home

Pols are Pols . . . Superdelegate Edition

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 08:35:07 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
For your consideration:

Bernie Sanders is falling further and further behind in pledged delegates — but even after Hillary Clinton’s Tuesday romp, his campaign says there’s a longshot strategy that lets him regain momentum and win the Democratic nomination by relying on superdelegates even if he comes into the Philadelphia convention still trailing Clinton.

“Our plan on this is we’ve got a long way to go, and we’ve got to demonstrate that Bernie’s the strongest candidate,” said Sanders strategist Tad Devine. “We believe that slowly we can win support for people who aren’t for someone, or who are softly for her, and then we can reach out more.”

[More . . .]

But Sanders campaign aides say they’ll be able to keep Clinton from reaching the 2,383 delegate magic number she’d need to clinch the nomination at the convention and, by being close enough, convince the superdelegates to switch, as some did when they changed from Clinton to Barack Obama in 2008. “Absent Hillary getting out of the race, I think there’s no way that this race isn’t going to be very close in pledged delegates, even if we succeed,” Devine said. “The best outcome for us, given the nature of the system, is a very close advantage at the end." [. . .] Paul Kirk, a former Democratic National Committee chairman who served briefly in the Senate from Massachusetts after Ted Kennedy’s death, said that he’s hoping that will be convincing to other superdelegates. [. . .]

If Sanders looks to win the nomination with superdelegates despite being behind in pledged delegates, that will put him crosswise with some of his grassroots supporters.

Pols are pols people.

They do what they do.

< Trump and Hillary win Florida, Kasich Takes Ohio | Thursday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Pols are Pols . . . Superdelegate Edition | 140 comments (140 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    In all seriousness ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:21:18 AM EST
    I don't think it's that important whether Sanders stays in or drops out.

    He just needed to stop being a story, so Hillary can start focusing on Trump.

    Last night achieved that. I'm sure the traveling press Sanders picked up again after Michigan have left. And he'll really struggle to get any coverage going forward.

    Meanwhile, what Hillary says about Trump will get major coverage.

    That's all that needed to happen.

    I agree it doesn't matter much (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:35:58 AM EST
    But I disagree the media will let it go.

    Parent
    They already did ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:41:16 AM EST
    before Michigan. He had no traveling press.

    Bernie gets very little coverage. He doesn't do much better than Kasich.

    Parent

    They had been saying for days on MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:59:25 AM EST
    That last night was going to be a bad day for Bernie.  And that there are contests coming NY, CA, WI and others where he can do VERY well.   IMO if you believe the media is going to abandon Bernie as long as he is breathing you simply have not been watching.

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:03:34 AM EST
    who "they" are but Maddow was saying Monday night that Bernie was going to win MO, IL and OH. Darn she almost had a literal meltdown last night over the results.

    Parent
    More people ... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:26:58 AM EST
    watch Wen Shampoo informercials than MSNBC.

    It was just announced yesterday that they're having another management shake-up to try and save that dog turd of station.

    In the real world, on stations that people actually watch, Bernie will get next to no coverage.

    Parent

    Heh, Wen is not shampoo (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 12:05:43 PM EST
    if you were paying attention.

    Parent
    She said that (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:10:35 AM EST
    Because Poluffe had said the same things earlier in the day.  RCP had her winning every state last night.

    Parent
    Rachel kept saying (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 12:07:05 PM EST
    that Hillary winning Illinois and Missouri did not matter because she and Bernie would split the delegates anyway.

    Parent
    Do they honestly think (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:04:20 AM EST
    She isn't going to win NY?

    And I had a question yesterday - if it's over fir the Dems before June, how many will cross over to vote for Cruz?

    Parent

    Supposedly (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:33:24 AM EST
    Bernie is going to win NY because he used to live there 1/2 century ago. But his campaign is also suing NY to have them change from a closed primary. Good luck with that. This is getting silly. Does Sanders think he can sue his way into the nomination?

    I would expect NY to have similar results as FL with it being something like 70/30 Hillary.

    Parent

    The 17 year-olds in Ohio didn't.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cashmere on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:27:22 AM EST
    ... help much after he wan in that court battle, did it!

    Parent
    Not sure how they could vote anyway (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:35:46 AM EST
    The court decision was last week, but voters had to be registered by February 16.

    Parent
    I heard yesterday form a Sanders (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:07:28 AM EST
    Spokesperson those there states and some others.

    Btw "they" is virtually every talking head on the channel.

    Parent

    "They" (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    Might want to learn math:

    Here's how rough the math is for Sanders going forward: To win a majority in pledged delegates, he needs to win 58 percent of those remaining.

    That might not sound so bad. But because all the Democratic contests allot their delegates proportionally, it's actually punishingly difficult.

    It means Sanders has to beat Clinton by around 58 percent to 42 percent pretty much constantly. And that's just incredibly implausible given what's happened so far, and especially given what's happened tonight.

    Even unexpected wins for Sanders in big states like California, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey -- already unlikely -- wouldn't be enough. Sanders has to win those states by enormous margins.

    And there are still a great deal of delegates left in states and territories with large nonwhite populations -- states with demographics similar to those that have favored Clinton so far. These include Maryland, Arizona, New Mexico, and even Puerto Rico (which Clinton won in a blowout in 2008).

    Plus, any further Clinton victory just makes the targets Sanders has to hit even more absurd.



    Parent
    The "math" (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:22:56 AM EST
    Has been impossible for a while.  That is totally irrelevant.  To them.
    Now, it's possible MSNBC will rethink its tireless and relentless fluffing and promotion of Bernie and it's equally tireless and relentless bashing and undermining of Hillary

    Fellow MSNBC viewers, raise your hand if you think that will happen.


    Parent

    I think people, like you ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:31:24 AM EST
    who hate MSNBC make up a significant portion of its meager viewership.

    Like how it was discovered that the FBI was supporting much of the KKK's operations. Because their undercover agents in the Klan were the only ones who ever paid their dues.

    Parent

    I'm sure you are right (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:35:02 AM EST
    After all you are always right.   You told us so.

    But there is this on HuffPo today about skipping Bernie last night


    All Three Networks Ignored Bernie Sanders' Speech Tuesday Night, 'Standing By For Trump'
    There just isn't enough time in the evening to get all that analysis in

    LINK

    Parent

    He spoke during Kasich's remarks. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:43:52 AM EST
    If he'd delayed, he might have gotten more coverage.

    I know Bernie's old. But I think someone on his campaign must have a TV.

    Heck, a radio would have sufficed.

    Parent

    You should probably email HuffPo (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:46:44 AM EST
    Apparently they didn't get your memo about covering Bernie.

    Oh wait, no one reads HuffPo.

    Parent

    Sigh. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:52:33 AM EST


    Parent
    Cleaning house and listening to (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:38:27 AM EST
    Morning Joe.  After everyone agreed that he could not win in spite of having plenty of money and support to stay in and that he needs to start thinking about getting out John Heileman just said this to which everyone nodded in agreement-

    "He's also got a lot of contests in the near term that he can win.  
    (From the table - right right )
    So it a little bit different ( from Trumps prohibitive position) he's less likely to be the nominee, her math advantage is greater than Trumps but Sanders, you know, he could be competitive in AZ there's an Idaho democratic caucus that same night then you got Alaska, Hawaii and Washington state all on the next weekend.  Sanders could win 5 of the next 6 contests so he's got a reason to stay in the race"

    Now I know, I know MSNBC is like the KKK and no body watches Morning Joe....

    But wait, they do actually-

    The major bright spot for MSNBC was "Morning Joe," which topped CNN in total and demo viewers. In its press release about February ratings, MSNBC president Phil Griffin's quote focused solely on the success of "Morning Joe," with no other shows or events mentioned

    The coverage of Bernie may change.  It's not going away.  In fact the idea that cable news is going to abandon the horse race they love and have been stoking just because Bernie can't win, which has been true for a long time, is borderline delusional.
    I'm sure you will insist you are right and then say you were even if you are not but this is a silly notion.  

    Parent

    Maybe the "they" simply need to (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 05:00:31 PM EST
    keep alive the conflict--the plea to "stay tuned"--as long as anyone at all listens.  It keeps the revenue $$$$ flowing, for one thing.  

    In the ratings & revenue department, also: I'm guessing that MSNBC and HuffPo may be as co-dependent on their audience as the reverse.  Why? Because it sure appears that both entities determined sometime back that the Sanders supporters need their cheering section & support (as we all do, naturally) and that "they" could fill that need/niche and profit from it. Example: One of the little games I play involves counting the number of HuffPo stories over the past few months covering HRC or Sanders ... and the respective slants; and, as expected, the numbers of very pro-Sanders articles and/or almost editorially negative HRC articles far outrun the positive or neutral HRC articles.  An upcoming dilemma for Ms. Huffington may be how to transit to a slant more in keeping with the obvious direction of the Democratic Party.  

    Parent

    Just to follow up (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    Assuming Heileman is right, and he sometimes is, if Bernie wins 5 of the next 6 contests 4 of 6 or 3 of 6, do you honestly think he won't get news coverage?

    Do you really believe that?

    Parent

    No "above the fold" coverage. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 12:07:33 PM EST
    All this is really in the "Who Cares?" department.

    Sanders chances of winning the nomination are zero.

    If wants to keep running. Fine. It will make Tad Devine very happy. And very rich. But other than that it's just a big nothing.

    The will they, won't they have a contested convention on the GOP side will take up most of the oxygen.

    And things Hillary says about Trump the rest.

    Local news is mostly ignoring even that.  Last week in NYC, the contests weren't covered on the eleven o'clock news until the b-block.

    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 12:16:55 PM EST
    We are talking about print now.

    So, he will get covered but you just won't care.

    Got it.

    Parent

    When we say "coverage" ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 12:20:02 PM EST
    that's what we mean.  "Above the fold" or "a-block" coverage.

    When Rubio said he wasn't getting covered, he didn't mean no one anywhere wrote or aired a story about him. He meant he wasn't getting prominent coverage.

    Now go talk to someone else about your favorite fascist, I'm done with you for today.

    Parent

    Chances in CA also very overrated (none / 0) (#54)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:45:34 AM EST
    Bay Area has a lot of Bernie support, but CA is also a majority-minority state, i.e. Clinton turf.

    Parent
    To be clear (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:47:31 AM EST
    I do not think he will win CA.  Or NY.

    My only point is that will not stop the media from covering him.

    Parent

    If He is In... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:55:34 AM EST
    ... he is getting coverage.  Even today, Chuck Todd was discussing a path to him getting the nomination with a straight face.  

    When a major network has their Political Director acting like Sanders has a chance, they can't not cover him.

    Parent

    Of course he is (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:57:29 AM EST
    This seems like such a no brainier to me.

    Parent
    The next time Sanders ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 12:15:22 PM EST
    gets "above the fold" or "a-block" coverage is when he drops out.

    And, and depending on how busy a news day it is, maybe not even then.

    Parent

    I think you are wrong here, Robot. (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    If Sanders was running against just about anybody else, anybody not Hillary Clinton, I would probably agree with you. But he is running against Hillary Clinton. Every day Sanders stays in the race is another day the media can opine on her weaknesses, her unlikeability, her untrustworthiness, the possibility that she can still lose the nomination or fail to appease Sanders' supporters or any of a number of other possible failures on her part.

    The media is like a dog with a bone where Hillary is concerned. They are not letting go until the bitter end.

    Parent

    Yet ... assuming a strong night for HRC (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 05:08:19 PM EST
    in later April for the New York primary, then the media "they" may have to let go of the pretense that Sanders has a reasonable chance. That closed primary is on April 19th, I believe.

    Parent
    I wondering how many people (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 12:18:10 PM EST
     Know what "above the fold" means

    Parent
    Well, sonny boy... (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 02:03:25 PM EST
    In the old days, that was the part of the paper that stuck out over the top of the flatscreen.

    Parent
    Agreed... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:39:01 AM EST
    ...the D primary is over in reality, whether Sanders stays in or not.  IMO she should let the Trump/convention play out, it's already a mess, and focus on what she can do, not how big an idiot Trump is.

    Kasich claimed today on the TV his win in Ohio ensures Trump can't hit 50% on delegates, which increases the odds of a contested convention, which funny enough is in Ohio.

    Trump needs 1,237 he has 661.

    Parent

    Depends (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:42:02 AM EST
    on how many WTA primaries Trump can win I would say. It seems he's already halfway there.

    Has anybody considered the fact that if he and Cruz team up that between the two of them they would have enough to get the nomination?

    Parent

    That Would Most Certainly... (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:56:29 AM EST
    ... bring back the legalization of Quaaludes.  That is the most depressing thought of 2016 so far.

    Parent
    Trump's campaign will ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:48:29 AM EST
    provide a useful service to the RNC, it will purge the influence of the racist, nativist wing of the party.

    Trump will have a crushing defeat in the fall. And the Party won't ever have to listen to those loons and wackadoos again.

    In the past, they might have staged a comeback in a generation.  But given the demographic shifts in America they will never stage a comeback.

    They'll be left to whine on the web and talk radio. But their major influence on party politics will be through forever.

    Parent

    That's not entirely true (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    Because of the way Donald won in some of the states last night (MO) he almost got as many delegates as if he had won Ohio.

    He could still get to 50%.  It's far from impossible.  

    Parent

    I Was Wondering... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:47:06 AM EST
    ... because he also mentioned that no one can win the Presidency w/o Ohio, which is odd to say in that Trump not winning doesn't mean he can't win Ohio in the general.  I think he thinks he still has a chance at the convention.

    Parent
    Of course he does (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:55:31 AM EST
    For that matter so do I.   And IMO about as great a chance.

    But who knows, he could conceivable win some states now that the field is thinned.  I don't think he will.  

    The next contest is AZ.   Donald.  He has the governor and Sherriff Joe.  Then it goes to the northeast where Donald is expected to do very well but it's possible Kasich could as well too.  If not there probably no where.


    Parent

    I keep hearing (none / 0) (#126)
    by NYShooter on Fri Mar 18, 2016 at 07:32:46 PM EST
    that at this stage of the race, "a vote for Kasich is a vote for Trump."

    True?

    Parent

    Gosh (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 18, 2016 at 07:40:00 PM EST
    I dunno

    He is certainly a more realistic candidate than Cruz who's unfavorable so are now higher than Donalds according to Gallup.

    I would think it's certainly true that they will continue splitting the vote to Donalds benefit in places like AZ.

    The fact is it's impossible for either of them to get the nomination in any way other than shenanigans at the convention.   Which seems less and less likely to me.

    Parent

    Kasich is actually a non-candidate (none / 0) (#130)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 18, 2016 at 10:01:26 PM EST
    He has been mathematically eliminated. His only hope is a contested convention. Cruz on the other hand could mathematically still win outright.

    Parent
    He could (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 19, 2016 at 08:51:18 AM EST
    If he won 80% of the remaining delegates.  So, yes, he could.  And Kasich could not.

    I would still say neither has a chance of the nomination outside convention shenanigans

    Parent

    Shenanigans (none / 0) (#134)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 19, 2016 at 11:25:48 AM EST
    is the name of the game, as Kasich himself has said. Romney is acting as head coach calling the plays. He probably wishes he could put Kasich on the bench right now he's liable to stop Cruz from hitting the WTA targets in Utah but that will only equate to about 12 delegates.

    Right now, at least until more polling comes out, it's hard to see how it plays out in WI, but Kasich's presence should be be advantage Trump, preventing any hope of a Cruz upset and probably making it harder for him to steal a district or two.

    Kasich's real utility, if any, will come in NY where he could possibly keep Trump under the WTA triggers (I am not buying the polling there), I don't think Cruz has a chance one on there. After that he may have a chance at a district or two in the rest of the eastern primaries that would probably be out of reach of Cruz.

     

    Parent

    What I'm trying to figure out (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 19, 2016 at 11:41:34 AM EST
    Is do they not know that since Mitt is only advocating stopping  Trump and not advocating voting for anyone, just against Donald, that he is and always has been in this for himself.

    Surely they know this, right?

    Parent

    And btw (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 19, 2016 at 11:47:25 AM EST
    Donald is more than 50 points ahead in NY with 65%

    LINK

    Parent

    And yes (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 19, 2016 at 12:22:44 PM EST
    That's just one poll.  But I'm not sure why you don't believe the polling that Donald would not do well with republicans in NY.  The RCP average is +43%

    And yes, that 2polls.  Still.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#139)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 19, 2016 at 01:37:57 PM EST
    saw that poll, discounting it for now. Low sample, IVR landline only. One percent for Kasich doesn't sound right to me, it seems like he should be able to all right at least in the NE corner of the state, he came very close just across border in VT. He has somewhat of a chance of turning some of those CD's back to proportional and probably a lesser chance of keeping Trump under 50% Statewide.

    Parent
    I just saw polls that have (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 18, 2016 at 07:41:25 PM EST
    Both Donald and Hillary leading in NY by 50ish points

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 18, 2016 at 08:13:12 PM EST
    if you read the analysis winning Ohio really doesn't help Kasich and he's so far behind there's probably some truth in that. But the only way it's true is if it gets down to Trump and Cruz and Cruz bests Trump.

    Parent
    One person's calculation (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:13:43 AM EST
    The bad news for Trump is pretty clear: even with a Missouri win, he would still have won only a little more than 47 percent of the delegates allocated so far. Moreover, he'll need to win a little more than 54 percent of the remaining delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. That's certainly possible given there are several winner-take-all states to come, and Trump may do well in big East Coast states such as New York and New Jersey. Trump is also in a good position in Arizona, a winner-take-all state that votes next Tuesday.

    Still, there are plenty of ways the delegate math can go haywire for him. My own delegate estimate has Trump falling short of the 1,237 delegates he needs because he has done poorly in the west so far, and many of those states haven't voted yet. It's also possible that Kasich plays better than we might think among moderate voters in the remaining states to vote in New England and Mid-Atlantic.

    Moreover, there are plenty of signs that Trump would have lost a majority of states that voted on Tuesday had Rubio not been in the race. I'm talking about Missouri and North Carolina, where Ted Cruz beat Trump in a one-on-one race in the exit polls. Trump may be rising, though he is still not getting close to a majority of the vote in most states. If the anti-Trump voters can find a better way to coordinate behind one candidate, they probably can beat Trump in a lot of upcoming contests.

    538

    Parent

    The contrast (none / 0) (#96)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 05:14:59 PM EST
    The contrast between the unruly, loud, and somewhat ugly Repub nomination process and the civilized, adult-in-the-room, building unity process that could well happen leading up to the official nomination at the Democratic Convention is a gift ... for us Democrats.  So, here's hoping for a Repub floor-fight ala 1964 AND for genuine Democratic unity by summer.

    Parent
    I find (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:27:01 AM EST
    the whole super delegate argument coming from the Sanders campaign highly ironic since just a week or so ago they were calling it corrupt and undemocratic. Yeah, I'm no fan of the super delegates picking a candidate however I don't think that's going to be an issue. I hope Hillary garners enough pledged delegates so that the super delegates are not the ones putting her over the top but if it ends up that way they can always use the popular vote as the reason to do it.

    I Wish... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:41:26 AM EST
    ... no one would speak of them until the everyone has voted/caucused.  She won't need them, Sanders ain't getting most of them, all this talk is silly and taking the focus off the ridiculousness of republicans.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:52:31 AM EST
    They really shouldn't be an issue unless needed. Let everybody have their say and then if supers have to do their job they can do it.

    Parent
    I think that would be difficult (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:39:33 AM EST
    At least, for those superdelegates who hold office.  Can you say you don't have the right to know who Senator Al Franken supports if you're a Democratic (or DFL) voter in Minnesota or who Senator Debbie Stabenow supports if you're a Dem voter in Michigan? (I think it's obvious who superdelegate Bernie Sanders supports and who superdelegate Bill Clinton supports).

    I see your point, and don't necessarily disagree, but isn't the whole point to influence voters to vote for you?  It's the same reason why companies use famous people to hawk their products.

    Parent

    They Already Have Influence... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:44:21 AM EST
    ... w/o the SD, it's why they get the SD to begin with.  And since they are rarely needed, they are a distraction.  It makes the party look silly to talk about how the voters might not decide the candidate when, like this race, they do by a solid margin.

    People can say I support this or that, and while the assumption is obvious, there is no need to formally make the pledge of their SD before people vote.

    Every race this becomes an issue for no reason other than important people wanting to feel more important and influence what is essentially a party election.

    Use them when they are needed, don't use them because they exist to make a sizable win even greater, it not worth the controversy.

    Parent

    I never heard that (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 12:21:12 PM EST
    It was always the Sanders campaign and Bernie-friendly media who harped on it - it certainly wasn't the Clinton camp (she, more than anyone, knows how fast that ship can turn).

    I guess I don't understand your comment.  Has anyone who endorsed her actually said, "I support her and pledge my superdelegate vote to her"?  Has that actually  happened?  If you can find me something that shows the Clinton camp was actively promoting SD's, by saying something  like "Senator Smith will be a superdelegate for me," then I would love to see it.

    Parent

    I Don't Know Either... (none / 0) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 12:56:40 PM EST
    ... but it nearly impossible to get a straight delegate count.  I assume they are pledging, as a matter of fact I thought you were the one who told me they pledged to influence the outcome, after Iowa.  Not 100% it was you.

    Doesn't matter, they are being added to the totals in almost every delegate count.  If they are pledged then it would be the press taking liberties they shouldn't be taking.

    Parent

    Should Read... (none / 0) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 12:57:35 PM EST
    ... aren't pledged.

    Parent
    Well, no they aren't (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 02:26:58 PM EST
    That's why I asked the question,  if you eliminate the superdelegates does the total needed to win also reduce by that amount, and I was told yes. I am going to assume that's true, since no one countered it.

    So, there are 4763 delegates available as of now (that number can change if someone dies, leaves office, wins a special election, etc.) That number factors in the superdelegates. If you removed the 712 superdelegates out of that, the total available would be 4051.

    To win the nomination, a candidate must get 2381.5 delegates (rounded up to 2382 wich would be more than half). This number assumes superdelegates are counted, so if the 712 superdelegates didn't exist, the total number of delegates to win would be 2026.

    So far, HRC has won 1110 (Missouri not counted yet as far as I can tell, so she will have about 35 more). That puts her at 1145. If you want to compare, you must compare apples to apples, so she has 1145 pledged delegates out of a possible 2026.  That makes her more than half way there.

    She ALSO (as of now) has 467 superdelegates out of a possible 712 that said they will support her. Since superdelegates are actually factored into the total to win, you must factor them into her total as well (basic algebra),  so that gives her 1145 definite pledged delegates, and a probable 467 superdelegates for a total of 1612 out of 2382.

    Every outlet I've seen DOES NOT include superdelegates, except to say in an additional comment, "If you add in superdelegates....".

    But the number you are looking for is she has about 1145 so far for sure and she needs 2382, through a combination of pledged delegates and superdelegates.

    And no, that wasn't my comment you referenced.

    Parent

    Either Way. My Points Stands... (none / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 03:53:15 PM EST
    ... they aren't needed.

    That is interesting in that it took me about 20 mins the other day to track down a total without them.  It was driving me bananas.

    Just did it again, here is my Google Search, first 5 links have SD included and I guessing if I kept going the first page all have SD included.

    Parent

    I tried your link (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 04:27:28 PM EST
    It has the total but shows the breakout between pledged and superdelegates. Are you saying you xan't see it?

    Anyway, RCP and 538 always show both.

    Parent

    Here's the first link (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 04:28:57 PM EST
    RCP

    Parent
    It seems (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:03:02 AM EST
    like only a few days ago Bernie supporters considered SD's a virtual tool of the Devil......wait it was only a few days ago, I'm getting a bit of whiplash here.

    Parent
    Most hilarious about this desperate plan (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 04:54:11 PM EST
    to get the no-longer-nasty superdelegates is that, translated, it's really the Sanders campaign saying "steal the nomination from the voters!"

    Oh, and also, there is this:  Sanders IS a superdelegate.

    Parent

    Don't count them (none / 0) (#49)
    by mm on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:23:46 AM EST
    when reporting delegate totals until they have switched to supporting him.  I believe that is their position at this point.

    Parent
    They are now talking about taking (none / 0) (#123)
    by sallywally on Thu Mar 17, 2016 at 08:47:58 PM EST
    her pledged delegates.

    Parent
    "I'm sick and tired of hearing (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Towanda on Sat Mar 19, 2016 at 12:18:32 PM EST
    about your damn voters."

    Yeh, that will work.

    Parent

    I don't she does ... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:54:58 AM EST
    as I said in my post above, Sanders just needs to stop being a story.

    He's not a story anymore. Thanks to last night.

    Also (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by CST on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:29:30 AM EST
    People who work for pols do what they do.

    In all honesty, even the die-hard Bernie fans seem to see the writing on the wall.

    I've been "getting into it" online lately, but today is not the day for gloating.  It's the day to be gracious and make friends.  It's somewhat ironic to me to be here today, considering that I started posting here in 2008 when I was trying to "make friends" with Hillary supporters.  Or at least make the case.

    In any event, the primary is effectively over.  And I for one am grateful that Bernie Sanders has shown the political class that a significant number of Democrats and Americans are ready for radical economic policy change.  Maybe not this year, but this actually gives me a lot of hope for the future of the country.  It's the first serious left-turn of the Democratic party that I've experienced in my lifetime, it seems like we've been drifting right for so long.  I just hope that the overton window will hold, and people will remember to vote when the midterms come.

    The good (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    news and this should be something everybody considers good news is that Hillary seriously thinks the party needs rebuilding and that people need to show up for midterms.

    Parent
    I Would Say... (none / 0) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:01:32 AM EST
    ... she better start with the general before the midterms as far as getting people to show-up.

    Parent
    Bernie can still wield influence (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    within the party, if he chooses. He could campaign hard in the general to turn out his supporters. He can also keep his organization together in some form and focus on downticket races both this year and every two years hence.

    I desparately want to see a liberal alternative to the DNC, or a liberal takeover of the DNC. I want a powerful group that can recruit, train and help fund liberal downticket candidates, not just for Congress, but for all state and local elections everywhere. Howard Dean was right about the 50 state strategy. It is crucial, and the GOP has played that game much better than the Democratic Party has. Hence, GOP control of Congress and the majority of statehouses.

    Want to keep young people involved in the political process? Give them a reason that makes sense to them to stay involved. Give them a path to involvement.

    If Bernie wants his candidacy to be more than a history book footnote, if he really is in it to effect the massive system change for which he advocates, this is a pathway to achieve those goals.

    Parent

    Can he do this (none / 0) (#140)
    by sallywally on Sat Mar 19, 2016 at 06:46:04 PM EST
    as an Independent?

    Parent
    It is not her that can't focus (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:45:04 AM EST
    It is the media that wants this to be a story. She will focus on Trump unless she is dragged into a conversation about Bernie by some member of the media, or another debate.

    Plus, she can't campaign 'against' Bernie (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:46:35 AM EST
    She has to be on his side in the end. It is not a matter of her being able to go our and rail against 2 old men, as you put it.

    Parent
    Agreed. Mrs. Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 12:25:01 PM EST
    needs to refine her strategy in a manner that, incrementally, works to unite Democratic primary voters.   Reality therapy will require a stepwise process--that bites the tongue, compliments the campaign of the Senator on bringing forth a key issue of income equality, and brings home the stakes of the election to all, including the hopes and desires put forth by Senator Sanders.

    Parent
    There's very little uniting ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 12:43:51 PM EST
    that needs to be done.

    The vast majority of Sanders supporters like Hillary Clinton and will enthusiastically support her.

    The GOP has the fractured party. And it will not be mended. Not this cycle at least.

    Parent

    Yes,it is more like preventing it from (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 01:23:40 PM EST
    fracturing. Her diplomatic experience will come in handy. Sanders' campaign necessarily has to attack her to have any reason for being. But she has to refrain from responding in kind.

    Parent
    There will be no fracturing among ... (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 02:24:09 PM EST
    Dems.

    She may have more work to do to appeal to the independents who support Bernie.

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    When I called for unity among Democratic primary voters, that included Independents as well as those who were Democrats but would not readily support Clinton. For many of the young supporters of Sanders, this may be the first time involved in primary politics, and learning that there will be a winner and loser. A reality that takes some time to sink in after election fervor

      Of course, as compared to Republicans the uniting is of a different dimension--like getting a copperhead to mate with a king snake.

    Parent

    Jeez, Dadler, do you ever have ... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 02:04:00 PM EST
    ... anything nice or positive to say, unless it's about yourself or an immediate family member? For some time now and with only rare exception, you've been a relentless and ultimately self-marginalizing ball of fury and scorn. Your often baseless accusations that every Democratic pol with whom you disagree -- from Jerry Brown to the Clintons, it doesn't seem to matter who anymore -- is somehow incorrigibly corrupt and / or "lacks imagination" strongly suggest that you're likely suffering from a palpable shortage of the latter yourself. Do you enjoy the perpetual feeling of terminal alienation? Rather than granting us "peace out," you ought to save some of it to calm your own inner turmoil.

    Well this is a politics and crime blog... (4.20 / 5) (#81)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 02:15:45 PM EST
    if ya ain't got scorn and fury, you're not following politics and crime very closely my man.

    Let Dadler be Dadler without a lecture...jeez.  

    Parent

    Hmmm. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 05:31:40 PM EST
    kdog: This is an I-read-you-yet mini-response on my part.  Briefly, it is nice, kind, & good to let Dadler be Dadler ... yet, would that he would return the semblance of the courtesy.  What seems to be his anger at so much and so many stands in stark contrast to the hopeful, friendly sign-off "Peace, out."

    Parent
    People are contrasts Chris... (3.00 / 2) (#106)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 06:56:21 PM EST
    Though in this particular comment I see no contradiction...the man shared his opinion and wished us peace. Would you rather our friend sign off with a "fxck you!"? Some internet dwellers who only wish to fight surely would, but not you old pal.

    Understand while you feel great joy at the nomination result, some others feel great sorrow at what we see as a missed opportunity to accelerate the slow grind of change by making a bold chief executive statement.

    Some are also dreading yet another hold your nose lesser evil vote for the 9th or 10th presidential election in a row. But not I said this stubborn slob...Jill Stein still in the house working to get on more ballots and filing a lawsuit to be permitted to debate.

    Parent

    It' s not his opinion that is (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:49:46 PM EST
    the problem, it's how he phrases it. He can't use the name calling and accusations here.

    Parent
    From my perspective, (4.00 / 2) (#85)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 02:50:43 PM EST
    I always enjoy Dadler, even in times past when he has given my comments the "benefit" of his thinking. Dadler vents a bit, leaving off steam.  Most of us share some of that steam, we just use it to power  our locomotive of choice.  And, Dadler is no fan of Trump, and not a big Bern'm guy.  Agree with KDog, Dadler, hopefully, will always be our TL Dadler.  


    Parent
    well... (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by linea on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:19:55 PM EST
    I was under the impression that Super Delegates were current Dem politicians and party insiders.  Why would they jump ship to vote for a domocratic-socialist who is not a member of the insiders club?

    They Wouldn't (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:35:06 PM EST
    Clinton's SD totals will grow, not shrink.

    Parent
    Dadler, your accusations (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:48:52 PM EST
    are opinion as to both Hillary and Trump and are potentially libelous. They don't belong here. I'm deleting your comment. You can state your opinion but not state your accusations is fact. At least not here.

    I Am Curious... (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 17, 2016 at 09:51:26 AM EST
    ...how comments here are libelous when I see comments infinity worse at almost every major new outlet's comments sections.

    Are you saying you could be responsible for the comments posted here, and if so why is no other outlet's legal teams ensuring this libelous content isn't taken down ?

    I understand not wanting to regulate comments on your website, I just don't understand the legal claim.

    Parent

    Troll Rating... (none / 0) (#124)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 18, 2016 at 09:48:20 AM EST
    ... really JanaM ?

    Parent
    To maybe even it out a bit (none / 0) (#132)
    by Nemi on Sat Mar 19, 2016 at 07:30:34 AM EST
    I'll give you a five - even a ten - for using capital letters in your headlines, like in 'real' headlines. It looks so orderly and professional, and yet I only just recently noticed. Can't believe I haven't noticed before.

    If you don't mind me asking: Occupational hazard perhaps? :)

    Parent

    Not Sure... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 12:40:44 PM EST
    ... I have always viewed it like the subject line of an email since it has 'Subject:' as the field description.

    Half my workday is spent emailing and I really never gave it a thought nor did I notice that most people don't capitalize that field.

    Parent

    Libel isn't necessarily a legal term (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2016 at 02:42:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Since history repeats itself (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:42:59 PM EST
    first as tragedy, then as farce, I am for the most part finding the way this is playing out amusing. As a Hillary supporter, it's nice to be on the winning side this time and see that she's learned some lessons (seriously her campaign is 1000x better this time around).

    Bernie can stay in as long as he wants. I don't see his stump speech changing, but maybe progressive candidates can take up the political revolution banner, since in the end it's up to them and not the President to make it happen. It may require a super PAC, though...

    Tad Devine's campaign strategy: (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:06 AM EST
    "We believe that slowly we can win support for people who aren't for someone, or who are softly for her, and then we can reach out more."

    - looks like it was lifted from a Bernie Taupin [Elton John] lyric.  Tiny Dancer

    "When I say softly slowly"

    MoveOn.org (4.00 / 4) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:01:05 AM EST
    Please call your office.

    Different analysis on (3.50 / 2) (#74)
    by ragebot on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    Sanders staying in.

    So far Bernie has made it clear that his position is peeps are sick of hearing about Clinton's darn emails.  On the other hand the recent ads bashing Trump from establishment Republicans make it hard to think the Democrats can produce ads that will hurt Trump more than what has already been seen; unless he shoots someone on 5th  Ave.

    Does anyone really think the Republicans won't have TV ads showing Hillary walking up to a little girl reading a poem to her with a recording of Hillary saying she and her daughter were under small arms fire landing in Bosnia.  Does anyone really think the Republicans won't have ads about Hillary's bathroom email server.  And those are just the first two examples that come to mind.

    The point is Bernie has been treating Hillary with kid gloves compared to what the Republicans will do.  On the other hand Trump has been bashed as hard as the Republicans could do.  Maybe the Democrats would be wise to get the Hillary bashing out in the open early on instead of waiting closer to the general when it will be fresher in voters minds.

    Were you asleep during the entire 1990s? (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 02:11:42 PM EST
    The Clintons have been accused by Republicans of practically everything, up to and including drug smuggling and murder. Your groundless suggestion that Hillary Clinton somehow lacks the inner strength and spine to cope with GOP attacks is absolutely silly and positively absurd.

    Parent
    Actually on the emails (4.80 / 5) (#89)
    by smott on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 04:47:51 PM EST
    Sander intended it to be an attack on Clinton and completely mangled the delivery such that it sounded as if he just wanted everybody to get over it.  
    He's hardly been treating her w kid gloves. He was negative and some thought even rude in the pre MI debate, then won MI, then perhaps thought negative was the way to go.
    Which would seem to have backfired in his face quite spectacularly last night.

    Anyway there is nothing, nothing that Sanders can say to or about Clinton that hasn't been said with far more venom by Republicans for the last 30 years or so.

    He CAN stay in with dignity and continue a positive message and pull her to the left on trade and Iraq and other ares where Trump will attack her.

    I doubt seriously that, after the nom is over he will campaign for her with much effect, however. I can't imagine it anyway, perhaps others can.

    Obama, on the other hand, will campaign  hard fornClinton, and will do so with great glee as he mocks Trump from one sea to the other shining sea.

    And being mocked and laughed at, as Obama has done before (press correspondents dinner) and now (the cheap wine insults) is the ONE thing that seriously gets under The Donald's skin.  Clinton has poked at him fairly well, but it's Obama with his cool jibes that will make Trump look really stupid. And really, really a lightweight, when the one thing he wants is to be taken seriously. Obama will just kill him there.

    And that might also  be the one thing that makes his supporters uncomfortable.
    You punch the bully, they rally around him.
    But you LAUGH at the bully, and show him to be an idiot, that's a whole other thing.

    I think Obama is going to love the next few months actually. And hopefully that will strengthen the relationship with the Clintons. All good.

    Parent

    The One Thing He Has to Do (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 05:03:14 PM EST
    Get his folks to vote.  They sit this on out and we got problems Houston.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#103)
    by smott on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 06:21:13 PM EST
    We get the govt we deserve.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by sallywally on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 07:07:23 PM EST
    Sometimes I feel I've gotten the government somebody else deserves, like W, the current congress, etc.

    Parent
    No We Don't... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 17, 2016 at 09:46:27 AM EST
    ... we get the government the overwhelming majority of Americans don't vote for.

    I hate that phrase, I don't like being a part of the 'we', its insulting to lump everyone in with the large swaths of lazy Americans and/or idiots who think hate mongering and violence are fricken awesome.

    Parent

    To even suggest, that Sanders... (1.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 17, 2016 at 09:05:40 AM EST
    ...with this whatever it is you think is SOOOO horrible he is doing, Tent, has somehow reached any level of "Pols will be Pols" with the Clintons, who have gotten on their knees for corporate money to enrich themselves personally to the tune of HUNDREDS of millions of dollars while pretending to be liberal, come on, you expect to be taken seriously? Pfft. This is literally the most tiny and sad piece of false equivalence you have ever attempted. Sorry, just my opinion as a cat who has read you for a long time. Delete this if you choose to. Pfft again. And I know you consider her on Libya to be insance. So I have no conception, none whatsoever, how you can shill for her when mass murder is on her record more powerfully than any other candidate in this race. Madame Kissinger will get my vote in the general WHILE I am spitting in her metaphorical face. The end.

    To be fair (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by CST on Thu Mar 17, 2016 at 09:16:20 AM EST
    Sanders people are essentially suggesting that he steal the election from the voters.

    I know, I know, it's not technically stealing if it's within the "rulez".  But that's what it would be.  And that's certainly what they'd be calling it if the shoe were on the other foot.

    Parent

    It's not going to happen. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Mar 17, 2016 at 09:49:46 AM EST
    I don't waste my time predicting the future but I will draw a line in the b/s for that.

    Yeah, theoretically, blah blah blah.

    The campaign is beginning to sound like fantasy politics camp.  Very strange.  


    Parent

    And THAT is the ugly irony of America.... (1.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 17, 2016 at 09:06:38 AM EST
    ...in a very rotted nutshell.

    Parent
    "Pols are pols people." (none / 0) (#2)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:05:25 AM EST
    Words to remember, BTD.

    Tad Devine ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:08:42 AM EST
    like most campaign managers, is probably given a percentage of the money raised as part of his salary.

    So, of course, he doesn't want him to drop out. He's got his eyes on a mansion in Bel Air!

    Sanders is stuck in Carson mode (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:17:23 AM EST
    totally infected by parasites.

    Are you serious about these guys working for a percentage?  It's that corrupt?

    Parent

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:23:13 AM EST
    know about campaign people like Devine but yeah, if they are placing media they are getting a commission off of it. So outspending Hillary 3 to 1 on ads is making someone in the Sanders campaign very rich.

    Parent
    To be fair, nobody's getting really rich... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:33:46 AM EST
    There's an entire hierarchy of leeches to be fed.

    Somewhere at the bottom are the true believers and volunteers.  Maybe they get Pizza.

    Parent

    Off of (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:40:05 AM EST
    general campaign funds yes but if one person is placing all those media buys and the commission is 10% and they are placing 30 mil of media buys they are getting a cool 3 mil in commissions.

    Parent
    Yes, it's a commission on ad buys ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:43:22 AM EST
    but that's essentially a percentage of money raised.

    You don't have any money, can't buy ads, have lots of money, you buy lots of ads.

    Parent

    Thanks for the info. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 02:05:46 PM EST
    I had no idea.

    Parent
    Probably a salary and bonuses (none / 0) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:22:04 AM EST
    but when Sanders drops out, Devine becomes unemployed. That alone makes it important to push further for the benefit of the Devine checkbook.

    Parent
    I don't know if it's ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:23:11 AM EST
    "corrupt" but that's how it's done in most campaigns.

    Next to winning (and they receive bonuses for that as well) money raised is the best metric of a successfully managed campaign.

    Parent

    It goes to purity of motives, Robot. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:31:28 AM EST
    It's like that old SNL dessert topping/floor wax skit.

    It's standard operating procedure - but it's also a textbook moral abyss, absolutely corrupting.


    Parent

    BRAVO. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    Well said sir.

    Stupid idea (none / 0) (#79)
    by pitachips on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 02:11:01 PM EST
    And will backfire on Sanders if they continue to pursue it.

    The Sanders camp (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 04:58:51 PM EST
    Is now losing it....

    Alex Seitz-Wald of MSNBC tweets:

    On "Path Forward" call, Sanders strategist Tad Devine notes pledged  delegates are not always obligated to vote as pledged...

    No, they're not.  AFTER the first ballot.

    Zeke Miller of Time tweets:

    Sanders camp now arguing that state laws binding dels can't be enforced. Not sure of the law, but not an argument you want to have to make

    And also from Zeke Miller :

    Tad Devine on the Democratic race:
    "It is not a matter of delegate arithmetic"

    Actually, yes Tad, it is.

    Ooh boy.

    Parent

    Sounds like a guy trying to keep his paycheck (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 05:16:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Don't like... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 07:11:47 PM EST
    anything I've heard about this Tad character. Poor judgement by Bernie hiring this clown, imo.

    It's like once the campaign wildly exceeded expectations they started doing the opposite of what brought them to that high...namely going all out to "win" instead of just chugging along with the message that brought 'em so far and not worrying about delegates and machinations and electioneering strategies.

    Parent

    Armando: SMDH (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 05:33:31 PM EST
    (Had to look this one up.)

    Parent
    Share your newfound knowledge, (none / 0) (#100)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 05:45:21 PM EST
    please. What does SMDH mean?

    Parent
    "Shaking my damn head." (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 05:48:53 PM EST
    (Please note I did not admonish you to google!).

    Parent
    I appreciate both the sharing (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 06:03:29 PM EST
    of knowledge and the absence of admonishing.

    Parent
    actually (none / 0) (#131)
    by athyrio on Sat Mar 19, 2016 at 02:16:30 AM EST
    that sounds downright dishonest...Sanders might come out of all this with a real blight on his reputation....

    Parent
    I thought the Rahm stuff (4.67 / 3) (#90)
    by smott on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 04:53:22 PM EST
    Backfired.
    He was fine with his tweet about not wanting the endorsement.

    But linking Rahm to Clinton didn't wash. It's fairly well known they hate each other anyway. Could he have won IL if he didn't go there?

    He outspent Clinton this round and got pantsed in 5 states.  He can't keep talking about winning without sounding dumb.

    Parent

    I'm in Chicago (none / 0) (#104)
    by pitachips on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 06:29:44 PM EST
    I think it helped him...just not enough to win. Rahm is radioactive here.

    Parent
    I would think that's right (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 06:35:13 PM EST
    I lived in IL for several years not that long ago and know several folks there.  They also thought it was working.  Before the results yesterday I thought that was the one she might lose because of what I had heard from them.

    They are Champaign (tho I have relatives in several places in the state) the Champaign area went for Bernie.   As I would expect.

    Parent

    Hillary on Broad City tonight (none / 0) (#110)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:31:25 PM EST
    Watch it. so funny.

    Obama Privately Tells Donors (none / 0) (#122)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2016 at 02:16:11 PM EST
    the Time Is Coming to Unite Behind Hillary Clinton  

    In unusually candid remarks, President Obama privately told a group of Democratic donors last Friday that Senator Bernie Sanders is nearing the point where his campaign against Hillary Clinton will come to an end, and that the party must soon come together to back her.

    Mr. Obama acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton is perceived to have weaknesses as a candidate, and that some Democrats did not view her as authentic.

    But he played down the importance of authenticity, noting that President George W. Bush -- whose record he ran aggressively against in 2008 -- was once praised for his authenticity.

    Mr. Obama made the remarks after reporters had left a fund-raising event in Austin, Tex., for the Democratic National Committee. The comments were described by three people in the room for the event, all of whom were granted anonymity to describe a candid moment with the president. The comments were later confirmed by a White House official.

    Mr. Obama chose his words carefully, and did not explicitly call on Mr. Sanders to depart the race, according to those in the room. Still, those in attendance said in interviews that they took his comments as a signal to Mr. Sanders that perpetuating his campaign, which is now an uphill climb, could only help the Republicans recapture the White House.
    Pols are Pols . . . Superdelegate Edition | 140 comments (140 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment