Bernie Sanders Defeats Nate Silver in Michigan Primary


You're delusion, Matt Baume. You can say Bernie "just barely" won in Michigan, but Hillary had a 30 meter head start in a 100 meter sprint.

And now that the marathon to the nomination is approaching the midway point, Bernie has closed the gap considerably. Hillary's Heartbreak Hill looms.
Newsflash Matty! Many of the upcoming states are states where NAFTA did a great deal of damage. Hillary will have a hard time taking credit for things that help her from Bill's administration and then distancing herself from others.
He also has to persuade democrats that he won't get slaughtered in the general election.

I like some of Bernie's ideas and voting record better than Hillary's. I'm honestly only lukewarm to Hillary. But I'm voting for Hillary because I think Trump (or any of the republicans) would destroy Bernie in the general election, and I think Hillary can beat them. No matter how much I prefer Bernie's stance on universal health care and corruption, it makes no difference if he can't beat any of the republicans in the fall. And he has done nothing to convince me that he can do that.
If you take a walk around South Lake Union, Capitol Hill, or Bellevue, it's clear that some people are benefitting fantastically from the status quo. For them, Clinton is the obvious choice.

For the rest of us, including the people forced out of those areas for economic reasons, the current situation is unbearable. Clinton offers at best more misery for us and welfare for the rich, while Sanders has spent his entire career fighting for those of us locked out of all this "prosperity."

Both would be facing the RepubliKKKan bath salts cannibals in Congress, and Clinton will sell us out in a New York second.

It's Bernie or bust!
@ 3, Nothing except Bernie being on the verge of overcoming the most entrenched political establishment in the Western world? What would convince you?

A huge number of Democratic voters are rejecting Clinton for the second time. Why would that lead to electoral success in the general?
@3: That's the logic that brought us John Kerry and Dubya's second term.
People keep saying "Yeah, but I don't think Sanders can beat any of the Republicans," but no one will ever offer an actual reason why not.

Do we fear liberals are going to vote for Trump en masse if Hillary does not get the nod? Will Hispanics suddenly forget the GOP wants to deport them all? Hillary does not exactly excite the Democratic base you know, which is why Sanders is still hanging on so late in the game.

It reminds me of those Dems in 2008 who were hoping Obama would not get the nomination because of fears America would not elect a black president.
Bernie supporters drive me nuts when anytime an article about him is not a gushing endorsement they declare the source corrupt, shilling, in bed with Hillary, etc.

Here's the truth: Bernie Sanders has set the bar incredibly high for himself. He has claimed that he can not only win in 2016, he claims he can produce a FUCKING REVOLUTION that will give Democrats control of the House and 60+ votes in the Senate that will enable him to radically transform the country and implement major progressive policy goals.

Now, Sanders had scored some wins and impressive second places, but even if you don't count the Super Delegates he trails in the popular delegate count relative to Hillary. That is a far cry from the revolution he has not only been promising, it is vastly short of the revolution he MUST produce to enact legislative goals. If he can't do what he needs to accomplish in the Democratic primary, what makes you think he can do it in the general election?

Hillary may be flawed, but she is an effective politician. That is why I am supporting her in the primary.
The Democratic Party establishment (which seems to include Matt Baume) has been shooting itself in the foot for most of the last two decades. I think they really don't want to learn.
@8 - "Hillary may be flawed, but she is an effective politician."

She's won one election in her lifetime, the Senate race in New York. In her brief time as a junior Senator she did nothing to crow about. The she served as a diplomat (not a politician, it's a different job). Bernie Sanders is an effective politician. That's why the people of Vermont adore him. The people of New York are "meh" on Clinton and always have been.
@0: "[Sanders] claims he can produce a FUCKING REVOLUTION that will give Democrats control of the House and 60+ votes in the Senate..."

Source, please.
@7: "People keep saying "Yeah, but I don't think Sanders can beat any of the Republicans," but no one will ever offer an actual reason why not."

The main reason I think Bernie can't win is because he is (or was) a socialist. Hillary hasn't said anything about that during the primary because in the primary they are both competing for the lefty vote. But you can bet during the general election, Trump (or whoever) will tar Bernie with the socialist brush at every opportunity. And it will work. While we hippy liberals in Seattle may have elected one socialist to our city council, there is no way a socialist can win a presidential general election.

I wish someone like Cory Booker had run against Hillary. I'd vote for him in a second, because I think he could take on Trump and win. Or maybe Elizabeth Warren.
@6: As opposed to the logic that brought us votes for Nader and Dubya's first term?

@11: He's talked repeatedly of a "political revolution" in which millions of previously nonvoting Americans get up and engage in the political process. Either he's calling for a wave of high turnout to flip Congress to the Dems, or he's pretending (like Trump) that the President has magical powers to enact whatever laws are desired. He's a smart guy and a dedicated public servant; I'm gonna go with the former possibility.
@13- The Nader analogy is great. Nader voters are Bernie voters, but if Bernie is the Democratic nominee they will show up and vote for the Democratic nominee instead of Jill Stein or stay home.
@12: I just don't buy the "Republicans will leak that he is a socialist, and no one will vote for him!" argument. It just seems so lazy when the fact that he is a socialist is not a secret, and the base is behind him enough to make it a contest with Hillary well past Super Tuesday. It is all about getting the base out, not luring in a handful of republican voters.

Also, this neglects all the terrible baggage which will be highlighted by the GOP if she wins the nomination. You can't exactly call Trump a liar when you have built a career off of lies, or paint him as an enemy of the 99% when you got paid for secret Wall Street pep rallies that no one is allowed to know about.

@13: More Democrats voted for Bush in Florida than they did for Nader. Nader did not "lose" the election for Gore, Gore lost it on his own. That bullshit argument is so tired and dried out, it is embarrassing.
@13: The Nader analogy is irrelevant since Bernie is not running as a third party candidate. The rest of your post is speculative nonsense.
We all know Dewey/Clinton will beat Truman/Sanders.

Matt, I may not always agree with you, but I'm glad you're doing what you're doing. I turn to Slog during/after every debate, and it's excellent.
I'd point out the ugly argument that neither the Clintonistas or Sanderites will mention: the Democrats have been experiencing lower turnout during these primaries when compared to 2008. There is a clear enthusiasm gap that the party can't seem to break through. And that's a problem to get the turn out you need in November.

Fear of Trump won't help that. Just as fear of Reagan didn't help in 1980 and fear of Bush didn't help in 2000.
In my limited, personal experience, Bernie's message is working quite well in California, not just with liberals and lefties, but also with the conservative independents that live in my deeply, deeply red county (El Dorado). If the DNC allows it, Bernie is well positioned to make quite a splash in the CA primary!

As to why Bernie steers all topics to the problem of our broken electoral system, he knows (as virtually all serious people do) that we have little chance of addressing any of the legion problems facing the nation and the world without removing the poisonous influence of the "money primary," fixing our gerrymandered districts, and getting honest players of all political persuasions elected. Without fixing corruption (both money and partisan), we won't be able to even discuss anything else.

Please join us.
@ 13) I am sick to death of the "Nader lost Gore the Presidency" canard. GORE lost Gore the presidency. Not only did he fail to carry his home state, which would have made the FL vote count irrelevant, but more Democrats, DEMOCRATS!, voted for W in Florida than there were FL Nader voters. Even when he won nationally, the DNC-anointed candidate was too week to ascend to the Presidency. GAAAGH!!!

Hey, Venomlash! Love you, love your work!
@21: I'm sick of the canard that Gore lost in 2000. Ohio was stolen and he won the count in Florida...once it was counted.
@22) Better get back to work on that time machine...
@19: THAT'S what scares me. Dems will do their patented "don't bother voting" thing and we will be stuck with a couple of Ted Cruz's SCOTUS nominees for basically the rest of my life.
Baume, Do you need me to find clips of Bernie talking about jobs and outsourcing throughout this campaign (and decades before) so that you stop your lying or it's pointless anyway because you'll keep repeating Clinton's stupid propaganda about Sanders running a one issue campaign?
@19- Democrats (and left-ish independents) haven't been turning out to vote because the party hasn't been working for them. The blame for the 6 years of GOP legislature we have to endure lays squarely on the Democratic Party and Obama for spending 2 years giving away the farm and calling it "compromise."
@6 (DOUG): A rigged vote count in Ohio is what gave us Dubya's second term. Well, and that inchoate mass of unprincipled mediocrity and establishment élitism known as John Kerry.
@16: Is it mere speculation to say that Bernie has predicted a "political revolution" and yet there is little sign of that revolution manifesting in any form?
And Bernie doesn't need to run as a 3rd party candidate for it to be relevant. There is no practical difference between people voting for Nader because they don't think Gore is far left enough and people just not voting because they don't think Clinton is far left enough. Savvy?