Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Clintons Campaign Turns Over Email List To DNC [View all]karynnj
(59,560 posts)By the way, I majored in Math and did well enough that I was hired by Bell Labs. I would suggest that the universities which gave me degrees and the then preeminent research company obviously thought better of my understanding of mathematics than an anonymous person on an internet board. I never said that Bernie had a chance - I said he was not mathematically eliminated. Improbable as it was, had he blown out California, he could have taken the lead. Not surprisingly, he not only did not do that, he lost. YOU used the phrase, "mathematically eliminated", which is more from sports than math -- and you were wrong.
I never claimed any time ever that - before votes were cast, during the primaries, or afterwards, that Sanders had any chance of winning. Before Iowa, I would have expected his results to look more like Kucinich, who stayed in until the convention in 2004, or Dean, who only won VT and a few delegates elsewhere.
In fact, what I would have predicted is that VT might give him SOME delegates and maybe a win as the favorite son, but that otherwise, the election would look like 2000 -- with Clinton winning every state (other than possibly VT). My point is that she was treated by the party as they treated Gore. Many Senators, friends of and closer ideologically to Bradley endorsed Gore, "because he deserved it" - including Kennedy.
What was surprising in the primaries was NOT that Sanders was poised to win, but that such an unlikely candidate, whose VT supporters - and I know many - could not see him getting more than say 10% of the delegates, were stunned when a 74 year old social democrat,with low name recognition, who is a prickly person, without a well experienced campaign team could do as well as he did against the most famous woman in the world with a golden resume and the President's tacit approval.
Where I have a problem is that all the arguments made in 2008 for HRC continuing to attack Obama - at least as hard as Sanders hit Clinton - were as if never said in discussing 2016. Where is the equivalent of "She made him a stronger candidate because of all the debates? or "She vetted Obama". Give me an example of anything Sanders said that was as much a gift to the Republicans as - "John McCain and I are ready day one for the 3 am call" - suggesting Obama was not.
The fact is that NEITHER dropped out when it was first clear the other was going to win the nomination. It is also true that BOTH gave good speeches and appealed to their base to get them to vote for Hillary Clinton. In BOTH cases, there were some in their base who angrily said that they wouldn't. I KNOW you were at the convention in 2016. I am not surprised that there were some delegates who acted badly. What was important was that the vast majority of Sanders delegates cheered Clinton even after the DNC leaks timed to appear immediately before the convention. The expected story that did not happen that the networks seemed to be suggesting in the run up was that this could end up looking like the 1968 convention. Instead the story out of the convention was that the Democrats were united ... and after the Republican convention, that they weren't.
I was not a strong supporter of either - wishing that I had a less flawed choice. I do not expect that Sanders primary run will be praised by the Clinton supporters, but I find it ridiculous that so many try to blame Clinton's lose on things Sanders did which were no different than what any candidate - including Clinton herself - does.
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)