Go Bernie!

[LordMortis]

Also opinions are everywhere

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/us/po ... paign.html

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/133755/ ... ime-debate

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/26/trump-sa ... ntary.html

OtOH, it looks like Trump inviting Bernie and then saying it was joke after getting Clinton support all hot and bothered and full of venom, is a demonstration of his being PR savant. He's done nothing but shown his statements mean nothing and he wins.

[Max Peck]

Apparently, Trump was kidding

But was he kidding about kidding?

Trump agrees to debate Sanders but sets stiff price

Donald Trump has provisionally accepted Bernie Sanders' proposal to debate, but the billionaire is setting a high price for participating. His condition: The hosting TV network would have to put up millions of dollars for charity. Representatives for Fox News, ABC News and CBS News say the networks are interested in hosting such a showdown but would not comment on whether they'd be willing to put up the $10 million Trump is demanding for women's health causes. "We're always interested in more opportunities to hear from the candidates," said ABC spokeswoman Julie Townsend. Trump said Thursday a host network would make millions from sky-high ratings and should agree to turn over at least $10 million to women's health causes. Overlooking the impediment of Trump's price tag on his acceptance, Sanders tweeted that he was delighted that Trump accepted, adding: "Let's do it in the biggest stadium possible."

Trump and Sanders see potential benefits for pursuing a prime-time event that would be unprecedented, pitting the presumptive Republican nominee against the clear Democratic underdog - and excluding likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. But it's far from clear any such showdown will happen. In September, Trump proposed that CNN donate profits from the second GOP debate to charity. CNN never responded to the request, and the idea was dropped. Clinton told reporters Thursday that she understood the proposal for a Sanders-Trump debate was "a joke" and she's looking forward to debating Trump in the general election campaign. Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said the idea was no joke. "We're serious and hope Mr. Trump is, too," Briggs said. He said Clinton declined to join Sanders in another Democratic debate.

Appearing on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live," Sanders said of Clinton's refusal to debate in California: "I think it's kind of insulting to the people of the largest state in the United States of America." He said he is genuinely interested in a faceoff with Trump, saying the pair sees the world in vastly different ways, adding that "the goal would be to have it in some big stadium." Leaving out Clinton could have the effect of belittling her, despite her commanding position on the verge of the Democratic nomination, and could give both men free shots at her decades in public service as part of the establishment they both deride. For the publicity-loving Trump, such an event would allow him to make a pitch for Sanders supporters who are watching, along the lines of the populism that both men profess. Lately, Trump has been saying that Sanders is right on some issues, although they are fundamentally far apart on many.

For Sanders, appearing onstage with fellow native New Yorker Donald Trump would draw attention beyond his larger-than-expected base of young supporters. Kelly McBride, a journalistic ethics expert and vice president at the Poynter Institute, said the idea of a charitable donation as a requirement "creates the perception of a conflict of interest but I don't think it creates a real conflict of interest." She said networks already compromise themselves by negotiating with campaigns over the moderators and formats for debates.

The back and forth came the same day an Associated Press count of GOP delegates found that Trump has enough support to exceed the 1,237 delegates required to win the GOP nomination. Sanders, in contrast, is far behind Clinton, who is 75 delegates short of the 2,383 needed to win the Democratic nomination. Clinton has commitments of support from 2,308 delegates to Sanders' 1,539.

[malchior]

That "demand" seems a tad cynical by the Donald. I rate it at taco bowl on the pandering scale.

[GreenGoo]

That "demand" seems a tad cynical by the Donald. I rate it at taco bowl on the pandering scale.

He understands that debates aren't solely for entertainment and ratings, or aren't supposed to be anyway, yes?

Fuck I hate this guy so much.

[Zarathud]

The Trump State of the Union...brought to you by Taco Bell...

[Isgrimnur]

[Jeff V]

I think it would be awesome to put up a $10 million donation to Planned Parenthood in Trump's name. They are, after all, a group very involved in women's health issues.

[Defiant]

Looks like the debate is going forward

[El Guapo]

Trump now says the debate would be "inappropriate."

[Defiant]

Trump now says the debate would be "inappropriate."

Well yeah. Now if it were a penis measuring contest, though, he'd be completely cool with it.

[Max Peck]

Trump now says the debate would be "inappropriate."

Well yeah. Now if it were a penis measuring contest, though, he'd be completely cool with it.

Hey, now, he's never said that he was down with having it measured. He just assured everyone that there was no problem there. But it isn't like he'd lie about, amirite?

[Defiant]

After putting pressure on the Bernie Sanders campaign to agree to meet with them, a coalition of HIV/AIDS activists now say that the independent Vermont Senator and Democratic presidential candidate is “misleading the public” about the content of that meeting, and “exploiting” their group for short-term political gain, even implying an endorsement by the group that they did not make.

Those charges are contained in a scathing open letter to the Sanders campaign signed by 19 members of the coalition, in which the group says Sanders pimped their meeting in a press release that made it sound like the group endorses a piece of legislation that Sanders supports

The Sanders campaign responded to the activists’ letter by accusing them of being stooges for pharmaceutical companies. No, I’m not kidding.

link

[Defiant]

Now, after having gotten to choose five members of the Democratic convention platform committee - something no other second place candidate in a primary has gotten, he's tried to get two of the other members removed.

The DNC replied "no".

“Your challenge does not allege that there was any violation of the provisions of the Call in the conduct of their elections,” they wrote. “Having carefully reviewed your challenge, we find that it fails to meet the criteria.”

[El Guapo]

Now, after having gotten to choose five members of the Democratic convention platform committee - something no other second place candidate in a primary has gotten, he's tried to get two of the other members removed.

The DNC replied "no".

“Your challenge does not allege that there was any violation of the provisions of the Call in the conduct of their elections,” they wrote. “Having carefully reviewed your challenge, we find that it fails to meet the criteria.”

You left out the part where the Sanders campaign not only demanded that they be removed, but threatened to take this to the floor of the convention with minority reports and everything. What are the odds that Sanders doesn't turn the convention into an utter fiasco at this point - 10%?

Barney Frank (one of the co-chairs that Sanders had removed) had a great reply, which reminded me how awesome he is:

Frank also said it was false to assume he had a "25 year vendetta" against Sanders.

"About 10 years ago, or 12 years ago, at his request as a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, I went to Burlington to speak at a fundraiser for him," said Frank. "I hope, for the sake of his purity, that no bankers snuck into the room. And I hope he will release the list of the attendees from that fundraiser, just to make sure."

[Zarathud]

Wait a minute. Barnie Frank, the co-sponsor of the Dodd-Frank bank reform bill, isn't liberal enough for Bernie? Seriously?

[Rip]

Wait a minute. Barnie Frank, the co-sponsor of the Dodd-Frank bank reform bill, isn't liberal enough for Bernie? Seriously?

Bernie Frank is a DINO.

[El Guapo]

Wait a minute. Barnie Frank, the co-sponsor of the Dodd-Frank bank reform bill, isn't liberal enough for Bernie? Seriously?

To be fair, the complaint in the Sanders letter doesn't rest on Frank being a DINO, but on him being openly pro-Hillary in the campaign. Though I'm sure there are a bunch of people in Bernie-world that would consider him a DINO as well.

As an aside, I think the odds that Clinton would pick Sanders as her VP choice are much higher now, if he would accept (which I think he ultimately would).

[Max Peck]

Wait a minute. Barnie Frank, the co-sponsor of the Dodd-Frank bank reform bill, isn't liberal enough for Bernie? Seriously?

Bernie Frank is a DINO.

That's at least half true. I don't think anyone could dispute that Bernie is literally a DINO. I've never heard that said of Frank, though.

[Holman]

Barney Frank is a Democrat's Democrat, not least because he understands that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

[Newcastle]

Wait a minute. Barnie Frank, the co-sponsor of the Dodd-Frank bank reform bill, isn't liberal enough for Bernie? Seriously?

As an aside, I think the odds that Clinton would pick Sanders as her VP choice are much higher now, if he would accept (which I think he ultimately would).

I think I have more of a shot of being Clinton's running mate than Sanders. The dude has overstayed his welcome since ...oh February (post - Ohio primary in my estimation was his campaigns death). I think she will choose someone from a purple state (maybe of latino blood) ...but Sanders...no way in hell. He's thrown too much smack her way, pummeled the party, and overstayed his welcome. There's going to be some bad blood between the two. Especially with his threat now to not concede until the Super Delegates vote in July at the convention.

I also am seriously wondering if there is going to be retribution by the Senate Dems if they take it back...ie he doesn't get a budget committee chair which he is in line for.

[El Guapo]

Wait a minute. Barnie Frank, the co-sponsor of the Dodd-Frank bank reform bill, isn't liberal enough for Bernie? Seriously?

As an aside, I think the odds that Clinton would pick Sanders as her VP choice are much higher now, if he would accept (which I think he ultimately would).

I think I have more of a shot of being Clinton's running mate than Sanders. The dude has overstayed his welcome since ...oh February (post - Ohio primary in my estimation was his campaigns death). I think she will choose someone from a purple state (maybe of latino blood) ...but Sanders...no way in hell. He's thrown too much smack her way, pummeled the party, and overstayed his welcome. There's going to be some bad blood between the two. Especially with his threat now to not concede until the Super Delegates vote in July at the convention.

I also am seriously wondering if there is going to be retribution by the Senate Dems if they take it back...ie he doesn't get a budget committee chair which he is in line for.

I agree, *but* Sanders has significant leverage via his threat to take the fight to the convention. The main risk for Hillary of losing in the general election is if Sanders supporters don't rally to her in significant numbers, and Sanders has a lot of control over whether that happens. Bringing him onto the ticket is the most surefire way to avoid that disaster.

I wager that Clinton really doesn't want to do it, but there's a pretty compelling case for it.

The best case scenario would be Clinton picking Warren as her VP pick, as that would bring a lot of the benefits (she'd bring a ton of Bernie supporters over) with much less of the bad blood and baggage, BUT Massachusetts has a Republican governor who would appoint a Republican replacement to Warren, which could completely screw up Clinton's supreme court nominee leverage. Which is a bummer.

[Fitzy]

Trump may have the love and support of Russia and North Korea, but Senator Sanders has received the all important Venezuela endorsement.

[Defiant]

Bernie and Jane Sanders house: A guided tour

Nearby is an antique sculpture of Don Quixote, which she asks that I not write about as a metaphor.

[Kurth]

I could not possibly be more sick of Bernie Sanders. For a long time, he had some very good reasons to be in this race, and there's no question he put forward an important message about income inequality that has resonated and impacted the Democratic platform. But it's past time that he hang it up. He's not going to win. He knows that, and all but his most die-hard (and blind) followers know it. Bycontinuing his campaign, by ratcheting up his attacks on Clinton, and by vowing to contest the Democratic convention, all he's doing at this point is paving the way for a Trump victory. It's assinine, but, unfotunately, it seems to go right along with Bernie's penchant for being a bad loser.

[Defiant]

Oh look, the Sanders campaign is complaining about voter suppression:

On Sunday afternoon, as lines in Puerto Rico stretched to 90 minutes or even two hours in some areas, the Bernie Sanders campaign had already accused the Democratic Party of voter suppression. On social media, comments and accusations of voter fraud floated by.

Meanwhile, MSNBC National Reporter Tony Dokoupil announced on-air that the reason the polling stations had been cut so dramatically, by two-thirds, from 1510 to 432, was because the Bernie Sanders campaign did not have enough volunteers to monitor polling stations.

I think we've identified the criminal masterminds behind this voter suppression operation.

[hepcat]

What Kurth said.

Bernie's just burning bridges now. He's gone from candidate to troll the last few months.

[Zarathud]

Why does Bernie always assume that his supporters are too lazy to show up early at the polls?

[El Guapo]

Also, Sanders has a pre-built in conspiracy theory in case he loses California tomorrow. Clinton's going to get enough delegates (including supers) from New Jersey before the California polling stations close on the West Coast. Some media outlets are inevitably going to report that, and some will probably say that she has 'clinched' the nomination. Sanders surrogates are saying that they're going to do this to discourage Sanders voters from going to the polls (I'm not totally clear on why Sanders supporters would disproportionately not vote in that situation).

[Defiant]

Also, Sanders has a pre-built in conspiracy theory in case he loses California tomorrow. Clinton's going to get enough delegates (including supers) from New Jersey before the California polling stations close on the West Coast. Some media outlets are inevitably going to report that, and some will probably say that she has 'clinched' the nomination. Sanders surrogates are saying that they're going to do this to discourage Sanders voters from going to the polls (I'm not totally clear on why Sanders supporters would disproportionately not vote in that situation).

I remember reading how the 1980 election was called before polls had been closed in California, and the belief was that Democrats were discouraged by Reagan being announced as winning that they wouldn't bother voting (which wouldn't have altered that election, but might have affected down ticket races).

The thing is, it wasn't until decades later that the press had found someone who said they hadn't bothered to vote because of that call.

[Defiant]

Why does Bernie always assume that his supporters are too lazy to show up early at the polls?

College students, lazy? What would make him think that?

Of course, he's also claimed that he's been losing because of low voter turnout among poor people. Of course, in most of the states with exit polling, Clinton won among poor people.

[El Guapo]

Also, Sanders has a pre-built in conspiracy theory in case he loses California tomorrow. Clinton's going to get enough delegates (including supers) from New Jersey before the California polling stations close on the West Coast. Some media outlets are inevitably going to report that, and some will probably say that she has 'clinched' the nomination. Sanders surrogates are saying that they're going to do this to discourage Sanders voters from going to the polls (I'm not totally clear on why Sanders supporters would disproportionately not vote in that situation).

I remember reading how the 1980 election was called before polls had been closed in California, and the belief was that Democrats were discouraged by Reagan being announced as winning that they wouldn't bother voting (which wouldn't have altered that election, but might have affected down ticket races).

The thing is, it wasn't until decades later that the press had found someone who said they hadn't bothered to vote because of that call.

I'm just not clear why that would impact one side more than the other. If people think the election's effectively over and their vote wouldn't matter, then I think it's reasonable to suppose that they're less likely to vote. But I don't see why that's more likely to impact the winning or losing side, respectively.

[Defiant]

I'm just not clear why that would impact one side more than the other. If people think the election's effectively over and their vote wouldn't matter, then I think it's reasonable to suppose that they're less likely to vote. But I don't see why that's more likely to impact the winning or losing side, respectively.

My guess is that it would affect those who are more ambivalent about politics the most. But setting that aside, while it could affect either, I would think that it would affect the losing side more than the winning side. People like voting for winners and are likely going to be more excited to vote for winners than they would be for losers.

But I don't think it will matter very much, as I think the number of people affected would be very, very small.

[Exodor]

What Kurth said.

Bernie's just burning bridges now. He's gone from candidate to troll the last few months.

Yep, it's gone beyond infuriating. It's over man, let it go.


Also could we change the thread title to Go Away Bernie!

[hepcat]

My post from the second page:

I know he doesn't stand a chance, but I actually am rooting for Bernie.

[El Guapo]

It will be interesting to see what happens with the primaries tomorrow. If Clinton wins California (which currently looks to be very tight) and New Jersey (which I know less about, but it sounds like Clinton is a heavy favorite there), then there should be increased pressure for Sanders to drop out. I think there's one more primary after tomorrow (DC), where I believe Clinton is expected to crush Sanders. Sanders has said that he's going to stay in the race up until the convention, but there's already significant pressure on him to drop out now, and I expect that will only intensify after the primaries are over, especially if he loses California. Though there's no real mechanism to actually force him to leave.

If he wins California, even narrowly...I really can't see him dropping out, and the odds that the convention turns into a giant version of Nevada go up significantly - I think that could be a huge mess. For that reason I think the odds of Clinton offering him the VP spot go up significantly if he wins California.

[wonderpug]

Who is projected to win New Mexico? Anectodally, around Albuquerque I feel like see Bernie bumper stickers the most, Trump after that, then Hillary. Maybe about a ratio of 3:1:1. Maybe just 2 parts Bernie for every 1 part Trump and 0.9 part Hillary.

[El Guapo]

Bernie Sanders Has Some Strange Ideas About Why He Deserves the Nomination.

[El Guapo]

Who is projected to win New Mexico? Anectodally, around Albuquerque I feel like see Bernie bumper stickers the most, Trump after that, then Hillary. Maybe about a ratio of 3:1:1. Maybe just 2 parts Bernie for every 1 part Trump and 0.9 part Hillary.

Clinton.

[Holman]

The nomination will be decided tomorrow, and I really hope we'll see Sanders transition from Scrappy Underdog to Party Unifier this week. There's no excuse for him to delay, and waiting to make the pivot only helps Trump.

His message has been valuable, and I believe it has been heard. Clinton can't ignore that so many Democrats want aggressive policies around income inequality and etc, and she would be a fool to ignore that. His opportunistic streak would seem to run in Sanders' favor here.

As for the dead-ender NeverClinton game Sanders has been playing, I'm prepared to forgive him. This is his first time on the national stage, and he can't be blamed for fighting hard. I'm willing to see missteps as missteps, not a drive to destroy the good in the name of purity. Of course that is all up to him. He needs to pull it together and steer his movement towards unity.

As I'm typing, Sanders is giving a press conference where he seems to be digging in on his plan to win by convincing superdelegates to vote against the winner of the popular vote and delegate race (something they have never done and can't feasibly do now). But that's how candidates talk right up until they can't. Things will be different on Wednesday. He's also saying that, no matter what, he'll do what it takes to beat Trump, which can mean that he's open to a Clinton endorsement.

The press conference seems like a bad idea, BTW. He looks tired and sounds terrible. His voice sounds like he's been smoking a pack a day and chewing bags of gravel. Too much shouting in too many arenas.

[El Guapo]

The nomination will be decided tomorrow, and I really hope we'll see Sanders transition from Scrappy Underdog to Party Unifier this week. There's no excuse for him to delay, and waiting to make the pivot only helps Trump.

This is all true, but I think there's a 5% chance at the most that Sanders shifts to Party Unifier this week, even if he loses California. He's been beating the "contested convention" thing for weeks, and there's no indication all that he's considering slowing down regardless of the results tomorrow.

There's a 0.5% chance of that if he wins California.