2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow embarrassing will two more Losses on Tuesday be to the presumptive Nominee?
I would think it would be quite a embarrassment losing 4 in a row to a far left Democrat that leads trump in ever poll known to man!
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)and you will be complicit.
MADem
(135,425 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)The one that loves expensive dragged out wars. The one who didn't learn from her Iraq mistake so tripled down on Syria and Libya. The one who praised another damaging free trade deal, because she failed to learn from NAFTA. The one who opposes citizen's united so much she funds her campaign and super pacs using the very thing she claims to oppose. But you know fracking is now a liberal platform. I guess I will just say it. If she is the nominee we get a choice of a republican or a republican. Outstanding.
msongs
(70,217 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)is not going to leave our troops without the items they need. and he will vote for war when it is necessary.. not call it a " business opportunity" like Her Corporate Majesty did.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"Bernie and the Jets" hasn't won him any fans amongst people living in the flight path of those shitty slow airplanes he foisted on his home state.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)Not nearly as damaging as being in the tank for every wall st investment firm and bank. Nor nearly as damaging as courting Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz donors. Oh and didn't she even accept money from the presumed republican nominee? and the private prison lobby. And Big oil. and big pharma, and the healthcare industry. Seems her acceptance of monies has no limits, and some still call her a democrat. I guess Zell Miller was also a democrat. As was John Breaux. And Max Baucus. Hell even war hawk Lieberman was once called a democrat. Aren't you proud to be in that company of people? Good luck in November, you'll need it.
Sparkly
(24,352 posts)Oh wait...
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)whomever would that be?
Sparkly
(24,352 posts)They think the NAACP is a "big monied interest." They think women's rights groups like NOW and NARAL are "big monied interests."
Organizing is not necessarily bad. Commerce is not necessarily bad, either. In this country, a lot of different parts form the machinery that gets progress to happen.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)One candidate is on the exact same side. You know that. Free trade, fracking, keystone, regime change, wouldn't normally sound like a dem candidate, yet it is one of them.
Sparkly
(24,352 posts)You know, the people who want to destroy the EPA, the Dept. of Education, and the IRS.
The same people who want to repeal the ACA, Roe v. Wade, and the Voting Rights Act.
The same people holding back federal laws on LGBT rights, fair wages, drug sentencing; cutting funding for medial research, public transport, veterans' health... name it.
You mention "Free trade, fracking, keystone, regime change" -- Clinton and Sanders are so close on these, especially compared with the differences between them and Republicans, it's minuscule.
We're looking at the possibility of Donald Trump making USSC nominations, and these differences are enough for you to sink the whole ship?
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)I got you.. so the conservative wing of the democratic party.
Sparkly
(24,352 posts)I know where Clinton stands on those, and it is not what you've chosen to believe. The clear, untwisted facts are out there and have been presented here repeatedly.
You're using codewords as abbreviations. "Fracking" -- there's an equation there between oil and coal, and she has a comprehensive, detailed plan toward moving away from both toward clean, renewable energy. "Open to debate on abortion" -- this is a total lie. She was endorsed by NARAL, NOW and PP, for good reason. She's fought for women's freedom all her life.
Maybe retire the talking points and consider other sources.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)creeksneakers2
(7,597 posts)We rely on fracking for too much of our energy and economy. Both candidates plan to deal with that by a long intense program to develop alternatives. Bernie is only different because he's not being honest with his followers.
From the New York debate:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- jobs are one thing, but with less than 6 percent of all U.S. energy coming from solar, wind and geothermal, and 20 percent of U.S. power coming from nuclear, if you phase out all of that, how do you make up...
SANDERS: Well, you don't phase...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- that difference?
SANDERS: -- it all out tomorrow. And you certainly don't phase nuclear out tomorrow. But this is what you do do.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: What you do do is say that we are going to have a massive program -- and I had introduced -- introduced legislation for 10 million solar rooftops. We can put probably millions of people to work retrofitting and weatherizing buildings all over this country.
(CHEERING)
SANDERS: Saving -- rebuilding our rail system.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Our mass transit system.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: If we approach this, Errol, as if we were literally at a war -- you know, in 1941, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we moved within three years, within three more years to rebuild our economy to defeat Nazism and Japanese imperialism. That is exactly the kind of approach we need right now.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)trading drinking water for jobs is an excellent adoption to the democratic platform. Let's start selling dirtier water for everyone Bet it would be a big winner in Michigan
creeksneakers2
(7,597 posts)We aren't trading drinking water for jobs. The only water that has been affected is wells very near drilling sites. Those usually aren't hurt either.
Very dramatic post about poisoning the country but it ignores my point that Bernie isn't really any different than Hillary on the topic. Look again. I have Bernie's debate comments to prove it. Unless, you think Bernie wants to poison the country too.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)should be an interesting read
creeksneakers2
(7,597 posts)I said he isn't going to do anything more about it than Hillary is. Do I need to post it again?
From the New York debate:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- jobs are one thing, but with less than 6 percent of all U.S. energy coming from solar, wind and geothermal, and 20 percent of U.S. power coming from nuclear, if you phase out all of that, how do you make up...
SANDERS: Well, you don't phase...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- that difference?
SANDERS: -- it all out tomorrow. And you certainly don't phase nuclear out tomorrow. But this is what you do do.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: What you do do is say that we are going to have a massive program -- and I had introduced -- introduced legislation for 10 million solar rooftops. We can put probably millions of people to work retrofitting and weatherizing buildings all over this country.
(CHEERING)
SANDERS: Saving -- rebuilding our rail system.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Our mass transit system.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: If we approach this, Errol, as if we were literally at a war -- you know, in 1941, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we moved within three years, within three more years to rebuild our economy to defeat Nazism and Japanese imperialism. That is exactly the kind of approach we need right now.
All this stuff about Hillary and her donors being Satan's network is part of the progressive fantasy. They want to pretend they are uniquely virtuous and heroic and to do that they pretend the rest of the world is full of evil monsters. Hillary supports further regulation of fracking. If she was in the pockets of the fracking companies she would be out there defending them.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)puffy socks
(1,473 posts)The hypocrisy is noted.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Equating funding troops already put in harm's way by a war vote with the war vote itself is bull pucky. That post got the reply I thought it deserved (as will yours).
Second, Hillary's supporters complaining about Sanders' war votes is really rich. Hillary voted for every surge and war as to which which she had an opportunity to vote, as well as advocating for the Iraq War, to helping sell the Iraq War to the American public in general and Democrats in particular. She also supported or was instrumental in everything cited in your post, most of which were voted on at the request of President Clinton with the rest arising her tenure as Secretary. As for Syria (and a number of other current Middle Eastern "dominoes" , Sanders argued his heart out against the Iraq War, correctly predicting that it would de-stablize the entire Middle East.
SANDERS: Let me agree with much of what the secretary said, but where we differ is on the war in Iraq, which created barbaric organizations like ISIS. Not only did I vote against that war, I helped lead the opposition. It gives me no pleasure to tell you that much of what I feared would happen the day after Saddam Hussein was overthrown, in fact, did happen. I think our task is to make certain that our young men and women in the military do not get sucked into never-ending, perpetual warfare within the quagmire of Syria and Iraq. It must be Muslim troops on the ground that destroy ISIS, with the support of a coalition of major powers.Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire , Feb 4, 2016
From an old post of mine:
Address to the Nation on the Invasion of Iraq (January 16, 1991)
George H. W. Bush
Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak. Ground forces are not engaged.
This conflict started August 2d when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwaita member of the Arab League and a member of the United Nationswas crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle has been joined.
much more at:
http://www.millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3428
transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
much more at:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
more at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673
Senate vote on 2002 AUMF at:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237
House vote on 2002 AUMF at:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114
10:16 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.
more at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
Loudestlib
(980 posts)That's rich. She peddled death across the globe.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Hillary votes to declare a war and invade a country with no reason..
Bernie votes against declaring a war and invading a country with no reason.
Hillary votes to fund the war so that we don't just send our troops there with no equipment, no uniforms, no food, no benefits when they come home perhaps injured and no benefits for their families if they die.
Is Bernie supposed to vote against that equipment, those uniforms, the food and the benefits?
