clinton vs. sanders your vote? — Page 137

Sanders isn't going to drop out for the good of the party, because he isn't for the good of the party. He doesn't care about the party. He's not even a Democrat. He's running as a Dem just to suit his own interests. He has a much better change of winning as a major-party candidate. If he could have run as an independent and made any impact in the votes, he would have.

I'm surprised people like Feinstein aren't fully aware of this. Her comments sound naive. She's been in politics too long not to realize what he's doing.

Why are celebs still supporting him? I just read that Rosario Dawson, Josh Hutcherson, and Frances Fisher ('membah huh?) were at some college the other day, registering people to vote. They must know that Sanders has no chance at this point, so why bother trying to recruit more voters? Don't they realize how damaging it is for Sanders to remain in the race, especially since he continues to go after Clinton, thereby giving the Republicans more ammo. Meanwhile, Trump has more or less clinched the Republican nomination, and now that his supporters have time to spare, they're probably registering as Democrats so they can vote for Sanders to stick it to Hillary. Ugh.

" now that his supporters have time to spare, they're probably registering as Democrats so they can vote for Sanders to stick it to Hillary. Ugh."



I would find this to be an absurd proposition. Why would they do this? That may not help Trump in an election. Indeed, the polls suggest (and have suggested for a long time) it would be worse for Trump if Sanders were the nominee than Hillary.

I realise that people seem to discount these polls, and while I think there is some merit to looking at them critically, I think it would be foolish to ignore them:



1. Yes, it is true that Bernie Sanders has been largely unknown and there is a risk that in a general election attacks on Bernie Sanders may reduce his popularity. In particular, his 'socialist' label and Trump's subtle suggestion that Sanders might be a communist (in several interviews he has said something like "he is a socialist, but could be more" and occasionally has dropped the 'c' word). However, let's not forget that Trump has A LOT of ammunition to exploit against Hillary Clinton, too - and as Trump has said recently, "he has barely even started". For example, I imagine he will really push Hillary's criminal FBI investigation and reinforce a perception held by some people that Hillary Clinton is corrupt (he has a nick name for her, "Crooked Hillary", as he talked about recently. Given Sanders has primarily been focussing on the actual issues, it's going to be a completely different dynamic for her when Trump stands on that stage accusing her of being a criminal and suggesting she may not even be eligible to be president (as he has currently touched upon interviews, but for the most part has been focussing on other republicans in the primary this year). In other words, both Clinton and Sanders will be attacked that could cause their popularity to reduce.

2. By the same token of being more unknown, let's not forget that there is also an opportunity for Sanders to increase in popularity and maintain (or increase) his lead over Trump once he discusses his policy ideas. We know from this primary that Sanders has been very successful at going from basically no supporters and being completely unknown to gaining a large number of followers and popularity in a short amount of time. A general election will only further increase his opportunity to gain more supporters as he advocates for his ideas.

3.Sanders' more conservative gun policies may appeal to swing republican voters.


4. In many of the polls, the differences between Hillary and Sanders vs Trump are not negligible.


5. We're getting closer and closer to the election now.

"Sanders isn't going to drop out for the good of the party, because he isn't for the good of the party. He doesn't care about the party. He's not even a Democrat. He's running as a Dem just to suit his own interests. He has a much better change of winning as a major-party candidate. If he could have run as an independent and made any impact in the votes, he would have."

I would say this is very true. But let's be clear when we are talking about his 'own interests' we should be talking about his vision for the country. "his own interests" makes it sound like he is doing this for personal gain (e.g., career ambition), which I personally don't believe is the case. No one pushes the ideas he does and challenges others like he does if they are just trying to forward their career.


"When Bernie is president, you won't have to work spam any more."

LOL.

Don't be silly. No Republican would EVER vote for Bernie Sanders.

Because taxes.

The media's love for Sanders and outright contempt for Clinton is disgraceful, and any other politician would be complaining about it at the top of their lungs. By any objective assessment, Sanders had a BAD day yesterday. At the start of the day, he needed to win almost 70% of the pledged delegates to catch Clinton. He won about 53% of the delegates yesterday. So, he now needs to win over 70%. In other words, his attempt to overtake is even further out of reach. But, to listen to the media, you'd swear he was right at her (sensible) heels.

madbrian said: "The media's love for Sanders and outright contempt for Clinton is disgraceful, and any other politician would be complaining about it at the top of their lungs. By any objective assessment, Sanders had a BAD day yesterday. At the start of the day, he needed to win almost 70% of the pledged delegates to catch Clinton. He won about 53% of the delegates yesterday. So, he now needs to win over 70%. In other words, his attempt to overtake is even further out of reach. But, to listen to the media, you'd swear he was right at her (sensible) heels.



"



It is in the media's interest to play up that race, since the Republican race essentially ended two weeks ago. They need a storyline to sell. You shouldn't be at all surprised about that.

His speech last night was laughable. I can't tell if he still believes what he's saying about a "path to the nomination" or if he's just delusional at this point. But really, enough is enough. It's over.

Maddow is usually pretty even keeled, so I'm surprised by that. She was the first one, to my knowledge, to declare the Democratic nominating contest "over" a couple of weeks ago.

egomaniacal old kvetch. So true! TIRESOME! Where these BernieTots in 2010?

By the way, the media has all but ignored a story about the closing of Burlington College. The school was forced to closed due to overwhelming debt incurred through the frivolous purchase of waterfront property made during Jane Sanders' tenure as president there. Since she bills herself as a senior adviser to his campaign, this is fair game.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/burlington-college-jane-sanders-close-223222

Exactly! And if Hillary were proposing free college for all, after Bill had bankrupted a college, the press would be all over the irony.

PJ, Mad Brian, you guys are as nauseating as the Bernie or bust crowd.

From the latest New York Times article on "Bernie Sanders, Eyeing Convention, Willing to Harm Hillary Clinton in the Homestretch"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/bernie-sanderss-campaign-accuses-head-of-dnc-of-favoritism.html

"For weeks, some current and former Sanders campaign workers have privately acknowledged feeling disheartened about Mr. Weaver’s determination to go after the Democratic National Committee, fearing a pitched battle with the party they hope to support in the general election. The intraparty fighting has affected morale, they say, and raised concerns that Mr. Weaver, a longtime Sanders aide who more recently ran a comic book store, was not devoted to achieving Democratic unity. Several described the campaign’s message as having devolved into a near-obsession with perceived conspiracies on the part of Mrs. Clinton’s allies."

You don't say.

Time to stop pulling punches on Bernie.