I’m calling it: Bernie Sanders is the Democratic Nominee
Bernie is surging and, hounded by legal troubles, Clinton is fading. Wisconsin sets up well for Sanders and the Wisconsin momentum is going to carry him through New York and Pennsylvania. That is enough to wipe out Clinton’s meager 230 delegate lead by the end of March.
But beyond the polls, Sanders has (and Clinton is desperately lacking in) an essential ingredient. LIKABILITY.
Dismiss it as misogyny if you like, but you can’t get around the fact that Democratic voters are not rallying to Clinton. She has yet to ignite any support that registers at any temperature above luke-warm (outside of Wall Street). I’m willing to allow that her lack of momentum is a mix of queasy feelings about her investigation clouded candidacy, and her campaign theme of “radical centrism.” Democratic primary voters have no stomach for either one.
As a party, we seem to have realized (at long last) that our political system is fucked, and more of the same isn’t going to fix it. Over the past 8 years, we’ve see what happens when the Democratic Party starts every political debate so close to the magical “center.”
Democrats “win” the Sunday talking heads, but lose everywhere else.
Critics of this early pronouncement will point to Wisconsin polls that show Secretary Clinton in front. To them I say, look at Michigan. The pollsters still aren’t calling cell phone only households. They’ll say “New York is her home state” and I’ll say.. it is proportional. Politics is all about momentum. Bernie has it, and he is going to keep having it.
My God, this is the dumbest post you have ever written. I challenge you to bet that, if you are wrong, you will eat this post (after printing it out on paper).
Put your money where your mouth is.
As much as the people who write for this blog bitch about people like Carper I haven’t figured out the hateful attitude towards Sanders.
Deldem.. mind if I ask, are you a super-delegate? I was just pondering that you “could be” and this popped up so I’d just thought I’d ask.
Get ready for the boomersplaination about how Wisconsin doesnt really matter. the DNC campaign’s (I can no longer refer to it as the Clinton campaign, since it is now obvious who is running the show) only argument now is “what are you gonna do, let Trump win?”
That argument was MORE than enough to get my vote until this past week. These landslides… and if you don’t call it a landslide, you’re a liar… do away with this “electablity question”.
No, I am not a super delegate. I have already identified who Delaware’s superdelegates are. Google Delaware Liberal Superdelegates and you will find it.
I look forward to Hillary’s Ohio-style landslides wins in New York, California, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania and watch you Sanderista Berniebros eat your words.
We never came up with a pejorative name for knee jerk Clinton supporters. Do you know why?
We don’t need one.
that’s friggin ugly, dude. You just responded to a massive landslide against your candidate with insults… where you’ve tried to demand fealty from “berniebros” after every Clinton win. It’s no different from the GOP style of campaigning. If you are unable to show why you are better, demonize your opponent and your opponent’s supporters. ugly.
Were these Bernie wins really a surprise? I had calculated these wins (and a few more coming) prior to this past weekend’s primaries.
What bothers me is the way we discuss the primary as state wins instead of delegate count. It’s 100% delegate math, and in 2008 we pointed it out constantly. Can Bernie win? Sure, anything is possible, but it isn’t probable. Hillary is running Obama’s 2008 primary plan and Sanders is running Clinton’s 2008 primary plan. It’s uncanny.
Pandora, Except for the part about voters being energized by one candidate’s positions and enervated by the other.
What bother’s me is how the establishmentistas (see, DD i can make up fun words too) constantly find new ways to minimize huge Sanders wins. Yes, it’s all about the delegate math. What does it say about your “democratic party” when you’re fleeing to non-constitutional (meaning, it’s just your club rules) rules to try and resist a major tide?
Yes, the margin of victory was a huge surprise. Can you honestly say it doest matter? not in the vacuum that is the DNC… I mean in the overall picture, can you really say a victory like that means nothing?
If he replicates that victory in a diverse state or a state with a primary instead of a caucus I’ll be impressed and buy it. It was an exciting night for the Bernie folks, but he’ll probably only gain 66 to 75 delegates from it. He’d have to sustain that margin in some of the diverse primary states coming up to catch up. It’s not about passion or momentum….it’s about math, a math that strongly still favors Clinton at this point. It would take a HUGE momentum shift to change that, and we’re simply not seeing that swing at this point in national or later state polls. I doubt we will with Obama running in the 50 plus approval rating.
Ben,
I don’t have any problem with the Democratic Party setting up its rules, as un”Democratic” as they may be. If you don’t like it, join the party and get in on these circle jerks.
With regard to super delegates – they’ll follow along the pledged. Nobody wants to be seen giving Clinton the nomination in some smoke filled backroom.
First, I really like Hillary Clinton. I am excited to vote for her. And given the primary vote totals so are a lot of other people. I have avoided getting into it here because the crap that comes flying back has me tuning out. Perhaps I’d have written more about my support if the race was tighter, but I guess I’m already in general election mode – ready to unite the party and mindful of causing further divide.
I’m fine with everyone liking their candidate – shame we spend more time trashing candidates then discussing their policies. Never understood the need to turn Hillary, one of the most accomplished candidates we have, into a horrible, evil person.
@Ben, the primary is club rules and that’s not unconstitutional. Doesn’t mean I like it, but given your standard then all primaries should be open to everyone, including Republicans. Yeah, I’m not okay with that. I’m also having trouble figuring out why a proudly anti-establishment candidate would even want the establishment support.
I like Hillary too. I don’t feel the animosity Republicans do. When I see the college photos of a young Bill and Hillary flower-power Clinton, I remember they are from the generation that was supposed be some kind of different and take over the world. And they did. But now Bernie carries the spirit of that age.
But I still like Hillary, and I’m voting for the Democrat this fall. If she can manage to make some concessions ($15/hr wage, no Wall Street in the cabinet, etc.) my vote for Hillary won’t be with a heavy heart. So keep on truckin’ Bernie, until Hillary makes some concessions to unify the party.
When calculating political maneuvering, it is always good policy to first calculate how America wins and then calculate a candidate’s campaign to follow that pathway.
If you wait in a doctor’s office and flip through the 15 magazines in front of you reading only headlines and photo captions, it becomes obvious very quickly only one candidate is putting America over himself..
It becomes obvious, change for the better can only come about from that one candidate… WE may survive under other candidates if they win. but life under them will be far less better than the ideal we could have had by choosing rightly.
Historically, we survived under Bush but had Gore beaten him, what a difference today would be… back in 2000 we put all our winnings on one bad hand of blackjack…
In the policy arena, I’m not clear on how does Clinton’s policy on Wall St regulation, wars or trade deals that benefit only top corporate folk differ from the Republicans?
“It becomes obvious, change for the better can only come about from that one candidate… WE may survive under other candidates if they win. but life under them will be far less better than the ideal we could have had by choosing rightly.”
It’s over the top comments like these that have me shaking my head. “WE may survive under other candidates if they win.” Looks like you’re lumping Hillary in there. Fine. Whatever. While you’re at it, please explain, in detail, how that change for the better actually comes about. And “political revolution” isn’t an answer.
Remember, I’m the one fine with incrementalism – because I believe it actually works. I learned that the hard way with the “pro-life” movement and the great way with the gay rights movement and the ACA. If I’m wrong about this approach, then convince me you’re right.
@mouse: Republicans are soft-peddling any mention of Wall Street this year, but you know if elected they will hand them the keys to the kingdom.
The reality exists for Sanders to get more overall votes and lose the nomination. Consider the lopsided Washington win, VS how the delegates were awarded. Everyone also needs to understand how bad that will be for the party.
I understand that is totally legal. I understand parties can do what they want …
also, I know it’s semantics, but i said “non-constitutional” instead of “unconstitutional” for a reason..
I still say this “electability” BS is settled. Of course the Party will have to keep insisting Sanders is unelectable…. it’s really the only argument they have.
Pandora… you shake your head at comments like “that”, but wont say boo to DD about salty comments like the first one in this thread? The fact is, Boomers are sneering down their establishment noses at people they have well and truly screwed over. Clinton would make a fantastic president, but she has cast her lot with a group that is increasingly unpopular. The longer she waits to try and appeal to the “berniebros” (many of whom are young women, so that is a VERY sexist thing to say) the less genuine it will seem.
“If I’m wrong about this approach, then convince me you’re right.”
I think the Civil Rights Act, though it was about 200 years too late, was an example of bucking incrementalism. It was sweeping, it was radical, and it was unpopular with much of the country, but it was the right thing to do.
Not the ONLY argument..
1) He is old.
2) His supporters are young a-holes who don’t understand reality.
3) Trump will be mean to him.
4) McGovern and Dukakis lost.
But, yes. Pretty thin gruel.
It’s that number 2 argument that turns me off the most to the DNC campaign.
How old do i have to be before I’m old enough to “understand reality” ?
Consider that many of his supporters are the same age Sanders was when he was getting arrested for standing up for what right… or the same age Biden was when he first became a Senator…. or the age Hillary Clinton was when she was supporting Barry Goldwater…..
Still waiting to hear why those margins of victory over the weekend dont matter.
Gee, a lot of Sander’s “landslides” are in caucus states on extremely low turnout. With that said, regardless of the candidate, I will be voting for the Democratic nominee.
First, I’m not DD’s mother. The comment was directed at Jason. I’ll argue my points, and only my points, thank you. Not being snarky. It’s really not my job and why you’d think it is baffles me, because, by that standard, I should be asking you to call out commenters who attack Clinton. That’s not fair. I’ll answer your comments and not ask you to defend/call out others.
And the Civil Rights Act is a fascinating study in history and the more I consider the environment the more I come to realize that LBJ was in the right place at the right time – sorta like Nixon with China.
I haven’t referred to anyone as a Berniebro, but I do chuckle at how sexism is used in regards to Bernie and dismissed (or even how gender is claimed to be an advantage for Hillary. That killed me yesterday.) when it comes to an actual woman. That bothers me.
I said this in the other thread, but it’s probably worth saying again… Whoever isnt Trump will get a lot of support from women. That cannot be denied.
It is not because women will vote for Hillary because they share XX chromosomes. It is because he is an insulting, misogynistic piece of shit. Sanders would get the same kind of land-slide support from women… or any ethnic/religious minority.
LBJ maybe have been “in the right place” (and yes, a lot of the groundwork was done by the Kennedys) but he still had to sign the damn thing. He still had to knowingly disenfranchise a large chuck of his own party (kind of like cutting off a gangrenous limb).
Really? The Barry Goldwater line? And to pretend/ignore she wasn’t involved in civil rights, children’s health issues, changing our health care system is disingenuous. But stick with the Barry Goldwater line. Every time I hear it I think of the Rs Saul Alinsky attack on Obama.
If Sanders’ dumb ideas he had 30+ years ago matter so much (being pro-Cuban dictatorship) so should that. I’m happy to agree that both things are stupid. But I refuse to make the mistake of trying to play by “better” rules.
Delegate math: Clinton needs 33% of remaining delegates, Sanders needs 67% of remaining delegates. There are only 2 caucus states left: Wyoming and North Dakota.
Thanks, UI.
And Ben, you really think a teenager supporting Barry Goldwater – just like her parents – is the same as an elected official supporting the Sandinistas and Castro?
(Personally, I don’t have a huge problem with Sanders’ view on Castro and the Sandinistas, but, in the name of honesty, I do have a little problem with it.)
“impossible” seems overrated this cycle.
I have never met a Democrat who has expressed sexist or misogynistic views about Hillary. It’s all coming from Republicans.
Well that’s true and I would certainly vote for her against the carnival barker or any other GOP regressive but I still feel Sanders’ would be better for average people. I could be wrong of course
I think they are both ridiculous attack lines against each candidate. I think that without the name-calling and bitterness, there are 2 people running for president who would be good for the country. More recent comments, like calling children “super-predators” to support, what has been shown to be a very racist crime bill, are far more troubling. I’m glad she has changed her mind on condemning poor kids to a bad life, but it was a bad position. People have bad ideas and they can change them, but if it matters for one, it has to matter for all.
I also think there have been some very insulting attacks lobbed at, not just Sanders, but the people who support him. These attacks have come from elected officials and former administration officials, whereas the ugly attacks against Clinton come from anonymous neck-beards on the internet, or irrelevant pundits on low-rated premium cable channels. And I know Sec Albright apologized for what she said, but I dont think you can un-ring that bell. I dont think she would have if there hadnt been such a backlash.
What happens to the DNC when they intentionally disregard an entire generation’s voice and tell them they dont matter? We’re sitting here gleefully awaiting the destruction of the GOP when they deny THEIR voters’ choice… It. Can. Happen. Here.
“I have never met a Democrat who has expressed sexist or misogynistic views about Hillary. It’s all coming from Republicans.”
Then you should go look at the flow chart Jason330 just attached to today’s Open Thread. Guess the only thing holding me back from being a Trump supporter is my sex – I obviously agree with Trump on everything else.
What? I don’t think we are looking at the same chart.
Sure we are. Go follow the simplistic path to supporting Hillary. It clearly says that I, a Clinton supporter, don’t think sh*t is broken.
This is Jason’s version of declaring victory in Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam and getting the hell out.
Enjoy the moment.
Right now, im salty at DD for his early morning temper-tantrum and refusal to explain why Sanders’ wins over the weekend dont matter. I have to real problem with Clinton or most of her supporters.
Jason, Sander’s wont be the nominee. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Carperclones will see to that. There are rules in place to fight grass-roots support.
He wont be the VP, because that will totally nullify his ability to affect change. If he is offered a spot on the ticket, he should decline.
If the DNC thinks they can berate and shame an entire generation into supporting them, they will see their party go the way of the GOP.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_03/to_continue_momentum_sanders_w060065.php
As a unaffiliated voter, my short and sweet view is that the world is pretty screwed up at this point. Some of it is economic certainly. But a lot of it nationalistic and tribalism (masquerading as religion among other things). The world is a dangerous place. Today we discussed a trip we would like to make and she asks me – in all seriousness – “Is it safe to go?”
Domestic and economic policy is important, but no more so than foreign policy and our national security. I’m voting for Clinton. If she is not the nominee, I will still vote for Clinton or maybe just sit home. I don’t know. I’m not voting for anyone whose first inclination is to pull the trigger OR someone who can’t find the trigger.
At this point I am sick of the primary and kinda sick of the Ds starting down the same path as the Rs. Clinton has good solid experience in dealing with the world and if everyone will recall, dealing with the first foray into national health care, which really was the start of the hate for her. She’s not perfect but she is competent and forceful. So you guys go where you want. It’s your damn party. My vote will be cast for Clinton or not at all.
Pandora – If you are interested, I’m taking the chart conversation to the other thread.
I am interested, J.
“And Ben, you really think a teenager supporting Barry Goldwater – just like her parents – is the same as an elected official supporting the Sandinistas and Castro?”
She made the comment that she was proud of it in 1996.
And sorry, Pandora, but Hillary is not the candidate of change. She’s the candidate of no change. She will not rein in Wall Street; she loves Wall Street, just like Obama.
She might improve conditions for marginalized people, but that’s not a program to change anything except who’s allowed at the table. “Change” means going to a new restaurant.
You’re correct aaanonymous, HRC is for “incremental change”, kind of like Carper and Coons giving tax breaks to the big players and telling us they will trickle down. It just kills me that DE and NCC are giving tax breaks to DuPont as DuPont has been paring down it’s DE operations for years. The chairlady of her 2008 campaign and current DNC chairperson, DWS, is taking money from the payday loan industry and supporting removal of the controls already enacted under the CFPB. I’m sure that’s the kind of Democrat that DelDem loves? Let’s get rid of the pesky regulations and let the banks be free! Just read this weekend that JPM is now being investigated for manipulating the treasury market?
It will be Biden or Kerry if Hillary is indicted. The DNC isn’t going to allow a self proclaimed Socialist to run as their candidate.
@jim c: I especially like the million dollars NCCo is going to chip in — almost $2 per man, woman and child in the county. As if the company would say, “Wait! What? No million from New Castle County? That’s it, we’re gone!” What’s it called when the whores are paying the johns?
I just can’t understand the amount of support by some of the bloggers on this page for Hillary when she is no Different than Carper Carney Coons and Markell.
They get raked over the coals continuously here.
I can verify that Pandora Is not mother of Delaware Dem. After reading all of the above if there is a “deadlocked” convention we all get what we want .ELIZABETH WARREN and Joe Biden . You pick in what order . We will all be able to get behind that ticket. Every day that goes by I lose another friend who has become a Sanders fanatic . Please keep in mind that if we do not unite we will lose all three – House ,Senate and President .
I can verify that Pandora Is not mother of Delaware Dem. After reading all of the above if there is a “deadlocked” convention we all get what we want .ELIZABETH WARREN and Joe Biden . You pick in what order . We will all be able to get behind that ticket. Every day that goes by I lose another friend who has become a Sanders fanatic . Please keep in mind that if we do not unite we will lose and all three – House ,Senate and President .
@TK “It will be Biden or Kerry if Hillary is indicted.”
Uhhh. No. It will be Hillary if Hillary is indicted.
“I’m calling it: Bernie Sanders is the Democratic Nominee”
Well, I suppose all that remains is a discussion of who President Trump will put on the Supreme Court. I think his choices will be relatively moderate just to prove he is charge and doesn’t have to kowtow to a GOP Congress. He will probably have at least 3 opportunities during his term.
Andy says:
March 28, 2016 at 7:11 pm
I just can’t understand the amount of support by some of the bloggers on this page for Hillary when she is no Different than Carper Carney Coons and Markell.
They get raked over the coals continuously here.
Andy – You sexist rat! Best not mention this contradiction… Speaking of the opposite sex, I was speaking to my wife last night about this discussion. She suggested a URL change for the space. http://www.delawaremoderate.net.
Joking aside, I do understand why somebody would support HRC. Arguing something like defensive voting vs. offense voting. Like this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/29/hillary-clinton-s-hack-supporters-have-skin-in-the-game-bernie-sanders-s-dreamers-not-so-much.html
I don’t agree with it, but I understand it.
The totally hilarious part of these comments is the utter confusion that DD, Pandora, et al have for arguments like aaanonymous are making. The fact that those contributors don’t agree is one thing. That’s fine. But they don’t even understand why Clinton gets so much stick from the left. No idea. Dumbfounded. It’s embarrassing.
At least Professor Newton is clear-headed about it. Clinton is continued corruption. Steve said it plainly months ago. Now Clinton may be a reasonable option given alternatives. Perhaps even a moral choice on those grounds. But to dismiss all the leftist arguments against Clinton the way you all do is telling.
For example, Hillary Clinton is to the right of Michael Bloomberg politically and Bloomberg seems like a more genuine person. Does this mean no liberal should vote for Clinton? Of course it doesn’t. But I beg you to stop being so confused by this. It’s makes you all look like unserious hacks.
I’m not a hack but I do read. Carper Carney and Coons get killed on this blog on a regular basis by a variety of writers. Hillary’s policy objevtives and her love for bipartisanship that sells the farm rather true compromise is pretty much in line with them. I just do not understand the adoration
Hillary isn’t perfect and I never claimed she was. But neither is Bernie – a candidate no one has gone after and his supporters refuse to vet. Take a good look at what taxes would be under each candidate (D and R) and, even if you’re okay with Bernie’s numbers (and I am), explain how you’d sell that in the general. Go on. Sell it. Because the American people are so receptive to higher taxes, right?
Nice name calling, Dorian.
So that’s what you’re going with today? Sanders can’t convince people that his tax plan is in their interest. That’s your answer to what I wrote? Duly noted.
Very interesting that all criticism of Clinton get turned into criticism of Sanders straightaway. All we get on the Clinton bit is an admission she isn’t perfect. Cool trick.
And I didn’t say you were unserious hacks. I said your utter confusion on this topic makes you look like unserious hacks.
Taxes under any candidate will be exactly what they are now, because Congress isn’t going to raise them no matter who proposes it.
Pandora’s comment makes plain what I suspect is true of all Hillary backers: They are afraid the Democrats will lose and are thinking defensively because of it. That’s the same argument Michael Tomasky makes in that link. It’s not wrong to think that way. But it is wrong to insist that it’s the only proper way to think.
An alternative way to think is that this is the wrong time to play it safe. That’s the Bernie faction’s position.
And Del Dem’s reference to Susan Sarandon stumped me until I saw that she is saying she’ll vote for Trump before Hillary. I could be wrong, but I don’t think any Bernie backers here have said that. Her position does illustrate something I was vilified for pointing out earlier: Some people want change no matter what. The notebook-page chart Jason posted is only slightly over-simplified.
One thing I forgot to add: Timid Democrats, which is most of them, spend so much time tailoring their positions to what they think voters will accept that they no longer have any actual positions of their own. In all the years since Bill Clinton’s election, has his “incrementalism” made America more or less liberal? As I hope I have made clear, our social progress has come despite, not because of, timid Democratic leadership. In virtually all other ways, the country’s policies are more conservative.
Incrementalism changes you more than those your are trying to change.
Susan Sarandon will be well-off no matter who is President.
Bill Curry explains the anti-Hillary position:
“Neoliberal politics is entirely tactical and tactical thinking is static. Most people oppose Wall Street crooks, Mideast ground wars and cuts to Social Security so they talk endlessly about what the Congress they’ve corrupted won’t pass and what other voters allegedly won’t support. Neoliberals love horse-race politics because it never favors reform. Polls favor known quantities. Endorsements go to people in power; money to those willing to reward the investment. Tacticians rely on marketing tools made to manipulate, not illuminate.
Since global finance capitalism runs on pay to play politics, neoliberals promise “change” but can never deliver reform. They can’t talk us out of wanting a living wage or universal health care so they argue tactics: change is impossible because someone else doesn’t want it; we can’t afford it, even though it saves us money.”
The whole piece: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/we_must_smash_the_clinton_machine_democratic_elites_and_the_media_sold_out_to_hillary_this_time_but_change_is_coming/
Stockholm Syndrome.