Get Out the Aloe Vera and Cool off the Bern

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

If he didn't run as a Dem for the Dems, then why would he show that he cared for them at all.

If he did in fact only run as a Dem for face time, then he just used the party for his own selfish means.

Asking him to show that he actually cares for the party, that he just USED to get what he wanted and only that, would be like expecting anti-trump protesters to not attack people and private property at a Trump rally, or trying to nail Jello to a tree, or asking Trump to stop talking, or having drinks with Cosby and not getting roofied, or asking Hillary to stop lying, or Bill to stop being a pig, or any number of such things.

It's completely backwards.

Bombshell: Clinton aide claims that if Bernie wins California he wins the nomination

A recent PPIC poll shows Mrs. Clinton with a 2% lead over Mr. Sanders, and a Fox News survey found the same result. Even a narrow win would give him 250 pledged delegates or more—a significant boost. California is clearly trending to Mr. Sanders, and the experience in recent open primaries has been that the Vermont senator tends to underperform in pre-election surveys and over-perform on primary and caucus days, thanks to the participation of new registrants and young voters.

To this end, data from mid-May show that there were nearly 1.5 million newly registered Democratic voters in California since Jan. 1. That’s a 218% increase in Democratic voter registrations compared with the same period in 2012, a strongly encouraging sign for Mr. Sanders.
A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s weakness as a candidate in the general election. Democratic superdelegates—chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44—would seriously question whether they should continue to stand behind her candidacy.

source

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

P.S. Is your father-in-law single?

Ha! - Alas, he is not. He's getting on now (in his early 70's), but in his prime, he was a hunk!

The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll found Sanders 1 point ahead of Clinton among eligible primary voters, the first survey to put Sanders ahead of Clinton. Sanders was ahead of Clinton 44-43, according to the poll.

source

I wonder why the DNC built in that 'sure thing' Super-delegate advantage for Clinton.
Are they afraid a woman can't compete equally with a man on a level playing field?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Voting for a candidate based on that is one of the reasons the country is in such bad shape now.

To be honest if Clinton gets the nomination the dems deserve to lose.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I wonder why the DNC built in that 'sure thing' Super-delegate advantage for Clinton.
Are they afraid a woman can't compete equally with a man on a level playing field?

Whoa there Buddy! Superdelegates have been around since 1982. The idea wasn't created for Hillary. Fact is, since the Trump train, the GOP has been thinking about getting them too.

Things came to a head during the 1980 presidential campaign, when Sen. Ted Kennedy challenged Carter for the nomination, a fight that went all the way to the floor of the convention. In 1982, a group of party leaders created the Hunt Commission to reform the nomination process.

Thus, the superdelegate system was born.

www.cbsnews.com...

More information from the same source --

After the 1968 election, the Democrats began using the system of primaries and caucuses to choose pledged delegates to the national convention. But in 1972 and 1976, the party ended up with lesser-known nominees who didn't perform as well on the national stage (former Sen. George McGovern, who lost the election to former President Nixon, and former President Jimmy Carter, who was only elected for one term).

Elders in the Democratic Party saw "a need for there to be a voice for the establishment within the party to not necessarily overturn the will of the voters, but to nudge along a nominee who would be well equipped to win during the general election -- to avoid nominees like George McGovern and Jimmy Carter," Putnam said.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

No he shouldn't. And if you paid attention you'd know that he was hardly beaten fair and square. Hillary had pledged delegates before any of the votes took place. Why is that? If they had a fair go at it then we'd see a Sanders victory. He's running right beside her now outside of pledged delegates and had she not had that prior support as well as the dnc machine manipulating debate schedules in her favor Sanders would be ahead. She had everything handed to her while Sanders had to actually present ideas to build up a solid campaign. If the dnc had his back he'd be crushing Hillary and absolutely obliterate Trump. A Sanders Trump debate would make Trump look insane and expose how clueless he is about how politics work. Having her back was a poor decision by the dnc, but it's all her friends making the choice anyways so to them it was the only decision they were going to make.

Not even a Sanders voter here either. Going for Johnson. Just telling it how it is and the reality of what happened to Sanders. Hillary doesn't have the skills to beat anyone on a level playing field.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
He needs to look no further than Clinton's example in 2007, when, following a hotly contested primary season, she threw her unequivocal support behind president-to-be Barack Obama. It's time for him to follow suit.

She was 60 years old at the time and had no age window to concern herself with. Bernie is 74. His window of being too old to be president has arguably already closed and will certainly be closed and nailed shut before the next election cycle rolls around.

Plus, I really am hoping to see him canibalize the Democratic party. It would be the first time for me to actually cheer for something he's done in his life.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

He didn't say they were created for Hillary. He said they were built in for Hillary. As in the system existed and the people in charge are supporters of Hillary rather than people who make decisions based off of what their voter base wants. Hillary was jammed down voters throats so WOAHHHH THEREEEE!!!

Okay Bernie Darling, it's time to go to the house. Have a nice glass of red wine, your favorite chocolates, then kick back and rest your voice, it's about shot.

You're not doing anything now but weakening the party. It's nap time, my good man.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Plus, I really am hoping to see him canibalize the Democratic party. It would be the first time for me to actually cheer for something he's done in his life.

Yes but that's only because you are you -- not an ordinary human.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
The party needs to unite. It's past time.

Party loyalists are of weak minds and ethics. Anyone throwing their support behind a candidate they do not agree with for the sake of uniting something so loathsome as the Democratic party, has mush for brains.

The Democratic party needs to be much, much weaker -- not stronger. Same with the Republican party.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

That is a matter of opinion. You have yours, and I have mine.
I do appreciate your idealism. Those days are gone for now. Maybe at some point in the future we will have the luxury of being idealistic again. I hope so.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

That's the sad thing about it: It isn't an opinion. In fact, ALL of the evidence says that the two parties are rotten to their cores. Neither party can show any substantive contributions to warrant the support they ask of voters.

If they were football teams...then I would be opining. But these parties run the federal government and have nothing to show for it.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
Okay Bernie Darling, it's time to go to the house. Have a nice glass of red wine, your favorite chocolates, then kick back and rest your voice, it's about shot.

You're not doing anything now but weakening the party. It's nap time, my good man.

Wow, you're actually trying to provoke us back into this thread with this huh?

I don't see this as over.
Bernie may very well concede defeat but the movement he helped create is just getting started.

Prepare yourself for Occupy White House 2016

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I can't disagree with you, but at the same time it is the reality that we have. We have to play the hand we've been dealt.
Although not the perfect hand by any means, I can't just throw the cards on the table and walk away. I need to see it through.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

Wow, you're actually trying to provoke us back into this thread with this huh?

I missed you and wanted to see you again. : )

Bernie needs to go HOME. Suck it up that he has lost, and start campaigning for Clinton, if he has any campaigning left in him.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

The Exodus from the Dem party has begun! Yesterday at the DMV 4 people changed from Democrat to Undeclared, they got a standing ovation from everyone there!

Big Exodus planned for July 29th, Goodbye Hillary!

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Nope Boo. You're wasting your energy. He's not gonna make it. The deck is stacked against him.

I can understand the college age - millennials aching for him, because they want free college.

But unfortunately that is a pie in the sky. Universities can't afford free college, and neither can the Feds.

It's done.