Bernie is not principled, he's an opportunist who sticks to his script. Were he principled, he would have fought for the last nomination. Instead he took his payout and slinked back to Vermont.
Bernie 2020
- Thread starter TreeFrogTrader
- Start date
Bernie is not principled, he's an opportunist who sticks to his script. Were he principled, he would have fought for the last nomination. Instead he took his payout and slinked back to Vermont.
It's because he enslaved himself to the dem machinery while not being a democrat so he disciplined himself from totally giving them the finger knowing that he still needed to use them while they were still committed to screwing him.
Sort of a sick dance. You know like the Woody Allen joke about the guy who goes to the psychiatrist and says "doc, my wife thinks she is a chicken." And the doc says. "Well, why don't you just get rid of her then." And the guy says, "I can't doc, I still need the eggs." Yeh, that Bernie and the dem party.
His proteges, the AOC, Talib, Omar crowd etc. Aren't going that route if Bernie is bilked again. They are already forming a progressive party within the dem party more formally,and if Bernie goes down they will use that as the injustice to fuel their new sub-party and then force the dnc historical dud wing of the party to deal with them as a block almost as though it is parliamentary system. Their chances to show up and vote for biden or bloomie if bernie goes down are very, very low once you get past the ones that are only marginally progressive. Conventional wisdom says they will still show up just to see that Trump does not win. Really?
They want to get the dud dnc type gone more than Trump. They will be more powerful as the oposition to Trump, rather than having that Pelosi-Schumer crowd tryin to tone them down all the time and get them to go away.
Therein lies his dilemma.
As I put it the other day, yes, Bernie is/has been surging like a rocket but he is surging up to the top of his Bollinger Band which is still below what is needed for a majority.
So it opens the possibility that he get to be the clear leader but also gets to be fucked at the convention.
Feel the love.
He will pick up a pile of delegates in California, for example. But at a certain point, all the good news either puts you to the magic number or it doesnt. We shall see.
We may agree on this so that means I may need to rethink my position.
https://www.wlbt.com/2020/02/25/eig...rty-switch-join-mississippi-republican-party/
Eight elected officials announce party switch, join Mississippi Republican Party
Eight elected officials announce party switch, join Mississippi Republican Party
I’m trying to understand the delegate situation at the DNC. Something like 13 states have a clause to free delegates in the first or second round if their candidate drops out. So far, no candidate with delegates has dropped out. After that they are all free as a bird - all of them,including Sanders’.
Not everyone of Sanders’ delegates is going to be a hardcore Bernie bro, either. States have different ways selecting delegates. So basically we should end up with a mob of connected local level politicos by the third round - unless Biden or whomever centrist lane holder has enough delegates to get over the threshold with superdelegates. I doubt that will happen though as it would be impolitic.
In my mind, the trick will be to form the most electable ticket. Candidates will bring in a second to strengthen their electability. Enter Stacy Abrams or whomever - Oprah? Anything can happen.
The point is who will be Bernie’s VP that actually makes his ticket viable to the convention?
It's a given that the nominee has to strengthen the ticket with the VP choice, so I assume you are talking about a scenario where a nominee identifies his/her running mate before the final vote at the convention. The way for example that Cruz and Carly Fiorina teamed up.
It is risky business but if a candidate thinks they know the right formula, then go for it. One of the problems is that many candidates - Joe Biden being exhibit A- tell five or six other candidates -including ones that that have dropped out- that they are on his short list. He does that to try to pick up or keep the other candidates supporters, thinking that if their first choice doesnt make it, at least they will be VP. However, the minute you actually name your choice that game ends for all the others who were dangling and their supporters as well. You know if you are lukewarm over Joe but think he is going to name Poco as his VP you might continue to lean into him a little, but once he names Klobo or Castro, who cares about him.
Bernie is going to start losing support:
SANDERS: We have a grotesque and immoral distribution of wealth and income. Mike Bloomberg owns more wealth than the bottom 125 million Americans. That's wrong. That's immoral. That should not be the case when we got a half a million people sleeping out on the street, where we have kids who cannot afford to go to college, when we have 45 million people dealing with student debt.
We have enormous problems facing this country, and we cannot continue seeing a situation where, in the last three years, billionaires in this country saw an $850 billion increase in their wealth -- congratulations, Mr. Bloomberg -- but the average American last year saw less than a 1 percent increase in his or her income. That's wrong.
Fuck him. If someone poor like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs started a company and is now a billionaire it is called Capitalism/American Dream/Reward for hard work etc... To say the average American saw less than 1% increase in their income is bullshit as well.
He is obviously far left but his ideas just sound like bullshit espoused by a millionaire. Kids can go to college, they just don't have the right to go to a $45,000 a year school. Homelessness has nothing to do with the existence of billionaires.
SANDERS: We have a grotesque and immoral distribution of wealth and income. Mike Bloomberg owns more wealth than the bottom 125 million Americans. That's wrong. That's immoral. That should not be the case when we got a half a million people sleeping out on the street, where we have kids who cannot afford to go to college, when we have 45 million people dealing with student debt.
We have enormous problems facing this country, and we cannot continue seeing a situation where, in the last three years, billionaires in this country saw an $850 billion increase in their wealth -- congratulations, Mr. Bloomberg -- but the average American last year saw less than a 1 percent increase in his or her income. That's wrong.
Fuck him. If someone poor like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs started a company and is now a billionaire it is called Capitalism/American Dream/Reward for hard work etc... To say the average American saw less than 1% increase in their income is bullshit as well.
He is obviously far left but his ideas just sound like bullshit espoused by a millionaire. Kids can go to college, they just don't have the right to go to a $45,000 a year school. Homelessness has nothing to do with the existence of billionaires.
