Bernie is most certainly not doing terribly in California (…). Lots of time to go. Obama lost New York, California, and Texas in 2008.
So how would we feel about a candidate that did well in eastern WA, but did poorly in Seattle and lost the state?
Why does the number of counties Bernie won make the slightest difference? Acreage doesn't vote, people do, and there are more people in Kings County (Brooklyn) than in the smallest 30 NY counties combined. This argument sounds just like all those Republicans who every four years whine that there must be voter fraud, because "how else could we have lost the election - don't you see how red the map is?"
no one from the sanders campaign said anything about the amount of counties they won, but i see what yr doing there and all ive got to say is don't be a dick. also: no one likes a smug winner. thats how you get from vote blue no matter to who to #bernieorbust.
@1 Though Obama won a majority of southern states and the delegates from MI and FL weren't seated. So, 2008 is not really comparable.
Another terrible article by Matt. Your premise is that Bernie now wants superdelegates to push him to victory, even though he's explicitly been against the existence of superdelegates. Why are you often making up shit like this? So many articles you put things out of context because you can't write a decent article based in reality?

We know after the NY loss that it's way, way less likely Bernie can win, but it's not impossible. He would have to get at least 60% of the remaining vote to do that, and there's no way it's gonna happen, but it's still mathematically possible and California could surprise us.

So, can you please in the future perhaps write articles about things that make sense instead of making up ideas that Sanders supports superdelegates and would actually accept an undemocratic nomination where he wins that way even without the majority of votes? Thanks...
Clinton took the same approach at about this time in 2008, once it became clear Obama would hold the lead in elected delegates. She called on superdelegates to overrule the voters and swing the nomination her way. Dumb idea then and now (and I haven't actually heard Sanders endorse this idea, just his campaign manager), but on the other hand the whole primary process is riddled with outrages against democracy (like NY's October registration deadline for an April primary).

I just keep wondering what kind of genocide Netanyahu is going to unleash against the Palestinians in January, when he knows he'll have a green light from Clinton (who was his biggest cheerleader when he was slaughtering children in 2014). When that happens, anything that could've prevented it will seem like a great idea in hindsight, even if it involved superdelegates.
All Jeff Weaver said was that they would try to convince superdelegates to switch to Bernie if nobody has enough pledged delegates to win after California votes. He didn't say Bernie would accept the nomination without the support of the majority of primary voters.

So, I don't see what the issue is here. All I can see is that Bernie wants to go to the convention and make his case in-person, probably point out how ridiculous the primary process is and the DNC. Show me a video with their campaign saying Bernie would accept the nomination without the majority of primary voters, otherwise he's been consistent.

"This isn't the first time the Sanders campaign has previewed this strategy. They began talking about it in March, arguing that if they could finish the primaries strong, then even if they trailed Clinton in delegates they could use their strong poll numbers, tremendous small-donor fundraising, and general momentum to persuade superdelegates to switch sides and hand them the nomination."
@6 Actually, Bernie's campaign manager was on MSNBC arguing just that. He doesn't believe that either candidate will have secured enough pledged delegates, and he doesn't think it's a problem for the superdelegates to choose Sanders over Clinton even if Clinton has more pledged delegates and more votes.

Starts around the 5:20 mark.
@8 that's a whole lot of hand waving you're doing there.
All Jeff Weaver said was that after California, in the time before the convention but after primaries end, they would seek to get superdelegates to pledge for Bernie. That's all he said. That could be for any number of reasons, such as making a stronger point (if the delegate count is still very close, including superdelegates) that should Clinton win, she should move even more left on a lot of issues before the general election.

The real question is whether Bernie would accept the nomination without the majority support in the primary, and I don't think he will because that contradicts the messages he has been making throughout the campaign, especially in debates. I would totally be against that, it's not democratic. The answer to this question is unknown because the Sanders campaign wasn't asked if Bernie would accept the nomination, but merely asked whether they would continue to try and get more superdelegates before the convention.

The implication in all this is that apparently the media and lots of DNC insiders want Bernie to drop his bid without going to the convention. We're going to see this to the end, there can be a fucking contested convention without everything imploding like some people think is going to happen. We can have a contested convention, nominate hillary, and still have her in the G.E. It's not like taking this to the convention will cause the democratic party to collapse. If anything, the DNC will continue to exist and perhaps we'll spawn a new party left of the DNC so we can have at least one party in this country not embedded within corporate power.
"Subvert democracy." Hilarious, Matt Baume is simply hilarious. Overwrought in the best possible way.
@13 Weaver was pretty clear that they would work on persuading superdelegates to support Sanders as the nominee, regardless if Clinton had more pledged delegates and votes. He was clear on this. And it's clear that Sanders is okay with this plan. Otherwise there would be some clarifying remarks by now, and there haven't been any.

And there's not going to be a contested election. HRC is well on her way to securing the nomination by winning enough pledged delegates.

By all means continue with all the hand waving though.
"We've got a shot to victory" ... well if that ain't drinking game material, I don't know what is.
Counties, Schmounties. New York allots delegates by Congressional District -- and Hillary outpolled Bernie in 21 of 27 CD's.
@15 Persuading superdelegates to support Bernie before the convention IS NOT THE SAME as accepting the nomination without the support of the majority of primary voters. It doesn't matter if he still wants to persuade delegates before the convention. It doesn't matter if he gets the majority of delegates. If the rules allow for Bernie to go to a contested convention, then that's what will happen. Just because he wants to continue his campaign doesn't mean he is secretly planning to do the most undemocratic thing he possibly could to win. You're jumping to conclusions.

Do you get the whole fucking point of this election?

From the start it's been about how he shouldn't run, how he should drop out, how he needs to let Hillary claim victory now or "the democratic party will be destroyed and republicans will fuck us all in our sleep". This is about having a democratic election and allowing candidates to run until the end of the election so that the American people can voice their support (or not) for candidates and their policy positions.
@18 More hand waving!

Yes. I get how nominations work. I also understand math and how Democrats award delegates in the primary. There will be no contested convention. HRC will have secured enough pledged delegates prior to the convention.

And also to be clear, Sanders' campaign has argued that they are completely fine with winning the nomination even if HRC finishes with more pledged delegates and votes. There is no disputing that. And if by some miracle, HRC doesn't secure enough pledged delegates, the Sanders campaign should persue that strategy. But don't give me this horse shit that Sanders won't accept the nomination under those circumstance. He would. Sanders would compromise whatever principle you think he has to do what you call the "most undemocratic thing" to win the nomination.

Finally, primaries are not elections. They are nominating contests. I suggest you learn the difference between them.
And the winner for most preposterous non-sequitur goes to @7. Congrats @7, your twisted logic is truly something to behold.
It's kinda nice to watch the Bernie diehards squirm as it becomes increasingly apparent that Hillary is winning this race. They've claimed to speak for The People since day one, and to avoid admitting that they're in the minority they've alleged massive voter fraud by the Clinton campaign at the slightest inconsistency or disruption of polling (ignorant apparently of Hanlon's Razor), Bernie-splained incessantly to Millennials and minorities and anyone else they think should favor him, and accused anyone disagreeing with them of being a paid Clinton shill. (They're not all that different from the Tea Party that way; horseshoe theory, anyone?)
It's satisfying, in a schadenfreude kind of way, to see their legs taken out from under them a little. The latest gambit seems to be claiming that Bernie's supporters will abandon the Democratic nominee if Clinton is chosen, in a blatant attempt to hold the party hostage to a loud minority of voters (again, Tea Party comparisons abound), but thankfully the polling doesn't back that threat up.
@21, thank you. Bernie's vaunted integrity (which I took for granted for months) is looking a little frayed. And as far as what his campaign manager says is not what Bernie says or means, that's BS: if there's a disconnect there, I assume Bernie would fire him.
Trying to get superdelegates to switch has been Sanders' only path to victory for some times now, just look at the damn math. This is not an underhanded or novel tactic, it happens basically every election. Superdelegates rarely switch though, the whole idea of superdelegates is to ensure established Dems get the nomination, regardless of what voters want.

Everything is news to Matt Baume, as he is not really paying attention, and does not know how primaries work, so just ignore him.

Also, kind of surprised no one has mentioned the 60,000+ Brooklyn voters whose registrations were mysteriously changed to make them independents and lock them out of the primary right before it happened. Just perfect for conspiracy theories.
If Clinton and her supporters don't want Sanders to be chosen thanks to superdelegates, they should call for changing the delegate system now. Short of announcing that it is Clinton's new position, this is only political posturing. If you can't see it just imagine your conservative uncle telling you are a hypocrite for driving a car even though he did everything in his power, and successfully to boot, to keep public transit anemic. Yes, establishment democrats won't change the superdelegates rules and they intended to use them to their full advantage to screw Sanders over if they had to.
"fuck him."

If this person expects a blank check for Clinton, he is seriously deluded. This very same person will likely also blame Sanders's supporters if Clinton were to lose the general due to her high negative ratings.
@21 "accused anyone disagreeing with them of being a paid Clinton shill."

I have mostly seen 6 figures and above earning institutional gatekeepers accused of being pro-status quo and therefore pro-Clinton. Are you surprised or confused by the fact that most people insulated from hardship are overwhelmingly pro-status quo?
@23, @24
And yet the superdelegates as a group have never tilted the election against the popular vote winner.

What puzzles me is why people tolerate the *caucuses*. 66% more people voted in Alabama's Democratic primary than in Washington's Democratic caucus (382,000 vs 230,000), and yet Washington has 46% more people than Alabama (7 vs. 4.8 million).

WA turnout:
AL turnout:
@27 The entire process should be uniform and proportional: one person, one vote in all instances. Is that what you are calling for? Including refusing money in politics rather than claim money doesn't buy politicians like so many Clinton supporters do?
@28 Of course overturn Citizens United. So do you agree that the caucuses should be replaced with primaries?
@26: Tbh fam, I'm a little surprised you decided to beat a strawman in that post desu senpai.
It's not news to anyone that people in the upper financial echelons might favor the status quo. It's definitely news to me, a Millennial grad student from a middle-class family, that my support for Clinton means strangers accuse me outright of being paid to defend her campaign on the internets. And that is what you may notice, if you pay a little attention, that I actually said.
@29 I am not entirely sure because I also tend to believe that party members should decide platform and candidates, not the general public or your opponents. None of this addresses the elephant in the room, the 2 party system is very broken and an ever larger block of independent is blocked out of the political process

@30 people accusing each other of being paid trolls is a widespread internet phenomenon that I have witnessed for many years. It's indeed what you actually said but since it could have been understood as the now routine propaganda about Bernie Bros, i took the opportunity to point out the obvious that yes, well-paid institutional gatekeepers are more likely to be pro-Clinton for relatively well understood reason that have to do with privilege. Am I now supposed to list what I have been accused of being by Clinton supporters over the last few months?
@31: There's a difference between being wealthy and being a paid shill. (In fact, if you're wealthy, you're very unlikely to be a paid shill because you don't need the money.)
But sure, you can tell me what mean things Clinton supporters said about you of late. Make sure to include the fact that I (correctly) accused you of beating a strawman.
Sanders was a terrible candidate, never had a chance, and yeah, it's great fun to see his sycophants get all frothy and indignant over the majority of us rejecting his warmed over political science 101 screed. "Oh the humanity!" And like the Hindenburg, this lighter than air bag of gas crashed and berned long ago, like all of the other holier than thou false prophets before him (Dennis who?). Good riddance. Quit wasting our time. Show some class. Get over it.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.