[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Gray_Matter]

I didn't say they did something illegal that I know of. I said they did dirty which they did.

On the part of the DNC, they used Super Delegates to make Hillary look like she had some huge lead she didn't actually have to make her look much more electable than she actually was while making him look much less electable than he actually was which has known psychological effects on people to dissuade his supports from voting and try to get many to jump bandwagons to join the winning party. That was plain dirty on the part of the DNC.

I can't see how there was any malice there. Certain DNC members endorsed Clinton. They didn't do it purposely to make him less electable, etc. They did it to show their support for her. He wasn't a party member, she was. Who did you expect them to support up front? When the party needed someone to do a tough vote, Bernie would vote on his ideals. It was up to the party members to vote for the deal. Sometimes those votes aren't ideal but they are often compromises. Bernie doesn't have that restriction on him. He gets to vote his ideals every time. Who would you support if Bernie was in your party and I joined your party and then came along to run against him?

Then we had them cut access to his own records and force him to sue to get access back and yes I know about the aid but I also know about other situations surrounding that event as well.

I agree that they went overboard there but how should they have punished the Bernie team? It's not right for one of your team members to go through the records for the opposition.

Then we also have something that I haven't been able to verify yet so I can't say much overall but I have heard a little about how the debates themselves and how they tried to limit them and with bad time slots to limit viewership. But like I said, I didn't get too far into reading this one, so you can ignore if you want.

I heard from a bug who heard from ant that Bernie is really an alien. You can ignore it if you want though

Then when it comes to the media, my dear lord, they treated Sanders like digital-ebola. They had a full media blackout on them as much as they could and when they did mention him, it was typically to belittle him and marginalize his successes or inflate his failures. They did him real dirty.

Perhaps and perhaps not. If you listen to the MSM up until before NY you would think that it was a close race between Clinton and Bernie. They have favoured him for a while now in that respect because they wanted a contest. Mica from MSNBC (who is a big time Bernie supporter) said the other day that the MSM had given him a free pass by not going into any depth or taking him to task with any of his positions. Did he get as much coverage as Clinton in the beginning, probably not, but that had as much to do with the GOP candidates speaking about her every second chance as it did with the Bernie being pretty unknown. What about O'Mally? He can have the same complaint. The MSM favour big news stories. They didn't think Bernie was one in the beginning. Why do you think they gave Trump so much coverage? Was it fair, I don't think so. Is it the DNC's fault? Of course not.

His lack of media attention and both sides attempting manipulate perception of him against reality cost him tons of support and possibly (probably IMO) cost him this election. Most people still don't know crap about him overall and much of that tends to by lies. Those who vote without researching typically know him as "That guy running against Clinton" or "That guy who wants to raise my taxes to 90%" unless they go online and read on stuff beyond Facebook.

He is losing because he doesn't have enough support for his cause yet. Read the 538 link that I posted. Liberals don't make up enough of the democratic party yet. Could the MSM have helped his cause earlier on? Yes, I am sure they could have but it would only have been because they saw it as a story.

This wasn't even mentioning the debates where he killed her on typically along with the polls about the debates only to have the media many times declare her the winner anyways for those who didn't watch it.

Most competent analysts (read debating experts) don't agree. When you listen to a certain segment of the base then you will tend to agree with their point of view. He didn't have a great night in the last debate but if you look at the Bernie supporters, he crushed Clinton. The experts read it differently. A lot of the other debates analysis that I saw had it even, Clinton slightly ahead or Bernie slightly ahead.

I wasn't saying they outright stole votes, I was saying the did him dirty in ways that kept the majority of public away from him or knowing about him. Unless people wanted to go out of their way to research him, they wouldn't know crap or would mainly know lies.

I can't see anything there where you can point a finger at the DNC other than the "hacking" issue.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you're underestimating the power of the Independent voter, it's a large part of the reason Bernie beats Hillary in caucus states and much more competitive in open primary states. Many of them just don't see a whole lot of difference between Hillary and the Republicans on policy issues, as absurd as that may sound to you.

You are confusing the liberal independents with all independents. They aren't necessarily the same thing.

And as far as 2008 goes, you didn't really see either candidate going on a crusade against the establishment, which Bernie (and his supporters) feels Hillary is part of. It would actually make him look like a hypocrite to encourage his people to support her, in a way. In the end, I expect he still will just because she is actually better, obviously. But either way, even if he does, it's going to be a lot harder to make that stroll into the polling booth come November.

If he doesn't support her then he is cutting off his nose to spite his face because he can kiss any increase in the minimum wage out of the door.

[McCulloch]

Hillary: "Fuck all Bernie's supporters. I've got my own, and they're enough."

Well... I guess it remains to be seen if they're enough, because she's sure as hell trying her hardest to alienate every single Bernie supporter. She has undertaken a bridge burning campaign, it would seem. So, let's say we draw out the percentages of all the votes to the general... If Hillary has gotten 10 million votes and Bernie 8 million votes, does that not come down to 55%-45%?

She's planning on running against the GOP with only 55% of the Democratic vote? Good luck, Shillary.

No, she's saying, and rightly so, you guys lost. Why the fuck does she have to make concessions to her opponent, when SHE'S WINNING? It's fucking ridiculous.

If Bernie wants to run as a Democrat, he has to endorse the Democrat if he loses. If he doesn't endorse her, he should be stripped of his seniority and committee assignments. If he endorses her, but doesn't work to bring his supporters in, then he isn't serious about helping the people he says he cares so much about. Cruz or Trump would be 1000x times worse than Hillary, no matter how bad you think she is.

[Gray_Matter]

Hillary: "Fuck all Bernie's supporters. I've got my own, and they're enough."

Well... I guess it remains to be seen if they're enough, because she's sure as hell trying her hardest to alienate every single Bernie supporter. She has undertaken a bridge burning campaign, it would seem. So, let's say we draw out the percentages of all the votes to the general... If Hillary has gotten 10 million votes and Bernie 8 million votes, does that not come down to 55%-45%?

She's planning on running against the GOP with only 55% of the Democratic vote? Good luck, Shillary.

What would you have her do? Adopt policies that she believes will lose her a general election? She has already gone far further left than she would have wanted to go. That is going to make the general tougher. Why would she start adopting his policies which could guarantee a loss in the general?

[kail]

If Bernie wants to run as a Democrat, he has to endorse the Democrat if he loses. If he doesn't endorse her, he should be stripped of his seniority and committee assignments. If he endorses her, but doesn't work to bring his supporters in, then he isn't serious about helping the people he says he cares so much about. Cruz or Trump would be 1000x times worse than Hillary, no matter how bad you think she is.

He doesn't have to endorse her in the same matter that Cruz and other do not have to endorse Trump. This is the inherent problem with the two party system and the blind loyalty it brings. If she has policies and history that I don't agree with, I won't vote for her. I would still consider myself a Democrat regardless if I voted for her or not.

[Serj Tankian]

What would you have her do? Adopt policies that she believes will lose her a general election? She has already gone far further left than she would have wanted to go. That is going to make the general tougher. Why would she start adopting his policies which could guarantee a loss in the general?

It's not like she hasn't adopted policies she doesn't believe in already. Hillary says whatever she can to make people happy.

[Vash The Stampede]

No, she's saying, and rightly so, you guys lost. Why the fuck does she have to make concessions to her opponent, when SHE'S WINNING? It's fucking ridiculous.

Cause the Bernie voters make up a sizable number, and could vote for Trump as revenge? That's my plan.

If Bernie wants to run as a Democrat, he has to endorse the Democrat if he loses. If he doesn't endorse her, he should be stripped of his seniority and committee assignments. If he endorses her, but doesn't work to bring his supporters in, then he isn't serious about helping the people he says he cares so much about. Cruz or Trump would be 1000x times worse than Hillary, no matter how bad you think she is.

And that's why I'd vote for Trump. Sure Trump is far worse than Hilary, but Hilary could be a good 4-8 years of corporate run presidency. But Trump is so broken that he'll get impeached within 1 year of presidency. I'm so sick of the lobbying going on, and Hillary was so bought that she carries around a credit card machine.

