Home | About | Donate

Sanders’ Wins In West Virginia, Indiana Prove He Should Fight To The Convention


#1

Sanders’ Wins In West Virginia, Indiana Prove He Should Fight To The Convention

Kevin Gosztola

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders won a landslide victory in West Virginia on May 10, beating Hillary Clinton by fifteen points. With that victory, Sanders has won 19 state primaries, and his campaign is now in a position to do very well in the remaining primaries.

West Virginia is a state, where Clinton crushed Obama and won by over 40 points in 2008. This time around she lost by double digits.


#2

Thank you, Kevin Gosztola...

You hit all the key points and issues, particularly Nader's comment.

The farce being propped up as FAIR is so beyond the pale that anyone who genuinely believes in Democracy can't accept what's going on.

I think Bernie will win the majority of remaining states. But whether super-delegates, many of which have been patently bought will do the right thing and stand with voters is yet to be seen.

Still, this battle can't fade into another "chads" debacle decided by the equivalent of another set of bystanders... before, the Supreme Court, in 2004 the programmers of Ohio's touch voting machines, and now the super-delegate regime.

Enough!

EVERYTHING is at stake.


#5

Sanders is apparently doing what Clinton did in 2008 and staying in until the end of the primaries. Obama did not have enough pledged delegates to win when the primaries ended in 2008 but Clinton threw in the towel anyway, perhaps to get help paying off millions in campaign debts. It seems likely that Clinton will reach the magic number of pledged delegates by the end of the primaries this time around. If she does, I would think that would end the contest. If she doesn't perhaps Sanders will take the fight to the convention although at the moment that would seem rather pointless. With two closed primaries coming up next Tuesday in Kentucky and Oregon and Clinton leading in Oregon by 15 points in the latest poll perhaps the this contest will end sooner than people think.


#6

"Finally, the establishment news media push this narrative that the Sanders campaign is bringing undue hardship to the Clinton campaign that will impair its ability to defeat Trump."

I'm listening to Senator Sanders at a town hall type meeting on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. So let the establishment media wallow in their own self importance, Bernie is listening to the people on this reservation, he is listening and responding. Native Americans deserve Bernie's presence, his attention, indeed, every candidate should be stopping and meeting with these people. They have given so much to this nation. The hell with the Clinton campaign.


#8

Unless Clinton wins enough pledged delegates to cross the
2,384-threshold, she will not clinch the nomination before the
convention.

I have been saying this for some time now. Hillary would have to win all the remaining primaries by a huge margin to have enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination before the convention. THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN.


#9

Do you really think she can win 74% of the remaining pledged delegates? If so, you are smoking some serious weed. IS.NOT.HAPPENING.


#10

It's more likely that Bernie would win 66% of the remaining delegates, which would give him more pledged delegates than Hillary has.


#11

"Spoiler! Spoiler!"

I get so sick of that. It's absurd. It's like saying you should quit the marathon since you're distracting the cameras away from the front-runner.

The Red Tyrant Queen has no right to rule.

And the insightful Ralph Nader has correctly distilled the problem down to: The Democrats are taking public money, Federal Funding to run their primaries: THEREFORE, they have to let independents and even Trump supporters vote in Democratic primaries in ALL 50 STATES, goddam it! If you make me, the independent taxpayer pay for this Democrat Party Primary, then, Goddamit, I should be allowed to help pick the candidate in a fair Open primary!

I'm of a twisted mind to vote for Trump if they deny Bernie as the people's will.

Trump, despite being a vain, petty, greedy con-man who reportedly has surrounded himself with Poppy Bush cronies, has these things going for him: He Claims:

• To oppose the totalitarian TPP, TIPP UN-Free Trade Agreements, which will decimate EPA and Labor Rights in the USA, in favor of an un-elected board of CEOs and Banksters from Wall Street who will out-rank the US Constitution!

• To Oppose Quagmires like the Iraq War. He knows 911 was a fraud and he has threatened to reveal who really did it: The Oil Mob/Pentagram/MIC/Saudis/with Silverstein/Bush???? (Hey, the man has high-rises in that town, he knows who knocked those towers down.)

• NOT to cut Social Security Benefits!

These are huge Progressive issues coming from an outsider (we hope.) Ladies and Gentlemen, Clinton will not promise any of these things, or if she does, she's changed her positions of just a month ago. Very, very risky to trust her and the Banksters standing behind her.....

What do you think? I want to hear an educated rebuttal to my points.

TJ


#12

C'mon, T.J. Your white male privilege is showing and blinding you.

Trump mentioned carpetbagging the whole Middle East to get rid of Isis.

Trump thinks a wall is needed to keep out all those "dirty Mexicans."

Does either comment show the remotest understanding of:

  1. The role the U.S. military (along with NATO) played in destroying the Middle East... in other words playing Dr. Frankenstein to launch the monster (ISIS today, Al Queda, yesterday, etc.)

  2. How NAFTA and other "free" trade policies raped the economies of Mexico and Central American nations. And that as a RESULT of this financial ruin, many have sought some kind of desperate financial refuge inside the U.S. doing the crummiest jobs.

He speaks in blanket judgments and immature, ignorant generalizations. These are the "with us or against us" level of intellectual commerce. Perfect for setting up winners and losers, or targets for the MIC to blithely shoot at.

He is a billionaire who makes deals that enrich himself. Such an individual has ZERO empathy for workers who can't put food on their tables.

He has ZERO understanding or interest in climate change.

Do you think this planet has 4 more years of Energy Business as usual?

He's a closet racist and misogynist... and a narcissist.

I am one who understands that since the demise of JFK, Presidents mostly serve as Masters of Ceremony. (Serious decisions are forged by covert members of the Deep State.)

Granted, "the Donald" might be entertaining to other dictators... but putting this individual front and center would turn this nation into even more of a lethal and dangerous comedy act.

You say you live in the Philippines... so this may be up your alley:

Siouxrose11
1m
Thomas_Jefferson

C'mon, T.J. Your white male privilege is showing and blinding you.

Trump mentioned carpetbagging the whole Middle East to get rid of Isis.

Trump thinks a wall is needed to keep out all those "dirty Mexicans."

Does either comment show the remotest understanding of:

The role the U.S. military (along with NATO) played in destroying the Middle East... in other words playing Dr. Frankenstein to launch the monster (ISIS today, Al Queda, yesterday, etc.)

How NAFTA and other "free" trade policies raped the economies of Mexico and Central American nations. And that as a RESULT of this financial ruin, many have sought some kind of desperate financial refuge inside the U.S. doing the crummiest jobs.

He speaks in blanket judgments and immature, ignorant generalizations. These are the "with us or against us" level of intellectual commerce. Perfect for setting up winners and losers, or targets for the MIC to blithely shoot at.

He is a billionaire who makes deals that enrich himself. Such an individual has ZERO empathy for workers who can't put food on their tables.

He has ZERO understanding or interest in climate change.

Do you think this planet has 4 more years of Energy Business as usual?

He's a closet racist and misogynist... and a narcissist.

I am one who understands that since the demise of JFK, Presidents mostly serve as Masters of Ceremony. (Serious decisions are forged by covert members of the Deep State.)

Granted, "the Donald" might be entertaining to other dictators... but putting this individual front and center would turn this nation into even more of a lethal and dangerous comedy act.


#14

"until all 50 states have voted"

Only 50 states can vote? You mean we in the UK are not allowed to vote?


#15

That only seems fair George. After all, you Limeys started it when you wouldn't let us simple American "Provincials" vote on London Taxes on Tea, Malt, Molasses, Shirtbuttons, etc etc. :grin: In fact, Ben Franklin begged to get the Stamp Act and other ridiculous taxes on every piece of paper reconsidered, and the house of Lords laughed him out of the chamber.

Do you know who really started the American Revolution? It was a BEER maker. :joy: Rev. Samuel Adams (Malt supplier in Boston.) He thundered against the injustice of taxes without representation every Sunday from the pulpit. He said it was the same as the Israelites being made slaves by the Pharaohs! He was so bombastic against London that King George III refused to give him a pardon in peace negotiations with his cousin John Adams and Ben Frankin, so the war was on.

Hey, you mess with American's Beer or Football you are playing with fire! :laughing:


#16

After the hysteria whipped up by the GOP over wild accusations against the Clintons, (Whitewater, Lewinsky, Bengazi), it's ominous they are so quiet about the disturbing facts surrounding HRC's home email server. I smell an ambush. Bernie needs to be there to catch the nomination when Hillary falls.


#17

Another post against Sanders by tomjohnson.

Tom, tell me again how you support him.


#19

No annihilation without representation!

Give me Liberty, not bad breath!

Dammit, income tax and other taxes were higher in our Sceptered Isle Set in a Silver Sea (when was the North Sea last silver? Don't answer that question) than they were in our north American colonies back in them thar days. Ingrates; we paid good money to save you from the French.

I wouldn't deign to mess with the USA's beer; it is so weak that it is not worth even taxing let alone drinking (yes, I have drunk Budweiser and Coors and others equally forgettable), and as for what the USA calls "football", that game of overweight heavily armoured men bumping into each other is an insult to the name; you Yankees can keep it. Indeed, to try to enhance the impossible, the USA now imports Australians who actually know how to run and kick the ball.

Maybe Sam Adams made a decent beer? Now there is a marketing opportunity.......mmmm......do you have the recipe?

But please, if you lot don't want Bernie Sanders as POTUS, can we have him?


#21

Normally, the Presidential Candidates were all funded by Special Interests who would decide to stop cutting checks when their bets no longer seemed likely to pay off.
Bernie, funded by We the People, lasts as long as We do and We are holding on for dear life.


#22

Sanders at a rally in Salem, Oregon 5/10 talking about the differences between Clinton and himself:


#24

I've yet to see you post something positive about Sanders.


#25

Some good ideas there George. But forcing people to vote or go to jail if they can't afford the fine is something reserved for totalitarian states. Why remove a citizen's right to boycott the whole corrupt process if he deems it a farce? That is the case today in America. Most of us don't vote because it is so corrupt. We de-legitimize the entire process by refusing to submit to such a silly Dog and Pony Show. If our guys Nader or Sanders are not allowed on the ballot nor alllowed on prime-time debates, then shove that ballot up the One Percenter's Fake Democracy!

Now you want to give us your first seven points, then it's worth showing up!

Cheers
TJ
Son of Liberty


#26

Note that I recommended a no confidence box on the ballot paper for those who are disillusioned by the candidates, the rider to the scheme being that enough people vote no confidence, none of the candidates at all are allowed to run for office for at least 7 years. Compulsory voting sorts out the problem caused by people not voting, which allowed Maggot Thatcher to dominate the House of Commons with no more than around 22% or 28% of the total vote. No, people don't go to jail for not voting in Ozlandia; the fine is peanuts.

Have a lovely day
G_III
Son of Tyranny


#27

I have little faith in you convincing Ctrl-z , any non cheerful post about Sanders is constituted as criticism.

Sanders effectively lost yet he still spends money on anti Clinton effort rather then attacking Trump.