Hillary and her friends vote to start a war for no good reason. Bernie votes to help our troops who are fighting Hillary's war.
Would you seriously have him do otherwise?
He was right in voting against the Iraq War and also right to vote to provide our troops with what they need. There is no conflict in those two votes. They both protect Americans.
Hillary was wrong to vote for the Iraq War Resolution. If you believe that Bernie was wrong to vote to fund the implementation of that Resolution, then you must concede that Hillary was wrong and showed bad judgment in voting for the Resolution in the first place. That is the logic here.
The wrong was in Hillary's vote for the IWR. Even she admits that on an honest day.
MADem
(135,425 posts)of what party YOU voted for, but I will not stoop to your bitter and childish level.
Hillary Clinton will be our nominee, because she won the most votes.
I'm so sorry if that upsets you, but that is the way it is. She who gets the most votes, WINS.
Now, you run along and have a nice day.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)you seem to lack the wit for it. Hillary will be your nominee. I have stated this many times. Now continue to vote GOP lite if you wish.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Looks like you're gathering more than enough rope....
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)that I couldn't converse with those hell bent on moving us farther right.
beaglelover
(4,087 posts)Response to MADem (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
creeksneakers2
(7,597 posts)Bernie had plenty of chance to get his message out. He's gotten as much press as a non-front runner candidate could expect. He's had tons of money to advertise his message. There was nothing Schultz could have done about that if she tried, which she didn't.
Losers make up things like "it was rigged."
coffeeAM
(180 posts)creeksneakers2
(7,597 posts)I also forgot to mention that there were about a dozen debates where Bernie had plenty of chance to get his message out.
Response to timmymoff (Reply #2)
Gomez163 This message was self-deleted by its author.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)are you? Should I just be quiet and jump on board the conservative train?
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)Stop pouting and threatening to take your toys and go home.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)I've already stated countless times presidential portion of my ballot will be left blank if Hillary is the nominee. I do not wish to be in cahoots with those who support the things she supports, the big money, the fracking, the TPP , keystone etc. I do not buy into her recent evolutions as easily as others. You can support who you wish, I myself know who I do not support and given the choice in November between a republican and a republican, like it looks currently, Ill leave that one blank. Enjoy. I have no moral obligation to perpetuation of bad policy.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)But as a candidate, Hillary doesn't have time to kiss millions of Bernie's supporters behinds over millions of grievances they may have that date back over the past 30 years. Grow up Timmy. Lassie died. Get over it.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)and we won't. Now be sure to remember this post when you are begging us later. Be sure to remember this when you blame us later. Be sure you remember this, be sure you own it, be sure you hold yourself accountable. Be sure you get out and help her win. I won't, even had to tell the democratic party chair of the County I won't be doing my duty as precinct committeeman in her favor. You , your ilk, and her are earning every bit of disdain. Just own the outcome and blame nobody but yourselves.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)which is already daily. Hey, be proud, your candidate recently courted Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz donors. But she is a true democrat. She is very progressive. It's her turn and the GOP is there to help. Only in the Hillary bubble is this a good and noble thing.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)to their support in the General Election.
The BS cheerleaders (aka as BoB'ers) are just like the PUMAs of 2008. Those PUMAs also had their purity ball, their nominee and they were going to pout, cry and throw a big old temper tantrum if they didn't get what they wanted. And when Obama and his supporters didn't bow down to them, those PUMAs were going to take their vote and go home, because Obama was a "weak" candidate and he was going to lose to McCain.
In the end, those PUMAs ended up being immaterial and showed just how childish some supporters can be. You BS cheerleaders, you BorB'ers, will end up being just as immaterial, just as childish and just as forgotten 8 years from now ... while President Hillary Clinton will be finishing up her second term.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)I was for Hillary Clinton, then came Bernie Sanders into the mix. We got to learn you can have a campaign without huge money donors. Without support from big business, big pharma, wall st. lobbyists or as you guys call them, your allies. I guess the real statement here is I was for Hillary before I examined her record. I am a 50 year old man who voted democrat my whole life. I am also a precinct committeeman, I aid with fundraising events on the local level. I will no longer continue to do so, not because of sanders losing, but because what I've seen regarding this primary from the DNC. You may consider me irrelevant which is about as realistic as her record being irrelevant but it is your opinion. I never asked for your support nor concern. I have stated what I won't do. You can like it or not. I have no need for you or any of the other conservadems permission or acceptance. Nor do I seek it. as stated, get busy selling her, you won't have many of our help, and many of us are long time democratic party activists. Own it. I do.
