Hillary won more votes for President

Gern Blansten said:

Free said:

Wilds said:

Kat said:

Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."

I can't speak for Sanders, but certainly the stakes have changed.

In 2008 both of the democrats running were deeply in bed with the status quo. There was barely any difference between Hillary and Obama.

Now in 2016 you have one candidate who will keep things the way they are and continue the rise of the wealthy and the eroding of the middle class, and Bernie who actually would make an effort to help the people, and not just the rich masters.

It looks like the rich masters have won again. But on the principle of something better, I think Bernie is hanging in there because he still has a revolution to promote.

When Hillary backed out in 2008 it was just a wink wink, "you're next" type of bought and sold situation. Cushy job in Barack's Cabinet and the entire DNC (war) machine behind her with a promise of an unopposed coronation.

Yes the stakes have changed. I imagine Bernie realizes this and thus the change in strategy?

Now this is the discussion I'm looking for. And I agree, comparing 2008 to 2016 is like comparing apples to oranges. Feelings between candidates right now are rife with division throwing any comparison to the feelings in'08 out of the ballpark.

Clinton thinking she will get votes from Sanders supporters right now is a delusional thought.

It's delusional for you to think she won't...when Bernie asks his supporters to support her will you ignore him?

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Polls.

Isn't Bernie's campaign relying on polls to say they would do better in the general? Isn't that the crux of the argument for SDs to switch?

So which is it?

Free said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Polls.

Isn't Bernie's campaign relying on polls to say they would do better in the general? Isn't that the crux of the argument for SDs to switch?

So which is it?

Exactly. It's people like this that make me pissed I voted for Bernie because I then have to be associated/grouped in with these claw scratchers, tin foil hats. First, their bitching that superdelegates are unfair and want them eliminated, but then they're bitching that it's not over yet because the SD's have the opportunity to change their vote, then that's all on the precedent that "the people" want change....yet, Hillary has 3 million more voters in the popular vote. As a whole, it's the fucking 16 year old rebellious kid yelling just to fucking yell. Please. Just stop already.

You heard it folks, just stop complaining about crooked elections and just bend over, take it like an animal and obey obey obey. Because oligarchies and corruption are where it's at.

Free said:

Gern Blansten said:

Free said:

Gern Blansten said:

Free said:

Wilds said:

Kat said:

Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."

I can't speak for Sanders, but certainly the stakes have changed.

In 2008 both of the democrats running were deeply in bed with the status quo. There was barely any difference between Hillary and Obama.

Now in 2016 you have one candidate who will keep things the way they are and continue the rise of the wealthy and the eroding of the middle class, and Bernie who actually would make an effort to help the people, and not just the rich masters.

It looks like the rich masters have won again. But on the principle of something better, I think Bernie is hanging in there because he still has a revolution to promote.

When Hillary backed out in 2008 it was just a wink wink, "you're next" type of bought and sold situation. Cushy job in Barack's Cabinet and the entire DNC (war) machine behind her with a promise of an unopposed coronation.

Yes the stakes have changed. I imagine Bernie realizes this and thus the change in strategy?

Now this is the discussion I'm looking for. And I agree, comparing 2008 to 2016 is like comparing apples to oranges. Feelings between candidates right now are rife with division throwing any comparison to the feelings in'08 out of the ballpark.

Clinton thinking she will get votes from Sanders supporters right now is a delusional thought.

It's delusional for you to think she won't...when Bernie asks his supporters to support her will you ignore him?

The real question is Will he?

After last night, you've got 5 states of angry voters attempted to be marginalized. Obviously you not affected. Sanders supporters will not join Clinton after all of this tyrannical bullshit she and the DNC and establishment media are pulling. And it's not the first time I've said that. Wake up. Don't expect blind militant obeying behavior.

We'll see I guess...

My prediction is that Sanders will bow out and strongly endorse Clinton. He will make appearances with her and be a strong vocal supporter.

Your prediction is that he won't.

The question remains though...if he endorses her and urges you to vote for her will you ignore him?

Regardless what Sanders does, neither he nor any leader can deliver the votes of his supporters. That challenge is Clinton’s.

benjs said:

Free said:

Gern Blansten said:

Free said:

Gern Blansten said:

Free said:

Wilds said:

Kat said:

Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."

I can't speak for Sanders, but certainly the stakes have changed.

In 2008 both of the democrats running were deeply in bed with the status quo. There was barely any difference between Hillary and Obama.

Now in 2016 you have one candidate who will keep things the way they are and continue the rise of the wealthy and the eroding of the middle class, and Bernie who actually would make an effort to help the people, and not just the rich masters.

It looks like the rich masters have won again. But on the principle of something better, I think Bernie is hanging in there because he still has a revolution to promote.

When Hillary backed out in 2008 it was just a wink wink, "you're next" type of bought and sold situation. Cushy job in Barack's Cabinet and the entire DNC (war) machine behind her with a promise of an unopposed coronation.

Yes the stakes have changed. I imagine Bernie realizes this and thus the change in strategy?

Now this is the discussion I'm looking for. And I agree, comparing 2008 to 2016 is like comparing apples to oranges. Feelings between candidates right now are rife with division throwing any comparison to the feelings in'08 out of the ballpark.

Clinton thinking she will get votes from Sanders supporters right now is a delusional thought.

It's delusional for you to think she won't...when Bernie asks his supporters to support her will you ignore him?

The real question is Will he?

After last night, you've got 5 states of angry voters attempted to be marginalized. Obviously you not affected. Sanders supporters will not join Clinton after all of this tyrannical bullshit she and the DNC and establishment media are pulling. And it's not the first time I've said that. Wake up. Don't expect blind militant obeying behavior.

We'll see I guess...

My prediction is that Sanders will bow out and strongly endorse Clinton. He will make appearances with her and be a strong vocal supporter.

Your prediction is that he won't.

The question remains though...if he endorses her and urges you to vote for her will you ignore him?

Regardless what Sanders does, neither he nor any leader can deliver the votes of his supporters. That challenge is Clinton’s.

On one hand, Sanders' supporters can potentially be persuaded to vote for Clinton just because the media has labelled her the presumptive (keyword being presumptive) nominee for the Democratic party earlier than they ought to have.

On the other, these supporters are so strongly in favour of Sanders and anti-establishment that even Sanders himself couldn't convince voters to vote for Clinton.

What is it - are they bandwagoning sheep or are they independent thinkers? And if they're independent thinkers, why are these people who are anti-establishment, don't read mainstream media, and have nothing but contempt for Clinton, incapable of making educated decisions on who to vote for?

I have to echo Jearlpam0925's sentiments on this.