Sanders to target Hillary’s superdelegates if he can’t win popular vote

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders told Rachel Maddow last night that his new strategy for victory includes convincing Hillary Clinton’s superdelegates to leave her, even if Clinton has more elected or pledged delegates (the delegates you win at the ballot box) by the the time of the Democratic convention in July.

In other words, even if Clinton wins more states, and more actual votes — as she is doing now — Sanders will try to win by superdelegate, and overrule the popular vote.

All of which doesn’t sound terribly progressive. Though it does sound like something Castro, Ortega, or the Soviets would do.

And if you think I’m reading this wrong, Sanders’ campaign manager Tad Devine admitted the same thing on a phone call with reporters on Wednesday. But Devine went one step further on that call. Sanders may not only target the superdelegates in order to win the nomination if he loses the popular vote, Sanders is arguing that it’s also legitimate for him to ask Hillary’s pledged delegates — the ones she won in the primaries — to switch to him instead. Jon Green wrote about this the other day. When the candidate and the campaign say the same thing, it’s strategy.


SANDERS: We think we have a good shot, can’t guarantee it, of winning a whole lot of states, of

Bernie Sanders, via AFGE / Flickr

Bernie Sanders, via AFGE / Flickr

winning a whole lot of delegates, of perhaps winning California, state of Washington, Oregon, many of the smaller states and winning New York state. We think if we come into the convention in July in Philadelphia, having won a whole lot of delegates, having a whole lot of momentum behind us, and most importantly perhaps being the candidate who is most likely to defeat Donald Trump, we think that some of these super delegates who have now supported Hillary Clinton can come over to us.

Rachel, in almost every poll, not every poll, but almost every national matchup poll between Sanders and Trump, Clinton and Trump, we do better than Hillary Clinton and sometimes by large numbers. We get a lot more of the independent vote than she gets.

And, frankly and very honestly, I think I am a stronger candidate to defeat Trump than Secretary Clinton is and I think many secretary — many of the super delegates understand that.

MADDOW: I just want to be super clear with you about that, just to make sure that I understand. Are you saying that even if you were behind in pledged dell gates, I know you think you won’t be, but if you were behind in pledged delegates, you would still take that case all the way to the convention and try to convince the supers?

SANDERS: Well, we’re going to do the best we can in any and every way to win. But I think when you have states, for example, say in New Hampshire where we won by 22 points, in other states where we won by 25 or even 30 points, I think it is not unreasonable for the people of those states to say to their super delegates, hey, how about representing the people of our state and the outcome of the caucus or the primary?

MADDOW: I’m just going to push you and ask you one more time. If — I’ll actually ask you from the other direction. If one of you — one of you — presumably, there won’t be a tie. One of you presumably will be behind in pledged delegates heading into that convention. Should the person who is behind in pledged delegates concede to the person who is ahead in pledged delegates in Philadelphia?

SANDERS: Well, I — you know, I don’t want to speculate about the future and I think there are other factors involved. I think it is probably the case that the candidate who has the most pledged delegates is going to be the candidate, but there are other factors. And the other factors will be the strength of each of us in taking on the Republican candidate.

What I think is most important to all of the delegates, including the super delegates, is that we have a candidate who will win and not allow Donald Trump to end up in the White House.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis  — Win a pony! (not really)

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

242 Responses to “Sanders to target Hillary’s superdelegates if he can’t win popular vote”

  1. JeromeBiggins says:

    You are as dense of a person as I’ve ever met. I simply corrected your LIE that he was asked not to attend…something you didn’t even address and you go off on this ridiculous rant. You and your fellow african american’s do not appreciate his rhetoric of what? Radical racial support. He has been IN THE STREETS protesting and fighting for your rights, been arrested…Hillary has never done that. He “adores” FDR…come on Mr Trump, give it up. He has made it clear, he thinks FDR’s economic policies were excellent. He doesn’t agree with the internment executive order. You are trying to find guilt by proxy which is, honestly, disgusting for someone who claims to be a democrat. It is because of people like you that tens of millions of people will refuse to vote for Hillary. You are completely ignorant of facts, you blatantly lie, try to create false equivalencies, and act like a pompous ass. I would rather have Trump be president with a democratic Congress/Gubernatorial (google that if you don’t know that word) than see Hillary elected.

  2. Gamermama TV says:

    No actually they do not like his stance on Israel even Cabot vt town hall went off on his stance look it up on YouTube and he became as arrogant and nasty has he did two weeks before new York also look up the letter all the southern dnc chairman wrote to and my flow African Americans do not appreciate his rehitoric nor do we appreciate his reverse racist rehitoric people are sick of being bullied and threatened by his supporters enough is enough of twisted defense for a guy who praises case and breadlines. ..adores fdr who put 110,000 Japanese in interment camps based on race the so each is on YouTube when fdr makes the executive order better check who you back and research unless you think those things are praise blessed too …

  3. Gamermama TV says:


    April 6, 2016

    Dear Senator Bernie Sanders,

    I have heard many complaints from other unbound Delegates to our National Convention in Philadelphia (my hometown), about getting harassing emails, Facebook postings and phone calls, even to one woman at 10:30 at night, from some of your supporters demanding that we support you. We would expect this type of bullying tactics from Trump supporters. Roger Stone threatened on April 5th- he will send angry Trump supporters to the hotel rooms (Cleveland) of any delegates who betrays Donald. Do you have a similar Plan?

    I have seen you on TV stating (demanding to many of your supporters) that Superdelegates should vote for the candidate that won their state. Really? Where is that in the National Delegate Plan that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean must vote for you? Congressman Raul Grijalva, a supporter of yours, who represents the 3rd district in Arizona, a state that voted 58% for Clinton and Grijalva’s own district voted 61.7% for Clinton has not switched. Where is your letter to Congressman Grijalva, instructing him to shift his support to Clinton? Look in the mirror- you’ll see a political hypocrite! From what I hear, Congressman Grijalva, when asked if he is shifting his support to Clinton, his response- drop dead. That is his right- he is a Congressman, thus a delegate.

    Society has been trying to deal with High School bullies and the same Rule should apply to your campaign and your supporters. Us active Democrats enjoy healthy discussions and debates at meetings, Caucuses and Conventions but it is unacceptable for us to get harassing communications from bullies. As a Clinton supporter, I have not received harassing phone calls but it does appear women DNC Members are getting the brunt of the threats. Professionally, campaign staff and representatives should be the ones calling delegates. A 12 year old child answering the phone at home should not be hearing threats.

    Most of us DNC Members have been in the Democratic Party vineyards for years, as have the Clintons. For me it has been over 40 years. I became disillusioned with the war in Vietnam (I had volunteered for the Paratroopers and Vietnam), after being wounded in March 1968 (101st Airborne), it was the beginning for me to turning to politics. So those of us with callouses on our Democratic Party hands (something lacking with you, not even going to our National Conventions to vote for our nominees), we notice things, such as not one US Senator is supporting you. Not even Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. We noticed what you said to Rachel Maddow (March 30, 2016) when she said that Secretary Clinton has raised millions for the Democratic Party (DNC, DCCC, DSCC and State Parties) and asked you- will you do the same? You said, “We’ll see.” I fell off my chair. The Koch brothers announced a $900 million dollar plan against Democrats, and we have a big ticket from Governors to Congress to races in all states and your answer- we’ll see. Our nominee for President has to help raise tens of millions of dollars all over our country. We cannot afford a selfish nominee.

    I would urge that you and your staff publicly state that you want all harassing communications to DNC members to stop. In 2008, I received a phone call from a US Senator, urging me to support Senator Obama – a very professional and courteous call.


    Bob Mulholland, Chico CA DNC Member
    1830 9th St, Sacramento, CA 95811
    [email protected]

    P.S. In case no one clued you in- that NY Times piece (April 4, 2016) with Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine providing “background material,” is a standard practice by some consultants. They are getting very nervous. They are laying out the “DNA evidence,” that the candidate (you) will lose and it is your fault, not theirs. A suggestion for you- you need to be better prepared yourself- you’re coming across as shrill.

    P.P.S. Secretary Clinton has received about 58% of the vote so far, thus ahead of you by 2,400,000 votes and 250 Pledged Delegates. We also notice that the Base of our Party is voting overwhelmingly for Secretary Clinton.

  4. Gamermama TV says:


    April 6, 2016

    Dear Senator Bernie Sanders,

    I have heard many complaints from other unbound Delegates to our National Convention in Philadelphia (my hometown), about getting harassing emails, Facebook postings and phone calls, even to one woman at 10:30 at night, from some of your supporters demanding that we support you. We would expect this type of bullying tactics from Trump supporters. Roger Stone threatened on April 5th- he will send angry Trump supporters to the hotel rooms (Cleveland) of any delegates who betrays Donald. Do you have a similar Plan?

    I have seen you on TV stating (demanding to many of your supporters) that Superdelegates should vote for the candidate that won their state. Really? Where is that in the National Delegate Plan that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean must vote for you? Congressman Raul Grijalva, a supporter of yours, who represents the 3rd district in Arizona, a state that voted 58% for Clinton and Grijalva’s own district voted 61.7% for Clinton has not switched. Where is your letter to Congressman Grijalva, instructing him to shift his support to Clinton? Look in the mirror- you’ll see a political hypocrite! From what I hear, Congressman Grijalva, when asked if he is shifting his support to Clinton, his response- drop dead. That is his right- he is a Congressman, thus a delegate.

    Society has been trying to deal with High School bullies and the same Rule should apply to your campaign and your supporters. Us active Democrats enjoy healthy discussions and debates at meetings, Caucuses and Conventions but it is unacceptable for us to get harassing communications from bullies. As a Clinton supporter, I have not received harassing phone calls but it does appear women DNC Members are getting the brunt of the threats. Professionally, campaign staff and representatives should be the ones calling delegates. A 12 year old child answering the phone at home should not be hearing threats.

    Most of us DNC Members have been in the Democratic Party vineyards for years, as have the Clintons. For me it has been over 40 years. I became disillusioned with the war in Vietnam (I had volunteered for the Paratroopers and Vietnam), after being wounded in March 1968 (101st Airborne), it was the beginning for me to turning to politics. So those of us with callouses on our Democratic Party hands (something lacking with you, not even going to our National Conventions to vote for our nominees), we notice things, such as not one US Senator is supporting you. Not even Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. We noticed what you said to Rachel Maddow (March 30, 2016) when she said that Secretary Clinton has raised millions for the Democratic Party (DNC, DCCC, DSCC and State Parties) and asked you- will you do the same? You said, “We’ll see.” I fell off my chair. The Koch brothers announced a $900 million dollar plan against Democrats, and we have a big ticket from Governors to Congress to races in all states and your answer- we’ll see. Our nominee for President has to help raise tens of millions of dollars all over our country. We cannot afford a selfish nominee.

    I would urge that you and your staff publicly state that you want all harassing communications to DNC members to stop. In 2008, I received a phone call from a US Senator, urging me to support Senator Obama – a very professional and courteous call.


    Bob Mulholland, Chico CA DNC Member
    1830 9th St, Sacramento, CA 95811
    [email protected]

    P.S. In case no one clued you in- that NY Times piece (April 4, 2016) with Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine providing “background material,” is a standard practice by some consultants. They are getting very nervous. They are laying out the “DNA evidence,” that the candidate (you) will lose and it is your fault, not theirs. A suggestion for you- you need to be better prepared yourself- you’re coming across as shrill.

    P.P.S. Secretary Clinton has received about 58% of the vote so far, thus ahead of you by 2,400,000 votes and 250 Pledged Delegates. We also notice that the Base of our Party is voting overwhelmingly for Secretary Clinton.

  5. JeromeBiggins says:

    Hillary won by 16% and picked up 31 more delegates than Bernie. Not an ass kicking, but a decisive win. There are two reason the progressives in this country aren’t fond of Hillary supporters; 1) They are condescending and arrogant as if they know everything (your AIPAC comment was blatant evidence of your lack of facts) 2) Your condescension and aggressive attacks against Bernie supporters are reminiscent of Trump’s lackeys.

    As a progressive socialist-democrat myself (long before Bernie made it cool) I have been ashamed at how divisive the liberal candidates campaigns can get, in particular Hillary. She used the same strong language and fear based attacks against Obama and it failed. Unfortunately for Bernie, he is up against someone who has been running for president for the last 8 years and that’s an incredibly difficult thing to overcome. Even if he doesn’t win, I can appreciate that he’s pushed Hillary further to the left…the only question is will she honor those campaign promises or backtrack.

  6. JeromeBiggins says:

    Um, he declined to attend. It takes effort to be this misinformed. Please try to keep up.

  7. Gamermama TV says:

    Huh nope ny ny !!!

  8. Gamermama TV says:

    It sure did thank you new York I live in vt we are taxed to death also his wife is huge fraud he almost bankrupted Burlington. .also we have a huge heroine pandemic huge rent costs single payer that insurance he’s pushing never made it to law but put us 3w million dollars in debt vt just passed 48 million more in taxes people are moving out by herds do to extreme unaffordability it’s not a very excepting state for minorities as sanders would like the country to believe we have bloods and crypts shootings in downtown sanders sponsored a ski resort project that now is being investigated for fraud excepting money from the people he’s been toting he hates but partnered with them in this project

  9. Gamermama TV says:

    That elite power is protecting my wallet

  10. Gamermama TV says:

    Then why did the biggest group of Jewish people tell him to stay home but let all other candidates speak

  11. Gamermama TV says:

    Surprised by what him getting his ass kicked lmao

  12. Sharon Houser says:

    yup, when & if she should fall behind in the popular vote, then and only then should BS think about wooing her Superdelegates. For right now he should focus on trying to remember where his tax records are or get a copy from the IRS. Maybe a speech or two he made was left off those tax reports. From the very beginning it was strange how low his net worth was for all these years in office. They said he was either hiding a lot of it or he was the worse money manager ever.

