Bernie Sanders to Endorse Hillary on Tuesday

Well Hell's bells, or in Steven Tyler's words (on another topic), “Sh*t fire and save matches, f*ck a duck and see what hatches.” Bernie Sanders is going to endorse Hillary on Tuesday.

Nap time. No profanity in comments please. Asterisks are okay.

< Thursday Open Thread | Texas: Requiring Mandatory Burial of Aborted Fetuses >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Surrender Dorothy.. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 11:35:01 AM EST
    Oh no my dear, he's a very good man. He's just a very bad wizard.

    Pretty strong (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 04:03:28 PM EST
    interview for Hillary on CNN, strong and sober on the killings, extraordinarily candid about calling out white people to understand the racism that still exists.

    As to the emails, she fessed up, again, that having a private server was dumb, dumb, dumb. As to defending against the "extremely careless" charges she deflected to strongly defending her team of professionals, "The 300".

    Her speech at a church today was (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 07:36:33 PM EST
    very moving too. Tied it all together beautifully with respect for all and no reliance on platitudes.

    Hmmmmm? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 05:59:48 PM EST

    Bernie Sanders has been invited to continue his underdog bid for the White House by the Green party's probable presidential candidate, who has offered to step aside to let him run.

    Jill Stein, who is expected to be endorsed at the party's August convention in Houston, told Guardian US that "overwhelming" numbers of Sanders supporters are flocking to the Greens rather than Hillary Clinton.

    Stein insisted that her presidential bid has a viable "near term goal" of reaching 15% in national polling, which would enable her to stand alongside presumptive nominees Clinton and Donald Trump in televised election debates


    LOL (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 06:05:36 PM EST
    She's looking for attention. Whatever. Mostly it makes Stein and the Green Party look like a bunch of sad sacks. I'm sure though Republicans will attempt to fund them or try to make the Green Party into useful idiots for their cause since nobody likes the issues represented by the GOP.

    If anything (none / 0) (#6)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 06:08:00 PM EST
    It does give some leverage to The Bern

    Ignore him, diss him at the convention at your own risk

    With The Bern on the Presidential ballot,

    All bets are off


    85% of Bernie supporters now support Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 11:02:24 PM EST
    According to recent polling and this is before any endorsement

    Sorry to burst your dream bubble


    Sorry (none / 0) (#16)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 06:25:31 AM EST
    Not my dream bubble. Came across it online and had to laugh,
    Considering all the vitriol being tossed at The Bern by the commenters on this site,
    Just saying that Democrats at the convention should be a bit more hospitable to The Bern than those commenting here
    I don't think The Bern is considering that back door, but if he gets treated at the convention as everyone here hopes he does, he just might.

    Actually (none / 0) (#17)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 06:27:18 AM EST
    My "dream bubble" would be for Trump to decline the nomination at the convention

    Thus (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 06:58:32 AM EST
    proving that a huuuge chunk of the GOP fell for the greatest political con job of all time.

    In my dream bubble, he unzips is body suit on stage in Cleveland and out steps.........Andy Kauffman.


    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 07:26:10 AM EST
    it's really funny. Even those that didn't fall for the con of the Donald fell for the email con or the Benghazi con. Even the elected GOP reps in the house have been falling for cons. You know though Donald probably did a quick study of the wingnut welfare system and voila easy nomination!!!

    Tony Clifton (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    I'd give that one a ten, Joe.

    So ... we know your sentiments about (none / 0) (#20)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 09:36:40 AM EST
    HRC. We are beginning to see your discomfort with Donald.  In this real world of dealing with real choices (i.e., not dream bubbles) might you let us in on which individual on the likely election ballot in your state will get your vote for President?

    Knowing what one is against or opposes does not enlighten anyone about what you are for ... an old-fashioned notion of mine that being against something is easy, being for someone or something is actually taking a position.  (Note: I do recognize that a voter has a sacred right to change his/her mind at anytime prior to the actual act of voting.)


    Right now (none / 0) (#21)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 10:03:20 AM EST
    I fit in here

    Stein is out, sorry KDog, and Johnson , I have to look more closely into his positions. A cursory look would leave me against some of Johnsons policies as well. As this is one wacky election, I am sure there might be more  surprises, so I am still firmly entrenched in undecided, with leanings towards a write in, or Johnson


    EW YORK, July 8 (Reuters) - Americans' demand for an alternative to the two main presidential candidates has surged since the last election, a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll shows, underscoring the unpopularity of Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.

    Based on 2,153 interviews, Friday's poll results suggest a strong potential for a third-party candidate - like Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party or Jill Stein of the Green Party - to take enough of the vote in the Nov. 8 presidential election to influence its outcome.

    According to the July 1-8 poll, 21 percent of likely voters will not back Trump or Clinton. That compares with about 13 percent of likely voters who opted out of the two main choices at the same point in the 2012 race between incumbent President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

    I (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 10:50:02 AM EST
    am surmising that much of that demand for an alternative comes from the Republicans and rightward leaners like yourself.

    There is no #neverHillary movement in the Democratic party that matches the very palpable one among lifetime Republicans. The number of Berners who have not had their "dream bubble" burst yet is dwindling by the day.

    The problem with Johnson is that while he has many ideas that appeal to one side or the other, he offers just as many that seem poisonous to one side or the other, or both(they are free trade absolutists).


    The National Parks.. (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 11:26:25 AM EST
    I was just reading a discussion about the National Parks amongst a group of libertarians. The consensus was that they should be auctioned off to the highest bidder because they're "owned by the Federal Government", and according to the libertarian cosmology, this cold-blooded, inaccessible domain of "the Federal Government", like Kafka's castle, has no connection whatsoever to the will of the people. Which leads me to believe these folks don't have a firm grasp on the concept of representative democracy..

    You'd think, listening to these people, that the National Parks were some sort of private deer park
    presided over with a remorseless iron fist by Genghis Khan..


    Worse (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 12:05:33 PM EST
    The iron fist of Barack Hussein Obama

    Spitting in the face of liberty (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    with his totalitarian bird sanctuaries.

    Libertarian-like influence in the West (none / 0) (#31)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 03:33:17 PM EST
    Historically, variations of the I-got-my-land-my fence-my gun-&-my-dog are pronounced in interior western states. Not to overstate the isolationist tendency as to living arrangements/broader community (poor dog, Shep, didn't may not have too many other nearby dog-pals) or approaches to other countries, so much of the federal land ownership issue flairs periodically to a fever pitch.  

    In the opinion of those who display and sometimes act on strong feelings about federal land ownership, the federal land-related departments have long been the enemy. The percentage of federal ownership varies from western state to western state--and, often, the areas with biggest hostility arise in states where the largest part of the land is owned by the feds.  As I recall, the states where federal ownership can & does exceed 50% of the land typically see occasionally intense conflict between rural land-owners and neighboring federally-managed lands.  In the 1980s, a movement known here as the Sagebrush Rebellion led to the very conservative Pacific States Legal group that spawned the Reagan era Interior Secretary James Watt and his Colorado-bed compatriot Gail Norton, who later served as W's Interior Secretary.

    The sagebrush-bunch and their progeny should never be underestimated in their determination.  In many ways, they are akin in belief to the Federalist Society albeit with a western flair. Another example in my very personal experience: Anne Gorsuch, EPA Administrator under Reagan (before being found in contempt of Congree & having to leave her post ..yay!) fit nicely into that extreme self-determination mode; and, in EPA then, strong & negative environmental ramifications ensued in the wetlands areas, in the application of dredge & other CWA section 404 matters especially arising & threatening the waters of the U.S. and the waterfowl, habitat to appease development, etc.

    The point of my little rant is that the negative consequences to the waters, wetlands, wildlife, and general welfare of the local communities are not theoretical outcomes of the land-issue dispute in the West.  The Libertarians talk about their liberty, but the negative environmental fall-out cannot be ignored.  BTW, seldom mentioned--but very real--is that it isn't simply the "rugged individualist" that drives this ... in many cases, behind all of the big-time flare-ups you will find the land developers whose goal is to raze & subdivide the beautiful western lands for moneyed-development.  For the powerful developers and extractors, I think that the neo-Libertarian in these situations are often used by the corporate developers & extractors as their frontline ... as their stooges.

    Yep, there is a difference between the two parties. In the ongoing battle to protect, preserve the people's land & water, the big federal appointments yield actual results.  The biggest consequences--Interior, EPA, Energy--are a direct result of who is elected U.S. President.
    (No way to avoid that factoid.)


    Correction notation (none / 0) (#32)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 03:39:45 PM EST
    In concluding sentence of second paragraph, change the phrase "Colorado-bed compatriot" to "Colorado-bred compatriot."  Oops, my own emotion when talking about the emotive western lands issue must have intruded.

    It is (none / 0) (#33)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 05:05:19 PM EST
    The massive over reach by the EPA and Dept Interior that has added fuel to this fire.

    Ditches and water runoffs have been declared federal waterways, personal property rights have been usurped by the Federal Government,
    The EPA and Dept INterior then charge homeowners in violation, and fine them up to thousands daily, just to encourage them to bow and kneel to their master.
    Thankfully, one recent case might have put an end to that jack booted thuggery of he Federal Government.
    It is scary what the Big Boot of the Feds is upon the neck on individual property owners, and is surprising how many seem to ignore it...until it is their neck.


    trevor: Now, I understand your intent (none / 0) (#34)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 05:59:24 PM EST
    Fascinating ... you use the same catch-phrases that have long been standard patois for the eminent domain challengers .. not only the ranchers, etc., but the large extracting operations and the developers.  The overstatement charge about the "jack booted" feds--ah, for the days when that complaint was first manufactured!

    Look, the hyperventilation of your charge really comes from cut & paste Reagan-era anti-environmental enforcement bombast.  If you want to talk about something specific in the way of environmental regulation, I'd be interested to hear.  Really. The EPA that I know--the scientists, engineers, lawyers, and even administrators--are not bureaucratically driven to drive you & friends from your property.  While there, admittedly, may be some tough societal issues involving balance--individual vis-à-vis the collective society's health & welfare foremost considerations--the regulatory framework of the fundamental statutes enacted by Congress have strong bases in science.  I know that the restructuring resulting from federal law can bring a period of disquiet--e.g. with EPA, the section 404 CWA can cause individual upheaval from time to time; but, as you must realize, the Agency and the effected respondents usually resolve the matter in a reasonable way when good faith is involved.  

    Particulars are interesting & offer worthwhile opportunity for discussion/understanding; general blasts of political points, tho, don't do much of anything.  


    I have read (none / 0) (#35)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 06:14:41 PM EST
    Of individual cases, which i do not have fingertip knowledge of , where small ranchers, private homeowners were fined thousands per day, if they refused to settle with the EPA , Dept Interior.
    If I recall correctly, one collected rainwater on his property, and another was some ditch on their property.
    Cases like these raise the ire of someone who works in government and sees the excessive abuses performed by such. (Sorry, I couldn't resist jackbooted, don't get to use that too often)
    A quick search picked these up, and these should not ever occur, government should be to help people, not to be a evil monolith.




    Since he uses tinyurl (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 06:20:43 PM EST
    And you can't tell

    Thats a FOX news link and a link to a site called "government slaves"

    No, really.


    Sometimes you are just too silly. (none / 0) (#37)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 06:24:34 PM EST
    Read the stories, google them for other sites if reading them somewhere else makes you feel better.
    But guess what , they actually occurred, and show the jack booted authority of our EPA

    I have been doing just that (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 06:28:39 PM EST
    They both involve people doing things like building dams and other things that do not effect just them but others wo live on these waterways.  

    That said, moving on.  I have better things to do than pee into your wind.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#39)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 06:34:15 PM EST
    But the EPA lost both cases, but the homeowners had to live under the threat of $35,000 daily fines, before the case was even heard.
    Basically scaring everyone into compliance.


    ood said Tuesday that the EPA has a "broad interpretation" of the Clean Water Act and noted that federal law clearly exempts stock ponds from the rules of the agency.

    Under Supreme Court precedent, the federal government can regulate waters only if they have a "significant nexus" to navigable waters. Johnson's pond drains to a manmade irrigation ditch, where the water is used for agriculture, according to the Pacific Legal Foundation.

    Interesting that on the other thread (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 06:46:44 PM EST
    you recommend being courteous and respectful toward the police, while  in this discussion you're summoning up all the inflammatory rhetoric of isolationist armed resisters like  Cliven Bundy and Randy Weaver.

    Are you another privitize-the-national-parks kinda guy, Trevor?


    This isn't the police (none / 0) (#41)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 07:02:46 PM EST
    This is the great Monolith of Government threatening small individual families, and using the brute force of huge fines before the case can even be heard.
    Similar to the IRS , which has confiscated small businesses bank accounts because they made cash deposits of over $9k on a regular basis

    I am shocked that people on a TalkLeft blog would support the government in their efforts to squash the little guy.

    There is a wide swath of views to look at National Parks. The amount of sq miles in certain states are over 50% federal owned. I think the states are trying to take back some of this land , and some authority of what the land can be used for.
    That is a good thing, Bundy and Weaver do not apply to what I am interested in. Their methods are not constructive either.


    That's what (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 07:08:40 PM EST
    many local police are doing to people on a smaller scale and some of those people have ended up dead but that appears to be okay with you.

    You are doing a great job exposing the ridiculousness of the conservative argument.

    Bundy absolutely applies to what you are saying 100% and I'm not surprised you would defend that loser. You're basically a Trumpster that thinks it is okay to harass minorities but not white people, a segregationist as you will.


    I am shocked that you assume anyone here (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 07:15:30 PM EST
    is so utterly clueless that they'd for one moment buy into your interpretation of the mission of the EPA.

    Don't say anyone (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 07:16:35 PM EST
    And your (none / 0) (#46)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jul 10, 2016 at 05:01:02 AM EST
    Interpretation of the mission of the police is?

    Unlike you, Trevor, (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 01:40:31 PM EST
    I can discuss the duties of the police without sounding like I live in a compound in the wilds of the Idaho panhandle with McVeigh and Terry Nichols..



    Why (none / 0) (#54)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 04:18:40 PM EST
    Bother with your over the top hyperbole?

    No one here has ever stated anything like that.

    Again, someone making something up what they really hope someone has said.

    Why must you demonize anyone with a different set of views?


    Jack booted government thugs.. (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 04:45:25 PM EST
    In the present context, that's pure vintage Terry Nichols inflammatory hyperbole..

    Exactly how the Minutemen, militias, and Bundys of the world refer to the Federal Government.


    No (none / 0) (#56)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 05:24:36 PM EST
    I got that from the Marvel movie Thor,

    The scientist called the government agency jack booted thugs.

    Made me laugh then, and and applies when the government throws all of its might, threatening to bankrupt people, all before a hearing on their EPA case, which they win.
    No, jack booted thugs describes our government perfectly when it tries those tactics on individual farmers, ranchers and families


    Having environmental regulations (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 06:03:17 PM EST
    means that you can't do whatever you want whenever you want to the land, air, and water simply because you may temporarily "own" it.

    There is the wellbeing of future generations to consider; which, whether the John Galt fantasists of the world want to consider it or not, depends on and includes the wellbeing and integrity of the land and waterways and of other species in the biosphere..

    Those heartstring tugging "Ranchers, farmers, and families" (why do I suspect you're paraphrasing something you read?) - and even resource-extracting megacorporations -- have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.


    The story of Trevor (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 06:20:45 PM EST
    He thinks "jack  booted thugs" came from a Marvel movie.   No he doesn't.  
    Spew every right end talking point you can remember and accuse others of "over the top hyperbole".

    It's funny really.  They get so used to talking to each other they expect everyone to just agree with their twisted nonsense just because Obama.

    Not understanding non Leave it to Beaver people will laugh out loud.


    Your (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 06:41:30 PM EST
    third paragraph is it in a nutshell. I've had that same type discussion with many wingnuts. They can't believe that everybody doesn't think like they do. Bruce Bartlett called it self brainwashing by immersion in conservative media. You know, conservative media might not be so bad if they told the truth but the problem is they lie. So many conservatives have become unable to distinguish between a lie and the truth. The most perfect recent example is the email thing. For literally days heads were exploding all over social media because they truly believed that Hillary had done something "illegal". And since they simply cannot accept the fact that the GOP and conservative media have spent over a year lying to them about this email thing they start blaming Hillary and then they start on Comey or Comey somehow is afraid of Hillary or she's put some kind of mind control device in Comey's brain.

    How about the 2012 election (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 06:49:48 PM EST
    They had convinced each other that Mitt was actually ahead in the polls because since polls did not line up with their expectations they were obviously skewed.  

    Hard to blame the likes of Trevor when Karl Rove is moved by this mass delusion to make a complete ass of himself on national television for the same reasons.

    It explains so much of the rabid hate and ignorance that is eating this country from the inside out.


    Oh, yeah (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:50:02 PM EST
    that's a great example. Karl Rove knew Romney was going to lose but Rove wanted a repeat of 2000 where he was able to get the media to change their projections IMO and simply use propaganda to get a win. Too bad Megyn Kelly wasn't going for it. It should have ended the career of Karl Rove but it didn't. Of course it did end the career of Dick Morris. One wingnut friend of mine was convinced that Obama tricked people into voting for him. I asked her how that came about and she never could explain it.

    End his career ? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 08:03:20 PM EST
    He is now chief political commentator at the famed National Enquirer.

    Weird bit of personal history, actually spoke to Morris on the night before the Lewinsky scandal broke. We were doing a brushfire poll for him about it and he kept calling and asking "are you done yet".


    I'm not sure he did know (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:52:50 PM EST
    I think he made the mistake of drinking his own koolaid

    This is (none / 0) (#66)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 05:05:39 AM EST
    Your problem and others here.
    No matter what I say, you have a pre determined disposition and how I think, where I derive my thought process, it is funny but sad.

    Sorry, but I found jack booted thugs in a Marvel movie, it made me laugh, and I remembered it.

    Although there are others here that actually read what is written and reply to that, not to what tjeir narrative insists is written


    You don't get (none / 0) (#65)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 05:01:27 AM EST
    The process is rigged. The jack booted government thugs threaten families, farmers ranchers with $35 daily fines if they do not comply with the EPA's ruling. The only way to fight the ruling is to request a hearing, which the government stalls, and may take years. So if the individual farmer rancher, family loses , they are totally bankrupt. The system is rigged.
    And in the 2 cases I cited, 2 families fought the jack booted EPA , and win. Risking everything. When the system is rigged, government employees know it, and they over reach, push cases that where the law and regulations do not apply.

    Please (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:04:00 AM EST
    We here if nothing else have a pretty good idea what you read and where you get your facts.  You have provided enough links for that at least.

    Are you seriously saying that you expect us to believe you got the term Jack booted thugs from a marvel movie.?   Seriously?  Have you no shame?  You get the most beloved term of sites like "government slaves" that you linked to yesterday, from a Marvel movie.  That's the first time you heard Jack booted thugs?

    Wow.  Just wow.  


    All it does (none / 0) (#68)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 04:31:13 PM EST
    Is make a statement about yourself.

    I watch all the Marvel movies, pure popcorn entertainment, and some are actually a little more than that.

    And the EPA threatening individual families with banruptcy size fines before any hearing, well, it seems about right




    A statement that (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 04:38:39 PM EST
    I stand by

    States (none / 0) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 07:46:24 PM EST
    can not take back anything, outside of the original 13 colonies the Federal government owned virtually all the land long before the States even existed. You can't take back what you never owned in the first place.

    You are telling me (none / 0) (#47)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jul 10, 2016 at 05:15:47 AM EST
    when these states were created , this land was owned be the Feds?
    I don't think so

    Nevada 84%
    Alaska 69%
    Utah 57%
    Oregon 53%
    Idaho 50%
    Arizona 48%
    California 45%
    Wyoming 42%
    New Mexico 42%

    What is all that federal land for? And exactly who is in charge? According to the Congressional Research Service [4], a total area of just under 610 million acres - more than twice the size of Namibia - is administered by no more than 4 federal government agencies:

    • The United States Forest Service (USFS), which oversees timber harvesting, recreation, wildlife habitat protection and other sustainable uses on a total of 193 million acres - almost the size of Turkey - mainly designated as National Forests.

    • The National Park Service (NPS) conserves lands and resources on 80 million acres - a Norway-sized area - in order to preserve them for the public. Any harvesting or resource removal is generally prohibited.

    • the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), managing 248 million acres [5] - an area the size of Egypt - has a multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate, supporting energy development, recreation, grazing, conservation, and other uses.

    • the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages 89 million acres - an area slightly bigger than Germany - to conserve and protect animal and plant species.

    What don't (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jul 10, 2016 at 07:55:22 AM EST
    you understand? The historical record is perfectly clear, the Federal government, through purchase, treaty or war, gained ownership of virtually all of the lands you speak of, often decades before the creation of the States.

    Good (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    According to the WaPo (I think) (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 10:35:34 AM EST
    Donald is polling third, behind Hillary and Johndon, with Millennials in several polls.

    And third behind Hillary and the combined Stein/Johnson vote in several others.


    The (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 11:09:14 AM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 06:17:06 PM EST
    he doesn't have much leverage at this point but I guess he could say he was lying all along about running third party.

    Ah the power of wishful thinking.. (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 06:31:38 PM EST
    it's all some people need to energize and sustain them.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 06:36:08 PM EST
    Does he lay awake at night thinking about this stuff?

    More like hiding under his bed. (none / 0) (#70)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 14, 2016 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    Not all bets. (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 07:40:08 PM EST
    I'd be surprised if there are enough Bernie or busters in swing states to change the outcome. I'd still bet on Clinton.

    Her RCP average is about 3.5 (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 06:35:20 PM EST
    Which is about half what Gary Johnson is.  So maybe she should consider teaming up with him and between the two of them they would have, well, 9.

    If Sanders did that (he won't) he would make people like Trevor very happy and assure his dive into the dustbin of history.  


    But it does I think (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 06:38:22 PM EST
    Expose Stein as someone who's only goal is to be a spoiler.   What a mission in life.  To be Ralph Nader.  

    Fwiw Bernie has said specifically he has no intention of be a "Ralph Nader".


    The Green Party (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 04:43:49 AM EST
    Won't even be on the ballot in all 50 states, so good luck with that.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jul 10, 2016 at 05:51:34 AM EST
    At a meeting of the Democratic Party draft platform committee in Orlando, Florida, on Saturday, supporters of Sanders were unable to influence the committee to adopt strong language opposing the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact, marking a powerful blow to the efforts by the U.S. senator from Vermont to push the party further to the left.
    "We did everything we could to win that vote," said Sanders policy adviser Warren Gunnels. "It was very disappointing."
    Instead of a condemnation specific to the TPP, the committee reached language saying they would oppose "trade agreements that do not support good American jobs."
    Sanders has headed the effort on the U.S. left to oppose the TPP and trade deals like it, which he says are unfair to American workers. Clinton has also come out as opposed to the agreement

    My guess (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 10, 2016 at 09:02:40 AM EST
    Is this is more about the President, the head of the party, who is very much for TPP and is working hard to pass it.  

    My guess is (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jbindc on Sun Jul 10, 2016 at 07:59:44 PM EST
    Most of the people who are Bernie supporters and decry TPP don't really understand it in the first place.

    Good read at Bloomberg (none / 0) (#2)
    by Nemi on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 02:56:46 PM EST
    on how Bernie Sanders is 'squandering his chance to reshape the Democratic Party': Sanders' Influence Fades Ahead of Clinton Endorsement. The final paragraphs:

    Many Sanders supporters cheer his fixity of purpose. That's the essence of his approach to politics. Although with the course he's chosen, he'll probably end up achieving much less than he might have. When it became clear that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee, most people imagined that Sanders would return to the Senate greatly enhanced, where he and Warren--provided she doesn't join the ticket--would form a powerful liberal vanguard. But this would require Sanders to abandon the role of gadfly, which he appears curiously unwilling to do. "The question has always been, will he change his tactics to be more influential in the Senate?" [former communications director for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Jim] Manley says. "I see no indication that he will."

    He's marching back to assume the same position he held before he ran for president: a one-man army in an institution that requires 60 votes--pure of heart, righteously angry, and almost entirely ineffective.

    Also on the same site a clip with Anthony Weiner on Comey's testimony to Congress yesterday, Congress Is a Bunch of Phonies. :-)

    Pure baloney (none / 0) (#27)
    by pitachips on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 11:50:46 AM EST
    "Most people" would not have thought that Bernie's message would have received so many votes during the primary.

    There's no way that his influence would have been any greater once he returns to the Senate as 1 of 100. We have already seen that the "gadfly" mentality works. Hillary has drifted leftward on a variety of issues - I don't think that would have happened if Sanders would have dropped out early in the race and attempted to influence the debate from the Senate.  


    You miss the point (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 09, 2016 at 11:58:01 AM EST
    Did you read the article?  It's very good.  With plenty of praise for Sanders and what he accomplished.  It is lamenting the fact that he is pissing away any chance to parlay it into a greater influence in congress.   As many, including apparrently the author, hoped he would.

    Gadfly worked in the primary the point the article is making is that it does not now or has it ever worked in congress where accomplishments involve occaisionally sacrificing a bit of your purity to advance your goals.

    As the article said, it's why Sanders has accomplished virtually nothing in his long career in congress and why he is just as unlikely to do so in the future.


    CLinton is an able diplomat and negotiator (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 09:27:03 PM EST
    She wanted a unified convention and she was willing to let Sanders have most of the platform to get it. To borrow from a 'Hamilton' lyric, she got more than she gave, and she wanted what she got.

    To keep her on the from going to center as president, as she will if that is where she finds negotiating partners, we have to make what she gets by staying left pretty dang attractive. Positive reinforcement, like big turnout in the 2018 midyear to get more Dems to back her in Congress. Honestly I think that is something the left failed on with Obama.