Sanders’s path to victory involves unprecedented and absurd delegate math

There’s a relatively new political adage that campaigns don’t end when they run out of votes; they end when they run out of money.

Bernie Sanders has plenty of money, but he’s running out of votes — delegates, more specifically. After losing all five races on Tuesday — including states he was expected to do well in, like Ohio and Illinois — he would need to win 66 percent of all remaining pledged delegates in order to finish with a majority. Given that all states allocate their delegates proportionally in the Democratic primary, that’s practically impossible.

This being the case, his campaign has been forced to come up with some increasingly tenuous arguments in order to justify staying in the race. Between his reaction to Tuesday night’s results and a “path forward” call with journalists yesterday, Sanders campaign manager Tad Devine has spent much of this week making these cases.

I like Bernie. I voted for Bernie. I think he should stay in the race as long as he wants. But these arguments are really quite bad.

Superdelegates will flip

From the moment Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire, his supporters have been warning that the Democratic Party’s superdelegate system could be used to pry the nomination away from Sanders — even if he got the most votes, won the most states and accrued the most pledged delegates. This claim was way premature, and never carried much weight, but it helped feed the not-entirely-off-base narrative that the Democratic National Committee has had its foot on Hillary Clinton’s side of the scales.

However, with his prospects of winning a majority of pledged delegates dwindling, Sanders’s case for winning the primary now relies on winning over superdelegates. As Devine explained on Tuesday night, “We acknowledge it’s a difficult route, we acknowledge it’s a substantial lead, but we do not believe it’s set in stone…The factors superdelegates will take into consideration include who’s won more pledged delegates … but also who’s gotten stronger, not weaker, over the course of primaries, and who matches up best against Donald Trump or whoever the Republican nominee is.”

A majority of superdelegates have already indicated that they support Hillary Clinton, and as has been noted before, the only thing that could get them to defect would be Hillary Clinton losing her lead among pledged delegates. There simply isn’t a plausible scenario in which either candidate wins the nomination without winning the majority of pledged delegates.

Besides, to argue that your path to victory hinges on superdelegates after your campaign and supporters have been raising hell about superdelegates for over a month is quite ironic.

Pledged delegates will flip, too

This is where Sanders’s campaign — Devine, specifically — runs off the rails. On his “path forward” call yesterday, Devine made the rather strange claim that some or even many of Hillary Clinton’s pledged delegates could wind up supporting Sanders.

That’s…not how it works.

Technically, Devine is correct. There is a difference between a “pledged” delegate and a “bound” delegate in that pledged delegates are not legally required to cast their ballot for the candidate to whom they are pledged. And the Democratic Party’s delegates are pledged, not bound. As DNC Press Secretary Stacie Paxton explained in 2008:

Bernie Sanders, via Gage Skidmore / Flickr

Bernie Sanders, via Gage Skidmore / Flickr

Under the Democratic Party’s Rules, pledged delegates are not legally “bound” or required to vote according to their presidential preference on the first ballot at the Convention. Rather, these delegates are, pledged “in all good conscience [to] reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” [Rule 12.J]

Pledged delegates are not “bound” to vote for the candidate they were elected to represent. They can, and have in the past, cast a vote for the presumptive nominee when their candidate has dropped out of the race. As a sign of good faith, most former candidates will “release” their delegates from voting for them; however, this is not required, and only has a symbolic meaning to it. Delegates can vote for another presidential candidate without being “released.”

However, this distinction is not intended to allow pledged delegates to defect to another candidate who is still competing for the nomination. It is intended to allow the party to make a show of unanimity once a presumptive nominee has emerged. Devine is relying on a fair share of the delegates Hillary Clinton just won in Florida to see the light, reject “the sentiments of those who elected them,” vote for Sanders instead and dare Clinton to sue. If that’s the best you’ve got, you don’t have much:

If Bernie Sanders wants to stay in the race, that’s his prerogative. He’s got tons of supporters in states that haven’t voted yet who want the opportunity to cast a ballot for him, and he’s plenty of cash on hand to keep broadcasting his message. He’s been a net positive force on this race, and he can still do a lot of good work to energize the progressive base, and he can still call Hillary Clinton out if she tries to pivot toward the general election sooner rather than later. But his case for actually winning the nomination — a case that was always pretty shaky — has almost completely dissolved.

There’s desperate, and then there’s fantastical.

Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+. .

Share This Post

246 Responses to “Sanders’s path to victory involves unprecedented and absurd delegate math”

  1. Kathy Powers says:

    It’s not government’s business to bail out big banks and corporate failures. I think it IS government’s duty to level the playing field and uphold the Constitution. Laissez-faire, my friend, laissez-faire!

  2. Kathy Powers says:


  3. Bee Nice says:

    So you are a Republican or, if not, you are hoping for a Republican win, because that is what your scenario will result in.

  4. Bee Nice says:

    Sanders supporters eating the BS about the FBI investigation shows they are really just Republicans in disguise. There is no “criminal” FBI investigation and even the FBI has said so. The ones who have spoken up in the FBI are Hillary Haters and will lie to make her look bad. Why do supposed “Democrats” eat the same BS as Republicans?

  5. sirjonk says:

    Sanders supporters: The ultimate in white privilege. Under a Trump presidency, white educated folks (i.e. Sanders supporters) will be fine. Or only slightly negatively effected. Who will be hugely effected? Minorities and the poor. Sanders supporters who refuse to come around for HRC in the general are consigning the most vulnerable among us to at least 4 years of a bigoted misogynistic tyrant. Grow up.

  6. sirjonk says:

    “Setting aside that’s EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED 8 YEARS AGO”

    Nope, it’s not. But I’m done arguing with Sanders folks over the math. It’ll play out as expected and they can spend their money how they want, and they’ll largely vote democratic in November because Trump will be a horror show for everyone.

  7. sirjonk says:

    Go back to 2008 and look at polls taken at the same time. 30% of HRC supporters said they wouldn’t vote for Obama and vice versa. Guess what? They stopped being babies and realized a democratic president was better than a Sara Palin presidency. Now you face a potential Trump presidency. They’ll come around.

  8. sirjonk says:

    And I’m sure that’s true. For you. Maybe. Just like it’s true for the ultra-die hard Rubio supporters and Bush supporters and all the other failed candidates. But it’s not true for the overwhelming number of democrats and republicans. Every election, nearly all of the losing nominees’ voters turn out en masse for the general, and this year will be no different. However, if Trump wins, and you encouraged people to vote for someone other than the democratic nominee, that’s on your head.

  9. sirjonk says:

    He could win. If every demographic completely changed course by nearly 100%. There’s no reason to expect that to happen.

  10. doodooface says:

    cheque your fucking priviledge you fugly asshole

  11. Milt says:

    hahaha. You think sticking your hands up there with a black dude changes who you are and what you are? STFU asshole with your holier-than-thou attitude. I am half hispanic and see enough you f’ed up white boys pretending. Shillary is a welll a shill. Trump is just stupid. And we will be in no worse situation politically with stupid Trump the chump vs dangerous Shillary. Sell your bs to the insane.

  12. Milt says:

    I think some of the “experts” forgot that there is absurd number of assholes like me who will not vote for Hillary simply because she is democrap. I will write in and I will not vote for Shillary.

  13. Jhink says:

    Nice talk. If you want to stop Drumpf then vote for Bernie. Drumpf will swallow Clinton whole like he was a wolf and then shit her out off a cliff. OK? Get where I’m coming from?

  14. Art Curtis says:

    You are a fool! But, you’re a white man. It probably won’t hurt you so much if Trump is elected President. But it will hurt minorities and Muslims and empower ISIS. Equating Clinton with Trump is ignorant. Obviously, you are just spouting what you have heard in the Berniebros echo chamber. Go ahead and let the misogynistic, racist, fascist win the election, you dipshit!

  15. Art Curtis says:

    Seriously? Your are delusional if you think that is even remotely within the realm of possibility.

  16. Modelspiceboi says:

    Which would make sense for Clinton, as the former Senator from NEW YORK with her base in NEW YORK CITY, which is very much influenced by the happenings and whims of Wall St. (as are millions of people’s retirement funds, etc.)

  17. Voodoo Chile says:

    People more liberal than you probably aren’t racist or sexist. We certainly care about the lives of brown people and the rights of gay people more than you do.

  18. Voodoo Chile says:

    I can’t believe people take this tack to defend a woman who has never met a war against brown people she hasn’t liked.

    Bonus points for throwing “straights” under the buss while supporting a politician that has decades of public comments letting us all know how icky the gays are.

  19. Eric Wayne says:

    He could still win if assholes like this author would support him instead of pretending it’s over in order to secure votes for Hillary “Business as Usual” Clinton.

  20. Jon Green says:

    It’s not like they were making it up.

  21. Jon Green says:

    I’d think that reporters from respected news outlets (NBC and TIME in this case) who were listening to Devine on that call would count, but here:

  22. Tobias James Walker says:

    Duxburian, I’m curious what your response is to this video where an experienced federal prosecutor is interviewed on CSPAN outlining the clear criminal activity Hillary has been involved in.

  23. Tobias James Walker says:

    I don’t identify with conservative values and I am not a sexist. Your assumptions about me are yours to make and that’s fine.

    if Bernie isn’t an option in November I’ll be voting for Jill Stein, a woman of integrity I would be proud to nominate.

  24. Tobias James Walker says:

    I’m not going to be guilted because you tried bringing race and sexual orientation into this. There is no substance behind your claim.

    Have you ever seen an IED? The innocent families blown to pieces by Hillary Clinton have it much worse than the impoverished minorities that her husband directly doomed with his unjust “war on drugs” and the Clintons’ love of private prison money.

    To me it sounds as if you are of the opinion that there is a discernible difference between Hillary and the Republicans. I respectfully disagree.

    I would ask that if you want to have a real conversation about this that you leave your strategy of shallow guilting and fearmongering at the door. If you have substantial claims to back your facts, bring them on but I will never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton, a warmongering corporatist.

  25. Chris Clemon says:

    So question, are you so liberal that you’ve become conservative…or are just that sexist?

  26. Chris Clemon says:

    Why is it always white men who say this shit? You realize the world doesn’t revolve around you, right? You do understand that there are groups of people who are going to be DIRECTLY threatened by the GOP candidates this year? You are NOT a true progressive, and you are NOT liberal. You are a privileged straight white self absorbed shithead. Check your fucking privilege, and check it hard. And don’t think for a fucking second that the overwhelming majority of the Bernie or Bust group aren’t straight white men. Kinda ironic thats Trumps mass demographic too, huh?

  27. bluespapa says:

    Yes, we’re a bunch of ignorant morons who drank the Koolaid of our corporate media controlled party, and the “for some reason” that we support Clinton is that we vote against our own political interests.

    Clinton’s voting record in the Senate is about 94% with his, so I take that to mean he’s only 6% of the lying corporate pawn that she is.

    Yes, he is as much part of the Washington establishment as any politician who, instead of stabbing up to the moneyed interests especially on the F-35, instead wants his slice of the pie. What outstanding principles. What a portrait in courage. And what an honest man.

  28. bluespapa says:

    One way our democracy does work is that the local state parties, only two major ones, are selecting delegates by voting and caucusing to elect delegates for their conventions. It’s an awkward process, a holdover from the early nineteenth century. Because there are only two parties, they are really coalitions of blocks of voters. There’s no question that Republican Party have been trying to disenfranchise the members of the Undemocratic party in recent years, making it harder to vote. But the record of the twentieth century has been to expand the franchise, include more people, make it easier, and the parties in their own way work to bring people in.

    Because of our laws, money has always been a huge part, and our system emerged out of the processes of backroom deals, lies and smears, going back to the founding. Bernie is an old and savvy politician who has his principles, but one of them isn’t, despite his campaign slogans, to only tell the truth. He himself has raised money in meetings with the 1% in posh resorts with the Undemocratic Party, he has been pushing the worst, most expensive, obsolete on arrival F-35 fighter jet because he wants it in Vermont because he’s a bring home the bacon, the waste be damned, hop on the military/industrial gravy train like the rest of them kind of politician. His attacks on Clinton for her speeches and taking corporate money work, but despite what he tells his constituents, he doesn’t believe Clinton is a shill for Wall Street. They’ve worked together. She was the senator from New York, and dealt with Wall Street, she’s not the senator of, by, and for Wall Street. He knows that, but the attacks energize his people. I don’t think it exposes her lack of credibility, and I think she can weather it. I see his supporters every day posting, not just that, but Republican propaganda ready made for their worst suspicions about Clinton, directly from their propaganda machines and paranoia websites placed where like-minded people can obsess. That’s part of American politics. If he becomes the nominee, they will crank out equally scathing bullshit on him, the way they did with Gore and Obama, in the latter’s case, that he’s a Chicago machine politician connected with old time organized crime and the south side black gangs, that he’s not really American, that he’s a Muslim terrorist, a socialist, etc., etc. In American politics, it doesn’t have to be true.

    Bernie works in that milieu very well, too. Ask the governor he ran against in Vermont, against whom he used most of the same attacks. They didn’t work then, and so far, they’re not putting him ahead now, though of course, that could change. They didn’t because she had her own integrity and credibility that people knew about, as I’m sure shortcomings as well. Certainly Sanders had his believers, but attaching Clinton and the Undemocratic Party as viciously as he’s trying isn’t winning over the majority of Undemocratic Party voters.

    I’m sorry, but he’s losing to Clinton not because we’re too gullible and uninformed, having taken our corporate media masters’ words as gospel, but because we’re engaged in the process and some of us do our due diligence to inform ourselves.

    One of the things the Undemocratic Party does is nurture candidates, fund voter drives, work on state issues, push education issues (like basic funding the other party in state governments has grossly abandoned), environmental issues, equal use of resources, the social safety net the other party has no interest in, but that is administered at the state level in this country. After Bernie left the mayorship of Burlington, he hasn’t been mentoring people to work in the legislature–he was never in the state legislature. He did to get people on the Burlington City Council, nurturing their political careers, but not since. Because he’s done better by, and is more suited to, being the longest serving independent in Congress. That’s fine, but the result is that his movement is more of a cult of personality. He’s NOT the only one who can beat Trump. Obama’s dog can beat Trump, which is why the entire edifice of the their party doesn’t want Trump, because they’ll lose tons of down-ballot races. Neither is Sanders the ONLY ONE to take on moneyed interests when he’s pushing the F-35 for his state, because one of the biggest moneyed interests is the huge group we love to call the military/industrial complex that itself requires huge capital from Wall Street. He’s going to take them on? He’s part of them. He also has apparently never been interested in international affairs and says stupid things, like that Iran should deploy troops in Syria to quell the fighting. That’s SERIOUSLY wtf. His understanding of the Israel/Palestine situation, that he believes sincerely, could have been dictated to him by Netanyahu. That AIPAC won’t let him video in his comments is stupid, because they agree on everything. That Bernie is savvy enough to not go and have his picture taken with the war hawks indicates a shrewd domestic politician, not a master of international affairs.

    He doesn’t believe that women’s issues, health, rights, equal pay and hiring, daycare, are distinct from his his class critique of the rest of the economy, and while they are related, they are distinct. When the revolution comes, it doesn’t automatically work equally for everyone of the downtrodden. Women have had to fight for their rights, and risk losing them every day, in every context–every single one. And every time they enter male dominated work, that work draws less pay, and they get paid even less than the men. Every context, every level of society. He’s oblivious of that, even as be votes and says the right things. He’s not a champion of these issues, as Planned Parenthood correctly points out.

    This last, and the state system of dealing with bread and butter issues is exactly the one that Clinton came up in, and what she’s been tied to, and where she thinks the work locally needs to be. What we in this country call bread and butter, kitchen table issues are childcare, equal pay, good schools and fair distribution of resources, the social safety net, healthcare. In the United States, the best way NOT to get universal healthcare is to insist on single payer. We’ve put in place an edifice for creating a real universal healthcare system with the ACA, and as complex as it is right now, it’s huge and can work where yet another generation fighting for single payer won’t. It heavily regulates health insurance system, with regulation and assistance in place for hospitals and clinics, in many ways like Switzerland has, bit of course rising from what it’s replacing. And the health insurance industry agreed to this regulation regimen, as Wall Street agreed to the Dodd-Frank Act, which has has a huge effect on how balls work. Ask Elizabeth Warren. And btw, she herself facilitates other candidates, and bread and butter causes across the country, like Clinton has been.

    So please, it’s really, REALLY arrogant and quite ignorant to explain to Clinton supporters how we’re voting against our own political interests. We know what they are, and why she’s the better candidate. I applaud the young people who are energized. I was young and energized by Carter, who was a great president and is a great man, and who managed to hand the country to a deregulator, a corporate-owned, cold warrior, shallow actor. I don’t resent Carter for losing, as Kennedy supporters have. And I know all the ways that Bernie is a great and principled man, but the argument that he represents my interests, that he’s the ONLY ONE who can beat Trump, that he’s the ONLY ONE who can take on Washington, that he’s putting together a movement, is all very nice, and is false. If he’s really the ONLY ONE who can fix this thing, American democracy is already dead. He’s NOT going to give us back a democracy that we’ve never had. And he’s not going to dethrone the industries that he’s part of, and he’s not going to topple the industries he’s never really worked with, and he’s not going to save us from hawks with his utterly shallow, incompetent grasp of international affairs. As president, he’ll have other liberal causes, like infrastructure and higher education, and maybe he’ll listen (not his best selling point) to Elizabeth Warren on financial industry regulation and reform, but his critique of healthcare puts the emphasis on something that I think we’ve worked through, single payer, and we lost, not for lack of trying for fifty years. And he’s not fostering a movement that will rise up and change Congress, as the Tea Party has done with obstructionists. The person whose best positioned right now to do that, to create a movement of people who WANT government to solve problems and vote liberal, is Donald Trump, and whoever is the Undemocratic Party nominee will be the direct beneficiary of the The Donald, whether it’s Clinton, Sanders, or Obama’s dog, Bo.

  29. Pamela Cochrane says:

    Duly noted. Thank you!

  30. Moderator3 says:

    That’s what I was doing – letting you no how we do things. You were not being chastised.

  31. Pamela Cochrane says:

    Sigh…I apologize, I am relatively new to responding to ‘blogs’. It is helpful to those of us who enter such venues, to be forewarned (via, rules)of being labelled as ‘spam’, if we miss step your chosen boundaries. I would have been initially, more attentive, simply. Have a nice day!

  32. Moderator3 says:

    I’m not certain what I said has to do with a profile? You did create a profile with DISQUS which makes it easy to use DISQUS blogs such as Americablog. Each blog may decide what it considers spam.

  33. Pamela Cochrane says:

    Thank you for pointing that out to me, it was a miss*step. You might want to point that out to newcomers when they initially create a profile It’s a more diplomatic approach.

  34. Pamela Cochrane says:

    What’s important is that you trust your candidate to do what is best for your vision of your country. I could not find Bernie talking on the points you brought up, as I would want to hear him speak of it in detail, in order to understand his reasoning. Bernie Sanders is far from being part of the system, but we will just agree to disagree. I trust Bernie’s common sense judgement based on his voting record,100%, as you trust Hillary’s, for whatever reason. Hillary and her cronies will do what is best for Corporate America if they can manage to maintain this rigged election process, and that seems to suit her supporters just fine. So be it! Bernie supporters have seen the truth, cut open and laid bare, and there is no accepting a facsimile of that truth. At the very least, let people exercise their democratic right to vote for the candidate of their choice, since that seems to be the last bit of voice this corroding democracy has left. All the best to you!

  35. Moderator3 says:

    This is the second time you have posted this in this thread. Please do not post it again, or I will have to handle your posts as spam.