  13. Greg says:

    Do you know how to do math? This is incorrect. In fact, meet the press did the math 2 weeks ago. If they had allocated all super delegates, in states that had voted, to the victor in that state — Bernie would have 125 and Hillary would actually have increased to 260 out of those states. Let’s compare: A week before the western states, Hillary won Ohio, Florida (large margin wins), NC, Missouri, Illinois, (throw in Virginia as a big fall swing state) and she gets AZ by a lot, so please don’t cry foul. Then next round: Bernie wins Utah, Washington (my state and no surprise and WA will vote Dem no matter what), Idaho, Wyoming, Wisconsin (good win). These set of states do not compare. Keep listening to the strange voices in your berniebot brain.

  14. Greg says:

    So as I read it, it’s safe to assume, If Hillary wins pledged delegates, if she maintains or extends her lead that is over 2 million actual votes, he still will not concede. He would actually lobby super delegates. So if he were to actually win, would this not be thwarting the will of the democratic party voters? It’s math, 2 million more means more supporters. Right? Or is it a trump moment where you see something happen and deny it happened? Maybe, many of us do not believe in a full socialist agenda. Shocking, i know, but just maybe a lot of democrats believe in her and support her.

  15. George Vreeland Hill says:

    The only thing Bernie Sanders is doing, is making sure that Donald Trump becomes president.

  16. Abby says:

    This article is exactly what’s wrong. He’s suggesting that superdelagates should vote with their constituents which are the popular vote.

  17. Chris Burkhardt says:

    Hillary has looked like a joke trying to attack sanders.. i think if we look at whos playing fair ball, Hillary is from the mark and no matter how her media spin doctors try to discredit or hide bernie in the end those of us that see through the BS have the great opportunity to remember how history had taken place.

  18. Sharon Houser says:

    No drugs, legal or illegal, you aren’t even clever in suggesting that. You are the ranting irrational one. By the way Bernie won 72.7% of the Washington vote which was still a very substantial win compared to Clintons 27.3 I couldn’t find numbers of actual awarded delegates for each but I would think very close to the percentage numbers. She was only reported to have gotten 9 instead of 27 too, I don’t know if Washington just didn’t finish that poll. No Bernie is not ahead of her with just delegates, not yet. He’s on a roll right now but not unexpected, I’m sure he’ll take Wyoming also, no big deal. The superdelegates shouldn’t do any switching unless it is a tie. Burn has a superdelegate in Arizona who has not switched to Clinton because she won there. Try to remain rational yourself.

  19. LADDIED says:

    Hi Doodlebug,
    Are you another one of Hillary’s sex slaves? Nothing you say makes any sense or has anything to do with reality. Try to get some counselling before it is too late.

  20. LADDIED says:

    Sharon, what ever drugs you are on, legal or illegal, I would try to quit if I was you. Your ranting’s are illogical and irrational.
    The news media lies about the numbers. I added up all the pledged delegates tonight. Bernie is ahead 1071 to 1040. In every primary to date they have over reported Hillary’s count and understated Bernie’s. In WA alone they reported that Bernie’s 76% of 101 delegates was 26. What kind of math is that.
    For your information, the super delegates are only to vote to settle a tie. Do not expect one. Hillary is one of the most despised and distrusted women in the US. Most of us would rather vote for Trump the Hillary. If she is the Democratic nominee, Trump will be our next president. Her only wins were in the red states. They will go Republican as usual in the general. The defecting independents, and liberal Democrats, who can not stand the sight or thought of Hillary will assure Trumps election.

  21. Gary Benadum says:

    To call Bernie Sanders “vile” is like saying Jesus is “vile”. You may disagree with a point or two, but “vile” is obnoxiously ridiculous.

  22. H.P. Loathecraft says:

    No worries. There will be more to follow as well.

  23. Sharon Houser says:

    You are correct, he has gained quite a few since I last looked, my fingers got ahead of my facts….sorry about that.

  24. H.P. Loathecraft says:

    “Neither does B.S.”

    Oh? Bernie has 31 as of Apr 5. Last time I looked two days ago it was 29.

  25. JeromeBiggins says:

    I’m pretty sure your one hand doesn’t have 30+ fingers…and counting.

    As more of these Superdelagates come out and actually support the candidate that WON in their congressional districts, Bernie will peel them away from Hillary and continue his momentum.

  26. JeromeBiggins says:

    Wow, just wow. Have a great life. You are blinded by false information and can’t stop to truly investigate the facts. Be well.

  27. Sharon Houser says:

    You did get that last paragraph 100% right…I do understand how it works in Iowa. There is a paper count of individual voters also if someone were to dispute the delegate numbers. His main line was “isn’t it about time the 1% pay the working class back for what they lost?” Then he changed it to oh maybe the middle class will have to pay more again. For the tax percentages, I don’t trust his report on what he will do there, Clinton is saying his numbers don’t add up. Yes, we don’t have enough tax revenue and that’s because so many of the good jobs middle class once had are gone & the tax break incentives the 1% are given. The answer is not to gut punch the middle class again, after the 2008 wall street disaster. BS will give billions more tax money away for free health and college. What kinds of jobs is he going to create to pay for free health and college, 5 to 8 % increase on middle class workers won’t cover it. IF he busts up the wall street speculators that means millions of middle class retirement benefits will go down the tubes again like 2008. We’ll just have to hope for the best, the working class can’t give an ounce more blood.

  28. Sharon Houser says:

    You make a valid point there, I hope they fight it out to the very end so there is no confusion about who really won.

  29. Sharon Houser says:

    I believe he thinks he’s a rock star now, it’s gone to his head. Few had heard of him before he decided to run.

  30. Sharon Houser says:

    Yes, that’s what I meant
    you just misunderstood it or twisted it somehow.

  31. Sharon Houser says:

    He only gets a pass in the minds of some. You are right on about what’s happening here with Republicans voting for him ….so he’ll lose in the November elections.

  32. Sharon Houser says:

    He might win Wisconsin by voter count but they will be so close and they will split the delegates according to the count so they will basicly stay right where they are.

  33. Sharon Houser says:

    If he were a viable democrat, the superdelegates would swing to him if he won the peoples vote by a substantial margin but he’s not a democrat, so they will stick with Clinton and they will sway the tie if it’s close between the two of them.

  34. Sharon Houser says:

    You will learn but no apology is necessary when you find out.

  35. Sharon Houser says:

    I made a mistake in the post when I said superdelegates work for Republicans as well as Democrates. I don’t know what kind of back up the Republicans have for when a Rogue like Trump gets in there. I’m sure they do have something though. I’m not a political genius that’s for sure but I know a little and it seems a little more than some of you who think you know it all.

  36. Sharon Houser says:

    Yes I do. You are the one who needs to do some learning. The superdelegates behind Clinton can help her beat Trump if it came down to the two. BS has so few they can be counted on one hand, Trump will beat BS but he won’t beat Clinton.

  37. Sharon Houser says:

    there is a paper record of every single vote but the voters are accurately represented by the delegates who will go to Conference for each candidate. Jerome you called me names in most ever post you responded to of mine.

  38. Sharon Houser says:

    I am aware Republicans don’t have Superdelegates Amanda. Neither does B.S. but Clinton has a lot of them, only she of the democrates has a chance to defeat Trump. Why do you think the Superdelegates are backing her but not Sanders. The superdelegates are government elected members of all walks of our government. Do you think the average voter knows more about who’s best as president than those who work in Government. They are intended to represent the best interests of the people & government. This is the first time we have had a Trump or a BS be so popular that either one could be a disaster for the country, for us.

  39. Amanda Kathleen says:

    Wow! You really don’t know anything about politics, do you?

  40. Amanda Kathleen says:

    Sharon – the Republican party does not have Superdelegates, so they cannot “protect” us against Trump. The general populous is going to have to do that on their own. Also, when a Superdelegate pledges to support a Democratic candidate before the popular vote in his or her state has been cast, they are not representing the will of their constituents.

  41. doodlebug0 says:

    Damn straight. SDs should vote for the Democrat, not the socialist.

  42. doodlebug0 says:

    Sanders is so hypocritical. First he hates the SDs now he wants them to go to him no matter how people vote. Sanders has been extremely abusive to Hillary and the DNC. He is not a Democrat and I don’t see the party power brokers- the SDs – switching to an old man who couldn’t get a damn thing done and even sues the DNC for HIM STEALING HILLARY’S VOTER DATA. It was downloaded and saved. He’s an a-hole. I will NEVER vote for the vile, old, UGLY man.

  43. JeromeBiggins says:

    Yes, Michigan was also a tie. My mistake for leaving that off. Way to fly off the handle and start name calling….but sadly I’m not surprised.

    As for Hillary having won more states, delagates, blah blah blah. The part YOU forgot to say is…”so far.”

    Popular vote deficit? There is no such thing with primaries because in some states the number of voters isn’t even reported. Sheesh.

  44. Debs says:

    The will of the people as you keep touting is Hillary… She’s Won more states, more delegates not super delegates and over 2 million more votes. But does that matter to all you Bernie supporters?No, it doesn’t. You love to cherry pick the fact.. Numbers don’t lie you know…. So who’s planning on taking someone’s pledged delegate (I mean the ones actually won?) it’s Bernie, he said it on Rachel Maddow’s show and the campaign manager said the same thing. so, stop parroting nonsense and screaming the will of the people when so far the will of the people is with Hillary… If her supporters ain’t acting all crazy like Bernie’s supporters that doesn’t mean they don’t exist… And Jerome in one of your post you basically called Hilary’s wins in IA, MA, IL, MO and OH, a tie right? That’s fine. But you also went ahead to tout Bernie’s Michigan win. Was that not also a tie? It’s so typical of people like you to want to cherry pick the fact to suit their narrative… Bernie has never been a democrat, he won’t be the nominee not due to superdelegate deficit but due to his delegate and popular vote deficit.. So stop crying foul when no one has cheated…

  45. JeromeBiggins says:

    Republicans are voting for Dem’s candidates. Thats silly. If that were the case then “Democratic” voter numbers would be WAY higher…they are actually down. Failed conspiracy theory.

    This site is filled with people who run their mouths and type of sentences as if they know what they are talking about. You are one of these people.

    There are 8 states with open primaries, 1 hasn’t voted yet and Hillary has won the rest. You were saying?

    States with open primaries:

    Alabama. – Hillary won overwhelmingly, and it was expected.
    Arkansas. – HIllary won overwhelmingly, home state. Duh.
    Georgia. – HIllary won overwhelmingly, expected.
    Illinois. – Hillary won (but the reality is, it was nearly a tie)
    Indiana. – Primary is May 3rd.
    Massachusetts – HIllary won, essentially a tie.
    Michigan. – Bernie won, a big surprise.
    Mississippi – Hillary won overwhelmingly, but it was expected.

  46. JeromeBiggins says:

    And? Do you tell your kids, hey, if someone is beating you by a little in life, just give up. How silly.

  47. JeromeBiggins says:

    Yeah did you read the conversation? I actually did. Clearly you didn’t. He was polite and firm in his beliefs that she was selected to vote in the manner that her constituents choose. She was rude, condescending, dismissive and even hateful towards this US citizen exercising his rights in a polite, peaceful manner. Bernie supports are akin to the hippies of the 60’s and 70’s. Peace loving, tired of the corruption that runs rampant with typical establishment politicians. They are looking for valor and honesty and want the government to work for them once again. HIllary supporters often attack Bernie supporters as bad or attacking for posting comparative graphs or raw data. Bernie supporters are enthusiastic, Hillary supporters are aggressive and defensive.

  48. JeromeBiggins says:

    Bwahahaha. I have a ton of jewish friends and I always tease them how rabid their support for Bernie is. Jewish people love him.

    Allow me to correct you on something. In Mass, Ohio, Illinois, and Nevada Hillary and Bernie were within 5% points. She “won” but everyone knows they tied. My point is still valid. The only states she has really dominated in are those in the south. Bernie has notched several commanding wins in various states across the map. Furthermore, he pulls in far more independents and disgruntled Republicans than Hillary. The disadvantage for Bernie in Ohio was that Kasich pulled all the independents who wanted to try to stop Trump, leaving Bernie behind. In a general election, Bernie would win every one of those states you mentioned and would assuredly turn several red states blue. Hillary will potentially do the opposite.

  49. Blake Beagelsmith says:

    clinton is fucking TRASH

  50. Blake Beagelsmith says:

    stop posting baby boomer

  51. Blake Beagelsmith says:

    to represent the interests of their people is their only purpose.

  52. Blake Beagelsmith says:

    if the super delegates still vote hillary over sanders regardless of their citizens they should be hung.

  53. Sharon Houser says:

    They want to exercise anger and power just like the Trump supporters. That’s why I have turned ugly in some of my retorts against Burn, if no one says anything, and they are hoping we don’t, then maybe a lot of people don’t think Clinton has many followers….they don’t all read everything like some of us do, we are out there strong and many!

  54. Debs says:

    So true Rosie, all you hear about clinton in the media is all the negative stuff and all the hype about Bernie but you know what? Numbers don’t lie. She’s won more states, delegates and even over 2 million more votes than Bernie. The media won’t talk about that. On March 15, she won all 5 primary and it was on the news for just 1 day but take a look at whats been on the news since on Saturday Bernie won 3 caucuses, it has been Bernie none stop. I’m so sick and tired of the double standard.

