Support NeoGAF

[guek]

wasn't the mentality at the time that they were trying to contain her? that's what i recall, around the time she had to be stopped from opening up the the convention or so i wanna say

Their goal should not have been containment, it should have been repudiation. Hillary needed to distance herself from that scandal as much as possible but instead seemingly brought her closer into the fold. If she needed a meaningless title to be silenced, it should not have been as a part of Hillary's campaign.

 

[Boney]

Earlier this week, Bernie Sanders was invited to give a speech at the Free Library of Philadelphia and later was interviewed by Amy Goodman in an open interview.

He talks about the electoral process and the election of Trump, the Democratic Party and discusses his new book "Our Revolution".

Voter Supression, Citizen's United and Corporate Media are the three biggest threats to American Democracy. He tackles wealth inequality, college leducation, health services and drug prices and media neglecting reality

interesting fact.
2/3's mentions of poverty in network television involved Sanders being on air.

Speech
https://youtu.be/FN7v544Fd4k

Interview
https://youtu.be/2rEGCDR6wKQ

Has anybody gotten the chance to pick up the book yet?

 

[necrosis]

How did this depress turnout or have any effect on votes?

it's impossible to quantify this, but that doesn't make azih's statement any less true

 

[TheLaughingStock]

The Dems identified that he wouldn't win... how, exactly?

They made assumptions and we saw how that worked out with Trump. They were probably dead wrong about Bernie.

 

[aeolist]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...nders-gets-right-about-identity-politics.html

this article expresses basically everything i can think of about the false dichotomy centrist democrats keep trying to establish in order to split class politics from the rest of identity politics

Sanders's actual contention was the opposite of what many of his critics claimed: He did not argue that there is an inherent tension between identity politics and economic populism, but rather, that the latter is necessary for realizing the former's aims — which is to say, that the goals of racial justice and gender equality cannot be achieved absent the redistribution of economic power away from corporate America and toward the working class.

This point is both accurate and necessary. While no one in the Democratic Party believes that a candidate's skin color or genitalia determines his or her progressive bona fides, many have spent the past year arguing that Sanders's appeals to class solidarity — and the social democratic programs that he hopes that solidarity can yield — are of little use to anyone who isn't white or male.

This context is critical for understanding the post-election, intra-left debate over identity politics.

it's fairly long but please read the whole thing, it's worth it

 

[soul creator]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...nders-gets-right-about-identity-politics.html

this article expresses basically everything i can think of about the false dichotomy centrist democrats keep trying to establish in order to split class politics from the rest of identity politics



it's fairly long but please read the whole thing, it's worth it

Good article. The weirdest thing about all the controversy over this is that if people were actually worried about "abandoning minorities in favor of solely class issues", then history shows they should be worried about the centrist, "Third Way", "incrementalist", "pragmatic", triangulating Clintonian wing who have effectively been in charge of the party for 30 years, far more than those who are further left of the existing Democratic Party.

Yet Clinton and the DNC somehow became this grand intersectional champion of minority progress, overwhelmingly loved by minorities everywhere, while Sanders was the candidate of "white privilege" and bros. Even though actual numbers required a far more complex analysis than "minorities love Clinton, minorities hate Sanders, women love Clinton, women hate Sanders" that a lot of people run with. I mean, from a cold and raw political strategy standpoint, it was a hugely successful strategy for the Clinton campaign over the past year. Shame to see people still fall for it though.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

The only reason it became a line of attack was because of Bernie Sanders. One which Trump and the right were all too happy to disingenuously parrot.

Clinton narrowly loses an election, and it has to be taken as a "repudiation" of democrats? When she won the popular vote by 2%+? Bullshit.

Sanders is a guy who helps burn the house down and then comes around with a fire hose.

Clinton's loss on her own isn't a repudiation of the democrats. Clinton's loss alongside losing a:

A majority of state legislatures.
A supermajority of governors.
The House of Representatives.
The Senate.
And also the supreme court are a repudiation of the democrats. And the current party leadership made up of Clinton and Wall Street loyalists need to be purged. They failed at their job. They should be fired.

 

[kirblar]

Clinton's loss on her own isn't a repudiation of the democrats. Clinton's loss alongside losing a:

A majority of state legislatures.
A supermajority of governors.
The House of Representatives.
The Senate.
And also the supreme court are a repudiation of the democrats. And the current party leadership made up of Clinton and Wall Street loyalists need to be purged. They failed at their job. They should be fired.

This is not a repudiation.

This is terrible management. They abandoned the 50-state initiative in favor of a top-down one and it was disastrous. They only succeeded w/ the top-down one because they had Obama.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

This is not a repudiation.

This is terrible management. They abandoned the 50-state initiative in favor of a top-down one and it was disastrous. They only succeeded w/ the top-down one because they had Obama.

Except it's you guys arguing against a 50 state strategy because democrats shouldn't have to appeal to "fragile white people." The same people who were convinced to vote for Obama when he ran as a leftist populist and voted for Bernie in the primary are unwinnable according to you.

 

[Wall]

Meanwhile as we speak the the DNC establishment types are busy trying to paint Keith Ellison as "scary black Muslim man". I guess "intersectionality" only is good when it's convieniant to use as a weapon against Sanders. Once he's gone it's back to the standard race-baiting and Islamophobia. I'd be happy with either Ellison or Dean, but the attacks against Ellison right now are sickening.

 

[pigeon]

Meanwhile as we speak the the DNC establishment types are busy trying to paint Keith Ellison as "scary black Muslim man". I guess "intersectionality" only is good when it's convieniant to use as a weapon against Sanders. Once he's gone it's back to the standard race-baiting and Islamophobia. I'd be happy with either Ellison or Dean, but the attacks against Ellison right now are sickening.

*Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Democratic leadership endorse Keith Ellison*

*Nobody else meaningful runs*

"That damn Democratic establishment!"

This helpfully illustrates why it is impossible to have any sort of useful discussion with many people who claim for some reason to be Democrats. Reality is actually important.

 

[Suikoguy]

Dear moofers, guek, et. al.:

You lost the primary.

You lost single-payer in Colorado.

You lost with Jane Kim.

You lost with Tim Canova.

You lost with Zephyr Teachout.

You lost with Russ Feingold.

You lost Prop 61.

Face it - if Clinton is a loser, the Sanders path is an even bigger loser. Following that path is an even narrower path than Clinton's path.

Yep, this is why lurching far left makes zero sense. It's apparent nobody actually wants it except for Sanders supporters, who either are small in number, or don't fucking vote.

that's not on him

bernie had no obligation to ignore hillary's faults; in fact, as a fellow nominee, it could be argued that he had a responsibility not to

the truth of the matter is that hillary couldn't relate to voters in key swing states in a way that sanders, and later trump, very much could. warranted or not, she is also perceived as shady and untrustworthy by large swathes of the voting population. she was simply not a good candidate

That argument only makes sense if it was a multi-person race.
What good does it do to deface your opponent when you already lost, and the winner is decided?

 

[Wall]

*Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Democratic leadership endorse Keith Ellison*

*Nobody else meaningful runs*

"That damn Democratic establishment!"

This helpfully illustrates why it is impossible to have any sort of useful discussion with many people who claim for some reason to be Democrats. Reality is actually important.

Ellison does have a lot of establishment type people backing him, but there definitely is a movement to derail him and get someone else to run.

Edit: Granholm and Perez are names that keep popping up. I honestly don't know how widespread it is, but the New York Times is reporting on it.

 

[jack_package_200]

Ellison does have a lot of establishment type people backing him, but there definitely is a movement to derail him and get someone else to run.

Receipts?

 

[Wall]

Jesus fucking Christ...:

Receipts?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/jewish-groups-and-unions-grow-uneasy-with-keith-ellison.html?referer=https://www.google.com

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politics/kfile-keith-ellison-nation-of-islam/

 

[kirblar]

Except it's you guys arguing against a 50 state strategy because democrats shouldn't have to appeal to "fragile white people." The same people who were convinced to vote for Obama when he ran as a leftist populist and voted for Bernie in the primary are unwinnable according to you.

If the 50 state strategy is in place we have the turnout to override them.

 

[Suikoguy]

If the 50 state strategy is in place we have the turnout to override them.

Nevermind the fact many of these candidates in a 50 state strategy would be moderate Democrats.

 

[Boney]

Good article. The weirdest thing about all the controversy over this is that if people were actually worried about "abandoning minorities in favor of solely class issues", then history shows they should be worried about the centrist, "Third Way", "incrementalist", "pragmatic", triangulating Clintonian wing who have effectively been in charge of the party for 30 years, far more than those who are further left of the existing Democratic Party.

Yet Clinton and the DNC somehow became this grand intersectional champion of minority progress, overwhelmingly loved by minorities everywhere, while Sanders was the candidate of "white privilege" and bros. Even though actual numbers required a far more complex analysis than "minorities love Clinton, minorities hate Sanders, women love Clinton, women hate Sanders" that a lot of people run with. I mean, from a cold and raw political strategy standpoint, it was a hugely successful strategy for the Clinton campaign over the past year. Shame to see people still fall for it though.

Yup, Sanders had an overwhelming majority of black, Latino and Native American voters under 40. Which is important both as a platform for the future and what media those type of people consume.

People doing the gross oversimplification of Clinton winning 55% of delegates and her crushing it on Super Tuesday as definite proof of nobody wanting left wing politics is infantile and reductive. Sanders started as a fringe candidate without any support from traditional organizations and democrat elected officials, who was pushed out by the corporate media (this is a fact based on minutes of coverage compared to all other candidates even little Marco), but still closed a 40% point gap, won over 20 states, was more popular with independents and republicans and his talking points are seen in positive light by most Americans. Clinton winning the primary was no surprise, but what was surprising is how close it was when with all of her structural advantages she should have run laps around him leaving him with only Vermont and Colorado.

Helping to strengthen worker unions and push the Democratic Party for the working class shouldn't push out moderate democrats, since the policies themselves are met with outstanding approvals from all intersectional groups, the problem was the no politician was running with them as their platform. If people can't find a candidate to support , they'll grow apathetic to the political progress and become disenfranchised.

 

[Suikoguy]

Yup, Sanders had an overwhelming majority of black, Latino and Native American voters under 40. Which is important both as a platform for the future and what media those type of people consume.

People doing the gross oversimplification of Clinton winning 55% of delegates and her crushing it on Super Tuesday as definite proof of nobody wanting left wing politics is infantile and reductive. Sanders started as a fringe candidate without any support from traditional organizations and democrat elected officials, who was pushed out by the corporate media (this is a fact based on minutes of coverage compared to all other candidates even little Marco), but still closed a 40% point gap, won over 20 states, was more popular with independents and republicans and his talking points are seen in positive light by most Americans. Clinton winning the primary was no surprise, but what was surprising is how close it was when with all of her structural advantages she should have run laps around him leaving him with only Vermont and Colorado.

Where were they?

With single-payer in Colorado, the races of Jane Kim, Tim Canova, Zephyr Teachout, Russ Feingold.

Single Payer got 20% OF THE VOTE.

Where are these mythical voters?
If they don't show up to vote for candidates and ammendments that are exactly what they are pushing for, why should anyone bother to cater to them?

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

Nevermind the fact many of these candidates in a 50 state strategy would be moderate Democrats.

It's not about how moderate or liberal they are, though that helps. It's about not running weak, mealy mouthed losers who are afraid to fight. It's about running candidates who know their constituency is voters, not the donors. When you let big money donors control the party you get losers like Allison Grimes, Mark Pryor and Hillary Clinton.

 

[Suikoguy]

It's not about how moderate or liberal they are, though that helps. It's about not running weak, mealy mouthed losers who are afraid to fight. It's about running candidates who know their constituency is voters, not the donors. When you let big money donors control the party you get losers like Allison Grimes, Mark Pryor and Hillary Clinton.

What did Hillary Clinton do to you, did she kill your Father, maybe your brother?

She spent 30 years in public service, and you treat her like a literal devil.

 

[Boney]

Where were they?

With single-payer in Colorado, the races of Jane Kim, Tim Canova, Zephyr Teachout, Russ Feingold.

Single Payer got 20% OF THE VOTE.

Where are these mythical voters?
If they don't show up to vote for candidates and ammendments that are exactly what they are pushing for, why should anyone bother to cater to them?

Single payer at state level is a horrible initiative. And no sane person would support it. Single payer works because you give an actual bargaining power to the buyer and that isn't possible at state level.

 

[Suikoguy]

Single payer at state level is a horrible initiative. And no sane person would support it. Single payer works because you give an actual bargaining power to the buyer and that isn't possible at state level.

What about the rest of my post?

 

[kirblar]

Single payer at state level is a horrible initiative. And no sane person would support it. Single payer works because you give an actual bargaining power to the buyer and that isn't possible at state level.

It's a horrible initiative at the national level for the exact same reasons - we do not have the infrastructure for it, and it would require incredibly high tax hikes.

By contrast, the Swiss system is easily achievable.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

What did Hillary Clinton do to you, did she kill your Father, maybe your brother?

She spent 30 years in public service, and you treat her like a literal devil.

She lost the most important election in recent history to a monster.

Also Bernie's been in public service the similar amount of time but you guys treat him and his supporters like dirt.

 

[Wall]

If the 50 state strategy is in place we have the turnout to override them.

Part of the 50 state strategy Howard Dean ran was predicated on reaching out to voters in rural areas. He was quoted as saying something like "we need to appeal to guys in trucker hats and pickup trucks". Given the geography of the country, the Democrats at least need to be competitive in those areas to win elections. Prior to this election I would have thought they were safe at the Presidential level, but apparently not.

I don't think that means Democrats should pander to the "white working class", though. For one, rural areas aren't exclusively made up of white people, despite what the political discourse would have you believe. Even more fundamentally, the reason Republicans win is that they have a core group of voters that they can reliably mobilize through institutions like churches and the NRA in the areas. The Democrats, meanwhile, don't have any presence in these areas. It becomes a vicious cycle when the only time people ever see or hear of Democrats is when local politically engaged conservatives or media figures disparage them. Democrats need to at least engage to break this cycle. They might not win, but if they could at least cut into the margins Republicans run it would make a huge difference.

Nevermind the fact many of these candidates in a 50 state strategy would be moderate Democrats.

If this election proved anything, it should have proved that political opinions don't just exist on a bipolar axis with a clearly defined middle. Part of the reason Hillary Clinton lost was that she was attacked on a front that Democrats have never been attacked on before - trade (uless you count Perot I guess). Until this election, free trade agreements were an area where both party establishments generally agreed.

Edit: We have a single payer type system that services the hardest population to cover (actually two if you count Medicaid). It's ridiculous to suggest that "we don't have the infrastructure for it". That's not to say it wouldn't be politically difficult to implement or that the transition wouldn't be difficult and need to be carefully managed.

 

[BowieZ]

It speaks volumes how little attention Sanders is getting now.

They didn't want him then, and they sure as hell don't want him now.

But thankfully he got a little platform on Blitzer, Stone and Colbert, before he gets swept aside.

 

[necrosis]

Yep, this is why lurching far left makes zero sense. It's apparent nobody actually wants it except for Sanders supporters, who either are small in number, or don't fucking vote.

lol. the primaries would suggest otherwise, as would numerous polls that showed sanders with better numbers than clinton vs trump (although it's fair to question the reliability of many pollsters after this election)

That argument only makes sense if it was a multi-person race.
What good does it do to deface your opponent when you already lost, and the winner is decided?

sanders supported clinton when a winner had been decided

 

[Suikoguy]

sanders supported Clinton when a winner had been decided

The winner was decided Super Tuesday in all but Sanders Fantasy Land.

Note that the emails from the DNC were all from AFTER super Tuesday. Where you would have to be understandably frustrated by a campaign going additionally negative after it's all but certain they will lose.

---

Still waiting Boney for you to explain why all of those candidates lost worse than Hillary and where those mythical Sanders voters were.

 

[BowieZ]

The winner was decided Super Tuesday in all but Sanders Fantasy Land.

I don't think that was fantasy. I think Sanders had real fears of Trump beating Clinton, which he had indicated from day dot, and he continued to fight the uphill battle because he knew what the stakes were.


If there was any Fantasy Land on Super Tuesday, its name was Clinton.

 

[Suikoguy]

I don't think that was fantasy. I think Sanders had real fears of Trump beating Clinton, which he had indicated from day dot, and he continued to fight the uphill battle because he knew what the stakes were.


If there was any Fantasy Land on Super Tuesday, its name was Clinton.

That makes no sense, lol.

Sanders went negative because he was worried Trump would beat Hillary?
Well, it was a surefire way to make it more likely, when your ass already lost the race.

Your second line makes even less sense, so little so I won't even give it a reply.

 

[BowieZ]

That makes no sense, lol.

Sanders went negative because he was worried Trump would beat Hillary?
Well, it was a surefire way to make it more likely, when your ass already lost the race.

