MaggieD
MaggieD's JournalCan we please stop smearing Democrats here?
There is never a shred of substance to these kind of posts. Be respectful that you're at a site to support Democrats. Take it somewhere else.
A pony represents all his promises
Think of it as short hand. And this "theory" was clearly developed based on the fact that he's a white guy living in VT his whole adult life.
He's clueless. For example, at the beginning of the campaign he went to SC and in a video taped meeting with AA he acted amazed to find out that blacks were given fines for petty things then thrown in jail when they could not pay the fines. "I had no idea this was happening" he said.
He didn't know that happens because he is clueless. I don't know a single liberal in real life that is unaware that happens to AA, particularly in he south. OR he could have just read the Ferguson DOJ report which discussed that problem in depth. He clearly didn't read it because he doesn't fucking care.
Worse yet, he put a video of that on his Facebook page because he really had no idea how fucking clueless it made him look. He's even clueless about that.
Who are these "130 economists" that endorse how Bernie pays for his proposals?
I have been looking for this list since he made the claim in the SC Townhall. I have concluded he told a big whopper. These "130 economists and healthcare experts" do not seem to exist. Please do not trot out the list that endorse his Wall street reform proposal. That has nothing to do with what he was asked.
Here is what Bernie said:
"CUOMO: Alright, in terms of what you want to provide, then you get to the wealth, will that be enough? Will that pay for it?
As you're aware, four former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, all appointed by Democrats, by the way. Say there's no credible economic research that supports the positive impacts that you're touting. One of them goes as far to say that it's like magic flying puppies with winning lotto tickets tied to their collars.
SANDERS: Those economists were organized by the Clinton campaign. It's a wild and crazy guess.
CUOMO: No, that's not true, they weren't...
SANDERS: ... We have well over a hundred, it's a 130 economists, and healthcare experts who will say the same."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1602/23/se.01.html
NB: Here are the liberal leaning economists that say Bernie is full of it that Cuomo is referring to: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?_r=0
"We know over 200 leading economists have endorsed his policies"
And you know why? Because that is the baloney Bernie is slinging. Even though it is completely false. Please tell us who these 130 economists and healthcare experts are? They do not exist.
"CUOMO: Alright, in terms of what you want to provide, then you get to the wealth, will that be enough? Will that pay for it?
As you're aware, four former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, all appointed by Democrats, by the way. Say there's no credible economic research that supports the positive impacts that you're touting. One of them goes as far to say that it's like magic flying puppies with winning lotto tickets tied to their collars.
SANDERS: Those economists were organized by the Clinton campaign. It's a wild and crazy guess.
CUOMO: No, that's not true, they weren't...
SANDERS: ... We have well over a hundred, it's a 130 economists, and healthcare experts who will say the same."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1602/23/se.01.html
What is Sanders path to victory, specifically?
So it looks to me like Sanders is going to lose LA, MI, MS, FL, IL, and MD by pretty large margins. He may come close in OH, WI, NC, and PA if we are being generous. I think he will lose OH, PA, UT and NC but not by large margins. He may win WI, but not by a large margin.
Do you think he will get half the 166 Mar 8th Delegates (MI and MS)? No way. Maybe a third at best.
Do you think he will half the 691 March 15th delegates (OH, NC, IL, MO, and FL)? Again, nope.
Unless the polling is very far off (when it hasn't been in previous states) he has no chance to catch up after the 15th. In fact, realistically, I think he will be trailing her by over 300 delegates by then (versus the 200 delegates he is trailing now).
If I am correct, will he drop out after the 15th? If the situation comes about as predicted, what would be the reasoning to stay in the race? Is it credible to think he would win each of the remaining states by 70% or more in order to catch up to the lead she has built?
Thoughts?
Profile Information
Member since: 2001Number of posts: 7,393
