Vox: Bernie Too Far Behind to Win

It's primary day in Kentucky and Oregon. Bernie won't win, says Vox. It's not just the super-delegates. It's the overall numbers.

From the New York Times: Trump is borrowing from the Sanders playbook.

Hillary airs her first anti-Trump ad.

< Monday Night Open Thread | Paris to Cairo Flight Goes Missing, May Have Crashed In Sea >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This has (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:03:54 PM EST
    been the case since March 15th honestly.

    Someone needs to tell Rachel Maddow (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:02:59 PM EST
    I'm watching all this third party (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:07:46 AM EST
    Thru you guys :)

    I'm watching all this third party (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:07:56 AM EST
    Thru you guys :)

    Not to nit pic (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:53:19 PM EST
    But that ad is from the Super Pac not Hillary.

    Maddow did a segment on them last night and aired a couple

    "Sometimes... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:03:16 PM EST
    when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose, you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie, and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. Winning or losing is all one organic mechanism, from which one extracts what one needs."

    - Gloria Clemente

    Ah, dog (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:08:08 PM EST
    My ire is not for you.  Hope you know that.

    That said, that sounds a little like an endorsement of participation trophies


    Just timely humor... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:21:00 PM EST
    from "White Men Can't Jump"...no hidden meaning except The Bern was a win for the ideas we believe in, if a loss for the candidacy itself.  Big ideas once mocked are now mainstream...that's a bigger f8ckin' win than any primary or election in my book.

    And to paraphrase another classic celluloid character named Lupus..."take that trophy and stick it up your a$$, wait till next (8) year!" ;)


    Know what? (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:24:25 PM EST
    I agree.  I actually think it's sad that he is in the process of destroying all the good will he has created over the last year.

    I don't think so... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:39:11 PM EST
    any end game ugliness will quickly be forgotten by the electorate...8 years from now when the party is nominating somebody to the left of Bernie, and they get sworn is as the next next president, will remember the groundwork layed here in 15-16 and raise a glass to the old cranky socialist bastard who personified the changing of the guard.  Third Way f*ckin' out, proud liberals embracing liberal ideas are f*ckin' in.  

    Or at least that is my hope of the legacy of the 2016 Democratic Primary.  That and breaking the gender barrier, of course.


    You may be right (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    Assuming Hillary wins.

    If not he will be hated a despised for generations.  I heard a talking head say this morning "if Hillary is edged out this will be seen as when it happened.  And Sanders will be seen as causing it."

    This was a republican talking head.  IMO she was right.


    If so... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue May 17, 2016 at 03:09:15 PM EST
    that is misdirected hate, imo.  Just like Nader hate is misdirected...not to start that argument again;)

    If Hillary can't beat Trump, that sh*t is on Hillary and the people who voted for Trump.  


    And the sh*t in Nevada, kdog (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by christinep on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:03:14 PM EST
    Who is that on? Who takes responsibility for threats, sexual taunts, verbal assault on the convention chair, etc.?  Or, if we are disappointed & angry, do we get to kick & scream & throw chairs & destroy property & threaten those with whom we disagree?  BS on BS ... take some responsibility.

    (Nope.  I'm not playing nice.  I'm playing fair.)


    That Nevada sh&t... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:30:47 AM EST
    was dumb and uncalled for, but the process is dumb and uncalled for so in a sense ya get what ya give Christine.  This is what happens when people feel cheated, regardless of the convoluted "rules" being followed to the letter.  The problem is the rules!  And people behaving like lunatics.

    That being said, how the poor chairwoman was treated is inexcusable, and the temper-tantrums are silly.  It's a stupid election, not worth getting so upset over!  Either is politics in general...but I guess it's a popular outlet for rage.


    Football? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by christinep on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:44:55 AM EST
     I continue to disagree with any notion that "rules" of the process were not available and known by all adult political participants in Nevada (or any other primary/caucus.)  In fact, it has always been the candidate's responsibility--as part of his/her organizational leadership--to see that supporters adhere to the rules that apply to everyone.  Etc. Etc.  We all know that.  It is not that complicated to learn the rules ... just as we learn the rules of work, sports, all manner of games, and the usually unwritten rules of life.

    Beyond the undisputed violence that was initiated by Sanders' supporters in Nevada ... it seems to me that the real reason for such upheaval stems from losing.  Yes, we can get very angry when we don't win.  We can whine; we can complain on end or we can escalate the anger.  What I find troubling by the Nevada demonstration--in addition to the violence & threats of violence--is the attempt by Sanders & Co. to shift the blame. A variation of blame-the-victim is an ugly thing to watch because it is a deceitful maneuver at best.

    Yes, we all need to find a resolution to the growing frustration of hurting Sanders' supporters that will be fair for everyone going forward.  On that path, tho, Sanders cannot escape responsibility for now being dishonest about his chances for the nomination.  They are about nil.  To lead on "inspired" followers at this point is detrimental to everyone ... to his followers, to himself & his legacy, to HRC as the presumptive Democratic nominee, to the party whose nomination he has sought, to all those who are working to stop Donald Trump from being the next President.  Soon, we all will see if Sanders truly wants to build a more progressive nation OR whether he will take the road of political destruction to burn everything down because he cannot accept loss.  Yes, it is very serious.

    Now, about anger and outrage (and triumphal feelings too) lets turn to the football field. :)


    Senator Sanders' (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:26:41 AM EST
    response was weak tea when strong medicine was required.  It was disappointing to find his rejection of violence coupled with his objections to procedures--as if a natural outgrowth. What else were his supporters to do?   Too close not to serve as if a rationalization.  

    It comes across as support from Dad, that rules are malleable in pursuit of noble intentions, rules of disorder trump Robert's, and other, rules of order.  I trust this is not Senator Sanders idea of the needed revolution.  


    Yes the rules... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:21:00 AM EST
    were known...but that doesn't mean they make sense.

    Just like our nations criminal laws are known, doesn't make them right or fair or just.

    I think the anger is much bigger than Bernie losing the nom, or stupid nomination rules...the anger is directed at a party, and a government, that has failed to address the needs of the many for the profit and power of the few.

    It's bigger than Bernie and a handful of unruly maniac supporters, the Democratic Party would be wise to address it.  


    OH my god (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:34:58 AM EST
    What complete nonsense.  The rules don't make sense?  Seriously?  The rules were they had to show up and freakin vote.  Please, what would you proposed changes to the rule be to make them fair?  

    Your are right tho.  It's bigger.  It's a lot of unfocused irrational nonsense that has nothing to do with rules and everything to do with losing.   Every comment you post is making that more clear.


    Fer f@cks sake dog (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:28:05 AM EST
    People feel cheated because they don't understand the rules.  They felt cheated because, perhaps like you, more that 500 Bernie supporters who were supposed to show up and vote never showed up and they were out voted.  The were not "cheated" that is complete bullshit.

    If you think the "process" made them lose you don't know what you are talking about.  They lost because they were to damn lazy to show up an vote.


    Most interesting of all (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:55:51 AM EST
    is Sanders lost the Nevada caucus to Clinton and then Sanders' folks in Nevada were upset when he didn't get more delegates than Clinton. Democracy be damned. (Not that there is anything democratic about a caucus).

    Those rules were just pure convention procedure (4.00 / 1) (#131)
    by ruffian on Wed May 18, 2016 at 01:47:28 PM EST
    from what I could tell. Nothing special going on. Voice votes are common and the chair's job it to determine as best they can how many voices were heard, now which were loudest.

    People not understanding the procedure does not make it a bad procedure. In retrospect, yes, an actual count may have made people happier. But they probably would have lost that too, then what?



    The thing (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 02:18:16 PM EST
    is they had to register. So the chair already knew that there were not enough Bernie supporters there to pass anything. They had the count already. This whole mess is Bernie lying to his supporters and then not even informing them about how the process works and just screaming it's rigged because he didn't win. According to Bernie every time he doesn't win it's "rigged". It's like him screaming closed primaries are rigged and voter suppression because his staff is too lazy to actually get people to change their registration.

    Or, that votes should (none / 0) (#140)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    be discounted in those red southern states that Mrs. Clinton won, such as South Carolina (they will not go blue in November) , but quite another thing in red states that Senator Sanders won, such as Idaho, Utah, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

    Damn (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 03:11:51 PM EST
    I just had a terrifying Nader flashback.

    Nader was on my local (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Suisser1 on Tue May 17, 2016 at 04:40:41 PM EST
    NPR station, WNYC, today and the host, Brian Lehrer let him go on and on unchallenged as he called HRC every vile thing he could think of. Methinks my sustaining membership $ might be better spent elsewhere.

    Name (none / 0) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 17, 2016 at 04:57:25 PM EST
    calling and outright slander aimed at the Clintons is standard fare on CNN. Trump surrogates call her crooked Hillary and call Bill "one of the worst abusers of women" and the hosts say nothing .......then invite them back. Disgusting.

    What "vile thing" (none / 0) (#59)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:29:45 PM EST
    did he call her?

    "failure to grovel" (none / 0) (#106)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:15:50 AM EST
    is considered a "vile thing" among the faithful.

    Why on earth (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    Would she grovel?  She's kicking his butt!

    from your lips... (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:44:52 PM EST
    I sure hope so.

    In fairness, that's pretty much what happened after the 2008 primary ended.


    Do you honestly believe (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:47:02 PM EST
    Sanders will work as Hillary did to unite the party?

    Whatever they say it IS up to him.


    I don't think he will. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by sallywally on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:40:02 PM EST
    What MSNBC interpreted as his willingness to bring his followers along to support Clinton was his statement that the Democratic party has a profound decision to make: will it do the right thing and welcome all these new voters/ revolutionaries and new ideas into the party or just be the same old same old?

    I don't know if this was as clear to his supporters as it was to MSNBC.


    Me neither (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Nemi on Wed May 18, 2016 at 07:30:51 AM EST
    and I have yet to hear him, himself, say he will support her. But the media only reports - and cherrypicks! - what suits them.

    When for example Jeff Weaver answers somewhat vaguely that of course Bernie Sanders will back Hillary Clinton, should she be the nominee, the media reports it as if Sanders unequivocally(!) said so.

    And when Bernie Sanders says he "will do everything in my power to make sure no Republican gets into the White House in this election", the media reports it as if he's said he'll support Hillary when in reality he went on to say, that he thought 'Bernie Sanders would be better suited to do that'.

    And btw, what's with him and Donald Trump both referring to themselves in the third person!? Some version of Pluralis Majestatis?


    I think you had it right the first time (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    None of the noise matters as long as Hillary wins.

    If she doesn't... Then there will be a lot of anger on both sides and it will only get worse.  And we will all live in a country that has a president Trump.


    And I would expect (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:56:27 PM EST
    The implosion of the Democratic Party will make what is currently happening in the Republican Party look like a bonding exercise.

    Anti Establishment fever (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:28:33 AM EST
    Is running high in both parties.

    Being that the anti establishment faction won in the Republican Party has made it easier for the Party to come together. The Establishment usually reasons pragmatically, and is already starting to "bond".
    Now , as it appears the Establishment will win the day in the Democratic Party, it will be a much harder job to bring in the fevered anti establishment faction


    What did Sanders mean (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 18, 2016 at 12:17:21 PM EST
    when he said: " Our campaign has held giant rallies all across the country including in high crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence."    Not good.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 12:40:59 PM EST
    Imagine if Hillary, or God forbid Bill, said that.

    If he was a win for the ideas you believe in (none / 0) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:43:54 PM EST
    You would have voted for him.

    Wisdom. (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:43:35 PM EST
    We sometimes fall into thinking life is like a sport, clear cut winners or losers.  Black and white.  But, lots of gray. And, wins or loses are not always evident or instant  Only after time, can it be determined if you won or lost, and how you won or lost.

    As for Senator Sanders, I give him a win and a loss, but not a tie.  An example, his Medicare for All, a win, in concept. Mrs. Clinton picks up the win, in pragmatism, with her Medicare for More.


    medicare for more is better (none / 0) (#36)
    by linea on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:08:27 PM EST
    im not fond of bernie's medicare for all.  i like having a dedicated program for the elderly.

    Not intended to (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:03:09 AM EST
    dishonor your opinion, but to clarify my thinking: I believe Medicare for All is the correct manner of providing health care across the population and age spectrum.

     And, I agree with Senator Sanders conceptually.  However, the Sanders plan is sketchy on details but it is clear that it wold require large tax increases, and way beyond that suggested by the Sanders campaign. Important of course, but not the only, or even most critical consideration.

     Sanders' standard speech refers to the ease of capabilities, such as in some European countries.  But Sanders plan goes beyond these plans: no premiums, no out-of-pocket, dental care, long-term nursing home. What's not to like?  The cost to the economy by abrupt and massive disruption.

     Medicare would cost more than European countries because doctors and hospitals are paid more (average primary care provider, US $200,00 v. UK, $100,000.)  Sanders' plan would require a total reorganization of health care, putting private insurers out of business overnight, shift $billions of spending from individuals into the federal budget. Making big cuts, too abruptly, would put many hospitals out of business and bankrupt many health care professionals. Drug costs could and should be reduced, but easier said than done.

    A more reasonable idea would be to adjust the age spectrum of the existing Medicare applicable to seniors. Medicare for More takes health care in the desired direction while building on the base of ACA.

     Now, Senator Sanders sometimes includes an asterisk to his plans, that this can't be done in his first 100 days, or even two terms.  However, in my view, it is deceptive not to move the asterisk into bolder print. After all, Sanders' "innovative" thought that health care is "a right not a privilege," is not new or unique to him although most of his supporters seem to think it is.  Concepts and ideas are great, but neglecting to point out all the ramifications approaches demagoguery.  


    Gotta admit, (none / 0) (#105)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:13:17 AM EST
    it makes the rulemaking that cuts off care, by age group, much easier to swallow.  For everyone else.

    Good for Nicole Wallace (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by sallywally on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:51:29 PM EST
    Wondering why someone in the party can't stop Saanders, he is saying the same "really nasty"things Trump is saying. If she doesn't win the national, Wallace says, we will wonder about these weeks when she was hit so hard from both sides and how much it injured her.

    I don't know...I tend to believe that if (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:00:00 PM EST
    she loses it will be because of something the happens this summer or fall that we don't see coming now. I don't think the Bernie line of attack is anything Trump would not have come up with on his own.

    I think this thing (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:05:48 PM EST
    In Nevada in in some ways a game changer.  People have had.  And his response has landed like a terd in a punchbowl even on MSNBC.

    whatever Bernie says or does now is going to matter a lot less.  And less every day hereafter.

    A couple of days ago I agreed with Nicole.  Less tonight.


    Van Jones on CNN (none / 0) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:15:36 PM EST
    insisting that it is up to Clinton to speak out against the unfairness of the nomination process, how Sanders supporters were disenfranchised in Nevada. Oh, Jones does agree that violence should be off the table, no talk to bring it up again. However, Clinton must call for a fair process.

    Also, super incompetent DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said lots of stupid and divisive things about what happened in Nevada. She could have denounced the violence without being being such a dope.


    I will say (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:24:54 PM EST
    I've been quite surprised at how it's been discussed on MSNBC.   The regular shills, Maddow, Hayes, even.  Not quite rational yet but this side of completely batsh!t.  Which is an improvement.

    Sure (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:21:49 PM EST
    He has an audience.  He knows them.  I really meant with most regular people.   I think for most regular people it's a clarifying moment.

    Did (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:46:04 PM EST
    Bernie not know the process when he decided to run as a Democrat? It would seem so from the statements. I've been saying for years we need reform like getting rid of caucuses or at least reforming them but Bernie's campaign seem sto think those caucuses are just fine. The bottom line with Bernie is it's only "fair" if he wins. If he doesn't win it's rigged or something else.

    Waiting on him to scream how KY was rigged


    The spokesman (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:50:38 PM EST
    Said it was a tie.

    I think Hillary was smart to stay home.  This is now a pointless formality.


    Saying the results (none / 0) (#83)
    by sallywally on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:46:08 PM EST
    Need to be reviewed. Will decide whether to contest them tomorrow.

    She would still have (none / 0) (#193)
    by sallywally on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:38:15 AM EST
    Two people nastily running against her.

    Bern notice (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:32:11 AM EST
    Sacramento Bee

    Rise of extremist supporters causing a rift in the party
    In Nevada, Trump-like anger boils over at state convention
    Democratic candidate must step up, condemn supporters' actions

    A lot of Democrats don't want to admit it, but Donald Trump isn't the only presidential candidate playing with fire and recklessly courting an angry mob.
    For the latest round of curse-word hurling, chair throwing, social-media stalking and conspiracy-theory swapping, look no further than the supporters of Bernie Sanders.

    The episode had the reek of Trump rallies, where threats, insults and sucker punches to defend the presumptive Republican nominee have been common. Yet looking back at the hundreds of Sanders supporters who descended on a Clinton rally in East Los Angeles earlier this month to intimidate her supporters, making one little girl cry, it now seems inevitable that the same kind of violent eruption would afflict those "feeling the Bern."

    One would think that Sanders, the man who continues to insist he's the only Democrat who can beat Trump, would speak up forcefully to condemn the actions of his supporters in Nevada. If nothing else, it's the right thing to do.
    Instead, much like Trump when pressed about the violent streak within his ranks, he has largely weaseled out of his responsibilityto make it clear to his supporters that this is not acceptable behavior.

    Keep it up Bernie.  I think you are on to something.  I really really do!
    Don't change a thing.

    A leader would do that (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:45:23 AM EST
    Bernie isn't a leader.

    Oh not sure I agree with that (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:55:53 AM EST
    IMO he is clearly a leader.  He IS leading this.

    I would say he is not a responsible leader.  He is a dangerous self absorbed bomb thrower.  There are pieces like the one I linked everywhere.  Like I said yesterday, Sanders wet the bed with Nevada and then sh!t the bed with his "response"


    Bernie lost another superdelegate (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:52:55 AM EST
    Virgin Islands SD flips to Hillary

    A Virgin Islands superdelegate who was supporting Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has flipped his support to front-runner Hillary Clinton.

    Emmett Hansen II, the Democratic National Committee superdelegate for the Virgin Islands, originally backed the Vermont senator but decided to switch after learning more about Clinton's plans for the U.S. territories, Bloomberg News reported Tuesday.

    "There are no more windmills to joust against and no more mountains to climb," Hansen said. "It comes down to one thing: what's best for the Virgin Islands, to be fully incorporated into the United States."

    I predict the dominoes are going to start quickly falling.

    Even though (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:08:16 AM EST
    it's not the reason this particular SD stated I imagine after the stuff that went down in Nevada and Bernie's response there's not going to be much of a reason not to leave Bernie at this point.

    I agree (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:13:17 AM EST
    Nate Silver and Josh Marshall (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by smott on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:33:28 AM EST
    Both have interesting mea culpas.
    Nate for acting like a pundit and missing how dominant Trump would be, and Marshall for thinking the acrimony and arrogance from the Sanders campaign did not come from Sanders himself.

    (I admit I thought a good bit came from Jeff Weaver.)

    But the NV azzholery and Sanders doubling down on attacks vs the Dem Party have made it pretty clear, Sanders is just an arrogant jerk who thinks his youknowwhat doesn't stink. He's actively lying to his supporters now, and fanning the flames, all in service to his ego.

    He's way beyond "not helping" and deep into serious damage now.

    As I've said for awhile, Nader v2.0.

    Any type (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:50:06 AM EST
    of positive thing Bernie had going on has been destroyed. It's become beyond obvious that he's nothing more than a ranting self absorbed candidate.

    Yes, the lying to his supporters is really the absolutely worst thing Bernie has done. He's sounding like nothing more than a con man at this point.


    Well I never thought I'd say this (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:02:21 PM EST
    But Bernie,

    Get the hell off the stage

    We're done here

    You are fire bombing the greater good now Bern


    He's not going anywhere (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by smott on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:25:08 PM EST
    But the threats are where he lost me for good. Especially the grandkids.



    Jeff Weaver to you: "Hey! Get over it!" (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:57:45 PM EST
    Honestly, the sooner this guy returns to his comic book business, the better off we'll all be.

    Whenever someone (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Nemi on Thu May 19, 2016 at 07:54:21 AM EST
    publicly endorses Hillary Clinton the endorsement has almost always at least one modifier like: But ... she isn't perfect, has baggage, is flawed, does neither inspire or cause enthusiasm, is secretive, inauthentic, unliked ... etc., etc.

    On the other hand whenever someone disendorses Bernie Sanders - and this is even pointed out in endorsements of Hillary Clinton! - the disendorsement is filled with modifiers of quite another kind, like: He's sincere, a good man, has admirable policies, is consistent, pushes Hillary to the left, inspires, engages ...

    Funny that. (Not really!)

    What took Josh Marshall and others a year and a chaotic Nevada convention to see was what I saw from the very start of Bernie Sanders' run. In my view one of the most incomprehensible praises of him was the often repeated: He's decent.

    But of course: The eye of the beholder and all ...


    I've noticed (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by mm on Thu May 19, 2016 at 08:27:52 AM EST
    She has run the most classy high toned campaign of anyone, yet the media continues with the narrative they prefer.  Don't believe your lying eyes, don't pay attention to what she's been saying and how she's been campaigning, just believe us in the media.

    Bernie (5.00 / 6) (#135)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:10:52 PM EST
    Has accepted an invitation by FOX News to a debate to be held before the June 7 California primary.

    Please, please, please Hillary, just say no to this obvious stunt.

    I saw this exchange this morning on Morning Joe (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Cashmere on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:24:14 PM EST

    Mika calling for Debbie WS to step down.  She and Joe persistently claim the system is rigged against Bernie.  I will never understand why they see it so differently from me.  Oh well....


    What's rigged against Bernie (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:30:21 PM EST
    is people vote. He doesn't have enough voters to win. If he wasn't such a curmudgeon perhaps he would have won over a few of the 3 million he is behind.

    That point (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:35:40 PM EST
    never seems to get mentioned by Bernie or some in his crowd.

    I can't believe we are actually discussing this because this really has been a clean problem free primary for the most part until now. There has been no stripping of delegates or anything else like there was in '08.


    The word "rigged" (none / 0) (#152)
    by christinep on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:25:23 PM EST
    An evocative word, isn't it?  "Rigged" conjures up all kinds of worms & snares & stuff.  I think: The word "rigged" has been a helpful word for Sanders & Co because it sounds so straightforward when it shouts corruption and because the word can (and has) become a container for all kinds of meaning.  People--from TV to street--easily adapt the word to their own ends.

    "Rigged" has an Alice-in-Wonderland quality for it means whatever one wants it to mean ... and, as Mr. Dumpty, pronounced "nothing more and nothing less."  On top of it all in the land of politics, no one is pushed to explain, define, and/or give proof to support the over-used term. It is something to behold ... this word with endless and no meaning ... this word that can always be whipped out to explain why anyone who disagrees with the speaker is bad/corrupt OR thrown about to justify one's anger OR stridently uttered to excuse any action you might want.  What a word!


    So irritated with Colbert (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by sallywally on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:31:10 PM EST
    They're like a bunch of seventh graders giggling behind their hands at their teacher.

    Agree. It is really interesting the behaviors (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by ruffian on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:07:06 PM EST
    evoked from Hillary's candidacy. I wouldn't go so far as to call it sexist, but is is definitely gender-related, falling back on early relationships, without getting too Freudian about it.  

    Reading this made me sad: (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Nemi on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:39:57 AM EST
    But I would say the true thing that really hooked me was when the bird landed on his podium. It was the first time that something political actually moved me, and it moved me to the point where I cried.... I'm a person that has a military dad, my parents got divorced, my grandmother had Parkinson's -- I just had this very rough, challenging childhood where I was just kind of sad. It was such a sad childhood.... I was just a tough kid. I only cry in a funeral for family, and all of a sudden I'm 29, I see a man who I'm already just all about his campaign, and then the bird lands on his thing, and people's reaction -- I connected. I connected to a moment with all those people about something just way different.

    This is from one of the guys who sent mails to Roberta Lange on Saturday after the Nevada convention and whom Rolling Stone has 'tracked' down and interviewed (he's the last of the three). When other Bernie-supporters earlier have 'waxed poetically' about this damned bird I must admit that I have rolled my eyes, but not with this guy. It really ment something to him, something profound, and it got him engaged in politics which can never be a bad thing.

    What he did, sending the mail, was wrong and yet I think his reasoning for doing it sounds legit, almost understandable and not a bit self-righteous. Here's a young man who for the first time in his life has become engaged in politics, even gave up his day-job to campaign for Bernie Sanders. I only hope he won't end up loathing or be too disillusioned about politics, when he realizes that his preferred politician never made it neither to the nomination nor to the presidency.

    I doubt he will blame Sanders, but I do. He, Sanders, has owed to his supporters, not least to the young, sometimes naive, new-to-politics supporters, to be honest - also about his actual chances of winning - but he seems to have been more fixated on himself. He could have build a movement of engaged youngsters, could have nurtured, trained and educated them in participating actively in politics ... if only he had cared to.

    Instead it becomes more and more clear that Bernie Sanders Only Cares About Bernie Sanders.

    About that last link above (none / 0) (#195)
    by Nemi on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:01:49 PM EST
    it is kind of interesting that not only is the piece very complimentary of Hillary Clinton and very dismissive of Bernie Sanders, it is also from a publication, Observer Media, whose publisher is Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, married to Ivanka.

    A while ago, when I realized that I knew next to nothing about Ivanka Trump and therefore googled her, I found out that she and her husband have three kids - had no idea - and that they had named their first born so that her initials spelled ARK, which they liked. Couldn't help noticing that their second born's initials spell JFK. Hmmm, makes you wonder, no? ;)


    Ha. What she said (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by ruffian on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:10:40 PM EST
    Rebecca Shoenkopf at Wonkette. I won't quite the best parts - just read it.

    Great pic (none / 0) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:16:33 PM EST

    That WONKETTE link ruffian posted (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:42:03 PM EST
    Is awsum.   Read it.

    We hit 200 before I could add this.   We were talking about media coverage changing for Sanders-

    Wonkette has been officially neutral in the Democratic primary, until now.  (We know angry commenters; Wonkette says it has been neutral but has been a reliable source of bought-and-paid-for neoliberal corporate piece of sh!t one-percenter shilling for a mass murderer who will be arrested for "emails" any day now. Fair enough!)

    But if your "revolution" includes disinformation, aimed to rile up your supporters, that would make Pravda and Ronald Reagan blush, you can make like your healthcare, and keep it!

    I think it's a cult, (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by sallywally on Thu May 19, 2016 at 05:01:28 PM EST
    the Sanders campaign. An alternative universe. It will be interesting to see if some of them emerge from that bubble.

    I was surprised (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:56:31 PM EST
    By the talk about Oregon.   I sort of assumed it might be Bernie country.  Mail in ballots and all.  But they say although they have mail in ballots that you get automatically to vote in the primary you have to declare a party and register to do that and only about 25% of voters had done that.

    Hence it looks good for Jillary.

    Casey and/or others, do you concur?

    Also I heard an analysis in which they (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:58:53 PM EST
    pointed out that young people don't mail things. Seriously.

    Mail? (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    That's the stuff on Game of Thrones that keeps you from getting stabbed, right?

    Ha! No silly, it is what the ravens deliver (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:02:26 PM EST
    It was on the DailyKos radio podcast (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:01:56 PM EST
    they suggested that the younger voters might rather send for an Uber to take their ballots to the mail.

    I have (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:09:43 PM EST
    a 23 year old and he doesn't mail anything. Seriously. I know it sounds crazy...

    I almost never (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    Mail anything.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#12)
    by CST on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    I do try to avoid it whenever possible.

    I pay every bill online, even the ones that don't have it set up to take online bills, I can still set it up online so my bank mails the check directly. I take care of every piece of paperwork online that I can.  E-mail is preferable to mail for correspondence.  When I do need to mail something I steal stamps from my office because I haven't bought a stamp in probably 5-10 years.

    Obviously I'm capable of using the mail it's just not really necessary and usually a waste of paper.


    Not to mention (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:15:51 PM EST
    Unreliable.  At least here.  I have exactly the same arrangement with my bank.  

    Everything you said.


    I live in Portland. Cars, homes, etc. have Bernie (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Cashmere on Tue May 17, 2016 at 03:06:07 PM EST
    signs everywhere.  I have a Clinton sign in front of my house (2nd one, the first was ripped to shreds by someone).  Portland has also become the land of the upwardly mobile millennials and, believe me, they have attitudes.  But I digress.  

    With that said, it is true that you are automatically registered to vote by the DMV, but you are registered as unaffiliated and have to return a card specifying a party.  What the news has been saying is that only about 25% ever return their party affiliation cards.  Therefore, they would have received ballots, with no means of voting in either the Democratic or Republican primaries.  We are also a closed primary, which I am very thankful for (can't tell you how many times I have been asked to sign to get making oregon an open primary on the ballot outside new Season's (our grocery store), and I have always refused.  However, I will still be shocked if Bernie loses here tonight.  I'm prepared for it.

    I also think that there are a quite a few  closet Clinton supporters, we just are fearful of coming out here!  Honestly, it can be nasty.  It took me a long time to put up the 2nd sign and I only did it after New York as I believed the contest was over.  

    As far as the ballots go, we can mail them in or drop them at designated drop slots.  There is an online tracking system that you can sign up for and it will alert you if your ballot was received and counted.  We received our alerts last night that our (my husband and me) votes were counted.  Go Hillary, but again, I will be absolutely shocked if she wins.  

    If Hillary does by any chance win here or in Kentucky, there will be nothing positive from the media, they will only point out that the states are rigged as they are closed primaries.  I am so very sick and tired of hearing this and how the MSM is reporting on this election.  


    Slight mistake, Cashmere (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 17, 2016 at 05:02:17 PM EST
    You wrote:
    [millennials]...."they have attitudes"

    Should be:
    [Some millennials]....."they have attitudes,"
    ....like every other group of supporters in a hotly contested event, there will be a few who act in unfortunate ways, hurting the cause they purport to want to promote. Sad.

    There, I fixed it for you.


    Thank you! :) (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cashmere on Tue May 17, 2016 at 05:12:43 PM EST
    The Sanders campaign, perhaps having (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 17, 2016 at 06:05:01 PM EST
    learned from the New York primary, had staffers on the ground in Oregon reminding people to be sure they were registered as Democrats by the deadline if they wanted to vote. The campaign also sent numerous emails reminding people to be sure they were registered as Democrats and explaining how to do that.

    They have followed that up with constant emails the last couple of weeks begging people to return their ballots.

    If Sanders loses Oregon, which would surprise me, he cannot blame the Democratic Party and its rules. A loss would seem to indicate that his supporters did not care enough about his election to fill and return a simple form.


    Also, in Oregon you can register to vote (none / 0) (#35)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 17, 2016 at 06:08:46 PM EST
    online. You can also declare a party affiliation online or change your affiliation.

    Oregon makes it so easy to vote. There is really no excuse not to register and vote.


    I just got home from work.. long day.. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cashmere on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:59:06 PM EST
    but passed a ballot drop box enroute and the traffic was through the roof getting through, so many people dropping ballots at the last minute.

    One more thing, I think I mentioned (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cashmere on Tue May 17, 2016 at 03:12:00 PM EST
    that my neighbor is an aid for Earl Blumenauer (a US Representative from Portland, he is the guy always wearing a bow tie).  Earl is very progressive and well-liked in Portland.  However, he endorsed Clinton and you should have seen the threats on his facebook page about no longer voting for him, etc.  They finally took the post down, it was getting so heated.

    my aunt (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Tue May 17, 2016 at 03:12:06 PM EST
    Is a very vocal Hillary supporter (almost as annoying on my facebook feed as the Bernie fans) from Portland.  I'll just say that for the most part it seems like a civil discussion.  But you've got at least one more in that camp!

    My cousins would've made two more but they recently moved from Portland Oregon to Portland Maine.  And yes, they are almost exactly like what you'd expect people who moved from Portland Oregon to Portland Maine to be like, except for the whole supporting Hillary thing :)


    Howdy, my two Oregon (none / 0) (#14)
    by fishcamp on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:19:31 PM EST
    sisters are such dyed in the wool Republicans that I'm afraid to ask.  Casey probably knows more since she's lived there more recently than I have.  I don't think we had mail in voting when I lived in Oregon.  I left for Aspen in 1959, before I even graduated from college.  Ski racing was more important, don'tcha know.  Went back home and graduated that summer after I didn't make the '60 Olympics in Squaw Valley, Ca.  

    Ha (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:22:16 PM EST
    I spoke via email with a cousin from California wine country yesterday.  She and her husband are textbook liberal republicans.

    They are seriously considering moving to Costa Rica.


    costa rica? (none / 0) (#37)
    by linea on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:10:10 PM EST
    what's a liberal republican?  a libertarian?

    Some would say a liberal republican is (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:20:42 PM EST
    a Hillary supporter.   What do they have against Hillary? Maybe you mean they are more liberal than some Republicans, not really liberals?

    She actually to the left of a lot of Democrats on a number of issues, particularly LGBT rights, Native Hawaiian rights and environmental matters. Whenever she's asked by people why she doesn't just bail on the Republicans and switch parties, she simply smiles and says, "Because the GOP is my party, too, and I've been there a lot longer than they have."

    Good for her.


    Actually (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:32:44 PM EST
    She said she would likely vote for Hillary.  Without being excited about it.

    She is very liberal (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:43:37 PM EST
    In most ways.  We also discussed voting for Gary Johnson.  I think he may attract a not insignificant number of socially liberal fiscally conservative voters.

    Her husband is a definite Johnson vote.


    Well (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:45:21 PM EST
    it still counts the same as those who would crawl over cut glass to vote for Hillary.

    They are a strange couple (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:37:25 PM EST
    They seem to have lots of money but I don't think the really do but more have great connections.  I got to go to some Central America Maya Ruins with them once and I don't think anyone paid for it.

    Her husband is former CIA.  I think I'm not supposed t know that but I do.   They are in Central America now going to Istanbul and Greece in a couple of weeks.


    The most interesting man in the world! (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:40:44 PM EST
    I'm jealous...sounds like a nice life.

    Costa Rica is the trendy (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:32:08 PM EST
    vacation spot of the well to do.

    Seriously? I did not know that. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by vml68 on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:22:58 PM EST
    I am in the process of planning a family vacation to Costa Rica this summer. My12 year old niece suggested it. I get to do something trendy, finally :-)!!

    oh (none / 0) (#78)
    by linea on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:08:52 PM EST
    that's not me {frown}

    Costa Rica (none / 0) (#85)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:33:11 AM EST
    Would be a wonderful place.
    I have looked into it as well. Great fishing. Climate, reasonably good health services.
    Unfortunately, it is not a hidden gem anymore, and costs have risen in the last dozen years

    I don't know where (none / 0) (#60)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:40:21 PM EST
    those Sanders predictions came from. Hillary has had a double digit lead in Oregon as far back as I recall. I agree Oregon should be more liberal, Sanders territory but the polls have been saying, "no," for a long time.

    Who know?


    I've only seen one Oregon poll (none / 0) (#64)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:51:38 PM EST
    in the last 2 months. Clinton was up big.

    All the demographics say a Sanders win in Oregon. Of course they also say a Sanders win in Kentucky. It makes no difference either way unless Sanders can win by +35 in both states.


    At this stage of the game, (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:25:49 PM EST
    the official winner-loser is meaningless. Everyone, including sanders, knows Hillary will have the delegates.

    What they're fighting for is showing strength vs. a potential Trump opponent. That's why, If Hillary wins a state over Bernie by a point or so, when she should have won by 10-15 its correctly considered a loss.

    Sander's strategy isn't to go to the convention with more delegates than Clinton. It's to get there with some kind of momentum, and delegate wins over the predicted numbers. The whole point is to make a case that he can beat Trump better than Hillary. But, what has Sander's supporters so upset, and I wish people would understand this, isn't losing to Hillary fair and square. It's things like Washington State that has some using the "rigged" label. Bernie won the State with 71% so, obviously the voters expressed their will with such a landslide vote. Yet, to date, not a single one of the 17 Super delegates, pledged way back to Hillary, have indicated they would respect the voter's wishes.

    I've supported Hillary for over 25 years, but I refuse to become a fanboy, and shut my eyes and brain down to the dynamics of what's happening. Sanders and his people aren't villains. And, no amount of temper tantrums, or vilification is going to make me surrender my ability to think. The echo chamber that TL has become is one of the saddest things I've seen happening here in many years. A few of the long-term posters who've left here have been in touch with me, and they're appalled how the place has allowed a couple of anger filled loudmouths hold the site hostage like this.

    I'm done, thanks for listening.


    It's not the superdelegates job (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:42:13 PM EST
    to listen to the voters. Their job is to vote for who they think is the best candidate. But in this case the superdelegates and the voters are in agreement. Clinton wins both handily.

    Unfortunately, the "best candidate" (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:48:52 AM EST
    is defined as she who will best ensure the continuity of machine politics.

    Both wings of the machine dangle a few wedge issues in front of the proles to transfix the faithful and stay cognition.  

    The objective: retaining control over the Treasury feed trough and the dealmaking it enables.


    No (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:02:28 AM EST
    The best candidate for the people is the one the people choose. And for the Democratic party this year the people's choice will gather over 3 million more votes than her opponent.

    No (none / 0) (#171)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed May 18, 2016 at 07:50:36 PM EST
    That is why the Democrats brought in Superdelegates, to thwart the will of the people, just in case, they don't choose the right candidate

    They brought in superdelegates (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:09:50 PM EST
    To prevent a nut job like Donald Trump from hijacking the party.

    And I bet (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:18:59 PM EST
    the Republicans are darn jealous of that fact. Wait until they do primary reform after The Donald and change the primaries to look more like democratic ones.

    No, they are not to "thwart" the will of the voters. In fact they came into being because the "will of the voters" was thwarted. They are there to prevent a candidate who gets a plurality of the votes like The Donald but not a majority and who also would be deemed an electoral disaster.


    Actually (none / 0) (#174)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:22:21 PM EST
    One of the items Hillary will be willing to negotiate with The Bern is the removal of the SuperDelegate from the Democratic primary system

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:27:29 PM EST
    no. At this point with his childish behavior I don't think she's going to negotiate anything with him. She has stated she wants primary reform but I seriously doubt what Bernie wants there is going to be taken into consideration after his disastrous behavior recently.

    In researching (i.e.,Googling) the Ted Kennedy (none / 0) (#184)
    by oculus on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:33:41 AM EST
    primarying of Pres. Carter, I learned that Carter made some platform concessions to Kennedy that were contra to Carter administration policies. Teddy took it to the convention.

    He is getting to be (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by sallywally on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:22:57 AM EST
    the poster child for why we need superdelegates.

    The best candidate (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:07:47 AM EST
    Is the one who can prevent a president Trump.  Surely you are not going to say you think that is Bernie Sanders.

    Polls say he is... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:57:19 AM EST
    for what they're worth.

    As does my gut...you don't pick the second most disliked person to go head to head with the most disliked person.  The liked person is the choice.  Nor do you pick the posterchild of the Establishment in the year of the anti-establishment fervor.  

    If calculating political strategy is the game, instead of "best person for the job" (where reasonable people can disagree), I think y'all Democrats done f*cked up in picking a nominee.  Time will tell...but with the inherent demographic advantages, this should be cake and I'm not sure it will be.

    Aside from Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or Chuck Schumer...Hillary Clinton is probably the worst possible choice in the current climate.  



    Disagree (5.00 / 6) (#124)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:07:52 AM EST
    "Disliked" by whom?  Republicans and a few whiny Bernie supporters?

    Dude - Bernie got a question yesterday about Nevada and he walked away from the microphone.  You think he has what it takes to face the Republican onslaught?  To face Putin?  Hell, he certainly wouldn't be able to handle Congress.

    And for the record, being "liked" doesn't mean being "competent".  And to that, I think there are fewer and fewer people who like Bernie Sanders, many of those whose help he would need to implement his "revolution".


    Sanders has never had a negative ad (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:14:43 AM EST
    Run against him.  Far from the republicans have been running ads to help him.

    Anyone who thinks Sanders would be a better candidate in a general election, against anyone but particularly against Trump, is delusional IMO.


    Kdog (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:21:16 AM EST
    once Bernie's baggage is unleashed his numbers would sink like titanic. There is a reason why the GOP has been pushing him and it's because they know exactly what his baggage is and the fact that he has a 25 year voting history with some pretty questionable votes.

    You have 2 people that have been in the public (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by ruffian on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:44:37 PM EST
    eye for 30 years, and 1 that only politically engaged Dems have even been paying attention to for the last year.

    There is anti-establishment 'fervor' in less than half the people politically engaged enough to participate in primaries and caucuses. It is not sweeping the country.

    I also disagree that the time to run a more 'liked' candidate is against a highly disliked candidate. there are a lot of reasons some people don't like Clinton, some of them misogynistic. Any woman would have a rough time getting elected against a much loved man. This is the time to take a chance on a woman.


    I think that one (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by athyrio on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:13:53 AM EST
    of the biggest reasons that Hillarys unfavorables are high right now are the bad mouthing that Sanders has been doing for months without anyone doing it back to him...remember she has been voted the most respected woman in the world for the last 20 years..

    I actually thnk (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:53:53 PM EST
    A woman might be the perfect candidate to run against Trump.  And I think Hillary, with her unassailable experience and qualifications, just might be the perfect woman.

    She is going to kill him with women, AAs, Latinos and many liberals groups just because and with many centrist and sane republicans because of her cred and her foreign policy positions, not all of which I agree with but I will take it.

    I read Asians are massively against Trump. For whatever reason

    On top of all that Trump is being forced to veer right with all his might to get the right wing onboard.  Have you met his list of judges? Holy sh!t.

    Sure he will get a few rednecks and angry whatevers but as I said in another thread I don't think there are enough in all the world.

    I'm feelin pretty good.



    The thing (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:16:05 PM EST
    that trump has going against him is even if he gets every white working class voter in the country to vote for him it's still on 34% of the voters. Which is not going to happen because nobody gets 100% of any group.

    Nate Silver says (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by athyrio on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:10:50 AM EST
    that national polls at this time don't mean a tinkers damn...to ignore them for many reasons so I do...

    And if (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:24:28 AM EST
    you're thinking about demographics well, Bernie has big problems there. The GOP will remind everyone how he voted against immigration reform with states with high Hispanic registration and will remind African American voters in a lot of states his decades long support of the NRA. Will any of that gather votes for Trump? No, but it sure will make a lot of them sit home.

    'Things like' the super delegate system (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:55:36 PM EST
    Is what has you so upset? So if Clinton has enough delegates without the SDs, you will feel it was a fair outcome?

    There is no objective way to measure who would be best against Trump. It is all a matter of opinion - polls now are mixed and too far out, and polls closer in wont have all three in campaign mode. So voters and super delegates have to make up their own minds about that. Maybe Bernie will manage to persuade the SDs to go against the will of the voters so far and pick Bernie instead. If he does not, will you consider it a fair outcome?


    Tad Devine (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:21:21 PM EST
    Bernie's senior advisor designed the super delegate system. If Bernie is so angry about that maybe he should spent his time yelling at Tad.

    Would this be the same Tad Devine who ... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:22:32 PM EST
    ... is currently characterizing everybody's favorite gay uncle Barney Frank and Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy as partisan hacks?

    Why, yes, I do believe it is. And so, what was once a proud and independent campaign anchored upon bedrock liberal principle, has now devolved into the ultimate vanity exercise for the candidate himself and a handful of campaign insiders.

    Simply pathetic.


    It devolved into that some time ago (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:36:00 PM EST
    Most just didn't notice until recently.

    Back in March (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Nemi on Thu May 19, 2016 at 07:28:19 AM EST
    Barney Frank gave an interview to Slate, titled Barney Frank Is Not Impressed by Bernie Sanders. Having been exposed to the, frankly speaking, less than informed Sanders voters on social media, I loved this response from Barney Frank:

    Q: So it seems like you're saying Bernie's voters have a slightly unrealistic sense about the political process. And that this is driven--

    A: I didn't say slightly.

    Among other things he said, things that noone seemed to (wanted to?) listen to at the time or take seriously:

    Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years with little to show for it in terms of his accomplishments and that's because of the role he stakes out. It is harder to get things done in the American political system than a lot of people realize, and what happens is they blame the people in office for the system. And that's the same with the Tea Party. It's "I voted for these Republicans, we have a Republican Congress, we voted for them, they took over Congress, they didn't accomplish anything." You gotta win at least two elections in a row.

    I think [Bernie Sanders] gets a pass from the media. Other than Glass-Steagall, what did he propose in 2009 and 2010 when he was a senator when we were dealing with this? The answer is nothing. Why haven't you looked at his record?

    And on caucuses:

    The caucuses are the least democratic political operation in America. They cater to the people who have a lot of time on their hands, and what's interesting is Sanders is the nominee of the caucuses and Hillary is the nominee of the primaries.

    More at link ...


    All "superdelegate" means is that ... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 18, 2016 at 07:09:52 PM EST
    ... one is automatically a delegate to the convention by virtue of one's position as an elected public or party official.

    I'm a superdelegate at our state convention on May 27-29, as are all my 50 fellow district chairs, the governor, lieutenant governor and Democratic members of our state legislature and congressional delegation.

    I'm not sure why that's suddenly so unfair, since all this outrage appears to be entirely selective in its expression.



    First of (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:01:35 PM EST
    all Washington state was a caucus which is the least democratic way of voting. As you saw with the Nebraska results when people actually voted the numbers were completely flipped. So it's really kind of hard to see where people are thinking that a Super D should flip because someone won a very undemocratic caucus. And even if they did flip because of something like a caucus it would not help Bernie. And another problem is Bernie is screaming that any closed primary is rigged yet zero complaints about a caucus.

    Yes, maybe my comments go over the top but I have been bullied all over the internet by the Bros before Hos crowd for months now as have many, many Hillary supporters. You couldn't even put up a pro Hillary post without the bros finding you and attacking you, people who didn't even know you.

    I personally thought that primary reform should have happened after all that went down in 2008 but it didn't and since it didn't Bernie can't scream about changing the rules because he's losing. And you don't throw chairs at people and call them four letter words if you don't like something. It's done nothing but drive people away.


    You seem to protest too much, NYS (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by christinep on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:38:16 PM EST
    It isn't just people on TL who are concerned about bully-type behavior displayed in places like Nevada by Sanders' supporters at the state convention.  See, for example, coverage by Jon Ralston, official letter from the Nevada Democratic Party, statements from various officials (including Harry Reid) expressing their deep concern over supporters almost running amok because fair & known procedures to all participants had a result that the Sanders' folk didn't like.

    For some time now, your comments indicate something quite opposite than your purported position.  And, btw, that you don't agree with how the process will apparently play out does not make others "fanboy(s)."


    I find it interesting (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:34:32 AM EST
    That Sanders wants superdelegates in states that he's won to support him, yet says nothing of Raul Grivalja (AZ), Alan Grayson (FL), Therese Hunkin (AS), Nancy Jacobson (FL), Marcy Kaptur (OH), Paul Kirk (MA), Dan Lipinski (IL), Heather Mizeur (MD), Danica Oparnica (AZ), Johnnie Patton (MS), Jake Quinn (NC), or Keelan Sanders (MS) - all superdelegates who support Bernie Sanders, but are from states that Hillary won.

    Of course, even if the rule was implemented like Sanders wants - superdelegates must follow their state - he would still lose.

    As for those "longlong term posters" who left, well, if they are so "appalled", that means they're still reading.  If they think the place has "allowed" a couple of "anger filled loudmouths [to] hold the site hostage," they are certainly free to come back and join the discussion. Many people certainly have expressed their wish for those commenters to come back, myself included. But like many of the Bernie supporters we've seen and heard from, they were never really willing to discuss anything anyways - and early on THEY were the ones trying to "hold the site hostage" because anytime their arguments were refuted with links and proof (think: Gerald Friedman and the cost of Bernie's health care / economic plan), then they resorted to the same dismissive attitude they are do "appalled" by now.  

    I WISH (some of them) would come back - I often learned things from them,  and they made me sharpen my thoughts about issues.  But if you are claiming that they can't be bothered to comment, even though they still read here, well, that's certainly their right, but then to claim "it's been taken hostage" is nothing short of ludicrous. What they didn"t like is that. For years, most people ahreed with them, and this year, many people didn't.  It's really that simple.


    I think the part I like most (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:52:29 AM EST
    I how he makes the point over and over that's it's us mean old commenters who "drove them away" and ignores the fact that both posters on this blog are Hillary supporters.  Might that small detail possibly have something to do with it?  Ya think?

    As far as begging them to come back I'm pretty indifferent.  I'm not going to act like I miss them much.  Personally I'm content to have them read the comments and throw rocks from behind trees by proxy.

    And I agree with you that the real problem is support for Sanders does not thrive when touched by reality.  It needs to be protected from troublesome facts.   That's why they are gone.


    And since we both know (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:16:21 AM EST
    Who the "loud mouth" krap is referring to I believe our responsibility is not not disappoint.

    Did you ever watch "Glee"? (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:31:12 AM EST
    Kinda how like the cheerleaders weren't necessarily the coolest kids in school anymore after the glee club won some competitions and Sue Sylvester had to plot her revenge and say rude things?

    Yeah, like that.


    2016 Bernie or Bust has a lot in common (none / 0) (#98)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:48:28 AM EST
    with the 2008 PUMA's

    The really strange part (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:57:34 AM EST
    Is the overlap.  One would almost think they just like the attention of being the persecuted loser.

    The overlap.. (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Wed May 18, 2016 at 02:56:49 PM EST
    Really. No sh*t.

    It's no exaggeration whatsoever to say that a half to two-thirds of the present Hillary crowd first showed up here around '08, and were directing the same sort of outraged, unforgiving invective at Obama back then that they now direct at Sanders.


    Actually, the most fervent anti-Obama people left (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ruffian on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    this site. The ones left, like me and a few others, supported Obama once he had the nomination. Some people could not bring themselves that far, and have never been back here, unless they have new names - I doubt it though, I would recognize them.

    I was never anti-Obama (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:23:14 PM EST
    Just pro-Clinton. And like you, made the switch within 24 hours when Obama was assured of the nomination. I didn't need to wait until the convention to support the eventual nominee.

    Yes, me too. but some were actually anti-Obama (none / 0) (#198)
    by ruffian on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    rather than just pro-Hillary.

    You miss the point (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:10:51 PM EST
    Intentionally no doubt.

    I supported Hillary then.  And came around.   I support Hillary now.  Some of the current Hillary haters were also oddly the most fervent Obama haters, PUMAs you could say.  Hillary or nothing.  I was on an alternative news group with several fir a while so I know exactly what and who I am talking about.

    THAT is what I find odd.


    Oh I see.. (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:06:56 PM EST
    so the PUMAS that landed here in '08 and hated everything Obama stood for and did weren't rabid Clinton supporters, they were all...what? Stumping for Jill Stein?

    Talk about a skewed, self-serving perceptions..

    When the past doesn't jibe with the present, just rewrite the past.


    I guess you are being intentionally obtuse (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:34:06 PM EST
    What ever you are doing do it alone.

    As far as naming names I could name several and I expect you know that but since it is you being a he jerk and not them I will pass on that for now.

    Anyway it's not necessary.  Every commenter here then and now knows exactly the ones I'm talking about.  Including you I expect.

    Don't look now but your desperation is showin


    And your record-breaking twenty pounds (none / 0) (#158)
    by jondee on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:05:49 PM EST
    squeezed into a one pound bag is smelling through the web in defiance of the laws of science.



    Btw name ONE (none / 0) (#150)
    by jondee on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:10:33 PM EST
    "Obama hater" from back then, besides ppj, who is now a "Hillary hater" here.

    Just one.


    Most (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:33:25 PM EST
    of them are now Bernie supporters it seems.

    The PUMAS are now Sanders supporters (none / 0) (#154)
    by jondee on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:40:31 PM EST

    And here I thought Jim was the site's designated historical revisionist.


    Are you high? (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:45:39 PM EST
    Or just being an ass?

    Yes, that is correct.  Many PUMAs are now die hard Sanders supporters.  They freakin left.  What part of this are you not understanding.


    i was a puma member (none / 0) (#157)
    by athyrio on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:01:15 PM EST
    and am now and will always be a Hillary supporter

    So was I and so am I (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:07:48 PM EST
    Well to a point.

    I came around pretty quickly to support the nominee lost patients with the holdouts.

    I remember that you were.  And I expect you know who I'm talking about.


    I do (none / 0) (#180)
    by athyrio on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:03:26 AM EST
    and during the convention in Denver that year I drove there to meet up with other PUMA's and we made signs and walked up and down the street...was nice to meet some of the others...that was the last time I was able health wise to take a trip and I had to do so with my electric scooter...Denver had lots of cops in riot gear as I remember and I hope Philadelphia does this summer...they will probably need it

    Wow..so it isn't just Jim that does that.. (none / 0) (#160)
    by jondee on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:09:09 PM EST
    Nice job trying to change the subject tho (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:40:23 PM EST
    You apparently (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:33:28 PM EST
    have not been paying attention. Yes, they are Bernie supporters. I don't know why you find that such a surprise but apparently you do.

    Well (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:34:02 AM EST
    That was 10 pounds of bullsh!t in a 5 pound bag if ever there was.

    I was going to respond substantively and I gave up because I couldn't pick a place to start.

    I will say this.  I hope I'm one of the loudmouths doing the "appalling".


    You are. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:50:05 AM EST
    I kinda knew that (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:05:50 AM EST
    But thanks

    RCP (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:57:00 PM EST
    Doesn't even list an Oregon primary poll.  I just looked.  The one poll was months ago I think.  

    The chatter has been assuming Sanders would win.  But I just heard the part about primary registration in the last couple of days.  Which seems to me could be.....important.


    Here is your one Oregon poll (none / 0) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:00:17 PM EST
    Am I missing something (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:02:47 PM EST
    That's what just just looked at and I'm not seeing a poll.



    Look closely (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:05:48 PM EST
    Your eyes are deceiving you

    Here is the article on that poll


    Damn (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:05:06 PM EST
    Found it sorry.

    It took glasses


    They came largely (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:58:30 PM EST
    From the resident Oregon voters.

    And they were right. (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:36:00 AM EST
    Nail-biter in Kentucky. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:56:21 PM EST
    With 90% of precincts reporting, Bernie Sanders is up by 112 votes out of 381,270 ballots cast.

    At this point (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:58:34 PM EST
    It will only "matter" if Sanders wins.

    It doesn't matter. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:10:59 PM EST
    She's such a loser. She should drop out.</s>

    She just won (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:19:03 PM EST
    Jumped ahead 2500 votes.

    OMG! (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:22:47 PM EST
    See? They're right. The whole thing is frickin' rigged, man.</s>

    Duck and cover (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:24:33 PM EST
    Incoming chairs

    Yes, Vox..... (none / 0) (#72)
    by bmaz on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:11:29 PM EST
    .....the self claimed "wonk" joint brought to you by a couple of pimple faced sages who thought the Iraq war was a brilliant idea.

    No thanks.

    They're still not calling Kentucky? (none / 0) (#89)
    by glanton on Wed May 18, 2016 at 07:32:24 AM EST

    Won't make a difference one way or the other (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:15:39 AM EST
    someone will likely gain 1 delegate and the path for Sanders gets even more impossible.

    Sanders needs 90.3% of the remaining pledged and non-committed superdelegates to take the lead.


    Good thing Sanders wasn't the one (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 07:38:32 AM EST
    1500 votes ahead.  There would be riots if he wasn't proclaimed the winner.

    As (none / 0) (#136)
    by Nemi on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:17:42 PM EST
    Gabriel Debenedetti has noted, Oregon was the first win for Bernie Sanders in a closed primary.

    Just checked: He also won 'Democrats abroad'. Still a rather poor performance in what is by many - most? - considered the fair and democratic way of voting.

    There is no surprise Bernie winning here in Oregon (none / 0) (#143)
    by Cashmere on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:22:59 PM EST
    Portland, where I live, is over the top for Bernie.  We have a house in Baker City as well (rural, eastern Oregon), and although the rural areas remain Republican for the most part, the liberals there are also very PRO Bernie.  I feel so alone here, supporting Hillary!  :)

    Awww ... that sucks (none / 0) (#156)
    by Nemi on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:47:32 PM EST
    I feel with you. Won't change much I know, but nevertheless my sympathy is heartfelt.

    If you only count bound delegates, (none / 0) (#161)
    by itscookin on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:15:41 PM EST
    Hillary currently has 1768, and Bernie has 1494. In the unlikely event all of the superdelegates moved their votes to Bernie, he could still win the nomination, yes? Can Hillary get the nomination without the superdelegates putting her across the finish line? If she can't, is it any more "fair" for them to give the nomination to one candidate over the other? Isn't the point of the superdelegates to give the party insiders the final say when no candidate has a decisive win? That's what I understood in 2008 when the superdelegates switched their votes to Obama.

    Yes, but I think the difference is that in 2008, (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Cashmere on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:43:33 PM EST
    Obama had more pledged delegates.  Hillary recognized this and requested all of her pledged delegates and any superdelegates still supporting her switch to support Obama.  Party unity.  Hopefully, Bernie will follow this great example and promote party unity as he will not end the primaries with more pledged delegates that Hillary.  Hillary is ahead by MUCH more than Obama was ahead in 2008.

    Bernie only has 39 (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:50:04 PM EST
    SuperDelegates so.........

    No (none / 0) (#162)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:31:01 PM EST
    Because of proportional delegate allocation, she probably can't get there without SD's.  But then again, neither dud Obama.  I don't think any Dem has since they started using them.  

    Sure (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:38:43 PM EST
    It would be fair.  Would you like t know why it will never happen?  Because many of those super delegates are running down ticket and the know Sanders would be death not only to the White House but right down to dog catcher.  The other supers know this as well but self interest is a great motivator.  

    But is irrelevant because she has more delegates and millions more votes and that will be true on June 7th.


    You know (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:39:40 PM EST
    just forget about the delegates. Hillary has 3 million more votes than Bernie.

    And it's entirely possible she could reach the pledged delegate number without super delegates. The 2300 number includes super delegates. 2027 is the number of pledged delegates and she could pick up that number of delegates alone in California.


    Exactly. I think it is going to be a non-issue. (none / 0) (#197)
    by ruffian on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:04:54 PM EST
    The only 'democratic' reason for mass numbers of SDs to switch is in the unlikely event Hillary gets indicted, dies, goes batshi* crazy, or some other horrible circumstance.

    National poll puts Trump ahead of Clinton (none / 0) (#178)
    by sallywally on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:29:15 PM EST
    All having schadenfreude (sp?) over it....

    I wonder when they will stop making fun of her long enough to begin realizing she is their only hope of avoiding a Donald presidency.

    Who's "they"? (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 07:36:34 AM EST
    News organizations (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by sallywally on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:02:38 AM EST
    Who think they are being objective; talking heads and "analysts"; comedians; guests on talk shows, indvertently in side commentsm with a little snark.

    And so on. It isn't every single one all the time but it is constant, even when people are supposedly liberal and in favor of unity.

    It's almost de rigeur to be cynical about her even though she has earned more votes than any other candidate on either side, which is a fact and should be automatically mentioned anytime her name  comes up but is almost never noted. And her having been one of the most admired women in the WORLD for a couple of decades -- a level of honor and respect that no other candidate has.m

    But she has been hurt by two candidates basically brutalizing her and all these upright media folks continuously saying people don't like her or trust her as though it were a fact rather than a phony Republican meme.

    And since it is inevitable that she is the Democratic candidate it almost seems worse.


    My Quest to Discover Who "They" Are (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 08:39:37 AM EST

    Beginning in 1986, I launched my nonstop quest to discover who "They" are. For many years I toiled in the deep, dark dungeon of conspiracy science. I read every book, every treatise, every article I could get my hands on to get to the answer. I thought that, perhaps, if I could build on the works of other great conspiracy scientists, I would find the answer. The guilty culprits, the monsters who have so tormented the earth and continue to do so would be revealed.

    Good men and women long before my entry into the battle had done great work seeking to unravel the mystery. I need not recount their names here. You know them, and they deserve maximum credit for their labors in search of the truth--to unveil "They," the parasites who bedevil the world and infect society.

    It seemed for a time I would find them (that is, "They") lurking about in one or another of the many secret societies or globalist organizations. Could the masters of humanity be found in the Bohemian Grove, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, the Grand Orient Lodge, the Pilgrim Society, the Bilderbergers, the World Economic Forum, the G20, the P2 Lodge, the Priory of Sion, the Rosicrucians, the Order of Skull and Bones, Alta Vista, the O.T.O.?

    The list of notorious and sinister groups is almost endless. I made it my job to delve into each and every one to determine the who, what, when, where, and how of each. Would I find my beasts behind their windowless lodge walls, or inside their locked and bolted, darkened inner sanctums?


    With that incredible introduction, we turn immediately to Revelation 2:9-10 where God first assures us that He is fully aware of the trials, tribulations, and hardships we must endure because of the evil people behind the global conspiracy. Then, he minces no words in naming who "They," are, the workers of Satan who cause such suffering and anguish:

    "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

    Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried, and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life."

    You asked (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 08:47:07 AM EST
    National polls in May are meaningless. (none / 0) (#185)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:34:45 AM EST
    Michael Dukakis led George H.W. Bush by 17 percentage points in July 1988. How'd that work out for him?