'

springgreen2 said:

In an interview with Steve Kornacki just now, Benenson finally admitted that Hillary's advantage at this point is 220 delegates. This is a surmountable lead. 

So maybe it's time to lighten up...or not.

...which is the question for Bernie as well.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders faces a stark choice after suffering a defeat to rival Hillary Clinton in the New York primary.

The Vermont senator could maintain, or even escalate, his criticism of Clinton on issues such as her speeches to Wall Street. Or he could seek to dial down the tensions in the race, which could help unify the party heading into the Democratic National Convention this summer.

If he chooses to attack, Sanders risks creating a vicious circle, some Democratic insiders say.

“He has … been in this situation where in order to break out, he gets more negative. But the more negative or strident he gets, the worse he does,” said strategist Joe Trippi, who ran Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential bid. “In a classic campaign, you can’t get there unless you break some eggs. But the more eggs he breaks, the messier it gets and the worse it is for him.”The loss in New York Tuesday came after Sanders suggested Clinton’s ties to big business made her “unqualified” to be president. He also mocked her refusal to make public the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs. At several rallies, including one in Brooklyn two days before the primary, Sanders said Clinton’s words must have reached the standard of “Shakespearean prose,” given the $225,000 fee she received for delivering them.

But those lines of attack did not pay off for Sanders. He lost New York by 16 points — more than most polls had predicted — and appears to have little chance of overtaking Clinton in pledged delegates, barring an extraordinary change in the race.

the hill.com

Might be time for Bernie to call it a campaign. If he loses big in MD (down 25 pts), PA (down 12), and CT (down 9) I'll start to wonder if he's intentionally trying to sabotage HRC. At some point it's just math. I guess he could hold out hope for a blowout in California, but he's down there too.

He needs new material as well.  His release the transcripts-break up the big banks spiel is worn out.

springgreen2 said:

phenixrising said:

.

Looks just like Hillary!

Even if Hillary wins New York, Bernie could still catch up. 220 delegate difference is not insurmountable. 

Where did you get that from? Every estimate I've seen show Clinton ahead by over 250 in pledges delegates.

Google "democratic delegate count".

tjohn said:

He needs new material as well.  His release the transcripts-break up the big banks spiel is worn out.

And new commercials. Maybe I've missed something but every Bernie commercial I've seen is a "bank" or a "Wall St" commercial. Stale.

BG9 said:

springgreen2 said:

phenixrising said:

.

Looks just like Hillary!

Even if Hillary wins New York, Bernie could still catch up. 220 delegate difference is not insurmountable. 

Where did you get that from? Every estimate I've seen show Clinton ahead by over 250 in pledges delegates.

Google "democratic delegate count".

I wrote this before the New York primary, when that was the count. Before NY, Steve Kornacki actually said it was 210.

tjohn said:

He needs new material as well.  His release the transcripts-break up the big banks spiel is worn out.

Have they been released?  Have the banks been broken up?  I'm glad someone is focused on these things.  I'd love to read those transcripts, and I think he's right about the banks.  

If she would only be consistent, I would not think of her as a hypocrite.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/540672/hillary-clinton-paid-female-staff-72-cents-each-dollar-paid-men-when-senator

springgreen2 said:

If she would only be consistent, I would not think of her as a hypocrite.




http://theweek.com/speedreads/540672/hillary-clinton-paid-female-staff-72-cents-each-dollar-paid-men-when-senator

factcheck.org came to a more nuanced answer.

Pushing back against that analysis, the Clinton campaign provided FactCheck.org a list of the names, titles and annual salaries of every full-time person employed in Clinton’s Senate office between 2002 and 2008. Those data show the median salary for men and women to be the same at $40,000. The data also show Clinton hired roughly twice as many women as men.

Also, the Free Beacon reporter who came up with this initially refused to provide the raw data showing how the 72 cents on the dollar difference was gotten.

The Free Beacon reporter who prepared the report, Brent Scher, declined to provide us with the raw data from his analysis to compare with the data from the Clinton campaign.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/gender-pay-gap-in-clintons-senate-office/

Also, http://correctrecord.org/gop-recycles-debunked-attack/

Do you ever get thanked by the right wing machine for spreading misleading info? Doing the work of Sean Hannity, the RNC, Washington Times (not Post), the Free Beacon (which initiated this attack on Clinton) and other far right organizations? If not, you should.

You could have very easily found this with a Google search "did clinton pay female staffers less as senator". But you're really not interested in that, are you?

'

springgreen2 said:

You could have very easily found this with a Google search "did clinton pay female staffers less as senator". But you're really not interested in that, are you?

But I did not. A friend posted it on facebook.

It was on the internet it HAD to be true  Dont  cha know?

librarylady said:

springgreen2 said:

You could have very easily found this with a Google search "did clinton pay female staffers less as senator". But you're really not interested in that, are you?

But I did not. A friend posted it on facebook.

It was on the internet it HAD to be true  Dont  cha know?

But because it is about Hillary, and it's not good, it must be false, doncha know!

springgreen2 said:

You could have very easily found this with a Google search "did clinton pay female staffers less as senator". But you're really not interested in that, are you?

But I did not. A friend posted it on facebook.

People post all sorts of BS on facebook.  If I posted on facebook that you were a pedophile would you want people to just re-post it or would you want them to actually check into it.  Personally, I'm starting to wonder if you are a Bernie supporter or if you are a foxnews plant on the hunt for Clinton.  Your integrity is non-existent.  I support Bernie and his message and many of my friends do also, and none of them spew the crap that you do.  Bernie has a message that is positive and hopeful of change, you just spread hate and smears.  Please stop saying that you support Sanders, I doubt if he wants you on his side.

'

-

-

damn, what'd I miss?

jeffhandy said:

People post all sorts of BS on facebook.  

My facebook newsfeed is full of chemtrails, 9/11 conspiracy crap, and flat earth believers.  I wish I were making this up.

Hahaha said:

damn, what'd I miss?

Oh I[m sure some bored jerk will fill you in.

I'd like to shut down this whole thread. It's my thread. I don't care any more.

Speaking of chemtrails, can we ask the government to add some prozac to the mix?

Spew your crap.

springgreen2 said:

Spew your crap.

I meant it sarcastically in regards to the flat earth people, 9/11 conspiracy people, and chemtrail conspiracy people would calm down and stop freaking out about all their imagined conspiracies.  But if you want to believe that it was directed at you then that's cool too.