Who won Wyoming’s Democratic caucus’s this weekend?
- Bernie Sanders
- Neither as it was a tie
- Hillary Clinton
All of those answers can be true depending exactly on what question is being asked and what is being used as the baseline.
The Green Papers has the data.
Sanders received more votes and won by about 12%. That is the simplest way of answering that question and it is true.
However, it is an incomplete answer as popular vote margins are not the relevant unit of measure in the nominating race. The popular vote is not the decisive unit of measure in the Presidential elections. Popular vote in both cases tends to correlate fairly well with the relevant unit of measure, delegates and electoral votes, but not perfectly.
And that is how we get to a tie. It was an even delegate split, each candidate received seven pledge delegates.
However the Wyoming race is not happening in isolation. Within the context of the greater Democratic primary where some states favor Sanders based on the fundamentals, and some states favor Clinton on the fundamentals and there is a 215+ delegate lead, a tie is a win for Clinton as it takes another fourteen delegates off the board while giving up no net ground. It is the political equivalent of two football teams exchanging punts after successive three and outs. For the team that is ahead by nineteen with twelve minutes left in regulation, that is a win.
Why am I going over this? Will this get a good pie fight going on in the comment section? Most likely.
More importantly, it is an excellent illustration about asking the precisely right question as three very different answers can emerge from the same data set as the initial question and related context differs slightly. Data in and of itself is not informative. Analysis of that data is, but once we start analyzing data, we layer lots of assumptions and questions about that analysis. We, people who seek to be informed about policy and the empirical world around us, need to be aware of exactly what question is being asked of the data and what assumptions are behind that question and answer.
BR
As someone who spent a year and a half of my life volunteering for the Obama campaign in 2007/2008, it’s baffling to me why any campaign (and campaign supporters) today wouldn’t understand that delegate math is key. The Obama campaign’s careful choice of which states to contest based upon where it was possible to net some delegates was a key to winning. And whether or not the rules make a lot of sense, it’s not like they have been changed midway.
low-tech cyclist
Can’t be said often enough.
aimai
@BR: I was an Obama supporter last time around too. But I, like the Clinton campaign, did not understand the math. She appeared to be winning states and I thought the race was closer than it actually was. Like a lot of people I was stunned by the actual counting being done when Obama declared victory. Lots of “small” wins added up until he had beaten her. But, in her defense, the race was a lot closer then than it is now. We also are, hopefully, more educated about the race and how it works. I just don’t see how anyone can forget Obama splitting Nebraska’s vote (it was Nebraska, wasn’t it?) Guess I disprove my own point.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
Does anyone care about Wyoming – it’s the smallest state in the union. Ranks dead last. The entire population is only 582K. The size of an average congressional district is 711K. So it’s pretty small.
Michael Bersin
Bingo.
At Show Me Progress:
“….You want to display your political savvy about the presidential nomination process? Stop uncritically regurgitating cable network news blather (we repeat ourselves) and republican memes about Democratic Party candidates. Learn to count and do math. Try to display some smidgen of understanding about the delegate selection process from state to state and at least show some understanding that each party has significantly different delegate selection rules. Hello? Fifteen percent minimum threshold?….”
Just because I think you’re an idiot doesn’t mean I don’t like your candidate
Matt McIrvin
@aimai: Obama split Nebraska’s electoral votes in the general election (in 2008, not 2012). It sounds as if Nebraska is considering going winner-take-all to prevent anything like that from happening again, though Democrats can hardly complain about this given that almost every other state already works that way.
Bobby Thomson
@Matt McIrvin: and given that Democrats rightly complained when Republicans tried to switch that in PA and CO.
Jack the Second
@aimai: I think even if Bernie and his advisors know the real story (hopefully it isn’t another Mitt situation) it’s reasonable to pretend otherwise, and try to momentum their way to victory.
(Personally I wonder if they’d be better off playing up the underdog and make the appeal that YOU PERSONALLY can save the campaign by turning out in the upcoming election.)
aimai
@Matt McIrvin: Thanks, as I was typing it I had a funny feeling that it was the General and not the Primary but I was too lazy to check! Thank you!
Gimlet
Obama’s first choice for Commerce Secretary, Judd Gregg, publishes article endorsing Hillary
http://thehill.com/opinion/judd-gregg/275703-judd-gregg-sanders-fans-are-blind-to-reality-of-socialism
In over forty percent of those contests, a socialist, Bernie Sanders, has been the winner. This is an exceptionally strong statement about where a significant percentage of the Democratic “base” is, and where the party is headed.
One has to wonder how the party of Kennedy, Truman and Roosevelt ended up here.
students may wish to turn to historical sources and study recent efforts to create socialist economies and societies. The lessons are clear, so this research will not take long.
They might start with the experience of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Notice the name. Or the National Socialist movement called Nazism. Notice the name again. Or Maoist China, a socialist state again in name. Millions of people died under these banners of socialism and millions more were impoverished.
If those examples seem too extreme, try some of the countries that have pursued socialist government while still remaining somewhat democratic.
Greece comes to mind. It has seen a massive reduction in the standard of living after years of socialist, democratic government. You can also add in Portugal, Spain and, to a significant degree, France
Thoughtful David
@Matt McIrvin:
Actually, I expect states to start going the other way. That is, from winner-take-all to proprtional electoral votes. When it starts to look like Texas might go for a Democrat, they’ll suddenly change to proprtional electoral votes so they can gerrymander the Electoral College as well.
Betty Cracker
I dislike the way the primaries are conducted. They are overly complex, inconsistent and undemocratic. But they are what they are, and everyone who runs has access to the same set of information. So no whining mid-race.
However, after the election is over, it might be a good idea for the national party to work with the states to see how the system can be improved. It’s a shit-show.
Gimlet
@Betty Cracker:
Same could be said for the Electoral College, but the PTB are not inclined to tinker with it.
aimai
@Jack the Second: As someone tweeted out this week “Things that Don’t Matter: Momentum.”
I get that Momentum seems like a big deal but the race is not infinitely long. As I said in a different thread Bernie’s campaign is the Xeno’s Paradox of Campaigns. He gets halfway to where he needs to go every time and never reaches the threshold, even if he’s off by just epsilon. He and his advisors are pretending that the campaign season doesn’t come to an abrupt halt at a certain date, long before his hypothetical momentum will bring him over the top.
The momentum argument gets mixed up with wishful thinking, outsider rage, self love, hillary loathing, inability to grasp the nature of politics, childish “our time has come-ism” and a whole lot of other flotsam and jetsam to produce a toxic mix of irresponsible attacks on everyone from John Lewis to Hillary to Black People and older women in general. Its not pretty but I guess its inevitable.
aimai
@Betty Cracker: Isn’t one of the issues, though, that State’s bear the cost of primaries and not of caucuses? So that a Republican state is reluctant to pay for the primary of the Democratic party? So we can’t get to parity of form, even, because these are state by state decisions? Perhaps this is at the root of the argument that we should have regional primaries but the primary also is, at base, a way of organizing and energizing individual states, each with their individual democratic political activists and loyalists. So a regional system would dilute that impact. And when you think of how important ground troops and local knowledge are, you don’t really want to create a system where small states are overwhelmed by larger states and don’t feel they get proper attention during the primary.
dogwood
Aimai:
It’s fine if you didn’t understand the math, but why wouldn’t you expect a professional campaign staff to understand it?
BR
@aimai:
I’ve been pretty disappointed in Sanders to be honest. I was considering voting for him in the CA primary, just to keep Clinton on her toes, but I can’t do that anymore in good conscience. He’s really not wearing well, nor is he showing himself to be worthy of succeeding Obama. (Not that Clinton has really proved herself to me either, but Sanders is plunging in my estimation faster than Clinton.) I’m still sad that Warren didn’t run.
singfoom
Well, July can’t get here soon enough so we can stop having pie fights and start on the whole unity thing so we can win in November. Seems like the math is getting worse and worse for Bernie even as he continues to get good margins in individual states.
I wonder if he packs it in before the convention. Seems doubtful at this point if he hasn’t already. Maybe after NY depending on the results.
Matt McIrvin
@aimai: Also, it was an electoral vote that Obama didn’t really need; any presidential election in which Nebraska is splitting its electoral votes is likely one where the Democratic candidate has a substantial electoral margin anyway. It was sort of the cherry on top, and it was also the one electoral vote that Sam Wang missed.
Emperor Snapper
@Gimlet: Yeesh. Judd Gregg really felt it was necessary to compare Sanders to the Nazis? That is just out of bounds and willfully ignorant.
Sanders leaves plenty of room for legitimate criticism, with his fantasy platform & disdain for building a coalition. There is no need to be throwing around idiotic comparisons like that.
Gimlet
@Emperor Snapper:
But he (or his editor) respectfully used “Democratic” instead of the usual RW “Democrat”.
guachi
Primary season is at least one month too long. We have two months left and mostly we are left with process to discuss and parsing everything the candidates say like it’s high school.
Occasionally we do get something worthwhile to discuss. I think the Sanders NYDN interview falls into that category, for example.
Chyron HR
@singfoom:
God, I hope not. The last thing we need is people convinced that he COULD HAVE won if he hadn’t been FORCED to drop out before the primaries were over.
aimai
@BR: Don’t be sad Warren didn’t run. The reasons she didn’t run are still valid. She’s my Senator and I adore her but she is under no misapprehensions about how hard it is to run a successful national campaign and then an Administration. She’s a hard worker and she knows just how hard getting things done is. I think she took a look at Hillary, decided that was good enough, and put her head down and is getting ready to work to make incremental change at a steady pace. She was never, ever, ever, going to be as egotistical and reckless as Bernie has been.
dogwood
@Matt McIrvin:
The Obama campaign did a lot of organizing in Nebraska for the caucuses. They left the organization in place in the Omaha area and picked up an extra electoral vote. That’s essentially how he won Indiana in 08. They had invested in 40+ field offices for that late primary, and kept most of them running. McCain had zero field offices.
BillinGlendaleCA
@Chyron HR: Hillary packed it up before the convention in 2008. She even announced the NY vote for Obama.
dogwood
@Chyron HR:
The primaries will be over long before the convention.
craigie
@Gimlet:
That’s a very annoying discussion of Socialism. You can call it what you want, but FYIGM (ie, Capitalism) seems to be coming up short, and it’s going to take some Socialism ™ to fix that.
Matt McIrvin
@singfoom: I don’t think Sanders is getting out before California, and probably not before the convention. The mathematical possibility of him taking the nomination in a California primary blowout is going to be there all the way to the end, however improbable it might be. It looks as if Clinton’s margin is narrowing there; of course, if the other big primaries go as expected, Sanders will need not just a win but a really big win in California. But even if the polls don’t show that, they can keep telling themselves that it could be another Michigan and the polls could all be wrong.
And there’s the fact that Sanders’ national support is still rising in the most recent polls. It’s too late for the delegate math to be favorable, and it might hit a ceiling soon as the number of undecideds and supporters of other candidates gets mined out, but the trend is there.
Historically, candidates that do as well as Sanders is doing now officially stay in to the convention, often try to flip the superdelegates, lobby to free the pledged delegates, etc. It’s all part of the process. I don’t think what’s happening now on the Democratic side is particularly out of the ordinary.
That her negatives are still trending upward, and her primary support is modestly declining, does genuinely worry me; there is a danger that Hillary Clinton’s voter support could collapse nationally just at the moment she clinches the nomination. But it’d be an unusual event; usually people view winners more favorably, and most supporters of losing party candidates come around.
ThresherK (GPad)
@Gimlet: FSM save me from yet another ModerateRepublican(TM). Hasn’t that bit been played to death?
rikyrah
Good Morning, Everyone :)
NobodySpecial
Well, this thread taught me two things.
1) Judd Gregg is an asshole and should die in a bukkake related accident.
2) Never read the comment section at The Hill.
rikyrah
LOL
Ted Cruz Is Fuming Because John Kasich Won’t Bow Out
By MATT FLEGENHEIMER and JONATHAN MARTIN
APRIL 4, 2016
MADISON, Wis. — Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, eyeing a victory here that could reshape the race for the Republican presidential nomination, has appeared most vexed by a rival he views as more of a long-term nuisance than a short-term threat: Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.
As Mr. Cruz looks beyond Wisconsin, where he is favored to defeat Donald J. Trump on Tuesday, his frustrations with Mr. Kasich have increasingly been laid bare. With activists and operatives opposed to Mr. Trump fanning out across the electoral map in a scramble to deny him the nomination, Mr. Cruz’s team has argued that it is Mr. Kasich’s “quixotic” bid for the White House that will prove the biggest boon to Mr. Trump in the states to come.
On Monday, Mr. Cruz amplified calls for Mr. Kasich to step aside and predicted that “the people would quite rightly revolt” if party leaders tried to elevate anyone other than Mr. Cruz or Mr. Trump at a contested convention in July.
Mr. Cruz has begun airing ads in Wisconsin accusing Mr. Kasich of cronyism as Ohio’s governor. He has sent mailers attacking Mr. Kasich’s record on spending and his views on the Second Amendment. And his team has accused Mr. Kasich of auditioning to be Mr. Trump’s vice president, with some joking that he must be receiving some sort of payment.
The exasperation with Mr. Kasich has been long in the making, but as Mr. Trump stumbles and his grasp on the nomination is loosened, it is reaching a boiling point.
At a forum with Megyn Kelly of Fox News, broadcast on Monday night, Mr. Cruz strained to conceal his frustration with Mr. Kasich’s argument that only he could defeat the Democrat nominee in the fall.
Robert Sneddon
@dogwood: Their paychecks depend on their candidate’s supporters not understanding the delegate math.
Kay
@Gimlet:
Judd Gregg should look behind him at young Republican voters coming up if he’s worried about the threat of creeping liberalism. Young Republicans are much more liberal than older Republicans, and it isn’t just “social issues”.
The ideological divide along younger/older is interesting. It hasn’t always been true in US politics. Both Parties should pay attention to it.
guachi
I really don’t get how Clinton is going down in the Democratic polls and her approval is dropping. Everyone else, Republican and Democrat, is stepping in it almost on a daily basis.
I guess there are just lots of people who respond positively to candidates who act like jerks. I don’t get it.
My mother was a 2008 Clinton supporter and donated to her. In 2016 she’s a a Sanders fan because “I don’t trust Hillary” and “Sanders is popular with the young people and it reminds me of the ’60s”
What didn’t she trust Hillary to do? She couldn’t say.
Betty Cracker
@aimai: There are a lot of competing agendas and factors in favor of inertia for sure. We might have a historic opportunity, though — not because the Democratic race has been so competitive (2008 was more so) but because the Repub side is such as massive shit-show this year. Probably nothing will come of it, just as the theft of the presidency in 2000 didn’t result in EC reform. But a high-profile train wreck is a good time to take a look at railroad operations.
rikyrah
UH HUH
UH HUH
Paul Ryan, a Mirage Candidate, Wages a Parallel Campaign
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
APRIL 10, 2016
WASHINGTON — As the Republican candidates for the White House battled in Wisconsin last week, Speaker Paul D. Ryan was conspicuously absent from his home state — but he was very much on the political stage.
He visited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, where he also met with local reporters and made several statements affirming the United States’ commitment there, before heading to other Middle Eastern nations and Germany to discuss security and intelligence issues.
Back in Washington, his staff churned out its latest flattering video of Mr. Ryan, deploring identity politics and promoting a battle of ideas — set to campaign-style music. And his office continued to beat back the not-exactly-library-voice whisper campaign favoring a coup at the Republican convention in July that would elevate Mr. Ryan to the top of the ticket.
aimai
@Matt McIrvin: It could go one of two ways–her support could collapse because people experience buyers remorse, or it could solidify and go up because she gets a nomination bounce. I think we can’t know but I expect she will get a hell of a bounce because at that point the entire party machinery and President Obama swing behind her and begin campaigning for her. And Obama is in the fight of his life–for his legacy and for the continuation of the work he started so I don’t think he is going to be half hearted. And he isn’t going to be held back, as Bill Clinton was held back by Al Gore, because of Gore’s desire not to be tied to Clinton.
I hope she picks someone as VP with enormous star power. I know people here want Perez but I think we need someone with some real excitement and national pull, although I don’t know who that would be. I think most of the Bernie voters will either, in the end, prove to be true blue Democrats and vote for her quite comfortably or will be the same pissy Nader types who actually never vote much anyway, just snipe from the sidelines. But that is partly on Bernie. We won’t find out whether he is an honorable competitor or a selfish spoiler until right before the convention. Hopefully his friends can talk him out of trying to stalk out with his delegates and he can be as gracious and enthusiastic as Hillary Clinton was in 2008.
dogwood
@Matt McIrvin:
If Bernie stays in until the convention it will be much harder to unify the party. It guarantees two more months of false hope for his supporters. Hillary was campaigning for Obama in June and July. It also takes Obama off the campaign trail until after the convention. If you want to see Hillary’s favorable rise, Bernie is going to have to stop trashing her when the voting is over and call off the attacks by supporters.
MattF
I think of the weirdness and complexity of the Presidential primary process as a kind of test– can a candidate figure out a way to get to the finish line ahead of the other candidates? The upside is that the process reveals something important about the candidates, the downside is that it’s all rather undemocratic.
japa21
@Gimlet: Some of the most asinine writing yet this campaign. I hope the Clinton campaign comes out and condemns it.
I have no problem with Sanders staying in until after the primaries just like I had no problem with Clinton staying in as long as she did in 2008. But hopefully he will at some point realize that he is in it for messaging purposes only and will stop with all the nasty innuendos and outright lies about Clinton.
Part of the problem is that he started, I think, only to present a message, knowing he couldn’t really win. Now, he apparently is under the misguided notion he actually can win and has changed his tactics. Unfortunately, that does not reflect well on him.
aimai
@Chyron HR: Maybe he’s going to Rome so the Pope can have a heart to heart with him and he can end the campaign gracefully?
dogwood
@aimai:
We don’t have time to piss around in June and July waiting for Bernie to decide what to do.
aimai
@japa21: Judd Gregg is a fucking Republican. Just because Obama tried to reach across the aisle with him doesn’t make him any kind of surrogate for HRC.
Joel
@Gimlet: Yikes.
aimai
@dogwood: No, but Bernie has shown no signs that he cares for the party or the country. He is demonstrating every day that he is under the delusion that he is the last, indispensible, candidate.
magurakurin
@Betty Cracker: You know what, it’s a party deciding on who to run. It’s a process that happens up and down the ticket. It’s not going to be democratic in the same way as an election for a federal office. It’s gotten more and more democratic with each cycle, but it still is a party making a decision for itself. And there are ways that anyone can be involved in the party more than just voting in the primary. But not many people do. I just got my ballot for Oregon. On it is the selection for Democratic Precinct Committepersons. 9 male and 9 female. There are 3 guys names on it and 1 gal. The rest are blank. So, all the Bernsters in Portland, calling for revolution, calling for change in the party, complaining that the party doesn’t respond to them could have had an absolute majority in Multnomah County just by tossing their name in the hat.
It is what is. For all Bernie’s talk, he really hasn’t done shit in terms of a real grass roots, bottom up take over. It’s all about him. He alone knows what’s best. He alone can right all the wrongs.
Fuck Bernie.
Just One More Canuck
@Matt McIrvin: “Historically, candidates that do as well as Sanders is doing now officially stay in to the convention, often try to flip the superdelegates, lobby to free the pledged delegates, etc. It’s all part of the process. I don’t think what’s happening now on the Democratic side is particularly out of the ordinary.”
When have any of these things happened (serious question, not snark)? There’s only been 6 elections where superdelegates would have been an issue (1996 and 2012 had incumbent presidents)
BillinGlendaleCA
@aimai: Heh, except the Pope’s going to be in Greece.
JMG
If Sanders stays in so he can hear his name placed in nomination and have his demonstration there’s really little harm done as long as he then spends a couple weeks in a vigorous display of unity and support.
magurakurin
@aimai:
this.
Robert Sneddon
@guachi: In part SoS Clinton’s support is dropping because a lot of folks who support her know she’s going to win the nomination and they don’t need to make an effort to vote or caucus for her but they’ve already told the polling organisations how they stand. Some others will vote for Senator Sanders to “send a message” or “keep her on her toes” or whatever. They will come out and vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election in November, unless it looks so much like a landslide that they think their vote won’t matter in which case they might not bother, or write in someone else. See Florida 2000 for a worked example of how smart that can be.
For supporters of Senator Sanders the opposite is true, they know that as the underdog he needs every vote they can scrape up in every contest so he tends to overperform to some extent compared to polling. Ratfucking might also be involved, many Republicans believe he’d be an easier opponent in the general, and they have a hate on for SoS Clinton anyway.
Kay
@JMG:
Political media made a giant deal about the Clinton supporters upending the 2008 convention. I was there. That was 90% bullshit. In some ways, honestly, I think the Democratic Party allowed the narrative to continue as a way to blow off steam and assure everyone their concerns had been heard and Clinton’s coalition was recognized as very large and committed. It’s a smart way to approach a reconciliation. You just don’t knock your allies down and run over them unless you have to. It isn’t about Bernie Sanders. It’s about his voters.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Gimlet: Please tell me that’s spoof.
japa21
@aimai: I know that, but some will see it as his being an Obama supporter. As the saying goes, with friends like that who needs enemies.
Besides, it would provide another contrast between her and Sanders. Sanders has seldom called out supporters of his for being outrageous. (Not saying never, but it hasn’t been often enough.)
p.a.
@Thoughtful David: If there’s one progressive idea that might have 50+% popular support it’s going to popular vote for President. Politically it puts conservatives in a bind as arguing for an anachronistic kludge like the electoral system. Of course their base is anti-democratic (both cap & lowercase d ?) but it might have potential as a winning issue. As always a question of who will finance a movement.
Betty Cracker
@magurakurin: Forget the BernieBro vs. Hillbot wars for a second. We have two major parties in the U.S. The integrity of our national politics rests in part on the ability of those parties to choose nominees via a fair and transparent process.
Does it make sense to have caucuses, which by their nature exclude so many people from participating? Does it make sense that states have such wide variations in their rules?
I understand how this Rube Goldberg contraption evolved, but just because it exists now doesn’t mean it’s the best approach.
OzarkHillbilly
@BillinGlendaleCA: I guess he didn’t get the memo.
D58826
@aimai: I saw this on my twitter feed so no link. There is a long article in The Atlantic by Ron Brownstein about how Bernie has changed the democratic party. He has energized (at least for 2016) the millennials who in a few years will be a larger cohort than us boomers. He has presented the possiblity of swinging for the fences in his policy solutions.
Interesting article and the democrats would be remiss if they didn’t find a way to harass that energy. However, and maybe it’s just a fault of being young, the political process normally does not move based on grand slam home runs. It is usually a grind it out singles and doubles kind of game. Think of Obamacare. The grand slam would have been single payer. Instead we have an imperfect system that can be improved in bits and pieces over the years. The history of social security was/is a similar set of grind it out improvements implemented over the years.
I remember a lot of boomer idealism when we were young and going to change the world. We just have to figure out a way to channel that idealism into practical solutions rather than simply tilting at wind mills.
Emma
@D58826: The thing is, tilting at windmills is what one does when one is young. The problem is how many of those disappointed by the struggle will grow up and how many will stay in the basement, growling “we wuz robbed” every time an election comes around.
raven
@Betty Cracker:
You are on a roll! :)
Mike J
@BR:
Many of Sanders’ supporters were 10 years old when Obama was elected. Many of them have a ten year old’s understanding of how elections work.
scav
it’s not like the mass popular vote is magic or anything: [it doesn’t] guarantee infalibilitiy, provide superpowers or anything of the ilk. Especially in light of the actual voter participation rates. Klugy way of combining mass opinion and that of the internal party infrastructure, those presumably with more vested in the long-term viability of the party and more knowledgable about the actual way politics gets done. The horrors. Perfect? nah. Mark of the beast? nah.
magurakurin
@Betty Cracker: The caucus system sucks, but as was said above, the states have to pay for the primaries. I’ve been talking with my friend about this a lot, and there are a lot of issues. There is no simple answer. For example, delegate allocation, the Democratic Party rewards districts that have been loyal voters in the past, should that practice stop? I don’t think it should. Should the caucus end? I say absolutely, but like my friend pointed out after he went to the Washington caucus, it is being used for the party to try and spot young leaders and possible future candidates. Certainly Iowa and NH need to be bumped off their high horses in my opinion, but a single day primary would be a bad idea and the many different proposed “regional” primaries all have pluses and minuses. Same with the supers, should the party leaders have no extra input into the process at all? Again, not a simple answer.
But, I agree with you on the caucus. It needs to die. It seems like it is one thing that could be done that would bring a lot of good without much downside. Of course, it will be impossible in some GOP controlled states, but even if the Democrats decided to make it a goal to eliminate them it would be a good step forward.
p.a.
@D58826:
If any organization could harass that energy, it’s the Dems. ;-)
OzarkHillbilly
@raven: 10,000 unemployed comedians and here she is giving it away for free.
dogwood
@Kay:
I all depends on what Bernie does from the end of the primaries until the convention. Is he going to keep holding rallies, and going after Hillary? Is he going to tell his supporters there’s still a chance? If he does that, then Philadelphia will be only slightly less contentious than Cleveland, and “both sides do it” will be the narrative.
MattF
@D58826: I remember, back when I was young and stupid, I was asked whether I was going to vote for Humphrey in 1968. I said I was unsure– because I felt he didn’t represent my interests. And that’s what politics is about, right? At that point, an actual conservative delivered me a lecture about enlightened self-interest.
Betty Cracker
@magurakurin:
I disagree. It’s an undemocratic process that sends the message that some votes are more valuable than others. I guess that’s my point — the system should be more small-d democratic, IMO. I get why it’s not, and I realize there is nothing simple about changing it. I understand that state parties are autonomous institutions to some extent. But I think the present system undermines democracy and alienates and disenfranchises voters.
scav
And I don’t quite see why having a mixture of local mechanisms of choice is such an inevitable bane, besmirching the integrity of anything. It’s not like having a combination of multiple guess, short essays, one long paper and that vaporous amount assigned to ‘participation’ besmirches the actual class grade assigned or worse, doesn’t indicate how much as actually been learned in the class. Complicated and imperfect? sure. But a theoretically coherent system, perfected to a single goal, might just churn out students and candidates with nothing but tha ability to take multple guess exams, having been taught to the test and nothing more. Different kettle of mess.
D58826
While I don’t think Bernie should drop out, the longer this goers on the harder it will be to unite the party after the convention. It’s part of the process for Bernie to argue that going all in on single payer is a better approach than incremental improvements to Obama care. That can be walked back/papered over in the platform because it is simply different ways to getting all Americans access to health care. When Bernie says that Hillary is qualified to be POTUS but has poor judgement, that is going to be a lot harder to paper over, besides not making a lot of sense. Once of the prime qualifications for POTUS is having good judgement. It is going to make Bernie look like a fool when he stands up at the convention and says well yes Hillary has poor judgement on presidential issues but lets vote for anyway. The GOP will just play that on an endless loop of attack ads.
D58826
@MattF: I remember my folks just smiling and telling me I was still wet behind the ears but that condition would pass.
Marc
@Betty Cracker: The alternative to caucuses is to have even more emphasis on big money in the presidential race. They really help underdog candidates – like Obama in 2008. I think that the entire delegate scramble after the votes is ridiculous; candidates should just send the slates in, period, no stupid post-election games.
I also really cringe at the meaningless claims about “who got the most votes” in a primary system with 50 states, all with radically different rules for electing delegates. If Florida and Texas were caucuses, Clinton would have lost most of her “vote margin” without any real impact on delegates. Make Washington state a primary – Sanders probably would lose a few delegates, gain a lot of votes. Make your primary open? More votes. Schedule it at a weird time or close it? Fewer. It’s not the same as a real national or state election with uniform rules. And different states don’t even have the same weight that they do in the general (for Dems – blue counts more, red counts less, in delegates.)
Finally – I expect that when Clinton crosses the line to get the majority of pledged delegates, Sanders will endorse her – as Clinton did in 2008. This will probably happen after she wins CA, which is still likely based on the polls. Didn’t hurt O in 2008, won’t hurt her this time. The one good thing about 2008 is that it’s given us some useful perspective, helpful in the heat of the primary battles.
And my #1 change? Ditch the superdelegates; they cause grief in every single election cycle without adding anything positive. They were a failed attempt to prevent a repeat of McGovern 1972 – which, as the GOP race shows, can be prevented only by burning the party down anyhow.
Yutsano
@D58826: Sigh. Again, if people actually studied how single payer systems come into being they’d understand where we are right now. NO ONE gets there overnight. No one. Not even Canada. It was one province at a time and it took decades. And not every single payer system covers EVERYTHING like Bernie wants to. The ACA is a kludge, but it’s a huge improvement. If we build on that in 20 years we’ll end up with something that makes the world go wow like Social Security does. But it won’t be overnight. And not from a revolution.
cleek
someone who has never been part of an actual party isn’t operating in a way that minimizes harm to his conveniently-adopted party?
shocking. i am so shocked.
OzarkHillbilly
@MattF: I well remember being young and stupid. I’m not young anymore.
