If Bernie doesn't get the nomination...what will you do?
PVW said:
springgreen2 said:
You aren't supposed to organize and extract blood promises from your superdelegates years before the primaries. That's not constututional. It is fraud. It stinks of cronyism, it's a political cartel, and it's highly corrupt. Clintons have a way of just smiling and waving it away. Bernie has the potential to put an end to that, by the books.
So far, Clinton has won about 2 million more votes than Sanders. I suppose if Sanders ends up getting more votes, and Clinton gets more delegates, you'll have a point, but at this moment, Clinton is winning because she's convinced more people to vote for her than Sanders has. Unless that changes, all your complaints about superdelegates are more theoretical than actual. I don't see how convincing more people to vote for you than your rival is a symptom of corruption or cronyism.
The primaries went into the southern states first, where Bernie isn't known as well. Can you at least give the northeast and California a chance to be counted?
springgreen2 said:
PVW said:
springgreen2 said:
You aren't supposed to organize and extract blood promises from your superdelegates years before the primaries. That's not constututional. It is fraud. It stinks of cronyism, it's a political cartel, and it's highly corrupt. Clintons have a way of just smiling and waving it away. Bernie has the potential to put an end to that, by the books.
So far, Clinton has won about 2 million more votes than Sanders. I suppose if Sanders ends up getting more votes, and Clinton gets more delegates, you'll have a point, but at this moment, Clinton is winning because she's convinced more people to vote for her than Sanders has. Unless that changes, all your complaints about superdelegates are more theoretical than actual. I don't see how convincing more people to vote for you than your rival is a symptom of corruption or cronyism.
The primaries went into the southern states first, where Bernie isn't known as well. Can you at least give the northeast and California a chance to be counted?
Can you? Your claims about Clinton are in the present tense, not the future.
It's not just move votes, it's decisive wins in FL, VA and wins in NC, and OH. Any democrat who carries those states in November is going to the White House.
Wyoming? The Republicans could run a turd - an actual, literal turd - and win Wyoming.
Hillary won largely in red states. We are now going into primaries in blue states. Why don't you stop jumping to conclusions about who will win?
RobB said:
It's not just move votes, it's decisive wins in FL, VA and wins in NC, and OH. Any democrat who carries those states in November is going to the White House.
Wyoming? The Republicans could run a turd - an actual, literal turd - and win Wyoming.
Are Michigan, New Hampshire and Wisconsin chopped liver?
MI and WI have gone Dem in every election since 2000. NH is a 4 electoral vote "battleground" that's gone D since 2004.
The pledged delegate difference right now is 209. (Hillary has 209 more than Bernie, with New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Connecticut and more still left to go.) Take a breath.
So what's holding those supers back? Huh?
I live in Missouri, which is still, in my opinion, the purplest of purple states, and still the closest to a bellwether state. In 2008, Missouri had the narrowest margin of any state, with McCain beating Obama by less that one tenth of one percent. Unfortunately for our status as a bellwether state, Romney beat Obama in 2012 in Missouri by a larger margin. But previous to that, the only two times in a hundred years that Missouri failed to go with the eventual winner were separated by about 50 years. One of those times Missouri went for a neighboring Senator, Adlai Stevenson. Our recent primary was also exceedingly close. Clinton beat Sanders by less than one quarter of one percent, and Trump beat Cruz by less than one fifth of one percent.
Personally, I had a hard time deciding between Clinton and Sanders, but I wound up voting for Sanders. You better believe I will vote in November for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. It's possible that in my lifetime I have actually voted for a Republican, but I doubt it. And if I did, I certainly don't remember who it would have been.
By the way, I cast the first vote in my life for President for Shirley Chisholm. However, I don't remember if I was registered in New Jersey or Missouri at the time.
chopin said:
My motto: If you don't vote, don't kvetch.
Damn it. I love kvetching.
What will I do if Bernie doesn't get the nomination?
I haven't felt so enthused about a candidate (Bernie) in decades! Even JFK v RMN (an election I too young to vote in). I'm sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils!!! The difference between mainstream pols, on both sides of the aisle, is minimal. Their only concern is getting re-elected- and to hell with governance. They start chasing funds from the moment the current campaign ends. This is done, mainly, by kissing fat wallets and the area where they're usually carried.
THEY'RE ALL CROOKS AND HACKS.
So, if I can't vote FOR Bernie, I will vote, "None of the above" by not voting for either other turd. My vote will be restricted to the 'down ballot'.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/bernie-sanders-1963-arrest-full-story-school-segregation/Content?oid=21247370
Bernie walks the walk
Hillary does a different kind of photo op
Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, in November, I will be voting for whoever Bernie is voting for.
You may not like the mainstream pols of either party, but you can't honestly believe there is no difference in their policies and positions on many important issues.
So, again, if you sit it out rather than choosing the lesser of two evils, I will consider it an exhibit of a certain kind of middle-class-establishment privilege that is insulated enough from the results of bad government policy to choose not to take a position in a race that has such stark implications for religious freedom, LBGT rights, environmental protection, race relations, composition of the supreme court and a host of other issues.
Not to vote is to say that you have so little skin in the game that you can afford to allow "the greater of two evils" to win, and let those less fortunate than you suffer the consequences.
Apollo_T said:
What will I do if Bernie doesn't get the nomination?
I haven't felt so enthused about a candidate (Bernie) in decades! Even JFK v RMN (an election I too young to vote in). I'm sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils!!! The difference between mainstream pols, on both sides of the aisle, is minimal. Their only concern is getting re-elected- and to hell with governance. They start chasing funds from the moment the current campaign ends. This is done, mainly, by kissing fat wallets and the area where they're usually carried.
THEY'RE ALL CROOKS AND HACKS.
So, if I can't vote FOR Bernie, I will vote, "None of the above" by not voting for either other turd. My vote will be restricted to the 'down ballot'.
susan1014 said:
You may not like the mainstream pols of either party, but you can't honestly believe there is no difference in their policies and positions on many important issues.
So, again, if you sit it out rather than choosing the lesser of two evils, I will consider it an exhibit of a certain kind of middle-class-establishment privilege that is insulated enough from the results of bad government policy to choose not to take a position in a race that has such stark implications for religious freedom, LBGT rights, environmental protection, race relations, composition of the supreme court and a host of other issues.
Not to vote is to say that you have so little skin in the game that you can afford to allow "the greater of two evils" to win, and let those less fortunate than you suffer the consequences.
+1
If you think there's no difference between Hillary and Cruz, you're probably a straight, upper middle class white guy. We've got a vacant Supreme Court seat, two justices in their late 70s and another in her 80s.
Ted Cruz appointing 3, 50 year old Scalia's should scare you *****less.
My vote in the general election goes to the Democratic nominee. Too much riding on this The Supremes,etc)
Regarding Bush vs Gore in 2000:
For all who voted for Nader in New Jersey back in 2000 -no worries. Gore carried New Jersey even WITH 94,000 folks voting for a stronger liberal. Too bad Al couldn't do the same with his own freakin' home state.
Meanwhile, if Sanders fails to get the nomination I will vote for Clinton with all the dull enthusiasm of taking out the trash. Not particularly pleasant but needs be done. Otherwise Trump or Cruz will mightily stink up the place.
Clinton is a thousand times better than any of the Republicans. No matter how you feel about Hillary, the Republicans are disasters. It would be a shame to allow one of them to win because of disappointed snits. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination,I bet that he would vote for Hillary.
lizziecat said:
Clinton is a thousand times better than any of the Republicans. No matter how you feel about Hillary, the Republicans are disasters. It would be a shame to allow one of them to win because of disappointed snits. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination,I bet that he would vote for Hillary.
Bernie has pledged to back Clinton if he loses the primary, saying that it is absolutely imperative that the Republicans do not win back the White House.
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11319720/bernie-or-bust-sanders
I keep wondering how the conversation would have gone if Biden had entered the race.
I think the chill of last night's results may have damaged the emerging tulips.
denniss said:
I think the chill of last night's results may have damaged the emerging tulips.
I wouldn't think that gloating is very helpful. It's certainly not attractive.
I'm sure there would be none of that if the results were reversed, would there?
denniss said:
I'm sure there would be none of that if the results were reversed, would there?
What are you, 12?
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
Free Items
Advertisement
So far, Clinton has won about 2 million more votes than Sanders. I suppose if Sanders ends up getting more votes, and Clinton gets more delegates, you'll have a point, but at this moment, Clinton is winning because she's convinced more people to vote for her than Sanders has. Unless that changes, all your complaints about superdelegates are more theoretical than actual. I don't see how convincing more people to vote for you than your rival is a symptom of corruption or cronyism.