RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Galindez writes: "Bernie Sanders had a good night on 'Western Tuesday' and should have an even bigger day on Saturday. Large margins in Idaho and Utah could be a sign of things to come. His campaign has always said the calendar would favor him after March 15th."

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham-Clinton. (photo: AP)
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham-Clinton. (photo: AP)


Without Super Delegates Clinton Can't Win Nomination

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

23 March 16

 

e keep hearing about how the Republicans plan to attempt to stop Donald Trump by keeping him from getting enough delegates to win on the first ballot. The only reason we are not hearing that Hillary Clinton can’t get the 2,383 delegates she needs to get across the finish line is that superdelegates can put her over the top. Nobody is pointing out that she can’t get there with just pledged delegates.

Bernie Sanders had a good night on “Western Tuesday” and should have an even bigger day on Saturday. Large margins in Idaho and Utah could be a sign of things to come. His campaign has always said the calendar would favor him after March 15th.

While it is true that if Sanders won the rest of the states 55-45 he wouldn’t catch Clinton, it is also true that if Clinton ran the table she wouldn’t get to 2382 without superdelegates. Sanders’s campaign manager Jeff Weaver said on Tuesday that they see a path to the nomination without winning every state. Weaver said they will win some states bigger than others, but there are enough delegates out there and they have models that chart the path to victory.

So let’s look at the bigger picture: After last night 53% of the pledged delegates have been chosen on the Democratic side. Clinton has 1,214 delegates and Sanders has 901. Of course, it won’t be an easy road for Sanders, but it is not impossible.

While Western Tuesday was a good night for Sanders, things have to start getting better. Bernie gained only six delegates, despite his blowout wins in Idaho and Utah. He has to start winning big in big states and not lose the biggest prize of the night in the future.

That can start to happen Saturday. Washington State is a must. He can’t afford to win 2 out of 3 again. Bernie will also need to start winning states like Wisconsin, New York, and Pennsylvania if he plans to get within striking distance to catch Clinton on June 7th. California and New Jersey are on June 7th, and if Bernie Sanders has the momentum it could be a game-changing day.

Presidential elections are about the narrative. If people on the fence believe one side can win, they can make it happen. If the narrative is that a candidate can’t win, it is hard to overcome. That is why the establishment media is attempting to sell the story that Bernie can’t win.

47% of the delegates are still up for grabs. Let’s let the people vote before we declare a winner.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
-77 # ajackl 2016-03-23 09:35
I respect your opinions Scott but that title reveals your biases in this matter. Hillary ABSOLUTELY can reach the mark without super -delegates. No question. It is even likely by most of the math people are looking at. What is more accurate is that there is a chance- albeit a slim one- that Bernie could make it if all the dominos fall in his favor. Let's not fall to the Republican flaw of inaccurate, hyping leaders. It is this kind of stuff that breeds a non-fact-based dialogue and leads to pointless arguments.
 
 
+62 # jdd 2016-03-23 11:00
There is no question that Bernie is more popular with the electorate than the widely, and rightly, distrusted HRC. He should be taking every opportunity to "boast" that the polls show he is a significantly better candidate than she to defeat Trump. Nonetheless, the nomination is rigged in her favor, when one counts "super-delegate s," mostly party hacks, and barring her indictment, unless Bernie goes right after her it won't matter. Bernie has to make a decision. If he sticks to his standard stump speech, party unity against Trump. etc.etc he loses. Or he can show some backbone and go on the offensive, forcing the issues she's so far dodged. Start by nailing her on the Goldman Sachs transcripts, the dishonesty and cover-up around her illegal email server (yes, "the damn emails"), and her warmongering tenure as First Lady, Senator and Sec. of State (her so-called foreign policy experience), especially her leading role in creating the Libya disaster as fully documented in the NYT. C'mon Bernie, your supporters have busted their behinds, don't waste their effort. The Wall Street warmonger must not become president.
 
 
+39 # Scott Galindez 2016-03-23 11:16
Actually John king stood at the map last night on CNN and showed that Hillary would fall short, but the super delegates would put her over the top.
 
 
+31 # Scott Galindez 2016-03-23 11:20
now mathematically you are correct she could pull it out...but not without running the table with bigger margins than Bernie needs to catch her.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-03-23 13:57
Adding is the most basic of mathematical skills.

And yet, I consistently see conflicting totals of pledged delegates from different sources. Can you explain this?

This article has the count at:
Clinton: 1,214 and Sanders: 901

Politifact has it at:
Clinton: 1,185 and Sanders: 897

Bloomberg states:
Clinton: 1,222 and Sanders: 918
 
 
+18 # lfeuille 2016-03-23 17:30
Scott serves as a welcome corrective to the MSM which continually jumps the gun in its eagerness to bestow the crown on Hillary. It is no more biased than the NYT and WaPo. I say keep it coming Scott.
 
 
+64 # joshs 2016-03-23 09:45
"Nobody is pointing out that she can’t get there with just pledged delegates." In fact, having watched coverage last night, the media is taking pains to avoid pointing this out, and to include superdelegates in their narratives at every opportunity.
 
 
-5 # ericlipps 2016-03-23 20:07
Quoting joshs:
"Nobody is pointing out that she can’t get there with just pledged delegates." In fact, having watched coverage last night, the media is taking pains to avoid pointing this out, and to include superdelegates in their narratives at every opportunity.

It's irrelevant to point out that Hillary "can't get there without just pledged delegates," even if it's true (and don't bet on that). Like 'em or not, the superdelegates are there, and can't be ignored just to make Bernie Sanders' chances look better.
 
 
+13 # Billy Bob 2016-03-24 22:35
I don't think it's irrelevant to point out that much of sHillary's favor has come from the establishment who only want to maintain the status quo. I don't think it's irrelevant to point out that these people are willfully subverting public opinion and totally trying to drown out, stifle and shut down public discourse in this matter. It's very relevant to know that, if push comes to shove, it will be US who are shoved out of the way, to make way for a candidate unwilling to rock the boat of 40 years of conservative bullshit destroying this country.

What's irrelevant is the argument that shoving another conservative Democrat down our throats, who talks, acts, and behaves just like a "moderate" Republican is going to somehow fix the mess Republicans have gotten us into.
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-23 10:01
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+90 # reiverpacific 2016-03-23 10:05
Interestingly, Mrs Clinton made her "victory" speech in Seattle.
I can't see Washington -or Oregon- going for anybody but Bernie Sanders.
To me, Clinton 11 is becoming a bit annoying with increasingly declamatory manner of address and is starting to flip-flop.
Also tellingly, Cruz won both Idaho and Utah as did Sanders but I can't see Arizona, Idaho nor Utah voting for a Democrat but I heard an interesting statistic on "Democracy Now!" (surely a credible source) this morning that moderate Republicans -nice to hear that a few still exist- would overwhelmingly vote for Sanders over Drumpf but NOT Clinton.
This was plainly reinforced by an interview with Scotty Anderson, former Democratic mayor of Salt Lake City who enthusiasticall y endorsed Sanders, declaring Clinton "Dangerous".
And so the plot thickens.
 
 
+28 # Henry 2016-03-23 10:16
Good info, reiver
 
 
+58 # grandlakeguy 2016-03-23 12:06
Thanks reiverpacific for your great comment.
I would like to add two points:
Clinton is not "starting to flip flop" she has always changed positions quickly whenever she thinks that a change will win more votes. Everything that she says or promises is totally suspect and if she becomes President she will immediately return to the Republican light Neocon hawk that she has always been. All of her being moved to the left by Bernie's honest convictions will be abandoned.
Regarding Mayor Anderson, known as Rocky Anderson, he won my heart during his tenure as Mayor of Salt Lake City during the G W Bush years when he announced that if Bush dared set foot in his city he would be arrested as a war criminal.
Rocky was an outsider candidate for President in 2012 and I proudly wrote him in on my ballot.
 
 
+33 # warrior woman 2016-03-23 12:37
She's not really republican light, she is a neo-con.
 
 
0 # jimallyn 2016-03-25 23:04
Quoting warrior woman:
She's not really republican light, she is a neo-con.

+1
 
 
+12 # reiverpacific 2016-03-23 15:09
Quoting grandlakeguy:
Thanks reiverpacific for your great comment.
I would like to add two points:
Clinton is not "starting to flip flop" she has always changed positions quickly whenever she thinks that a change will win more votes. Everything that she says or promises is totally suspect and if she becomes President she will immediately return to the Republican light Neocon hawk that she has always been. All of her being moved to the left by Bernie's honest convictions will be abandoned.
Regarding Mayor Anderson, known as Rocky Anderson, he won my heart during his tenure as Mayor of Salt Lake City during the G W Bush years when he announced that if Bush dared set foot in his city he would be arrested as a war criminal.
Rocky was an outsider candidate for President in 2012 and I proudly wrote him in on my ballot.

OK; so delete the "Starting" from my comment.
Thanks for the reminder.
 
 
+21 # Ken Halt 2016-03-23 13:48
Reiver: We're counting on you to deliver Oregon for Bernie, we know you can do it!!! And when the victory comes we will toast you until yer eyeballs are swimming!
 
 
+20 # reiverpacific 2016-03-23 15:15
Quoting Ken Halt:
Reiver: We're counting on you to deliver Oregon for Bernie, we know you can do it!!! And when the victory comes we will toast you until yer eyeballs are swimming!


Well, I'm not a citizen but nevertheless, we're stumping all over the North Coast for Bernie. We are with one that meets every Sunday to strategize and there are many many more in our neck of the woods, especially with young people standing at corners with "Bernie" banners and our area is hardly a "nest of radical Socialism" (self being openly so).
But fear not -I can't see Oregon, Washington or Hawaii (Or as we call it here "Pacifica") going for anybody else; California is too large and complex to call in my case.
 
 
+19 # Radscal 2016-03-23 16:04
I just watched that interview with Rocky Anderson. He said the Utah poll showed that Utah Republicans would vote Sanders over Drumpf by 48% to 37%. Wow!

He also said that 16% wouldn't even vote if it was HRC v. Drumpf.
 
 
+8 # Saberoff 2016-03-23 18:02
I have a very good friend (in Ohio) who voted for Kasich because she was so frightened and disgusted by Trump (I've seen later stats supporting this phenomena).

Could this be The Republican Plan? Scare Democrats into voting Republican, therefore taking votes away from Bernie as they know they'll lose to him; and knowing they'll win against Hillary.

Bernie has to be the biggest threat to the status quo ever was! Would you doubt for a moment they would resort to ANYTHING to insure his downfall?

Already set up? (As noted years ago)
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-03-23 18:48
I read that 70,000 registered Democrats in just 3 states changed party to vote in the Republican primaries.

We can't be sure whom they voted for or why, but I suspect many are falling for this "fear of the Drumpf" narrative, and could well be costing Sanders more votes than it is HRC.
 
 
-3 # ericlipps 2016-03-23 20:04
Not likely.

Republicans are drooling at the chance to run against EITHER Hillary or Bernie. Hillary they'll attack with all sorts of questions about her character (and be joined by huge masses of angry Berniecrats); Sanders they'll paint with a broad red brush.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-03-23 23:33
Ann Coulter disagrees.

Ann Coulter on Lou Dobbs Tonight on FOX TV.

“I wish FOX news would go a little easier on Hillary Clinton. She is the one we want to run against; if you guys would just back off, because I feel like I’m running through this de javu again.

"We used to say ‘Oh, the next President isn’t going to be this guy named Barack Hussein Obama.”

"Our next President is going to be Bernie Sanders if you people keep this up.”
 
 
+7 # rhgreen 2016-03-24 14:25
Now that is interesting, Radscal! Ann Coulter is an ass, of course, but she does represent the ass-thinkers.
 
 
+75 # Ken Halt 2016-03-23 10:07
As president HRC would be a disaster not because of her competence, which is adequate, but because she would promote corporate interests above the "common welfare". After three and a half decades of conservative rule the US already has had way too much corporatism/oli garchy: job flight, crumbling infrastructure, bloated military budget, endless war, the worst wealth inequality of any advanced nation. I'm not about to stop supporting the only qualified and capable reform candidate, Bernie Sanders!
 
 
+60 # Buddha 2016-03-23 10:17
If HRC wins simply because the SuperDelegates all bow to the "smoke-filled-r oom" corruption inherent in getting their pledged vote, the DNC does this at their peril. Progressives should demand that each state's SuperDelegates vote along with the majority decision of their State. If HRC won that state, its SD's go to her. If Sanders won that state, its SD's go to him. THEN let's see how this shakes out.
 
 
+24 # DrD 2016-03-23 10:46
"After last night ... Clinton has 1,214 delegates and Sanders has 901....Bernie gained only six delegates, despite his blowout wins in Idaho and Utah."

Scott wrote this prematurely- not all votes have been counted or delegates allocated. Currently, Clinton has 1,214 delegates and Sanders has 911. He gained 16 delegates last night (77 Bernie and 51 Hillary). A few more will be allocated after final votes (primarily from Utah) are in.
 
 
-28 # Carlosmik 2016-03-23 10:56
I think Galindez is being disingenuous. If super-delegates were eliminated and the totals won via primaries and caucuses were reallocated, Hilary would still likely win the nomination. Winning only small states (even by big margins) will not win the nomination.The fact is, Bernie's appeal is concentrated in a relatively small portion of very passionate supporters who tend to dominate caucuses, especially in predominantly Republican states. This is great for headlines but not for getting elected.
 
 
+13 # Billy Bob 2016-03-23 12:30
South of the Mason-Dixon line, Clinton has trounced Sanders.

North of the Mason-Dixon line, Sanders has trounced Clinton.

The other demographic: AGE.

If you're over 60, you vote for Clinton.

If you're under 40, you vote for Sanders.

If you're in the middle, you're in the middle.

I guess people over 60 figure they won't be alive long enough to deal with the consequences of continuing Reagan's legacy for another 4-8 years.
 
 
+30 # Jim Young 2016-03-23 12:53
I'll be 70 in chronological age when I vote for Sanders.

I did see a higher percentage of us seniors at the L.A. Bernie event (28,000+), but, unlike others who seem not to go to as many Bernie events as they can, I continue to go to events,even though I always hear the same things he has said for many years, not to see him again, but to see the many and varied new people that are seeing him for the first time.

I wonder how this compares to others who draw large crowds. Does Trump get as many new people (and unpaid attendees) at each event, or does he get more repeat attendees?

What are the ratios of supporters to protestors?

At last night's San Diego Bernie event, we only saw a single Trump supporter that amused the miles long crowd, mumbling, "... never predicted this" as he hurried past us.
 
 
+8 # rhgreen 2016-03-24 14:42
Jim, I'll be 76 when I vote in the general election. Unfortunately I will be voting in Alaska which will probably go Republican. But if it's Sanders against a hard-right Republican, there's a better chance. Alaskans are ornery. They wrote-in for Lisa Murkowski, the reasonable Repub incumbent Senator and she won against the hard right-wing Republican Tea Party backed nominee. They have elected as governor at least one Repub reject who ran on the "Alaska Independence Party" ticket. If it's Bernie against a right-wing Repub (and what else is possible?), Bernie could win. Up there they like the little guy running against the establishment. I doubt they would go for Hillary.
 
 
-13 # Rain17 2016-03-23 15:19
I didn't know that Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, and Massachusetts were all southern states.
 
 
+16 # Radscal 2016-03-23 16:09
Hey Rain, wasn't it great news to learn that Ronnie and especially Nancy Reagan led the country to "have a conversation" about HIV/AIDs when "no one else" would?

Now I'm angry at my dear friends who died of AIDS for their ignorance in blaming the Reagans for refusing to even recognize the disease, let alone provide funding to seek treatments.

If it wasn't for the heroine of the LGBT community, Hillary Clinton, I would never have known that the Reagans were so progressive.

That woman will say anything to con people into supporting her, and she is unelectable in a general election, so she will drag Congress down with her.
 
 
-24 # Rain17 2016-03-23 16:41
Sanders will be made into a caricature. Mark my words on it.
 
 
+19 # Radscal 2016-03-23 17:17
Could be. But HRC already is.
 
 
+8 # Buddha 2016-03-24 11:04
And Trump even more so.
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2016-03-23 17:33
She barely won all of them. They're statistical ties.
 
 
-9 # Rain17 2016-03-23 18:17
A win is a win. She got more votes than him. And Ohio wasn't a "tie."
 
 
+18 # Billy Bob 2016-03-23 19:30
I don't see a "win" for Clinton as a "win" for anybody else, but the military, oil companies, and banks.

Anyway:

1. Look up "statistical".

2. Ohio is one Northern state.

3. You're still focused on polls, rather than substance.

Here's a question: We know you're voting for Clinton. Besides unwarranted fears of an electorate still unwilling to rock the boat after 4 decades of Republican philosophy, WHY should ANY DEMOCRAT vote for Clinton?

Notice, I've changed the tone from, "na na na na na na! She's winning!", to WHY SHOULD WE VOTE FOR HER?

I'm still waiting for ANY good reason why she would be a better PRESIDENT than Sanders (GOOD reason - NOT lies about "experience", or "electability") .
 
 
-10 # Rain17 2016-03-24 14:43
She actually can win the general election. Bernie can't despite the delusional world most people in this board live in.
 
 
+8 # Ken Halt 2016-03-23 21:37
Rain: Since delegates are awarded proportionally, a statistical tie is not a win. Okay so she got one or two delegates more, NOT a big margin. Your defeatism is showing.
 
 
-7 # Rain17 2016-03-24 14:44
There is no defeatism showing. She has an approximately 300 delegate lead.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-03-24 22:25
The "defeatism" is in accepting the defeat of Republican policies in the guise of a "Democratic" candidate. A vote for Clinton IS DEFEAT. You're willingly accepting the notion that this country is too conservative to vote for anything to the left of Ronald Reagan.

THAT'S DEFEATISM.
 
 
+13 # Billy Bob 2016-03-23 17:36
Ooh, Speaking of Radscal calling you out for supporting a right-wing nut, let me add another bit to it (since Corporate sHillary is so well liked among "the black folks"):

Wasn't it also great in 2008 when your candidate bragged about this:

"Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again"

???

Ah! THOSE were the days, right? When Clinton actually spoke her mind, rather than parroting Sanders (after checking with the polls first, of course)!
 
 
+23 # Linda 2016-03-23 20:07
I really wish I would stop seeing these posts that suggest people over 60 are voting for Hillary . I am 71 and I voted for Bernie here in MA and I know other seniors who did the same ! Sure some elderly who aren't connected might fall back on what they thought were the good old years of Clinton ,they haven't evolved and done the research, but there are a hell of a lot of us seniors who keep up with politics and know a good candidate when we see one !
 
 
+16 # Ken Halt 2016-03-23 21:56
Linda: People are referencing (probably) accurate statistics that show older people, particularly old white guys, are more conservative and either vote Repub or will support HRC. Coincidentally I am also 71, an "Old White Guy for Bernie", as I like to fashion myself. We needn't concern ourselves with statistical trends or consider them divisive. In fact, I'm rather proud to be bucking the trend, as are other seniors I know! The positive reactions of people, many of them young, to my Bernie teeshirts and buttons is always welcome. The important thing is that whatever our age/race/gender /sexual orientation/cat owner/dog owner/etc., we all support Bernie in his bid for highest office. He is the real deal, a man of integrity, a once-in-a-lifet ime candidate along the lines of a Lincoln or Roosevelt. You know what I mean, you're feeling the Bern as am I!!
 
 
+7 # Desiderata 2016-03-24 19:05
This being the case ,Bernie supporters need to figure out a way ASAP to prevent the Clinton machine from stealing the election. Because they are in the process and no one is addressing this. Once they have succeeded it will be too late.
Arizona ?
 
 
+6 # Cassandra2012 2016-03-24 16:39
" The other demographic: AGE.

If you're over 60, you vote for Clinton.

If you're under 40, you vote for Sanders."

Uh, simple-minded and inaccurate. I am 75, and definitely prefer Bernie... [ I still can hear echos of FDR's voice over the radio during WWII.....] but will vote for whoever, in the end wins the Democratic primaries fair and square ... bc Der Drumpf is an echo of Hitler with a puss like Mussolini's!

My pals --- varying in age from 40 to 80 are all Bernie-gals too!
 
 
+40 # Billy Bob 2016-03-23 12:33
Also, those "passionate" supporters propel Sanders WAY above any Republican candidate in November.

The lukewarm support Clinton has isn't enough to make sure a Republican WON'T win.

I'm too cautious about November. That's why I'm supporting Sanders. I want to WIN.
 
 
+23 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-03-23 14:47
Trump will beat Hillary. He will call her out. He already said he "bought" her. He will call out the corruption of the Clintion Foundation getting money from people who had business with Dept. of State when she was Secretary of State. This obvious corruption will not fly in this election season of anti-establishm ent.

Go Bernie!
 
 
-13 # Rain17 2016-03-23 15:25
And they will call Bernie a Communist. They will bring up his writings from the 1970s, when he called for nationalizing industries. They'll attack Bernie for going to Nicaragua to support the Sandanistas. They'll bring up that Bernie went to the Soviet Union while mayor of Burlington. They'll replay his comments where he says he's a socialist over and over again. They'll call him a Communist. They'll bring up his being a conscientious objector during the Vietnam war. They'll bring up that he has said that he supports higher taxes. All of these things will be in negative ads that will dominate the airwaves.
 
 
+25 # Buddha 2016-03-23 16:18
And that will play with morons and people who are old and still believe we are in the Cold War against Russia. For people with a brain, and people who grew up in the post-Wall-falli ng world, tired Red-baiting is tired.
 
 
-9 # Rain17 2016-03-23 16:42
You underestimate how effective those ads will be. It will make Bernie radioactive in suburban precincts in this country. As it is about half this country has stated in polls that they will not vote for a Socialist.
 
 
+14 # Ken Halt 2016-03-23 22:07
Rain: The current POTUS is at this moment visiting Cuba. The "communist" witch hunt is not a big deal anymore, particularly among the younger demographic. And Bernie is a self-proclaimed social democrat in the mold of FDR, the pres who single-handedly did more to create a large and educated middle class than any other US figure. Sorry, I'm willing to trust the US electorate on this one. That said, the two of us are merely speculating, polls show that Bernie is by far the stronger candidate in the general election.
 
 
+8 # Buddha 2016-03-24 11:06
FFS, for 8 years we've heard that OBAMA is a Marxist. It is tired. I welcome Trump to call Sanders that on a national debate and him making Trump look like a bigger fool than he already is...
 
 
+20 # Billy Bob 2016-03-23 17:41
Yep. Sanders is a Democrat. So, yep, Trump will call him a "communist".

The problem is that most of the electorate isn't over 70 years old, and that most of the electorate would LOVE another FDR (who makes Sanders look like Grover Norquist in comparison).

Once again, nice try, Rain, but it's a bit hard to attack someone with integrity. I know the whole concept of integrity is a bit of a sore issue to Clintonites, and is even a bit confusing for most of you, but for some reason, people seem to be lapping it up. It seems like the whole integrity thing might just be one of the reasons why Sanders does so much better against any Republican opponent than Clinton (the Democratic Party's answer to Mitt Romney).
 
 
-8 # Rain17 2016-03-23 18:20
Those ads will run nonstop. Dukakis led Bush in 1888, but still lost. The problem is that Sanders is not well-known yet. But I'd love to becwrong, but I see Sanders losing badly once everyone finds aboutvhis radical past.
 
 
+15 # Billy Bob 2016-03-23 19:35
Actually, you are wrong. You'd love to be right, because you prefer Clinton. You don't have to make things up.

I'm looking for a candidate with a radical PRESENT AND FUTURE.

Because RADICALISM is EXACTLY what we need right now.

It's going to require radicalism to undo 40 years of Reagan's presidency, and time is running out on the environment, the economy, the hope of ever ending the perpetual war for profit, and our civil rights and liberties.

P.S. 1888, was a long time ago, and our country has come a long way since then. It's time for our politicians to reflect that.

Clinton may be a woman, but in many ways, she's still stuck in 1888.
 
 
-7 # Rain17 2016-03-24 00:57
You know I meant to type 1988. You may think we need "radicalism", but I am not sure voters in swing states agree with you.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2016-03-24 22:26
1. Either way, you're certainly not talking about THIS century.

2. "Radicalism" would include gay marriage and gays in the military. I'm guessing you're ok with radicalism in those cases, right?
 
 
-2 # ericlipps 2016-03-23 20:10
Er . . . 1888?
 
 
-3 # Rain17 2016-03-24 00:58
I meant 1988.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-03-24 07:35
Are you sure?

1888 seems more in line with your wishes.

Look up "Freudian slip".
 
 
+20 # Linda 2016-03-23 20:58
What is so radical about being on the right side of history ? Our country was wrong in arming the rebels in Nicaragua ,the Sandinistas weren't the bad guys and Daniel Ortega was that country's elected leader! Bernie wasn't the only one who sided with the Sandinistas I did too and so did my Sociology professor in college as well as many Amherst college students in Boston !
The problem is we have been programed by our government to fear all these boogiemen in these foreign countries that our country wants to invade or regime change that we haven't stopped long enough to notice our own country has become the boogieman for profit and power !
Only the uninformed and the closed minded would ever see Bernie for anything other than what he is ,an honest, peacekeeper who really cares about the less fortunate and the underdog !
Well it just so happens my favorite cartoon as a kid was Underdog ! I believe in freedom and justice and economic equality for all !
 
 
+3 # Jim Young 2016-03-24 00:47
My old economics professor had worked for Dukakis' when he won the first Governor's term as an idealist, and the second which he lost having not learned how to work within the real power structure in the state. He ran again and won, but without my professor's support (which he said was because he had corrupted himself too much, in pursuing the victory. I saw him later, and liked him again after he seemed to have learned to stand on his principles (free from having to play the politician's game). Then he was on replay of Tavis Smiley's show from a couple days ago, back to seeming like the "politician" again, backing Hillary, as other "machine" democrats seem to think they have to do.

We do appreciate most Democrats who kept things from being worse, but will be telling them to leave some room for Bernie or have a note added to their "unfavorable information file" for future reference if we find someone less objectionable.
 
 
-18 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-23 11:27
ANYTHING is possible. But HRC is WAY, WAY ahead of BS in pop vote, even ahead of "phenom" Trump. Superdelegates will note that, long with H's appeal to Latinas and AAs. The pot of gold is at the end of the rainbow. Super delegates know that BS hasn't been vetted. Yes, momentum is YUUGE. But don't count your chickens. And learn from role model Bernie Sanders not to savage HRC. Focus: "The business model of Wall St. is FRAUD." "Get the Waltons off of WELFARE." Brilliant argument in support of a "Living Wage." You go, Bernie. You go, Berners. Very impressive so far.
 
 
+30 # Ken Halt 2016-03-23 13:37
SOGM: Please stop with the baloney, some of your comments sound as if transcribed from a Sarah Palin speech. Bernie has more experience in the rough and tumble of politics than HRC and has been very effective in Congress, introducing the all-time largest number of passed amendments (thank you, Navyvet). He has been very impressive in debate while running a clean and above-board campaign. While HRC may be ahead in aggregate votes in primaries, a lot of those votes are in states that will probably go red in Nov., in reliably blue and swing states Bernie is doing very well, thank you. No one on this thread is counting chickens or even looking at eggs, we're ALL IN for Bernie, encouraging each other, working hard to get the best candidate through the convention and into the oval office. WE, NOT ME!!! GO BERNIE!
 
 
+13 # reiverpacific 2016-03-23 15:17
Quoting Shades of gray matter:
ANYTHING is possible. But HRC is WAY, WAY ahead of BS in pop vote, even ahead of "phenom" Trump. Superdelegates will note that, long with H's appeal to Latinas and AAs. The pot of gold is at the end of the rainbow. Super delegates know that BS hasn't been vetted. Yes, momentum is YUUGE. But don't count your chickens. And learn from role model Bernie Sanders not to savage HRC. Focus: "The business model of Wall St. is FRAUD." "Get the Waltons off of WELFARE." Brilliant argument in support of a "Living Wage." You go, Bernie. You go, Berners. Very impressive so far.


Very apt that phrase of yours "But HRC is WAY,WAY ahead of BS---"
Agreed, if y'r capitalized abbreviation means "Bull Shit"!
 
 
+10 # Linda 2016-03-23 21:16
Don't be so sure that she actually won those votes in North Carolina or in the south there have been a lot of shenanigans going on this primary race . Hillary doesn't have the black and Latino votes like you think she does .AZ was another state where Latinos and Native American's ,Independents and Libertarians were disenfranchised which worked in Hillary's favor not Bernie's ! http://www.wallstreetshill.com/ncarolina/
 
 
+38 # grandlakeguy 2016-03-23 11:29
I expect to see the following MSM headlines regarding last night:

CLINTON TROUNCES SANDERS IN ARIZONA!

SANDERS EDGES OUT CLINTON IN IDAHO and UTAH!

That would certainly be true to form for the highly biased coverage of this election!
 
 
+24 # Ralph 2016-03-23 13:05
The headlines don't even mention the wins in Idaho and Utah.
 
 
-8 # ericlipps 2016-03-23 20:12
Quoting Ralph:
The headlines don't even mention the wins in Idaho and Utah.

Does anyone else notice how the smaller and whiter the state, the better Sen. Sanders does? Let's see how he does in California, Texas, Pennsylvania and New York.
 
 
-5 # Rain17 2016-03-24 00:56
TX already voted and Sanders lost badly there.
 
 
+22 # Radscal 2016-03-23 14:17
Here's the Washington Post headline:

"Clinton, Trump win delegate-rich Arizona, but falter in Utah and Idaho"

The article then refers to AZ as "a blow to" Sanders.

And Sanders' wins " have done little to improve his overall standing."

And NO WHERE in the article does it mention the actual numbers of delegates won by any candidate.

I fear that few USians still have the critical thinking skills necessary to read through the PR scripts of the corporate media.
 
 
+15 # Linda 2016-03-23 21:29
CNN was no better in their reporting Bernie's wins . Before he won Utah and Idaho they said he would have to get at least 60% of the votes to possibly catch up to her and when he got 75 +79% they acted as if it really was no big deal and made a big deal out of HRC's win in AZ. Media sucks big time !
 
 
+4 # Desiderata 2016-03-24 19:18
Bernie is being downplayed everywhere because he is not the "Chosen Candidate"
The Dice are loaded and not in his favour.
Remember what happened last time Bush Vs Gore ?
Reign in your media , rat out voter fraud and do it now & loudly otherwise the # of delegates super or otherwise will have nothing to do with Hillary's victory. Sorry ,but I think the writing is on the wall .
A Bernie Sanders scares your establishment a lot more than the idea of a black president did .That fear
has created the media blackout . That fear will drive them to oust him one way or another. Don't let it happen. our borders are too close !
 
 
+14 # economagic 2016-03-23 11:55
I would LOVE to see ALL of the prognosticators and horse-race callers just STOP -- including the ones whose prognostication s I would like to believe! It is every bit as much a distraction from all aspects of "progressing" when "progressives" do it as when the MSM do it (or "does it," if by MSM we mean TV infotainment, as many do). Fight until the battle is over, then take a breath and find the next battle.
 
 
+11 # Radscal 2016-03-23 14:22
Chris Hayes interviewed Sanders the other night (the interview in which Sanders referred to Netanyahu as a "right wing extremist).

He asked Sanders if there was one question he wishes the media would ask more often, and Sanders said exactly what you just wrote. Stop the horse-race "reporting" and focus on each candidate's position on the actual issues.

After that interview, Hayes mentioned his "March Madness" bracketing gameshow on the primaries. Anyone who has never seen this continuing "feature" that literally is a gameshow based on NCAA basketball brackets is better off for not having been insulted.
 
 
-2 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-23 12:09
Pollyannish prognosticators and rationalizers, spin doctors, apologists.
Please focus on the doable, e.g., Min Wage. The instructive: "The business model of Wall St. is FRAUD." "Get the Waltons off of welfare." The helpful: Uncle Sam prescription drug insurance, a public OPTION. The necessary: FULL SERVICE Urban Education Campuses. Infrastructure JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
 
 
+10 # lfeuille 2016-03-23 17:45
Trying to turn Bernie into Hillary again, I see. I prefer Bernie's own platform.
 
 
-21 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-23 12:45
Is Scott reporting or leading the pom poms? Would Marc please instruct Scott to to do some actual REPORTING and research Bernie's political background as a fringe party candidate, activist so we can see what Berners would be up against if $2B is spent in negative ads.
Earn you way, Scott. No freebies.
 
 
+14 # Indie 2016-03-23 15:01
Part of the problem with Bernie Sanders campaign is that the media barely mentions him. The Democratic establishment wants Clinton, but how will Independents vote in the election? The establishment in both parties are mistrusted. The Republicans have no viable alternative to Trump, but the Democrats do in Bernie Sanders.
 
 
-7 # ericlipps 2016-03-23 20:15
Quoting Indie:
Part of the problem with Bernie Sanders campaign is that the media barely mentions him. The Democratic establishment wants Clinton, but how will Independents vote in the election? The establishment in both parties are mistrusted. The Republicans have no viable alternative to Trump, but the Democrats do in Bernie Sanders.

The Democratic establishment does NOT want Clinton. It didn't want her husband in 1992, either. It's terrified that with Bernie it will be 1972 all over again.
 
 
-7 # Rain17 2016-03-24 00:56
That's why I'm not supporting Bernie. I think he's George McGovern II waiting to happen.
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2016-03-24 07:49
Do you mean the same George McGovern who went to the convention as the people's choice, only to have their opinions erased by the party establishment in '68, in favor of a pro-war candidate (Humphrey) who was trounced in the general by Nixon?

YEP!

And Clinton is HUMPHREY II.

-------

P.S. This is turning into 1968, and you walked right into that one. Trump has to get elected 1st, to be the incumbent. With Hill-bert Humphrey as our candidate, that's now more possible, thanks to people like you.

--------

Sanders is becoming another Bobby Kennedy.
 
 
-8 # Rain17 2016-03-24 14:41
I think it's the Republicans who are facing their own 1968. The difference is that Bernie is not the "people's choice". More Democrats have voted for Hillary through now. If Bernie were the "people's choice" he would be winning the race right now. He isn't.
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2016-03-24 22:27
The people haven't spoken. The South has. And fear mongering has.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-03-24 08:25
On further reflexion, to further your game (where the rules are that we can't live in this decade, but must assume it's 50 years ago):

I just realized, Trump is NO Nixon.

HILLARY IS NIXON.

Sanders is McGovern.

Hillary is Nixon.

I'm voting against Nixon this time.
 
 
-4 # Rain17 2016-03-24 14:42
You sound ridiculous.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2016-03-24 22:28
And you sound like a hypocrite who can't make any arguments based on substance.
 
 
-7 # Rain17 2016-03-23 15:16
The math still doesn't work for Sanders, his wins last night notwithstanding . He barely dented Clinton's lead.

I don't see him winning states like CT, NJ, and NY. Clinton was a popular senator in NY and Wall Street is there too. Financial interests are big in states like CT, NJ, and NY. The same applies for Delaware. I don't see Bernie winning in any of those states.
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2016-03-23 17:48
The real problem here, rain, is that if we don't get Sanders elected, things are going to continue a rapidly accelerating downward spiral.

Clintonites, seem ONLY interested in the polls and the fact that she's currently winning. Just like Clinton herself, all of you ONLY seem concerned with her "winning". The actual ISSUES themselves don't ever seem to "make a dent" in your radar.

It's pretty obvious that most of you would gleefully support Trump, or Reagan, or Romney, or McCain, or even Jeb Bush, if they had run as Democrats, and had the money and establishment support to drown out the progressive/lib eral message.

If Clinton is substantially to the left of any of those candidates she's hiding it pretty well. I know you only care about gay rights and to hell with everyone else, but, even on that, I'll leave you with, yet another quote (before she "evolved" to agree with Sanders' position that he's held consistently all along):

“...the fundamental bedrock principle that [marriage] exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults."

-----

It's hard to tell how she won the Old Confederacy so well, given that she's such a believer in "EVOLUTION"…

LOL!
 
 
-7 # Rain17 2016-03-23 18:21
Wins and math are what matters here.
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2016-03-23 19:36
Who wins? True to every post you've ever written, you're incapable of substance.

Clinton may very well "win". And, if she does, we all lose.

I'm not ok with that.
 
 
-7 # Rain17 2016-03-24 00:54
Then take it up with the millions of voters who apparently don't agree with you.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-03-24 07:52
I'm taking it up with you right now, to show that you lack substance. And it's obvious that I'm proving my point.
 
 
+10 # Ken Halt 2016-03-23 22:20
Rain: The trouble with your "wins and math" is that polls show Bernie to be the stronger candidate in Nov. He is a candidate that Dems, independents, and progressives, even some Repubs, will vote FOR, rather than hold their noses and pull the lever, or even repudiate in the voting booth.
 
 
-5 # Rain17 2016-03-24 00:55
Ken--That's because the negative ads against Bernie have not started. Mark my words, once they run the ads making him look like a Marxist radical, support will drop for him. I know the standard answer here is to put your hands on your ears and scream, "Lalalala! I can't hear you"; but Sanders's radical past is almost certainly going to be turned into toxic, devastatingly effective negative ads.
 
 
+7 # Saberoff 2016-03-23 18:25
See Bernie winning in Wisconsin.
 
 
-9 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-23 15:24
African Americans didn't risk, struggle, sacrifice, to stick their highly vulnerable necks out in pursuit of "Godless revolutionary socialism." Neither did Latinos. Bernie can't win without a dramatically larger share. An earlier start on this may have made sufficient difference. Will SEEM to many as a bit late, opportunistic now. The pot of gold lies with a rainbow coalition, well over half female.
 
 
-8 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-23 15:31
Gabby Giffords is campaigning with Hillary. Is she a Wall Street lapdog? Idiot? War monger? Do Berners need to stop and smell the tea leaves? You betcha. It is PAST the 11th hour. Note Warren's lack of endorsement, and her fusillade against Trump. Is she a Wall Street puppet? Moron? Closet Palin?
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-03-23 17:48
She is a single issue campaigner. Her organization cares about nothing but guns. Bernie has won all the progressive groups with wider focus. I don't know is she is a wall street lap dog or not. She doesn't share her views on any other issue.
 
 
-8 # Rain17 2016-03-23 18:22
Then why have minorities, women, and other parts of the base not "felt the Bern" yet?
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2016-03-23 19:39
I don't know why blacks (you can say "black") haven't voted for the candidate who clearly supported their concerns for the past 40 years, and didn't throw them under the bus over and over the way Clinton has.

I really DON'T KNOW.

Regarding women, you mean "women over 65".

Regarding "other parts of the base" - which parts? Be specific?

Do you consider warmongers, wall-street whores, and, yes, RACISTS (like Clinton herself) to be "other parts of the Democratic base"? If not, be more specific, because that's always been her "clientele".
 
 
-6 # Rain17 2016-03-24 14:40
Hispanics haven't "felt the Bern" either. So why hasn't Bernie done well with those groups who are part of the base? The fact is that, the more diverse the state, the worse Bernie has fared in it.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2016-03-24 22:29
Once again, I HAVE NO IDEA why people of any ethnicity would willingly vote for Clinton, knowing full well her history of obvious racism.

Do you have any theories about why they're voting for an obvious racist who's sold them out time and time again?
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-03-25 22:47
The thing is that they don't know it. If they did, they wouldn't vote for her.
 
 
+1 # Jim Young 2016-04-02 14:59
You must not have met all the "Hispanics" that outnumber all others of us at Bernie events here in California, 28,000 at the biggest, I'm guessing 16,000 to 20,000 lined up at the second biggest, and hundreds at the smaller events we went to.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-03-24 00:05
Yes, HRC got Ms. Gifford's endorsement, and paraded her all over AZ, and flooded the airwaves with her face and heartbreakingly diminished voice. Before the attempted murder, she was a bright and well spoken woman. Seeing, and especially listening to her now tugs hard on my heartstrings.

Now, Ms.Gifford had been a pretty conservative, "Blue Dog" Democrat before the murderous attack. She was replaced by another rather conservative Democrat, (who was also shot in that heinous act of political terrorism), and that candidate has barely won reelection twice since (close as in less than 200 vote difference).

I mention this because, like the Southern States Ms. Clinton won, AZ has been pretty solidly Republican for decades. It's been 20 years since they voted Democratic in a Presidential race, and that was with a 2% margin.

So, AZ is not likely to help any Democrat win the Presidential election.

But those Democrats who did vote in the primary were no doubt emotionally drawn to simpatico with Gabby Giffords.
 
 
+10 # grandlakeguy 2016-03-23 21:16
I just returned from a Bernie organizing event where I learned something important that I did not know.
ATTENTION CALIFORNIA VOTERS: if you want to vote for Bernie in the primary(or HRC but please don't)you MUST be registered as a Democrat or "no preference"!
I just went online and changed my status from independent, which would have prevented me from supporting my candidate, to Democrat.
go to:
registertovote.ca.gov
to insure that you can support Bernie in our June primary (or Hillary if you must but please consider her record on war before you support her).
Do not get turned away from the polls for this technicality.
SPREAD THE WORD!
 
 
+8 # Ken Halt 2016-03-23 22:24
grandlake: Thanks so much for this information! Let's turn out the vote for Bernie in CA. If Bernie wins CA the convention is definitely going to be slugfest and may the best (wo)man win! GO BERNIE!
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-03-24 00:21
Wow! THANK YOU for that info.

Apparently, the Democratic Party chose who to allow to vote in the primary, and they chose only Democrats and non-aligned voters.

It also appears that, in the General Election, voters can write-in certain candidates even though only the top-two vote-getters from the Primary will be on the ballot.
 
 
0 # Jim Young 2016-04-02 15:17
The [California] Democrats accept no preference and registered Democrats to vote for Presidential candidates in particular. My understanding is you must be a Registered Democrat to vote for the party delegates [,though], which I will finally do so that I can help vote for Bernie delegates. They do proportional delegate selection, by the way, not "winner" take all, like my old party seems to have screwed themselves with as they thought to game the system, not expecting Trump to trump them at their own corrupt little game.

A Republican strategist tried to justify their rigging "winner" take all in some states vs selected states where they want proportional assignment of Electoral College delegates since the mixed rules applied to the best combination of states would continue to have them able to get a higher percentage of "representative s" than percentages of a straight popular vote would give them.

In the past, artful Gerrymandering by either party could produce a percent or 2 of difference, and usually balanced out. Since they went on an ALEC tear at so many local and state leverage points, especially with the major effort to control redistricting after the 2010 census, they seem to have been able to get 3 or 4% more, and to have tipped far more their way than they let slip the other way. An example of the Gerrymandering, to me, was Adam Clayton Powell's district, where they concentrated votes they didn't want in nearby districts. He'd get 80% even when most criminal.
 
 
+4 # LandLady 2016-03-23 23:05
1)Even though I wish Shades of Gray were wrong, I fear he is right because I think too many Americans don't even know that there is an alternative to the MSM, much less that there is a lot of criticism of it. They just watch the tube (too much), accept, obey. 2) I hope that out of this mess can come the destruction of the Super Delegates system in the Dem party. Where did that totally ANTI-democratic depravity come from anyway?
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-03-24 21:51
says # Billy Bob 2016-03-23 19:30
I don't see a "win" for Clinton as a "win" for anybody else, but the military, oil companies, and banks.

- there are two reasons why your comment is strictly nonsense -

1) this election involves more than military, oil, and banks

2) no GOP candidate can match hill's lesser, but still, distinctly progressive, views on military, oil, and banks - yeah! that's right! - GOP be crazy! - sorry!
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-03-24 22:31
Hill the Shill isn't running for president yet. We're still talking about the Democratic nomination, and I'm interested in the candidate most likely to BEAT THE REPUBLICANS IN NOVEMBER - SANDERS.
 
 
+2 # Promoting Peace 2016-03-26 00:22
Bernie is between a rock and a hard place. He has to choose whether to truly attack Hillary and try to destroy her, or to keep hoping that staying positive and promoting himself will eventually work.

On one hand, I believe he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hillary, even with her tremendous "flaws", would be massively better than any of the GOP Clowns.

Bernie has pushed her much more towards the left, towards sanity, etc. And, she would be better for the environment, for health care, for social programs, etc., than Trump of Cruz, although no where near as great as Bernie would be.

And, with the Supreme Court vacancies coming up, I feel Bernie would do anything possible to keep the billionaire Trump, or the lunatic Cruz, from making future Supreme Court appointments.

So, he doesn't want to destroy Hillary in case he doesn't make it, but yet he's very aware of the crap he could use against her if he so chose. It must be extremely tempting to go down that negative road.

Bernie's nature isn't to go negative, however, and for him to make that change would cost him a loss of respect from many people, and possibly cost him the election in the end.

It's got to be an incredibly difficult place for him to be in, and we can only hope that somehow he/we can pull this off.

And, if somehow he doean't make it, we must keep up this momentum going and elect Elizabeth in 2020.

Feel the Bern, and make it happen!
 
 
+3 # Phillybuster 2016-03-26 16:24
A preview of Hillary after the inauguration:

Aide: "Madam President, you have a conference call waiting with Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein on the line!"

Hillary: "Just when I thought I was out, they PULL me back in!"

Aide whispers to second aide: "When was she ever out?"

Second aide replies: "She's been practicing that line ever since Sanders became a serious contender."
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN