Sanders Headlines vs. Clinton Headlines

The effect of Saturday's caucus and primary voting in WA, Alaska and Hawaii varies depending on the media source.

Those influenced by Sanders' peeps (shorthand for people)claim the results mattered. This Associated Press news article disagrees.

After noting that Hillary didn't expect to win in Washington, Hawaii or Alaska, and thus didn't spend any resources there, it reports Hillary retains a substantial delegate lead, which when added to super-delegate votes, makes it very, very tough for Bernie to have a chance at winning.


After Sanders' two wins on Saturday, Clinton held a delegate lead of 1,234 to 956 over Sanders, according to an Associated Press analysis, an advantage that expands to 1,703-985 once the superdelegates are included. It takes 2,383 delegates to win.

Based on the AP count, Sanders needs to win more than 57 percent of the remaining delegates from primaries and caucuses to have a majority of those delegates by June's end.

I am also not much interested in whether Sanders' supporters accept Hillary's olive branch after he drops out and show up in November to vote for Hillary. I don't think it will be an issue by election day.

I think this election may well be decided by haters, rather than supporters, of both Hillary and Trump. The question to ask is not what Bernie's supporters will do once he's gone, but what will happen in a battle between voters who have a visceral hatred of all things Trump and those who feel that way about all things Clinton? Sanders' supporters will vote for Trump if they really, really hate Hillary, and for Hillary if they really, really hate Trump. Sanders will have very little to do with it by then.

I think those who vote based on policy are in the minority. If I didn't already have a favorite, I'd ask things like which candidate will give us better (less conservative) Supreme Court justices, which will be better for immigration reform (from an immigrant perspective), which will care more about reducing our over-reliance on incarceration (for reasons other than its cost)? The answer would be obvious to me and I'd decide to vote for Hillary over Trump.

Unfortunately, there are too many lazy citizens out there, who can't be bothered to learn about positions on issues, and instead will pull the lever for one candidate instead of the other based on nothing more than what they hear on cable news, or because whatever they did hear on cable news or read in the tabloids caused them to develop a Pavlovian-type avoidance reaction whenever they hear the other candidate's name, making it a virtual certainty they will never vote for that person.

So I'm not really following Bernie Sanders news and I'm clicking off as soon as I see a headline that suggests today's results could portend a watershed change in the outcome of the Democratic nomination.

To be sure, Republicans are no better. Ted Cruz might as well be on life support -- it seems everyone but his campaign staff and rejected candidate Carly F. knows the nomination belongs to Trump. It would take a Trump screw-up of monumental proportion for his die-hard under-educated supporters to jump ship. Something of lesser significance (like his views on torture or his comments that many perceive as misogynistic or anti-immigrant)[snark] won't cause a ripple.

It's true that anything can happen in an election. Either Hillary or Trump could be struck by lightening, opening a path for Bernie or Ted. The chances of being struck by lightening in the U.S. are 1 in 700,000 in any given year. Those are about the odds I'd give Bernie or Ted Cruz at this point.

Congrats to Bernie for his wins out West today. But a Bronx cheer for those who claim it means the outcome of the Democratic nomination is any different today than it was on Super Tuesday or two months ago or will be two months from now. As to those who think a little bird flew into a room in Seattle and told them differently, good luck with that.

< Rolling Stones: ¡Hola Cuba! | More Raids in Brussels >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Great post (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 08:01:34 AM EST
    Just a great post

    Seems an odd list to me. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by linea on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 11:58:57 AM EST
    I suppose my main issues are Medicare and SocSec followed by economic issues that affect working people: pretend contractors who are just emplotees without benefits, H1B visa abuse, etc.

    I'd like to see a "right to be forgotten" law so people who have served their time can get jobs and housing. But no candidate is proposing that. Isn't sentencing a state issue?

    P.S. I realize this is a moot issue as Hillary will be the nominee, but all my friends support Bernie and they can all competently explain his policies.

    Can they competently explain (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:30:45 PM EST
    How he intends to implement his policies?   I would love to hear that.

    I think that explanation (none / 0) (#64)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:49:39 PM EST
    Involves a lot of asterisks

    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:11:57 PM EST
    His Berniness the Pure will overwhelm all with his righteousness.....

    I am not kidding (that much) as many of the Bernie supporters, as I witness them at Big Orange, fall back on his personal probity.


    I mostly avoid the Big O (none / 0) (#91)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:14:54 PM EST
    But I thought Markos dropped the hammer on the Bros as of March 15? No?...

    There are fewer "Hillary is a liar" (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:22:51 PM EST
    diaries.....but the hero worship and Bernie will win diaries continue....Just looney tunes.....

    Do they truly think (none / 0) (#100)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:40:36 PM EST
    Sanders can win?
    Doesn't he have to win like 65% of every contest from now on just to catch up?

    That's so unlikely as to be delusional.
    Especially with the higher number of closed primaries and lesser nbr of caucuses now....


    Reason not big right now (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:51:59 PM EST
    over at Big Orange....I do think they will calm down in a day  or two--or it may take New York to cure them.

    If he's President (none / 0) (#177)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 11:05:57 AM EST
    When he takes his first drone shot will they all jump off a bridge?

    I think you have 0 to worry about w/HRC (none / 0) (#102)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:41:17 PM EST
    As an example, the demographic that could most use a right to be forgotten supports her over Sanders overwhelmingly. There may be a reason why, and they'll have her ear.

    Senator Sanders had (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:54:25 PM EST
    a successful weekend. The caucuses appear to be a particular forte of his, other than Iowa where a win, rather than a tie in delegates, would have had more meaning.

     That freedom finch added some welcomed newness into his campaign, with tags of endearment such as Birdie Sanders, and even, St. Francis of Assisi. While many of the Sanders' supporters seem content with the repetitious and robotic presentations, and, particularly, those segments whose bern singes Mrs. Clinton, I suspect that they, too, are pleased by the rare punctuation by a rara avia.

     The Bernie supporters who are young are understandable in their enthusiasm, and need to have their participation in the Democratic process nurtured.  After all, a party (let alone a country) that dislikes its youth, has no future.

    And, it is for this reason that I feel that Senator Sanders has a responsibility to soon acknowledge the reality of the very narrow pathway available to him for the nomination. When he lost Democratic primaries in the South, his campaign pooh poohed the Clinton wins as being,...well, in the south. And, when Super delegates seemed in alignment with Clinton, they were undemocratic. Different from the present, where Sanders is looking to turn super delegates. Now, caucus wins in Alaska, for example, are billed as turning the tide, momentum is us.  

    The worst case scenario would be for the Sanders campaign to continue beyond the point of no return, to be falsely perceived as a sort of Ben Carson entrepreneurial scheme, prematurely disillusioning, embryonic Democrats. Or, to passively, or by other means, foster a Bernie or Bust mentality.  That would certainly be for the birds.

    He was on several Sunday shows today (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:09:53 PM EST
    As far as I can tell he has every intention of living your worst case scenario.  He has no intention of quitting and plans to run right to the convention.

    I honestly don't mind (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:24:14 PM EST
    Him running as long as he wants to and conducting continued debate to bring about better discussion of lefty ideas.

    What I DO mind is attacks on Obama's legacy and attacks on Clinton.
    (And I am no Obama fan. But you can't govern if you don't win.)

    I don't believe Sanders gets that because he's never had to.


    He has no intention of doing that (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:27:52 PM EST
    It's going to be the same ole same ole.

    It was on display today.  I think he has begun to drink his own snake oil.  


    Yes, and Trump (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 05:48:00 PM EST
    will use Birdie Sanders' resume to line his bird cage.  This seems to escape the Bernie crowd, taking solace in some good Trump/Sanders polls conducted in Feb/Mar... seemingly oblivious to any next steps (Bernie Supporters, plse check with ly'n Cruz and his mistresses, Little Marco the choke artist, Jeb--he of low energy, Christie who is never in N J. doing his job (and that was after Christie endorsed Trump), Carson the pedophile, Fiorina who was too ugly to be president, etc). Or, ask Hillary for her 20-year Republican hit file--oh, forget it, he already has that.

