Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


JimDandy's Journal
JimDandy's Journal
March 2, 2016

2008 vs 2016 Bernie is going to the Convention!!! Momentum!!


Sanders snatched Oklahoma from Clinton.

Donate and volunteer!

February 24, 2016

There's a lot of that 'taking votes for granted' in the Clinton campaign.

It's her 'New Southern Democrats' strategy:

Vote for Hillary:
Whites door sign: "I'm the lesser of 2 evils"
Blacks door sign: "You're my Firewall"

Hillary has divided us up by race all over the country and valued us not by the content of our character, but by the color of our skin.

The door sign for multi-raced families: "Just vote for me d#%@ it!" (Hillary slams it and stomps off)

February 22, 2016

An election held by a private corporation such as the Democratic Party is NOT

subject to federal or state election laws! If it were:

1. there would have been no campaigning or electioneering allowed in the voting area, by anyone, including Dolores Huerta;

2. we could not be forced to vote publicly in this insane caucus process--instead our vote would be private;

3. representatives of one candidate would not be the only people registering voters at each precinct, instead both candidates would be allowed to register voters;

4. none of the people voting or registering would be allowed to wear any kind of campaign paraphernalia, like what happened here;

5. no one would be allowed to vote unless they were registered, which video evidence shows not only did not occur in some precincts, but was expressly encouraged by Clinton supporters;

5. voters would be required to vote in their precinct of residence instead of being encouraged and allowed to vote at precincts caucuses held in the casinos in which they worked; and

6. and neutral translators and translated materials would be prepared ahead of time and voters could request them in private.

We thought the Iowa caucuses were awful, but the Nevada Dem caucuses were 10 times as bad.

The caucus process should not be allowed to be any part of our actual US voting process. And not just because of the embarrassment we heap upon ourselves with the use of this antiquated process, but because it disenfranchises our OWN Democratic voters!

February 16, 2016


(A response to the Washington Post)


Bernie Sanders talks with his hands. His hands speak in the imperative-of universal single payer health care, a national $15/hr minimum wage, free college, fair taxes on corporations, prison reform, and reversing the argle-bargle of Citizens United, which sloshed the green bile of Wall Street into elections.

There are some who are deaf to those imperatives. Instead, they wag about the diction, dialect and tone of his hands and seek to modulate them, to inflict their own inflections on them.

But Bernie’s hands remain consistent. They speak in an authentic voice that does not hide in pockets, whisper behind podiums, or lie mute in clasped supplication. They MOVE, RAIL, POKE, NAIL!

Last week, from out of the distant past, we recognized his young hands, stop-motioned in half-sentence, as they spoke in their newly found powerful voice to long-ago fellow students at a college sit-in and railed against the injustices of segregated housing.

Today, his hands speak with confidence, in an even more powerful voice, making great sweeps across packed stadiums and arenas creating small air currents that we cannot see, and YUUUGGE currents of electrifying excitement that we can...excitement that jumps from person to person, in texts, tweets, blogs and forums, from Charleston, South Carolina to Portland, Oregon, and Ypsilanti, Michigan to Las Vegas, Nevada.

They are a force to be reckoned with. They gather our voices together and amplify them across this nation-our yearnings and demands for justice, fairness, and equality for all-as we join hands with his, to work together: an unstoppable force for the change we all can believe in.

Until those hands lie clasped in final stillness: MOVE , RAIL, POKE, NAIL!

by JimDandy
February 10, 2016

Sanders received 15 hard-pledged delegates in NH. Clinton received 9 hard-pledged delegates.

Months before last night's primary results were known, 6 of the soft-pledged superdelegates stated they would back Clinton. A 7th superdelegate, state Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, stated she would wait until after the primary to endorse. The 8th superdelegate, NH Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley, was prohibited from supporting anyone in the primary. He is now free to support who he wants.

So, as of right now, the delegate count is tied at 15 to 15, as long as each of the 6 unpledged superdelegates continues to back Clinton all the way through the convention. That is an unlikely scenario, as, in previous primaries, superdelegates have changed their support to mirror how their constituents voted in the primary. So these are the actual combinations that could now occur:

Sanders - Clinton
15 -------- 09 (all 8 superdelegates abstain)
15 -------- 10 (7 superdelegates abstain and 1 remains soft-pledged to Clinton)
15 -------- 11 (6 superdelegates abstain and 2 remain soft-pledged to Clinton--etc down the list)
15 -------- 12
15 -------- 13
15 -------- 14
15 -------- 15 (the last 2 available superdelegates abstain)
15 -------- 16 (1 supports Clinton, 1 abstains)
15 -------- 17 (both support Clinton)
16 -------- 15 (1 supports Sanders, 1 abstains)
16 -------- 16 (they split the 2 remaining superdelegate)
17 -------- 15 (both support Sanders)
18 -------- 14 (both support Sanders and 1 also defects from Clinton to Sanders)
19 -------- 13 (both support Sanders and 2 also defects from Clinton to Sanders--etc down the list)
20 -------- 12
21 -------- 11
22 -------- 10
23 -------- 09

So, in 2 scenarios they tie, in 2 scenarios Clinton wins NH, and in 14 scenarios Sanders wins NH.

I'm liking Sanders' chances of a win at the convention...

February 8, 2016

Posts that call Bernie supporters BernieBros have no place here.

It has become an almost racist term that labels all of his supporters as white priviledged "alpha male idiots". It's being used in an attempt to silence dissent and criticism of his political opponent, Hillary Clinton.

I've objected in the past to posts that refer to Clinton using derrogatory and misogynist term, such as "chick", which are meant to devalue her as a woman and devalue her appointment as U.S. Secretary of State. They have no place here either.

But use of the term BernieBros, with its very specific racial undertones, constitutes a broad brush attack on all of his supporters here and is beyond rude. That is against DU's TOS. Its use is unacceptable and every instance of its use here needs to result in a TOS alert. I intend to do so.

February 8, 2016

It's going to be the year of the underdogs!!!! Broncos and Sanders!!!

Both of them slogging it out and winning!

Whoo hooooooo!

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Home country: USA
Member since: Mon Jan 16, 2006, 07:55 PM
Number of posts: 7,318

About JimDandy

I am voting for Bernie Sanders

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»JimDandy's Journal