SultanOfSwing

I guess it makes sense looking at it that way but it's still quite a disconnect. To me, anyway.

The whole establishment/anti-establishment thing doesn't register for me. I was jaded and disaffected, then Sanders announced his intention to run, so I actively supported him because I mostly agree with him. Now I'm back to being jaded and disaffected again after yet another run of election BS and I just want the whole thing to be over.

But one must be part of the process or else one can't complain, and in the absence of a candidate that actually speaks to my views as closely as Sanders does, Clinton will get my vote as Obama did in 2012.

It'll be tight, I bet, neither candidate is going to run away with the general. That could also be utter shite, who knows?

zargof

Kirk is interesting as he's figured that supporting Trump is going to hurt his reelection bid more than not supporting him. I wonder will he also lose RNC support for this.

SultanOfSwing

Mark Kirk is my senator. Not that that is of any interest to anyone, but pertinent to the discussion about cross-party stuff way earlier on in the thread but I actually voted for him in 2012 because he aligned with my positions more than the Democratic candidate at the time did.

zargof

I think this is the important difference. If Sanders hadn't run you would still have voted for Clinton in the general. The people we're talking about would not have been voting for Clinton anyway. If Clinton does make accommodations to win these Sanders supporters, then it's a win-win.

sir_eccles

They probably wouldn't have been voting full stop.

zargof

Most of them yes, but I suspect there would be some Stein voters in there as well.

SultanOfSwing

Unless someone else ran that was more in tune with my views, that's right.

A lot of them, as you say, wouldn't vote for Clinton, or even Democrat. I believe Sanders did gain the support of some who were previously Republicans.

johnwoo

Got the purple thumbs up for Bernie today. There were only two of us voting when I went. No long lines ever around here.
Still debating whether to vote for Hilary depends on how close it looks, I think she will take California without my vote. Not sure if can pinch my nose long enough to vote for her.

sir_eccles

Results coming in, NJ called for Hillary. She is up in NM, SD.

dakota44

Not looking good for Bernie tonight. He is also losing in S. Dakota.

Bernie supporters are still living their fantasy. They do not see the 3 million vote lead by Clinton and a 291 pledged delegate lead before tonight.

She will finish with a huge lead in popular vote and a big lead in pledged delegates...not super delegates...delegates won at the polls.

Bernie bros will then insist that Super delegates switch to the candidate that lost both popular vote and delegates won....because screw the voters and democracy. Sounds like the kind of election rigging they have been whining about...only the real kind.

scrubbedexpat099

dakota44

Like anyone should believe him. A little history on him.
He has had a hate on for the Clintons ever since this.


"You may remember him as the campaign manager for Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, the one who stepped down in disgrace when it was revealed that he allowed a prostitute to listen in on conversations with the president. She said Morris had a thing for toe sucking"

sir_eccles

538 think Hillary will have a majority of pledged delegates after tonight.

dakota44

They are not exactly taking a big leap.
She will have. Sanders would have needed 565 of the available pledged delegates in all remaining primaries. 565 out of 720 to beat her by 1. Mathematically impossible.

username.exe

Hillary is winning by a very big margin here in California.

Based on my very unscientific poll of observing bumper stickers, I was expecting a much closer margin.