• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie may earn straight convention majority with no need for second ballot

Who do you see beating him if he sweeps 4 states making up nearly every demographic voting block in the country?

So far, Sander's has been exempted from being vetted by the other candidates. Who knows what next week brings?

Who can beat him? The corporate super rich who own the entire MSM, press and Internet, that's who.
 
So far, Sander's has been exempted from being vetted by the other candidates. Who knows what next week brings?

Who can beat him? The corporate super rich who own the entire MSM, press and Internet, that's who.

They couldn't beat Trump.
 
Yes, a re-vote, a.k.a. second ballot, which is in the rules. It is NOT undemocratic. What it is, though, is politically stupid, for the very reason you've mentioned.

It is democratic because voters can have second preferences. "I'm a moderate; I'm voting Biden, but if he doesn't get it, my second preference is Klobuchar" so in a hypothetical scenario in which Bernie and Klobuchar were the 1st and 2nd candidates with the most delegates, but neither one had the majority, in second ballot people might rally behind Klobuchar, their second preference, and beat Bernie. [Again, just to make a point; Klobuchar is actually the least likely one to get up there as she is polling and earning delegates in single digits]

If you think that this is not good, then you can't tout Bernie's significant victory in Nevada, because this is exactly what a caucus is. Bernie got only 30% of the popular vote in first alignment, but got 40.5% in second alignment, because many people had him as second preference.

This is normal and democratic.

Again, this said, in the current circumstance, it is not wise as it would doom the winning ticket.

The reason it would "doom" the winning ticket is because Sander's is not a Democrat, never gave a damn about the Democrats, openly despises liberals, and is a political terrorist ranting that if Democrats don't make him the nominee he'll get Trump re-elected in retaliation.

Sanders is a fake, a fraud. A racial segregation, a person who has never been motivated by ethics in politics, but political expediency. He openly admits it as his explanation for voting against gun control laws and voting with Republicans to deny 6 million dreamers a path to citizenship.
 
And some Democrats think nominating Bernie Sanders is equally political suicide because it would alienate swing voters and suburban voters That helped democrats win the house in 2018.

I don’t think Bernie Sanders can deliver us victory in 2020, not unless he dials back his talk of revolution and settles for reform.

Don't count him out so fast. First, contrary to common sense (in this case, misguided common sense) Bernie is MORE liked by independents than by registered Democrats themselves. He polls BETTER among independents (I'm one) with a significant majority in his favor.

Two, as the Nevada caucus demonstrated between first and second alignments, Bernie was the second choice of many moderate voters. He earned more votes in second alignment, a lot more, even though the only other non-viable progressive, Liz Warren, didn't budge much between first and second alignments. So a lot of his second choice votes came necessarily from one of the moderate candidates. So he is not as despised by moderates as people assume.

Third, traditionally people do move a bit to the center after the primaries so even though Bernie is more stubborn than most, it is not excluded that he will move some... he might say for example "I'll do my best to get M4A passed but I know it will be very difficult due to congressional opposition; so, if I can't get that, at least I'll fight for a public option." Will Bernie say so? I actually doubt that he will, but he should. Maybe he will flexibilize things, a little.

Fourth, maybe Bernie will be persuaded to get a more moderate veep, or at least someone slightly to his right. There's been talk that Bernie loves Nina Turner and would like to pick her as veep... but she is his political twin sister, and she is kind of a light weight with a CV that definitely doesn't look presidential. There's been talks inside the very campaign that she co-chairs, that many staffers will try to convince Bernie to pick someone else, like Stacey Abrams.

Finally the idea that he hurts the race downballot is ridiculous. Most people vote straight ticket anyway, and the key is turnout. Bernie is the one who can generate the most turnout, so he is the one who will most favor the downballot races.
 
Last edited:
If the Democratic Party nominates a candidate that the majority of Democrats themselves oppose, they have no chance in November. Yielding to a socialist vowing to destroy the Democratic Party unless he gets everything he wants as a militant minority would be a fatal permanent wound to the formerly liberal Democratic Party.
 
The reason it would "doom" the winning ticket is because Sander's is not a Democrat, never gave a damn about the Democrats, openly despises liberals, and is a political terrorist ranting that if Democrats don't make him the nominee he'll get Trump re-elected in retaliation.

Sanders is a fake, a fraud. A racial segregation, a person who has never been motivated by ethics in politics, but political expediency. He openly admits it as his explanation for voting against gun control laws and voting with Republicans to deny 6 million dreamers a path to citizenship.

Yeah, he's no saint. I'm not a member of his cult. But I think he is the best bet to beat Trump so I joined him. While I find him to be no saint, I do see that he has qualities, too.
 
If the Democratic Party nominates a candidate that the majority of Democrats themselves oppose, they have no chance in November. Yielding to a socialist vowing to destroy the Democratic Party unless he gets everything he wants as a militant minority would be a fatal permanent wound to the formerly liberal Democratic Party.

You know, in Nevada 52% of the popular vote went to the progressives, Bernie with 40.5%, and Warren with 11.5%, so don't be so sure that the majority of voters don't want a progressive.
 
Yeah, he's no saint. I'm not a member of his cult. But I think he is the best bet to beat Trump so I joined him. While I find him to be no saint, I do see that he has qualities, too.

All you have to do is defeat capitalism. I certain everyone in the corporate world, upper middle class and upper class won't mind having all their wealth stolen from them by a socialist. They won't do anything in the election and then they'll just turn over their money - plus foreign investors will gladly send massive sums of money to the socialist government too.

Rather, I suspect they will throw their money and muscle against Sanders - and if that fails $50 trillion dollars will flee the USA and no more foreign money will be coming in. It was Obama who accurately explained by the world uses the US dollar and pours money into the USA. It is because we have a stable political capitalistic system. A Sander's presidency eliminated that, promising radical hyper inflation with $100 trillion in spending making the dollar worthless and massive taxes so that all wealth flees the country.

With Sanders the nominee, it is a straight up contest between capitalism and socialism. Will we become Venezuela or not?
 
Think of it like this United.

In 1992 Bill Clinton won the Presidential election with 43% of the vote.

By your standards, Clinton actually lost the 1992 Presidential election. Because George Bush and Ross Perot's votes combined together are more votes than Clinton. So, since there's more votes for Bush and Perot one of them gets to be President rather than the winner.

I don't think he's saying that one of the non-plurality candidates should definitely be chosen over the plurality winner. I think he's saying that a candidate winning a plurality of votes doesn't necessarily mean that that candidate should be the winner.

Speaking for myself, often the plurality winner would also be my ideal winner, but there are scenarios where I don't think the candidate would be.

For example: a three candidate race where Candidate A gets 33%, Candidate B gets 33%, and Candidate C gets 34%. If 100% of Candidate A and B voters would prefer the other one to Candidate C I would argue an ideal voting system would not declare candidate C the winner just because they got a plurality. And personally, the best voting system I know of that avoids these possibilities is ranked choice voting.
 
The plurality candidate Sanders got 33.99% of the vote in NV, not 40.5%, which should have given him 12 of 36 delegates. Instead, the electoral college (1) caucuses and (2) 15% threshold — gave him 24 of 36 delegates. Spare all of us how unfair it would be to not nominate a ‘MINORITY/PLURALITY’ candidate.

Spare all of us Real Democrats how horrified we are at Sanders defending Castro. He also supports leftist thugs and dictators like Maduro, Morales, and Ortega. This is a complete no-go for Latinos in Florida and throughout the other 19 swing states.

Sanders’s anti-Israeli comments will be taken out of context and horrify Jewish Americans, a key Democratic voting subset. Sanders’s threat to primary Obama will cost him African-American voters. Sanders’s lying, cutthroat staff is accusing Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy of lying.

This is all well-known oppo dirt on Sanders. trumpco waits in glee to use it. The Bernie ‘tapes’ will paint him as a communist, a supporter of the Soviet Union. Sanders’s lunatic writings on Rape and Female Cancer are COMPLETELY OUT of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, let alone the Nation.

There’s no question in my mind that Socialist Sanders and his Justice Socialists want to burn down the Democratic Party and Replace it. Bernie leftists have now thrown away at least the first half of this Century to the Fascist Republicans.
 
Last edited:
I don't think he's saying that one of the non-plurality candidates should definitely be chosen over the plurality winner. I think he's saying that a candidate winning a plurality of votes doesn't necessarily mean that that candidate should be the winner.

Speaking for myself, often the plurality winner would also be my ideal winner, but there are scenarios where I don't think the candidate would be.

For example: a three candidate race where Candidate A gets 33%, Candidate B gets 33%, and Candidate C gets 34%. If 100% of Candidate A and B voters would prefer the other one to Candidate C I would argue an ideal voting system would not declare candidate C the winner just because they got a plurality. And personally, the best voting system I know of that avoids these possibilities is ranked choice voting.

Ah yeah, I see what you're saying. Seeing your sig for many years now too.
 
It is waaay too early to suggest that Sanders will sweep the remaining primaries.

Especially if one looks back at Clinton.
I think I remember him losing something like TWELVE of these before suddenly shooting up to the stratosphere.
I wouldn't be surprised if you have the exact numbers re his trajectory.
 
But, we know the Super Delegates wouldn't use the 2nd ballot to help Bernie, even if those Biden voters 2nd choice was Bernie. In other words, they aren't just trying to get to the most accurate reflection of the voter's interests by taking it to a 2nd ballot, cause Bernie would win that too.

On the other hand, in the whole history of the Democratic Party, superdelegates have always rallied behind the candidate with the most popular votes, with the only exception being 1968 when the incumbent president faced primaries, but then in the middle of the process dropped out and his veep took over but never had the opportunity to earn popular votes; meanwhile the other major candidate got assassinated. Other than for this extremely atypical primary, the party superdelegates always waited to see who had the most support and the most popular votes then unanimously rallied behind that person, to show unity and strength. Will this convention be any different?
 
On the other hand, in the whole history of the Democratic Party, superdelegates have always rallied behind the candidate with the most popular votes, with the only exception being 1968 when the incumbent president faced primaries, but then in the middle of the process dropped out and his veep took over but never had the opportunity to earn popular votes; meanwhile the other major candidate got assassinated. Other than for this extremely atypical primary, the party superdelegates always waited to see who had the most support and the most popular votes then unanimously rallied behind that person, to show unity and strength. Will this convention be any different?

Maybe. Sanders has to over-win in order to win. He needs a convincing majority. It can't even be contemplated by the supers because it's opening up a can of worms. And at least one party is going to go home resentful and embittered.
 
All you have to do is defeat capitalism. I certain everyone in the corporate world, upper middle class and upper class won't mind having all their wealth stolen from them by a socialist. They won't do anything in the election and then they'll just turn over their money - plus foreign investors will gladly send massive sums of money to the socialist government too.

Rather, I suspect they will throw their money and muscle against Sanders - and if that fails $50 trillion dollars will flee the USA and no more foreign money will be coming in. It was Obama who accurately explained by the world uses the US dollar and pours money into the USA. It is because we have a stable political capitalistic system. A Sander's presidency eliminated that, promising radical hyper inflation with $100 trillion in spending making the dollar worthless and massive taxes so that all wealth flees the country.

With Sanders the nominee, it is a straight up contest between capitalism and socialism. Will we become Venezuela or not?

You're the king of hyperbole. First of all, Sanders is not a socialist, he is a social democrat operating within capitalism, and he doesn't aspire to abolish capitalism. Second, there is a pesky thing called Congress which actually controls the purse, and all your catastrophic events will not get passed Congress, so you are just fear-mongering.

Hey, you are also the king of conspiracy theories. Kudos to you, this post kind of doesn't have one. Are you sure you don't want to add one? Will the Illuminati by any chance have a hand in this?
 
Think of it like this United.

In 1992 Bill Clinton won the Presidential election with 43% of the vote.

By your standards, Clinton actually lost the 1992 Presidential election. Because George Bush and Ross Perot's votes combined together are more votes than Clinton. So, since there's more votes for Bush and Perot one of them gets to be President rather than the winner.

You know, this might actually have been the case if we had first round and second round like other countries do. Like the neo-nazi Marine Le Pen in France got close but in second round she was crushed. That's because most French citizens didn't want her, even though she did well in first round because all the fascists were behind her while the other political tendencies were divided. But I'm glad that there was a second round and she was kicked to curb.

I think that first and second rounds make sense, so that someone is not elected president when disliked by the majority of citizens.

But we don't have first and second round here, so, it is what it is. The primaries, though, do have first and second ballot, or more the second one is not sufficient to sort it all. Like for the election of the Pope. They go through multiple rounds until someone earns the majority. I don't think it is un-democratic.
 
People talk about brokered convention if no candidate makes 50% of the delegate total + 1.

But look at it. So far, we had three states and 100 delegates allocated.

Bernie earned 45 of them. So he is at 45%.

However his numbers went up state to state. He was barely above Buttigieg in popular votes in Iowa and was behind in delegates, there. He straight won New Hampshire with a tiny (but bigger than Iowa's) margin over #2, so he did better there than in Iowa. And then came Nevada where he beat the second place by more than 2 votes to 1, and got 66% of the delegates. So he is going up and up.

You are familiar with the winning bandwagon, right? When people start to think that a frontrunning candidate is inevitable, they start voting for him because human beings have this trait of willing to be on the winning side.

So, given the 15% threshold to win delegates and how the other side (moderates) is divided, Bernie is likely to continue to earn delegates above the 50% mark (He got 40.5% of the popular vote in Nevada but earned 66% of the delegates because of the seven runners, only three made the 15% threshold for delegates, so his numbers and theirs got recalculated to be remade into 100% of the available delegates).

The delegate count so far is:

Bernie 45
Buttigieg 25
Biden 15
Warren 8
Klobuchar 7
The others, zero

Look at this:

I agree with that... I can't see this going to a brokered convention, whether Sanders is the eventual nominee or not. I don't think Sanders is a "lock" yet... but he's getting pretty close. There's still one last chance for one of the other candidates (well, truthfully, only Biden or Buttigieg) to break out... but if they're going to make a move, it's got to be before Saturday. If Sanders wins South Carolina, I think he'll effectively mop up the nomination on Super Tuesday.
 
Last edited:
Yes, poor choice of words, sorry. I should have said "will" but I didn't want to be so dogmatic since anything is possible, including, Bernie could drop dead of another heart attack, anytime.

But as far as political trends go, it's looking increasingly certain that he will be the nominee.

Another factor: the moderates all still hopeful for a brokered convention in which collectively the moderate field would have, all together, more delegates than Bernie and nobody got a majority; one of them would then be picked in second ballot. This is actually a problem for them, because the longer they remain, the more Bernie's advantage in delegates grows.

The progressive lane, however, has no such phenomenon. Warren is the only other person there, and she has the weakest path (actually, no path) because she has obviously already lost the progressive lane to Bernie, and she doesn't have a credible hope of being picked in a brokered convention; she is also the most cash-strapped of all candidates.

So, Warren should drop out soon (I'll be not just surprised, but in shock if she continues to run past Super Tuesday), and Bernie will then earn even more delegates, alone on his lane, while the moderates will remain divided.

OK, I won't use half words: my prediction at this point is that Bernie WILL be the nominee and WILL earn it in first ballot, with a majority of delegates rather than a plurality.

Bernie will be a disaster for the country. There isn't a democrat who will do better than Trump. That said, if Bernie gets replaced at the convention, who will the Democrats try to "draft"? Biden seems to be the favorite among the old guard. Bloomberg is the apparent fall back guy if Biden cannot hang on. This is a problem as well because with the chance of a brokered convention all the candidates are content to stay in the race with a hope they will be the pick in a brokered convention. None of them are good choices and the democrats may run off a large part of their voters with Bernie and if they cheat Bernie.
 
People talk about brokered convention if no candidate makes 50% of the delegate total + 1.

But look at it. So far, we had three states and 100 delegates allocated.

Bernie earned 45 of them. So he is at 45%.

However his numbers went up state to state. He was barely above Buttigieg in popular votes in Iowa and was behind in delegates, there. He straight won New Hampshire with a tiny (but bigger than Iowa's) margin over #2, so he did better there than in Iowa. And then came Nevada where he beat the second place by more than 2 votes to 1, and got 66% of the delegates. So he is going up and up.

You are familiar with the winning bandwagon, right? When people start to think that a frontrunning candidate is inevitable, they start voting for him because human beings have this trait of willing to be on the winning side.

So, given the 15% threshold to win delegates and how the other side (moderates) is divided, Bernie is likely to continue to earn delegates above the 50% mark (He got 40.5% of the popular vote in Nevada but earned 66% of the delegates because of the seven runners, only three made the 15% threshold for delegates, so his numbers and theirs got recalculated to be remade into 100% of the available delegates).

The delegate count so far is:

Bernie 45
Buttigieg 25
Biden 15
Warren 8
Klobuchar 7
The others, zero

Look at this:

What I see so far is that the closer the election gets, the 'smart' people in the democratic party are freaking out. I say, screw them. Maybe they should be the ones taking notice that bernie is on a roll and the voters started that roll. Or are these 'smart' people once again going to try to derail bernie?

I will say this again, bernie would have been the president if the democratic party didn't throw their weight behind hillary and screw bernie last election. I don't think there is any stopping the voters this election no matter how hard the 'smart' people try to derail bernie. One thing is for sure, we don't have to wait much longer to find out.
 
Don't count him out so fast. First, contrary to common sense (in this case, misguided common sense) Bernie is MORE liked by independents than by registered Democrats themselves. He polls BETTER among independents (I'm one) with a significant majority in his favor.

Two, as the Nevada caucus demonstrated between first and second alignments, Bernie was the second choice of many moderate voters. He earned more votes in second alignment, a lot more, even though the only other non-viable progressive, Liz Warren, didn't budge much between first and second alignments. So a lot of his second choice votes came necessarily from one of the moderate candidates. So he is not as despised by moderates as people assume.

Third, traditionally people do move a bit to the center after the primaries so even though Bernie is more stubborn than most, it is not excluded that he will move some... he might say for example "I'll do my best to get M4A passed but I know it will be very difficult due to congressional opposition; so, if I can't get that, at least I'll fight for a public option." Will Bernie say so? I actually doubt that he will, but he should. Maybe he will flexibilize things, a little.

Fourth, maybe Bernie will be persuaded to get a more moderate veep, or at least someone slightly to his right. There's been talk that Bernie loves Nina Turner and would like to pick her as veep... but she is his political twin sister, and she is kind of a light weight with a CV that definitely doesn't look presidential. There's been talks inside the very campaign that she co-chairs, that many staffers will try to convince Bernie to pick someone else, like Stacey Abrams.

Finally the idea that he hurts the race downballot is ridiculous. Most people vote straight ticket anyway, and the key is turnout. Bernie is the one who can generate the most turnout, so he is the one who will most favor the downballot races.

Here is the task the eventual democratic nominee has to face: win the presidency, keep or expand democratic gains in the house, possibly flip the senate, and flip several state legeslatures and governorships.
 
Bernie doesn't stand a chance. The "machine" will eat him alive in the next few weeks as more and more of Bernie's own words and postitions come back to haunt him. It will not even need a "swift boat" style attack from the right. The MIDDLE (speaking of democrats) will line up to sink his dingy before or at the Democratic convention.

What we are witnessing is the destruction of the Democratic party. It will emerge however after this as TWO parties: The Democratic Socialist Party (full of all of your far left liberal progressives) and a regular Democratic party which will be a bit smaller, a bit leaner, and a lot more viable for the next political season. This year they just need to hit their rock bottom before they can bounce back. And BOUNCE they will after shedding the nutty "Democratic Socialists".

bernie-sanders.jpg
 
You know, this might actually have been the case if we had first round and second round like other countries do. Like the neo-nazi Marine Le Pen in France got close but in second round she was crushed. That's because most French citizens didn't want her, even though she did well in first round because all the fascists were behind her while the other political tendencies were divided. But I'm glad that there was a second round and she was kicked to curb.

I think that first and second rounds make sense, so that someone is not elected president when disliked by the majority of citizens.

But we don't have first and second round here, so, it is what it is. The primaries, though, do have first and second ballot, or more the second one is not sufficient to sort it all. Like for the election of the Pope. They go through multiple rounds until someone earns the majority. I don't think it is un-democratic.

Yes, that's fine but, the Supers must actually listen to people's 2nd choices. We can't have a handful of Super-delegates deciding the will of the people is meaningless.
 
The plurality candidate Sanders got 33.99% of the vote in NV, not 40.5%, which should have given him 12 of 36 delegates. Instead, the electoral college (1) caucuses and (2) 15% threshold — gave him 24 of 36 delegates. Spare all of us how unfair it would be to not nominate a ‘MINORITY/PLURALITY’ candidate.

Spare all of us Real Democrats how horrified we are at Sanders defending Castro. He also supports leftist thugs and dictators like Maduro, Morales, and Ortega. This is a complete no-go for Latinos in Florida and throughout the other 19 swing states.

Sanders’s anti-Israeli comments will be taken out of context and horrify Jewish Americans, a key Democratic voting subset. Sanders’s threat to primary Obama will cost him African-American voters. Sanders’s lying, cutthroat staff is accusing Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy of lying.

This is all well-known oppo dirt on Sanders. trumpco waits in glee to use it. The Bernie ‘tapes’ will paint him as a communist, a supporter of the Soviet Union. Sanders’s lunatic writings on Rape and Female Cancer are COMPLETELY OUT of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, let alone the Nation.

There’s no question in my mind that Socialist Sanders and his Justice Socialists want to burn down the Democratic Party and Replace it. Bernie leftists have now thrown away at least the first half of this Century to the Fascist Republicans.

I know, I posted about it earlier in this thread that Sanders was at 30% in first alignment, actually my only mistake was to sell him a bit short because it was actually 33%. But he was the most preferred candidate for second preference even among moderates so in second alignment he got to 40.5%.

Your talk about real Democrats is funny, though. I showed you in a previous thread Sander's senatorial voting record compared to Klobuchar's, and she voted with the GOP and with what Trump wanted 34% of the time while Sanders only did it 16% of the time so he is aligned with the Democratic Party much more often than Klobuchar. You conveniently ignored that post (complete with links to every single vote) because you wouldn't have anything to use to contradict those FACTS, right?

And see, if the Democratic Party didn't want Sanders they should have denied him the registration. They did not, he registered with them and is running. Tough luck, don't complain, now.

Look, no system is perfect, and I actually don't like the current one.

My preferred system would be like this: no threshold. A threshold disenfranchises voters. Say, 14% of voters want a candidate in a state or multiple states but that candidate doesn't earn delegates there. It's conceivable that candidate still earns enough delegates in other states, to get to a situation of say, 45%, and would be tipped over the 50% if the 14% of voters in multiple other states had earned him/her, delegates. So this is actually saying that voter X in state A counts less than voter Z in state B, and I don't like it.

My recipe for primaries would be: every vote counts the same, all primaries, no caucuses, and at the end, we see if anybody got more than 50%. If not, we resubmit to the entire set of voters in all states and territories, a simultaneous second round with candidates #1 and #2 in the popular preference, and may the best one win.

But the rules are what they are, and all candidates knew about them when they signed up. So if Sanders wins it within these rules, you can't complain. If you want to complain, write to the DNC and suggest different rules for next time.
 
What I see so far is that the closer the election gets, the 'smart' people in the democratic party are freaking out. I say, screw them. Maybe they should be the ones taking notice that bernie is on a roll and the voters started that roll. Or are these 'smart' people once again going to try to derail bernie?

This is correct.

I will say this again, bernie would have been the president if the democratic party didn't throw their weight behind hillary and screw bernie last election. I don't think there is any stopping the voters this election no matter how hard the 'smart' people try to derail bernie. One thing is for sure, we don't have to wait much longer to find out.

This is blatantly incorrect, and a myth that profoundly irritates me. No, Bernie MOST DEFINITELY didn't have the nomination stolen from him, because he SIMPLY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES IN 2016. Hillary won the primaries by freaking 3.7 million votes, dammit!!! Yes, the DNC preferred her, but there is no accounting for such a HUGE difference only on the account of a DNC preference that actually never materialized to much beyond some unfortunate emails with ideas that never got implemented. Bernie was NEVER the front runner in 2016. Never. Not once. Actually he was ROUTED by Hillary who won 34 contests and ended up with a HUGE lead in REGULAR delegates. She didn't even need superdelegates to win. And remember, when it became clear that Hillary had an insurmontable advantage in popular votes and regular delegates, Bernie advocated for the superdelegates to find for him while stomping on the popular vote, the very opposite of his current position, which, sorry, is hypocritical.

This time, though, Bernie *is* the front runner, and I have already early-voted for him. This time, he *does* have the votes. But all this frankly DELUSIONAL myth that he got it stolen from him in 2016 ignoring the millions of Dem primary voters who preferred Hillary, is completely, entirely, and utterly ridiculous.

Fellow, put this in your head: Bernie lost in 2016. HE LOST, period.

But this time he is poised to win. Be happy. Celebrate his much better position in 2020. But stop the nonsense about 2016. Gee!
 
Back
Top Bottom