[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Matchles]

A huge part of that, to be fair, is because, as an independent he was not given the privileged positions that a senator of his rank and tenure would be entitled to. Like chairing a major committee. Political parties dole these out to consolidate political support.

Sanders, with the number of years he's been there, were he a Democrat from the get go, would be probably 3rd ranked in the Democratic leadership at the very least. If not that, been powerful within the Senate by his committee positions.

Imagine the policy impact he could have had he followed that path.

He has only been a senator for 2 terms. I'm pretty sure he would have started at the bottom when he switched houses just like if he had first been elected in '06. With that said, he is the top "Dem" on the Budget committee. He also served on committees where he has interest, Environment and Public Works, Energy and Natural Resources, chairman of Veterans' Affairs, etc.. The Dems were quite a bit nicer to him in assignments than they could have been.

[Skroe]

He has only been a senator for 2 terms. I'm pretty sure he would have started at the bottom when he switched houses just like if he had first been elected in '06. With that said, he is the top "Dem" on the Budget committee. He also served on committees where he has interest, Environment and Public Works, Energy and Natural Resources, chairman of Veterans' Affairs, etc.. The Dems were quite a bit nicer to him in assignments than they could have been.

None of these are major committees or are subcommittees.

[Yvaelle]

As I've said on many occasions, Bernie is as unacceptable as Trump. Mostly for different reasons but some of the same.

I'm going with Hillary of course. Who beats Trump in any event. Narrower than Bernie, but who cares. She just needs to win a few select states. Bernie Sanders isn't selling anything I'm remotely interested in buying.

^ When Hillary supporters think Bernie is as unacceptable as Trump, but can't understand why Bernie supporters think Hillary is as unacceptable as Trump

A vote for Hillary/Trump is a vote for crony capitalism: Liberals have no way out here.

[Matchles]

None of these are major committees or are subcommittees.

They aren't finance, judiciary or rules, but I wouldn't say they aren't major. They are in his areas of interest. And those are all committees, I didn't name the numerous sub-committees he also serves on. He is the 17th ranked Dem in terms of seniority. He isn't going to be chairing one of the big three even if he had been a Dem all along.

- - - Updated - - -

^ When Hillary supporters think Bernie is as unacceptable as Trump, but can't understand why Bernie supporters think Hillary is as unacceptable as Trump

A vote for Hillary/Trump is a vote for crony capitalism: Liberals have no way out here.

So was a vote for Obama a vote for [insert far right conservative]?

[Yvaelle]

So was a vote for Obama a vote for [insert far right conservative]?

A vote for Obama was a vote for "Hope and Change" - that campaign you may remember, which he ran to electrify the Liberals succeeded (and toppled Hillary's DINO). We got the hope, but we were short-changed. Obama did well given the state of the system, but Obama is Left of Hillary politically - and the system has only gotten worse since 2008.

Hillary is basically the Senator from Goldman-Sachs. She's not left, she's not right - she's whatever the bank tells her to be - and they tell her to be whatever she needs to be to get elected, to do whatever she needs to maintain power - just so long as she sanctions their dubious practices in the highest authority.

[Matchles]

A vote for Obama was a vote for "Hope and Change" - that campaign you may remember, which he ran to electrify the Liberals succeeded (and toppled Hillary's DINO). We got the hope, but we were short-changed. Obama did well given the state of the system, but Obama is Left of Hillary politically - and the system has only gotten worse since 2008.

Hillary is basically the Senator from Goldman-Sachs. She's not left, she's not right - she's whatever the bank tells her to be - and they tell her to be whatever she needs to be to get elected, to do whatever she needs to maintain power - just so long as she sanctions their dubious practices in the highest authority.

See. No, no he is not. Clinton's vote record is to the left of Obama.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/h...on-is-liberal/

Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.

Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.

- - - Updated - - -

If Hillary is the nominee, what will her excuse be for not releasing her Wall Street speeches when Donald Trump asks for her to do so? I mean... So far her flimsy defense against that request by Sanders has been that she'll release the transcripts of those speeches when all the other candidates do so.

Well, once it's just Hillary and Trump, there are only two candidates. And Trump hasn't held any speeches on Wall Street. How is Hillary going to defend against that?

With Sanders, there'd be no such problem.

Yeah with Sanders there is just the problem of defending his pseudo-scientific beliefs, the fact he was an electorate for a party who had a platform of supporting revolutionist regimes in Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran and the like, his self-proclaimed socialist title, his lack of legislative accomplishments, etc.

Also no one cares about the Wall Street speeches. It is just a red herring to ignore the fact that her voting record reflects her liberal statements. Even if she gave a pro-Goldman Sachs speech, it doesn't show that is what she truly believes. Hell, for $200k, I'll call my mother a "whore" to her face. That doesn't mean I believe it.

[McCulloch]

They aren't finance, judiciary or rules, but I wouldn't say they aren't major. They are in his areas of interest. And those are all committees, I didn't name the numerous sub-committees he also serves on. He is the 17th ranked Dem in terms of seniority. He isn't going to be chairing one of the big three even if he had been a Dem all along.

Bob Menendez became chair of Foreign Relations in 7 years. Not too bad, but he's probably an exception, not the norm. I think it mostly had to do with a lot of older senators retiring/losing reelection.

[Vynestra]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politi...tch/index.html


Scroll down and click on the "Can Sanders make a comeback" video.

John King plays a scenario where Sanders sweeps the next 8 contests and is still behind 300 delegates.

[Shadowferal]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politi...tch/index.html


Scroll down and click on the "Can Sanders make a comeback" video.

John King plays a scenario where Sanders sweeps the next 8 contests and is still behind 300 delegates.

...and John King has been accurate? When?

Over 4k delegates.
2,018 have so far been accounted for.

[Vynestra]

...and John King has been accurate? When?

Over 4k delegates.
2,018 have so far been accounted for.

It's not about John King, it's about the map, he's not saying Sanders will win them all, hes saying IF Sanders sweeps he's still behind like 280 delegates, that's math, not John King.

You also have to realize a large portion of those delegates are locked up in closed primary states, where Sanders does poorly. I don't think he's won a single closed primary yet, maybe Vermont?

She usually wins dem voters by 10-15 points, so he's going to have to make major inroads in the next month to get the 70-30 or 65-35 NY win he needs, along with PA/CA/MD/NJ 60-40 or 65-35s to be on track for the nomination.

Most of those are closed, Cali is semi-closed.

And even WHEN there are open primaries, he still has only won NH by a large margin, Michigan was open and he won by 2 pts, Illinois open he lost by 2 pts, Ohio open he lost by like 13 pts.

He needed those open primaries to carry him.

- - - Updated - - -

It just completely amazes me that Sanders supporters think in their reddit that he'll win CA by insane margins and walk away with like 350 delegates to Clintons 50, to make up their lead....


Do they honestly believe Clinton would forfeit CA like that?

Hell Clinton could do nothing in CA and she'd still do better than that for god sakes.

At best it'll be a tie for Sanders.

[Judgedredd]

A vote for Obama was a vote for "Hope and Change" - that campaign you may remember, which he ran to electrify the Liberals succeeded (and toppled Hillary's DINO). We got the hope, but we were short-changed. Obama did well given the state of the system, but Obama is Left of Hillary politically - and the system has only gotten worse since 2008.

Hillary is basically the Senator from Goldman-Sachs. She's not left, she's not right - she's whatever the bank tells her to be - and they tell her to be whatever she needs to be to get elected, to do whatever she needs to maintain power - just so long as she sanctions their dubious practices in the highest authority.

Been watching those Obama campaign videos on youtube the yes we can and all that jazz. it just looks so cheesy and sad now. the idea that all that kumbaya nonsense was going to work, how could anybody believe that crap? who does Obama think he is, JFK or something? at least JFK was a proven leader before becoming president.

but then again, the apple has fallen very far from the tree in generational terms. comparing the generation that fought in the second world war to the near degenerate generation x one is like comparing a goddess to a hag.

Yes We Can. Lol, just lol.

[Masark]

but then again, the apple has fallen very far from the tree in generational terms. comparing the generation that fought in the second world war to the near degenerate generation x one is like comparing a goddess to a hag.

I note you appear to be skipping a generation there.

[Deleted]

Surprisingly, Bernie Sanders hasn't been on the Young Turks yet, but he will be on tomorrow. Cenk is taking possible questions he will ask Bernie on Twitter so use the hashtag #AskBernie and send a question to one of these accounts:

https://twitter.com/cenkuygur
https://twitter.com/theyoungturks

Go ask your "why are you still in the race" and "why are you a socialist communist" -questions. It'll be interesting to see if Cenk will be as softball with Bernie as all of the mainstream media, such as Chris Matthews, has been with Hillary.

[Judgedredd]

Add Arizona to Clinton now. Bernie better come up with a miracle fast or he is going to feel the Bern very soon. California will not be enough if Clinton keeps winning all the other states in between there and the east coast.

But as I said in an earlier post he already lost the 2 decisive Super Tuesdays, his chances of recovery is almost like making a comeback from a Pharsalus (the battle that sealed Pompey Magnus' fate) style defeat.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Would now be a good time to bring up the shenanigans going on in Arizona?

[Matchles]

Would now be a good time to bring up the shenanigans going on in Arizona?

Go for it. Just realize the reporting is exactly in line with the Sanders' supporters M.O.. When Sanders wins it is a revolution, when Clinton wins it is a conspiracy.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Go for it. Just realize the reporting is exactly in line with the Sanders' supporters M.O.. When Sanders wins it is a revolution, when Clinton wins it is a conspiracy.

Alright, there's a conspiracy in Arizona.

[Deleted]

If there are thousands of people still lining up to vote in Arizona at this point, it doesn't have to be a "conspiracy", but someone somewhere has fucked up royally. Anyways, use the thread for this Tuesday's primaries for discussions about Arizona, as this thread is about Sanders.

[Matchles]

Alright, there's a conspiracy in Arizona.

And that makes up for the nearly 100k votes she is winning by. Makes total sense to pull off the largest voting fraud scheme in history to win a state that she doesn't need.

[Fugus]

And that makes up for the nearly 100k votes she is winning by. Makes total sense to pull off the largest voting fraud scheme in history to win a state that she doesn't need.

I have heard accusations of this in other states as well, just none big enough to actually get a response. If this was par the course for the others and they just didn't bother to stop it and got caught, this would call those previous results into question as well, wouldn't it?

And we don't know the level of possible fraud in the grand scheme if it does have one. So it might be more than 100k or it might be none.

I feel if it does have a real chance of being legit, we will probably end up with another Raymond Lemme before we end up with the truth though.