Time To Stop Wasting Everyone's Time, Bernie

[LastPoet]

Time To Start Tasting Everyone's Wine, Bernie.

Sorry, it just felt like a fun thing to say.

I'd vote for that! Still better than The Donald

[Losty]

I can't get the page to load, but if it says around 2205 to 1401 it's because it's counting delegates that have not been pledged and cannot be pledged until the convention.

I know.  Any day now the "super delegates" are just going to go flocking to Sanders because..... apparently because that is the mythology which fuels the campaign.  What can I say?  Cruz thought jesus loved him, too.  Meanwhile, even though he 'won' Indiana the race was so close that he actually now needs to win a higher percentage of the remaining delegates than before his victory.  If he won every primary 55-45 the rest of the way out he would find Hillary sitting in a hammock with a glass of lemonade when he got to the finish line.

It's really kind of sad how the point flies over your head. I never said I thought he would win. I just don't like when people misrepresent the delegate count. I thought we were smarter than that here...no? When the delegates are hers I will call them hers, but right now they're not.

[Edwardo Piet]

* Edwardo Piet pats mini on his grumpy head using his turtle paw

[ReptilianPeon]

Clinton is likely getting blackmailed by people or countties that successfully hacked into her basement server right now. Clinton comes with a lot of baggage. She had things she wants to hide from the public, no doubt about it. Just saying.

[Edwardo Piet]

Politics hurts my turtle balls.

Man is a political animal.

But turtles aren't, so shut up Aristotle, you ancient Greek bastard you.

[Pat Mustard]

I don't think any of us have delusions of grandeur either, but I honestly don't see your logic with the obstructionism argument. If anything, Clinton is more hated than Obama by the Republicans. She's got a shady history, she's married to a President they all hate. If a Sanders win means obstructionism, I fail to see how a Clinton win would be different.

If the Dems went and ran Jeb Bush for president (or whoever was the actual republican favoured son), they'd still run a programme of obstructionism through the parliament.

The only way there is going to be an effective democrat president in the White House for the forseeable future is for the party to win either of the houses in non presidential elections, and the only way they'll do that is by getting the base out nationally. And the current party strategy of tacking to a milder version of the right wing politics of their opponents will never do that, in fact it is shrinking their base. The fact of the matter is the third way politics that socialist and soc-dem parties have engaged in since the late '80's is as much a busted flush as capitalism is. No leader of a left wing party has helped his/her vote by tacking to the right (even the third way's prophet the "sainted" TB managed to lose over four million votes between 1997 and 2005, dropping voters in large numbers at every subsequent election).

[Tiberius]

Meanwhile, even though he 'won' Indiana the race was so close that he actually now needs to win a higher percentage of the remaining delegates than before his victory.

You really are the epitome of a Clinton troll. There's no reason to put the word "won" in quotation marks when describing Sanders' victory in Indiana. Not only was he predicted to lose by 7 points, he managed to win by over 5. He won. Get over it.

Your point about needing to win a higher percentage of remaining delegates is pretty meaningless too. If he'd lost, he's need to win a much higher percentage of delegates than he does now. Nobody was expecting a landslide; in fact we were expecting a loss. Trying to sell what happened as Indiana as somehow bad for the Sanders campaign is a laughable tactic.

Clinton supporters are missing the entire reason a lot of Sanders supporters still want him in the race: we hate Clinton. We don't trust her, we think she's quite possibly a criminal, and if she's not a criminal, she's certainly not a person who has sound judgement. A Trump vs Clinton race is a race where America loses.

[Minimalist]

Then by all means vote for Drumpf and be very happy with the result, Tibs.

That is your choice.  Fillet Mignon is not on the menu.

Meanwhile, the reality is that even after "winning" Indiana Sanders now has a bigger hill to climb than before.  I'm sorry that you don't like math but there it is.

[Tiberius]

There it is again. Why the quotation marks Min? 5% points not a good enough margin for you? Did Clinton "win" Iowa too? Or do your rules change when it's Hillary winning by 0.3%?

I'm not voting Trump. I'm not voting for anyone because that would be illegal. If I could vote, I'd probably vote third party. I reject your notion that I'd have to be happy with the result if Trump got elected. Voting for someone you don't agree with just to prevent someone you disagree with more from being elected is not how democracy should work, and people who refuse to get behind Clinton to prevent a Trump presidency don't deserve to be told it's their fault if Trump wins. If anything, Clinton should have stopped being so dishonest, stopped flip flopping on issues, been transparent about her speeches to Wall St, etc if she wanted my hypothetical vote.

[Minimalist]

"There it is again. Why the quotation marks Min? 5% points not a good enough margin for you?"



Christ all-fucking mighty...can't you understand that the way the democrats award delegates is ruining him?  After "winning" ( maybe you'd prefer the term Pyrrhic victory without quotes?) he is in worse shape than before because he did not win by a big enough margin to significantly impact the delegate race.  A couple of more such victories and he'll be mathematically eliminated.  I'm sure about now that Sanders wishes he had the GOP model of winner-take-all primaries.  Of course, I'm equally sure that the GOP wishes even more that they had "super-delegates" after what just happened to them.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/ind...tion-2016/

Right now, Sanders looks like he’ll earn about five to 10 more delegates than Clinton in Indiana. That means Clinton will have an elected delegate lead by the end of the evening of around 280 to 285 delegates. In order to catch Clinton in the elected delegate count, Sanders would need to win over 65 percent of the remaining elected delegates. That’s actually higher than it was before Indiana voted.

Indiana was an open primary in which Clinton did not even campaign.  She ran no television ads and made few appearances.  Indiana is a state with a relatively small minority population and combined with the open primary is exactly the kind of state where Sanders has done best.  She has her eye on New Jersey and California.

I know you can't vote because you just got here.   I'm speaking to all progressives you know, the people who will be harmed most if Trump is making nominations to the supreme court.  

Please feel free to delude yourself with 3'd parties all you like.  The conservatives are trying to figure out how to do that right now as Trump makes them wet their pants. 

The choice will be Clinton or Trump.  And if it is Trump I don't want to hear any fucking whining from the so-called progressives.