2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries

[The_Queen]

http://tinyurl.com/prematureelection

In the realm of media malpractice:

Earlier this week on MSNBC, host Chris Matthews, speaking to Jeff Weaver, campaign manager for Bernie Sanders, said and did something absolutely despicable. He knew it was problematic when he said it. He told us as much when he prefaced his comments with these words, "This is what I call trouble...I'm about to start here."

When a grown man tells you he is about to start trouble, believe him.

What followed, if Matthews is to be taken at his word, is clear evidence that television networks are colluding together to call the primary for Hillary Clinton before she reaches the delegates needed to claim victory. By doing so, they will absolutely suppress the vote in the final states that will be cast ballots in the Democratic primary. Even by mentioning it now, that the networks have already set the date and time they are calling the race for Hillary, what Matthews has done runs the very real risk of suppressing voter turnout. It's disgusting.

Matthews, having already made it clear that he was about to wade into dangerous territory with his comments, said “I’m told by the experts on numbers around here at NBC and elsewhere that come June 7, the day of the California primary, which your candidate, I totally understand wants to get to, and maybe has a chance of knocking off Hillary at that event, a big last hoorah, that at 8 o'clock that night, Eastern time, the networks will be prepared, including this one, to announce that Hillary Clinton has now gotten over the top, that she will have won the nomination in numbers, it's done. What will that do to voter turnout if that's 5 o'clock Pacific time, with three more hours to vote in California?"

How do they get to those numbers? By counting the votes from superdelegates who have said they'll support Clinton.

This isn't a knock on Clinton or her campaign; they have nothing to do with when the media decides to declare her the presumptive nominee. But this is media malpractice, because, since the superdelegates haven't voted, and won't until the convention, she will almost certainly not have the delegate votes necessary to become the nominee until then.

Media malpractice? That is a tort I haven't heard of. I would love to see a lawyer argue this in court.

Jokes aside, the media included superdelegates to declare Obama the presumptive nominee in 2008 well before the Democratic National Convention. In fact, it has always been the norm for the media and the DNC to declare a candidate the presumptive nominee once they hit the magic number of pledged and super delegates. While it is true the Supers haven't "voted," to the that end neither have the pledged delegates. Thus, by this logic, Sanders and Clinton are tied at 0-0 in delegates (though, Clinton still leads by about 3 million popular votes). Similarly, it would mean we couldn't declare the winner in the general election until December after the electoral college meets and formally votes. It's really a form of willful blindness, and that is why the media ignores this point. If this is the way things have always been done, and indeed it is necessary to do it this way to know the winner so the party can plan for the nominee and the convention, then it is just sour grapes to complain about it because Bernie didn't win.

[ironbite]

My biggest complaint about the Supers is I just wished they had waited till now to declare Clinton the heir apparent to Obama.  That's all.

Ironbite-cause when you do it right at the get go, people get pissed.

[dpareja]

http://tinyurl.com/prematureelection

In the realm of media malpractice:

Earlier this week on MSNBC, host Chris Matthews, speaking to Jeff Weaver, campaign manager for Bernie Sanders, said and did something absolutely despicable. He knew it was problematic when he said it. He told us as much when he prefaced his comments with these words, "This is what I call trouble...I'm about to start here."

When a grown man tells you he is about to start trouble, believe him.

What followed, if Matthews is to be taken at his word, is clear evidence that television networks are colluding together to call the primary for Hillary Clinton before she reaches the delegates needed to claim victory. By doing so, they will absolutely suppress the vote in the final states that will be cast ballots in the Democratic primary. Even by mentioning it now, that the networks have already set the date and time they are calling the race for Hillary, what Matthews has done runs the very real risk of suppressing voter turnout. It's disgusting.

Matthews, having already made it clear that he was about to wade into dangerous territory with his comments, said “I’m told by the experts on numbers around here at NBC and elsewhere that come June 7, the day of the California primary, which your candidate, I totally understand wants to get to, and maybe has a chance of knocking off Hillary at that event, a big last hoorah, that at 8 o'clock that night, Eastern time, the networks will be prepared, including this one, to announce that Hillary Clinton has now gotten over the top, that she will have won the nomination in numbers, it's done. What will that do to voter turnout if that's 5 o'clock Pacific time, with three more hours to vote in California?"

How do they get to those numbers? By counting the votes from superdelegates who have said they'll support Clinton.

This isn't a knock on Clinton or her campaign; they have nothing to do with when the media decides to declare her the presumptive nominee. But this is media malpractice, because, since the superdelegates haven't voted, and won't until the convention, she will almost certainly not have the delegate votes necessary to become the nominee until then.

Media malpractice? That is a tort I haven't heard of. I would love to see a lawyer argue this in court.

Jokes aside, the media included superdelegates to declare Obama the presumptive nominee in 2008 well before the Democratic National Convention. In fact, it has always been the norm for the media and the DNC to declare a candidate the presumptive nominee once they hit the magic number of pledged and super delegates. While it is true the Supers haven't "voted," to the that end neither have the pledged delegates. Thus, by this logic, Sanders and Clinton are tied at 0-0 in delegates (though, Clinton still leads by about 3 million popular votes). Similarly, it would mean we couldn't declare the winner in the general election until December after the electoral college meets and formally votes. It's really a form of willful blindness, and that is why the media ignores this point. If this is the way things have always been done, and indeed it is necessary to do it this way to know the winner so the party can plan for the nominee and the convention, then it is just sour grapes to complain about it because Bernie didn't win.

There's a difference between these, though: when the media declared Obama the winner in 2008, every state and territory had held its initial contest, and for those states where delegates aren't allocated (partly or entirely) until state conventions, only Washington (at which 27 of its 78 were allocated) and Texas (at which 67 of its 193 were allocated) had not held their state conventions. (It's true that the gap between Obama and Clinton in pledged delegates was less than 94 at that point, but the estimates on delegate allocations from those conventions were reasonably solid.) If the media declared Clinton the presumptive nominee after the California polls closed, that would be one thing (unless Sanders pulls off the biggest upset in American political history and draws within 20 pledged delegates of Clinton, thus bringing DC into play--I'm not going to pretend that the June 18 conventions will shift anything). It's declaring her the winner after New Jersey and before California polls have closed that's the problem.

As for "the pledged delegates haven't voted either," that's true. But their loyalties are far surer than the superdelegates' loyalties.

[The_Queen]

But now there are a few things going on. First, your characterization of 2008 misrepresents what happened. In 2008, Obama secured a lead among the pledged delegates with a few contests to go (maybe like 5). The media readily reported this. However, he needed to reach a majority of all delegates. Hillary still had supers endorsing her, and several supers had sat it out. As such, Obama had yet to reach the magic numbers until those late contests. The media still included the superdelegate total, even though, as you said, their ultimate decision is less certain.* The fact is, the media reported the story as soon as it broke--as it is doing now--even though Hillary could try to persuade the supers to endorse her, because she was polling better for the general than Obama. Fact is, once Obama crossed the line with a coalition that consisted of Pledged and Supers, the media reported on it (as it always did), because it's the truth and it's kind of a big story. I'll concede I can see the argument for waiting until after California. However, to call it malpractice because the will media report the truth at a time inconvenient to your candidate, or to imply the media is in some kind of collusion for Clinton, just feeds into the paranoid delusions of some Bernie supporters.

What is more, the article you presented is rife with half-truths and falsehoods. The reason I presented the history of superdelegates and calling the contest was because that was the lie necessary for your article to reach it's (il)logical conclusion. Indeed, the only way it could be premature is if they're calling the contest for someone who hasn't quite won. The article can't argue the pledged delegates, because the people voted for Clinton. So it has to rely on mischaractizing the media as having some insidious scheme for reporting the supers early. The article writes,

What they mean, though, is that they are going to count the superdelegates in her vote total — which is ridiculous in every possible way. The superdelegates do not actually vote until the Democratic National Convention, which begins on July 25.

And this is part of a trope that Bernie, his campaign, and his most fervent supporters who cry foul at their shadows perpetuates. But fact is, this is never the way anyone operated. The DNC never operated this way because it always worked with the presumptive nominee (who was presumptive with pledged and supers) to plan for the convention. The media has always included supers as well. The argument is essentially calling for special treatment of Bernie, and then feigning outrage and crying conspiracy when Bernie doesn't get that special treatment.  Further, Bernie even arguing this contradicts his earlier positions on supers should vote with their district or not at all, and appears to be another link in the chain of Sanders arguing that Supers should do whatever benefits him in the moment.

The article states a few more falsehoods to fan the flames. First, it argues that supers supported her before a vote was cast and that is evidence that they don't care about the will of the people. But Obama called from 2008 and, according to Maury, they are NOT telling the truth. Further, they claim that all of this is evidence that the system is rigged against Bernie, but fivethirtyeight reports that is a lie. The article is not written to be objective, it is written to skew a narrative in favor of Bernie.

*The pledged delegates interpret the DNC rules and what it means to be "binding." So, they aren't a sure thing either, until they actually vote.

