2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders team hoping to flip Clinton superdelegates this summer
By Daniel Strauss
04/19/16
Bernie Sanders' campaign is not going away.
Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said Tuesday night that even if, at the end of all the primaries, Hillary Clinton has won the delegates she needs for the nomination and still leads the popular vote, the Vermont Senator's team will spend the months ahead of the Democratic National Convention working to flip her superdelegates to Sanders' team.
MSNBC's Steve Kornacki asked Weaver about that scenario on Tuesday after the New York Democratic primary was called for Clinton.
"At this point yes, absolutely," Weaver said in response.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/sanders-campaign-manager-222180
Either Weaver is talking out of his backside or Sanders' campaign has gone off the rails. No sense of reality.....
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)lol
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)Hillary already has the majority of super delegates on her side. Why would they switch to Sanders if she makes it to the convention ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote? They can't be that delusional, therefore, I go with disingenuous. Weaver and Devine know that they are just plain lying to the media and his supporters.
rock
(13,218 posts)From their loyal (and deluded) followers.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)1991 than 2015.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)that they would attempt to subvert the will of the people. Democracy? What democracy? Do they think that they are in Cuba or Chavez' Venezuela? Maybe Putin's Russia.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)puffy socks
(1,473 posts)states where he won the popular vote ?
Beacool
(30,250 posts)still_one
(92,325 posts)primaries. Tad Devine would be destroying his career if he tries to sabotage the Democratic party by trying to hijack the Super Delegates
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Who the hell do they think they're fooling??? Both have been around the block long enough to know that whichever candidate has the most pledged delegates will be the nominee. At this point, they are just behaving like lying weasels. Their spiel is only for Sanders supporters' ears, a way to keep them energized and voting. Both of them know full well that their candidate will not be the nominee.
still_one
(92,325 posts)that and be considered seriously, especially if Hillary does well next week.
Actually, the numbers are pretty much over for them, and the campaign should start toning down the anti-Hillary rants
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Sanders will continue his criticism of the establishment and the 1%, but I think that he will not make any attacks against Hillary.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I highly doubt that any "corporate whores" are going to flip for a LOSER that trails Hillary by MILLIONS of votes!
WTH kinda drugs are these idiots on anyway???
Beacool
(30,250 posts)He gave it his all and brought into the political process many young people, but at some point he'll have to face the reality on the ground. I do think, though, that Weaver and Devine are shameless hustlers giving Sanders bad advice.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)Bernie may have gotten a bit too robust with some of his comments
but at the end of the day he knows the Republibans are a disaster.
Weaver and Devine are hustlers and the promise to take it to the convention
and hope to flip undeclared delegates is just some red meat for Bernies supporters.
They will continue to raise money and campaign in each state but I'm expecting
the rhetoric to be toned down over the next months and Bernie will
endorse her at the convention and encourage his
supporters to vote for her.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)If they can influence them into switching to him, sweet! More power to him, sayeth I.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)There's zero chance that super delegates would switch to a candidate who is behind in pledged delegates and the popular vote. It's not going to happen.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Stealing an election is an act of fraud, not a voluntary act by super delegates. Sorry.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)because of Superdelegates and not because of the will of the voters, it would be stealing the election and it would tear the Democratic Party apart. Why isn't it stealing the election if BS does it? What excuse could possibly exist for it to be wrong for Secretary Clinton and ok for BS?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)`
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)After next Tuesday it will become clearer that there's no path ahead for Sanders. He'll probably stay until all states have voted, but I doubt that he would try to flip super delegates. That would go against any democratic principle.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It is an Oligarchy.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/21/law-professor-explains-why-hillary-clinton-wont/209438
University of Michigan Professor of Law and Sociology and former Department of Homeland Security classification expert Richard Lempert debunked common right-wing talking points about the FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a personal server for government emails to explain why Clinton "won't be indicted and shouldn't be."
Right-wing media have hyped the idea of an imminent criminal indictment over Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server despite experts consistently debunking claims that Clinton violated the law. In a March piece for American Prospect, Lempert wrote that Clinton's email use did not constitute criminal conduct, noting that relevant law says one must "knowingly and willfully" disclose "certain categories of classified information" to violate the statutes regarding the disclosure of classified information. Lempert explained that Clinton "would have had to know she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States." He also noted that heads of agencies, such as Secretary of State, "have considerable authority with respect to classified information," including declassifying material their agency has classified (emphasis original):
http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis
News reports suggest that the FBI is nearing the end of its inquiry into the legal issues surrounding Hillary Clintons use of a personal server for government emails and into the legal ramifications of classified information found in messages to and from her. Most of the reportingand virtually all political discussionreads as if reporters and pundits know little about the rules regarding the classification of information and what they imply not just for the likelihood of a Clinton indictment but also for whether she violated other rules regarding the proper handling of classified information, whether or not the violations constitute crimes.
What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate. In this discussion, I offer answers to questions about the former secretary of states email that have not been frequently asked, but should be.
SNIP
Add to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
w4rma
(31,700 posts)"The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clintons is likely to be."
I don't see how Clinton suckering her associates into committing crimes is an improvement.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)vdogg
(1,384 posts)Are literally going to subvert the will of the people and steal the election despite Hillary having won more pledged delegates and the popular vote? Typical. I don't want to hear any more bullshit about Bernie being the bastion of integrity. This tactic is just as slimy as it gets, he should be ashamed of himself.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)and has been supporting down-ticket candidates. She is a life-long Democrat - not a Johnny-come-lately.
Why in the world would they change their support to Bernie? Makes no sense.
livetohike
(22,156 posts)ears bleed? Hard to accept that everyone on the planet doesn't feel the Bern?
Got to keep those donations coming in.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)It was a bad idea to sue the DNC after his folks infiltrated the Clinton data...doubt the super- delegates are feeling friendly to a guy who does not have the majority of pledged delegates and behaves this way... and who just yesterday attacked Democrats down ballot and Sen. Clinton with a campaign finance complaint. Then he sent a fund raising letter using it...I heard it was a last minute attack using a discredited Politico story.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)sweepstakes. And I think my chances are a lot better than theirs.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)NEVER.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)It truly is a pathetic spectacle.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)to go against the candidate with the most pledged delegates.