Sanders transforms into contender, still pitches revolution

[Publicus]

Ahem, no desire to organize etc. And just where the hell did Bernie's organization come from, super pacs, DNC, rich folks? I don't think so. Yes Bernie is not a socialist, he says democratic socialist and you know it. He channels FDR and the New Deal, which the Democrat Party has done it's best to destroy. Do you not hear what he says, this is not about him, but starting a political revolution to save our country. Bernie just may be quite busy in the White House but one way or the other, he will be working to continue what he has started which is America's only hope. Oh, I'm not a true believer, but I have hope the revolution which is way past due will be his way, I know the other way and nobody wins and one of the two will surely come this time around.

Bernie has assembled a political campaign organisation with first rate pros at the top and throughout it. His advance people are excellent given the venues and the crowds they attract. Note that crowds at political campaign rallies have no relation whatsoever to the winner or loser in an election.

The excitement of an insurgent campaign for Potus, starting with the party's nomination, is a shiny object that will draw people who connect with the message and/or the person, as we also see from the other end of it with Donald Gump Trump.

After losing the election however, the shiny object is covered over by the residue of the defeat. Forming a new political party post-election hasn't any shinny objects. There is only daily hard work, great detail, a daily grind of getting people to meet and to meet somewhere at a specific time to discuss, plan, strategise, do task specialisation. It requires some money and a lot of time and effort, dedication especially, during the interim between an election of the Potus and the mid-term elections two years afterward, during which time people are fully engaged in advancing their own daily lives.

Again, some of Bernie's supporters would take this on, 85% of 'em would not. Bernie himself would not have the time or, I suspect, the interest once he's back in Washington in his new high profile status in the US Senate.

There is a greater possibility a "third" party would develop from the Republican party riot currently underway than from the D party contest.

Again also, socialism is the government ownership of the means of communication, transportation, production. This is fact whether the socialism is democratic or dictatorial. Bernie does not advocate socialism. He advocates a common wealth approach to the body politic that he sees as a commonweal, a whole society that has economic justice and a political equi librium. Bernie is not a socialist in any form unless he's hiding it. Either way, Bernie appeals to the radical in people which instantly limits his appeal.

Bernie also campaigns in the bubble of political unreality because Republicans and other right wingers have not spent any time assaulting him as a socialist. Or as even some variation of a far out leftist. Fewer Americans are negatively impacted by the association of being 'socialist,' and the branding will continue to lose its effectiveness in the next Potus campaign and the one after it. In the meantime however, it grabs enough people to make Bernie as the nominee more than problematic in the general election.

What does make mainstream America uncomfortable about Bernie is that he's begun to get unhinged to complain about everything that can be complained about. Pretty soon Bernie is going to show up at a rally carrying the kitchen sink and heave that into the roaring crowd.

[sgtsabai]

You are wrong, as usual, about Bernie and his supporters. Unhinged, are you living in fantasy land? Oh no, the empress to be could not possibly be involved with voter suppression, and especially the DNC. Why they could never, ever use the Republican play book. Ah, the old kitchen sink, which I brought up long ago. Yes, perhaps it is past time Bernie has his surrogates throw the kitchen sink back at Hillary as hers have been throwing at him since the git-go. No true Democrat, progressive or even liberal could possibly support the right wing, war mongering, neocon/neoliberal, tool of Wall Street criminals and banksters Clinton. Damn, you are one of the most intelligent posters here, what has happened to your judgment? I know you do research. http://www.salon.com/2016/04/22/bernies_most_valuable_lesson_the_democratic_party_does_not_represent_the_values_of_progressive_americans/

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bernie-or-Extinction-by-Michael-Byron-Bernie-Sanders_Bernie-Sanders-2016-Presidential-Candidate_Bernie-Sanders-Presidential-Campaign_Civilization-160421-594.html

http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2016/04/bernies-last-shot.html

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=16196

[sgtsabai]

I didn't proof read and can't edit on this computer. empress could not. Sorry about that.

[hawker9000]

These Socialist Paradises like Venezuela where they cut electricity for 4 hours per day. That is Sanders dream of a Workers Paradise?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36108295

This gets a little tiresome. Bernie is not advocating a Socialist Government so it is pretty foolish to compare Venezuela.

Hardly a 'Worker's Paradise' just a fairer worker representation on wage negotiations and a fairer distribution of productivity gains to the worker who actually generate the profits within a Corporation.

As America clearly demonstrates if a Nation does not have fair worker representation the Middle Class is wiped out and the wealth is concentrated with a few 1% of the population. I can map out what occurs when 99% of a population is impoverished and an elite few 1% control all the wealth if you like. I'll give you a tip it doesn't turn out to well for the greedy few.

Those who delude themselves with the idea that Sanders is not "really a Socialist" might find this interesting...

"Why Democrats Should Beware Sanders’ Socialism"

Just as he himself likes to ignore certain facts about his socialist intentions for the U.S., and where they lead, those who need to get his actual political idealogy dismissed by the voting public in order to get him elected usually conveniently ignore certain facts about his background and details concerning his policies. Whether your own personal agenda requires getting people to stop recognzing him as a socialist or not, the reading is illuminating.

Am offering this because I find it relevant to the topic, not as a plug for Mrs. Sick Willy. Not by a long shot. I find them both equally absurd (and quintessentially wingnut) choices for president.

[Pimay1]

These Socialist Paradises like Venezuela where they cut electricity for 4 hours per day. That is Sanders dream of a Workers Paradise?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36108295

This gets a little tiresome. Bernie is not advocating a Socialist Government so it is pretty foolish to compare Venezuela.

Hardly a 'Worker's Paradise' just a fairer worker representation on wage negotiations and a fairer distribution of productivity gains to the worker who actually generate the profits within a Corporation.

As America clearly demonstrates if a Nation does not have fair worker representation the Middle Class is wiped out and the wealth is concentrated with a few 1% of the population. I can map out what occurs when 99% of a population is impoverished and an elite few 1% control all the wealth if you like. I'll give you a tip it doesn't turn out to well for the greedy few.

Those who delude themselves with the idea that Sanders is not "really a Socialist" might find this interesting...

"Why Democrats Should Beware Sanders’ Socialism"

Just as he himself likes to ignore certain facts about his socialist intentions for the U.S., and where they lead, those who need to get his actual political idealogy dismissed by the voting public in order to get him elected usually conveniently ignore certain facts about his background and details concerning his policies. Whether your own personal agenda requires getting people to stop recognzing him as a socialist or not, the reading is illuminating.

Am offering this because I find it relevant to the topic, not as a plug for Mrs. Sick Willy. Not by a long shot. I find them both equally absurd (and quintessentially wingnut) choices for president.

Excellent article and spot on.

[up2u2]

These Socialist Paradises like Venezuela where they cut electricity for 4 hours per day. That is Sanders dream of a Workers Paradise?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36108295

This gets a little tiresome. Bernie is not advocating a Socialist Government so it is pretty foolish to compare Venezuela.

Hardly a 'Worker's Paradise' just a fairer worker representation on wage negotiations and a fairer distribution of productivity gains to the worker who actually generate the profits within a Corporation.

As America clearly demonstrates if a Nation does not have fair worker representation the Middle Class is wiped out and the wealth is concentrated with a few 1% of the population. I can map out what occurs when 99% of a population is impoverished and an elite few 1% control all the wealth if you like. I'll give you a tip it doesn't turn out to well for the greedy few.

Those who delude themselves with the idea that Sanders is not "really a Socialist" might find this interesting...

"Why Democrats Should Beware Sanders’ Socialism"

Just as he himself likes to ignore certain facts about his socialist intentions for the U.S., and where they lead, those who need to get his actual political idealogy dismissed by the voting public in order to get him elected usually conveniently ignore certain facts about his background and details concerning his policies. Whether your own personal agenda requires getting people to stop recognzing him as a socialist or not, the reading is illuminating.

Am offering this because I find it relevant to the topic, not as a plug for Mrs. Sick Willy. Not by a long shot. I find them both equally absurd (and quintessentially wingnut) choices for president.

Other than repeating the word 'socialist' over and over again and the usual 'the sky will fall in' scare tactics the article is typical Right Wing propaganda and misinformation.

If you are a Health Insurance Provider or Health Care Provider making billions upon billions in profits yearly fleecing the public of every penny they have to stay alive or an Educational Provider shaking down the youth desperate to advance themselves and signing them up to redundant Degrees and a lifetime of debt and billions of dollars per year in interest rate levies this is exactly the type of misinformation and propaganda you want out in the public domain.

The greed of the private health providers and higher education providers is under threat and they will fight back and attempt to mislead people. You can read all about their strategy to protect their greed in Politico.

[chuckd]

I do believe that is the first time any socialist Sander's supporter has called Politico a source of propaganda.

Politico leans left wing all the way. They're just channeling Hillary against the crazy old white guy.

[Jingthing]

I don't care if he's a vegan anarchist ... he lost and it's time for him to be a good sport and not help Trump or Cruz to be president.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Jingthing

[Publicus]

These Socialist Paradises like Venezuela where they cut electricity for 4 hours per day. That is Sanders dream of a Workers Paradise?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36108295

This gets a little tiresome. Bernie is not advocating a Socialist Government so it is pretty foolish to compare Venezuela.

Hardly a 'Worker's Paradise' just a fairer worker representation on wage negotiations and a fairer distribution of productivity gains to the worker who actually generate the profits within a Corporation.

As America clearly demonstrates if a Nation does not have fair worker representation the Middle Class is wiped out and the wealth is concentrated with a few 1% of the population. I can map out what occurs when 99% of a population is impoverished and an elite few 1% control all the wealth if you like. I'll give you a tip it doesn't turn out to well for the greedy few.

Those who delude themselves with the idea that Sanders is not "really a Socialist" might find this interesting...

"Why Democrats Should Beware Sanders’ Socialism"

Just as he himself likes to ignore certain facts about his socialist intentions for the U.S., and where they lead, those who need to get his actual political idealogy dismissed by the voting public in order to get him elected usually conveniently ignore certain facts about his background and details concerning his policies. Whether your own personal agenda requires getting people to stop recognzing him as a socialist or not, the reading is illuminating.

Am offering this because I find it relevant to the topic, not as a plug for Mrs. Sick Willy. Not by a long shot. I find them both equally absurd (and quintessentially wingnut) choices for president.

The piece is spotty and not on.

It is a smattering of stuff that relates to other stuff that needs to be stuffed back up to where it came from. So here goes...

The starting point of unstuffing the essay is to point out it is an essay. It is opinion absent any and all research.

It documents nothing from Bernie Sanders that says he believes in the classic and enduring definition of socialism, i.e., socialism is government ownership of the means of communication, transportation, production. Nowhere is Bernie quoted over his three score years and 14 in which he advocates any one of the components of the definition, much less all of 'em.

This poster long ago in this campaign noted Bernie's advocacy of a single-payer health and medical system comports to government ownership in the category of production, but not in any other way. This single specifically identifiable 'socialist' aspect of Bernie's philosophy is in a definitive isolation from all the rest of the means of production; it also says nothing about communication, transportation (to include radios and ambulances ). Still, nothing in Bernie's voting record or of his lifetime in public life and office makes Bernie Sanders a socialist.

Bernie has done nothing more than to advocate a common wealth in respect of the commonweal.

Number three especially and in particular:

commonwealth

1.

the people of a state or nation viewed politically;body politic

2.

a state or nation in which the people possess sovereignty; republic

3.

the body politic organized for the general good

commonweal

1. the good of the community

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/commonwealth

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/commonweal

I'd say again, if Bernie Sanders is in fact a socialist, he' be hiding it. Further, if Bernie Sanders were a socialist, then somebody with some measure of credibility would be able to point it out and to prove it. The linked article does neither of these. The linked piece btw also misrepresents and ill defines and describes liberals in US politics.

[up2u2]

True JT that will be the way it goes. If Bernie can't get the nomination then he will ensure Republicans don't get a look in. Hopefully Trump forces the GOP to put him up as a candidate and that gives Democrats the best chance of the House and the Senate. Anything is better than DelCons

[up2u2]

I do believe that is the first time any socialist Sander's supporter has called Politico a source of propaganda.

Politico leans left wing all the way. They're just channeling Hillary against the crazy old white guy.

That piece is. It is absolute rubbish. By its definition any Government that built a publicly funded road would be considered a Socialist Government.

Looking at Bernie's popularity in double figures against ALL Republican candidates it looks as if the 'socialist' scare campaign isn't getting any traction in the electorate.

[helpisgood]

Ahem, no desire to organize etc. And just where the hell did Bernie's organization come from, super pacs, DNC, rich folks? I don't think so. Yes Bernie is not a socialist, he says democratic socialist and you know it. He channels FDR and the New Deal, which the Democrat Party has done it's best to destroy. Do you not hear what he says, this is not about him, but starting a political revolution to save our country. Bernie just may be quite busy in the White House but one way or the other, he will be working to continue what he has started which is America's only hope. Oh, I'm not a true believer, but I have hope the revolution which is way past due will be his way, I know the other way and nobody wins and one of the two will surely come this time around.

Bernie has assembled a political campaign organisation with first rate pros at the top and throughout it. His advance people are excellent given the venues and the crowds they attract. Note that crowds at political campaign rallies have no relation whatsoever to the winner or loser in an election.

The excitement of an insurgent campaign for Potus, starting with the party's nomination, is a shiny object that will draw people who connect with the message and/or the person, as we also see from the other end of it with Donald Gump Trump.

After losing the election however, the shiny object is covered over by the residue of the defeat. Forming a new political party post-election hasn't any shinny objects. There is only daily hard work, great detail, a daily grind of getting people to meet and to meet somewhere at a specific time to discuss, plan, strategise, do task specialisation. It requires some money and a lot of time and effort, dedication especially, during the interim between an election of the Potus and the mid-term elections two years afterward, during which time people are fully engaged in advancing their own daily lives.

Again, some of Bernie's supporters would take this on, 85% of 'em would not. Bernie himself would not have the time or, I suspect, the interest once he's back in Washington in his new high profile status in the US Senate.

There is a greater possibility a "third" party would develop from the Republican party riot currently underway than from the D party contest.

Again also, socialism is the government ownership of the means of communication, transportation, production. This is fact whether the socialism is democratic or dictatorial. Bernie does not advocate socialism. He advocates a common wealth approach to the body politic that he sees as a commonweal, a whole society that has economic justice and a political equi librium. Bernie is not a socialist in any form unless he's hiding it. Either way, Bernie appeals to the radical in people which instantly limits his appeal.

Bernie also campaigns in the bubble of political unreality because Republicans and other right wingers have not spent any time assaulting him as a socialist. Or as even some variation of a far out leftist. Fewer Americans are negatively impacted by the association of being 'socialist,' and the branding will continue to lose its effectiveness in the next Potus campaign and the one after it. In the meantime however, it grabs enough people to make Bernie as the nominee more than problematic in the general election.

What does make mainstream America uncomfortable about Bernie is that he's begun to get unhinged to complain about everything that can be complained about. Pretty soon Bernie is going to show up at a rally carrying the kitchen sink and heave that into the roaring crowd.

P's post is nonsense.

Bernie's crowds had not to do merely with the skill of his advance people (like the Clintons lack the political machine?). It's because he has an actual message that resonates with people weary and angry with the politics of old. Hillary just flaunts her resume, which misrepresents the truth anyway, changes her position to better pander to voters, and has even incorporated part of Bernie's message (That SNL sketch was right.).

And then you state that Bernie's large crowds are misleading because he lost a number of primaries. Gee, so why would so many people bother to go see a 74-year old non-celebrity? What could he be saying that attracts so many people and spoiled the coronation of a household name adored by so many with so much more money?

You just dismiss it all as "a shiny object." How insulting! Thousands and thousands of ordinary people came out to see him and have sent him so much money that he need not rely upon a super PAC (unlike the "Fighting for us" HRC). Do you realize that for these people their modest donation may mean something to them? I realize they perhaps lack the sophistication of Hillary's glamorous and well-heeled patrons. But, this is still a democracy, I do hope, and the ordinary American people are not simpletons overwhelmed by a "shiny object." Their lives and hopes mean something, too!

And, where do you get this "commonwealth" theory of Bernie? It is really and simply just about how much and how effectively certain industries (e.g., the banks) should be regulated. Maybe Hillary's secret speech or speeches to the banking industry can help us understand how this should work.

And where did you get that 85% from and your assumption about Bernie's later intentions? Again, you just dismiss without any facts the aspiring real democrats from the hogs in the trough called the Democratic Party establishment.

It seems to me that your entire post is just some kind of spin from the fantasy land where HRC is really "fighting for us" as she runs off to yet another fundraiser.

[CWMcMurray]

Great interview. I had read the transcript. And some people actually think Warren would accept a position from her, give me a break. I don't like the fact that Warren has not come out in support of Bernie, hedging her bets, but accept a position offered by Clinton, oh I think not. Clinton's favorables continue to sink. Ridin' that Clinton train, full speed ahead, I see trouble ahead. http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/print/hillary_clintons_image_among_democrats_reaches_new_low_20160423 http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/190787/clinton-image-among-democrats-new-low.aspx?g_source=ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

Trouble with you is the trouble with me,

Got two good eyes but you still don't see.(Hillary)

Edited April 25, 2016 by CWMcMurray

[Jingthing]

I'm ready for Hillary.

But while we're waiting, the republican convention is bound to be VERY entertaining!

[sgtsabai]

Yep, it will be entertaining and perhaps to a lessor degree so will the the Democrat convention. Unfortunately entertaining is not what America needs, it needs the sheeple to find their hind feet and rebel, yes rebel, rise up and fight if need be. Entertaining is what we have had since the Reagan cabal. Yea, that has worked real well, NOT!

[lannarebirth]

I don't care if he's a vegan anarchist ... he lost and it's time for him to be a good sport and not help Trump or Cruz to be president.

I don't think it is possible that Trump or Cruz could win the general election, but if one of them does it won't be because of anything Bernie did or didn't do. It will because the Democrats foisted a horribly flawed and highly unfavorable candidate on the electorate despite the urging of their core supporters and glaring evidence that she was vulnerable to loss.

[sgtsabai]

Oh we do have some Hillary sheeple here. A "good sport", what world do you live in? Hillary doesn't deserve to be dawg catcher in a one dawg town. Thankfully some of us can see the truth.

[Jingthing]

I don't care if he's a vegan anarchist ... he lost and it's time for him to be a good sport and not help Trump or Cruz to be president.

I don't think it is possible that Trump or Cruz could win the general election, but if one of them does it won't be because of anything Bernie did or didn't do. It will because the Democrats foisted a horribly flawed and highly unfavorable candidate on the electorate despite the urging of their core supporters and glaring evidence that she was vulnerable to loss.

That's total B.S.

Smell the coffee.

The democrat nominee will be Hillary Clinton.

It's happening.

Can Bernie get Trump or Cruz elected?

Sure he can.

If he fails to support Hillary and encourages his supporters to stay home.

Of course some Sanders people will see the appeal of Trump. They're crazy that way.

[sgtsabai]

Do I need say more? http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/24/charles-koch-says-he-could-possibly-support-hillary-clinton/?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition&_r=0

[sgtsabai]

What have you been smoking, whatever it's bad. There is not a single Bernie supporter that would go for the duck, oops, Donald. Clinton will fail on her on, unfavorables rise every day. Only a sell out DINO fool would believe in her. Complete opposite ends of the spectrum. Oh crap, try again, what more needs to be said. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/24/charles-koch-says-he-could-possibly-support-hillary-clinton/?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition

[Publicus]

Ahem, no desire to organize etc. And just where the hell did Bernie's organization come from, super pacs, DNC, rich folks? I don't think so. Yes Bernie is not a socialist, he says democratic socialist and you know it. He channels FDR and the New Deal, which the Democrat Party has done it's best to destroy. Do you not hear what he says, this is not about him, but starting a political revolution to save our country. Bernie just may be quite busy in the White House but one way or the other, he will be working to continue what he has started which is America's only hope. Oh, I'm not a true believer, but I have hope the revolution which is way past due will be his way, I know the other way and nobody wins and one of the two will surely come this time around.

Bernie has assembled a political campaign organisation with first rate pros at the top and throughout it. His advance people are excellent given the venues and the crowds they attract. Note that crowds at political campaign rallies have no relation whatsoever to the winner or loser in an election.

The excitement of an insurgent campaign for Potus, starting with the party's nomination, is a shiny object that will draw people who connect with the message and/or the person, as we also see from the other end of it with Donald Gump Trump.

After losing the election however, the shiny object is covered over by the residue of the defeat. Forming a new political party post-election hasn't any shinny objects. There is only daily hard work, great detail, a daily grind of getting people to meet and to meet somewhere at a specific time to discuss, plan, strategise, do task specialisation. It requires some money and a lot of time and effort, dedication especially, during the interim between an election of the Potus and the mid-term elections two years afterward, during which time people are fully engaged in advancing their own daily lives.

Again, some of Bernie's supporters would take this on, 85% of 'em would not. Bernie himself would not have the time or, I suspect, the interest once he's back in Washington in his new high profile status in the US Senate.

There is a greater possibility a "third" party would develop from the Republican party riot currently underway than from the D party contest.

