Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Slings and Arrows]

The Sanders Sell-Out and the Clinton Wars to Come

He didn’t have it in him. And now he wants his youthful erstwhile followers to transfer their support to someone who is not only the embodiment of Wall Street, with all its blood-sucking and all its crookedness, but the personification of U.S. imperialism in an era when its depth of crisis has produced a state of perpetual war.

Feel the burn. The burn of the rigged system. Why be drawn into it—the object of Hillary’s praise, for switching so readily from him to her (for the sake of “unity”)?

What is there to unite with, but more corruption, exploitation, and wars based on lies?

Read more:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07...anders-sell-out-and-the-clinton-wars-to-come/ (July 14, 2016)

The central theme of Sanders' campaign was getting big money out of politics, or so he claimed. Yet now, he has enthusiastically endorsed a Goldman Sachs shill who has taken in close to $60 million from unscrupulous foreign governments -- governments who fund terrorism (ISIS). But hey, he did get a lucrative book deal as payment for his year long farce.

#SellOutSanders

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The central theme of Sanders' campaign was getting big money out of politics, or so he claimed. Yet now, he has enthusiastically endorsed a Goldman Sachs shill who has taken in close to $60 million from unscrupulous foreign governments -- governments who fund terrorism (ISIS). But hey, he did get a lucrative book deal as payment for his year long farce.

#SellOutSanders

It's like finding out there is no Santa Claus.

 

[Fudbucker]

Beware RCP and their desire to show a close race. Lookit their poll selections over the past three weeks. JMC. Who? Gravis. Quinnipiac.

Where are Survey USA and YouGov? They are both far more accurate than JMC. Who? But they wouldn't show a slight Trump lead. They'd show Clinton by two points.

SurveyUSA is right there, below Gravis: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html

Click on "All Florida: Trump vs. Clinton Polling Data" and you'll see YouGov right below SurveyUSA. They missed the cut off date for the RCP rolling average by a couple days, but they're still there. If I had linked it a week ago, it would have been in the RCP average.

The new NBC/WSJ poll is included, of course, and shows Clinton with a healthy lead in Florida.

To claim RCP poll averages are "right wing" or "manipulated" to favor Trump is delusional. At multiple points in the campaign, the RCP Average has shown Clinton with double digit leads: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ral_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

 

[Fudbucker]

The central theme of Sanders' campaign was getting big money out of politics, or so he claimed. Yet now, he has enthusiastically endorsed a Goldman Sachs shill who has taken in close to $60 million from unscrupulous foreign governments -- governments who fund terrorism (ISIS). But hey, he did get a lucrative book deal as payment for his year long farce.

#SellOutSanders

What is he supposed to do? Divide the Democrats and let Trump win? I wish there was a more progressive candidate than Clinton, but that's like worrying about the dishes while the house is on fire. Trump can't be allowed to win. The damage he would do to SCOTUS alone is unthinkable.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

What is he supposed to do? Divide the Democrats and let Trump win? I wish there was a more progressive candidate than Clinton, but that's like worrying about the dishes while the house is on fire. Trump can't be allowed to win. The damage he would do to SCOTUS alone is unthinkable.

Up until very recently I had a preference for Sanders but an understanding that Clinton was the likely winner. Recently, I have switched to a preference for Clinton as the better candidate among those with a reasonable chance at success.

Would I prefer a generally more progressive candidate than Clinton? Yes. I also think she has reasonably compromised and poll-chased to positions I hold to be a strong candidate to move forward on what I want moved forward on.

I feel Sanders did a wonderful job putting issues at the front of the Democratic debate that would not have received such attention without his run. His endorsement of Clinton feels entirely inline with the intent and tone of his campaign. I do not feel betrayed by the idea he has gone forward with a likely lucrative book deal as his campaign comes to a close.

Compromise and failing to get everything you want in politics is not a dirty proposition in my mind. Clinton won at this stage and is the better candidate going forward.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

What is he supposed to do?

