Donald Trump

[Loz]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LM in any normal circumstances I would say conceding defeat would be the appropriate thing to

> do, but considering how unpopular Hilary is both inside the Democrat Party and out in the wider US

> electorate, it is the right thing to do.

The presidential race is now between Clinton and Trump. Sanders not conceding only helps Trump. How is that the right thing to do as a Democrat?

The problem is that Sanders has been a Democrat in name only - almost a flag of convenience. He's never really been part of the party, running under the banner only to get elected.

It's not as if Sanders is going to be able to run in 2020 - he'll be 79 by then. He's staying in for his own benefit only as one last hurrah. Even though his lasting legacy to will be to have been the man who helped Trump become President. Another Ralph Nader.

So, don't be too surprised if this 'man of principle' goes back on his word and tries to run as an independent or tries to be adopted by one of the minor parties.

[LondonMix]

He is

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was under the impression that Bill Clinton is

> remembered much more fondly over there than Tony

> Blair is over here...

[LondonMix]

That's not true. Polls suggest 75% of Sander supporters have said they will vote for Hillary. That combined with her own supporters, moderate republicans and independents is more than a solid enough base to win. Of course Sanders should do the right thing and actually unite the party further but let's see if he eventually gets over himself in time not to be remembered as the man who refused to concede to first democratically nominated female candidate in US history.

The majority of democrats by a significant margin have selected her as their candidate. If you really believe in democracy, that really the end of the story anyhow.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LM in any normal circumstances I would say

> conceding defeat would be the appropriate thing to

> do, but considering how unpopular Hilary is both

> inside the Democrat Party and out in the wider US

> electorate, it is the right thing to do. It's

> alarming that some working class Democrats are so

> anti-establishment that they would be prepared to

> vote Trump rather than Hilary. She's a polarising

> figure, as much, if not more so than Trump.

>

> Louisa.

[Louisa]

LM do you at least concede Hilary is a polarising figure, and putting aside the fact she is a woman (I don't personally see why someone's sex as being relevant), this whole contest inevitably comes down to choosing between one polarising figure and another polarising figure.

Louisa.

[Loz]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Of course Sanders should do the right thing and actually unite the party

> further but let's see if he eventually gets over himself in time not to be remembered as the man

> who refused to concede to first democratically nominated female candidate in US history.

Not that I think Sanders is doing the right thing (that should be obvious), but Clinton has not yet been democratically nominated. She does not have enough state pledged delegates (and never will) for a majority, and the superdelegates have yet to cast their vote.

The superdelegate numbers that have been appearing in papers are based on various factors and are almost certainly reasonably accurate, but are not results from an actual poll. That happens at the Democratic convention, starting in late July. Which is why another six weeks of pseudo-battle would only just benefit Trump.

[LondonMix]

Loz- I know that. In fact regardless of the vote tally, the nominee is always the presumptive nominee until the actual vote. This is the case for Trump even though no one else is running.

When I said democratically elected, I meant the candidate who won the most votes from the people. She has won the most actual votes (popular vote), the most states, and the most delegates.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/

Anyhow, just on the stated pledged delegates Clinton has 2,200 delegates. There are 715 super-delegates, 574 of which have said they will vote for her. You need 2,383 total delegates to win. Bernie Sanders has 48 super delegates that have pledged to vote for him. The numbers are beyond insurmountable.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Of course Sanders should do the right thing and

> actually unite the party

> > further but let's see if he eventually gets over

> himself in time not to be remembered as the man

> > who refused to concede to first democratically

> nominated female candidate in US history.

>

> Not that I think Sanders is doing the right thing

> (that should be obvious), but Clinton has not yet

> been democratically nominated. She does not have

> enough state pledged delegates (and never will)

> for a majority, and the superdelegates have yet to

> cast their vote.

>

> The superdelegate numbers that have been appearing

> in papers are based on various factors and are

> almost certainly reasonably accurate, but are not

> results from an actual poll. That happens at the

> Democratic convention, starting in late July.

> Which is why another six weeks of pseudo-battle

> would only just benefit Trump.

[LondonMix]

Louisa, I don't think she is any more polarising than Bush or Obama. Its fair to say that US politics is polarised and increasingly so both within and between the parties. Centrist liberals found Bernie Sanders as unacceptable as the hard core of his progressive faction find Clinton. Its just the state of US politics.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LM do you at least concede Hilary is a polarising

> figure, and putting aside the fact she is a woman

> (I don't personally see why someone's sex as being

> relevant), this whole contest inevitably comes

> down to choosing between one polarising figure and

> another polarising figure.

>

> Louisa.