Clinton Will Build Her Biggest Lead on March 15. Sanders Will Erode It After That.

By Gaius Publius, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius, Tumblr and Facebook. Originally published at at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.

I’m keeping this short to put a very simple idea into your head. Because of the way the Democratic Party voting calendar is structured this year, Clinton’s largest lead will occur on March 15. After that, most of Sanders’ strongest states will vote.

What this means is simple:

  • Hillary Clinton will grow her lead until the March 15 states have voted.
  • Bernie Sanders will erase that lead — partly or completely — after March 15.
  • How much of Clinton’s lead he will erase depends on your not buying what the media is selling — that the contest is over.
  • In most scenarios where Sanders wins, he doesn’t retake the lead until June 7, when five states including California cast their ballots.

March 15 is the Ides of March; a good way to remember the date. The message — gear up for a battle after the Ides of March, and don’t let the establishment media tell you what to think. They won’t be right until the last state has voted.

If you want to stop reading here, this is all you need to know.

The Data

Now the data. One of the best data-stitians I’ve come across is a diarist at Daily Kos named MattTX. Matt is very good, professionally good, at this stuff. In a long, carefully-reasoned diary, “How Bernie Sanders can win the Democratic nomination,” he lays out six scenarios for the race, in five of which Bernie Sanders wins the nomination (the other is a current baseline with no momentum). He presents them in a parallel fashion, and each presentation differs only in changing a small set of assumptions. Once you understand how to read the first one, you can read the others easily.

The first three scenarios are “static” — they assume that the national polling remains fixed throughout the race. He then runs the numbers on each state race for the following assumptions:

  • The polling stays fixed at Clinton 49%–Sanders 42%, a 7-point Clinton lead.
  • The polling stays fixed at Clinton 45%–Sanders 45%, a dead heat.
  • The polling stays fixed at Sanders 47%–Clinton 44%, a 3-point Sanders lead.

Then he looks at what “momentum” looks like in a number of recent presidential contests (it actually can take a number of shapes) and chooses a momentum pattern associated with Obama’s win over Clinton in 2008. (Click here to see that chart.)

His final three scenarios are “dynamic” variations of his static ones, with shifting momentum off the current baseline. In each of these, Sanders wins, each time overcoming the bulge in the Clinton lead that comes on March 15. In the narrowest of these winning scenarios, the March 15 bulge is quite large, +184 delegates for Clinton.

Note that the data in Matt’s piece was run prior to South Carolina’s results, so Sanders has some additional ground to make up. Still, Sanders is right to “take it to the convention.” Most of his strength comes after most of Clinton’s, and Sanders could easily surprise in his states, just as Clinton will surprise in some of hers. Again, we won’t know who has the lead for good until after California and four additional states vote in early June.

Bottom line — What looks bad for Sanders supporters on March 1 will look worse a few weeks later. But stay heartened. Whatever the result through March, this isn’t over until June, after Sanders’ best states have voted as well.

Print Friendly
Tweet about this on Twitter0Digg thisShare on Reddit32Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Facebook0Share on LinkedIn3Share on Google+0Buffer this pageEmail this to someone

130 comments

  1. dk

    Nice. Thanks! Will circulate.

    There’s been even less than usual press about tomorrow’s Dem Debate:

    Sunday, March 6, 2016
    CNN Democratic Debate
    8pm ET (7pm CT, 6pm MT, 5pm PT)
    Location: The Whiting Auditorium in Flint, Michigan
    Sponsors: CNN, MLive, The Flint Journal
    Moderator: Anderson Cooper
    Candidates: Clinton, Sanders

    Here is the debate calendar:
    http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/

    And here’s Politico with a preview:
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/everything-you-need-to-know-about-flint-democratic-debate-220275

    And there’s another Dem debate on Wednesday:

    Wednesday, March 9, 2016
    Univision Democratic Primary Debate
    Location: Miami Dade College in Miami, Florida
    Sponsors: Univision, The Washington Post
    Candidates: TBD

    Candidates TBD? Is someone thinking that Sanders will bow out?

    1. kj1313

      I think the buzz for debates is squarely on the trainwreck on the Republican side. It’s the best reality comedy show I’ve seen in years.

      1. Johnnygl

        Clinton seems concerned enough about sanders having an hour to himself on national television that she felt obligated to show up, it seems. There was talk of a sanders-trump debate, which would have been awesome!

          1. NotTimothyGeithner

            It’s the only way to stop Trump. Hillary has the same credibility flaws as Rubio. Identity politics and fear gets 2010 and 2014 results.

            1. James Levy

              People keep screaming about identity politics but the whole NASCAR/Flag lapel/Confederate Flag/I’m a Christian ensemble is as strong a form of identity politics as anything women or blacks throw around, and since the days of Nixon it has worked pretty freakin’ well for the Republicans. Don’t imagine that only Hillary and the Dems are into identity politics–you see it in Trump’s appeal and in every one of his rallies.

              1. DJG

                James Levy: Keep repeating that. Just as Methodism-lite is portrayed as the American religion, and the American identity is religious, so the default Scot-Irish-Tennessee-ish white person is some how the all-American. Could be some problems with that in the 21st century.

            2. Uahsenaa

              Rubio also has the problem of not really saying anything worth listening to. He fails against Trump, because, even if you hate him, Trump still actually says something.

              I was listening to an NPR interview with Rubio, and he prevaricates over even the most simple question. Inskeep lobbed softball after softball at him, and he bunted every single time. He’s not even an elegant prevaricator like Obama, it’s so obvious.

              1. NotTimothyGeithner

                Trump doesn’t have to say anything. He isn’t part of the establishment. This is all that matters if the alternative is a world where Elder Mittens is treated as anything other than a vile clown of the worst sort.

                It’s the same with Hillary as with Rubio. I don’t believe an Obama style Democrat would work either. The candidate would have to commit.

  2. EndOfTheWorld

    Of course, there is a possibility that HRC’s e- mail controversy will heat up a lot by May. May be one or more indictments.

    1. P Walker

      I suspect that both the Democrats and GOP wish to keep a lid on this until HRC is coronated in Philadelphia. The Democrats will still try to keep it suppressed but the GOP will probably conveniently leak out documents only then, and likely to be an October Surprise.

      Maybe I’m just paranoid.

      Heard my first Bernie advertisement yesterday on the radio from northern Maine.

      1. Brooklin Bridge

        No, not paranoid, not for this. It makes sense that Democrats will try to keep it suppressed and likely succeed, we’re talking about very powerful Democrats, until the American public takes ownership and drives the wreck off the lot, unaware the differential is crammed with sawdust. And of course Sanders is too “polite”, too, “let’s move forward and not backward”, to point out what the facts and implications surrounding this email cover-up are.

        1. Anonymous

          that would be very very stupid of them. If this breaks during the general election with her as the nominee even if it’s her aides that are indicted the democratic party can kiss the presidency goodbye even if her opponent is Donald Trump.