Robert Sneddon
@Yutsano:
Apart from the UK which implemented the National Health Service overnight on 5th July 1948, replacing a motley mess of private and charitable health practices.
aimai
@Marc: I’m not a superdelegate so this is not special pleading.I like the Superdelegates. They are a bit like the tea saucer that cools the tea (that the Senate was supposed to be). Because they consist of people who actually work for the Democratic Party year round, year in and year out. They have institutional memory. They are committed. They generally do the work in-state. They are the people who need to ride the president’s coattails into office. So their interest is less on glamor and attractiveness or noisiness (all of which are component parts of the candidate for many voters) and more on who gets what done for the party and the country in the short term. I think that is a valuable perspective when what you are choosing is a person who is going to be head of the party and have to work in coalition with other people and other parts of the party.
japa21
What gets me is how many people feel that a person is either idealistic or pragmatic, as if the two can’t coexist. Just my personal opinion, but I want my pragmatists to be idealistic, to always keep the ideals as the end goal, just realize that there has to be a means to get there eventually and that involves being pragmatic.
aimai
@Robert Sneddon: Famously, the Prime Minister said of the Doctor’s lobby “I stuffed their mouths with gold.” It was also after a major war and the bombing of significant parts of the country so was part of a kind of Marshall Plan approach to politics. Bernie doesn’t have that advantage.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
@p.a.: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
geg6
@Marc:
Myself, after ridding the world of the stupidity that is a caucus, would end open primaries. I know all the Bernistas will scream bloody murder, but I really don’t give a damn. This a nomination for the party’s nominees. I am adamantly against letting those who have no interest or stake in the party be a part of that decision, whether they are the vaunted “independents” or the GOP ratfuckers. If they want to be a part of it, either join the party or start your own. Fuck you, stay out of my house unless you’re willing to help pay the mortgage and do the yardwork.
dogwood
@japa21:
The two coexist very well. We have a perfect example of an idealistic pragmatist living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Mike J
@cleek:
And he hasn’t really adopted the party. Sanders has already filed the paperwork for his 2018 senate reëlect, and he’s running as an indy.
Redshift
@aimai: Yeah, I don’t think it’s worth it to go through another WWII to get single payer quickly.
Betty Cracker
@scav:
In the classroom analogy, every student gets to participate in the different types of assignments. In the primary race, some voters are subject to one set of rules and processes and others to different ones — all on a one-off basis. If I lived in a caucus state and worked second shift or was a single parent without child care resources, I’d be shut out of the primary process. How is that fair?
Marc
@geg6: We need to win general elections. My concern is that “closed primaries” is another way of saying “don’t let new people vote in the primaries”. In general I favor fewer barriers to people participating in the process – this means making it easier to vote in the general election and making it easier to vote in primaries. The same rules that helped Obama help Sanders, which is worth remembering when we think about tightening them.
Kay
@dogwood:
You may be right but I disagree. My overall take from the 2008 convention was “the Party decides” which to me is fine because primaries are Party operations and everyone knows that going in.
I think you’re always safe with this prediction: “the Party will do whatever they can to avoid a fracture and win the general election”, and that applies to both R and D. This is 100% about winning.
aimai
@p.a.: What would that even look like as a pledge? In what sense is that within the power of the President or the party to achieve? Also: its not in any way a wedge issue with the Republicans because, as you say, they are extremely anti democratic (small d) and are on record as hating even the fact that the Senate is now popularly elected. The SENATE is too democratically chosen for them.
Marc
@aimai: My issue with the superdelegates is that they generate drama and strife in every cycle, and that it’d be a disaster if they decided things. Any cycle where the superdelegates over-rule the votes in the rest of the process is one where there really is danger of a scorched earth civil war. The people who think that they won the normal process fair and square really will refuse to endorse the person that they viewed as having stolen the election; we’re about to see (on the other side) just why this is a bad idea.
Personally, I’d rather have the elected officials be bound delegates, or have them have a role setting the rules or procedures. I’m with you in principle, but I can’t see a way in which they can change the outcome without a catastrophe.
aimai
@Marc: Its not much to ask of a candidate for the election to the presidency to do voter outreach and explain that in order to vote for him you have to register with a party affiliation. It really isn’t. It was proof of Obama’s staying power and his vision that he was, in fact, able to get millions of people registered and to the polls and organized to work for him. You really don’t want to tweak the system to allow people who are not going to be committed enough to show up during th egeneral election to determine the outcome of the primary. They aren’t necessarily your voters at all. You could have same day primary registration/democratic affiliation if that made you happy. I think that would be a great idea–in exchange for the right to vote in our party’s nominating process ( a private process) you’d have to be willing to share contact information and register as a party member. That seems quite fair, workable, and even useful.
aimai
@Marc: But they never have. The argument that they are going to overturn the popular vote (whether for Obama the first time around or for bernie this time) is a joke. Its simply being made by hysterics in the Bernie camp for effect.
HRA
It’s amusing how certain people keep on saying Bernie should rein in his supporters although it’s questionable whether they are truly his supporters while HRC cannot seem to rein in her husband.
Judd is an R. Who cares what he writes or who he supposedly endorses. What grosses me out is his referral to Nazis against a Jew.
I agree with all Betty Cracker wrote here.
aimai
@Betty Cracker: Right! This is the correct analogy. Everyone is not getting to play by the same rules.
cleek
my problem with the caucus is that it seems like a system specifically designed to discourage participation from introverts and people who don’t want to be bullied and pressured into supporting the choice of the majority.
who i vote for is my business, nobody else’s. no way am i going to go stand in a room and listen to a bunch of loudmouth jackasses tell me why i’m wrong.
japa21
@dogwood: Exactly my thinking, although to hear or read some people, he really isn’t.
Just One More Canuck
@aimai: you should send this to Debbie Wasserman Schulz – this is a far better explanation of the rationale for superdelegates than she’s ever given
MattF
OT. This NYT story about a fraudulent Pakistani diploma mill/news network/Ponzi scheme is amazing.
scav
@Betty Cracker: Granted, exact analyogy isn’t perfect in all details, they usually arent. I was using in terms of the overall benefits of a mixed system of grading (does one want a cacdidate that only does well in a single environment or one that can function even when upside down and it water?) and for that matter, individual,voters are always getting shafted under one system or another. flip your example around. Under the existing (admittedly imperfect system) at least some voters in some locations without child care services at the right time, or difficult work shecules get to participate in the system rather than ALl such voters beiny systematically shut out everywhere. Oh yeah, there are things to fix, but I’d prioritise general access of all voters In the Actual National Election rather than during mechanism by which a party chooses its candidate.
aimai
@HRA: In what sense did HRC not “rein in” her husband? He handled a confrontation badly and she had to apologize for him. And she did. Diplomatically. Has Sanders done so for his campaign manager? As far as I can see his campaign manager has said some incredibly damaging and ugly things about HRC and Sanders, far from apologizing, has simply amplified them in his speeches.
Iowa Old Lady
@p.a.: The National Popular vote agreement sseems like a good idea to me because it doesn’t involved a constitutional amendment. States pledge that their electoral college votes will go to the winner of the national popular vote. I believe 11 states have signed, but the agreement doesn’t go into effect until enough states sign to reach 270 (I think), the number you need in the EC.
aimai
@Just One More Canuck: She’s not an anthropologist.
japa21
Regarding open primaries it should be noted that some states do not require a party selection (or even an independent selection) when one registers to vote. It would be hard to have a closed primary in those cases.
Just One More Canuck
@cleek:
You have Balloon Juice for that
OzarkHillbilly
@aimai: But both candidates are. From that POV it makes no difference.
Marc
@aimai: So, if they can’t change the outcome, why do they get to vote? The fact that they’ve never changed the outcome is consistent with what I’m saying – that deploying them is a terrible idea and that they know it.
Basically, clear rules reduce discord is my angle.
dogwood
@Kay:
2008 isn’t 2016. Hillary was part of the party. Bernie is not. He can do a lot of damage in June and July. The type of damage that Hillary wouldn’t have ever thought of doing in 08.
cleek
@dogwood:
and even worse, he can do it without much effort. if he just shrugs and walks away without trying to bring his supporters to vote D, he’ll have gone a long way towards ensuring a GOP President.
scav
@Marc: Lack of use on its own doesn’t argue for or against getting rid of a part of a system. Most cars haven’t deployed their air bags, doesn’t mean they should be ditched.
Uncle Cosmo
@aimai: Um, FTR it’s Zeno’s paradox, not “xeno’s”. For Zeno of Elea (/ˈziːnoʊ əv ˈɛliə/; Greek: Ζήνων ὁ Ἐλεάτης). Happy to clear that up for you!
Betty Cracker
@scav: Well, we agree on one thing, anyway: It’s more important to fix voter access in the general election. That’s a constitutional imperative, which the party nomination process isn’t. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth rethinking the party nomination process, which is a hot mess.
Chyron HR
@Uncle Cosmo:
No, this is Xeno’s paradox about how before the acid spit can eat through the floor, it has to eat through the floor above that…
scav
@Betty Cracker: And I’m not against change in the party process, but think a simplistic dedication to uniformity of rules doesn’t necessarily solve anything substantive. There are all sorts of various imperfections to be weighed against each other.
ETA, also good to see the classic BJ second front openong up. The X or Z enos should get us to Zee or Zed, Bejing, Pekin or ??? in no time at all and then success!
HRA
@aimai:
To be truthful, I have not seen her apologies. After his first time, I said she has to get him off of the stage. I believe the BLM occasion was his third time.
I have not paid attention to what Devine has said, either. Nor have I seen Bernie Sanders smear Hillary. A large contingent of my children, their children and friends are going tonight to the University of Buffalo to see and hear Bernie Sanders. I know I will find out if he slams Hillary. More of interest to me is if anyone of the family will support and vote for a candidate now. They have had no interest except to say “It’s hard to pick anyone.”
Though they amused me on Easter Sunday when they all escaped to the outside deck to get away from the R uncle preaching for his choice.
dogwood
@cleek:
Like it or not, the person who will have to do the heavy lifting to bring the Party together will be Barack Obama.
MomSense
@aimai:
You are right that it does not make him a surrogate. It does highlight one benefit of a Clinton v. Trump or Cruz election contest. There are probably a lot of non tea party Republicans who will cross over and vote for Clinton rather than their Republican nominee. I don’t see those Republicans voting for Sanders even though they may be doing so now to ratfvck in open primaries.
Heliopause
Ah. You’re doing it for science.
Marc
@cleek: I get that a lot of Clinton partisans really dislike Sanders, which is normal in a contested primary. But I see no evidence at all that he’ll go Nader – the repeated statements that Clinton is better than any Republican are a matter of public record. His supporters are more likely to vote for his primary opponent in this cycle than Clinton supporters were at the same point in the cycle in 2008.
I’m not worried at all. He doesn’t want a republican in the White House.
boatboy_srq
@Michael Bersin:
Very succinctly put.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
And Michelle and Joe. Beltway gossip is that Biden dislikes the Clintons on a gut-level, and it doesn’t help that (I suspect) a big part of his heart thinks he should be the one leading in this primary. I hope he can work up the enthusiasm and stay on message. From my own experience a lot of my Dem-leaning relatives– I hate to use the term “white working class” that smacks of elitism to me, but they fit that demographic– really like Biden, and are probably susceptible to the “Hillary can’t be trusted rhetoric”.
As are his repeated claims that she is corrupt and lacks the judgment to be president.
Aimai
@HRA: if you haven’t seen it you were not listening. He has publicly attacked her personally in most of his recent speeches. You can read about it in all the papers.
catclub
@Bobby Thomson: I am still amazed that many GOP governed blues states have not gone that route. PA, VA, OH, WI, MI, FL
Is there any good explanation for why. It cannot be shame – they have so little.
Aimai
@Uncle Cosmo: had him confused with xena, warrior princess! Thanks for the correction!
dogwood
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Beltway gossip? That would surprise me. Joe didn’t even endorce Obama until it was over. The overwhelming evidence seems to be that despite the cartoonish media portrayal of Biden, everyone seems to like Joe, and Joe seems to like everyone. As Lindsay Graham said – If you don’t like Joe Biden, then there’s something wrong with you.
dogwood
@Aimai:
If you don’t see it, it didn’t happen.
Bobby Thomson
@Matt McIrvin: most challengers aren’t nihilistic kamikazes.
MomSense
@Betty Cracker:
I “voted” in my caucus absentee. The problem is that in a lot of rural states this is how we can afford to participate. I do wish we could fund primaries but I won’t hold my breath.
D58826
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: And those two positions are going to be hard to reconcile during the general, esp. for his true believer supporters.
Bobby Thomson
@Kay: no, it’s about Sanders. Clinton campaigned for the nominee in June. Sanders won’t, because he’s a fucking asshole.
shomi
While all the Bernie supporters are trying to cut down Hillary who is by far the best person to go up against Repubs, the REAL enemy is planning a bait and switch to put a Paul Ryan in there. Someone who has not be subject to months of attacks and having their history dug into.
It could actually work. The Koch brothers are not stupid.
But feel free to continue to support Bernie because he promised you a pony….lol.
Progressives are so stupid which is why I no longer call myself one. Ever since the whole single payer or I’m not voting thing. This is no different.
Ella in New Mexico
I had a thought this morning watching a CNN discussion regarding how Donald Trump supporters who have voted for him may not see their votes translate into delegates because, well “it’s how the party does things”:
The fact that millions of peoples votes don’t really matter bothers me, even if I hate Trump.
It smacks of a by gone era in which lots of us were completely locked out of the system of politics, for being humans of color, for being female, for being poor–for whatever reason. And all of us thought we had remedied much of that, at least in our institutions and expectations. But now, the “smoke filled rooms” of the 1800’s where the candidates were decided in secret is apparently back, and all anyone can say is “well, this IS a party decision, after all”, as if we’re just stupid for thinking it was ever anything else.
Meanwhile, all the networks and media are hammering this damn horse race like today is November 8th. Particularly for the Republicans, the frenzy it’s building in the average voter is incredible. I mean, poor Steve Kornackie has to do his overly excited “delegate math lesson” like every hour now just to keep the handful of them who tune in happy, not just on election nights because it’s all so exciting!!!
What does everyone in the Republican party think is gonna happen when millions and millions of voters find out that the Party pulled the rug out and fucked them over? And even though I think we’re a whole lot better, what if the fucking unelected Democratic “super delegates” do the same?
Given how pumped up the voters are from the media’s over the top coverage, I think the election system, and the Two Party System in general, is gonna be in for one HELL of a bloody French Revolution if things don’t go down the way the voters want them to.
starscream
@shomi: I agree with a lot of what you say (we do have a tendency to turn on our own), and I’m a little worried about Paul Ryan, but I look at how the GOP primary has gone and don’t see how I can win. The establishment hand-picked a bunch of people (Bush, Rubio, Kasich), and each was rejected soundly. Don’t see why Ryan would be any different.
Bob In Portland
Wyoming was one of the thirty-three Democratic State parties that laundered money for Clinton’s PACs. It would be interesting to see how many of the superdelegates will go against the will of their state parties’ voters to tilt towards H. Clinton.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
uh huh
D58826
well there is this on huffington
chopper
@Bob In Portland:
I’m sure all four of WY’s superdelegates are gonna turn the whole election on its head.
Bobby Thomson
@Kay: the party didn’t resolve the nomination at the 2008 convention. Clinton did when she conceded months earlier. At this point you’re just engaging in revisionist history.
Bobby Thomson
@Bob In Portland: paid Russian propagandist says what?
Kay
@dogwood:
I feel like this is hindsight. There were a ton of Obama supporters who said she would blow up the Party rather than concede and political media fed every bit of that. They require conflict. This cycle they also require a “both sides do it” theme where “both Conventions” collapse because of “extremists” on both sides. I’ll be surprised if that even happens on the GOP side. They’ll mostly rally around the nominee.
