Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Foolmewunz]

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.



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.

You don't really seem to grasp this negotiation and compromise thing. Nor do Bernie's committee members. You put their feet to the fire, they react. you get a couple more people on the platform committee. Your view is that it was "damage control" after a "huge backlash".

The committee participants get the platform to include support of a fifteen dollar minimum wage. "Not enough.... it's got to be indexed or it's meaningless." Can't just accept the victory and move on? None of this is binding anyway. Go win the Senate, then fight for indexing. Putting words in a platform is meaningless.

TPP. Hillary's against it. Bernie's against it. Do you really want to shove Obama's nose in it. Just see to it that it doesn't pass or that it's amended.... by winning the election and loading the Senate. I'm sure the Berniez think that they can win the White House without Obama's support; they did so well taking the nomination. Cornell West's got a hard-on for Obama.

 

[The_Animus]

You seriously believe Hillary is against the TPP?

 

[Tony Stark]

I seriously believe that politicians do what they promise. Or at least attempt to. Because that is what the evidence proves.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

So you have no case the game was rigged.

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.

So what? Did you ever hear of GW Bush or even Obama before they began running for POTUS? Obama gave a convention speech or something, that's all I ever heard of him.

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

That either of those things means diddly squat.

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 only people still repeating this narrative are Sanders and a couple of his holdouts.

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.

So?

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.

So? He lost!!!!!

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!

Just listen to him. As for being skeptical? You're the one still buying the narrative Clinton hasn't really won yet. You're repeating the narrative Clinton's advantages won the election rather than her winning on the merits.

You're the one repeating the narrative that the media was slanted toward Clinton when the majority of news reports about her are negative. The news media keeps repeating that she has high negatives in polls when obviously that is not the criteria voters are using to decide. The news media reported on Sander's big crowds on a regular basis, repeating their narrative that Clinton supporters had no enthusiasm.

Even now, Clinton is ahead of Trump in FL by 45 to 41, yet CNN had to repeatedly tell us that was within the margin of error.

When Sanders polled ahead by one, the news was, "is this going to be a repeat of 2008?"

I would love to see someone analyze the reporting narratives.

 

[SOdhner]

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.

You're joking, right? There's no realistic margin of error in California that would change anything. This would be like having a time out with half a second left in a basketball game and one team behind by a hundred points while the announcer says "The game isn't over yet, folks! They won't really win until that last half second is off the clock! We could still turn this thing around! Referees are looking at that last shot, there's a chance those two points won't count!"

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

The team that loses doesn't get a trophy for "trying hard".

 

[Fudbucker]

So you have no case the game was rigged.

So what? Did you ever hear of GW Bush or even Obama before they began running for POTUS? Obama gave a convention speech or something, that's all I ever heard of him.

That either of those things means diddly squat.

The only people still repeating this narrative are Sanders and a couple of his holdouts.

So?

So? He lost!!!!!

Just listen to him. As for being skeptical? You're the one still buying the narrative Clinton hasn't really won yet. You're repeating the narrative Clinton's advantages won the election rather than her winning on the merits.

You're the one repeating the narrative that the media was slanted toward Clinton when the majority of news reports about her are negative. The news media keeps repeating that she has high negatives in polls when obviously that is not the criteria voters are using to decide. The news media reported on Sander's big crowds on a regular basis, repeating their narrative that Clinton supporters had no enthusiasm.

Even now, Clinton is ahead of Trump in FL by 45 to 41, yet CNN had to repeatedly tell us that was within the margin of error.

When Sanders polled ahead by one, the news was, "is this going to be a repeat of 2008?"

I would love to see someone analyze the reporting narratives.

Let's see, G.W. Bush was the son of a former president, owner of the Texas Rangers, and governor of one of the largest states...

You might have heard of the book "Dreams from My Father", which didn't sell too well, and you certainly should have heard of the New York Times Bestseller "Audacity of Hope", and if you were watching the 2004 convention, you saw the AUTHOR of those books give the Democrat's key note address, and he also appeared on Oprah several times.