Sanders could have endorsed Jill Stein, who basically shares his same philosophy. Also, Stein had graciously offered to step aside if Sanders wanted to continue his campaign as a Green Party candidate -- so he had that option available.

But instead, Sanders sold out and endorsed the very corruption he had spent a year rallying against; which we now know was nothing but empty rhetoric.

He'll most likely end up working a cushy high-paying job as a consultant for the Clinton Foundation. That, coupled with his new lucrative book deal. So now his nest is lavishly feathered, which was probably his real goal all along.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Sanders could have endorsed Jill Stein, who basically shares his same philosophy. Also, Stein had graciously offered to step aside if Sanders wanted to continue his campaign as a Green Party candidate -- so he had that option available.

But instead, Sanders sold out and endorsed the very corruption he had spent a year rallying against; which we now know was nothing but empty rhetoric.

He'll most likely end up working a cushy high-paying job as a consultant for the Clinton Foundation. That, coupled with his new lucrative book deal. So now his nest is lavishly feathered, which was probably his real goal all along.

 

[wareyin]

SurveyUSA is right there, below Gravis: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html

Click on "All Florida: Trump vs. Clinton Polling Data" and you'll see YouGov right below SurveyUSA. They missed the cut off date for the RCP rolling average by a couple days, but they're still there. If I had linked it a week ago, it would have been in the RCP average.

The new NBC/WSJ poll is included, of course, and shows Clinton with a healthy lead in Florida.

To claim RCP poll averages are "right wing" or "manipulated" to favor Trump is delusional. At multiple points in the campaign, the RCP Average has shown Clinton with double digit leads: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ral_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

You really don't understand this, do you? RCP picks which polls they want to include in their average, and they weight every poll they picked equally, regardless of the skew that polling place is known for. This is an easy way to manipulate polls, especially when one wants to present the Republican candidate as doing better (especially to low information voters who don't know RCP's bias).

Again, a far better source is fivethirtyeight, which actually takes into account the skew, and various other problems with polling organizations or poll methodology.

 

[wareyin]

Sanders could have endorsed Jill Stein, who basically shares his same philosophy. Also, Stein had graciously offered to step aside if Sanders wanted to continue his campaign as a Green Party candidate -- so he had that option available.

But instead, Sanders sold out and endorsed the very corruption he had spent a year rallying against; which we now know was nothing but empty rhetoric.

He'll most likely end up working a cushy high-paying job as a consultant for the Clinton Foundation. That, coupled with his new lucrative book deal. So now his nest is lavishly feathered, which was probably his real goal all along.

Ah, so you do think Sanders should have stayed in to divide the Dem vote, giving Trump the win.

 

[acbytesla]

Up until very recently I had a preference for Sanders but an understanding that Clinton was the likely winner. Recently, I have switched to a preference for Clinton as the better candidate among those with a reasonable chance at success.

Would I prefer a generally more progressive candidate than Clinton? Yes. I also think she has reasonably compromised and poll-chased to positions I hold to be a strong candidate to move forward on what I want moved forward on.

I feel Sanders did a wonderful job putting issues at the front of the Democratic debate that would not have received such attention without his run. His endorsement of Clinton feels entirely inline with the intent and tone of his campaign. I do not feel betrayed by the idea he has gone forward with a likely lucrative book deal as his campaign comes to a close.

Compromise and failing to get everything you want in politics is not a dirty proposition in my mind. Clinton won at this stage and is the better candidate going forward.

Contrary to Slings and Arrows post, I would argue that contrary to being a sellout, Bernie's endorsement while at the same time pushing for liberal causes demonstrates both his principles and his character.

His run wasn't about him, it was about everyday working people. What good would it do those every day people if Sanders split the vote leading to a Trump presidency?
Now that would be selfish.
That would have been unprincipled.
That would be truly selling out.

Minimum wage workers won't see their lives improve with a Republican agenda that not only opposes raises for these people but wants to eliminate a minimum wage altogether.

