Hillary Willing to Work with Sanders on Shaping Democratic Platform

[Doimper]

Has she?  She may have given in on international trade and on Wall Street regulations, but when it comes to single-payer and other issues, she has (more or less) held her ground.  

I don't get why singlepayer is so necessary for a Democratic nominee, or even being used as a measuring stick for how left you are (I see it used in this fashion quite a bit). For the time being, it will not pass Congress, even if we had a supermajority in the Senate and control of the House. Democrats will not risk losing control over healthcare reform for the 3rd time. They will put their own interests ahead of that this time around, should it ever come to that.

I could see universal health care (not sure why everyone's so fascinated with single-payer, there's literally dozens of ways to implement UHC and single-payer's only one) becoming a hot topic again in a decade. A lot of the Democratic mover-and-shakers that had to move mountains just to get the watered-down ACA passed probably aren't too thrilled by the idea of opening that can of worms again in the near future, though.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's so annoying to see people move the goalposts to make their guy look better. Seriously, he lost. Nearly 3.2 million votes down, but he energized the party so he won? Apparently not enough for them to actually get out and vote. Unless they all did, and yet he still lost, which is even more sad. Get real.

Uh...were you here in early 2015? No one actually expected Sanders to win. The goalposts are simply being returned to their original positions. Stop being such a sore winner.

No one expected him to win... and he didn't. He got his ass kicked in an absolute double digit landslide and has only achieved something in the deluded minds of his supporters.

The pledged delegate margin is less than 10%.

You really are such an incredibly miserable hack.

Why? Because the only reason you want to talk about delegates instead of the popular vote here is so that you can disguise the margin of Hillary's victory in actual mass elections by including the results from caucuses attended by five unemployed white guys on the government dole who could afford to sit around and whinge about politics for eight hours.

Of course, you had to specify "pledged" delegates because Hillary currently has 60.52% of the delegates overall, a more than 20 point margin, a very inconvenient little reality for you and your shilling. Of course, there's no good reason for this specification. If we're going to include the gross offenses against democracy called caucuses there's no reason why super delegates should be excluded.

It's actually quite funny. Sanders is getting his ass kicked by double digits both in votes and in delegates, and he's frankly getting his ass beat so incredibly hard that I wouldn't think there would be any way you could spin it, but I should have known you'd find a way. You managed to twist and turn and bend yourself over backwards to find a way to exclude all of the undemocratic elements of the process that have benefited Clinton while simultaneously including all of the undemocratic elements of the process that have benefited Sanders to somehow to come up with some bizarre, arbitrary measurement where he's "only" losing by 9.72%.

That, of course, in and of itself, speaks volumes about how badly Sanders is actually losing.

What's a hack is to ignore the pledged delegate count. Caucuses tend not to release popular votes. This argument is the same that was used against Obama 8 years ago.