[kail]

And that's why I'd vote for Trump. Sure Trump is far worse than Hilary, but Hilary could be a good 4-8 years of corporate run presidency. But Trump is so broken that he'll get impeached within 1 year of presidency. I'm so sick of the lobbying going on, and Hillary was so bought that she carries around a credit card machine.

Go on ahead. To me, it's out of my hands. If the people want Trump, then they will get him. Neither candidate fits my idea of a decent president so I vote neither. I won't twist votes for spite and I won't vote for the lesser evil. I will simply write Sander's name on the ballot and leave it at that.

[Hooked]

If anything the Bernie sanders campaign has shown that the democrats are also bitterly divided, but for them its along racial lines. I bet sanders has a 99% approval rating with white democrats and probably a 10% approval rating among blacks.

[kail]

If anything the Bernie sanders campaign has shown that the democrats are also bitterly divided, but for them its along racial lines. I bet sanders has a 99% approval rating with white democrats and probably a 10% approval rating among blacks.

Both parties are actually quite divided in this race.

[Hooked]

Both parties are actually quite divided in this race.

The whites in America are pissed off on both sides. The sissies are swinging hard left and the heroes are swinging hard right.

[Deleted]

Why the fuck does she have to make concessions to her opponent, when SHE'S WINNING?

What would you have her do? Adopt policies that she believes will lose her a general election? She has already gone far further left than she would have wanted to go. That is going to make the general tougher. Why would she start adopting his policies which could guarantee a loss in the general?

If the question is "why", then the answer is "to get votes." Yeah, it sucks, I'm sure, but a lot of Sanders supporters won't vote for her if she doesn't show any signs of representing their interests, and even more won't vote for her if she keeps dismissing those 45% of her potential votes.

I mean, if she thinks she can win the general without getting most of Sanders' voters, then good on her, but unfortunately, if she acts the way she's acting, she's not uniting jack shit.

And, since you're going to come back with a defiant "So what?!", the answer is, so she might not have anywhere near enough votes to beat the GOP candidate. So, there you go.

[McCulloch]

He doesn't have to endorse her in the same matter that Cruz and other do not have to endorse Trump. This is the inherent problem with the two party system and the blind loyalty it brings. If she has policies and history that I don't agree with, I won't vote for her. I would still consider myself a Democrat regardless if I voted for her or not.

Yes, he does. Cruz not endorsing Trump would be more acceptable to the GOP establishment because they hate Trump.

Bernie not endorsing Hillary is unthinkable to the Democratic establishment and they would punish him for doing so.

- - - Updated - - -

Cause the Bernie voters make up a sizable number, and could vote for Trump as revenge? That's my plan.

And that's why I'd vote for Trump. Sure Trump is far worse than Hilary, but Hilary could be a good 4-8 years of corporate run presidency. But Trump is so broken that he'll get impeached within 1 year of presidency. I'm so sick of the lobbying going on, and Hillary was so bought that she carries around a credit card machine.

Bernie or Bust is such a childish movement. Anyone who subscribes to it has proven to not be a serious person.

[Deleted]

Yes, he does. Cruz not endorsing Trump would be more acceptable to the GOP establishment because they hate Trump.

Bernie not endorsing Hillary is unthinkable to the Democratic establishment and they would punish him for doing so.

How? He obviously doesn't give a shit what they think and they've always hated him.

- - - Updated - - -

Bernie or Bust is such a childish movement. Anyone who subscribes to it has proven to not be a serious person.

Any one who could write that sentence has to be at least half my age. You sound like those 14-year olds you get in wow who insist on calling everyone "kids".

[McCulloch]

If the question is "why", then the answer is "to get votes." Yeah, it sucks, I'm sure, but a lot of Sanders supporters won't vote for her if she doesn't show any signs of representing their interests, and even more won't vote for her if she keeps dismissing those 45% of her potential votes.

I mean, if she thinks she can win the general without getting most of Sanders' voters, then good on her, but unfortunately, if she acts the way she's acting, she's not uniting jack shit.

And, since you're going to come back with a defiant "So what?!", the answer is, so she might not have anywhere near enough votes to beat the GOP candidate. So, there you go.

What's the point of changing? When she doesn't, Sanders supporters say she's a corporate shill. When she does, they say she's pandering and not sincere. They can't be pleased.

- - - Updated - - -

How? He obviously doesn't give a shit what they think and they've always hated him.

- - - Updated - - -



Any one who could write that sentence has to be at least half my age. You sound like those 14-year olds you get in wow who insist on calling everyone "kids".

They strip him of his committee assignments and seniority. It isn't without precedent.

Yes, letting Trump win over Hillary because you didn't get your guy is so logical and not at all childish.

[Deleted]

Yes, letting Trump win over Hillary because you didn't get your guy is so logical and not at all childish.

Theres is little or no practical difference between them. I see no reason for any one to care who isn't a fan of corporate dominance of the political sphere.

[Nfinitii]

Hillary: "Fuck all Bernie's supporters. I've got my own, and they're enough."

Well... I guess it remains to be seen if they're enough, because she's sure as hell trying her hardest to alienate every single Bernie supporter. She has undertaken a bridge burning campaign, it would seem. So, let's say we draw out the percentages of all the votes to the general... If Hillary has gotten 10 million votes and Bernie 8 million votes, does that not come down to 55%-45%?

She's planning on running against the GOP with only 55% of the Democratic vote? Good luck, Shillary.

I can't stand Hillary, but I don't c anything wrong with her going this is what got me here y do I need to compromise to get more support. I can respect that stance, stand by what u believe in.

Tyt is very biased, I wouldn't listen to anything they say.

[Mavick]

You are confusing the liberal independents with all independents. They aren't necessarily the same thing.



If he doesn't support her then he is cutting off his nose to spite his face because he can kiss any increase in the minimum wage out of the door.

In the case of the democratic primaries, I'm obviously referring to liberals. But come general election time, they all matter, and the conservative ones could hate Hillary just as much as they hate Trump, which in fact, they most likely do.

Like I said, I expect him to, but he doesn't vote for everyone. Telling people to vote for someone they don't like is not the same thing as him running for President. You clearly don't get that, apparently.

[Fugus]

I can't see how there was any malice there. Certain DNC members endorsed Clinton. They didn't do it purposely to make him less electable, etc. They did it to show their support for her. He wasn't a party member, she was. Who did you expect them to support up front? When the party needed someone to do a tough vote, Bernie would vote on his ideals. It was up to the party members to vote for the deal. Sometimes those votes aren't ideal but they are often compromises. Bernie doesn't have that restriction on him. He gets to vote his ideals every time. Who would you support if Bernie was in your party and I joined your party and then came along to run against him?

DNC members endorsing Clinton is one thing, Super Delegates being credited to her at the start when they aren't even able to vote at that point and can flip at any time between them is another.

If they said our members support Hillary, it wouldn't have been a big deal. When they go "Hillary has 400+ more delegates than she actually has" that is another thing entirely. What they did, they know was dirty and they know the effect it would have to lots of people, it is known psychology they were exploiting with effectively misinformation.

I agree that they went overboard there but how should they have punished the Bernie team? It's not right for one of your team members to go through the records for the opposition.

I have read up some on that event when it had happened. The Sanders campaign had reported it already to get it fixed and even asked that they look into it for Clinton members looking into their stuff which they refused to investigate. And the aid who did it was an aid the DNC had set them up with and they had informed them what the aid had done.

Quit literally, they can't blame the aid for their repeated failures to fix the issues and the fact that they refused to investigate possible intrusions the other way feels suspect as well.

As for how they should have punished Sanders team? First, I would have investigated to see if anyone for the Clinton side had done the same thing to see if punishment was even warranted and two there wouldn't have been much to punish as it was a known issue the Sanders team had requested fixed prior and they had reported and fired the aid themselves after he had did it and it was an aid that that team had set the Sander campaign up with.

