Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Tony Stark]

Except when you look at the actual polling. I never said Clinton wasn't liberal. On social issues, she's fairly liberal.

The probably for Clinton is the Democratic party now is VERY liberal, as the polls I linked to show: national health care, too-big-to-fail, fracking, carbon tax, minimum wage, etc. It's morphing into an actual leftist party in the European sense. Clinton is not morphing with it.

You could have had someone much further left than Clinton and still beat Trump, but it was Clinton's "turn" I guess, and nobody but Bernie and a couple of losers thought they could challenge her, and now we're stuck with someone who's out of touch with Democrats on key issues.

There are two issues I care about: SCOTUS and income/wealth inequality. Clinton will be good for one and totally useless, as Obama was, on the other.

Cherry picking some polls proves nothing. Hillary was to the left of most of her Democratic colleagues in the Senate, including the Democratic President of the United States and has moved left since them. Get over it.

And guess what, even if by some miracle, Bernie Sanders becomes President, he wouldn't be able to do jack about income inequality. Well, he would veto plans by the human garbage in the GOP to make it worse if such plans got to his desk, but that's all that could be expected by anyone who actually understand politics in America. Guess what, Hillary would veto bills for the massive tax cuts the Republican scum want to give the rich too. There is literally no doubt in my mind.

The Bernie or Bust purity test dumbasses on the other hand could actually make the complete opposite of Bernie's goals come to reality by making it so that someone who would probably sign whatever garbage the GOP Congress would spew out becomes President. Not to mention the impact of the federal courts...

 

[Segnosaur]

Canada (the country that Sanders seems to want to use for the model for things like health care) uses 'big banks'. We have what are called the "big 5". those banks are well regulated.

As a result, we have a very stable banking system

I wouldn't know. My point is that Clinton is to the Right of Democrats on this (and many other) issues. And trusting someone who took gobs of money from Goldman Sachs to at least reform the financial sector is pretty stupid.

61% of Democrats want to break up "too big too fail" banks.

Just out of curiosity... why exactly is a desire to break up the banks considered a dividing line between progressive/not progressive?

Everybody (Clinton and Sanders included) wants a stable banking system. They have both stated policies to accomplish that goal, and both involve government regulations. Limiting the size of banks has some advantages and some disadvantages. And the example of Canada shows that its possible for a country to be both further to the left than the U.S., and allow "big banks".

Claiming "breaking up the banks is a left-wing issues" is like saying "if your car isn't red it can't drive fast", since car color has nothing to do with speed.

 

[Fudbucker]

Cherry picking some polls proves nothing.

Cherry picking? Really? What are you trying to claim, that Democrats actually support fracking and I just found some anomalous poll from one of the best polling organizations in the world (Gallup) to support it? Please. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Hillary was to the left of most of her Democratic colleagues in the Senate, including the Democratic President of the United States and has moved left since them. Get over it.

Obviously not if she's to the RIGHT of Democrats on a bunch of issues.

Tony Stark, yes you, not Bernie Sanders, do you, Tony Stark, support fracking? Would you like to see a Carbon Tax? Did you ever support building a Keystone pipeline? Do you want to keep the death penalty around? Did you support TPP? Did you support regime change in Libya? Did you support giving Bush authority to invade Iraq?

And guess what, even if by some miracle, Bernie Sanders becomes President, he wouldn't be able to do jack about income inequality. Well, he would veto plans by the human garbage in the GOP to make it worse if such plans got to his desk, but that's all that could be expected by anyone who actually understand politics in America. Guess what, Hillary would veto bills for the massive tax cuts the Republican scum want to give the rich too. There is literally no doubt in my mind.

The GOP is not going to support Clinton either, so this whole point is moot.

The Bernie or Bust purity test dumbasses on the other hand could actually make the complete opposite of Bernie's goals come to reality by making it so that someone who would probably sign whatever garbage the GOP Congress would spew out. Not to mention the impact of the federal courts...

It's not "Bernie or Bust", it's "Who are we running against Trump? Hillary? Oh god."

But.. more fracking! Yay! Stop complaining, stupid Democrats. What's good for Exxon is good for the country. Suck it up and buy some energy stocks.

 

[Fudbucker]

Just out of curiosity... why exactly is a desire to break up the banks considered a dividing line between progressive/not progressive?

Everybody (Clinton and Sanders included) wants a stable banking system. They have both stated policies to accomplish that goal, and both involve government regulations. Limiting the size of banks has some advantages and some disadvantages. And the example of Canada shows that its possible for a country to be both further to the left than the U.S., and allow "big banks".

Claiming "breaking up the banks is a left-wing issues" is like saying "if your car isn't red it can't drive fast", since car color has nothing to do with speed.

Because it is a partisan issue between the progressive party (Democrats) and the conservative party (Republicans). Democrats have had a long history of not trusting Wall Street and Republicans have a long history of deregulating the financial sector (although that is changing, since 2008).

The opinion that many financial institutions have grown too big was shared by majorities of Democrats (68 percent), independents (61 percent) and Republicans (51 percent). But while Democrats and independents were more likely to say they favored breaking up the biggest banks, a plurality of Republicans said they opposed the plan (by 38 percent to 30 percent).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/banks-poll_n_2994123.html

Not only is Clinton to the right of the Democrats on this, she's to the right of a lot of Republicans as well, but the push to reign in Wall Street (either with tighter reforms or breaking up banks) is coming entirely from the Left. The pushback (even passing something as weak as Dodd-Frank was a monumental feat) is coming from the Right. Not a single Republican in the House voted for it, and only 3 in the Senate supported it. A major campaign promise during the GOP primaries was to repeal Dodd-Frank.

Since we don't have very good regulations on the banking sector (Dodd-Frank was the best we could do, and it doesn't go nearly far enough), we're stuck with financial institutions that are so large, they can't be allowed to fail without bringing everything to a screeching halt, and we have to bail them out. Which we did in 2008 with TARP. Since the banks know the U.S. will subsidize their risky behavior in the form of bailouts, they're free to continue the kind of behavior that created this mess in the first place.

I don't know what Clinton plans to do about regulating Wall Street. It was under Bill Clinton that Glass-Steagall was repealed, so I'm not holding my breath for some major piece of legislation when she's elected. Besides, the GOP would never support it. With Bernie, we at least KNEW he was serious about Wall Street. Clinton, with her millions in speeches from Goldman Sachs, has no credibility on this issue.

 

[Tony Stark]

Cherry picking? Really? What are you trying to claim, that Democrats actually support fracking and I just found some anomalous poll from one of the best polling organizations in the world (Gallup) to support it? Please. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.



Obviously not if she's to the RIGHT of Democrats on a bunch of issues.

Tony Stark, yes you, not Bernie Sanders, do you, Tony Stark, support fracking? Would you like to see a Carbon Tax? Did you ever support building a Keystone pipeline? Do you want to keep the death penalty around? Did you support TPP? Did you support regime change in Libya? Did you support giving Bush authority to invade Iraq?



The GOP is not going to support Clinton either, so this whole point is moot.



It's not "Bernie or Bust", it's "Who are we running against Trump? Hillary? Oh god."

But.. more fracking! Yay! Stop complaining, stupid Democrats. What's good for Exxon is good for the country. Suck it up and buy some energy stocks.

Yes she so right wing she is practically a Republican yet she won resoundingly with Democrats against True Progressive Bernie Sanders.

And I don't agree with Hillary on every issue. The only person I agree with on every issue is me. But I'm also not a purity tester who believes objectively false things like you do. Cherry picking a few things to do your purity test does not prove that Hillary is the most right wing Democrat there is. She is not and you claiming that proves beyond any doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. She will be the most liberal President in my lifetime, easy, despite what you falsely believe.

Oh and I didn't say the GOP scum will cooperate with Hillary. They won't. They are human garbage and are the real obstacle to what you want most and all the purity testing nonsense does is give them more power.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes she so right wing she is practically a Republican yet she won resoundingly with Democrats against True Progressive Bernie Sanders.

And I don't agree with Hillary on every issue. The only person I agree with on every issue is me. But I'm also not a purity tester who believes objectively false things like you do. Cherry picking a few things to do your purity test does not prove that Hillary is the most right wing Democrat there is.