          1. Brooklin Bridge

            As others have suggested, The Democrats would rather loose to Trump than win with Sanders. Sanders is a real threat to the status quo, Wall St. and finance in particular. The lifeblood of the Democratic Party and machinery. Trump is embarrassing, will probably get into some nasty mischief, but he does not represent a significant challenge to the status quo.

    2. Crazy Horse

      Considering the Kos data source, it’s no surprise that no mention is made of the superdelegates that the Clinton machine has already bought and paid for. In order for Sanders to win the nomination he has to arrive at the convention with at least a 15% lead among delegates who were actually chosen by the party rabble.

      In reality, the only way the Hildabeast will not be nominated by her party is through some miracle wherein the Obama justice department allows indictments to proceed for her treasonous theft of classified documents and irresponsibly posting them on an insecure private server.

      I’m voting for the black swan with orange hair from the Repugnant Party.

      1. Bev

        Bernie Supporters please read:
        http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2016/02/hillary-clintons-super-delegate-lies.html?m=1

        Hillary Clinton and the DNC’s Super Delegate Fraud.

        The AP headline read: Super delegates Help Clinton Expand Her Lead Despite NH Loss.

        It was and is a complete fabrication. Another way of putting it would be fraud. Initiated by Clinton and the DNC and unfortunately aided and abetted by two ignorant AP reporters (and others like CNN) who didn’t know ( or maybe didn’t care) that they were being snookered and simply swallowed what was thrown at them. It would help if people who actually think they are reporters would check DNC rules regarding the use of super delegates.

        snip

        Clinton saying she picked up 87 super delegates after New Hampshire has the same affect and same weight and real influence on the nomination as if she had picked up 87 empty beer cans. Well,no, that’s not true because the beer cans would be worth more if they had a 5c deposit.

        snip

        ADDENDUM: This article has been updated to include the 1984 Democratic convention which is the only time super delegates have ever voted and then voted for Walter Mondale who won the most pledged delegates during the primaries, 1606-1164 confirming that pledged delegates won during primaries is the standard for nominating a presidential candidate. And does not change the fact that super delegate votes do not count unless cast at the convention and non-binding declarations that Clinton included in her totals are completely bogus.

        snip

        NOTE: CNN is still showing super delegate totals for Clinton included with her pledged delegate totals that don’t actually exist and may never exist and for now and until the convention and they are cast, if ever, are pure fiction. John King is one of the worst offenders but so is Wolf Blitzer. The Sanders campaign needs to hold them and other media outlets accountable.
        ……….

  3. voteforno6

    It’s funny that this post is from someone at Daily Kos…Kos himself has declared that after March 15th no more attacks on Clinton will be allowed, and no more people declaring that they won’t vote for Clinton in the fall will be allowed. Once again, proof that the one thing that will not be allowed in the Democratic Party is democracy.

    1. Pavel

      hi voteforno6… I was going to post the same message. I was browsing the Orange Monster and stumbled on the Kaiser’s dictum AFTER MARCH 15TH THOU SHALT SUPPORT HILLARY. Of course Kos lost his credibility years ago (as did his site).

      What’s interesting is to read the comments on most posts and see how rapidly they deteriorate into insults and taunts and worse.

    2. Llewelyn Moss

      I had not visited Daily Kos in ages. But could not resist yesterday when I heard Kos issued an ultimatum for people to S+FU about Bernie after March 15. There is a blood bath between progressives and Dem party loyalists going on about voting for Hillary. I guess the Repubs aren’t the only ones having a Kanipshin fit over their front runner.

      Myself I’m done voting for Neoliberals. Sorry Hellery.

      1. Bas

        It says something that Slick Shillery is so bad that progressives can’t hold their noses this time, as they have after the football has been pulled over the last decades.

        1. cwaltz

          She’s really not that much worse than what they’ve been selling for years. I suspect that people from the left though may be finally starting to ask themselves, is it really a “win” if it’s MY side that cuts social security, privatizes everything, and sells out to corporate America?

          If the answer is a resounding no than you really can’t vote for her.

    3. so

      I go to kos to get a rise out of the conflict and stupid hypocrisy. After March 15 no more.
      It’s his blog. If he wants to bury it in the ground so be it.

    4. HotFlash

      Anybody remember what Kos said about HIllary’s PUMA’s back then? I had stopped reading by then.

          1. ambrit

            I had to look that one up. When I did, the mental image thus conjured was priceless!
            “Knit one, chop two.”

              1. ambrit

                Yep. Who would have thought that the Republicans were going to have to choose between a Crypto Populist and a Right Wing Nutter?
                I can easily foresee brokered conventions for both parties.
                (I just reread Gore Vidals’ “The Best Man.” Too many points of similarity to today to mention. Vidal has a running start for Prophet status.)

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        I can’t speak for “voteforno6,” but depending on your perspective, you would have found that the great orange Satan turned into a garbage pit in 2007 or just after the election in 2008. Criticizing Herr Obama for his embrace of Rahm and Lieberman meant you were a racist. Dkos is a sheepdog outfit for control and kettling of progressives.

        It’s the msnbc of the Internet.

      2. Bas

        These are the people Kos is kicking out of the Great Orange Satan. I am finding them now at Kossacks for Bernie at Reddit and Caucus99.

        1. afisher

          Not sure if “kicking out” is the action, but there is a substantial number of people who are angry about MM. Thanks for the info re: Reddit and Caucus99. (at the moment Reddit appears to have the largest influx).

        1. ekstase

          Wow. I was going to pull a quote from that to protest, but you’d have to pull nearly every sentence. So I’ll just suggest that everyone has the right to this: Do not tell me what to think. Do not tell me what to do. I am not your inferior in figuring out the world.

  4. Working Class Nero

    For an economic nationalist / social democrat like me, this election cycle has unexpectedly turned from another Bush vs. Clinton snooze-fest into wonderful insurgency featuring Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump taking on their party’s respective elite factions.

    On the one hand having both Sanders and Trump together splits the anti-establishment vote to some extent – on the other hand having them both active at the same time seriously undermines the reigning left/right paradigm. I read extremely diverse sources on the election and there are a surprising number of people on both the supposed right and left who turn out to be Sanders/Trump in the sense that they will vote for either of these candidates if they get the chance.

    The second best thing for someone like me would be a Trump vs. Sanders general election showdown. The best thing would be a Trump/Sanders (or Sanders/Trump) ticket after they accomplished a hostile takeover of one of the two parties and joined their ideologies together!

    As I look at Sanders’ potential path to the nomination, and since he has no chance of winning many super-delegates, his only way forward is to win the popular vote and then demand the nomination on moral grounds. In 2008 Clinton and Obama were actually quite close in the popular vote totals, at one point Clinton claimed she won more. It is very complicated due to a couple rogue primaries but is seems as if Obama actually barely won the popular vote in the Dem. Primaries in 2008.

    As things are going it seems Sanders will only win the white popular vote which is, needless to say, rather awkward in the Democratic Party to base any claims on. In any case Sanders has to tell his people (maybe he already is) to forget the delegate count and to get out and try to win the popular vote.

    Although Trump and Sanders are fighting in different primaries, in some ways (certainly not all) they are going after the same voters. And if we are to believe the surge in voting in the GOP primaries against the decline in those of the Dems, it seems Trump is winning the battle for these independent anti-establishment voters.

    My theory is Trump is winning because he has hit the immigration issue harder than Sanders. And in some ways this is a tragedy because as Sanders showed on his famous interview on Vox, Sanders is a far BETTER anti-immigration advocate than Trump is.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

    In contrast, Trump has TWICE stumbled during debates on the H1-B cheap labor scam (Jeff Sessions always immediately bails him out but the damage is already done). Even worse he has spoken warmly of uber cheap labor huckster Mark Zuckenberg, which only makes anti-immigrant activists’ heads explode. In fact Trump rarely if ever connects mass immigration to cheap labor – I suppose this does makes some political sense since he is running for the nomination of the party whose entire raison d’être is the eternal effort at the cheapening of the cost of labor (a.k.a. class warfare!). But this does expose Trump’s vulnerability to a class warfare-based attack on the immigration issue.

    Now the irony of ironies is that idealistic Americans who vow to flee to progressive Canada if the arch-villain Trump wins the presidency are contacting immigration LAWYERS!! How can this be??? Why do they need to contact lawyers??? Surely in an enlightened place like Canada, the huddled masses of Trump-fugees who show up at the border will be greeted by the nicey-nice Canadians, who will then supply them with a free health care card, give them a warm apartment, an EBT card, some spending money, along with a big, hearty Welcome-to-Canada hug?

    Actually Canada, like any strong welfare state should be, has pretty strict conditions for accepting immigrants and the system is set up to make it practically impossible for an illegal immigrant to stay in Canada. They pay good money for their single payer health system and so Canadians are somewhat hesitant to hand free health care cards to just anyone anywhere in the world who decides they want one.

    Which points out the interdependence of the Trump and Sanders positions. The origin of social democracy is the rather nationalistic sounding Swedish concept of “folkhemmet”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhemmet

    For the non-Swedish speakers “Folk” is obviously also “folk” in English as in “ein folk”. Hem is the indefinite stem meaning “home” in English (hemmet is actually “the home” but whatever) as in Homeland. Folk doesn’t necessarily have to have an ethnic component; any citizen of a nation can be considered part of the folk. But folkhemmet is certainly a particularist concept in that the “hem” means an individual nation-state is considered as one home within a community of homes (nations) while the “folk” are the family members that live within that one particular home. Family first in other words.

    In a folkhem, the parents are the wealthy and the children are the masses and together they decide to put the class struggle in hold. Normally there has to be a pretty good reason for the rich to agree to this. Back in the 1930’s, the specter of Marxists sweeping to power and decorating the lamp post with strange fruit bourgeoisie brought the rich to the table. Sanders is hoping an election victory will get the rich to the negotiating table while I suppose nowadays the only thing the elites remotely fear anything like the did Marxism is ironically enough Trumpism!

    I any case, the basic rule of thumb, as the great anti-immigration proponent Milton Freidman always said, you can have Open Borders, or you can have a Welfare State, but you cannot have both. Sweden and Germany are currently learning this lesson the hard way.

    Had Bernie Sanders hit the immigration issue harder – had he particularly continued to hit the cheap labor aspects and the necessity to close the border, had he explained that a “folkhem: has to have borders, he would have done much better among the anti-establishment types that are voting Trump. He could have stood on the shoulders of luminous anti-immigration giants such as Cesar Chavez. Deportations are not 100% required – calling for them does display a level of commitment, but if the borders were really and truly closed as they are into Canada, as Marco Rubio says, Americans may well be ready to discuss amnesty.

    The problem is that Democratic Party benefits from mass Latino immigration in that they gain more voters. The Reagan amnesty in 1986, coupled with the failure to close the borders, led to California, the springboard of both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, to becoming a statewide no-go zone for the GOP. Could Bernie win the Latino vote with a hard-line position on immigration? It is not yet clear – in the only state with a significant Latino population Donald Trump won by far the most Latino votes in the GOP primary (more than 3000) while Sanders and Clinton both had about 1000 Latino votes which even combined is far less than Trump received. But was Nevada a one-off? And would a hard-line on immigration have helped Bernie with the black vote, which for historic reasons has a strong nativist tendencies (in the early 20th century blacks were none too pleased when waves of Irish immigrants took the jobs blacks were perfectly willing to do).

    1. Jerry Denim

      “The best thing would be a Trump/Sanders (or Sanders/Trump) ticket after they accomplished a hostile takeover of one of the two parties and joined their ideologies together!”

      I have to respectfully disagree. I’ve been making a real effort to actually listen to Trump when he speaks and unfortunately his ideology seems to be about as shallow and as muddled as his sentences. His populist heterodoxy has been a welcome grenade in the midst of Republican neo-lib, neo-con orthodoxy, but it’s so shallow, jumbled, and contradictory I am unable to find a discernible ideology, only empty, half-baked sloganeering that appeals to low information voters. Trump manages to sputter out words and phrases like “TPP”, “free-trade”, “China and India” and somewhat correctly blames them for lost white working class jobs, but he always fails to connect the dots and cast blame on the real culprits, which we all know are rich, white business men like himself who have a strong monetary incentive to offshore jobs. Most importantly he fails to offer any type of policy prescription that could ameliorate the symptoms he recognizes. Getting “the best business minds” to negotiate our trade deals with China will not bring back jobs nor will it fix our trade imbalance and Trump knows this. Currency devaluation is a real issue but it really wouldn’t matter if we had a strong tariff system that could be adjusted accordingly to tax the imports from mercantilist countries. His talk of improved “free-trade” and lost jobs is misdirection. The “best business minds in America” have already negotiated our trade deals and they are working exactly the way they were intended. Corporate profits and executive compensation is way up since the time Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law and brought the Chinese into the WTO. Trump is no fool, he knows all of this to be true. He doesn’t connect the dots for his supporters because he doesn’t want to. He doesn’t offer any policy prescriptions because he doesn’t intend to change anything. Trump and his rich white buddies he golfs with enjoy having access to cheap immigrant labor to staff their hotels and businesses. If you think Trump has an ideology other than ‘get rich and screw the little guy’ you’ve been had. Trump is stealing disgruntled working class votes that rightfully belong to Bernie Sanders with his half-baked, faux populist non-sense. Trump is a fraud. It would be great if Sanders could debate Trump on these topics and give America a chance to see it for themselves. With luck it could happen, but Sanders will have to up his debate game. He has only managed to punch like a kitten so far with Clinton. Sanders is great with facts and figures but lousy at attacking/counter-attacking. Even when he is unfairly attacked he still pulls his punches.