    I want to see (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 06:03:00 PM EST
    A meme with that damn bird replaced with a buzzard.

    If I had the software I would do it myself but my desk top died and I hardly noticed.  Maybe I will email around. For support.


    Ugh (none / 0) (#126)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:29:47 PM EST
    That would be bad.

    Bernie's huge flip flop. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 08:45:47 AM EST
    After month's of Bernie and his supporters decrying the "rigged" super delegate system he is now incorporating it into his game plan.

    Sorry Bernie, but your politician slip is showing beneath your purity gown.

    He's (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    going to have to do way better than he has to get super delegates to switch to him. I wonder is he really that clueless and Donald said that the party has internal polling showing Sanders losing a general election. Passing that polling around I'm sure would keep many a super delegate from moving because no one wants to be associated with a sure loser.

    From what I understand (none / 0) (#185)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 06:26:36 PM EST
    K Dog may have to register as a Democrat. The Bern appears to be making a run for the NY delegates.

    NY will be a interesting state between the two.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 06:46:46 PM EST
    expect NY to be one of the least competitive races remaining. Bernie will be doing good if he keeps within 20%.

    Thats why (none / 0) (#187)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 06:55:54 PM EST
    I will be very interested. Many commenters here expect NY to be a blowout, but Sanders appears to be ramping up.
    Being a native NY'er , the Bern gets the favorite son vote. Still has the Brooklyn accent.

    That one will be interesting, or maybe not....


    About that Brooklyn accent (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Nemi on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 06:14:37 AM EST
    hasn't he ramped that up too? Honest question as I recently watched a video - a compilation of instanses showing how rude and offensive he apparently always has been - and it seemed to me that years back his language sounded far less 'Brooklinish' than today.

    It does (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 07:29:00 AM EST
    I noticed it too.  

    K dog (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 08:07:40 PM EST
    has already said that he is not going to change his registration. He'll get some delegates out of NY I'm sure however it's likely to be as bad for him as Florida and probably worse. Bernie has done nothing but attack a lot of people that live in NY. Lots of secretaries etc. work on Wall Street and Bernie wants to take away their jobs.

    Ain't happening Brother! (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 09:46:19 AM EST
    Though it would be nice to pull a lever for Sanders (it's always nice to vote positive over negative), but the cost is too great...I want no part of being a party member.  Just look at what it's done to poor Bernie, nothing but grief man, nothing but grief.

    And to change my registration to Brand D just to change it again in a week would make me just as bad as all the other wanna-be Machiavellis trying to game sh*t. I get the hint...it's their party and independents ain't welcome in NY except for 1 day in November.  Well, f&ck you too then Donkeys!


    Bernie (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 10:14:00 AM EST
    is not a member of the party so how can you say "look what it's done to poor Bernie", talk about victimhood....yeesh.

    Sure he is... (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    a recent member is still a member.

    Or is it a only a big tent when there are votes or money to be had?  Otherwise, get your arse out Clinton's tent!


    Bernie (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 11:39:37 AM EST
    often argues with himself about that.
    Sanders seems uncommitted to being committed to the party. His Senate website and press materials continue to label him as an "independent" while his campaign website lists him as a "Democratic candidate." In his home state of Vermont, there is no party registration.
    Sanders listed the Democratic Party as his party affiliation in his statement of candidacy. At the start of his campaign, he still seemed uncomfortable self-identifying as a Democrat.

    When asked if he would officially join the party on April 30, 2015, when he announced his candidacy, Sanders said, "No, I am an independent who is going to be working with the --" cutting himself off mid-sentence.

     He has spent at least part of his career bashing Democrats.
    Yet Sanders continued to fight with the party locally and his "goal was the destroy Democrats," Maurice Mahoney, the head of Burlington's Democratic Party in the 1980s, told Politico. He also mounted independent challenges against Democrats, including Vermont's first female Democratic governor in 1984, and reiterated that he had no party affiliation.
    Running for Congress as an independent in 1989, Sanders penned an op-ed in the New York Times calling the two parties "tweedle-dee" and "tweedle-dum." After he won a seat in the House of Representatives, he continued to hold the Democratic Party at a rhetorical arm's length even as he moved closer to them.

    After calling it "ideologically bankrupt," Sanders lobbied for admission into the Democratic caucus for practical reasons (getting coveted committee assignments, mustering votes for bills), according to news reports from his first year in Congress. But party leaders wouldn't let him join as he refused to become a Democrat

     He has already filed to run for reelection in 2018 as an independant, I would call that a fair weather Democrat at best, a craven political opportunist at worst and he certainly has no standing to complain about how he is being treated by the party.

    I can relate... (none / 0) (#199)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 11:45:23 AM EST
    It would be nice if it was as simple as good party/bad party...but when it's bad party/worse party, or as Sanders once said tweedle dee/tweedle dum...it gets kinda funny figuring out the right thing to do.

    I don't get your position on this at all, kdog. (none / 0) (#195)
    by vml68 on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 11:24:33 AM EST
    If you truly believe in Sanders and what he is promising, think he is way superior to Clinton and think he would lead the country in the direction you want it to go, why won't you change your registration and vote for him?

    P.S.- I am a Hillary supporter, so don't know why I am trying to convince you to vote for Sanders :-)


    It's a silly principal I guess... (none / 0) (#197)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 11:40:44 AM EST
    but I like not being a Democrat.  I loathe the two-party system.  The Democrats can claim no mandate or membership from this knucklehead.  And I never get emails asking for money! ;)

    Granted old pal, if I thought Sanders had a real shot at the nom I'd be mighty tempted to put the Scarlet D after my name on the rolls for a week to help make it happen, because I truly do believe he is exactly the kick in the arse the government needs, but we all know he can't win so it's a moot point and I can stay a happy to be Independent.  

    It would be an interesting experiment to see how well Sanders would do in NY if we had open primaries...but alas, much to form New York State is a "members only" state, just like our economy.  


    I don't think you answered before (none / 0) (#200)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 12:03:57 PM EST
    Why do you think New York's primary (or any primary, for that matter) should be open?

    Sanders and the Press (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by RickyJim on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 11:05:34 AM EST
    The NY Times has a funny article about Sanders' relationship with the press.  A couple of samples:
    I remember talking with him in a small side room in January in Iowa as hundreds of supporters waited for him to speak. As our conversation wrapped up, I asked Mr. Sanders how he would tailor his message to voting blocs in the coming state primaries and caucuses. Instead of responding directly, he began repeating part of his stump speech, which I have now heard more than 90 times, explaining that the American middle class is disappearing and that almost all of the new income is going to the top 1 percent..
    He can be stubborn. And I have seen him get snappish and sarcastic, most memorably when reporters questioned him on his plane about comments made by a supporter, the rapper Killer Mike, asserting that "a uterus does not qualify" a person to be president. It was widely viewed as a cheap shot at Mrs. Clinton. "Anything else to talk about?" he said after being questioned repeatedly by the correspondents aboard.

    Read this this morning (none / 0) (#198)
    by Suisser1 on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 11:43:00 AM EST
    and "he can be stubborn" nearly make me spit out my coffee. "can be"? Seriously.

    Here's the count from Hilo: (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 01:33:05 AM EST

    Turnout was quite heavy today throughout the islands. Please keep in mind that this is the count from just one district on one island. The Hawaii Democratic Party does not release partial results (but I will!), and will announce the preliminary total -- subject to certification -- only when all 51 districts across the state have reported.


