I don't know any more, I think those hypothetical match up poles that have Bernie beating Trump by a higher margin than Clinton don't take into account the fallout from the only way he could be nominated now, if nearly all of the super delegates decide to overturn the result of the primary. And that would seriously piss off the majority of Democratic primary voters.

If it actually went down that way, I don't think Bernie would be up in the poles given how many Clinton supporters would feel cheated and betrayed by the party. I know that's ironic since Sanders supporters already feel that way, but overturning the primary is an epic level of shenanigans that would eclipse anything done to Sanders.

The only hope for a Sanders nomination is if Clinton implodes in the next 3 weeks, like by being indicted. Otherwise I think the best he can do is what he's been saying, try to affect the party platform.

While we should be outraged by the idea that party leaders know better than the primary voters, Donald Trump is a powerful counter argument. I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans adopt a similar system after this disaster.

One reason it's not yet completely hopeless for Bernie is that superdelegates, even those who say they're "pledged" to one candidate can change their mind at any time. Superdelegates exist to override the will of the people, but the DNC knows that actually doing this would alienate voters.

One point...from what I saw, Bernie DIDN'T question Hillary's credentials as a progressive, he was questioned ABOUT Hillary's credentials, and he answered the question based on her own record/statements. In no way is that unfair or unseemly, indeed it's the proper way to delineate the distinctions between the two candidates.

I think we've seen now a few times that Hillary changed a view and a vote in favor of those who gave her large 'donations'. She can claim all she wants that it wasn't because of the huge sums of money she's been given, but she won't be convincing anyone of that who's not already firmly on her side.

It's really a crying shame that the fix is clearly in and, if the 'leaders' of the Democratic party have anything to do with it (and make no mistake, they do have control), Hillary will be the nominee, primary voters be damned. Sadly, that likely leaves us with President Trump, as polls show them in a dead heat (Clinton and Trump) but Trump's support is growing and Clinton's is shrinking.

#feeltheburnfromthefingersinthebootyassbitch

This would matter in the primaries if Republican primary voters had memories that didn't skip the gap between five minutes ago and the Regan era (most of which they mis-remember anyhow).

You think Obama has been vetted? By whom? The only thing about Obama that has been under the microscope is his personal life before politics. The media has spoken about his mother and his place of birth and his religion and his skin color and his wife until they were blue in the face.

Just because people are comfortable with him, doesn't mean they know anything about him. It's because he won the popularity contest that is the DNC by first landing in the good graces of the media.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1828309,00.html

Again, I don't like McCain and I know that there are people out there that are much more qualified to be VP than Palin.

Obama favors "pay-as-you-go" accounting so new spending or tax cuts are offset by program cuts or increased revenue, but he hasn't said how he would pay for all his tax proposals.

One thing in particular eats at me: How is he going to pay for universal-health-care and all his other promises? Is he going to give us all heath care by the time he leaves office? WHEN he doesn't make that happen, are the democrats going to hold him accountable?

What about the $482 Billion deficit? He's gonna save the American economy by cutting taxes, providing $300 Billion in guarantees for mortgage renegotiations, providing universal-health care and still, somehow, he'll manage to pay down the deficit?

All these promises have been vetted?



>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^deedub81:
@Fjnbk:
Yep. That's the difference. We haven't had an opportunity to vote for or against Palin. That's how it works.
The fact that Obama has campaigned longer doesn't mean he has more experience.

The bit about voting has become something of a lefty talking point, but saying "Everyone in the world has been vetting Obama since he declared his candidacy in January of 2007, and a majority of primary voters still chose him" is still a pretty sound argument that Americans have reached a comfort level with his ability to lead.
Add in that his campaign has employed more people, and commanded a larger budget than the Governor's office has, and the argument gets stronger still. Then consider that the Governor will naturally be focused on state-level concerns, while the Obama campaign has had to respond to questions about every area of the political landscape, from affirmative action to trade relations with China, and it gets stronger still.
Palin is unknown to most people, no one selected her in a primary, and the election is 62 days from now. McCain is 72 years old, with a medical history that includes cancer -- if he dies, she'll be President. What do we know about her?
Not a lot, and in just 4 days, the press has found quite a bit to be concerned about.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^deedub81:
@Fjnbk:
Yep. That's the difference. We haven't had an opportunity to vote for or against Palin. That's how it works.
The fact that Obama has campaigned longer doesn't mean he has more experience.

The bit about voting has become something of a lefty talking point, but saying "Everyone in the world has been vetting Obama since he declared his candidacy in January of 2007, and a majority of primary voters still chose him" is still a pretty sound argument that Americans have reached a comfort level with his ability to lead.

Add in that his campaign has employed more people, and commanded a larger budget than the Governor's office has, and the argument gets stronger still. Then consider that the Governor will naturally be focused on state-level concerns, while the Obama campaign has had to respond to questions about every area of the political landscape, from affirmative action to trade relations with China, and it gets stronger still.

Palin is unknown to most people, no one selected her in a primary, and the election is 62 days from now. McCain is 72 years old, with a medical history that includes cancer -- if he dies, she'll be President. What do we know about her?

Not a lot, and in just 4 days, the press has found quite a bit to be concerned about.

I was going to comment but you pretty much summed up my argument NetRunner.
Well said, and Thanks

>> ^deedub81:
@Fjnbk:
Yep. That's the difference. We haven't had an opportunity to vote for or against Palin. That's how it works.
The fact that Obama has campaigned longer doesn't mean he has more experience.

The bit about voting has become something of a lefty talking point, but saying "Everyone in the world has been vetting Obama since he declared his candidacy in January of 2007, and a majority of primary voters still chose him" is still a pretty sound argument that Americans have reached a comfort level with his ability to lead.

Add in that his campaign has employed more people, and commanded a larger budget than the Governor's office has, and the argument gets stronger still. Then consider that the Governor will naturally be focused on state-level concerns, while the Obama campaign has had to respond to questions about every area of the political landscape, from affirmative action to trade relations with China, and it gets stronger still.

Palin is unknown to most people, no one selected her in a primary, and the election is 62 days from now. McCain is 72 years old, with a medical history that includes cancer -- if he dies, she'll be President. What do we know about her?

Not a lot, and in just 4 days, the press has found quite a bit to be concerned about.

I like McCain's surge plan better than GWB's, although I am losing hope that a surge could really accomplish much for Iraq. For Iran, on the other hand . . .

I love it when candidates are attacked for shilling to the primary voters. It is a fun part of the American political game and I don't begrudge McCain for playing the game to win. If he wanted to be principled, then he could be the right's version of Dennis Kucinich. And never get out of Iowa.

Jon Stewart's line about the Straight Talk Express still rings true, though. "Has John McCain's Straight Talk Express been rerouted through Bullshit Town?"