Actually, it kind of does. Who is further to the right than Clinton? Give me some names. James Webb?

She is not and you claiming that proves beyond any doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. She will be the most liberal President in my lifetime, easy, despite what you falsely believe.

Oh and I didn't say the GOP scum will cooperate with Hillary. They won't. They are human garbage and are the real obstacle to what you want most and all the purity testing nonsense does is give them more power.

Your lifetime probably consists of presidents Clinton and Obama, neither of which was particularly liberal (remember DOMA? Bill Clinton. Civil Unions? Obama. Welfare reform? Clinton. NAFTA? Clinton. Health care reform based on GOP Heritage plan and with no public option? Obama. Wanting to bomb Syria? Obama).

Clinton, with her hawkish foreign policy (Iraq vote, anyone? Libya?), aversion to national healthcare, support of fracking and Keystone, and love of all things Wall Street and free-trade would NOT be "the most liberal president in your life-time". Not even close.

In fact, get ready for another Middle East adventure. Clinton can't seem to help herself when it comes to intervening in that region. Oh, but that doesn't fit the narrative of "progressive Clinton", so it will be hand-waved away like everything else.

 

[Segnosaur]

Just out of curiosity... why exactly is a desire to break up the banks considered a dividing line between progressive/not progressive?

Because it is a partisan issue between the progressive party (Democrats) and the conservative party (Republicans). Democrats have had a long history of not trusting Wall Street and Republicans have a long history of deregulating the financial sector (although that is changing, since 2008).

The opinion that many financial institutions have grown too big was shared by majorities of Democrats (68 percent), independents (61 percent) and Republicans (51 percent).

Which is irrelevant. The fact that a large number of people on one side of an issue want a particular action (e.g. break up of the banks) does not necessarily mean that action is inherently further "left wing" than the alternatives.

Again, I should point out that there are more countries in the world than just the U.S., and at least one is both further to the left politically (probably even further to the left than the democrats) and yet has no problem with 'big banks'.

I don't know what Clinton plans to do about regulating Wall Street.

Well, I've seen some of her policies on this:
- Charge fees for larger banks involved in risky behavior
- Authority for regulators to break up banks when warranted (rather than just an overall cap on size)
- New rules for collateral and disclosure

Besides, the GOP would never support it. With Bernie, we at least KNEW he was serious about Wall Street.

So Clinton's plans to regulate Wall Street are irrelevant because 'the GOP would never support it', yet Sander's even more ambitious plans are OK? Is there a particular reason Sanders is getting a free pass? Why would the GOP be supportive of the even more drastic plans of Sanders?

Clinton, with her millions in speeches from Goldman Sachs, has no credibility on this issue.

Yet Obama, whom also was the recipient of donations from various financial institutions, was willing to sign the Frank-Dodd act, which added regulations to the very same organizations that donated to his campaign.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fud my Bud, Sanders lost. Clinton won.

[/thread]

 

[Tony Stark]

Actually, it kind of does. Who is further to the right than Clinton? Give me some names. James Webb?



Your lifetime probably consists of presidents Clinton and Obama, neither of which was particularly liberal (remember DOMA? Bill Clinton. Civil Unions? Obama. Welfare reform? Clinton. NAFTA? Clinton. Health care reform based on GOP Heritage plan and with no public option? Obama. Wanting to bomb Syria? Obama).

Clinton, with her hawkish foreign policy (Iraq vote, anyone? Libya?), aversion to national healthcare, support of fracking and Keystone, and love of all things Wall Street and free-trade would NOT be "the most liberal president in your life-time". Not even close.

In fact, get ready for another Middle East adventure. Clinton can't seem to help herself when it comes to intervening in that region. Oh, but that doesn't fit the narrative of "progressive Clinton", so it will be hand-waved away like everything else.

What Democrats are to the right of her? Most of them in Congress are. President Obama, beloved by Democrats is. You cherry picking a couple issues does not prove she is practically a Republican.

Obamacare proves that Obama isn't a True Progressive? You understand that for it to pass literally every Democrat in the Senate (plus Joe Lieberman who decided the Democrats were too leftist for him and left the party) had to find it acceptable, including some that unlike Hillary are in reality pretty right wing? You understand that True Progressive Bernie Sanders himself voted for it, right?