      1. Working Class Nero

        While I can agree on several subjects Trump is simplistic and sloganeering, on trade he is actually fairly clear given the circumstances. You seem to be hitting him for not calling for tariffs — in fact he HAS called for tariffs, first at 45% for China which he backed off to 35%. For Mexico he mentioned a 35% tariff in response to that air conditioning company from Indiana (I think) who recently announced they were laying off 1400 Americans and moving to Mexico.

        The American working class is disproportionately Black and Latino. They get hit real bad by “free” trade just like white workers do. Asking Trump to play the race card on “free” trade is nothing short of crazy.

        Trump has described his ideology as “fair” trade which means as much free trade as possible but trade deficits must be monitored and tariffs adjusted in case imbalances grow between countries. If you don’t agree with this plan that is fine, but don’t say Trump has never proposed anything.

        And remember the context, Trump is basically preaching protectionism to a party that militantly love cheap labor free trade. His use of “currency manipulation” may not be 100% correct but it is a well-known slogan in Republican politics and is a safe talking point to hide behind.

        And the “best business minds” is again sloganeering to highlight his deal making experience. The reality is that up until now it was the intent of US negotiators to offshore working class jobs in order to reduce salaries and therefore increase profits and that was why these deals were made. All it really takes is a President who is hellbent on bringing jobs back and willing to impose tariffs and the actual negotiations will not be all that hard. If you want peace, prepare for war — if you want fair trade, prepare for protectionism.

        Frankly I get frustrated with Trump on several issues but fair trade is most certainly not one of them.

  5. Steve H.

    I’ve seen a similar argument from Nate Silver. Tho he warn’t right enough that In’t follerin’ him no more. Sports doesn’t have the positive feedback loop of opinion determining the outcome.

    Lambert: “Democratic establishment has a Southern strategy, where states Democrats will never win in the general determine who runs in the general.”

    Except Sanders has not taken the well-trod path of those falling out of the clown car. He is still there. And that makes for a serious perception problem that Clinton’s campaign, yet again, has left undefended. In 2008 the phrase ‘cloak of invulnerability’ was applied to her. Loser.

    Momentum. A physics definition applied to human activities. In sports, it’s treated like the confidence fairy. The non-independent part includes fatigue. OKC has two of the best five basketball players on the planet, but they fade at the end of the game because they’re tired, they’ve been overused during the previous three quarters. This is similar for Clinton. For her to win, the opposition had to be gone by mid-March.

    Having failed that, again, the opponent looks tough and is anointed with momentum juice. Entirely predictable. So are mental errors by overtired athletes. Even without FBI investigations. Am I overdoing the sports analogy? Sorry.

    Back to the issues.

  6. Kokuanani

    I am so sick of folks, including members of my own family, saying, “no way Sanders can win.” They’re completely oblivious to the news black-out on him, plus what appears to be an upcoming blog black-out.

    Thanks, Gaius and Yves, for this. It’s a good antidote to their ignorance, and I’ll pass it around

    1. hreik

      I’ve got the same issue in my family. My sibling in MA (who voted last week for Shillary) thinks Bernie cannot win. Ditto my sibling in CO. Boggles my mind.

      1. Tony S

        Whenever I hear this, my response is, “well, if YOU don’t vote for him, then no, of course he can’t win”.

        Usually changes the subject if nothing else.

  7. TedWa

    I must say I’m heartened in the strength of our democracy by the likes of Trump and Sanders. I’d much rather see chaos in the neoliberal establishment (such as it is) and in our elected establishment politicians than see it in the streets. The way Trump is taking the republican party, the establishment republicans must feel mentally like they’re getting physically probed – and that’s a good thing! Karma heheheeeh. Someones got to break up this neocon neoliberal pilfering of the commons and treasure.
    Go Bernie!!

  8. James Levy

    Although completely plausible, I think that bandwagoning will take root almost immediately, if it hasn’t already. The first time I saw this phenomenon was in 1984. I grew up on Long Island. But suddenly that summer after the Detroit Tigers got off to a 34-something fantastic start on the way to a World Series year, I started seeing those dark gothic “D” caps. Suddenly, all these Detroit “fans” came out of the woodwork. To quote Stephen King quoting somebody else, nothing succeeds like success in America, and if Hillary is on a delegate roll with all the money men and the pundits behind her, people will want, just like with Trump, to identify with the “winner”.

  9. JaaaaayCeeeee

    Right after I saw KOS’s new rule, that once Clinton has her widest lead 3/15, no one is allowed to even talk about oligarchs, I saw the full list of Clinton’s 91 corporate speeches with fees, after Secretary of State and before her final, formal announcement of her presidential campaign. I guess promising to fight the same politically powerful paying her, because she really fights for voters, makes it all okay, ha ha. It’s worth seeing:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/03/05/1496194/-Complete-List-of-All-91-of-Hillary-s-Corporate-Speeches-and-Speaking-Fees

    1. Llewelyn Moss

      Wow that is a boatload of corporate chits she has to pay back — Opps I mean the taxpayers will have to pay back. The corps do love them some Hellery.

  10. Big Earl

    While I’d love to see Sanders win, and I’m a big supporter, reading the DK article seems to suggest that the current situation is worse for Sanders than the author’s most “unlikely but possible” prediction:

    “Clinton holds a 49-42 national lead in the polls
    104 delegate cumulative Clinton lead

    Could he come back from this sort of setback? In theory, yes. But only with great difficulty and by the skin of his teeth.”

    So, what we currently have is a 189 delegate cumulative Clinton lead, with a 49.6-40 national lead in the polls. So, er, not sure I see the sunshine.

    1. James Levy

      Like the Presidential race, it’s 50 separate races. If Clinton’s support is overly concentrate, she can win some states by 30 points while Bernie squeaks by with a whole load of 54-46 or less wins. This in itself is not particularly democratic, but it is the system. If Sanders can win big in NY and CA, and stays close in a majority of other states, and gets hammered in the South, he might eek out enough delegates to win.

  11. local to oakland

    Sanders supporters from Kos have already found an alternative site. They created a sub discussion on Reddit specifically about being exiled.

    1. Steve H

      Thank you, I think this is it:

      reddit.com/r/Kossacks_for_Sanders

      Right now, top comment has 43 upvotes, which won’t get to the front page. It’s still young, it’ll grow.

    2. voteforno6

      Hopefully some of them will be a little more creative in registering their dissent. After all, there is a difference between following orders and following orders.

  12. Brooklin Bridge

    One of the themes now peddled is, “Sanders has put up a good fight. No matter what happens (hint hint), he has changed the playing field for good.” That is, Good-bye Mr. Sanders (and good riddance), well done!

    1. Brooklin Bridge

      That said, I completely agree with Gaius; this is far from over and such is my message and I have seen even a single person have a real effect so what you say to friends matters. If there was a way to embarrass the media, even HuffPo, into recognizing this race isn’t over – publicly, that simple truth would go a long long way towards helping.

    2. Donald

      I didn’t read your link, but one thing I’ve noticed is that otherwise liberal people who support Clinton or Obama or the Democratic Party sometimes end up defending everything about them, including their flaws. So, for example, they start trashing single payer or say the Clintons deserved to earn a hundred million because people were willing to pay, or they defend helping the Saudis bomb Yemen– I’ve seen all of this. And they are so annoyed by the criticisms made by Sanders or Nader or Glenn Greenwald or whoever it just hardens their stance. I think this is what the psychologists call the backfire effect.

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        The arguments aren’t for authoritarian followers. They are beyond reason. The point is to raise questions and promote information for the people who see the friendly, Hillary supporter and assume Hillary is like that supporter. The same Hillary supporter will gladly tell a sometimes voter Hillary opposes bad trade deals. Making them defend Hillary’s record helps with the sometime especially voter.

        The Hillary supporters came around for Obama as the nominee, and the Obama campaign was openly calling Bill and Hill racists.

  13. ScottW

    It will be interesting to see if the news black out on Sanders actually helps him and hurts Hillary in primaries down the road. Sanders’ supporters generally get their news outside the mainstream press, while Hillary’s older supporters tend to watch the Big 3 and PBS. The premature crowning of Hillary as the nominee may create some inertia from supporters who will be less likely to go out of their way to vote, while Bernie supporters will see it as their last chance to support him.

    Hillary support has been down in most primary states, so no reason to think it will improve if the mainstream consensus is she has already sewn up the nomination. Especially if Black and other minority voters lose interest. Bernie has a real chance for the nomination because the Hillary is seriously flawed. And that is the reason his campaign attracts so much support in the first place.

    1. ahimsa

      Good point, Scott. The Clinton line of “Nothing to see here folks, show’s over” can only hurt her own voter turnout (and funding). However, it quite possibly will rally Sanders’ supporters (& funding). Interested to see how the MSM will cover this weekend’s results if Sanders actaully ‘wins’, i.e. picks up more delegates. Will they use the word momentum or just diminish his results with countless variations of “too little too late”.
      Also, I find the quoted article’s fascinating anaysis and highlighting of March 15 brings to mind Aesop’s fable The toroise and the hare. We all remember how that one finishes, right?

      1. Ahimsa

        Just read at politico that Sanders didn’t spend a cent on ads in Louisiana. Really? Why couldn’t they have got more of the vote there?

        1. ambrit

          The largest city in the state, New Orleans, has a strong local AA political establishment. (The present Mayor of Nawlins, the brother of former Senator Mary Landreiu, won that post partly on the AA communities fond remembrances of their daddy, ‘Moon’ Landreius’ courageous advocacy for Civil Rights in the way back.) Add to that, the States’ close ties to Big Oil, and you have a very Officially Democratic Party “electorate.” “Walking around money,” as applied to elections, is alive and well there.

    2. kimsarah

      One good reason for someone not to vote for Hillary is to look at the entire cast of characters that have come out to endorse her.

  14. Ché Pasa

    If by some miracle Sanders were to win the Democratic nomination and then the presidency, more than likely he would wind up Tsipras-ed in no time at all; much faster than Tsipras was kneecapped and neutered, in fact.

    And he would probably carry on, just as Tsipras has, as his bounden duty to the People.

    But it will take more than one miracle before that happens.

    1. FluffytheObeseCat

      Please. Sanders is not a life long academic who entered the political arena only when it became a dysfunctional joke; he knows the business. There is no reason to expect he’ll curl up the way Professor Tsipras has.
      The problem is his age, which makes his VP choice critical.

    2. NotTimothyGeithner

      The Executive is yugely powerful. The prime minister from a neo-phyte party in the periphery of the Euro zone isn’t worth a mention to the President of the United States. And remember, Sanders would have everything, the Patriot Act, the NSA, and the NSA’s files. Sanders would have dirt on every mistress, every bank laundering drug money, every revolving door quid pro quo, and the federal police enforcement operation.

      “My fellow Americans. This is yuge, but Bank X has been dealing with ISIS donors. To protect the employees, I am acting by appointing a special director and the top executives have been taken into federal custody.”

      The President can do this, and no one except popular outrage can stop him. Not the Supreme Court, not an army without a hero style general, not the Congress, not a billionaire or assembly of billionaires. The President is Caesar incarnate. Tsarpias could have had 100% of Greece behind him, and he would have what losing Greek tourism spots as leverage.

      1. James Levy

        I think you are right in the overall thrust but wrong in the particulars. Presidents are beholden to a Congress that both writes the laws, pays the bills, and can throw the President out of office. Congress has the last say because Congress can dismiss President, but a President cannot dismiss a Congress. Now, in recent decades Congress has shown less and less guts in standing up for its inherent powers (which under the Constitution are sweeping) but that doesn’t mean Sanders could just run roughshod over Congress. One dumb Executive overreach and he’d be out on his ass.

      2. JaaaaayCeeeee

        Che Pasa,

        Not only is Sanders no novice academic, but Elizabeth Warren wrote an op-ed in nyt to explain to voters that a presidential candidate’s legislative agenda matters, but who represents voters in the White House matters yoooogely (which news media and the Clinton campaign are careful to never talk about).

        Who do you want representing you as a voter, nominating and hiring regulators to regulate, run the 16 departments of the executive branch, the USTrade Office, conduct our foreign policy, and Warren said most importantly, execute the laws?

      3. Crazy Horse

        Not Twitchy Timmy,

        “Violence is as American as Apple Pie” H Rap Brown

        In what fantasy land do you believe a President can individually challenge the National Security State or the Bankster cartel and remain alive? Have you been paying attention to history since JFK?

        The National Security State can only be overthrown by a popular mass movement that becomes strong enough to wrest the power of propaganda away from it and bring it under the rule of law. And a President can only remain alive if he is a servant of the Overlords like Obama, Clinton, or Romney or has an overwhelming popular mass movement behind him.

        1. NotTimothyGeithner

          I’m not 12 anymore. JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. Get over It. Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, commie hunts, and deranged military build ups were all products of Saint Kennedy, not the shadow government.

          Obama wasn’t secretly threatened. He was just the hawkish, empty suit he proudly announced he was. Voters didn’t listen.

          1. Crazy Horse

            List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots
            From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

            “Assassination attempts and plots on Presidents of the United States have been numerous: more than 20 attempts to kill sitting and former presidents, as well as the Presidents-elect, are known. Four sitting presidents have been killed, all of them by gunshot: Abraham Lincoln (the 16th President), James A. Garfield (the 20th President), William McKinley (the 25th President) and John F. Kennedy (the 35th President). Two presidents were injured in attempted assassinations, also by gunshot: Theodore Roosevelt (the 26th President) and Ronald Reagan (the 40th President). With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president’s life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination.”

            I’m not 12 anymore either, but I don’t suffer from terminal memory loss.

            Why would Timothy Geithner’s associates over at Goldman Sachs or the leeches from the military industrial complex need to threaten a completely housebroken tool like Obama?

            “voters didn’t listen” And vote for the sociopath Hillary Clinton, the master thief and LBO corporate wrecker Romney, or senile war monger McCain?

            1. James Levy

              So why did the military industrial complex shoot Reagan, whom you include in your list, but not Carter? Or are you throwing spaghetti against the wall and hoping it will stick?

              1. Crazy Horse

                Having a little trouble with logic aren’t you? There is no “my list” , just a historical record of presidential assignations and attempts. If it is incorrect, please revise it.

                I posted the list to demonstrate that violence against American presidents is not unthinkable but rather a common historical fact.

                And of course the red herring about Reagan being shot by the military industrial complex is a complete fabrication from your imagination.

          2. Damian

            Complete nonsense – read Robert Kennedy Jr piece two weeks ago in Politico about Syria and his families involvement since the 50’s and all the CIA actions

            read The Devils Chessmen

            JFK was assassinated for his independence – he fired Dulles and wanted to break the CIA into a thousand pieces – he recognized the failed Bay of Pigs was a product of CIA busted policy over a long period of time –

            Charles de Gaulle attempted assassination and coup was organized by CIA and model for major highway hit for JFK murder by the Establishment – Dulles was behind the scene head of the Warren Commission -as The Cleaner – Oswald was merely a tool Jack Ruby proved that by getting rid of him in classic style

            this has all been going on a long time and there has not been an independent POTUS since JFK

          3. Jerry Denim

            I was born in 1975 so I have no love for Kennedy, but really? No doubts? None? I visited the Civil Rights museum in Memphis a few years ago (housed in the Lorraine motel where King was assassinated) and it is 95% a museum documenting the King assassination as a historical conspiracy fact not a theory. If you think James Earl Ray wasn’t a patsy you owe yourself a visit, very convincing evidence otherwise. Fingerprints of US government involvement were everywhere. Two Kennedy’s and a tremendously powerful civil rights leader with increasingly socialist proclivities all dead by assassin’s bullet between 63′ and 68′ and you are absolutely sure Oswald acted alone? Sounds like the blind faith of a twelve year old to me.

  15. Lune

    I support Bernie and it pains me to say this, but it looks very hard for Bernie to win. In the linked Kos post, the assumption was that Bernie would be ~100 delegates behind after Super Tuesday. In reality, he’s 200 delegates behind. The author states:

    “While it is indeed mathematically possible for Sanders to come back after being behind by around 200 delegates on March 15, that is on the outer limits of the sort of comeback that is achievable”

    He’s already 200 delegates behind and it’s not yet March 15th…

    The only way this works is a political earthquake like Hillary being indicted. (And note to Hillary supporters, I’m not saying I want that to happen. It’s not right, and it would be a disaster for the party. Even Bernie would lose as the entire conversation shifts to the indictment and away from Bernie’s policy positions).

    That said, as long as he continues to run a positive campaign, I want him to go all the way to the convention. It allows the later states to have their say, and it helps the Democratic party going into the general.

        1. James Levy

          If the Democrats collapse precipitously that leaves blacks, gays, women, and the world at the mercy of an unfettered Republican Party. You may find that a cool idea, but I don’t. But hey, it’s fun to be irresponsible and pretend that doesn’t matter “BECAUSE HILLARY!!!”.

          1. hunkerdown

            You know, maybe they NEED to be punished for using others to save their precious identities instead of the general interest. Maybe they’ll stop whining and wheedling and start running bros’ genitals up flagpoles. Enough of this pathos contest.

            1. James Levy

              My god, how quickly they forget: the history of racism in this country is still being played out, or do you think those Black Lives Matter activists are just whining because black men tend to get shot dead by the cops?

              1. cwaltz

                Realistically do you think Hillary is going to do a darn thing about the fact that black men tend to get shot dead by cops? Or cares about the things the BLM activists are pushing for?

                You must be watching someone else. I have watched how Hillary Clinton deals with BLM activists and it hasn’t been very pretty.

                1. Brooklin Bridge

                  Indeed. Who is the president that “got tough on crime?” Something about 3 strikes and you’re out (you meaning primarily blacks and Hispanics) ? Setting off the run towards the biggest prison population in human history comprised disproportionately of blacks. Who was it that talked about bringing Blacks to heel?

                  Not the Republicans.

              2. hunkerdown

                Her interests are GEO Group’s interests and the Black Misleadership Class’s interests, not the Black community’s interests. A part of her personal fortune depends on keeping the colored folks needing to be kept in line. I hope you agree this is not just a PR problem!

                Her beliefs regarding the sanctity of classified information having been demonstrated, is it not reasonable to consider it likely that she would act according to her own personal interests, treating any collateral damage as a PR matter rather than as a harm to be redressed?

              3. Lambert Strether

                Let’s not forget that the 17-city paramilitary crackdown on Occupy was organized by a Democratic administration through Democratic mayors (except Bloomberg).

                The (Democrat) mayor of Cleveland just put out a tender for riot gear at the Republican convention.

                The Governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon, is a Democrat, as is the Mayor of St Louis, Francis Slay (!), as is Robert McCulloch, the Prosecuting Attorney for St. Louis County.

                None of them seem to have done much to protect Black people from getting shot by cops, and IMNSHO McCulloch incited the post-acquittal riot in Fergson. All of them were more than happy to wheel in the troops and the APVs. And will again.

                Surely I can support the activities of #BlackLivesMatter while deploring the Black Misleadership Class?

                I’ll also note that #BlackLivesMatter has (so far) refrained from endorsing candidates.

          2. Tony S

            Ummm…. what exactly has the Democratic Party DONE for blacks, gays, women, and the world throughout the Obama administration?

            Gays made progress, but that was despite Obama, rather than because of him. Everyone else is treading water at best.

            The Democrats could probably use a good meltdown.

          3. Frank Bolton

            You can either have the collapse NOW when the headliner of WASP herrenvolk fascism is a comical spoiled brat with no underlying agenda or ideology, or you can have the collapse come in 2020 after four years of economic stagnation, gridlock, and warhawkery eliminates any demographic advantage the Democratic Party has and the GOP runs a more polished and plugged-in fascist.

            It’s like the idea of Pyrrhic victories don’t exist in your ‘HRC must win, because the alternative is so bad!’.

    1. grayslady

      Please note that most NC regulars couldn’t care less about the Dem party. We are pretty much independent voters who support Sanders for his policy positions–positions that the Democrat party have largely ignored for the past 30 years. I, for one, would be happy to see the Dem party drowned in the bathtub because the current party is no different than the Repub party. NC is not Daily Kos.

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        Democrats are going to have a hard time trying to understand that many voters with liberal views aren’t just not enthusiastic about Hillary but actively think she is a war criminal with no business being outside of a prison in the Netherlands.

  16. IowanX

    Lambert posted a link yesderday from HuffPost which is pretty damning…the Voter ID laws are working exactly as intended, keeping young and minority voters away from the polls. Given the southern tilt of the primary calendar, these laws have had an obvious impact on the results so far. Without the Voter ID laws, would the D percentages be different? Impossible to say. But I think most of the remaining states DON’T have voter ID laws, so we’ll get to find out. Here’s the link.

    1. Lambert Strether

      Which is why it’s so unfortunate that the Dems fighting all these laws tooth and nail — and running those massive voter registration drives — have all come to nothing.

      Oh, wait…

  17. susan the other

    We hear that Clinton has the super delegates locked up – but we also hear that they are independent and can change sides before the convention, as opposed to primary delegates. The purpose seems to be to prevent a deadlock at the convention. Maybe the system needs some ultra-super delegates. This isn’t voting – it’s representative voting.

  18. Gaius Publius

    One thing to consider in the underlying MattTX analysis is the momentum assumptions. Click through and you’ll see he assumes momentum is mainly flat or slowly rising, the model being Obama-Clinton in 2008.

    OTOH, I’m seeing on-the-ground reports that in terms of people, Sanders momentum may be about to go exponential — the phrase was “like Silicon Valley.” The report cites 10,000 people in Michigan who came to hear Sanders. Of that, nearly 3,000 volunteered to knock on doors.

    Once the race moves out of the South, which it will do very shortly, MattTX may create a new set of models.

    Do stay heartened, Sanders supporters. At the moment, it looks like Trump is draining indie voters out of Dem primaries (potential Sanders voters, like in Mass.) because these indie’s are being told by the Dem Party and media ecosystem that Clinton has it all wrapped up.

    If you’re an indie and you want to park an economic protest vote, you’re going to consider Trump under those circumstances. I’ve been writing about this and will do more.

    Again, not over. Definitely not over. (And thanks for all the kind words.)

    GP

    1. grayslady

      Good points, GP. I ignore the polls because they just don’t see the momentum on the ground. Here in Illinois there is a massive get-out-the-vote effort for Bernie all over the state. His speech in Edwardsville, IL the other day (which is downstate, traditional Repub territory, and truly in the middle of nowhere except for being home to Southern Illinois Univ.) had an overflow crowd of 7000. I also knew Bernie would win Colorado because on Bernie’s events page I saw that people were carpooling from Colorado to go help out Bernie in Iowa, for heaven’s sake. That’s a level of dedication rarely seen in a political contest.

      1. meme

        One of my family members, who lives in suburban Chicago and is a lifelong social anxiety sufferer, has volunteered to step outside his comfort zone and canvass for Sanders. There is still a lot of passion out there.

  19. armchair

    From the foregoing comments there appears to be a militant shushing going on at Hillary friendly websites. It sounds like Hill-people are stamping out the dissident voices. I hope they understand that this will never stop, and there will never be a moment of peace in the Hillary presidency, except perhaps on the days when she is signing trade deals, privatizing social security, declaring war or caving on women’s rights (Nixon in China!). If the Hill-people think yelling down Bernie supporters is exhausting wait until it is the Republicans. I don’t think Republicans are nice as Bernie, and even the worst Bernie Bro is probably not as heinous as the average Ditto-head.

    1. Paul Tioxon

      Yeah, wait they get a load of real organized political opposition, the kind that doesn’t take prisoners.

      ——————————————————————————————-
      I think Ted Cruz is too decent of a man to fight the way we need to unseat the Democrats,” he said.

      Local Trump backers: ‘We need someone to kick the Dems in the teeth’

      Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20160306_The_local_faces_of_Trump_s_army.html#eI6GfdGpKaMcx3TF.99

    2. Lambert Strether

      Clinton doesn’t want Sanders, or Sanders voters. The Dem establishment is vehemently opposed to socialism ideologically and because it would smash their rice bowls. Hence the gleeful stamping out of a youth movement they should be aching to have, because demographics, and the militant refusal to recognize that the Sanders small-donor effort means they don’t have to suck up to big money any more (hence, they like what they’re doing).

      If she wins, Clinton will tack to the center to pick up moderate Republican votes. At that point she will jettison whatever pro-Sanders verbiage she has been emitting. And she will throw Black voters under the bus (although not all her clients in the Black Misleadership Class). Oh, it’s gonna be fun.

      1. Paul Tioxon

        That may be true, but she certainly does NOT want is an army of lunatics that come from all different back grounds, look at the PENN tshirt the guy is wearing. Wharton is where Trump hails from. The conservative mindset, and I don’t mean the formal definition provided by The National Review as the arbiter of socially acceptable conservatism, of that school is that of the petit bourgeosisie, with all of the small minded social cues of status providing the warm glow of accomplishment that allows one to feel distinct from from genetically inferior intellects.

        Donald Trump as a Wharton student is little more than a vocational tech graduate for money grubbing greed, a capitalist pimp. Him, and so many more aspiring bourgeoisie who think they are accomplished by virtue of profit accumulation, even if those profits come from owning 70 or 100 Subway sandwich franchises, despise those who stand in their way or do not fit into their plans to make big bucks, those they can’t use as a cheap, loyal workforce. Their workers love them, because they give them real jobs with real paychecks that will last forever, unlike unreal government jobs that provide taxpayer funds masquerading as paychecks, theft by another name.

          1. Crazy Horse

            Actually Hellary wants any measly 100k vote available as long as it doesn’t have strings attached— like needing to support policies contrary to the “rights” of those who have already $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$voted.

  20. EndOfTheWorld

    There doesn’t have to be an indictment of the Hildabeast—-just a subpoena and questioning of her, and indictment of one or more of her underlings, will let the remaining primary voters know the e-mail scandal, like the innumerable other Clinton scandals, is for real and Bernie may emerge victorious in terms of real delegates. Then the superdelegates will have to decide whether to go with somebody who is under a cloud of suspicion or to switch and go with Bernie.

  21. Fiver

    I’ve read a lot of interesting comments and intend to read more, but I wanted to scratch out something first.

    For starters, did Sanders really want to be President? Did Trump? Or are they each for their own reasons captured by the degree of their own popular success, yet with no way to translate it into political victory because neither Party’s Crowns are about to let that happen?

    My take is TPTB want what they have now – a core old power/older thinking Republican Congress/Senate with a perceivably (if misportrayed often enough) prodemlibish something or other as in HC for President. And that has to be the most probable path as of today. However:

    The increasingly raucous brawl down at the Long Branch about what to do with Trump has Matt and Kitty in a frame to just shut him down – period – in a very public way that has become a very ugly thing in itself to watch, with connotations flowing from a qualitatively different ratchet up of the language so as to have now sloughed off normal political discourse like the dry, dead husk it had become over the last 30 years – and 24 weeks. Trump tells us several things that convey to us all we are at least of full as shit has he is. If he wanted to win, he’d hone in on a 2, or better, 3-part program that addressed core issues that must be resolved if anything further can be even attempted. There are things the US must do with its military/security spending, its immense supports of all kinds for the largest of US and foreign corporations including banks in various sectors now all tagged as ‘so essential’ they must not fail. And of course the 3rd giant plank consists of some number of measures, certainly including taxes, and many other means, and generally to take seriously the difference between living in the OK middle class and up vs losing the struggle in the not OK middles class and down.

    Sanders can claim these first, if he’s so inclined. My scenario is that Trump has so damaged the Republican internals he may have no way back. He could, though, decide to leave the Party, leaving them with Cruz. Now, with Cruz the Republican nominee, the HC Dems will believe they’ve clinched it, and immediately start treating the progressives as the same clueless bunch that show up every few years to natter about advancing something. But this time, in response to the arrogant dismissal or ‘we no longer need you’, the Bern at that point goes Independent. This develops over a period of weeks, of course, but you catch the drift. It’s up to Bernie, who I am pretty comfortable thinking would beat Cruz and Clinton in a 3-way race. This is one of those years when big things happen, even a shot at a real win.

    1. EndOfTheWorld

      I think Bernie promised that he won’t go third party. Anyway, I don’t think he will. He still has a chance to win the nomination, especially if HRC gets indicted. But the possibility exists that some other third party candidate could win. McAffee is a smart man. Ventura has a following. I don’t know how hard it is exactly, to get on the ballots in all states quickly as an independent, but it can be done. But actually I think the GOP will stick somebody else in there at a brokered convention–Paul Ryan, probably. He would beat Hillary who has a high unfavorability (ie many people hate her) rating. Plus she’s being investigated by 150 FBI agents RIGHT NOW. If she receives a pardon and continues running—-oh, I’m sure that will go over REAL WELL with the American public.

  22. Suvy

    Well, Nate Silver and 538 are basically out there saying that Clinton wins the Democratic nomination pretty easily. This was a post from 4 days ago where 538 says that Clinton wins in a landslide. Of course, Sanders won more states yesterday, but Clinton still won more delegates and extended her lead. Sanders has shown no ability to win minorities at all and if he doesn’t win minorities, he has no chance. Sanders has only won small states where blacks are 20% of all likely Democratic voters are blacks. Clinton is also winning strongly among Hispanics, which is largely how she crushed Sanders in Texas.
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clintons-got-this/

    At this rate, Clinton will probably lock up the Democratic nomination by the end of the month. Clinton will probably win Michigan, Florida, Missouri and Mississippi in a landslide. She could lock it up by the end of next week.

    1. EndOfTheWorld

      Well, we don’t really know. Nate Silver is suspect, in my opinion. He seems to be shilling for HRC. If everybody gives up on Bernie then it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Many people have been saying this since the very beginning of the primaries:” well, Bernie will be folding soon.” He will stay in until the end. His strongest states are probably the west coast states. It’s an interesting question to me—-why the black people all like Hillary? I think one reason she carried the Confederacy so strongly is there’s still some anti-Jewish sentiment down there. Also, IMHO, I think the voting machines may be fixed. It’s more likely in a traditionally corrupt place like Louisiana. Caucuses are a little harder to fix because it’s just a headcount.

      1. Suvy

        Yea, Silver has the best track record on these issues. And calling voting machines rigged because the candidate you favor is losing doesn’t mean its rigged. Bernie can stay in until the end, but he has no chance. He can only win white voters. As a legal immigrant, I’d rather vote Donald Trump than Bernie Sanders.

        Anti-Jewish sentiment? Trump won the South and his daughter is Jewish.

      2. Suvy

        BTW, Sanders’ strongest states won’t be the West Coast States. California has the most delegates and Clinton has consistently been winning in the polls in California. California also has high minority populations, and considering that ethnicity has been such a strong predictor on the Democratic side this year, Sanders has basically no chance of winning the West Coast.

        I always find it funny how Sanders’ supporters were making these kinds of arguments to me for the past few weeks about him having the ability to win minorities or about how his strengths are in large states and if he waits until the West Coast, he can win, but this is a joke. Sanders has gotten crushed in urban areas with large minority populations. Even in Massachusetts, which is mostly white, Sanders got destroyed in Boston and the metro-area surrounding it even though he won everything else (he obviously lost the state by 3%). To think California won’t be different is just foolishness.

    2. AnEducatedFool

      Please, when you say minorities simply say black people. Sanders is winning and has won Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans. We will see how he does with Latinos during the Latino Gauntlet.

      Clinton is winning because of black voters. The majority of black voters are low information voters. In SC, black voters gave Killary a higher trust rating than Sanders. Its a sad and sick joke. Clinton basically said “we need to bring these “n***ers” to heel and well they are voting for her in record numbers.

      I have not look at the #s in Texas but in Nevada it was a push with Latinos and he beat her handily in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma partly because he won the “minority” vote and the white vote. He will continue to win these groups but Sanders will struggle in states with a black population that is equal to or greater than the national average.

      No one is saying that he will struggle in states that have a higher Latino population because he is winning that demographic. It is only black people that are solidly for Clinton and in many states they dominate the Democratic party primary process.

      I wonder what will happen between progressive whites and black voters in the future.

      1. Suvy

        Well, you can call voters low-information voters, but that doesn’t really mean anything. You can say that it’s in their interest to vote for a candidate I support, but that doesn’t really mean that you’re correct. I also find that quite naive and quite informative on why those voters aren’t voting for Bernie when Bernie’s supporters keep telling them how they should vote. Quite frankly, it shows more of an ignorance by Sanders’ supporters than anything else.

        When you go into a minority community and try to tell them who stronger public sector unions are in their favor, you’re the one that comes off as ignorant because you obviously know nothing about the history of minority communities and labor unions in the United States.

        BTW, Sanders DID NOT win Latinos. The only thing that suggested that was a poorly done entrance poll in Nevada that had a sample size no greater than 200 people and where all of those people were concentrated in a few counties of Nevada. Hillary Clinton won Las Vegas, where the highest proportion of Latino voters are.

        In Texas, the exit polls show Clinton won Latinos by 42%.

        1. EndOfTheWorld

          Yes, I’m not the only one that thinks voting machines are probably rigged. Who is actually in charge of the data that the voting machines reputedly compile? If they could do it to Kerry in Ohio then they can do it to Bernie I MA and LA. Yes, that’s correct—I don’t trust the politicians. Paper ballots would be more believable.

  23. Goldcap

    Just a quick spreadsheet to do some Democratic Delegate Math:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1toZUzJQgjxAfW5akLYcrR8yuPG3H9psShVssycfEw-U/edit?usp=sharing

    It does look pretty difficult for Sanders, but pretty amazing IMHO that a “socialist” comes from ZERO to having probably 40% of the delegates. Note, the numbers in the sheet are derived from the Kos article mentioned above, and aren’t accurate in any really specific way. You can copy it if you’re interested, and play with the numbers, but very difficult to see #FeelTheBern pulling it off.

    I’ll refrain from editorializing, but I feel like Lurch at this point.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCc-RWIp7XU

Comments are closed.