Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
BigSteelThrill

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being.

Recommended Posts

Just now, mon said:

That's good news about Newsom. I remember 10-12 years ago thinking he'd make a good president.

Yah, he's young enough I think 2024 is probably the absolute earliest he'd consider it. But having seen him on the media from time to time, he seems like he has a good head, and there really isn't much doubt he has the face for politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hagmania said:

:lol: It's so sad, Bernie just can't catch a break. When he closed the huge gap in Iowa and Nevada and split the delegates, it was about Hillary winning the states. When he has to tread water and win states on Super Tuesday, the narrative will be that he didn't win by enough.

All about the narrative, all about surviving through the 15th. Bernie supporters will be at honey badger levels if he still has a shot at the delegate count come the 15th.

It's not about narrative -- it's about math.

Winning six states and falling behind by a couple hundred delegates doesn't really help him. At least not in terms of winning the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maelstrom said:
4 minutes ago, mon said:

That's good news about Newsom. I remember 10-12 years ago thinking he'd make a good president.

Yah, he's young enough I think 2024 is probably the absolute earliest he'd consider it. But having seen him on the media from time to time, he seems like he has a good head, and there really isn't much doubt he has the face for politics.

In!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wdcrob said:

It's not about narrative -- it's about math.

Winning six states and falling behind by a couple hundred delegates doesn't really help him. At least not in terms of winning the nomination.

You think I don't know? I know perfectly well about the math and the uphill climb that Tuesday is going to bring. I also know that there are enough delegates available after Mar 15 to make this a dogfight to the end. It has been the recurring message since the week before Nevada, folks trying to encourage others have been running damage control that long. I've been clawing and scratching just for that single extra delegate in Tennessee. I know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Maelstrom said:

I don't know if they qualify as Bernie-lite, but I don't think we've seen the last of Martin O'Malley. In California, Gavin Newsom is running for Governor in 2018, and I wouldn't be surprised if his sights are on the Presidency in 2024 or so if things line up properly.

I used to do a ton of blow in Newsom's bar, pretty sure they will selling product out of it.

Edited by Baloney Sandwich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mcintyre1 said:

 

I find the increasing conflating of the terms "President" and "Commander-in-Chief" in our political discourse verrrrry very disturbing...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately what cost Bernie in this election was his high level of integrity.  He refused to go negative on Clinton and he wouldn't grease any palms for votes. He had a meeting before SC (seen below), he was told how to gain favor and he refused to "play ball". 

http://media.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-news/photo/bernie-sanders-rev-al-sharpton-7bd8e350c428b67d.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NCCommish said:

TG can't deal with the truth that at the national level Democrats are incrementally different than the Republicans at best. You know who does get it? The American people. That is why independent in now the largest party. Both parties serve masters other than the voters and anyone paying any attention knows it.

:goodposting:

Oh and in before his "independents don't really exist.....they're a myth" shtick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had a thought that does concern me - Bernie supporters may be more likely to stick around and give an opinion on a phone poll. The "he's not home/don't call again" electorate probably favor Hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mon said:

Not over yet. He didn't put much of an effort into SC. Bernie's still building steam. Every day I see new support. Gabbard, a vice chair of the DNC, just quit today to support Bernie's campaign. She would know better than just about anyone that he still has a chance.

link

I ran across Gabbard's name a few months back (in this thread I believe) and did some checking on her background.  Very impressive, highly principled and smart.  It's great to see her step up and split from the establishment.  People like her are the future of that party.  Also, those of us who believe in what Sanders is trying to get accomplished aren't going anywhere any time soon, regardless of SC.      

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bear said:

I ran across Gabbard's name a few months back (in this thread I believe) and did some checking on her background.  Very impressive, highly principled and smart.  It's great to see her step up and split from the establishment.  People like her are the future of that party.  Also, those of us who believe in what Sanders is trying to get accomplished aren't going anywhere any time soon, regardless of SC.      

I know every election seems to be dire and a possible point from which we can't return, but I'm really feeling it this election. If the establishment wins this election, our oligarchy may become complete. It may be too late to do anything about it next election. They may just tie up all the loose ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hagmania said:

I have had a thought that does concern me - Bernie supporters may be more likely to stick around and give an opinion on a phone poll. The "he's not home/don't call again" electorate probably favor Hillary.

What are you basing this on or why do you believe it? I would have guessed the exact opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jayrok said:

Time to shut this one down, boys. 

