Gaius Publius: A Look Ahead – Coming to the Philadelphia Crossroad

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 here.

Senator Sanders telling Andrea Mitchell he will campaign until the last primary vote is counted; also, that’s its on Clinton to convince his supporters she’s offering policies they can vote for.

Earlier I said I wanted to take a “look ahead” at what’s likely to occur in the next few months and also in the next few years, since we’re clearly at a major crossroads in the nation’s (and the world’s) future. In particular:

I want to start taking a look ahead, not in a long essay but in chunks. “Ahead” means what happens at the Democratic convention, what those outcomes may be, what happens in the general election, and furthest out of all, what happens in 2017 and beyond. So this will be a series of sorts.

The first piece looked at this core point and its corollary:

1. If Clinton is the nominee, she must win Sanders supporters or risk losing to the Republican, whoever that is.

1a. “Independents” aren’t “moderate Republicans.” Independents are pretty radical these days.

In my view and the view of many, Clinton’s success in the general election depends on appealing to the voters she’s currently disrespecting — Sanders supporters, first-time younger voters (those who only want “free this and free that” and don’t do their own research), and non-party-affiliated independents (the ones who can’t vote for Sanders because they are locked out of closed primaries like New York’s).

The corollary (point 1a) describes today’s independent voter, not as some imagined between-the-parties “Reagan Democrat,” but as modern radical independents, people in both parties who (1) reject the bipartisan money-washed system, and (2) are suffering personally because of it. Modern independents now comprise 42% of the country.

Frankly, the future of the country, at least until the climate overtakes us, hinges on the two points above. It seems clear that the national rebellion against big-money rule by both parties, which is well underway, will either find an electoral expression (Sanders or initially, Trump) or will fail in its attempt to find an electoral solution. (Trump will eventually fail to satisfy this revolt, as discussed briefly here and in this Michael Parenti comment: “Fascism is a false revolution. It makes a revolutionary appeal without making an actual revolution. It propagates the widely proclaimed New Order while serving the same old moneyed interests.” But that discussion is for later.)

As I see it, in all cases but a Sanders nomination, the next phase of the revolt will occur outside the electoral process and outside the rules of Establishment authority. This doesn’t necessarily mean pitchforks and torches. It can range from something as mild (but effective) as Occupy and Nuit Debout (“up all night” protests) in France, to angry, active Ferguson-style street events.


One of the Nuit Debout protests at Place de la République in Paris (source; click to enlarge)

Consider, for example, a national student debt strike as a non-violent, anti-Establishment rebellion. At some point, people who see themselves as having “no economic future” and “zero hope of working in my profession” (as one early-30s woman, in tears, described herself to me at Netroots Nation) will rise up and just refuse to pay. This is a direct assault on the bankers who hold her debt and who have paid Congress to make sure her debt is not dischargeable in a bankruptcy.

Refusing to pay is an act of rebellion. Refusing to pay en masse is rebellion with teeth, just like the Bernie rebellion, except outside the electoral process. It will force a response, likely an angry state-sponsored one.

As I’ve been writing almost from the start of doing this work, the whole game since the 1980s was to deprive the nation’s workers of good jobs; load the country with debt — so people could chase the “lifestyles of the rich and famous” with credit cards and mortgage-backed loans instead of real income — then make the government make sure no debt is forgiven.

That’s the whole game in a nutshell. A debt strike is an assault on that game, just as the Sanders candidacy is an assault on it. Neither assault can be allowed by the money-serving Establishment, but one form of assault is infinitely preferable to the other. Most sensible people do and will prefer electoral solutions.

My point again — if Sanders is not nominated, there will be no electoral solution (unless Clinton reverses a lifetime of pro-money policies), and the conflict will move into the next, non-electoral arena.

Three Visible, Simultaneous Contests, Not Just One, in the Democratic Primary

Let’s look at the time period between now, roughly midway through the primary season, and the July Democratic convention in Philadelphia. To continue our enumerated points:

2. There are three simultaneous races in the 2016 Democratic primary: the race for money; the race for popular support (and the appearance of popular support); and the race for pledged delegates.

Sanders is winning the first race by a large margin, is tied or leading in the second, and is rising from behind in the third. The Democratic contest isn’t just about pledged delegates. It’s also about the optics of the Democratic nomination as seen by national voters, a nomination that will culminate in the convention in Philadelphia. The nominee coming out of that convention will be judged by voters of the nation, all of them, in terms of those optics.

Here’s what that means. Assume the leaders of the Democratic Party want to win in November — not a safe assumption, but let’s assume it anyway, since the country is both making that assumption and being led to make it by the press. (I personally think most Party leaders want Clinton nominated anyway, regardless of how they get her there. But I’m not the usual, casual, semi-paying-attention contest-watcher.)

Now consider the three races going on in the Democratic primary contest:

  • The race for money, both overall campaign dollars and small-donor funding, which indicates popularity
  • The race for popular support as expressed by national polls and crowd size
  • The race for “pledged delegates

How are those races going?

Sanders Winning the Race for Funding

Bernie Sanders is winning the first race hands down, and it’s being noticed. The following compares Sanders’ and Clinton’s fundraising through the end of March (my yellow highlight) as released by the campaigns in early April (current March numbers from FEC filings are very slightly different). This does not include super PAC money, just contributions to the campaigns themselves.


Sanders has actually outraised Clinton in total “hard money” at this point, $182 million to $180 million, as this All In with Chris Hayes segment explains (h/t GottaLaff for the clip):

Notice Nick Confessore’s comment about Clinton having to find new donors since so many of her current donors are maxed out, i.e., have contributed all the “hard money” to her allowed by law.

It’s not just important that Sanders is winning the money race. It’s important that this is being noticed by the press and the public.

Sanders Tied and Rising in the Race for Popular Support

The race for popular support — and the appearance of popular support — is taking place on two main fronts, the national polls and the constant mention of crowd sizes. Let’s stick to national polls, both now and in the future. First, current polling.

If you look at the national Clinton vs. Sanders national polling at an aggregate site like Huff Post or Real Clear Politics, you see a dramatic narrowing to a statistical tie, with Sanders starting to lead in a few. And this is only April in a race that ends in June — the start of the third quarter, in other words. For example, the following shows Sanders slightly ahead of Clinton in the Reuters five-day tracking poll through the third week of April and just after the New York primary:


Note the change in momentum above. Imagine that momentum continuing until Sanders is solidly in the lead in all polls and still rising. Now imagine that change in momentum occurring while he’s also behind in the delegate count, but rising…

Sanders Behind But Rising in the Race for Pledged Delegates

As predicted, Sanders lost badly in the Deep South (front-loaded races in which he had little name recognition, in states which no Democrat will carry in November). Then he reversed the Clinton lead and has been steadily climbing back, visible evidence of momentum.

Here’s a chart of the pledged delegate differential prior to the mid-Atlantic series of primaries:

I haven’t included contests later than April 9 because of the lawsuits and investigations that challenge the New York election results. Initial New York results shows Sanders giving back 31 delegates of the 100 delegates he had regained since the Deep South voted. But if the New York city election challenges prevail (and they are serious), that result will change the rest of the graph, perhaps dramatically. His initial post-New York delegate loss could easily be revised in his favor, changing the rest of the chart. (Click here for a county-by-county map of the Democratic primary results in New York.)

Democrats at the Philadelphia Crossroads

Regardless of the result, however they may be revised, of the troubled mid-Atlantic elections, each of the following statements are true:

  • As predicted, March 15 will remain the date of Sanders’ lowest differential.
  • Sanders has a path to adding as many as 100 delegates to his differential total prior to June 7, when California (475 delegates) and five other states vote.
  • He has a clear, though narrow, path to surpassing Clinton in the final delegate count…
  • … or to coming less than 50 delegates short after the last primary vote is cast.

Can you see what that means coming into the convention? Imagine that Sanders continues to win the money race, lead in the national polls by, say, 10 points or more, and has another big delegate surge in the fourth quarter of the delegate race, the post-East Coast phase. Now add in that Sanders beats all Republicans by more than Clinton, and that Clinton even loses to some of them. (A recent poll, in fact, has her in a statistical tie with Trump, up only 3 points and within the margin of error, while Sanders trounces Trump by 10 points.)

This isn’t about what Sanders will do coming into the convention. Sanders doesn’t have to do anything but show up and let the process play out. The pressure, if there is any, will come from the voters. The whole nation will be watching, will see all of this. What will the Democrats do with all eyes on them? And how will the nation respond if they stick with an underwater but pre-ordained “inevitable” pick anyway?

This leads to our third principle:

3. Democrats may not be able to win in November if they appear to force the least desirable candidate on the public.

Remember the first two principles above. Clinton can’t win the general election without independents, the “radical independents” who support Sanders and Trump. She can certainly wrap up the nomination (or not), but if she does, she will have done it with a jiggered, Debbie Wasserman Schultzed process; by winning states no Democrat will win in November; by winning mainly in contests in which only Democrats could vote.

Note the word “appear” in the bolded statement above. This is not about the rightness or wrongness of what the Democrats do on arrival in Philadelphia. It’s about how what they do will look to people who will vote in November.

This could all be a problem — for Democrats, not for Sanders. What’s a “hardwired for Clinton” political party to do? Stay tuned. Philadelphia may be the site of the most important crossroad in post-FDR American history.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. bowserhead

    .>What’s a “hardwired for Clinton” political party to do?<

    Obvious,isn't it? Lure Bernie on board with promises she won't keep after the election.
    Hope he doesn't fall for it. Yves will probably be angry at me for opining that Trump
    is probably a more honest broker:-)

    1. NotTimothyGeithner

      Bernie is irrelevant. The only reason Bernie, a 73 year old who wasn’t pumped by the media and doesn’t represent a major media market, is doing well is widespread dissatisfaction. Bernie could give the greatest speech of his life endorsing Hillary, and it won’t matter. The election is about Hillary.

      The danger for the Democrats isn’t Sanders supporters but the possibility significant segments of their electorate have quit the process over widespread routine and lies from the Democrats.

      1. Mike Sparrow

        Maybe, but Bernie represents 40% of the Democratic electorate. Dissatisfaction is overrated. The electorate looks exactly how it should.

        1. Yves Smith Post author

          He does not just represent Democrats. He picks up a lot of independents and outpolls Clinton in every one to one matchup against a Republican, in many cases (Trump) by double digit margins. Gaius has pointed out in earlier posts that independents are not moderate Republicans, as our elite-dominated media would like you to believe, but are actually pretty radical.

          1. TomD

            This is just anecdotal, but I live downstate Illinois in an area that’s a mix of conservatives and liberals (D state rep, R US rep, etc). I’ve talked to a lot of long time R voters who either 1) support Sanders or 2) respect him a lot because they feel he actually stands up for regular people.

            This election has been a revelation for me. I’ve always had this somewhat naive view of things and wondered why people were so against using the government to help the less fortunate. It turns out they’re not*, they just rightly believe the Democrat party spends money poorly and doesn’t do a whole lot of helping.

            If the Democrats cared about winning, they’d be throwing their full weight behind Sanders right now, but they don’t. They only care about holding onto the status quo.

            *To be clear, some still are. I assume they’re all voting for Cruz. The vast majority of people turn out to be pretty decent though.

            1. Archie


              Ditto here in North Georgia. Working people (plumbers, electricians, carpeners, teachers, etc.) have heard what Bernie has been saying and are interested in hearing more. These are Fox news and Rush diehards but they watch the Dem debates too. They recognize he is genuinely concerned about their problems and concerns. His lack of accumulated wealth over a long public service career only reinforces his authenticity. I’m not saying he would win the state in the general but he would do far, far better than Hillary. And one or two cycles from now?

        2. Fiver

          ‘Dissatisfaction is overrated.’

          Now that is a hoot. Half the American (not Swedish) electorate currently supports a life-long democratic socialist and another third support a man to the degree he is perceived to be an anti-status quo ‘populist’ his supporters ache to let loose in the Beltway glass menagerie – and this perilously close to the end of a rather pathetic excuse for an economic & socio-economic recovery, one now hanging entirely on declining US ability to beat up weaker players without consequence, as opposed to the much more difficult task of putting its own internal economic house in order.

          It will be fascinating to watch dissatisfaction shrink further in the face of a Clinton Admin inextricably bound to Wall Street, Israel and the Total Security State.

  2. oho

    wishful thinking: post-campaign use Bernie’s leftover money to build out the infrastructure Green Party.

    The Democratic Party is rotten to the core—decades of local machine politics + DC/Manhattan money.

    When you have a Koch brother publicly admitting to being open to support HR Clinton, well that’s all that needs to be said.

    1. Pavel

      I absolutely love the idea of a Jill Stein-Bernie Sanders ticket. Sanders isn’t enough of a greenie for the purists no doubt (esp on foreign policy) but from my POV it would be a no-brainer:

      * The Greens get publicity and lots of fundraising $$$
      * Bernie’s young voters could break down the duopoly
      * If they have good enough polling they might get into the Prez debates (which BTW are a complete farce, of course, fixed to ensure 3rd party candidates don’t appear ever since Ross Perot was in them)
      * They would no doubt lose (alas!) but it would boost the Greens enormously.

      I heard Jill Stein on Scott Horton’s radio show and she knocked it out of the park — not only on environmental issues but also on the economy and foreign policy. I urge all NCers to have a listen:

      Jill Stein on the Scott Horton Show, 5 Nov 2015 (30 mins)

      BTW Gaius, excellent analysis as always!

      1. voteforno6

        I don’t think that will happen. I also don’t want that to happen. If Sanders decided on a third party run, that would destroy whatever influence he would have within the party, and the establishment would marginalize anyone who supported him or even sympathized with him. They’ll still try to do that with him at least nominally inside the tent, but that would be a lot more difficult, and the effort could generate a lot more support for him and his policies than it would with him as an independent.

        A serious third party run would require the support of a large number of independents, as well as those who would normally lean Democratic. In order to get that latter group in any appreciable amount, they’ll have to believe that the Democratic Party has failed them, and is incapable of reform. I don’t think we’re at that point yet. A third party run now would still be centered around the person than the movement.

        1. Punta Pete

          I believe that Bernie has already crossed his Rubicon and is on the DNC’s list of worst enemies. He could go all huggy-kissy wIth HRC in Philly and it wouldn’t help him. The DNC will do everything in its power to marginalized/destroy him just as it did with Kucinich.

        2. Fiver

          How does the Dem Party machine’s all out effort to squash the more popular and emphatically more pro-public interest candidate lend credence to the proposition that the Party is capable of reform?

          1. different clue

            The party as presently led and heavily staffed may indeed be incapable of reform. But it is not immune to conquest. After several decades of patient work beginning at the school board, drain commissioner and dogcatcher level; the evangelicals and other hard-and-harder right wing Republicans conquered their party from its establishment and has now begun soft-purging them out of the party.

            A patient no-prisoners no-mercy movement of New Deal Revivalists could do the same thing to the Democratic Party. It would take several decades. Maybe we don’t have several decades any more. Maybe that is the present day tragedy of American politics.

            1. Gaius Publius

              Correct, different clue. We don’t have several decades anymore. And yes, that is the present day tragedy of American politics. Both statements are true.


    2. different clue

      Why not use any left over Sanders money to build out the infrastructure of the Sanders movement itself?
      So it can become a better infrastructured and more durable post-Sanders movement?

      Or . . . if Wasserman-Schultz wins her primary against her Real Democrat opponent, why not promise a bunch of that money for the Real Democrat if he decides to run as an independent to “naderize” Wasserman-Schultz and get her defeated by the Republican? Why not use some of that money to support militant Sanderlike Real Democrats in mortal combat primaries against Establicrat office-reseekers? Why necessarily just flush that money down a preening prancing vanity-party?

      1. Archie

        The prime directive is to relegate the Dem party as we now know it to the dustbin of history. A Bernie nomination will do that. Short of that, “naderizing” DWS and other establishment Dem candidates should be pursued with vigor.

        1. different clue

          Yes. If that means getting Republicans elected instead of permitting DLC/ Third Way/ NeoLiberal Democrats to be elected; then that is what it will have to mean.

          For my part, a democratic office-reseeker could be pretty obnoxious or distasteful in several ways, but if heeshee were a Trade Patriot instead of a Trade Traitor, I would consider that a Democrat worth voting for, or re-voting for. Marcy Kaptur in Ohio is one such. She was against NAFTA when it still mattered, for example. I trust her on that.

          Judging newer Dem Challenger primary warriors without a proven record of vicious opposition to Forced Trade Agreements would be riskier. Chances will just have to be taken.

  3. Nick

    HRC has won the most states, has the most pledged delegates, the most super-delegates, 2 million more individual votes…to the victor go the spoils.

    1. jrs

      Uh what does 2 million more votes even mean when the registered voters in California alone are some 18 million and they haven’t even voted yet?

      1. Waldenpond

        I get that Clinton won CA in 2008 but they had the primary Feb 5. and Sanders appears strong this time around. Still turnout is poor here and it’s hard to flip Clintons 51.47 to a 70/30 to net the 2 million vote deficit.

        Turnout in state primaries was 34.6% in 2002, 33.6% in 2006, 28.2% in 2008, 33.3% in 2010, and 33.1% in 2012 and 25.1 in 2014. The 28.2 in 2008 was equivalent to 5 million voters.

    2. flora

      ah. “…the spoils.” The spoils system. aka Machine Politics. Very apt description of Clinton politics.

    3. Goldcap

      Fatalism, I love it! Thanks Nick.

      But stinging sarcasm aside, think about why she won… she’s been running since 1998, has the DNC behind her, mainstream media also, as a result of DNC operatives, and Sanders… well, this caught him by surprise.

      Given more time, given concerted organizational effort and commitment, and money to plausible downstream candidacy, we can maybe chip away and eventually have democrats swing to the left. It’s definately a herd mentality at work, and just a few alphas go a long way.

      1. different clue

        Such a movement would need a very deep bench at all levels. A number of alpha primes and many thousands of alpha potential-primes-in-waiting . . . . who would meanwhile be happy and fulfilled being high level followers and do-ers in the meantime.

  4. ke

    Philly. Netting corruption on center stage. To remind the voters. Revolutions change nothing, because the elites are the symptom, not the cause.

  5. susan the other

    Last nite in their Philadelphia town halls Bernie was Bernie and so was Hillary. This isn’t a Colbertism, it’s what happened. Hillary was talking Bernie’s points along with some of her own “rights” faux issues; this morning on CNBC Wall Street was headlined as not liking Hillary. The fix is in – I can smell it.

  6. FluffytheObeseCat

    What is the value of a money chart that “does not include super pac money”? Clinton has more to spend in the general election, because she can influence the distribution of large amounts of super pac money. Or it will be spent on efforts that aid her, regardless of whether she and her people direct it. This is still not a trivial advantage.

    Money in this election is was expected to be everything. The biggest donors were expected to utterly rule. While this has not occurred yet due to unexpected popular uprisings, it may still happen in the general. If the race ends up between Clinton and Cruz, billionaire cash will again rise to the fore.

    Spin wise, America has been very lucky that 2 very different guys surprised themselves with electoral success while making protest runs. If it were not for both of them doing so, simultaneously, our putrid “news”media would be full of nothing but pieces decrying the inherent fascist tendencies of ‘working class whites’, or the socialism of the ‘idle’ youth. Any awareness of our general, across-the-board discontent would have been carefully denied.

    1. Jim A.

      Exactly. Put aside the issue that there is no coordination “allowed” with super PACs, the BIG money is soft money that goes to the PACs.

    2. different clue

      If it comes down to Clinton v Cruz, the HYOOODGE money will work and spend for Clinton. A Seven Mountains Dominionist President Cruz would cause too much bad-for-bussiness turmoil.

  7. grayslady

    As I’ve said before, you always lose when you play someone else’s game. It’s time for us to make the Democrats play our game. Initially, I was thinking of a massive march at the convention, but in the interest of time, money, and strategic thinking, I’m leaning toward a superdelegate “petition,” for lack of a better term. We all know the Democrats have rigged the system, not only through election fraud, but through the establishment of a group of “superdelegates” who can override the will of the voters—not only with their individual votes, but with bullying and threatening of pledged delegates, as happened in the 2008 election.

    As Gaius Publius notes, Democrats need to rely on Sanders voters—especially independents, a category which comprises most voters these days—in order to swing the presidential election. But, more importantly, every Democrat congressperson is a superdelegate. My guess is, when push comes to shove, these congresspeople care more about being re-elected than they care about the party. What if the superdelegates were told, in a statement signed by millions of voters, that not only will we not vote for Hillary Clinton, if they try to make her the presidential nominee, but that we will not vote for any superdelegate candidate who, prior to the convention, supported Hillary Clinton? Not only will we not vote for them, we will actively work to defeat them.

    It’s long been said that Republicans fear their voters while Democrats take their voters for granted. I propose that we change that. I’m thinking of a “Declaration of Independents,” wherein we lay out our reasons and our positions, and explain that the political revolution is already here. Either the Democrats lead or they will be turned into a rump party. We will not accept a platform of promises unless we also know that the leader of the party is someone we trust—and that person is Bernie Sanders.

    Increasingly, as the primaries continue, more and more people are realizing that Hillary is no different than the Republican candidates, and, in many areas, a worse candidate. I think if we work hard online, we can make this happen in time for the convention. I know it takes courage to be willing to vote against some congressmembers who, from time to time, have voted intelligently. But, the truth is, if they are among the group that signed up for Hillary, prior to the first votes even being cast, they are already corrupt. Thoughts?

    1. inode_buddha

      Heh, “Declaration of Independents” I would definitely sign it, and I think this should be done and circulated widely and ASAP particularly via social media

      1. grayslady

        Social media was my idea, too, although I’m not a participant, just an occasional reader. We could also use a Jeffersonian wordsmith for drafting and a petition with verifiable email addresses accompanying online signatures to make it clear that we are not just phantom names.

        I envision boxes and boxes of signed names showing up at the convention, ideally introduced by Bernie as to why his is the strongest candidacy.

        1. HotFlash

          “What if the superdelegates were told, in a statement signed by millions of voters, that not only will we not vote for Hillary Clinton, if they try to make her the presidential nominee, but that we will not vote for any superdelegate candidate who, prior to the convention, supported Hillary Clinton? Not only will we not vote for them, we will actively work to defeat them.”

          Excellent idea, and we can drive home the point by appearing at the super-delegate congresscritters district offices. One can’t blame a congresscritter for being nice to the money (well, I can, but still, I understand) but you do’t get the money unless you get votes. We have votes. Philly may be a convention too far, but a few hundred or even thousand showing up at district offices is a whole lot easier for us to manage, cheaper and IMHO more to the point. And think of all the nice like-minded people we will meet!

          Even if the reps are out of town (being superdelegates in Philly, for example), there will be staff or at the very least surveillance cameras to report our presence.

          1. B1whois

            I think the idea of showing up at district offices is great, much more PERSONAL for the target.

            1. grayslady

              It is a great idea, but it needs to be in addition to the Declaration of Independents and all the signatures. Let the congresscritters see some of the real people behind the petition.

    2. perpetualWAR

      I have TOLD all the Washington State super delegates that I DO NOT intend on voting for any of them bcuz they are going against what we, the Eashington voters, voyed for by a 72.7% margin.

      F*ck the super delegates!

      1. Charger01

        More details, please. Did you attend the Dems convention? Are you from Kittitas county? 72.7% of what, votes for Bernie after the convention?
        You do realize not all delegates are elected officials, right?

    3. nycTerrierist

      Well stated.

      Declaration of Independents — perfect handle! radical, in that it goes to the roots of our so-called democracy.

    4. Darthbobber

      But do Democrats believe they need to rely on Sanders voters?
      And is it even true? I think they hope to retain enough to combine that with the disgruntled elements from GOP land to get past November.
      Granted that’s not a viable long-term plan for them, because whatever else has happened, “notice to quit” has effectively been served on their standard recipe. But they’re purely short term thinkers, and the weird mechanics of this cycle may well get them through November.

    5. different clue

      I agree within limits. If a DemParty Congressman’s district went for Clinton, then yes-Clinton would BE the will of the people of that district. So I personally would not target a DemParty Congressman for peeling away from Clinton if herm’s district went for Clinton. But if herm’s district went for Sanders, then I would sign such a peel-away pressure petition targeting that Congressperson. I would apply the same logic to a Senator or a smaller more-local-based DemParty officeholder/superdelegate. If herm’s territory majority-voted for Sanders, I would support pressuring that DemParty officeholder to vote for Sanders.

    6. Michael C

      That’s masterful, the “Declaration of Independents.” I think you better start the website pronto. You have something there.

  8. ex-PFC Chuck

    Thanks for the analysis, Gaius. As one of the “radical independents” you describe I definitely will not vote for Hilary.
    By the way, I suggest you consider changing your screen-grabber. Give the freebie Greenshot a try. I’ve been very satisfied with it for several years now.

  9. Dave

    If Clinton is the nominee 9 out of 10 friends I polled will:

    A. Not vote for president in November.

    B. Vote for Trump.

    C. Write in Bernie as a protest vote.

    We are all fifty-somethings with money and college educations. Oh, and we are all registered Democrats.

    Grayslady’s suggestion about not voting for HRC delegates in the general election is excellent. Am going to forward this to my list.

      1. Vatch

        If Hillary is the Dem. nominee, please consider voting for a third party candidate, such as the Green Party’s candidate. If a third party gets 5% of the vote, they qualify for some federal funds. It’s not clear to me whether they get the money right away, or if they get it in the next Presidential year (2020). Either way, it weakens the Dem/Rep duopoly. A write in for Bernie will feel good, but it won’t have a substantive effect.

        1. Waldenpond

          Fill out a ballot. Write a love note in a 20 space line. Feed it into a machine. File in a box. Shred. Shrug.

          Not thrilled with the greens at all, and I live in CA so my vote doesn’t count, but I will again try and fail to get Stein over 5%.

          1. Arizona Slim

            Here in Tucson, there’s a small contingent of Greens. To me, they seem like a bunch of old hippies who never quite made it beyond the sixties. Not the sort of folks who can reach out to younger people and explain why their party is relevant.

            1. Waldenpond

              Uh, what do you have against homeopathy?

              Sidenote: I will not research, donate to nor work for a political group that has homeopathy in it’s platform. snort.

              1. Vatch

                Holy s#!t! I checked their platform, and they really do have homeopathy in their platform. See:


                We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches.

                That’s just silly. I’m going to have to reconsider my support for them.

                1. Waldenpond

                  I know! I thought it was a dismissive joke that about the hippies, then I looked and was like, what the h@ll? Ballots are long here in CA and it typically takes me two days to vote just wading through all off the policies and judges, etc. How the heck to they expect anyone to be interested in seeing which greens support which part of their platform? It’s unrealistic.

                  So yeah, when I say I’m voting for Stein, I really mean I’ll be marking the box as I’ll be voting on other legislation, but jeesh.

                  1. JohnMinMN

                    So in general, is the practice of Homeopathy recognized as quackery to readers of NC? Just wondering. B/T/W, the idea of the body having within its power the ability to heal itself is not exactly new, nor radical.

                    1. meeps

                      JohnMinMN @ 5:28 pm

                      I can’t speak for other NC readers, but I have a hearty respect for the scientific method and would likely not look first to homeopathy for my own treatment. That said, I think the Green Party leaving the option in its Health Care For All platform is trying to be as accomodating to people’s rights as possible. I find that attitude preferrable to one that would, for instance, limit patient access to birth control or abortion–views as antithetical to community health as any. And there’s definitely room for western doctors to be less dismissive of their patients body “wisdom.” I know first hand what it’s like when a doctor says, “your TSH is 100% normal” while I suffer from a list of symptoms that should therefore be 100% absent. They don’t have all the answers and people should be free to challenge orthodoxies. That, too, is science.

                    2. different clue

                      It would take years and millions of dollars to do and pay for the kind of double-double blinded experiments necessary to convince the cautious that the results of the experiments on homeopathy were “for real” , whichEVer way they went.

                2. portia

                  So, how many Homeopathobes have tried it for the purposes for which it is prescribed? Or know the full history? Or just have been told it’s bunk by the medical and scientific establishment? Or just listened to tinfoil hat horror stories about it? I am curious to know if any have personally disproved its efficacy.

                  1. roadrider

                    I am curious to know if any have personally disproved its efficacy.

                    That’s not how it works. The onus is on the advocates of alternative medicines and therapies to prove safety and efficacy.

                    1. portia

                      I happen to benefit greatly from Homeopathy, I think that researchers who only recently discovered that they had not mapped the entire lymphatic system may not know everything, and their empirical methods can not account for every phenomena. I don’t agree with people who condemn things they don’t understand, just because they can’t wrap their own brains around them. With Homeopathic treatment there can be many layers, and healing comes incrementally. When you have more than one system out of whack, as in all holistic methods, they have to be healed incrementally. For example, I went to a dermatologist for acne rosacea. He gave me antibiotics, because that’s his weapon. for months he prescribed them, until I could not remember my own phone number. I went to a physician, who prescribed the purple pill Nexium. That was not helpful. Finally I went to an energy healer who told me it was a digestive problem, hypoacidity, causing the rosacea, and my surgeon confirmed this. It was only after I changed my diet and started taking digestive enzymes that I got improvement, along with some serious sunscreen on my face–it also caused sun sensitivity. The Homeopathy I use is for some serious allergies, and has stopped my chronic bronchitis. I also use Homeopathy for chronic spasticity. I use what works for me, and choose from many modalities. The one thing I stay away from now is pharma. For serious trauma, conventional doctors are great. but for keeping me healthy overall, I have not had a lot of luck with them.

                    2. Vatch

                      It was only after I changed my diet and started taking digestive enzymes that I got improvement

                      That’s not homeopathy, unless the digestive enzymes were diluted to the microgram or nanogram level.

                  2. Waldenpond

                    From CA here. Of course I’ve used it. ha! It’s ineffective or I had allergic reaction. I buy my spices and diatomaceous earth (for cat fleas, no I don’t eat it) from our local homeopathic herb store. I still drink teas for congestion when I have a cold.

                    1. portia

                      there are only certain brands I will use, like Hylands, Boiron, Nelsons, Bioallers, Similasan. I don’t trust everyone to make them properly. And, like any remedy, you have to take the right remedy. they do stimulate the immune system, so a reaction is not unusual. Maybe you did not have the right practitioner.

                  3. Yves Smith Post author

                    I have tried it repeatedly with different homeopaths and I have found it to be bunk. By contrast, I was using chiropractors and acupuncture successfully long before they were considered anything but quackery by most people.

                    1. portia

                      Homeopathy works with the body’s defenses, and without lifestyle changes to deal with the causes of problems and strengthen body processes, I can see where some people would see no difference. It has helped me over humps that other medications only put a bandaid over, but I had to stop doing things that were aggravating the problem, such as diet change. Not for everyone, but still been around since the late 18th C and gives many people relief.

                3. Vatch

                  From the Wikipedia entry on homeopathy:

                  a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of like cures like (similia similibus curentur), a claim that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people would cure similar symptoms in sick people.

                  Hahnemann believed the underlying causes of disease were phenomena that he termed miasms, and that homeopathic preparations addressed these. The preparations are manufactured using a process of homeopathic dilution, in which a chosen substance is repeatedly diluted in alcohol or distilled water

                  I strongly suspect that this arose from a plausible misunderstanding of the way that vaccination works. At the time, it was a reasonable hypothesis, but later advances in physiological understanding showed homeopathy to be mistaken.

                  Please understand that I am not objecting to all forms of alternative medicine. It’s also possible that some nutrient therapies have been incorrectly labelled as homeopathy, and that provides unjustified support for homeopathy.

    1. Michael C

      Though not a Green Party member, I wish those not voting for Hillary would vote for Jill Stein. It at least has some type of organization, its platform is good, though I would like to see it more working class in orientation and not seem so “educated white, middle class” looking, and it has actually run some candidates. A write in protest vote for Bernie is about transforming the Democratic Party, as is those who somehow would vote for Trump, as is those who don’t vote. The Democratic Party cannot be transformed because its core is rotten. Building a new transformed (and renamed) Green Party seems much more pragmatic.

      1. Michael C

        Though not a Green Party member, I wish those not voting for Hillary would vote for Jill Stein. It at least have some type of organization, its platform is good, though I would like to see it more working class in orientation and not seem so “educated white, middle class” looking, and it has actually run some candidates. A write in protest vote for Bernie is about transforming the Democratic Party, as is those who somehow would vote for Trump, as is those who don’t vote. The Democratic Party cannot be transformed because its core is rotten. Building a new transformed Green Party. rebranded and renamed, minus the new agey stuff, seems much more pragmatic.

  10. Jim Haygood

    Other than George H.W. Bush’s succession of Reagan in 1988, neither party has held the presidency for three terms in the postwar era, after term limits went into effect.

    Had he been eligible, Reagan perhaps could have won a third term. Does anyone think Obama could win a third term if eligible? Okay, stop laughing — it was a rhetorical question.

    Frankly, the probability is small for either Bernie or Hillary to win the presidency. It’s the R party’s turn in the eight-year alternation; Obama’s policies aren’t that popular; the economy isn’t that great. There’s no catalyst here to convince voters to sign up for “more of the same” in place of “let the R party’s new face have a go” — unless the D party chooses a distinctively different candidate like Bernie, who isn’t perceived as “Obama’s third term.”

    Don’t worry about Hillary getting elected. Her negatives are high enough that, if she doesn’t get indicted, she will lose by a landslide. Hillary is a 21st century version of good old “his turn” Hubert Humphrey, the long-serving party hack, getting vaporized by Nixon in 1968.

    1. Left in Wisconsin

      HRC will lose in a landslide to Trump? Or Cruz? I want what you are smoking. :)

      And, yes, if O was running against Trump or Cruz, he would be a shoo-in for a 3rd term.

      1. bowserhead

        Take a good luck at the electoral college map. Trump only has to flip six states from
        blue to red. Try Florida, Pennsylvania, Maine, New Hampshire, and Nevada plus
        one more ( Iowa?) for good measure. If he took a couple extra in the Rust Belt (Ohio, Michigan)
        there’s your landslide. He’s already polling within 1-4 points of HRC in all of these. It is truly up to the “radical Independents”.

        1. different clue

          Which means if its Trump v Clinton, the “radical independents” can sniff and feeler the two candidates at leisure to see which one has the agenda and the brain-trust and etc. less dangerous to the long-term survival interest of the “radical independents”. (I don’t believe Clinton will ever be genuinely attractive to any “radical independent” votes. And unless Trump’s brain-trust is entirely free of neoliberals and neoconservatives and neowilsonian R2P type people . . . . and unless Trump can be counted on to really reject all Forced Trade Agreements and makes plain his acceptance of the Assad government in Syria and his rejection of the neoNazi Coup Regime in Kiev . . . . the only “radical independents” that Trump will attract are the embittered nihilists of the “Burn This Mother Down” persuasion.)

        2. Tiercelet

          He can probably knock her out swiftly if he agrees to release any Wall St speeches (she’ll not be able to dodge any longer) and, when the inevitable Supreme Court question comes up, says he would nominate… Merrick Garland.

          1. different clue

            That would require him to be an Elevendy Mentional Chess Master in fact, not just in theory, to be able to strategize and tactify like that. Can he change from carnival barker and builder-hustler to Political WarFighting Strategist in time to come up with things like that?

      2. Yves Smith Post author

        The more Hillary is in the public eye, the more her negative ratings rise. The dogs won’t eat the dog food.

        And wait till Trump goes after her record. He’ll run rings around her in the debates. Look how shrill and arrogant she got with Sanders, who was dishing out only a teeny fraction of what Trump would throw at her.

        And the economy is weakening. The trajectory is slowly down. If we have Brexit this summer, we’ll have a full bore crisis. That will not bode well for the Dems at all.

    2. TomD

      I’m pretty sure Obama could win again. He has better favorability ratings than ever major candidate except Sanders. Compared the clown show on the R side, he looks like the picture of stately.

      It’s actually almost certain whoever the Ds nominate will win because how disliked Trump and Cruz are.

    3. EmilianoZ

      It behooves us, members of the distinguished NC commentariat to launch a massive petition to change the constitution to allow Obama to run a 3rd time. The dire situation in which we find ourselves warrants such an extraordinary measure. I call on Yves and Lambert to draft the petition immediately and on all NC readers to sign it.

      1. roadrider

        The only petition regarding Obama’s tenure in office that I will sign is one that advocates running the son of a bitch out of town ASAP.

  11. felonious

    I couldn’t agree more with Gaius of the character of the “independent” and what that means in terms of allegiances. The Democratic Party has always treated Sanders as an outsider and his biggest support group as inconsequential. Further the party seems more than satisfied to limit the number and enthusiasm of its voters this cycle. Part of it is Hillary Clinton’s lack of charisma but primarily the strategy is necessary because the party would rather court money than voters. In a low turnout election the Party believes that Trump’s sizeable negatives will allow Clinton a narrow electoral college victory and business as usual in the nation’s capital.

    1. thoughtful person

      1a. “Independents” aren’t “moderate Republicans.” Independents are pretty radical these days.

      As felonious says this is agreat point by Gaius P. Independents make up over 40% of the electorate these days. The only way they can be ignored is if the only choices are an awful Dem vs an awful R, with the hope that independents will stay home.

      I’m a registered Dem but really lean independent, and not toward the banker nacked candidates of either party. Probably would vote Green if things play out as outlined above. I see little to differentiate Clinton from Trump. A lackey vs a customer of the big banks.

      Wonder if the national polls refered to above are only registered Dems? If so impressive Sanders now has a lead. If independents were included it would likely be by a mich wider margin. This is shown by Sanders consistent much larger than Clinton leads vs the repub candidates.

  12. James Levy

    I heard Tom Ridge talking about the Republican primary in Penn this morning on NPR. He was openly contemptuous of the process and called the election a “fashion show” and pointed out that Trump will only get 17 of 54 delegates no matter how great a margin he wins by, AND THAT”S A GOOD THING.

    The people who own and control this country don’t give a rat’s ass about voting as anything but plebiscites confirming their choices. I have no realistic idea how to get around this.

    1. jrs

      The thing is that’s basically conservative ideology, that the masses can’t be trusted etc., it’s why “it’s a republic not a democracy” as many a conservative will proudly claim and then descend into a rant about “the tyranny of the majority” as if that had any relevance to the world we live in. Me, having seen enough of the tyranny of the elite, I’d take my chances with direct democracy where we vote on issues themselves.

      So really noone can be entirely unaware of what they sign up for with Republicans. Of course if anything tends to make Republican conservatives predictions of the idiocy of the mob ring true it’s choices like Trump … if they fear the mob of their own base they are right to it seems.

      Now liberal ideology is different and claims to trust democracy. But the Dem party doesn’t.

  13. tegnost

    I voted for carter, mondale, dukakis, clinton 2x, gore, kerry and obama 2x, in hindsight a pretty shameful showing. In all those races I also generally supported dems down ticket. 2016 I will not vote for hillary, and will also vote against establishment down ticket dems. Looks like Tony Ventrella is taking on dave reichert on the east side seattle, pledging to not take big money. Maybe someone will take down Patty Murray. I think it’ll all be very interesting to watch.

    1. tegnost

      while reichert is a republican I note it as a sign of the volatility of the electorate and how it will change the make up of congress probably significantly, having a lot of motivated and disappointed sanders supporters has got to be making some people nervous

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        Sanders supporters might be a side show. In 2014, Mark Warner, D-VA, received less votes than George Allen in his 2006 defeat. Demographics should favor generic Democrats over that time.

        Hillary’s campaign efforts didn’t do anything for female candidates in 2014. She showed up and no one cared.

          1. Massinissa

            Like how there has been very few important female MPs in the UK since Thatcher? She pretty much poisoned the well for female politicians for decades over there.

    2. Massinissa

      IMO, don’t feel bad for voting Carter. He is the best ex-president we have ever had! Surely that counts for something :)

      The rest of ’em, yeah, you should feel bad about the rest of those, lol.

  14. Wyoming

    Well there are possibilities and there are probabilities. I think the OP has confused them a bit.

    Re: 1a. Actually many of the independents ARE moderate Republicans. Where I live there are loads of ‘independents’ who have never voted for a Democrat in their lives. Some, of course, fit the OP’s description. But most of Sanders supporters are not registered as independents. Hillary is essentially running as a moderate Republican and she is expecting to not only pull those moderate ‘Independent” Republicans but a hunk of the actual registered Republicans who are presumably going to run away from the Trump/Cruz outsiders. Note that the public display of tepid support for Hillary by Koch is a sure sign of this possible shift.

    Re. 2 the money race. The OP’s analysis of this is just wrong. Hillary is easily winning the money race as was pointed out by Fluffy. All money counts. Not just the direct contributions. Hillary has huge influence over that PAC money and a large amount of the money going to the DNC. Money laundering thru the DNC is working for her. She dominates when all is counted.

    Re: 2 Popular support. Since the OP leaves out crowd sizes (Bernie’s best category here) and concentrates on only polls we need to really look at the polls. It seems a good argument could be made that Hillary has a pretty solid lock on winning the nomination based upon what the polls say will happen in the remaining states. Hillary might be dissing Bernie’s supporters because she doesn’t think she needs them. After all she is clearly planning on sucking in those moderate Republican independents and some of the regular Republicans as well. If that works she does not need Bernie’s supporters – whom she clearly does not share political ideology with. So this idea that Bernie’s supporters are critical to her success is suspect.

    Re: 2 Pledged delegates. Say what? I will be shocked if anything that happened in New York is reversed. Hillary has a stranglehold on all of the delegates and it is only going to get stronger. There is nothing that is at all probable which would lead to Sanders challenging Hillary in the delegate count. Possibility vs probability. A little rationality is called for here.

    Re 3: Since there is no logical foundation to 1 and 2 one cannot say therefore 3. We have no real idea what the public really thinks of the potential race between which ever Republican we get from the Republican Party and the Republican from the Democratic party. No one has called what is happening in this election year right except my best hiking buddy so far. And he does not answer pollsters and the rest of us lie to them because we hate them. All races change dramatically when the final two candidates sort out and the PR machines go into full effort. The OP seems to have a strong bias he is not clearly stating here.

    The only thing I think the OP has right in this piece is that this election ‘may’ mark a significant turning point in American politics. But, since we are driving at speed down a road in the dark without our lights on, it is pretty hard to say which direction we need or are going to turn. I expect to be surprised myself.

    1. tegnost

      I agree with you that hillary should be running as a republican. The problem with your possibility v. probability is that with the increased input of possible negatives for clinton (email, wall st., election fraud, libya and on and on) significantly increases the probability of the unforeseen calamity. Your resignation may be causing your feeling that you are driving at speed down a dark road without your lights on. You could have a “come to bernie” moment and join us in seeing that the future can be bright!

      1. Wyoming

        lol But I am for Bernie. I just don’t think it is happening this election cycle. He should form a new party and move on from the Democrats. If the Republicans are detonating this year why waste the opportunity to get rid of the Democrats as well? Neither party adds value any more.

    2. RootieKazootie

      An interesting re-assessment of Gaius’ take (which I thought was excellent). My thoughts to add to that.

      1.a I say this with no disrespect towards Wyoming — it’s a beautiful state with very few people and most of them Republican in nature (the old pioneering spirit thing). So saying that “loads of independents” there never voted D isn’t saying much. Independents in CA (where I live) are an entirely different species. And there’s A LOT more of them here. A lot of us are Independent and see Bernie as the only rational choice this year. Voting for HRC is like voting for the love child of Bush41 and Gloria Allred.

      2. Money. At the end of the long day, Bernie has out-raised Hillary. Yes, the DNC is shoveling dark money at her — which means down-ticket races will suffer. That can’t continue in the general. There would be too big a revolt from at risk candidates. Bernie’s money – past, present, future – will never go to Hillary. Raising money the way Hillary does means owing a lot to a a relatively small group of people. As Gaius points out, it’s then about optics and this year optics are key. If she’s not bringing in enough, that’s bad. But if (dark) money suddenly isn’t an issue for her, that reads disastrously. Trump just bangs away on her as being completely bought and paid for by the 1%. Election over.

      2. Popular Support. She might be planning on it, but you live in a place where any R leaning independent + any registered R will NEVER vote for Hillary. That is not unique to Wyoming. She brings too much baggage. So her hoping for that is a non-starter. She also positions herself as a progressive (she’s not) , but Bernie’s Golden Horde (money reference only, nothing more) knows deep in their bones she’s not even in the same zip code. It’s been polled that at least 1 in 4 Bernie supporters will not, under any circumstance, vote for her. Add in the probability that another 25% are completely apathetic to her as a candidate and will just stay home and catch a Friends rerun. Suddenly the number not voting for her is 50% of Bernie supporters. That’s too big and dangerous a number to ignore.

      You and I both agree – I think (don’t want to put words in your mouth) – that this election is not normal in any sense, even compared to 2008. Voters are extremely angry (doesn’t matter which side) and as the campaign goes on, even older people aren’t getting their political news from the MSM. Does anyone trust them? So I think Gaius is right in his assessment that optics and the perception of a candidate’s relationship to the establishment is as important as money this time around. Which is why many billionaires have stopped funneling money to candidates.

      1. James Levy

        Right now one in four or more Sanders supporters say they won’t vote for Hilary, but polls say that 40% of registered Republicans won’t vote for Trump. Problem is, the elites and their minions don’t believe those polls, and history says that they are right. Party loyalty and bandwagoning will take effect towards the end and millions who say “no way” now will pull the lever for one of the duopoly candidates then. I don’t like it, but I fear they are right.

      2. Wyoming


        You read too much into my internet name. I was born in Wyoming but have not lived there for the better part of 40 years.

        When you say that independents in CA are different I would agree…as long as you don’t try and imply that they are typical of the rest of the US.

        One simply cannot count the money the way the OP has legitimately as far as I am concerned. The non-direct money when spent on Hillary still benefits her. So it counts.

        Popular support. Your comment follows the standard wisdom…but that wisdom has been wrong almost all the time this cycle. When switching to a new paradigm it is best not to depend on the old rules as they no longer hold. I don’t think we know what those voters are going to do. Just like many of us Bernie supports will not vote for Hillary there are lots of Republican (and Republican independents) who will not vote for Trump or Cruz.

        Well not to slam Mr. Gaius but from reading him over the years I don’t find very many of his arguments compelling. This one especially. I find him too buried in old ways of thinking and out of touch with the factors driving today’s world. Very few people pay attention to the MSM these days and this is especially true of the potential voters who are the main supporters of Sanders and Trump/Cruz. I live in a large retirement community (pretty affluent) and the things folks here say about all of the candidates is not that much different than what my millennial children have to say. Our government class has lost legitimacy to pretty much everyone’s eyes. Where we go from here who knows.

        1. NotoriousJ

          I’m from California, and I would vote for trump if he would build his wall to protect us from our dangerous neighbors to the EAST. OR, WA, you are welcome to join. Let’s have education and Healthcare while Amerika has wars and bailouts. Razor wire on top, right?

          1. Waldenpond

            Are you open to leaving out S CA? I’ll hold my nose for all of CA if OR and WA are included.

    3. hunkerdown

      1a. How classy that you’re projecting the political preferences of a place you won’t even identify with any particularity onto the entire US. Sure there are closet GOPers among the independents. But Wyoming is not a model for the US and we are not obliged to observe your horizons, thank the gods. Sounds like a Record Corrector.

      2. What good is money, exactly, other than an Internet troll army? What happens when people turn OFF Hillary and the rest of the detestable upper-middle-class? I saw some goofy story about someone getting shot three times in Pennsylvania this morning, in what is clearly a Hillary FUD play whether or not anyone really got capped. The news of the upper classes follows their political needs a little too closely sometimes.

    4. divadab

      I think you have pretty much summarised the Clinton campaign’s take on the situation.

      We shall see.

  15. Waldenpond

    Latest polling has more Sanders supporters for Clinton than the reverse. An estimated 16% of Clinton supporters did not vote for O. Sanders is down to what 13% now? They are on board.

    Refusing to pay will be calmly and quietly quashed. The govt would immediately pay any private lenders and add that debt to the rest. Then come the liens. Have a car? A license plate reader will quickly have your car repossessed. Have a credit card? Refused. Want cash? Your acct has been seized for non-payment. I had my checking acct shut merely for writing checks out of pattern. I am electronically a criminal for refusing to use credit, I save money and then spend, save and then spend. This annoys the algorithms (so the bank nor the credit verification company they use can do anything, they just shrug their shoulders, meh) and you get shut down and have to go cash. Want to ride public transport? Your pass is dead. Travel? Blocked. They will immediately be blocked from hiring w/credit reporting, have paychecks seized, etc.

    Sanders argument is to get money out of politics. It seems a weak argument to present he is the money raiser. The person who gets the most votes will win in the public. The nation responds to corruption with reduced turnout, low turnout favors the 1%. It’s a loop.

    Sanders can go to the convention. How many people will be watching? I don’t typically watch as the winner is known and it’s just a private indulgence and huge wast of money I have no interest in. The first vote will go to Clinton and the confetti and balloons will fall.

    If Clinton has the most votes it will be interesting to see if you can sell that she has been forced on people. Yes, it’s rigged, but let’s be clear, Sanders is participating in that rigging… didn’t you and DWT report Sanders made deals w/the Ds to run not just kneecapping himself but down ticket Senate races (which has made it harder for his supporters in state races)?

    1. tegnost

      Sanders supporters will be watching and there’s a lot of us. A motivated voting bloc. Read it and weep.

      1. Waldenpond

        I am a donating, Berner gear wearing, voter registering Sanders supporter that will not vote for Clinton. Sanders supporters have been polled and already declared they will support Clinton…. now. Even with all of the electoral rigging, even with the money laundering, even knowing she is under federal investigation. I am personally disappointed but not surprised, voters get on board. I would like to see the growth of additional parties. I hate the duopoly D/R branches of the money party.

        The Ds get together in a big building and vote. It’s a very simple process. I do not believe a having a convention vote is going to change anything.

        1. tegnost

          while I’m sure this is all true you tend to succumb to the hillary is inevitable meme and I personally not only think she’s not inevitable, I think she’s unelectable, regardless of what polls say, polls are mostly nonsense, or based on “likely voters” or some other thing. I appreciate all of your efforts on behalf of the sanders campaign, thanks.

          1. tegnost

            It’s sad and I think you’ll agree that the only selling point hillary has is her inevitability, and I’m defensive toward that perspective. What’s she going to say “I plan on globalizing, offshoring jobs, importing cheap workers, imprisoning poor people, enforcing onerous debt contracts on the many while letting my rich friends off the hook for a song, increasing the cost of medical care, cutting social security and indeed all social programs, turning public education into charter schools and stampeding the globe with our military might, kicking sand in everybody’s face?

            1. Waldenpond

              She’ll be a horror show. I thought Sanders was weak on foreign policy but would kill vastly less people than anyone else running and although liberal rather than left could make improvements in people’s lives with appointments and executive order.

              Clinton will slaughter foreigners and decimate people domestically. For me, it’s immoral to vote for her.

              1. hreik

                ^^^ This ^^^

                esp: this

                Clinton will slaughter foreigners and decimate people domestically. For me, it’s immoral to vote for her

          2. Waldenpond

            It’s odd … I refer to Clinton but she is irrelevant to me. She simply doesn’t exist for me as other than this putrid representation, in general, of the Ds.

            I think she could get trashed in the general. The Bush Dynasty is pushed aside but NOTHING would be as glorious to the media as killing off the Clintons. I think the MSM will revel in the shell companies and bribe laundering of her foundation. 5%-10% to charity? Smells scamalicious. The 1% has it’s pre-determined hierarchy with Clinton. With Trump, they’ll have to run some money through his foundation to determine the order.

            I have not interest in candidates other than Sanders/Stein. So I don’t have to watch the horror show.

    2. Ulysses

      “Refusing to pay will be calmly and quietly quashed.”

      This would definitely be the most likely scenario if the debt-strikers numbered only in the thousands. If millions participated, the quashing would be neither calm nor quiet.

      The great risk with any open rebellion is that the crackdown will only make matters worse. Yet it seems to me that a dangerously large percentage of the American population has very little left to lose. Millions of people are already locked out of the banking system and forced to use predatory services like payday lenders and check-cashing agencies.

      The system, as it is, only continues to limp along because not everyone in the bottom 80% has yet recognized a hard truth– capitalism as currently practiced has no other purpose than to extract their labor, and wealth, and leave them hopeless!

    3. NotoriousJ

      Crackpipe or troll? I would rather hack my nuts off with a dull spoon than vote for hilz.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      No this is just dangling a bright shiny object before Sanders voters. No political pro I know thinks this is at all serious. It’s embarrassing that it is getting any play.

  16. Jess

    “a jiggered, Debbie Wasserman Schultzed process”

    In addition to a cogent analysis of the race, Gaius has managed to give us a great new word to describe corruption and manipulation of the political process — “Schultzed”.

  17. Roger Smith

    At this point I have no reason to believe that the Democrats actually understand the implications of modern events or that they will ever (barring a Clinton loss to Trump or some other catastrophic event–and even then I am not confident). They have not shown any interest in inviting the new/revitalized electorate movement, in fact showing the opposite through their gloating ignorance.

    When it all comes down they will be the ones running around asking, “What the hell happened”, like clueless morons.

    1. voteforno6

      A loss to Trump would be spun as the fault of Bernie supporters not voting for Clinton. Why not? They’ve successfully pushed the line about Nader costing them Florida in 2000 for many years now.

      1. Roger Smith

        Yea, most likely. There is that slim chance it would force them to adapt but at the rate things seem to be moving, I still doubt it would help to much. We will see what happens! Maybe Sanders will still pull through and this will all be rendered naught.

      2. NotoriousJ

        I hope so. The tricky Dems need to be disabused of the notion that progressives can be ignored.

      3. Fiver

        ‘A loss to Trump would be spun as the fault of Bernie supporters not voting for Clinton. Why not?’

        I’ll tell you why not – because the entire world would rightly conclude the American public justly found the choice between the penultimate Washington/Wall Street insider and almost anything else conceivable a very close call – if that signal fact doesn’t soon inform the thinking of the entire obscenely bloated, blighted mass that constitutes the universe of insider privilege and power, there is going to be an outright failure of legitimacy.

        1. MojaveWolf

          Tried to reply once & it vanished, then finally thought of hitting the back arrow, found it, posted, and it vanished again. In case it’s in mod limbo I won’t redo it, but will add to my previous but better & more lengthily stated “I take credit not blame if HRC loses coz of me” because no rewarding cheating & if they want my vote they gotta give me somethi png to vote for & if only way to get real progressive party is to kill dem party I’m totally down with that” with the following:

          Trump is more likely to stop the TPP than Hillary. I consider this & its sibling deals to be a disaster on the level of the Iraq invasion & worse than the Patriot Act. He is less likely pointlessly invade other countries than Hillary. So, yeah, other than that, she’ll probably be slightly better than him. But those are two pretty big things. Plus all the stuff I said above. So yeah, try to blame me for this. I’ll proudly wave a big flag saying “I helped make sure as many conservadem neoliberal corporate shills as possible & those who endorsed them LOST. And I will keep doing so until you give me someone worthwhile.” I think this attitude is probably fairly common among Sanders supporters.

    2. hunkerdown

      Assuming, as the OP did, that the Democratic Party’s present management would rather win an election than maintain control of the party, which is an unsturdy proposition, that sounds like a fair analysis. But successful elites are almost never ignorant. Disinterested, perhaps, but never ignorant. Too many yuppies around to let one’s guard down lest they turn their exquisite organizational engineering upward for personal gain, as yuppies do.

  18. FluffytheObeseCat

    “When it all comes down they will be the ones running around asking, “What the hell happened”, like clueless morons.”

    This won’t be true until it’s true. In 2016, the Democratic Party elite does not need to accommodate the ‘left’. They have too much support from older Hispanic, African-American, and ‘liberal’ white professionals. They do not need Sanders voters to nominate their preferred candidate. Sanders voters are a real threat to their dominance — a threat to both their egos and portfolios. They do not want to give us anything whatsoever, and they reasonably assume they can quietly thrive under 4 years of radical Christian supremacist government. They would certainly do OK under Trump.

    If the Dems lose the general election to Trump it will be deleterious to the nation, but probably not very noticeable to most citizens. Our lives would not be made better by a Clinton 2.0 presidency, and most may not be noticeably worse off if Trump prevails. I believe a Republican sweep of both houses, with Cruz as President, may result in changes in how we are ruled. They are radical, and they want the whole nation to be run like Brownback’s Kansas. They would truly fight towards achieving that goal. Cruz and his fellow travelers in Congress are serious in their desire to destroy federal government as we’ve known it. Trump may follow the same path, but he’d be far less dedicated to it.

    I’m still not sure it’s worth voting for Hillary Clinton.

    1. Roger Smith

      I never considered that the Democrats wouldn’t actually care about losing to Trump. I too think life generally would not change much, but did not connect the two (based on the ZOMG GUYS fear rhetoric machine, but that is all contrived narrative anyways). After all they will just blame everyone else (most likely). Stupid voters. Then bank on a wallowing “sorry for leaving, please take me back” in 4 years.

      I don’t think there is any reason to vote for Clinton (if she gets there, still holding out!). I would rather send a message to the ignorant Democrats and Clintons by voting against them at that point, as to not let their arrogance be vindicated.

      1. Massinissa

        The Democratic Party cannot fail, it can only BE failed. According to establishment Democrats, anyway.

    2. John

      “This won’t be true until it’s true. In 2016, the Democratic Party elite does not need to accommodate the ‘left’. They have too much support from older Hispanic, African-American, and ‘liberal’ white professionals. They do not need Sanders voters to nominate their preferred candidate. Sanders voters are a real threat to their dominance — a threat to both their egos and portfolios.”

      This was probably the best point anyone here made. The Dems are in a great position. They have the unwavering support of the African-American population because of Obama, the Hispanics because of Republican attitudes on immigration, the professional class, finance capital, and more and more of big business (they find the GOP to be too unpredictable). They also have a huge number of moderates that will vote for them because they’re scared of the Republicans and they can always count on the left to vote for them come election day because they’re scared of the alternative. The demographics are emphatically shifting in favor of the Democrats–Bush only won in 2000 because of fraud and the Republican dominance of the 00’s was because of 9/11. The reality is they would have to entirely change their position on immigration, and fast, if they want to prevent dying out as a party, but that won’t happen because of their angry white base.

      Where I disagree with you is the next part. While it is true that some moderate Democrats are more scared of Sanders than Trump (and they would definitely vote for a Kasich over Sanders), a lot of people are genuinely frightened of a Trump presidency. It’s the same reason these types have increasingly defected to the Democratic Party: they think a Republican nutjob president could destabilize the economy. More importantly, if we’re talking about the Democratic “elite,” they don’t want to lose any elections. Sure, if we’re talking about their wealthier voter base, they might view losing to the Republicans as not such a bad thing. But anyone involved in the Democratic Party apparatus obviously wants to win and go for the GOP’s jugular and, most importantly, get taken care of by Hillary.

      1. Yves Smith Post author

        Blacks are not monolithic, and neither are Hispanics. I don’t buy these assumptions any more than “women support Hillary,” which is proving to be not all that true.

        The big issue with Sanders is that the media kept him largely unknown and then demonized him when he did well enough that they could no longer pretend that he didn’t exist. Many voters simply don’t know enough about him to support him over someone they regard as safe.

        1. John

          When it comes to their support of the Democratic Party, they’re about as monolithic as you can get in politics, a trend that will continue for a long time because of Obama. Hispanics historically are quite apolitical (on everything except immigration) but candidates like Trump will only drive them to the Democratic Party in droves. A lot of people have commented on the dying demographics of the GOP and I agree with them. They’ll always be present in congress because of gerrymandering but the Republicans will need a lot of luck or a very charismatic leader to win a presidential election.

            1. John

              Yes, but if you look at the black population as a whole, they overwhelmingly support Clinton. Either way, they will vote Democrat come election time, and the Democratic Party leadership knows this. They don’t need to throw a bone to the left and will do everything they can to make sure the most moderate candidate wins every time. They know that they can easily beat the Republicans in any presidential election with a centrist neoliberal because they can depend on blacks, Hispanics, the professional class, finance capital, many business leaders, and most moderates and leftists scared of the Republicans to vote for said candidate. The insanity of the GOP will keep voter turnout on this side high enough and it’s not like they’re going to defect to the Green Party in droves.

              1. pretzelattack

                but clinton isn’t “moderate”. being a neoliberal or a neocon is only considered “centrist” in the beltway, which is why there is so much popular dissatisfaction.

                1. John

                  Fair enough, “moderate” within an American context, but that’s what we’re talking about. And of course the “left” isn’t really all that left in the grand scheme of things. Either way, once nominated, candidates move to the center (American center, which would be right-wing in much of Europe). It’s pretty much a rule.

    3. NotoriousJ

      Old folks. Like we say in tech – the future happens one funreal at a time. Another 4 years worth of self-indulgent octogenarians – who have no stake in the future, BTW – and we’ll be good to go.

      1. Waldenpond

        Let me stereotype the ways: a poor education system (with it’s youthful TFA privatizers), oligarch controlled media (driven online by the youths), poverty (slacker gamers) or slave wages (if young people worked hard they would have had an accident of birth college education) and meaningless jobs (meritocracy). Gosh, all of those examples have young people. It’s almost like it isn’t individuals… maybe, it’s a system or something.

        No, no, it can’t be systems. It simply doesn’t make sense that the oligarchs who have monetized every human interaction and prey on people’s very existence could be a cause. I’ve got it! Yes, it’s the boomers.

        Sanders brought in the youthful vote for the Ds. Once people register, they rarely leave. Individuals will strive to manage in corrupt systems.

  19. Jamie

    This article is the stuff of fantasy. The ruling class simply desires Hillary far more than Bernie. The author imagines that at a close convention, the superdelegates might magically move to Bernie. This turns history on its face! The superdelegate stacking is known as the “McGovern Rule” and is specifically designed to keep left anti-war candidates from winning the primary. It defies logic to think the corporate Democratic establishment will use the McGovern rule to do the opposite for which it is intended and maintained.

    Another fiction of this article is that Hillary will somehow move father left to coddle all of the Berniacs. This goes against political history. Usually in primaries a moderate like Hillary will tack left to match her opponent, as she has with Bernie, adopting positions like anti-free trade and anti-wall street. This is the farthest left you will ever see her! Enjoy it while it lasts. As all moderate Dem candidates do, she will tack right for the general election.

    Hillary doesn’t care about Bernie supporters; she knows most of them will be herded to her out of fear for the evil Republicans. Hillary will focus on winning moderates, Reagan Democrats, and even disillusioned Neo-Cons when she goes up against her far-right opponent. This will necessitate a drastic move to the right, her authentic position, and not a transcendental love-in with the Bernie folks as this article opines for.

    1. inode_buddha

      Except, they won’t be herded to her out of fear of the evil republicans. Not when she is just as evil, if not more.

      1. James Levy

        To say she is more evil than Scott Walker or a Ted Cruz is taking a reality (Hillary is awful and should never be president) and exaggerating it by false comparison. Seriously read what Cruz has said and then explain to me how he is better than Clinton.

        1. Massinissa

          Sometimes things need to get worse to get better. If theres a President Cruz, the Left might revolt, like under Bush but hopefully more effectively this time. If its president Hillary, Hillary will do like 70% of what Cruz or Trump would be doing anyway, but the Left will be completely pacified and not do shit.

          Id rather take my chances with a Republican. Though, Im not going to vote for a Republican either: Third party for me.

    2. jrs

      Reagan Democrats, yep if that’s who she appeals to then she can’t be counting on the vote of anyone under 50 (as noone under 50 voted in either of Reagan’s elections).

      1. Jamie

        I stand corrected. I was using the term “Reagan Democrats” as a demographic … of Democrats who like voting for Republican presidents … sometimes. Just as the term “new-deal Democrats” doesn’t exclude those who did not vote in the 1930s, I didn’t mean to exclude any age group.

        I hope you are right, and the term won’t apply to the under-50 voters in 2016.

        1. TomD

          I’m pretty sure Reagan Democrats just became Republicans, and don’t exist as Democrat voters any more.

    3. Synoia

      Usually in primaries a moderate like Hillary will tack left to match her opponent, as she has with Bernie, adopting positions like anti-free trade and anti-wall street.

      Precisely. Which is why Trump who domestically is to the left of Hilllary, is preferred over Hillary.

    4. John

      “Another fiction of this article is that Hillary will somehow move father left to coddle all of the Berniacs. This goes against political history. Usually in primaries a moderate like Hillary will tack left to match her opponent, as she has with Bernie, adopting positions like anti-free trade and anti-wall street. This is the farthest left you will ever see her! Enjoy it while it lasts. As all moderate Dem candidates do, she will tack right for the general election.”

      Excellent point. Candidates always go much farther towards the center once nominated. The article is clearly coming from an optimistic-as-possible perspective to try and counter the unfair spin Bernie has gotten from the mainstream media that has done its damnedest to make his victory seem impossible. If they had treated him like a real candidate he certainly would have won but just not enough people believed it was possible. But instead, he media made sure to treat him like a total outsider even though he’s probably more popular than Hillary (certainly has a more motivated base).

    5. NotoriousJ

      I think you’ve misread the article. It isn’t saying that these things will happen, it is saying that these things won’t happen, but hilz can’t win unless they do.

    6. Yves Smith Post author

      Straw man, and offensive too.

      You act as if Sanders voters have no agency. What bullshit. I for one will never vote for Hillary. The Dems they can’t take my vote for granted, and many Sanders voters feel the same way. They need to pay a cost for continuing to kick progressives to the curb. All you have to do is look at the American labor movement to see what loyalty to Team Dem buys you. Abuse and betrayal.

  20. ScottW

    Hillary supporters to Sanders supporters: You better vote for Hillary or you will end up with a President controlled by special interest money, who loves neocon foreign policy, who even Charles Koch can support.

  21. Waldenpond

    Early exit polls coming in to influence the vote. I was hoping for 3 out of 5. No polls for DE or RI. Expected PA and MD not to do too well, looks like Sanders down significantly in CT. Low under 30s for some areas. I’m relieved I have to be elsewhere tonight and won’t be able to follow the details.

    1. Waldenpond

      CT also… 55/40 find Sanders inspiring over Clinton. Now lets see if they voted for him.

  22. craazyman

    I may not have anything remotely useful to offer humanity, but I did this:

    I just gave Bernie $100. That’s the second time I’ve done it!

    I don’t want a cabinet position. I don’t want to be an ambassador. I don’t want to run a govermint agency. I don’t want to go to Washington DC power politics parties. i’d rather do nothing at home by myself, i’d rather lay around doing nothing of any social value and then i’d rather go for a walk in the woods by the Potomac river by myself. I’d rather do that than go for a walk with almost any Dee Cee politician, unless they were hot and female. Then it might be OK.

    I don’t even want to go to the White House. I couldn’t care less. I don’t care what color they paint it. So what. It’s a house.

    But in order to justify myself to eternity, I did this: I did in fact give Bernie another $100. he’ll do something more useful with it than me that’s for sure. i’m just being honest.

    Bernie Bernie
    Bernie Bernie

    It’s always a good time for Gnostic Perception but now is a particularly apropos time. Things are trying to find themselves in place with a strange diaspora of fervent illuminations. Things are fraught with a confusion, mostly self imposed by the mind chains of your being. You need to be able to make sense of things in a way that is not entirely familiar. It’s absolutely astonishing how close Professors Kelton and Wray are to being in charge of the monetary system. That really is something to consider. If it were to happen, then one things is for sure. There would be a lot of opportunity for fake songs in the peanut gallery. Almost any decade since 1950 would offer raw material. I’d say go for it. Let it rip. The only people who are confused are those who think money is a particle not a wave. They make references to Zimbabwe and John Law and the South Sea Bubble. Those are good points, but they’re not the whole point. You can disappear in two ways, not just one. Either by infinite expansion or by infinite contraction.

  23. different clue

    I would humbly suggest that Gaius Publius make some allowance in his predictions for who the Republican nominee may end up being. If the election is Trump vs. Clinton, I will picky-choosy between the two based on who their advisers are, who their pre-announced Cabinet Picks would be, what their stated goals are, etc. Trump obnoxifies me but does not terrify me.

    Cruz scares me deeply. He is a Seven Mountains Dominionist who may well feel himself to be one of the Annointed Christian “Kings” who are chosen to pay for Christian Dominionist uplift by stealing all of every non-Dominionist’s money and stuff to pay for Christian Dominionism. If the Rs nominate Cruz, I will certainly vote for Clinton.

    Mr. Publius should perhaps take that sort of thing into account.

    1. Massinissa

      Don’t bother for voting for a ‘lesser evil’ between Trump and Clinton. Theyre so similar it doesn’t even matter. Just keep your hands clean and vote third party or stay home. You will feel better afterwards.

      1. different clue

        I have a younger brother in the Armed Services. So must any number of other people. If one candidate seems reliably less likely to get Servicepeople sent to a war zone or other violent intervention area than the other one does; I will get my hands as dirty as necessary to vote for the lower risk to people in the Armed Services.

        If the risk seems equal either way, then I may end up voting third party, as you suggest. Of course I have my old age survival to think about too. If one candidate seems more hostile to Social Security than the other, or if only one candidate seems hostile to Social Security; I will get my hands as dirty as necessary to vote for my old-age Social Security survival anti-poverty insurance.

        1. NYPaul

          Excellent point! And, for whatever reason, has been totally missing from the Primary debates……….from both parties.
          “I have a younger brother in the Armed Services. So must any number of other people.”

          “I will get my hands as dirty as necessary to vote for the lower risk to people in the Armed Services.”

  24. craazyman

    get me the fuk out of moderating hell already.

    I didn’t even use a curse word!

    how can we get Bernie elected if we can’t express ourselves in a natural way? it seems impossible.

    I hesitate to type more now after experiencing such a defeat at the hands of an omnipotent and mechanized critic without so much as even a soul, even though i love wasting time, but if it involves work, like typing and then the words don’t appear, then whoa! you have to think about it

    1. craazyman

      that was pretty quick. not bad!

      you guys should be in charge of something more than imagination. And I don’t mean Chinese food delivery. That is pretty fast too, in fact it might even be faster, but they’ve had years and years to perfect the concept. I mean something real, in reality. Something you can look up by bending back your neck and see with your eyes.

      Youze-all have executive potential, for sure.

  25. Pat Anson

    Yves, I just saw your January story about the CDC opioid guidelines and the “mysterious” Pain News Network, of which I am the founder and editor.

    I can’t leave a comment on that article, contact the publisher of this website, or even find a way to contact you privately. Now THAT is mysterious. So I resort to this.

    I would have been more than happy to speak with you about PNN, what we do, and who we are funded by (that will be a very short answer), but you never made any effort to reach me even though my email address is plainly listed. I’m contacted by readers everyday. They have no trouble finding me.

    Instead you proceeded with your little tale based on preconceived notions that we are some elusive shadow organization funded by pharma. That is simply not true. And anyone who did a shred of actual research about me or PNN would have seen that.

    I hope that article is not a fair representation of the work you do.

    1. Yves Smith Post author


      I must confess to being very puzzled by your message.

      First, professional journalists (and for that matter, ad sales people) have never had any trouble finding how to reach me by phone or by e-mail,. We also have a prominent “Contact” tab in the header bar on every page on this site. You are the only one in the ten years I have operated this site to claim difficulty.

      Second, we close comments sixty days after a post is up. You had plenty of time to reach us and this post was stale from a media perspective by the time you got to us.

      Third, the article was written by Roy Poses of the Health Care Renewal blog, not by me, as was clearly indicated at the top of the article, with a prominent link to his site. Curiously, you made no effort to leave a comment on his post, and comments are still open there, nor to contact him at, which is listed on the blog.

      Fourth, his questions about the lack of transparency of your organization stand. You claim to be a not for profit, yet despite looking at the time of his post and this week, he has not been able to find either a Form 990 or 990-N filed with the IRS. A 990-N is the postcard form that organizations with very little money use. If you do indeed file, please send copies of the forms for the last two years to one of the e-mail address on our Contact form.

      Fifth, you did not have an entry in Guidestar when Poses wrote his post. While there is a listing now, it is not consistent with having an active organization.  It does show a physical address: 2435 ORANGE AVE, LA CRESCENTA, CA 91214, which appears to be a single family house.

      But is says the organization has $0.  It fails to list a 990, and only says the organization files a 990-N. 

      If this organization has no money, how does it publish its news letter?

      Sixth, regarding your claim that you could clear matters up in a phone conversation. That is not dispositive, particularly for a not for profit in the absence of tax returns that we can examine. For instance, you could well claim, “We get our income from subscriptions and/or advertising.” But that does not tell whether or not you are beholden to Big Pharma, which is the issue at hand. For instance, your newsletter could have a bulk subscription paid for by a pharmaceutical firm that was significant to your total revenues, or via one of the astroturf organizations funded by the makers of OxyContin that are promoting pain research, as reported by Lee Fang of The Intercept: Please be aware of the fact that I have contacted Fang and he is making inquiries about your newsletter. The fact that you have done “joint research” with one of these astroturf groups and have published those results confirms that Poses had a valid basis for to raising questions about relationship with Big Pharma.

      Please note that we have broken stories on not-for-profits who have been captured by anti-reform funding sources and despite being widely touted as pro-reform:

      If you do send us your 990-N, please feel free to provide additional information about your funding sources.

  26. Jim

    Gaius stated “…the next place of the revolt will occur outside the electoral process and outside the rule of Establishment authority.”

    I hope you are right about this point. Finally we would be able to get down to some serious politics (structural economic/financial/political/cultural reform.

    No real structural reforms can be accomplished through the electoral process–it results in only endless policy tinkering–with its most optimistic outcome being a hidden rule by a professional/managerial class telling the plebs how they should run their lives.

    1. Waldenpond

      The shift leftward would take another generation or so to cycle through the electoral process. I think too many fracked fields will have leaked into ground water by then and how many cities will be flooding. Things will never change until the rabble cause the elite a great deal of actual discomfort.

  27. sluggo

    Hillary lost my vote years ago, but lost my family’s vote when they found out her dirty supporters posted child pornography on Bernie’s Facebook pages in a successful effort to get them taken down. When you lose my people like my family, who are about as vanilla as you can get when it comes to politics, you’re in deep doo doo.

    1. different clue

      Isn’t it a Federal Felony Crime to possess child pornography? Don’t you have to possess it before you can false-flag post it on someone else’s page? Even if only long enough to actually get it posted there?
      If the Clintonite operatives who posted Kiddie Porn to Sanders Facebook pages possessed that Kiddie Porn long enough to be considered to have indeed “possessed” it in the eyes of the law, aren’t they subject to arrest and prosecution for possession of child porn?

      If the Sanders Team really believes in hard combat and take-no-prisoners, the Sanders Team will try finding sympathetic lawyers who can figure out how to force the revealment of the actual posters of the child port to the Sanders Facebook pages. They can also figure out how to pressure the relevant legal authorities into building cases and perhaps making arrests against these child porn placers. They can then figure out how to get the relevant legal authorities to move further towards prosecutions for child porn possession where it can be strongly provable enough to make a prosecution-worthy case.

      Meanwhile, of course this should be as loudly publicised as possible, and proof of it having happened should be viralized to all the surviving Sanders facebook page memberships, the Sanders Reddit page,
      every one of the email-address-bearing Sanders money-donors, etc. And from there it would perhaps spread into parts of the media and begin opening independent minds against the Clintonite Forces.

      1. crittermom

        “If the Clintonite operatives who posted Kiddie Porn to Sanders Facebook pages possessed that Kiddie Porn long enough to be considered to have indeed “possessed” it in the eyes of the law, aren’t they subject to arrest and prosecution for possession of child porn?”

        Sorry. Clintonites aren’t subject to prosecution exactly because they are Clintonites.
        Much like the TBTJ banksters.

        1. different clue

          The people who actually posted the child porn to Sanders Facebook pages may flatter themselves to think that they are treasured Clintonites. To the Clintons, the child porn posters are just used kleenex or at best disposable Oswalds. The Clintonites might not be smart enough to intervene early if successful Lawfare Warriors were able to get some kiddie-porn posters actually arrested and prosecuted. And if the Clintonites only awoke to the danger after the first few were prosecuted, it might be too late for them to protect the rest. The small-fish-on-trial might well offer bigger kiddie-porn-posting fish to the prosecutors. The various prosecutors can’t all be Clintonites. Some of them must be the sort of people who swell with rage like a frog’s throat at the mention of kiddie porn. They might rather advance their own career by prosecuting some kiddie porn posters than save the Clintonites by excusing the false-flag kiddie porn posters.

          So I hope somebody looks into maybe getting the kiddie porn posters arrested and prosecuted. And even if that can’t happen, perhaps there are members of Anonymous For Bernie who know how to find the kiddie-porn posters through painstaking and devoted computer searches. Find them and “dox” them and expose them before millions. Ruin their lives. Get them fired from their jobs. Drive them to commit suicide. As a warning to future disposable Oswald wannabes that their beloved Clintons may not necessarily be able to save them from Anonymous For Bernie if such future disposable Oswald wannabes also decide to false-flag post kiddie porn.

  28. Fiver

    Can’t help but note the new faces showing up everywhere just to gently or otherwise inform that any hopes they’d ever had for a Sanders win were akin to political hallucinations ranging from the naive to stupid to meaningless to suicidal – and a little late in the game, to my mind, considering it was declared even by media ‘over’ only when the Dem machine itself changed the outcome in NY and thereby the overall trajectory of most of the Northeast.

    It’s a seriously damning indictment of northeast Democratic Party politics and politicians that Wall Street, war and unlimited cronyism were placed at the helm again even though they have to know on some level there really is a limit to what the American people will tolerate. What, especially, is with black leadership, leading women, other minority leaders of all stripes and all those claiming to be ‘champions’ of public interest ‘x’ or ‘y’ that got them into politics in the first place? What Obama didn’t do for blacks, Clinton assuredly won’t do for them, or women either, and neither of them has ever even acknowledged that an actual majority of Americans are already on very shaky ground going forward absent major reforms.

    It’s just gruesome to watch the leadership cadre of this modern, democratic, pluralistic Party at this critical juncture in history deliberately toss away the best chance it would ever have to realize (or re-realize) some of the major goals every single one of its candidates have purported to support all the way back to FDR and forward again to this very day. Peace, a steady income, guaranteed civil liberties, retirement security, equality before the law, accountable corporate management, accountable environmental management, a legitimate health care system, a level playing field, a reasonable safety net, government for the public interest, not against – nothing remotely radical, nothing Democratic candidates of every stripe have not proudly advocated nigh on forever, and what do you see? Boot, smack, boot, boot and boot – out the door with that silly old man and his nasty reminder of what words mean on the outside.

    Congratulations Dem Party leadership – you just committed political suicide as your brand of Democrat goes suddenly extinct over the next 4 years – 2 years if things go worse than expected. Republicans could yet escape if they are smart enough to deal Trump out and run the most popular moderate Republican actor that money can buy, but otherwise too will witness the wholesale purging it richly deserves.

    1. Carla

      If Leftists want to kill the Democratic Party (and we should want to), we’re going to have to face the long slog of running for local school board, village, town and city councils, state legislatures, and eventually Congress. Ditto for building any sort of viable third party.

      There’s just no evidence that any of this will happen. Probably better to work on building real democracy at the very local level, outside of the electoral system as much as possible. Co-ops, “mutual aid” societies, anything that can bond neighbors together, so that when the sh*t really hits, fewer of us have to face it alone. Because government ain’t going to be there for us. And if the sh*t by some miracle misses us, we’ll still have stronger neighborhoods and communities.

      1. different clue

        This early in the game there is no evidence that any of this WON’T happen. The Bernie movement has attracted a lot of new young people. Maybe thousands of them can self-organize their own rolling teach-ins for teaching and learning about how the Evangelicals and the Righter-than-Right wingers did it over on the Republican side.

        Then too, perhaps Sanders could be compared to Goldwater . . . . the man who was Twenty Years Ahead Of His Time . . . . the man who lit the fire that started a movement. Perhaps sometime after the campaign Sanders could write a book titled The Conscience Of A Democratic Socialist. People think I am being sarcastic or sardonic, but I am being serious. Goldwater and the Goldwaterites showed one way a movement with staying power is started, built and advanced.
        They won in the end. The Berniecrats and Sandernistas can learn from the Goldwaterites how to patiently shape the battlespace for the brainwar of political conquest and extermination to come.

      2. Fiver

        Thanks for your comment. While I am an eco-socialist, my point was that the various items I laid out aren’t necessarily Left, or even left, just the things over the long decades regarded as sort of obvious givens or to-be-realized components of any core vision the Dem Party has always claimed it exists to make real. Given polls have long and consistently shown the American ‘public’ to be much more ‘liberal’ than their leadership – and particularly so when the questions are posed fairly – the fact is that Sanders, with the Party behind him, could’ve swept to power with an unprecedented mandate to revive/renew the Party’s one and only valid purpose.

        History is not very forgiving of the great opportunity missed – or denied.

  29. Adam Eran

    The fundraising advantage of Sanders’ campaign is a refreshing remedy to the Kochs’ money–according to Jane Mayer, currently funding an operation three times the size of the Republican party(!).

    The value of it could do what the Kochs do … enforce discipline. If a candidate steps out of line, they get primaried.

    What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander…

Comments are closed.