Sanders campaign: Clinton won only states where we didn't compete

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Silly. Just admit you didn't win as many states.

He doesn't deny facts unlike Clinton supporters.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

he may endorse Stein

LOL. He and Stein have literally nothing in common policy-wise.

Au contraire. They are both communists. The only difference is that Sanders is racist and sexist as well.

Damn puberty must be hitting you pretty hard today.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Yeah because Sanders didn't compete in Massachusetts, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio (States he was being tipped to win)

He barley lost in 3/4 of those and even over performed a bit compared to the polls in IL and MA.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Yeah because Sanders didn't compete in Massachusetts, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio (States he was being tipped to win)

He barley lost in 3/4 of those and even over performed a bit compared to the polls in IL and MA.

barely losing is still losing. Over performing compared to polls is meaningless. Sander's strategy has been inconsistent, and now he seems to be completely relying on minimizing Clinton's wins, rather than touting his own. He is like a professional football player saying "Yeah, we lost the Superbowl, but our field goals were, on average, 12 yards longer than theirs, and we had a better 3rd down percentage." - Nobody cares how much you lose by, you still lose.

Not in non winner take all states.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Yeah because Sanders didn't compete in Massachusetts, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio (States he was being tipped to win)

He barley lost in 3/4 of those and even over performed a bit compared to the polls in IL and MA.

barely losing is still losing. Over performing compared to polls is meaningless. Sander's strategy has been inconsistent, and now he seems to be completely relying on minimizing Clinton's wins, rather than touting his own. He is like a professional football player saying "Yeah, we lost the Superbowl, but our field goals were, on average, 12 yards longer than theirs, and we had a better 3rd down percentage." - Nobody cares how much you lose by, you still lose.

Not in non winner take all states.

The nomination is not proportional. He won't get to be the nominee 2/5ths of the time. He's losing the primary by a bigger margin than Hillary was in 2008, and his best states are largely done. His strategy has not paid off for him. He might have 40% of the delegates in Philly, but he's still not going to be the nominee.

Comparing this election to any other election is ridiculous. How can you even suggest that the second half of this primary will be better then the first to Hillary?! Especially with California coming up.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Comparing this election to any other election is ridiculous. How can you even suggest that the second half of this primary will be better then the first to Hillary?! Especially with California coming up.

Demographics and polling for one. Numerous articles have been written about how difficult Sanders will have it after falling behind so much and so far he doesn't look set to get the delegates he needs from states like PA/NY/NJ.

As far as I know, Hillary is still polling ahead of Bernard in California, so while you may be expecting a Sanderslide there, it doesn't look like he get what he needs from that state yet.

Oh yes I can agree with you on that. Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CNN (Time Warner cough cough). Clinton was supposed to have this nomination wrapped up by now and Clinton's lead in California has fallen to single digits with 2 months to go.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

No dude, people who actually know how economies work have said it's a radical idea we can't afford. Did you skip oakvale's post??

Can we afford more wars and tax cuts for the rich?

[ProgressiveCanadian]

No dude, people who actually know how economies work have said it's a radical idea we can't afford. Did you skip oakvale's post??

Can we afford more wars and tax cuts for the rich?

What the hell are you talking about. Do you understand how minimum wages work?

Obviously you don't if you are supporting Trump, your credibility goes out the window.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK, my statement isn't literally true, but my point was that Albright is nasty.

So is Tad Devine constantly intimating that African American voters, essentially, aren't worth competing over, or that certain states count more than others... politics ain't beanbag.

Literally in the Clinton play book.