[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Deleted]

I'm going to say that Bernie is just as corrupt then for drinking from the tainted well. (Affixing himself to their party for views and funds, then throwing them under the boss.

If you think the guy dedicated to ripping apart the party he desperately needed to "get visibility" is a good pick, you deserve all the disappointment coming your way..

The party was already ripped apart by the Clintons, when they remodelled it, deregulated wall st and took the backhanders from doing so. What are you defending exactly? A bunch of selfish self-aggrandizing careerists in the pay of plutocracy?

[Skroe]

Hillary made the 100% right call.

Sanders doesn't get an inch more.

[Deleted]

Hillary made the 100% right call.

Sanders doesn't get an inch more.

She's handed the presidency to Trump, well done.

[Skroe]

She's handed the presidency to Trump, well done.

How do you reckon?

She doesn't need Sanders supporters anywhere except Swing States. And even then it might be smarter to just go for the moderates and anti-trump conservatives who outnumber liberals in those states.

How much Sanders supporters matter in the general election isn't a case that's been close to made yet. Who cares if every supporter in Oregon or Massachusetts or California stays home and fucks themself. She'll win those by showing up.

THe only voters who matter are swing state voters. And it's far from clear going after Sanders supporters in those states is even desirable.

Bernie Sanders supporters have thought there are a lot more of them than there actually are.

[Dextroden]

It's times like this I'm glad that every single lost election in the history of ever has been the cause of fraud, rigging, cheating and low information voters. It's almost like no one has ever wonder an election legitimately.

- - - Updated - - -

The party was already ripped apart by the Clintons, when they remodelled it, deregulated wall st and took the backhanders from doing so. What are you defending exactly? A bunch of selfish self-aggrandizing careerists in the pay of plutocracy?

Defending nothing. I'm always curious how people expect to get support from the very people they spent an election cycle urinating on.

[Skroe]

It's times like this I'm glad that every single lost election in the history of ever has been the cause of fraud, rigging, cheating and low information voters. It's almost like no one has ever wonder an election legitimately.

The left is doing what they always do:

Pretending that the reason they didn't win is because the rest of us were lied to, bamboozled, corrupted, or the election was stolen. Because it's much easier to do that than engage in actual introspection as to why Americans aren't buying what they're selling.

I think of all the political stripes in this country, even the crazy religious conservatives on the far right are capable of discipline and reform to a degree far greater than the left. And that's saying something.

The lefts problem is that it wants to win only on its terms. As if that's ever been how things work, anywhere.

[Magicalcrab]

The left is doing what they always do:

Pretending that the reason they didn't win is because the rest of us were lied to, bamboozled, corrupted, or the election was stolen. Because it's much easier to do that than engage in actual introspection as to why Americans aren't buying what they're selling.

I think of all the political stripes in this country, even the crazy religious conservatives on the far right are capable of discipline and reform to a degree far greater than the left. And that's saying something.

The lefts problem is that it wants to win only on its terms. As if that's ever been how things work, anywhere.

I was wondering how long it'd take until we forgot the non-stop chatter during Obama's entire first term, where there was constant talk of olive branches and compromise. Those talks were still met by extreme obstinacy from the right-wing. He even put social security on the table for their sake.
Remember when Ted Cruz shut down the government because they couldn't defund Obamacare for the 40th-something time in a row?

I don't like generalisations either way, but I definitely don't think it's a fair assessment to claim that the left is somehow generally the more adamant side of the political spectrum simply because they just started making demands of their government representatives.
That's just silly.

[Dextroden]

I was wondering how long it'd take until we forgot the constant chatter during Obama's entire first term, where there was constant talk of olive branches and compromise. Those talks were still met by extreme obstinacy from the right-wing. He even put social security on the table for their sake.
Remember when Ted Cruz shut down the government because they couldn't defund Obamacare for the 40th-something time in a row?

I don't like generalisations either way, but I definitely don't think it's a fair assessment to claim that the left is somehow generally the more adamant side of the political spectrum simply because they just started making demands of their government representatives.
That's just silly.

Do you remember how fearmongering about Obama was bad? Look at what is said about Trump and Hillary.

Remember how you weren't supposed to doubt people for lack of experience? Trump again.

Remember how everyone laughed about people refusing to rally behind Romney? I'm having a chuckle because neither Sanders nor Clinton is getting a good circling of the wagons going on.

My point is, I'm seeing a fair amount of the same shit from 08 and 12 appearing again. Which means, we are right on schedule for a group of separatists and radicals to split the party with the foolhardy idea of purifying the party and upholding the law. Which will end in political discord and eventually parody.

[Shadowferal]

From a previous link:

And unlike Trump, who is willing to acknowledge that some Mexicans might not be rapists, Hillary supporters have no problem making blanket statement that all Bernie supporters, every single one of them, are racist and sexist. But it's only Bernie supporters that are the problem, not Hillary supporters. Riiiiight.

What makes this unusual is that this tactic is rarely applied outside of a general election. Oh sure, it's not unusual for things to get nasty between candidates during primaries. That's par for the course. Welcome to politics. The difference is that you always want to get your opponents voters' support after the primaries are over. That's why slandering those voters, all of them, is a stupid, self-defeating, long-term strategy.

Instead I'm going to focus on the idea that Clinton supporters can slander and belittle all Sanders supporters and still think they can guilt them into voting for Hillary. Just how Stockholm Syndrome'd do you think progressives are?

These people are self-identified independents. They don't feel any loyalty to your candidate from the start. Calling them names isn't going to work. So what exactly were you thinking? That you didn't need the independent vote? Congrats then, because you don't have it.

-------------------------------

The presumptive nominee, i.e. Clinton should have already locked this up. She hasn't because she's as detested as Trump. Of course the sad fact that she has yet to have a strong proactive message for her own candidacy doesn't help either. (That $15/hr min wage thing only came out after Sanders goaded her in a debate. She said she can't go any further left-ward...which explains her refusal for any more debates. But that's only going to turn people off...unless you're a GOPer)

She should be thankful that she has someone to blame for her failure so far to clinch the nomination; someone that generates far more excitement and enthusiasm than she does.

[Dextroden]

These people are self-identified Democrats. They don't feel any loyalty to your candidate from the start. Calling them names isn't going to work. So what exactly were you thinking? That you didn't need the democrat vote? Congrats then, because you don't have it.[/I]

Now, in tangy Bernie flavor.

[BuckSparkles]

She's handed the presidency to Trump, well done.

I will have to agree with you. I wouldn't say it is over, but Clinton seems to be alienating all the potential Sanders voters, assuming that is what you are discussing with your post.

She is simply so very unlikeable.

[triplesdsu]

How do you reckon?

She doesn't need Sanders supporters anywhere except Swing States. And even then it might be smarter to just go for the moderates and anti-trump conservatives who outnumber liberals in those states.

How much Sanders supporters matter in the general election isn't a case that's been close to made yet. Who cares if every supporter in Oregon or Massachusetts or California stays home and fucks themself. She'll win those by showing up.

THe only voters who matter are swing state voters. And it's far from clear going after Sanders supporters in those states is even desirable.

Bernie Sanders supporters have thought there are a lot more of them than there actually are.

Sanders supporters are basically toddlers. Sometimes you just got to ignore them and let them cry. Once they realize their tantrums didn't get the desired effect, theyll fall in line. As much as they bitch about Clinton, the ones with borderline intelligence realize staying home and having a Trump presidency with a republican congress would basically result in everything they believe in being destroyed. They just want to feel important because somehow they think come convention time, the winner should adopt the loser's platform. Good luck with that. Pretty sure the Broncos don't aspire to be more like the Cleveland Browns. Why would Clinton be any different.

- - - Updated - - -

From a previous link:

And unlike Trump, who is willing to acknowledge that some Mexicans might not be rapists, Hillary supporters have no problem making blanket statement that all Bernie supporters, every single one of them, are racist and sexist. But it's only Bernie supporters that are the problem, not Hillary supporters. Riiiiight.

What makes this unusual is that this tactic is rarely applied outside of a general election. Oh sure, it's not unusual for things to get nasty between candidates during primaries. That's par for the course. Welcome to politics. The difference is that you always want to get your opponents voters' support after the primaries are over. That's why slandering those voters, all of them, is a stupid, self-defeating, long-term strategy.

Instead I'm going to focus on the idea that Clinton supporters can slander and belittle all Sanders supporters and still think they can guilt them into voting for Hillary. Just how Stockholm Syndrome'd do you think progressives are?

These people are self-identified independents. They don't feel any loyalty to your candidate from the start. Calling them names isn't going to work. So what exactly were you thinking? That you didn't need the independent vote? Congrats then, because you don't have it.

-------------------------------

The presumptive nominee, i.e. Clinton should have already locked this up. She hasn't because she's as detested as Trump. Of course the sad fact that she has yet to have a strong proactive message for her own candidacy doesn't help either. (That $15/hr min wage thing only came out after Sanders goaded her in a debate. She said she can't go any further left-ward...which explains her refusal for any more debates. But that's only going to turn people off...unless you're a GOPer)

She should be thankful that she has someone to blame for her failure so far to clinch the nomination; someone that generates far more excitement and enthusiasm than she does.

She does have the nomination wrapped up though. The only difference between her and Trump is that his opponents realized they lost, bowed out and stopped milking their supporters for money. Hillary could probably strangle a puppy on live television and still get enough votes to clinch a majority of pledged delegates and overall primary votes. She's that far ahead.

I don't think I've called Sanders supporters racist. Just naive and stupid with a very sheltered worldview that a few more years of life experience should fix. They also apparently think all independents are alike. They arent. Unlike Dems who are generally left of center, republicans who are right of center, independents can be all along the spectrum. He may have done better with left leaning independents who voted in dem primaries doesnt mean he would do well with all of them. If he was that great a candidate, he wouldn't be so far behind.

PS. Yes i know, rigged system, voter fraud, *yawn*. I'd wager that when the issues of voter ID laws came up, people like Daerio were claiming election fraud wasnt a thing.

[Magicalcrab]

PS. Yes i know, rigged system, voter fraud, *yawn*. I'd wager that when the issues of voter ID laws came up, people like Daerio were claiming election fraud wasnt a thing.

Not taking a stance on Clinton's chances or any of the points raised or insults thrown or anything, because I'd rather not talk about what Bernie supporters are or what they are not.
But.

But I'd like to point out that there is a big difference between election fraud and what people consider voter fraud.
I mean, I'd rather have an investigation make the call instead of speculating about the Nevada convention and the like, personally (because hey, she won that state initially anyway - the last few delegates weren't going to make that big of a difference), but I just want to correct you on this detail so as to prevent miscommunication and people talking over eachother.

[triplesdsu]

Not taking a stance on Clinton's chances or any of the points raised or insults thrown or anything, because I'd rather not talk about what Bernie supporters are or what they are not.
But.

But I'd like to point out that there is a big difference between election fraud and what people consider voter fraud.
I mean, I'd rather have an investigation make the call instead of speculating about the Nevada primaries and the like, personally, but I just want to correct you on this detail so as to prevent miscommunication and people talking over eachother.

The Nevada primaries are a non-issue other than the way Sanderistas were acting when they werent able to steal a win in a primary they lost. It's like complaining about a foul call in basketball game. Only less important as basketball teams usually don't lose by 200+ points.

[McFuu]

I don't think I've called Sanders supporters racist. Just naive and stupid with a very sheltered worldview that a few more years of life experience should fix. They also apparently think all independents are alike. They arent. Unlike Dems who are generally left of center, republicans who are right of center, independents can be all along the spectrum. He may have done better with left leaning independents who voted in dem primaries doesnt mean he would do well with all of them. If he was that great a candidate, he wouldn't be so far behind.

If he was that great of a candidate he wouldn't have had any issues running against Hillary Clinton with all her recent scandals. He should have been able to wipe the floor with her. Her existence in this race, same with Trump, just shows the quality of the candidates both parties have in their stables.

[hrugner]

Only less important as basketball teams usually don't lose by 200+ points.

What is the usual spread in a presidential primary by the way?

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/05...lead-panel.cnn

After rewatching the video, it seems to be speculation on the part of the reporter. My guess it he's not basing it on nothing and has heard something to that effect, but my reaction was too strong for what we know now. That headline is really stupid. Clickbaity as fuck.

I sincerely hope Sanders doesn't expect say over the cabinet though.

I figured it was something like that. People are having fun letting their imaginations run wild this election cycle.

[derpkitteh]

If he was that great of a candidate he wouldn't have had any issues running against Hillary Clinton with all her recent scandals. He should have been able to wipe the floor with her. Her existence in this race, same with Trump, just shows the quality of the candidates both parties have in their stables.

hillary clinton got the vote of stupid people that voted for a name without really caring about their policy. that's it. that's literally the only reason she's winning. not figuratively literally, literal literally.

[hrugner]

hillary clinton got the vote of stupid people that voted for a name without really caring about their policy. that's it. that's literally the only reason she's winning. not figuratively literally, literal literally.

Just no dude. Some people really believe in the sorts of things she does with her position. They believe that her military philosophy would have been a better path to follow in Syria, they think her trade policies are good for the US and thus good, they don't mind her softness on environmental issues and think her tolerance of old school incarceration and vilification of the poor are totally justified. I don't think she's a great choice, but I'd be hard pressed to say that most people who do like her are idiots and followers. That's just absurd.

[derpkitteh]

Just no dude. Some people really believe in the sorts of things she does with her position. They believe that her military philosophy would have been a better path to follow in Syria, they think her trade policies are good for the US and thus good, they don't mind her softness on environmental issues and think her tolerance of old school incarceration and vilification of the poor are totally justified. I don't think she's a great choice, but I'd be hard pressed to say that most people who do like her are idiots and followers. That's just absurd.

she definitely got the votes of people like that. i'm not saying she didn't.

but the majority of her votes that won her the south? all name recognition.

[Blur4stuff]

You will need to toughen up a bit if you want to be able to argue with people on an internet forum without getting your feelings hurt. Internet forums are rough places. The other side won't be kind to you.

judging by the latest polls for Trump vs Clinton, i don't think it's going to be Sander's supporters that need to toughen up. Sanders has a better chance against him and Clinton supporters are about to fully understand that fact in the coming months.

agreeing with Clinton positions

I'm willing to bet that the majority of people on the left disagree with both Clintons on some of the biggest decisions they have made.