And I don't think Hillary is against single payer healthcare in theory. She would probably sign such a bill if Congress presented it to her. But she is also not an idiot so she knows it is not politically possible in the US.

And Iraq *********** please. You understand that most Democrats in the Senate including Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and John Kerry voted for it, right. You trying to use it to show she is unusually right wing for a Democrat proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

Has any President ever been a True Progressive. Probably not with your ridiculous purity tests.

Get a clue. The GOP scum are the real enemy. Liberals conducting purity tests on the Democratic nominee only makes it easier for the GOP trash to win.

 

[Fudbucker]

Which is irrelevant. The fact that a large number of people on one side of an issue want a particular action (e.g. break up of the banks) does not necessarily mean that action is inherently further "left wing" than the alternatives.

An action, by itself, isn't anything. It's left-wing if it becomes associated with the aims and goals of a left-wing party, which financial reform is in this country. It's a signature issue of the Democratic party. The alternative is either no reform or more deregulation. The right-wing in the U.S. wants, at the least, no further reforms, and would love to repeal Dodd-Frank.

Again, I should point out that there are more countries in the world than just the U.S.

, and at least one is both further to the left politically (probably even further to the left than the democrats) and yet has no problem with 'big banks'.

This is the 2016 USA Presidential Election sub-forum. In America, the progressives want to regulate/break-up banks. Conservatives want to deregulate them. I don't know how that shakes out in any other countries, but that's how it is here. Beyond that, I don't know what you're asking.

Well, I've seen some of her policies on this:
- Charge fees for larger banks involved in risky behavior
- Authority for regulators to break up banks when warranted (rather than just an overall cap on size)
- New rules for collateral and disclosure

It's a start, I guess.

So Clinton's plans to regulate Wall Street are irrelevant because 'the GOP would never support it', yet Sander's even more ambitious plans are OK? Is there a particular reason Sanders is getting a free pass? Why would the GOP be supportive of the even more drastic plans of Sanders?

The GOP would support neither Sanders nor Clinton. Both of their plans are DOA, as long as the GOP controls at least one chamber of Congress, which they almost certainly will. Since the President is the head of their political party, it then becomes a question of What does the Democratic Party stand for, sweeping reform (Bernie) or more baby steps (Clinton)? When you look at the degree of income inequality and obscene influence of moneyed interests in the political sphere, I think it's obvious we need sweeping reforms.

Yet Obama, whom also was the recipient of donations from various financial institutions, was willing to sign the Frank-Dodd act, which added regulations to the very same organizations that donated to his campaign.

Obama couldn't do anything other than sign Dodd-Frank. What was he going to do, veto legislation that was passed solely by members of his own party? I don't credit him at all for actually signing the thing. But Obama did spend political capital getting it passed, he supported it, so he gets credit for that.

Obama had a mandate in 2008 and chose to reform health care, which he kind-of-sort-of did, by adopting a former GOP governor's health plan. He also got the stimulus passed, and the first ever trillion-dollar deficit budgets, so we didn't go down the austerity rabbit-hole. By 2010, the GOP recaptured the House and Obama has been fighting a holding action ever since.

He received a ton of money from Wall Street and threw a little red meat to the voters with Dodd-Frank. I hoped the next president would make it a priority to tackle income/wealth inequality, which is the biggest problem in the country right now. Bernie would have, Hillary probably won't. Trump will make it ten times worse. And that's where things stand.

 

[Fudbucker]

What Democrats are to the right of her? Most of them in Congress are. President Obama, beloved by Democrats is. You cherry picking a couple issues does not prove she is practically a Republican.

Obamacare proves that Obama isn't a True Progressive? You understand that for it to pass literally every Democrat in the Senate (plus Joe Lieberman who decided the Democrats were too leftist for him and left the party) had to find it acceptable, including some that unlike Hillary are in reality pretty right wing? You understand that True Progressive Bernie Sanders himself voted for it, right?

And I don't think Hillary is against single payer healthcare in theory. She would probably sign such a bill if Congress presented it to her. But she is also not an idiot so she knows it is not politically possible in the US.

If she supported single payer, it would be on her website with a tagline like "Clinton supports a single payer heath care system". Do you see that anywhere? https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
She supports Obamacare with a public option.

I'm sure you HOPE that she would sign UHC legislation, but since she doesn't support it, we really don't know what she would do, do we? On the other hand, we know what Democrats want: universal health care. Stupid sheeple!

And Iraq *********** please. You understand that most Democrats in the Senate including Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and John Kerry voted for it, right. You trying to use it to show she is unusually right wing for a Democrat proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

Has any President ever been a True Progressive. Probably not with your ridiculous purity tests.

Get a clue. The GOP scum are the real enemy. Liberals conducting purity tests on the Democratic nominee only makes it easier for the GOP trash to win.

How soon we forget the horror that was the Iraq war, and it's calamitous effects to this day, and the spineless members of Congress who voted for it. And by "forget" I mean "sweep under the rug if you're a Hillary supporter because she voted for it".

You know what makes Obama more liberal than Hillary? Iraq. Remember the 2008 primaries? Ring a bell? Oh, remember when Clinton got the coveted Henry Kissinger endorsement? And then bragged about it in a debate!

Hillary Clinton boasted in the fifth Democratic presidential debate Thursday night that she is supported by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, an accused war criminal who oversaw policies that led to the deaths of millions of people.

“I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time,” she said.

Salon has previously exposed how emails released from Clinton’s time as secretary of state for the Obama administration reveal her close ties to Kissinger. One of the emails suggests that Clinton saw Kissinger as her role model.
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/05/in_...rsaw_policies_that_led_to_millions_of_deaths/

You're a Kissinger supporter, right Tony Stark? I mean, in the Democratic party who doesn't love Kissinger these days??? He's a liberal icon.

And lets not forget Libya, which was championed by Clinton to a reluctant Obama.

But Hillary would be more liberal because...well, I have it on good authority from a Hillary supporter that she would be more liberal. Hell, maybe she would give Kissinger a cabinet position!

 

[wareyin]

But Hillary would be more liberal because...well, I have it on good authority from a Hillary supporter that she would be more liberal. Hell, maybe she would give Kissinger a cabinet position!

No, we've already been presented with the evidence that Clinton was more liberal than most other Democrats. We aren't just going by the word of a supporter. We are still waiting for evidence for your claims that she isn't liberal.

Then again, compare Clinton to Trump, about any of your cherry picked items, and see which one is more liberal. Sanders lost, so Clinton or Trump is your choice.

 

[Mister Earl]

Fud my Bud, Sanders lost. Clinton won.

[/thread]

Sure, he lost. But he did pretty darned well, didn't he? Clinton has the backing of seriously wealthy interests, she's been in the inner circle of Washington for decades, and she's got to enjoy almost as much time directly in the public eye. She also got a jump on fundraising before she declared her candidacy.

On the other hand, we have this Bernie guy, a complete unknown who says he ran just because he thought Hillary shouldn't run unopposed. And in just a year, he went from being a complete nobody whose campaign signs were held up with duct tape during his announcement, to offering a real challenge to Hillary. Hillary still doesn't have the delegates she needs to secure the nomination. Nobody expected she wouldn't have the nomination by super tuesday, last year. She'll have enough when the DNC convenes and the superdelegates vote, I'm sure. But you have to give it to Bernie; He put up a heck of a fight, given he had none of the advantages Hillary enjoyed.

Now, that being said, shouldn't Bernie and his supporters have some say in what direction the party takes? He's got a lot of young and first time voters really energized about taking part in the political process. That's the kind of thing the Democratic party needs right now.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sure, he lost. But he did pretty darned well, didn't he?

Yes.

Clinton has the backing of seriously wealthy interests, she's been in the inner circle of Washington for decades, and she's got to enjoy almost as much time directly in the public eye. She also got a jump on fundraising before she declared her candidacy.

Bull. Sanders received plenty of money, often outspent Clinton on ads.

On the other hand, we have this Bernie guy, a complete unknown who says he ran just because he thought Hillary shouldn't run unopposed.

More Bull. Sanders has been in the Senate for what, a decade? He's been in politics his whole adult life. He sold the narrative he was an unknown, an outsider, that was a pile of crap.

And in just a year, he went from being a complete nobody whose campaign signs were held up with duct tape during his announcement

No, just no.

..., to offering a real challenge to Hillary. Hillary still doesn't have the delegates she needs to secure the nomination.

WTF? We've been through all this nonsense. Clinton has more than half the pledged delegates. In order to have half the delegates without including the supers she'd need a super majority of pledged delegates. That's a nonsense game. Sanders lost fair and square.

Nobody expected she wouldn't have the nomination by super tuesday, last year. She'll have enough when the DNC convenes and the superdelegates vote, I'm sure. But you have to give it to Bernie; He put up a heck of a fight, given he had none of the advantages Hillary enjoyed.

More bull. Yes, she won the primary election. No the game was not unfair to Sanders.

Now, that being said, shouldn't Bernie and his supporters have some say in what direction the party takes? He's got a lot of young and first time voters really energized about taking part in the political process. That's the kind of thing the Democratic party needs right now.

No one is denying them this.

What Sanders is asking for is to own the election. He doesn't own it, he lost the election. He's not asking for influence or compromise. He's asking for total capitulation. He looks like a sore loser.

 

[Mister Earl]

Bull. Sanders received plenty of money, often outspent Clinton on ads.

I was referring to before the campaigning began. But you are correct: Bernie did manage to beat Hillary fundraising for some months. And it's all the more noteable that he did that without using high priced ticket dinners and pleading for funding from special interest groups. His campaign was almost entirely crowdsourced.

More Bull. Sanders has been in the Senate for what, a decade? He's been in politics his whole adult life. He sold the narrative he was an unknown, an outsider, that was a pile of crap.

Bernie was not as well known as Clinton in any year preceeding the election, excepting (perhaps!) his home state. If you have any evidence otherwise, please present it.

No, just no.

What are you disagreeing with? That he was an unknown before the campaign, or that his campaign signs were held up with duct tape?

WTF? We've been through all this nonsense. Clinton has more than half the pledged delegates. In order to have half the delegates without including the supers she'd need a super majority of pledged delegates. That's a nonsense game. Sanders lost fair and square.

I don't get this statement at all. Yes, Hillary is winning. No, she hasn't won yet and probably will not until the convention. She has 2,220 pledged delegates and needs 2,383 to secure the nomination. Will she get those before the convention? Maybe, maybe not. California is still counting votes, I hear.

More bull. Yes, she won the primary election. No the game was not unfair to Sanders.

The "advantages" I referred to were being a household name, having greater access to the media, funding, and so on. Just to clarify. Heck, Hillary's been working towards this goal for a long time, now, and Bernie in comparison just got started.

I am not saying the elections were rigged or in any way unbalanced, as I do not have proof to support that assertion. If later on such evidence is known, I may change my mind.

No one is denying them this.

I disagree. There have been attempts to minimize his impact on policy setting. [Link] Between the credentials committee, the platform committee, and the rules committee, they were going to give Bernie a whopping *three* of his picks, and the rest to Hillary's choices. Would you not consider that to be unfairly disproportionate? Yes, that was corrected later on (By giving Hillary and Bernie equal picks, with the DNC picking the others), but I submit that was an attempt to minimize Bernie's influence on the party platform.

What Sanders is asking for is to own the election. He doesn't own it, he lost the election. He's not asking for influence or compromise. He's asking for total capitulation. He looks like a sore loser.

Please provide evidence that Sanders wants to "own" the election. Please provide evidence he's asking for total capitulation. Sorry, Ginger, this all smacks of large amounts of hyperbole. I'd expected better of you. I realize that politics can be a heated matter, but I plead for you to engage your namesake!

 

[Foolmewunz]

I was referring to before the campaigning began. But you are correct: Bernie did manage to beat Hillary fundraising for some months. And it's all the more noteable that he did that without using high priced ticket dinners and pleading for funding from special interest groups. His campaign was almost entirely crowdsourced.



Bernie was not as well known as Clinton in any year preceeding the election, excepting (perhaps!) his home state. If you have any evidence otherwise, please present it.



What are you disagreeing with? That he was an unknown before the campaign, or that his campaign signs were held up with duct tape?



