Hillary Willing to Work with Sanders on Shaping Democratic Platform

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The platform is meaningless. What Hillary says her policies and what they actually are are two different things. Example, the Iraq surge, she was publicly opposed and privately in favor.

link

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The platform is meaningless. What Hillary says her policies and what they actually are are two different things. Example, the Iraq surge, she was publicly opposed and privately in favor.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/

Jfern, I swear to god, you're like the human personification of r/sandersforpresident. You find a way to incorporate an attack on Clinton into every topic imaginable.

I know, I really worked a reply about Hillary into a topic about Hillary. It's amazing how off topic I was.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The platform is meaningless. What Hillary says her policies and what they actually are are two different things. Example, the Iraq surge, she was publicly opposed and privately in favor.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/

Jfern, I swear to god, you're like the human personification of r/sandersforpresident. You find a way to incorporate an attack on Clinton into every topic imaginable.

I know, I really worked a reply about Hillary into a topic about Hillary. It's amazing how off topic I was.

Fair enough, but Hillary was trying to get closer to your preferred candidate's positions. It's time to face the fact that Clinton is the presumptive nominee. If you really want a liberal in the White House that badly, try to accept Clinton's appeals to the left rather than deflect them.

A few days ago she was asked how she'd reach out to Bernie supporters. She responded that she got more votes and that her Wall Street plan is better. I don't think she's really interested in reaching out.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The platform is meaningless. What Hillary says her policies and what they actually are are two different things. Example, the Iraq surge, she was publicly opposed and privately in favor.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/

Jfern, I swear to god, you're like the human personification of r/sandersforpresident. You find a way to incorporate an attack on Clinton into every topic imaginable.

Actually, jfern wouldn't fit in there, he'd be kicked out for being too much of a Hillary hack. They still think he's going to win California by 70 points because "nobody I know supports Hillary" or "everyone I see on Twitter supports Bernie." And if somehow this doesn't happen, they think he will run as an independent and win 270+ EVs. They also think the Hillary campaign stole Arizona, New York, and most recently, Maryland. lol

I'd hope most people realize none of that's happening. The FBI is really the only hope, and it's a longshot.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As far as who "won" goes, you know...it's actually possible for everyone to "win" based on their own criteria.

Sanders didn't enter the race expecting to be able to win the nomination. This should be very obvious - not only from his past comments, but also from tragic missteps in the form of taking certain attacks/strategy off the table until it was too late for them to derail Clinton. He entered to push Clinton to the left and to hopefully have influence on the Democratic Party platform and message. By that measurement - his measurement - he not only "won", but probably exceeded even his own expectations.

Clinton entered the race to win the Democratic nomination. This also is very obvious. By that measurement - her measurement - she won in the way she wanted to as well.

Bernie was't running to pressure Hillary to the left. Everyone knows that wouldn't last. Bernie was running to win. He just likes a issue based campaign rather than a negative one. Obviously he could have hammered the top secret emails, Saudi arms being used to killed Shia civilians after they gave money to the Clinton Foundation, voting against a diplomatic solution in Iraq

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As far as who "won" goes, you know...it's actually possible for everyone to "win" based on their own criteria.

Sanders didn't enter the race expecting to be able to win the nomination. This should be very obvious - not only from his past comments, but also from tragic missteps in the form of taking certain attacks/strategy off the table until it was too late for them to derail Clinton. He entered to push Clinton to the left and to hopefully have influence on the Democratic Party platform and message. By that measurement - his measurement - he not only "won", but probably exceeded even his own expectations.

Clinton entered the race to win the Democratic nomination. This also is very obvious. By that measurement - her measurement - she won in the way she wanted to as well.

Bernie was't running to pressure Hillary to the left. Everyone knows that wouldn't last. Bernie was running to win. He just likes a issue based campaign rather than a negative one. Obviously there's a lot of low hanging fruit he could have attacked her with and probably should have. Trump won't hold back on that, and may even attack her from the left on the Iraq war and TPP.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

For the last time, Sanders was not running to win, unless you legitimately assumed he jumped into the race polling at 1% expecting to be able to win from the very beginning.

In 2014, Bernie said that he was thinking of running for President, but only if he could win. He was definitely not interested in being another Dennis Kucinch.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

For the last time, Sanders was not running to win, unless you legitimately assumed he jumped into the race polling at 1% expecting to be able to win from the very beginning.

In 2014, Bernie said that he was thinking of running for President, but only if he could win. He was definitely not interested in being another Dennis Kucinch.

Nobody jumps into the race and proclaims publicly, "I'm in it to lose it!".

Actually he said "People should not underestimate me" when he announced.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

For the last time, Sanders was not running to win, unless you legitimately assumed he jumped into the race polling at 1% expecting to be able to win from the very beginning.

