Liberal_Stalwart71
Liberal_Stalwart71's JournalJeff Weaver is REACHING! Stuttering and can't explain the math.
Steve Kornacki is breaking it down to him. Kornacki is even being too generous to Sanders and this guy does not have an argument.
He just said BS is doing well in NJ and PA. That's not true.
Big rallies don't mean shit if you can't get people to the polls!
Frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing about BS's "YUUUGGGGEEEE" rallies and how so many people are SOOOO enthusiastic to vote for him. But the Corporate Media is, once again, being so irresponsible in its reporting.
If "YUGE" crowds at rallies meant anything, HRC would be losing to BS and Trump.
It is a false narrative that I believe has hurt the Democrats during this primary.
It's just annoying.
/rant off
Why did Sanders wait until we have a black president to cast blame and start his "revolution"?
I've been thinking about this for a while now:
If Sanders wanted to change the Democratic Party, why didn't he start his revolution back in 2000 when black voters were being disenfranchised? Why wait now to get angry after the First Black President is in the White House? He wasn't this angry when Bush or Clinton was in office. Yeah, he may have yelled and screamed, but he waits until we have a black president, blames that president, and NOW at 74 years old, he wants to start a revolution?? Get the fuck out of here!
Sanders is behaving like the fucking Teabaggers who sat and watched George Bush and the Rethugs spend us into oblivion, run this country's economy in the ground, start two never-ending wars, destroy our standing in the world---and they didn't say or do ANYTHING until the Negro got into the White House. Suddenly, it's all HIS fault. Suddenly, the bad economy, the wars, everything is the black man's fault---not George W. Bush or the Rethug policies.
Rather than use his so-called star power, calling on progressives to stay focused and vote in 2010, reminding young voters, especially what's at stake, he stayed quiet. Rather than encourage voters in 2012 to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, he argued that the First Black President should face a primary. Today, he dismisses voters in the American South--over 1/2 of whom are black voters. This is during a time when there is the most vigorous effort to disenfranchise black and Latino voters--Sanders and his fanatics dismiss those voters because they didn't support him. His fans invoke the Confederacy and slave/master mentality. His wife suggests that those contests don't matter because none of the Southern states will "go blue" in the GE. (Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1996; Obama won NC, VA, FL in 2008---and GA with its demographic shift could go Blue this year.)
No one sees the veiled racism in these statements and actions? To me, it's just as bad, if not worse than Hillary's campaign in 2008.
And yes, I don't give a damn what anyone says--a lot of that has to do with race, gender and privilege. There's a reason why the base of Bernie's support is white men. It's not merely a coincidence.
It's sad because I really used to admire Bernie Sanders. I would see him on my way to work every single morning--me getting coffee, he headed to Capitol Hill, nodding and smiling and saying hello.
He had my vote initially. He does not have it anymore. And April 26th when Maryland holds its primary cannot come fast enough for me. I want this thing to be over yesterday. Last night's abysmal performance and his rude, entitled behavior sealed it for me. I saw something in him that is really off-putting, hateful and spiteful. Sadly, I have come to really dislike this man.
Re: Vatican: Let's talk hypocrisy. For 8 years, many have given President Obama grief for inviting
Rick Warren to the inauguration and for meeting with Donnie McKlurkin -- two rabid anti-gay Christian ministers. But despite how far we've come on LGBT rights, they have no problem with Sanders "meeting with" the Vatican, Pope Francis or whomever, despite their stance on LGBT rights, gay marriage, and views on women and families.
Susan Sarandon is creaming her pants over this "meeting," but there's no outrage at all from these people about the Vatican's homophobia or sexism.
To this day, some in the LGBT community and others outside of it have never forgiven the president for trying to invite all who disagree to the table; and despite his evolving on the issue of gay marriage (which I believe he was always really for) and all that he's done for the LGBT community. However, they have no problem and take no issue with Sanders going to meet with homophobes and misogynists.
Different moral standards? Yes. Hypocrisy? Of course!
538.com: BS is even less competitive than he appears
Bernie Sanders’s supporters are fond of the hypothesis that Democratic superdelegates, the elected leaders and party officials who currently support Hillary Clinton by a lopsided-doesn’t-even-begin-to-describe-it 469 to 31, are going to bow to the “will of the people” if Sanders ends up winning more pledged delegates than Clinton by June.
There’s just one hiccup in this logic: Sanders fans seem to be conflating the pledged delegate count and the “will of the voters,” when in fact the two are far from interchangeable.
Sanders’s reliance on extremely low-turnout caucus states has meant the pledged delegate count overstates his share of votes. To date, Sanders has captured 46 percent of Democrats’ pledged delegates but just 42 percent of raw votes. So even if Sanders were to draw even in pledged delegates by June — which is extremely unlikely — Clinton could be able to persuade superdelegates to stick with her by pointing to her popular vote lead.
Sanders already has a nearly impossible task ahead of him in trying to erase Clinton’s pledged delegate lead. He’s down by 212 delegates, meaning he’d need to win 56 percent of those remaining to nose in front. He has dominated caucus states such as Idaho and Washington, but only two caucus states — Wyoming and North Dakota — remain on the calendar. What’s more, the biggest states left — New York and California — favor Clinton demographically.
Including caucus results, Clinton leads Sanders by almost 2.4 million raw votes, 9.4 million to just more than 7 million, according to The Green Papers. So then, what would would it take for Sanders to overtake Clinton in the popular vote by the end of the primaries in June?
More here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/
HRC Supporters: BS more likely to beat the Republican Nominee Meme going UNCHALLENGED!!
...and as a recent HRC convert, it's driving me mad! This meme has gone unchecked not only by the so-called pundits, but it has also gone unchecked by HRC supporters themselves. I think the only Republican challenger who does a bit better against HRC is Kasich, but he has ZERO chance of winning the primary. Now, of course he could be put on the ticket as the VP and that might help.
We've got to do better in challenging these false memes.
More importantly, the argument should be that regardless of who is more electable when put up against the Republican nominee, we are not yet in the general election cycle, so these polls are meaningless. HOWEVER, that BS and his sycophants, along with M$M commentators, continue to make this assertion could conceivably help BS build a case against HRC, and that's not good.
We've got to do better in challenging these false memes.
Thanks in advance for listening.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 21, 2008, 11:17 PMNumber of posts: 20,450