It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bernie is Burned Out

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Clinton: 1599 delegates
Sanders: 844 delegates
Needed to win: 2383 delegates

OK, Bernie fans. Your Bern has burned out. Last night was abysmal. There was no turn to Bern. Do any of you see a clear path to Sanders winning the nomination? How can he possibly do it at this stage? Please explain your reasoning including an assessment of delegates.




posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Well in pledged Delegates she only has a 314 advantage, with some strong Sanders states left. In fact, after the South, Clintons strong point and New York, where I think she'll do well, many of the remaining states could be Sanders wins. Theoretically, he could win enough delegates to even up and pass Clinton and theoretically, those super delegates could change to Sanders. I think some have already said they will if he gets more pledged delegates.

Looking at it that way, it's not a stretch to think that he could win. Although we realize he's behind.

One theory, also, is that he's only running as a Democrat so that he can be on the primaries and be in the democratic debates and get name recognition and then run independantly during the general election. If he wouldn't have run as a democratic candidate, we'd barely be talking about him at all, and he wouldn't be on any of the news shows and websites --think Jill Stein. In that case, this primary run is a brilliant strategy, especially considering the possibility of contested Republican nomination and possible independent run by Trump or Cruz depending on what happens there.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

I've certainly purchased my stock of Aloe Vera to sell to all the Bern victims.

I'm sure they'll still come in here and cry "Super Delegates change their minds" stuff but it's not looking good.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

The Bilderbergers wouldn't allow a Trump versus Sanders election battle. It's a shame for the U.S, but we have the same problem here in the U.K and most of Europe.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
No question Clinton is the favorite, but Sanders definitely still has a shot. If the berners listen to the media and don't bother to show up to the poll, it's over. Just go vote, #ers.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

The going political commentary going into yesterday was that Sanders would lose all of these states, but he had narrowed down the gaps. However, going forward there are supposed to be more Sanders heavy supported states down the line. It isn't over yet, but you are probably right in that Hillary will win. That reasoning above is still a long shot.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
The media has already begun to ignore Sanders; Hillary is already the nominee and Bern is toast...That's already their narrative.
They'll ignore him now...even more than they did at the beginning of the nominating process.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
The best thing Bernie can do now is help create a platform at the convention, and afterward return to the senate.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Those funding the major media outlets are intentionally misrepresnting the delegate counts.

Why? They want people to loose faith in Sanders and give up on him.

At this point, its really all about the delegates he's winning from actual primary victories. The "super delegates" will back whoever wins more of the popular Democrat vote. They've always done so.

Hillary is in cahoots with the media. Part of her stratedgy was to go around and get all these super delegates to agree to voice their support for her before she even started her campaign.

Hillary wasn't going to see a repeat of 2008.

Having all those super delegates makes her look so much stronger from the very start, and makes her look more popular than she is. The media is complicit with this as well -- as they're not telling people that hundreds of those "delegates" haven't even voted for her yet.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
...but don't worry, Millennials...Thanks to Bernie, Hillary is now promising free college too.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: schuyler

I've certainly purchased my stock of Aloe Vera to sell to all the Bern victims.

I'm sure they'll still come in here and cry "Super Delegates change their minds" stuff but it's not looking good.



Just be glad that the Bern Victims will be localized to his misguided followers. If he had won we all would have been 'Bern Victims'.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The media has already begun to ignore Sanders; Hillary is already the nominee and Bern is toast...That's already their narrative.
They'll ignore him now...even more than they did at the beginning of the nominating process.


I'm very upset about that but Hillary only needs 30 percent of the vote to get elected meaning there is no way she can lose. Looks like Hillary and Donald and I have no idea who to vote for now lol.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Write in Bernie, duh



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Those funding the major media outlets are intentionally misrepresnting the delegate counts.

At this point, its really all about the delegates he's winning from actual primary victories. The "super delegates" will back whoever wins more of the popular Democrat vote. They've always done so.


I don't understand. Those delegate numbers are not "made up" by the media. They are actual numbers. In all cases I've seen, the media tabulates the super delegates separately so you can see them. How is that "intentionally misrepresenting the delegate counts"? The super delegates tabulated are pledged. I think a little over 200 are NOT pledged, so they could go to Sanders, but the fact is Clinton is ahead on regular delegates as well, giving the pledged super delegates no particular reason to switch sides--if they even can at this point.


originally posted by: amazing

One theory, also, is that he's only running as a Democrat so that he can be on the primaries and be in the democratic debates and get name recognition and then run independantly during the general election. If he wouldn't have run as a democratic candidate, we'd barely be talking about him at all, and he wouldn't be on any of the news shows and websites --think Jill Stein. In that case, this primary run is a brilliant strategy, especially considering the possibility of contested Republican nomination and possible independent run by Trump or Cruz depending on what happens there.


Interesting analysis. Thanks!


originally posted by: BigScaryStrawman
a reply to: dragonridr

Write in Bernie, duh


Please don't tell us you think that is a viable strategy. Duh, indeed.
edit on 3/16/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
This has become an Establishment vs. Anti-Establishment election.
With Sanders and Rubio ushered out last night...Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party..now, officially, personify 'The Establishment'.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

The super delegates haven't voted.

The super delegate numbers should not be added to either Clinton or Sander's totals. Every total I have seen shows the collective total of actually won votes, along with hypothetical super delegate votes (as if they are already cast in stone).

That is how the media is distorting the current reality and situation. You can't count someone's vote if they haven't cast their vote.

The media is simply choosing to add super delegate numbers to Clinton's total because those people have "said" they WILL vote for Clinton.

Saying you WILL and actually HAVING voted are two distinct things.
edit on 16-3-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
This has become an Establishment vs. Anti-Establishment election.
With Sanders and Rubio ushered out last night...Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party..now, officially, personify 'The Establishment'.


And the GOP really doesn't like Cruz either. All their 'Establishment' candidates are history: Kasich (almost), Rubio, Bush, and a host of minor ones. Remains to be seen whether they will follow their own studies that said they should leave the selection to the voters, or whether they will self-destruct.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: schuyler

The super delegates haven't voted.


But they are pledged, just like the regular delegates, who also haven't voted yet. Same rule applies. I see no evidence whatsoever that all the super delegates are just waiting and chomping at the bit for an excuse to vote for Sanders. They are publicly on board for Clinton. They're not saying, "Well, let's wait and see." I don't buy the argument. It seems delusional to me.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

If Hillary gets nominated,she pretty much has this in the bag unfortunately...


edit on 3pm31America/Chicago3103America/Chicagopm301 by NateTheAnimator because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
OMG...

EVERYONE IS ESTABLISHMENT.

Once you touch politics, you're forever tainted. It's to the degree of how tainted you are that I suppose matters.

This whole "anti-establishment" thing is so petty, childish, immature and reminds me of teenagers listening to punk rock music and scrawling anarchy symbols on bus station walls. "Yeah man! Fight the system! Down with the man! Even though I don't know what that means!"

No one even knows what this "establishment" is, can properly define it or place a finger on it.

This "anti-establishment" crap from BOTH parties is nothing more than some kind of buzz word to garner votes because it makes people feel edgy and rebellious.

It gives the ILLUSION that people are gaining control back over a rigged system they never did, nor ever will truly have any influence over. It makes them feel better, empowers them and gives them all a false sense belief that they matter...in a world that becoming more and more anti-communal and cold, where people are connected but aren't connecting. People want so badly to feel that they matter.

This "anti-establishment" is pure and utter crap being pushed by establishment people to gain your votes by using your emotions (namely apathy, sadness, despair, anger, frustration). Older folks can recoup that rebellious energy they had when they were teens once more! Horray!

It's disgusting to watch, and sad how badly Americans want to believe in an anti-establishment candidate.

There's an old saying...

"Good people don't get involved in politics". I would add a caveat to that, "...or at least don't stay good people if they get involved". Sorry, but it's true. You have to scratch backs, make deals, cut throats and crush people under you to get any agenda through government.

Even Sanders isn't a saint. We need to be focusing on our city and state governments, forcing the change we want there and workign our way up.

This top-down solution nonsense will never work. You can't ask the people in power to give up some of that power. That's like asking your boss to take a pay cut and give you a raise at the same time......with no incentive for them to do it.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join