It may be over from a practical standpoint. But Bernie could still pull off a miracle. However I think no matter how the primaries play out in the coming weeks he will remain in the race until the convention, being the default candidate if something happens to Hillary. He has the money to keep going and enthusiastic supporters - at the very least it keeps his message out there.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2016 at 1:59 PM, Sinn Fein said:

In the way-too-early-to-worry-about category - I am inching towards Tulsi Gabbard as an excellent VP choice for Bernie.

I had been in the Warren camp - but I think that puts all the eggs in one basket - economic reform. Gabbard adds another dimension to the ticket, particularly foreign policy and defense.

Still impressed with her.  She would make a great first female Vice President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mcintyre1 said:

 

Nice. She should have mentioned that DWS hasn't exactly remained neutral while keep her job as head of the DNC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NCCommish said:

TG can't deal with the truth that at the national level Democrats are incrementally different than the Republicans at best. You know who does get it? The American people. That is why independent in now the largest party. Both parties serve masters other than the voters and anyone paying any attention knows it.

No difference between Obama and Ted Cruz, right NCC?

You can push for more progressive policies while not trashing the current Democratic leaders. It's really a slap in the face to all of those who have worked advance liberal policies the past 20-30 years when you equate them to the folks they've been fighting to keep things from going in the opposite direction.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mon said:

I know every election seems to be dire and a possible point from which we can't return, but I'm really feeling it this election. If the establishment wins this election, our oligarchy may become complete. It may be too late to do anything about it next election. They may just tie up all the loose ends.

I don't think so.  The fact that Sanders has as much support as he has is very heartening.   This was supposed to be nothing but a coronation for Clinton but there is obviously a whole lot of people who are not having it.  And this is with Sanders being a self styled "Socialist Democrat" and sort of old.  There are a lot of people who understand this country needs universal healthcare and, as much as possible, to get money out of politics.  Have faith, this battle may just be starting.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

No difference between Obama and Ted Cruz, right NCC?

You can push for more progressive policies while not trashing the current Democratic leaders. It's really a slap in the face to all of those who have worked advance liberal policies the past 20-30 years when you equate them to the folks they've been fighting to keep things from going in the opposite direction.

I'm going to go ahead and guess his meaning of this term and yours are very different.  This is the first time in my time where I'm able to vote that someone is pushing real liberal policies.  For that alone I am thankful for Bernie.  Democrats should jump on board if they are genuinely liberal, yet that isn't happening.  Wonder why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'm going to go ahead and guess his meaning of this term and yours are very different.  This is the first time in my time where I'm able to vote that someone is pushing real liberal policies.  For that alone I am thankful for Bernie.  Democrats should jump on board if they are genuinely liberal, yet that isn't happening.  Wonder why?

Um, I dunno, how bout they don't think a 74 year old self described socialist can win the general election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bear said:

I don't think so.  The fact that Sanders has as much support as he has is very heartening.   This was supposed to be nothing but a coronation for Clinton but there is obviously a whole lot of people who are not having it.  And this is with Sanders being a self styled "Socialist Democrat" and sort of old.  There are a lot of people who understand this country needs universal healthcare and, as much as possible, to get money out of politics.  Have faith, this battle may just be starting.

What I'm saying is that it won't matter how many people support it if the game becomes completely rigged, which IMO is a real possibility. I hope you're right, though. I'll try to have faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

Um, I dunno, how bout they don't think a 74 year old self described socialist can win the general election?

Possibly and if true, I've given that party way more benefit than they deserve.  Another possibility, that's much more likely, is they don't like real liberal policies so they water down the term.  The most recent piece of evidence towards this theory would be ACA.  Look at what was in Obama's original proposal and compare it to what was passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Possibly and if true, I've given that party way more benefit than they deserve.  Another possibility, that's much more likely, is they don't like real liberal policies so they water down the term.  The most recent piece of evidence towards this theory would be ACA.  Look at what was in Obama's original proposal and compare it to what was passed.

I think that situation came down to "something is better than nothing", and Obama wanting something in his legacy in this area.  Bernie probably would have gone to the wall for a more socialist policy, but Obama is much more concerned about his legacy (and at the time, winning a second term) than Bernie would ever be.

I agree with the statement above that it's really wonderful that for the first time in a long time, a viable candidate is pushing a truly progressive agenda.  I didn't think I'd see that, but perhaps times are a changing, even if that change is headed by a 70+ year old Larry David look-a-like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Possibly and if true, I've given that party way more benefit than they deserve.  Another possibility, that's much more likely, is they don't like real liberal policies so they water down the term.  The most recent piece of evidence towards this theory would be ACA.  Look at what was in Obama's original proposal and compare it to what was passed.

Most progressives/liberals are in favor of what Bernie is proposing for healthcare. Single payer. I know that is what I would favor.

I have a pre-existing condition and before Obamacare could only get a junk policy (in California) that had a 48k deductible (I am not making this up) and then I had to pay 50% of the first 100k after that. It did pay for 3 doctor visits a year and most of my prescriptions plus routine lab tests and was fine unless I really got sick. Obama got the best he could given a GOP congress. I now have a policy with about a 6k deductible and while I am paying $500 a month versus $200 for the junk policy but couldn't be happier that I will not be face bankruptcy for a catastrophic illness.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

I think that situation came down to "something is better than nothing", and Obama wanting something in his legacy in this area.  Bernie probably would have gone to the wall for a more socialist policy, but Obama is much more concerned about his legacy (and at the time, winning a second term) than Bernie would ever be.

I agree with the statement above that it's really wonderful that for the first time in a long time, a viable candidate is pushing a truly progressive agenda.  I didn't think I'd see that, but perhaps times are a changing, even if that change is headed by a 70+ year old Larry David look-a-like.

The reasons why things went down the way they did don't really matter.  The fact that they did is what I am talking about.  There's always a "reason" (read excuse) for why things do/don't happen.  I actually laughed out loud when Hillary made the comment earlier this week about not promising things that won't be delivered.  I agree with her, but if we applied that to politics in this country, our politicians wouldn't have anything to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, squistion said:

Most progressives/liberals are in favor of what Bernie is proposing for healthcare. Single payer. I know that is what I would favor.

I have a pre-existing condition and before Obamacare could only get a junk policy (in California) that had a 48k deductible (I am not making this up) and then I had to pay 50% of the first 100k after that. It did pay for 3 doctor visits a year and most of my prescriptions plus routine lab tests and was fine unless I really got sick. Obama got the best he could given a GOP congress. I now have a policy with about a 6k deductible and while I am paying $500 a month versus $200 for the junk policy but couldn't be happier that I will not be face bankruptcy for a catastrophic illness.

Why do people keep saying this?  His own party cut his legs out from under him and gutted his initial proposal.  By the time it got to the GOP it was a shell of his original proposal.  I'm glad you got better coverage, but that really has nothing to do with my initial comments.  What he proposed and what was passed lay in stark contrast of one another when we place them on the "liberal scale" and he has his own party to thank for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true.  Lots of spineless Democrats feared for their future when push came to shove.  But perhaps that speaks to the desire of the money men that pull the strings of the politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Why do people keep saying this?  His own party cut his legs out from under him and gutted his initial proposal.  By the time it got to the GOP it was a shell of his original proposal.  I'm glad you got better coverage, but that really has nothing to do with my initial comments.  What he proposed and what was passed lay in stark contrast of one another when we place them on the "liberal scale" and he has his own party to thank for that.

Because he got it passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Commish said:

I'm going to go ahead and guess his meaning of this term and yours are very different.  This is the first time in my time where I'm able to vote that someone is pushing real liberal policies.  For that alone I am thankful for Bernie.  Democrats should jump on board if they are genuinely liberal, yet that isn't happening.  Wonder why?

LOL.  Yeah, Obama and Hillary are fake liberals.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

I think that situation came down to "something is better than nothing", and Obama wanting something in his legacy in this area.  Bernie probably would have gone to the wall for a more socialist policy, but Obama is much more concerned about his legacy (and at the time, winning a second term) than Bernie would ever be.

I agree with the statement above that it's really wonderful that for the first time in a long time, a viable candidate is pushing a truly progressive agenda.  I didn't think I'd see that, but perhaps times are a changing, even if that change is headed by a 70+ year old Larry David look-a-like.

I don't understand the perspective that arguing for policies that have no chance of getting implemented is somehow superior to actual progressive reform that helps tens of millions of folks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Why do people keep saying this?  His own party cut his legs out from under him and gutted his initial proposal.  By the time it got to the GOP it was a shell of his original proposal.  I'm glad you got better coverage, but that really has nothing to do with my initial comments.  What he proposed and what was passed lay in stark contrast of one another when we place them on the "liberal scale" and he has his own party to thank for that.

It's amazing that someone who pays so much attention to politics has no idea how democracy works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, squistion said:

Because he got it passed.

He didn't get passed what he wanted passed, not even close and it wasn't because of the GOP that he had to settle.  It makes no sense to make them the scapegoat in this instance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

It's amazing that someone who pays so much attention to politics has no idea how democracy works. 

You'll catch up one day...I have faith in you.  You get an "A" for effort....keep at it :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, squistion said:

Most progressives/liberals are in favor of what Bernie is proposing for healthcare. Single payer. I know that is what I would favor.

I have a pre-existing condition and before Obamacare could only get a junk policy (in California) that had a 48k deductible (I am not making this up) and then I had to pay 50% of the first 100k after that. It did pay for 3 doctor visits a year and most of my prescriptions plus routine lab tests and was fine unless I really got sick. Obama got the best he could given a GOP congress. I now have a policy with about a 6k deductible and while I am paying $500 a month versus $200 for the junk policy but couldn't be happier that I will not be face bankruptcy for a catastrophic illness.

GOP congress? Odd, I don't remember it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The loss in SC is indicative to why Bernie is struggling, at least in the south.  Bernie is the more popular candidate with people under 30.  Older voters are with Hillary.  Two things jumped out during that primary.

1.  Of the registered voters under 30, only 13% showed up to vote.  Bernie can have thousands of people at his rallies and people can donate til they are broke.  But if they don't vote it means squat.

2.  The local news interviewed some voters exiting the polls and some at the HRC victory speech.  Various ages, couple of men but mostly women, all African-American.  They were happy for Hillary of course and excited about her going forward.  When asked what they knew about Bernie Sanders, they looked at each other and one of the women said "nothing."  

They don't know who he is, much less what his policies are for this election.  Is it Bernie's fault?  Surely not, but he might have been able to get his foot in if he spent more time there?  I don't know.  Is it their fault?  Maybe, but it doesn't make any difference.  Bottom line is those voters were set on Hillary because her message to African-American voters in the south is to continue the momentum Barrack Obama has established.  Hillary knows where her bread is buttered with southern African-American voters.  That trend will probably continue through super Tuesday.  

People just aren't voting.  And the media builds results up as "A huge landslide... the people have spoken in SC!"  Well, 13% of the people have spoken.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

GOP congress? Odd, I don't remember it that way.

That's because you aren't living in his reality.  You're remembering what actually happened.  There wasn't a single GOP senator who voted for it and I think there was one GOP congressman who voted for it (maybe in Louisiana or Mississippi).  Don't remember.  This notion that the GOP had any significant influence on the bill is completely false.  Obama didn't stand up to his party enough to get passed what was a pretty good compromise IMO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jayrok said:

The loss in SC is indicative to why Bernie is struggling, at least in the south.  Bernie is the more popular candidate with people under 30.  Older voters are with Hillary.  Two things jumped out during that primary.

1.  Of the registered voters under 30, only 13% showed up to vote.  Bernie can have thousands of people at his rallies and people can donate til they are broke.  But if they don't vote it means squat.

2.  The local news interviewed some voters exiting the polls and some at the HRC victory speech.  Various ages, couple of men but mostly women, all African-American.  They were happy for Hillary of course and excited about her going forward.  When asked what they knew about Bernie Sanders, they looked at each other and one of the women said "nothing."  

They don't know who he is, much less what his policies are for this election.  Is it Bernie's fault?  Surely not, but he might have been able to get his foot in if he spent more time there?  I don't know.  Is it their fault?  Maybe, but it doesn't make any difference.  Bottom line is those voters were set on Hillary because her message to African-American voters in the south is to continue the momentum Barrack Obama has established.  Hillary knows where her bread is buttered with southern African-American voters.  That trend will probably continue through super Tuesday.  

People just aren't voting.  And the media builds results up as "A huge landslide... the people have spoken in SC!"  Well, 13% of the people have spoken.  

 

Excellent post Jay. I stay out of this thread mostly. I have nothing but praise for the Sanders movement and I believe a lot of that spirit will transfer over to the GOP candidate running vs Clinton. It's interesting if Cinton can cling to her Arkansas roots and not be labeled a New Yorker like she has been for the last 15 years. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's never been any different though. In the late 1960s, young people were more motivated than they'd ever been- mainly because they didn't want to be drafted and go to Vietnam. So they marched, they protested, they staged sit-ins- but they couldn't be bothered to vote in large numbers. They just don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, pantagrapher said:
Quote

Millennials might make a lot of noise between presidential elections, but in November, politicians remember what young people are: All throat and no vote.

yep.  Millennials love Bernie and want a political revolution.  They just don't have time to actually vote for it.   Maybe if voting could be done via twitter or a facebook button, there would be a lot more voter turnout.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just from experience of being one, I think the vocal millennials vote at a rather high captured percentage, it's just that outside of them no one cares. So you get 90% turnout of 10% of millennials but less than 10% of the remaining 90%.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jayrok said:

The loss in SC is indicative to why Bernie is struggling, at least in the south.  Bernie is the more popular candidate with people under 30.  Older voters are with Hillary.  Two things jumped out during that primary.

1.  Of the registered voters under 30, only 13% showed up to vote.  Bernie can have thousands of people at his rallies and people can donate til they are broke.  But if they don't vote it means squat.

2.  The local news interviewed some voters exiting the polls and some at the HRC victory speech.  Various ages, couple of men but mostly women, all African-American.  They were happy for Hillary of course and excited about her going forward.  When asked what they knew about Bernie Sanders, they looked at each other and one of the women said "nothing."  

They don't know who he is, much less what his policies are for this election.  Is it Bernie's fault?  Surely not, but he might have been able to get his foot in if he spent more time there?  I don't know.  Is it their fault?  Maybe, but it doesn't make any difference.  Bottom line is those voters were set on Hillary because her message to African-American voters in the south is to continue the momentum Barrack Obama has established.  Hillary knows where her bread is buttered with southern African-American voters.  That trend will probably continue through super Tuesday.  

People just aren't voting.  And the media builds results up as "A huge landslide... the people have spoken in SC!"  Well, 13% of the people have spoken.  

 

I can't remember where it was but I read an article with some interviews trying to get at why black voters are drawn to Hillary, and it wasn't this. It wasn't even about policy.  It was more about a connection with the Clintons- especially Bill, but it carries over- due to their working class roots and ties to the South. The Sanders narrative just doesn't connect with them at all.  A child of immigrants in Brooklyn finding relative success immediately, going to the University of Chicago, deciding to head to Vermont just because it seems cool, and then running for mayor of a hippie college town? Some of us can probably identify with some aspects of that, but to many black voters in the South he might as well be from Mars.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It's never been any different though. In the late 1960s, young people were more motivated than they'd ever been- mainly because they didn't want to be drafted and go to Vietnam. So they marched, they protested, they staged sit-ins- but they couldn't be bothered to vote in large numbers. They just don't. 

Just over 50% of 18-24 year olds voted in '64 & 68'.  Not great but certainly much better than the 38% in '12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I can't remember where it was but I read an article with some interviews trying to get at why black voters are drawn to Hillary, and it wasn't this. It wasn't even about policy.  It was more about a connection with the Clintons- especially Bill, but it carries over- due to their working class roots and ties to the South. The Sanders narrative just doesn't connect with them at all.  A child of immigrants in Brooklyn finding relative success immediately, going to the University of Chicago, deciding to head to Vermont just because it seems cool, and then running for mayor of a hippie college town? Some of us can probably identify with some aspects of that, but to many black voters in the South he might as well be from Mars.

 

Well they love Obama too.  Her victory speech included those words on more than one occasion.. that she pledged to continue to build on Obama's momentum.  

I agree that Bernie may as well be from Mars.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I can't remember where it was but I read an article with some interviews trying to get at why black voters are drawn to Hillary, and it wasn't this. It wasn't even about policy.  It was more about a connection with the Clintons- especially Bill, but it carries over- due to their working class roots and ties to the South. The Sanders narrative just doesn't connect with them at all.  A child of immigrants in Brooklyn finding relative success immediately, going to the University of Chicago, deciding to head to Vermont just because it seems cool, and then running for mayor of a hippie college town? Some of us can probably identify with some aspects of that, but to many black voters in the South he might as well be from Mars.

 

I was watching some of the post election coverage on CNN and one of the black pundits was repeating what Tim said earlier in this thread or the Hillary thread can't remember which.  I laughed when he posted the comment he heard from the XM radio guy that said black people were voting for her because they felt bad for voting against her in 2008 in favor of Barack Obama.  I laughed initially because her supporters were railing on those of us who don't understand why black people are so beholden to her given the policies created against them by her husband etc.  They were calling us racist for even asking that question.  So, when I heard Tim express this blatantly racist notion of guilt he had heard on XM radio, I thought he had lost his mind.  Then it surfaced again on CNN and I couldn't believe it.  It's astonishing really.  I'd be pissed if I were part of the black community.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jayrok said:

Well they love Obama too.  Her victory speech included those words on more than one occasion.. that she pledged to continue to build on Obama's momentum.  

I agree that Bernie may as well be from Mars.  

Yeah, she's playing that very well.  Sanders is in a difficult spot I think- I would think it's very hard to sell a message about the system being broken to the black community at the tail end of a Barack Obama presidency that I believe most of them still enthusiastically support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.