Bernie's In

the link is in revelette's post under the excerpt

Bernie won by a vote of 30,000 popular votes more than Hillary. Bernie got 45 del.. Hillery got 45 del. She is in big trouble. She only has a 2,470,000 popular vote lead over Bernie and she still has a 340 del lead. I'm about to go to the back yard and hang myself.------------ Damn, I dont have a tree in the back yard. Guess I'll just have to suffer through it.

Sorry, Rev. Tired old eyes.

Rabel:
I got the impression that you lived in the Northeast. Everybody in the Northeast has a tree in their backyard.

Please stop insulting people by providing links immediately.

The technology behind Bernie's success. Interesting story.

http://recode.net/2016/05/02/bernie-sanders-organizing-app/

Interesting Michelle Goldberg article. Points out how the Rightwing attack dogs have been keeping hands off of Bernie all along, and what they would probably do to him if he was the nominee.
An excerpt:
The Sanderistas appear to believe they were treated unfairly, even viciously, in this primary. In fact, they’ve been handled incredibly gingerly. That might end up being to Sanders’ detriment: If we’d spent the past few months chewing over his glaring electoral weaknesses and he was still leading Clinton in head-to-head matchups against the GOP, he might have a case for a contested convention. It would be a cynical, anti-democratic case that contradicts the people-powered rationale of his candidacy, but it wouldn’t be as nonsensical as the argument he’s making now.

This Is What a Republican Attack on Bernie Sanders Would Look Like

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_electability_argument_is_still_a_myth.html

Amazing article on Sanders' electoral vulnerabilites, and they are big. Since scandal is the only way the Republicans feel they can win a national election, the chance for scandal with Bernie is huge. This article might deserve its own thread.

I am a little shocked at his sex talk. Troubling. He voted against the Amber Alert and computer generated child pornography?

More than interesting, she's right, according to me.
This is likely to tilt me to voting for her in the primary too.
As I've repeatedly said, I waver, since I've some displeasure re both candidates, liking Bernie for being closer to my own view re some ideas, and chary of her for some reasons already explained. I've assumed she would win the primary but have still considered that I would use my vote as a kind of balance act in the primary.

I appreciate Michelle Goldberg's writing, as she is quite clear re what matters are problematic for which reasons.



Edit to say that I probably understood the reason for super delegates at one time, but the whys of that are lost to me now. I'm a one person, one vote type and find super delegates an iffy concept.

Middle west. Illinois. We have a republican governor which is why I am voting for Hillary. Our governor is a retired rich business man also. If you want to see how a business man conducts government business look him up. He thinks the same way Trump does. He screams orders and expects legislators to jump too.

I have to laugh

You all sound like granny's Appalachian Sunday School teacher.

Child nudity is a natural thing. Only the pervs get hot and bothered about it.

Yeah, that's real witty.
You miss the point, which isn't at all surprising because you're so Bernie-tized that you are incapable of anything but kneejerk, thought-free defense.

No one is saying any of the things that they would try to trot out against Bernie have merit. Even Goldberg in her piece (that you absolutely did not read) wasn't saying they had merit. She pointed out very accurately that if the smear machine trots these things out, Bernie will have to publicly answer every time they get asked. And he will be asked over and over again. And she was pointing out that Bernie has absolutely not been subjected to that kind of scrutiny. And she made the very astute observation that, had Bernie undergone this kind of scrutiny over the past year, he would have a more reasonable argument about contesting the convention, instead of the ridiculous chop-logic argument he's making.

But you go on bleating your faux-radical militant 60's spiel. If I squint just right it's funny as hell and not migraine inducing.

Quote Lash:

Sure, that's exactly the sort of thing Democrats need to deal with on the heels of GOP Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert getting 15 months on a charge related to his having sex with his wrestling students. And to have a chair specially situated so he can look right into the shower area.

It is a cake walk compared to the influence peddling, criminal activity of Hillary Clinton!

Quote Lash on Hastert:


You mean the scandals the right wing media cooks up, and has cooked up since the 90s, against the Clintons. And you pose as a progressive recycling the same old crap.

That is one hell of a vast right wing conspiracy, huh!?

One scandal after the next. That's how the right wing has always attacked the Clintons. They hate the Clintons because Bill had the nerve to win the presidency after the Republicans figured that Reagan had given the GOP White House dominance for the next several decades. BS scandal after BS scandal.

I guess there are people who may actually believe that, but you need to expand your thinking to accept that there are many people who believe the Clintons are guilty of many of the things they're accused of.

Yeah, Blickers. Have an open mind. Like Lash.