Looks like Bernie may win Wisconsin. No big deal.
Bernie needs 57% of the remaining pledged delegates (not counting superdelegates) in order to win the pledged delegate count.
In order for that 57% to come down to 56%, he would have to win Wisconsin by 48 points.
Does this mean anything? http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/05/hillary-clinton-ties-emerge-in-panama-papers/
Steve C. said: "Locally, I'm volunteering for Hillary and also for Chris Van Hollen for Senate. Your passion is the kind we need! Please consider, if you can, helping in your area. Team Hillary! "
Signed up today to volunteer in California. Hope this all wrapped up before then, but I'll be there!
Feeling fed up being e-shouted down by Team Sanders, so I've started getting more engaged in social media and displaying my Hillary support publicly. Sending donations. Engaging people rationally about why I'm supporting her.
Ouch, Sanders that was not a good interview!
PalJoey said: "
Oy vey, Bernie! Get an adviser or something. It's no good you should sound like such a stupid.
===
WASHINGTON POST: 9 things Bernie Sanders should’ve known about but didn’t in that Daily News interview
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/05/9-things-bernie-sanders-shouldve-known-about-but-didnt-in-that-daily-news-interview/"
Jeff Bezos' Washington Post. Jeff Bezos who hates paying taxes so much he though about launching Amazon on an Indian Reservation to avoid paying them. The Washington Post hate Sanders as much as you claim Salon hates Clinton.
The New York Times has a much more balanced take on that interview:
Yes, Bernie Sanders Knows Something About Breaking Up Banks
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=0
I don't need to base my opinion on what the Washington Post or New York Times say. The full transcript with audio is available online:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306
And based on my own reading, he is woefully unprepared for the Presidency. Amazing what you can find when journalists actually start vetting a candidate. He may be pining for that media blackout (that never really existed).
Thanks BrerBear, Good job! Everyone consider volunteering if you can!
Let's hope they start playing the Bernie SandBox interview around the clock! Is the right word a "schlemel"?
He may win tonight but Bernie's goin' down!
The queen with the bad haircut standing behind Sanders left during his Wisconsin victory speech is hateful. I don't know why.
Well done tonight, Bernie. He's probably going to raise a **** ton more money in the next couple of days as a result of his Wisconsin win, but I really don't think he's going to prevent Hillary from having a very good night herself on April 19.
And, oh, dear. That NY Daily News interview. While I think a couple of the foreign policy questions were a bit ridiculous, overall, a serious POTUS candidate should be able to handle that line of questioning and, whatever her faults, I have no doubt that Hillary would have been well prepared to answer virtually all of those questions.
Regardless of his perceived or actual lack of experience, at the end of the day Bernie has better domestic policies than Hillary Clinton. I think it would be hard for any progressive person to disagree. The central issue with his campaign to me is how he will be able to achieve those policies within the context of the US political system. But the ideas themselves, they're not revolutionary - most have been tried and tested elsewhere. I hope at the next debate there is clear questions about this. If Bernie says "we need a political revolution where people stand up" he should have follow up questions asking for more detail about how and why that will work.
It's plain and simple; Bernie has no specific answers on important policy questions needed to be POTUS. Sure he has good "pie in the sky" ideas to please young and angry middle class people. But how is he going to pay for them? Why don't all the college students voting for him because of "free tuition" realize that that could never be enacted especially before they themselves graduate? He's just riding the subway on hopes and dreams and tokens! His lack of knowledge is staggering.
Btw, Hillary Clinton is on "Morning Joe" this morning; if you miss it it will be online.
Pie in the sky" ideas, like taking big money out of campaigns while your girl has to beg the swells for money, Bernie racks in millions more today from the clueless idiots all around that want their vote back. It looks like you guys are going to get exactly what you deserve. I begin to wonder how much of a chance she would have in NY if Independents could vote? I wonder how many more votes than her Sanders would have if they could have voted everywhere. As for Bernie's foreign policy views, no more American only wars, Hillary's is quite different. At the top of Bernie's "pie in the sky" agenda is income inequality, breaking up the banks so they stop speculating like crazy and making us all poorer. You guys really shock the **** out of me. Vote for Hillary by all means, but don't call yourselves liberal. You like things as they are and with her and her banking friends you'll get more of the same.
I always find it amazing that people think universal healthcare and free public education are "pie in the sky" ideas for the richest country in the history of the world.
Vote for Hillary by all means, but don't call yourselves liberal.
I am a liberal and you don't get to say I'm not.
I would say virtually everyone posting in this thread is liberal.
Did Bernie Sanders Botch An Interview With The Daily News? It’s Not That Simple.
The interview exposes as much about the media as it does about Bernie Sanders.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5
ErikJ972 said: "I always find it amazing that people think universal healthcare and free public education are "pie in the sky" ideas for the richest country in the history of the world."
When their implementation is dependent upon cooperation from GOP governors like Walker, Christie, Scott, etc., they are "pie in the sky." When Bernie calls for a political revolution, but is unwilling to work for anyone else in the Democratic party, then his ideas are "pie in the sky."
Yes, the latest tactic is an attempt to expose (and shame) Clinton supporters as faux progressives, an all too familiar syndrome in the circular firing squad dynamic characterizing much of the left. It's been escalating, and the ultimate irony is how some tether a lack of liberal street cred to our age, even as they tout a 74-year-old as the only true progressive worthy of loyalty or votes. All that counts: We measure and support candidate Clinton for her readiness and full arsenal of presidential skills, not by a liberal litmus test.
I mean, there are at least two arguments of why the ideas are 'pie in the sky'.
The first is that the policies are unsustainable and if implemented would be a bad thing for the economy.
The second is that they are unimplementable in the US political system.
I agree that the second is a serious concern. But let's be clear that there is some vocal crowd (even in this thread) that believes the first is also true. I absolutely reject the first - these policies have been implemented successfully in other countries. Countries that are less wealthy than the USA. And Bernie has a plan on how to achieve it via taxes (For example, if you look at how Bernie and Hillary plan to tax the top 1%, there is an astronomical difference), among other strategies such as cost savings in the Health Care system.
There is one way to ensure change will never happen though, and that's to not even try. The mantra of the Clinton campaign, perhaps.
She will effect more progressive change in her first 100 days than Bernie would be able to muster in an entire term.
PalJoey said: "She will effect more progressive change in her first 100 days than Bernie would be able to muster in an entire term."
Now that is a pie in the sky idea. There's nothing in her very long record that suggests that will be the case.
qolbinau, your second point is why I think Sander's positions have no basis in reality. I do agree if starting from scratch they make sense, but in our current political system they are not viable - and the only way they would be is if he got a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the house - which I do not think that is realistic.
I also think that Sanders will get savaged in the general election. Maybe I am a bit cynical at this time, but I just think when the GOP unloads on him, he will sink and get buried in the General.
I live with liberals, I know liberals, you sir are no liberal.
qolbinau wrote: "I absolutely reject the first - these policies have been implemented successfully in other countries. Countries that are less wealthy than the USA."
It seems that South America's love affair with left-leaning socialists is in its death throes. http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/glenn-garvin/article69926812.html
I still believe that Obama has taken the nation as far left as it will move willingly for the foreseeable future. My take on the general election is that it will be a referendum on the Affordable Care Act, the composition of the Supreme Court, and arguably unfair trade deals.
To their joint credit, Trump and Sanders brought the business of trade deals to the fore which benefited both in right-to-work states. See right-to-work states. But, now the race shifts to states where organized labor will weigh in heavily on the delegate math. I'm sticking with Hillary. She inspires confidence in folks who've been to their share of rodeos. See the Democratic nomination map.
A brilliant essay:
https://medium.com/@memosalazar/the-one-piece-of-writing-every-hillary-supporter-should-read-6ded898f9613#.8ydx4h75q
Videos