Yes, he looks like he will 'win Oregon' but winning isn't enough. This is a very favorable state for him demographically. Yet with 60 percent of the vote in, he's only up by 6 percent.
Let's face it: there was never anything at stake tonight, though Bernie and the media have tried to claim otherwise.
"You know what happens if Hillary narrowly wins KY tonight? Nothing. If Bernie narrowly wins? Nothing."
https://twitter.com/Dchinni/status/732725536552800256
Let's face it: there was never anything at stake tonight, though Bernie and the media have tried to claim otherwise.
"You know what happens if Hillary narrowly wins KY tonight? Nothing. If Bernie narrowly wins? Nothing."
https://twitter.com/Dchinni/status/732725536552800256
This is undoubtedly true as far as having any effect on who is going to be the nominee: Hillary Clinton, no matter who won tonight's contests.
As a matter of fact, Hillary did win Kentucky by a few thousand votes. If she had lost by a few thousand then what? Then Bernie and the media would have declared 'momentum' though it's been clear all along there is no momentum in the Dem primary.
Actually, while he looks like he will win Oregon, this is the bigger story. This is such a favorable state for him and yet it looks like his final margin will be by under 10 points.
Benchmark Politics:
"If Sanders cannot win in a landslide in Oregon, he will not win California."
https://twitter.com/benchmarkpol/status/732774693531344896
Bernie's futility tonight-by the end of the counting of delegates Hillary will be within 100 of 2383-comes on the heels of his own personal day of shame.
UPDATE: According to RCP she now has 2289 delegates. She needs just 93. As California is worth 475, there's no chance even with the very unlikely Bernie landslide for her to come up short.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
Listen, I get that he wants to drag this through till the end. Hillary did this in 2008-though she wasn't as far back as he is.
She actually led in the popular vote, though she did trail by 130 delegates which is insurmountable in a proportional system.
She leads Bernie by more than double 130 delegates-she has an almost 290 delegate lead.
So I get it that he wants to let all his supporters in all the primaries vote for him. But for him to fail to condemn the outrageous antics of his Berners in Nevada is a black mark on him.
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/harry-reid-slams-bernie-sanders-after-he-sides-with-violent-supporters/24825/
P.S. I can imagine the Berners next attacking the proportional system as biased against Bernie. To the contrary, if we had the GOP's winner take all system, this would already be over.
As Rachel Maddow pointed out tonight, Hillary came into tonight closer to the nomination in terms of delegates than Trump.
There's a lot of misinformation out there. And Bernie has been pushing it. He keeps making it sound like it's those evil SDs that have done him in. What no one gets is that there are SDs on the GOP side as well, called 'unbound delegates.'
Another false narrative is that Hillary is a weak nominee because she hasn't put Bernie away yet, while Trump is already the presumed GOP nominee.
But this is due to the proportional system. It's actually a good question why we have no winner take all states. But this probably is because no state Democratic parties want it-for whatever reason.
Basically, proportional rules give the runner up the illusion that they are still competitive long after they aren't.
As a matter of fact, Hillary did win Kentucky by a few thousand votes. If she had lost by a few thousand then what? Then Bernie and the media would have declared 'momentum' though it's been clear all along there is no momentum in the Dem primary.
Actually, while he looks like he will win Oregon, this is the bigger story. This is such a favorable state for him and yet it looks like his final margin will be by under 10 points.
Benchmark Politics:
"If Sanders cannot win in a landslide in Oregon, he will not win California."
https://twitter.com/benchmarkpol/status/732774693531344896
Bernie's futility tonight-by the end of the counting of delegates Hillary will be within 100 of 2383-comes on the heels of his own personal day of shame.
UPDATE: According to RCP she now has 2289 delegates. She needs just 93. As California is worth 475, there's no chance even with the very unlikely Bernie landslide for her to come up short.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
Listen, I get that he wants to drag this through till the end. Hillary did this in 2008-though she wasn't as far back as he is.
She actually led in the popular vote, though she did trail by 130 delegates which is insurmountable in a proportional system.
She leads Bernie by more than double 130 delegates-she has an almost 290 delegate lead.
So I get it that he wants to let all his supporters in all the primaries vote for him. But for him to fail to condemn the outrageous antics of his Berners in Nevada is a black mark on him.
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/harry-reid-slams-bernie-sanders-after-he-sides-with-violent-supporters/24825/
P.S. I can imagine the Berners next attacking the proportional system as biased against Bernie. To the contrary, if we had the GOP's winner take all system, this would already be over.
As Rachel Maddow pointed out tonight, Hillary came into tonight closer to the nomination in terms of delegates than Trump.
There's a lot of misinformation out there. And Bernie has been pushing it. He keeps making it sound like it's those evil SDs that have done him in. What no one gets is that there are SDs on the GOP side as well, called 'unbound delegates.'
Another false narrative is that Hillary is a weak nominee because she hasn't put Bernie away yet, while Trump is already the presumed GOP nominee.
But this is due to the proportional system. It's actually a good question why we have no winner take all states. But this probably is because no state Democratic parties want it-for whatever reason.
Basically, proportional rules give the runner up the illusion that they are still competitive long after they aren't.
No comments:
Post a Comment