We just hear more about Sander because white guys control a lot of the levers of power and get to decide the media narrative.

If people in power truly were trying to dictate the media narrative in favour of Bernie, I don't think you would've had virtually everyone in the party and the media insisting day in and day out how he never stood a chance and was unelectable, no matter how many races we won.
I don't know if he'll get the nomination, but I don't think it's a fair assessment to say he's had the support of powerful white people, when basically the entire Democratic Party and the media have from day 1 treated him as a slight obstacle in the way of Hillary Clinton. She's always been the one with the advantage.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

You can't discount Senator Sanders because he lost New York. For crying out loud, it was Secretary Clinton's home state. Look at Trump, whose home state is also New York. He won the state decisively, but Senator Cruz isn't down and out for the count. There is still a chance that the Democratic superdelegates would switch over from Secretary Clinton to Senator Sanders as much as it is that Trump doesn't make it to 1,237 delegates by the Convention, at which point, he could get screwed over by the RNC. Long story short, the race isn't over until we get to the Convention.

Snip, snip, snip. The superdelegates aren't going to support Sanders unless he overtakes Hillary which he won't. Plus it would be incredibly hypocritical if he won by superdelegates as his supports and I believe he calls them "undemocratic" and "unfair." The fact that you are saying to win, the superdelegates would have to go against the will of the people? That shows what a bad place you are in. Snip.

It's not hypocritical on Senator Sanders' part. As a Bernie supporter, I don't like the fact that there are superdelegates, but Bernie is playing by the DNC's rules. And where exactly is "the will of the people?" Media outlets claim that Clinton is up by two million or so votes, but there are a number of states (especially Washington) where the votes were not announced. Furthermore, there are states where Senator Sanders had victories or close losses, only to be cancelled out by the superdelegates. Examples:

• Illinois, Clinton wins 50.5% vs. 48.7% (78 bound + 22 unbound = 100 for Clinton vs. 78 bound + 0 unbound = 78 for Sanders) WTF?!
  
• Massachusetts, Clinton wins 50.1% to 48.7% (46 bound + 16 unbound = 62 for Clinton vs. 45 bound + 1 unbound = 46 for Sanders) WTF?!
  
• Iowa, Clinton wins 49.9% to 49.6 (23 bound + 7 unbound = 30 for Clinton vs. 21 bound + 0 unbound = 21 for Sanders) WTF?!
  
• Missouri, Clinton wins 49.6% to 49.4% (36 bound + 11 unbound = 47 for Clinton vs. 35 bound + 0 unbound = 35 for Sanders WTF?!
  
• Michigan, Sanders wins 49.68% to 48.26% (63 bound + 10 unbound = 73 for Clinton vs. 67 bound + 0 unbound = 67 for Sanders) WTF?!
  
• Wyoming, Sanders wins 55.7% to 44.3% (7 bound + 4 unbound = 11 for Clinton vs. 7 bound + 0 unbound = 7 for Sanders) WTF?!
  
• Nebraska, Sanders wins 57.1% to 42.9% (10 bound + 3 unbound = 13 for Clinton vs. 15 bound + 0 unbound = 15 for Sanders) WTF?!
  
• New Hampshire, Sanders wins 60.98% to 38.20% (9 bound + 6 unbound = 15 for Clinton vs. 15 bound + 0 unbound = 15 for Sanders) WTF?!
  
• Minnesota, Sanders wins 61.6% to 38.4% (31 bound + 12 unbound = 43 for Clinton vs. 46 bound + 3 unbound = 49 for Sanders) (49÷92=.5326 vs 61.6%)
  
• Hawaii, Sanders wins 69.8% to 30.0% (8 bound + 6 unbound = 14 for Clinton vs. 17 bound + 2 unbound = 19 for Sanders) (19÷33=.576 vs. 69.8%)
  

In Nebraska, Sanders only has two more delegates than Clinton, even though he won 57.1% of the vote. In New Hampshire, Michigan, and Wyoming, Sanders won the vote, but Clinton won as many or more delegates. In such close races in Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and Massachusetts, why does Clinton have many more delegates than Sanders? Illinois is a great example. Both candidates won 78 bound delegates each, but 22 superdelegates for Clinton versus zero for Sanders gives Clinton a bigger win. Literally, WTF?! In the Northern Marianas territory, Clinton won with 54.0% of the vote, but ended up with four bound and five superdelegates (nine total) versus two bound and zero superdelegates (two total) for Sanders, meaning she got 81.8% of the total delegates despite winning 54.0% of the vote. Who's against the will of the people now?

Also, let's not forget the superdelegates who have already pledged their support. Take California, my home state, for example. There are 48 superdelegates that have already endorsed Clinton versus zero for Sanders. In California, Sanders is already at a significant disadvantage, and the primary election in this state is not until June 7. Again, WTF?! If you were to exclude the superdelegates from this race altogether, Clinton would have 1,446 and Sanders with 1,205, which is close.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 04-20-2016, 11:38 PM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

We just hear more about Sander because white guys control a lot of the levers of power and get to decide the media narrative.

If people in power truly were trying to dictate the media narrative in favour of Bernie, I don't think you would've had virtually everyone in the party and the media insisting day in and day out how he never stood a chance and was unelectable, no matter how many races we won.
I don't know if he'll get the nomination, but I don't think it's a fair assessment to say he's had the support of powerful white people, when basically the entire Democratic Party and the media have from day 1 treated him as a slight obstacle in the way of Hillary Clinton. She's always been the one with the advantage.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that his "momentum" is overstated because the people who support him often run in the same circles as the people who cover the race.

It's not a secret that we have a huge problem of representation in the media industries. People who make these decisions are overwhelming white, straight men from middle-to-upper class backgrounds who live in urban areas (and by and large New York). That's not in question. If people who made these decisions were black, queer women who lived in rural Mississippi, there would be a different situation.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Has his momentum really been overstated, though? All I see is media articles saying every win of his is nice, but doesn't change the narrative that Hillary will win. Sure, some don't do that, but the overwhelming position is distinctly pro-Hillary.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

Has his momentum really been overstated, though? All I see is media articles saying every win of his is nice, but doesn't change the narrative that Hillary will win. Sure, some don't do that, but the overwhelming position is distinctly pro-Hillary.

Let's not forget that early on, as you said Kris, the media hasn't been Bernie-friendly. Early on in this race, the media made it look like that Clinton's nomination was a walk in the park. They did for Jeb too, but Trump is an exception to this. If the media took Bernie more seriously last year, there would be a totally different dynamic in this race today.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 04-20-2016, 10:02 PM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

Qvait it is a big lead though, it's a larger lead than Obama had over Hillary in 08 and you are getting very desperate now saying that it's the media's fault Sanders is failing. He is unelectable just accept the truth. The reasons I think he is unelectable are because he is a single issue candidate (and if any smart arse gives me a link to his website I'll go mental as you know fully well by what I mean about a single issue candidate), he has unrealistic ideas eg Universal Healthcare and finally he is a socialist. Please guys I urge you to accept the fact that Sanders has lost and start campaigning for Hillary, not just for the primary but for the general election. If I was Sanders advisor I'd say get out of the race, you aren't going to win and you hold much more influence not being the nominee than being the nominee, use it! The party needs to start to unite behind Hillary and start to get ready to take on the GOP and keep the White House in Democratic hands,

Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member
Former Minister of Regional Affairs
Former High Court Justice

Reply

You're not interested in him winning. Of course you'd tell him to withdraw. I mean, seriously, can you fault a Sanders support for...supporting Sanders?

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

The GOP is over. It has become a feudal party. Assuming Sanders gets the nomination, expect a resounding Democratic win. Assuming Clinton gets it, assume another win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

Reply

The GOP is over. It has become a feudal party. Assuming Sanders gets the nomination, expect a resounding Democratic win. Assuming Clinton gets it, assume another win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The GOP is going to have to do some major soul-searching in the next four years. The Party is going to have to accept that it has lost the debate in:

• Abortion
  
• Climate change
  
• Gay marriage
  
• Marijuana
  

[Image: bplgz4vavkyps762r8vilq.png]

For sure, the GOP has lost in the debate on gay marriage. After Obergefell v. Hodges was decided last year, gay marriage is legal in all fifty states, not to mention that 50% of Millennial Republicans support gay marriage. According to an October 2015 Gallup poll, 58% of Americans support the legalization of marijuana. Globally, climate change is accepted across the spectrum, except in the United States where the GOP's politicians, who know that climate change is real, lies to their voters to get elected.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

God it isn't white guys. -.- Sanders leads among young voters(18-29) at almost 80%. That's where his momentum is, not with whites, but with the young. I'm so sick of the bullshit "White, Rural, weird" paint that the media's given us.

Res — look at the poll numbers. The best predictor of how Sanders does if whether or not there is an higher than average minority population.

It's indisputable that the youth are in his camp — sure. But look at where the rest of this support is coming from?

Equally, I'd venture a guess that if you break 18-29 year olds down by demo, he's doing better with white guys than everyone else. Age and other demographic factors aren't mutually exclusive.

Hawaii is less than half white >_>

Darkstrait  :ninja:

Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek

"Hats is very fashion this year."

RP Info

The Socialist Federated Democracy of Darkstrait
Ruled by Archchancellor Ridcully
Member nation of the United Front
[Image: 4ma0p5y.png]

Reply