If you want to see an alleged news outlet that is totally in the tank for a candidate it's Huff Po and it's love for the Bern. Last week they wrote an article that 'proved' Bernie was really winning the nomination where it counted.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/sanders-currently-winning-democratic-primary-race-ill-prove-to-you_b_9528076.html
I'm sure when she is being sworn in next year Huffington Post will still be saying that.
Last night Bernie did what he needed to do but he's still very well short and that will be his nadir. Whether or not he wins Wisconsin in 10 days, it won't be by 40 points.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-good-night-for-bernie-but-this-is-as.html
Whether he wins by 2 points or she wins by 2 points, it''s still a win for her. Right now Bernie is predicting a stampede of super delegates to him because he has won a bunch of white caucuses with very low turnout. I think a debate for the future is in order whether we want to keep the caucus system at all.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-good-night-for-bernie-but-this-is-as.html
It's ironic that Bernie is running as the champion of the working class when he does best in a format that is really biased against workers.
Iowa, will no doubt jealously guard it's caucus. Beyond that, we may see many states move off this in the coming years.
As embarrassing as the Huff Po piece is, this new theory of the race by Bernie is pretty embarrassing too.
"I think the momentum is with us," Sanders said on CNN's "State of the Union" with Jake Tapper on Sunday. "A lot of these superdelegates may rethink their positions with Secretary Clinton."
The Vermont senator swept Saturday's Democratic contests in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii, easily winning the majority of the 142 pledged delegates in those states. The biggest prize of the day was in Washington, which offered 101 delegates to be split up on a proportional basis.
The latest delegate counts still put Sanders behind Clinton, however, with 1,004 pledged delegates to her 1,712.
Of those, 469 are superdelegates who have pledged to Clinton and only 29 have pledged to Sanders."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/274402-sanders-superdelegates-may-jump-from-clinton
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/sanders-currently-winning-democratic-primary-race-ill-prove-to-you_b_9528076.html
I'm sure when she is being sworn in next year Huffington Post will still be saying that.
Last night Bernie did what he needed to do but he's still very well short and that will be his nadir. Whether or not he wins Wisconsin in 10 days, it won't be by 40 points.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-good-night-for-bernie-but-this-is-as.html
Whether he wins by 2 points or she wins by 2 points, it''s still a win for her. Right now Bernie is predicting a stampede of super delegates to him because he has won a bunch of white caucuses with very low turnout. I think a debate for the future is in order whether we want to keep the caucus system at all.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-good-night-for-bernie-but-this-is-as.html
It's ironic that Bernie is running as the champion of the working class when he does best in a format that is really biased against workers.
Iowa, will no doubt jealously guard it's caucus. Beyond that, we may see many states move off this in the coming years.
As embarrassing as the Huff Po piece is, this new theory of the race by Bernie is pretty embarrassing too.
"I think the momentum is with us," Sanders said on CNN's "State of the Union" with Jake Tapper on Sunday. "A lot of these superdelegates may rethink their positions with Secretary Clinton."
The Vermont senator swept Saturday's Democratic contests in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii, easily winning the majority of the 142 pledged delegates in those states. The biggest prize of the day was in Washington, which offered 101 delegates to be split up on a proportional basis.
The latest delegate counts still put Sanders behind Clinton, however, with 1,004 pledged delegates to her 1,712.
Of those, 469 are superdelegates who have pledged to Clinton and only 29 have pledged to Sanders."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/274402-sanders-superdelegates-may-jump-from-clinton
It's amazing what silly things Bernie has said about SDs in the last two months considering that his campaign manager, Tad Devine, basically invented the SD system.
1. When she still has a pledged delegate lead of 268 why would they switch over?
2. There has been voting in 31 states so far and she is winning 58 percent of the popular vote.
3. He has won 9 of 11 caucuses but she has won 16 of 20 states and there are few remaining caucuses.
4. The SDs from the states that he won big are a small number of the outstanding SDs.
5. SDs are not bound delegates. If they were they would't be SDs. Bernie saying they have to vote for whoever won their state falsely tries to take out the super nature of superdelegates. In 2008, for instance, the reason many of the superdelegates moved from Obama to Hillary wasn't because that's what democratic principles demand so much as they wanted to be on the side of the winner.
I'm currently reading a good book about Hillary-her rebirth at the Obama State Department.
http://www.amazon.com/HRC-Secrets-Rebirth-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0804136777/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1459028730&sr=8-3&keywords=hillary+clinton+secretary+of+state
It starts with the end part of the 2008 primary. Interestingly it talks a little about the race for superdelegates back in 2008. What you have to remember about Bernie today is that he's in Hillary's position in 2008 only two or threefold.
Bernie hopes to win NY-as if my state would ever feel the Bern-CA, NJ, Pennsylvania, etc. Here's the thing: she won all these states in 2008. She also won Michigan and Ohio. She had some much more solid wins than he will get. No way does he win NY by 14 points as she did in 2008.
Ironically he's trying to run the 2008 Hillary playbook that failed and he's trailing her 2008 pace anyway. She actually won Arizona and Texas while he lost them by landslides.