But other than that, yeah, nobody had ever heard of these guys.

 

[Fudbucker]

You don't really seem to grasp this negotiation and compromise thing. Nor do Bernie's committee members. You put their feet to the fire, they react. you get a couple more people on the platform committee. Your view is that it was "damage control" after a "huge backlash".

The committee participants get the platform to include support of a fifteen dollar minimum wage. "Not enough.... it's got to be indexed or it's meaningless." Can't just accept the victory and move on? None of this is binding anyway. Go win the Senate, then fight for indexing. Putting words in a platform is meaningless.

TPP. Hillary's against it. Bernie's against it. Do you really want to shove Obama's nose in it. Just see to it that it doesn't pass or that it's amended.... by winning the election and loading the Senate. I'm sure the Berniez think that they can win the White House without Obama's support; they did so well taking the nomination. Cornell West's got a hard-on for Obama.

Where's the laughing dog?

Amendments against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and backing Medicare for all failed, with all the Clinton delegates voting against. At which point we got (about 11 p.m., in a half-deserted hotel ballroom) to the climate section of the platform, and that’s where things got particularly obvious. We all agreed that America should be operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2050, but then I proposed, in one amendment after another, a series of ways we might actually get there. A carbon tax? Voted down 7-6 (one of the DNC delegates voted with each side). A ban on fracking? Voted down 7-6. An effort to keep fossils in the ground, at least on federal land? Voted down 7-6. A measure to mandate that federal agencies weigh the climate impact of their decisions? Voted down 7-6. Even a plan to keep fossil fuel companies from taking private land by eminent domain, voted down 7-6. (We did, however, reach unanimous consent on more bike paths!)


http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...2016-democratic-platform-213993#ixzz4Cp6taHIu

Did you have any other delusions about Clinton you wanted to bring up?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let's see, G.W. Bush was the son of a former president, owner of the Texas Rangers, and governor of one of the largest states...

You might have heard of the book "Dreams from My Father", which didn't sell too well, and you certainly should have heard of the New York Times Bestseller "Audacity of Hope", and if you were watching the 2004 convention, you saw the AUTHOR of those books give the Democrat's key note address, and he also appeared on Oprah several times.

But other than that, yeah, nobody had ever heard of these guys.

Whereas Sanders had only been in Congress a little more than 25 years.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Exit Polls, and Why the Primary Was Not Stolen From Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders and Rigged Elections: Sometimes You Just Lose

 

[Fudbucker]

Whereas Sanders had only been in Congress a little more than 25 years.

So have a bunch of other nobodies who haven't published bestsellers, been on top-rated tv shows and given keynote speeches at conventions.

Your point was stupid and has been demonstrated as such.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Where's the laughing dog?

Amendments against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and backing Medicare for all failed, with all the Clinton delegates voting against. At which point we got (about 11 p.m., in a half-deserted hotel ballroom) to the climate section of the platform, and that’s where things got particularly obvious. We all agreed that America should be operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2050, but then I proposed, in one amendment after another, a series of ways we might actually get there. A carbon tax? Voted down 7-6 (one of the DNC delegates voted with each side). A ban on fracking? Voted down 7-6. An effort to keep fossils in the ground, at least on federal land? Voted down 7-6. A measure to mandate that federal agencies weigh the climate impact of their decisions? Voted down 7-6. Even a plan to keep fossil fuel companies from taking private land by eminent domain, voted down 7-6. (We did, however, reach unanimous consent on more bike paths!)


http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...2016-democratic-platform-213993#ixzz4Cp6taHIu

Did you have any other delusions about Clinton you wanted to bring up?

Yes, I'm under the delusion that she won the primaries in the majority of states, that Sanders won only a small handful of actual votes, but a lot of un-democratic and un-progressive caucuses, and that you cite articles by Bernie's anointed committee participants as thought they're fact. "We need not platitudes but a platform...".... this from the camp that ran on platitudes?

You want to hem the candidate in with a platform that is a litmus test. That ain't how it works. You lost. Get over it. You want to change the Democratic Party, get out there with this temporary enthusiasm and do something to get progressives elected down ticket, get involved in the party mechanisms and selection of candidates for Aldermen, state reps, mayors, state senators, city councilors, et al.

Is McKibben doing that? Or will he and Cornell West go back to becoming "Noted activist, McKibben..." and "Noted ivy league academic, West..." It's a platform. It should, to any normal person, contain general statements of support. The specifics of the various bills get worked out by the elected, not the selected.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes, I'm under the delusion that she won the primaries in the majority of states, that Sanders won only a small handful of actual votes, but a lot of un-democratic and un-progressive caucuses, and that you cite articles by Bernie's anointed committee participants as thought they're fact. "We need not platitudes but a platform...".... this from the camp that ran on platitudes?

You want to hem the candidate in with a platform that is a litmus test. That ain't how it works. You lost. Get over it. You want to change the Democratic Party, get out there with this temporary enthusiasm and do something to get progressives elected down ticket, get involved in the party mechanisms and selection of candidates for Aldermen, state reps, mayors, state senators, city councilors, et al.

Is McKibben doing that? Or will he and Cornell West go back to becoming "Noted activist, McKibben..." and "Noted ivy league academic, West..." It's a platform. It should, to any normal person, contain general statements of support. The specifics of the various bills get worked out by the elected, not the selected.

Do you still think Clinton opposes TPP? Are there any other delusions you might wish to explore wrt to Clinton?

Maybe you think she would ban fracking? I understand why you would, since she portrays herself as a progressive and many of you drank the kool-aid, but...

Maybe you're having second thoughts about your nominee?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Do you still think Clinton opposes TPP? Are there any other delusions you might wish to explore wrt to Clinton?

Maybe you think she would ban fracking? I understand why you would, since she portrays herself as a progressive and many of you drank the kool-aid, but...

Maybe you're having second thoughts about your nominee?

I'm not having second thoughts about my nominee because my nominee is "Stomp the GOP". Your nominee lost and you're rudderless without him, apparently and are willing, if not cheering for, to sacrifice the country to Trump and his ilk because you are not willing to deal with the reality of the political scene. You do not lose and then get to hem the candidate in with your minority positions, regardless of the fact that those minority positions resonate with a majority of a couple of demographics.

The Bern Bros at the committee meetings conceded that Hillary and Bernie concur that TPP is a bad idea. Aren't you getting the memos? The point of the exercise is that Bernie's camp, mostly led by Cornell, want to slap Obama in the face with it and Hillary's team is not willing to do that. You don't do that to a sitting POTUS who is going to be a crucial part of your campaign. You will have plenty of opportunity to quash it or revise the terms once elected. Once again, the Bernie camp doesn't understand compromise.

 

[Fudbucker]

I'm not having second thoughts about my nominee because my nominee is "Stomp the GOP". Your nominee lost and you're rudderless without him, apparently and are willing, if not cheering for, to sacrifice the country to Trump and his ilk because you are not willing to deal with the reality of the political scene. You do not lose and then get to hem the candidate in with your minority positions, regardless of the fact that those minority positions resonate with a majority of a couple of demographics.

The Bern Bros at the committee meetings conceded that Hillary and Bernie concur that TPP is a bad idea. Aren't you getting the memos? The point of the exercise is that Bernie's camp, mostly led by Cornell, want to slap Obama in the face with it and Hillary's team is not willing to do that. You don't do that to a sitting POTUS who is going to be a crucial part of your campaign. You will have plenty of opportunity to quash it or revise the terms once elected. Once again, the Bernie camp doesn't understand compromise.

