Politico, last night — “It’s mathematically impossible for Bernie to win with pledged delegates”:
… After winning Indiana, Sanders has 1,399 pledged delegates and superdelegates to his name, according to the Associated Press’ count. That means he needs 984 more to reach the threshold of 2,383 needed to win.
The remaining contests, however — Guam, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the District of Columbia — only have 933 pledged delegates to offer.
So even if Sanders were to win 100 percent of the pledged delegates in each of those states, he wouldn’t make it past the mark…
You are perfectly free to keep campaigning, to run against the Republican nominee and all his fellow Repub enablers, to fight fiercely for your goals at the Democratic convention. But if you have any power over your most fervent followers — and you do! — it’s time to let them know that ratfvcking Hillary Clinton for Donald Trump’s benefit is not the way to achieve a better, more equitable society. You’ve made it clear how proud you are to have so many people behind you; let them keep making you proud, not by carrying on like Karl Rove or Roger Stone.
the day after Trump secures the GOP nomination, Bernie supporters start up this: pic.twitter.com/ShZBz2TgcY
— laura olin (@lauraolin) May 4, 2016
Is @HillaryClinton trying to steal the nomination from @BernieSanders? Our panel weighs in NEXT on #Hannity.
— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 5, 2016
Any further questions who Ailes would prefer to run against? https://t.co/Yu6Q8yXrGW
— Bob Schooley (@Rschooley) May 5, 2016
I’m with Katha Pollitt, per The Nation:
… At 74, you are who you are. Bernie is a traditional class-based leftist for whom feminism is a distraction. Abortion, as he told Rolling Stone, is a “social issue.” Women’s mental and physical health, their economic survival, their ability to determine the shape of their own lives as men do, is a social issue? The clear implication is that reproductive rights (like guns and LGBT rights, which he mentions in the same breath) are secondary considerations, impediments to winning broad support for his populist economic proposals. I can go to the comment sections of AlterNet—or The Nation—and get that view any day from the bros, but I really thought we’d be further along with a white man who wants to lead a movement in a party that is majority female and over a third people of color…
Trump understands very well that racism and sexism are crucial components of the nationalistic insurgence he wants to lead; he appeals openly to some of the darkest impulses in our political id. It is more than disturbing that Bernie pays so little attention to these dangers. He’s changed the debate within the Democratic Party by showing that millions of voters want more than incremental, technocratic tinkering with growing inequality. For that, I’m grateful. But when it comes to dealing with the Republicans in November, I don’t think Bernie gets the awful reality we’re facing. Hillary does.
So this just showed up on my Facebook feed.
Cathie from Canada
The longer this goes on, the less popular Sanders is within the Democratic party. If Hillary did actually drop out, the party would draft Joe Biden.
I have to wonder if this is another attempt by the GOP to split the vote on the left. Because I wouldn’t put that past them for a second.
I will just say that some of these folk need to do a bit more reading about 20th century American history.
@Ultraviolet Thunder: I know that Joe of the Morning likes Bernie a whole lot more than the Hilbeast.
ETA: One thing that really bugs me about the favorable/unfavorable crap is that folk(and I’ve seen it here) as static; it’s not.
Progress is moving forward.
Sometimes moving forward is as simple as moving on.
Who will you register to vote on Thursday?
This is perhaps a wild shot in the dark, but I wager “reforming state election laws so that third parties can actually be competitive” is no where to be found within their platform.
Hillary Clinton needs to win 75% of remaining pledged delegates to win with pledged delegates. Will she?
Maybe it’s time to stop giving the dead-enders the attention they crave?
At this point I find myself wishing Sanders would just stroke the fuck out.
I’m not proud of that.
Only Bernie’s campaign is demanding that she win the Democratic nomination with only pledged delegates. The party itself requires no such thing.
@Amir Khalid: Nor is Bernie demanding that of himself.
@hellslittlestangel: You really need to study your Bernie Math; the midterm is on Friday.
@Amir Khalid: Anne Laurie is saying right here that Sanders should drop out because he can’t win with pledged delegates. Double standard?
I am sick and tired of adults behaving like 6 year olds on a tear. It’s not faaaaair mommy is not a freaking political statement. The rules are the rules. If you don’t like them, do the heavy lifting of changing them after the game is over.
Of course not. If Bernie’s supporters can demand Hillary drop out because she can’t win with only pledged delegates, why can’t a Hillary supporter demand the same of Bernie?
The best use of Bernie’s time would be to be out campaigning for incumbent Democratic Senators and potential Senatorial candidates. It’s over, Bernie – STFU and do something helpful!
@Bostonian: I don’t know where you learn math at but we d know Sanders know longer has a path to win with pledge delegates
@Bostonian: If superdelegates are not counted, then the total of pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination should be lowered. Maybe Bernie will work with the rules committee, to change the nominating process for the next election.
This is how you win the Democratic Party’s nomination. These are the rules. They will not be changed in the middle of the process. You were not a Democrat, and never should have been allowed to run in the first place. DWS trying to be too cute by half.
Good Morning ?, Everyone ?
@rikyrah: Good Morning..
@rikyrah: Good morning! What are we doing up so early?
@Cathie from Canada:
And, I would have absolutely no problem with that. I’d go for JoeyB in a heartbeat.
@rikyrah: Happy Cinco de Mayo.
@Emma: Speak for yourself, I’m up late.
Honestly, I don’t know. Just woke up this early today. I know that I will pay for it later on today ?
@JPL: Bernie is above internal party politics and rules making. That’s why he is above it all.
@OzarkHillbilly: Above it all, in the clouds, one might say.
@rikyrah: Me too. Consumption of caffeine will be adjusted accordingly.
@BillinGlendaleCA: Ugh. Night shift?
Super delegates have no roll to play in Democratic primaries UNTIL the convention, so don’t include super delegates in your delegate count. At this point, about 300 pledged delegates separate Bernie and Sec.Clinton and California has 475 delegates where Bernie is surging. Enjoy the process.
@BillinGlendaleCA: I think I need more coffee. I was kind of redundant.
Even with mollycoddling you and discounting the SD’s, doesn’t Hillary have over 300+ lead in pledged delegates? Then by how much percent your idol has to win the rest of the delegates to win the nom?
@Ultraviolet Thunder: No need for the Repugs to do that. This wouldn’t be the first time the Democratic voters said “meh, we’ll just take the GOP guy and bitch, whine and moan for at least the next four years.” Awful as the Republican Party has become, it isn’t our worst enemy; that’s much closer.
@Emma: No, lazy bum.
Ben Cisco (onboard the Defiant)
Please provide links.
Because when it comes right down to it, “the girl is supposed to let the boy win”?
@raven: So it’s like Saint Patrick’s Day. Knock me over with a feather.
@BillinGlendaleCA: Nothing wrong with that.
Here you go.
@BillinGlendaleCA: with repect, I only know what I read on the Net and I read Sen.Sanders is surging in California.
No, I said Sanders should tell his supporters to stop demanding Hillary drop out. There’s a difference between campaigning and ratfvcking, and if Sanders doesn’t want to torpedo not just his presidential hopes but his place in history, he needs not to elide that difference.
I have enough respect for his stated political ideals that I don’t want Bernie Sanders to be Nader 2000 Returns — “This Time It’s A Farce!”
@grascarp: The internet(teh Google) is your friend, CA Democratic Primary Polling. You’re welcome.
Joe of the Morning and Mika are trying to figure out why Kasich didn’t appeal to Republicans, they just don’t understand it.
I have to stay off Facebook. Got into an argument with a couple of Bernistas yesterday. One, who rushed to tell me she was a Jewish lesbian from Seattle SO THERE!, blathered on about how Hillz is worse than any and all Republicans and that no Hillary supporter could give her a reason or any progressive policy proposals to vote for her, only reasons to vote against Republicans. After telling her that should be enough for any so-called progressive, I gave her links to every policy issue posted on Hillary’s website. She never even took the time to read any of it before replying that the only thing Hillary gets somewhat right is social issues, like women’s issues and such, which simply aren’t important enough compared to jailing bankers and free college and destroying Wall Street, so she will absolutely NOT vote for her and will sit this one out or go with Jill Stein. I refrained from telling her in graphic terms what the Stormfronters, empowered by their new
FuhrerPresident Trump, would do with a Jewish lesbian while she waited for her socialist paradise to be ushered in in the wake of a Trump presidency. These people are too stupid to even try to get them aboard.
sorry, you gotta read that trend upside down. just like bernbots.
@geg6: Nach Trump, uns.
@amk: I took 2 years of Calculus, but this Bernie Math is really hard.
@BillinGlendaleCA: Thanks for the great link . I posted it at Twitter and it will make the rounds. Looks like Bernie has enough time to bring up those numbers. Can’t wait to see how it works out.
“We cannot afford to set back the small gains of Obama”
That’s why we must elect the candidate who wants to scrap Obamacare!
@BillinGlendaleCA: see above. bernbot gets it. It’s all your fault.
@grascarp: You can’t wait to see how it works out? Are you high? It works out with Hillary Clinton as nominee. The only mystery at this point is whether Sanders decides to help her win the general or not. This is getting fucking stupid now.
Since before May Day, those numbers have been showing a widening gap in Hillary’s favour.
@BillinGlendaleCA: Lots of imaginary numbers.
obv Clinton is the presumptive nominee. I can’t help but worry a bit about her, just a tiny bit. The FBI investigation on the emails is progressing, much as Dems want to handwave this away, it’s not good to have an issue like that hanging over a campaign. The matchup polls — which are somewhat predictive now — are far better for Sanders v Trump. I think this #DropoutHillary is stupid as fuck, but her candidacy does seem a tad weaker than I felt about six months ago. And with so much to lose.
@magurakurin: WHY would you ask if I’m high? Let’s chat again after Kentucky and Oregon’s contests on May 17. Have a nice day
@Origuy: Along with the Green Party, Libertarian Party, Constitutional Party, Justice Party, Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Party USA, Progressive Party and Reform Party. Oh, and Americans Elect. Yeah. Should work wonders.
I feel she’s stronger now. But anything can happen.
Immigration. I don’t think the elites in the GOP are willing to admit how far Right the base have gone on immigration because it’s not just outreach to Latinos, it’s their donors. Business interests want immigration reform. If immigration is a new litmus test they’re really boxed in. If you look at Trump immigration now beats abortion as a line they can’t cross.
George W Bush and Ted Kennedy worked together on immigration in 2007. Now it’s a career killer for a Republican. That’s a big change.
@Baud: Maybe. I’ll probably relax once a few more matchup polls come out over May and show her maintaining that 7+ lead over Trump.
thank God you’re remaining in the race, just in case.
Anyone who helps Hillary focus on being a good Democrat first instead of getting triangutarded early is doing God’s work. If her campaign can’t survive mild criticism and occasional mean girl comments from Sanders supporters, how the he’ll is she gonna survive the attacks of the week heeled anti Clinton industry from within the GOP.
@Kay: tbf, Bush’s career after 2007 took a bit of a downturn.
@grascarp: Jesus wept. Sanders is done. He lost. To think otherwise is delusion. So I was being generous in assuming you were stoned. Fuck me.
Three fucking words:nuclear launch codes. Do you know what “the football” is? Do you want Trump to have it? Time to get off Bernie’s little crusade and help the team here.
Exactly. That’s why I support hippie punching. It makes them better.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
The sanders campaign is in it’s death throes. The last days of failed campaign are always sad.
Judging from GOS the vast majority have moved on to the bargaining and depression stages of grief.
Every losing campaign will always leave behind a small debris of dead enders and pumas.
It’s best to ignore them. In fact, ignoring them hurts them the most.
All the pearl clutching over the big, bad Berniebros is ridiculous. Anne Laurie has been banging this drum for a while now, and is likely to stroke out by the time Donald’s flying monkeys begin their attack, which will be far worse.
I don’t like the turn Bernie has taken, but there is no reason for him to dropout until after California. Hillary seems to be doing just fine taking the heat from Bernie in stride. Her supporters would be wise to do the same.
I think Hillary will be the outright nominee come the convention, and Bernie and the majority of his supporters will end up backing her. Because the real menace is Trump, and those of us with a functioning brain are well aware of that.
I wonder where they got those numbers claiming Clinton has higher unfavorables than Trump. Is it some specific cherry-picked poll, or numbers cherry-picked from two different polls, or are they just made up entirely? Because it’s definitely not what aggregated polls say.
@HelloRochester: – Cute. Tell me, how is Bernie going to handle a media who 24/7 starts blasting Bernie’s own statements and history? Ie – I am a Socialist. Israel is wrong, Palestinian’s are right, honeymooning in Russia, etc.
Don’t get me wrong, that wouldn’t stop me from voting for Bernie if he were the nominee. But it will stop about 50% of the country because this country has a bunch of dumb shits in it. The question then becomes does Bernie want to be the leader of even dumber shits by pulling a Nader 2000? I don’t see this going anywhere else with Bernie. Bernie won’t be able to win in November.
@kindness: i think this is a hard case to honestly make. a big chunk of the public knows Sanders by now. The matchup polls are significantly better for Sanders. Also, the deadline for running 3rd party is basically up, so please, get the facts in order here.
@grascarp: Is Hillary even running in California, or is she letting him have it?
Because she’s doing that sometimes, at this point. She just gave him Indiana, straight-up gave it. Spent nothing, wasn’t there.
This has some implications as far as allowing him to show up at the convention and demand adoption of his platform (which is pretty hard to tell from her 2016 platform). Maybe she thinks it’ll be more easily believed if it seems to be coming from Sanders as a big ‘concession’ on her part.
True, but they almost passed immigration and Bush’s immigration bill was chock-full of goodies for business interests. The whole negotiation between Bush and Kennedy was based on Bush getting what he wanted for business in exchange for Kennedy getting a path to citizenship for the (then) 12 million. It was excruciating for Kennedy. Democrats gave up a lot. By the end Kennedy was losing Democratic senators- they felt he gave up too much.
It wasn’t a litmus test for Republicans. It is now.
@BillinGlendaleCA: Absolute unfavorables don’t mean squat. The question is how many people hate Hillary worse than they hate Trump, or vice versa. I suspect most people who dislike her really detest him, but we need more data of that kind.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
Didn’t see anyone mention this opinion piece from Faux News:
As Mnem noted, it even scans! “Hillary has beliefs; Trump has none.”
@grascarp: The Hill, one day ago: “Sanders trailing Clinton by double digits in California”.
Iowa Old Lady
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
Clinton is good at this, as shown by her lack of campaigning in Indiana. She’s acting like the presumptive candidate and putting her resources where they matter.
In my readings of US history, loud and violent opposition to immigrants has been occurring for at least ….what…..two hundred years? I guess what I see as the big change, is the embracing of this opposition by the majority of one of your “official” parties, which includes most of the elected Reps and Senators.
If I remember correctly, the opposition used to be from fringe parties or minorities within one of the two major parties. This seems to be a new animal.
Strange, because when I was younger [1960s] it seemed to me that it was a point of pride in US society as to how welcoming you were to immigrants, no matter where they came from. Now? Not so much.
@grascarp: You read that he was surfing in Californian.
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism: hahahahahaha!
Sorry, but that is pure comedy gold right there.
I did not, and will not, go on the Fox site to read the piece, but you have to wonder where this person has been for the last twenty-five years or so. The average RWNJ voter seems to have absolutely no memory of anything that the Republicans have done, although they can spit out every crazy detail of every conspiracy theory related to the Clintons, and Obama.
The simple fact that these people continue to flock to the Fox site for news and opinion speaks volumes of their capacity for rational thought and logic. Please.
Yes, yes, you can’t help it.
Rob Reiner was great on Ho.
@Anne Laurie: That particular link in your post links to something very dumb on the part of some supporters of Bernie Sanders. That particular group makes the rest of them look bad. They should stop. The idea that Hillary should drop out because of some polls is blatantly absurd, while the idea that Bernie should drop out because he (like Hillary) is not going to reach nomination before the convention is merely arguably bad.
That said, your title is “Enough Already, Senator Sanders,” and your first text is about the mathematical impossibility of him winning the nomination.
What is Sanders himself doing that you think he should stop doing, if that’s not running for president? I’m sure you could find random Hillary supporters being idiots on the internets too if you wanted, but most of us wouldn’t imagine that’s something she’s doing.
Jack the Second
But Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the saaaaaaaaaame!
I posted this yesterday to what I thought was a dead thread but when I logged on today I saw that even dollared agreed with the points that Sargent made, so it may be worth posting again in a thread with a bit more life to it. Given that some of the comments in the article are on the record by democratic insiders it should say to Bernie’s supporters that the party in general and the Clinton campaign in particular is not out to disrespect them. Sure hard elbows were thrown in the primary just like in 2008, its part of the process. But now is the time to look to November not last March. So here goes.
Greg Sargent has a Plumline write up about what top democrats, some on the record, think Bernie should do next. And no its not go into a dark closet and drink hemlock.
They have no problem with him staying in the primary race till the end. They do hope that he tones down the personal attacks on Clinton. If he continues to talk about his issues in a positive way within the context of the overall democratic platform then that is a positive. One strategist remembers in 1980 how Reagan used Teddy Kennedy anti-Carter attack ads in his campaign. She doesn’t want to see Bernie give Trump any more ammunition. Discussion of policy differences is fine but trying to take down the front runner at this point is not. With Trump being the nominee the stakes are just to high. He can cement his legacy by helping to elect Clinton and building a more influential progressive wing in the party. Or he can be Ralph Nader 2016.
A few more tidbits from the article. Sanders has his own agenda and has been a bit of a loaner but he responds to a sense of mission. While he will push the envelope on his ideas he has a pragmatic streak that tells him when it’s time to cut a deal. He pushed hard to get Obamacare shaped more to his liking but when the votes were not there he backed the package and supported the bill.
@Applejinx: Dude, I mean, seriously. Are you one of those people who believes what they read “on the Internet” because computers are smart?
@Origuy: Unfair campaign spending? No one has spent more than Bernie though that’s more a result of poor campaign management than anything else.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
the usefulness of polls right now is something I’d want to see some data on, but I will concede Bernie does great when no one runs against him.
@JPL: I think Bernie should work with the rules committee. Absolutely. One of the things that’s becoming apparent in this contest is a lack of democracy in the Democratic party. It’s nothing short of absurd that a candidate can win all of the pledged delegates from a state outright, but the superdelegates can turn around and say, no, we’re all going to support the other candidate, who voters in our state rejected.
This is a holdover compromise from the days a nominee was selected in a smoke-filled back room through wheeling and dealing under the table. Today it’s half democratic participation, half wheeling and dealing. Time to bring it all above the table.
It would be great to see Hillary and Bernie work together to modernize the Democratic Party nominee selection process, with a view towards encouraging democratic participation and new voters.
Yeah, no. Tad Devine did it. You may know him from such political campaigns as “Sanders ’16.”
If I rtemember correctly this was actual a post 1972 reform of the post 1968 reforms to prevent another McGovern. And One of Bernie’s top advisers was part of the group that designed the super delegate process.
Bernie knew the rules when he started out so he can’t complain about them now. I suspect if he had 500+ SD and Hillary only had 50, Bernie would be praising the process to the sky. And if I remember correctly in 2008 when the counts favored Obama, the Clinton folks were not in the least bit happy either
That being said, hell yes the system is screwed up. Fix it for 2020.
Counterpoint. Losing Indiana may have been about winning California. Hillary’s pretty much wrapped up the nomination which would tend to depress her turnout in the remaining states. Bernie’s still pushing the idea that he can win, so his turnout is likely to be less impacted than Hillary’s. The media loves a horse race, so Bernie winning Indiana and the next couple of states is likely to shift the media narrative to Bernie coming up hard and fast from behind regardless of the actual delegate impact. That narrative would probably do a lot to make certain that Hillary’s supporters in California show up to vote in the primary and give her a solid win in the state.
@FlipYrWhig: beat me to it. I remembered the Tad part but not the Devine part and was to lazy to google
I think you’re right. Superdelegates should be eliminated.
So Hillary is ahead 1704 to 1414 and only needs 34.5% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@JPL: That would require Bernie the pure to lower himself to joining the Democratic party.
These Bernie dead-enders are as ill-informed as the Trump supporters. I don’t think they’ve read Hillary’s plans or even heard her talk about them. HRC has extensive plans on every issue important to them, and no one who read them or heard her talk abou them would ever claim they’re anywhere close to “Trickle-down economics.” Fuck these juvenile dead-enders. The country cannot afford their little tantrums so they need to get over it.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
No, they don’t. The GOP has not attacked Bernie, and frankly, Clinton’s criticisms have been pretty mild. If Bernie, by pure magic, were to get the nomination, it would be anti-Bernie attacks 24 hours a day. Once his negatives actually get out there, the Bernie supporters will discover just how naive they have been about how easily he can be dragged down. They would watch in despair as his favorability ratings drop like a stone.
@lethargytartare: She should go get them, by all means. All the name-calling is such a distraction. This is the heart of the matter.
Win a majority of total pledged delegates, and then Bernie followers should (will?) get behind her.
Neither sturm nor drang will be required at that point.
@Weaselone: I think it is part of her GE pivot. She has the numbers to wrap up the nomination so why waste resources on building a strong presence in Indiana when still get a chunk of the delegates for the convention but will not get any EC votes in the fall. She wants/needs Calif. in the fall so its worth building an organization there for both the primary and the general.
This might also explain her poor showing in the caucus states. Yes the demographics skewed in Bernie’s favor in a lot of the states but by 73% as in one state. Since most of these states are deep red she is not going to win there in the fall so why waste the money. I suspect they did underestimate Bernie’s appeal but it doesn’t change the over all strategy. It’s true she will not win in the deep south either but there are state and local races that the democrats can compete in with the African American vote that don’t exist in Montana for example. Obama used the caucus strategy in 2008 but he was able to then attract the African American vote in the open/closed primary states.
Her goal right now is build a strong organization in the dozen or so states that will get her to 270 EC votes in November. So she will spend big in Calif. and probably win while spending nothing in W. Va. where Bernie is favored. To spend money anywhere else is a waste. KOS had an election map that if the election were held today, with Trump as the GOP nominee, she would get 381 EC.
@Bostonian: If Bernie is going to complain about the undemocratic system of Super Delegates then let’s throw away the downright undecomcratic Caucuses system. You can’t keep one and complain about the other.
@Anya: They’ve made it so the things they profess to dislike about Hillary Clinton are, in their minds, the things she’s _promising to do_. “Voted to authorize the Iraq War” becomes “eager to authorize more wars.” “Gave paid speeches to financial-sector players” becomes “bent on giveaways to banksters.” But the things she actually says she wants to do, which are consistent with things she’s long worked toward, like paid family and medical leave or expanded voting rights, never enter into it.
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony: And they would say ITS NOT FAIR THOSE ARE ALL LIES! OR TRUE BUT NOT BAD! And then they’d say, mean, we totally would have won if not for The Corporate Media [tm].
@Anya: I agree. While I think Bernie has pushed her to a $15 minimum wage there were/are good reasons to only go as high as $12 at the moment. Even some liberal economists aren’t sure that the jump to $15 is a good idea. We have never done such a large increase in one shot. In addition $15 might be a non-event in high wage places like NYC and San Francisco but it would be a huge, and probably negative, economic impact in a place like Mississippi. I believe even the recently passed increase in the state of New York is phased in and tiered to reflect local labor markets.
That isn’t selling out to Wall Street but rather it is recognizing the facts of the real world economy. Bernie’s push for an immediate $15 might be as fanciful as taxcuts=prosperity on the GOP side. It doesn’t mean it should not be the ultimate goal, it just means you have to do it in more manageable steps
SMALL gains of Obama?
Maaaaaannn…..that’s enough to get your azz cussed out.
@Bostonian: you do realize under Bernie Rules he is still losing the super delgate count, right? And why are Bernie Rules, where the supers become winner take all but pledged are proptional, more democratic? At least I guess we agree that the caucus is wildly undemocratic. Oh wait, that is where Bernie got most of his wins and delegates.
Sanders lost. More people prefer Clinton. Deal with it.
@FlipYrWhig: I am just hoping the stupidity is the result of the last gasp of primary fever. Hopefully once they get to the acceptance stage they realize we have a real threat in the form of the short fingered vulgarian.
@geg6: Yeah, I’m staying off FB too…maybe till after the primary season is over, maybe till after the election is over…hell, maybe from now on.
Shut the fuck up.
There is a class of delegates whose instructions are “vote for whoever you want”. Period.
These people were known before the primary started. These delegates’ functions were known before the primary started. It is not absurd that they can vote for Sanders when Clinton won the state, or vice versa (and yes, there are endorsements in both categories RIGHT NOW). There has never been any demand whatsoever to limit them in that fashion. So stop the ahistorical bullshit. You can not like them. You can not like their function. But it is *not* absurd. They are the goddamn final line of defense against a Trump-like candidate, and if you don’t think that is a worry, you’re too stupid to breathe in 2016, SINCE WE ACTUALLY HAVE TRUMP winning the nomination of a major political party. Never, ever believe “It can’t happen here.” It absolutely can.
@rikyrah: What I hate the most about Bernie or bust clowns is the way they minimize Obama’s accomplishments or outright deny them. I am critical of POTUS on a lot of things, mainly his policy towards Israel but to claim he was a failure or to minimize his achievements on a number of important areas is unforgivable. The more ‘Progressive’ than thou crowd are tiresome bunch.
Also, the Bernistas seem to have no clue that the GOP is sitting on 40 years of oppo research regarding Bernie and it is freaking toxic:
The honeymoon in the Soviet Union back in the early 70’s…his bizarre writing on teen sex and child nudity(This stuff is positively radioactive)…his involvement with a Trotskyite group that wanted solidarity with the Iranian Revolution in the middle of the hostage crisis.
He got away with this stuff because, hey, who cared about the crazy loon from Vermont? When you take a lifetime of this stuff that has not been examined in any way on the national scene (Hillary refused to open this can of worms for good reason) it would explode on Democrats in every race the same way that Trump has done to down ballot Republicans.
@Bostonian: Will Bernie? Umm, no, he won’t. So what’s your point, exactly? Because Hillary likely cannot win a majority of all delegates (including supers) just with pledged delegates that means Sanders should be the nominee? Why is that, exactly?
@celticdragonchick: For a party that went ballistic over Obama’s opening to Cuba, imagine what they will say about Bernie’s kind words for the Castros and the Sandinistas.
I’m not sure it will get that far though. ‘Tax and spend liberal ‘ has worked quite will in the past. Just substitute socialist for liberal and you have your bumper sticker.
@Anya: Absolutely. You are right. The caucuses should go!
@Cleos: Yep, you got it. The rules are the rules until a XX gets a chance at winning the game, and then the rules are changed to make the game “fairer” for the XYs.
@Barbara: I think a lot of folks let fevered imaginations get ahead of them.
If neither candidate has a majority, you have a contested convention and they work it out.
Is that so terrible?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Bostonian: Trouble is, as I understand it, that parties pay for caucuses, and states pay for primaries. Though I would think some form of the on-line or vote by mail system could be set up to replace the caucus system. Each registered party member gets a log in code or a numbered ballot?
As sensible as the thought in your title is, I think we have learned that Senator Sanders has a stubborn streak.
ETA: And he can be a bit obnoxious.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Great idea, Jim. That would remove barriers to participation and save the party money. This is a great year to consider such a change.
@Kay: The Southern Strategy should simply be renamed as “Demonizing marginalized groups.” If you stoke fear of the other in terms that explicitly appeal to “in groups” you should not be surprised that they end up hating a lot of people — Gays, Trans, Latinos, etc. North Carolina’s HB2 was as naked of a version of this as you can point to, recently, in which a group of politicians figured they could goose their electoral chances by reaching out and punching someone their voters would jump and down applauding because of all the blood on the floor. That’s why the reaction needs to be strong and consequential. This whole strategy is dehumanizing and harmful and maybe worst of all, it’s deeply cynical. Like Karl Rove going after gay marriage to keep the turn out high. It’s actually worse because the people pushing it don’t even really care about these things, they just know how to wind up the Kim Davises of the world who actually do. These so-called elites deserve to get trapped in the ring of fire they built.
@Bostonian: It is if the idea is that the person with the much higher percentage of the pledged delegates is not nominated as a result of the supers. I felt this way in 2008, by the way, as strongly as I do now. The supers are there for catastrophes only and perhaps should not be there at all. Sanders has no case for overturning the results based on the pledged delegate count.
@grascarp: you need to know better pollsters. HRC is ahead of BS (was there ever a more ironically accurate set of initials),by double digits.
@cokane: the FBI is not investigating her for anything criminal, you’re being stupid.
@Bostonian: Ignoring that Hillary will have enough delegates to win on the first ballot (after she wins California) seems to be popular among Berniebros.
Listen, I like Bernie. I just prefer Hillary because I know she’ll beat Trump and I don’t think Bernie can. Hillary is not your enemy. Trump and the crazy Republicans are. Continuing to act as if Hillary is as bad (or worse according to many Bernie folk) is a fantasy world I won’t join you in.
According to that Sargent piece he also has a pragmatic streak so he knows when it’s time to compromise. The Sargent piece also said he has a sense of mission, so enlist that to have him help the party move the Overton window to the left. The old fuddy duddies will die off and the young whippersnappers will take over. Its just a matter of time and a little patience
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@FlipYrWhig: LOL. Absolutely!
@Anya: This. So much this. I haven’t seen this much progressive furor over minority voting rights, but these nitwits think the fact that they can’t swan in an vote for the Democratic party nominee without being a member of the party is disenfranchisement? Utter fuck off. If POC didn’t tbnink things would be dire under republicans in general and Trump in particular, we’d be leaving this party in droves. Bernie fans have no idea how insulting they’ve been.
I find it yugely ironic that quite a few of Bernie’s most fervent supporters treat voting like a consumerist action, when that denies the very foundation of his desired political revolution, that we are all in this together.
If voting is based in the consumerist model, then my preferences trump everything else, and if others get thrown under the bus, well that’s just unfortunate collateral damage.
If however, voting is rooted in the struggle for justice, then it is imperative for me to think about how my vote affects the well-being of other people (and especially the most vulnerable among us).
As the old saying goes politics makes strange bed fellows.
And from the annals of if the Clintons were so evil and so powerful why is Judical watch still with us?
Sullivan was appointed by President Reagan to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on October 3, 1984. On November 25, 1991, Sullivan was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to serve as an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
On June 16, 1994, Judge Sullivan was appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia. Since Bill made him a district judge its a bit difficult to say there is a political agenda at work but he did start his judical life as a Reagan appointee.
no, but Clinton does have a majority of delegates. 55% at this point. What’s actually going on is Sanders’ supporters trying to jigger the looking glass just so to create an illusion of a path to victory that just does not exist.
Clinton will has majority of pledged delegates. She has a majority of all delegates. She has a majority of all delegates even if supers are apportioned according to overall state results. She has won the nomination more clearly than Trump, who isn’t even running against anyone.
Yet Bernie, and his supporters especially, continue to defame her and the democratic party. that’s the problem.
Replace Bernie fans with white progress–oh, wait.
(We ran this same thing during the passage of health care reform…)
That one I’d only read about recently, but it’s probably the worst of the bunch. He was an elector for the Socialist Workers Party candidate. In addition to seeking solidarity with the theocratic regime of Iran that was holding US embassy personnel hostage, they also favored elimination of the US defense budget.
That and his presence at a Sandinista rally where the faithful were cheering “Here, there, everywhere, the Yankee will die!”.
In terms of vetting, Bernie’s gotten the kid gloves from both sides.
Did you know that Trump may have to appear in court sometime during the Republican convention because of a lawsuit by Trump University students? Trump University was a genuine sham. I hope he gets nailed for it.
It’s not new, but it comes and goes. The Know-Nothings, whose whole deal was hating immigrants, were a minor party, but one of the major slams on Democrats in the late 19th/early 20th century was that one of their core constituencies was urban Catholic immigrants. The Anti-Catholicism was also anti-immigrant by implication. Of course, the Democrats in turn made racist jibes about the Republicans getting the black vote.
Immigration to the US was essentially unrestricted until the first major regulations came down in 1917 and 1924, and those established strict national quotas (and were baldly racist as well). The support for this was pretty mainstream, though not universal.
@cokane: It’s a witch hunt. But any time the FBI starts poking around in someone’s life they are bound to find something, however small. The would seem to be especially true of people in public life. There are so many laws on the books from so many years it would be hard to keep track of them all. Between that and the fact that some of these laws turn on intent it is easy to see that if the FBI comes back with no crime being committed, there will still be a phrase or a sentence that generates a new round of Judical watch law suits. Since intent is such an important part of some of these laws, it doesn’t take much imagination to see that Daryl Issa or Curt Gowdy will see criminal intent in the fact that Hillary put two sugars in her coffee one day rather than one.
I grow so tired of seeing the Bernista memes on my Facebook feed, especially the ones that deny reality.
“We’re only down by 300 delegates and California has 475!”
Yes, but even if you win California, you don’t get 475 delegates. They’re split proportionally.
“If we win as big as we did in Washington, we’ll catch up!”
First, you’re down by 10 in the polls. Second, Washington was a caucus, which is very different than a semi-closed primary.
“It’s rigged because independents can’t vote!”
It’s a Democratic primary, meaning the Democratic party sets the rules. The rules were not changed prior to this election cycle. It’s incumbent upon your organization to understand the rules and make sure your voters are registered.
“But…. But Bernie should win!!!”
I really hate to indulge in Millennial bashing, but holy hell. Is this the first time in your life you didn’t get something you really, really, wanted?
@D58826: Of course! Two sugars was the code for the Islamic extremists to go all Benghazi on the embassy!
@Bostonian: The “fevered imagination” thing you’re talking about may be your own. There will be nothing to work out — one candidate will go into the convention with more delegates based on people voting, and also more delegates who have made their own decisions. The other will not.
J R in WV
I think one change to the Democratic party rules about how presidential candidates should be that all candidates entering the primary races must have been totally members of the Democratic party for at least one complete presidential election cycle. Held office as a Democrat, raised funds for Democrats, attended Democratic committee meetings, the whole bundle of what make a person a member of the Democratic party.
If a guy like Senator Sanders wants to run for president as a Democratic candidate in 2016, he needs to have joined the party by 2012, raised money for the 2012 presidential candidate, worked for that candidate, helped President Obama win re-election, helped down-ticket races, all of those things.
Not, well, I’m not a Democrat, but I vote with them, mostly, and caucus with them, and they let me chair a committee. But I’m not a member of the Democratic Party. No, not at all, I’m a socialist.
If you want to run as a Democratic candidate, you can be an f’ing socialist INSIDE the Democratic Party, dumbass! Otherwise, “Get da phuck out!!!”
How about that fix? No pseudo-Democrats allowed!! Only the real thing.
Only if Bernie and his supporters are more interested in burnning the party down than winning in November. It really is up to Bernie. Does he want to be remembered as a statesman or a ‘terrorist’. And I mean that as a metaphor not that he is going to literally blow up The Wells Fargo Center
@Bostonian: What bothers me is the misleading rhetoric. Clinton is going to go into the convention with a majority of delegates supporting her, pledged and unpledged. She also has a majority of the pledged delegates alone.
But because she doesn’t have a supermajority of pledged delegates equal to a majority of all delegates, Sanders can say that she “needs the superdelegates” and have this technically be true. It seems to me that this statement is calibrated to mislead. It makes it sound to a low-information voter, incorrectly, as if Sanders is actually ahead somehow, but Clinton is trying to snatch the nomination away in some underhanded way by using the superdelegates (which Sanders supporters had complained about earlier in the campaign, as an undemocratic thumb on the scale for Clinton). And a lot of what I hear from Sanders die-hards seems predicated on this idea. But it’s actually Sanders who is trying to reverse a pledged-delegate minority by flipping the superdelegates.
ETA: It also makes me deeply concerned that Sanders is planning to try to make some kind of scene at the convention about how he was somehow robbed, which would do serious damage to Clinton’s general-election campaign. Or that he might be holding out the threat of this as an inducement for the superdelegates to flip.
@J R in WV: Hmmm. In theory yes but in 1952 the democrats tried to entice Ike to run as a democrat. He obviously went with the GOP but it could limit some new blood or a late blooming convert, like maybe Colin Powell. Not saying he is thinking of flipping but the democrats would give their first five born if did, even with the disgraceful UN speech. As I’ve said before we are electing the first citizen not the first saint. They all have warts, some more and larger than others I grant you.
And if succeeded at the threat of blackmail it’s not a stretch to say that a lot of the democratic establishment and voters would vote ‘d’ down ballot on Nov. 8th and write in Wil E. Coyote for president. President Trump how do you want your eggs served in the WH mess?
@Facebones: the “Bernie or bust” crowd is composed mostly of progressive than thou olds.
@D58826: Man, I can’t wait until this batch of young whippersnappers has to deal with the next batch of whippersnappers who want everything, all at once, OR ELSE! I may be eating cat food from a cardboard box in the alley because some Bernie Bro I read got their wish (for a massive, destabilizing market crash to wipe out 401ks and pensions, no really, someone here wished for that) and laughing my ass off that they can’t continue the incremental work they started in 2016 because some Susan Sarandon wannabe wants to heighten the contradictions.
@J R in WV: I have mixed feelings about this. If they make this change then only establishment Dems can run.
@Gex: In another thread the other day I said the the whippersnappers will soon replace the old guard and then as the new old guard will have to face their own whippersnappers across the dinner table. Some where I have a very dim memory of being a young whippersnapper and my Mom saying she hoped to live long enough to see me get it all back. She did and as usual with Mom’s she was right!!!!!
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: here you go: http://election.princeton.edu/2016/05/01/what-do-head-to-head-general-election-polls-tell-us-about-november/
obviously this is an evolving science, so grains of salt, but this is also the best data we have!
Yes, Bernie and his supporters should:
1. Stay in the race (if they MUST..sigh..)
2. Stop picking on Hillary, no pesky facts please. Team Hillary will provide acceptable narratives for you to pursue.
3. Give up any thought of having any influence on policy in a Hillary Presidency, and sit by quietly as she pivots towards the center.
Why can’t they see how reasonable this is?
@Anya: Yeah, I think the very worst of the “burn it all down” types are not young people at all. Sanders’ supporters as a whole skew young. But the most egregious dead-enders, the ones who actually want to throw the election to Trump to bring the revolution if Clinton is nominated, include a lot of middle-aged former Ron Paul fans, and some old radicals with a deep-seated disdain for electoral politics who got temporarily pulled in by Sanders’ movement.
4. Both of the major parties are exactly the same.
5. Hillary is as bad as Trump, or worse, because unicorns.
@cokane: not sure what your point is. The commentary has her up by 9% and a 91% chance that that will not changfe between now and Nov.
In additioon there was some commentary on Bernies big wins in Mich/Indiana –
So maybe Bernie’s wins are not as impressive after all
I think that Clinton would be fairly hawkish. I’ve read numerous articles over the years (long before the primary) indicating that Clinton often takes a more hawkish stance than Obama on important foreign policy issues – most notably, she was pushing for stronger commitments in Libya and Syria. What she would really have done were she in charge is purely hypothetical, of course.
Ugh, no thanks. I’d rather never hear of Powell again. What’s the appeal of a military man without honor?
@Genghis: Go back and read my post on what Greg Sargent is reporting as the Clinto take on Sanders staying in the race. As to point 3, your correct he will have 0 input in a Clinton administration if between now and November he takes his marbles and goes home. Why should Hillary give a rat’s butt for someone who sat out the general election and made a victory that much harder. I’m sure Obama had his usual 11 dimension chess in mind when he picked Hillary as S of S but her and Bill’s full throated support certainly was one of them.
@D58826: Sanders’ strongest argument, and I think it is still a strong one, is that he polls better than Hillary Clinton against Trump (or any of the other Republicans, when they were in), and that discrepancy has only increased with time. If the election were held today between Clinton and Trump, Clinton would win a satisfying victory; but Bernie Sanders would win in a historic blowout like we haven’t seen in decades.
Personally, I suspect this is partly because Sanders is a man, and partly because he’s gotten little heat: the Republicans have held back on the obvious oppo against him because they think they can take him out with it. Clinton has also held back because, with an essentially insurmountable lead, she doesn’t actually need to do the damage to her own campaign that would come from going hard against a well-liked opponent, whose supporters she needs in the fall. (As opposed to Trump, who clearly needs to be hit with overwhelming force lest he succeed in rehabilitating his image.)
If Sanders’ success is mostly from a lack of hard opposition, he could be a paper tiger. But that is all speculative. He could be every bit as strong in a general election as his head-to-head polling indicates. If he does better than Clinton because of sexism, well, that’s unfair but it’s the reality of the race. (I’m sure Clinton is going to get some racist votes that Obama couldn’t.) Might be an unfortunate reason to support him, though.
@Anya: Maybe it’s because I work at a college, but almost all the BorBs I know are under 25. (Anecdotes =/= data and all that.)
@TheDeadlyShoe: Hopefully she has learned, like many of the rest of us, that starting a war is easier then ending one. And something I suspect they teach all new police officers – one of the most dangerous things to do is get between two people in a domestic dispute. They both will turn on you in an instant. Same with countries only many more sides.
And maybe a bout Powell but Obama was happy to have his endorsement and vote
Nope, didn’t forget.
Clinton ignores Bernie supporters at her, and the nation’s peril. Even if she wins.
When it comes to manipulating the media Trump is not stupid. I’d never vote for him, but Hillary is one bad news cycle away from a horse race, and it looks like the media needs that narrative.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Matt McIrvin: Don’t forget the Alien and Sedition Acts. Not all of them were repealed; the remnant provided the authority for the Japanese and German deportations in 1941-42.
@Matt McIrvin: And I keep seeing Bernie folk repeating that but they never link the poll. Gee. I wonder why that is? And in all honesty I’d love to see a BernieBro explain how Bernie would fight off the 24/7 ratfucking Bernie would get from just quoting Bernie. Instead I keep seeing the same reasons to vote against Hillary that Fox News gives.
Sorry but I like Hillary. I’m voting for her in June and again in November. I hope most Berniebros do the November vote too. We need to beat the Republicans.
@Matt McIrvin: I don’t disagree. At the end of the day the important thing is that a D takes the oath of Office and gets to fill all of the Article III court seats. While the blowout would be nice, esp. if it helps down ballot, in the end 271 is as good as 400. After that the really really really important numbers are 218 and 60. 218 to give Nancy the gavel and 60 to break the GOP filibuster. Lose on 218 and nothing gets done. Less than 60 but more than 50 and nothing gets done. Less than 50 in the Senate and its time to stock up on ink for the veto pen.
@Genghis: This woman eats bad news cycles for breakfast.
In MI, 35 % of those who voted in the Dem primary were independents or republicans according to the Detroit News. Wikipedia lists all the open and closed primaries and sure enough, open primaries have allowed Bernie to get much farther than he would have without them. Turning all Dem primaries into open primaries would not make the party stronger — it would set us up to lose the general when the folks that supported a less popular or insurgent candidate would not again vote for them — leaving us high and dry. Democrats should pick our standard bearer — not indies or disaffected folks who don’t want to call either party home…
@Genghis: ‘even if she wins’. specify the time frame you are talking about. your point 3
And my response
I am talking specifically about a post election administration as I think you were by the wording of your comment NOT the GE campaign.
@kindness: It’s a consistent effect aggregated across many polls. Here’s Trump vs. Clinton (currently about 46-40):
And Trump vs. Sanders (about 50-39):
4-5 points difference in margin is pretty significant in a presidential election. There’s an interesting narrowing in Sanders’ margin very recently, but Clinton’s looks like it might be narrowing too. For the statewide data you can go here:
There aren’t a lot of polls in the redder states, but Sanders clearly beats Trump in Kansas and Utah (Clinton is currently tied with Trump in the most recent poll in the latter).
Ooh, first straw men, then “intellectual” snobbery, followed by platitudes. Quite the trifecta.
If she did, she’d need to hit the gym pretty soon, because they keep coming up. Aided and abetted by her own actions, at times, unfortunately.
You can tell that this has to be the oddest year ever in presidential politics if Bernie is winning in Utah. I didn’t think socialists were that popular in Mormon world. But then KOS had a map showing Hillary winning in Utah AND Mississippi. At this point I think it comes down to pick your survey to prove your point and so much can happen between now and November . The best thing the democrats can do is pull together, plan for the worst and get out an VOTE
@D58826: Mormons hate Donald Trump. They really, REALLY hate him. Ted Cruz would have been just fine with them.
a purely unscientific, somewhat tongue in cheek take on the polls at this point. Hillary is that old game of Monopoly in the closet, famliar but boring. Trump is something the cat refused to drag in, nuf said. Bernie is the bright shiny new XBOX. Who wouldn’t pick Bernie
@Applejinx: Bill Clinton was here in San Diego, and also in Los Angeles yesterday campaigning for Hillary. (I was lucky enough to get in to hear him) Pretty sure there’s no intention of giving up California….
Jim, Foolish Literalist
i don’t think Clinton ignores Bernie! supporters, I think the precious flowers won’t take yes for an answer.
As for having an influence on her presidency, that wouldn’t come from a convention or a campaign, it will come from Congress, and through Congress from public reactions to her policies and proposals
Oh my things keep getting more weird – NYT projection that if the election were held today – clinton 347/trump 191. When did the NYT start saying nice things about Hillary?
Straw man? Please illustrate. (I shouldn’t have to ask – hurling accusations is pretty easy, much more helpful if you simply argue and support your point. Or is that intellectual snobbery of me to ask for you to support your comment?)
The platitudes were inaccurate? How so?
I don’t think it was you that said it, but since when is posting links about a poll showing Kasich beating HRC in the general “ratff*cking”?
You Hillary supporters are doing her no favors with Bernie voters, but I guess that isn’t your goal or concern.
My concerns are not about the personalities, but the ideas raised in the campaign. After decades of Democrats (Clintons included) running from liberalism, it has been refreshing to see the label “Liberal” mean something other than “motherf*cker”. That has everything to do with Bernie (and Elizabeth Warren, and…) and not much to do with HRC, with certain social issue exceptions. IMOYMMV
So, liberalism is rising, again, finally. Pivoting to the center will not be received well by me at least.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
then shouldn’t the effect of Bernie!-ism be visible in Senate and House races? from what I see and read, gutless sell-out Obama’s craven pick of crypto-REpublican Merrick Garland and the Republican obstructionism cause more discomfort in GOP Senate campaigns than Bernie!’s mill-youngs and mill-youngs out on Mitch McConnell’s metaphorical lawn. To say nothing of Trump.
@Genghis: Hurt fee-fees again. Elizabeth Warren has been a major figure in US politics for several years at least. As for Bernie, before this presidential cycle, not so much. The number of people, outside of Vermont, who could pick Bernie out of a police line up would not have filled a NYC transit bus. Now there is a guy who helped rehabilitate liberalism as a political idea over the past 7 or so years but his name escapes me. Odd because it’s a funny name. Has big ears, plays a mean game of pick up basketball. OH yea now I remember its Barrack Obama. Just an over sight that he didn’t make your list I assume.
Points 1 through 3. You’re projecting what you’re hearing, not what was said.
My, my, aren’t WE touchy? Your “intellectual” snobbery was the “No, I didn’t forget” thing. Yes, you are certainly among the sharpest political minds we’ve ever witnessed here, so OF COURSE you didn’t forget something so obvious, etc.
As for platitudes, this is yours (well, your first one):
You might consider checking a dictionary for the definition of “platitude.”
Interesting. When “we” Hillary supporters have the temerity to point out that when Berners are intentionally trashing — are any doing it unintentionally? — Hillary because she’s not as pure as Bernie, it can/will depress Hillary support in the general, giving Trump an opportunity he might not otherwise have, it’s the fault of the Hillary supporters.
Nor me, nor any number of others here. But assuming that it will always be that way, even after beating Trump (um Gotteswillen), is another straw man. And, frankly, I can live with the center much better than with the right.
@SFAW: She pivots to the center like they all do because that is where the most votes are. The primary is for the base on each tail of the bell curve. The middle is for the general. Against a less odious opponent then Trump even Bernie would have to do it or he would cut his own throat. There are not enough votes on the left tail of the curve.
Another election forecast :
And the best part of the article
Bernie folks you do approve of Obama don’t you?
@D58826: My take on some of these states (i.e. West Virginia) is that given the choice between a black man and white woman, they chose the white woman in 2008 and given the choice between a white woman and a white man, they are choosing the white man in 2016. Just a theory with no proof to back it up. : )
MORE DIRTY SMEARS FROM THE CLINTON CAMP!!!
@D58826: If the election were held today it would be very difficult to predict.
For one thing, turnout would be historically low, since everyone thinks the election is in November.
@different-church-lady: but but the police cleaned up the room just for Bernie.
And the news everyone has been waiting for (drum roll please) Bush 41, 43 Have No Plans To Endorse Donald. The article didn’t mention what’s his name – ‘!’.
And Mitt plans to paint his car elevator the week of the convention
@different-church-lady: :-). just shows how wrong conventional wisdom and our civics 101 text books can be
Understood. However, considering she’s already pretty-much there (in the center), I can understand the concern re: if she pivots to the post-Overton-rightward-shift center. Meaning: the one where McConnell is in the center, and Andy Cuomo is a raging liberal.
@SFAW: Hmmmm. maybe but this might be a case of over analyzing on your part. Obviously she is no Bernie Sanders and probably not E. Warren but over the years she has fought for issues that most liberals support. She was rated the 11th most liberal in the Senate, so I don’t think she owns any one an apology for her political stands.
I know we can go back and rehash the 1994 crime bill. But it pasted with bi-partisan support, support from many in the African American community and a vote by one B. Sanders of Vermont. If as most agree that the law is a disaster, then B. Sanders contributed to in it his small way. But 1994 was a different political environment than 2016 so I’m not sure how much value there is to rehashing old battles. In order to get southern democratic support, FDR went along with the idea to exclude domestics and farm workers from social security because they were overwhelmingly black, esp, in the south. So do we drum FDR out of the party?
@D58826: Hi D, I have agreed all along with your election analysis but there is one article I think you should read – it’s a pretty powerful refutation of the concept of a voter bell curve. And that has pretty large implications for political analysis – since there aren’t very many voters in the center. Just Fortune 500 companies. See the section entitled “the center is corporate.” This is one of the things that informs my belief that the votes are not in the center – they are actually to the left and the right of center.
BTW, I went to this article the first time because I’m surrounded by tech neoliberals here in the silicon forest. But I’m not not not lumping you in that group….it’s all my Microsoft and Amazon millionaire friends…..who are very satisfied with the state of the world.
@D58826: This. We just hope she can remember what she thought before she cut all those primarily defensive deals in the 90s. Because now is the time for offense.
@dollared: take the offense from the beachhead that Obama has secured? good plan. And given the re-alignment of the past decade or so, the pivot to the middle may well have to go the same way as high buttoned shores.
I’m sorry, was Hilary Clinton in elected office in the 1990s?
Bob in Portland
@batgirl: Still trying to generate a racist meme?
Okay, how about this? West Virginia is a racist cesspool. And a sexist cesspool.
How’s that for a theory?
Oh look, another stamping her feet cause she’s not getting her way post from Annie.
Bob in Portland
@D58826: Do I approve of Obama as President or as Supreme Court Justice?
As president he has been much too close to the right with his embrace of Wall Streeters at the beginning of his term and his laissez faire attitude towards the underclass and working class.
I suspect he’d be more of the same on the court. He would protect minority rights and women’s rights as defined and protected by the federal government, but I doubt if he’d stray away from the interests of the wealthy. It would be about what you would expect from a corporate Democrat.
@Matt McIrvin: Trump has to run only one line against Sanders to beat him like a rented mule in the general:
Sanders paid 13% tax on a $200,000 income in 2014, and wants to raise your taxes to 30% (or whatever). (Trump will of course say that he will lower taxes).
And that’s before we get into other things already mentioned above, like things Sanders has supported and written in the 70s and 80s, Jane Sanders’ land deal at Burlington college (I don’t think there is much there, but in a town of 40,000 everybody who’s somebody knows each other, so it doesn’t look particularly great.)
Bob in Portland
@SFAW: Is pointing out the Hillary Victory Fund a scam for laundering money in order to avoid campaign limits being unfair to H. Clinton?
Apparently, according to the reactions around here. Then again most H. Clinton supporters here at BJ have blinders and don’t read anything that reflects badly on their monarch.
So enjoy. Corporatism is fascism. You just think that starving poor people is part of the economic rules, and bombing overseas is for “freedom” and to “kill bad men.”
Carry on. Cheers.
@Calouste: Right. Wow. Proof positive. Slam dunk for The Donald.
And Hillary’s $2B means nothing? I guess the Donald will win 65% against her.
J R in WV
No, only people registered as Democrats for at least (N) months prior to the arbitrary start of the election season, as promulgated by the rules committee.
I’ve been a registered Democrat for decades, and have done phone banking and such to support a Dem candidate, but am not even part of an establishment – they wouldn’t have me even IF I was willing to play with them. But I would qualify under the kind of rule I’m talking about. I don’t have a long list of contributors, or a jillion dollars to run with, but I AM a Democrat, and have always been one since I was old enough to vote.
J R in WV
This! If Powell knew or suspected that there were no “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq, he is less qualified to be president that Trump is. An honor free zone is not a good thing.
@Genghis: Oh, go pound sand you fucking crybaby.
@Bob in Portland: Is pointing out that you’re a hypocritical crackpot who will resort to race bating when it suits your purpose unfair to B. in Portland?
Isn’t this how Sanders was an effective Congressperson? He doesn’t give up and he holds tenaciously to what he can.
The number of Democrats will decrease for the future…the party should be careful, young voters have no loyalty to the Democratic Party, it hasn’t done anything for them, nor supported Obama to a great degree
@Genghis: precisely, how can they see this as unreasonable ?
The should just sit down, shut up, and support the endless status quo.
@Genghis: nicely put – we have had enough of further and further to the right = centrism.
We liberals would like to vote for someone who seems to have liberal values just this once.
This is the first and maybe the last chance we will ever have to do so.
If it is back to the Bush / Clinton dynasty then Canada sounds better and better.
@Johnny Coelacanth: douchbag much?
Oh that’s right, it is all you fucking do.
no comments but trolling , every time.
you are a fish monster – and a terrible person.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@tones: don’t let the door hit you in ass on your way out, Precious
That’s a lot less than over 105%, dumbass.