In 2008 she won Pennsylvania by 10 points. Yet the above linked to book shows that Hillary and Bil tried to get a superdelegate in PA by pointing out she had won the state and won his district by 31 points. He still went with Obama: to back the winner.
This is what Bernie doesn't admit. The SDs are going to want to back the likely primary winner whether or not she won their state or not.
6. I get why Bernie is talking about the SDs again. If you factor in the SDs last night, then according to Politico this morning, he gained just 5 delegates on her in Hawaii with two remaning outstanding. In other words, that could take his margin down to 3 points. In Washington state while 118 delegates are up for grabs, only 48 have been allocated so far:
23 for Bernie
18 for Hillary
7 remain undeclared.
These are probably undeclared as they'r'e waiting for a safe time to get behind Hillary. So of the 48 allocated so far it may well be the case that she actually is leading 25-23. Or maybe losing only 25--23, depending on the preferences of the 7 undeclared. My guess is that most are for her or they'd already get behind Bernie, the winner of the caucus.
The question is what about the remaining 70 Washington delegates? Good question:
"Saturday's caucuses will elect 27,170 delegates, proportionally allocated to each candidate. Those delegates will then move on to county conventions and legislative district caucuses, where a smaller group will advance to the congressional district caucuses at the end of May, when 67 delegates will be elected to the Democratic National Convention. The following month, the remaining 34 delegates will be chosen and bound based on the ratio of support determined at the May 21 congressional district caucuses."
1. When she still has a pledged delegate lead of 268 why would they switch over?
2. There has been voting in 31 states so far and she is winning 58 percent of the popular vote.
3. He has won 9 of 11 caucuses but she has won 16 of 20 states and there are few remaining caucuses.
4. The SDs from the states that he won big are a small number of the outstanding SDs.
5. SDs are not bound delegates. If they were they would't be SDs. Bernie saying they have to vote for whoever won their state falsely tries to take out the super nature of superdelegates. In 2008, for instance, the reason many of the superdelegates moved from Obama to Hillary wasn't because that's what democratic principles demand so much as they wanted to be on the side of the winner.
I'm currently reading a good book about Hillary-her rebirth at the Obama State Department.
http://www.amazon.com/HRC-Secrets-Rebirth-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0804136777/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1459028730&sr=8-3&keywords=hillary+clinton+secretary+of+state
It starts with the end part of the 2008 primary. Interestingly it talks a little about the race for superdelegates back in 2008. What you have to remember about Bernie today is that he's in Hillary's position in 2008 only two or threefold.
Bernie hopes to win NY-as if my state would ever feel the Bern-CA, NJ, Pennsylvania, etc. Here's the thing: she won all these states in 2008. She also won Michigan and Ohio. She had some much more solid wins than he will get. No way does he win NY by 14 points as she did in 2008.
Ironically he's trying to run the 2008 Hillary playbook that failed and he's trailing her 2008 pace anyway. She actually won Arizona and Texas while he lost them by landslides.
In 2008 she won Pennsylvania by 10 points. Yet the above linked to book shows that Hillary and Bil tried to get a superdelegate in PA by pointing out she had won the state and won his district by 31 points. He still went with Obama: to back the winner.
This is what Bernie doesn't admit. The SDs are going to want to back the likely primary winner whether or not she won their state or not.
6. I get why Bernie is talking about the SDs again. If you factor in the SDs last night, then according to Politico this morning, he gained just 5 delegates on her in Hawaii with two remaning outstanding. In other words, that could take his margin down to 3 points. In Washington state while 118 delegates are up for grabs, only 48 have been allocated so far:
23 for Bernie
18 for Hillary
7 remain undeclared.
These are probably undeclared as they'r'e waiting for a safe time to get behind Hillary. So of the 48 allocated so far it may well be the case that she actually is leading 25-23. Or maybe losing only 25--23, depending on the preferences of the 7 undeclared. My guess is that most are for her or they'd already get behind Bernie, the winner of the caucus.
The question is what about the remaining 70 Washington delegates? Good question:
"Saturday's caucuses will elect 27,170 delegates, proportionally allocated to each candidate. Those delegates will then move on to county conventions and legislative district caucuses, where a smaller group will advance to the congressional district caucuses at the end of May, when 67 delegates will be elected to the Democratic National Convention. The following month, the remaining 34 delegates will be chosen and bound based on the ratio of support determined at the May 21 congressional district caucuses."
http://www.kiro7.com/news/kiro-news-app/washington-democratic-caucuses-saturday-coverage-and-where-to-find-results/180566529
So the real caucus isn't until May 21. This vouchsafes with a very interesting piece Rachel Maddow did the other day on the 2012 GOP primary where Ron Paul was able to finagle the rules and win some states where he got very few popular votes.
The key thing to realize is this: the party decides in truth and it chooses Hillary. That may seem unfair-but remember technically that's us as well. We as loyal, engaged Democrats are part of this process. The party has chosen Hillary.
The caucus system is hardly a democratic ideal in any case. Such a small percentage are able to vote in those that Bernie's campaign that has been so dependent on white caucus states is in no position to lecture anyone on the democratic process.
No comments:
Post a Comment