Sanders supporter publishes “hit list” of superdelegates, includes woman’s home address

A supporter of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has published a “hit list” of Democratic super delegates, which includes the apparent home addresses of several superdelegates, including at least one woman. (Thayer is now claiming that he’s not a Sanders supporter — his Twitter feed suggests otherwise. More on that at the end of this story.)

The Sanders supporter, Spencer ThⒶyer — who uses the anarchist symbol to spell his name — is is urging fellow Sanders supporters to “harass” Hillary Clinton’s superdelegates, in order to get them to change their vote to Bernie Sanders.

The site, called “The Superdelegate Hit List,” includes the names, addresses, phone numbers, and social media accounts of the Democratic superdelegates.


You’ll note that the logo is a donkey with two arrows through its head.

UPDATE: Thayer just just gave a troubling answer in response to concerns that his site could lead to violence against superdelegates:super-delegates-hit-list

The superdelegates are in a spread sheet that permits people to give feedback on their contacts:


I checked the twitter accounts of several superdelegates in the “hit list,” and they did in fact have several people tweeting at them about supporting Sanders. One person quoted on the “hit list” Web site reported that the superdelegates were getting angry at the contacts. Thayer was elated:


Harassment was Thayer’s intent all along. Here is the tweet in which Thayer came up with the concept:



The harassment has gone so far as to include the alleged home address of Alabama Democratic party state chair, Nancy Worley. I easily found the address on Google maps, including an image of the home, which I won’t post. (The address has subsequently been removed from the database.) The list also included what claims to be Worley’s cell phone number.

Occupy Wall Street has already forwarded Thayer’s “hit list” to its members, via Twitter:


Thayer, the creator of the Super Delegates Hit List, has this to say about Marxism:


And this to say about capitalism:


And he had this to say about the use of violence in politics. First, about an Andrew Jackson statue on a college campus:


And this about violence in liberal politics more generally:


And this, about the need for “leftists” to arm themselves:


While I have found no direct connection between Thayer and the Sanders campaign, the Sanders campaign created a portal to make the Super Delegate information available to their supporters. Once their supporters got the message, and started harassing the superdelegates (one was called a “b*tch”), Sanders removed the portal, but the damage was done, the information was out there.

And keep in mind that Sanders and his own chief of staff have made clear that part of their strategy for victory is stealing Secretary Clinton’s superdelegates.

It appears that Sanders’ supporters got the message.


Update: Thayer is now trying to claim that he’s not a Sanders supporter. In fact, when Thayer first revealed the idea for his “hit list” on Twitter, he made clear that this was a partisan effort for Sanders by including the “FeelTheBern” hashtag.


Also note Thayer asking for help from other Sanders supporters to stop Hillary. Thayer adds: “I think this can really turn the tide.”


Then there this:

by default 2016-04-05 at 9.26.28 PM

Thayer also retweeted a partisan message from Occupy Wall Street and someone else:retweeting-partisan



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

993 Responses to “Sanders supporter publishes “hit list” of superdelegates, includes woman’s home address”

  1. Donna says:

    I know a lot about stalking, having worked with domestic violence victims for more than a decade. This is stalking, not “like stalking” and one, but not the only reason this is so, is because it involves harassment. Harassment is the use of aggressive pressure or intimidation. The legal definition for harassment is the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail (“I’ll stop bothering you, if you’ll go to bed with me”…..or as in this case: I’ll stop bothering you if you give in to my demands and say and do things the way I tell you to do them!

    These people have every right to experience privacy in their own homes, and civil and respectful treatment. Your statement “why CAN’T I call my state Rep. and say, please rethink your choice? I discuss other issues with my Sen. why not this?? ” tells a humongous lie. That is not what has happened or is happening. In his own words, Spencer Thayer states specifically: The only way @SenSanders could win is if we use the internet to harass the establishment.”

  2. CJ66 says:

    Are those people ashamed? To be a “delegate” is to be, in essence, a public figure, in public “office” so to speak. They should be able to be reached by their constituents. AND to be held accountable for their votes. AND voted out when required, if the people who voted them in are not happy.

    If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

  3. UCF_Engineer says:

    Lol, no you didn’t spot me at all. You act like I’m part of the ruling class or something, if I were only so lucky. But again, if you had read my comment, I said I live in reality and know we could never ban guns entirely in this country. It is too ingrained in our culture. And it’s funny that you think citizens armed with handguns, shotguns or even AR-15’s could stand up to the military if it were to ever come to that. If this country ever went in that direction no amount of guns for ordinary citizens would make a dent in the trained soldiers, sailors and marines with drones, tanks, bombers and carriers. I’ve seen the precision at which these planes can strike now. They can hit a target through a window in a house from miles away if they wanted. This isn’t the 1800’s anymore where we were all a level playing field with muskets and flintlock pistols. Sounds like you’re the one in need of a reality check.

    And even though this country is a hybrid of a Democratic Republic and an Oligarchy, of course the military needs to be armed to protect us from foreign threats. And no I’m not talking about ISIS or other terrorist groups (where good police work is the best protection), but w/out a military, the other countries of the world with military’s would have no problem imposing their will on us now would they?

  4. TechZilla says:

    They are attempting to control us with Tone… both parties are policing the tone.. They know they created an empire of inequality, and don’t want to be called on it.

  5. TechZilla says:

    That’s nonsense and you know it, the small funders delivered… we would do it again bigger than ever for the party… if we had one, but we don’t. You want that party to be clean and protected from a potential outsider??

    GREAT, I agree… Lets get a multi-party parlimentary system and you can be the PASOK of the USA.

  6. TechZilla says:

    I know you never said the word prohibition, you didn’t need to say it, that’s how I roll… I can separate the interested, from the legitimately concerned, that’s how I already knew your position…. and lets unroll it shall we?

    “If no one has them, no one gets hurt. Police wouldn’t need (or have) them.”

    But nobody would give them up, so police would always have to have them… BUT lets assume your imaginary world that cannot exist, WHY should the military of an undemocratic empire alone be armed?!?!?

    Have you not been paying attention to literally anything? OR maybe you have been paying attention, and aren’t a rube at all… you benefit from the present order, want it more, and don’t want any pesky citizens deciding that the undemocratic authoritarian corporatist state is illegitimate?

    The very concept of popular sovereignty, in which the government serves it’s citizens social well being… instead of trans-national capital makes you ill?

    Because you know that we’d use the guns eventually, and the US empire would have to go Kent state on all of us to maintain hegemony… and that’s the tears of concern your shedding for us? Your serving your economic interests, and blaming the victims of your exploitation and oppression for what you’d have to do to them when they fought back??? Really?

    Seriously, I’m not trying to get a rise out of you, I just want to know…. Did I actually spot you correctly?

  7. UCF_Engineer says:

    I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I never said gun prohibition even once. I said gun control measures. But while we’re on the subject, I would love to see prohibition of guns. If no one has them, no one gets hurt. Police wouldn’t need (or have) them. The only people that should have guns are the military. However, I live in reality and know that would never happen, so the best we can do is try to make it harder for criminals to get them, through background checks and things of that nature. I enjoyed reading your rant though, good stuff lol.

  8. TechZilla says:

    First off your a hypocrite, with all the death that happens constantly to only care when the result is gun prohibition is pure bullshit. Bloomberg favours gun prohibition, he just loving us to death? Ol’ stop and frisk Bloomberg shares our interests? Gun prohibition is only about protecting the national security interests, and will do literally nothing for the problems you don’t even give two shits about. Not to mention all prohibition is a massive punishment on the working people, I’m no libertarian, I’m a leftist… but Gun prohibition isn’t about victims, it’s about removing guns from wingnuts. Why should we be giving more incentives to attack the working people, when they have so much already? The same police that harass people for your drug prohibition, we want that for guns also? And to finish, your government is not a democracy, and we’re looking more likely to need those guns… not less. Your gun prohibition is as hypocritical as pro-lifers, you don’t give two shits about working people, you don’t care about death, you eat us for lunch… and you don’t want us armed. Your constitution isn’t constitutional, why not marinate on that for a while.

  9. TechZilla says:

    Writing off trump is one of the reasons its so safe to ignore us, we need to reconsider him BIGTIME. His policies on economics are far closer to Bernie, he is less beholden to special interests.. and although he flip flops… unlike Hillary, he flips to his gut and lies to the doners. Trump is to the left of Hillary, he only has the character of a right wing populist…. he is running in the R party as an outsider, but he’s not a neo-liberalist, and has favoured single payer in the past. He’s certainly less right-wing than Hillary, and they want to tell us he’s too outrageous to consider… There really is worse things than sometimes crude demagogue, for example, neo-liberal warmongers who have proven themselves a trusted servant of the trans-national capitalist class. They wanna talk lesser-evil, FINE… I wanted Bern, he’s everything the party should have been… but isn’t. They made sure he lost, they rigged the process. The lesser evil isn’t Hillary, it’s the donald (assuming he keeps fighting paul ryan, and the old GOP establishment).

  10. TechZilla says:

    That’s why he’s not a piece of garbage like the rest. Study American foreign policy, it’s horrible for working people across the globe, and it doesn’t serve working people here either. Your argument could convince only the koch brothers, and people who literally have no clue about the nature of the empire.

  11. TechZilla says:

    Well to anyone who is served by the established social/political order, yes it would appear the public has lost their marbles. In reality, its simply a matter of differing interests, and both sets of people know how actual politics works. IN fact, You say he’s losing, but nobody who says it deserves to be considered credible. As the elections are run by an establishment that lacks a constituency that still wants democracy. The voters want it sure, but that’s not how politics works around here. Of course all you can say to my very respectful analysis, and legitimate concerns, is invalidation and ad hominem attacks. Your best bet is to just keep silencing dissent, as the working class public will no question agree with these sentiments the second they consider them carefully.

    BTW, is Jimmy Carter also crazy?

    guess so, anyone who questions the legitimacy of our soft authoritarian system must be insane.

  12. Leroy Simi says:

    If they are whore’s

  13. Leroy Simi says:

    A lot of people when they are harassed might not go over to Bernie’s side out of spite.What needs to be done is to shine the light of if the are bought whore’s of the Clinton’s like the last episode of Redacted did on the super delegate that bought the women’s house that purged the 126,000 voter’s in Brooklyn.

  14. SonofLiberty7 says:

    And today we murder unborn babies. Still feeling so much wiser?

  15. Slap says:

    you are a jackass

  16. Slap says:

    BS is losing the math game as well as his marbles — you have already lost your marbles.

  17. Slap says:

    you are an idiot. BS is not carrying the popular vote at all. it is math. no matter what you think, BS is BEHIND AND LOSING IN THE POPULAR VOTE.

    Your lies, no matter how much you repeat them, will never be true.


  18. Slap says:

    you are an idiot. you can’t just make up crap and call it truth because you typed it. that is not how the truth works.

    You are nothing more than a right wing trolling propagandist – Joseph Goebbels is so proud of you.

  19. Zincoshine says:

    perhaps you didn’t get the memo but what happens in the US presidential elections affect the whole world. with great superpower status comes great responsibility.

  20. Ari says:

    Thank you :-)

  21. Nicolai Alatzas says:

    You’re suppose to remove the underscore from your #hillbot scripts.

  22. Nicolai Alatzas says:

    A closed primary where 45% of the votes have gone to the establishment outsider yet only 7% of the Superdelegates carried as speaks to an entrenched corruption and faux democracy. Not some BS hypocrisy.

  23. Nicolai Alatzas says:

    This article is nothing more than a hit piece on behalf of HRC.

    First of all Hillary Clinton hired $1 million in internet trolls that spammed child porn to supporter pages of Bernie Sanders.

    Superdelagates should be held accountable for voting against the interests of the people. If they do not want to be put under fire and held accountable they should resign their position.

    And lastly Liberal Violence is a contradiction of terms. Thoughtful articulate discourse is what is needed to defeat the corrupt establishment. If that makes phone calls, emails and letters are harrasment so be it.

    When 45% of the people vote in favor of Sanders and only 7% of Superdelagates follow the will of the people every red blooded American should be angry not just the Sanders camp.

  24. sandre says:

    64.4% versus Hillary’s 35.6%

  25. sandre says:

    If you live in Norway, what the hell are you doing campaigning for a US presidential candidate in a US presidential election??!?!??!

  26. sandre says:

    Right. At their office. Not at their home. Not calling them a “b*tch.”

  27. sandre says:

    In colonial times, slavery was also legal.

  28. sandre says:

    Stop being an apologist. Every time someone says points out something about Bernie, his campaign, or his supporters that is less than kosher, shady, or downright dishonest, you always have some justification for it.

  29. sandre says:

    Oh, poor you. Like Hillary supporters haven’t been called dismissive and patronizing names. Like Hillary HERSELF hasn’t been called far, far worse: b*tch, c*nt, you name it. But of course, that nothing compares with the pain and unfairness of a Bernie supporter being called a “BernieBot.”

  30. sandre says:

    Hillary slandered you as a BernieBot? Also, do you know what slander means? According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

    transitive verb

    : to make a false spoken statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone

    Keyword FALSE. You support Bernie, yes? How is it slander?

  31. sandre says:

    A car’s stated purpose is not to raze down people; it is to provide transportation. A gun’s stated purpose is to injure, main, and/or kill a person or an animal. Big difference doll.

  32. sandre says:

    “true progressives don’t believe Republican bullshit that a $15 wage will tank our economy.”

    lolololololol. WOW you truly know ZILCH about economics and basic math, huh?

  33. sandre says:


  34. sandre says:

    Exactly this. He is self-serving.

  35. sandre says:

    Yes, it is stalking. Stalking has nothing to do with how or where you obtained the contact information of a person.

    According to Marriam-Webster Dictionary:


    : to follow (an animal or person that you are hunting or trying to capture) by moving slowly and quietly
    : to go through (a place or area) while hunting
    : to follow, watch, and bother (someone) constantly in a way that is frightening, dangerous, etc.

    intransitive verb

    : to pursue quarry or prey stealthily
    : to walk stiffly or haughtily

    transitive verb

    : to pursue by stalking
    : to go through (an area) in search of prey or quarry
    : to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment

    It says nothing about how one has obtained the means or information necessary to stalk.

  36. sandre says:

    They want the evil 1% (whatever that means… they’ve demonized “the 1%” a la Voldemort or Sauron in their infantile minds) to pay for everything. In fact, here is a Sanders supporter exemplifying this very kind of infantile, starry-eyed, call-to-fairytales logic in his laughable attempt to convince people that Sanders winning about 65% of the remaining delegates at the DNC is more realistic than Clinton winning 35%: “It will be a fierce battle, probably very much like the one between Rohan and Saruman at Helms Deep — but it can be won.” – johnlaurits(.)com /2016/04/29/ math-vs-media-part-two/ (take away parenthesis and spaces)

  37. sandre says:

    Appalling and disgusting. The neckbeard misogynistic internet-dwelling has clamored out of mommy’s basement and is throwing dangerous hissy fits. Who would have thought?

  38. Caleb says:

    He’s just a professional protester. Not prez material. He’s already got a gov job which he uses to write all the bills he promotes on his platform. Guess what? He’s been ineffective in getting them through. Over 350 bills written and almost all of them given ‘fat chance’ of passing. 2 of the 3 he got passed are for renaming Post Offices in Vermont. He’s ineffective as far as making PROGRESS in the government. Would be a WASTE of taxpayer money to have professional protester as prez who gets none of them passed by congress.

  39. SWS says:

    Aren’t you a Debbie Downer. The parties shouldn’t define what democracy is, but neither should the delusional Bernie Sanders. He doesn’t have the clout nor the support to dictate to anyone what the agenda should be for a party nor for the country.

  40. TechZilla says:

    1. The parties will never get to define what is democracy, regardless of what their rules claim.
    2. Due to systemic economic-political inequality, their is no ruling constituency which defends democracy even in concept. So who is defending it on the inside now? I don’t need a smoking gun to show that insiders hold the public in contempt, enough to do whatever they need to maintain the results they deem necessary. Where are the international democracy watching groups? If it’s just a wackjob conspiracy, why wasn’t it conspiracy in any other election neo-liberals were risking loss? Was it conspiracy in Venezuela? Yea, we need them now, if you want anyone but yourself to actually eat the bullshit that the public willingly preferred HRC.
    3. The parties know that they are the final choice, and the votes were merely for show. A Sanders victory would be considered a national security threat, by definitions consistently enforced by both parties world wide. He threatens the established social order, why would they EVER let him win in the first place?
    4. The entire system is illegitimate, it exists on force alone, and is in no way democratic.

  41. static rage says:

    To clarify, when it comes to super delegates, yes simply by way of their party rules they are less democratic in spirit. That’s what I said. That’s all I said. No need to infer more

  42. MaryLF says:

    So you’re saying that the Democrats are a reater threat to our democracy than the Republicans. Got it.

  43. UCF_Engineer says:

    All issues have different weight for different people. Try telling the Sandy Hook families that gun issues aren’t important. Gun control measures have about as much chance of making it through congress as does a single payer system or college tuition paid for with taxes. In other words, none of it stands to pass as long as Republicans at least have a simple minority. Until you have something like 70% Democrat/liberal in congress, the major reform this country needs won’t happen. It’s just the way this divided government is set up through the constitution.

  44. UCF_Engineer says:

    I think you’re getting confused with “Bernie Bro”. Politics aside, being labeled a bot implies you follow/support something and completely ignore its flaws or attempt to defend them even if they are indefensible.

  45. static rage says:

    Republican Party superdelegates are obliged to vote for their state’s popular vote winner under the rules of the party branch to which they belong. So yes the democratic party is less democratic in spirit sadly than the republicans. Wisconsin democratic super delegate and senator Tammy Baldwin for example has pledged her vote for Clinton even though Bernie overwhelming won the primary there thus proving that the democratic primary is a meaningless pageant.

  46. Alphenex says:

    I as an independent that hasn’t decided have a question, why on one hand is Hillary and the DNC counting on the support and enthusiasm of Bernie supporters to come to them during the General yet during the primary speaking like this to someone who happens to disagree with you is acceptable but the opposite doesn’t seem to be true. You have to realize by continuing to ostracize these people you are going to lose potentially not just many Congressional local and national races but potentially the White House since there are a great number of Bernie supporters who have never before affiliated with the Democratic party, yet counting those votes and the enthusiasm to come the DNC way seems pretensions, especially if you treat them so bad, why would they go out of their way to vote Democratic party. You risk losing a great chance in front of you. The more times they are called Bernie Bots, Bernie Bros, or having leading feminists say that any woman that considers supporting (including Susan Surandon who although i don’t agree with on many things has at least put her money and her time where her mouth is) does not seem productive, but rather counter intuitive. Some will go to Trump if he is the nomination, some will go green, and some will stay home, none of witch benefits Hillary or DNC in having a chance to take back senate or reduce the lead in the house, not to mention the overwhelming losses that have piled on by some brilliant, although to me morally ambiguous (although due to the system entirely legal and used by both parties) strategies to dominate on a local and state level, outing more Democrats and taking more seats than at any other time in history in the past 7 years. I would try and focus on uniting, but that’s an outsiders perspective, I personally believe all the candidates are flawed, as all people are and i will not agree with them on everything. General election and how many issues get flipped on and how far the run to the center becomes between the two candidates to me will dictate more in the end for who i will vote for. If Hillary goes back on TPP many will rush to Trump if he is the nominee as he would be the only one who is advocating against the TPP. Anyways good luck, i hope you can figure it out but i doubt it as i truly hope that each party splits into at least 2 separate powers because of this election, variety equals competition which hopefully equals better choices.

  47. SWS says:

    To say its time to “take Democracy back from the DNC” but you are over 2.5 Million votes behind the frontrunner and way behind in delegates; and when you harass superdelegates committed to the frontrunner, then you are a hypocrite. Superdelegates, whether people agree with having that kind of system or not, is part of the process; but Democracy isn’t the issue. Sanders would like everyone to believe that he is losing because of Superdelegates and that simply isn’t the truth. He would also like people to believe that Super Pacs are the reason he is losing, but that also isn’t the truth since he has been outspending the frontrunner. Hillary has spent $1 million on getting her name out there on the internet. Sanders spent $16 million to get his name out there on the internet. 66% of Sanders’ own supporters say they are not willing to pay more than $1,000 more in taxes per year to pay for all of the “free stuff” Sanders has been promising, which is way short of what would be required. Sanders supporters aren’t willing to pay for his “revolution” so why would anyone else? At some point Sanders needs to realize that his “revolution” is failing and not because Democracy has been snatched from his grasp nor from superpacs, but because he has failed to convince Democrats (and 66% of his own supporters) that he has viable plans for the country.

  48. eze60 says:

    very well put.

  49. Samuel Jennings says:

    Yes it is, because you Democrats and Republicans have constructed the current system to make it impossible for an independent candidate to be taken seriously.

    So, we’re going to invade your party, hijack it, and turn it to our own purposes, and there’s nothing you can do about it except cry crocodile tears.

  50. Bill_Perdue says:

    I’m not defending BS, He was for a civil uniohs for a long time, and CUs make us second class citizens.

  51. Gabriella Creighton says:

    Welp, now I know you’re worthless to listen to.

  52. Anne Rogers says:

    Agreed- Gamergate is a movement about ethics, an area Bernie knows nothing about.

  53. Gabriella Creighton says:

    I seriously wish you had the wherewithal to notice that you just tried to say that being a racist or a bigot is okay because people were ignorant in the past and that you can’t read the part of the constitution that gives us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which in short: gives us the right to demand a better and higher standard of living.

    Plus the constitution actually has those pesky amendments that dissolve things like the bigotry you claim to be “enshrined” in the constitution. Our forefathers weren’t so ass backwards as to presume they couldn’t have been wrong about things. Which is WHY the system for amendments exists in the first place.

  54. Anne Rogers says:

    Because Bernouts will magically harass enough people to give him a blowout in the remaining primaries, despite polls suggesting he is behind in California and Pennsylvania?

  55. Anne Rogers says:

    So protectionism and no wars (except ones like the Afghanistan quagmire that St Bernie supported)?

  56. Anne Rogers says:

    Apparently you don’t understand either. Bigotry? Enshrined in the Constitution. Corporate enslavement? Where are unions, minimum wage, universal healthcare, etc. mentioned in the Constitution? You worked for what they were willing to pay, or you quite likely died while trying to find other work.

  57. Anne Rogers says:

    How does that crystal ball look now? Bernie manages to keep on losing.

  58. Anne Rogers says:

    And Bernie opposed gay marriage as well. My favorite though was when he supported storing nuclear waste from a Vermont power plant in a poor Texas community. Gotta love that NIMBY approach he takes-can’t have those green mountains glowing.

  59. Anne Rogers says:

    So it’s okay to vote for a quagmire as long as everyone else is? Either Bernie didn’t have the balls to stand against a war that was guaranteed to be a mess, or he’s cool with destroying a country because a couple of buildings in New York collapsed. How many dead Afghan civilians vs dead in New York?

    Bernie opposes liability for Remington targeting military-grade weapons for civilians- sounds like he would fit in perfectly with the ‘our guns!’ NRA.

    Okay- Pop’s Pizzeria is paying $10/hour. His wage expenses just jumped 50%. Does he 1) cut hours, 2) cut jobs, or 3)raise prices to cover the cost? “True progressives” seem to think every place paying less than a ‘living wage’ are Walmart or some other giant company. Look up American Samoa tuna canneries- progressives got the wages raised and the canneries shut down because it was no longer profitable. Instead of making 4-5/hour, now they make 0/hour. At least they’re no longer being exploited, right?

  60. Anne Rogers says:

    Or fail-as the results keep showing. Bernie doesn’t appeal to Democrats- why not start your own party? I know why-because that’s too hard.

  61. Anne Rogers says:

    Read his twit messages-I’m sure a Bernout like you has the page bookmarked.

  62. Samuel Jennings says:

    No, but I don’t call them at home, so….

  63. Samuel Jennings says:

    Spoken like a true conservative, advocating for voter ID laws and whining about possible voter fraud…

  64. Samuel Jennings says:

    You’re talking about the “Amendment King” of the Senate? Maybe he just doesn’t care about the limelight, but I’ve never heard from any of his fellow Representatives or Senators that he was an ineffective Congressman. After all, he is the most popular US Senator…

  65. Samuel Jennings says:

    You must have a hard time finding Congresspeople to vote for that didn’t vote for Afghanistan, then. Bernie doesn’t support the NRA, and true progressives don’t believe Republican bullshit that a $15 wage will tank our economy.

  66. Samuel Jennings says:

    [citation needed]

  67. Samuel Jennings says:

    Damn right, and us evil Independents are going to keep trying to hijack your corrupt party until we succeed, and you neo-liberals go fuck off to the caves you crawled out of.

  68. Samuel Jennings says:

    If voter problems in AZ helped Bernie, why is it that Bernie was winning amongst day-of ballots?

    Two other things:

    1) If you want closed primaries, go ahead. It’s your party. I won’t stop you. However, if you want my vote in the general election, and you have closed primaries, then you’re just not going to get it. Ignoring the largest political group in this country, the Independents, is idiotic. Either let me have a voice, and let people like me have a voice, in the political system that your party has hijacked, or don’t expect our support or participation.

    2) If you think caucuses aren’t democratic, you haven’t been to caucuses. The only real difference between a caucus and a primary is that you actually have to show up and talk to your neighbors to participate in a caucus. It lets people change their minds and speak to each other rather than just casting a vote and leaving without really participating.

  69. Zincoshine says:

    Hey, I don’t see you judging trump by the stupid stuff he says on a daily basis so don’t judge Bernie by one of his rare ones.

    Mixed economy is the country I live in, Norway, and we’re the actual #1 according to various indexes.

  70. Anne Rogers says:

    So he’s too stupid to label himself correctly, yet you want him as President.

    Mixed economy-is that one where the government controls ever-larger swathes, while the President complains about the number of deodorant options available?

  71. Zincoshine says:

    He can call himself what he likes, his policies don’t match with socialism. He is about as socialist as FDR (god, just typing FDR and thinking of the NY loss is enough to bring me close to tears). He is a social democrat. He believes in a mixed economy, the system that created the world’s most developed countries.

  72. Anne Rogers says:

    Too bad Bernie’s still losing, eh?

  73. Death to America!

  74. Anne Rogers says:

    Bernie calls himself as a socialist-why would you support someone that dumb (by your own words)?

  75. Anne Rogers says:

    In other words you oppose both freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

  76. Anne Rogers says:

    Is it also your right to call them at their home?

  77. Anne Rogers says:

    Do you oppose registration in principle? Should I be able to fly to Seattle, walk into a polling station, and be allowed to vote? I don’t want to betray my convictions by putting myself in yet another government database.

  78. Anne Rogers says:

    He has no credibility as a Democrat either-didn’t his years in Congress result in a whopping two post offices being renamed?

  79. Anne Rogers says:

    True progressives don’t vote for an Afghanistan quagmire. True progressives don’t support the NRA. True progressives don’t plan to tank the economy by demanding a 15/hour minimum wage without taking local costs of living into account.

  80. Anne Rogers says:

    Not to mention he plans to raise the minimum in Haiti and reduce the number of criminals in prison. Apparently Bernie doesn’t understand that Haiti is not part of the US and the vast majority of criminals are in state prisons, not federal.

  81. Anne Rogers says:

    I presume that “Spencer Thayer” has made his name and address publicly available?

    As for the potential harm-does that mean you supported posting the address of George Zimmerman’s parents? It’s not like they had to flee their house because of threats-oh wait, they did.

  82. Lisa K. says:

    For those opposed to posting information EASILY accessible on the internet, explain why it is like stalking? It’s like using an old fashioned telephone book! Was that stalking? When people call to sell stuff to you, they get your information freely enough and no one feels “threatened”. This is the age of information and if it frightens you, good luck trying to get YOUR info off the internet. If a super delegate posted before the primary and the “tide is turning”, why CAN’T I call my state Rep. and say, please rethink your choice? I discuss other issues with my Sen. why not this?? I discuss choices with friends, family and strangers, alike. Seems the only ones objecting to this are HRC supporters, so hey – say what you like, but this is what elections are about. The more you learn about a candidate, the better equipped one is to vote for the reasons near and dear to their ideology. Rep. don’t want to offend those they work with, so they’ll “play it safe”. Maybe when they see their colleagues changing their support from HRC to Bernie Sanders, they’ll get their nerve up to do the same! I say make the call as your RIGHT in the Democratic process. People who don’t call their Reps and then complain about how they handled a vote need to know they can make a difference if they speak out. No one need be hurtful, rude or bullying. Just make a request and share your thoughts. That IS the American “WAY”!

  83. alternator66 says:

    If Sanders is so against big money, if he gets the nomination, is he going to reject the estimated $1 billion the Dem Party would have to raise (much from corporations, wall street, rich, etc) to run a general election? Or is he going to run it only on his small donor donations?

    Sanders is a hypocritical parasite who (like Trump) is trying to hijack a major political party because they need the big money donations (the same they claim to be against) to run a general election.

  84. alternator66 says:

    The voter problems in Arizona (the type of big diverse state with
    demographics favorable to Hillary) actually prevented her from running up the score on him there like she did in Florida (+30)

    If it weren’t for caucuses – which are highly undemocratic (the anonymous ballot being the foundation of western democracy) dominated by white activists, low turnout, etc – Bernie would’ve been out of the race a long time ago.

    Closed primaries are really the only way it should be – as it allows registered rank-and-file Democrats (not Independents or Republicans or “fad voters”) to vote on the nominee of the Democratic Party, and allows the highest possible turnout, benefitting minorities, working people, older voters, disabled, etc.

    The fact is, Hillary is winning a much more diverse electorate in bigger states all across the country, including the swing states of Florida (+30), Ohio (+14), North Carolina (+15), Virginia (+30), Arizona (+17).

    She has a 200+ pledged delegate lead, a 400+ superdelegate lead, and a 2.5 million popular vote lead. IOW, she has demonstrated strength in winning over the elements of the Democratic Party (the voters, the delegates and the superdelegates) that it takes to win the Democratic nomination.

    Sanders, in all reality, was eliminated from the race on March 15th, but stayed in because he had a bunch of caucuses he could win, but that hasn’t changed the underlying dynamic of the race:

  85. Samuel Jennings says:

    The BernieBot insult isn’t sexist in and of itself, but it is dismissive and patronizing. What makes “BernieBot” sexist is the common narrative early in the campaign that Sanders’ support arose solely from male circles.

  86. Samuel Jennings says:

    If the superdelegates aren’t beholden to anyone, why bother even reporting on their commitments? Bernie’s been dismissed since the start of the process, and has been facing large difficulties getting one of his most important blocs of voters – independents – able to vote in primaries and caucuses where they should have been able to. See the debacle in Arizona, for instance, where people had to wait several hours to vote in person – votes which heavily favored Bernie, as opposed to early voters or absentees – and when they arrived, commonly found that their party affiliations had suddenly changed.

    I also think it’s rather hilarious to heavily weight the early part of the schedule towards states which have nearly never voted Democrat in the general election, thus giving their votes greater credence than liberal bulwarks such as Washington, California, New York, et cetera. Hillary’s major supports have come from large victories in states where she would have had no chance in the general election – yet we let the South Carolinas, Georgias, Texases set the early momentum of the nomination?

    Add in media attitude during the early part of the campaign and the tone set by most members of the Democratic leadership, plus the anemic early debate schedule, and it becomes clear that the party intended Clinton to run with token opposition and obtain the nomination without controversy.

    As to your point about popular vote totals, you’re just taking the raw counts, which count a single precinct delegate in a caucus state as one “vote.” So, you’re misinformed. There is no number out there that can accurately represent the popular vote, because caucus states, in which Bernie does very well, do not report popular vote totals, but instead report precinct delegate totals, which are then interpreted as “votes” towards state delegates.

  87. Samuel Jennings says:

    Bernie has always been a moderate on guns, and it’s an issue that he doesn’t feel strongly on, obviously. The gun control measures suggested by Democrats would do little or nothing, and would never pass. They’re simply a distraction to the issues that really matter – income inequality, money in politics, honesty in politicians.

    Go ahead – dig. Find me major ideological differences between Sanders of today and Sanders of, say, 2004.

    I can do that with Clinton pretty damned easily.

  88. 1bestdog says:

    you don;t understand election law and you don’t change it to suit your politics

  89. 1bestdog says:

    mob mentality a bunch of punks

  90. Carolee Masterson says:

    also, in his so-called disavow of Paul Song’s “whore” statement, BS should have strode on stage and spokeN up, like Sen. John McCain DID when he called for respect for his opponent after a woman at
    his event said that she didn’t trust Obama and that he was an “arab.”

    BS chose instead to thank paul song for his introduction…. so any later mea culpa’s are meaningless, offered only to dispel the mounting proof of his MISOGYNY…

    I plan to Vote for Future President Hillary Rodham Clinton 2016, 2020…enough of these OLD RICH WHITE MEN calling women HO’S and worse…ENOUGH!

  91. Carolee Masterson says:

    ..any man who would publish a woman’s street address, hotel room number, or phone number ON LINE for anyone in the world to see should be brought up on charges..this is unconscionable and BS should put a stop to it immediately…both he and Dumpf are making it unsafe for any woman who disagrees with them to be safe…in public or at home….

    …are these two RICH WHITE MEN so afraid of women that they would set them up online to be harassed, stalked, even murdered?…and for the wife of BS to go along with his frightening support of these actions, are beyond my comprehension, however, they will NOT deter me from voting for:

    Future President Hillary Rodham Clinton 2016 2020

  92. UCF_Engineer says:

    Just curious…how is being called a BernieBot sexist? A robot by definition has no sex.

  93. UCF_Engineer says:

    How has he not been getting a fair shake? He’s all over the news, the internet and they’ve held several debates. The super delegates are beholden to anyone until the convention. If Bernie does well enough to get the popular vote and surpass Clinton with a clear majority in pledged delegates, they won’t prevent him getting the nomination.
    If you ask me, he has had more than a fair shake since he’s only gotten 42% of the vote and yet holds 46% of the delegates. Does that seem fair to you?

  94. UCF_Engineer says:

    I couldn’t have said it better myself. It makes me feel like Sander’s supporters were born yesterday and they just woke up to this country of progressive change. All this stuff took decades to achieve and can all be eliminated or severely handicapped with the next president deciding 2-3 Supreme Court Judges and a Republican dominated congress.

  95. UCF_Engineer says:

    So by your definition Bernie being more pro gun for Vermont and becoming more anti gun now that he’s running for president (which he, himself, has admitted to) is also dishonest? Face it. They are all politicians and all play the political game. Sanders has done a good job so far running as a boy scout but as soon as you start digging a little, you’ll see all the cracks.

  96. UCF_Engineer says:

    He was mocking the ridiculous attitude of Bernie supporters and their conspiracy theories that he has filled their heads with in regards to Clinton.

  97. UCF_Engineer says:

    My god. How far down the Bernie rabbit hole have you gone? The Sanders campaign linked this guy’s info to their supporters. The proof is in the pudding buddy. Your boy scout Sanders isn’t the messiah you though he was. Open up your eyes and quit allowing yourself to be brainwashed.

  98. UCF_Engineer says:

    LMAO! Of course its donkey. You need to get your eyes checked.

  99. Mr_Liberal says:

    “…too cowardly to respond to the meat of my post…”

    Brevity is the soul of wit.

    You’re welcome.

  100. Samuel Jennings says:

    I also gotta say, I don’t expect the world to change in a 180 by electing Bernie Sanders as President. However, electing people that are pushing for incremental change is NOT the right way to tackle large issues – you need to elect activists, you need to elect people that speak consistently with passion. If we get enough of those people into office, if Bernie and people like him, like Warren and others, can change the political conversation….

    ….that is the political revolution he speaks of. Electing Bernie would be a huge step toward that goal, and even though it won’t solve all our problems. The President does not legislate, but (s)he does help set the national conversation!

  101. Samuel Jennings says:

    How have we turned on Warren? I’d love for her to be running, but I respect her decision not to, as I also respect her decision to not endorse Bernie. I have seen literally zero negative articles out of the Bernie campaign about her, or posted by the mainstream Bernie supporter websites.

    I would think that we are all fine with reasonable compromise, as is Bernie. We just don’t like Hillary, for many reasons. We don’t care that she’s a woman, she just leaves a bad taste in our mouths, because we think she’s untrustworthy, and because she changes her opinions with the way the wind’s blowing.

    Personally, I don’t like her, because my number one priority is getting large money out of politics. HRC talks that talk, but then doesn’t exactly walk that walk. My other priorities are voting people into office that will put large amounts of effort behind a universal healthcare system, and who will address income inequality and the spiraling cost of higher education. I also don’t want to see this nation waste more American lives on adventurous wars.

    I think Bernie’s that guy, and I think Hillary isn’t.

    Now, don’t get me wrong, Hillary is a far better candidate for President than Trump or Cruz. Neither of those people live in the same world. I’d rather have a Goldman Sachs Democrat for President than a walking orange or a lizard person.

    The centrist wing of the party has had its day, and a lot of us that are to the left of the Democratic party are extremely tired of having near to zero representation in government. We aren’t going to burn down the Democratic party, unlike the teabaggers, but we do want to change the political conversation. We want to feel like we’re not being marginalized as dreamers. We want to feel like we’re not being condescended to, to being patted on the head like dogs by candidates that don’t care about what we care about.

    Well, we’re not a small group. We are most of the youth vote, and the Democrats need to pay attention, or their party is going to eat itself alive by being pulled between progressives and centrists trying to maintain the status quo like Hillary.

  102. MaryLF says:

    Finally we agree. The Tea Party has ruined the GOP by constantly redefining who is pure enough to be a Republican, by absolutely refusing to compromise, by driving out all the moderate in the party, and by vilifying anyone who doesn’t agree with them. They believe their losses in 2008 and 2012 were caused by candidates that were not extreme enough. The purity left is doing the same thing. They supported President Obama until he got elected, then they were “disappointed”. They turned on Elizabeth Warren because she is remaining neutral, and should Sanders win the nomination, they will turn on him as soon as he fails to deliver everything he promised in the first two years. They prefer a bill that is pure and gets voted down to one that contains compromise but moves us forward and gets enacted. The extremists on both sides are a small group. The right has Fox News to amplify their voices. Thank goodness we don’t have a similar structure on our side.

