You guys think Bernie is angling for the VP slot by having his followers attack Julian Castro?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

Lately, a lot of organizations that have endorsed Bernie Sanders have been going after HUD Secretary Julian Castro. Castro is on the short list to be Hillary Clinton's running mate.

Here's the article about Bernie Sander back groups attacking Julian Castro http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/progressive-groups-target-julian-castro-221817

The sudden attack against Secretary Castro is suspicious. is Bernie Sanders angling for the VP slot?

[CoffeeCat]

1. No one is angling for anything

In case you haven't noticed, Bernie Sanders and his supporters aren't interested in anything that the Clinton campaign is selling.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

2. Are you still sad that Bernie Sanders lost Iowa? nt

[CoffeeCat]

14. Wow, someone's grouchy today!

Must have struck a nerve!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. Eating crow will make anybody grouchy.

[metroins]

15. And losing by delegates and 2.5 million votes nt

[revbones]

16. Inaccurate numbers. You should research that again and correct it.

[metroins]

21. Look it up yourself, it's 2.4-2.5 million votes and 200+ delegates

Sanders is losing badly. NY is going to make it even better for Clinton. She has the better campaign and more support.

Not even counting supers.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

You are wrong.

[revbones]

24. Oh really? I tried to be nice about it.

From your link:

Popular vote total includes AK,AL,AR,AS,AZ,CO,DA,FL,GA,HI,ID,IL,KS,LA,MA,MI,MN,MO,MP,MS,NC,NE,NH,OH,OK,SC,TN,TX,UT,VA,VT,WI and excludes IA,ME,NV,WA,WY.

You are wrong. Will you have the decency to admit it?

[metroins]

26. I am not wrong

The caucus states you list have low turnout and don't affect the numbers much while Hillary won IA and NV.

A 3k turnout caucus makes almost no difference to the numbers and the numbers actually reported has Hillary up by 2.4-2.5 million votes and 200+ delegates.

The voters choose Hillary overwhelmingly.

https://www.google.com/search?q=maine+democratic+caucus&oq=Maine+democratic&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0j5j0.6675j0j4&client=ms-android-sprint-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#q=United+States+Democratic+primary+results&eob=m.09c7w0/D/3/full/m.09c7w0/g.11bx8s5wc4

The official numbers again prove it:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

[revbones]

27. So you will just repeat the lie about the numbers, even though your link says otherwise? Wow

I did not see doubling-down on that when your own link says something completely different.

Your second link just shows delegates and not caucus participants in those states. Maine itself had record turnout which was much higher than your false number of 3k.

I would really suggest you do your research before doubling down on such blatant falsehoods. It's just sad really.

[metroins]

29. We use the actual numbers reported

And Bernie is down 2.4 million votes and 200+ delegates. Spin it anyway you want, change the numbers by 10k or 900k. The actual reported numbers are what counts.

The voters of America overwhelmingly choose Hillary Rodham Clinton to lead this nation.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

New York will be another testament that Hillary connects with the American public.

[revbones]

30. Caucus numbers are not reported - so your numbers are wrong.

But obviously you have no shame in repeating falsehoods.

[metroins]

31. The actual reported numbers are what matter

Hillary, winning by votes and delegates.

Bernie, being rejected by the majority.

Hillary is running a better campaign by far and the numbers show it. Spin will not change the fact that the voters overwhelmingly choose Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[revbones]

33. So then say it accurately

Hillary is winning by X votes in states that have reported numbers and not caucus states that don't report numbers.

Doesn't sound as good as the lie does it? Guess that's why the lie gets repeated so much.

Honesty. My suggestion to you is that you use honesty to promote your candidate. If you must gloat or try to tear down your candidate's opponent, then sticking to honest criticisms won't make you look as bad as repeating false numbers.

[metroins]

34. Accurately

The numbers show Hillary winning by 2.4-2.5 million votes and 200+ delegates. We can only use the numbers reported. I've included sources in each post.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

The voters are overwhelmingly choosing Hillary Clinton.

There is no teardown or gloating going on.

[revbones]

35. Sad. Your comments are very sad indeed.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

"Hey, here are numbers that prove Hillary's is awesome"

"Wait, your numbers are wrong and your link says other than what you are saying"

"Nope, my numbers are right. The explanation doesn't matter"


Truly sad.

[metroins]

37. We can't just make numbers up

We must use the actual reported numbers.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

The reported numbers show Hillary overwhelmingly being chosen by voters, to the tune of 2.4 million or so votes and 200+ delegates.

Spin the numbers anyway you want, the voters choose Hillary Rodham Clinton as the preferred candidate of the Democratic party.

[revbones]

39. You are misrepresenting what is at that link

There is a total for states that report. There are several states that do not report. You are reporting the total of states that report and ignoring that those other states invalidate your statement and total. So yes, you are making it up.

It's enough for me to know that a) you are wrong, b) anyone reading this will see you're wrong, and c) that you know you're wrong. Whether you choose to be honorable enough to admit it is really your own concern and doesn't bother me. You only make yourself look more foolish by repeating those numbers, but feel free to continue.

[metroins]

41. If you would

Like to find official numbers for what you feel is inaccurate, go ahead. I'm posting a verifiable source. There is no misrepresentation on my behalf, I'm quoting the actual recorded numbers.

The official numbers have Hillary up by 2.4 million or so votes and 200+ delegates. I'm posting a source every time that people can fact check. You're disagreeing with no data to back your claims up.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

Hillary has been the front runner with the most votes and most delegates chosen by the voters since day 1. The voters are supporting Hillary, she's the overwhelming favorite in the upcoming NY primary.

You may be unhappy with the data, but these are the actual facts. Spin it as much as you want, hell, give Bernie another million votes just for fun.

No matter how much you try to deny the data, the American people are standing with Hillary.

[revbones]

42. Your source even says those are not complete numbers.

But please continue doubling-down. Again, you only make yourself look worse here.

[metroins]

44. Support your claims

I'm posting facts, you are not.

It looks like it's going to be larger than 2.4 million voters and 200 delegates on Tuesday.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-york-democratic/

[revbones]

47. I'm using your own source which you are clearly misrepresenting

and you are obviously too lazy to scroll to the bottom of the page - which I even cited in an excerpt for you.

So you either

a) Don't understand that knowingly using an incomplete total is a lie
OR
b) Didn't even read your own source
OR
c) Read the source, but chose to knowingly misrepresent what is said there.

Which is it?

Shew. Pretty sad indeed.

[metroins]

49. Show data, support your claims

The official sources have Hillary Clinton with a popular vote of 2.4 million or so voters (That's a lot of people) and 200+ delegates.

And after New York, it will likely be even larger. The American public stands with Hillary.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-york-democratic/

You have yet to show any official numbers refuting the facts.

[revbones]

54. Your own earlier link proves my claim and disproves yours.

You are just too lazy to scroll down to the bottom where it tells you that it does not include several states - which I even quoted for your earlier.

You even tried to say that Maine only had 3k voters in order to somehow justify your false claims.

Sad. Really sad. You could just do the mature honorable thing and admit you were wrong about your numbers, since your source even says it doesn't include several states.

Seriously, it's just embarrassing now.

[metroins]

59. I'll be waiting

For you to show any official data.

But if you'd like, ignore all the 2.4 million votes she's up by and look at pledged delegates.

And on Tuesday, I'll update the thread again showing that more and more of the American public supports Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Facts and Data matters.

Hillary has been the Democratic Choice since the beginning of the 2015 nomination process.

[revbones]

64. As I said (and your own source said), those states don't report.

But if you'd like to continue looking more foolish by each comment, and ignoring what your own source says that proves your numbers are incorrect, then continue doing so.


Facts and data certainly do matter. Given that we agree, when can we expect some from you?

[metroins]

66. Post numbers

The reported data, which are OFFICIAL numbers, have Hillary Rodham Clinton leading Bernie by 2.4 or so million votes and 200 delegates.

On Tuesday, more voters will stand with Hillary.

Keep trying to put up a facade or spin the numbers. You can take away a million votes if you want to feel better, but she's still proving that the American voter supports her.

I'll keep waiting for your official numbers showing otherwise. You can just look at delegates if you wish.

On Tuesday I'll make sure to add the official NY voter totals to the thread.

[revbones]

67. Sheesh. Give it a rest will you? You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

You're too lazy to even scroll down on your own source and instead want to post partial numbers as if that's the total thus far.

At this point, I have to assume that there are other issues here if you can't be honorable enough to admit your numbers were wrong and your own source said so since it excludes several states.

I'm out. This is too embarrassing for you. I can't continue associating even on a message board with someone this deep down the rabbit hole - who would even ignore their own source.

Enjoy whatever last words you need to make yourself feel ok about this travesty.

[metroins]

69. Post numbers please.

You cannot spin verifiable, official, recorded data.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

The American public stands with Hillary Clinton.

[Lordquinton]

75. Do you have the forcast for Michigan handy?

[metroins]

79. Yes.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/

Hillary Clinton had an expected chance of winning 99% per 538.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MI-D

Sanders pulled off a victory of 1-3%.

Here is 538 explanation of how they missed the target:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/

[Lordquinton]

81. So they were wrong and Sanders Won michigan

They had it at 99%

[metroins]

82. That is what happened.

Like I've tried to reiterate, I deal in factual data. Hillary is officially up by 200+ delegates and 2.4 million or so votes.

On Tuesday after New York, I'll update these posts with a likely Hillary win. The factors of Michigan don't really apply to NY due to restrictive voting rules (that I'm not a fan of, but they exist).

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-york-democratic/

[Lordquinton]

83. You know what?

That was one of the most reasonable posts in this thread. I would still urge that if you're going to post how 538 got MI wrong, that you should look into how your sources also say they left out data, but I agree with the conclusion: We'll see on Monday.

[metroins]

88. Cheers

I appreciate your candor.

[KPN]

55. Hahaha! The actual reported numbers are what matters!!

So it's the reported stuff that's fact! The stuff that wasn't reported doesn't matter! Like numbers from caucus States are an entirely different metric and significantly underrepresent vote numbers due to lower participation rates. But that doesn't matter, because it wasn't actually reported.

Thanks for the laugh.

[metroins]

57. Show any data

Or facts that refute the reported data.

Heck, ignore it all and look at delegates.

Voters stand with Hillary.

[KPN]

65. Are you really this thick?

Or are you just acting that way?

[metroins]

68. I just don't understand

How people can disregard the official data.

The American public stands with Hillary.

There's spin after spin from various areas but when you look at what matters, the American public supports Hillary. Ignore her popular vote lead if you want to spin your data, the one thing you will never be able to spin is her delegate lead.

I'm posting official, factual, reported data. Hillary Rodham Clinton leads by 200+ delegates and 2.4 or so million votes.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

I believe in verifiable data.

[KPN]

70. Oh, so actual reported data is also actually verifiable because I t was reported.

: rofl:

[metroins]

71. Yes....

The numbers come from the Election officials in the states.

Would you rather election officials just make up numbers?

These are official.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

Hillary has been supported by Democrats by a large margin. Ignore popular vote if you want, the pledged delegates are not up for discussion.

On Tuesday even more of the public will #StandWithHer

[enid602]

72. fame

Let them have their 5 minutes of fame. In 72 hours it will all be over. Sure, Sanders will stay in the race as long as his suckers continue to shell out the $27, but he won't be a force.

[Fawke Em]

58. Most caucus states don't release the raw vote totals - only the delegate counts.

Your voter totals are misleading.

[metroins]

62. These are the official numbers

Show official numbers that support your claims. Because I post the actual facts and official data.

Ignore the 2.4 million vote lead if you want and just look at delegates.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is being supported overwhelmingly by the American voters; her popular vote and delegate lead will grow larger on Tuesday.

Hillary represents the Democratic party and their voting record reflects that.

[floppyboo]

85. Are you Tay? nt

[senseandsensibility]

3. I do not think that Bernie would accept

the VP slot even if it were offered, which is very unlikely.

[JackRiddler]

46. He would not and it will not be.

The idea is nonsense, distraction.

[geek tragedy]

4. He's going back to his home state of Vermont when this is over nt

[Aerows]

8. You Scared.

You should be.

[CoffeeCat]

25. And Hillary will probably

be indicted.

So you got that going for you. Which is nice.

[riversedge]

36. Pushing that RW smear on a Democratic board is so WRONG. Shame on you.

[CoffeeCat]

45. Oh please. Stop with the faux indignation

I don't give a rip about the Republicans.

I'm a Democrat. I care about what is happening in my party. I care that the frontrunner was caught with a homebrew, unsecured email server in her house, that even the President didn't know about. I care that what she has done is absolutely unprecedented. No Secretary of State--and no public official--has done what she did.

Our party could freaking implode. Do you get that?

She signed documents when she was hired, and she agreed to protect and secure classified information. She was bound by her duties as Secretary of State and by the FOIA to use a .gov email address. She didn't. She was also supposed to hand over her server to the FBI. She deleted 30,000 emails before doing so, and she deleted emails to/from Sidney Blumenthal about sensitive security matters in Libya. Blumenthal didn't have a security clearance.

2,000 of the emails sent from her server have been deemed "classified", some of them can't be shown because they would "be a threat to national security", if made public. And she stored them on a vulnerable server.

This affects OUR PARTY--THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

So, stop with the bullshit about this being a right-wing talking point. There's a good chance that she will be indicted. It's not looking real good--for any of us. What happens to our party if she is indicted and what happens to our Democratic elections--ARE issues that all Democrats should concern themselves with.

Enough with the bullshit talking point that is intended to stop discussion.

[Fawke Em]

60. Thank you!

I cannot, for the life of me, get why people don't understand this!

Then again, when it come to cyber security, most people don't think they'll ever be a victim.

[floppyboo]

87. no, you are Tay. No one could be on so many posts at the same time except Tay

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. It appears that they have come to grips with Sanders losing the primary...

This appears to be the beginning of an attack on Clinton's General Election run, though it is hard to imagine why any Democrat/liberal/progressive would want to do that. Only the Republican nominee benefits from that .

Sanders is not going to be offered the VP slot, and I doubt he would accept it if he were offered the chance.

[Aerows]

6. I actually think

That Hillary Clinton supporters are having a collective nervous breakdown prior to Tuesday, because it isn't looking too good for her.

A loss in NY would be the continuation of a trend - Bernie sweeps.

[Hiraeth]

10. they truly have lost touch with reality. mind boggling to watch.

[Aerows]

12. Well, we will be here to pick up the pieces

when Hillary Clinton fails to be the President again.

[Hiraeth]

13. meds. I'm thinking meds will need to be adjusted.

[Armstead]

22. I don't see that, quite honestly

Don't mean to be Dick Downer, but I wouldn't get too puffed up about the results in New York for Bernie, or be acting like it's a fait accompli.

[Aerows]

50. Those are my own words

fait accompli and puffed up.

you are correct, we cannot get confident, let alone over confident. This is the push that we have to make.

I hope it didn't sound like I was being an asshole - the Vatican thing pissed me off.

That said, me losing faith is far less likely than many things in the universe.

I stand firm with Bernie Sanders.

[StevieM]

51. Why would you come to that conclusion? Hillary is up by 10-17 points in NY.

Even if Bernie did pull of a shocking upset in NY, it would still be just that--an upset. So there is hardly any reason to conclude that Hillary supporters are currently having "a collective nervous breakdown," since all the evidence is that there is nothing to break down over, at least not with regards to the upcoming NY primary.

[Fawke Em]

63. All he needs to do is win upstate and the BBQ...

I'm not making a prediction, but I am more serene than I thought I'd be:

[Hiraeth]

7. No they are legitinately pissed about another issue:

But among progressives, so are the suspicions about his bona fides. The red banner across the website proclaiming “TELL HUD SECRETARY JULIAN CASTRO: STOP SELLING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS TO WALL STREET!” amounts to the opening salvo in doing something about it.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/progressive-groups-target-julian-castro-221817#ixzz463PJyLeE
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

pretzels are nice with beer, thanks.

[HooptieWagon]

9. What a steaming load of bullshit.

Sanders isn't 'having' his followers attack anyone. Unlike Hillary, Sanders doesn't need surrogates to carry out any 'attacks' he chooses. He will level the charge himself, upfront. And I'm sure Sander's has no interest in being part of a corrupt Clinton administration.

[Iliyah]

11. Yes they are attacking Castro because of his potential VP nom

[revbones]

23. So all progressives are Sanders supporters now? Wow.

[w4rma]

28. All progressives *should* be Sanders supporters. (nt)

[revbones]

43. So true. nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

17. Lots-o-concernz tonight.

[bvf]

61. The BOO! Gotcha pope teat ran dry sooner than expected.

Onward they slither.

[Armstead]

19. No Bernie has no interest in VP....and Clinton wouldn''t ask him

The article indicates they don''t like his handling of issues that affect their community at HUD

[jfern]

20. Bernie isn't attacking Castro at all

But liberals who like Bernie tend not to like 3rd wayers like Castro

[cloudythescribbler]

40. as a bernie supporter, I think this is fishy ...

first of all, those groups, including Daily Kos, many of them even seem to lean towards HRC. I think there may be genuine issues here, but why are they coming at this point in time? The article doesn't say. And aside from Grijalva, whose letter expresses the kind of concern that seems to be the job of members of Congress, and does not imply the rest of the seemingly organized campaign, none of the individuals are folk I've heard of (though some of the groups are familiar, and MoveOn is one I've supported). I do NOT think that Bernie Sanders or the people around him are behind this, but wonder who is.


Does anyone have any further linx on the subject that could throw a little more light on the situation?

NOT to reject out of hand that HUD policies should really keep homeowners in their homes, including those that go into default

[TheBlackAdder]

32. Too many posting tonight aren't thinking, that's the problem. This OP is case in point!

[mikehiggins]

38. One of several distracting stories now being stirred up

The 70+ year old Sanders is not looking for a VP slot in a HRC administration.

Nobody is attacking Castro except people who are annoyed/angered/dismayed with the way he's doing his job.

It has nothing to do with Sanders' campaign. The idea that Sanders might be looking to be VP is, in itself, suspiciously like yet another distraction to draw attention from the primary fight.

[beam me up scottie]

48. So many concerns and important questions...I wonder if Castro likes turtles?

[Skwmom]

52. Sounds more like a dirty trick to anger Hispanic voters. I wonder who initiated it. n/t

[Cha]

53. Hey Aloha, PTBL.. Julian Castro can handle these bbs.. they tried to take down Delores Huerta,

too. That didn't work.. Texas just went crazy for Hillary right after Nevada.

BS is not going get asked to be VP. Or anything else. So if that's what they're trying to do then it's in vain.

[Fawke Em]

73. Stop calling me a "bro."

I'm a woman.

[JonLeibowitz]

89. Mahalo for your posts, Cha. I always enjoy reading them

Excellent comedy.

[Fawke Em]

56. No.

Julian is just another bland corporate Dem. That's it.

[SheilaT]

74. Bernie is NOT "angling for the VP slot."

Period, end of discussion. Any more than Hillary is "angling for the VP slot."

Both of them are running for President. Neither one will go for the second place position.

Anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn't understand how these things work.

[RandySF]

76. No. He's in kamikaze mode

He and his followers know the nomination is out of reach so they're out to destroy the Clinton campaign, the party and anyone who might succeed this election year.

[Lordquinton]

77. No he's angling for President

[TheDormouse]

78. How similar are Julian's political views/positions to his twin brother Joaquin's? nt

[silvershadow]

80. No. I think it is a conspiracy theory. Bernie doesn't send instructions out to his followers to

"attack".

[Rincewind]

84. I sure do.

Expect it to be Trump/Sanders in the general election.

[TSIAS]

93. Are you for real?

Sanders won't be anyone's VP. The attacks on Castro have nothing to do with Bernie somehow wanting to be on the ticket.

[BlueStater]

86. One doesn't even need to be a Bernie supporter to think Castro is an empty suit. n/t

[Eric J in MN]

90. Flaws with that premise.

Firstly, one of the sponsors of
http://dontsellourhomestowallstreet.org/

...is Daily Kos. The owner of Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas, has been writing negatively about Bernie Sanders. He's not a follower of Bernie Sanders.

Secondly, Hillary Clinton wouldn't choose Bernie Sanders as VP. If she's the nominee, she'll choose someone who has criticized her less.

The writer of that Politico article jumped to the conclusion that anyone who criticizes Julian Castro's policies must be trying to influence the VP choice. Actually, they're trying to influence Castro's policies.

[potone]

91. No. Not at all likely.

Bernie cannot promote a political revolution as a VP. I don't think he has the slightest interest in the position.

[Vote2016]

92. Hillary only wants you to THINK Castro is on the short list. She will pick someone older, whiter,

more centrist, and from a battleground state.

[Cha]

94. KICK!

[jillan]

95. Bernie would never be Hillary's VP, not even for a $350,000 dinner at the Clooney's.

LOL - this is the silliest thing I've heard yet.

They have NOTHING in common.

[Fumesucker]

96. Charles Manson will get the VP slot before Bernie

These pundits are taking some serious mind altering substances.

[Herman4747]

97. No. What a stupid post. n/t

[Marrah_G]

98. NO