I will enthusiastically support Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders when she’s the nominee because I think she’s a stronger candidate for the general, but we now have two cycles where she ran in a primary and there was a substantial section of the Dem base who were looking for an alternative. That’s just true. She doesn’t have to overcome it because general elections are a choice between 2 candidates, not 3 and she is winning the primary and as it gets closer to November people will just want to win.
Ella in New Mexico
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: If she has more of our votes, she should win, no question.
Barbara
@Robert Sneddon: Without outlawing private insurance in the U.K. Studying other countries brings home how varied universal access guarantees of health care are by nation. Our biggest obstacle to universal access in the U.S. isn’t the presence of private insurance, but just how GD expensive everything is. That means every time you try to bring people into the fold you have to figure out how many more percentage points of your GDP you want to devote to health care. The real work is to get the cost down, and that’s a factor paying less for individual services or items, and systematically gaining greater control of wasteful utilization.
Kay
@Bobby Thomson:
It isn’t June, it’s April.
chopper
@Kay:
ah, the official slogan of the internet.
Bob In Portland
@chopper:
@Bobby Thomson:
This and this.
If Trump wins the GOP nomination, and since he is running against the institutional GOP, it won’t be off the table for him. Either you find out about it now, chopper and Bobby, or you find out about it during the general.
Percysowner
Team Sanders now demanding Hillary win 59% of pledged delegates
This could get ugly and if we lose the election because of these shenanigans the devastation to the country will be monumental.
Barbara
@Ella in New Mexico: The super delegates are not going to “do the same.” They did not do it last time and they won’t this time. So a theoretical risk of something just isn’t the same as the actual and current efforts to ensure that the expressed preference of Trump voters is nullified by various party machinations. As to what will happen? If those voters are outraged they will not vote, write Trump’s name in, or vote for Clinton, or whatever they do, but they will have an opportunity to let everyone know on November 8. And if they end up not being outraged, I don’t see why we should be outraged on their behalf. It bothers me in the abstract but what it comes down to is, the parties are private political organizations. A long time ago when I was a wee judicial clerk a challenge to Republican Party governance was brought by an aggrieved prospective delegate who objected to the Party’s decision to ensure that every candidate’s slate of delegates was comprised of an equal number of men and women. He sued on the grounds of equal protection and he lost. It’s hard to wrap your mind around the fact sometimes because the parties are in essence the alter ego of our democratic institutions in a lot of ways, but they govern themselves and are largely constitutionally immune to public efforts to control them. I agree that it would be most unwise for the super delegates to actually decide the outcome of what appears to be a rough but orderly nomination process. It may be wise to keep them in place for one that has for whatever reason gone completely haywire. It’s certainly a reasonable judgment for the party to make. To reduce the possibility that they will be used for rhetorical effect, the party could ask them to keep their preferences in check until the nomination contests are over at the state level, or to presumptively vote the way their district/state voted, if they are elected officials. But I don’t think any of that is required.
scav
@Percysowner: Well, yes, complain about not getting superdelegates (an established, if odd, part of a system) by unilaterally demanding a supermajority. Shades of gridlock in Congress, that bastion of publicly approved behavior.
Barbara
@Percysowner: So basically, the super delegates are deducted from the numerator but not the denominator. Nice. In essence, what Weaver is trying to put in place is support for his own argument, when he makes it, that the super delegates “decided” the outcome of the contest because Clinton didn’t have a majority of the “delegates” never mind that she will almost certainly have a majority of the pledged delegates.
burnspbesq
@magurakurin:
’80 percent of winning is showing up.”
President Jebediah Bartlett
dogwood
@Kay:
Yes it’s April. And we’re talking about what Bernie will do in June when the voting ends. You keep deflecting. Weaver says right now that they won’t concede. Pretty much sums up Sanders integrity doesn’t it? He knew the rules when he entered the race, but he doesn’t give a shit.
Elie
Bernie is gonna behave because if he doesn’t, not only will he wreak destruction on the party but we lose to the orks. That will never be forgotten and I personally would fund a primary opponent on his ass. He would be reviled by at least as many people who think he is so cool. He is weak sauce underneath all that bravado. He likes his life where he doesn’t actually have to do anything but talk a good game. That would be ruined. He should go talk to Nader and how well that went for him after 2000. It would be much much worse for Bernie.. and his manager Weaver. Also.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Elie: I’ve never seen any evidence that Nader has a single regret about 2000. He ran again in 2004, didn’t he? I have no trouble imagining Sanders telling himself and anyone who will listen that President Trump is Clinton’s fault for the rest of his life.
starscream
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: No, he’ll say that a President Clinton would have been just as bad.
chopper
@Bob In Portland:
you act as if I give a shit about yet another BiP conspiracy theory. still believe that the us gubbermint created hiv?
Bobby Thomson
@Bob In Portland: excuse me, I don’t give a shit what your paymasters are telling you to say, and even less what a literally insane woman has written.
FlipYrWhig
@Elie:
Bernie Sanders doesn’t care about that. If the corrupt Democratic Party loses, it’s just one step closer to progressive nirvana. He’s a dick with a messiah complex.
Matt McIrvin
@Thoughtful David: There were attempts to split EVs by congressional district in California and Pennsylvania, both of which failed. Probably in other states too; I’d expect a push to do it in any blue state that has a Republican-dominated legislature and a Republican governor.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Bobby Thomson: I heard someone talking about that article and after I got over the “What the fuck….?”, I tried to remember why I knew the name Margot Kidder.
Barbara
@Matt McIrvin: The Pennsylvania governor turned back this proposal over fear of his own prospects, which turned out to be waylaid by other — at that time unknown — issues, including the extraordinary developments involving the Penn State football team. The other thing was, Republican members of the House in closer districts (think suburban Philadelphia) worried that tying their own prospects to the presidential elections would make them sitting ducks. Pennsylvania is heavily gerrymandered but if that system were in place, parties could focus significant efforts to goose turn out in districts where it would make a difference at the presidential level, and thus make it certain that it would also be important for House races.
D58826
@FlipYrWhig: Let us not forget that Bernie Sanders is not and never has been a member of the democratic party. He may have changed his registration in order to cash in on the democratic establishment for his ego trip but he has 0 amount of loyalty. He has danced around thew issue of fund raising for down ballot democrats. Some one mentioned up thread that he has filed his 2018 Senate papers as an independent. So much for loyality
NR
@Betty Cracker: The Republican system is just as ridiculous, though. In California, they allocate three delegates per district. That means the five Republicans in Nancy Pelosi’s district will have just as much say in choosing the nominee as the thousands of Republicans in Kevin McCarthy’s district.
Aqualad08
@Bob In Portland: Is that the same Hillary PAC that Bernie accepted $10,000 from in 2006? Cause that makes your comment AWKWARD… ;)
NR
@D58826: Would you rather he have run as an independent in the general election?
NR
@shomi:
LOL!
Yes, someone who a majority of the country can’t stand is definitely the best candidate out there for us.
Robert Sneddon
@NR: Senator Sanders ran and won as an Independent for his Congressional and Senatorial general elections, why he decided to piggyback off the Democratic Party establishment machine and its organisational and fund-raising abilities during his run for the White House I wouldn’t like to say. Convenience, laziness, opportunism maybe?
NR
@MomSense:
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is happening other than your intense, burning hatred of Bernie Sanders?
NR
@Robert Sneddon: That is not the question I asked. The question is, would you rather he have run as an independent in the general election? He could have done so.
Aqualad08
@NR: “In California, they allocate three delegates per district.”
It’s insanity, isn’t it? It happens with the GOP in a LOT of states. And I have yet to hear a good reason for it happening.
D58826
@NR: Good question. If he campaigns for Hillary then obviously no. If he ran his entire primary campaign as an independent he would not split the democrats and its an open question if he would have gotten as far as he has without the party label. Would he, for example, have been included in any of the debates or gotten on the ballot in as many states as he has? If he and his followers simply take their marbles and go home after the convention then the effect may well be the same as if he ran as an independent. Now if he ran as an independent and drew off some GOP votes in the general then could have an electoral college issue. We’re getting into 11 dimensional chess here.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
He could also be using his platform to persuade all his millions and millions of new voters of the importance of state and downticket races, but he’s a narcissistic asshole.
But you look at him and see the benign grandpa who can resolve the daddy issues you bring to politics. Sorry to break it to you, Tiger, Bernie can’t retroactively fix your childhood.
Aqualad08
@NR:
Actually, sorta yes. When Nader did it in 2000, the Green Party was at it’s height in statewide recognition and getting on every state’s ballot wasn’t an insane task. The Green Party has since been an afterthought. Had Bernie started an indie run with them or the Working Families Party, he would have made no money and been polling at 5% because nobody would have paid any attention to him.
Betty Cracker
@NR: The coming GOP primary crack-up could be a golden opportunity for the Dems, but they probably won’t take it. I think Clinton will put Sanders away pretty soon, and aside from some butt-hurt meeping from a handful of neo-PUMAs, that will be that, which means it will be easy for the Dems to keep muddling along with this Rube Goldberg contraption they call a primary system. But someday it might be a much more competitive race, and a primary that goes down to the wire and is decided by super-delegates could be a nightmare for the Dems, IMO. So I wish they’d consider reform.
NR
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Oh, is this the part where BJers project their psychological issues onto me? It’s always so much fun seeing what you guys have buried deep down.
NR
@Aqualad08: People most certainly would have paid attention to him. He got as far as he did because his message resonates with a lot of voters.
NR
@Aqualad08: I think the Republican method in North Carolina is the fairest of all. Pure proportional by statewide results, no minimum threshold. It’s even better than the Democrats’ system where it’s more valuable to have a narrow win in a district with an odd vs. even number of delegates, to give just one example of the nonsense involved in the system.
Calouste
@NR: In which case he would probably gotten as many votes as Gary Johnson in 2012, when he bailed the GOP for the Libertarians. The only reason Sanders has the visibility and popularity he has now is because he is running in the Democratic primary.
See further, as with a lot of things Sanders, Trump, Donald J.
Aqualad08
@NR:
Bullshit. And Sanders was smart enough to realize that and decided get the built-in press and structure of an existing national party. That his message is resonating is a credit to the candidate, but please don’t pretend that he would have had anything more than Nader’s numbers if he were an indie. Third party candidates need cash to be noticed. Access to DNC data was CRUCIAL to him getting the money ball rolling; without it, he’d be holding bake sales in Ludlow.
different-church-lady
Maybe next you could tackle debunking the “SEVEN STRAIGHT WINS!!!” nonsense.
different-church-lady
@NR:
Well, you gotta admit, you do make it awfully easy for us.
Three-nineteen
@burnspbesq: Josiah Bartlet
@Elie: orcs
I am so glad my expertise can help out in this thread.
different-church-lady
@Robert Sneddon: Because the rest of the country ain’t Vermont. SATS(simple)Q.
different-church-lady
@Three-nineteen: You control the board.
Berto
The important thing in this election is the horse race.
It’s like liberals complaining about Clinton’s vote for the Iraq War. What do they possibly have to complain about, she voted for the winning side.
Matt McIrvin
@Barbara: In California, where you can pass a constitutional amendment by simple majority vote, they tried to slip it in by putting the initiative on the ballot for the June 2008 primary (possibly figuring, incorrectly, that this would be a low-turnout election). But I think they didn’t get the required petition signatures to do it.
burnspbesq
@NR:
Kindly stop being an ass. You backed the loser. That’s on you, not us.
liberal
@geg6: Despite being a BernieBro, I agree that the whole idea of an open primary is stupid.
Now, IMHO the two-party duopoly is stupid, but we’re stuck with that as long as we have first-past-the-post.
liberal
@Gimlet: Judd Gregg conflates multiple meanings of the word “socialist”. The USSR had a disastrous economy because it was a socialist in the dictionary sense: the state either owns or controls production.
Bernie Sanders is not a socialist in that sense.
Bob In Portland
@Aqualad08:
No, I don’t believe it is, and I’m just guessing here, but 2006 is not the same as 2016 either. Nor is laundering 26 million dollars through state parties to bypass the donation cap of federal law while buying superdelegates is not the same as getting ten thousand dollars a decade ago. It would seem to be an awkward thing for Hillary to have to address in the general.
@Bobby Thomson:
Having just completed my taxes I can assure you and your fevered brain that I have no paymasters. And, yes, Margo Kidder was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder thirty years ago. If that provides you an excuse to ignore hers and several other news articles about the money-laundering scheme then good for you. Ignorance is strength. There are only so many brain cells and you must protect yourself. So go ahead, censor yourself.
@chopper:
In July 1969 Dr. MacArthur, Director of the U.S. Army Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) appeared before Congress (the Appropriations Committee of the House) and stated:
” within a period of 5-10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.” Dr. MacArthur added, “It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to another method of massive killing of large populations.”
Soon thereafter Robert Gallo and Luc Montagner were toiling in the laboratories of Litton Bionetics with things like simian and other animal viruses. Then, within a few years a disease no one had identified began killing blacks in Africa and gay men in the US. And Haitians.
MacArthur’s request for funding is in the congressional record, so there’s no argument there. Gallo’s work is there for you to see if you look.
Even if Gallo and Montagner didn’t create “a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired” since that was the neighborhood where they were looking maybe they just found something out there that was a biological agent and then they didn’t have to invent it. Or maybe, in an amazing coincidence, MacArthur’s funding request had nothing to do with what Army contractors at Litton Bionetics were doing and what eventually became AIDS.
The clearest way to find out the origin of AIDS in the various human populations where it exploded would be to trace the relationship between various innoculation programs and the early victims of AIDS. However, it seems like no one in the government or the media are particularly interested in that.
Aqualad08
@Bob In Portland:
Actually, you can stop right there. If Margot Kidder is to be believed (now THERE is a sentence I never thought I would ever write), then yes, it’s the same PAC, Hillary PAC, who did, in fact, give Sanders $10,000 in 2006.
Being a white rabbit in the snow is soooooo much easier…. :)
chopper
@Bob In Portland:
see, again, you seem to think i give a shit about your krazy konspiracies. i really don’t.
Ascap_scab
My cinnamon caramel apple pie can kick all your asses especially when paired with a scoop of french vanilla bean ice cream.
So who’s gonna challenge me?
Bob In Portland
@Aqualad08: HILLPAC in 2006. The money was laundered by The Hillary Victory Fund for the Hillary for America or Forward Hillary PACs.
Bob In Portland
@chopper: Whatever. If you don’t care about something don’t bring it up, fool.
Tripod
Bernie has burned through ~$100 million in the last two months, to a 40/60 split. He’s outspent her massively. That ain’t gettin’ er done, by any metric.
But hey, extend those trend lines out to infinity and beyond, he’s a sure thing.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Tripod: I think he outspent her two-to-one in AZ and WI.
I really want to know how much of those small dollar donations have gone in big dollar sums to born-again-lefte Tad Devine.
opium4themasses
So Clinton figures out a way to fund her own campaign and the state parties without breaking the rules and you call it devious? If Sanders had done it, you would be lauding him for the forethought. Sadly, Sanders cares little for down ticket races. He’ll get a Congress to write laws he cares to pass carted in on unicorns.
tones
@Tripod: Luckily, he consistently out-raises her every month even with the wall street and war hawk support from the corporate overlords.