Fair or not, my take on Maddow and Sanders is very much:
"Why are you distracting me with irrelevancies and the blathering of idiots, when it's vitally important that I repeat my canned speech for the 127th consecutive time! There must be someone out there who still hasn't heard it."
How do other Sander supporters feel about misleading posts on social media? I'm pro bernie, and will most likely vote for him in the RI primary. Most of my social media contacts are also pro-Bernie, but it really bothers me when I see them post misleading images or content.
One I'm seeing a lot right now is that Bernie had more delegates than obama did at this point in 2008. With the idea that he can come back just like Obama did. Without mentioning that it was Obama with the mathematically overwhelming lead then. Another is that Bernie can get the super delegates to his side just like Obama did. Again failing to mention that Obama only did that by having a pledged delegate lead.
I'm all for optimism, but I think being misleading will just lead to bitterness and disillusionment when he eventually concedes. Which I do feel is a near certainty at this point.
I don't mean to point you out specifically. But if you say the Democratic party isn't the party for your political goals then the two options you have are to not participate meaningfully or to support the GOP.
Or work to change the party.
By, say, supporting candidates you like in the primary.
Followed by supporting the party in the General, regardless of which candidate won.
Sure, as soon as you've spent every cent of influence you earn through contest. I don't think Bernie's cupboard is quite bare. He has resources that the party can use. If Clinton, once nominated, wants him to put those resources to use supporting her, he has a right to make some conditions. And, anyway, as long as his campaign is still bringing in donations and organizing people, his pot of resources that the party can use will only grow.
Does that really matter when he's already lost?
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I don't mean to point you out specifically. But if you say the Democratic party isn't the party for your political goals then the two options you have are to not participate meaningfully or to support the GOP.
Or work to change the party.
By, say, supporting candidates you like in the primary.
Followed by supporting the party in the General, regardless of which candidate won.
Sure, as soon as you've spent every cent of influence you earn through contest. I don't think Bernie's cupboard is quite bare. He has resources that the party can use. If Clinton, once nominated, wants him to put those resources to use supporting her, he has a right to make some conditions. And, anyway, as long as his campaign is still bringing in donations and organizing people, his pot of resources that the party can use will only grow.
Does that really matter when he's already lost?
It does not appear that you actually continued reading after the part you bolded.
I don't mean to point you out specifically. But if you say the Democratic party isn't the party for your political goals then the two options you have are to not participate meaningfully or to support the GOP.
Or work to change the party.
By, say, supporting candidates you like in the primary.
Followed by supporting the party in the General, regardless of which candidate won.
Sure, as soon as you've spent every cent of influence you earn through contest. I don't think Bernie's cupboard is quite bare. He has resources that the party can use. If Clinton, once nominated, wants him to put those resources to use supporting her, he has a right to make some conditions. And, anyway, as long as his campaign is still bringing in donations and organizing people, his pot of resources that the party can use will only grow.
Does that really matter when he's already lost?
It does not appear that you actually continued reading after the part you bolded.
Bernie's resources being usable to the party are only usable if he concedes, and he's not doing that. He's doing the opposite, the longer he goes on the less resources he has since he's burning them to keep going. Can't he do this by helping Hillary in the general? And how exactly does doing this get his followers to transition for the general, wouldn't it have the opposite effect since they think he can still win?
I don't mean to point you out specifically. But if you say the Democratic party isn't the party for your political goals then the two options you have are to not participate meaningfully or to support the GOP.
Or work to change the party.
By, say, supporting candidates you like in the primary.
Followed by supporting the party in the General, regardless of which candidate won.
Sure, as soon as you've spent every cent of influence you earn through contest. I don't think Bernie's cupboard is quite bare. He has resources that the party can use. If Clinton, once nominated, wants him to put those resources to use supporting her, he has a right to make some conditions. And, anyway, as long as his campaign is still bringing in donations and organizing people, his pot of resources that the party can use will only grow.
Does that really matter when he's already lost?
It does not appear that you actually continued reading after the part you bolded.
Bernie's resources being usable to the party are only usable if he concedes, and he's not doing that. He's doing the opposite, the longer he goes on the less resources he has since he's burning them to keep going. Can't he do this by helping Hillary in the general? And how exactly does doing this get his followers to transition for the general, wouldn't it have the opposite effect since they think he can still win?
voters collected in the primary are not voters lost in the general
voters collected in the primary are not voters lost in the general
They are if they get burnt out by politics and let apathy or rage get the better of them in voting for Hillary. This is why transitions must be smooth - Bernie can't not do that and it seems the longer he does this the more he's pissing off Hillary as well.
edit: How's Bernie's credibility with his anti-establishment base going to fare when he's running donations and stumping for Hillary?
voters collected in the primary are not voters lost in the general
They are if they get burnt out by politics and let apathy or rage get the better of them in voting for Hillary. This is why transitions must be smooth - Bernie can't not do that and it seems the longer he does this the more he's pissing off Hillary as well.
edit: How's Bernie's credibility with his anti-establishment base going to fare when he's running donations and stumping for Hillary?
Also money spent in the primary on advertisement and redundant infrastructure is lost.
I don't mean to point you out specifically. But if you say the Democratic party isn't the party for your political goals then the two options you have are to not participate meaningfully or to support the GOP.
Or work to change the party.
By, say, supporting candidates you like in the primary.
Followed by supporting the party in the General, regardless of which candidate won.
Sure, as soon as you've spent every cent of influence you earn through contest. I don't think Bernie's cupboard is quite bare. He has resources that the party can use. If Clinton, once nominated, wants him to put those resources to use supporting her, he has a right to make some conditions. And, anyway, as long as his campaign is still bringing in donations and organizing people, his pot of resources that the party can use will only grow.
Does that really matter when he's already lost?
It does not appear that you actually continued reading after the part you bolded.
Bernie's resources being usable to the party are only usable if he concedes, and he's not doing that. He's doing the opposite, the longer he goes on the less resource she has since he's burning them to keep going. So what if they're still growing, can't he do that by helping Hillary in the general? And how exactly does doing this get his followers to transition for the general, wouldn't it have the opposite effect since they think he can still win?
You're failing to see the political calculus through his perspective. If his goal is to convert his electoral performance into post-concession influence -- whether through negotiating the party platform, getting a seat the table when choosing a veep, giving his input about cabinet appointees, and all the other thousands of political decisions that need to be made after the winning candidate has been settled -- he needs leverage. If Clinton's campaign burns a significant amount of money fighting him off before the convention, that actually strengthens his bargaining position within the party, since there will be a greater need for his resources.
Even if he has no hope of winning the nomination outright, he has every incentive to keep campaigning until the moment Clinton passes the pledged delegate threshold. Every vote, donation, and volunteer hour he gets from now until then will make him a stronger force in shaping the party's agenda.
We're still *seven* month away from election day. There's a point where he's hurting the general by not conceding, but I don't think we're there yet. I just don't see much sense in worrying about it. If he didn't concede yesterday or today, it's not going to be tomorrow and it's not going to be what looks like at worst a close race in Wisconsin and probably win for him. April 19th staggers him, April 26th knocks him out, and that still leaves 6+ months for healing and reorganizing.
You're failing to see the political calculus through his perspective. If his goal is to convert his electoral performance into post-concession influence -- whether through negotiating the party platform, getting a seat the table when choosing a veep, giving his input about cabinet appointees, and all the other thousands of political decisions that need to be made after the winning candidate has been settled -- he needs leverage. If Clinton's campaign burns a significant amount of money fighting him off before the convention, that actually strengthens his bargaining position within the party, since there will be a greater need for his resources.
Even if he has no hope of winning the nomination outright, he has every incentive to keep campaigning until the moment Clinton passes the pledged delegate threshold. Every vote, donation, and volunteer hour he gets from now until then will make him a stronger force in shaping the party's agenda.
Why?
Clinton will have a majority of the delegates. Getting voted down 70-30 or 55-45 on the platform and such doesn't make a difference.
And if he continues, he's going to antagonize the majority faction.
I doubt anyone who donated to Bernie now wants him to quit; I know I don't. See it through.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I doubt anyone who donated to Bernie now wants him to quit; I know I don't. See it through.
What counts as "through" though? Does he fight tooth and nail to the convention, even if Hillary keeps expanding her lead?
Whatever he wants, though if he gets pressured I suppose he can add another week
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yes its the job of the candidates to inspire the voters, but its the job of the voters to do their job well also. We get the government we deserve and a big part of our sins as a country that led to President George W Bush in 2000 was 5% of the left decided to support Nader because Gore wasn't pure enough
This.
And it helps a great deal if you think about voting as an exercise in harm minimization rather than as a medium for expressing your personal political aspirations.
Disagree. Voting is about getting the policy you want implemented. It's just that you it also involves admitting that you aren't the only one who's opinion matters and you need to accept compromises. And the further along you move, the more you need to accept. (ie - primaries are where you can be much more ideologically stringent because that's what they are for)
I think that any ethical approach to voting has to account for the likely outcome of the election, too. Voting isn't about you, it's about the future welfare of the country. If you know your vote (or non-vote) risks changing the winner of the election from someone you don't prefer to someone who will wreck the country, then you have an ethical obligation to vote for the person you don't prefer.
Yes. That's why I said it's about policy getting implemented.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I don't want him to quit. Keep getting liberals registered, keep pressure on Clinton to stay as left as is possible to push her all the way until the convention.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
If he wants to quit before then, that's fine too. But on his own terms.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
You're failing to see the political calculus through his perspective. If his goal is to convert his electoral performance into post-concession influence -- whether through negotiating the party platform, getting a seat the table when choosing a veep, giving his input about cabinet appointees, and all the other thousands of political decisions that need to be made after the winning candidate has been settled -- he needs leverage. If Clinton's campaign burns a significant amount of money fighting him off before the convention, that actually strengthens his bargaining position within the party, since there will be a greater need for his resources.
Even if he has no hope of winning the nomination outright, he has every incentive to keep campaigning until the moment Clinton passes the pledged delegate threshold. Every vote, donation, and volunteer hour he gets from now until then will make him a stronger force in shaping the party's agenda.
Why?
Clinton will have a majority of the delegates. Getting voted down 70-30 or 55-45 on the platform and such doesn't make a difference.
And if he continues, he's going to antagonize the majority faction.
Ted Kennedy had a mere 35% of the delegate count in 1980 but was able to give Jimmy Carter tremendous trouble with a floor fight. We all know how that story ended: hello, President Reagan. You will note that even though Kennedy's insurrection against Carter -- a sitting president! -- helped deliver a victory to the Republicans, history has remembered Kennedy more fondly that it remembers Carter's political career, which never managed to wash off that loser stink.
Clinton will want to avoid this scenario at all costs. Party unity is much more important to her than it is to Sanders at this point. He knows he has no realistic chance of winning the nomination, and this election will surely be his last. Antagonizing the Democratic majority has never mattered less to him. If he can frighten Clinton into making concessions, he will.
Would things be different if the Republicans had a frighteningly competitive candidate?
I have no idea how to determine that
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Would things be different if the Republicans had a frighteningly competitive candidate?
I have no idea how to determine that
If I said the only reason you want Bernie Sanders to continue on for as long as he wants is because you know either way a Republican presidency is highly improbable how would that make you feel?
Savge on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Would things be different if the Republicans had a frighteningly competitive candidate?
Really hard to say. In any negotiation, power belongs to the one who can just walk away with no deal. If the Republican nominee is perceived as easily beatable, maybe Clinton thinks that she can tell Sanders and his supporters to go pound sand. On the other hand, a more competitive Republican might make Sanders more afraid of a Republican win and increase his eagerness to rally behind Clinton. It's all pretty murky.
Would things be different if the Republicans had a frighteningly competitive candidate?
I have no idea how to determine that
If I said the only reason you want Bernie Sanders to continue on for as long as he wants is because you know either way a Republican presidency is highly improbable how would that make you feel?
Icing on the cake.
Edit: though I probably wouldn't support a candidate that would have no chance should they get to the general in the first place
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Blameless Cleric An angel made of sapphires each more flawlessly cut than the last Registered Userregular
Wasn't sure if anyone'd mentioned this whole thing going on or how much national attention it's getting.. I live in Mass so hearing a lot about it here.
And also aside from any debate about Clinton's behaviour, this:
As for breaking the law: I don’t see what others have quoted as the law online. AND—isn’t jay-walking a law? These people that are so concerned about this law should review every law.
has got to maybe not be great for this lady's future in politics o-o
Wasn't sure if anyone'd mentioned this whole thing going on or how much national attention it's getting.. I live in Mass so hearing a lot about it here.
And also aside from any debate about Clinton's behaviour, this:
As for breaking the law: I don’t see what others have quoted as the law online. AND—isn’t jay-walking a law? These people that are so concerned about this law should review every law.
has got to maybe not be great for this lady's future in politics o-o
I think Bill probably did get too close to the polling palce but let's be real: this had zero impact on the election results and will continue to have no impact.
Wasn't sure if anyone'd mentioned this whole thing going on or how much national attention it's getting.. I live in Mass so hearing a lot about it here.
And also aside from any debate about Clinton's behaviour, this:
As for breaking the law: I don’t see what others have quoted as the law online. AND—isn’t jay-walking a law? These people that are so concerned about this law should review every law.
has got to maybe not be great for this lady's future in politics o-o
So more info confirms that yes, Bill Clinton's appearance caused an irrelevant scene?
It seems long past the point of relevance, especially given candidates and surrogates frequently travel to polling locations.
Wasn't sure if anyone'd mentioned this whole thing going on or how much national attention it's getting.. I live in Mass so hearing a lot about it here.
And also aside from any debate about Clinton's behaviour, this:
As for breaking the law: I don’t see what others have quoted as the law online. AND—isn’t jay-walking a law? These people that are so concerned about this law should review every law.
has got to maybe not be great for this lady's future in politics o-o
I think Bill probably did get too close to the polling palce but let's be real: this had zero impact on the election results and will continue to have no impact.
I don't really have an opinion here, but if it's true that it doesn't matter, why even have the law
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Would things be different if the Republicans had a frighteningly competitive candidate?
Really hard to say. In any negotiation, power belongs to the one who can just walk away with no deal. If the Republican nominee is perceived as easily beatable, maybe Clinton thinks that she can tell Sanders and his supporters to go pound sand. On the other hand, a more competitive Republican might make Sanders more afraid of a Republican win and increase his eagerness to rally behind Clinton. It's all pretty murky.
I mean, at this point Clinton has all the power. If he holds out his support or, God forbid, runs a third party ticket and throws the general to the Republicans, he'll essentially become persona non grata amongst Democrats, while also turning the party against his Progressive wing in a way that might lead to the return of the Blue Dog Dems. Plus, Clinton has a huge general war chest that she hasn't tapped into, so Sanders financial power isn't something she necessarily needs, especially against a Trump candidacy.
Bernie's best path to getting some of his demands at this point would be capitulation at the convention, allowing his supporters to be absorbed into the Clinton general campaign.
Wasn't sure if anyone'd mentioned this whole thing going on or how much national attention it's getting.. I live in Mass so hearing a lot about it here.
And also aside from any debate about Clinton's behaviour, this:
As for breaking the law: I don’t see what others have quoted as the law online. AND—isn’t jay-walking a law? These people that are so concerned about this law should review every law.
has got to maybe not be great for this lady's future in politics o-o
I think Bill probably did get too close to the polling palce but let's be real: this had zero impact on the election results and will continue to have no impact.
I don't really have an opinion here, but if it's true that it doesn't matter, why even have the law
The law is a $20 fine for each person you campaign to. I doubt they want to argue with Bill Clinton about whether his appearing was provably campaigning to get a couple grand at most, and certainly don't want to put out a warrant for a former president over something trivial.
milski on
I ate an engineer
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Wasn't sure if anyone'd mentioned this whole thing going on or how much national attention it's getting.. I live in Mass so hearing a lot about it here.
And also aside from any debate about Clinton's behaviour, this:
As for breaking the law: I don’t see what others have quoted as the law online. AND—isn’t jay-walking a law? These people that are so concerned about this law should review every law.
has got to maybe not be great for this lady's future in politics o-o
I think Bill probably did get too close to the polling palce but let's be real: this had zero impact on the election results and will continue to have no impact.
I don't really have an opinion here, but if it's true that it doesn't matter, why even have the law
Because if there was no law, obstructing polling places in this way would be the norm, not an aberration. Every polling place in the state would be clogged by campaigners.
You're failing to see the political calculus through his perspective. If his goal is to convert his electoral performance into post-concession influence -- whether through negotiating the party platform, getting a seat the table when choosing a veep, giving his input about cabinet appointees, and all the other thousands of political decisions that need to be made after the winning candidate has been settled -- he needs leverage. If Clinton's campaign burns a significant amount of money fighting him off before the convention, that actually strengthens his bargaining position within the party, since there will be a greater need for his resources.
Even if he has no hope of winning the nomination outright, he has every incentive to keep campaigning until the moment Clinton passes the pledged delegate threshold. Every vote, donation, and volunteer hour he gets from now until then will make him a stronger force in shaping the party's agenda.
Why?
Clinton will have a majority of the delegates. Getting voted down 70-30 or 55-45 on the platform and such doesn't make a difference.
And if he continues, he's going to antagonize the majority faction.
Ted Kennedy had a mere 35% of the delegate count in 1980 but was able to give Jimmy Carter tremendous trouble with a floor fight. We all know how that story ended: hello, President Reagan. You will note that even though Kennedy's insurrection against Carter -- a sitting president! -- helped deliver a victory to the Republicans, history has remembered Kennedy more fondly that it remembers Carter's political career, which never managed to wash off that loser stink.
Clinton will want to avoid this scenario at all costs. Party unity is much more important to her than it is to Sanders at this point. He knows he has no realistic chance of winning the nomination, and this election will surely be his last. Antagonizing the Democratic majority has never mattered less to him. If he can frighten Clinton into making concessions, he will.
I want to point out your argument here is contingent on Sanders being willing to fuck the party over because it isn't pure enough for him.
That is exactly what people in this thread would prefer Sanders be totally unwilling to do.
I ate an engineer
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I want to point out your argument here is contingent on Sanders being willing to fuck the party over because it isn't pure enough for him.
That is exactly what people in this thread would prefer Sanders be totally unwilling to do.
I am aware. The fact of the matter is that significant primary challengers usually do get something in exchange for their endorsement of the winner. How do you think Clinton ended up Secretary of State? It wasn't her bravery under sniper fire. These exchanges are always made to ensure party unity -- in other words, to ensure that the loser won't fuck the party over. (Although the concern isn't usually purity so much as it is personal pique.)
Wasn't sure if anyone'd mentioned this whole thing going on or how much national attention it's getting.. I live in Mass so hearing a lot about it here.
And also aside from any debate about Clinton's behaviour, this:
As for breaking the law: I don’t see what others have quoted as the law online. AND—isn’t jay-walking a law? These people that are so concerned about this law should review every law.
has got to maybe not be great for this lady's future in politics o-o
I think Bill probably did get too close to the polling palce but let's be real: this had zero impact on the election results and will continue to have no impact.
I don't really have an opinion here, but if it's true that it doesn't matter, why even have the law
Because if there was no law, obstructing polling places in this way would be the norm, not an aberration. Every polling place in the state would be clogged by campaigners.
I met some people waving around Bernie signs right outside the caucus building. If it's just a $20 fine, :shrug:
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Wasn't sure if anyone'd mentioned this whole thing going on or how much national attention it's getting.. I live in Mass so hearing a lot about it here.
And also aside from any debate about Clinton's behaviour, this:
As for breaking the law: I don’t see what others have quoted as the law online. AND—isn’t jay-walking a law? These people that are so concerned about this law should review every law.
has got to maybe not be great for this lady's future in politics o-o
I think Bill probably did get too close to the polling palce but let's be real: this had zero impact on the election results and will continue to have no impact.
I don't really have an opinion here, but if it's true that it doesn't matter, why even have the law
Because if there was no law, obstructing polling places in this way would be the norm, not an aberration. Every polling place in the state would be clogged by campaigners.
I met some people waving around Bernie signs right outside the caucus building. If it's just a $20 fine, :shrug:
Caucuses seem like a different kind of beast, since their entire purpose is in-person persuasion.
Would things be different if the Republicans had a frighteningly competitive candidate?
Really hard to say. In any negotiation, power belongs to the one who can just walk away with no deal. If the Republican nominee is perceived as easily beatable, maybe Clinton thinks that she can tell Sanders and his supporters to go pound sand. On the other hand, a more competitive Republican might make Sanders more afraid of a Republican win and increase his eagerness to rally behind Clinton. It's all pretty murky.
I mean, at this point Clinton has all the power. If he holds out his support or, God forbid, runs a third party ticket and throws the general to the Republicans, he'll essentially become persona non grata amongst Democrats, while also turning the party against his Progressive wing in a way that might lead to the return of the Blue Dog Dems. Plus, Clinton has a huge general war chest that she hasn't tapped into, so Sanders financial power isn't something she necessarily needs, especially against a Trump candidacy.
Bernie's best path to getting some of his demands at this point would be capitulation at the convention, allowing his supporters to be absorbed into the Clinton general campaign.
I don't think Bernie has tight control on his supporters as people think. Bernie is carefully crowdsurfing a wave that eventually must drop him.
In a way, Bernie is just the Democrat's Donald Trump. He's tapped into an anger and disappointment that young liberals have with the establishment and status quo. They want something more now. They want free college, redistribution of wealth, unapologetic socialism.
If he tells them go vote for Clinton, they're still going to be angry and fired up. They are more likely to hunt for a new figurehead than get their asses in line.
If that's the case it doesn't matter what sanders does, or ever did. Those people were never going to vote Clinton.
I don't buy this idea that voter engagement is some sort of finite resource that's in danger of being expended in the primaries. Non-engaged people who are activated by sanders' campaign are more likely to become voters in the general (and afterward) than if sanders dropped out now.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Posts
How long until this is posted on some right wingers facebook as being about Clinton visiting the boarder or something?
pleasepaypreacher.net
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
"Why are you distracting me with irrelevancies and the blathering of idiots, when it's vitally important that I repeat my canned speech for the 127th consecutive time! There must be someone out there who still hasn't heard it."
One I'm seeing a lot right now is that Bernie had more delegates than obama did at this point in 2008. With the idea that he can come back just like Obama did. Without mentioning that it was Obama with the mathematically overwhelming lead then. Another is that Bernie can get the super delegates to his side just like Obama did. Again failing to mention that Obama only did that by having a pledged delegate lead.
I'm all for optimism, but I think being misleading will just lead to bitterness and disillusionment when he eventually concedes. Which I do feel is a near certainty at this point.
Does that really matter when he's already lost?
It does not appear that you actually continued reading after the part you bolded.
Bernie's resources being usable to the party are only usable if he concedes, and he's not doing that. He's doing the opposite, the longer he goes on the less resources he has since he's burning them to keep going. Can't he do this by helping Hillary in the general? And how exactly does doing this get his followers to transition for the general, wouldn't it have the opposite effect since they think he can still win?
voters collected in the primary are not voters lost in the general
They are if they get burnt out by politics and let apathy or rage get the better of them in voting for Hillary. This is why transitions must be smooth - Bernie can't not do that and it seems the longer he does this the more he's pissing off Hillary as well.
edit: How's Bernie's credibility with his anti-establishment base going to fare when he's running donations and stumping for Hillary?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You're failing to see the political calculus through his perspective. If his goal is to convert his electoral performance into post-concession influence -- whether through negotiating the party platform, getting a seat the table when choosing a veep, giving his input about cabinet appointees, and all the other thousands of political decisions that need to be made after the winning candidate has been settled -- he needs leverage. If Clinton's campaign burns a significant amount of money fighting him off before the convention, that actually strengthens his bargaining position within the party, since there will be a greater need for his resources.
Even if he has no hope of winning the nomination outright, he has every incentive to keep campaigning until the moment Clinton passes the pledged delegate threshold. Every vote, donation, and volunteer hour he gets from now until then will make him a stronger force in shaping the party's agenda.
Why?
Clinton will have a majority of the delegates. Getting voted down 70-30 or 55-45 on the platform and such doesn't make a difference.
And if he continues, he's going to antagonize the majority faction.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What would happen if he did quit? He had a good run, but really - what else is there to prove?
What counts as "through" though? Does he fight tooth and nail to the convention, even if Hillary keeps expanding her lead?
Whatever he wants, though if he gets pressured I suppose he can add another week
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yes. That's why I said it's about policy getting implemented.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Ted Kennedy had a mere 35% of the delegate count in 1980 but was able to give Jimmy Carter tremendous trouble with a floor fight. We all know how that story ended: hello, President Reagan. You will note that even though Kennedy's insurrection against Carter -- a sitting president! -- helped deliver a victory to the Republicans, history has remembered Kennedy more fondly that it remembers Carter's political career, which never managed to wash off that loser stink.
Clinton will want to avoid this scenario at all costs. Party unity is much more important to her than it is to Sanders at this point. He knows he has no realistic chance of winning the nomination, and this election will surely be his last. Antagonizing the Democratic majority has never mattered less to him. If he can frighten Clinton into making concessions, he will.
I have no idea how to determine that
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If I said the only reason you want Bernie Sanders to continue on for as long as he wants is because you know either way a Republican presidency is highly improbable how would that make you feel?
Really hard to say. In any negotiation, power belongs to the one who can just walk away with no deal. If the Republican nominee is perceived as easily beatable, maybe Clinton thinks that she can tell Sanders and his supporters to go pound sand. On the other hand, a more competitive Republican might make Sanders more afraid of a Republican win and increase his eagerness to rally behind Clinton. It's all pretty murky.
Icing on the cake.
Edit: though I probably wouldn't support a candidate that would have no chance should they get to the general in the first place
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Wasn't sure if anyone'd mentioned this whole thing going on or how much national attention it's getting.. I live in Mass so hearing a lot about it here.
And also aside from any debate about Clinton's behaviour, this:
has got to maybe not be great for this lady's future in politics o-o
I'd love it if you took a look at my art and my PATREON!
I think Bill probably did get too close to the polling palce but let's be real: this had zero impact on the election results and will continue to have no impact.
So more info confirms that yes, Bill Clinton's appearance caused an irrelevant scene?
It seems long past the point of relevance, especially given candidates and surrogates frequently travel to polling locations.
I don't really have an opinion here, but if it's true that it doesn't matter, why even have the law
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I mean, at this point Clinton has all the power. If he holds out his support or, God forbid, runs a third party ticket and throws the general to the Republicans, he'll essentially become persona non grata amongst Democrats, while also turning the party against his Progressive wing in a way that might lead to the return of the Blue Dog Dems. Plus, Clinton has a huge general war chest that she hasn't tapped into, so Sanders financial power isn't something she necessarily needs, especially against a Trump candidacy.
Bernie's best path to getting some of his demands at this point would be capitulation at the convention, allowing his supporters to be absorbed into the Clinton general campaign.
3DS: 2981-5304-3227
The law is a $20 fine for each person you campaign to. I doubt they want to argue with Bill Clinton about whether his appearing was provably campaigning to get a couple grand at most, and certainly don't want to put out a warrant for a former president over something trivial.
Because if there was no law, obstructing polling places in this way would be the norm, not an aberration. Every polling place in the state would be clogged by campaigners.
I want to point out your argument here is contingent on Sanders being willing to fuck the party over because it isn't pure enough for him.
That is exactly what people in this thread would prefer Sanders be totally unwilling to do.
I am aware. The fact of the matter is that significant primary challengers usually do get something in exchange for their endorsement of the winner. How do you think Clinton ended up Secretary of State? It wasn't her bravery under sniper fire. These exchanges are always made to ensure party unity -- in other words, to ensure that the loser won't fuck the party over. (Although the concern isn't usually purity so much as it is personal pique.)
I met some people waving around Bernie signs right outside the caucus building. If it's just a $20 fine, :shrug:
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Caucuses seem like a different kind of beast, since their entire purpose is in-person persuasion.
I don't think Bernie has tight control on his supporters as people think. Bernie is carefully crowdsurfing a wave that eventually must drop him.
In a way, Bernie is just the Democrat's Donald Trump. He's tapped into an anger and disappointment that young liberals have with the establishment and status quo. They want something more now. They want free college, redistribution of wealth, unapologetic socialism.
If he tells them go vote for Clinton, they're still going to be angry and fired up. They are more likely to hunt for a new figurehead than get their asses in line.
That is the danger.
I don't buy this idea that voter engagement is some sort of finite resource that's in danger of being expended in the primaries. Non-engaged people who are activated by sanders' campaign are more likely to become voters in the general (and afterward) than if sanders dropped out now.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget