June 7 Primaries - "Clinton has applied Bern cream" edition
343 replies, posted
So how likely would you see Sanders at the next election after this year is done? Not likely?
Just how old is the guy?
[QUOTE=archangel125;50476628]Hardly. It's only a common-sense view if you assume that the man honestly believes he still has a chance to win, and he's too smart for that.
What *is* common sense is that he's doing it just to keep his supporters happy. They wouldn't want him to throw in the towel until it was well and truly over. This way, he gets a chance to have the same sort of support if ever he runs again.
Also, 'political commentators' are pundits. They're just people with an opinion, except they tend to be more well-spoken and popular than other people out there. They're not experts on anything.[/QUOTE]
And the closer he finished to hillary, the more pressure she will have to move to his direction in the general.
[QUOTE=Highwind017;50476659]So how likely would you see Sanders at the next election after this year is done? Not likely?
Just how old is the guy?[/QUOTE]
He most definitely won't run again.
He'd be 79 years old by November 2020, which is already older than any president ever was when they [I]left [/I]office, I can't imagine him being able to handle the stress at that age, let alone all the age-related diseases that may come up.
And of course, if Hillary gets elected, then the Democrats will probably just choose her by default after the first term. Then the next possible date for Sanders to run would be in 2024, which is way too far off.
As a sidenote, if Trump somehow won this election, he'd be the oldest president to date. Hillary would be the second oldest, right after Reagan.
[QUOTE=Katska;50476890][img]http://i.imgur.com/Ip3qAP5.png[/img]
Huh.[/QUOTE]
Wow they didn't even count in their homeboy Diaz
[QUOTE=Highwind017;50476659]So how likely would you see Sanders at the next election after this year is done? Not likely?
Just how old is the guy?[/QUOTE]
I can imagine him only doing 4 years, and then switching to VP as his previous VP (Elizabeth Warren) runs for president.
Jesus, the numbers in California seriously closed up.
IF Bernie loses
AND
IF Bernie shuts up
AND
IF Obama endorses Clinton
I shall sacrifice my account. I bet that Trump will offer a position to Bernie sooner or later GIVEN the previous conditions are met. (There are precedents of Trump doing this)
ELSE
Fuck off America.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;50477002]IF Bernie loses
AND
IF Bernie shuts up
AND
IF Obama endorses Clinton
I shall sacrifice my account. I bet that Trump will offer a position to Bernie sooner or later GIVEN the previous conditions are met. (There are precedents of Trump doing this)
ELSE
Fuck off America.[/QUOTE]
say goodbye to your account providing you don't cheat with the second one
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;50477002]IF Bernie loses
AND
IF Bernie shuts up
AND
IF Obama endorses Clinton
I shall sacrifice my account. I bet that Trump will offer a position to Bernie sooner or later GIVEN the previous conditions are met. (There are precedents of Trump doing this)
ELSE
Fuck off America.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean if? He is done for in the primary. And your nuts of you think he would accept a position in the Trump administration.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;50477002]IF Bernie loses
AND
IF Bernie shuts up
AND
IF Obama endorses Clinton
I shall sacrifice my account. I bet that Trump will offer a position to Bernie sooner or later GIVEN the previous conditions are met. (There are precedents of Trump doing this)
ELSE
Fuck off America.[/QUOTE]
Trump, at the last moment, drops his act as a jerk and teams up with Bernie to become the greatest leaders this country has ever known. :smile:
[QUOTE=Tarver;50476924]Wow they didn't even count in their homeboy Diaz[/QUOTE]
I honestly have no idea who any of these people are. I'm not from Stockton or the surrounding area, I was just looking at some of the state/local results on the LA Times website and found that.
I'm envious of the Stockton residents who get to choose between Eggman or Mr. Lincoln in the general, though.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;50477002]IF Bernie loses
AND
IF Bernie shuts up
AND
IF Obama endorses Clinton
I shall sacrifice my account. I bet that Trump will offer a position to Bernie sooner or later GIVEN the previous conditions are met. (There are precedents of Trump doing this)
ELSE
Fuck off America.[/QUOTE]
Obama will endorse whoever is the democratic nominee, if Sanders got it, he would endorse Sanders
it's typical for presidents to endorse whoever will lead them next, so your hope that your account will be spared bc he won't is futile
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50477150]Obama will endorse whoever is the democratic nominee, if Sanders got it, he would endorse Sanders
it's typical for presidents to endorse whoever will lead them next, so your hope that your account will be spared bc he won't is futile[/QUOTE]
IF AND IF AND IF
The three points have to be met
If I had put OR, then I would be royally fucked
[QUOTE]What do you mean if? He is done for in the primary. And your nuts of you think he would accept a position in the Trump administration.
[/QUOTE]
From what I've gathered, Trump is just another business hellbent on getting the presidency. He has held democratic views on the past and has spoken openly about coping the republican party if he had the chance. Furthermore, I've recently read that he, in many cases, hired people close to his opponents. Such as Cuomo's brother when he was in the NY gov.
Notice my toxx never said bernie would accept.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50475905]Politico have put out a pretty great postmortem on the Sanders campaign, reading through it now
[url]http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041#ixzz4AxOnknzu[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s call was part advice, part asking a favor, urging Sanders to use his now massive email list to help Democratic Senate candidates. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin was the most obvious prospect, and Reid wanted to make introductions to Iowa’s Patty Judge and North Carolina’s Deborah Ross—to help Democrats win the majority, but also to give Sanders allies in making himself the leader of the Senate progressives come next year.
Reid, according to people familiar with the conversation, ended the discussion thinking Sanders was on board. He backed Feingold. But that’s the last anyone heard.
Word got back to Reid’s team that Weaver had nixed the idea, ruling out backing anyone who hadn’t endorsed Sanders. Weaver says it’s because the Senate hopefuls had to get in line for Sanders’ support behind top backers like Gabbard and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.)—though neither has a competitive race this year.[/QUOTE]
He could have spearheaded his revolution in the senate but declined to advance his own failed crusade, he sold all his progressive supporters down the river.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50475905]Politico have put out a pretty great postmortem on the Sanders campaign, reading through it now
[url]http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041#ixzz4AxOnknzu[/url][/QUOTE]
I'm poking the bear by posting this to Facebook.
Everybody on my Facebook practically worships the guy to a nearly cult-like degree. It's actually really scary.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50476236]The amount of people I've seen here and on Reddit supporting Sanders, who said they would just not vote for Clinton at the general is definitely not insignificant.
Ironically, Sanders refusing to drop out will just strengthen Trump at the general elections.[/QUOTE]
Looking at hubs for Sanders supporters and saying they're not an insignificant number is pretty much confirmation bias. Reddit does not represent the entirety of Bernie supporters, nor does FP.
Woke up to see that Sanders managed to get to 43.1% in California from his mid 30s last night.
Glad to see it's a bit better but still a loss.
[editline]8th June 2016[/editline]
Clinton now has 2184 pledged delegates
[editline]8th June 2016[/editline]
Sanders is 380 pledged delegates behind Clinton
[QUOTE=joshuadim;50478126]Woke up to see that Sanders managed to get to 43.1% in California from his mid 30s last night.
Glad to see it's a bit better but still a loss.
[editline]8th June 2016[/editline]
Clinton now has 2184 pledged delegates
[editline]8th June 2016[/editline]
Sanders is 380 pledged delegates behind Clinton[/QUOTE]
"it's a bit better but still a loss" should have been Bernie's campaign slogan because it perfectly sums it up
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50478135]"it's a bit better but still a loss" should have been Bernie's campaign slogan because it perfectly sums it up[/QUOTE]
youre a cheeky cunt you know that?
Bernie needed liked 80% in California.
On the bright side, Sanders with a grassroots campaign did well enough that had superdelegates not existed, Clinton would not have been able to obtain enough delegates to clinch the nomination, even if she won all of DC's. (Of course, the DNC would have voted Clinton in a contested election, but that's besides the point)
On the downside, Clinton is basically the only democrat that could possibly lose to Trump, we're screwed with either of the current nominees and both of them are malignant enough to set us back a few years in their greed. Hooray?
I can't see Trump beating Clinton. Now that we're heading into the general election, we'll see just how much of a minority Trump's vocal supporters are.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50478509]I can't see Trump beating Clinton. Now that we're heading into the general election, we'll see just how much of a minority Trump's vocal supporters are.[/QUOTE]
Not if Meme Magic has anything to say about that :v:
[QUOTE=The Duke;50478229]On the bright side, Sanders with a grassroots campaign did well enough that had superdelegates not existed, Clinton would not have been able to obtain enough delegates to clinch the nomination, even if she won all of DC's. (Of course, the DNC would have voted Clinton in a contested election, but that's besides the point)
[/QUOTE]
If there were no super delegates, then the threshold for securing the nomination would've been 2026 delegates, and Clinton still would be the nominee regardless as she's at 2184 pledged delegates. Really, having the super delegates at this point is a detriment to her as there's a technically a way in which Sanders could still win if every single super delegate suddenly went to him. If there were no super delegates, then there would be literally no way for Sanders to come back within the rules as she'd always win on the first ballot.
[QUOTE=archangel125;50476384]Just sensationalist squawking.
I've got to say, though... some of the Bernie supporters in this thread still seem convinced he'll turn things around.
The show's over, folks. It's curtains. That little sliver of hope you have? Think about how reality has worked out so far on small hopes, and you'll get a pretty good idea of how it'll work this time.
Even Bernie's only in the race now to vindicate his supporters - and to give him a good chance of securing their support in the future. He's a smart man and deep down he knows it's over.
Stick with your man until the Democrats nominate Hillary, and then decide for yourself, after reading both their policies, which candidate is the lesser evil.
And for the record, I had high hopes for Sanders, too.[/QUOTE]
What's wrong with fighting the good fight until the bitter end? Sanders himself probably knows it would take nothing short of divine intervention on the tier of God himself descending the heavens to personally endorse him. But I would say that's better than no chance at all if he drops out.
Besides, what exactly is wrong with him campaigning at least until after the convention?
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;50478679]What's wrong with fighting the good fight until the bitter end? Sanders himself probably knows it would take nothing short of divine intervention on the tier of God himself descending the heavens to personally endorse him. But I would say that's better than no chance at all if he drops out.
Besides, what exactly is wrong with him campaigning at least until after the convention?[/QUOTE]
I never once implied there was anything wrong with it. I only pointed out that to think he still has a chance is naive.
[QUOTE=The Duke;50478229]On the bright side, Sanders with a grassroots campaign did well enough that had superdelegates not existed, Clinton would not have been able to obtain enough delegates to clinch the nomination, even if she won all of DC's. (Of course, the DNC would have voted Clinton in a contested election, but that's besides the point)
On the downside, Clinton is basically the only democrat that could possibly lose to Trump, we're screwed with either of the current nominees and both of them are malignant enough to set us back a few years in their greed. Hooray?[/QUOTE]
He would not have won if superdelegates didn't exist, he'd still be losing. Granted you can spin the whole "Well people didn't vote for him because of the superdelegates in the beginning" but that assuredly wouldn't count for all of them. Why's it so tough for people to admit their favored candidate lost? Bernie lost, the American people have spoken.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50478852]He would not have won if superdelegates didn't exist, he'd still be losing. Granted you can spin the whole "Well people didn't vote for him because of the superdelegates in the beginning" but that assuredly wouldn't count for all of them. Why's it so tough for people to admit their favored candidate lost? Bernie lost, the American people have spoken.[/QUOTE]
Voter suppression and disenfranchisement has spoken in certain primaries
[QUOTE=joshuadim;50478968]Voter suppression and disenfranchisement has spoken in certain primaries[/QUOTE]
How do they specifically target Sanders supporters? As far as I can tell there were general fuckups in the organisation of the primaries. However none of these fuckups were intentional and none had an ability to specifically target Sanders supporters. I am happy to be proved wrong though since I've mostly rolled by eyes as all of these complaints have come through because of how insanely conspiratorial Sanders supporters often are.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
