Bernie Sanders can only win if nonvoters turn out at the polls, and they almost never do

Bernie declared to his supporters that Hillary stated that he is “not qualified to be president”.

Hillary not only didn’t say that, she specifically refused to when asked if she thought he wasn’t qualified.

That’s a flat-out lie. I voted for Bernie in the primaries but if he continues this sort of shenanigan then I’ve lost all interest.


They can focus simply on the fact that he hasn’t (“What’s he hiding?”).

I also wonder if specific donations would be listed – perhaps he’s contributed to orgs that Mrs Clinton could dub terrorist, commie, etc.

1 Like

Well, we don’t know that, until their actually disclosed, do we? Besides, it’s required by law (the Ethics in Government Act of 1978).

Although Sanders claims to be worth “only” $700,000, others investigating have put the total at $1.2 to $1.5 million.

She didn’t use the specific phrase, but certainly did suggest using other words that he was unqualified, which was what Sanders was responding to.


[quote]She responded, 'Well, I think he hadn’t done his homework and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions.

A Post story was headlined, ‘Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president.’[/quote]

Sorry I guess I view what he said as being truthful about meaning. Which is to say when you say something with alot of words in a way to mean something else.

Like a rebulican talking about a black person using words that mean n**ger but aren’t. I love that. Yeah using the same tactics and then crying foul when called on it. That’s just perfect.


Wow, what a difference. Yuuuuge! Nothing like that between what the Sanders and the Clintons are worth.


Are you thinking it’s somehow a bad thing for a 74 year old who has not retired to have worth of $1.5M? After 30 years in public service, his retirement savings damned well better be at least $1.5M.

This is peanuts compared to the Clintons. They released their tax forms, and for a lot of people the big surprise is that they managed to pull down over $30M last year. Just last year.



Ironically I have seen his lack of wealth used against him. “He hasn’t held a real job. He’s been in the system this long and sucked so much with money that is all he has.” Etc.

Like 80% of political attacks little to no merit.

Getting detailed plans on his tax and budget schemes I think is important, though. Because you can’t just wish his plans into happening. If he can’t present a plan that will actually work out fiscally, there is no way it will pass Congress. Even then it’s iffy.

1 Like

Apparently you don’t remember back to the last presidential election. It became a huge issue. Rarely, if every, has any single issue determined an election, but it raised major questions when Romney refused to release more than 2 years worth of taxes, spurring speculation of Swiss bank accounts, and money tucked away in Cayman Island accounts.

1 Like

It is a difference, if you’re claiming you’re not a millionaire.

Oh I remember - but if the woman hating and poor shaming didn’t turn you off - you most likely didn’t give a rats ass that he was rich already.

And he was still projected to win by everyone except Nate Silver.


It’s one of those great contextual issues. Sanders is known as a middle-class down-to-earth kinda guy, so unless there’s some huge bombshell, nobody expects all that much from his tax forms. But Mitt is the kind of guy with an elevator for his cars, so when he refused to release tax forms, it played right into the how rich is this mofo, seriously? image he had.


I’ve been thinking along the same lines. He’s ceased to sound like a great voice with ideas we need to hear and has turned to the tricks he stood against 3 weeks ago.

What happened to the two of them discussing issues? Now its subway tokens and bullshit.


Romney is a plutocrat. The point of that was to demonstrate that an enormously wealthy man wasn’t paying his fair share, and Romney couldn’t/wouldn’t prove otherwise. Does anyone have any concerns about Sanders’ wealth or tax payments? Even if he is a millionaire (seems likely to me that a 74 year old who’s been earning a good salary for years, with a large government pension probably is, at least on paper), it’s orders of magnitude different from Mr 47%.

From what I’ve seen, there’s only been two candidates in this where there’s even been any question whether or not they were multi-millionaires. Oddly, the other one was Rubio.

I think this is inevitable with such a drawn out primary system. How much more is there to say? They’ve made their positions clear, they all just keep repeating them over and over again. The Sanders statement about qualifications was just him shoehorning his stump speech into another answer. It’s what he does.


Same here.

The D’s in my state graciously allowed me, an Independent, to vote in their primary. I voted for Sanders, and he won the primary, in my state.

But that’s nearly irrelevant. I live in a state that is among the reddest of the red. The Republican nominee for president, no matter who that turns out to be, will carry the general election in my state by a ratio of between two and three to one.


The most terrifying thing I’ve seen this election is a friend of mine that admitted Trump was a racist and horrible candidate turn around and jump on the bandwagon because he is a republican. This is the same guy that loves to call people ‘low information’ voters and does this.

I just can’t understand that kind of reasoning.


Not even remotely correct. Nate Silver didn’t conduce any polls. He interpreted existing polls, giving more weight to those which had a better historical record (a very simplistic explanation of his algorythm).

Mitt, and Rove, thought he was going to win, because they relied almost exclusively on their own internal polls, which were deeply flawed.

Americans who won’t vote piss me off SO MUCH.


Here’s a chart of voter turnout in Wisconsin primaries:

More at the source (The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel)

Nonvoters may almost never vote, but that doesn’t mean they won’t vote this time. And if you look at that chart over time, it’s not really about getting “non-voters” to vote, it’s about getting people as interested in voting as they were in the 70s. It varies from place to place, but voter turnout crashed in the late 70s and the 80s. Giving people something to vote for is exactly what it takes to get people interested. People who think that this time will be just like last time (even when last time wasn’t like the time before that) are often left with their heads spinning, wondering what happened.