    Total Democratic turnout in WA was 26,299. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 02:13:12 AM EST
    In Alaska, it was 539. Our turnout here in Hawaii may (or may not) be a little higher than the same in Washington state, but if it is, it won't be by much. This is why I don't like party caucuses, and prefer primaries. Caucuses tend to favor the preferred candidates of party activists, and are not necessarily reflective of the Democratic electorate as a whole.

    Thankfully, there are only 2 left (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 05:06:27 AM EST
    If Bernie Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Nemi on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:04:21 AM EST
    seriously wants to emulate the Scandinavian Social Democracies maybe he should start promising, once in office, to do away with the caucuses as they would never be accepted there as a legit way to vote. Not in a true Social Democracy.

    He's been in Washington for 25 years (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:43:27 AM EST
    Has he tried yet?

    Correction (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 08:09:16 AM EST
    I think there's 3.

    Small population states (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 08:20:33 AM EST
    like Wyoming, I think....

    Yesterday was Bernie's best day.  It will be in Hillary's favor here on out.


    And Guam, Virign Islands (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 08:27:04 AM EST
    and Puerto Rico.

    Had to look it up.  No more cheap, easy victories for Bernie.

    And the upcoming bigs like New York and Pennsylvania are closed primaries--just like Florida.


    If those Washington numbers are true... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Anc260 on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:33:28 AM EST
    then it really is a travesty. I had heard they were expecting 200,000+ in Washington state.

    In the Georgia primary, 750,000 people voted and ~100 delegates were awarded. Thats 7500 voters per delegate.

    In Washington, 26,000 people voted and 101 delegates were awarded. Thats ~260 voters per delegate.

    It looks like more people will have voted in Hawaii than in Washington, but the state will award only one fourth of Washington's delegates.

    Those Alaska votes can't be right. Maybe those numbers represent the state convention delegates?


    ... to me either. I got them from TPM, which is normally pretty accurate. Washington state Democratic officials were predicting a turnout that was nearly ten times what was reported at TPM and further, turnout was reportedly heavy in King County and Seattle. They should have 26,000-plus there alone, and easily.

    Our turnout here in Hawaii was well over 32,000. I find it hard to believe that we somehow outpolled a state that's nearly eight times our size in population. Those TPM numbers have to be wrong.



    Thise numbers in WA (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 09:16:50 AM EST
    (And AK, I suspect) are state delegate counts - Bernie got 19,000+ and Hillary got 7000+.

    Turnout was around 230,000,  I think.


    26,000 state delegates in Washington? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:45:06 PM EST
    According to the WA Democratic Party website, it's the number of state delegates. But with those numbers, where are WA Democrats going to hold their state convention -- Husky Stadium?

    As you noted, and the WA Dem site affirms, that state's total caucus turnout appears to have been in excess of 230,000 attendees. In a state of 7-plus million residents, that's still a relatively small number, just as our own turnout of 33,000-plus is likely not reflective of our state's Democratic electorate as a whole. (A Bloomberg poll conducted last week among Hawaii Democrats in general showed a virtual tie between the two candidates.)

    And that's why each state should hold a presidential primary election rather than a caucus, which was my original point. Not every Hawaii Democrat was necessarily in any position to attend a precinct meeting in person at 1:00 p.m. sharp on a Saturday afternoon, in order to cast a vote in our presidential preference poll.

    (And our state caucuses used to be even worse and more skewed, before we finally got rid of the inherently unverifiable practice of proxy voting in 1990. That's how Michael Dukakis ended up with 19 of our state's 28 delegates in 1988, even though he only won 40% of the votes from that actual attendees. The real winner in Hawaii that year was Jesse Jackson, although you'd have never have figured that based upon the delegate allocation.)



    Why do they even HAVE caucuses? (none / 0) (#151)
    by wilkehagen on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:23:03 PM EST
    I dug around and it turns out that participation in caucus states is about 1/4 of that of primary states.
    http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/primaries/voter-participation-in-presidential-primar ies-and-caucuses

    Bernie will win big here in Oregon, too--that's the PacNW for you--but I just don't get the caucus thing, period.


    Links (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:30:21 PM EST
    J wants links to be in HTML format.  They skew the site she says.  There are I believe instructions in the comment policy.

    If you need help ask.

    This comment will probably be deleted.


    Here is your link in (none / 0) (#154)
    by caseyOR on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:32:25 PM EST
    the form you need to use here.



    Decided by haters indeed (none / 0) (#12)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 08:32:23 AM EST
    Spot on.
    All voting is emotional....our rationality exists to justify our emotions.
    Read that somewhere!

    I'm not ready to buy into (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    that completely jaded haters vs haters paradigm just yet..

    Humans do have a neocortex, after all..

    Once in awhile it unexpectedly kicks in.


    Check the article below (none / 0) (#39)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54:22 AM EST
    I think the "rationality" in service of CDS is in high form at the moment.

    People hate her. And they justify that hatred with a bunch of accusations that they conveniently ignore in their own favorites, whether that be Sanders now or Obama in 08.

    But let's hope that the neo cortex of the Sanders supporters does indeed kick in come November.  But color me skeptical.


    And of course there's no "hate" (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:18:52 PM EST
    coming from the Clinton camp. Ever. Thank God.

    I should sign up just for the moral/spiritual cleansing and rebirth experience everyone automatically experiences.


    And we have a Strawman winner! (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:40:18 PM EST
    It's not like anyone has even made that argument, but....

    If you think that the level of vitriol coming FROM the Clinton camp comes anywhere close to the vitriol directed AT it, dunno what to tell ya.

    But what makes your remark really ironic was the moral cleansing bit you tossed in at the end.

    When in fact what the whole Sanders movement is about, is Purity.  And a lot of what we've been discussing for ages is about how having a Purity Test on the
    Left is so counterproductive.

    Seriously, Oy.


    As if "purity" wasn't yet another (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 01:13:31 PM EST
    strawman and major league debate sabotager/evasion to close down any further painful discussion..

    Speaking of strawmen..Why, if I had a brain I would not be just a nothin'..my head all full of stuffin'..my heart all full of pain..


    I do think Bernie's (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 02:21:00 PM EST
    emphasis on only taking money from "pure" sources is not all that wise.

    Beyond just Bernie, there are other candidates in races up this year. Bernie may be able to be "pure" but what about all those Senate and House races.....

    It always good to be pure, but it is somewhat self-indulgent.  Glad, Bernie, you can be "pure," but what about everybody else?  But in Bernie's world there is not anyone else of consequence.


    Bernie cannot be 'pure' in a general election. (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:45:10 PM EST
    If he could do without the party money and the apparatus it provides, he would have run as an Independent.

    It is unbearably hypocritical for him to pretend otherwise.


    Amazing. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by sallywally on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 06:27:17 PM EST
    You'd think he could at least pivot to the general now, as Hillary has, rather than continuing to campaign negatively toward her. I heard him say the other night that he had never run a negative ad; that took a serious level of denial. I wonder what he thinks the Party is talking about, asking him to dial the attack rhetoric back.

    I respected him until he started his gratuitous attacks and kept using them over and over. They are based on Republican talking points and seek to tarnish her, and he must know they are not accurate. He puts them out there and "buyer beware" to the listeners. His campaign has said they have no intention of changing their strategy now.


    Good point (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:02:52 PM EST
    But I think a hypothetical that will not happen.

    In the same vein, what will The Donald do?


    Donald will have no qualms (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:06:17 PM EST
    Taking the money.

    Then, so much for his (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:14:42 PM EST
    self-funding, I-can't-be-bought campaign.

    It will be interesting to see how much institutional Republicans work with Trump.  Will he continue his campaign by Twitter?   He used a Teleprompter for his speech at AIPAC.


    And in the world of the people (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 02:57:58 PM EST
    doling out the money, there's no people of much consequence beyond the shareholders. And whoever their current interchangable men and women on the inside are.

    In good Leftist form, Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:27:13 PM EST
    shares the wealth with other candidates....

    Yeah they're as thick as thieves (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:55:01 PM EST
    careerists and opportunists masquerading as public servants often are..

    And I suppose you could make a case for Kissinger as a great role model and mentor figure as well -- on the basis of his lifelong rejection of purity..


    Oh not you too. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:02:03 PM EST
    Please, Hillary did not support the bombing of Cambodia or the overthrow of Allende.

    She was sayin nice things in a different context.  The art of the political schmooze.  It tells me she has a decent chance of out -maneuvering the Republicans on a thing or two.

    And, contrast Bernie, who would sit alone in all his pureness.  


    The money he condemns her for raising (none / 0) (#159)
    by sallywally on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:51:18 PM EST
    goes to the downticket races, as his money does not, leaving him pure. But then he's not a Democrat, though the party's money and organization will be needed if he wins the nomination. In addition, he will have an obligation to the party and all us  Hillary  voters, not only to  himself and his fans, to win the election. And if he becomes president he'll have an obligation to the rest of the government, the Democrats, the entire country and the whole d@m world! For someone who doesn't play well with others ......

    Everything that happened in '08 (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:41:15 PM EST
    is being replayed.  Remember how that worked?  If you didn't love on Obama and hate on Clinton, you were a racist.

    Now - if you don't love on Clinton and hate on Sanders, you're a misogynist.

    What makes it really interesting is that the same people who hated on Clinton in '08 are the people loving on Clinton now.

    I'm guessing that you and I, jondee, are just too dense to appreciate the 11-dimensional nuance in this way of reaching across the party.


    For the record (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:43:24 PM EST
    I was a die hard and much maligned Clinton supporter in 08.

    Just to be clear.


    So was I. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    I still am.

    Why? (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 02:26:45 PM EST
    Serious question.

    I have been across the divide now, for Obama during the 2008 Primary and now strongly for Hillary.  I can state now why I am for her, but everything has become so conflated over time.....Just curious what you saw in her in 2008.....

    Because I never remember you being pro-Hillary;  I remember you being pro-Obama in 2008.


    I had to parent to make sure (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:39:58 PM EST
    That was for me.

    First if you think I was for Obama in 2008 you are more clueless that I thought you were.  And that something.

    Second you can shove your why where the sun don't shine


    It was a friendly question (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:16:59 PM EST
    and without any attempt to criticize.

    I thought you were open to a discussion of such things.  


    I supported Hillary in 2008 (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by sallywally on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 12:24:21 PM EST
    because she was more progressive than Obama.

    Perhaps I remember your (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:18:11 PM EST
    position in the General election and disagreement with the PUMAs.

    There is supporting Hillary (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:22:32 PM EST
    And there is being an idiot.

    If you would like to know why I support (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:21:08 PM EST
    Hillary a great place to start would be my comment history since 2007.  
    I would rather not retype it for you on Easter Sunday.

    Nonsense. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by AX10 on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 01:16:54 PM EST
    The Bernie gang are the same who went with Obama against Hillary.

    Thom Hartmann, Mike Papentonio, Cenk Uygar, Kasparian, Olbermann (the left wing Trump),
    Randi Rhodes, The Nation (and staff).

    The arguments they are making for Bernie are the same they made for Obama eight years

    It is clear that the left activists want to hear what they want.
    It is clear they do not want Hillary Clinton.

    Thom Hartmann complains that corporate media ruined left wing talk.  I disagree.
    The left wing ruined left wing talk.  The left is more diverse than the right.

    All of the aboved mentioned have adapted the VRWC talking points to attack Clinton.


    Actually no (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 01:24:01 PM EST
    Not so much.   More than a few of "those who have fled" this site recently as a result of its support for Hillary were some of the most venomous and virulent pro Hillary hate Obama people in 2008.  I have myself found it rather baffleing.   I briefly joined a refugee from TL chat room with several alums.  That's a fact.

    Regulars here know who I mean .  

    I could name names.


    Well that is a shame (none / 0) (#94)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:19:07 PM EST
    I haven't seen Anne for ages as an example.
    Miss her insightful commentary.
    (Even if she is a Ravens fan! )

    Anyway, a real shame if posters have been driven away. This is one of the few quite safe places out there in an election cycle.  


    Chose to leave? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by sallywally on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 06:05:17 PM EST
    Why should they remain (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 06:20:27 PM EST
    In one of the few places on the interwebs where fanciful notions of political magic were regularly rained on by doses of reality when there was a vast magical Bernieland where no flight of fancy was ever questioned just a click away?

    Driven away?  Whatever.  As one of the many Obama supporters they drove away with their relentless sniping and nattering during the last election used to like to say, if you don't want your ideas challenged don't post them on a public forum.  Send emails to your friends who agree with you.

    What ever happened to squeaky.   We together endured many a righteous tounglashing for making fun of the PUMA Hillary die hards from some of the very people who were "driven away" because this site still supports Hillary.

    Still trying to figure that out.


    It is rather sad (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:32:13 PM EST
    I really like some of those people.  And enjoyed interacting with them.

    I was here in 2008 (none / 0) (#141)
    by athyrio on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 06:24:02 PM EST
    and was a pro Hillary voter then as now...haven't changed a bit but due to health didn't comment over the years and am back now for this election...love this site...

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by wilkehagen on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:25:51 PM EST
    I was here in 2008; don't remember what my login stuff was. I'm going to be extremely annoyed if the Berniementum rolls on big. I have been very happy with Obama, but I don't think I'd feel the same about Sanders.

    There is (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:34:55 PM EST
    no Berniementum. Oh, everybody will scream he has it until he loses some more.

    The truth is Bernie doesn't even represent the entire coalition. He only represents 1/4 of it.


    Welcome back! (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 06:30:52 PM EST
    Thanks Howdy (none / 0) (#145)
    by athyrio on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 06:53:31 PM EST
    do you remember me?

    I do (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:00:38 PM EST
    Well to be honest (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:07:11 PM EST
    I remember the name.  I might not have remember which side you were on.  Many brain cells have died in the intervening 8 years

    Not all true (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 02:36:40 PM EST
    Bernie is truly a Left Wing challenge to Hillary, who is not as Left as he is.

    Obama was a different phenomenon.   He de-emphasized partisanship......He was less Left than Hillary on some issues....The health care law mandate was her issue in 2008, and Obama argued against it.  The longer the 2008 Primary went on, the more she seemed to make sense on that point. Obviously Obama agreed and adopted the mandate.

    Obama on substance was more centrist than Bernie and less partisan than Hillary, and was making an overtly more centrist, non partisan case in 2008.

    Hillary's key supporters now are former Obama supporters.  Hillary has hired many of the Obama wiz kids.   And Hillary's most bedrock constituency is the African American vote that so supported Obama and undid Hillary in 2008.

    Bernie is wowing the Nader crowd, the very left and the very young.  Not all that much overlap with Obama's 2008 supporters.


    Nonpartisanship didn't work so well, (none / 0) (#161)
    by sallywally on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 08:16:33 PM EST
    though. When Obama gave it up, he started getting a lot more done. So in the end, bipartisanship was a weakness. I really love Obama, but his nonpartisanship was a weakness. Hillary's "partisanship" might be a useful trait now.

    that's true where I live (none / 0) (#144)
    by linea on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 06:45:50 PM EST
    Everyone I know was 100% for Obama and not fond of Hillary. There were celebrations and parties in the streets. For most of us, it was our first election. Now everyone here is 100% for Bernie.

    And a couple of the most militant (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Obama "haters" from 'O8, one of whom was in the tank for Romney in 2012, are still posting here and standing up proud for the liberal-progressive agenda..

    Yes yes yes. If you criticize a Clinton, you're full of CDS, Obama and you're racist, AIPAC and Israel and you're antisemitic, Muslim fundamentalists and you're an Islamophobe, Bush and the Right and you're a commie America-hater..

    And the beat goes on. Drums keep poundin' rhythm to the brain..


    On Sanders supporters and their votes (none / 0) (#13)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 08:54:56 AM EST
    This was good

    That was very good (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 09:16:00 AM EST
    But it's sad that even the writer senses it will make no difference-

    I see people swear up and down their hatred of Clinton isn't because she's a woman, or doesn't stem directly from decades of vicious, lying conservative propaganda-- they will swear it!-and then immediately turn around and eviscerate her for something Sanders did (or is) himself, or call her a "crook," or say nonsense like, "She doesn't have an honest bone in her body." Conservative copywriters, whoever you are, I applaud you for your success in taking a complete and total fabrication and successfully integrating it so far into the American consciousness that there are people who agree with nearly every policy position Clinton has today, yet will still claim that she's "dishonest." That's some impressive chicanery, and I mean that.

    I just found the whole thing very sad

    If you're reviling Clinton for saying something racist and stupid in 1994 in favor of a crime bill that turned out to be a very bad idea, but you're not reviling Sanders for actually using his political power to pass that very bad crime bill law, I want you to take a long, long think about why that is.

    Yeah.  Good luck with that


    I had a text argument w my brother over that (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 09:32:49 AM EST
    He said he was sick of "Clinton's victimhood" and I said who's talking about being a victim? it's about the double standard and hypocrisy of Clinton being criticized for things that others overlook in their own favorites.

    In fact I can't think of anyone who's less a victim than Clinton.  She really does just ignore it and soldier on.

    It goes back to emotion. People just hate her.


    And as the writer said (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 09:34:15 AM EST
    WHY they "hate" her.

    And added to the mix (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    are people who insist on interpreting any robust criticism as "hate" and thereby shutting down the debate and staking out the moral high ground of the unjustly persecuted.

    I think if you read the article (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    You'd get the point that "robust criticism" is seemingly reserved for Clinton alone, when those same complaints apply to others such as Sanders or Obama, but are ignored.

    Robust criticism would be interpreted as such, if it was evenly applied.

    Since it isn't when it comes to Clinton, well, it starts to look like extreme dislike or hatred if you will, in disguise.



    CDS and hate are a marvelous (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:47:38 PM EST
    to evade talking about say, the Iraq invasion and the toxic revolving door between Goldman Sachs and Co and Washington and the unspoken piss on 'em, trickle down philosophy that has maintained the status quo..

    Of course it's probably hateful to mention those issues as well..

    It's becoming hateful these days to talk about anything besides hate and CDS -- and the pure unadulterated hatred, arrogance, and ignorance of Sanders and his supporters.


    You're hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:53:38 PM EST
    You could criticize Sanders for his votes bringing proWar gives contract money into Vermont over and over again.

    You could criticize Obama for getting more money from Wall St than all his opponents, and then bailing his pals out.

    But.....you don't.

    And that's the point.  Which you missed. Again.


    Ah, the hate, SDS (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 01:36:17 PM EST
    and misandry are palpable..;-)

    I've criticized Obama up and down for his clueless, tonedeaf cushy relationships with Wall St.

    And Sanders's procurment of war contracts for Vermont was hypocritical, but at least Bernie is willing to publicly discuss the current state of dependence on Military Industrial Complex welfare..if Hillary ever had the cajones to do that, she might begin to win me over


    I might help (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:57:06 PM EST
    If any small part of your fulminating was a response to any of the actual valid points made in the link at the top of this subthread.

    ... by which you managed to mischaracterize President Kennedy's public comments in 1962 about the Cuban Missile Crisis as "Hillary-like," as though he must have been somehow channeling her future persona since she was only 14 years old at the time.

    I think CDS is an entirely appropriate term.


    Of course you do (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 01:16:54 PM EST
    there (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 02:00:13 PM EST
    you go again
    to evade talking about say, the Iraq invasion and the toxic revolving door between Goldman Sachs and Co and Washington and the unspoken piss on 'em, trickle down philosophy that has maintained the status quo..
    continuing to place the sins of decades upon Hillary's shoulders.

    BTW: Your gratuitous "piss on em" statement is a perfect example of the hatred that is ladled upon her constantly, as if she is somehow responsible of Reaganomics.....thanks for playing.


    Bernie supporters get the vapors (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    if anyone dare criticize his holiness.  Can't talk about how his general election numbers would go down if he became the nominee.

    Why would that happen?  Well the Right would say....oops I can's say what that criticism would be, else I be accused of Red baiting.  Can't talk about middle class taxes because that is a Right wing argument.

    We can't even preview what the Right would do to Bernie....and there are a lot of Left wing positions he has taken over the years.

    What is really amusing is all the Christian imagery the largely a-religious Bernie supporters are adopting--especially in connection with that bird.



    It Might Be Decided by Terrorism (none / 0) (#16)
    by RickyJim on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 09:20:32 AM EST
    After the Brussel's attacks, a friend kept repeating that they are coming to get us and Obama is doing nothing about it.  My impression is he is for Trump.

    I am afraid I agree (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 09:24:53 AM EST
    That it is very conceivable carefully timed event could play a role.  ISIS is smart.  I would think Donald is their dream president.

    As soon as we heard the news about (none / 0) (#22)
    by vml68 on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 10:22:09 AM EST
    the attack in Brussels, my husband turned to me and said "Trump is going to be the next president".
    Really not something you want to hear first thing in the morning or at anytime at all for that matter!

    Quick, guess, what Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 02:57:16 PM EST
    job approval, according to Gallup, is and has been for the last few weeks.

    +9 today.  53-44.  He has been in positive territory for more than a month.  Other pollsters tend to agree.

    Why the improvement?  Nothing dramatic has happened.  My theory:  Obama looks really good in comparison to the buffoon that is Donald Trump.

    If Obama has a job approval of +9 come November, the Democrat will win in a walk.


    I wonder about that (none / 0) (#18)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 09:29:29 AM EST
    If there is for example (and God forbid ) another attack on US soil prior to the election, and for argument let's say it's Clinton v Trump,  will that benefit Trump because of his violent, dominant rhetoric?
    Will it benefit Clinton because she's been SoS and has the foreign policy experience?

    My sense is it will benefit Trump due to our propensity to knee-jerk as we did after Sep 11,  and since Trump is the best recruitment poster ISIS has, I think they will try very hard for a pre-election attack here.

    I'd like to hear MilTracy's thoughts on this.

    It's all very sickening.


    It would not have to be here (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 09:32:58 AM EST
    There's been several stories recently about the fear of the vulnerability of nuclear power facilities in the EU.  An event like that coukd turn the tide for Donald.   And it would benefit Donald not Hillary.

    I don't (none / 0) (#34)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 11:06:46 AM EST
    see how you could say that. There is probably a sizable majority of the American electorate that recognize Donald's "strongman" persona as pure bluster. I find it extremely hard to believe that many of those voters would opt for the bluster over proven experience in troubling times.

    IMO, it would actually be a strong impetus for some of the more "sensible" Republicans to jump to Hillary, especially the Neo-Cons.

    At the risk of invoking the devil in Hillary's support, I daresay that Dick Cheney would choose known "hawk" Hillary over "loose cannon" Trump.



    Well (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 11:10:00 AM EST
    Opinions are like other things.  Everybody got one.  

    You could (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 10:32:35 AM EST
    argue for either Hillary or Trump with regards to a terrorist attack. Hillary knows foreign policy but Donald has the strong man persona. All you can say is that Bernie would get wiped out for sure.

    CNN quoted a poll saying Clinton (none / 0) (#162)
    by sallywally on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 08:30:27 PM EST
    would be best to handle current world affairs.

    The New Republic article (none / 0) (#163)
    by sallywally on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 08:40:01 PM EST
    Is right on, I think.

    This article from Booman... (none / 0) (#23)
    by magster on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 10:28:18 AM EST
    ... I thought made a good point. Even though Hillary is not in real danger of losing the nomination, the thumpings she is getting are a concern if she wants to have a coattail effect in the general election. The most enthusiastic voters show up to caucus, and she loses by a 4:1 margin.  

    He should (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    read the article "Hillary Voter" in the New Republic. Caucuses don't measure enthusiasm in the least. Caucuses measure people who have a lot of idle time on their hands. Caucuses are also how we got Dukakis as a nominee in 1988.

    And Obama 8 years ago. (none / 0) (#26)
    by magster on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 10:39:47 AM EST
    I'll go find and read that article.

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    did caucuses yes but Obama also won in the south which Bernie has not done.

    The truth is this is the best Bernie is going to do. It goes south for Bernie now.


    Yep, but in an (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:00:52 PM EST
    interesting twist, the Bernie folks are already spiking the football.  Big Orange is a hoot in that regard.

    Define "thumping" (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 10:40:07 AM EST
    She is leading in the delegate count by 708.  More that Obama ever led by.

    This is really rather ridiculous


    Talking about recent caucuses. (none / 0) (#29)
    by magster on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 10:47:59 AM EST
    I know this is a pro-Clinton site. I'm pro Clinton, but in caucus states she's by losing 'mercy-rule' margins. No one thinks that might be a problem if she wants Sanders' supporters to vote for her in the general?

    that (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    problem has been discussed many times around here. My opinion is that while there will definitely be some loss of enthusiasm and a few will stay home and even fewer still will jump to Trump.

    Of course that all hinges on Bernie doing the right thing and enthusiastically supporting Hillary. The Democrats would be fools to deny Bernie his soapbox and I think Bernie would relish the role (great attack dog on GOP economic policy for instance), his tour across the College towns this fall could be huge.

    I believe that if the Democrats and Bernie play it right, this could be turned into somewhat of a wave election which should, rightfully, be added to Bernie's legacy.


    First (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:37:53 PM EST
    I agree with the post in that it does not depend on Bernie.

    Second I very much doubt he will "enthusiastically"  do the right thing.  Or anything for that matter.

    Based on his "conditions" for an endorsement I'm  hard pressed to even see how that happens of he sticks to it.  

    That said, I doubt he will "stick to it" because he will learn quickly what a piranha he would become.  I still expect squat from Bernie.  And I'm not sure it matters much.

    That's just me


    I think Bernie's support (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:47:55 PM EST
    Matters not at all for down-ticket races, which are critical.

    He's never raised money for these guys, he's made it clear he's not one of them. He's spent a career making them come to him and putting amendments into to bills.

    I think in the general it would be great if a majority of Sanders supporters would vote for Clinton even if they have to hold their noses.  No one is a Purity candidate. But some are far better than others.  Your vote is not some personal morality measure IMO.   I believe it's a tool you should use to improve as many lives as possible.

    But I sense that POV does not resonate with young white millennials.  I guess we'll see.


    HA (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 01:59:56 PM EST
    PARIAH not piranha


    A piranha with dentures


    Your "piranha" post (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:04:41 PM EST
    was like a Picasso....it really had me doing a double take.  I kinds like the original phrasing.

    Bernie supporting Hillary? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Nemi on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 07:43:55 AM EST
    Nah - or is it more like nah-nah-nah-nah-nah? - doesn't look like it: Sanders Backs Away From Potential Support For Hillary.

    Did you read the post (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 10:49:29 AM EST
    It responds to that better than I could.

    And for the record (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 10:51:10 AM EST
    Personally I'm

    Pro reality
    Pro winning
    Pro Clinton

    In that order.


    Don't you mean ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 11:50:57 AM EST
    Pro Trump, Pro Trump and Pro Trump?



    You know (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    I'm not sure which is funnier your frantic CYA on the "above the fold" nonsense or you parroting the Sanders BS about no coverage.

    You are ridiculous


    Oh (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:16:10 PM EST

    Wow! (none / 0) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:19:22 PM EST
    You have zero sense of humor.

    I was just teasing.  Even put a "winkie" to help.


    So did I (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:21:11 PM EST

    Okay ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:36:20 PM EST
    I missed that.  Must have been writing my response when you posted it.

    But you are Pro Trump.




    What a shellacking! (none / 0) (#28)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 10:44:25 AM EST

    What a shellacking!

    Washington 73%. Alaska, 82%. Hawaii, 71%.  Three landslides.  

    Cacuses (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 10:58:34 AM EST
    where 20 year olds have the time to show up for. We're not going to have a national caucus in November but as a Republican I know you guys will find any reason you can to fluff Bernie because you think you can beat him and you probably can beat him. It's pretty obvious what you guys are doing.

    More just reflexive (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:06:57 PM EST
    bashing of Hillary, I think, than any strategic effort to fluff Bernie.  Just more visceral CDS, as discussed above.

    Last polls (none / 0) (#169)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 09:08:55 AM EST
    The last few national polls I saw all had Bernie doing better than Hill against Trump. Even though they are caucuses, those numbers are pretty impressive.

    Whatever else it means, it shows Bernie's supporters far more motivated to show up to vote. That's a key strength come November.


    Of course. (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 10:20:22 AM EST
    It's why Bernie is millions of votes behind Hillary. Bernie has done nothing for down ticket races. And the GOP PACS have not let loose on Bernie as a matter of fact have been supporting him. Now do you think the GOP would be supporting a candidate that they thought could beat them? No, they are doing this because their internal polling shows that Bernie would lose to them.

    Even C-Span didn't ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 11:26:45 AM EST
    cover them.  

    If Sanders gave his usually eight hour long victory speech, it was nowhere to be seen.

    The local news I checked didn't mention them. Or just gave them a brief shout-out in the C or D block.

    The various Clinton hating websites (Politico, TPM, etc.)gave them some play. MSN and Google news has it as a headline. (Headlines without hyperbole.) Yahoo news doesn't.

    It's Easter. Most sensible people are spending time with their families. And if politics comes up its Trump they're talking about, not Bernie.

    CNN, NYT, CBS (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by sallywally on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:35:52 PM EST
    and others are saying these wins constitute trouncing, crushing, landslides ... virtually nothing about Clinton ' s huge lead in delegates, etc. I don't think they have used such glorious terminology about her recent winning of five of five states.

    I don 't believe "people" hate her, after all her delegate count would seem to indicate otherwise,  but the media talking heads do, as they have since 1992, and they've endlessly repeated falsehoods about her ever since. I'm sure sexism is part of it, the hatred and fear of a strong woman, and in the piblic misinformation, but I see a lot of support for her among my circle. And maybe there are people who support her but are not willing to say it out loud. I just put a Hillary sign in my yard, and I was a little nervous to do it, so even I am affected by this.


    Anyway ... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:38:20 PM EST
    these races aren't important.

    Sanders fans should enjoy their day of victory.

    It's likely to be their last.


    Since I dragged my fat (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:09:50 PM EST
    arse back to the gym, I have had to put up with the anti-Hillary talk in the locker room.  I had had it and started to talk back.

    I want a Hillary tee-shirt to wear in the gym.....that would be delicious.


    For for it! (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:52:03 PM EST
    Tee shirts [here https://www.funsportsgear.com/products/772159533?s=2&utm_source=google%20shopping&utm_medium =clicks&utm_campaign=1314777180]

    The Caucus system is unfair to say the least. (none / 0) (#48)
    by AX10 on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:24:26 PM EST
    Unless you have hours to spend to travel to a restricted number of locations, you have no voice.  Considering Bernie's past sympathies (and do not be surprised if those sympathies come out in an unfortunate Sanders administration), I am not surprised in the least that he is pro-caucus.

    Hillary still has a lead of 240 delegates.
    Obama had a lead of just 97 delegates at this point eight years back.

    Still, last night was a sham.  Bernie gained 20% in terms of net delegates on Hillary, but gained just 4/10ths of a point in the total popular vote between the two.

    Wisconsin will be close. Once we hit New York. Bernie will lose his gains from last night.
    A week later, he will be done.

    Sanders is much further behind (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:32:23 PM EST
    at the end of March than he was at the end of February.

    Yes he is. (none / 0) (#67)
    by AX10 on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:59:09 PM EST
    Last month he trailed by 220, this month he trails by 240.  He may gain another 10 next week only to lose up to 200 more in April.

    kind (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:46:23 PM EST
    of amazing isn't it? A party that screams to to high heaven about voter suppression pretends that  this extremely restrictive form of voting is a legitimate democratic selection process.

    And Bernie (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:13:29 PM EST
    says the greater the turnout, the better he does....and he says it without irony.

    Primaries have much greater turnout, and Hillary does much better in them.


    Yeah not certain his goal (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:22:23 PM EST
    I'm all for him staying in the race to keep the conversation leftward.

    But the vitriol towards Clinton (or Obama) is damaging in a race where the stakes are high. I hope he can stop that, but I believe he saw some success earlier (pre-MI) with getting a nastier tone, and he hasn't let up.

    So again, not certain what he is trying to do.


    It's gone to his head (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:24:43 PM EST
    He thinks the adoration is lasting and deserved.

    Ehh, is he really getting a swelled head? (none / 0) (#103)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:42:35 PM EST
    I've listened to him a few times until I realized I wasn't hearing anything new.  But I didn't get the sense of a narcissist such as Is so obvious with Trump.

    But I guess anyone can get full of themselves. Hmm.


    Well, no one can compare (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    to Trump....

    But I do sense Bernie is believing his press clippings too much.


    Can't See the [voter] Handwriting on Wall?? (none / 0) (#80)
    by bassclef on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 02:42:53 PM EST
    As a Washington caucus-goer yesterday, I can only say WTF??? to our commenters who doubt the trend so evident in WA, AK and HI. Multiple precincts met in one high school, and margins for Bernie were 7:3 or 8:2 in every precinct.

    Hillary can't be trusted; bad judgment X2 on Patriot Act, X 15+ on Irag & subsequent $$3B "emergency" funding bills, same mistakes on Afghanistan, wrong on credit card industry's bankruptcy bill, 0 plans for post-Quadafi Lybia, 0 plans for post-Assad Syria, full support for NAFTA, etc., etc.

    One Hillary interview (as Secy of State) summed it up for me: she was asked about Egypt, and she gushed about her many pleasant, intimate dinners at the home Hosne & Suzanne Mubarak--all the while Mubarak was governing--for 30 years--by emergency decree and imprisoning political dissidents! Hillary was oblivious!?!

    Bernie is the true democrat. Hillary votes like a Nelson Rockefeller--or worse. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination; this is one of many [d]emocrats who will write-in or vote for Dr. Jill Stein rather than hold our noses (again) and vote for another DLC Democrat.

    Screw you! Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

    All Bernies people have ever had to do (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:15:02 PM EST
    is back up their talk with getting enough actual voters to the actual polls to win enough delegates for the nomination. Hillary is doing that. Bernie is not. That's really all there is to it.

    Put up or shut up, I'm sick of listening to it.


    Caucus-goers, not voters (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:44:21 PM EST
    Voters mainly prefer Hillary.

    Just when we thought it was safe..... (none / 0) (#82)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 02:49:38 PM EST

    Yup Bernie is the true Dem who never joined the party or raised a penny.

    Yes, call us doubters that Bernie's caucus wins in areas Clinton didn't campaign, will turn the tide for him. Crazy, I know.

    Check back here in a week or so.


    How to tell a Bernie supporter? (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:18:16 PM EST
    Use of the exclamation point.

    There is no Bernie momentum.  The race is static.  To be true, momentum swung to Bernie with New Hampshire, back to Hillary with Nevada, more to Hillary in South Carolina, back to Bernie with Michigan, back to Hillary with Florida and Ohio.

    And, if this were a momentum race, it swung to Hillary in Arizona, and then back to Bernie later that same night in Utah and Idaho.


    Question - if Bernie does not get the nomination (none / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:40:40 PM EST
    why would you write in Jill Stein instead of him? If you like Jill Stein vote for her, why do you even care about the Democratic nomination?

    I've been amazed (none / 0) (#111)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 03:57:39 PM EST
    At some of the bloggers I follow, now that it seems mostly over for Sanders, just go ape and slam Clinton.

    Over at LGM Paul Campos has gone crazy, as has Erik Loomis though he redeemed himself a bit this week. Just slamming Clinton. As if the alternative, was, you know, even thinkable.

    Ian Welsh just completely lost his sh**t and flat out is calling Clinton a monster. Ian is a miserable bastard at times but he's been a reliable progressive. But Monster? It's been stunning to observe.

    It's true (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:04:08 PM EST
    People have lost their minds.  You know in 2008 I could sort of maybe understand it.  Hope and change, brilliant attractive black candidate.  But now?

    Bernie Sanders? Seriously.  And they seem even more driven to hysteria now than then.   I think maybe it's bacause they can't use the default "racist" slur to shut down any substantive conversation about a nearly 80 year old career politician who is about an inspiring flat beer


    And the amazing thing is that they could have seen (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:12:04 PM EST
    the Clinto candidacy  coming 1000 miles away. Why weren't they spending the last 8 years coming up with a progressive alternative to Clinton, and building the groundwork? Russ Feingold, to throw just one name out there. I would have supported that 100%  But Sanders? Sorry, no.

    this (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:35:40 PM EST
    particular group of voters seem to believe in magic. Magically candidates are going to appear that magically pass legislation. If you ever ask them how Bernie is going to accomplish anything it's that "the people" are going to "rise up" and march and congress is going to automatically obey them. I swear it's like a left wing version of the Benghazi committee where they have not a clue as to how government works.

    I think the most surprising thing for me (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:41:04 PM EST
    Is how the impact and import of the first woman Commander in Chief seems to have been completely lost.  I think if I was a woman I would be absolutely outraged by that.   I'm not an I'm sort of outraged.   It would be one thing if there was even a hint of "affirmative action" to it but there is not.  She is quite simply the most qualified candidate to run for the office in my lifetime.  

    I don't understand it.


    The resistance (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 05:07:07 PM EST
    to women leaders is strong in this country. You would think the young would see the importance of it but IMO they don't have enough life experiences to see what it means.

    I find it infuriating. Clinton is (5.00 / 6) (#132)
    by caseyOR on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 05:38:34 PM EST
    making history every damn day, with every delegate she adds to her total. That she is on the verge of becoming the first woman to win the presidential nomination of either party is routinely ignored or dismissed as not important. That she has a very real chance of becoming our first woman president is practically sneered at by some.

    Clinton is, IMO, the most qualified candidate of the last fifty years. An imperfect candidate, as they all are and have been, but imminently qualified.

    Is sexism so ingrained in our national psyche that we cannot recognize the historical magnitude of her candidacy?


    As I sad (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 05:58:03 PM EST
    It was one thing in 2008.  Step aside for the first young black president.  Brilliant, charismatic eloquent.

    She did it gracefully.

    Ok, now do it again for a crabby opportunistic old white snake oil salesman who was not even a democrat a year ago.

    No.  I call BS.


    Before someone gets the wrong idea (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by caseyOR on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:57:46 PM EST
    let me make clear that I am not claiming, nor do I believe, that all Sanders supporters are acting out of sexism. Sanders supporter does not automatically equal sexist pig.

    Yes (none / 0) (#135)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 05:48:38 PM EST
    ....this has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions!

    Ok, I snark.

    But, sadly, Yes.


    well... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by linea on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:00:40 PM EST
    Elizabeth Warren would have gotten the support of younger women. Everyone I know likes her. Just saying. {smile}

    I disagree. Everyone likes Warren now, but (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by caseyOR on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:41:41 PM EST
    the minute she announced for president she would hit the same sexist buzzsaw, maybe not as vicious as what Hillary faces, but darn close.

    Think I am wrong? Go back and research her Senate campaign and the crap that was thrown at her. Then read up on what happened after Sanders lost the Massachusetts' primary this year. Warren was pilloried for not endorsing Sanders. If you can find them, the comments posted to her Facebook page and twitter account are quite lovely (not).

    While there does seem to be special font of hate for Hillary, thanks, no doubt, to two decades of vicious attacks, no woman is safe from the putrid underbelly of sexism in our America.


    You are (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:46:44 PM EST
    100 percent correct. It would be the rain of heck on her and it would be ugly and she doesn't have an established relationship with the majority of Democratic constituencies. So not only would she get all the same sexist stuff that Hillary gets she also would be getting probably even less voters than Bernie is getting.

    Warren does not want to be president!!! (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by sallywally on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 09:25:51 AM EST
    Besides which she is SO important in the Senate. This has been brought up over and over and she has firmly shut it down every time.

    And, she is not as thoroughly qualified as Clinton. There is no one as qualified as Hillary is.


    She also would face (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 01:40:37 PM EST
    The same handicap as Bernie - she really only has one issue where she has passion and experience.

    Well (none / 0) (#172)
    by sallywally on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 09:47:23 AM EST
    everyone you know wants Sanders, I think ;-). I wonder how Sanders would have run against Warren.

    He wouldn't (none / 0) (#184)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 06:23:08 PM EST
    Have run. He only ran , originally, as a protest candidate. To bring attention to his issues.
    Warren , with a higher profile, and being a Democrat, would have negated any need for The Bern to run.

    He never realized or expected how many in the Democratic Party want to cast a protest vote.


    Feingold would not be their choice either. (none / 0) (#136)
    by AX10 on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 05:50:25 PM EST
    As he not willing to spend money lavishly as Bernie wants too.  Russ was excellent of foreign policy and social issues/liberties.  On economics he is a moderate.

    That is actually good for me and would have loved to see him in the Whitehouse.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by smott on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:16:29 PM EST
    Though again I don't think we should mistake this as a sudden deep yearning for a 70-something cranky white Socialist.

    It's simply about deep loathing for Clinton, and IMO it always has been.

    But the depth of the vitriol is saddening. I pay little attention to DKOS as it is often mob-hive-mind idiocy.  Campos I could sort of expect. Loomis was stunning. Welsh is miserable, but now Clinton is a Monster? When the alternative is Trump. My God. They've truly lost their sh*t. It's embarrassing.


    My theory (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 04:40:47 PM EST
    is that Bill took the party away from left wing activists and they are still stinging from it. However these same people are the ones that put forth a string of losing candidates. And for some unknown reason they think much like Nader that you can start at the top. You cannot start at the top and instead of putting their energy into someone like Bernie they would be better off working with the local party and helping find candidates to run for off but, you know, it just seems easier to sit at the keyboard and yell and call Hillary names.

    So here is my slightly tinfoily addition (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Valhalla on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:15:12 PM EST
    to this point. I think in 2008 they thought Obama was giving the party back to them when he got the nomination instead of Clinton.  What's worse, I think they really thought that their support for him was not correlative, but causative, ie they were determinative of the direction of the party.

    Their support this year for Sanders is not having the same results, and they are furious.  Of course it's not having the effect because Sanders isn't remotely the candidate Obama was, and his support was based on millions of more mainstream Democrats than just them.

    And they are growing furiouser.  So instead of some introspection on why, or some sort of course correction, they are doubling down on all the worst tactics from 2008.  Calling Hillary names is the least of it, but they think it worked before so if they just do more of it now...


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:32:50 PM EST
    I think some of that is true if you believe what they say and that is they determined who the nominee was forgetting that Obama had other support outside of their support.

    I also see in all this how the magical ponies produce a large amount of vileness and bitterness. They expected a pony from Obama and never got one.


    Yes, I think it's worse now bc (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Valhalla on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 08:41:49 PM EST
    Obama disappointed them.  But I also think that there was a great deal of self-induced delusion in 2008.  Obama was happy for them to believe he was the great pure leftie they'd been waiting for, and have their support, but he pretty clearly telegraphed how he would govern, they just ignored it.  He was never going to be that guy.

    Sanders IS that guy.  What many of us see as an impractical ideological rigidity on Sanders' part is to them the Holy Grail, and Clinton is standing in their way again.  I could almost feel bad for them.


    And of course (none / 0) (#171)
    by sallywally on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 09:37:34 AM EST
    Obama got pretty much all of Clinton ' s voters, doubling his support.

    Not bad (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 07:18:30 PM EST
    Add to them Democratunderground, (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by AX10 on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 05:39:50 PM EST
    the Young Turks (jerks), Hartmann, Schultz, Ring of Fire, Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, they all sound like Beck/Hannity/Fox Noise etc.  The extremists on both sides have ganged up on Hillary.

    It's a repeat of 2008.  Difference is Hillary has connections and ties that were forged decades ago.

    Bernie & Co feel entitled to the nomination despite not forging working relationship with the party.


    That (and even worse!) was what (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by Nemi on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 07:33:46 AM EST
    Samantha Power too called her, back in 2008 ... and have regretted ever since, 'Power recalls 'monster' comment, working with Hillary Clinton':

    Power resigned from the Obama campaign after apologizing for the comments, and she apologized to Clinton personally. In the Thursday interview, she said "it was very emotional for me."

    "To be able to say that in person was something that I'm immensely grateful to her to have given me that opportunity to do," she said.

    She, Hillary Clinton, seems to be very graceful in accepting apologies. Like with Jon Favreau apologizing for the, as he himself calls it, "well-documented run-in with a piece of cardboard":

    It was one of the stupider, more disrespectful mistakes I've made, and one that could have cost me a job if Hillary hadn't accepted my apology, which she did with grace and humor. As a result, I had the chance to serve in the Obama administration with someone who was far different than the caricature I had helped perpetuate.

    Regardless of Hillary's grace in accepting (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by smott on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 09:04:11 AM EST
    That moronic fratboy f-ck stick's apology, what NO ONE should forget is that not only did Obama not fire Favreau on the spot, he promoted him. Promoted. Him.

    That should tell us precisely how Obama and his campaign felt about Clinton.


    And the other guy (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Nemi on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 11:45:49 AM EST
    in said picture, Ben Rhodes, went on to become no less than 'Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting'. So there's that - too.

    Oh well ...


    Kümmel man-splains to Clinton (none / 0) (#175)
    by smott on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 10:41:22 AM EST
    Hilarious .  Hillary is a pretty good straight-woman

    Pfft (none / 0) (#176)
    by smott on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 10:42:19 AM EST
    Kimmel !!

    Read Armando's tweets (none / 0) (#181)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 01:43:00 PM EST
    Re: Sanders campaign conference call today and how Tad Devine says now the strategy is about winning states, not delegates,  and that will make the SD'S flip.

    Also see The Plum Line (Greg Sargent) in today's WaPi blog.


    How many/What states has he won so far? (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by sallywally on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 02:17:25 PM EST
    Does his mean he knows he can't catch up in pledged delegates -- or superdelegates -- without flipping some of hers?

    He's been (5.00 / 5) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 02:52:12 PM EST
    shopping that one for a while now. So it's not really anything new. They never seen to answer the question as to why the super delegates would flip to someone who only has been a member of the party for less than a year and is doing nothing for the party.

    More than likely this is Devine's last rodeo and he's going to milk it for all it's worth. Once Bernie ends his campaign it's the end of the money for people like Devine. It's in their own self interest to keep the campaign going and to continue to say anything to keep people donating.