HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » "In some ways Sander...

Sun May 1, 2016, 07:43 PM

"In some ways Sanders contradicted himself during the press conference."

And not for the first time.

He supports the concept of super-delegates making up their own minds -- but only as long as they vote for him.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-clinton-faces-contested-convention/story?id=38803835

"If I win a state with 70 percent of the votes you know what, I think I'm entitled to those super delegates. I think that the super delegates should reflect what the people in the state want," he said.

Sanders called on super delegates from states like Washington and Minnesota specifically, where he beat Clinton by double-digit margins, to change their allegiances.

In some ways Sanders contradicted himself during the press conference. He argued that super delegates should follow the popular vote from the states they represent, but also said they should consider backing him even if he does not win the majority of pledged delegates. His campaign distributed factsheets Sunday showing general election polling in battleground states and nationwide where he outperforms his opponent against Republican candidates.

"Super delegates) are going to have to go into their hearts and they are going to have to ask themselves do they want the second strongest candidate running against Trump or the strongest candidate?" Sanders said.

43 replies, 2515 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply "In some ways Sanders contradicted himself during the press conference." (Original post)
pnwmom May 2016 OP
bettyellen May 2016 #1
silvershadow May 2016 #2
pnwmom May 2016 #3
silvershadow May 2016 #4
pnwmom May 2016 #6
silvershadow May 2016 #11
pnwmom May 2016 #16
silvershadow May 2016 #17
pnwmom May 2016 #18
asuhornets May 2016 #23
LiberalFighter May 2016 #42
Adrahil May 2016 #13
silvershadow May 2016 #14
Armstead May 2016 #22
silvershadow May 2016 #24
Adrahil May 2016 #28
Armstead May 2016 #32
dsc May 2016 #33
Armstead May 2016 #35
Demsrule86 May 2016 #38
Spacedog1973 May 2016 #5
DLCWIdem May 2016 #7
pnwmom May 2016 #8
DLCWIdem May 2016 #21
LuvLoogie May 2016 #9
KingFlorez May 2016 #10
DLCWIdem May 2016 #12
pnwmom May 2016 #15
DLCWIdem May 2016 #26
pnwmom May 2016 #37
WhiteTara May 2016 #19
IamMab May 2016 #27
Thinkingabout May 2016 #30
Armstead May 2016 #20
onenote May 2016 #25
Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #29
Thinkingabout May 2016 #31
Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #34
Thinkingabout May 2016 #36
Demsrule86 May 2016 #39
Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #40
Demsrule86 May 2016 #41
NurseJackie May 2016 #43

Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 07:47 PM

1. I am shocked, I tell you. He's not happy he is losing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 07:52 PM

2. Don't hate the player, hate the game. He is entitled to use the same rules we all agreed on, and

 

if it takes using those rules to pound it into some heads as to why it is screwed up, so be it. He is the only morally sound candidate in the race. And he's fighting like hell to change things. PS: Corporations are NOT people, and should not be voting as Supers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #2)

Sun May 1, 2016, 07:57 PM

3. He's contradicting himself on those rules. If he's "entitled" to the super delegates in the

states that voted for him, then she's "entitled" to the many MORE super-delegates in the heavily populated, diverse states that voted for her.

And that means he's trying to go after the super-delegates he's already claimed she's "entitled" to.

There is nothing "morally sound" about his position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #3)

Sun May 1, 2016, 07:59 PM

4. No one said entitled except your side. He simply laid out his case. Did you even bother to

 

watch the presser and listen? Just curious...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #4)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:01 PM

6. Did you bother to read the text? Bernie himself used the word "entitled":

"If I win a state with 70 percent of the votes you know what, I think I'm entitled to those super delegates. I think that the super delegates should reflect what the people in the state want," he said.


And, yes, I did hear him say it in the press conference. I don't know why you couldn't hear it or read it. Strange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #6)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:13 PM

11. Well I believe he was referring to those Supers who are planning to vote against the wishes of

 

their constituents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #11)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:20 PM

16. But he's also asking supers in states that voted for Hillary to consider voting for him instead.

Why isn't Hillary "entitled" to all those delegates on the same basis Bernie feels that he is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #16)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:21 PM

17. Watch the video. No need querying me, when he has laid out his case so poignantly.

 

See you at convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #17)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:22 PM

18. I watched it. He laid out an illogical case. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #17)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:13 PM

23. He also stated he is running against the Democratic Establishment, but

he also wants Democratic Establishment to award him with the superdelegates in his preferred states. Hypocritical..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asuhornets (Reply #23)

Sun May 1, 2016, 11:17 PM

42. Yep

He wants the rules changed for the nomination. And he wants only him to benefit from the rules. He fights the establishment when the establishment is what prevents chaos. Chaos that he is agitating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #2)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:14 PM

13. Sure.

 

He can. But it is hypocritical to call for one thing then actively pursue another. If he wants to say he'd like to see the party move away from SD's, but that until then he'll do what he has to to get the nomination, I'd respect that. But to say one set of delegates should support him because HE won the vote, and the others should vote him because... REASONS is well.... yeah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #13)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:17 PM

14. And yet... nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #13)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:13 PM

22. No, he has also said very clearly in states where she won a clear victory they should vote for her

 

He is referring to the states where the vote was close

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #22)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:17 PM

24. Exactly. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #22)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:25 PM

28. Did you hear his answer to the question at the end?

 

He pretty clearly stated that he wanted to flip enough SD's to win, EVEN IF she has a pledge delegate lead. If she has the pledged delegate lead, she will also had an SD lead. The only way he can win if he is behind in pledged delegates is to get SD's in states that she won to vote for him. Otherwise his answer is meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #28)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:28 PM

32. I heard him on Face the Nation

 

He said what I said.

In states where one or the other had a large majority, the SD's should go with the winner.

In states where it was a smaller margin, he hopoes some will take another look.

Doesn't mean he is likely to flip any, but ya never what will happen between now and then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #22)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:29 PM

33. then he would lose

I didn't watch the presser but from what I am reading he is stating both that the ones from states he won by large margins (WA and Minnesota) should vote for him and that most of the rest should since he is doing better in general election polls. I don't think he said those in TX, FL, FA, TN, LA, MS, GA, SC should vote for her (all states that she won by margins as large as those he won WA and Minnesota by)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #33)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:32 PM

35. I stand by what I said because I heard him say it

 

You may be correct. Probably are. But any number of changes in the calculations could occur between now and then. When he started he was supposed to be a Dennis Kucinich and only garner a tiny fraction of the votes.

He's trying to pull off a win or make a strong enough showing to influence policy and platform. That's what candidates do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #2)

Sun May 1, 2016, 10:39 PM

38. He is ruining that which made him different supposedly

Ethics and all that stuff...it was not true...ethical people don't try to disenfranchise millions of voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:01 PM

5. I think his plan involves the SuperDuperDelegates and the Ultra Turbo Delegates. Damn, its gonna

be close!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:02 PM

7. you only just noticed this now...

Sanders has been toting this for months since before WI. Its the reason I selected Clinton instead of him. He has been a hypocrite for months saying that superdelegates should overturn the will of the voters even if Clinton had more votes. Seeing that her demographics are minorities and women I guess you can see who is being disenfranchised. He has also tring to overturn pledge delegates in the caucaus states who are supposed to be representing thier voters. In other words, pulling a Ted Cruz. I was literally sick that I was thinking of voting for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DLCWIdem (Reply #7)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:04 PM

8. No. This piece was just written now, because he keeps doing it. I'm glad the writer pointed it out.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #8)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:12 PM

21. thank you for the welcome

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:09 PM

9. It's amazing! He keeps coming up with more ways to lose.

How does he do it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:13 PM

10. He's starting to sound silly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:14 PM

12. you should look at the actual votes

You should go look on wikipedia at the DNC primaries you might be quite shocked. Yea he won those caucaus states but look at the actual difference in votes between them. For example, say he won a caucaus state by 80% which was a difference of only 12,000 votes. While she won Illinois by 1 1/2% which was a difference of 35,000 votes. Check it out you will be surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DLCWIdem (Reply #12)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:18 PM

15. No, I wouldn't be surprised. As a resident of WA I am aware of how few voters participated

in our caucuses and how low our population is compared to many states.

And WA was the biggie in that string of wins Bernie had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #15)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:23 PM

26. wa caucaus

I heard about that caucaus from another site. The poster said it went on for 5 hours and there was food and drinks ordered for Sanders supporters while Clinton's supporters had to go without all night. I just have to say i really admire your dedication to democracy. I did not want to stand in line so I voted early. I finally decided the Friday before the primary here in WI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DLCWIdem (Reply #26)

Sun May 1, 2016, 10:32 PM

37. Mine was in the morning. I don't know about the others.

But there was no food or drink for anyone, and it went on for hours. Way too much effort required to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:05 PM

19. Does that mean that Raul Grijvala should change his vote

and vote for Clinton? I mean, fair's fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #19)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:24 PM

27. Erin Bilbray from Nevada has also gone on record that she won't change her vote to Clinton, despite

 

how Clinton won the NV primary. So it really is a bunch of do-as-I-say-not-as-I do from a failed hippie trying to relive his glory days.

Go home, Bernie. You're drunk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #19)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:27 PM

30. Have a point here, Clinton clearly won Arizona. The super delegates

Do not make their decision based on the results of a state. This is another smoking gun which has fizzled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:09 PM

20. Misinterpretation by you or them...not sure which

 

He also said that Super Delegates from states where he got soundly beat should obviously vote for Clinton.

He was referring to delegates from states where the margin was close, and that he hopes they would reconsider -- especially the ones who committed before or in the very early days of the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:18 PM

25. if 100 percent of the super delegates in the states that a candidate won by double digits

are awarded to that candidate, Clinton would have 286 of the super delegates and Sanders would have 130 (less than half her total).

I kinda doubt that is what he was going for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:27 PM

29. Sanders is trying to convince his followers that he hasn't lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #29)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:28 PM

31. There you go, more fund raising, his donations has gone down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #31)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:29 PM

34. The drop in donations is a big indicator of where people see his campaign going.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #34)

Sun May 1, 2016, 09:32 PM

36. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #29)

Sun May 1, 2016, 10:42 PM

39. Fundraising is down...

needs money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #39)

Sun May 1, 2016, 10:43 PM

40. He has been outspending Clinton and still losing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #40)

Sun May 1, 2016, 11:07 PM

41. Indeed

I almost feel sorry for him...if I did not hear the crappy stuff he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 11:41 PM

43. "Nobody accessed the data ... except for the four who did ..."

"But other than that ... NOBODY!"

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread