Will Sanders drop out next week?

[Gass3268]

Yes, but not until after DC.

[Hermit For Peace]

Bernie still thinks he's going to win California and a few other states, then all the superdelegates are going to switch over to him, even though he hates the thought that superdelegates exist. He'll drop out at the last second possible.

[Lincoln Republican]

Bernie, you have fought the good fight, you have come much further than you or anybody else ever imagined possible,

But now it is time to

GIVE IT UP!

[dspNY]

I think he drops out on June 8 if what Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid said about his finances is true. They said he is out of cash

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

No. He plans on taking it to the convention and causing as much chaos as he can.

He is not a Democrat and has absolutely no loyalty to them.

[dspNY]

No. He plans on taking it to the convention and causing as much chaos as he can.

He is not a Democrat and has absolutely no loyalty to them.

If he does, watch the rape essay stuff and the Jane Sanders fraudulent Burlington College loan come front and center (it hasn't yet) to drive him out. Bernie's been treated with kid gloves. If he actually starts following through on his threat to cause convention chaos, the gloves come off and he goes back to Vermont permanently damaged. Clinton has an oppo book thicker than the Manhattan phone book on him that she hasn't used yet

[SillyAmerican]

I hope he does but I don't think he will, especially if he wins CA. If that's the case, I hope Obama, Biden and Warren ignore him and endorse Hillary Clinton next week.

Yes. Obama, Biden, and Warren should say, in one loud voice: "We don't care what people want, we know what's best, and her name is Hillary Clinton." Yeah, that'll make everything just hunky dorey...

Um, the people spoke and chose Clinton by a big margin.

But then again I'm trying to decipher the message of someone who calls himself Silly American.

I am curious as to why some people think that Bernie is "winning" this thing. And if he isn't the nominee at the convention then the election is "rigged". They really aren't in touch with reality.

You don't have to be a huge Bernie supporter in order to recognize that there's something wrong with a system which awards 400 superdelegates prior to any campaigning actually getting under way. But naturally, Hillary Clinton supporters who are disappointed with the whole delay in the coronation of their candidate see things completely different...

[morgieb]

I feel like he'll stop around late June. He'll try and continue to persuade supers after June 14, but will stop after about a week or two when he realises that he won't be able to persuade the supers.

[Mr. Illini]

If he loses both CA and NJ, he will drop out.

I don't know why some theorize he would wait until DC. He's has no shot in the District.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I hope he does but I don't think he will, especially if he wins CA. If that's the case, I hope Obama, Biden and Warren ignore him and endorse Hillary Clinton next week.

Yes. Obama, Biden, and Warren should say, in one loud voice: "We don't care what people want, we know what's best, and her name is Hillary Clinton." Yeah, that'll make everything just hunky dorey...

Um, the people spoke and chose Clinton by a big margin.

But then again I'm trying to decipher the message of someone who calls himself Silly American.

I am curious as to why some people think that Bernie is "winning" this thing. And if he isn't the nominee at the convention then the election is "rigged". They really aren't in touch with reality.

You don't have to be a huge Bernie supporter in order to recognize that there's something wrong with a system which awards 400 superdelegates prior to any campaigning actually getting under way. But naturally, Hillary Clinton supporters who are disappointed with the whole delay in the coronation of their candidate see things completely different...

Your concern trolling has been duly noted.

[Gass3268]

If he loses both CA and NJ, he will drop out.

I don't know why some theorize he would wait until DC. He's has no shot in the District.

Doesn't mean he should let his supporters there vote for him in a competative contest.

[Hermit For Peace]

I think he drops out on June 8 if what Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid said about his finances is true. They said he is out of cash

Well that's certainly a consideration. He's been spending much more money than Hillary...and with money going through his fingers like water and with his cash sources drying up, how much longer can he keep up the charade?

[Hermit For Peace]

You don't have to be a huge Bernie supporter in order to recognize that there's something wrong with a system which awards 400 superdelegates prior to any campaigning actually getting under way. But naturally, Hillary Clinton supporters who are disappointed with the whole delay in the coronation of their candidate see things completely different...

These folks are politically savvy, and it's just possible that they saw the writing on the wall far sooner than most others, and that is that a Democratic Socialist wasn't going to win the White House no matter what. I like the idea of superdelegates considering the fact that there are people like Trump and Bernie out there vying for the WH.

[Ebowed]

If he loses both CA and NJ, he will drop out.

I don't know why some theorize he would wait until DC. He's has no shot in the District.

He doesn't expect to win DC, either.  It's the final primary and he said he would stay in the race until every vote was cast.  It would be a disservice to the people in DC, even if he only has support from a minority of voters there, to say their votes don't matter.

[Lyin' Steve]

I hope he does but I don't think he will, especially if he wins CA. If that's the case, I hope Obama, Biden and Warren ignore him and endorse Hillary Clinton next week.

Yes. Obama, Biden, and Warren should say, in one loud voice: "We don't care what people want, we know what's best, and her name is Hillary Clinton." Yeah, that'll make everything just hunky dorey...

Um, the people spoke and chose Clinton by a big margin.

But then again I'm trying to decipher the message of someone who calls himself Silly American.

I am curious as to why some people think that Bernie is "winning" this thing. And if he isn't the nominee at the convention then the election is "rigged". They really aren't in touch with reality.

You don't have to be a huge Bernie supporter in order to recognize that there's something wrong with a system which awards 400 superdelegates prior to any campaigning actually getting under way. But naturally, Hillary Clinton supporters who are disappointed with the whole delay in the coronation of their candidate see things completely different...

I disagree with you about the superdelegates.  There is nothing wrong with the system at all.  Their purpose in 1972 was to prevent the democrats from ever having to risk a divisive, wingnut fool who ran against the party like George McGovern.  Given that they all went to Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders, who is exactly the sort of person the party decided in 1972 it did NOT want to nominate (and for very very very good reason if you look at the results of the general election that year), I'd say they worked splendidly.

That said, the first indication of the 400 number was in November, at which point Bernie had already spent months and months making an ass of himself, so everything you said is a lie, and furthermore Hillary is dominating Bernie in the pledged delegates as well (not that it should matter), so there's absolutely no point talking about the superdelegates because they had no effect on Hillary's overwhelming victory whatsoever.

I hope that in 2024 when your divisive wingnut anti-establishment fool of choice loses you aren't this delusional.

[Hermit For Peace]

You don't have to be a huge Bernie supporter in order to recognize that there's something wrong with a system which awards 400 superdelegates prior to any campaigning actually getting under way. But naturally, Hillary Clinton supporters who are disappointed with the whole delay in the coronation of their candidate see things completely different...

I disagree with you about the superdelegates.  There is nothing wrong with the system at all.  Their purpose in 1972 was to prevent the democrats from ever having to risk a divisive, wingnut fool who ran against the party like George McGovern.  Given that they all went to Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders, who is exactly the sort of person the party decided in 1972 it did NOT want to nominate (and for very very very good reason if you look at the results of the general election that year), I'd say they worked splendidly.

That said, the first indication of the 400 number was in November, at which point Bernie had already spent months and months making an ass of himself, so everything you said is a lie, and furthermore Hillary is dominating Bernie in the pledged delegates as well (not that it should matter), so there's absolutely no point talking about the superdelegates because they had no effect on Hillary's overwhelming victory whatsoever.

I hope that in 2024 when your divisive wingnut anti-establishment fool of choice loses you aren't this delusional.

That's another thing I wanted to say, that Hillary is beating Bernie on all levels even without the superdelegates. I think the Bernie fans are stuck in a thinking warp.

[Lyin' Steve]

You don't have to be a huge Bernie supporter in order to recognize that there's something wrong with a system which awards 400 superdelegates prior to any campaigning actually getting under way. But naturally, Hillary Clinton supporters who are disappointed with the whole delay in the coronation of their candidate see things completely different...

I disagree with you about the superdelegates.  There is nothing wrong with the system at all.  Their purpose in 1972 was to prevent the democrats from ever having to risk a divisive, wingnut fool who ran against the party like George McGovern.  Given that they all went to Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders, who is exactly the sort of person the party decided in 1972 it did NOT want to nominate (and for very very very good reason if you look at the results of the general election that year), I'd say they worked splendidly.

That said, the first indication of the 400 number was in November, at which point Bernie had already spent months and months making an ass of himself, so everything you said is a lie, and furthermore Hillary is dominating Bernie in the pledged delegates as well (not that it should matter), so there's absolutely no point talking about the superdelegates because they had no effect on Hillary's overwhelming victory whatsoever.

I hope that in 2024 when your divisive wingnut anti-establishment fool of choice loses you aren't this delusional.

That's another thing I wanted to say, that Hillary is beating Bernie on all levels even without the superdelegates. I think the Bernie fans are stuck in a thinking warp.

Yeah, it's not just that they're claiming he would have won if not for the superdelegates (obviously she's beating him either way), but they claim that the superdelegates somehow made it "undemocratic", because Bernie Sanders heavily implies so without saying it outright in his repeated-verbatim talking points in ten different interviews and fifty different rallies, as he always does.  The superdelegates absolutely did not, in any way, shape, or form make it undemocratic.  The most undemocratic thing about this entire process has been how Bernie constantly seeks to subvert the process and results by lying to his supporters and catastrophising the implications of his lies.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

That said, the first indication of the 400 number was in November, at which point Bernie had already spent months and months making an ass of himself, so everything you said is a lie, and furthermore Hillary is dominating Bernie in the pledged delegates as well (not that it should matter), so there's absolutely no point talking about the superdelegates because they had no effect on Hillary's overwhelming victory whatsoever.

I hope that in 2024 when your divisive wingnut anti-establishment fool of choice loses you aren't this delusional.

Yeah... I don't understand why people are beefing.  What do people think would happen if the candidate with the most actual votes cast for them was denied the nomination because all the superdelegates went and voted for Bernie Sanders?

Nobody says the nominating process has to be democratic but Sanders really can't present himself as the voice of the people if most of the people vote for the other guy.  Telling the party insiders to overrule millions of voters and crown him the winner is not really the way to kick off a populist movement.

Hillary was crowned the presumptive nominee and a black man came out of nowhere and defeated her... For a white male to claim in 2016 he can't do the same because the system is "rigged" is a bit...

I like Bernie.  All in all I think the primary was good and healthy.  Hillary needed the practice.  I understand Bernie staying in the race and fighting on.  It is hard to disappoint your millions of followers.  But that doesn't mean we have to believe what is clearly political BS from an old man who knows his improbable wild ride is about to come to an unceremonious end.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I hope he does but I don't think he will, especially if he wins CA. If that's the case, I hope Obama, Biden and Warren ignore him and endorse Hillary Clinton next week.

Yes. Obama, Biden, and Warren should say, in one loud voice: "We don't care what people want, we know what's best, and her name is Hillary Clinton." Yeah, that'll make everything just hunky dorey...

Um, the people spoke and chose Clinton by a big margin.

But then again I'm trying to decipher the message of someone who calls himself Silly American.

I am curious as to why some people think that Bernie is "winning" this thing. And if he isn't the nominee at the convention then the election is "rigged". They really aren't in touch with reality.

You don't have to be a huge Bernie supporter in order to recognize that there's something wrong with a system which awards 400 superdelegates prior to any campaigning actually getting under way. But naturally, Hillary Clinton supporters who are disappointed with the whole delay in the coronation of their candidate see things completely different...

I disagree with you about the superdelegates.  There is nothing wrong with the system at all.  Their purpose in 1972 was to prevent the democrats from ever having to risk a divisive, wingnut fool who ran against the party like George McGovern.  Given that they all went to Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders, who is exactly the sort of person the party decided in 1972 it did NOT want to nominate (and for very very very good reason if you look at the results of the general election that year), I'd say they worked splendidly.

That said, the first indication of the 400 number was in November, at which point Bernie had already spent months and months making an ass of himself, so everything you said is a lie, and furthermore Hillary is dominating Bernie in the pledged delegates as well (not that it should matter), so there's absolutely no point talking about the superdelegates because they had no effect on Hillary's overwhelming victory whatsoever.

I hope that in 2024 when your divisive wingnut anti-establishment fool of choice loses you aren't this delusional.

The argument is that the superdelegates were created to avoid another 1972, where the nominee lost 49 states. Well, the first election with superdelegates was 1984. Mondale almost avoided being a candidate to lose exactly 49 states, but he won Minnesota, so he didn't lose all 50 states.

[Lyin' Steve]

I hope he does but I don't think he will, especially if he wins CA. If that's the case, I hope Obama, Biden and Warren ignore him and endorse Hillary Clinton next week.

Yes. Obama, Biden, and Warren should say, in one loud voice: "We don't care what people want, we know what's best, and her name is Hillary Clinton." Yeah, that'll make everything just hunky dorey...

Um, the people spoke and chose Clinton by a big margin.

But then again I'm trying to decipher the message of someone who calls himself Silly American.

I am curious as to why some people think that Bernie is "winning" this thing. And if he isn't the nominee at the convention then the election is "rigged". They really aren't in touch with reality.

You don't have to be a huge Bernie supporter in order to recognize that there's something wrong with a system which awards 400 superdelegates prior to any campaigning actually getting under way. But naturally, Hillary Clinton supporters who are disappointed with the whole delay in the coronation of their candidate see things completely different...

I disagree with you about the superdelegates.  There is nothing wrong with the system at all.  Their purpose in 1972 was to prevent the democrats from ever having to risk a divisive, wingnut fool who ran against the party like George McGovern.  Given that they all went to Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders, who is exactly the sort of person the party decided in 1972 it did NOT want to nominate (and for very very very good reason if you look at the results of the general election that year), I'd say they worked splendidly.

That said, the first indication of the 400 number was in November, at which point Bernie had already spent months and months making an ass of himself, so everything you said is a lie, and furthermore Hillary is dominating Bernie in the pledged delegates as well (not that it should matter), so there's absolutely no point talking about the superdelegates because they had no effect on Hillary's overwhelming victory whatsoever.

I hope that in 2024 when your divisive wingnut anti-establishment fool of choice loses you aren't this delusional.

The argument is that the superdelegates were created to avoid another 1972, where the nominee lost 49 states. Well, the first election with superdelegates was 1984. Mondale almost avoided being a candidate to lose exactly 49 states, but he won Minnesota, so he didn't lose all 50 states.

Haahahahahaa, are you going to go back to 1984 and try to argue that Gary Hart would have given a fully-powered Ronald Reagan a run for his money?  You're seriously saying that Mondale's loss proves that the superdelegates are bad?
The superdelegates had no real motivation that year, both Hart and Mondale were acceptable candidates.  If Jesse Jackson had somehow gotten close to the nomination, then we might have seen the superdelegates activated.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

The argument is that the superdelegates were created to avoid another 1972, where the nominee lost 49 states. Well, the first election with superdelegates was 1984. Mondale almost avoided being a candidate to lose exactly 49 states, but he won Minnesota, so he didn't lose all 50 states.

There is losing and then there is losing.  The history surrounding McGovern was nothing like what went on with Mondale.  The McGovern defeat and the Goldwater defeat stand out as historic defeats that shook both parties to their core.  I really couldn't tell you much about the Mondale defeat.

And honestly all the cable news pundits and anchors and the posters on Atlas love to talk all day about Republicans winning the White House but the fact of the matter is as long as the Democrats nominate someone plausible, who doesn't make too many gaffs, and has a bit of charisma and the "it" factor Republicans won't win.  The map just isn't in their favor.  Regardless of how either party structures it's nominating process sometimes the map just isn't in your favor.  That isn't an argument for relinquishing all control.

[Lyin' Steve]

The argument is that the superdelegates were created to avoid another 1972, where the nominee lost 49 states. Well, the first election with superdelegates was 1984. Mondale almost avoided being a candidate to lose exactly 49 states, but he won Minnesota, so he didn't lose all 50 states.

There is losing and then there is losing.  The history surrounding McGovern was nothing like what went on with Mondale.  The McGovern defeat and the Goldwater defeat stand out as historic defeats that shook both parties to their core.  I really couldn't tell you much about the Mondale defeat.

There's really not much to tell.  When you have an incumbent president with approval ratings around 60%, a booming economy and a successful foreign policy, it's hard to run a challenger campaign, especially if your opponent is one of the most charismatic, well-organized and creative candidates in history.  Mondale was a perfectly reasonable challenger but Reagan 84 was on an entirely different level.  Same deal with Roosevelt 1944 and Eisenhower 1956.  Their opponents, Dewey and Stevenson, were perfectly legitimate contenders, but it was hard to make the argument that the president needed to be replaced when so much of the country was happy with the president and everything seemed to be fundamentally going quite well.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The argument is that the superdelegates were created to avoid another 1972, where the nominee lost 49 states. Well, the first election with superdelegates was 1984. Mondale almost avoided being a candidate to lose exactly 49 states, but he won Minnesota, so he didn't lose all 50 states.

There is losing and then there is losing.  The history surrounding McGovern was nothing like what went on with Mondale.  The McGovern defeat and the Goldwater defeat stand out as historic defeats that shook both parties to their core.  I really couldn't tell you much about the Mondale defeat.

There's really not much to tell.  When you have an incumbent president with approval ratings around 60%, a booming economy and a successful foreign policy, it's hard to run a challenger campaign, especially if your opponent is one of the most charismatic, well-organized and creative candidates in history.  Mondale was a perfectly reasonable challenger but Reagan 84 was on an entirely different level.  Same deal with Roosevelt 1944 and Eisenhower 1956.  Their opponents, Dewey and Stevenson, were perfectly legitimate contenders, but it was hard to make the argument that the president needed to be replaced when so much of the country was happy with the president and everything seemed to be fundamentally going quite well.

Nixon had a similar approval rating to Reagan. And 6.8 million jobs were created under his first term, compared to only 5.3 million under Reagan, despite a higher population.