I don't get this statement at all. Yes, Hillary is winning. No, she hasn't won yet and probably will not until the convention. She has 2,220 pledged delegates and needs 2,383 to secure the nomination. Will she get those before the convention? Maybe, maybe not. California is still counting votes, I hear.



The "advantages" I referred to were being a household name, having greater access to the media, funding, and so on. Just to clarify. Heck, Hillary's been working towards this goal for a long time, now, and Bernie in comparison just got started.

I am not saying the elections were rigged or in any way unbalanced, as I do not have proof to support that assertion. If later on such evidence is known, I may change my mind.



I disagree. There have been attempts to minimize his impact on policy setting. [Link] Between the credentials committee, the platform committee, and the rules committee, they were going to give Bernie a whopping *three* of his picks, and the rest to Hillary's choices. Would you not consider that to be unfairly disproportionate? Yes, that was corrected later on (By giving Hillary and Bernie equal picks, with the DNC picking the others), but I submit that was an attempt to minimize Bernie's influence on the party platform.



Please provide evidence that Sanders wants to "own" the election. Please provide evidence he's asking for total capitulation. Sorry, Ginger, this all smacks of large amounts of hyperbole. I'd expected better of you. I realize that politics can be a heated matter, but I plead for you to engage your namesake!

Bernie's said that he wants more of his program included in the platform, even after agreeing that he got a lot, already. That sounds like he's continuing to think his minority support should be treated as equal to that of the person who he lost to.

You might want to update the mumbo jumbo about the three committee members. Bernie got five, Hillary got six. The committee chair gets the other four. Traditionally, the committee chair gets all fifteen. That's a huge concession to having fought a noble fight.

 

[Mister Earl]

Bernie's said that he wants more of his program included in the platform, even after agreeing that he got a lot, already. That sounds like he's continuing to think his minority support should be treated as equal to that of the person who he lost to.

I'm inclined to disagree. The vast majority of what Bernie pushed for is apparently not making the platform. He's got a few tiny bones thrown his way, that's it.

You might want to update the mumbo jumbo about the three committee members. Bernie got five, Hillary got six. The committee chair gets the other four. Traditionally, the committee chair gets all fifteen. That's a huge concession to having fought a noble fight.

Yes, and that's only *after* there was a huge backlash when they gave almost all the chairs to Hillary's picks. That fair deal is the result of damage control.

 

[wareyin]

Yes, and that's only *after* there was a huge backlash when they gave almost all the chairs to Hillary's picks. That fair deal is the result of damage control.

I find it telling that you feel a "fair deal" is one in which the one who lost big gets an almost equal apportionment to the clear winner. In fact, Sanders got more say than the winning candidate usually gets, yet his supporters call that "fair".

 

[Segnosaur]

The "advantages" (that Clinton had) I referred to were being a household name, having greater access to the media, funding, and so on.

Keep in mind that while Clinton may have had "advantage" in being better recognized, there were also drawbacks... being better known also meant that she would have been a bigger target for criticism by both Republicans and Sanders supporters.

On the other hand, the lack of media attention on Sanders wouldn't have been all bad... it allowed him to energize his base of supporters, but kept him largely free of potential criticism. He could be "Saint Sanders", making promises that his fans like but that make him un-popular to the general public. Had Sanders been a favorite to win and/or a front runner, you probably would have had more attacks by the republicans, more scrutiny by the media, and perhaps even a drop in support as people look at what he's promising.

 

[wareyin]

Keep in mind that while Clinton may have had "advantage" in being better recognized, there were also drawbacks... being better known also meant that she would have been a bigger target for criticism by both Republicans and Sanders supporters.

On the other hand, the lack of media attention on Sanders wouldn't have been all bad... it allowed him to energize his base of supporters, but kept him largely free of potential criticism. He could be "Saint Sanders", making promises that his fans like but that make him un-popular to the general public. Had Sanders been a favorite to win and/or a front runner, you probably would have had more attacks by the republicans, more scrutiny by the media, and perhaps even a drop in support as people look at what he's promising.

All true, except the highlighted implies that Republicans attacked Sanders, or that the media was in any way critical of him. I never saw either of those things.