Bernie stops making sense

    Bernie's always been math challenged, and his wishful "we have to do very very well in California" understates matters significantly. To win the pledged vote, Hillary needs 2026 delegates (1/2 of 4051 + 1). Which means 257 of the remaining 781 pledge delegates or 32.9% - fewer than 1/3. That's not just "very very well" - that's deliriously fantastical, based on any primary to date, along with current polls, the most optimistic for Sanders putting Hillary 2% ahead, the worse one for him showing Hillary with an 18% lead.

    Besides Bernie needing 526 pledged delegates to win, that would mean grabbing 1/3 of his delegates to date on June 7.

    Bernie says superdelegates don't matter - but his entire shock & awe approach is based on converting superdelegates with the spiel that he should have won more pledged delegates - but even that argument is based on a handful of caucus delegates, while the primary delegates where Hillary excels are all obviously allocated by %. Nothing like arguing that 2 + 2 would have equalled 5 if not for the "establishment" interfering.

    He says "We won in Washington state with 70 percent of the vote." which obviously means the caucus, since he lost the Washington open primary 374,044 (47.6%) to her 411,741 (52.4%), with ~3 1/2 times the 230,000 caucus participation. Since this was a week ago, presumably he didn't just forget, but in the recent Rolling Stone he's bragging about winning the caucus with 70% (& New Hampshire 60%), conveniently forgetting the Washington primary, along with New York's, Pennsylvania's, Ohio's, Arizona's, plus Florida, Texas and the rest of the south.

    But where he's really hitting the meth too hard is when he starts talking about independent voters

    Number two is, we gotta change the rules that govern the Democratic Party. For one, I think the idea of having closed primaries is a dumb idea.

    Why?
    Because the American people, more and more people, are looking at their politics as outside the Democratic and Republican parties – for a variety of reasons. Some of them think the Democratic Party is too conservative. But whatever, they are independents. Three million people in New York state could not cast a vote in the Democratic or Republican primary for the president of the United States. On the surface, that's absurd. You really could almost raise legal issues. You're an independent in New York, you're paying for that election, it's conducted by the state. But you can't vote?

    Bernie presumably doesn't know history, as till 1792 the Electoral college chose candidates, while up to 1824, the Congressmen or state party chose the candidates. No need for the state to pay anything, as it was a private boy's club. Florida was the first to do a primary in 1901, and as of 1912, only 12 states had some kind of primary, in which Roosevelt triumphed, but Taft won anyway because they were non-binding. Thanks to reverse evolution, primaries decreased from 20, so that from 1936 to 1968 again only 12 states had primaries again. But by 1992, 40 states had popular primaries. The smoke-filled backroom approach has been out of style only since the calamitous 1972 election, caused as much by numerous party insiders' in-fighting and selfish positioning as it was by McGovern's pick of Eagleton and other missteps.

    But Bernie seems to support this kind of excessive caucus posturing, with rushes to the stage to commandeer more delegates. One (wo)man/one vote? Not so much.

    And being unaligned and unwilling to take a stance, Bernie thinks no one should have to. So Independents should be able to vote in Democratic primaries, whether they're unrepentant Civil War racists, libertarians, anarchists, religious fundamentalists, drown-gov-in-the-bathtub fiscal conservatives, or invade-the-Mideast neocons, the Bundys and Tim McVeighs - as long as they haven't promised fealty to Republicans, they should be able to vote with the Democrats. But then why exclude Republicans? If the Republicans made a similar rule, no one would need to join a party, and they could vote with either contest - or both, possibly.

    Is that fucking goofy, or what? The idea of political parties is coming up with a shared platform, similar viewpoints to bind a group together for more strength. 240 million voters with no alignment makes it hard for politicians to even know what their voters want. We understand most Republicans want a slimmed down government, few social programs, and typically strong defense, with some dispute re: how activist we are abroad. Democrats (these days) are typically focused on issues of equality (racial, gender, sexuality...), defense of personal rights, safety nets and social cohesion, along with less reliance on military/violent means. By joining one party or another, people have been putting a line in the sand re: what they believe, because ever since Biblical times we've rather relied on "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Yet verily, Bernie is standing up for the lukewarm - those who can't choose a stance or a party, those who can't make it downtown in time to register to vote, etc., etc. Obviously we can start new parties  - much precedent to creating something new, whether successful or of some influence. But aside from some facetious Know Nothing and Mugwump parties, there's not a lot of precedent to spinning thread out of pure air as an affiliation.

    It's a mugs game, all this reliance on gut beliefs and arbitrary stances. Bernie may believe an excited mob of 20,000 trumps an electorate of 3 million, but if that were true, Counting Crows would be governors of at least Texas based on turnout at the Motor Speedway, and Pearl Jam would rule Indio, California... What's next, mud wrestling for votes? Bernie now says he's going to fight up to the convention, whether he wins California & New Jersey or not - just because.

    We've jumped ship from trying to provide a reason for doing anything. It's not his party, and we'll cry if he wants to. We've gone 240 years from the Whigs to the Whingers - even Scalia believed in some original intent, yet now we're just playing it by ear. Incensed or nonsensed? No longer for sure.

    Comments

    Very good piece, PP.  I truly can't understand the point of non-party members voting for a party decision as important as who their presidential nominee will be.  In Virginia there is no party registration so you just ask for the ballot of the party you want to vote for.  I don't like it, but it's the way it is.  Bernie wants Independents to vote in the primaries because he is an Independent. I will be glad when he fades away. 

    Thanks for the review of the evolution of the Electoral College as well as the contrast with the 2008 primaries. 


    OMG, California's Prop 14 pits the top 2 contestants against each other, regardless of party - this is Bernie's future - so far it's Democrats so they're happy, but if it's 2 Republicans in a runoff, well, that's our future, tough it.

    Very funny - many Californians registered as Independent Party (i.e. George Wallace fans), rather than independents, disqualifying them for this primary. I remember the quaint old days of butterfly ballots.


    You put another nail in the coffin of the notion that this 2016 Democratic primary somehow involves a revolution. Seems more like a social media high for limousine liberals and clutch-key college grads (not to include the thoughful Sanders supporters in present company).

    If a uni-sex robot with full google and wikipedia capacities compared this dem primary to the one in 2008---what would be the differences?

    Well, let's call it a revolution. And do some really dumb things like make an enemies list---especially including the one person who actually did something to rein in the financial industry. Oh, and the party chairman, fund her opponent.

    What the hell makes Bernie's run a revolution? The most important part, the internet contributions, had already been invented by Howard Dean.

    I started out admiring Sanders and have voted for him in Vermont. I think the publicity has "gone to his head"

    What are the substantive differences between this primary and 2008?


    There is a sense in which this years primary voting decisions, overall, may be of no substantive difference except maybe a lot of people have given up. Total Democratic turnout in this year's primary has dropped considerably. Apparently fewer people are excited this time around by Hillary enough to come out and vote for her even though she is in almost as close a race. Maybe those voting for Sanders are of a mindset like those who made the marginal difference in 2008, maybe they are still looking for "change they can believe in". Even if that change is not available, I believe that the desire for it is a driving force among many who see Hillary as just more of the same-ol' same-ol'. 


    I don't know what the comparable primary expenditures are to 2008, maybe Clinton could have driven more to the polls. 

    In my own case, I'd vote for either one---that's a no-brainer when you're running against Trump. So if Sanders had won, wasn't that big of a problem---except where's he getting the funds for a general election.

    In that regard I decided I was not going to send contributions to either for the Primary just to have it pissed away fighting each other.

     


    Primary turnout may be low because Democrats assumed Hillary was going to be the nominee. Hillary voters are not loud, they just turnout in larger numbers than Sanders voters when freed from the limitations of caucuses. Hillary has actually been willing to reach out to voters while Sanders and his surrogates label people who disagree with his proposals as "sellouts". Hillary reached out to ethnic minorities. Sanders, through his surrogates, suggested that ethnic minorities who did not vote for him were ill-informed. Perhaps it is people who seen no difference between the Supreme Court choices Hillary would make compared to Trump, as one example, who have the perception problem. Hillary got more votes. If there is any lack of enthusiasm, it must be with the amount of Democratic support for Sanders. If the early polls about Sanders favorability were accurate, and favorability equaled votes, Bernie would not need to threaten superdelegates.


    What? Hillary supporters are not loud? Seems to me they [the professional political class anyway] walk loudly and carry a big schtick.  There is no reason to believe that Hillary would appoint better Supremes than would Sanders and If Sanders could actually "threaten" superdelegates politically it would work to secure him the nomination because most of them, being like most politicians, would flip instantly. 


    Sanders is not going to be the nominee.Sanders will not be appointing judges.

    Sanders "free education" plan would private HBCUs. Because Sanders lives in a bubble, he does not feel the need to address this issue among others that concern the black community. Sanders will simply tell the black community what they need.

     


    Obama had to explain and apologize for Reverend Wright and "clinging to their guns". Hillary has to explain and apologize for everything. Bernie Sanders campaign suggests that black activists. Latino activists, and Planned Parenthood have been bought off because they do not support his candidacy.


    I'm more annoyed by his continued claim that he won the Hispanic vote in Nevada, despite pretty obvious results in Clarke County based on actual votes, not early sampled exit polls.


    His ethnic outreach is limited. 

    His campaign has been all. About whining when he doesn't get his way. Bernie has the worlds biggest conspiracy targeting him. (Snark)

    When I saw him dismiss ta woman at a PA town hall concerning funding of local Pre-K Ed via a soda tax, it verified how in a bubble Sanders is concerning his vision of how things work. He told the woman to wait until his education plan passed to obtain relief.

    http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/soda-tax-not-the-solution-to-universal...

     


    Almost is a subjective term. At no point did Obama have a lead over Hillary as large as her lead over Sanders. Hillary actually won the popular vote in the 08 primary. Voters don't care how large the margin is over the opponent. All they care about is that their candidate wins. The 08 primary had record turn out because it was competitive to the end. This year it was pretty clear Hillary was winning almost from the beginning. I suspect that some Hillary supporters didn't bother to vote just to pad the margin. I suspect that not all Sanders supporters are fanatics and that some could actually do math. I suspect that some didn't vote either when it was clear their candidate wasn't going to win.

    It could be that many voters didn't see a dime's worth of difference between the candidates. Both candidates are pretty left on most of the issues, Sanders only slightly more left. Like the $3 dollar difference between a $12 and a $15 minimum wage. People aren't going to fight a revolution over $3. Unlike a small group of Sanders fanatics I suspect that most people didn't simply assume that everything Hillary said was a lie.

    General election vote totals are relatively stable regardless of the wide fluctuations in the number of primary voters. No one really knows why so it's all speculation.


    Total democratic vote may be down, but Hillary's isn't - she has 13.2 million now, and adding/presuming the 2.6million she got from California in 2008 - not unlikely with CA's 1% per annum growth and her popularity among Hispanices - and the 600K from New Jersey, that's 16.4m, and with the other remaining 7 state/territory contests, that's close enough to her 17.9m total in 2008.

    They're plenty excited by her - they just don't need to attend pep rallies to show it.

    The big difference is that Bernie's no Obama, who was able to take big primaries like Illinois, North Carolina, Virginia, and reasonably tied in Texas. Just because Bernie doesn't have these totals doesn't mean Hillary has a problem, does it.

    Why do people keep making shit up?

    Additionally, in 2008, the economy was going through once in 3 generations' meltdown - certainly something that gets voters more concerned than transgender bathrooms.


    Peracles, I like Bernie. I have loved this man for many years.

    Fuck you, I am a socialist says my man. hahahahah

    In my youth I recall the vitriol between NH and Vermont. hahahah

    'But I like Hillary.

    And I am uplifted by her new ability to take T-Rump down, down, down and all that orange haired idiot can do is yell 'poopie pants' and 'I hate you' and 'you're a liar' and 'I am the best guy since Jesus' and....

    But Hillary can speak like a gentlewoman or gentleman with proper English and such.

    I have always liked Hillary since I first witnessed her on reg media a hundred years a

    go when she was an attorney on the Watergate committee

    I think that when you run for Prez you have to make commitments.

    Give me money and I shall run.

    Now Bernie has enough delegates to make a speech at the convention...

    I hope and pray he keeps up this mime:

    Who would I choose between Hillary and T-Rump?

    WELL HILLARY OF COURSE

    the end.

     

     

    .


    This Trump-like character in the south got a new wife, foreign apparently, and she was showing some ladies around the house, especially one named Charlene. The wife pointed to the new wing of the house with columns and a miniature waterfall, and said, "I told him I just had to have my own space or I wouldn't survive, and he built me this", to which Charlene responded, "that's nice". She then pointed out a picture of 45-foot yacht sitting in harbor near Cozumel, and said "my hubby got this for me as a wedding present", to which Charlene answered, "that's nice". And then she pointed to a picture of a small chateau in Britanny and said, "that's our new summer home", and again Charlene just said, "that's really nice". The new wife looked at Charlene funny, and said, "you're not very talkative, are you - what do you do?" "mostly I just go to cotillion classes", Charlene responded. "Oh really? I've heard of that - what do they teach you there?" "oh, just things like instead of saying 'fuck you' you say 'that's nice'"


    Ha!  The Charlottesville version of that is that she went to Sweetbriar...devil


    There ya go - from now on expect to see your debutante side showing thru. Kill with kindness.


    I have to render unto Peracles the Dayly Comment of the Day Award for this here Blog Site, given to all of him from all of me, even though it appears on his own blog. hahahahahahah

    There is more truth in this litany? than I have read elsewhere all week. hahahhaha

    This just hit me on my third reading. hahahah

    This is the answer to the question:

    How doth one say 'fuck you' in a more courteous mode/

    I cannot stop laughing.

    Way to go!

    That is all I got. hahahah


    Latest Comments