  103. Samuel Jennings says:

    Gun makers right now are liable in cases of negligence, and gun sellers are not reasonably able to make sure that purchasers cannot use those guns in crime. All gun retailers are required to use the National Instant Check System, and to ask a series of questions that will disqualify buyers. There’s very little that could be done beyond that, and pushing the burden further onto firearm retailers is ridiculous.

    Furthermore, gun manufacturers are absolutely liable under current law if they inappropriately sell firearms directly to the public and instead of an FFL dealer. I don’t understand what situation you can think of that would qualify as negligence that they are shielded, legally, from under current law.

  104. Samuel Jennings says:

    True progressives release their secret, $225,000 speeches, and generally don’t host fundraisers with plates that reach the $350,000 mark. Sanders, meanwhile, has promised to release said tax returns and will do so.

    Look, I’m seriously not angry at you. I just don’t understand where you are getting your hostility, and where you are getting your misinformation. I’d like to invite you to have a civil conversation on the subject, if you’re willing.

  105. Samuel Jennings says:

    If he hated the Democratic Party, would he be running under the Democratic Party banner? No. He doesn’t hate the Democratic Party. He recognizes that it has problems. He hates the current way politics are conducted in our country, and so do you, unless you’re one of the 10% of Americans that think Congress is doing a good job. He hates big money in politics, and so do you.

    Disagreeing with your chosen candidate is not trying to destroy your party. Discord is only destructive when a candidate is not given a fair shake, and Sanders has not been given a fair shake. That’s what is driving a lot of the anger, and failing to recognize that there is a significant division in this party between neoliberals like Clinton and progressives threatens to destroy the Democratic party as surely as the Tea Party is slowly consuming the Republican party in a pile of hatred.

  106. Samuel Jennings says:

    Ooooohhhhh, tough man, too cowardly to respond to the meat of my post, so he’d rather do a drive by ad hominem.

    Well, eat me. Some day you will grow up and realize that what I’m saying is true. Unfortunately, it may be too late to elect an honest politician to office.

  107. Samuel Jennings says:

    They wanted to do better than run Clinton unopposed. They allowed several weak candidates to run against her to give the illusion of the choice. It was cast as a coronation from the beginning, but once the campaign started, they couldn’t exactly kick out a candidate without massive repercussions.

    Clinton’s been the one that’s failed to plan. She failed to plan for a major competitor. She failed to take the temperature of the electorate. She failed to learn anything from 2008, except that she should head off any opposition at the pass.

    She’s the weaker candidate, with less enthusiasm behind her campaign, and stands the greatest chance of failure against the Republicans, because she didn’t have the foresight to stay out of scandal while in office. While I do not think her email server was a crime, it was massively stupid to take govt emails and stash them on a private server – hell, I can’t even do that with my work email, and I just sell auto parts. I don’t broker free trade agreements with tax havens.

  108. Samuel Jennings says:

    You act like democratic socialists aren’t capitalists. History lesson – the US largely had unrestricted capitalism until the early part of the century, at which point the various socialist movements converged and gave us unions, worker’s rights, the 40 hour work week, and various other reforms.

    So, Sanders is a socialist inasmuch as Teddy Roosevelt or FDR were socialists. He believes in government investment into the economy, and use of tax revenue for infrastructure spending and social services spending. He is not a Socialist, as in Karl Marx, because he does not advocate for government control of the means of production.

  109. Samuel Jennings says:

    What measures? The total cost of the program for tuition-free college is $75bn a year, a cost dwarfed my many government expenditures and fully offset by proposed taxes.

    Further, criticizing Sanders for pushing for a plan that both Clinton and Obama supported but were unable to push through seems hypocritical, but if you take it as criticism that he isn’t realistic enough, well, I’ll just state that sometimes it’s hard to get meaningful reform, and we probably shouldn’t elect people that roll over and give up so easily. Good things are worth fighting for, and Sanders’ healthcare plan would save our country gobs of money and extend healthcare to all without relying on mandating people to purchase health insurance from predatory insurance companies.

  110. MaryLF says:

    He advocates giving free college tuition to everyone, which by every measure I’ve seen is unworkable, because apparently he hasn’t thought about it much beyond thinking it would be a good idea. Sec. Clinton pushed for health care as hard as she could when she was a First Lady and couldn’t get enough support for it. President Obama had to revise his views when he actually became president and had to make it work. He chose to get health care for as many as he could and give others a base to build on, rather than hold out for the perfect plan and lose, giving us another decade without any change.

  111. MaryLF says:

    If they had wanted to run Clinton uncontested they could have. Sanders is not a Democrat- they gave him permission to run as one. Part of the deal was he was supposed to contribute to down ticket Democrats and he has yet to contribute a cent and refuses to say if he will help even if he is the nominee. They still haven’t kicked him out so I don’t see “they want Hillary crowned’ as much of an argument. You seem to think that planning and working for the future is a bad thing. I wonder why over the last 25+ years in government Sanders hasn’t build some kind of infrastructure to support him. He doesn’t seem to have many friends at work. Sanders’ ill planned campaign is for me evidence of more executive ability. He can’t say he didn’t know how the process works – he’s been part of the process for a long time. He can’t say the Democrats changed the rules; the rules have been the same since the 70s and his campaign manager helped design them. The only one who hasn’t help up his part of the bargain is him.

  112. MaryLF says:

    That’s fine, as an independent vote for whomever you like. The Democrats didn&#