coffeeAM
(180 posts)Kittycat
(10,493 posts)#fight4philly #takebackourparty
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)After all she loved his monetary donations. I wonder what influence that bought him? I am sure he will let us know.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Their kids are friends. They went to his wedding. They know each other from Bill's days in office. Trump's a foundation donor. It's hard to just ignore all the coziness going on there.
coffeeAM
(180 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)Is that you, Nelson?
Logical
(22,457 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)72% of dems did not even know bernie.
She is a terrible candidate.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)decides to continue his fruitless attempts at relevance doesn't mean she can wait until June or the Convention to start preparing for November.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)bjo59
(1,166 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)is there an extra prize for getting in in the first minute?
I hope you have a tablet or phone. I'd hate to imagine anyone sitting at their desktop having to pee into a bucket.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Liberals are not going to lift a finger of support....Yall burned the bridge.
creeksneakers2
(7,597 posts)shouldn't be decided by manners on a message board. Who would use that to decide? Think of the country, not yourself.
J_J_
(1,213 posts)"You lost-Get over it" Does this primary remind anyone else of election 2000?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511971034
I am getting very suspicious of the level of intelligence we are seeing in Hillary posters.
WE are the smart ones people- We don't just act stupid, repeat nonsense and think we made a point.
Some people have found their way to the wrong party.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)How embarrassing is it to keep pretending that's not the fact?
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)of your pure hypocrisy. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5314138
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)It doesn't change the fact that Bernie lost weeks ago.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)Here's an example:
FACT: Bernie lost weeks ago, when he ran out of any remotely viable "path to victory".
FICTION: BernieMath.
Desert805
(392 posts)beaglelover
(4,087 posts)she does in fact lose. Bernie is over. Stick a fork in him. He's done done done. We're just going through the motions now letting everyone vote in the primaries, but Hillary is the D nominee for POTUS!!!!!
JumpinJehosaphat
(22 posts)Bernie needs to keep fighting for every last vote! Every vote, every delegate earned continues the building of the organizational infrastructure needed to move the Democratic Party back to the progressive left traditions. Coronations tend to have the opposite effect.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)coffeeAM
(180 posts)I would say it is quite embarrassing you are still losing state after state by huge margins this late in the game.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)RichVRichV
(885 posts)Thank you, I think I needed that laugh.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)Ino
(3,366 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)StevieM
(10,541 posts)either Kentucky or Oregon. Maybe she will lose them. But either way she is winning the overall contest, having gotten more votes and delegates than her opponent.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)msongs
(70,217 posts)Response to coffeeAM (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
OilemFirchen
(7,172 posts)Nearly $200 million raised. Hundreds of thousands of rally attendees. Internet domination. Kid-gloves media attention.
Loses to the most-hated woman in the world.
Ouch!
Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #25)
Name removed Message auto-removed
OilemFirchen
(7,172 posts)Speaking of embarrassing...
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)A proud moment. You go girl.
apcalc
(4,518 posts)coffeeAM
(180 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Actually, I do hear more about Bernie on CNN and maybe that's why he's made such a remarkable race out of a foregone conclusion.
OilemFirchen
(7,172 posts)"Kid gloves media" suggests an adolescent hit someone.
You Berniacs and your violent rhetoric. Tsk, tsk.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)the Hillary supporters who people have found to be the more aggressive and obnoxious. Just what I have experienced. Especially all the smug and condescension. Ick!
The truth does come out eventually. It's starting to arrive.
OilemFirchen
(7,172 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts).
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Well done, sir!! As usual.
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)every effort of everyone backing HRC to beat him or shut him down. It may well be that the Superdelegates will not see that as troublesome but there you have it.
No matter what the Hillary supporters claim, Sanders has come light years further than anyone on the Establishment side thought was even possible. The lengthy list of advantages Secretary Clinton had going into this thing is well known and indisputable. The fact that she and her surrogates have proven unable to brush Sanders aside spells out just how weak a candidate she really is.
If she is the nominee all her Wall Street and neo-con allies can pray for is that Trump turns out to be as much of a buffoon as he appears to be. Otherwise we might well lose the Presidency, as has been the case most times one party has held that office for two terms.
And, the water is still rising.
OilemFirchen
(7,172 posts)In summary:
BootinUp
(49,169 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Not good for Sanders.
coffeeAM
(180 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Since you used the GIF from his show, thought I'd chime in here! Bye now.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)Also later in the game. More opportunities for supporters to register. It will be interesting.
Botany
(72,570 posts)Answer Doctor.
Hillary has won the nomination.
bvf
(6,604 posts)And please fix your "about" section. What little you've lifted, you've gotten wrong.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Our country is very divided. Pretty evenly. So why not more discussion of issues over the horse race? In the end, the math is pretty unimportant. We will have a President that will or will not reflect the issues the majority of voters think important. Too many Clinton supporters do not or cannot discuss the issues. Why do you think she's the best? What will she do for us? That's all I want to know. But no HRC poster seems to be able to get through a thread without posting distractions.
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)300 delegates and 3 million votes is not close.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)oasis
(51,728 posts)So enjoy yourself while you can.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I prefer birds, thank you. Actually, another difference between compassionate and just Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters. Four more years of status quo and then . . . a republican will return to office. How do I know? Because that is our recent history. Neither side does anything for the average family so we keep them all in office when it is their turns. I say "we" but I really mean "you."
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)and they realize Hillary will be the nominee regardless.
jamese777
(546 posts)Barack Obama won primaries and caucuses in: North Carolina, Oregon and Montana.
Hillary Clinton won in Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico and South Dakota and Obama and Clinton tied in Guam.
I don't think that Barack Obama was embarrassed that he was up against a tough and popular opponent who alot of people supported. He won the nomination.
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)that Bernie is still in the race, because all they hear on the network nightly news is Trump v. Clinton.
I always forget that not everyone follows politics as closely as people who frequent DU.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)LiberalFighter
(53,498 posts)what are the other two that would make it 4 in a row?
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)LiberalFighter
(53,498 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)bigtree
(90,233 posts)...not at all.
You're overdue for a block.
Response to coffeeAM (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Dem2
(8,178 posts)I love watching the results come in, it's the people in those states that get to decide who their choice is.
How can you hate that?
One Black Sheep
(458 posts)I think Bernie has good chances at winning both states, and yes, it will be very embarrassing for Hillary to lose again...just more evidence how weak a nominee she truly is...Sanders is the only way forward for progressives and the Democratic party, in my humble opinion.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)coffeeAM
(180 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts).
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)And we see how that turned out
Revolution
`
.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Especially if Conova usurps her...
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Just sayin' . . . . . . you know, if the shoe fits . . . .
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)It's the math...always been the math
CentralMass
(15,555 posts)CentralMass
(15,555 posts)Last edited Sun May 15, 2016, 08:59 PM - Edit history (2)
Logical
(22,457 posts)Sancho
(9,106 posts)This primary is over.
Response to coffeeAM (Original post)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
coffeeAM
(180 posts)Response to coffeeAM (Reply #116)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)coffeeAM
(180 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)so .......
The COuntry is screwed and about to into total corporate domination
good luck
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)Sander's last couple of wins. They are far to focused on the Trump v. Clinton race, and don't seem to want anything to disrupt their storyline.
Besides, once again, unless Sanders wins by 40 or more points, the delegates will more or less evenly split when you take the supers into account. This always seems to be how they finish the 10 second blurb on Sander's wins. "Bernie Sanders won the West Virginia primary yesterday, but only netted 5 delegates, so this does nothing to stop the massive Clinton lead..."
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)and soon they'll come home to roost!
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Sanders doesn't win even if he wins.
Sanders, however, will be deeply embarrassed even if he wins.
Because he has lost.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)coffeeAM
(180 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)doesn't win by 70%?