maybe read first, knee jerk whiny-douche later.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I just love that Bernie running as a Democrat makes him an evil opportunist, yet if he had run as an independent and gained even half this much traction he'd be evil for stealing votes from Hillary. Is there any way at all Bernie wouldn't be a supervillain while running for president?

I mean, he would be? Stealing votes from Clinton at least.

I dunno who's calling Bernie evil or a supervillain. Projection much?

The sheer amount of vitriol lobbed at him indicates people either believe he's a villain or simply want this cycle to be an coronation rather than an actual election. I've seen people say that voting 3rd party is the same as voting for the Republicans, so it's pretty clear he's damned regardless of how he could have ran.

[Flagg]

I just love that Bernie running as a Democrat makes him an evil opportunist, yet if he had run as an independent and gained even half this much traction he'd be evil for stealing votes from Hillary. Is there any way at all Bernie wouldn't be a supervillain while running for president?

I mean, he would be? Stealing votes from Clinton at least.

I dunno who's calling Bernie evil or a supervillain. Projection much?

The sheer amount of vitriol lobbed at him indicates people either believe he's a villain or simply want this cycle to be an coronation rather than an actual election. I've seen people say that voting 3rd party is the same as voting for the Republicans, so it's pretty clear he's damned regardless of how he could have ran.

He's not a villain, he's just a douche who doesn't know when to quit. Also a whore as I've pointed out. And if you're a liberal who would vote for the Democrat Al Gore (who did, you know, win) if Ralph Nader wasn't running, then yeah, you might as well have voted for Bush. Just because facts make your asshole itch doesn't mean they aren't facts. If every liberal "they're both the same!" Douchebag who voted Nader over Gore had instead cast a vote for Gore hundreds of thousands of dead people wouldn't be dead. Simply no war of choice in Iraq proves this.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I just love that Bernie running as a Democrat makes him an evil opportunist, yet if he had run as an independent and gained even half this much traction he'd be evil for stealing votes from Hillary. Is there any way at all Bernie wouldn't be a supervillain while running for president?

I mean, he would be? Stealing votes from Clinton at least.

I dunno who's calling Bernie evil or a supervillain. Projection much?

The sheer amount of vitriol lobbed at him indicates people either believe he's a villain or simply want this cycle to be an coronation rather than an actual election. I've seen people say that voting 3rd party is the same as voting for the Republicans, so it's pretty clear he's damned regardless of how he could have ran.

Probably tribalism really?

[Block]

I mean, he would be? Stealing votes from Clinton at least.

I dunno who's calling Bernie evil or a supervillain. Projection much?

The sheer amount of vitriol lobbed at him indicates people either believe he's a villain or simply want this cycle to be an coronation rather than an actual election. I've seen people say that voting 3rd party is the same as voting for the Republicans, so it's pretty clear he's damned regardless of how he could have ran.

Probably tribalism really?

I think it has to be more than that doesn't it? He's from within the more progressive arm of the tribe, whatever titles people want to give him. I mean, if he'd run independent, sure.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think it has to be more than that doesn't it? He's from within the more progressive arm of the tribe, whatever titles people want to give him. I mean, if he'd run independent, sure.

Well. People in the Democrats are seeing him as the sort of person who is airing every damn dirty linen Hillary has and thus damaging her chances against Trump. They see him as a liability for their ability to win the election.

Quite frankly, this sort of ridiculous behaviour is delusional. What Sanders does to Hillary will probably be mild when Trump starts to roll up his vitriol storm generator.

He's not a villain, he's just a douche who doesn't know when to quit. Also a whore as I've pointed out. And if you're a liberal who would vote for the Democrat Al Gore (who did, you know, win) if Ralph Nader wasn't running, then yeah, you might as well have voted for Bush. Just because facts make your asshole itch doesn't mean they aren't facts. If every liberal "they're both the same!" Douchebag who voted Nader over Gore had instead cast a vote for Gore hundreds of thousands of dead people wouldn't be dead. Simply no war of choice in Iraq proves this.

Let's be honest here; you just don't like the man for whatever reasons you can cook up with really.