Again also, socialism is the government ownership of the means of communication, transportation, production. This is fact whether the socialism is democratic or dictatorial. Bernie does not advocate socialism. He advocates a common wealth approach to the body politic that he sees as a commonweal, a whole society that has economic justice and a political equi librium. Bernie is not a socialist in any form unless he's hiding it. Either way, Bernie appeals to the radical in people which instantly limits his appeal.

Bernie also campaigns in the bubble of political unreality because Republicans and other right wingers have not spent any time assaulting him as a socialist. Or as even some variation of a far out leftist. Fewer Americans are negatively impacted by the association of being 'socialist,' and the branding will continue to lose its effectiveness in the next Potus campaign and the one after it. In the meantime however, it grabs enough people to make Bernie as the nominee more than problematic in the general election.

What does make mainstream America uncomfortable about Bernie is that he's begun to get unhinged to complain about everything that can be complained about. Pretty soon Bernie is going to show up at a rally carrying the kitchen sink and heave that into the roaring crowd.

P's post is nonsense.

Bernie's crowds had not to do merely with the skill of his advance people (like the Clintons lack the political machine?). It's because he has an actual message that resonates with people weary and angry with the politics of old. Hillary just flaunts her resume, which misrepresents the truth anyway, changes her position to better pander to voters, and has even incorporated part of Bernie's message (That SNL sketch was right.).

And then you state that Bernie's large crowds are misleading because he lost a number of primaries. Gee, so why would so many people bother to go see a 74-year old non-celebrity? What could he be saying that attracts so many people and spoiled the coronation of a household name adored by so many with so much more money?

You just dismiss it all as "a shiny object." How insulting! Thousands and thousands of ordinary people came out to see him and have sent him so much money that he need not rely upon a super PAC (unlike the "Fighting for us" HRC). Do you realize that for these people their modest donation may mean something to them? I realize they perhaps lack the sophistication of Hillary's glamorous and well-heeled patrons. But, this is still a democracy, I do hope, and the ordinary American people are not simpletons overwhelmed by a "shiny object." Their lives and hopes mean something, too!

And, where do you get this "commonwealth" theory of Bernie? It is really and simply just about how much and how effectively certain industries (e.g., the banks) should be regulated. Maybe Hillary's secret speech or speeches to the banking industry can help us understand how this should work.

And where did you get that 85% from and your assumption about Bernie's later intentions? Again, you just dismiss without any facts the aspiring real democrats from the hogs in the trough called the Democratic Party establishment.

It seems to me that your entire post is just some kind of spin from the fantasy land where HRC is really "fighting for us" as she runs off to yet another fundraiser.

While my post does not mention Hillary Clinton, your reply mentions Hillary Clinton six times and then has a proliferation of 'her' throughout the paragraphs. Your post is all over the reservation.

I didn't have to post anything about HRC for the bent out of shape among us to rant on in their relentless recitations and attacks. So the unrelenting and the tormented make it impossible to get beyond this one person regardless of the point under discussion.

Bernie's supporters are political tumbleweed and political party drifters who have no capability to, or interest in, forming a new "third party." It is a lot of hard political work in the community that requires dedication, determination, a long term commitment. That means youse guyz over there holding the Bernie signs while feeling the Bern.

Bernie leaves the rally, youse guyz go home or back to the dorm. No third party. To say no third party is not a value judgement or a wish. It is entirely practical and based in everyday reality.

And then you state that Bernie's large crowds are misleading because he lost a number of primaries

I did not state that. You did.

I will continue to make the point crowd size at political rallies is indeed misleading. But only to those who look at candidates' crowds then predict the outcome of the election. No one in politics who is knowledgeable and experienced looks at the crowds at candidate rallies then identifies the winner on this basis. It's been proven empirically and for a long time that candidate crowds large medium or small at political rallies have no relationship whatsoever to who wins the election...whatever election.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Publicus

[lannarebirth]

I don't care if he's a vegan anarchist ... he lost and it's time for him to be a good sport and not help Trump or Cruz to be president.

I don't think it is possible that Trump or Cruz could win the general election, but if one of them does it won't be because of anything Bernie did or didn't do. It will because the Democrats foisted a horribly flawed and highly unfavorable candidate on the electorate despite the urging of their core supporters and glaring evidence that she was vulnerable to loss.

That's total B.S.

Smell the coffee.

The democrat nominee will be Hillary Clinton.

It's happening.

Can Bernie get Trump or Cruz elected?

Sure he can.

If he fails to support Hillary and encourages his supporters to stay home.

Of course some Sanders people will see the appeal of Trump. They're crazy that way.

I wasn't disputing that the Democrat nominee would be Hillary Clinton or that she is likely to win, but I'm not voting for her, or Trump or Cruz either for that matter, even if Bernie says I should. Despite my support for his nomination I don't agree with him on many things and he sure as hell can't make me vote for someone that I think will damage my country.

I can't speak to your view that some Sanders people will see the appeal of Trump.

[lannarebirth]

Do I need say more? http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/24/charles-koch-says-he-could-possibly-support-hillary-clinton/?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition&_r=0

It was an unexpected sentiment from Mr. Koch, who has for years deployed his vast wealth to champion conservative causes and Republican candidacies, emerging as a major foe of the Democratic Party.

I don't see that as unexpected at all. She is just the type of candidate I would have assumed he'd support.

[lannarebirth]

What have you been smoking, whatever it's bad. There is not a single Bernie supporter that would go for the duck, oops, Donald. Clinton will fail on her on, unfavorables rise every day. Only a sell out DINO fool would believe in her. Complete opposite ends of the spectrum. Oh crap, try again, what more needs to be said. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/24/charles-koch-says-he-could-possibly-support-hillary-clinton/?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition

In a society where so many people's personal wealth is tied up with the trading prices of corporations. people will vote for what serves corporations. That's Hillary Clinton. People will vote for her for the same reason people invested with Madoff. They know they're up to something dodgy but they think they will be the beneficiary of that dodginess somehow, or will be smart enough to get out befor the shit hits the fan,

[boomerangutang]

And the Hillary bashers keep bashing away. It's like 11 yr old girls at a lemonade party: everything, everyone they have an opinion about, is either love or hate.

Because she's the first serious female candidate - do Americans expect her to be a Joan of Arc, perfect in every way?

Different folks will opine about different flaws they see in her character, but she's human. She's been involved in politics a long time. Politics is a dirty game. She's been adept at it. Is she dirtier that other candidates? Who is your favorite politician? Is that person clean as the driven snow? I don't expect perfection in people and don't expect it in politicians who, by the way, are also people. Here are some nutshell comparisons between HRC and Trump (the most likely candidates running up to November):

Trump: Married thrice, therefore broke deals at least twice (each time he took an oath to stay with the one woman). HRC: married once.

Trump: Potty mouth who, the instant he senses an unflattering statement/question about himself, immediately shouts repeatedly: "Excuse me! Excuse me! Excuse me!" ...and then devolves to childish name calling. HRC: can handle adversity, and handles it commendably.

Trump: Zero experience getting things done inside the beltway. HRC: lots of experience

Trump: Loves the very rich (and himself) so much that he wants to lower their taxes drastically. HRC: similar to Sanders, will deal fairly with the very rich.

Trump: Will spark massive trade wars with his 35 to 45% tariffs. HRC: will deal sensibly with trade issues.

Trump: Alienates and angers world leaders. HRC: is cooperative and well-liked, always seeking win-win scenarios.

[helpisgood]

Bernie has assembled a political campaign organisation with first rate pros at the top and throughout it. His advance people are excellent given the venues and the crowds they attract. Note that crowds at political campaign rallies have no relation whatsoever to the winner or loser in an election.

The excitement of an insurgent campaign for Potus, starting with the party's nomination, is a shiny object that will draw people who connect with the message and/or the person, as we also see from the other end of it with Donald Gump Trump.

After losing the election however, the shiny object is covered over by the residue of the defeat. Forming a new political party post-election hasn't any shinny objects. There is only daily hard work, great detail, a daily grind of getting people to meet and to meet somewhere at a specific time to discuss, plan, strategise, do task specialisation. It requires some money and a lot of time and effort, dedication especially, during the interim between an election of the Potus and the mid-term elections two years afterward, during which time people are fully engaged in advancing their own daily lives.

Again, some of Bernie's supporters would take this on, 85% of 'em would not. Bernie himself would not have the time or, I suspect, the interest once he's back in Washington in his new high profile status in the US Senate.

There is a greater possibility a "third" party would develop from the Republican party riot currently underway than from the D party contest.

Again also, socialism is the government ownership of the means of communication, transportation, production. This is fact whether the socialism is democratic or dictatorial. Bernie does not advocate socialism. He advocates a common wealth approach to the body politic that he sees as a commonweal, a whole society that has economic justice and a political equi librium. Bernie is not a socialist in any form unless he's hiding it. Either way, Bernie appeals to the radical in people which instantly limits his appeal.

Bernie also campaigns in the bubble of political unreality because Republicans and other right wingers have not spent any time assaulting him as a socialist. Or as even some variation of a far out leftist. Fewer Americans are negatively impacted by the association of being 'socialist,' and the branding will continue to lose its effectiveness in the next Potus campaign and the one after it. In the meantime however, it grabs enough people to make Bernie as the nominee more than problematic in the general election.

What does make mainstream America uncomfortable about Bernie is that he's begun to get unhinged to complain about everything that can be complained about. Pretty soon Bernie is going to show up at a rally carrying the kitchen sink and heave that into the roaring crowd.

P's post is nonsense.

Bernie's crowds had not to do merely with the skill of his advance people (like the Clintons lack the political machine?). It's because he has an actual message that resonates with people weary and angry with the politics of old. Hillary just flaunts her resume, which misrepresents the truth anyway, changes her position to better pander to voters, and has even incorporated part of Bernie's message (That SNL sketch was right.).

And then you state that Bernie's large crowds are misleading because he lost a number of primaries. Gee, so why would so many people bother to go see a 74-year old non-celebrity? What could he be saying that attracts so many people and spoiled the coronation of a household name adored by so many with so much more money?

You just dismiss it all as "a shiny object." How insulting! Thousands and thousands of ordinary people came out to see him and have sent him so much money that he need not rely upon a super PAC (unlike the "Fighting for us" HRC). Do you realize that for these people their modest donation may mean something to them? I realize they perhaps lack the sophistication of Hillary's glamorous and well-heeled patrons. But, this is still a democracy, I do hope, and the ordinary American people are not simpletons overwhelmed by a "shiny object." Their lives and hopes mean something, too!

And, where do you get this "commonwealth" theory of Bernie? It is really and simply just about how much and how effectively certain industries (e.g., the banks) should be regulated. Maybe Hillary's secret speech or speeches to the banking industry can help us understand how this should work.

And where did you get that 85% from and your assumption about Bernie's later intentions? Again, you just dismiss without any facts the aspiring real democrats from the hogs in the trough called the Democratic Party establishment.

It seems to me that your entire post is just some kind of spin from the fantasy land where HRC is really "fighting for us" as she runs off to yet another fundraiser.

While my post does not mention Hillary Clinton, your reply mentions Hillary Clinton six times and then has a proliferation of 'her' throughout the paragraphs. Your post is all over the reservation.

I didn't have to post anything about HRC for the bent out of shape among us to rant on in their relentless recitations and attacks. So the unrelenting and the tormented make it impossible to get beyond this one person regardless of the point under discussion.

Bernie's supporters are political tumbleweed and political party drifters who have no capability to, or interest in, forming a new "third party." It is a lot of hard political work in the community that requires dedication, determination, a long term commitment. That means youse guyz over there holding the Bernie signs while feeling the Bern.

Bernie leaves the rally, youse guyz go home or back to the dorm. No third party. To say no third party is not a value judgement or a wish. It is entirely practical and based in everyday reality.

And then you state that Bernie's large crowds are misleading because he lost a number of primaries

I did not state that. You did.

I will continue to make the point crowd size at political rallies is indeed misleading. But only to those who look at candidates' crowds then predict the outcome of the election. No one in politics who is knowledgeable and experienced looks at the crowds at candidate rallies then identifies the winner on this basis. It's been proven empirically and for a long time that candidate crowds large medium or small at political rallies have no relationship whatsoever to who wins the election...whatever election.

Yes, I did mention HRC because that's who Sanders is running against and is thus compared to. I cannot believe I have to point this out. So, what's wrong with comparing the two candidates who are running against each other? One is an "outsider" and the other is not. Thus, I was directly addressing your point, but perhaps you want to duck defending HRC and the Democratic Party.

And yes, I did address the issue regarding Bernie's supporters (see the "ordinary people" in my post above). I think you were stating that I had failed to address that point. I am not sure. I sometimes have to reread your sentences several times to hopefully decipher what you have meant.

And, then there's the following:

Your last post quoting me: "'And then you [Publius] state that Bernie's large crowds are misleading because he lost a number of primaries.'"

Your reply: "I did not state that. You did."

You next follow that in your last post with a paragraph explaining how such crowd sizes has "...no relationship whatsoever to who wins the election...."

In your post before that, you wrote: "Note that crowds at political campaign rallies have no relation whatsoever to the winner or loser in an election."

What! How is my quoted statement not logically related to your point?

By the way, and correct me if I am wrong, but I have never heard of the expression "all over the reservation." However, I have heard of the common expression "off the reservation." I mention this because I have noticed that, besides not using the correct word or expression, you seem to try too hard to be clever with your sentences when you would be better off, like all good writers, to use simpler language unless it is truly necessary to do otherwise. Then, maybe I could understand you better.

[i had to delete a post to be able to post this new one.}

Edited April 26, 2016 by helpisgood

[Publicus]

The compulsively unrelenting Hillary bashers are constantly full of invective and venom so their nonsense spills over into other matters too.

The long and the short of it is that Bernie Sanders has transformed back into a pumpkin again. In between transformations voters in the primaries put a slipper on HRC's foot. In January Bernie will return to the Senate as the Independent he is and this time as a high profile prince of the American upper middle class and of the youthfully exuberant.

Few who support HRC post positive features of or about her because the proliferation of Clinton assassins and haters always fill subsequent pages with their severe personal bents against anything Clinton, a woman as Potus number one. The rage against HRC from the OTT crowd is indeed too much to keep apace of or to get out ahead of.

When HRC announced for Potus Bernie was a political speck. Bernie and his team have done exceedingly well to establish themselves in the campaign and to excel at it, both substantively and as a matter of style. Bernie's campaign has set America on a new course and the course is a good one. It has impacted America and the world and it has directly influenced the Democratic party, in which Bernie Sanders is a recent arrival and only a nominal one.

Simply counting delegates won in primaries or caucuses, and simply counting raw votes, HRC prevails decisively. Almost all the remaining primaries, to include those tomorrow, are for Democrats only, no Independent voters are eligible, nor are Republicans eligible to switch party affiliation to vote in the interest of their party. Bernie will do well in CA but from here to the end of the primary and caucus process the voter participation is limited to the D party base.

Consequently, Bernie is waaay behind in almost each of the five states that will hold their primaries tomorrow -- PA, MD, DE, CT, RI. I look forward to Bernie's convention speech at the end of July that will bring down the house. And btw, there will not be any third party coming out of this D party contest for the nomination.

Hillary wants Bernie's new voters and the older voters the Vermont senator drew to the polls to support him and his cause. She'd be crazy not to want or court 'em. However, from the time HRC announced last year she needed only the Obama coalition to win, the coalition of 2008 and of 2012. Nothing more than that is required. Now with Trump or Cruz and an outside possibility of Kasich, the Republican nominee will not equal, much less surpass, the Romney losing vote of 2012.

HRC does not need you or any of the other obsessive compulsive Clinton bashers who have no institutional political ties, alignment or involvement that constitutes a commitment that is consistent, regular, informed and most of all, mainstream, to include temperament.

[helpisgood]

The compulsively unrelenting Hillary bashers are constantly full of invective and venom so their nonsense spills over into other matters too.

The long and the short of it is that Bernie Sanders has transformed back into a pumpkin again. In between transformations voters in the primaries put a slipper on HRC's foot. In January Bernie will return to the Senate as the Independent he is and this time as a high profile prince of the American upper middle class and of the youthfully exuberant.

Few who support HRC post positive features of or about her because the proliferation of Clinton assassins and haters always fill subsequent pages with their severe personal bents against anything Clinton, a woman as Potus number one. The rage against HRC from the OTT crowd is indeed too much to keep apace of or to get out ahead of.

When HRC announced for Potus Bernie was a political speck. Bernie and his team have done exceedingly well to establish themselves in the campaign and to excel at it, both substantively and as a matter of style. Bernie's campaign has set America on a new course and the course is a good one. It has impacted America and the world and it has directly influenced the Democratic party, in which Bernie Sanders is a recent arrival and only a nominal one.

Simply counting delegates won in primaries or caucuses, and simply counting raw votes, HRC prevails decisively. Almost all the remaining primaries, to include those tomorrow, are for Democrats only, no Independent voters are eligible, nor are Republicans eligible to switch party affiliation to vote in the interest of their party. Bernie will do well in CA but from here to the end of the primary and caucus process the voter participation is limited to the D party base.

Consequently, Bernie is waaay behind in almost each of the five states that will hold their primaries tomorrow -- PA, MD, DE, CT, RI. I look forward to Bernie's convention speech at the end of July that will bring down the house. And btw, there will not be any third party coming out of this D party contest for the nomination.

Hillary wants Bernie's new voters and the older voters the Vermont senator drew to the polls to support him and his cause. She'd be crazy not to want or court 'em. However, from the time HRC announced last year she needed only the Obama coalition to win, the coalition of 2008 and of 2012. Nothing more than that is required. Now with Trump or Cruz and an outside possibility of Kasich, the Republican nominee will not equal, much less surpass, the Romney losing vote of 2012.

HRC does not need you or any of the other obsessive compulsive Clinton bashers who have no institutional political ties, alignment or involvement that constitutes a commitment that is consistent, regular, informed and most of all, mainstream, to include temperament.

Wow, a much better written post, because It's the real you! Congratulations!

Keep it up!

[Publicus]

The compulsively unrelenting Hillary bashers are constantly full of invective and venom so their nonsense spills over into other matters too.

The long and the short of it is that Bernie Sanders has transformed back into a pumpkin again. In between transformations voters in the primaries put a slipper on HRC's foot. In January Bernie will return to the Senate as the Independent he is and this time as a high profile prince of the American upper middle class and of the youthfully exuberant.

Few who support HRC post positive features of or about her because the proliferation of Clinton assassins and haters always fill subsequent pages with their severe personal bents against anything Clinton, a woman as Potus number one. The rage against HRC from the OTT crowd is indeed too much to keep apace of or to get out ahead of.

When HRC announced for Potus Bernie was a political speck. Bernie and his team have done exceedingly well to establish themselves in the campaign and to excel at it, both substantively and as a matter of style. Bernie's campaign has set America on a new course and the course is a good one. It has impacted America and the world and it has directly influenced the Democratic party, in which Bernie Sanders is a recent arrival and only a nominal one.

Simply counting delegates won in primaries or caucuses, and simply counting raw votes, HRC prevails decisively. Almost all the remaining primaries, to include those tomorrow, are for Democrats only, no Independent voters are eligible, nor are Republicans eligible to switch party affiliation to vote in the interest of their party. Bernie will do well in CA but from here to the end of the primary and caucus process the voter participation is limited to the D party base.

Consequently, Bernie is waaay behind in almost each of the five states that will hold their primaries tomorrow -- PA, MD, DE, CT, RI. I look forward to Bernie's convention speech at the end of July that will bring down the house. And btw, there will not be any third party coming out of this D party contest for the nomination.

Hillary wants Bernie's new voters and the older voters the Vermont senator drew to the polls to support him and his cause. She'd be crazy not to want or court 'em. However, from the time HRC announced last year she needed only the Obama coalition to win, the coalition of 2008 and of 2012. Nothing more than that is required. Now with Trump or Cruz and an outside possibility of Kasich, the Republican nominee will not equal, much less surpass, the Romney losing vote of 2012.

HRC does not need you or any of the other obsessive compulsive Clinton bashers who have no institutional political ties, alignment or involvement that constitutes a commitment that is consistent, regular, informed and most of all, mainstream, to include temperament.

Wow, a much better written post, because It's the real you! Congratulations!

Keep it up!

Your sword is accepted.

Or fallen on.

Not clear which just yet.

[Jingthing]

I have another reaction to the more CHILDISH Sanders supporters.
Your man has LOST.

Accept the reality. He knows it as well.

Do some basic research if you don't believe it.

Now to the more ridiculous Sander's backers like Susan Sarandon ... you're not helping your case.

What you should want now is to to effect some change on the democrat platform and Hillary Clinton's general election policy positions.

I'm not saying you'll get much, but you can get something.

To WIN, to beat Trump or Cruz, Hillary will need to run closer to the center.

That's American politics. Adults know that. Little crybabies don't.

More of these Sarandon antics and you'll get NOTHING and DESERVE nothing.

By the way, I used to feel warmer towards Sanders but then he said some stuff which totally pissed me off.

HOWEVER, if he had won the nomination (he did not, it is OVER) I would have enthusiastically supported him over Trump or Cruz.

The adult thing to do.

Ba bye.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Jingthing