The poor and middle class need healthcare insurance, they don't need it taken away as the Republicans promise to do.

The young need skills and a higher education, they don't need to be saddled with a lifetime of bills that they can't pay off.

Endorsing Hillary at this time is a step in that direction. This is an example of a politician putting the country first.

I admire Bernie. He's not staging a vanity act. He's not stroking his ego.

Trump should pay attention. Bernie Sanders is a great human being and a great American.

Thank you Bernie for a lifetime of service.

 

[Fudbucker]

Contrary to Slings and Arrows post, I would argue that contrary to being a sellout, Bernie's endorsement while at the same time pushing for liberal causes demonstrates both principles and character.

His run wasn't about him, it was about everyday working people. What good would it do those every day people if Sanders split the vote leading to a Trump presidency?
Now that would be selfish.
That would have been unprincipled.
That would be truly selling out.

Minimum wage workers won't see their lives improve with a Republican agenda that not only opposes raises for these people but want to eliminate a minimum wage altogether.

The poor and middle class need healthcare insurance, they don't need it taken away as the Republicans promise to do.

The young need skills and a higher education, they don't need to be saddled with a lifetime of bills that they can't pay off.

I admire Bernie. He's not staging a vanity act. He's not stroking his ego.

Trump should pay attention. Bernie Sanders is a great human being and a great American.

Thank you Bernie.

Everyone was so worried he was going to pull the Temple down in a fit of ego. Bernie's been a politician since forever. No politician wants to be remembered as giving the keys to the WhiteHouse to someone like Trump. He got the Democrats to move leftward on some key issues. It's better for the party that he ran. He actually forced Clinton to do some campaigning, which will (hopefully) make her a better politician.

 

[Stacko]

Everyone was so worried he was going to pull the Temple down in a fit of ego. Bernie's been a politician since forever.

He did appoint Cornel West to the platform committee. His influence on the platform is the big win he got out of his run as members of congress end up voting for their party's platform ~80% of the time when the opportunities arise. The Cornel West thing was a dick move though.

 

[Fudbucker]

He did appoint Cornel West to the platform committee. His influence on the platform is the big win he got out of his run as members of congress end up voting for their party's platform ~80% of the time when the opportunities arise. The Cornel West thing was a dick move though.

What don't I know about Cornel West? I always like hearing him on Real Time.

 

[Stacko]

What don't I know about Cornel West? I always like hearing him on Real Time.

He's had long running comically one sided feud with Obama. He outlandishly criticizes Obama and Obama ignores him. It was a figurative middle finger to Obama selecting West. It's all settled now and Bernie is working towards stopping Donald from becoming President as any rational person should.

ETA: Cornel West also endorsed Jill Stein this week which really undercuts his inclusion if he didn't want to support the results anyway.

 

[Fudbucker]

He's had long running comically one sided feud with Obama. He outlandishly criticizes Obama and Obama ignores him. It was a figurative middle finger to Obama selecting West. It's all settled now and Bernie is working towards stopping Donald from becoming President as any rational person should.

ETA: Cornel West also endorsed Jill Stein this week which really undercuts his inclusion if he didn't want to support the results anyway.

Well, he's free to endorse who he wants, I guess, but he's lost sight of the big picture: defeat Trump.

 

[acbytesla]

Everyone was so worried he was going to pull the Temple down in a fit of ego. Bernie's been a politician since forever. No politician wants to be remembered as giving the keys to the WhiteHouse to someone like Trump. He got the Democrats to move leftward on some key issues. It's better for the party that he ran. He actually forced Clinton to do some campaigning, which will (hopefully) make her a better politician.

I wasn't for a moment. And I agree 100 percent. I understand their concern as many of us remember Ralph Nader and worried this was an encore. But Nader was never in Congress. Compromise to him was a dirty word. His was a lifetime of Quixotic crusades coupled with unabashed self promotion.
OTOH, Bernie could always be counted on actually get things done for working people and worked closely with the Democratic party even though he called himself a Socialist.