In 2014, Bernie said that he was thinking of running for President, but only if he could win. He was definitely not interested in being another Dennis Kucinch.

Nobody jumps into the race and proclaims publicly, "I'm in it to lose it!".

Actually he said "People should not underestimate me" when he announced.

Oh, wow: a candidate made an overly-optimistic statement regarding their chances for winning the nomination? Well then! It must be an absolutely true statement regarding belief of winning the nomination, and not indicative of anything else or misleading at all!

Come on, you don't have any evidence for the idea that he wasn't running to win. His campaign said that he needed $40 million to compete in Iowa. Just because you didn't think he had a chance doesn't mean he wasn't seriously trying to win.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

For the last time, Sanders was not running to win, unless you legitimately assumed he jumped into the race polling at 1% expecting to be able to win from the very beginning.

In 2014, Bernie said that he was thinking of running for President, but only if he could win. He was definitely not interested in being another Dennis Kucinch.

Nobody jumps into the race and proclaims publicly, "I'm in it to lose it!".

Actually he said "People should not underestimate me" when he announced.

Oh, wow: a candidate made an overly-optimistic statement regarding their chances for winning the nomination? Well then! It must be an absolutely true statement regarding belief of winning the nomination, and not indicative of anything else or misleading at all!

Come on, you don't have any evidence for the idea that he wasn't running to win. His campaign said that he needed $40 million to compete in Iowa. Just because you didn't think he had a chance doesn't mean he wasn't seriously trying to win.

If he really thought he actually had a chance of winning then, he was either prophetic or ignorant, and I didn't see him carrying around a crystal ball.

Why do you need to be either? I knew that Hillary was much more vulnerable than people though.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

For the last time, Sanders was not running to win, unless you legitimately assumed he jumped into the race polling at 1% expecting to be able to win from the very beginning.

In 2014, Bernie said that he was thinking of running for President, but only if he could win. He was definitely not interested in being another Dennis Kucinch.

Nobody jumps into the race and proclaims publicly, "I'm in it to lose it!".

Actually he said "People should not underestimate me" when he announced.

Oh, wow: a candidate made an overly-optimistic statement regarding their chances for winning the nomination? Well then! It must be an absolutely true statement regarding belief of winning the nomination, and not indicative of anything else or misleading at all!

Come on, you don't have any evidence for the idea that he wasn't running to win. His campaign said that he needed $40 million to compete in Iowa. Just because you didn't think he had a chance doesn't mean he wasn't seriously trying to win.

If he really thought he actually had a chance of winning then, he was either prophetic or ignorant, and I didn't see him carrying around a crystal ball.

Why do you need to be either? I knew that Hillary was much more vulnerable than people though.

Maybe if Biden or Warren had run, but nobody in their right mind would have thought that an unknown 73 year old Democratic Socialist serving as an Independent could stand a chance.

I wasn't sure at first, but after maybe a month decided he had a good chance.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As far as who "won" goes, you know...it's actually possible for everyone to "win" based on their own criteria.

Sanders didn't enter the race expecting to be able to win the nomination. This should be very obvious - not only from his past comments, but also from tragic missteps in the form of taking certain attacks/strategy off the table until it was too late for them to derail Clinton. He entered to push Clinton to the left and to hopefully have influence on the Democratic Party platform and message. By that measurement - his measurement - he not only "won", but probably exceeded even his own expectations.

Clinton entered the race to win the Democratic nomination. This also is very obvious. By that measurement - her measurement - she won in the way she wanted to as well.

Bernie was't running to pressure Hillary to the left. Everyone knows that wouldn't last. Bernie was running to win. He just likes a issue based campaign rather than a negative one. Obviously he could have hammered the top secret emails, Saudi arms being used to killed Shia civilians after they gave money to the Clinton Foundation, voting against a diplomatic solution in Iraq

No - if he was running to win, then he wouldn't have taken the emails and corruption claims off the table until polling showed he had a shot. Those are issues, as he and his campaign have said as of late. They didn't want to damage the inevitable nominee in the beginning. When winning became viable, they acted just like any other campaign.

Didn't he start using those lines only after March 15th though? Which was when the contest essentially ended. His peak chance of victory was post NH/pre NV.

Well, when I said "corruption", I meant it in a general and broader sense: he began really hitting her on Wall Street in general when he had his first little spike in polling in early-to-mid fall, and on Goldman Sachs speeches right before IA (I think? Maybe it was right after IA). January was when he really starting tapping her. He never really hit her on the emails, and frankly, he couldn't after he said it was a non-issue.

He didn't say it was a non issue. He said he was sick of hearing about them, and that it was up to the FBI.

[○∙◄☻¥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%.

[○∙◄☻¥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.