[dpareja]

It's the truth that Clinton will have crossed the line, but it is not the truth to say (to quote Chris Matthews), "[i]t's done," because to say that assumes that all the superdelegates will continue to vote as they've said they will, but, to cite 2008, they switch if the pledged delegate totals switch, and Clinton cannot have earned a majority of pledged delegates (looking at The Green Papers, even if she won every pledged delegate from New Jersey--126 in all--she'd still be 89 pledged delegates short of a majority among them) until after Montana closes, and even that assumes there's enough known about North Dakota's caucus to call that state. (South Dakota closes entirely at 6 PM PDT, for another 20; North Dakota has a caucus at 6 PM PDT, which could give another 18; Montana closes at 7 PM PDT, with 21 at stake; New Mexico closes at 6 PM PDT, with 34 at stake.) She'll have crossed the line as things stand, but it won't be "done."

As for Sanders' position on superdelegates, I agree that his changing tune is ridiculous and puts a crack in his image as a candidate who holds consistent views, and those of his supporters who ignore this and follow his piping on the matter are being equally ridiculous.

[The_Queen]

According to the associated press, Hillary Rodham Clinton has secured enough supers to hit the magic number of 2383 delegates and is the current presumptive nominee for the democratic party.

[dpareja]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/06/3784948/puerto-rico-primary-chaos/

Oh look who's salty about Puerto Rico.

(click to show/hide)

Who else? Sanders.

Some Democratic voters in Puerto Rico waited two to three hours in the tropical sun to cast a ballot on Sunday, causing many who couldn’t wait to give up and leave without voting.

Hillary Clinton won a decisive victory that her opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is not contesting. But the Sanders campaign and Puerto Rico’s local Democratic Party are trading accusations about who is responsible for the decision to slash the number of polling places on the island by more than two thirds — from more than 1,500 to fewer than 430 — just weeks before the election.

When local reporters challenged Puerto Rico’s Democratic Party president Roberto Prats, he shrugged it off as a sign of a healthy democracy.

“If the problem is that many people are participating, that’s a good problem to have,” he told the newspaper El Nuevo Dia. “The important thing is that the voters had the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.”

[ironbite]

At this point I ain't even mad.  I just wish other people wouldn't be so fucking salty and self-destructive about shit.

Ironbite-yes Sanders had the deck stacked against him from the get go but there's a point you just need to bow out gracefully.

[The_Queen]

This week in a shit-leopard can't change its spots,* is Bernie Sanders. Ever since December I've mentioned that Bernie has a long history of pissing off and alienating his colleagues (mentions which were dismissed by several posters here), and as his campaign lost any chance of hitting 2026 pledged, or 2383 delegates, politico broke a story about the final days of Bernie's campaign. Noticeably, several of the recent gaffs and vitriol coming from Sanders' campaign did not come from his surrogates or advisers, but Bernie himself made the calls. The article reports that Bernie decided to give short shrift to the violence in Nevada to lambaste what he felt was a rigged Nevada caucus. While his top aides advised him to unequivocally condemn the violence in Nevada because it was only two delegates and not worth the trouble, Bernie shot them down.

Additionally, several in the media noted a harsher tone from the campaign just before New York (calling her unqualified, being flippant to her during the debate, having a surrogate call her a "corporate whore" and Rosario Dawson use Monica Lewinsky as a political football to imply Hillary is a bully). Advisers and campaign staff felt this was not a good way to win over voters in New York, but their concerns were dismissed by Bernie. Instead, Bernie felt that he was going soft on Hillary by not attacking Bill's infidelity and her emails. The article also notes that while Bernie said publicly, "nobody cares about your damn emails," he secretly held out hope for an indictment against her.

The article also notes an exchange between Reid and Sanders in which Reid tries to get hold of Sanders' donor lists to help out lower ticket democrats. Specifically, Bernie's list of donors could be a huge asset to democrats in certain areas, especially more progressive politicians that his supporters would naturally support. Nevertheless, Sanders blew off Reid's attempt to reach out to him, leaving his campaign advisers Weaver to take the flak.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s call was part advice, part asking a favor, urging Sanders to use his now massive email list to help Democratic Senate candidates. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin was the most obvious prospect, and Reid wanted to make introductions to Iowa’s Patty Judge and North Carolina’s Deborah Ross—to help Democrats win the majority, but also to give Sanders allies in making himself the leader of the Senate progressives come next year.

Reid, according to people familiar with the conversation, ended the discussion thinking Sanders was on board. He backed Feingold. But that’s the last anyone heard.

Word got back to Reid’s team that Weaver had nixed the idea, ruling out backing anyone who hadn’t endorsed Sanders. Weaver says it’s because the Senate hopefuls had to get in line for Sanders’ support behind top backers like Gabbard and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.)—though neither has a competitive race this year.

Sanders never followed up himself.

Going full circle, Sanders also had very harsh words for progressives who didn't jump on board, calling them "cynical, power-chasing chickens." Most notably among these chickens is Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who Bernie is so mad at for supporting Clinton, that Bernie would nix any chance of Brown serving as Clinton's veep, even though he balances the ticket well and comes from a swing-state. Similarly, it was Sanders himself that made the decision to excoriate Wasserman-Schultz, not because of any perceived bias treatment, but because she dare criticize him on television. Bernie himself chose the scorched earth campaign against Hillary and the DNC, even though several in his campaign (although not Bernie himself) knew for weeks if not months that Sanders could not hit 2026 pledged delegates.

*the shit-leopard is not a knock on Bernie, but a reference to the Netflix show Trailerpark boys. I occasionally drop Lahey's "shit-talk," done by putting the word "shit" in front of certain words. A recent example would be "never cry shit-wolf."

[dpareja]

And now Sanders is continuing to fight, vowing to go all the way to the convention.

Okay, I like Sanders. I like him a hell of a lot more than Clinton. Move them up here, and Sanders would probably fit nicely in the NDP (which I generally support, at least federally), while Clinton would largely be a Conservative. (Granted one with liberal positions on many social issues--though she'd get crucified for mentioning her views on the death penalty--but still in the Conservative Party, and not someone for whom I'd ever vote.) But it really is time for him to cease actively campaigning for the nomination.

Clinton will have a) a majority of pledged delegates and b) not enough pledged delegates to win the nomination solely on that basis. (By my count, she'll have a little over 2,200.)  In the highly unlikely event that something turns the superdelegates off Clinton, if he's been quiet vis-à-vis her, and especially if he's instead attacking, say, Trump, then he may well have gotten some good will over the next two months that he can use at the convention to convince the delegates to elect him as the nominee. If he's continuing to rail against Clinton and pushing the superdelegates to vote for him when she's got the lead in pledged delegates, then in that event they'll eschew him and choose someone else entirely. So the one way, he retains his minute hope of being the nominee; the other way, he's screwed whatever happens, and has burned his bridges.

Of course, what he may choose to do is wait until June 18 to concede (his speech after the June 7 contests being a face-saving measure), and take a swipe at Clinton by pointing out that relative to the dates of the primaries, he's conceding to her exactly when she conceded to Obama--four days after the last primary.

I like Sanders, but he's just shooting himself in the foot staying in the race at this point. As things stand, he has no chance; if something drastic happens, he can come back, but he won't be successful if he sticks around.

[ironbite]

Hate to tell you this Queen but you didn't get what you said rejected because we were all on the Bern train.  You got rejected because of how you delivered your message.

Ironbite-cause even though I'm throwing in the towel I am gonna say that's harsh.

[The_Queen]

Hate to tell you this Queen but you didn't get what you said rejected because we were all on the Bern train.  You got rejected because of how you delivered your message.

Ironbite-cause even though I'm throwing in the towel I am gonna say that's harsh.

I waited from September until January before really digging into you and Nicki (that was when I first said outright that you were acting like you were in a cult). Before then, I tried politely to point you toward problems with your views (for example, the scientifically conducted polls that showed 62% of Americans felt Hillary won the first debate or statements that Bernie alienated his Super delegate colleagues). In response, you ignored that, dropped pipe-bombs, disregard facts, and go on vague conspiracy theories about the democrats, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the media, the pollsters, Hillary, and the pundits all screwing Sanders without expounding upon those vague accusations when asked simple follow-up questions. In fact, other than bizarre insinuations, those theories lacked basic evidence. And the sad thing is, I'm sure there are theories of yours and Nicki's that I forgot.

The_Queen- Cool story bro, but I'm not about to let that piece of revisionist history fly.

[Askold]

I kinda get why Sanders is trying to fight to the bitter end. He's got nothing to lose. Clinton was offered a position in Obama's government and she knew that she could run again after Obama had served his terms. Sanders has burnt too many bridges AND his campaigning has been so focused on all or nothing that even settling for "second place" as the vice-president might been seen as betraying his principles.

Kinda sad but at this point the best he can do is inspire younger folks to follow his example.

[dpareja]

I kinda get why Sanders is trying to fight to the bitter end. He's got nothing to lose. Clinton was offered a position in Obama's government and she knew that she could run again after Obama had served his terms. Sanders has burnt too many bridges AND his campaigning has been so focused on all or nothing that even settling for "second place" as the vice-president might been seen as betraying his principles.

Kinda sad but at this point the best he can do is inspire younger folks to follow his example.

It's not entirely true that he's got nothing to lose. His choice to keep running against Clinton after he's already lost could well cost him committee positions and, if the Democrats take back the Senate this year, chairmanships. If he chooses to run again in 2018, he's said he'll run as a Democrat, rather than an independent, but I imagine he'll face a primary fight (and, honestly, if he loses, I wouldn't be too surprised to see him run as an independent anyway).

[Askold]

Running against an incumbent president has never been easy. Much less after Trump has made America great again (Or if Clinton won then making her own party vote against a different candidate will also be a struggle based on what I've read about elections in USA.)