Perhaps and perhaps not. If you listen to the MSM up until before NY you would think that it was a close race between Clinton and Bernie. They have favoured him for a while now in that respect because they wanted a contest. Mica from MSNBC (who is a big time Bernie supporter) said the other day that the MSM had given him a free pass by not going into any depth or taking him to task with any of his positions. Did he get as much coverage as Clinton in the beginning, probably not, but that had as much to do with the GOP candidates speaking about her every second chance as it did with the Bernie being pretty unknown. What about O'Mally? He can have the same complaint. The MSM favour big news stories. They didn't think Bernie was one in the beginning. Why do you think they gave Trump so much coverage? Was it fair, I don't think so. Is it the DNC's fault? Of course not.

He NEVER got as much coverage as Hillary this entire campaign from the media and most of the coverage he typically got was to label him as unelectable or slander him by most sources if they were willing to mention him at all. Groups have already measured and looked into this, the media effectively had a blackout on him overall.

And I never said this was the DNC's fault. That is why I specifically pointed out the media for doing it.

He is losing because he doesn't have enough support for his cause yet. Read the 538 link that I posted. Liberals don't make up enough of the democratic party yet. Could the MSM have helped his cause earlier on? Yes, I am sure they could have but it would only have been because they saw it as a story.

I know he is losing because he doesn't have enough support, the reasons I stated above was a great deal of the reason he lacks it. You can't get support if the people don't know about you to support you and the media and the DNC collectively did everything they could to ensure that didn't happen.

If he had received near the coverage in the media as Hillary or the DNC not playing favorites, he would have ended up with far more support than he had.

One of the easiest ways to kill a cause is just not to talk about it. That is something that has been known since before I was born.

Most competent analysts (read debating experts) don't agree. When you listen to a certain segment of the base then you will tend to agree with their point of view. He didn't have a great night in the last debate but if you look at the Bernie supporters, he crushed Clinton. The experts read it differently. A lot of the other debates analysis that I saw had it even, Clinton slightly ahead or Bernie slightly ahead.

Sorry, but evidently most competent analysts took too many days off this cycle then. After the debates, by their own online polls, Sanders crushed, in their own studies he typically won and then when it came to their publications, they would ignore their online polls, ignore their control groups, ignore where they questioned the people there and declare her the winner regardless of what the reality of the situation they recorded was.

I can't see anything there where you can point a finger at the DNC other than the "hacking" issue.

Again, I never accused her of outright hacking. I stuck to the stuff that wasn't open for debate at this point without willful denial of the facts already known. With the only exception being about how they possibly tried to limit Sanders exposure by limiting the debates and choosing of bad time slots and I made it known that that was speculation as I had not taken the time to verify it.

[dd614]

If anything the Bernie sanders campaign has shown that the democrats are also bitterly divided, but for them its along racial lines. I bet sanders has a 99% approval rating with white democrats and probably a 10% approval rating among blacks.

I know, right? Yet Bernie dedicated his early life to fight for black civil rights, actually got arrested and roughed up marching with MLK in the process.

[Mavick]

What would you have her do? Adopt policies that she believes will lose her a general election? She has already gone far further left than she would have wanted to go. That is going to make the general tougher. Why would she start adopting his policies which could guarantee a loss in the general?

The general would be hard for her no matter what, have you seen her unfavorability rating? I think I read somewhere that if it's her and Trump it would be the first time we have two candidates who most people look at unfavorably. People on this forum just do not grasp how many people out there just do not like her or trust her at all.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not like she hasn't adopted policies she doesn't believe in already. Hillary says whatever she can to make people happy.

This. It's a fucking joke people even try to make the argument that she actually has policies of her own anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, he does. Cruz not endorsing Trump would be more acceptable to the GOP establishment because they hate Trump.

Bernie not endorsing Hillary is unthinkable to the Democratic establishment and they would punish him for doing so.

- - - Updated - - -

Bernie or Bust is such a childish movement. Anyone who subscribes to it has proven to not be a serious person.

What a moronic statement. I think that proves precisely how serious we are about our candidate and policies.