The "Berners" are ready to Occupy the News Channels for Bernie Sanders

There is a movement afoot that has Bernie Sanders supporters ready to occupy the media for next Tuesday's primaries.

What caused this stir is something Chris Matthews, of MSNBC, stated on the air to Jeff Weaver, Bernie Sanders' campaign manager, "I'm told by the experts on numbers around here at NBC and elsewhere that come June 7th, the day of the California primary, . . . that at eight o'clock that night Eastern Time the networks will be prepared, including this one, to announce that Hillary Clinton has now gotten over the top - that she will have won the nomination. In numbers, it's done! What will that do to turn out if that's five o'clock Pacific time with three more hours to vote in California, who will be least likely to vote?  Sanders' people from 5 to 8, or Hillary's?"

It was at this point that Humpty Dumpty establishment finally had their big fall. This arrogant proclamation by Matthews infuriated the Bernie crowd.  Afterwards, social media became abuzz encouraging the faithful to stand up to these establishment media giants in the same spirit that Sanders has crusaded throughout his life - through peaceful protest.

The issue is that only the pledged delegates, i.e, those that are mandated by the voters, are locked-in delegates.  The superdelegates are basically floaters.  They can change their mind everyday from now until the convention.  Nothing is written in stone for them.  Weaver explained to Matthews that the pronouncement would be inaccurate because the superdelegate count is basically a poll, not a vote. He compared it to calling the California primary election based on polling numbers rather than the voters on election night.  

What made matters worse is the response Matthews gave to Weaver, "I don't want to have this conversation."  

Of course he doesn't but it was too late for that.  As a result the "Berners" are mobilizing. There is talk of showing up at the door of NBC at Rockefeller Center, CNN at Columbus Circle (both in New York City) to express their displeasure with the establishment media who they are convinced has been out to get Sanders from the beginning.

What makes it look particularly bad for MSNBC is the hypocrisy.  It is hard to reconcile that their commentators routinely chastise Republican policies that suppress the vote while their basic reporting policy will do the same thing come Tuesday night.

If the media follows through with its pre-mature announcement,  it will be just another in a long list of ways the entire establishment has been trying to contaminate the democratic process in the primary process. It is this kind of system that gave birth to the Trump and Sanders' phenomena.  It will be interesting to see how they all attempt to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Bigger Than Bernie

Why don't Sanders supporters get it? Don't they know that Donald Trump winning the presidency is Armageddon? Don't they care about the appointments he will make to the Supreme Court? DON'T THEY? The answer: Yes and no.
Many people want to tell Bernie Sanders supporters that no matter how they feel about Hillary Clinton, they should be ready to work for her if she secures the nomination. The thinking is that a Clinton presidency while a lot less appealing than Sanders in the White House is infinitely better than a Trump presidency. While Bernie doesn't yet urge his followers to be prepared to support Clinton if he comes up short, he does admit that a Trump presidency would be the worst of all possibilities.However, it seems that Bernie doesn't quite understand the full impact of the movement that he started. It has become bigger than Sanders and more about the future of politics in the United States.
The Bernie revolution is hoping to change progressives to a different way of politicking and governing. They want to do it from within the Democratic party because of the two main parties, it is the most progressive. However, a great number of Bernie supporters are just now getting acquainted with politics and the Democratic party and have found both to be contemptible. There is no "sucking it up" and getting behind the party. They are more inclined to start their own party than to coddle up to the one that rejected them. It wouldn't be a leap to say that half of them wish Bernie would walk out right now and run as an independent.
To the revolution, this election isn't about beating Trump; it is about transforming the way America does its business. Without Sanders, it is business as usual. If it takes Trump to screw things up to wake some progressives up, then a Trump presidency isn't' the worst thing in the world that could happen. Politics as usual is worse than even Trump. Is that a practical approach? Probably not. Couldn't the revolution be won in increments without giving up the White House and congressional coat tails to the Republicans? Perhaps. But just remember, the idea of increments was what they rejected in the first place. That was the mantra of that other primary candidate.
To the "Bernie or Bust" crowd, for a revolution to succeed, the insurgents are going to have to be prepared to sacrifice for the cause. A Trump presidency, no matter how horrible, is merely a sacrifice and not a defeat. They know that a raccoon will chew through his arm to free itself from a trap. A Trump presidency may be that sacrificial limb. The sacrifice may hurt and disadvantage them for a spell, but will also provide incentive for them to come back stronger than ever. At least, that is their mindset. They just may be right.

UPDATE: Trump Not As Smart as We Gave Him Credit

UPDATE:

Just when we thought we had Donald Trump figured out, he comes through and confirms what many have accused him of being this entire primary season - just a blow hard, and a lucky one at that.

Relation State, on careful analysis (as seen in the original article below), determined that there had to be some genius to Trump, despite his appearance of being a pompous, policy vacant celebrity.  However, after having a brilliant strategy come to fruition, he backed out like a typical flip-flopping politician that listens to too many advisers.

The reason Trump gave was that it wasn't appropriate to debate the second place finisher in the Democratic Party.  What paints Trump as dishonest (this time) is that nothing has changed in the Democratic primary situation in the last 24 hours when he agreed to the debate.  It is a cop-out explanation.  What makes that position worse is that he took a leap in the debit direction on ALL four of the reasons that made debating Sanders so brilliant in the first place.

By not debating, he gives up the opportunity to 1) use his leverage to fashion the debate for his maximum benefit, 2) have a huge, national audience to watch him slam Hillary Clinton, 3) up his PR by raising money for a good cause.  Now that he has painted Bernie as the loser despite Trump's position that the Democratic primary was rigged, he now puts himself squarely INSIDE the establishment with the rest of the "Hillary has already won" crowd.  Doing that takes Trump out of his inside position to 4) court Bernie's followers.   By slamming the door in the "Bernie has already lost" fashion, he lost his chance to woo them.  He may have even made Hillary look a lot better than she did.

Perhaps this thong sandal of a decision shouldn't be surprising since he has changed positions on just about every issue that he has initiated.  It can only be assumed, like his other positions and proclamations, his agreement to debate Bernie Sanders was "just a suggestion."

(Previously)
____________________________________
At first blush, it doesn’t look like a good idea for Donald Trump to debate Bernie Sanders.  Everyone knows that it is seldom a good idea to “debate down.”  Because Trump has already clinched the Republican nomination, debating the long shot in for the Democratic nomination is indeed debating down. 

However, Donald Trump didn’t get where he was by always doing the obvious or the safest things.  He somehow has a foresight often missed by the workaday pundits that you find on cable news channels.  The master of the greatest show in politics always seems to find the unconventional way to get ahead.  This time is no exception.

What is so genius about this debate for Trump?  There are four main components that will give him a great advantage in the fall.

1. He can forge the rules to give him the maximum benefit.  Trump has all the leverage in this deal. Sanders would have to give in to just about every demand because he needs the debate; Trump doesn’t. He has already demanded that the purpose would be to raise money for women’s health agencies.  Trump could also demand that neither participant engage in personal attacks on EACH OTHER (I emphasize this with great intention).    Sanders is inclined to play that way anyway.  With this, Trump ensures that Sanders doesn’t go after the “Trump is a bigot” tack which is Trump’s biggest weakness – as the demonstrators at his rallies continue to point out.

2. Trump gets the opportunity to slam Hillary Clinton for two hours in front of a national audience – probably a YUUUUGE one.  Trump and everyone else (except Sanders and his supporters) believe that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee in the fall. He will take every opportunity to rake Hillary over the coals and Sanders will likely be an accomplice rather than a Clinton defender. With the recent Inspector General’s report about Clinton’s email violations, he will even have fresh fodder. While Sanders will probably not deal with Clinton’s personal issues, he will be right there with other issues such as exchanging money for access, the Iraq war, and international trade deals.  Both candidates will make it look obvious that Hillary is just wrong about too many issues.  In addition, he will easily be able to refer to Clinton as being not smart enough to take advantage of this debate and perhaps paint her as a coward for not being brave enough to face him or Sanders.

3. By raising money for organizations dealing with women’s health, he capitalizes on the female demographic where some are still sitting on the fence about Trump.  Many Republican women do not like Trump, but dislike Clinton as well.  Trump may help to sway a portion that is just plain undecided. It is just good public relations.

4. Perhaps the most genius aspect of the debate deal for Trump is that he will have the opportunity speak directly to Bernie supporters.  He knows that if Bernie loses the nomination, the last thing they will WANT to do is support Clinton.  Trump can slyly court a practically captive audience and attempt to give them another option.  For this to work, he will have to stress the issues on which they both agree (Iraq war, trade, and campaign finance, etc.).  In order for this to work, he will have to resist his normally callous attacks and keep his eye on the prize.  If he does this and emphasizes his anti-establishment persona, he may steal a few – especially the “Never Hillary” crowd.  I have heard many “Bernie or Bust” people say that it would serve the DNC right if Trump gets elected.  Some even think it is the only way the Bernie revolution can survive if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination.  Being “not that bad,” may capitalize on that spirit and pick up a few more votes.

At this point, there is no reason to underestimate Donald Trump.  Whenever he gets accused of doing something stupid or unwise, it ends up working in his favor.  For the above reasons, the Bernie debate strategy is very impressive. He will do what he does best which is infuse himself into the front of the news coverage while Hillary looks like an ineffective spectator in the back of the auditorium. What makes stealing the media here particularly a bonus is that he is coming into what normally would be considered a media dead spot for a candidate.  He is already the presumptive nominee.  He has little to do to make news until the convention in July – other than picking a running mate.  It would be hard to do that for two solid months.

However, to make this strategy work, he will have to remain disciplined throughout the process and keep his mind on the bigger prize – November.  If he gets to aggressive with Sanders, he will alienate Bernie’s followers and defeat his strategy.   The only thing that will stop a windfall for Trump is that he isn’t brave enough to go through with it or disciplined enough to execute it.  However, it has usually been a mistake to bet against Trump.

Relation State's 2016 Democratic Primary Endorsement: Feel the Bern

From our sister site Psychosomatic Wit :

This year, in the Democratic primary, we have Hillary 2.0, “It’s My Turn” versus Bernie Sanders, whose “Enough is Enough” campaign has excited people who normally don’t think about politics. Clinton and Sanders both offer compelling cases.  Clinton brings experience and pragmatism to her campaign while Sanders wants a more transforming government. Since they both agree on the issues roughly 90% of the time, it is their approach to how to best run the executive branch will decide in the end for most voters who they will support.  As for Psychosomatic Wit, I believe Bernie’s approach to be the most compelling and serves the best interest for this season and for the future of this country.  Let me lay out my case.
To See The Republican Nomination Endorsement Click Here

I originally was in the Clinton camp. I didn't think that anyone should even bother to challenge her in the primary.  As we all have heard before, many believe that Hillary is the most qualified candidate that has ever run for president.  She did meaningful work while being associated with the executive branch as first lady and received hands on experience of government from the legislative branch side of it as a senator from New York.

She has also spent four years as Obama’s secretary of state which is probably the most impressive qualification she has.  Many may argue that she didn’t do anything significant, but she certainly was busy cleaning up a lot of diplomatic messes in the Middle East which is a result of a broad military presence there.  Despite the right wing talking points that the US has a worst reputation around the world under Obama, the facts do not back them up.  According to the three polls I could find (BBC Polling, Pew, and Gallup), the US has improved its standing around the world compared to the Bush administration.  Clinton can sincerely take credit for a big part of that.

The Issues

It wasn't easy to look at Clinton’s credentials and decide to go in another direction.  However, the issues help tell the story. Both candidates claim to want to bridge the gap in economic inequality. Bernie Sanders wants to address this by raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour slowly over the next several years. Clinton wants to raise it to the twelve dollars per hour which she deems “sensible.”

Both realize that we have farther to go in providing health care.  Sanders wants to transform our healthcare system to something similar to the rest of world - a single payer, everyone is covered system he calls Medicare for all - borrowing from the popular system already covering senior citizens and the disabled. Clinton wants to build on ObamaCare, (the Affordable Care Act) that President Obama worked hard to pass that is the centerpiece of his presidential legacy.

The third leg of bridging the gap between the rich and the middle and working class has to do with accessibility of education.  Sanders believes that public education should increase from K-12, to K-16.  He claims that a Bachelor’s degree today has about the same bargaining power for employment as a high school diploma fifty years ago.  He claims that in order to stay competitive and give the middle and working class a chance to keep up with educational requirements for most gainful employment, the time has come to revise the extent of public education bridge the educational gap.  Clinton wants to take that notion as far as an associate's degree (2 year) at a community college. This is concept that was introduced by Obama.  She also wants to make borrowing money for tuition more affordable.

Clinton’s main arguments about why she should be elected over Sanders is three-fold.  One is her experienced which I have already touched on. The second reason is her electability.  She believes that she is the only one that has a chance defeating the Republican in the fall.  Finally, and the reason she emphasizes the most, is that she is the only one that can get her agenda passed through Congress.

The Decision

When analyzing these and other arguments, PW has decided to endorse Bernie Sanders.  In addressing her experience, it is true that, no matter how you slice it, Clinton has more qualifications based on experience. Although Sanders has served in the legislature longer, Clinton’s experience as Secretary of State cannot be matched by Sanders or anyone else.  However, if this was the main qualification to hold the office of president in this country, we would have a number of former secretaries of state holding the office throughout history. Sanders argues that his judgment is more sound than Clinton’s.  He points to his opposition to the Iraq war and the numerous trade deals, such as NAFTA that he opposed while Hillary supported them.  Still, judgment aside, it is hard to minimize her experience.

Clinton argues that because of her experience, she will be ready on Day 1 to deal with anything that arises on the foreign policy side.  The saving grace for Sanders, in addition to his judgment, is that starting in November, the president-elect, while putting a team together is kept apprised of all security situations.  As long as the team is good, the foreign policy is good and Sanders will have the opportunity to use his judgment based on the information he is given.

Clinton claims the edge on electability but the facts really don't bear that out. The right wing absolutely despises her.  She has had over 20 years head start acquiring that level of contempt compared to Bernie, a relative newcomer on the national scene. Unfortunately for Clinton is that hate spills over to mainstream America because of the success the Conservative Entertainment Complex (CEC) of pushing their views.  Fox News and AM radio have butchered Hillary for years and some of the metrics associated with her establish this.  She is running a high deficit on trust issues as the CEC will not let her email issues and other scandals disappear from the public eye.  

In addition, the most recent head-to-head polls for the general election show Sanders in a much better position to win in the fall than Clinton. In polling reports provided by Real Clear Politics,  Clinton narrowly defeats Trump but loses to the rest of the field.  In the same polling, Sanders beats the entire field.  When figured on average, Hillary loses in the fall no matter who her opponent is, but Sanders beats the entire field by an average of 9 percentage points.

In examining which candidate can push an agenda through Congress, Bernie still makes the most sense. Hillary is running on a pragmatic platform. She keeps saying that she won’t make promises that she knows she can’t keep.  What that means, is that she is the candidate of increments.  She knows we need a universal healthcare single payer system in this country, but she doesn't want to push it, so she says that she just wants to build upon ObamaCare which still gives insurance companies control over our health care. Bernie wants a revolution.  He wants to take the populist capital that he has and continues to acquire and put pressure on the system.  That is what a revolution is all about - championing the grass roots with the threat of “throwing the rascals out” if they do not bend to the will of the people. A revolution will have bigger coattails and have a better chance bringing lower level democrats into office with the huge excitement and turnout it should bring.

That brings us to the number one reason why Bernie is the only choice to get Psychosomatic Wit’s endorsement. He is committed to getting big money out of politics. Without that, “the one person, one vote” concept of our democracy is only a myth.  This is a battle between the people and the establishment. Hillary tries to tell us that she is not establishment, while taking millions from Wall Street and other interests.  Bernie is funded by the people.  He has no PAC.  He doesn't get Wall Street money.  He gets his funding through the folks - those of us that want our vote to count whether we have $20 or $20 million in the bank.  Bernie would rather have our donations (which he boasts only averages $27), than any check from special interest that will always want special favors.  He wants to for and with the folks, not special interests with deep pockets. Clinton says that she has never changed a vote because of big money.  Maybe she hasn't; maybe she hasn't needed to because her agenda has been shaped by those gifts in the first place.  All we know is that Bernie makes sense when he proclaimed at a recent debate, “Let’s not insult the intelligence of the American People. People aren't dumb. Why in God’s name does Wall Street make huge campaign contributions? . . . I guess for the fun of it.”

Bernie knows that with the big money in campaigns, he isn't going to get the great things passed.  That is why it is his number one objective to reform campaign financing.  If we can’t get money out of politics, it really doesn't matter who wins, does it?

So, yes Bernie Sanders wants to do great things and Hillary wants to be pragmatic. To borrow a sports metaphor, Hillary might be a good game manager, but Bernie is a play maker. The time has come to stop throwing a few crumbs to the masses in an unseemly attempt at pacification while preserving a system of big money corruption that flies in the face of our very democratic national identity.

The Republican party is not going to work with ANY Democratic president.  We have seen that over the past seven years and the election of  Hillary Clinton will not change that.  It will take a revolution to change the government from one of stalemate and stagnation to one of progress. Because of this, Psychosomatic Wit is forced to shout, “Go big, or go home!”  And in that spirit, PW whole-heartedly endorses Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination for president.
To See The Republican Nomination Endorsement Click Here

The GOP Primary Endorsement

From Our Sister Blog - Psychosmatic Wit

This is my snarky take on the GOP nomination derby.  Although some of it is tongue-in-cheek, if you look hard enough, you may find the substance.

The 2016 nomination derby might be the most interesting in history.  The Republicans boast of a virtual herd trying to position themselves to face-off against the Democrats in the fall. For the sake of time, space and interest, I will only touch on a few that many think have a chance. I will spend the most time on the overwhelming front runner because it is important to understand what currently has the most support.

Donald Trump

Mr. Trump is a fascinating candidate.  What is more fascinating than his candidacy is the fact that he has so much support.  People like to be mad and Trump gives them an opportunity to represent their anger.  He gives them an outlet for the "It's simple folks; we just have to keep Mexicans and Muslims out of the country and we will be fine" camp. Trump gives the "we against them" drive a place to light. He also just tells them that he can make all the deals that overwhelmingly favor the US and the other countries will go along with it.   Trump tells the masses that everyone in Washington are idiots and he is the only smart guy around that can save the country.  For whatever reason, they believe him.

Let's look at his specifics - that which we can find:

• Trump's tax plan favors the poor and very wealthy.  It messes over the already shrinking middle class. For instance, a person who makes $151,000 pays the same rate as billionaires. Also, a person who makes $50,100 pays the same tax rate as someone who makes $150,000. These may look like small differences to a billionaire, but it certainly isn't to the folks who make those amounts.

• His stance on 2nd Amendment rights is ineffectively stagnant.  He leaves too many people to able to get guns without the hinderance of background checks as long as they get their guns from a non-federal dealer of firearms.  I am surprised he doesn't draw them a map of where they can obtain them.

• His immigration policy is insulting to anyone that is not Anglo.

• In his presumably strongest issue, trade policy, he is very presumptuous about what he thinks he can get other countries to do.

In summary, we don't know that he has the best interest of the citizens.  He doesn't operate with principles because he brags about how he gamed the system as a businessman.  He doesn't have the ethical backbone to do what is right because if he had a penchant for ethics,  he wouldn't have gamed the system for personal profit.  There is no reason to think that he is influenced by ethics at all but by only what makes him successful - and success is defined by him.  He is just too dangerous to trust with the country's welfare.

He also doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference between a business deal and a deal made by countries that have other agendas besides profit which often implies the intricacies of diplomacy and the relationship with allies.

Finally, I don't think he takes the quest for the White House seriously.  It is like a hobby to him or a sporting match.  He is obsessed with his poll numbers rather than being concerned about pursuing a harmonious country.  It makes me worry that he believes it is okay if we all lose, as long as he wins.

Ted Cruz 

No one likes Ted Cruz except people who do not understand what governing entails.  These are the same people who also like Trump; it is just that Trump is more entertaining.  When a respected person like Bob Dole said he would rather have the clueless Trump in office over Cruz, that should tell you all that you need to know.  Cruz comes off like a televangelist in his speech and mannerisms which is a turnoff to most people not glued to TBN.

Cruz is the candidate of no.  He isn't as interested in governing as he is obstructing.  If he can't compromise in a republic, he isn't fit to govern in a republic because that is what democracy is all about - giving everyone a voice and a choice.

In addition, it turns out that there is a legitimate concern that he may not even be eligible to be president - and I am not trying to be funny here.

Marco Rubio 

He, like most of the other GOP candidates, believes that he is running against Barack Obama instead of his fellow Republicans or even the Democratic candidates.  As Americans, we were scolded by the Republicans if we insulted the president of the United States. To do so, made critics of GW Bush un-American.  Of course, that only applies to Republican presidents, I guess.  To rational thinkers, that seems pretty disingenuous.

Rubio also is against unions at every turn. I am not saying that unions haven't had their faults over the years, but unions are the backbone of labor.  Because of unions, even non-union shops have to treat their workers more favorably.  Killing unions would lower wages and make the wage gap even larger.

Rubio also seems to not have the kind of work ethic necessary to be the POTUS.  The presidency requires someone to be on the job 24/7 including vacations.  Rubio has a poor voting attendance record which is bad enough, but he downplays the importance of it which means he isn't too concerned with carrying out the job that he was elected to do.  Is it really a good idea to elect a president with that attitude?

The Also-Rans 

When considering the others, Jeb Bush seems to be in a daze like he can't believe he is losing.  He spends a whole lot of time bashing Hillary Clinton which isn't going to do him any good if he can't leap over the five or six Republicans ahead of him. He is one of the only candidates that is nervy enough to attack Trump, but that has been ineffectual.  In fact, he has slidden so far now that Trump, formerly his greatest adversary, now ignores him for the most part.

Chris Christie has a hard time telling the truth according to Politifact.  Besides, he doesn't even have the sense to go by his middle name, "James".  Chris Christie should only be forced on him; it shouldn't be his first choice. You have to pick the name that is most flattering.  Let "Chris Christie" go by the way of "Steve Stevens" and "Dick Dixon." At least go with the hip, "Topher." He should put his best name forward. You don't see Barack Obama going by Hussein or Barry now, do you? James Christie sounds a lot more presidential to me.  

Rand Paul just can't seem to get any traction.  He has some sensible ideas from his libertarian side, but it also provides some idiotic ideas so that is a wash. He slid his way out of the prime time debate in South Carolina.  Not wanting to be relegated to the "kid's table" debate, he just took his ball and went home.  He might as well stay there.

AND THE ENDORSEMENT GOES TO . . .

John Kasich.  

Sensible, successful and compassionate makes John Kasich 

the best choice from the large Republican field.

Kasich has a different attitude compared to the other candidates.  As governor of Ohio, he had the sense and the courage to adopt ObamaCare.  He, like the rest of the field, says he wants to repeal and replace it, but he is the only one talking about preserving access to health care to do it. He states that the Ohio model "provides the path forward to the nation." The thing is, the Ohio model is an expanded Medicaid program - which is also part of the Obama plan.  Be that as it may, Kasich does recognize that it is unconscionable to kick millions off of medical coverage for political expediency.

The other candidates are content to end the ACA and worry about replacing it at some later time (or more likely, not at all).  To illustrate this, the new Congress has already had a repeal bill pass and sent for Obama's veto, which he predictably executed.  With all the hollering of "Repeal and Replace,"  the Republicans have tried to repeal ObamaCare over 50 times without a single replacement offer.  At least Kasich has seen first hand the need and allowed it to be met in his state.

The people of Ohio, who knows him best, love Kasich.  He enjoyed record approval ratings going into his presidential campaign.  This shows the success he has achieved as chief executive in a heartland state.

In addition, Kasich has been the most open to governing instead of perpetuating the feud that has been going on in Congress for far too many years.  He champions a hopeful and positive campaign. He has demonstrated compassion driven by his faith that is determined to not leave "the least of these" behind.  That attitude isn't getting him very far so far in the GOP, "I got mine, let them get theirs" subculture, but it does provide the reason that Psychosomatic Wit endorses John Kasich for the Republican nomination for president.

Jesus and the Presidential Election

This has always been a fascinating topic to me.  The right wing seems to champion the founder of Christianity and claim to vote with their faith on their sleeves.  On the other side, the left wing can sometimes appear hostile to Christianity and those who adhere to the faith.  Jesus, not being a respecter of persons, would not be swayed by any of that.  So, the question is:  Who would Jesus vote for in the upcoming presidential election?

I'm sure that the answer to this would vary depending on who you ask.  I could take a pretty educated stab at it.  However, to try to leave as much bias out of the question as possible, I decided isidewith.com to determine the answer.  This site helps people determine which candidate shares the same values that they do - regardless of party.  I did my level best to answer the questions based on what the Gospel accounts attribute to Jesus' views.  Sometimes, I had to expand the search to other parts of the Bible, but I stuck mostly to the synoptic gospels.
to leave it up to

There were a number of questions that I had to simply leave blank because there was no way I could determine the correct answer by the Bible. These type of blank answers typically came from very specific questions such as those concerning "common core," or term limits, or other specific contemporary issues.  I had to skip more questions than I had hoped, but I would rather leave them blank than try to editorialize an answer for Jesus.  Still, there were plenty of questions to paint a pretty clear picture.

The Results

Here is a summary of what the gospels teach us of Jesus' values.   The results of the quiz show that Jesus finds that standing up for the oppressed and those that are taken advantage are very important to him. Few could argue that this is a common theme in his ministry.

Jesus also sides toward the traditional which means that he believes in a civilized society that honors traditional morality and values.   The gospels point out that even though he has compassion, he remained "sinless." He also quoted Old Testament scriptures a lot and read them in the Temple.

The results also show that Jesus strongly believes in showing compassion, empathy, and rehabilitation for small time criminals.  The way he dealt with the prostitute and thief on the cross would support this claim.

It also shows that he slightly sides with regulation to ensure that business doesn't take advantage of the system and consumers.  That conclusion made me picture the anger that he showed at the money changers and how he converted two cheating tax collectors into honest followers.

Other items of note in the summary include being against social inequality, corruption and being an environmental centrist.

Drum Roll, Please!

Jesus is more aligned with Bernie Sanders than any other candidate.  His beliefs and values are consistent with Sanders' on a 79% of the issues.  The closest Republican was John Kasich with a 64%. So these would be the two men he would vote for in their respective primaries.

The conclusion makes sense for a number of reasons.  Sanders is against corruption of banks and is the champion of the "least of these" as Jesus called them.  It probably didn't hurt that both Jesus and Bernie are Jewish.