If Sanders starts winning states and gets the majority of actual votes, the superdelegates will come his way. Democrats aren't insane, they'll back the person with the most votes.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter BigSteelThrill
- Start date
The Commish
Footballguy
I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think it's "out there" to be skeptical over establishment types and how they will react to someone not really of their cool club.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
College campuses lined up to vote for Obama, I was at UM during his run and you couldn't escape it where I was. I don't know the actual voters under 30 Obama had but it seemed like a higher percentage than normal.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
bud29
Footballguy
The whole superdelegate system is just dumb. If they go against the grain, that's a very undemocratic way of nominating someone. If they break according to the vote, why have them?
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
It's a made up reason. It sounds good or a way to influence the groupthink in this base but most will see right thru this. No way do blacks feel guilty for voting Obama the last 8 years, that's just outright silly.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
Just donated more money to Bernie this morning, I can't really justify giving him anymore if Clinton beats him soundly tomorrow so it might be my last time. I'm happy to keep pushing him money though if he wins 4+ states tomorrow.
CBusAlex
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
21-24 year olds.
18-20 year olds didn't receive the right to vote until 1971.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
That's sort of the way they do it in a parliamentary system, but there also are generally more than two parties.
The Commish
Footballguy
Last democratic primary didn't have an outsider of their little establishment running in their primary. This isn't complicated.
Exactly. I think the role of superdelegates makes sense if you don't have a candidate get half of the regular delegates. Speaking of, I hope we get the chaos of a RNC where no one has enough delegates to get the nomination.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
If the national poll today with Trump at 49% is even close to accurate, he'll end up with more than enough delegates to avoid a contested convention.Exactly. I think the role of superdelegates makes sense if you don't have a candidate get half of the regular delegates. Speaking of, I hope we get the chaos of a RNC where no one has enough delegates to get the nomination.
bud29
Footballguy
Especially since the post-Super Tuesday contests are winner-take-all. He'll have no problem getting the required delegates, the GOP just doesn't want him to (and they don't have any superdelegates in their pocket to deploy against him).
Also made another donation this morning. I'll probably keep on until this is decided one way or another, though tomorrow is obviously huge. Sanders, in my mind, just needs to stay competitive enough to keep fighting.
fossdboss
Footballguy
Thread on page 4? Bernie must really be in trouble.
I have no idea how accurate this poll is but as an Oklahoman it was pleasantly surprising. I'm hopeful for tomorrow.
Bernie 48 - Clinton 43 in Oklahoma poll
I have no idea how accurate this poll is but as an Oklahoman it was pleasantly surprising. I'm hopeful for tomorrow.
Bernie 48 - Clinton 43 in Oklahoma poll
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
538 actually has Sanders a heavy favorite to win Oklahoma, but has Clinton an even bigger favorite to win MA.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Just got a text from the Bernie campaign. Go out and vote everybody!
SameSongNDance
Footballguy
I have come to the conclusion that Bernie is simply too good for America.
skol asylum
Footballguy
That would be huge for Bernie, especially given how Hillary did in 08 there...
Oklahoma Democratic presidential primary, 2008
Candidate Votes Percentage National delegates
Hillary Clinton 228,480 54.76% 24
Barack Obama 130,130 31.19% 14
John Edwards 42,725 10.24% 0
Bill Richardson 7,078 1.70% 0
Jim Rogers 3,905 0.94% 0
Christopher Dodd 2,5110 .60% 0
Dennis Kucinich 2,378 0.57% 0
Totals 417,207 100.00% 38
crewmember
Footballguy
Missed the discussion today, found an article by Glenn Greenwald that sums up the health care debate 6 years ago. 60 votes was not necessary in the senate for the public option, 50 votes were, and of course Bernie Sanders was the one advocating for it the most. http://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/03/12/public-option-democrats-scam-becomes-more-transparent
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote
about what seemed to be a glaring (and quite typical) scam
perpetrated by Congressional Democrats: all year long, they insisted
that the White House and a majority
of Democratic Senators vigorously supported a public option, but
the only thing oh-so-unfortunately preventing its enactment was the
filibuster: sadly, we have 50 but not 60 votes for it, they
insisted. Democratic pundits used that claim to push for "filibuster
reform," arguing that if only majority rule were required in the Senate,
then the noble Democrats would be able to deliver all sorts of
wonderful progressive reforms that they were truly eager to enact but
which the evil filibuster now prevents. In response, advocates of the
public option kept
arguing that the public option could be accomplished by
reconciliation -- where only 50 votes, not 60, would be required -- but
Obama loyalists scorned
that reconciliation proposal, insisting (at least before the Senate
passed a bill with 60 votes) that using reconciliation was Unserious,
naive, procedurally impossible, and politically disastrous.
But all those claims were put to the test -- all those bluffs were
called -- once the White House decided that it had
to use reconciliation to pass a final health care reform bill.
That meant that any changes to the Senate bill (which had passed with 60
votes) -- including the addition of the public option -- would only
require 50 votes, which Democrats assured progressives all year long
that they had. Great news for the public option, right? Wrong. As
soon as it actually became possible to pass it, the 50 votes magically
vanished. Senate Democrats (and the White House) were willing to
pretend they supported a public option only as long as it was impossible
to pass it. Once reconciliation gave them the opportunity they claimed
all year long they needed -- a "majority rule" system -- they began concocting
ways to ensure that it lacked 50 votes.
All of that was bad enough, but now the scam is getting even more
extreme, more transparent. Faced with the dilemma of how they could
possibly justify their year-long claimed support for the public option
only now to fail to enact it, more and more Democratic Senators were
pressured into signing a letter supporting the enactment of the public
option through reconciliation; that
number is now above 40, and is rapidly approaching 50. In other
words, there is a serious possibility that the Senate might enact a
public option if there is a vote on it, because it's very difficult for
these Senators to vote "No" after pretending all year long -- on the
record -- that they supported it. In fact, The Huffington Post's
Ryan Grim yesterday
wrote: "the votes appear to exist to include a public
option. It's only a matter of will."
The one last hope for Senate Democratic leaders was to avoid a vote
altogether on the public option, thereby relieving Senators of having
to take a position and being exposed. But that trick would require the
cooperation of all Senators -- any one Senator can introduce a public
option amendment during the reconciliation and force a vote -- and it
now seems that Bernie Sanders, to his great credit, is
refusing to go along with the Democrats' sham and will do exactly that:
ignore the wishes of the Senate leadership and force a roll call vote
on the public option.
So now what is to be done? They only need 50 votes, so they can't
use the filibuster excuse. They don't seem able to prevent a vote, as
they tried to do, because Sanders will force one. And it seems there
aren't enough Senate Democrats willing to vote against the public option
after publicly saying all year long they supported it, which means it
might get 50 votes if a roll call vote is held. So what is the Senate
Democratic leadership now doing? They're
whipping against the public option, which they pretended
all year along to so vigorously support:
Senate Democratic leaders are concerned about the amount of
mischief their own Members could create if or when a health care
reconciliation bill comes up for debate. And sources said some supporters
of creating a public insurance option are privately worried that they
will be asked to vote against the idea during debate on the
bill, which could occur before March 26.
Majority Whip **** Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged Wednesday
that liberals may be asked to oppose any amendment, including one
creating a public option, to ensure a smooth ride for the bill.
"We have to tell people, 'You just have to swallow hard' and say that
putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down,
and we just can't let it happen," Durbin, who supports a public option,
told reporters.
If -- as they claimed all year long -- a majority of Congressional
Democrats and the White House all support a public option, why would
they possibly whip against it, and ensure its rejection, at exactly the
moment when it finally became possible to pass it? If majorities of
the House and Senate support it, as does the White House, how could the
inclusion of a public option possibly jeopardize passage of the bill?
I've argued
since August that the evidence was clear that the White House had
privately negotiated away the public option and didn't want it, even as
the President claimed publicly (and repeatedly) that he did. And while I
support the concept of "filibuster reform" in theory, it's long seemed
clear that it would actually accomplish little, because the 60-vote rule
does not actually impede anything. Rather, it is the excuse Democrats
fraudulently invoke, using what I called
the Rotating Villain tactic (it's now Durbin's turn), to refuse to
pass what they claim they support but are politically afraid to pass, or
which they actually oppose (sorry, we'd so love to do this, but
gosh darn it, we just can't get 60 votes). If only 50 votes were
required, they'd just find ways to ensure they lacked 50. Both of those
are merely theories insusceptible to conclusive proof, but if I had the
power to create the most compelling evidence for those theories that I
could dream up, it would be hard to surpass what Democrats are doing now
with regard to the public option. They're actually whipping against
the public option. Could this sham be any more transparent?
UPDATE: One related point: when I was on Morning
Joe several weeks ago, I argued this point -- why aren't Democrats
including the public option in the reconciliation package given that
they have the 50 votes in favor of the public option -- and, in
response, Chuck Todd recited White House spin and DC conventional wisdom
(needless to say) by insisting that they do not have the votes to pass
the public option. If that's true -- if they lack the votes to pass the
public option through reconciliation? -- why is **** Durbin now
whipping against it, telling Senators -- in his own words -- "You just
have to swallow hard' and say that putting an amendment on this is
either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can't let it
happen"?
No discussion of the public option is complete without noting how
much the private health insurance industry despises it; the last thing
they want, of course, is the beginning of real competition and choice.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote
about what seemed to be a glaring (and quite typical) scam
perpetrated by Congressional Democrats: all year long, they insisted
that the White House and a majority
of Democratic Senators vigorously supported a public option, but
the only thing oh-so-unfortunately preventing its enactment was the
filibuster: sadly, we have 50 but not 60 votes for it, they
insisted. Democratic pundits used that claim to push for "filibuster
reform," arguing that if only majority rule were required in the Senate,
then the noble Democrats would be able to deliver all sorts of
wonderful progressive reforms that they were truly eager to enact but
which the evil filibuster now prevents. In response, advocates of the
public option kept
arguing that the public option could be accomplished by
reconciliation -- where only 50 votes, not 60, would be required -- but
Obama loyalists scorned
that reconciliation proposal, insisting (at least before the Senate
passed a bill with 60 votes) that using reconciliation was Unserious,
naive, procedurally impossible, and politically disastrous.
But all those claims were put to the test -- all those bluffs were
called -- once the White House decided that it had
to use reconciliation to pass a final health care reform bill.
That meant that any changes to the Senate bill (which had passed with 60
votes) -- including the addition of the public option -- would only
require 50 votes, which Democrats assured progressives all year long
that they had. Great news for the public option, right? Wrong. As
soon as it actually became possible to pass it, the 50 votes magically
vanished. Senate Democrats (and the White House) were willing to
pretend they supported a public option only as long as it was impossible
to pass it. Once reconciliation gave them the opportunity they claimed
all year long they needed -- a "majority rule" system -- they began concocting
ways to ensure that it lacked 50 votes.
All of that was bad enough, but now the scam is getting even more
extreme, more transparent. Faced with the dilemma of how they could
possibly justify their year-long claimed support for the public option
only now to fail to enact it, more and more Democratic Senators were
pressured into signing a letter supporting the enactment of the public
option through reconciliation; that
number is now above 40, and is rapidly approaching 50. In other
words, there is a serious possibility that the Senate might enact a
public option if there is a vote on it, because it's very difficult for
these Senators to vote "No" after pretending all year long -- on the
record -- that they supported it. In fact, The Huffington Post's
Ryan Grim yesterday
wrote: "the votes appear to exist to include a public
option. It's only a matter of will."
The one last hope for Senate Democratic leaders was to avoid a vote
altogether on the public option, thereby relieving Senators of having
to take a position and being exposed. But that trick would require the
cooperation of all Senators -- any one Senator can introduce a public
option amendment during the reconciliation and force a vote -- and it
now seems that Bernie Sanders, to his great credit, is
refusing to go along with the Democrats' sham and will do exactly that:
ignore the wishes of the Senate leadership and force a roll call vote
on the public option.
So now what is to be done? They only need 50 votes, so they can't
use the filibuster excuse. They don't seem able to prevent a vote, as
they tried to do, because Sanders will force one. And it seems there
aren't enough Senate Democrats willing to vote against the public option
after publicly saying all year long they supported it, which means it
might get 50 votes if a roll call vote is held. So what is the Senate
Democratic leadership now doing? They're
whipping against the public option, which they pretended
all year along to so vigorously support:
Senate Democratic leaders are concerned about the amount of
mischief their own Members could create if or when a health care
reconciliation bill comes up for debate. And sources said some supporters
of creating a public insurance option are privately worried that they
will be asked to vote against the idea during debate on the
bill, which could occur before March 26.
Majority Whip **** Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged Wednesday
that liberals may be asked to oppose any amendment, including one
creating a public option, to ensure a smooth ride for the bill.
"We have to tell people, 'You just have to swallow hard' and say that
putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down,
and we just can't let it happen," Durbin, who supports a public option,
told reporters.
If -- as they claimed all year long -- a majority of Congressional
Democrats and the White House all support a public option, why would
they possibly whip against it, and ensure its rejection, at exactly the
moment when it finally became possible to pass it? If majorities of
the House and Senate support it, as does the White House, how could the
inclusion of a public option possibly jeopardize passage of the bill?
I've argued
since August that the evidence was clear that the White House had
privately negotiated away the public option and didn't want it, even as
the President claimed publicly (and repeatedly) that he did. And while I
support the concept of "filibuster reform" in theory, it's long seemed
clear that it would actually accomplish little, because the 60-vote rule
does not actually impede anything. Rather, it is the excuse Democrats
fraudulently invoke, using what I called
the Rotating Villain tactic (it's now Durbin's turn), to refuse to
pass what they claim they support but are politically afraid to pass, or
which they actually oppose (sorry, we'd so love to do this, but
gosh darn it, we just can't get 60 votes). If only 50 votes were
required, they'd just find ways to ensure they lacked 50. Both of those
are merely theories insusceptible to conclusive proof, but if I had the
power to create the most compelling evidence for those theories that I
could dream up, it would be hard to surpass what Democrats are doing now
with regard to the public option. They're actually whipping against
the public option. Could this sham be any more transparent?
UPDATE: One related point: when I was on Morning
Joe several weeks ago, I argued this point -- why aren't Democrats
including the public option in the reconciliation package given that
they have the 50 votes in favor of the public option -- and, in
response, Chuck Todd recited White House spin and DC conventional wisdom
(needless to say) by insisting that they do not have the votes to pass
the public option. If that's true -- if they lack the votes to pass the
public option through reconciliation? -- why is **** Durbin now
whipping against it, telling Senators -- in his own words -- "You just
have to swallow hard' and say that putting an amendment on this is
either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can't let it
happen"?
No discussion of the public option is complete without noting how
much the private health insurance industry despises it; the last thing
they want, of course, is the beginning of real competition and choice.
crewmember
Footballguy
On south carolina, I heard they did spend time and money, but the writing was on the wall when there was a week or two to go, so they didn't run ads any more, and why sanders didn't spend anytime there. The writing is on the wall on the other southern states as well, I saw ppp polls on those states a few days ago that showed of people that were certain about who they were voting for went 70 to 80 percent in favor of Clinton.
crewmember
Footballguy
I agree with you in short term, my hope is for the future when they do start voting. I think the internet, is the factor that will break the old trends. Young people get news from the internet, where if you are intellectually honest, you will find the truth.
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/top-gop-pollster-young-americans-are-terrifyingly-liberal/
Zegras11
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Latest polls out of Mass aren't promising.
cstu
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Just curious: why Oklahoma? Did Bernie do something special to connect in that state?
squistion
Footballguy
On some MSNBC show this evening (either Chris Hayes or Lawrence O'Donnell) they mentioned that although OK has very few Democrats, an overwhelming majority of them are progressive and liberal in their views.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
BassNBrew
Footballguy
It's really strange. Oklahoma is one of the lowest IQ states along with CA and ARK. Doesn't compute.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
It's really strange. Oklahoma is one of the lowest IQ states along with CA and ARK. Doesn't compute.
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Yeah, politics in America aren't going to let a guy not like them in a position of power without an enormous fight. I really wish he'd turn this thing on it's ear and run independent, but I don't think that's an option now and even if it were, he wouldn't do it.
SkyRattlers
Anti-aliai
How about a Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Rubio free for all? With both Sanders and Trump running as independants
The Commish
Footballguy
The internet isn't the factor....the factor will always be the individual. Now, the internet can be a substantial tool in helping them break the old trends, but ultimately it's on the individual to be open minded and intellectually honest. Of course, this doesn't apply to just young people. If this were the case with the older demographics we probably wouldn't be seeing Hillary vs Trump. Though, I think the thing they suffer from the most is being closed minded (which leads to the intellectual dishonesty). They are clearly at the "I've made up my mind, now let me find data to support my view" stage of life.
Otis
Footballguy
pantagrapher
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I want to believe this, but I am left wondering who would take up his banner once he's done? That's what it's going to take to effect change. He's not going to be able to do it all himself. He can only go so far. Knowing that, who's going to take up where he left off?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I'll take the fall for this one guys, apparently I'm the kiss of death. Just as I was starting to get on board.
The Commish
Footballguy
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Integrity and following the rules probably doesn't resonate well with Mass voters.
The Commish
Footballguy
Don't beat yourself up. I think most of us who support where he's going and who he is knew it wasn't going to be easy even if we didn't say it out loud. The establishment is a beast of epic proportions. Hopefully someone a bit younger is willing to take up the cause where he leaves off. Without question one of the more impactful candidates of my lifetime, if not the most impactful when it comes to shining a light on the business of Washington DC politics.
This would be the only way he got in - if Trump lost the GOP nomination, and ran as an Independent - even then, I am not sure he would do it.
My fear is that most of his impact is going to be negated when he drops out and throws his support behind Hillary.
The Commish
Footballguy
My fear as well. No question. Winning hides (allows us to ignore) a lot of warts. If we want something better than Trump vs Hillary we can't focus on the "victories" and ignore the obvious warts.
JerseyToughGuys
Tough Guy
Similar threads