It makes perfect sense. His "ass" hadn't already lost. In fact, a couple of weeks later he regained momentum. But it wasn't covered. The media only focused on Trump and Clinton. And the lousy debate schedule didn't help.

And he hardly went negative. Critical, maybe. But the media portrayed the Democratic race as civil and friendly. Trump was the real anti-Clinton voice this year. And the people agreed with him.

ALSO, the email from the HRC campaign involving conspiring with the DNC and the media was sent in 2015, before Trump was in the race. The Clinton campaign -- and invariably, the DNC with it -- WANTED to promote off-the-wall candidates like Trump and Cruz. If you think the DNC didn't take every step to hinder Sanders before the primaries even began, you're the one also living in Clinton Fantasy Land.

 

[PdotMichael]

I still love the contrast of the claims between Sanders got beaten easily by Clinton in the primaries and Sanders was hurting Clinton not giving up early in the primaries.

When in reality Sanders just showcased the weakpoints of the Clinton campaign which proved to be her failure but something something hubris of Clinton and her supporters.

 

[Suikoguy]

I still love the contrast of the claims between Sanders got beaten easily by Clinton in the primaries and Sanders was hurting Clinton not giving up early in the primaries.

Explain how they are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[excelsiorlef]

It makes perfect sense. His "ass" hadn't already lost. In fact, a couple of weeks later he regained momentum. But it wasn't covered. The media only focused on Trump and Clinton. And the lousy debate schedule didn't help.

And he hardly went negative. Critical, maybe. But the media portrayed the Democratic race as civil and friendly. Trump was the real anti-Clinton voice this year. And the people agreed with him.

ALSO, the email from the HRC campaign involving conspiring with the DNC and the media was sent in 2015, before Trump was in the race. The Clinton campaign -- and invariably, the DNC with it -- WANTED to promote off-the-wall candidates like Trump and Cruz. If you think the DNC didn't take every step to hinder Sanders before the primaries even began, you're the one also living in Clinton Fantasy Land.

He was done after he got fucking slaughtered in South Carolina, that was before Super Tuesday even.

He gave up on the South and put himself in a giant insurmountable hole and then ran around claiming the election was being stolen from him at every turn.

His behavior in Nevada, long after it was clear he wasn't going to pull off some miraculous upset, was fucking embarrassing and everyone gave him a free pass for it.

His endorsements btw? All but one lost, with a bunch not even winning their primary, the one who did win was endorsed by everyone basically.

His Activist PAC died before it did fuck all because Jeff Weaver is incompetent and everyone hates him. The guy who would have been relied on to run his Gae campaign literally killed an Activist PAC in 2 weeks or so.

 

[BowieZ]

Explain how they are mutually exclusive concepts.

The point is... that the purpose of a primary is to vet candidates.

Everyone knew Clinton had baggage, but the DNC didn't want it getting in the way. Sanders tested Clinton as he rightly should have.

Even though Sanders testing her had probably no impact on her defeat, the point is that her baggage should have been a red flag that she was going to experience defeat anyway.

 

[BowieZ]

He was done after he got fucking slaughtered in South Carolina, that was before Super Tuesday even.

He gave up on the South and put himself in a giant hole and then ran around claiming the election was being stolen from him at every turn.

His behavior in Nevada, long after it was clear he wasn't going to pull off some miraculous upset, was fucking embarrassing and everyone gave him a free pass for it.

So anyone in the lead on Super Tuesday should be given the win?

Right.

Anyway, in a year of upsets, the only thing stopping a Sanders upset was the media, who didn't want it to happen. The ironic thing is they contributed to the ultimate Trump upset.

 

[necrosis]

He gave up on the South

i wouldn't say he "gave up" on the south but that's something the democratic party would be prudent to do going into the future

 

[Suikoguy]

The point is... that the purpose of a primary is to vet candidates.

Everyone knew Clinton had baggage, but the DNC didn't want it getting in the way. Sanders tested Clinton as he rightly should have.

Even though Sanders testing her had probably no impact on her defeat, the point is that her baggage should have been a red flag that she was going to experience defeat anyway.

Attacking her qualifications are baggage?

i wouldn't say he "gave up" on the south but that's something the democratic party would be prudent to do going into the future

Where is Ekai, according to him you must be a centrist to give up on minorities.

So anyone in the lead on Super Tuesday should be given the win?

Right.

Anyway, in a year of upsets, the only thing stopping a Sanders upset was the media, who didn't want it to happen. The ironic thing is they contributed to the ultimate Trump upset.

Wait, you are now blaming the MEDIA for Sanders losing?
Hilarious, the Media is the only reason he was still in the race as long as he was.

 

[excelsiorlef]

i wouldn't say he "gave up" on the south but that's something the democratic party would be prudent to do going into the future

He literally pulled out from campaigning in most of it and said they weren't important because of how those States go in the GE.

Those were minority heavy primary states btw who see the primary as their only chance to get their voices heard because of how their states in the GE go.

You can say ahh well fuck em because they don't matter in the GE but guess what they sure as fuck matter in the Primary.


Sanders organizationally speaking and outside of his I do a really good stump speech at rallies ran a horrible campaign. His behavior in Nevada alone ought to have sent a major alarm.

 

[BowieZ]

Wait, you are now blaming the MEDIA for Sanders losing?
Hilarious, the Media is the only reason he was still in the race as long as he was.

I didn't say Sanders was definitely going to win with the media's support...

... but if you don't think the media wanted Clinton to win, you're insane.

 

[Suikoguy]

I didn't say Sanders was definitely going to win with the media's support...

... but if you don't think the media wanted Clinton to win, you're insane.

Do you live in the same universe, or did you not watch how that same media treated Clinton and Trump?

 

[kirblar]

That makes no sense, lol.

Sanders went negative because he was worried Trump would beat Hillary?
Well, it was a surefire way to make it more likely, when your ass already lost the race.

Your second line makes even less sense, so little so I won't even give it a reply.

Sanders went negative because he thought he would win.

 

[PdotMichael]

Sanders being negative to Clinton, oh god what was he thinking? Is that even legal?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Sabders being negative to Clinton, oh god what was he thinking? Is that even legal?

Definitely not. Bernie for Jail! Lock Him Up!

 

[Suikoguy]

Sabders being negative to Clinton, oh god what was he thinking? Is that even legal?

Definitely not. Bernie for Jail! Lock Him Up!

Would you be saying the same thing if Clinton was basically mathematically eliminated and went scorched earth on Sanders?

 

[PdotMichael]

Would you be saying the same thing if Clinton was basically mathematically eliminated and went scorched earth on Sanders?

Either Clinton was easily winning so it wouldn't matter at all. Or Clinton was such a weak candidate (which was kind of proven against Obama) and could only get through the primaries with the complete support of the DNC and media, so Sanders didn't hurt Clinton but just showed the ugly head of the party elite.

 

[TarNaru33]

Do you live in the same universe, or did you not watch how that same media treated Clinton and Trump?

um... The media did have a major impact in the way they reported each of his wins and losses (showing super delegates before they actually votes etc.), not giving him much air time. Not many debates and many of the debates given were during bad times. etc.

The media basically wanted a Clinton vs Trump showdown, this is not something you can deny in any way man. Unfortunately, their desire to cover Trump so much, aided in his increasing popularity. So much free advertisement, Trump should thank all of the media.

EDIT:
And to clarify, Bernie did not abandon the south for no real reason. He was limited on funds, wasting it away on southern states in the primary (especially after South Carolina) that he felt he had no chance of actually winning or even closing the margins doesn't seem wise.

 

[Suikoguy]

Either Clinton was easily winning so it wouldn't matter at all. Or Clinton was such a weak candidate (which was kind of proven against Obama) and could only get through the primaries with the complete support of the DNC and media, so Sanders didn't hurt Clinton but just showed the ugly head of the party elite.

Once again, The Primary is =! to the General Election.

But guess what, you have to do both.


btw, STILL WAITING on an explanation as to why all of those candidates lost worse than Hillary. Those mythical Sanders voters should have showed up to vote for the anointed by Sanders™ candidates right?

Where were they?

 

[PdotMichael]

Once again, The Primary is =! to the General Election.

But guess what, you have to do both.


btw, STILL WAITING on an explanation as to why all of those candidates lost worse than Hillary. Those mythical Sanders voters should have showed up to vote for the anointed by Sanders™ candidates right?

Where were they?

So we are now back to Sanders being not relevant at all.

Can't wait for Sanders is to blame within the next 5 posts.