  36. Pamela Cochrane says:

    I looked this up, and understand what you are talking about. I don’t believe Bernie will demand it, but will make the strong suggestion if the goal for the Undemocratic party really is to deter Trump, but only if the race is close enough to make a difference with supers. Bernie is the stronger candidate to beat Trump, as he doesn’t have the lack of credibility that Clinton has. I left this video with you and hope you will watch it. While other real democratic countries were building their democracies, the U.S. was busy dismantling yours. The Clintons has a huge hand in this. This is exactly what Bernie Sanders wants to turn on it’s head, so as to give true democracy back to the American people.

  37. Duxburian says:

    You mean back up, factually, something that hasn’t happened.

  38. Tobias James Walker says:

    I can’t believe I just wasted any of my time reading this trash media.

  39. Tobias James Walker says:

    Which poll do you have to back up your claim that “a vast majority” of Bernie’s supporters will support Hillary? This joint NBC/WSJ poll says 33% of Bernie voters will not:

    What evidence do you have that a small handful of people are running a smear campaign? There are numerous Bernie or Bust Facebook groups numbering in the 10s of thousands and they are not filled with bot accounts. If you have some insight on this please share.

  40. bluespapa says:

    Oh, I’m familiar with the message, and I’m certain there are all kinds of accurate allegations, I simply don’t think, with all his passion and sincerity and intelligence, he’s outlining an effective strategy. And I hate that he’s a complete neophyte on international affairs. He says some bizarre things that, for all his years in D.C., demonstrate gross lack of with judgment or knowledge or both, and I don’t think he’ll get up to speed, as he seems to think it’s irrelevant. Iran should send troops into Syria to help quell the violence? That wasn’t, like, oops, I meant (pick a country). That was, I haven’t been following events in the Middle East at all because why should I? His grasp of Israel/Palestine could have been written verbatim by Netanyahu. As a bring-home-the-bacon business as usual politician, he’s very supportive of the most expensive, worst designed, obsolete on delivery F-35 jet fighter, so they can be stationed in Vermont. He’s really going to take on the system? He’s part of the system! That is the worst dog program from beginning to end that should have been shouting about more than Clinton’s speeches, but no, like EVERY other politician in D.C., he wants to be dealt in. And in case after case, he makes big noises in one place, makes all the “right” progressive votes, but look!

    He raises money from the 1%, only with the DNC, so they don’t cut checks directly to him, they pass though the DNC first so his hands are clean, the old hypocrite.

    And as the longest-serving independent in Congress, he hasn’t really worked to bring in new, like-minded people to take the reins in other positions. He hasn’t been fostering a movement, a revolution, until last summer, at least not since he was bringing people on board the city council of Burlington. There’s no one else! But my God, he can sure promote Bernie Sanders. I’m impressed with how polished he is at that, and how much complete adoration he fosters among his admirers, that he’s the ONLY ONE who can fix this mess. He’s part of it, and his concern about the monied interest hasn’t extended to the ones he finds useful for him.

    No, he’s not the ONLY ONE. Neither is Clinton, but she’s the most competent, experienced, and best positioned right now.

    The only one is telling us Americans are going to rise up and vote in a new Congress, but that would be the Tea Party that’s a movement. Whom does he think we should turn to? The only one. That’s not good enough. Being independent has served him well for forty years, but a movement? It’s not there except for the love and passion for him.

    Look, I’m excited about my candidate, but I’m not missing seeing where her flaws intrude on her policies and agenda. I don’t see any kind of recognition like that on the part of Sanders supporters. Like Ross Perot, he’s gonna clean out the barn? And support the F-35 in perfect D.C. Lockstep? And foster a movement that’s going to elect…just him.

    No, no, spare me the moral, political, economic lesson. At least some are helping foster a movement. Look at all the causes and candidates, just as an example of a movement, that Elizabeth Warren is involved with, and involved in direct outreach every single day to bring people in, raising money directly from small donors, for each of which she dollar she gets half. She’s doing it. In her own big fundraiser way, which is the old-fashion, pre-internet way, the Clintons have been doing the sane thing. That’s why the African American community have been looking to her three to one over Sanders. She’s been bringing people in from those communities, in multiple states, showing up and helping, from the Rio Grande valley to Florida to across the deep South, in New York, New Hampshire, and on. Easier to do from the White House, but they were doing it in Arkansas.

    I don’t lack information on American money politics. I know ways the Clintons play into that–but I also know how Sanders has and hasn’t, and sometimes being the iconoclastic longest-serving independent in Congress is more of liability than an asset.

  41. Grant Saw says:


  42. Tobias James Walker says:

    Apparently you’ve been watching too much MSNBC. If you have factual evidence to actually back up Hillary’s claims that she won’t be indicted other than her spouting it, please share.

  43. Tobias James Walker says:

    There is no smear campaign, just a bunch of honest and concerned people making it clear that they will not vote for Hillary Clinton. This is how our political system works. If Bernie is not the Democratic nominee, I will be very happy to canvas, phone bank and donate to Jill Stein’s campaign.

  44. Grant Saw says:

    Bernie would have to win 3/5ths of all remaining delegates. I wish him luck.

    That said, I’ve been hearing a lot of noise – and to be sure, it is noise mostly – that his supporters won’t vote Hillary, should she win. Yet when polls are taken the vast majority say they will support Clinton. I take this as great evidence there is an ongoing smear campaign being used in Bernies name against Clinton as a means to detract democratic party voters in the general. It doesn’t take many people to create a false narrative on a limited number of websites, but polls don’t lie. As always, don’t believe everything you read on the internet.

  45. Pamela Cochrane says:

    Look, I can see that some of you just haven’t been able to swallow or at least see the message. It is far more corrupt than any of us can imagine. Please just take a look at this 28 min. clip of ‘The Heist’. This is what Bernie wants to turn on it’s head, in order to bring back real democracy to your country. Please watch this!

  46. The Man says:


  47. Moderator4 says:

    Avoid the insults and ad hominem attacks henceforth.

  48. The Man says:

    Are you a real person or just a compilation of moron cells?

  49. The Man says:

    Yeah, that’s Bernie’s fault and TOTALLY not the fault of the Establishment media. I guess he should of run as an Independent and in November join our long and illustrious list of Independent Presidents such as Blankedy Nobodyson and Whatshisface Dontexiststan, or who could forget our beloved President Fictionalguy. He was the greatest Independent President of them all!

  50. The Man says:

    %57.7. That’s what Senator Sanders needs to win in the second half (Oh, that’s right no one told you? less than HALF of the pledged delegates have been awarded thus far) of the primaries in order to end up with 1 more pledged delegate than Secretary Clinton. This isn’t rocket science folks, it’s basic math. Is %57.7 possible? I don’t know, are all of Secretary Clinton’s powerhouse states in the South gone? Do her supporters all think she’s already won and thus won’t be energized to vote? Do the remaining states favor Sanders from a demographic point of view? The answer to all of these questions is yes. You tell me if it’s impossible.

    Will the superdelegates flip if Sanders ends up with more pledged delegates? Setting aside that’s EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED 8 YEARS AGO you tell me if you think the Democratic party wants to alienate the majority of their voter base by overturning their will. If they do they know they’ll lose in November. The blue wall is only blue if the people on those states think the Democrats are on their side.

    Now, as a Sanders supporter would I rather be in Secretary Clinton’s position? In the immortal words of Cenk Uygur OF COOOOOOUUUUURRRRSE! But to say Sanders has no shot is to reveal yourself to be not only ignorant of politics but of math as well, or worse yet biased.

  51. D16 says:

    How was it debunked?

  52. baxtus says:

    Nope, he needs to do anything he can to stop Trump and Hillary, even shooting them is okay in my book, just aim for their small brains

  53. baxtus says:

    Yes, someone who wants to stop Trump and Hillary

    How very sinister.

    Oh Wait

  54. baxtus says:

    Someone has to stop Trump and Hillary

  55. baxtus says:

    Voters are stupid, hence Trump and Hillary

  56. baxtus says:

    We just know Hillary lies about everything, and even a broken clock is right sometimes, so we’re ready to believe Hillary did something wrong.

  57. baxtus says:

    Even if Bernie has lost, no big deal, he should stay in just in case she gets indicted (Make it happen FBI!), and to hurt her as much as possible.

    Then when he drops out he should endorse Jill Stein

  58. bluespapa says:

    Oh, I think he knows there’s nothing incriminating in her speeches, but he’s certainly been saying they are evidence of corruption. I’m sure you believe that, but I don’t think Sanders does. He’s worked with Clinton. Regularly insinuating that the Clinton Foundation is a slush fund for political pay to play, I think he didn’t believe she’s selling America for gold, though again, I’m sure you believe it.

    Now, I think she can weather his criticism and his sneering innuendo, and I respect that Sanders has a job to do, including trying, like so many before, to destroy her. This is politics, and has to try his best to win, even and including this hypocrisy of, well, Clinton shouldn’t use super delegates to win, but he should because he’s the only one who can win, even if he doesn’t win the most votes or delegates in the Democratic Party. He’s Bernie, so he’s got integrity.

  59. bluespapa says:

    Yes, yes, and with Texas have voted. You’re right. The other states, AZ, CA, NM get to have their votes counted. I was just agreeing that not everyone has voted. And so long as neither of them has won, each have to do their work.

  60. bluespapa says:

    WHAT IF HE CAN’T WIN THE Democratic Party nomination? WILL YOU write him in IF HE CONCEDES AND urges his voters to back SHILLARY?

  61. bluespapa says:

    Shillery. Gee, that elevates the conversation.

  62. bluespapa says:

    Bernie is committed to his principles and his supporters to do his job. I respect that. If he rejects his principles for a political expedient, wanting to win with super delegates rather than the outcomes of the primaries and caucuses, it’ll be hypocritical, but I get he has to try. People are just pointing to that quite new hypocrisy, or compromise of the principle he’s been demanding of Clinton, not to use the super delegates if he wins the pledged delegates. Now he’s saying, but if of course he will. That just makes him a politician, which he is. Politics is politics, obviously.

  63. bluespapa says:

    I know, right? And that never happens with the scrupulous Bernie supporters.

  64. bluespapa says:

    That supporters of the loser would make efforts to change the outcome? That actually sounds accurate in the context of this discussion.

  65. bluespapa says:

    Well, actually, if Sanders’ plan is to peel off her pledged and super delegates without having won the pledged delegates to put him over the top, they would certainly be the victims here, will of the people and all that. You seem to be willfully missing the point.

  66. bluespapa says:

    My bad. People say and insinuate weird things about the DNC because Sanders teaches them that “The Establishment” is corrupt, elections are rigged, and the whole edifice had to be overthrown.

    If he gets the most delegates, which works out to be roughly the popular vote, the super delegates will join him, as Clinton’s super delegates did for Obama. He’d have to be a real scam artist for them not to. Right now the Republican establishment wishes they had super delegates.

    So it’s not inconceivable, but it’s pretty far fetched this year. They won’t like it because he he bashes them as corrupt every day, and the Republicans will spin his agenda as destined to put the economy into a recession, and they’ll spin him as crazy and irresponsible. If he ran and lost, all the down-ballot candidates are at risk of also losing. If Clinton is the nominee, whom most respect, they’ll at least feel invested in a way they might not otherwise, but I can’t believe this year, this perfectly competent and compelling candidate, Sanders, we’ll have them.

    But not if he doesn’t get more pledged delegates. If she wins, she wins. If he wins, he wins. The shocking thing is that he’s talking about trying to peel away pledged and super delegates from her if he doesn’t. That’s crazy talk. But we’ll see.

  67. Pamela Cochrane says:

    No one is pretending anything of the sort, nor did I say that it was ‘invented’ to prevent, specifically Bernie from being elected, but yes, it was invented to prevent grass roots rising, as said by the head of the DNC. I just find it amazing that a party can call themselves democratic, but have such undemocratic rules. They’ll join him? Okay, I wasn’t aware that was a certainty. Not completely aware of U.S. politics.

  68. Apple Scruff says:

    He probably wasn’t even old enough to vote in 2008.

  69. heimaey says:

    The whole secret meeting to tell everyone to just give up on Sanders – highly likely it’s from her campaign. She wants the presidency handed to her. She feels she deserves it. She doesn’t.

  70. Cecil Bothwell says:

    Bernie has to win going forward about the same percentage as Clinton won up to now. It is easily possible, if not probable. And the FBI investigation looms. They dare not wait until the fall, or even until many more primaries occur, if they are going to file charges. The federal law is pretty clear, and Clinton’s culpability is pretty clear. This is going to get much more interesting very soon.

  71. Laurine McKim says:

    “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!509➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!509……..

  72. Laurine McKim says:

    “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!509➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!509………

  73. Ninja0980 says:

    They won’t be any friendlier towards Bernie and what will his supporters do the minute he cuts a deal with Republicans or can’t deliver on everything ASAP?
    If the past is any indication, they’ll stay home.

  74. Moderator4 says:

    Please refrain from using so many capital letters. It is equivalent to Internet shouting.
    Thank you.

  75. John Smith says:

    Do you have any actual evidence here is just tweets and opinions, because I don’t see a single link that shows Sander’s or his campaign manager making arguments for over ruling the delegates?

  76. Duxburian says:

    I’ve always been impressed that so many bernie supporters accept the republican narrative so readily. It’s as if they’re perfectly willing to accept that the republicans lie continually about everything other than Hillary Clinton.

    So. When is the prosecution of the murder of Vince Foster going to go forward?

  77. xxSJWxx says:

    If SHILLARY wins DONALD TRUMP will win. SHE CANNOT BEAT HIM. I’ll take my chances with BERNIE who CAN.

  78. xxSJWxx says:

    Exactly what I’ve been saying. This is the first time in my LIFE ( 57 yrs) that I’ll be able to finally VOTE MY CONSCIENCE for someone who 100% represents ME and MY best interests as well as the best interests of the COUNTRY. That someone is in NO WAY SHILLARY CLINTON the BLUE DOG CORPORATE CONSERVATIVE WAR HAWK.

  79. xxSJWxx says:

    Well I’d like to know where she is going to get all these votes from to beat Trump because THIS Sanders supporter will NEVER EVER vote for her. EVER.

  80. SFnomad says:

    DK39 … Hata stated that Obama lost the deep south during the primaries … Hata was wrong and that’s what I was replying to. Pay attention.

  81. timncguy says:

    And, you believe that the senators voting on the TARP funds release were not aware that part of the funds were going to be used by Obama for the Auto bailout. It was just sometime after the bill passed that Obama figured out that he could use some of the funds for the auto bailout. It was just a happy accident. YEAH, RIGHT. I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

    A much more likely explanation is that Bernie knew his vote wasn’t needed and that the TARP bill would pass without him. This freed him up to vote against Wall St and not have a vote for Wall St on his record.

    Also, from The Detroit Free Press

    “It’s worth remembering that until the TARP funds were released, banks, as well as other lenders, had stopped financing loans and leases for new cars and trucks. As distasteful as it was to help global banks that made disastrously worthless mortgage loans, without the restoration of credit it’s likely that no effort to ignite an economic recovery would have gained traction.”

  82. Jhink says:

    Thank you.

  83. Jhink says:

    The bill Bernie voted against was the TARP money solely for the Wall Street bailout. That bill DID NOT have any funding for the auto industry as written. President Obama used excess funding from the TARP to save the auto industry. To say Bernie voted against the auto bailout is a flat out lie but lying is a Clinton forte. I had my fill of a lying president with Bush and Cheney flimflamming the country. I won’t vote for another liar like Clinton. I will do a write in vote for Bernie and if that means Trump wins so be it. Obviously the country hasn’t sunk low enough to warrant an honest man of the people. Maybe a term of Trump will shake people out of their slumber.

  84. heimaey says:

    You’re following corporate media on this issue, Jon. Your anti-Bernie pieces sound an awful lot like MSM.

  85. heimaey says:

    Yeah John has forgotten how mean he was towards Hillary – I still want to see a piece on him about the switch.

  86. Jhink says:

    If for no other reason, Bernie should stay in the race to be there when Clinton gets charged for her malfeasance related to her private email server. It became clear to me that when her IT guy was given immunity from prosecution, the FBI is going whale hunting. Guess who the whale is. The G-men always get their man/woman and we are going to need Bernie to pick up the pieces.

  87. heimaey says:

    “there are people on Wall Street with a conscience” – I worked on Wall Street – yes there are people on Wall Street with a conscience and they all leave pretty quickly – like me. They aren’t the ones courting the politicians.

  88. gaylib says:

    When has she declared victory? She’s not allowed to rally her supporters when she wins an election? I smell a double standard here.

  89. gaylib says:

    Please provide even one example of where she’s said that it is over and Sanders needs to quit. She was much closer to Obama in 2008 and if I recall correctly it was the very founder of this blog who coined the infamous “Why won’t the stupid bitch quit” meme.

  90. Rick Edmond says:

    A Siena College poll conducted February 28-March 3 has Hillary leading Bernie 55% to 34%.
    An Emerson College poll conducted March 14-16 has Hillary leading 71% to 23%.
    Nobody believes she will win by that Yuge a margin. But nobody believes he will win the state by Yuge margins which is what he needs to overtake her. This is why Bernie is trying to create criteria for distribution of super delegates that doesn’t exist for pledged delegates. He wants winner take all for the super delegates from respective states to the winner of the state. Pledged delegates are distributed based on percentage of votes. In the words of Bill Maher, NEW RULE.


    Oh you can set your watch by it. He is almost as narcissistic as Trump. I have been telling my family for the last month that would be his plan and quite frankly his behavior as of late is starting to scare me a bit. I no longer see the nice old guy, but something far more sinister.

  92. bluespapa says:

    Meh, that’s too facile. There are people on Wall Street with a conscience who want to give to a feminist candidate, an environmentalist candidate, who don’t want to bomb every Muslim country, and have money to give.

    Their policies have differences, but if you lay out the whole range, they’re both on the left side of liberal. Bernie still wants that boondoggle, what is it, the F35 fighter for his state, like all the other politicians who enable the military/industrial complex, his vision for the Middle East could have been written by Netanyahu, except where he says crazy stuff like Iran should send troops into Syria. And he sees conspiracies, like Planned Parenthood is part of the “establishment.” He’s raised money with the Democrats in fundraisers in Nantucket and Florida, he just had his share pass through the DNC rather than have the money men cut the checks to him directly. He’s an American politician.

  93. heimaey says:

    That figure changes from like 83% to 93% now I’m seeing 94% but regardless it’s totally misleading because their ethics and policies are very different.

    I don’t think Wall Street chokes on the money – I think they are bought out by both parties – the Republicans just own up to it.

  94. bluespapa says:

    I didn’t say everything is going great. I said neither party has done very well for the middle and poor in the last forty years, as in, I was agreeing with you. I was also pointing out that some compromises aren’t betrayals, and the Democratic Party, even with compromises and conflicts of interest, have done more, and will do more, than the other side.

    If Clinton is so compromised by special interests, and she voted in the Senate like 94% of the time with Sanders, he most be only six percent less compromised.

    By all means, shake up the Democratic establishment. If you think Wall Street is giving Clinton money, you should see what they give Republicans. I happen to like pushing them to have to give money to Democrats. I think they choke on it every time they do.

  95. bluespapa says:

    This isn’t federal law, it’s Democratic Party rules. If you want to change it for the next election, get involved, raise your voice, but don’t pretend that it was all invented to prevent Bernie from being elected. If he gets the votes, they’ll join him. And you won’t be saying “If he wins that state, the super delegates should stand behind the will of the people” if Bernie gets close, but she’s got all these super delegates from Texas and Florida and South Carolina who could turn it for him, but they’re following the will of the people in their states. Think it through. He’s down by 300 pledged delegates, not super delegates.

  96. heimaey says:

    Who said I wasn’t going to do any of that? That’s YOUR assumption. I’m simply saying we need to shake up the Democratic party – and getting rid of establishment that is tied to big banks. I believe in separation of church and state and separation of state and wall street. Hillary is absolutely tied to special interests. I’ll keep fighting but to say things have been going great is just not true.

