Sanders transforms into contender, still pitches revolution

[helpisgood]

Super delegates to the party nominating convention were created by each Democrats and Republicans for specific reasons. Which are to preclude the fringe candidates having an exceptional year to seize control of the nomination.

Super delegates were created after:

Republican Sen Barry Goldwater of Arizona won only five states in 1964

Democratic Party Sen. George McGovern won one state in 1972

VP Walter Mondale won one state in 1984.

Goldwater was fringe right; McGovern was fringe left. Mondale was feeble. Mondale came after Carter had been blown out in 1980 and Dole got routed in 1996.

Super delegates try to stay away from either party hacks who can't get elected potus or from fringe crackpots who might rise for the moment to ride the crest to their wipeout in the general election.

And, who decides if these candidates are "fringe candidates" or not? Certainly not the people (through primaries), but the party bosses and establishment. Is this truly democracy in action especially considering that the two major national parties do their best to squeeze out any fair chance for a third party candidate? After Perot, you don't see any third party candidate in a presidential debate and, at best, they barely get any coverage at all in the corporate mainstream media.

So, should we only get to choose from two candidates that best represent the leadership of the two major parties, both of which parties get major contributions from big money and often from the same donors hedging their bets? Not much of a choice, it seems to me.

By the way, as for the "fringe candidate" named George McGovern, I recall during the Watergate hearings reading a number of bumper stickers that stated: "Don't blame me. I voted for McGovern."

Edited February 11, 2016 by helpisgood

[boomerangutang]

After viewing the many posts supporting Bernie and Hillary, what I find far more scary than an admitted socialist and a lying FBI suspect running for President, is there are Americans who will actually vote for these people.

I thought you'd end your sentence with the word 'Republicans' instead of 'these people.'

Sadly not. But if so, you'd be in tune with the vast majority of American voters.

Rubio, in my view, is the scariest of the scary bunch calling themselves Republican candidates. His debate appearance showed his true color: He couldn't respond to any questions (by Christie) without starting with the phrase 'Obama knows what he's doing....'

After the 4th time in a row, Christie was shown shaking his head in exasperation, saying 'there he goes again'- reflecting what everyone else watching was doing.

Americans may wind up with a Bible-thumping N-bomber (Cruz), or a flip-floping sound-biter (Trump), but heaven help us if we get a robo-tape-looper like Rubio in the #1 power seat of the world (...and I don't even believe in 'heaven'). Even as VP he'd be scary.

[Pakboong]

I sure agree with Bernie that workers need to make a LIVING WAGE. $15 dollars per hour is the bare minimum for an adult these days.

At some point, we need to tackle production costs relative to our competitors. If Russia can produce a barrel of oil at a quarter of what it costs us and build their top jet air craft at 20% of what it costs us, we are in trouble. This problem has liberal causes IMO. It can't be reversed but it can be slowed. Let our competitors make adjustments, not us.

Labor unions want to increase production costs which may not hurt tomorrow, but in 10 years we really fall farther behind. We seem to have reached diminishing returns and we are dead in the water if we don't wake up and pay the piper. We certainly can't afford $15 an hour and still compete on the world stage today. Anything we try to do will be painful. One of the reasons many of us live here is that we did the math years ago.

[NeverSure]

Super delegates to the party nominating convention were created by each Democrats and Republicans for specific reasons. Which are to preclude the fringe candidates having an exceptional year to seize control of the nomination.

Super delegates were created after:

Republican Sen Barry Goldwater of Arizona won only five states in 1964

Democratic Party Sen. George McGovern won one state in 1972

VP Walter Mondale won one state in 1984.

Goldwater was fringe right; McGovern was fringe left. Mondale was feeble. Mondale came after Carter had been blown out in 1980 and Dole got routed in 1996.

Super delegates try to stay away from either party hacks who can't get elected potus or from fringe crackpots who might rise for the moment to ride the crest to their wipeout in the general election.

"Super delegates to the party nominating convention were created by each Democrats and Republicans for specific reasons. Which are to preclude the fringe candidates having an exceptional year to seize control of the nomination party from the Big Brass Insiders."

The clear fact in the graphic above is that Hillary went into this process with a whole bunch of delegates already in the bank. This is the wish of the Big Boys in the party.

It reminds me of Thailand trying to frame a charter that will assure that only those who suit (deleted) can be elected.

How the hell do you think Bill and Hillary managed to get paid something like $60 million dollars for "speeches" running up to this election? Do you think those Wall Street boys give that money away for fun?

It's going to take one hell of a revolt by the voters to overcome the party insiders and get enough delegates to wrest the power away from the insiders.

Cheers.

Edited February 11, 2016 by NeverSure

[Pinot]

Super delegates to the party nominating convention were created by each Democrats and Republicans for specific reasons. Which are to preclude the fringe candidates having an exceptional year to seize control of the nomination.

Super delegates were created after:

Republican Sen Barry Goldwater of Arizona won only five states in 1964

Democratic Party Sen. George McGovern won one state in 1972

VP Walter Mondale won one state in 1984.

Goldwater was fringe right; McGovern was fringe left. Mondale was feeble. Mondale came after Carter had been blown out in 1980 and Dole got routed in 1996.

Super delegates try to stay away from either party hacks who can't get elected potus or from fringe crackpots who might rise for the moment to ride the crest to their wipeout in the general election.

"Super delegates to the party nominating convention were created by each Democrats and Republicans for specific reasons. Which are to preclude the fringe candidates having an exceptional year to seize control of the nomination party from the Big Brass Insiders."

The clear fact in the graphic above is that Hillary went into this process with a whole bunch of delegates already in the bank. This is the wish of the Big Boys in the party.

It reminds me of Thailand trying to frame a charter that will assure that only those who suit (deleted) can be elected.

How the hell do you think Bill and Hillary managed to get paid something like $60 million dollars for "speeches" running up to this election? Do you think those Wall Street boys give that money away for fun?

It's going to take one hell of a revolt by the voters to overcome the party insiders and get enough delegates to wrest the power away from the insiders.

Cheers.

Don't worry about the Democrats. They'll figure it out.

Bernie or HRC will do just fine. If it's Bernie, that will be great. Here is a guy who want to make some serious changes. We will prosper under HIllary as well.

These super delegates will be insignificant if Bernie's candidacy takes off.

[Jingthing]

Sanders needs to do a major speech, totally own his political identity as a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, explain in clear bold words that is not the same thing as being a communist or being against the free enterprise system, and detail the wonderful benefits of current well loved programs like SOCIAL SECURITY and how they come out of the same tradition (FDR). Americans may not like to be lectured to but if he is to have any chance at all of winning in the general if nominated he needs to deal with the socialist / "commie" demonization HEAD ON.

This is also important for his chances to being NOMINATED. He probably won't be nominated and the main reason is the perception that he is UNELECTABLE among DEMOCRATS. So he needs to neutralize the commie socialist label as soon as possible, if he really expects to have a good chance of being nominated.

A similar situation to how JFK owned his Catholic background (as the first Catholic president) and how Romney owned his Mormon background. Maybe not great examples as both ended in tears ... but still, he NEEDS to do this. Not run from it: OWN IT PROUDLY. Turn a negative into a positive. Difficult yes, impossible probably not with a very skilled politician. Is he that politician? Well, I have my doubts.

I still think he probably won't be nominated. But his campaign can still serve some purpose to help make the case for "socialist" policies that do make sense ... such as universal health care access.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Jingthing

[up2u2]

I sure agree with Bernie that workers need to make a LIVING WAGE. $15 dollars per hour is the bare minimum for an adult these days.

At some point, we need to tackle production costs relative to our competitors. If Russia can produce a barrel of oil at a quarter of what it costs us and build their top jet air craft at 20% of what it costs us, we are in trouble. This problem has liberal causes IMO. It can't be reversed but it can be slowed. Let our competitors make adjustments, not us.

Labor unions want to increase production costs which may not hurt tomorrow, but in 10 years we really fall farther behind. We seem to have reached diminishing returns and we are dead in the water if we don't wake up and pay the piper. We certainly can't afford $15 an hour and still compete on the world stage today. Anything we try to do will be painful. One of the reasons many of us live here is that we did the math years ago.

Maybe employees should start paying their employer $5 an hour for their job. That will lower production costs.

I base all my economic reasoning on the cost of a fighter jet.

[Chicog]

The Dems don't think Bernie would win so they are rigging it for Hillary.

I expect the GOP to do the same thing if it ends up being Trump...

[SpokaneAl]

Sanders needs to do a major speech, totally own his political identity as a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, explain in clear bold words that is not the same thing as being a communist or being against the free enterprise system, and detail the wonderful benefits of current well loved programs like SOCIAL SECURITY and how they come out of the same tradition (FDR). Americans may not like to be lectured to but if he is to have any chance at all of winning in the general if nominated he needs to deal with the socialist / "commie" demonization HEAD ON.

This is also important for his chances to being NOMINATED. He probably won't be nominated and the main reason is the perception that he is UNELECTABLE among DEMOCRATS. So he needs to neutralize the commie socialist label as soon as possible, if he really expects to have a good chance of being nominated.

A similar situation to how JFK owned his Catholic background (as the first Catholic president) and how Romney owned his Mormon background. Maybe not great examples as both ended in tears ... but still, he NEEDS to do this. Not run from it: OWN IT PROUDLY. Turn a negative into a positive. Difficult yes, impossible probably not with a very skilled politician. Is he that politician? Well, I have my doubts.

I still think he probably won't be nominated. But his campaign can still serve some purpose to help make the case for "socialist" policies that do make sense ... such as universal health care access.

He probably also needs to give a speech on foreign policy. He came across pretty weak in this area during the last debate.

[Jingthing]

I totally agree. That's another big weakness for him running against HRC. If nominated, it's doubtful their nominee will have much foreign policy experience and credibility either. Except if it's Kasich.

The hopeful thing for Sanders is that he is authentic and he has been consistent. People seem to want a straight shooter. Weirdly Trump supporters are often open to Sanders, and vice versa. Not a normal election year.

Of course Trump has been the opposite of consistent but he does shoot his mouth off in surprising ways.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

Sanders needs to do a major speech, totally own his political identity as a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, explain in clear bold words that is not the same thing as being a communist or being against the free enterprise system, and detail the wonderful benefits of current well loved programs like SOCIAL SECURITY and how they come out of the same tradition (FDR). Americans may not like to be lectured to but if he is to have any chance at all of winning in the general if nominated he needs to deal with the socialist / "commie" demonization HEAD ON.

This is also important for his chances to being NOMINATED. He probably won't be nominated and the main reason is the perception that he is UNELECTABLE among DEMOCRATS. So he needs to neutralize the commie socialist label as soon as possible, if he really expects to have a good chance of being nominated.

A similar situation to how JFK owned his Catholic background (as the first Catholic president) and how Romney owned his Mormon background. Maybe not great examples as both ended in tears ... but still, he NEEDS to do this. Not run from it: OWN IT PROUDLY. Turn a negative into a positive. Difficult yes, impossible probably not with a very skilled politician. Is he that politician? Well, I have my doubts.

I still think he probably won't be nominated. But his campaign can still serve some purpose to help make the case for "socialist" policies that do make sense ... such as universal health care access.

I'd stay away from FDR references if I were him. That was a critical period in history calling for radical approaches. CCC, WPA, SS, etc. And FDR strong armed a lot of that stuff through. I''d take the approach that America has moved so far to the right, that what others may portray as "Progressive" and leftist is really centrist policy common to most first world nations.

[Jingthing]

I don't agree. People want radical solutions now. Trump offers one flavor. Sanders another. Where did our socialist programs come from in the first place? FDR. And most Americans LOVE those programs.

FDR also helped beat the Nazis. We've got new Nazis to beat now coming from the Islamic world.

To old people, this is old stuff but to younger people, it can be a fresh discovery.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

I don't agree. People want radical solutions now. Trump offers one flavor. Sanders another. Where did our socialist programs come from in the first place? FDR. And most Americans LOVE those programs.

FDR also helped beat the Nazis. We've got new Nazis to beat now coming from the Islamic world.

To old people, this is old stuff but to younger people, it can be a fresh discovery.

The over 65 crowd; you know the only ones with guaranteed healthcare, are the only group, save for $200k + earners that didn't give Bernie a majority in NH. Sure, they know that stuff and they know they've got it and don't care that others don't.

[Jingthing]

There could be other reasons for that. Use your imagination.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Jingthing

[SpokaneAl]

Sanders needs to do a major speech, totally own his political identity as a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, explain in clear bold words that is not the same thing as being a communist or being against the free enterprise system, and detail the wonderful benefits of current well loved programs like SOCIAL SECURITY and how they come out of the same tradition (FDR). Americans may not like to be lectured to but if he is to have any chance at all of winning in the general if nominated he needs to deal with the socialist / "commie" demonization HEAD ON.

This is also important for his chances to being NOMINATED. He probably won't be nominated and the main reason is the perception that he is UNELECTABLE among DEMOCRATS. So he needs to neutralize the commie socialist label as soon as possible, if he really expects to have a good chance of being nominated.

A similar situation to how JFK owned his Catholic background (as the first Catholic president) and how Romney owned his Mormon background. Maybe not great examples as both ended in tears ... but still, he NEEDS to do this. Not run from it: OWN IT PROUDLY. Turn a negative into a positive. Difficult yes, impossible probably not with a very skilled politician. Is he that politician? Well, I have my doubts.

I still think he probably won't be nominated. But his campaign can still serve some purpose to help make the case for "socialist" policies that do make sense ... such as universal health care access.

I'd stay away from FDR references if I were him. That was a critical period in history calling for radical approaches. CCC, WPA, SS, etc. And FDR strong armed a lot of that stuff through. I''d take the approach that America has moved so far to the right, that what others may portray as "Progressive" and leftist is really centrist policy common to most first world nations.

That approach might help him in the primaries but it certainly would not impress us smaller government conservatives in the general election.

[SpokaneAl]

I don't agree. People want radical solutions now. Trump offers one flavor. Sanders another. Where did our socialist programs come from in the first place? FDR. And most Americans LOVE those programs.

FDR also helped beat the Nazis. We've got new Nazis to beat now coming from the Islamic world.

To old people, this is old stuff but to younger people, it can be a fresh discovery.

The over 65 crowd; you know the only ones with guaranteed healthcare, are the only group, save for $200k + earners that didn't give Bernie a majority in NH. Sure, they know that stuff and they know they've got it and don't care that others don't.

I think you are jumping to conclusions a bit based on a single, small state primary.

[Publicus]

Yes there is disagreement, but among "experts"? I will concede that there is a good possibility that some Bernie favoritism was involved. Some worrying signs that Hillary, should she win, will be in trouble for the general. I really, really do not want to see Hillary as president although she is far and above any of the buffoon car of batshit crazy Republicans. http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/ http://www.thenation.com/article/new-hampshire-feels-the-bern/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=daily https://ourfuture.org/20160210/new-hampshire-populist-uprising?utm_source=progressive_breakfast&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pbreak

I don't like all the pejoratives being thrown between opposing political camps. It adds nothing. That article on the other hand is one of the truest things I've ever read here. Mainstream Democrats and the Clintons in particular have had a devastating affect on African Americans. I've often wondered with such a record of "keeping them down" Black folks don't at least flirt with the Republicans, if only to not be taken for granted. Couldn't be any worse for them.

This election offers them a real choice. It remains to be seen if fallacious pandering to a "Black" identity or the opportunity to join as equals in a society of mutual respect, fairness and responsibility will win out.

And now comes to black voters another self-appointed adviser of what they.might want to consider doing with their vote.

That is, when black voters are allowed by Republican governors and legislatures to vote.

Reality is if Bernie somehow gets the nomination he'd get 85 to 90 percent of the black vote. (People who might want to talk about Rev Al Sharpton meeting with some certain.Republican candidates might also want to watch the Rev's television show on MSNBC.)

[boomerangutang]

Sanders needs to do a major speech, totally own his political identity as a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, explain in clear bold words that is not the same thing as being a communist or being against the free enterprise system, and detail the wonderful benefits of current well loved programs like SOCIAL SECURITY and how they come out of the same tradition (FDR). Americans may not like to be lectured to but if he is to have any chance at all of winning in the general if nominated he needs to deal with the socialist / "commie" demonization HEAD ON.

This is also important for his chances to being NOMINATED. He probably won't be nominated and the main reason is the perception that he is UNELECTABLE among DEMOCRATS. So he needs to neutralize the commie socialist label as soon as possible, if he really expects to have a good chance of being nominated.

A similar situation to how JFK owned his Catholic background (as the first Catholic president) and how Romney owned his Mormon background. Maybe not great examples as both ended in tears ... but still, he NEEDS to do this. Not run from it: OWN IT PROUDLY. Turn a negative into a positive. Difficult yes, impossible probably not with a very skilled politician. Is he that politician? Well, I have my doubts.

I still think he probably won't be nominated. But his campaign can still serve some purpose to help make the case for "socialist" policies that do make sense ... such as universal health care access.

I wouldn't doubt Bernie knows how to counter (or soothe) those stalwarts who cling to the belief that socialism = communism gone soft.

It doesn't help when people still flout the two words as if they're interchangeable which, of course, they're not. Plus Sanders has a lot of good people who are jazzed to assist him, so those people will get out there and mill with some of the stuck-in-the-mud thinkers, and hopefully get them to take their Cold War blinders off.

[Publicus]

Sanders needs to do a major speech, totally own his political identity as a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, explain in clear bold words that is not the same thing as being a communist or being against the free enterprise system, and detail the wonderful benefits of current well loved programs like SOCIAL SECURITY and how they come out of the same tradition (FDR). Americans may not like to be lectured to but if he is to have any chance at all of winning in the general if nominated he needs to deal with the socialist / "commie" demonization HEAD ON.

This is also important for his chances to being NOMINATED. He probably won't be nominated and the main reason is the perception that he is UNELECTABLE among DEMOCRATS. So he needs to neutralize the commie socialist label as soon as possible, if he really expects to have a good chance of being nominated.

A similar situation to how JFK owned his Catholic background (as the first Catholic president) and how Romney owned his Mormon background. Maybe not great examples as both ended in tears ... but still, he NEEDS to do this. Not run from it: OWN IT PROUDLY. Turn a negative into a positive. Difficult yes, impossible probably not with a very skilled politician. Is he that politician? Well, I have my doubts.

I still think he probably won't be nominated. But his campaign can still serve some purpose to help make the case for "socialist" policies that do make sense ... such as universal health care access.

I'd stay away from FDR references if I were him. That was a critical period in history calling for radical approaches. CCC, WPA, SS, etc. And FDR strong armed a lot of that stuff through. I''d take the approach that America has moved so far to the right, that what others may portray as "Progressive" and leftist is really centrist policy common to most first world nations.

It is precipitous to pronounce and declare America has moved to the right. it is stronger still to assert the US has moved "so far to the right that...."

So let's just go ahead and count some more votes between now and Election Day, November 8th.

Might also Google US Supreme Court major decisions of the Roberts Court.

[Pinot]

I totally agree. That's another big weakness for him running against HRC. If nominated, it's doubtful their nominee will have much foreign policy experience and credibility either. Except if it's Kasich.

The hopeful thing for Sanders is that he is authentic and he has been consistent. People seem to want a straight shooter. Weirdly Trump supporters are often open to Sanders, and vice versa. Not a normal election year.

Of course Trump has been the opposite of consistent but he does shoot his mouth off in surprising ways.

Bernie Sanders is a caring guy who wants the best for America. Trump is a xenophobic, narcissistic hemorrhoid. He's as low as you can get in American politics. The worst. A stain on American political history.

There is nothing alike about these two candidates.

A Trump supporter may switch sides when they hear another straight shooter, with actual policies that will help America. Sanders supporter are never, ever going to over to Trump. I guarantee that. No vice versa. Zero. Nada. It's laughable to think that a Sanders supporter consider Trump as anything but a buffoon.

Trump shoots his mouth off in surprising ways alright, always hateful, vengeful and invariably a lie.

[Johpa]

I'd stay away from FDR references if I were him. That was a critical period in history calling for radical approaches. CCC, WPA, SS, etc. And FDR strong armed a lot of that stuff through. I''d take the approach that America has moved so far to the right, that what others may portray as "Progressive" and leftist is really centrist policy common to most first world nations.

On the contrary, we are at a very critical period in history that requires very "radical" moves that will be felt as painful to some. The question is who will feel that pain, the working people or the small wealthy elite? We have a criminal cabal amongst the financial elite that is able to control government through both politics and regulatory capture, an elite that acts as a financial parasite that is willing to kill the host and then escape to their gated communities or offshore islands. We have a long term man-made climate crisis that is not going away. We have a more immediate security crisis in ISIS. And then there is the natural resource crisis which includes everything from peak oil, to rare metals, to limited water which is now more controlled than ever by the above noted criminal financial elite. We need the resolve of a Teddy Roosevelt to act against the criminal corruption in the financial sector and the resolve of a Franklin Roosevelt to reinstall the ideals of the New Deal that have been under attack since the Powell Memo of 1971 and realized by the fiscal follies of Reagan and Thatcher and were further eroded by the irresponsibility of the Clinton presidency when Bill recklessly repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. Sanders leans in the right direction but I am not so certain that he is strong enough nor do I find evidence as yet that his thoughts have matured enough to appreciate what is truly needed.

But yes, Sanders needs to speak more directly to the ridiculous claims, or at least absurd insinuations by the far right, that his brand of "socialism" is somehow connected to Trotskyism when indeed he would be considered a centrist in the rest of the capitalist industrialized world outside the United States.

[Publicus]

Super delegates to the party nominating convention were created by each Democrats and Republicans for specific reasons. Which are to preclude the fringe candidates having an exceptional year to seize control of the nomination.

Super delegates were created after:

Republican Sen Barry Goldwater of Arizona won only five states in 1964

Democratic Party Sen. George McGovern won one state in 1972

VP Walter Mondale won one state in 1984.

Goldwater was fringe right; McGovern was fringe left. Mondale was feeble. Mondale came after Carter had been blown out in 1980 and Dole got routed in 1996.

Super delegates try to stay away from either party hacks who can't get elected potus or from fringe crackpots who might rise for the moment to ride the crest to their wipeout in the general election.

"Super delegates to the party nominating convention were created by each Democrats and Republicans for specific reasons. Which are to preclude the fringe candidates having an exceptional year to seize control of the nomination party from the Big Brass Insiders."

The clear fact in the graphic above is that Hillary went into this process with a whole bunch of delegates already in the bank. This is the wish of the Big Boys in the party.

It reminds me of Thailand trying to frame a charter that will assure that only those who suit (deleted) can be elected.

How the hell do you think Bill and Hillary managed to get paid something like $60 million dollars for "speeches" running up to this election? Do you think those Wall Street boys give that money away for fun?

It's going to take one hell of a revolt by the voters to overcome the party insiders and get enough delegates to wrest the power away from the insiders.

Cheers.

Insiders as they are being called constitute the vast moderate middle of the electorate. So called insiders are holding the fort as the barbarians swarm at the gates of the Republican Party.

Let's hold down the absolutes until we've counted the slew of votes that will have been cast between now and after Super Tuesday, March 1st.

Cause developments in each party remain more a rebellion than a campaign for the office of POTUS. By the middle of March,next month, we'll have a better notion of whether this commotion and chaos will settle down to become the serious campaign that it needs to be.

[tonbridgebrit]

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/sanders-landslide-win-hampshire-puts-042700610.html

"Bernie Sanders breezed to victory in Tuesday night’s New Hampshire Democratic Party primary, pulling off an impressive double-digit win that is sure to set off alarm bells within the Hillary Clinton campaign."


Okay everybody, get real, Hillary Clinton has been given a loud and clear rejection, and Bernie Sanders is the candidate who is going to do it. Let's forget about Hillary Clinton and get behind Bernie. Why have Hillary ? This is a person who backed the Bush invasion of Iraq, just like Jeb Bush did. Bernie did NOT support the Iraq invasion.

[SpokaneAl]

[boomerangutang]

I totally agree. That's another big weakness for him running against HRC. If nominated, it's doubtful their nominee will have much foreign policy experience and credibility either. Except if it's Kasich.

The hopeful thing for Sanders is that he is authentic and he has been consistent. People seem to want a straight shooter. Weirdly Trump supporters are often open to Sanders, and vice versa. Not a normal election year.

Of course Trump has been the opposite of consistent but he does shoot his mouth off in surprising ways.

Bernie Sanders is a caring guy who wants the best for America. Trump is a xenophobic, narcissistic hemorrhoid. He's as low as you can get in American politics. The worst. A stain on American political history.

There is nothing alike about these two candidates.

A Trump supporter may switch sides when they hear another straight shooter, with actual policies that will help America. Sanders supporter are never, ever going to over to Trump. I guarantee that. No vice versa. Zero. Nada. It's laughable to think that a Sanders supporter consider Trump as anything but a buffoon.

Trump shoots his mouth off in surprising ways alright, always hateful, vengeful and invariably a lie.

I'm trying to think of a redeeming quality of Trump and/or some policy which he pushed through which helped Americans or the environment, and I can't think of one. If I was top banana in a police precinct and Trump was one of my underlings, I'm wondering which position I'd assign him. I think it would be guarding the back door.

[NovaBlue05]

I'll vote for Bernie in my states Democratic primary but I am afraid, that will be the last time I see him on a ballot.

[Pinot]

Super delegate count doesn't really mean anything until the convention, as theyre free to switch their votes even though they've "committed" to a candidate. Right now Clinton has collected the lion's share of them, and that just makes sense. She's a clearly viable candidate against someone who hasn't yet proven he can compete nationally. As the primaries progress, and if Bernie maintains a strong showing, he could pull some of them over to his side.

So calling the game "rigged" at this point is reactionary and just a bit paranoid. There are still 48 states and a handful of territorties yet to have their say. Patience, grasshopper.

[SpokaneAl]

The super delegate system was implemented in 1968 by the Democratic Party. The Republican Party also uses it, but to the same extent. Each of these super delegates is chosen and elected. For example in WA state, with the governor and both senators being democrat, they are super delegates. It is interesting that those who take little interest in the political process except periodically, are now offended by those who work their lives for that party, and have, through that hard work, gained positions of responsibility and authority. To those who disagree with the super delegate process, I say get involved, run for a position within your party and, if you don't like the party process work to change it. Complaining from the outside looking in does nothing.

Edited February 12, 2016 by SpokaneAl

[lannarebirth]

The super delegate system was implemented in 1968 by the Democratic Party. The Republican Party also uses it, but to the same extent. Each of these super delegates is chosen and elected. For example in WA state, with the governor and both senators being democrat, they are super delegates. It is interesting that those who take little interest in the political process except periodically, are now offended by those who work their lives for that party, and have, through that hard work, gained positions of responsibility and authority. To those who disagree with the super delegate process, I say get involved, run for a position within your party and, if you don't like the party process work to change it. Complaining from the outside looking in does nothing.

There's nothing in the Constitution about superdelegates. In fact is was crafted such that no one in either branch of Congress could be an "elector". Now I know electors only apply to the actual nationwide vote, but if these people can winnow down the choice of who may be a candidate for president aren't they defacto electors to some extent? It certainly seems anti-democratic at the very least.

Edited February 12, 2016 by lannarebirth

[SpokaneAl]

The super delegate system was implemented in 1968 by the Democratic Party. The Republican Party also uses it, but to the same extent. Each of these super delegates is chosen and elected. For example in WA state, with the governor and both senators being democrat, they are super delegates. It is interesting that those who take little interest in the political process except periodically, are now offended by those who work their lives for that party, and have, through that hard work, gained positions of responsibility and authority. To those who disagree with the super delegate process, I say get involved, run for a position within your party and, if you don't like the party process work to change it. Complaining from the outside looking in does nothing.

There's nothing in the Constitution about superdelegates. In fact is was crafted such that no one in either branch of Congress could be an "elector". Now I know electors only apply to the actual nationwide vote, but if these people can winnow down the choice of who may be a candidate for president aren't they defacto electors to some extent?

How a political party picks its nominee is not a constitutional issue. It can pick its nominee, as evidenced in history, by any method it chooses. If one disagrees, one can form his/her own party and determine the process, or as Michael Bloomberg is considering doing, just throw your name out there and run on your own. Edited February 12, 2016 by SpokaneAl