Despite quashing opposition to TPP (and a host of environmental positions, like fracking and carbon taxes), you have total faith Clinton will "do the right thing".

I wish I had that kind of faith. I really do.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Despite quashing opposition to TPP (and a host of environmental positions, like fracking and carbon taxes), you have total faith Clinton will "do the right thing".

I wish I had that kind of faith. I really do.

Are you just not listening? Incapable of comprehending?

I have no faith that Hillary will do anything other than beating Trump and preventing GOP hegemony over all three branches of the government.

That is the battle. How are you planning to win that? Curling up in a fetal position and whining that Bernie's will is not being adhered to? Continuing to cut the legs off the Democratic Party?

As I said earlier, gather ye rosebuds where ye may. He's moved Clinton and the entire DP to support of the fifteen buck minimum wage. We weren't there ten months ago. But the Bernie News says that it's being shut down because they won't agree to include indexing. You take what you can get when you lose. He's getting a shed load more out of the Democratic Party than any of the losers are getting out of Trump.

Holding out for an indictment is futile and self-destructive. First of all, the chances of an indictment are slim and none. If slim wins out and she's indicted, the DP is destroyed this year. Give the nomination to Bernie and the GOP will run roughshod over him and the rest of the party. The Republicans were drooling over the possibility of running against Honeymoon in Moscow Bernie in the first place. Now? Running against the loser of the party nomination fight who also happens to be Honeymoon in Moscow Bernie? It's a Rince wet dream.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Despite quashing opposition to TPP (and a host of environmental positions, like fracking and carbon taxes), you have total faith Clinton will "do the right thing".

I wish I had that kind of faith. I really do.

That's a bit melodramatic don't you think?

Did the world fall apart under Obama? For all the badmouthing Sanders gave the NAFTA, some normal average middle class people actually profited from increased trade.

Globalization is a fact of life, trade treaties or not.

Clinton is a competent experienced and fully qualified person to take the job of POTUS. Unless you believe in 'the establishment is pure evil' narratives, she will do a good job. She not a darling of the rich like Sanders makes her out to be. She has her own mind, own values, and she has been a Progressive all her adult life. Maybe she's not as much a socialist as you would like, but so what? You can't get socialism past the Republikers anyway.

 

[Tony Stark]

The differences between Hillary and Bernie are very unimportant compared to the differences between her and the GOP scum. It is isn't like the Republican low lifes in Congress would cooperate with either of them anyway.

 

[Mister Earl]

Sorry for not responding sooner. Life is super busy for me right now. New promotion, new hours, sort-of-new significant other who would probably make an awesome wife some day, and in the midst of all the work involved in buying a new home, which will be my first.

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".

Please provide evidence that the winning candidate gets to choose less seats in the convention committees that what Bernie was offered. I don't feel I can take your word on this.

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.

There's a couple of assumptions here I want to address. Free from criticism? He was criticized plenty during the debates. The barbs they loosed didn't draw much blood because Bernie's pretty clean for a politician. He doesn't have near as many skeletons to haul out into the light. And that last statement seems to say that you're assuming people support Sanders only because they're ignorant of his claims. Got any evidence to support that assertion, or is that personal bias?

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.

Are you serious? The media treated his campaign like a joke from day one. Even when he was successively winning states, when they did report on him, it was to the tune of "Here's why Bernie should drop out now." or "Bernie: Finished?"

You don't really seem to grasp this negotiation and compromise thing. Nor do Bernie's committee members. You put their feet to the fire, they react. you get a couple more people on the platform committee. Your view is that it was "damage control" after a "huge backlash".

Yes, there was a big uproar when the DNC only offered Bernie three of his picks. After negotiation, they gave him more. Do you dispute any of that? Do you have any evidence that Bernie's committee members don't understand negotiation or compromise? Or is that personal bias?

The committee participants get the platform to include support of a fifteen dollar minimum wage. "Not enough.... it's got to be indexed or it's meaningless." Can't just accept the victory and move on? None of this is binding anyway. Go win the Senate, then fight for indexing. Putting words in a platform is meaningless.

Bernie's putting more effort into getting like-minded people elected than Hillary is. For what that's worth.

TPP. Hillary's against it. Bernie's against it. Do you really want to shove Obama's nose in it. Just see to it that it doesn't pass or that it's amended.... by winning the election and loading the Senate. I'm sure the Berniez think that they can win the White House without Obama's support; they did so well taking the nomination. Cornell West's got a hard-on for Obama.

Not sure what I said that this is in response to. I don't think I even mentioned Obama, TTP, or so on. I note you seem to think of Bernie supporters in a pejorative manner. Why? Did you have a bad experience with one supporter, and decide that they're all like that?

So you have no case the game was rigged.

Do you want to have a discussion, or are you just out to count coup? No, I have no direct proof the game was rigged. My opinion is subjective, and my statement is based on that. It's an opinion. It's also a pretty common one.

So what? Did you ever hear of GW Bush or even Obama before they began running for POTUS? Obama gave a convention speech or something, that's all I ever heard of him.

So what? My point was a relative nobody gave an entrenched opponent a hell of a battle. Can you at least agree to that?

That either of those things means diddly squat.

So a nobody with no funding and no household-name-status versus a well funded wealthy socialite that every house knows, and you're going to put them on a level playing field at the start? Does it really cost you that much to admit that they started the race at different points? Why?

The only people still repeating this narrative are Sanders and a couple of his holdouts.

Please provide evidence that the pledged delegate count Hillary has is already enough to clinch the nomination. The numbers are published! Here's an easy one. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html
Are you making the claim that the figures given Hillary by pretty much everyone is a lie? Do you think they don't count for some reason? Why?

So?

It supports my assertion that someone with none of the advantages gave a hell of a fight to someone with most of the advantages. I've said this several times. Can you honestly not cede that one point?

So? He lost!!!!!

Yes, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it traditional to set party policy based on how the voters vote? Should the DNC ignore the Bernie supporters completely? Should they have no say whatsoever? It seems like this is what you're saying. Why?

Just listen to him. As for being skeptical? You're the one still buying the narrative Clinton hasn't really won yet. You're repeating the narrative Clinton's advantages won the election rather than her winning on the merits.

I have listened to him. I did say Hillary will probably win. I made a small point that she doesn't have the delegates pledged *yet* to secure the nomination, and that she will probably have to wait until the convention and the supers to vote. That's objective fact. If you disagree, please state your case and provide your references. I gave you the link with the count I'm going by above. Please do likewise.

You're the one repeating the narrative that the media was slanted toward Clinton when the majority of news reports about her are negative. The news media keeps repeating that she has high negatives in polls when obviously that is not the criteria voters are using to decide. The news media reported on Sander's big crowds on a regular basis, repeating their narrative that Clinton supporters had no enthusiasm.

Through the whole campaign, they kept giving her numbers including superdelegates who haven't even voted yet. It gave a false air that she was further ahead than what she was. It's my personal opinion that the intent of that was to discourage voters from voting against her. "What does my vote matter? She's won."

Even now, Clinton is ahead of Trump in FL by 45 to 41, yet CNN had to repeatedly tell us that was within the margin of error.

Isn't it? Please provide evidence that those counts are not within the margin of error. If the numbers are good, I'll agree with you.

When Sanders polled ahead by one, the news was, "is this going to be a repeat of 2008?"

So one positive word on Sanders disproves everything I've said?

I would love to see someone analyze the reporting narratives.

Sure. I'd even love someone to run the numbers, and see how often each candidate was reported on each month, by each major news agency, and whether the reporting was positive, neutral, or negative. It could be interesting.

You're joking, right? There's no realistic margin of error in California that would change anything. This would be like having a time out with half a second left in a basketball game and one team behind by a hundred points while the announcer says "The game isn't over yet, folks! They won't really win until that last half second is off the clock! We could still turn this thing around! Referees are looking at that last shot, there's a chance those two points won't count!"

Can there be a simple discussion in this thread without condescension? No, overall, California won't change anything. I'm pretty darn sure Hillary has the nomination, and I've said that. I just made the point that Bernie was catching up in California, as they're still counting votes. I can back up this assertion. Since the vote was called, several counties have flipped to Bernie. Glendale, Los Angeles, San Fransisco. Heck, I even found a chart someone put together including the votes counted every day. https://i.redd.it/swg1oyg6fy5x.png And yes, given the projection, Bernie still isn't going to catch up. I've never said that Bernie was going to win. I just said that Hillary won't until the convention. That's all. I think it's fair enough to call that fact, given I've posted the link of the current delegate counts.

The team that loses doesn't get a trophy for "trying hard".

Are you making the assertion that Sanders and the voters he represents should get no say whatsoever in the Democrat party? Why? I feel that those votes might be handy to have come later this year.

The differences between Hillary and Bernie are very unimportant compared to the differences between her and the GOP scum. It is isn't like the Republican low lifes in Congress would cooperate with either of them anyway.

I agree with you almost completely. As Bernie said, "Anyone on this stage (democratic debate) on their worst day is better than any republican on their best day." I think Bernie probably could work with Republicans, to a small extent, given his history as an independent. I don't think their level of obstructionism would change all that much.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry for not responding sooner. Life is super busy for me right now. New promotion, new hours, sort-of-new significant other who would probably make an awesome wife some day, and in the midst of all the work involved in buying a new home, which will be my first.

So your's life's going well, new home, promotion, good relationship. Yet you don't like the political status quo? Interesting.

Are you serious? The media treated his campaign like a joke from day one. Even when he was successively winning states, when they did report on him, it was to the tune of "Here's why Bernie should drop out now." or "Bernie: Finished?"

You seem to be conflating two different things. When he was a viable candidate the narrative was, he might win like Obama did. After he had clearly lost, the narrative was, he lost. What a surprise.

Bernie's putting more effort into getting like-minded people elected than Hillary is. For what that's worth.

You have this bizarre fantasy going here.

So a nobody with no funding and no household-name-status versus a well funded wealthy socialite that every house knows, and you're going to put them on a level playing field at the start? Does it really cost you that much to admit that they started the race at different points? Why?

A nobody? Why do you keep repeating this lie?

Please provide evidence that the pledged delegate count Hillary has is already enough to clinch the nomination. ...

Yes. If you don't think so you are in lala land.

Sure. I'd even love someone to run the numbers, and see how often each candidate was reported on each month, by each major news agency, and whether the reporting was positive, neutral, or negative. It could be interesting.

AKA you are spouting assertions without any evidence.

Can there be a simple discussion in this thread without condescension? No, overall, California won't change anything. I'm pretty darn sure Hillary has the nomination, and I've said that. I just made the point that Bernie was catching up in California, as they're still counting votes. I can back up this assertion. Since the vote was called, several counties have flipped to Bernie. Glendale, Los Angeles, San Fransisco. Heck, I even found a chart someone put together including the votes counted every day. https://i.redd.it/swg1oyg6fy5x.png And yes, given the projection, Bernie still isn't going to catch up. I've never said that Bernie was going to win. I just said that Hillary won't until the convention. That's all. I think it's fair enough to call that fact, given I've posted the link of the current delegate counts.

Hillary has won. Imagining she hasn't until the convention is ludicrous. CA latest count: 56% to 43%. WTF are you imagining here that this is going to be close when the final count is in?

What is wrong with you?

Are you making the assertion that Sanders and the voters he represents should get no say whatsoever in the Democrat party? Why? I feel that those votes might be handy to have come later this year.

Straw man much?