As of right now, with 92% of the vote reporting, Bernie Sanders is projected to have won 13 delegates from New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton is projected to have won nine. There are still two delegates left to be allocated. This is good and bad news for Sanders. It’s good that he won so decisively that he actually netted four convention votes. It’s also good because it demonstrates that he can do as poorly as Clinton (currently 38.3%) in future states and still get 41% of the delegates.
But, by the same logic, this is devastating news for Sanders. Even winning 60% of the vote, he barely scratched the surface of Clinton’s lead, which thanks to superdelegates currently stands at 394-42. The same proportional rules that make it impossible for Clinton to put Sanders away also make it nearly impossible for Sanders to overcome a 350 delegate deficit.
I’ve seen some Sanders supporters suggesting that the superdelegates will flip if they see that Bernie is the choice of the voters. They cite Barack Obama as an example of this. I hate to tell you, but it won’t be so easy this time around. Obama had the backing of Tom Daschle, who had recently been the most powerful Democrat in Washington DC. Obama was supported, early, by senators and governors from the Plains States and Mountain West where the minority populations are low and the Clintons remained unpopular. And Obama won the support of the black community which had been initially skeptical about his chances. Finally, Obama had support from the donor class, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and many philanthropists. If the superdelegates had denied him the nomination, a lot of very powerful people would have been upset, and the Democrats’ most loyal voting base would have been beyond irate. It was never going to happen.
It could definitely happen to Sanders, though. He wasn’t even a Democrat until six minutes ago. He obviously angers the big donors. He has no coalition of support in Congress, nor the support of anyone as powerful as Daschle was in 2007-8. There are no governors supporting him. Even mayors like Boston’s Marty Walsh and New York’s Bill de Blasio, who might be expected to support a progressive candidate, are not in Sanders’ camp. Add to this that a lot of Democrats are skittish about Sanders’ identity, his age, his region, his religious profile, his embrace of “socialism,” and his positions on foreign policy including Iran, and you’re not likely to see a stampede of Democratic insiders rallying to his cause. In fact, they probably see this as an example of why superdelegates were created in the first place. If the voters want to commit political suicide, the party leaders can step in and restore reason.
That’s the idea, anyway, and Sanders should not expect to see more than a handful of defections from Clinton even if he starts reeling off big victory after big victory.
That’s not to say that he couldn’t whittle down the lead a bit, but he’s still effectively blocked from winning this nomination barring Clinton collapsing through scandal, legal problems, or really poor performance on the campaign trail. In the latter scenario, the pressure of losing primary after primary might cause the Clinton Camp to lash out in ways that do them real damage with core constituencies.
But short of one of these unlikely scenarios, she’s still the heavy favorite to win the nomination even if she loses a lot more than she wins.
And, so far, I’ve only been contemplating worst case scenarios for her. But there’s no reason to assume that she’ll lose all of her commanding polling advantage in future states.
I expect Sanders to get a lot of momentum out of Iowa and New Hampshire, and there will be plenty of Clinton-in-disarray stories, but those are some pretty big numbers for Clinton. She has (or had) a pretty big cushion.
It’s really inspiring to see all these young adults really getting into politics and behind the Sanders campaign, and I’m kind of bummed that they are most likely going to get a pretty demoralizing lesson in the nuts and bolts of insider power. I just hope they don’t get alienated by the process and give up on future participation.
I also hope that if Clinton prevails, as I still expect, that she does it outright and not by depending on superdelegates. If she wins that way, she’ll probably have to put Sanders on her ticket to have any hope of bringing the party together for the general.
It’s good that he won so decisively that he actually netted four Electoral College votes.
You do mean convention delegates, yes?
yes, thank you.
I believe several of those polls are old so we dont know about the leads. But yes, its a good day but there is a long uphill fight. To knock off HRC will require a political revolution.
I was going to write a column about this, but you beat me to it. You put it perfectly. Bernie Sanders had an incredible win last night, and well deserved on too. He destroyed Hillary by 22 points and has the momentum, but if the Sanders supporters are under some grand illusion that they are going to dominate the upcoming states, they have another thing coming. Sanders has a problem with voters who are not as liberal, especially down South, and it’s going to take more than one meeting with Al Sharpton to turn around the massive deficit Bernie has with African-American voters. In the end, Hillary is still in the drivers seat. As for Sanders being her running mate, I don’t see it happening. Sanders and his socialist views would be more of a detriment than a help. Might bring the Sanders voters to her side, but most of those voters would be with Hillary anyway in the general.
Don’t see Sanders agreeing to be co-opted, either. He will endorse, of course, if she wins.
But she got almost as many delegates? That’s not right.
Does the Republican primary system work the same way with respect to superdelegates or is this just the Democratic party’s own particular way of rigging an election?
Not the same, but similar. The Republican system doesn’t give as much weight to elected superdelegates but it has an additional feature of giving more delegates to states where Republicans do well electorally (read = more extreme).
Also more relevant.
A weakness of the Dems. Why would deep southern states be equally relevant in today’s climate? How long since a Dem took the South? lol
Yes, California, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, and Illinois should have more weight than Texas, Alabama, Kentucky. That is, if we are not in a one man one vote setup which evidently, we are not. and even a two to one blow out only nets a fractional advantage.
Even if all you say is true, Sanders will have ripped the veil off the process and revealed it to be not a democratic (small d) process as most people feel but a corrupt sham where party leaders select their candidate and bamboozle people into thinking they have a part in the process. Jesus Christ! Arthur Gilroy was 100% right all along.
Time to leave this two-party Siamese twin system and form a third. Instead of castigating Nader, we should have joined him.
What do you mean by “awarding” a delegate. Is this not a primary? In Illinois, the candidates run by name in a non-binding “beauty contest” and delegates run separately under their own name along with the name of the candidate they are committed to. I’d prefer a real primary with the winner selecting his own delegates, either winner-take-all or proportionate, but delegates are voted in, not “awarded” like a caucus.
I think you probably don’t understand the process.
People run to serve as delegates. The top several vote getters quality to be delegates of a candidate at the convention, but how many of those delegates are awarded to each candidate is determined by the vote for either Sanders or Clinton.
So, you can come in seventh place as a Hillary delegate and still not get seated because she only was awarded six delegates.
Is that New Hampshire or Illinois? I’m quite sure Illinois voters expected their elected delegates to be seated. Over half don’t even understand the delegates and think the beauty contest determines who wins the state. So even the primary election is not really an election?
I only understand the process in general terms, not in terms of Illinois specifically.
But, it sounds like Pennsylvania.
Here, to give an example, my friend Josh Uretsky (recently in the news as Sanders’ data guy) ran as a delegate for Obama in 2008. He came in fourth or fifth place or something like that.
But that was good enough because Obama won more delegates than that in this particular congressional district. So, Josh was “elected” and seated at the convention as an Obama delegate.
But he would not have been if Obama had done poorly or if he’d come in, say, seventh or ninth place.
So, the voters voted for both how many delegates would be awarded and who those delegates would be.
In Iowa, a caucus system, the identity of the delegates is decided much later at county and state conventions. Only the allocation of the number of delegates is decided on election night, and that wasn’t even true four years ago, as Ron Paul poached the majority of Romney and Santorum’s delegate allocations at the conventions.
The rules seem to be different in every state.
Interesting info from the Orange Satan:
http://www.dailykos.com/news/delegatecount
You’re right about IL, the candidate vote tells how many delegates each wins and the delegate vote is which ones of the delegates actually go to the convention.
A report from IL:
https:/goplifer.com/2016/01/06/a-survey-of-trumps-illinois-delegates
.
should be a / at the end, otherwise I don’t know why linky doesn’t work.
the article is incorrect, despite the humorous rundown of Trumps delegates
The candidates are on the ballot and the outcome of that determines how many total delegates are allocated by Congressional district.
Thank you for explaining this just a little bit. I think it would be beneficial for everyone to have some understanding about the rules and how this whole thing plays out. I participated in my first delegate caucus last month, and I had no clue going in how the whole thing worked.
I tried to explain to my nephew, who is a big Bernie supporter, the gist of what you posted here. And he was totally unaware of the machinations of winning delegates, let alone what the role of superdelegates was. And I got flamed by Bernie supporters on social media when I tried to do the same thing there.
Whether one agrees with the process, or not, it would be helpful for most people to at least have a rudimentary understanding of it, if you want to be able to make sense of what is going to be unfolding over the next few weeks and months. You certainly will not be able to depend on the mainstream media to be of any assistance. And most blogs will not undertake the effort of laying it all out.
Sounds like the way the Israeli Knesset elections are run. You vote for a party list. The party ranks its candidates, and depending on the party’s percentage of the vote it seats the top X candidates on the list.
Substitute presidential candidate for party and you’ve got the US primary system.
As I understand it the democrats have 712 super delegates. Of that 359 have a.ready announced for Clinton and 8 for Sanders. The total of 712 is near half the required number to win the nomination. The balance comes from the direct primary results. These people are all party leaders of one type or another. Sanders does not have so many bc he was an Indepemdent. The super delegates can change their votes. Bottom line, this is the real fire wall for Clinton. And in some sense exactly why they have such a thing- to prevent an undesirable from winning, like say McGovern. Sanders has to do very well indeed to win, probably impossible, as I think you noted.
712 is significantly less than half, they need something like 2200 to win
Sorry sb third
The best case scenario for Clinton now, I think, is for Sanders to stumble rather than for her to beat him by going negative. If Sanders stumbles on his own, his supporters won’t see it as something unfair that Clinton did to win, and will be more likely to support her in the general. I hope Clinton gets that.
Maybe Clinton will win some primaries because the voters actually prefer her as the candidate. It is possible to contemplate that possibility without ascribing it to conspiracies or negative campaigning. Not sure why it seems necessary to point this out, but evidently it is.
Well, I’ll tell you this. Bernie won’t beat Hillary unless he goes negative and continues to do so. It’s peculiar, this Pollyanna view. Good negative campaigning works. Bad negative campaigning can backfire, but there is no way a modern POTUS candidate wins without going negative.
If Bernie or Hillary were to be so silly as to try to stay positive in the general election, the GOP candidate would gut them like a fish.
Polling taken before last night is about as useful as a Chris Christie Yard Sign.
Bounces from winning NH happen fast – within 72 hours. Polls this weekend will tell us a great deal about Bernie’s chances, including whether the demographic problem extends to Hispanic voters.
If Bernie gets his bounce, watch three states on Super Tuesday not on the radar for most people:
Oklahoma – there is a reason Bernie bought time there.
Arkansas – the African American % of the vote is lower than in most of the other states. Bernie does well among downscale Democrats – and he might have a shot there.
Texas – 34% of the vote in Texas was Hispanic in the ’08 primary – and it is probably higher now. Texas is an open primary, but a huge expense. The biggest strategic decision facing either campaign in this moment is about Texas.
Sorry to disappoint, but Texas Hispanics are pretty neoliberal, too. Not to mention the dangling of Castro on the card.
Research I have seen suggests Latino’s are more supportive of government intervention on behalf of the poor.
Probably true. But not first on their lists, I think.
Texas Hispanics are not insane, but they are rather conservative, even the Dems. LULAC and strong military advocacy tend them towards neoliberalism in the Reagan model. Might find this bit of history interesting.
http://www.commentaryandcuentos.com/part-ii-of-a-history-of-latino-conservatism-the-rise-of-latino-n
eoliberalism/
I suspect Hillary to be more of a fit for them. We shall see.
Isn’t Arkansas a gimme for Clinton? Like Vermont for Sanders?
By now, I’d guess AR is to (H) Clinton what TN was to Gore, haha.
Even mayors like Boston’s Marty Walsh and New York’s Bill de Blasio, who might be expected to support a progressive candidate, are not in Sanders’ camp.
Marty Walsh ran as the Progressive but he’s not. He’s a phony, charlatan and a corrupt fool.
From what I understand, de Blasio is not a progressive either. But I live on the Left Coast and haven’t been to NYC for years… grains of salt recommended.
Disagree. Cuomo is vetoing pretty much everything he wants to do.
The election of Cuomo is an indicator, maybe, that Sanders is behind the eight ball? I’m not in NY, but that struck me as a pretty clear, and disheartening, message.
I’ve seen some Sanders supporters suggesting that the superdelegates will flip if they see that Bernie is the choice of the voters. They cite Barack Obama as an example of this. I hate to tell you, but it won’t be so easy this time around.
If the SD’s did overturn it, it would play right into Sanders’s hands. That’s why I think you’re wrong. Say Sanders does win a majority of the delegates via the regular process of voting, like last night. He’ll have the prime time speaking slot, right? And they’re going to tear the party apart over it? So the establishment Sanders rails against is going pull back the curtain on themselves? Maybe, but that is really risky.
Didnt they do that in 1968?
That’s half a century ago.
It kinda stuck in one’s mind, you know…
Guess all the reforms put in place after the ’68 debacle didn’t enter the consciousness of Democrats.
Recall — HHH didn’t run in a single primary in ’68. He was selected by state parties.
Of course when the “rules” were reformed and led to a nominee not chosen by the elites, they had a temper tantrum and re-elected Nixon.
With my parents not even in college back then, I am pretty fuzzy on the details.
How did that work out for them?
Billmon:
If this comes down to superdeletes, the entire logic of Clinton’s candidacy crumbles.
Sanders can’t beat massively powerful political machine? That proves his fundamental point about establishment hegemony.
Clinton can’t beat an old leftie Jew from Vermont during his first run? That disproves her fundamental point about experience and competence.
As a Sanders supporter, I’m confident that Clinton will beat Sanders handily. But if she doesn’t? If she needs superdelegates to win? Then she shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the oval office on the grounds of incompetence alone.
Sanders is running a helluva campaign so far. I’m impressed, it may be his time. I expect this is all going to sort itself out well before the convention. But if Clinton (or Sanders) can pull off a win at the convention, it’s a win (by definition almost). I mean, what else are the dems going to do, rally to the one who loses? That’s a recipe for chaos. If you want to award points for sportsmanship, you are playing the wrong game.
Certainly a win is a win, and I’d vote for her as many times as possible. But if she can’t beat a grumpy old socialist Jew on a level playing field, how the hell is she going to beat the Republican Media Complex fighting uphill?
If Clinton can’t beat Sanders without superdelgates, she’s an incompetent politician.
I don’t think that’s the case. I think she’s a professional. However, what’s her experience in winning elected office? Two terms as a NY senator after being first lady? That’s weak tea. Despite all the hype, we simply don’t know if she’s any good at this.
And the superdelegates are more likely to conceal a general election weakness than to strengthen it.
Yeah I get that. But Clintons advantage in super delegates is about 360 or so give or take. The candidates need almost 2400 to be nominated. So if by the convention they are separated by less than 400 delegates, the super delegates are not going to stick with Clinton and it’ll come down back room deals. Your point of view regarding Clintons ultimate competence may win out, or something else could happen, the politicking will be completely unpredictable. But I will support whoever wins, regardless of how it happens.
The Dems could be in trouble if Sanders wins the primaries and Clinton wins the super delegates. If that happens, expect a lot of people sitting on their hands in November.
Agreed. If Sander’s wins the popular vote or even appears to win the popular vote, and yet does not get the nomination the will be a huge, angry, revolt. It may nearly destroy the Democratic party.
No chance in hell. Either Hillary wins decisively (or at least clearly), Bernie gets the nomination, or the Democrats are doomed. Maybe if Bernie gets a part of her administration, but I have a hard time seeing how that happens in a way they will both agree to.
So, here’s the thing, LeonS. And others, apparently.
Hillary actually won “the popular vote” in the cumulative count of voters in the various States’ 2008 Democratic Party primaries. She and her supporters didn’t lead a “huge, angry revolt” to kill Barack Obama’s general election chances. She lost fair and square under the Party rules. Hillary and her supporters were political grown-ups when the chips were down, and they were among the people who helped Obama win in both of his Presidential campaigns.
Why should the election rules and our views of them be so substantially different now?
Why should the election rules and our views of them be so substantially different now?
Uh, substantial difference here. How are we counting the popular vote? Because of all the shenanigans with Michigan and Florida and/or the caucuses (Michigan being the huge dealio), there are 8 potential popular vote totals. As such, Obama didn’t even compete in Michigan, withdrawing his name from the ballot. When her name is the only one on the ballot who matters (although I’d have voted for Gravel), ofc “uncommitted” is going to be low, inflating her vote total — and even giving Obama all uncommitted, he still wins the popular vote. If you remove caucuses, and sea the shenanigans, he loses the popular vote.
You have to do some pretty hard straining to make the case that Clinton “won” the popular vote here, imo.
I don’t see the differences as substantial enough for commenters to justify a “large, angry revolt” from Democratic Party voters if Hillary were to pull out a close victory on the delegate count. That revolt could deliver a President Trump or Cruz, and that’s the last thing a Sanders supporter would want.
If the super delegates are why Clinton wins, I say there’s already a lot of hell that will be paid and by default she will be a badly weakened candidate regardless of what Sanders does. Everyone will look at the process as a farce, only to see that their vote does not truly matter. There would be nothing more demoralizing.
well yes, it would be the run up to IA writ large – media blackout, debate scheduling, superdelegate’s getting on board the bandwagon, [media blackout on voters choice]
“The fix” that was put in place before the election cycle began. Sort of the DEM elephant that we’re not supposed to notice and if we do, not talk about it. Funny thing about sweeping shit under the rug — that stuff will emerge with a fury should the superdelegates act like the SCOTUS and tell us who we’ve nominated.
“It’s really inspiring to see all these young adults really getting into politics and behind the Sanders campaign”
I agree, but the Democratic Party elites had best take very much into consideration. The way they choose to handle Sanders campaign will either strength the party for the future. By embracing the will of the young voters or it will destroy the party via pushing these people away. Now it is all up to the Democratic Party how the party does in the future.
It also depends upon how the Clinton Campaign runs their campaign. Bill refusing to attack GOP members but attacking Sanders will turn young voters and more off of the Democratic Party. I personally do not want to see a Democratic fight that is the same as current GOP mudslinging. We are Democratic Party members and should campaign on issues and no personal attacks. The voters will not tolerate it and even if the Democratic Party elites step in and give it to Hillary. You may find voters do not show up or vote for party members below President and not for the President.
There is suppose to be a clear difference between the GOP and Democratic Party and it needs to be shown clearly to all. This can only be accomplished by candidates being respectful and the party respecting the WILL of the average Democratic VOTER!
I hate to say this but if Hillary has this nomination locked up because of Establishment super delegates, the system will appear so corrupt that nothing short of Hillary losing a winnable election will ever bring the Clinton Machine to heel. Too bad the super delegates only get their one person one vote in the general.
“…I’m kind of bummed that they are most likely going to get a pretty demoralizing lesson in the nuts and bolts of insider power. I just hope they don’t get alienated by the process and give up on future participation.”
You’re just bummed that there seems to be no enthusiasm for the Establishment candidate leaving only the “nuts and bolts of insider power” to tilt things their way.
These “nuts and bolts of insider power” don’t seem to be working very well this time. I remember someone here saying, if you’re going to complain about the number of debates, you’ve already lost the election. How did that work out? Now all I hear is worry after ceding the debate forum to the Republicans, more Republicans than Democrats wind up turning out to vote.
While I think the BernieBro thing is a Team Hillary invention, she should worry more about the big mouths on her Establishment icons especially Bill Clinton since they probably spiked her NH loss. Bill is right to say he needs to be careful what he says because if the nuts and bolts of insider power really do work and this turns into a nose holding operation, we might run out of oxygen on the way to vote.
“If she wins that way (with super delegates), she’ll probably have to put Sanders on her ticket to have any hope of bringing the party together for the general.”
Now that you see this dangerous problem, why not advise Hillary to declare a new initiative to return democracy to the Democratic Party by calling for the firing of the DNC Chair and the elimination of all super delegate votes. Holding on to this insider power is the same as a nation acquiring nuclear weapons, a weapon they could never use without it resulting in their own annihilation.
Clinton is ahead and until she falls behind she will remain ahead. Sanders has a long, long way to go to maybe get within striking distance of the nomination and even then he will continue to be reviled by establishment forces (“political, economic, and media”) that will pull no punches to defeat him.
Got it.
The big question until now remains the same. Will blacks and Latinos change their minds now that Sanders appears to be a viable candidate? We’ll have to wait and see.
The unbelievable thing, the big news isn’t the tedious repetition of all the forces arrayed against Sanders (political, economic, and media), it’s that we’ve arrived at this point when those forces have spent tens of millions of dollars and resorted to every sort of insulting, disingenous, and offensive tactic to try to defeat Sanders and his supporters, and they’ve thus far utterly failed to stop the rise of his candidacy.
We havent gotten to the Sanderistas yet.
Why Sanders is Still Behind the Eight Ball
A title that can be used again and again. Because CW will always declare that Sanders isn’t viable, electable, a “socialist” can never win, is too old, can’t raise enough money, can’t put together an awesome campaign team (like the mighty Obama and Clintons), won’t get the women’s, AA’s, Latino’s, Superdelegates’ votes, Millenials, particularly the women, are stupid and hormonally driven, etc.
As he smashes any one “barrier,” the remaining “barriers” are elevated in importance. And new “barrier” constructs are created. “Barriers” always based on what the opposition wants the people to think/believe and generally almost wholly fact free.
Last July in State of Sanders Campaign, I drilled down on the facts in evidence at that time. At best, they were meager and most of those facts were preliminary and/or provisional. But even with those limitations, it was evident that Sanders know what he was doing and how to build a campaign. In any ordinary election cycle, by August he would have commanded respect from the media and political party.
This has not been an ordinary election cycle. Before the candidates had officially declared, Clinton had wrapped up all the goodies a winning candidate needs. And my read is that it wasn’t just for the nomination but the general election as well. Why did Jeb? get so much early attention from the media? Because he is lame and the media were clued into that. Then they switched their attention to the odious Trump. All the while publicly wringing their hands that such a racist bully can’t win the nomination. As if pundits/etc. are completely clueless as to the voter base of the GOP and their own very own viewer base. All the “third way” DEMs and their followers were delighted. Hillary would blow the blowhard out of the water.
All of that is a distraction from looking at why a candidate with every advantage (and then some) is faring so poorly against a man with no advantages other than his integrity, authenticity, and honesty.
DEM caucus/primary turnout if down in Iowa/NH and the blame for this outcome is assigned to Sanders. Why not Clinton and the DEM party that has been united behind her? In 2008 Iowa Obama-Edwards-Clinton received approximately 230,000 votes and much of that outcome was driven by DEM party operations/organizations. 2012 the best all those power could manage was a mere 86,000 (approximate) votes for Clinton. NH wasn’t much different. Once all the wayward DEM political elites that split among Obama, Clinton, and Edwards in ’08 were corralled into a single force for 2016, why haven’t they been able to rally all their supporters.
With 97% of precincts reporting, Clinton is down 18,000 votes from what she received in 2008. Where did they go? (To a candidate with a stronger racist appeal?) The “once in a generation” Obama received 105,000 vote in NH. (The prior “once..” lost in NH.) So, it’s time to take a big dump on the guy, with no NH DEM institutional support and less money, that has so far received 148,000 votes.
I’ve been hearing variations of this theme from the “ruling class” in the DEM party since 1968. And when those not buying the bs had the audacity to nominate a man not chosen by “our betters,” those “betters” taught us a lesson by blowing up the party. They could do that again if “we” don’t get in line with the “chosen one.” But the outcome won’t be the same.
It seems that Hillary has a fundamental problem defining her candidacy which has only been exacerbated by her mixed messages recently; all of which must now be considered varying degrees of toxic.
Bernie’s unrealistic, improbable, unelectable campaign creates a fundamental problem for a triangulating, incremental, Tammany Hall politician with Hillary’s track record and public personality, even disallowing the decades of bilious accusations from the Right.
I am battling to understand what narrative for her campaign resurrects her; it seems an impossible task. “Experience” reinforces her indelible establishment brand. “Pragmatism” runs counter to every progressive aspiration of the Sanders campaign, and they are legion. “Cares about people like you” invites a review of the Clinton legacy which probably doesn’t bear close examination concerning deregulation of Wall Street and discriminate criminalisation of minorities.
What can she do? Well, try for the sudden political kill, I suppose:
Unpack that for a moment. It is her 2008 South Carolina strategy writ large and an attempt to destroy Sanders on a single issue with a particular demographic. This seems to suggest at least a little desperation because it’s not a theme likely to impress the “much broader base to build a winning coalition on” “among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans” that she deemed significant in 2008. Does she really want to re-litigate Bill’s “first black presidency” in the full glare of hindsight?
In fact, it splits Democrats in the face of an uncertain opponent and an increasingly unpredictable general election. I sense fear and expediency; and attenuated concern for the good of the party or its constituents.
Since she can’t (re)capture the Obama coalition, she’ll have to destroy it!
“We had to destroy the village in order to save it”, haha!
Maybe not. Suspect AR grifters have a better grasp of the goodies that flow from DC if a homeboy/girl occupies the WH than those in TN.
At the very minimum, there’s a $100+ million library construction and some permanent jobs and tourist interest to go along with it. Although in the case of Hillary, doubt she’d build an annex to the Clinton library in Little Rock. (She’d put it in NY and it would cost three times as much are previous libraries.) So, maybe that reduces her odds in AR, but still probably better than Gore’s were in TN.
That seems a bit harsh but not far off. The point is she’s probably going to have to pivot away from hugging Trayvon at some point, after the nomination, and that won’t be so easy or pleasant.
I can understand her dilemma but I think her solution lacks imagination, clarity and better angels of any kind; assuming the Politico story is accurate, and it seems a pretty direct plant from the campaign. So inserting a wedge between white, progressive kids and blacks and hammering away at it seems typical of her style tactically; what could possibly go wrong? The reason Hillary seems to lose so dramatically is that she seeks to win at any cost.
I don’t understand this criticism.
I believe “white, progressive kids” are supportive of the causes that Black Lives Matter and its associated movements are pursuing. Why would Hillary pursuing and gaining support from iconic leaders of these African-American movements be defined as “driving a wedge”?
What I’m getting in some of these comments is that all of Bernie’s attempts to persuade voters are OK, even though many of his attempts are quite divisive and blessedly, necessarily so. Meanwhile, almost all of Hillary’s attempts to persuade voters are judged morally unacceptable.
Jeez, guys, this ain’t beanbag. The Republican nominee will be much more aggressive and “unfair”. Me, I see this primary shaping up pretty ideally. A titanic primary battle served our candidate well when Hillary lost in 2008; I think it’s very likely that a titanic primary battle will serve our winning candidate well in 2016.
It’s called “waving the bloody shirt” from Reconstruction times. It’s a purity thing.
“Driving a wedge” remains to be seen. And white, progressive kids are supportive of causes and etc. Granted. And much of my criticism is aimed at a strategy that is only just under-way so it is hard to predict outcomes. It seems to me, however, that rather than tackle coalition-building among what remains of Obama’s 2008 electorate she intends to deliver a lesson in political realism; a crushing blow or at least a firewall margin in South Carolina and by implication any other constituency where black voters are a significant factor. On to the convention.
Coalition building is harder. Maybe she doesn’t have time to do it now. Maybe she has written off these youngsters in the short term as supporters. Maybe she’s confident they will come out and vote in the general anyhow… Because that’s really the issue.
Why would seeking and gaining support from Black Lives Matter and associated leaders be viewed as “writing off” young voters? Young voters of all ethnicities are the most likely to support BLM’s demands.
Sorry — my first comment was a response to yours upthread.
Not seeing evidence that the Obama coalition is real. Might have been a mirage.
Hillary doesn’t have a narrative because she doesn’t have any core values from which spring her agenda. Nothing more than a set of issues that poll well.
And there’s the rub. Her primary goal, likely decades old at this point, is to be the first woman POTUS. What she has to say or do to accomplish that is irrelevant. Should she achieve her goal, Bill will be her co-president and we can expect a version of what we saw and experienced from them the first time.
It’s deja vu all over again, and I’m not thinking about Hillary blowing her commanding lead 8 years ago. 2016 is starting to look a lot like 1968 without the assassinations, and it could destroy the Democratic Party.
A big part of Sanders’ appeal is that lots of people are disgusted with a corrupt political system. If the nominating process turns out to be rigged, those people are going to be lost to the Democratic Party, I think forever. They are already angry. If they fight the good fight and lose, that’s one thing. If they find out that even if they win, the system is going to deny them their victory, that’s something quite different.
And so far, what’s happened? You had a mess in Iowa where Clinton was declared the winner in a system with no transparency and no actual vote count. And then you have a Bernie landslide that somehow results in an even split of the NH delegates.
The Democrats set up a system where a candidate who wins every primary by 20 points can be denied the nomination if the members of the party elite pretty much unanimously support the other candidate. Bernie’s not going to crush Hillary all over the map, but still, if he wins the majority of the not-so-super delegates and is denied the nomination, I think the party splits in two.
Maybe the real deja vu should be the 1912 GOP.
“…have to put him on the ticket”???? Why the heck would Bernie want to be VP??? He’s too old to run for President in the future. And why would we want Bernie out of the Senate???
No, I would next expect Hillary to put Bernie on the ticket, nor do I think he’d accept. I would expect her to put someone young on the ticket, to balance out her age (and as a cushion in case she falls ill, given her age). Maybe even another woman, to double down on the female vote. Kirsten Gillibrand?
“I just hope they don’t get alienated by the process and give up on future participation.”
Because…?
Because then lesser evil won’t win.
The title implies that Sanders should have done something by now that he hasn’t done. Do you mean he should have persuaded superdelegates to support him?
Or do you just mean he’s up against a wall that may be too massive to budge? That’s not Sanders being behind, that’s the definition of establishment.
An inconvenient fact that political pundits have done their best bury and dismiss when their challenged on this point.
Buzzfeed — Bernie Sanders Has Raised $5.2 Million Since The Polls Closed In New Hampshire
By my reckoning that’s in seventeen to eighteen hours.
But expect to hear about a yuuuge fat new check that Clinton is picking up today. Not $34/donor but $6 million/donor.
The super delegates giving clinton the nomination will be very bad for the party. The insiders will figure it out too late when President Trump is sworn in. The youngsters will just stay home. NO MORE PARTY.They will think it was Stolen and it will be a wipeout up and down the ticket. I am listening to them and I am sure she will never be able to heal the facture if that happens.
At this point in time “the party” = Clinton. Therefore, if it’s good for a Clinton, it’s good for the party. Since 1992, the Clintons have continuously controlled the party with the exception of the 2005-2008 period when DEM voters became enraged at the seeming ineptitude of the party.
Again, they are saying Sanders flipped the script with 2008 voters…he fared best with economically downscale voters and won over a number of blue-collar cities and towns that had been Clinton redoubts in her 2008 campaign.
Plus the young. A new coalition?
Maybe we’ll all have to dig into the weeds to check this out. Could have been both Edwards and Clinton worker class voters that shifted to Sanders. Somewhat suspect that a large percentage of the higher income folks in the Obama coalition either shifted to Clinton or disappeared. wrt younger voters, two options instead of three and one of those was clear and favored the young would have helped Sanders — even if the turnout for this demo was lower than ’08.
Also can’t overlook the fact that Clinton played the race card in NH in the final days of the ’08 campaign. I suspect that is what gave her a victory. This time gender and “establishment pol that can get things done” didn’t play as well.
Iowa showed major flips. Places that had been strong HRC in 2008 either tied or went Sanders.
I don’t think anyone should forget what Clinton did in the days before the NH primaries in ’08. Fortunately, she has comported herself much better this time around.
This how Sanders is different so far from all the insurgent dems of the past. Instead of elite lefties and youth, its working class married to youth (overwhelming youth, blowing away Obamas numbers so far). Obama was no different than the norm except he could count on black voters to put him over the top.
The United States is ~78% white.
Americans aged 18-24 are ~75% white
Americans aged 25-44 are ~77% white
Americans aged 45-64 are ~81% white
Americans over 65 are ~86% white
You get the idea; you can’t (nationally) parse the youth vote from the non-white vote. In many places, particularly out west, there’s a big overlap in those groups.
John Cole gets it:
This Is Not Hard- They Just Have a Different Perspective
The meat:
Damn fucking straight, says this Millennial.
A lot of the commentary in this thread reminds me of that line, “If I had some ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.”
One of the more interesting “political” experiences I’ve had recently was having a relative of the generation after mine tell me that my generation had royally fucked things up, and boy was she ever pissed off.
The thing is, I remember thinking the same thing about my parents’ generation when I was a senior in high school canvassing for George McGovern and getting chased off by people telling me how they planned to vote for George Wallace.
It’s really easy to blame the people who came before. It’s especially easy to lash out in frustration and then blame “the establishment” when things go awry.
As for me, I think some more data would be nice before extrapolating to some scenario where Sanders kicks Clinton’s ass but is still denied the nomination. And those data will come in a few weeks when a bunch of more primaries are held.
Congressional Black Caucus to Endorse Clinton on Thursday.
Must be all that false consciousness, keeping them from realizing where their true best interests lie…
When you say ‘them’ and ‘their true best interests…” are you referring to the lawmakers themselves or their constituents?
Whoa. It’s almost as if black politicians are actual humans, who respond to the same incentives as other human politicians, instead of being noble savages like you expect!
I’m shocked that politicians are backing the establishment favorite who is almost certain to win. Shocked, I tell you!
I just saw the Coen brothers’ latest film, Hail, Caesar, which has a brilliant scene in which a bunch of Hollywood film studio employees, plus one academician, all Communists, are expounding for the leading man they just kidnapped how all of history, all of society’s problems, can be “scientifically” understood solely in terms of economics. Maybe all the folks still flogging the “false consciousness” rigamarole should be required to see the film.
Maybe all folks who keep waving the ‘false consciousness’ bloody shirt to handwave away the very basic facts of human psychology that A.) what people want and what will make them happy often diverge and B.) the incentives for elected leaders and the incentive for voters often diverge even if their fates are intertwined should look up the word ‘strawman’.
And for people who just bring it up completely unbidden in discussion when it hasn’t even been leaning that way should look up the word ‘non sequitur’. Trust me, both of these will be much more useful to developing logical skills than watching some contrived movie.
Deathtongue, these bloody-shirt and stab-in-the-back accusational metaphors you keep forwarding are destructive to our ability to have respectful discussions.
For example, the provocativeness of the bloody shirt accusation here, an accusation which seems to me an inappropriate response to this portion of the thread, acts as an attempt to bury one of your own concessions: that the fates of elected leaders are intertwined with the views held by voters in their States and districts.
For example, you’re welcome to forward the charge that John Lewis and the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus do not represent the views or interests of the voters in their Congressional Districts in their endorsement/support for Hillary’s Presidential campaign. The voters in their Congressional Districts are responsible for making that decision, however. Those voters may disagree with you.