If Bernie doesn't get the nomination...what will you do?

So many choices!

http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/?other=other

steel said:

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. 

I consider the idea that Nader cost Gore the election by siphoning votes in Florida to be a convenient misanalysis. (If that is a word). First, it ignores the fact that the weird ballot caused a number of Gore supporters to vote for Pat Buchanan.

More significantly. the Governor of Florida was the Republican candidate's brother!

There was no way that JEB Bush wasn't going to make sure that George carried Florida. The Dems were wrong to put so much effort into Florida and in the meantime they lost Gore's home State of Tennessee and Clinton's Arkansas by being afraid to let Bill have a larger role in the campaign.

denniss said:

I'm sure there would be none of that if the results were reversed, would there?

Are you trying to win an election or just be a jerk?  I will vote against Trump/Cruz/Scalia. What more do you want?

Theres still a few primaries left until June.   I'll still be voting for Bernie in the NJ primary.  

Then when the dust settles and the general come around, if Hillary is the candidate she has my support.

LOST said:

steel said:

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. 

I consider the idea that Nader cost Gore the election by siphoning votes in Florida to be a convenient misanalysis. (If that is a word). First, it ignores the fact that the weird ballot caused a number of Gore supporters to vote for Pat Buchanan.

More significantly. the Governor of Florida was the Republican candidate's brother!

There was no way that JEB Bush wasn't going to make sure that George carried Florida. The Dems were wrong to put so much effort into Florida and in the meantime they lost Gore's home State of Tennessee and Clinton's Arkansas by being afraid to let Bill have a larger role in the campaign.

IIRC there were four other states that went to Bush because of Nader. Had he stayed out, Florida could have gone to Bush and not mattered.

Let sleeping tulips lie.

My tulips are beautiful right now and as long as the rats don't come down from the Reservation and eat them, they will remain so.

mjh said:

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.

+1

tjohn said:

My tulips are beautiful right now and as long as the rats don't come down from the Reservation and eat them, they will remain so.

Ah, I remember Mplwd fondly in spring. Beautiful tulips one day. Lovely bloom-free stems the next. 

...and the leaf blowers singing their tune and providing aroma therapy through open windows.

GL2 said:

...and the leaf blowers singing their tune and providing aroma therapy through open windows.

Deer, at least, are beautiful creatures.  I can think of nothing nice to say about leaf blowers.

Klinker said:

denniss said:

I'm sure there would be none of that if the results were reversed, would there?

Are you trying to win an election or just be a jerk?  I will vote against Trump/Cruz/Scalia. What more do you want?

Jeeeeeez...I make a simple little joke, and you would think I had insulted the Pope. Lighten up, guys, all I did was a little chirp compared to the heavy artillery you all have lobbed at Hillary over the past weeks. Untwist your panties, and start a constructive commentary on how we prevent the Repocalypse.

This is really the best news from yesterday:

WASHINGTON (AP) — As New York voters headed to the polls Tuesday, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say they have been energized by the primary battles within their parties. Two-thirds of Democratic voters say the contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has energized the party. But GOP voters hold the opposite view, saying their party has been divided by the sparring among front-runner Donald Trump, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ny-primary-exit-polling-2016

This is very fine w/ me.

BCC said:

IIRC there were four other states that went to Bush because of Nader. Had he stayed out, Florida could have gone to Bush and not mattered.

I found articles arguing the issue but there are no mentions of any States other than Florida and New Hampshire.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-nader-cost-gore-an-election/2015/02/05/3261cc22-abd2-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html

http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

I'll vote for Clinton, but not with enthusiasm.  

But yes, the GOP candidate will be worse.  A lot worse.

Bernie was a deeply flawed candidate.  I'm just sorry that no one else from the left wing of the party even tried to run this year. 

tjohn said:

GL2 said:

...and the leaf blowers singing their tune and providing aroma therapy through open windows.

Deer, at least, are beautiful creatures.  I can think of nothing nice to say about leaf blowers.

+100

denniss said:

Klinker said:

denniss said:

I'm sure there would be none of that if the results were reversed, would there?

Are you trying to win an election or just be a jerk?  I will vote against Trump/Cruz/Scalia. What more do you want?

Jeeeeeez...I make a simple little joke, and you would think I had insulted the Pope. Lighten up, guys, all I did was a little chirp compared to the heavy artillery you all have lobbed at Hillary over the past weeks. Untwist your panties, and start a constructive commentary on how we prevent the Repocalypse.

Well, one way for HRC to start courting the Bernie supporters would be to pledge not to appoint a Wall Street insider to head the Treasury Department.

I will vote against Trump/Cruz/Scalia no matter what but your candidate has some courting to do if she wants to pick up most of the folks from the progressive wing of the party. $300,000 speeches with secret transcripts just aren't going to do it.

Pretending that the nomination was her birthright as a Clinton didn't work out that well for HRC.  Assuming that the Bernie supporters are going to magically flock to her as she swings to the hard right of the center for the general election isn't going to work for her either.

Wall Street isn't the enemy and I really don't think that Wall Street is behaving any less responsibly than in the past.  That is why I find calls to break up the big banks and tear up the trade agreements to be simpleton's solutions for more serious problems.  We are approaching the man-machine singularity of science fiction and it is not entirely clear to me what 7 billion human beings are going to do after we reach that point.

tjohn said:

I really don't think that Wall Street is behaving any less responsibly than in the past. 

This is not a very strong endorsement.

Klinker said:

tjohn said:

I really don't think that Wall Street is behaving any less responsibly than in the past. 

This is not a very strong endorsement.

No, it is not, but if Wall Street is behaving as Wall Street has always behaved, maybe the problem lies elsewhere.

It's always darkest before the dawn.   

LOST said:

BCC said:

IIRC there were four other states that went to Bush because of Nader. Had he stayed out, Florida could have gone to Bush and not mattered.

I found articles arguing the issue but there are no mentions of any States other than Florida and New Hampshire.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-nader-cost-gore-an-election/2015/02/05/3261cc22-abd2-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html

http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Found the same articles. Leave it at one - NH

ml1 said:

I'll vote for Clinton, but not with enthusiasm.  

But yes, the GOP candidate will be worse.  A lot worse.

Bernie was a deeply flawed candidate.  I'm just sorry that no one else from the left wing of the party even tried to run this year. 

In what way is he "deeply flawed"? 

If Hillary wins............again it will be the lesser of two evils

LOST said:

ml1 said:

I'll vote for Clinton, but not with enthusiasm.  

But yes, the GOP candidate will be worse.  A lot worse.

Bernie was a deeply flawed candidate.  I'm just sorry that no one else from the left wing of the party even tried to run this year. 

In what way is he "deeply flawed"? 

He didn't form a PAC before he announced. 

LOST said:

ml1 said:

I'll vote for Clinton, but not with enthusiasm.  

But yes, the GOP candidate will be worse.  A lot worse.

Bernie was a deeply flawed candidate.  I'm just sorry that no one else from the left wing of the party even tried to run this year. 

In what way is he "deeply flawed"? 

As a candidate running in the Democratic primaries, it's a pretty serious flaw to not really be a member of the party.  Without alliances in the party, and without any major endorsements, it's tough to win.  From the beginning Sanders was an extreme long shot, and it's pretty amazing that he's won as many delegates as he has.

ml1 said:

I'll vote for Clinton, but not with enthusiasm.  

But yes, the GOP candidate will be worse.  A lot worse.

Bernie was a deeply flawed candidate.  I'm just sorry that no one else from the left wing of the party even tried to run this year. 

Amen.

I won't even go there on the 'How is Bernie deeply flawed?' question, but suffice it to say I'm glad NY turned out the way it did and his quixotic quest should be wrapping up soon. 

Hopefully Hil will make nice with the Bernie camp, the Dems can be reasonably united by convention time, and then she trounces Trump in November.

I'm also hoping this presidential campaign and its crummy fields on both sides will go down as the worst in my lifetime.     

I wrote this in another thread:

I'm truly not surprised, but I am disappointed. I knew that Sanders has always been a long shot. I have imagined how miraculous things could happen, because, after all, miraculous things have happened. But I'm not holding out for any miracles after yesterday. Maybe it's because I live in New York now, but yesterday's primary seems pretty decisive for me.
Clinton has some strong pluses and some strong minuses. On the strong side, I truly am excited at the strong prospect of a woman president. It is long overdue.

Tom_Reingold said:

Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, in November, I will be voting for whoever Bernie is voting for.

Me too.

But my main focus between now and June 7th is to work as hard as possible for Bernie in the remaining states, especially New Jersey, for three reasons:

a) It's not over. Bernie can still overtake Hillary on pledged delegates (see below)

b) Bernie can continue to make Hillary move to the left

c) The more delegates Bernie has, regardless of whether he wins, the more influence he'll have at the convention and going forward as the head of the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.