[url]http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/bernie-sanders-california-michael-ceraso-223077[/url]
[quote]Bernie Sanders’ campaign parted ways with its California state director Michael Ceraso on Wednesday morning, 27 days before the primary in the state that Sanders has repeatedly said is crucial to his effort to capture the Democratic nomination.
The surprise move came after a period when Ceraso advocated for a California strategy that involved more investment on field and digital organizing than on television advertising — a staple of Sanders’ campaign elsewhere so far — he told POLITICO.
Sanders’ campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.[/quote]
Sometimes you have to wonder what kind of state-of-the-art bullshit these campaign managers feed their clients (i.e. candidates) in order to convince them to stay in the election long after defeat is already pre-finalized. This goes the same way with the very-late GOP exits, too.
All it takes is a simple Google search to find out— yet their managers have done a damn good job in convincing the candidates to continue paying their salaries because they say they will still win.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50302325]All it takes is a simple Google search to find out— yet their managers have done a damn good job in convincing the candidates to continue paying their salaries because they say they will still win.[/QUOTE]
Bernie said he's in to the nomination. I don't get why people can't understand this.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50302325]Sometimes you have to wonder what kind of state-of-the-art bullshit these campaign managers feed their clients (i.e. candidates) in order to convince them to stay in the election long after defeat is already pre-finalized. This goes the same way with the very-late GOP exits, too.
All it takes is a simple Google search to find out— yet their managers have done a damn good job in convincing the candidates to continue paying their salaries because they say they will still win.[/QUOTE]
His reputation would be severely damaged if he were to just quit
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50302325]Sometimes you have to wonder what kind of state-of-the-art bullshit these campaign managers feed their clients (i.e. candidates) in order to convince them to stay in the election long after defeat is already pre-finalized. This goes the same way with the very-late GOP exits, too.
All it takes is a simple Google search to find out— yet their managers have done a damn good job in convincing the candidates to continue paying their salaries because they say they will still win.[/QUOTE]
Pretty ignorant to just assume he has 0 chance, even if it is unlikely.
Guessing the stress of high expectations got to him, hopefully Sanders can find a suitable replacement.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50302472]Bernie said he's in to the nomination. I don't get why people can't understand this.[/QUOTE]
Bernie's not continuing to run out of divine principle and to give Hillary a "hard time" just because he wants to waste extraordinary amounts money and have his voice temporarily heard, he's doing it because he genuinely believes the convoluted delegate math is somehow in his favor.
It is not a matter of "continuing to run" — it is a matter[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/20/bernie-sanders-spent-46-million-in-one-month/"] continuing to spend $46 million/every month[/URL] and whether that $46 million monthly expenditure will ever yield to fruition.
[quote]"If we were serious about winning this election, which is always my intention from day one, [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-on-why-he-wont-run-as-in-independent/"]I thought we could [/URL]and I hope that we will."[/quote]
While I am not sure what idealistic fantasy you profess to be the cause of Bernie's continuation to run on humanitarian grounds, it is because he actually thinks he will win and beat Clinton as seen in the quote I referenced above.
Here is a video of Sanders admitting to run just for that reason.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwzVk9TPKzQ[/media]
It is a comedy piece, but nonetheless a disguised-opportunity to give Sanders airtime. In it he discuses how he will win the Virginia primary (in which today the results revealed that Clinton beat him by 64% to 35%) and how he honestly thinks he will have a shot at making one of the greatest "political upsets in history" at the convention. He said he will cause the "greatest political upset in history" in December 2015 in Iowa where he then lost, then again on Feb. in South Carolina where he lost once more and again in May for West Virginia where he lost once again. Proving his vow to cause one of the "greatest political upsets in history" to be evaporated primary-after-primary.
While it is a comedy sketch to give Sanders airtime, it still highlights Sanders' reason for running— that he thinks his campaign is not a "lost cause." To say he is only continuing to run out of some fictitious principle or to give Hillary a "bad time" is bullshit and not even Sanders agrees to this invalid categorization.
-snip this is pointless-
I know where you're coming from, but I feel I should mention that that video is not from Virginia, and it was made for the West Virginia primary, which he won. The video's date is even yesterday.
Edit: you fixed it or I'm a shitty reader
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50302645]Bernie's not continuing to run out of divine principle and to give Hillary a "hard time" just because he wants to waste extraordinary amounts money and have his voice temporarily heard, he's doing it because he genuinely believes the convoluted delegate math is somehow in his favor.
It is not a matter of "continuing to run" — it is a matter[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/20/bernie-sanders-spent-46-million-in-one-month/"] continuing to spend $46 million/every month[/URL] and whether that $46 million monthly expenditure will ever yield to fruition.
While I am not sure what idealistic fantasy you profess to be the cause of Bernie's continuation to run on humanitarian grounds, it is because he actually thinks he will win and beat Clinton as seen in the quote I referenced above.
Here is a video of Sanders admitting to run just for that reason.
It is a comedy piece, but nonetheless a disguised-opportunity to give Sanders airtime. In it he discuses how he will win the Virginia primary (in which today the results revealed that Clinton beat him by 64% to 35%) and how he honestly thinks he will have a shot at making one of the greatest "political upsets in history" at the convention. He said he will cause the "greatest political upset in history" in December 2015 in Iowa where he then lost, then again on Feb. in South Carolina where he lost once more and again in May for West Virginia where he lost once again. Proving his vow to cause one of the "greatest political upsets in history" to be evaporated primary-after-primary.
While it is a comedy sketch to give Sanders airtime, it still highlights Sanders' reason for running— that he thinks his campaign is not a "lost cause." To say he is only continuing to run out of some fictitious principle or to give Hillary a "bad time" is bullshit and not even Sanders agrees to this invalid categorization.[/QUOTE]
Of course he's going to say he'll win even when he's losing - the second he shows doubt his voters will go vote for the other guy. I thought that was common sense?
And just to remind you, Sanders won the West Virginia primary today, not Clinton.
So what, if things become hard, people should just give up?
Who cares if he'll probably lose, there's no reason for him to not continue running.
[QUOTE=phygon;50302884]So what, if things become hard, people should just give up?
Who cares if he'll probably lose, there's no reason for him to not continue running.[/QUOTE]
Starpluck's response to that was because of the millions of dollars spent monthly to continue running, but I think he forgot that those dollars are all donations from his fans, not his own pocket.
I wonder if Starpluck would tell Sanders to his face that he doesn't believe Sanders actually wants to change anything and is just another selfish politician? That's the impression I get that Starpluck must have of Sanders to be so convinced Sanders can't see the obvious delegate math.
I don't really get what the problem with staying in the race is.
As long as Sanders is staying in the race, and he has every right to, he's not just going to say "I'm going to lose! Vote for me!"
This shouldn't bother people as much as it does.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50302325]Sometimes you have to wonder what kind of state-of-the-art bullshit these campaign managers feed their clients (i.e. candidates) in order to convince them to stay in the election long after defeat is already pre-finalized. This goes the same way with the very-late GOP exits, too.
All it takes is a simple Google search to find out— yet their managers have done a damn good job in convincing the candidates to continue paying their salaries because they say they will still win.[/QUOTE]
At this point I'm sure Bernie understands that there's little to no chance of taking the nomination, but holding a huge chunk of delegates still gives him some leverage to make certain requests come the DNC convention.
Jesus Christ you americans have such a defeatist attitude when it comes to politics no wonder you guys are getting fucked with crazy politicians
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;50302949]Jesus Christ you americans have such a defeatist attitude when it comes to politics no wonder you guys are getting fucked with crazy politicians[/QUOTE]
I think it's just Starpluck, he seems to always comes in democracy threads complaining about how Bernie Sanders is wasting resources/time with the election which is absolute and utter bullshit.
If Bernie Sanders was wasting taxpayer money, then Starpluck would have a point. Sanders is using money willingly donated by Sanders Supporters, which isn't a problem in the slightest.
[QUOTE=bitches;50302894]Starpluck's response to that was because of the millions of dollars spent monthly to continue running, but I think he forgot that those dollars are all donations from his fans, not his own pocket.
I wonder if Starpluck would tell Sanders to his face that he doesn't believe Sanders actually wants to change anything and is just another selfish politician? That's the impression I get that Starpluck must have of Sanders to be so convinced Sanders can't see the obvious delegate math.[/QUOTE]
I want to know how ignorant one have to be to think that a presidential candidate knows less about his or her chances than they do.
Maybe if people hadn't been taking this defeatist perspective from DAY-FUCKING-ONE we wouldn't be in this position. I for one applaud Bernie for staying in. He's faced an uphill battle against our tired out broken fucking democratic system and slugged through attack after attack, and absolute shit media coverage and still made it this far. It's a testament to commitment to profound change. I will not be disheartened if he loses because he is only one man. In truth the only thing that will fix our country is more involvement from every man woman and child, Republican or Democrat, Bernie supporter or not. Defeatism, apathy and malaise are the very things instilled in us by those who don't want the status quo to change, and they aren't helping us one bit so fuck off with that nonsense.
Since the campaign manager was advocating for a different approach to engage voters, I wonder if he thinks that Bernie is going to fail in california and he quit because he doesn't want to be seen as being responsible for it.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50302645]
It is a comedy piece, but nonetheless a disguised-opportunity to give Sanders airtime. In it he discuses how he will win the Virginia primary (in which today the results revealed that Clinton beat him by 64% to 35%) and how he honestly thinks he will have a shot at making one of the greatest "political upsets in history" at the convention. He said he will cause the "greatest political upset in history" in December 2015 in Iowa where he then lost, then again on Feb. in South Carolina where he lost once more and again in May for West Virginia where he lost once again. Proving his vow to cause one of the "greatest political upsets in history" to be evaporated primary-after-primary. [/QUOTE]
Uh, I heard he won Virginia, where do you get your news?
West Virginia and Virginia are two different states. The WV primary occured on May 10th, the VA primary on March 1st (Super Tuesday). Sanders won the WV primary with 51.4% of the vote (Clinton had 35.8%), Clinton won the VA primary with 64.3% of the vote (Sanders has 35.2%).
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50302325]Sometimes you have to wonder what kind of state-of-the-art bullshit these campaign managers feed their clients (i.e. candidates) in order to convince them to stay in the election long after defeat is already pre-finalized. This goes the same way with the very-late GOP exits, too.
All it takes is a simple Google search to find out— yet their managers have done a damn good job in convincing the candidates to continue paying their salaries because they say they will still win.[/QUOTE]
bro why do you have to make a conspiracy of everything
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50302935]At this point I'm sure Bernie understands that there's little to no chance of taking the nomination, but holding a huge chunk of delegates still gives him some leverage to make certain requests come the DNC convention.[/QUOTE]
Plus every second he sticks around is another opportunity for Hillary to get arrested. Same with being open to a VP position.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;50303252]Plus every second he sticks around is another opportunity for Hillary to get arrested. Same with being open to a VP position.[/QUOTE]
Making Clinton work for her votes is good too.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;50302949]Jesus Christ you americans have such a defeatist attitude when it comes to politics no wonder you guys are getting fucked with crazy politicians[/QUOTE]
Its defeatist when you recognize a candidate has a nearly impossible path to the nomination?
[editline]11th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=phygon;50303147]I want to know how ignorant one have to be to think that a presidential candidate knows less about his or her chances than they do.[/QUOTE]
What secret info does Sanders know?
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;50303355]Its defeatist when you recognize a candidate has a nearly impossible path to the nomination?
[editline]11th May 2016[/editline]
What secret info does Sanders know?[/QUOTE]
It is defeatist to, from day one, say that a candidate cannot win. It is more defeatist to think poorly of a candidate because they are still trying, because it ignores what motivations a politician can have beyond winning during a race. For example, Hillary has had to make more progressive campaign promises in order to maintain her position against Sanders. The act of not dropping out can still enact political change, even if not as strongly as winning would.
Phygon was not saying that Sanders had secret information that would lead to his victory, but that Sanders knows full well that he has no realistic chance of winning the nomination. He was criticizing Starpluck for acting as though Sanders is merely delusional.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;50303218]West Virginia and Virginia are two different states. The WV primary occured on May 10th, the VA primary on March 1st (Super Tuesday). Sanders won the WV primary with 51.4% of the vote (Clinton had 35.8%), Clinton won the VA primary with 64.3% of the vote (Sanders has 35.2%).[/QUOTE]
But he said "today's results."
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50302645]Bernie's not continuing to run out of divine principle and to give Hillary a "hard time" just because he wants to waste extraordinary amounts money and have his voice temporarily heard, he's doing it because he genuinely believes the convoluted delegate math is somehow in his favor.
It is not a matter of "continuing to run" — it is a matter[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/20/bernie-sanders-spent-46-million-in-one-month/"] continuing to spend $46 million/every month[/URL] and whether that $46 million monthly expenditure will ever yield to fruition.
While I am not sure what idealistic fantasy you profess to be the cause of Bernie's continuation to run on humanitarian grounds, it is because he actually thinks he will win and beat Clinton as seen in the quote I referenced above.
Here is a video of Sanders admitting to run just for that reason.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwzVk9TPKzQ[/media]
It is a comedy piece, but nonetheless a disguised-opportunity to give Sanders airtime. In it he discuses how he will win the Virginia primary (in which today the results revealed that Clinton beat him by 64% to 35%) and how he honestly thinks he will have a shot at making one of the greatest "political upsets in history" at the convention. He said he will cause the "greatest political upset in history" in December 2015 in Iowa where he then lost, then again on Feb. in South Carolina where he lost once more and again in May for West Virginia where he lost once again. Proving his vow to cause one of the "greatest political upsets in history" to be evaporated primary-after-primary.
While it is a comedy sketch to give Sanders airtime, it still highlights Sanders' reason for running— that he thinks his campaign is not a "lost cause." To say he is only continuing to run out of some fictitious principle or to give Hillary a "bad time" is bullshit and not even Sanders agrees to this invalid categorization.[/QUOTE]
lol quit trolling you goof
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