  97. bluespapa says:

    If you want government to actually function, stay involved. If Bernie isn’t elected president, what? You’re all mad ’cause no one listened? And you told them? And you were right? What’s your point? Stay involved, do the legwork, follow through, knock on doors. Vet candidates, and support the ones that’ll change it the way you want. If this is a one-off, you’ll get what’s dished out. If you’re involved after November, you might change something. I’m involved. Democracy is work. And compromise, for the move of God, isn’t selling out, and it doesn’t have to be settling. It’s finding solutions and getting people to work with you.

  98. heimaey says:

    You have a shitty memory.

  99. Ninja0980 says:

    I remember the PUMAS of 08 and the jerks this year, doesn’t change the insults that have come from Bernie Or Bust supporters.

  100. heimaey says:

    Yeah her stance on marriage cost me a lot so just because she hasn’t been an enemy doesn’t make her an ally. Clintons have a habit of throwing gays under the bus the second they can.

  101. heimaey says:

    Can you guys get original here and not just repost memes.

  102. heimaey says:

    That tired meme has been passed around to death. Her pointing to attention to sexist remarks like that does her little good in the end and makes the younger feminists turn against her.

  103. heimaey says:

    Oh Clinton supporters are by no means innocent of calling out people – they are not victims here either so cut it.

  104. heimaey says:

    Yeah the Koch brothers are so awesome.

  105. heimaey says:

    I think Clinton supporters should be very happy with Sanders because he could have shredded her and he didn’t – he’s trying not to play the slimy Clinton game. He criticizes her now and then but it’s really just the tip of what he could do.

  106. heimaey says:

    No she acts like it’s over. When we had to suffer her out to the end last time. Such a hypocrite.

  107. heimaey says:

    So let’s just keep doing what we’re doing because that’s worked out so well. Victim to the system!

  108. Mike Rasor says:

    As a Floridian I feel compelled to point out we’re both bigger and more populous than New York. Latino voters made up about 22% of the democratic primary electorate and we have the third largest latino population in the U.S.

  109. Mike Rasor says:

    I think you mean democratic convention not electoral college. The electoral college is what occures after the general election in November. It would be kind of impossible to start a write up campaign after the election was over :)

  110. Mike Rasor says:

    He was ahead after Super Tuesday by 10 delegates. Bernie Sanders isn’t in Barack Obama’s position in 2008. He’s in Hillary Clinton’s. Only his delegate deficit is 30 times worse.

  111. Pamela Cochrane says:

    Sanders would love that, but in the meantime has to work within the confines of the corrupt system, in order to have a chance at changing it down the road.

  112. bluespapa says:

    Neither party has done enough for the poor and middle class, as you say, but it isn’t just, *shudder* the Democratic Party take note, it’s the other way around. For the Bernie revolution to last longer than a guy in his seventies, his supporters have to get involved, find and vet candidates, register more young voters, financially support local candidates (not just Bernie), and follow through. They, you, we have to BECOME the Democratic Party, not just whine about them. Yes, older people have more money and are pro-Clinton, but Bernie supporters should take a lesson from Bernie. He knocked on thousands of doors, have hundreds of interviews before he winning his first election by ten votes.

    Also, nothing happens without compromise in politics. Single payer is how NOT to get universal healthcare in America. Heavily regulated private insurance is apparently how it will work here, as in certain European countries, for example. Ted Kenney tried to get single payer his entire career, and came back literally on his deathbed to vote for the ACA. Dodd-Frank didn’t break up the banks, but it certainly changed much of their business. Just ask Elizabeth Warren. Compare that to what Republicans do.

  113. Pamela Cochrane says:

    Mad money, as a private citizen? Have you looked at her super pac? She’s running for President. It’s unimaginable to me that someone who represents the voice of the people, would mar their integrity, by taking cash from the very organizations you are suppose to protect the people from. This is totally undemocratic in any other democratic country, except the good ole U.S. If she wants to be President, she needs to earn it directly from the people, just like Sanders. The very reason that this campaign is corrupt, is Sanders has had a disadvantage by being truly democratic. He will never sell his soul at the expense of voter rights. As well, can anyone explain this attack thing?

  114. Ninja0980 says:

    Clinton wasn’t as far behind him as Bernie is now though.

  115. Ninja0980 says:

    Indeed, people call Clinton a hypocrite yet ignore the major hypocrisy Bernie is showing?

  116. nancy navarro says:

    Exactly OhD! He has the gall to call the SD’s ad ‘not doing the right thing’ by supporting Hillary and to ‘do the right thing’ is to support him!
    What Sanders’ supporter cannot see is how he manipulates them to continue their support of him! The GE campaign requires at least 1.5 to 2.0 BILLION and I am just wondering if they will continue supporting him. Where are they going to get that money to fight off Trump’s attacks. Would Sanders flip flop again this time and accept contribution from SUPER PACS? He is Jewish and many of the animosities are going to rise up and he won’t be able to deflect those attacks. The country is going to be in chaos. Hillary has withstand any and all attacks against her and Trump would be a piece of cake that she will swallow and burp.

  117. bluespapa says:

    CNBC, where not to get your political news. Nor your business news.

  118. bluespapa says:

    They’re also undemocratic insofar as my 936 precinct caucus got to divvy up right delegates, while another with 70 got six, and another with 180-some also got eight. Also, in the case of a tie, rare in primaries, a coin flip allocated the odd delete (and And Sanders won at least seven in Iowa), or in Nevada, they drew cards.

  119. Pamela Cochrane says:

    Could you specify what those nasty attacks are?

  120. bluespapa says:

    Right, but if the Sanders campaign has been decrying the very fact of super delegates being undemocratic, then making the case that Sanders will win by flipping super delegates without winning the popular vote in the primaries is rather venal. I’m down with Bernie campaigning, and voters voting. Clinton wasn’t, and isn’t, going to win with super delegates if Bernie tops her with pledged delegates. They’ll all flip, as they did for Obama. But they surely won’t if he doesn’t win the popular vote and pledged delegates, and arguing that he’ll get Clinton’s pledged delegates to flip at the convention if she has enough to win going into it is delusional at best and certainly undemocratic.

  121. heimaey says:

    I agree with that. But that would be a Sanders advantage not a Hillary one.

  122. Pamela Cochrane says:

    Sanders supporters should just get in line? Don’t you live in a free country? Who gets in line to vote for someone they wouldn’t invite to their dinner table, let alone their house? People vote for their candidate of choice, if you like Hillary, then vote for her, but don’t badger voters into selling out their morality for your benefit.

  123. timncguy says:

    A republican??? I must have missed her taking a position to privatize social security. I must have missed her position to cut taxes for the wealthy and eliminate the “Death” tax. I must have missed her position to kill off unions.

    What the hell are you talking about?????

  124. Pamela Cochrane says:

    It stands to reason, that if he wins in that state, the super delegates should stand behind the will of the people…no? The super delegate package is unconstitutional! Candidates should be chosen by the people, not political hacks!

  125. timncguy says:

    Caucuses are undemocratic because many people cannot attend. you have to show up at a specific time and stay for several hours. Anyone who has to work, take care of children or has no transportation cannot participate.

  126. danolgb says:

    After.. this was filed a few weeks ago.

  127. timncguy says:

    1153 – 828 as of now and there are still many to allocate from Tuesday’s contests

  128. Pamela Cochrane says:

    The kind that are truth telling! Truth is a damaging reality, can’t have that for a pre-chosen candidate. How people can be so loyal to corrupt practices that are against their interests is beyond imaginable. If she doesn’t concede, we all can look forward to a 4 yr. reality show.

  129. bluespapa says:

    Do you know if that was before or after his joining the Democratic Party?

  130. bluespapa says:

    I completely agree, Latinos need to have their voices heard, and they’re primary in the west (though the ones in Texas got their say already). The biggest states, California and New York haven’t voted yet.

  131. timncguy says:

    The BIGGEST swing states are OHIO and FLORIDA. Clinton just won both of those by large margins. VA and NV are also important swing state. She won both of those and VA, again by a large margin. CA and NY are not swing states. They will vote dem no matter who the candidate is.

  132. bluespapa says:

    Just a description, not an insult. Sometimes.

  133. bluespapa says:

    They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work, the same way any targeted advertising works.

    I’m glad you’re voting with us.

  134. bluespapa says:

    Oh, actually, the biggest swing states a Republican needs is Florida and Ohio, two she won handily even after Bernie won Michigan by slightly less than two points. Still, there’s nothing wrong with Bernie soldiering on.

  135. timncguy says:

    Bernie voted for the stand-alone auto bailout bill that failed and didn’t provide any money for the auto industry.

    The bill that ultimately provided the money for the auto industry was the bill that also contained the money for wall street. Bernie voted against this bill because oft he money for wall st.

    So, ultimately Bernie voted against the bill that provide the money to the auto industry.

  136. stevegifford says:

    OK, keep proving to the world that you’re clueless, then.

  137. Jon Green says:

    AMERICAblog must be the smallest corporation on record ;)

  138. Claire says:

    Are you from NY? Do you live there? Do you talk to people outside your little bubble? Because I’ve seen LOTS of support for Hillary.

  139. doug dash says:

    I stand grammatically corrected but substantially correct.

  140. heimaey says:

    *you’re. :)

  141. DCT114 says:

    If Bernie supporters write him in it is the same as voting for Donald Trump. Use some common sense!

  142. doug dash says:

    She’s not a Democrat like your not an idiot.

  143. spazaru says:

    My Texas upbringing won’t allow me to use that as an insult.

  144. Max Morris says:

    Well in that case, you shoulda called ’em rednecks.


  145. heimaey says:

    Not use what you mean by get rid of the undemocratic caucus but I think that all primaries should be open to anyone because having a two party system is extremely limiting and unfair to begin with. You may not be a democratic, like me, but you should be able to vote in either republican or democratic primaries regardless. I had to register Democrat again to be able to vote for Bernie in NYS. So get rid of all these ridiculous rules and get rid of super delegates. And stop making NH and Iowa the first two bellwether states each cycle!

  146. spazaru says:

    So am I. I wasn’t being literal. But thanks for the advice. I’ve been getting plenty of that lately from Bernie supporters. I’m voting Democrat no matter what, but since Hillary will be the nominee, that’s who I’m supporting.

  147. Max Morris says:

    Well, I don’t see any reason to bash any group. I happen to be a “white male with a small dick,” and I’m pretty sure I’ll vote for the Democrat — whoever that happens to be.

  148. spazaru says:

    He does, but she’d still destroy him among females and pretty much everyone else except white males with small dicks.

  149. Max Morris says:

    You’d think so, but Trump does have female supporters… including Sara Palin.

  150. spazaru says:

    Against Trump, Hillary will enjoy the largest gender gap in the history of politics. She’ll destroy him.

  151. DK39 says:

    Exactly there are some major weirdo trolls on here.

  152. DK39 says:

    Bernie supporters will never Support Hillary they are writing in their vote for Bernie Sanders if the electoral college fails them. The electoral college is a rigged and failed system I would not be surprised.

  153. DK39 says:

    Those are Red States she will lose all those states in a general election against a republican .. catch up!

  154. DK39 says:

    Sorry People in NY hate Hillary she has the worst track record in NY. Not to mention it is mostly younger people in higher populated areas

  155. DK39 says:

    Oh save it… GO Bernie Go! #feelthebern

  156. DK39 says:

    Yep that is why Hillary trolls are on websites 24/7 trying to spread mis-information so people don’t vote. Fear mongering is all they got.

  157. DK39 says:

    The “automobile out ” Hillary smear campaign was already debunked.. get a clue.. catch up.

  158. DK39 says:

    You are such a delusional weirdo.

  159. OhDem16 says:

    Bernie winning: Bernie’s awesome message is resonating; voters are so smart!
    Bernie losing: It’s a corporate conspiracy; voters are stupid!

  160. OhDem16 says:

    Oh, good Lord, Howard Dean didn’t even win a single primary. The famous scream ruined him on the night of the Iowa caucuses. Hillary Clinton has withstood decades of barrages of attacks from the right and left, case in point. Not to mention the dozens of fake scandals and 11 hours of televised investigative congressional committee testimony. Name a single other candidate who has survived and even thrived through a fraction of what she’s been through.

  161. OhDem16 says:

    Then get rid of the undemocratic caucuses and delegate process altogether. Don’t cherry pick only what suits Sanders.

  162. OhDem16 says:

    And hence the extreme irony of the dishonest, undemocratic winning strategy Sanders and his campaign are pursuing. You do understand that they are signaling that they will try to take Hillary’s pledged delegates, don’t you?

  163. OhDem16 says:

    After Bernie Sanders revealed on Monday at the MSNBC town hall that he only ran for the Democratic party nomination to get media attention, I feel rather foolish thinking all this time that he was doing it to avoid being a spoiler and giving the presidency to the Republicans, e.g. Ralph Nader in 2000. I obviously gave him too much credit.

    It is clear now that Bernie Sanders will do anything to win. I would not put it past him to run as an independent in the GE if he does not get his way at the convention, i.e. if the Democrats don’t give him the nomination. And he calls himself a democratic socialist…can you say communist dictator? What an egomaniac!

  164. OhDem16 says:

    Let’s see, the first one that comes to mind is his Hawaii surrogate going around calling Clinton dishonest when asked about the auto bailout vote. Sanders considered it more important to stick it to Wall St than to save the US economy and the auto industry, and he just needs to be honest and own it.

  165. Kathy Powers says:

    I try not to tell people what to do. Will you?

  166. Kathy Powers says:

    What attacks?

  167. OhDem16 says:

    Bernie Sanders is free to run as long as he wants but he categorically needs to stop floating implausible, underhanded strategies to win and absolutely must stop attacking the Democratic front-runner from this point forward.

  168. OhDem16 says:

    Obama was never ahead by 320 pledged delegates and there was an outcry for Hillary to get out of the race even when they were running neck and neck. And as of Tuesday she has over 2.6 million more votes than Sanders. Not quite as a parallel of a situation as many would like to think.

  169. OhDem16 says:

    Many here are missing the points of this article. First of all, the Sanders campaign decried super delegates as undemocratic and even circulated a petition against SGs. Now the Sanders campaign wants to use SGs to wrangle the nomination away from Clinton at the convention even if she has more than 50% of the pledged delegates, which she most definitely will. Second, in a spectacular act of grandiose, egotistical display of unhinged ambition, the Sanders campaign is now suggesting that Clinton’s PLEDGED delegates should ‘do the right thing’ and switch their vote to Sanders and thus ignore the will of the voters….cuz, you know, Bernie’s just better cuz he’s Bernie.

    This is a dishonest, selfish act on Bernie Sanders behalf and as far as I’m concerned, he has lost any claim to moral high ground. What an unscrupulous act of desperation. And he calls Clinton dishonest!

  170. stevegifford says:

    Except that this time, it’s Sanders camp playing the part of 2008 Hillary, and making all of the same desperate pleas.

    Stop trying to compare this race to 2008 if you don’t even understand what happened in 2008.

  171. Robyn Ann says:

    The argument is I haven’t had a chance to voice a vote in my area. I don’t want the South to decide it and we just give up. BS. Let the West SPEAK!

  172. Robyn Ann says:

    Would you mind if I vote first?

  173. SFnomad says:

    In 2008, Obama won Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina.

    What states do you think are the “deep south”?

  174. Peter S Valenti III says:

    I remember this black guy with a funny name that also couldn’t win, he took Hillary all the way to June and lost 21 states.Worked out ok for him in the end.

  175. Naja pallida says:

    Indeed. Always best to declare you’ve won the war every time you win a skirmish. Just in case your opponent is looking for a reason to just give up.

  176. Hata H. Zappa says:

    And that said, it’s just illogical that Sanders thinks he can beat Clinton in NY.

  177. gaylib says:

    Every time she wins she acts like a winner? How dare she!

  178. hiker_sf says:

    “He’s a Socialist, not a democratic.”

    I can’t tell you how much your well reasoned insight enlightened me.

    No, really. I can’t.

  179. Hata H. Zappa says:

    Put it like this…until Clinton has and maintains a California sized lead (around 540 delegates in that state alone), the race isn’t over. But if she is able to cross this line on her own without needing the superdelegates, the race will be over. And it would be at this point that Sanders would need to drop out immediately. Any other course of action besides suspending his campaign would stink to high heaven. That’s just a fact. And as for the argument about the South voting first, Obama lost the deep south but still won the nomination because of superdelegates. That’s just a fact, and it’s not even a hidden fact. It gets to the point where arguing with Sanders supporters to this extent is like arguing with a brother or sister who thinks they should get more ice cream, not in spite of the fact that the brother or sister cleaned one inch less of the floor but because of it. There will come a point when Sanders should just call it quits and his supporters should just get in line and do what’s right for this country. If fair play means anything to you, then you’ll do just this.

  180. danolgb says:

    He filed filed his intention to run again for his senate seat still as an independent.

  181. Max Morris says:

    Your commentary would make sense in a normal election. However, we’ve got populists on both sides of the fence, and there’s more crossover between the left/right spectrum in populist campaigns. Against Donald Trump, Hillary is going to be in a lot more trouble than you think.

    It’s not a normal election cycle by a long shot. The usual rules don’t apply.

  182. MD says:

    I don’t think we Clinton supporters care if he stays in. He has a right to stay in and deserves EVERYONE’s respect because he simply made this election better by bringing up liberal values in a way that forced Clinton to modify. But, she is likely the nominee and in the very least she is the clear front runner so Sanders needs to not attack her. that is what we want to see stopping. He can campaign but I hope he goes back to being positive and not attacking Clinton or implying she’s the devil because she has mad money as a private citizen like any man does but for some reason it’s evil if she does it. IF he continues to attack her so late in the election season, he could actually hurt her chances of winning in a general as he would be helping Trump to define her to a general audience who does not pay as much attention.

  183. MD says:

    I agree! I don’t care if he stays in but he needs to stop attacking the front runner now. He will damage the entire democratic party’s chances if he continues his nasty campaign. He’s gotten very personal lately going after Clinton and it needs to stop. He claims he’s a democrat. Let’s see if he is at all loyal to the democratic party and our need to defeat Trump over his own personal ambitions.

  184. MD says:

    I don’t get this argument. We need a moderate who CAN win in the south as either dem will win in the north. A dem will win the blue states no matter what but we need someone who can FORCE the GOP to spend its resources protecting down ballot candidates in the south that would be under threat with a moderate running, not a progressive. I don’t get why that’s not understood. You can’t win a general election of 320 million unique voices with the far left flank of one out of two major parties. We would get MURDERED in the general with Sanders because he would not carry any moderates in purple or red states and he wouldn’t carry any moderate republicans. We already have liberal states in the bag. We need moderate states hence we need a moderate who has appeal in red, purple and blue states. Clinton has broad appeal to a large diverse electorate and so she is the better option in a general.

  185. Deborah West says:

    Sanders could NOT possibly have ‘saved’ the Democratic party!!! He’s a Socialist, not a democratic. And now the truth is out as he has said so much that he USED the Democratic party for a ‘ticket’ to the nomination. USED. Now he’s been a proven to be nothing but a cunning and devious politician. No better than Trump.

  186. Max Morris says:

    Would it be fair to his supporters in states where he has always had an edge to drop out at this point? The problem is that his worst area (The South) voted early. It would not be right to not allow the areas that do support him more than Hillary to not have their say, now would it?

    Regardless of whether he wins or not, it makes no sense to just let The South decide it for everybody else… particularly since those will vote Republican in the general anyway.

  187. Doug105 says:

    I’ve quit several pro-Bernie Fb pages for about the same reason even I few other pages have carry over that just annoys the hell out of me like the anti-Koch page – Americans against the FASCIST KOCH BROTHER’S CONSPIRACY – seems more like a pro-Bernie ad than anything about the Kochs.

  188. Zorba says:

    I love Oliver and Bee!
    You have more fortitude than I do, though, because I just cannot watch the debates.

  189. Zorba says:

    Oh, you should take a look at some of the very pro-Hillary blogs. The commenters are foaming at the mouth and practically having strokes because Bernie has the audacity to have remained in the race.

  190. emjayay says:

    Not of course what I said. No, the time for symbolism is all the rest of the time. Not in the voting booth in the finals if there are only two realistic choices and the worst outcome is remotely possible.

    Not that I make any claim of always getting it right or anything, but for example I got all symbolic in the last NY governor’s election, because I knew Cuomo would win anyway but a substantial vote for Zephyr Teachout would be noticed and would make a point. If Cuomo’s Republican opponent had a ghost of a chance in hell I would have voted for Cuomo. But he didn’t, even if he was from (yay) Buffalo.

  191. Naja pallida says:

    That’s what I don’t get. They have tried SO hard to pin something on the Clintons that if there was anything substantive there, it would have been uncovered long ago. Yet, they keep trying.

    Trump has only recently begun to throw the ‘communist’ word out when referring to Sanders. They will no doubt ravage him with images of Soviet Russia, counting on people’s ignorance and fear of the word socialist. Anyone who has a basic grasp of what he’s about won’t have an issue with it, but nobody ever went broke underestimating the ignorance of the American voter.

  192. heimaey says:

    The vote for Nader cost us the election in 00 (I voted Gore). But Democrats don’t listen and they don’t change – there is a more liberal voice that needs to be heard and they don’t want to buck the trend but the next generations are going to do it regardless.

  193. heimaey says:

    It’s never a time for symbolism. It’s never a time to challenge the system – so things never change. Unfortunatly too many people think like you do.

  194. heimaey says:

    She’s not a Democrat.

  195. doug dash says:

    So who doesn’t have regrets in life? Our regrets are generally on issues of less national importance. We have watched Clinton in high positions of importance for many years. She has made some mistakes and I don’t always agree with some of the positions she has taken. Nevertheless she is a good Democrat and I will happily vote for her if Sanders loses.

  196. emjayay says:

    The Village Voice says that the new Pee Wee movie is awesome. On Netflix, and someplace in Yonkers. WTF, Yonkers?

  197. emjayay says:

    But if the Democratic party voters are not quite ready for Sanders there is no reason to help Trump or Cruz or Ryan or whoever the alternative is to get in office. Only two people will really be running. It’s how it works. Not necessarily what the framers thought they were creating, but that’s what happened.

  198. emjayay says:

    My serious point is that the ballot box with the ole’ secret ballot is not the time for symbolism, which may have been part us getting to enjoy the fab eight years of GWB. It’s the time for picking the one who will not destroy the country a lot further than it has already been destroyed. Not to mention who knows how much of the rest of the world.

  199. emjayay says:

    I think if he is not the nominee Sanders will pitch in strongly for Clinton and perhaps convince most of his peeps.

  200. heimaey says:

    It is symbolic – some of us care about those things rather than throwing support for people we don’t like.

  201. emjayay says:

    A substantial number of Republicans and even more Republican leaning Independents, which I hear is most of them, faced with Trump or even Cruz may vote for Clinton but might not vote for Sanders. In fact I think some known R’s have said so.

  202. MyrddinWilt says:

    Yes, it is too early for Bernie to quit the race.

    But this isn’t about him quitting, it is about his supporters shutting up with the insane and downright nasty attacks on Clinton. Trump is more than enough to deal with.

    The point for Bernie to drop out is probably after New York decides. If you do the math and assume that the voting patterns hold at least as good for HRC, Clinton will hit 1500 pledged to Bernie’s 1000 meaning that Bernie has to win the remaining contests 66/33 to win on pledged. That is simply not plausible.

    There isn’t much point in Bernie staying in longer. If he tries to grind the contest out to the bitter end, his support will start to collapse rather than surge. Right now Bernie has real leverage because he has demonstrated 40% of the party supports him. But that will fall sharply as the party realizes that the contest is over and it is time to rally round HRC. Better to go to the convention with 40% than lose a string of contests 80:20 and watch the support dwindle.

  203. emjayay says:

    How did your vote for Nader do for you guys?

  204. emjayay says:

    I’d suggest that the Republicans have slimed and investigated Hillary and her husband, with Whitewater including her too way back then plus Travelgate and whatever else it was they were up to and have continued with Emailgate and Benghazigate, so thoroughly over the years there’s not much left to slime.

    They haven’t bothered with Bernie, there not being any point yet. But if there is, the Marxist from the hippie state is probably dead meat. No one could have imagined (as Condo once said) what they did to John Kerry. What they would do with Sanders is probably easier to picture.

    Not that dead meat would necessarily be beaten by Drumpf.

  205. emjayay says:

    She has also been good and at times a standout on gay issues. Her UN Geneva speech – UN, not just talking to Western Europe but to Russia and Uganda and everyone – was five years ago, and she was Secretary of State, representing the official position of the US.

  206. emjayay says:

    Well, Sarah Palin is calling for a revolution too. Led by Donald Trump. Just being mavericky no longer suffices.

  207. emjayay says:

    Not having cable I just watch msnbc shows online, well whatever random segments they decide to put up, if they didn’t just skip that day entirely. So it’s easy to skip any segment that looks too Trumpish. I’ve been skipping most of them lately.

    But as Perry White once told Jimmy Olsen, dog bites man, not news. Man bites dog, news. Trump is the man-biting dog.

    (Yeah, I know ole’ Perry didn’t make that up, but that’s when I first heard it and it stuck.)

  208. Naja pallida says:

    I too will hold my nose and vote for her, regardless. The only other option is utter insanity. The next four years are likely to play out the same as the previous four. Obstruction, crying, moaning, and another 30 or so votes to defund the Affordable Care Act. While most of the Democrats sit on their thumbs.

  209. BeccaM says:

    We’ve switched to other shows for the duration, with Jon Oliver and Sam Bee as our only forays into political TV. (Can’t even handle the Daily or Nightly show these days.) Basically dramas like ‘Better Call Saul’, or SciFi when we can get it.

    My only self-exception in this has been the debates, which I watched via live-blogging/commenting over on Joe My God. Purely as a sanity salve.

  210. hiker_sf says:

    Nobody hates Clinton more than I do – and it isn’t based upon anything that the Republicans said or did. And I will be voting for her in November if she is the Democratic candidate. So if I can do it, others should be able to as well.

    Sadly, I believe it is folly to think that she will experience less resistance than Obama from Congress.

  211. Naja pallida says:

    Well, I’m sure the late night talk show hosts would be happy with this. It’s pure fodder for easy joke writing. Must say, my evening television viewing has dwindled greatly ever since I started changing the channel the second someone mentions the name Trump.

  212. Naja pallida says:

    Or at least in the sense that their ethics lean with the prevailing political wind. Kasich has completely avoided discussing his record as governor in his campaign, because it would make him look like Ted Cruz in a nicer suit. Likewise, Hillary Clinton is happy to take credit for the good things about her husband’s Presidency, but any time someone points out the myriad of bad things, they get piled on by raving supporters. Clinton is also happy to talk left when directly confronting Sanders, but what happens when we get to the general? The obvious answer is that she’ll turn to the right, to play to the middle. Which is exactly where most liberals don’t want her to be. My greatest fear is that Republicans have demonized Hillary Clinton for so long that most of, even their most moderate, voters will never be able to bring themselves to vote for her. No matter how much she courts them. And where does that leave us?

  213. Skye Winspur says:

    I find it scary how many political reporters have been caught rubbing their hands with glee (literally or not) over a Clinton – Trump matchup. It’s all one big cage match between representatives of princely dynasties, to them.

  214. Skye Winspur says:

    A major theme of Sanders’ candidacy has always been the goodness of the democratic process. I am glad he’s sticking it out to the bitter end, not so much because my state of Wisconsin hasn’t voted yet, but particularly for the millions of Latino voters in places like CA, AZ, and NM who deserve to have their voices heard. How are they more likely to support a Democratic nominee, whoever it is, when the contest was finished (as Politico is declaring now) months before they could weigh in? I don’t think they enjoy coronations more than the rest of us.

  215. MasterGor says:

    1139 – 825 of pledges delegates. 774 – 567 is a bit out of date.

  216. BeccaM says:

    I need more upvotes for this.

  217. hiker_sf says:

    Good assessment. I think Kasich and Clinton also align in being ethically challenged individuals.

  218. Phil in FLL says:

    Sanders has raised a lot of money and he has a lot of delegates. He and his supporters have every right to take their campaign right to the convention even though the delegate math doesn’t add up in his favor. There are still quite a few delegates left, but I’m looking at the benchmarks that Obama set in the 2008 primary. There are a long list of states that Obama won in the 2008 primary that Bernie has lost to Hillary, and the 2008 primary was historically close.

    Apart from the math and the 2008 benchmarks, there are good reasons why it’s a plus if Bernie chooses to stay in the race. First, he will continue to energize his voting base. If Bernie drops out early, some of his supporters may lose interest. Second, Bernie has only broadened and elevated the discussion on the Democratic side, which can only benefit the Democratic ticket regardless of who the nominee is. Third, and most dramatic, Hillary and Bernie continuing to campaign while at the same time acting like rational, civilized human beings will provide American voters with a stark contrast to the infantile, borderline-psychotic behavior of the Republican candidates who are campaigning against each other—especially in light of Trump’s threat to goad his supporters into rioting in Cleveland should he fail to win the nomination. Wouldn’t that be a treat? Hillary and Bernie would continue to argue their positions on actual issues in a civilized fashion, while the Trumpists metaphorically (or not metaphorically) pour gasoline on the convention floor and light a match to it.

  219. BeccaM says:

    Spinning expectations is par for politics. Yes, every candidate wants to push the inevitability angle, which is risky to do especially when things start going off the rails. Right up until the end, Rubio peppered his robotic speeches with “When I’m President–”

    I’m not the media and I’m not a Clinton campaign official. I want things to go the other way. This isn’t me denying ‘daylight’ on Sanders’ chances, it’s looking at the numbers and trying to be both objective and realistic.

    Jon’s point in his post is accurate: Unless the Clinton campaign implodes, whatever the reason, her chances are significantly higher for winning the nomination than Sanders. (Personally, if I was a bookie making odds, I’d call it 5:1 for Clinton right now.) Sanders would need right now to start winning nearly all of the remaining races with more than 60% of the ballots cast. Most importantly, he would need to do this in all of the large states remaining: New York, Pennsylvania, and California. And guess what? Sanders is not even leading in any of those states at this time. Of the next two biggest, Maryland and Arizona, Sanders is leading only in the latter one, and even there he’s only around 55% or so. The outcome where he wins a majority of pledged (not super) delegates with the little states just isn’t going to happen.

    People have said, “Well, she’s the Establishment candidate.” Well, that makes it even less likely her pledged and super delegates will defect unless there’s a damned good reason to do so. And “Sanders is a better, more purely progressive candidate” isn’t going to suffice.

    I’m not spinning expectations. I’m looking at the numbers and coming to a conclusion based not on what I want to have happen, but on what I see already happening.

  220. Naja pallida says:

    I think the main theme driving the media discussion on the topic is coming directly from the Clinton campaign. They’ve wanted this to be over from the beginning. Every time she wins another primary, they repeat the narrative. They don’t want there to be any daylight at all on Sanders’ chances. The more people assume she’s already won, the more confident they feel.

  221. BeccaM says:

    Anything could happen and I do think it’s not wise to call Sanders campaign over. Technically, right up until the actual nominating vote, “something” could happen to open up the process, and this is even the case regardless who the presumptive frontrunner happens to be.

    For example, let’s say Sanders or Clinton has a majority. Then there’s a doctor’s visit with dire news. Everything would change. As it would if any campaign-destroying incident.

    In 2008, it was Clinton supporters and her campaign trying to deny the obvious nomination trajectory of the upstart junior Senator from Illinois. Yeah, at any time “something” could have happened with Obama to derail his campaign and for that reason it made no sense for Clinton to drop out until near the end. Likewise now, it makes no sense for Sanders to drop out, or even if he decides he doesn’t have a path to the nomination and not enough reason to stay in the race, he’ll just suspend his campaign as they all do.

    But we’re talking here about one particular angle, which is knowing what we know now, and seeing the current polls and poll trajectories, unless something truly drastic happens, Clinton is going to have enough pledged delegates — not even counting the super delegates — to win the nomination on the first vote. This doesn’t mean Sanders supports like myself should throw in the towel; Clinton has embraced quite a few progressive positions she would not have otherwise. In fact, I think each of them — Clinton and Sanders — makes the other a stronger candidate overall.

    However, I’ve been following the stats, and in particular this page over on, and the various poll projections in the states remaining, and I’m just not seeing a path to victory for my guy. Clinton’s campaign would need to implode for Sanders to retake the lead, and I don’t see that happening either.

    For those who might suggest we could see something on par with ‘the Dean Scream’ or the Marcobot melt-down, I disagree. Both of those things happened early on, before much of the votes had already been cast and the delegates selected. For Dean, his fall came right after the Iowa caucuses; for Rubio, it was the NH debate. This is a different point in the campaign, roughly halfway through the primaries, and basically it’s gone thus:
    – When Sanders wins, even when it is an upset, it is a narrow win
    – Some of Clinton’s wins have been narrow or not quite meeting her targets, but she’s had several big-state blow-outs in her favor, which is why her lead is growing, not shrinking as it was in ’08.

    I’d rather Sanders be the nominee, but I’m just trying to be realistic based on the information we have right now. Not guesses, not projections, not spinning out imaginary scenarios. Come November, it is very likely to be Clinton v Trump, god help us all, but Clinton is getting my vote, as will every other Democrat on the ballot.

  222. trinu says:

    I am not opposed to Hillary because of my support for Sanders. It’s the other way around.

  223. heimaey says:

    I mean that’s the pragmatic approach I keep hearing but I’m not sure how awesome that’s performed for the poor and middle classes over the past 40 years given that they’re screwed. It’s time for some change and if Bernie doesn’t win the DNC would be wise to take note of the momentum he’s building because if they don’t the party will implode just like what’s happening to the Republicans right now. The world is ready for change whether you pragmatists are or not.

  224. heimaey says:

    Exatly I will not vote conservative and Hillary is a DINO.

  225. heimaey says:

    She has a habit of “regretting” things and over compromising doesn’t she? Very sure this is a realistic expectation.

  226. heimaey says:

    I mean Hillary won’t try to shut down Planned Parenthood which is a big deal but in the grand scheme of things, Hillary is pretty much a republican on all fiscal issues and has to be persuaded greatly on social issues that don’t deal with women.

  227. heimaey says:

    I get what you’re saying – and it’s partially true. But the truth is that the super delegates are already so biased that it’s frustrating for Bernie supporters. I think we should get rid of them altogether even though now I bet the GOP wishes they didn’t get rid of them.

  228. doug dash says:

    Like I original said, MOST of his supporters will likely vote for Clinton. Don’t get me wrong, I am not throwing in the towel on Sanders. I think he is still a contender. If you want to throw away your vote and vote for Stein go ahead. Clinton may not be a progressive but compared to Trump, Cruz, or Kasich she is much more in alignment with Democrats.

  229. heimaey says:

    Thanks but you’re not going to switch my opinion of her. I have not been a fan of either Clinton ever and never voted for them and I will not start now.

  230. AKRNC says:

    Hillary Clinton was a great Secretary of State with many awards given her by countries around the globe, thanking her for her diplomacy, working with them, with women, children, and all those in need. If you did some research and read something other than the sites who just seek to trash her as they have for 25 years, You’d see a different side of her. She’s human, not perfect, but she’ll be a great President. Here’s a couple to get you started, if you need more, I have plenty of links. There’s also a list of all the awards she received on Wikipedia.

  231. AKRNC says:

    You have nothing to base this on, just your intense dislike of her and your support of Sanders. She’s not a Republican, “lite” or otherwise. If she was, would they have been attacking her for 25 years? No! Bernie said she is 100X better than any Republican, so REAL Bernie supporters will vote for her if she’s the nominee.

  232. Naja pallida says:

    It’s true that it doesn’t take much to tank a campaign, a simple photo of Dukakis wearing a silly helmet essentially sealed his failure. But there’s a whole world of difference between Clinton and Kasich. Namely on gay rights, abortion rights, privatization of public assets, equal rights, social security, and huge chunks of foreign policy. Equating the two is being grossly disingenuous. The media has been wrongly characterizing Kasich as some kind of moderate, but his record is just as hardcore Republican partisan as anyone who has run for the Presidency this year. Just because he has said a few logical things, like our inability to deport 12 million people, doesn’t mean he actually is moderate. Most of his policy stances have started with “Christian values tell us to…” About the only place where they do line up is in the coddling of Wall Street.

  233. kladinvt says:

    Not necessarily, will we vote for Hillary. I’m still considering a vote Jill Stein, if Bernie’s cut out by the DNC altogether. For me, its’ about ideology, not party, so I’ll only vote for Liberals or Progressives and Hillary is neither, she’s a corporate-centrist, at best.

  234. kladinvt says:

    She hasn’t won yet. Are voters still allowed to participate in these primaries or should we just let the corporate-media choose for us?

  235. kladinvt says:

    And yet not counting the “undemocratic super delegates”, Hillary has 774 to Bernie’s 567 with 2710 yet to be decided. So why is the corporate-media repeatedly saying the primaries are over and Hillary has won? That’s just not the case.

  236. trinu says:

    She’ll push through the TPP. She may negotiate some fig leaf modifications so she can call it something other than a flip-flop but rest assured all the objectionable portions will still be there.

  237. dommyluc says:

    If Super Delegates Are Supporting Bernie: Democracy is saved!
    If Super Delegates Are Supporting Hillary: Burn the witch!

  238. Sally says:

    Who are you talking to? I am a Hillary supporter who also likes Bernie. I have never bashed Hillary, not in ’08, and not now. She was a fine Secretary of State. Kerry has had different challenges than she did-remember, when she took over, it was still Bush policies in place wrecking the world. Could it be that because she did a good job, Kerry’s has been easier? Nothing is in a vacuum. What has gone before does matter.
    Yes, change is very important. We get that. What we do not see is how a 30 year Congressman with very little to show for it will suddenly change the world if we elect him to the Oval Office, where no policy is written and no laws passed.

  239. hiker_sf says:

    But all it takes is one completely innocent action to tank any candidate – remember how Howard Dean “lost.” And Clinton has been a gaff factory lately.

    Sanders could have saved the Democratic party. On CNBC this morning, some industry guy noted that other than a few social issues, there is no difference between Kasich and Clinton. That speaks says a lot about the sad state of the Democrats today.

    Clinton’s ethical issues – TODAY:

    “Hillary Clinton Lets Scandal-Plagued Corporation Throw Her a Fund-raiser, for Some Stupid Reason”

  240. heimaey says:

    She will switch back to centrist policies immediately, but it’ll be easier to call her out on it the longer she keeps aping him.

  241. doug dash says:

    I think the longer Sanders stays in the better it is for Clinton. He has without a doubt made her a better candidate in many ways. If Sanders loses most of his supporters will vote for Clinton.

  242. heimaey says:

    It’s not over till it’s over. And Hillary certainly overstayed her welcome in 08 so let it go people. If nothing else, even if we don’t win which is probably the case, we are fighting for change and that is something very important and necessary that Hillary supporters don’t seem to get. But they do have a short term memory don’t they – as they spent all of 08 bashing her but now she’s amazing. I’d like to see a piece on what has changed in the last 8 years because she certainly hasn’t done anything outstanding that I can put my finger on – she was a pretty mediocre Secretary of State – Kerry’s done a way better job.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS