[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Wells]

90% of the what the senate votes on is useless shit like changing street names or electing a new Post-Office-Lord-Commander, or whatever. The other 3% they agree on is when the Tea Party end of the Republican party puts something crazy up to the ballot: like changing Obama's title from President to Tyrant.

The ~90% of stuff they voted alike on is unlikely to be purely procedural stuff given that Clinton was pretty far to the left in her time in the Senate.

[Gsara]

I like him telling people to be involved in state and local politics, and encouraging people to run for office.

I agree, if you really want change that is the best advice anyone will ever give you. When it comes to change in the US, congress holds almost all of the cards. The real issue is that we have such low voter turnout in off cycles and a huge lobby system, not so much who the president happens to be at the time.

[Eviscero]

I will give him that. If he runs on recruiting lowest of the down ticket ballot people, good on him. I am also glad he didn't turn this into a deeply bitter complaint about how he was cheated by the Rigged System.

This is so important its gross: The state legislature draws district boundaries, which is precisely the reason why the US House of Rep. is under republican control today. Thank you gerrymandering to such an extent in Ohio that Repubs maintained a super majority representation there despite HAVING FEWER VOTES OVERALL THAN DEMOCRATS! Ratfucking bastards.

[Pterodactylus]

Clinton was pretty far to the left in her time in the Senate.

I think for some people their hatred of HRC clouds their objectivity.

The links below go to a website called "on the issues" and both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are rated as "Hard-core Liberal."
You can read all the methodology of their ranking as well as all the source material at there as well for those interested.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

- - - Updated - - -

The real issue is that we have such low voter turnout

There should be universal vote-by-mail and it needs to be easier to get registered to vote (e.g. motor voter laws).

[I Push Buttons]

There's still the question of how big of a portion of Sanders' supporters will not vote for Hillary regardless of whether she's the nominee or not, and as such, it's not over at all. Then again, the general assumption seems to be that a big enough of a number of the voters who voted for Sanders will vote for Hillary.

That assumption, however, seems to always come from Hillary's supporters, and as such you'd have to wonder if they really do have such a good read about Sanders' supporters after all. Every time I bring this up, there's a handful of people in this thread who get very angry and say I'm delusional, but they never base their accusations on any kind of a "pulse taking" of the Sanders supporter base. Thus far it's been along the lines of...

"Well, X% of Sanders' supporters say they'll never vote for Hillary."
"You're delusional! Of course they will! I know them better than they know themselves!"

I suppose, if you're going to say "it's all over except for the crying", then the "crying" in this case might be done by Sanders' suppoters, in November, at home, during the general election, instead of voting for Hillary.

I would wager come January 2017 Hillary will be standing in front of the US Capitol giving her inaugural address and you will still be in this thread talking about Bernie lovers not voting for her.

[Matchles]

I think he made it quite clear in tonight's address that he is less concerned about this loss to Hillary than he is about maintaining his 'political revolution.'

Honestly, he could just continue to campaign indefinitely, not against Hillary or for any particular public office, but to simply continue encouraging participation in government by progressive people hoping to transform so much of our political and social systems.

I wonder if the crowds will still come when there is no longer the goal of winning the nomination on the table.

[Eviscero]

I wonder if the crowds will still come when there is no longer the goal of winning the nomination on the table.

He would have to spin it appropriately and I think have definite goals for each rally, for example fighting for or against some legislation, campaigning for some down ballot individual he really supports, etc.

[Deleted]

You make the mistake thinking that you, or the people on TYT, or the Sanders reddit are in any way representative of Sanders primary voters in general.

I'm not a "voter" (in the US), but anyway, I keep hearing exactly this. What do you base it on, though? Just a feeling?

the question is how much damage are you willing to cause to your cause due to your anger.

*note, by 'you' I mean anyone reading this and not the person I quoted.*

Well, we know for a fact there are people who are willing not to vote for Hillary. Whether they vote for Jill Stein, write in Bernie, stay home and don't vote at all, or even vote for Trump, it doesn't really matter, because what they're essentially doing is not voting for Hillary. I understand the "well you're voting for Trump by doing that" -argument, and I'm sure they understand that as well, but there are people who don't care. There are people to whom that argument is irrelevant.

That argument seems to be the only one Hillary, and most of her supporters, can come up as a reason for people to vote for Hillary. "If you don't vote for Hillary, you're voting for Trump." Not exactly the best sales pitch, but a lot of people, including apparently Hillary's entire campaign, seem to rely on that sales pitch and nothing more. "Don't worry if I'm a bad candidate, just know Trump is worse."

In any case, as I said, we know there are people to whom that sales pitch does not work and will not work. The question is, though, how many, and whether they're numerous enough to hurt Hillary enough in the swing states.

He's trying to get Hillary to adopt his policies. He'll continue to fight. But just in case she doesn't adopt his policies, is someone else running for president that shares Bernie's views?

I think Jill Stein shares quite a few of those ideals.

Primaries aren't democracy. The party can decide to nominate who they please. People need to stop with this nonsense. Sanders is free to run on his own in the general election and you can still vote for him.

Of course, and that's the point. Hillary most likely has the nomination, barring the FBI taking it from her basically, but like you said, people are free not to vote for her. The concept that everyone who voted for Sanders now has to vote for Hillary is the "nonsense" -part in all of this, not because it doesn't make sense to people to vote for Hillary so Trump doesn't win, but because people just assume that's automatic.

What? They vote by mail, and there are lots of provisional ballots and also some damaged ballots. There is almost a month until they will certify the election results and they have been count all of the ballots, updating the totals a few times a day. One more thing, not all of those ballots are democrat primary ballots. 2 million votes aren't being dismissed.

Dismissed by the media, is what I mean.

HRC and Bernie voted the same in the Senate 93% of the time.

Well, humans share something like 98% of their genes with chimpanzees and 90% of their genes with cats, but they're still humans and neither of those things. However, people don't support Bernie because of how he voted in the Senate. They support him because of his policy plans and ideals, and Hillary doesn't share a lot of those things.

I would wager come January 2017 Hillary will be standing in front of the US Capitol giving her inaugural address and you will still be in this thread talking about Bernie lovers not voting for her.

By then there'll be a new thread in which we've been discussing the general election for quite a while, and if Hillary wins the presidency, we will have been pointing out several times how it's been because of Donald Trump, and not because of who she is and what she represents.

It's quite possible she will get enough of Bernie's supporters to vote for her just because of how bad Trump is. There's still months to go until November, and we don't know what Trump will do before then. However, as I said, it's more than likely those voters will vote for her begrudgingly not because she'll make a great president, but just to avoid Trump.

Then again, Trump is a master of pivots, and we don't know what he'll do.

Anyways, if Hillary is the president in 2017, then my prediction is that we'll be discussing all the horrible decisions she'll be making, and the wars she'll be continuing and starting in the Middle East, costing many a US soldier their lives, not to mention thousands upon thousands more innocent civilian deaths.

Hope I'm wrong, and, if I'm not, hope Finland has adopted a bit better asylum seeker policies by then.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, interesting but not surprising;



Will this piss off Bernie's supporters even more and drive them away from Hillary even more?

[Theodarzna]

I am talking about winning and losing in a primary. You understand that basic concept of the person with the most votes wins? right?

Winning a Primary does not entitle one to votes. Hubert Humphrey won a primary.

[AztechZero]

Eh, I've been a staunch Bernie supporter for a while now but I think it's nearly time to call it. Honestly, it's been time to call it. I get it, he wants to use the influence he's gained to try and swing Hillary to the left and that's why he's going all the way to the convention. But, I feel it's more important to keep Trump (or any Republican) out of the white house at this point. Those Supreme Court seats are too important. Swallow the (slightly) bitter Hillary pill now, hope for a tastier, more progressive candidate down the road.

And full disclosure, I have (very recently) said I'm only voting for her if my state is highly contested. I'll only take the Hillary pill if I absolutely have to :P

[Theodarzna]

The ~90% of stuff they voted alike on is unlikely to be purely procedural stuff given that Clinton was pretty far to the left in her time in the Senate.

I guess she forgot that when she voted for the Iraq War, ect.

But then again, Which Hillary? Your boy Skroe seems to think there is a very different Hillary Clinton running for office. Indeed people have decided she is really conservative, including herself. This Hillary lady could be anything to anyone, and even you folks in this thread can't decide who Hillary Clinton is. She is either a Conservative and lying to the Left, or she is really on the Left and lying to Skroe and her Conservative friends and donors. So.... really who is she?

[Wells]

I guess she forgot that when she voted for the Iraq War, ect.

But then again, Which Hillary? Your boy Skroe seems to think there is a very different Hillary Clinton running for office. Indeed people have decided she is really conservative, including herself. This Hillary lady could be anything to anyone, and even you folks in this thread can't decide who Hillary Clinton is. She is either a Conservative and lying to the Left, or she is really on the Left and lying to Skroe and her Conservative friends and donors. So.... really who is she?

I've already linked you her senate record. You decided that didn't count. Why should I repeat myself to people who refuse to listen?

[Deleted]

And full disclosure, I have (very recently) said I'm only voting for her if my state is highly contested. I'll only take the Hillary pill if I absolutely have to :P

Well, there's still months to go. That pill may get much more bitter in the coming months, or, it might get easier to swallow. That's why I think it matters what Hillary does and how she does it.

Thus far though, it just seems like she's like a commander of an army or the captain of a pirate ship, who have taken over the enemy forces and just verbally conscripted them, saying you're "all in the same boat now", going against Sauron or Voldemort or something, and she's expecting all those enemy pirates she just fought against and who her own pirates have been spitting on for months, to just fall in line behind her, instead of running her through with their swords, or grabbing the life boat and rowing the hell away from the battle.

Right now, it might feel like an insane amount of hubris, if it weren't for Donald Trump. If the Republican candidate was someone more centrist and perhaps even a bit intelligent and moderate, then I think Hillary might be on her knees begging for the support of the people who voted for Bernie. But, because it's Trump, she seems so arrogantly confident that everyone will just vote for her. Because...Trump.

Bad analogies are bad analogies, sorry about that.

I've already linked you her senate record. You decided that didn't count.

What counts more is what she says she will do, not what she has done, and what she has said she will do conflicts with what Bernie has promised to do, and when people want what Bernie has promised them, why would they be happy voting for Hillary when she won't give them those things? And that's where we return back to "well, you don't have to be happy and vote for her, but at least she's not Trump."

- - - Updated - - -

Also, this might be obvious to people who have followed Sanders news, but...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...orters-n594091

Bernie Sanders Offers No Concession in Address to Supporters

Bernie Sanders is not ready to concede his presidential campaign, nor is he ready to throw his support behind Hillary Clinton, leaving his political future murky.

Since a lot of people in this thread keep repeating that Sanders is "supporting" and "endorsing" Clinton, it might just be a good idea to debunk that disinformation.

[Theodarzna]

I've already linked you her senate record. You decided that didn't count. Why should I repeat myself to people who refuse to listen?

Her Senate record misses her key votes, Mainly the Iraq War, She like you, are never really Liberal were it counts, Namely on trade and war. She is touted as the Interventionist.Plus her calling TPP the Gold Standard, and its many problems. So great, A "Liberal," Who will get people killed and sign away our national sovereignty to her wealthy backers. I can see why your type might like that. That isn't however, particularly liberal. She herself described herself as Conservative, are you calling her a liar? I thought you were "with her." E'gads! How could you insult that paragon of integrity like that?

You know what I love about Hillary Clinton? Even her own voters, her staunch followers call her a bold faced liar and impugn her integrity, yet they really get all pissy when you say its a negative.

[Deleted]

Here's some Cenk for the Cenk haters, talking about Bernie's speech:

[Bollocks]

I'm not a "voter" (in the US), but anyway, I keep hearing exactly this. What do you base it on, though? Just a feeling?

Well, we know for a fact there are people who are willing not to vote for Hillary. Whether they vote for Jill Stein, write in Bernie, stay home and don't vote at all, or even vote for Trump, it doesn't really matter, because what they're essentially doing is not voting for Hillary. I understand the "well you're voting for Trump by doing that" -argument, and I'm sure they understand that as well, but there are people who don't care. There are people to whom that argument is irrelevant.

That argument seems to be the only one Hillary, and most of her supporters, can come up as a reason for people to vote for Hillary. "If you don't vote for Hillary, you're voting for Trump." Not exactly the best sales pitch, but a lot of people, including apparently Hillary's entire campaign, seem to rely on that sales pitch and nothing more. "Don't worry if I'm a bad candidate, just know Trump is worse."

In any case, as I said, we know there are people to whom that sales pitch does not work and will not work. The question is, though, how many, and whether they're numerous enough to hurt Hillary enough in the swing states.

I think Jill Stein shares quite a few of those ideals.

Of course, and that's the point. Hillary most likely has the nomination, barring the FBI taking it from her basically, but like you said, people are free not to vote for her. The concept that everyone who voted for Sanders now has to vote for Hillary is the "nonsense" -part in all of this, not because it doesn't make sense to people to vote for Hillary so Trump doesn't win, but because people just assume that's automatic.

Dismissed by the media, is what I mean.

Well, humans share something like 98% of their genes with chimpanzees and 90% of their genes with cats, but they're still humans and neither of those things. However, people don't support Bernie because of how he voted in the Senate. They support him because of his policy plans and ideals, and Hillary doesn't share a lot of those things.

By then there'll be a new thread in which we've been discussing the general election for quite a while, and if Hillary wins the presidency, we will have been pointing out several times how it's been because of Donald Trump, and not because of who she is and what she represents.

It's quite possible she will get enough of Bernie's supporters to vote for her just because of how bad Trump is. There's still months to go until November, and we don't know what Trump will do before then. However, as I said, it's more than likely those voters will vote for her begrudgingly not because she'll make a great president, but just to avoid Trump.

Then again, Trump is a master of pivots, and we don't know what he'll do.

Anyways, if Hillary is the president in 2017, then my prediction is that we'll be discussing all the horrible decisions she'll be making, and the wars she'll be continuing and starting in the Middle East, costing many a US soldier their lives, not to mention thousands upon thousands more innocent civilian deaths.

Hope I'm wrong, and, if I'm not, hope Finland has adopted a bit better asylum seeker policies by then.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, interesting but not surprising;



Will this piss off Bernie's supporters even more and drive them away from Hillary even more?

C'mon she literally had 58% of the public support and it was a memo sent from her campaign to the DNC

[Fugus]

I can't help but notice you have many here saying Sanders and his supports need to accept that he lost but neglect themselves to accept the truth that a huge part of the reason why was how the media and the DNC tried to sabotage and/or hamstring him during the entire time.

Sanders and most of his supporters already know he has probably lost barring a miracle or a travesty at this point. We know he has lost, we know he how the polls work and how the votes turned out (Except the exact numbers as evidently caucus votes weren't counted towards the vote totals I have heard but haven't managed to confirm or deny yet as I haven't taken the time to properly research). Why do the same people who keep bringing up that he lost and we need to accept that refuse to accept the hand the media and DNC played in making sure that happened?

I have watched some try to downplay the difference in coverage in the election at the start which effects a lot, I watched them downplay the Super Delegates and how they were used to manipulate perception of the candidates and I had Matches personally trying to tell me that the Bandwagon effect didn't matter in regards to this election asking for proof that it had any appreciable effect on the votes when it has been known longer than most people have been alive.

Watching a group telling Sanders supporters not to be deluded about his chances about winning and that he lost while they themselves are deluded about the efforts used to undercut him and hamstring him by the same people whom are winning seems rather hypocritical to me.

[Pterodactylus]

Winning a Primary does not entitle one to votes. Hubert Humphrey won a primary.

Okay, but my point was only that Bernie lost the primary. He as much admitted it tonight.

[Deleted]

He as much admitted it tonight.

Just to be fair here, and so that we "correct the record", you're leaving out that he's not conceding, that he's not supporting Hillary, that he's not endorsing Hillary, and that he'll still be going to the convention in July.

[Dextroden]

I can't help but notice you have many here saying Sanders and his supports need to accept that he lost but neglect themselves to accept the truth that a huge part of the reason why was how the media and the DNC tried to sabotage and/or hamstring him during the entire time.

Sanders and most of his supporters already know he has probably lost barring a miracle or a travesty at this point. We know he has lost, we know he how the polls work and how the votes turned out (Except the exact numbers as evidently caucus votes weren't counted towards the vote totals I have heard but haven't managed to confirm or deny yet as I haven't taken the time to properly research). Why do the same people who keep bringing up that he lost and we need to accept that refuse to accept the hand the media and DNC played in making sure that happened?

I have watched some try to downplay the difference in coverage in the election at the start which effects a lot, I watched them downplay the Super Delegates and how they were used to manipulate perception of the candidates and I had Matches personally trying to tell me that the Bandwagon effect didn't matter in regards to this election asking for proof that it had any appreciable effect on the votes when it has been known longer than most people have been alive.

Watching a group telling Sanders supporters not to be deluded about his chances about winning and that he lost while they themselves are deluded about the efforts used to undercut him and hamstring him by the same people whom are winning seems rather hypocritical to me.

So, first the twentieth time, everybody except Bernie and his blessed children are to blame for him losing.

Don't talk about people being deluded when that has been an appropriate description of his entire campaign.