He was proud when Obama passed the Affordable Care Act even though he wanted much more for the American people. Bernie could always be counted on doing what's best for everyday people and he wasn't going to sacrifice something better for those people just because he wants more.

 

[Foolmewunz]

SurveyUSA is right there, below Gravis: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html

Click on "All Florida: Trump vs. Clinton Polling Data" and you'll see YouGov right below SurveyUSA. They missed the cut off date for the RCP rolling average by a couple days, but they're still there. If I had linked it a week ago, it would have been in the RCP average.

The new NBC/WSJ poll is included, of course, and shows Clinton with a healthy lead in Florida.

To claim RCP poll averages are "right wing" or "manipulated" to favor Trump is delusional. At multiple points in the campaign, the RCP Average has shown Clinton with double digit leads: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ral_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

The point is that in other state agglomerations the cut-off is different. They change the cut-off. And I missed that YouGov was included in that line.

I'm not saying they're manipulating to favor Trump. We have Rasmussen for that. I'm saying that they manipulate to show a tighter race. They get more interest if they show a tighter race. It currently favors Trump and in the last election cycle it favored Romney, so the upshot is that they're boosting the GOP but if could easily favor the Dems if they are ever trailing. You just choose a tighter or wider date range to lower the difference. Or you include a poll that no one's ever heard of.

 

[Belz...]

Sanders could have endorsed Jill Stein, who basically shares his same philosophy.

In other words, your answer is "yes, he should have divided the Democratic party and handed the White House to Trump."

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Sanders sellout

Some “revolution!” Just as an article in the Black Agenda Report last year back at the beginning of Bernie’s presidential campaign predicted he would do, once he had fulfilled his role of “shepherding” disaffected voters into the deadly embrace of the Democratic Party, Bernie came out and endorsed the presidential candidacy of that ethically-challenged, war-mongering tool of Wall Street Hillary Clinton.

Lots of idealistic, young people and others “felt the Bern” and were taken in by the electoral delusion. They had high hopes that Sanders as an avowed democratic socialist would somehow be different than other corrupt and opportunistic politicians. Now that Bernie has sold out and left his supporters high and dry without consulting them on what he should have done, they have every right to feel very angry.

Read more:
http://www.timesargus.com/article/20160715/OPINION01/160719774/1021 (July 15, 2016)

"Jilted progressive Democrats who helped lead Elizabeth Warren to victory in 2012 are now accusing the Bay State senator of selling out and betraying their cause by endorsing Hillary Clinton.

“I feel like she’s turned her back on the American people,” said Laurie Cestnick, the organizer of Occupy DNC, which plans protests in Philadelphia later this month in support of a Bernie Sanders nomination. “We’re devastated — totally devastated. This has been really hard, almost like a death, because we believed she was a true progressive. ... I have defended her from day one that she would never go to the Hillary side.”

Reference:
Defiant Democrats call Senator Warren a sellout for backing Hillary Clinton (July 13, 2016)

#OccupyDNC
#Fauxcahontas
#SellOutSanders

 

[Fudbucker]

The point is that in other state agglomerations the cut-off is different. They change the cut-off. And I missed that YouGov was included in that line.

I'm not saying they're manipulating to favor Trump. We have Rasmussen for that. I'm saying that they manipulate to show a tighter race. They get more interest if they show a tighter race. It currently favors Trump and in the last election cycle it favored Romney, so the upshot is that they're boosting the GOP but if could easily favor the Dems if they are ever trailing. You just choose a tighter or wider date range to lower the difference. Or you include a poll that no one's ever heard of.

There's no evidence of that. The evidence is to the contrary: from March 15th, to May 15th, Clinton was thrashing Trump: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Then the race tightened for a week and Clinton pulled ahead again for another month.
There have been only 3 or so dates where the RCP average showed a really close race. Otherwise Clinton has been consistently leading by 3-7 points.