  55. Debs says:

    No Jewish person will vote for Bernie.. Bernie has a maths problem but will never mention that to his supporters.. you all come here saying Hillary has only won red states.. really? Massachusetts, ohio, Illinois, Nevada are not red states. They are states we have to win.. Florida , Virginia andNorth Carolina are states we have to win and she won them all… what has winning hawaii, Idaho and all those tiny states have to do with winning the general? Bernie is just a media hype that will soon fade..

  56. Debs says:

    Bernie’s supporters are the ones that have turned this whole process into nasty name calling… they harass anyone not feeling the bern and just today one Bernie’s supporter (i think his name is younger)from Alaska posted a private conversation he had with a superdelegate because the woman refuse to back Bernie as a superdelegate. These kids are not well mannered at all, why are they harassing Hillary’s supporters?

  57. Debs says:

    Bernie has succeeded in dividing the Democratic party and making it me against them (any that doesnt support him) i can never see myself supporting bernie after turning this race to me against them… Bernie and his campaign manager are openly saying they are going to sway Hillary’s won delegates (not superdelegates) to their side because he feels he has the momentum. What rubbish.. no wonder his supporters are so arrogant.

  58. Debs says:

    I agree with you Sharon. He’s acting so angry now and doesn’t mind blowing the whole election up. Not surprised though, he’s never been a democrat.

  59. Debs says:

    230 is not only… she was never that far behind in 2008 and still wasn’t able to catch up. Bernie will never be the nominee.

  60. Debs says:

    She’s still ahead anyways. Delegates, raw numbers and number of states won. Why does Bernie not tell his supporters this?

  61. Debs says:

    Bernie wins only in open primaries, where most most republicans are coming to vote in the democratic primary in other to choose our candidate.. NY, Connecticut, Pennsylvania , NJ are all closed primary and she’ll won big because she’s a true Democrat.
    If Hillary had turned to a democrat because of the election you lot will be calling for her head and saying she’s an opportunist. But you know almighty, self righteous Bernie gets a pass for everything.

  62. Debs says:

    I think sanders should enlighten his own. As it stands now, Hillary has won more states , more delegates and has over 2 million more votes than sanders this has got nothing to do with the superdelegates. Bernie is the one suggesting that he should still be the nominee even if his behind on all three counts…

  63. Sharon Houser says:

    Thank you…( :

  64. JeromeBiggins says:

    You’re hopeless. Have a great year.

  65. Sharon Houser says:

    Then why are ALL the congressional and senatorial superdelegates backing Clinton and none behind Sanders? I think that says they will be more willing to work with Clinton than Sanders. You seem to be using my posts to push more lies so I’m done with you.

  66. JeromeBiggins says:

    Sharon, you are once again way off. Lemme give you his proposed tax hikes. The middle class will pay about 2-8% more but will see returns on that due to reduced health costs. As for taxes, Sharon, again, the facts are something you can’t seem to accept. Taxes are at the lowest they’ve ever been. EVER. That is fact. Taxes need to increase, minimum wage needs to increase, employers need to be held responsible for paying better wages so everyone is lifted up creating a bigger and stronger middle class.

    As for caucusing, again you don’t understand how it works. Sure, you can stand there and get your vote counted and delegates are alloted (in some states) at the district level by voter count. However, as I mentioned, multiple states DO NOT report the voter count. They simply report the final delegate awards based off the delegate count. Therefore, this 2 million vote number is complete nonsense because in states like Iowa, they don’t report the number of voters, they just report the percentage of total voters for each candidate and allot delegates based on that. I’ve read up on caucuses a lot. Just because you go to one does not make someone an expert. Read up on the process.

  67. JeromeBiggins says:

    Sharon, I am not focused on saying you are 100% wrong, but you are posting 100% incorrect statements with 100% confidence. As for college, economies scale. Smaller countries pay taxes and smaller numbers of kids go to college. In the US we have larger numbers of taxpayers and it can definitely work.

    Second, calling someone whose in your own party a Burnbot, Berniebro, etc is extremely disrespectful and not surprisingly, I ONLY see it happening with Clinton and GOP supporters.

    Finally, you are right. The president cannot simply dictate what is to be done. They generally need both houses to help pass laws. If you take a quick read of the news and the opinions of nearly every GOP lawmaker, they despise Hillary and will work to obstruct her goals just as much if not more than Obama. Bernie, as an independent, does not generate the same level of rancor with republicans plus he will have a far greater affect down the ballot ensuring that more dems and independents win seats. Hillary is a great candidate, but the facts are there.

  68. Sharon Houser says:

    Key word there is Government broke them up not the President on his own. You saw how effective President Obama was with things he wanted to do but having to fight and beg all the rest of the government. You don’t think there are any government officials with stocks and special interests in Education and Health Care, you really think Burn is going to just take office and suddenly every insurance agent will be jobless. I think it’s realistic that trade schools and 2 year colleges could be charging according to income if Clinton has her way but I don’t see it being free for everyone, as she said, “why would Trumps kids be going to college free when they can afford it” You burnbots forget that this country population is enormous compared to the countries who do this free college and health care. The whole of Canada (from East to West) is only a little more populated than California, one of our states. I respect your adamant support of your candidate but there is no need for you to think that you are all right and I am all wrong. I’m sure every word I print is not 100% accurate & neither is yours. Also easy to miss the whole meaning behind words in print.

  69. Sharon Houser says:

    well you’re just wrong about this…he clearly said the middle class taxes will go up but they won’t mind because they will save so much by getting free health care….so why would it be okay for poor people to get it free but middle class having to pay enormous tax hikes. The burn did start out saying only the 1% filthy rich would pay for all this, then he changed his story when Clinton put him on the spot asking for exact figures. No it’s not time we all pay a little more, you are an idiot, most middle class are just getting buy, not suffering but getting by, they don’t need to pay for free college for the people who have never even worked yet to realize what a sacrifice it is on everyone but them. Oh and on your other name calling post to me about delegate count, clearly you have never caucused or you just stood there and didn’t understand the process of how they decide how many delegates go to the conferences later to support their candidate. There is a one by one count of each voter and their vote is counted then in my group specifically, 9 delegates were chosen to go to conference to represent our group. That figure come from dividing total head count by a standard figure.

  70. JeromeBiggins says:

    You are way off. Bernie has said the top 1% should look out because they will DEFINITELY be losing more taxes and there middle class taxes will remain close to current levels. Furthermore, our tax rates are at national lows. It’s time we all pay a little more.

  71. JeromeBiggins says:

    Are you kidding me!? Delagate count is relative to the proportion of the vote that a candidate wins, NOT the raw number of caucus goers! This is common knowledge.

  72. Dan Gronlie says:

    I don’t think they’re clueless, myself. I think that they’ve got a convenient example of why their supported candidate is supported much more than another candidate, and go with it. Facts don’t enter into it. It’s nothing new – people do it all the time. We all, to some degree, find ways of dismissing facts when they conflict with a belief that is important to us. Part of it is just human evolution doing its work to keep us from going crazy.

    Just consider what I had to write to demonstrate how there actually is no number that can be pointed to as a ‘popular vote’ figure for the Democratic primary/caucus process. Most people who believe that one candidate has something like 2 million more ‘popular votes’ than another would either stop reading it after the first couple of lines or find a way of dismissing the numbers (even though they are entirely correct), probably by way of a quick conclusion that I’m biased and don’t support the candidate they support (I’m obviously cherry-picking the information, something like that).

    Facts tend to only be relevant to highly analytic people with temperaments that result in overall truth-seeking. And, for everyone else, typically only when they reinforce their already existing belief structure..;.

  73. Sharon Houser says:

    delegate count IS representative of actual votes depending on the size of the Caucasus. He most certainly would not be ahead under any method of counting other than flat out lying. He’s going to take a few more states and more power to him if he wins the election but I just dread it. I was an independent but switched to Dem to vote for Clinton. I went to a BS rally here in town way back in July of last year and I thought he was so phony. Everyone comes away with their own take on people and that’s all I got from over an hour of listening to him evade important questions with his rote remarks.

  74. Sharon Houser says:

    your opinion is respected….you are not outnumbered.

  75. Sharon Houser says:

    I don’t think for one moment that we all want higher taxes and that’s exactly what Burn is going to give everyone he can get it from and that would be the working class with paychecks that can be automatically deducted from. The 1% like he says won’t pay a penny more than they are, they have laws to protect them, working class don’t. The republicans would never allow Burnbot to tax them higher…Never!

  76. JeromeBiggins says:

    Exactly!! Votes are 100% irrelevant! People that use that stat are completely clueless to the process (which also explains why they vote a certain way).

  77. JeromeBiggins says:

    New York is 75% white and New York City is the biggest Jewish city in the US, also the birthplace of Bernie. You’ll be surprised on April 19th.

  78. JeromeBiggins says:

    Votes? Voter count doesn’t matter. Plus, many caucus states don’t report raw voter counts (states where Bernie dominated). If you could get actual voter count then Bernie would definitely be ahead.

  79. JeromeBiggins says:

    You think the government can’t touch banks? You are dumb. Remember AT&T. The government broke them up in the 80’s. The government has broken up banks and private companies in the past and they need to do it again.

  80. JeromeBiggins says:

    Obama slammed Hillary plenty in 2008!!! Furthermore, there reason many Bernie supporters won’t support Hillary is because they are independents and Republican-lights that dinner like Hillary. That’s why he would destroy Trump in the general. He would naturally bring in most Dems but also tons of independents and disenfranchised Republicans. He demolishes Trump, Hillary narrowly wins. I liked Hillary but like former secretary of labor under Bill Clinton Robert Reich says, Hillary is the most qualified for the political system we have but Bernie is the most qualified for the political system we want.

  81. JeromeBiggins says:

    Yeah, polls have her up by 7 in California and about the same in NY. In every single state he started out WAY behind in polls and surged as the election gets closer because of rallies, phone calls, and public interest/investigation. This raw vote crap is just that, crap. Many caucuses don’t even report voter numbers and those are States where Bernie dominates. If we knew real voter counts he would 100% be ahead. After the 5th he’ll be down by less than 200.

  82. JeromeBiggins says:

    Please stop talking like you know what you are saying. You are way way wrong.

  83. JeromeBiggins says:

    Trump isn’t a Democrat and Republicans don’t have super delagates (the have similar roles but in a very very small number, comparatively). You don’t know the basics. Ahhhh!

  84. JeromeBiggins says:

    Holy moly. That’s the worst, ill thought justification behind super delagates. To override the will of the people. Wow. I’m speechless. That’s not why they exist.

  85. Sharon Houser says:

    Sanders talks big and down to women….he can not target Superdelegates….he is the target of every superdelegate out there, think about what that means and who you are supporting if you like Sanders. You are supporting what Superdelegates are in place to protect us against, same for Trump the superdelegates are there to protect us against rogue wannabees.

  86. Sharon Houser says:

    Superdelegates are for one purpose, to protect the people from the people when they are not fully aware what they are asking & voting for. To protect democracy.

  87. Zachary Dube says:

    I was trying to be diplomatic I’m out numbered on here lmao

  88. Sharon Houser says:

    Yes the majority vote is represented by delegates and the protection of the democracy of this country is represented by Superdelegates if randoms like Trump or Sanders jump in. Sanders being an Independent Socialist is not a representative of one party or the other, dem or rep.

  89. Sharon Houser says:

    your Burn can’t touch banking or speculators, that’s all bull, he can’t do jack but he sure has been able to fool a heck of a lot of you blind followers. The Superdelegates follow party lines that’s why they went with the majority when Obama beat Clinton, they are there to fight against Independent Socialists because that’s not the way this country is run, the burn is the outsider that superdelegates are in force to protect us against.

  90. Sharon Houser says:

    He won’t want a position in her cabinet and no I do not believe he has earned that much at all. He has made it clear he will not support her and so have all the burn bots. He and they want to punish Clinton supporters for not supporting the burn, like a spoiled kid, regardless if they have to accept a Republican President or not. You don’t deserve what you don’t give. He’s been bashing her since very early on. He is not mister honesty and kindness, he’s a mean spirited man the way I see it. Obama didn’t bash her when they ran. He was smart enough to recognize they were both on the same team, unlike this ass so many want to worship.

  91. Sharon Houser says:

    That’s because we’ve never had an Independent Socialist run before and another guy who doesn’t have a political bone in his body, just a business man. They will pull out the Superdelegates to protect the right and left standards from being disrupted. When Clinton ran against Obama, they were both Democrats, the superdelegates flow to the popular vote when they are both of the Republican or Democrat party. Superdelegates do not back Independents they are there to protect democracy as we know it. Sanders is an Independent Socialist, not a democratic socialist as he labeled himself when he began running. The superdelegates are there for that reason to prevent a radical anything from taking the presidency.

  92. Sharon Houser says:

    The process IS being exposed. It’s time everyone knows their vote is not the only thing to consider. It is what it is for the purpose of preventing a popular but inappropriate candidate from winning the election, for the sake of the country, not the people who want to shake things up or destroy everything we know about democracy. The people who work together and run this country right alongside of the Burn for all these years are backing Clinton not him, maybe time to ask all yourselves why that is? Those are the Superdelegates his peers who know he is the wrong candidate for the Presidency, regardless what all his followers think. So who do we trust, Superdelegates or a bunch of people who just want a revolution they don’t even understand. The Superdelegates are all elected officials or past elected officials of our government, State and Federal. I trust them way over the general voter wanting legal pot or free college and health care at the expense of all the working class men and women of this country. Get a freaking job. Bernie is not going to tax the 1% even president is not superman, they are protected beyond what any president could touch but he will tax every working stiff up to about 50% of your wage for stuff you don’t even want. Poor people already get free health care, only a small age group of our population wants to go to college, you guys don’t speak for the majority of Society, even though you may get the majority of the vote.

  93. Sharon Houser says:

    They won’t need to cover up anything because that’s exactly why the superdelegates are there, to make sure that no Socialist or wild cards like Trump get in there.

  94. Dan Gronlie says:

    I don’t get how people are stating that they know how many ‘votes’ a particular contender for the Democratic nomination has. In a mixed process of caucuses and primaries, some ‘open’ and some ‘closed,’ there is no such thing a a vote count. Only primaries work that way, and, as a result, Democrats in caucus states (caucus being the DNC’s strongly favored approach) are very substantially under-counted.

    For example:

    solidly Democratic except for 2004, population of 3.1 million, total
    ‘popular vote’ for Sec. Clinton: 701 (close caucus, she won). Iowa DFL doesn’t release actual vote count.

    very solidly Democratic – every pres. election since 1960 except ’72, population about 5.5 million, total ‘popular vote’ for Sec. Clinton:
    73,510 (fairly large Sanders win, open caucus).

    very solidly Republican – every pres. election since 1980 by wide margins, population about 4.9 million, total ‘popular vote’ for Sec. Clinton: 309,928 (very large Clinton win, open primary)

    Or another way of looking at it:

    Iowa and Minnesota, total population of about 8.6 million, all reported ‘votes’ during Democratic caucuses: 139,045

    Alabama, total population of about 4.9 million, all reported votes during Democratic primary: 398,164.

    Also… for comparison, the 2008 Alabama Democratic Primary turnout was 536,635. The Minnesota 2008 Democratic Caucus turnout was 214,066 and we don’t know anything about Iowa’s actual voter turnout.

    Meaning – Minnesota caucus turnout compared to 2008 – down about 10.5%
    Alabama primary turnout compared to 2008 down about 26%.

    And, because of the very substantial differences between caucuses and primaries, the state of Alabama still contributed more to the so-called ‘popular vote’ for the Democratic candidate for the Presidency than both Minnesota and Iowa. About 300% more.

    So, how about we assess the contest as it is, not just picking numbers completely out of context?

  95. manderso says:

    Ok, the candidate you support (better terminology?) is still over two and half million votes behind. The popular vote, actually one person one vote which is what democracy is based on is still much better than the caucus which your candidate is thriving which is the most undemocratic way of electing, favoring people who can give up the time to do it, say college students, and so many people do not participate. I find it interesting that the candidate who wants a revolution wants to do it with a minority of the vote, if he can.

  96. Dan Gronlie says:

    Oh, I don’t know about that. I know several older women who are firmly for Sanders. Mostly because she’s a right-wing war hawk who has massive ties to just about every industry her post-Sanders-running rhetoric suggests she’d now… have to cancel next week’s lunch with ‘cuz, y’know, the damn plebes might make something out of?

    Wasting my breath generally? Probably… We used to accuse the Republicans of not inhabiting the ‘reality-based’ universe, but now we’re seeing a lot of the same entrenchment-sans-facts that the Republicans made SOP years ago among ourselves…

  97. Dan Gronlie says:

    Um… ‘I’ am not engaged in any activity that involves people voting for me.

    I support Senator Bernie Sanders for the nomination of the Democratic party’s candidate for the President of the United States. But ‘me’ and a candidate I support for a particular public office are really, really different. I don’t take it personally when someone makes a negative comment about the candidate, and I don’t really understand how this sort of thing becomes ‘you’ and ‘me.’

    My comments were directed at John Aravosis, who wrote the article which contained several inaccuracies and then presented conclusions based on the inaccuracies as fact. I hoped he would read what I had written. That’s all.

    If you are asserting that Senator Sanders has received two and one half million votes fewer than Secretary Clinton in the process of the Democratic party’s nomination process, there is a problem with your information.

    Here’s a simple breakdown of, say, the Alabama, Minnesota and Iowa ‘popular vote.’

    solidly Democratic except for 2004, population of 3,123,899, total
    ‘popular vote’ for Sec. Clinton: 701 (close caucus, she won).

    solidly Republican, population of 4.9 million, total ‘popular vote’ for Sec. Clinton: 398,164 (won 77.8/19.2).

    solidly Democratic, population of 5.5 million, total ‘popular vote’ for
    Sec. Clinton: 73,510 (lost to Sen. Sanders 38.4/61.6).

    There is no such thing as a ‘popular vote’ in a process that involves caucuses. The caucus process, by its nature, results in substantially lower participation rate than ‘primaries.’ A primary is simply a ‘show up and vote’ activity. A caucus involves a great deal more business being conducted, and generally results in a much lower turnout than a primary.

    For example, the Iowa Democratic caucus, the first in the nation, doesn’t even report actual votes, only precincts. So the only available information from Iowa is that there were 1,398 precincts and that the result was 701/697 (Clinton/Sanders). However, there were many, many more individual votes cast during the caucuses than 1,398. They just can’t count toward any ‘popular vote’ totals.

    Or this: The Democratic party in Minnesota holds ‘open’ caucuses. The state of Minnesota is very reliably Democratic in presidential elections. It has a population of roughly 5.5 million. Total votes cast in the Democratic caucuses (the MN DFL does release votes cast) were 191,647. Of those 191,647 votes, 118,135 were for Sen. Sanders and 73,510 were for Sec. Clinton. Those votes are what you would add to the national ‘popular vote,’ if you were assessing results in that way.

    Contrast the Minnesota and Iowa results with the Alabama Democratic party Presidential Primary. Alabama has a smaller population than Minnesota – around 4.9 million.

    The last time Alabama voted for a Democrat for the office of the Presidency was in 1976 – for Georgian Jimmy Carter. And it has an ‘open’ primary – party affiliation is irrelevant, so long as you only vote for one. So – even thought the population of Alabama is less than Minnesota, and the number of voters in the Alabama Republican primary was more than twice the number of the voters in the Democratic primary, the result was 398,164 total votes in the Democratic primary, distributed as follows: 309,928/76,399 (Clinton/Sanders).

    Which means this:

    For the ‘popular vote’ count:

    Iowa (caucus with no voting totals released):
    Clinton 701
    Sanders 697

    Minnesota (open caucus):
    Sanders 118,135
    Clinton 73,510

    Alabama (open primary):
    Clinton 309,928
    Sanders 76,399

    So… Sec. Clinton received over 400% more ‘popular votes’ in Alabama’s Democratic primary than she did in Minnesota and Iowa combined. And Sen. Sanders received several thousand more ‘popular votes’ in the Alabama Democratic primary than he did in Iowa and Minnesota combined.

    Do you see the problem with referring to ‘popular vote’ results during the Democratic Presidential Primary/Caucus process? It’s completely arbitrary and extremely inaccurate.

  98. Will Sanders thinking in Hillary’s delegates? I don’t think so. He says he is “HONEST” and her campaign is corrupt. Would be the opportunity he demostrate how honest he is’
    Hillary is Lady and hs working much foe getting her delegates. Will he take her delegates?He is man , work for his delegatesl

  99. Basil Glew-Galloway says:

    She was down 14% in Washington in the polls, and lost by ~50%. Time will tell, of course. The polls will not.

  100. Zachary Dube says:

    Yes the west. 462 delegates for californian where she is ahead in polls ~52% to 40% which would give her roughy 230 to his 160ish (bare with me) and the 162 delegates of Oregon and Washington to which he will win approximately 120 so they would basically tie in the west, not gaining 260 delegates which he currently lags. I want him to fight until the end, I think it makes our party stronger, however unless he pulls an upset in New York where he knows he has to do well to possibly win the nomination, the math is not there. Also she is ahead by 2 million votes already, she is beating him by far much more than President Obsma was beating her at this stage. Let’s also mention that the super delegates shifted to president Obama over her in the 2008 even though she was ahead in a lot of their states.

  101. Basil Glew-Galloway says:

    The south is over, dude. Welcome to the West!

  102. Zachary Dube says:

    I don’t think anyone has won the delegate count, then lost because of super delegates in the near past, I wouldn’t agree with that if it were the case, but as it stands it’s not, let’s wait and see, a lead is a lead.

  103. Zachary Dube says:

    New York and California… She will landslide and take most of the 950 delegates between the two because he can’t get the minority vote which is vital to e Democratic Party.

  104. Zachary Dube says:

    Circa 2008 when I’m pretty sure Hillary won the popular vote 18mil to 17.8, but she still lost. Super Delegates are established political figures so we don’t end up with a random like trump, and they can call tie breakers.

  105. Zachary Dube says:

    He would have to win 10 more delegates than her in every single territory left for him to win, California and New York where she is expected to landslide due to the Minority votes that he can’t manage to get, have 950ish delegates between the two, sorry my friend, let’s start looking forward to the general election, I hope she will give Senator Sanders some position in her cabinet, he has earned that much.

  106. Scott Wallace says:

    Yes those superdelegates that come from the back of DNC Debbie’s pockets are to make sure that the little people don’t do something the insiders think is stupid. The Dems process is far less democratic than the GOp where they have 67% less superdelegates. The dems process is a show that’s predecided. Can’t wait to see if Bernie wins more states, pledged delegates and loses to the DNC insiders. The press will be more busy covering up than the PP mess.

  107. Scott Wallace says:

    She’s only ahead by 230 and he’s closing.

  108. Scott Wallace says:

    What happens if Sanders wins a majority pledged delegates and Hillary gets all of the superdelegates and steals the election from the people? The dems contest closer than the GOP. Looks like the DNC’s corrupt process is being exposed. I thought the only fascists were republicans?

  109. manderso says:

    Yes, then you can start your Bernie Church.

  110. Tonja Matthews says:

    Perhaps because he’s not bought and paid for like other politicians. They vote where the money tells them to.

  111. Tonja Matthews says:

    Most of her super delegates should be Sanders in the first place. They should be voting the way their states have chosen. I’ve chosen to vote against every super delegate in my state that has chosen to go against the majority, which happens to be Bernie. I choose honesty and integrity over historic corruption.

  112. Space Pug says:

    Wasting your breath with middle-aged and older women. They almost all want HRC because glass ceilings and first woman in the oval office. Doesn’t matter that she’s at best a strongly right-leaning moderate war hawk with huge big banking and other business, military and oil co. ties/donations… All that is forgiven because woman president must happen. Let us proceed directly to her appointment.

  113. Space Pug says:

    So everything is finished and Sanders must lose because he’s currently behind in votes, is your apparent logic. Let’s just stop the whole process now and proceed directly to the HRC coronation…

  114. Space Pug says:

    HER superdelegates? Talk about bullshit. The superdelegates should reflect the will of the people. If Sanders wins the popular vote and gets more pledged regular delegates, the SGs should absolutely fall in line, as they did with Obama after initially indicating Clinton as their pick. Stop being a blind follower of what amounts to be a Republican Lite just because she’d be the first woman president and a ‘Democrat’ (in name only). She’s a war hawk and no real friend or longtime supporter for LBGT rights, nor does she advocate aggressive banking/speculator reforms… Takes huge donations from big business, etc.

  115. heimaey says:

    Can’t YOU read?

  116. shbrg8 says:

    No, he’s not actually. He said that the person with the most pledged delegates (popular vote) should get the nomination but that there are other factors, like who has a better chance of beating Trump. Can’t you read? If he was talking about only if he wins the popular vote, he wouldn’t be talking about any “other factors” he would just be saying that the person who wins the popular vote should win.

  117. JamesR says:

    Is praising Daniel Ortega and Castro for providing for their people, compared to what they had or would have had, in 1985, (amid lots more context,) better or worse than praising Henry Kissinger today? Is Ortega’s ‘socialism,’ derived from revolutionary Marxism the same as modern European style Democratic Socialism? Really?? Let’s not go there. Save your head shakes.

  118. tetonmoon says:

    You are not intelligent enough to get past the first two words.
    He is far from ranting for one. For two far from boring.
    You are just too stupid to train. So go change your diaper and go to bed.

  119. tetonmoon says:

    He is against them as should all of us be. And what he is saying is simple for the simple minded let me explain.
    He is saying that in states where popular vote was on his side than and if he actually has won by popular vote or lost by such a small amount that it could be in error ( as in Arizona where I, like over 80,000 so far that have asked for investigation into the voter suppression here in AZ on Tuesday) or corruption. Be it like here where I was always independent in states I had lived that allowed me to not be forced into any party, but here I find out that my vote will not be allowed for anyone but independent so I changed, over a month and half ago. I get to polls and they tell me I am registered independent. I say, NO I CHANGED. Than they tell me I had to do it before Feb 22nd again, discouraging or attempting to, knowing that most of us who do not affiliate with either of the two party system will be a Sanders supporter. Again, I say no I did that long before deadline. So finally I am given a provisional voting application. Than to find out that those who where, our votes where not counted!!
    Now back to subject at hand. With this kind of voting suppression going on everywhere against the younger voters ( I am in my late 50s but..) by states not allowing student IDs but also not allowing students to get state IDs if they are from elsewhere. Or making people ( turned out to be mainly black people) to take spelling tests, or changing the rule as in Ohio where 17 yr olds who would be 18 at time of general elections suddenly this year are not allowed to vote in primaries even though that was never the case for decades. and this list goes on with the DNC and the Republican based states of fraud and suppression.
    So if this is a close popular vote, than yes he needs to play the game is wanting to change in order to change the corruption and give the people back its voice and choice. If your state has a popular vote for Sanders than your democratic parties are supposed to represent the will of the people and since they, in most of our views illegally, rig the votes and hold 100xs more power than a regular Joe.. than he is forced to fight system with the system.
    Anyone who cannot see that is just plain ignorant. Period.. If up to him it would be popular vote only, if up to him, No corporations would be buying our government.. If up to him we would maybe actually have a taste of real democracy.. you tools.

  120. Josh Mocellin says:

    hahahahahahahaha the way you type, and what you say makes me laugh. We’ll see.

  121. Gracie Bean says:

    Actually he has adoration for Castro and Ortega. Ortega is a socialist btw. Smh

  122. manderso says:

    Right leaning states like Idaho and Utah?

  123. Kristi says:

    That is because predominantly right leaning states have voted so far. I promise you her lead will shrink soon.

  124. manderso says:

    A true believer is nice to see. The church of the Bern.

  125. manderso says:

    Vote for who you want, I don’t care, my vote will cancel yours anyway.

  126. manderso says:

    Forward, never straight.

  127. manderso says:

    James has it all figured…in his repulsive little way.

  128. manderso says:

    I certainly hope so, he’s got to work for somebody.

  129. manderso says:

    Are you familiar with the fact that you are behind by over two and a half million votes?

  130. Independent socialist he is, that is not a good thing

  131. heimaey says:

    I guess I’m not hearing what you’re hearing then.

  132. Moonbeam_Song says:

    Except that wasn’t the question he was asked. Hence, it’s a misdirection on his part.

  133. heimaey says:

    He’s only referencing if he wins the popular vote but loses the super delegate vote.

  134. Moonbeam_Song says:

    That’s kind of a dodge, though, don’t you think? — you’re admitting, essentially, that Sanders didn’t clearly answer a question that could have been answered simply and definitively. Saying that Clinton has been vague about a completely different issue isn’t really a rebuttal of the original point about Sanders.

    So it remains a problem for Sanders and his campaign, that suddenly they don’t seem interested in winning via the majority of the delegates, that they are willing to consider using superdelegates to override the popular vote in the primaries if Clinton continues to win more delegates than he does. That’s hardly an action that aligns with what is claiming to be a popular movement — that they won’t be popular enough to win via the delegate count.

    I think that would be a pyrrhic victory at best and would certainly taint Sanders’ overall message.

  135. Jim213 says:

    Hey Dana, since you’re in LAW, what’s your view on the sexual (so called) verbal abuse involving Nick Young/JC?

  136. Gregg Rodriguez says:

    If Hillary Clinton is representative of what it is to be a Democrat then please call me an independent. I can get you a list of all the horrible things she’s done if you would bother to believe the list but you’d rather believe that she’s never done anything wrong.

    I don’t know if you’ve heard but people thought she was even going to get indicted on felony charges by the Feds. Of course she won’t, even though she technically broke the law. But this is the person you look up to: someone who breaks the law and gets away with it because of her last name and how much money she has.

  137. KurtNiceHHL says:

    If a person wants to reply to the substance of what I said, I will reply in kind. If instead they want to go on a long rant that makes little sense and then ask what kind of jerk I am, they will get the same type of reply but shorter. I don’t have to insult anyone to make my point which was that Bernie acted like a hypocrite on the question of super delegates.

  138. Fireblazes says:

    I’m done, you begin to bore me.

  139. Fireblazes says:

    I really don’t know what a “professional victim” is, perhaps you could enlighten this poor poor boomer…I know what a victim is, it is somebody that has been wronged, so are you saying that victims often are lying, or just some of the time? I don’t know but that just seems to be your slant on the issue. Your opinion, your thoughts, , your prejudices…Your sondor…

  140. Fireblazes says:

    Interesting editing of the comments. Although you can still read all the comments on Disqus

  141. Fireblazes says:

    Thanks for keeping the discussion open Ablog.

  142. Fireblazes says:

    You sound indignant to me, but that’s just my opinion.

  143. Fireblazes says:

    I’m sorry, I don’t remember ever addressing you.

  144. Moderator3 says:

    Most of your post was just a put down of another commenter. I’m not deleting it or editing it, but I might not be so lenient if it occurs again.

  145. KurtNiceHHL says:

    Just so you know, I can’t get past the first two paragraphs of your boring, mentally-challenged rants. Each sentence is more idiotic than the previous one. You probably think your intelligent but sound immature, or crazy or just like a silly person. If you have a point just make it without all the extra BS. I still don’t know WTF you can’t understand about my simple posts. Furthermore don’t ask me anything until you address what I originally wrote. Your messiah Bernie is showing himself to be a hypocrite isn’t he?

  146. Dan Gronlie says:

    Well, I’m a Bernie Sanders supporter, and I’ve not once thrown an insult at Hillary Clinton, willy-nilly, well-aimed, or otherwise. That’s mainly because, well, I don’t really do insults.

    Nor have I become ‘indignant’ at anyone who has questioned any aspect of my opinion of Bernie Sanders.

    But you, well, you use the word ‘Berniebrats.’ Specifically while stating that someone else’s ‘debate skills haven’t progressed since 8th grade.’ Well, mine were rather good then and have progressed rather a great deal since. What I’d like to know is this: if you call Bernie Sanders’ supporters ‘BernieBrats,’ might you suppose this ‘indignancy’ you describe has anything to do with your rather immature name calling? Could that be possible? And, therefore, is it possible that your ‘political narcissism’ theory might be based on flawed assumptions?

    Just wondering…

  147. Dan Gronlie says:

    You just said that Sanders sees something as a way to ‘worm his way into the Presidency.’ What’s wrong with you? I’ve learned over many years that there are 2 kinds of people who use hyperbolic insults to describe the activities of others:

    1) People who are very comfortable with lying if it advances some purpose of theirs. Or get a buzz off of it. But they know that they’re lying. I suspect Hillary Clinton is one of those people.

    2) People who believe what they’re saying regardless of how untrue it might be, because at the point they’re saying it, it is true to them. They don’t know or care that they’re lying. Donald Trump is definitely one of those people.

    Which are you?

    I’m firmly against casting my vote for Hillary Clinton. But I never, ever use language like what you just used. Regardless of what I think of Hillary Clinton’s suitability for the office of the Presidency, I won’t use petty insults to describe either her, her campaign or her candidacy. Frankly, I’m not all that thrilled about doing it to Trump either, although I loathe the man, because I HAVE TOO MUCH SELF-RESPECT to degrade myself by language like that, as all it accomplishes is self-ingratiation, if you get off on it, and alienation of people.

    Now don’t get me wrong – I have a robust vocabulary of thoroughly offensive language, and swear on a rather more regular basis than I probably should. But I don’t swear AT PEOPLE.

    And you are claiming a knowledge of the character of a person you’ve never met (that’s obvious), and insulting him while he is in no position to answer your insults. I suppose that could be due to his ‘worm’-ing activities, but really it’s simply because he hasn’t seen what you’ve written. So, yeah, that’s quite a demonstration of character on your part.

    So, again I’d ask – which type of jerk are you? 1 or 2?

  148. Stephen Stephan says:

    OMG! I love love love love how every Bernie believer sound exactly like a Trump supporter. LMAO! Keep it up…it is fun to see how full of rage, anger, and insults Bernie/Trump supporters are. Like most Trump/Bernie supporters, you have difficulty reading and just say anything. That is typical but it’s OK! Bernie can stay in the race as long as he wants. I don’t care either way. I think it is best he stays in and loses as he is all along. It is more fun for me to see desperate Sanders come out more and more every day. It will also be fun to see how much further Hillary gets in PLEDGED delegates at the end of primary. Thats why his comments show him to be the vile disgusting politician that he is. He resents the party that he chose to run in. As he admitted, he only ran for money and attention. Yes, Mr Authentic and honest is a liar and a fraud. He is not a democrat and he loathes the party. We get it. Stay in Sanders and lose you way to the convention. Then try and get Super Delegates like yourself to support a loser. What a winning strategy!

  149. Dan Gronlie says:

    Yep, Bernie Sanders is a ‘slimy power hungry sick obsessed ego maniac having a breakdown.’ That is obviously evident from his net worth of over 30 million dollars, ALL accumulated through his connections as a United States Senator. Oh… wait, now, I am mistaken – that is Hillary Clinton, I meant. Except for the ‘connections as a United States Senator.’ She accumulated about two thirds of that $30 million after she became the United States Secretary of State.

    And the clear implication of your statement is that any Democat suggesting that wooing ‘superdelgates,’ even if she is losing the overall delegate race, is a ‘slimy power hungry sick obsessed ego maniac.’ How much worse would that person be if she suggested that even ‘pledged’ delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to?

    Because, well, have a look at this:

    (The significant portion begins at around 1:30)

    Now… If you have any shred of decency, you will follow with this statement:

    In 2008, Hillary Clinton was a slimy power hungry sick obsessed ego maniac politician having a breakdown.

    Otherwise, you are a disingenuous prick. Which is it, decent guy who stands by what he says, or a disingenuous prick?

  150. Dan Gronlie says:

    Mr. KurtNiceHHL, that is twice that you have inferred that my personal ‘feelings’ are fragile and that my statements are driven by them being ‘hurt.’

    Both times your assertions were unwarranted and generally offensive. To be clear, you did not ‘hurt my feelings.’ Now, maybe you specifically made these inferences only in response to the two statements of mine you responded to, and have not made them with respect to the activities of other Bernie Sanders supporters. But I doubt it.

    The more plausible interpretation is that you view Bernie Sanders’ supporters as, in general, driven to support his candidacy primarily based on their fickle ‘feelings,’ and that dismissal of their support is therefore quite sensible, as they just don’t see the big picture, or soberly evaluate the ‘facts on the ground,’ lack reasonable comprehension of the American political landscape, or are easily manipulated by Sen. Sanders’ unrealistic goals. Why? Because they’re so obviously easily wound up, of course!

    Such a perspective would be utterly without foundation, for the great majority of Bernie Sanders supporters. But what is interesting is the established American political structure DOES NOT even pay lip service to reason. Candidates make pleas on their behalves not by discussing, in detail, their positions on a range of issues important to them, or comparing, in any kind of structured fashion, their positions to those of their rivals or opponents. They make pitches that operate almost exclusively on the level of emotions. I recall a recent, ridiculous, ad campaign run by Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, in which he was dressed in a ‘deer hunter orange’ outfit, with his rifle off to the side in the picture. He was attempting to demonstrate through this imagery that he was ‘one of us.’ Of course, deer hunting policy in Minnesota was utterly irrelevant to his activities as an United States Congressman. He won.

    Think about that for a moment, please. Most of us lifelong Democrats who have seen a glimmer of hope in the candidacy of Bernie Sanders have made sober, carefully informed decisions concerning the relative value of his rather impromptu candidacy vs. that of the decades-long candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

    And.. please provide some sort of citation or link or, well, anything at all to indicate that Bernie Sanders said last week that he only became a Democrat for the media coverage and access to money. I did not watch the March 13 Ohio town hall I assume you are referring to, but I just went through two identical complete transcripts of the event (CNN, AP) and am unable to identify anything even remotely suggestive of that claim. Not from Sanders or Clinton or the moderator the event, CNN’s Jake Tapper. ‘Cuz from what I can tell, you just made that up.

    Oh, and the poster whose assertion you are supporting wrote this a short time later in response to what I do consider a rather poor position asserted by ‘Gregg Rodriguez’, but nonetheless, it was stated civilly:

    “You are a republican lite DINO just like UNELECTABLE LOSER Bernie. Bernie is TOAST you POS.”

    Just wondering if you agree with the assertions made by ‘JSmoke’ that Mr.Rodriguez is a ‘POS,’ and that Bernie Sanders, who was won more elections for public office than just about anyone in the United States Senate, is an ‘UNELECTABLE LOSER.’

  151. dcinsider says:

    He has a screw loose.

  152. dcinsider says:

    He’s delusional.

  153. Zachary Dube says:

    Superdelegates are allowed to pick whoever the hell they want, they do not have to go with what their counties vote for, that’s what the regular delegates are for, I respect Senator Sandes, but all you die hard Bernie supporters need to stop acting like uneducated conspiracy theorists. Hillary is still ahead in regular delegate count by 300 people. All these huge rallies and such, you guys need to spend more time getting people to get out and vote and less time crying online. VOTING is the difference between us true Democrats, and “Progressive” Millenials, I got some ointment for that Bern you guys keep feeling.

  154. doug dash says:

    If your boy, Trump, is so much more honest than Clinton or Sanders why doesn’t he show his income tax returns? There are suckers born every minute and you are one of them.

  155. doug dash says:


  156. Bill Rabara says:

    Yes she has but that doesn’t excuse Bernie. He’s just as much a career politician as Hillary. The real change can only come with a Trump victory. He is truly an outsider.

  157. Dan Gronlie says:

    Um… because even before he announced his candidacy, all of them that are now supporting Hillary Clinton had already announced that they were supporting Hillary Clinton? And that, the way this whole ‘superdelegate’ thing works, it’s rather embarrassing for one to walk back on such a commitment, unless it’s readily apparent that the candidate they formally support is losing?

    Or maybe it’s the case that he’s most definitely not the ‘establishment’ candidate, and the great majority these superdelegates are almost directly sponsored by corporations? Hell, as things stand right now, the farce might become unnecessary soon. Politicians might as well wear uniforms with their corporate sponsors’ names all over them, like just about every other public activity.

  158. Dan Gronlie says:

    1) I wasn’t sculpting a post that was meant to ‘be appealing.’ I was making a statement of exactly what I decided after reading the person’s post.

    2) My ‘feelings’ weren’t hurt by his statement. My feelings are hurt when someone I care about says something cruel about me. Which doesn’t happen very often. My perspective on what I consider to be an aggressive campaign carried on by Democratic party elites against the candidacy of Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with my ego, or my ‘feelings’ on any personal level. It is, rather, about my concerns about the condition of the apparatus of self-government in the United States.

    3) My decision not to vote for Hillary Clinton for the office of the President of the United States, should she become the Democratic party nominee, is not some sort of spur of the moment thing that was triggered by a statement not made to me that somehow I found to be a personal attack, bruising my fragile ego and causing me to lash out inappropriately at the unsuspecting person who made the statement. The statement the poster made, however, did reinforce, to the extent that it led me to a definite decision on a question I have been wrestling with for around a year, a set of perspectives on the subject of the Democratic party and its deterioration (in my opinion).

    4) Did you read what Bernie Sanders was attributed as saying to Rachel Maddow? What he said, and the basis for the criticism of the piece, was that he felt that it would be appropriate for ‘superdelegates’ to support him if the Democratic caucus or primary participants in their states indicated by their votes that, by a substantial margin, they supported Bernie Sanders as the party’s nominee. And that, somehow, became – (John’s title for the article)
    “Sanders to target Hillary’s superdelegates if he can’t win popular vote”

    What, exactly, makes these people ‘Hillary’s superdelegates?’ The fact that they indicated their support for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy before there was a single vote cast in the Democratic primary/caucus process? Doesn’t it concern you one bit that, months before anyone but the party elite had a direct say in the party’s choice of candidate, one candidate already had nearly 20% of the ‘delegates’ she’d need to win the nomination? Now, it may not concern you if you support that candidate, but it will when it’s someone you don’t support.

    5) What does the term ‘popular vote’ mean, in the context of the Democratic caucus and primary process? In some states, there is no released count of the total number of voters and how many voted for whom. If the Democratic party selected its candidates based on popular vote, there would be no superdelegates. Which renders title of the article absurd. The Democratic party selects its candidates through a convoluted, extended process of caucuses and primaries, with each state having different rules on how the process works, and, then, after a few million Democrats have made their choices, 715 people get to influence the outcome by 15% of the total ‘delegates’ a candidate needs. It’s not a popular vote process, most especially because it happens over a period of many months in different parts of the country. And the really interesting thing is that the ‘superdelegates’ get to make their choices known up front. If the party actually cared about the ‘popular vote,’ but still wanted to keep its elite trump card, it would not permitted for superdelegates to announce a preference in advance. In fact, they wouldn’t even get to contribute to the process unless no candidate had enough delegates to win outright.

    If you don’t see anything wrong with this, then I guess there’s no point in me fleshing it out. And if you read my post as a grown man’s tantrum, fine. It wasn’t a tantrum at all, but if it reads like one, that’s my fault.

  159. cmrosko says:

    just follow the power and money…

  160. Dan Gronlie says:

    John, your link is to a Jon Green Americablog article, and Jon did something very strange some time ago. He wrote a piece on your site declaring that he voted for Bernie Sanders ‘on the condition that he loses.’ In the article you cite, he said he ‘likes Bernie Sanders’ and that he ‘voted for Bernie Sanders.’

    But before I get to that:

    1) The comments attributed to Tad Devine, who is not Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager, in Jon’s article you cite, are actually comments made by Alex Seitz-Wald, MSNBC reporter, and Zeke Miller, TIME magazine reporter, claiming that Tad Devine had made these comments during a conference call that they were on. It’s certainly possible that he did say something like what Miller and Seitz-Wald are claiming, but the comments you are asserting ‘Sanders’ campaign manager’ made ‘the other day’ are in fact second hand references attributing statements to Tad Devine, an important Sanders advisor, but not his campaign manager. Jon’s piece that you link to not only features no statements by Jeff Weaver, Campaign Manager for Bernie Sanders, but none of the links in the piece lead to a statement by Jeff Weaver.

    2) Would you please take a brief moment to peek at this:
    (the relevant part is around 1:40).

    And maybe have a look at this:

    In fact, Jon’s piece doesn’t have a single quote from ,Tad Devine, the person who is being sort-of-not quoted by , while being an important member of Bernie Sanders’ campaign
    as an advisor, is NOT Sanders’ campaign manager. You know the
    difference between ‘campaign advisors’ and a campaign manager. You’ve
    been at this game for a long time. So why did you just say that
    ‘Sanders’ campaign manager’ said something and cite an article that
    features no comments by Jeff Weaver, Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager? I’ve just been through the full article, and there isn’t even a link to a single comment by Sanders’ campaign manager. So… Why? You’ve seldom been lazy in the past with fact-checking, and when you have asserted something without proof, you have said so.

    BTW, this link should be informative on this subject. I will look forwar
    When I read his piece where he declared how he voted, some time ago. well, it was was evident that something wasn’t quite right there. A position like that makes no sense whatsoever, and his attempts to explain why he did what he claimed he did were very strange.

  161. doug dash says:

    And you think Clinton hasn’t dirtied her hands on anything during her career?

  162. KurtNiceHHL says:

    Regardless if your feelings are hurt or not by that term, it PERFECTLY describes Bernie. He even said last week that he only became a Democrat for the media coverage and access to money. Did you miss the Ohio town hall?

  163. KurtNiceHHL says:

    It doesn’t seem as though that comment posted was directed at you, so to take it personally means you identify as a Bernietroll. If you are a person who advocated against the use of super delegates in the beginning, you should not be advocating for them now that Bernie has changed his position. Bernie clearly said that even if he was behind, he would try to get super delegates to change their position. That fact that he had less votes would mean that the super delegates go with the will of the people and vote against him. Your rant doesn’t make your point appealing. It sounds like a tantrum from a grown man.

  164. KurtNiceHHL says:

    How much integrity does it take to switch positions on super delegates? I thought Bernie was against them? I guess now he sees it as his only way to worm his way into the Presidency. He’s saying that even if he has less votes, the super delegates should go against the people’s opinion. When he thought he could get the most votes, he was against the influence of supers. Now, he showing himself to be somewhat of a political hypocrite.

  165. KurtNiceHHL says:

    One problem with your analysis is that Hillary currently has more votes than Bernie or Trump. She will also gain more votes from [Group 4] Republicans who can’t vote for Trump and see Bernie as a communist/socialist. They are probably larger than Bernie people in Group 2. Then there are women who will realize who Trump is and never vote for him. They will also realize Hillary is not the devil and consider voting for the first woman POTUS.

  166. Dan Gronlie says:

    JSmoke – you have now demonstrated that you have no respect for Democrats or principles of the Democratic party. I would be most happy to provide you with my address, my actual address, if you would be willing to do the same.

    My intent in asking for your address would be to make personal contact with you and ask you to apologize for your exceptionally grotesque insults.

    Should you then elect not to apologize, my intent would be to engage in an appropriate response to anyone who refers to people as ‘Pieces of Shit.’ Which would be a quite physical response, entirely not akin to typing comments on a web site.

    I’ll start – my email address is [email protected]. I live in the state of Minnesota, but will take off a couple of days from work to travel to wherever you are.

    I already see that you are a very unpleasant person who is comfortable insulting people anonymously and in especially egregious ways. What I do not know is whether you are also a coward. It is very likely that this is the case, as the two tend to go hand in hand, but if you would like to demonstrate otherwise, you will send me an email with only this: Your name and address. I will correspondingly reply with mine, and specify a time and place near your home but suitable for such a conversation as I propose. Should you agree to meet me, I will be there, alone and without any form of weapon on my person or nearby, and will look forward to your arrival.

  167. Dan Gronlie says:

    JSmoke, do you like what you see when you look in the mirror? ‘DINO,’ or ‘Democrat in Name Only,’ is a phrase that has been applied to Democratic office holders who tend to vote for Republican positions. On the other hand, Bernie Sanders, who has caucused with the Democratic party for years and years, openly champions positions that are found throughout the nation’s Democratic party platforms, positions that Democrats tend to be quiet about because they might cost them votes among… ‘conservative Democrats.’ In other words, people whose positions and activities led to the derogatory ‘DINO’ acronym.

    If you don’t see the awfulness of what you just engaged in, then you, yourself, are a perfect example of a ‘DINO.’

  168. Dan Gronlie says:

    I like John, but I agree with Ms. Thomas’ assessment of his article. And, as for your assessment of success of the ‘ground game’ of the Clinton campaign, it is deeply flawed. The campaign’s ground game has been rather poor.

    What has kept Sen. Sanders from winning overwhelmingly is a massive mobilization of corporate media resources with the goal of maintaining near-silence concerning his remarkable successes, the product of something not seen in American politics for nearly 100 years: genuine ‘grassroots’ mobilization of millions of individual Americans, operating not from the top down, but from the ground up.

    The Sanders campaign has been financed almost exclusively by supporters who aren’t wealthy, but are nevertheless willing to provide what has amounted to many, many millions of dollars to support his candidacy. It’s a remarkable thing, never before witnessed in such a scale in the United States. And, with its tremendous power over what does and does not merit thinking about, the corporate media has diligently kept this from the American people.

    Without the media blackout, accompanied by the ‘he can’t win, of course, but he’ll drive Hillary to the left’ narrative, Hillary Clinton would already be out of the race.

    The ‘admirable enthusiasm’ of Bernie Sanders’ supporters has not been countered by a rival’s well-run political campaign. It has been vigorously suppressed by a sophisticated corporate-run media management campaign with one goal – stop him at all costs.

    Why hasn’t the very same machinery ignored Donald Trump instead of providing him with an extraordinary soapbox? Because he’s been useful. His absurd, ignorant, bizarre, and despicable routine statements have made it amazingly easy to keep Sanders’ campaign off the radar. However, that’s now backfired, and no amount of silence or marginalization will deter his supporters. Donald Trump, presidential candidate, was inadvertently created by a campaign to utterly ignore Bernie Sanders.

    John just participated in that campaign, as his analysis is absurd. That Bernie Sanders should be criticized for stating that the so-called ‘superdelegates’ from states that he won decisively should support his candidacy is remarkably hypocritical. Ms. Thomas’s ‘accusation’, unfortunately, is directly in line with the facts. Where is John’s discomfort with the fact that, with a very, very small handful of exceptions, the Democratic party’s presidential-screening ‘superdelegates’ in states that Bernie Sanders has won decisively are supporting Hillary Clinton instead? What about the inescapable corresponding conclusion that Democratic elites are therefore betraying their constituents in these cases? That’s the real story about Bernie Sanders and ‘superdelegates.’ And what a story it is. It doesn’t take any digging – it’s flat-out obvious.

    If Hillary Clinton became the nominee, does anyone suppose that the corporate media would keep that story out of the limelight? The corporate elite would LOVE to see the following scenario: a President Hillary Clint, having won around 54% of the popular vote against Donald Trump. The gridlock that would produce would be a thing of beauty for them.

    So John ran a hit piece accusing Bernie Sanders of suggesting that he would do something, which, in context, is entirely appropriate, and that that the entire Democratic party apparatus has been doing in opposition to him on a vastly greater scale, in an entirely inappropriate manner that is remarkably dismissive of Democratic rank and file.

  169. carolo6000 says:

    Perhaps Bernie should be asking himself WHY no superdelegates want to support him after almost 26 years in Washington? Could be we don’t know all that they know?

  170. carolo6000 says:

    Bernie is an Independent socialist. And he thinks long time Democrats that have been a Hillary supporter will hand him her superdelegates? No way! Especially when he wants to continue throwing hatchets at the back of her head.

  171. Dan Gronlie says:

    You should be proud – you are the person who gave the final push to decide that I won’t cast a vote for a candidate for the United States Presidency if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. And, correspondingly, if my Minnesota state ‘superdelegates’ do not support the candidate that state Democrats voted decisively to support in the 2016 caucuses, I won’t vote for them either. Ever.

    I’ve voted straight Democratic ticket all my adult life, since 1988, and the clear implication that I’m a ‘Bernietroll’ is such an insult that it’s very good for you that you didn’t say this to my face. The entire function of ‘superdelegates’ is indeed to override the ignorant Democratic masses if they make the ‘wrong’ decisions on who should be the Democratic party nominee for the office of the Presidency. And the national Democratic party machinery in conjunction with the campaign of Hillary Clinton has been doing from the outset far worse than what Sanders suggested to Maddow. He indicated that he would push for superdelegates from states that he carried substantially to pledge for him. That’s wrong… how? If we’ve got the damn superdelegate system, the members who are elected officials should at least back the candidates that the thousands of Democratic voters from their states decided should be the party’s presidential candidate.

    I’m an honorable man. I committed myself on that path many years ago, and it is critical to who I am. I don’t lie, except if it is necessary to prevent unnecessary harm. I make honest arguments, and if I’m wrong I admit it as soon as I am convinced of the fact. I do not speak negatively of people unless it is necessary to prevent a significant harm. And I do not tolerate unwarranted insults against myself or people I care about.

    Since it would not prevent a significant harm, I will not speak ill of you. However, it is true that your statement was the final straw for me on this subject. Your statement was callous, and it may have just deprived the Democratic party of a long-time straight-ticket supporter. I’ll never vote for a Republican for any public office, but it is possible that I will now seldom vote for Democrats also.

    You will no doubt develop, in your own mind, all sorts of rationale concerning how I obviously was not a good Democrat in the first place, how I’m just another example of a fickle Democrat-lite who is willing to drag down the entire party in a vain attempt to back a candidate I support. You’d be wrong in all these particulars. The Democratic party elite has demonstrated, this year, in crystal-clear terms, how far it has fallen into the hands of corporate power brokers who ensure that rank-and-file Democrats don’t get any dangerous ideas into their heads. Ideas that might upset their neatly established system of presenting thoroughly vetted pro-corporate candidates as the only choices for either party. Many countries have elections in which candidates are decided in advance and can only come from a single political party, which is, in fact, the only one that is not banned. It’s deeply troubling that the first modern liberal democracy is now ruled in the same way, with the innovation of the illusion of choice between two political parties.

    If Americans don’t liberate (you’re thinking now – he’s some damn radical. Nope – I’m just a guy who actually believes that representative democracy can work, and am willing to fight and sacrifice in order to see this realized in my country) our government infrastructure from this sophisticated corporate sponsored and stage-managed facade of ‘democracy,’ we will lose it all. And time is running out. Bernie Sanders represents one small victory in this fight, a shot across the bows. A statement to the elite that we know what you’re doing and we don’t like it. A Bernie Sanders presidency would be a fine first step in this fight to establish genuine republican democracy as defined by the Constitution, instead of rule of the ultra-rich. But the elite is succeeding in marginalizing this movement, and you’re simply parroting its propaganda.

  172. Dan Gronlie says:

    I agree with you in one respect. It not only makes reasonable sense, it’s how things should be. My Minnesota ‘superdelegates’ didn’t change to ‘undecided’ or ‘supporting Sanders’ when the state caucuses went heavily for him. The only MN superdelegate who supports Sen. Sanders is U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison. So, even though we, the rank and file of the Democratic party in Minnesota, decided 61.6/38.4 (in percentage) that we support Bernie Sanders as the Democratic candidate for the office of the Presidency, resulting in a delegate apportionment of 46 for Sanders and 31 for Clinton, as things currently stand Minnesota will actually be contributing 47 for Sanders and 43 for Clinton.

    We do have two 2 US Reps. who have been ‘undecided’ from the start because their districts are pretty ‘red’ and they felt it best not to openly declare support for Clinton too early. But they’ll eventually go for Clinton. Which then means that a state that voted very substantially for Sen, Sanders will send this delegate count to the national Democratic convention:

    47 for Sen. Sanders, 46 for Sec. Clinton.

    In other words, the 118,135
    (61.6% of the total) Minnesota Democratic caucusers who indicated our ‘Presidential Preference’ (that’s what it is in Minnesota) as Bernie Sanders achieved one thing: sending one additional delegate to the national convention for Sanders than for Clinton. The total Minnesota delegation, including superdelegates, will go 50.5% for Sanders and 49.5% for Clinton. Why, then, is the subject of the national party’s choice of candidate for the Presidency even included in the state caucus? If a state’s superdelegates can change a 61.6/38.4 percent outcome to a 50.5/49.5 percent outcome, what’s the point? The change is the result of the preferences of 16 Minnesotans compared to the preferences of 191,647 Minnesotans.

    How, then, does Sanders statement to Maddow, about how superdelegates from states that voted heavily to support his candidacy should not back a different candidate, represent a bad thing? In any way, shape or form? It should be considered a good thing, an honorable thing.

    John really had his own way with the truth when he wrote what he did. And after Hillary Clinton credited the Reagans with kicking off the national conversation about AIDS. Not cool.

  173. doug dash says:

    Look, I can proudly support either Clinton or Sanders and will energetically do so. But the let’s not put the cart before the horse. This is politics; a dirty business. And it’s pretty hard to talk about integrity and character comparing Clinton to Sanders will a straight face.

  174. Dan Gronlie says:

    John, it’s nice to see you back, but your observations are propaganda points. Almost every single ‘superdelegate’ in the Democratic party openly committed to Hillary Clinton immediately after she declared her candidacy. Before the millions of peons like me had anything to say about who we wanted to be the Democratic candidate for the Presidency.

    I live in Minnesota. During the Minnesota DFL caucuses, the state went heavily for Bernie Sanders. So… wouldn’t that suggest that Senators Franken and Klobuchar should also pledge for Sanders? As well as Governor Mark Dayton, the Minnesota DFL chair, and every single Democratic member of the House from Minnesota? Or maybe just change their official status to ‘undecided?’ Nope. He has the support of Keith Ellison. Period.

    If Bernie Sanders’ statements are bothersome to you, why aren’t you writing about how virtually every Democratic superdelegate from states that primaried or caucused for Sanders is backing Clinton? In other words, Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the machinery of the national Democratic party are doing EXACTLY what you are suggesting is a bad thing, on a scale vastly greater than that of what Sanders suggested to Maddow. In fact, the main thrust of what Sanders said to Maddow is that he would seek ‘superdelegates’ from states he won to pledge to him.

    If you don’t write about that, then you’re knowingly engaging in propaganda. You’re much too intelligent to miss how the whole ‘superdelegate’ thing has played out this year and then select this interview to write about. It’s not speculation on my part – it’s what you’re doing and you know it.

    So, if you found time to write another article about the fact that a couple of hundred Democratic ‘superdelegates’ thus far are refusing to support the candidate that the rank and file in their states have decided the state party should support, you might be acting with honor. Otherwise you’re a shill, and you have always seemed to me to a relatively honorable person. Are you familiar with the Greek concept of Αιδώς?

  175. kladinvt says:

    Has Hillary hired you, Mr. Aravosis?

  176. JSmoke420 says:

    Bernie is an UNELECTABLE WORTHLESS SOCIALIST PIECE OF SHYT. He’s DONE. You are a low information DINO parasite.^tfw

  177. JSmoke420 says:

    You are a republican lite DINO just like UNELECTABLE LOSER Bernie. Bernie is TOAST you POS.^tfw

  178. JamesR says:

    He’s not talking about being a Daniel Ortega or a Fidel Castro or a Soviet. He is, in fact, not a Communist, just to be clear.

    He is talking about what the Democratic Party, in it’s ‘wisdom’ set up as what’s called the “rules” governing their nominating process.

    You are also talking about the best hope for Clinton, as her prospective Vice President, should she win the nomination, for her to beat Trump or God Forbid Cruz. Communist talk is a tad over the top eh?

    Facts are I know no Hillary voter who will vote for Trump. They would most likely vote for Sanders if he were the nominee. [Group 1]

    I do know some Bernie voters who won’t vote for Clinton, under any circumstance, but as the specter of Trump or Cruz looms who can say? [Group2]

    I know NO Trump voters who will vote for Hillary but many will vote for Bernie instead. I’ve talked to many. [Group 3]

    Clinton has a veritable gift of political, public, repulsiveness, almost in equal inverse of her husband’s attractiveness. Trump may or may not become more repulsive than attractive but Clinton will not get her repulsed votes.

    Is Group 1 – Group 2 > 0? I think it is. And Group 3 only exists if Sanders is on the ballot. As VP if necessary.

    He is acting as a legitimate and powerful spare candidate. He will be on the ticket if Clinton has a lick of sense left, and cares for the danger the Repukes pose this country and the World. Is calling him a Soviet appropriate or even mature?

  179. StarkeyGamer says:

    I intend to vote for Clinton, but I don’t talk about it online too often because I’ve been told that I’m an idiot and a clone for doing so. I’ve actually been harassed.

    Oh well, when the New York Primary comes around my vote will still count :)

  180. Chrmngblly says:

    Just good sense, right? The sane side of the Republican party ought to slide on over, at least for an election or two. That’s how I ended up here.

  181. Ollie Anntan says:

    Yes, I’ve heard several Republican women say they’ll vote for Hillary over Cruz or Trump.

  182. Rose Shoop says:

    Thee is a difference between using supers to get you to the required # of total delegates when you are leading in the pledged delegate count and popular vote, versus lobbying supers to change their allegiance when you enter the convention with less pledged delegates and less actual popular vote. Google and watch the interview.

  183. Rose Shoop says:

    You should watch the Maddow interview. There are no words being put in his mouth. The following day, Tad Devine had an interview with Andrea Mitchell. He reiterated exactly what the article states. The article is spot on.

  184. Gregg Rodriguez says:

    The people who vote for Sanders and Trump are not voting due to party loyalty. Hillary is a vote for the Democratic party, Sanders is a vote against the establisment.

    When Sanders loses, Hillary won’t pick up all those Sanders supporters, many really hate her and will go to Trump. Hillary doesnt inspire hope or fire up new support. How can she win like that? I know many people willing to vote for either Sanders or Trump, it’s nothing to do with Dem vs Rep, it had to do with the establishment vs. Anti-establishment.

    I myself would prefer Sanders but will vote for Trump if Sanders loses.

  185. Rose Shoop says:

    Attending rallies is one thing, VOTING is another. She is winning the popular vote by >2.7 million voters. That is not voter apathy. We never hear that Hillary Clinton has “momentum”—what she has is a “sizable delegate lead.” No one this cycle has described Clinton supporters as “fired up”—it’s simply not possible that people are fired up for Hillary. No, what we gather about Clinton from the press is that she can’t connect. She has very high unfavorable ratings. People think she is dishonest and untrustworthy. She is not a gifted politician. She is a phony. Hated by so many. The list goes on. Considering that narrative, one would expect Clinton to be faring far worse in the primaries. Instead, she currently holds a popular vote and delegate lead over Sanders that far surpasses Obama’s lead over her at this point in the race in 2008. So perhaps Clinton voters don’t show up at rallies so much. Perhaps they are a bit less passionate on Facebook, share fewer articles, give less money to their candidate (she does have a super PAC, after all). But what they are doing is perhaps the only thing that actually matters in an election. They are showing up to vote. In numbers that no other candidate can boast.

  186. Rose Shoop says:

    Actually, Obama had more pledged delegates and they were nearly tied in the popular vote. Cannot match her in the pledged delegate count and overtake her in the popular vote, that would essentially be thwarting the will of the people. How utterly ironic that now that Sanders is losing, those “undemocratic” superdelegates are now who he is looking to to win the nomination? Sanders should show some integrity and character and play by the rules of the process he agreed to prior to running.

  187. Chrmngblly says:

    My point was that she has triangulated herself so close to the center that establishment Republicans should feel safer voting for her than the wingnuts that can still be nominated, Trump and Cruz.

  188. Chrmngblly says:

    You sound like every other Republican. Be careful. We Democrats have a big tent, big enough to allow those who think some things the people do can be for all the people—like health care. Strangely, all the rest of the developed countries in the world see things the same as we do. That doesn’t make us soulless.

    Have you ever even casually looked at the prescription drug pricing scheme being used on the American people right now? You Republicans ought to be out for blood over this scam that thumbs its nose at the idea of market knowledge so sacred to you. There are so many rebates and wholesale pricing incentives that there is no knowing what prices really are except that we pay double what other countries do. Is this market power? No. It is the rich giving their buddies in the healthcare business a chance to feed at the public trough.

    Bernie is not my man, but not because I think he is wrong; he is not my man because I don’t think he can get elected and if he could, I don’t think he could govern. But Bernie is not wrong about the issues we ought to be tackling and he is not soulless. It is you who are soulless with your litmus test of who should be allowed into the tent and why. God will pay you for your duplicity but I hope not before you vote for HRC. After that, I will quit praying for your good health and you will be on your own…:-)

    Dana, don’t call names and demonize ideas. That is a long discredited RWNJ tactic that only makes it harder to even talk about some ways of solving our problems. I despise people who try to proscribe what may be thought and not thought by others. It is one big giant ad hominem. It should be beneath you.

    It should shame you to be lectured by a teenaged boy, surging with testosterone, as I am…:-)

  189. Dana says:

    You know, I think you’re pretty much right, there, except that HRC is not a moderate Republican. She’s actually very liberal except in a few areas. Social issues she is VERY liberal, financial issues I think she’s a solid Dem, but on foreign policy I think you could call her a moderate Republican.

  190. Chrmngblly says:

    You have it backwards. My biggest fear is that Bernie is a sheep in wolf’s clothing, and that he will never be able to play hardball with Clinton, let alone the Republicans. What angers me about this whole campaign is that the RWNJs have been playing “muddy the water” for a long time to tarnish HRC and still don’t care about Bernie. I pointed out to someone not too long ago that HRC was closer to being a moderate Republican than anyone they could still nominate. That’s quite a quandary—and I think that is the method in the madness of her plan.

  191. doug dash says:

    It will ultimately be about momentum. If Sanders or Clinton has the momentum going into the convention the delegates will follow just as they did with Obama

  192. Mariahbryant2 says:

    “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!508➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!508……..

  193. DoverBill says:

    I loves me some Bernie, but now he’s starting to sound like Kasich.

    And yeah, super-delegates are free to change their preference at will, but really, ain’t ya pissing in the wind?


  194. Ninja0980 says:

    And gave us 12 years of Republican rule and a Conservative Supreme Court that has gutted so much of the progressive legislation these folks claim to care about.

  195. cmrosko says:

    it does make sense. If Sanders wins most of the remaining states it would be reasonable to ask superdelegates in those states to support him even if they had previously claimed support for Clinton. Sanders voters have shown much more enthusiastic support than Clinton’s and it’s likely to swell even more as the campaign continues.

  196. Jonathan Sanders says:

    That’s OK–it’s only the exact opposite of what thousands of Bernietrolls argued virulently online for 9 months. You know, that superdelegates are an undenocratic, fraudulent attempt to steal the election.

  197. hiker_sf says:

    You mistake me for someone who cares or is surprised by this outcome.

  198. hiker_sf says:

    I’m not a Sanders disciple. I don’t care for either candidate, but I prefer Sanders over Clinton and Clinton over any Republican.

    But you Clinton supporters act like professional victims when anyone doesn’t agree with you.

  199. Fireblazes says:

    Wow, when did everything become so simple and uncomplicated as black and white? I’ve never seen a complicated moral, ethical, scientific or whatever that was that easy.

  200. Fireblazes says:

    Political narcissism, the way of the Bernie.

  201. Fireblazes says:

    Oh, we are, ever since HRC won the last 5 states quite handily.

  202. Fireblazes says:

    Hiker just proves that his debate skills haven’t progressed since 8th grade. I find it so amusing that Berniebrats throw insults at Hillary, willy-nilly. But if they even think you are questioning their OPINION of Sanders, they they become indignant. I call it political narcissism.

  203. BeccaM says:

    You got somewhat incoherent toward the end there, but I’d like to address this:

    the votes that Hill won were those that she was projected to win.

    Yes, and Secretary Clinton is currently projected to win enough votes between now and the end of the primaries not just to keep her current lead in delegates, but will likely expand it. Arizona, 22 March, Clinton favored by 26 points. Utah, Clinton favored by 7 (early Feb poll). Wisconsin, dead heat with Sanders leading by 1. New York, Clinton by 48 points in March 14-16 poll. Maryland, Clinton by 33. Pennsylvania, Clinton by 20. California, Clinton by 11 (but not a recent poll, so could be off). New Jersey, Clinton by 23.

    On that list, the states which really matter are the big ones by population — New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Wisconsin, Arizona, Washington and California. Care to know which ones Sanders is projected to win, albeit narrowly? Wisconsin and Washington. That’s it. Senator Sanders needs 68% of all the remaining regular delegates in order to have a majority. The numbers just don’t add up.

    Clinton is projected to win, currently. Can this change? Sure. Is it likely to? No.

  204. Philip Bennett says:

    This was tried in 1980, Carter vs. Kennedy. Kennedy lost but the fight divided the Dems and made Carter a lot more more beatable.

  205. rita thomas says:

    Yeah yeah, the votes that Hill won were those that she was projected to win.

    They don’t represent the nation as a whole. We will see. It is a misleading view as the next phase of caucus states yet to vote; including some big ones which include, California. Stick your fingers in your ears–that is reality! Should I remind you of the Obama standing in polls against Hill back in the 2008 elections. Shall I remind you how far behind he initially was in state polls? Yeah oh yeah, the Super Dels. The ground game that the Clinton campaign (in a lot of states has set up) has been corrupt. Sending an (ex-pres) husband to block voters outside of election centers is really slimey! Oh and lest I forget, I call
    it how I see it… I see it as a nasty way to screw with voters minds. “lying prop.
    (Do you think that Bernie voters will go for it??) Not this one. Nice
    speech Becca M. You bet Sanders can still win!!! Go Bernie GO!!

  206. BeccaM says:

    That’s interesting because the primaries in caucus states are not a popular vote. However, even if we take your argument, so far Clinton is ahead by a few million in the popular primary vote already.

    Clinton didn’t just stumble onto those 327 delegates she leads Sanders with, nor her 1162 total — which appropriately does not count the super delegate endorsements which are meaningless until the party convention anyway.

    Propaganda is what happens when faced with actual data, you put your fingers in your ears because you don’t want to deal with reality.

    Could Sanders still win? Sure. But right now it’s only if he manages to win at least 58% of the remaining regular regular delegates. Which is at this late date and given current polling in the states and territories to come is very unlikely. Senator Sanders has run a terrific campaign, but the admirable enthusiasm of his supporters hasn’t been enough to overcome the ground game the Clinton campaign has set up.

    In summary, your accusation that John Aravosis is a ‘lying propaganda machine’ is unfair, undeserved, and flat out at odds with the facts.

  207. Dan Mock says:

    Give up already, Bernie. You’re not even a true democrat. Give up, support Hillary, and hopefully she’ll a point you to her cabinet, maybe even VP. ‘you get what you get, and you don’t get upset!’

  208. DtotheInfinitePower says:

    Bernie has repeatedly said, “one person, one vote” and that the will of the people should reign supreme in choosing the nominee. Well, guess what, Bernie? That works both ways. If Hillary continues to lead the popular vote, that means that the will of the majority is that she should be the nominee. Attempting to grab Hillary’s superdelegates to override that would be directly contradicting his own words.

    I wish people would wake up and realize that Bernie is just as much of a politician as everyone else around him, regardless of his homespun “man of the people” veneer. Interesting that he hasn’t released his tax returns, when Hillary and Bill have made all of theirs public.

  209. rita thomas says:

    You are a lying propaganda machine! Berine will win the Popular vote because he is being backed by
    the voters.

  210. heimaey says:

    You’re not hearing what everyone else is hearing – that’s what he said more or less, just not in THOSE exact words. If you want to talk about vague answers look at Mrs. Clinton for more of those. Example. Are you for fracking? Bernie. No. Clinton – well no but, except except except.

  211. heimaey says:

    What are you talking about – I don’t think there should be ANY super delegates.

  212. hiker_sf says:

    Have a lovely day.

  213. Dana says:

    Ah, another Kool-Aid drinking. You’ve drunk the Republican Kool-Aid of 25 years of attacks on Clinton. And in so doing, your argument seems to be “My guys isn’t as unethical as your guy.” If you’re reduced to that, you should take a long look at your own priorities and ethics.

  214. ADDISON GAINOUS says:

    Thank you for saying it. I read that and my mouth hit the floor. I unsubscribed from his email list after that stupid confederate states crack. There is a weird story about how i got on his list. I never signed up with either one, but I started receiving emails from Hill immediately because i gave Obama money in both elections so i obviously was on the DNC list. Well i had not given Hill any money until about maybe 6-8 weeks ago and within 45 minutes of sending Hill money i rec’d my first Bernie email. Kind of freaked me out. I guess i only became important to him when i opened my wallet. I was already very concerned by his bizarre behavior & that incident really got my attention. After this last delegate episode i not only will not vote for him -‘ i don’t think i even like the guy.

  215. hiker_sf says:

    Oh please. You really want to discuss ethics and morals while supporting Trump’s ethical and moral equivalent, Clinton?

    And Sanders together with ‘evil men’ is despicable. Assuming I still vote for Clinton in November, it will be because I ignored the slander and radical opinions like yours and John’s.

  216. Dana says:

    Funny, that’s not at all what Bernie and his supporters were saying just a few days ago. How the worm turns.

  217. Dana says:

    He’s a typical lying, scheming politician. Not anyone’s savior at all. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. He has deluded his fans, and now they are too deep into it to acknowledge the truth.

  218. Dana says:

    No, I think it’s a legit comment. I do believe that Sanders is not above any kind of strong arm tactics to win. Look at how his “ethics and morals” have shifted. SuperPACs (one where the head was arrested today) when he said he wouldn’t have them; superdelegate strong arming when he screamed for months that superdelegates had to follow the will of the voters. His true nature is revealed, and it’s not much different from his buddies Ortega and Castro from back in the day. That observation isn’t Republican, it’s small-d democratic.

  219. JSmoke420 says:

    DINO Bernie is getting desperate. Hillary WILL be our party’s nominee and she will go on to destroy bigoted liar Trump in the general election.

  220. BeccaM says:

    That’s just wishful thinking. ‘Momentum’ isn’t very democratic (but then again, neither are caucuses or the way the primaries are scheduled and run). As happened in ’08, the super delegates are simply right now saying they intend to vote for Clinton as she was and still is the candidate currently with the most regular delegates.

    If Sanders pulls ahead, that’s another matter. In ’08, they switched from Clinton to Obama when it was clear he’d have a majority of pledged delegates. But they’re not going to switch based on Sanders personal lobbying. Clinton is now 325 delegates ahead. She is currently projected to win in all of the remaining large states, some by double-digit wins. To pull ahead, Sanders needs to win by an average of 60% in every remaining state, which is not going to happen unless there’s a major game-changer.

  221. Jon Green says:

    I think it’s safe to say that’ll happen eventually.

  222. Moonbeam_Song says:

    Except Clinton hasn’t been doing this, at least not to date. She doesn’t seem to need to use the superdelegates to overturn the will of the primary and caucus voters.

    And she didn’t engage in this strategy when she ran against Obama. Instead, she and her husband united behind Obama and gave two of the best speeches in the 2008 season.

    And Sanders’ campaign, in the early stages, complained about the very idea of this kind of strategy if superdelegates were to be used to overturn their own (predicted) victory in the primaries — except that they now seem willing to adopt it for their own ends now that Clinton’s lead is extending in ways that make a regular primary victory quite difficult for Sanders.

    It’s very very very hard to take his inability to give this question a simple, direct answer as anything but typical political equivocating because his campaign is contemplating using such a strategy. And that’s disappointing. And certainly “off-brand”.

    If he really was going to say “No, I would never suggest coercing superdelegates to overturn the will of Democratic primary voters”, then he should have just said it. Instead he dodged the question, more than once.

  223. hiker_sf says:

    I didn’t address what Bernie said, although if reaching out to delegates to try and get their votes is problematic, why have delegates?

    No, I was addressing John’s red-baiting, taken from his Republican roots playbook.

    You can take the man out of the Republican party, but you can’t take the Republican out of the man. His former boss Ted Stevens is smiling from his grave.

  224. Jon Green says:

    It’s been seven days since I personally wrote anything that could be construed as anti-Hillary. It’s been two days since we published something anti-Hillary. It’s been two weeks since I cast an actual vote for Bernie Sanders and wrote a lengthy explanation as to why. But that’s all just this month. If you think the overall theme of this site over the course of this primary has been to attack Bernie, you simply haven’t been paying attention.

    And that’s fine! I don’t expect you to read every single post we publish. And you’re right! One post does not an overall theme make. Which is why I think it was silly for you to take this post as being indicative of a pervasive anti-Bernie sentiment held by all of our writers all the time.

  225. Ninja0980 says:

    So is what Bernie implying that he will do this, something Clinton didn’t do to Obama when it became obvious she wouldn’t win.

  226. barbarajmay says:

    Wouldn’t it be swell to hear someone – anyone – say, “If I’m behind in Delegates, I intend to step down and throw my support to the person the people have chosen. We need to be united in facing the threat of a Trump presidency.” How about taking one for the team?

  227. heimaey says:

    One piece about an anti-gay problem is commendable but the overall theme of AB is to attack Bernie – by FAR.

  228. If I read this wrong, then why did Sanders’ campaign manager say the same thing the other day?

  229. Phil in FLL says:

    Very, very funny comment, Jon. You, John A. and the other bloggers have uploaded posts with a wide range of viewpoints. Of course, that won’t satisfy people who only want their own viewpoint represented. The only viewpoint that the bloggers haven’t represented is urging readers not to vote in November in order to avoid endangering Republican victory. But not to worry, that viewpoint is regularly represented on the comment pages. Ahem.

  230. Jerry says:

    That’s total horseshi-t. He was asked an unequivocal question several times and he danced around it. The answer would be straightforward and simple if he were telling the truth. He’s quite clearly a bloody hypocrite who’s now turning to the delegates he’s decried as undemocraric for the last year.

  231. hiker_sf says:

    “All of which doesn’t sound terribly progressive. Though it does sound like something Castro, Ortega, or the Soviets would do.”

    Wow, red-baiting. Now I remember why I stopped supporting Americablog.


  232. Phil in FLL says:

    I’m not too worried about superdelegates being successfully swayed to support a candidate who has less pledged delegates (who are awarded proportionally in any case). There is enormous popular pressure on superdelegates to support the will of the people. That is why the 2008 superdelegates who supported Hillary only switched to Obama toward the very end, when it was clear that Obama had a higher number of pledged delegates. A candidate can try to woo superdelegates, as Obama did in 2008, but that will only be successful if the candidate has won a majority of delegates at the ballot box (as Obama did in 2008). I think that all of the precedents that were set in the 2008 Democratic primary race apply very directly to the current Democratic primary race.

  233. Stephen Stephan says:

    “I think it is probably the case that the candidate who has the most pledged delegates is going to be the candidate, but there are other factors.” I think Bernie is very clear, he is not going to respect the delegate system. “But there are other factors” No Bernie, there are NO OTHER FACTORS. The candidate that wins the most pledged delegates will be the nominee…period. You know Bernie Believers would be going insane if the shoe was on the other foot. Why doesn’t Bernie try and win more delegates fair and square? This is not an honest or trustworthy guy…this is a slimy power hungry sick obsessed ego maniac politician having a breakdown. He wants to burn the party down to the group. He is the same as Trump. Someone who can not be trusted at all.

  234. heimaey says:

    I long for the days when AB bashed Hillary. Maybe they only want to support the candidate they think will win?

  235. heimaey says:

    First off that’s not what he’s saying AT ALL, but secondly if you’re going to have an undemocratic process such as super delegates, why not challenge it and try to use it to your advantage – that’s certainly what Hillary is doing.

  236. heimaey says:

    Seriously John you don’t have to like Bernie but don’t put words in his mouth.

  237. sg says:

    That’s not what he said, if you read your own quote. She went after him 3 times and the most she could get was that he didn’t want to speculate about it and that there are other factors involved. Nice try with the red-baiting, although you should note that it is the DNC and not Sanders who has the super delegates as part of the process.

  238. Gindy51 says:

    So Bernie is turning into a GOPper establishment fellow. Isn’t that sort of what they want to do? Turn off the “will of the people” to make sure Trump doesn’t get the nomination?
    I like a lot f what Mr. Sanders says, but I sure as shit do NOT like the way he goes about trying to force it on the country. Tin pot dictator much?

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS