There are two kinds of math in the Democratic presidential race: delegate math and momentum math. Backers of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton prefer the delegate math, for obvious reasons. She has a solid lead in pledged delegates and, when superdelegates are added in, her advantage becomes overwhelming.
In the God-awful case that Sanders wins more states and the "super delegates" STILL go with Clinton, and IF she is elected, I don't want to EVER hear another murmur about "the voters."
Back in 2000 it was NOT voters, but the Supreme Court that installed the imp, Bush to the Presidency.
And in 2004, Ohio's electronic screen computer-controlled voting machine anomalies "gave" the Presidency to Bush.
Obama LIED and presented himself as a TRUE Progressive. Apart from possibly opening Cuba to the likes of Monsanto, and granting gays the right to marriage, the man has betrayed EVERY Progressive policy and posture while often speaking with a forked tongue.
It might be argued that his fictitious surrogate was the ONE that voters elected, not him!
The public is FURIOUS! And while some express their version of anger and populism through support for an American fascist-lite like Trump, far more are enthusiastic about Sanders.
If a relative handful of privileged poseurs (cum super delegates) take that consensus away and instead place in The Status Quo candidate, no mention should be made of Democracy.
Between the planet's rising temperature signifying "game over," and Wall Street's unchecked casino-like money markets creating unsecured stratospheric levels of fake wealth, the promise of Democracy would have also shown itself as Game Over.
However, with Earth Mother factoring in and anger levels rising all over the world (tragically, with tons upon tons of available weapons in place to fuel that collective rage), The DIVINE GIFT of Free Will is not going to go peacefully into that dark night (like a genie compressed back into its bottle). IT WILL rage against the dying of the Light!
Here's a "murmur" for that false-equivalence hypothetical - IF "the voters" had not voted-IN corrupt Dem-hack super-delegate sell-outs in the first place, and IF "the voters" had not been brainwashed uninformed complicit fools/idiots - in your hypothetical case - Bernie "would have" won more than enough states to garner all the pledged delegates he would need to gain the nomination thus negating any SD sell-out......be of stout heart Siouxrose, regardless the SD'd or your relentless defense of "the voters" stupidity, Stockholm Syndrome mindset, and/or complaisant inaction, "we" may yet pull this fight off against evil, some of which you mention........that reality is where we need to focus our energy/minds, not hypotheticals..........Peace
Obama didn't grant gay people the legal right to marry, the Supreme Court did.
Yup, if we were waiting for prez Barry to address marriage equality and other LGBT rights we would still be waiting.
Just like Hillary, Barry still secretly despises the LGBT community.
Although Obama gets his highest marks for Iran and Cuba progress, LGBT is the only DOMESTIC action that will be viewed as a positive in his legacy. Since ALL marriage is a huge profit center for Wall Street and corporate cronies, Obama has their stamp of approval for all things LGBT.
Seeing how Milwaukee County was the only county Clinton won, we are seeing the same pattern in Wisconsin as in other states where urban neoliberals love the Clintons.
I'm not sure what to think about this. WI has (contrary to some efforts to claim otherwise) been a right wing state since the 1980s, as our choices for governor show. This was one of the leading states in the war on the poor, putting our faith in the deregulated corporate state. Since Thompson in the 1980s, a huge number of our family-supporting manufacturing jobs have been shipped out, family farms have fallen like dominos, but this is what WI voters choose.
How does the support for Sen. Sanders fit in? Not sure. He used to speak out powerfully about US poverty and the need for legit poverty relief programs. Times have changed, and he dropped the issue with this campaign. Pragmatic. I assume there is working class opposition to "free trade." Bill Clinton signed on to NAFTA, and before launching her campaign, Hillary Clinton was working on selling the TPP to Congress. Opposition to Clinton based on this would make sense.
So what does all of this mean in the long run? As far as I can tell, US voters will either pick a Democrat who will stay the course, or a Republican who pushes us to the brink of complete economic collapse and, possibly, WWlll (which we would lose). I'll opt for staying the course, but regret that real progress is unlikely. Yes, We the People still want change, but can't agree on what changes we want.
The Democrats don't get a free pass by staying the course. They are supposed to oppose the Republicans, but in reality every Democrat in power since Reagan has moved us in the same direction as the Republican would have, only more slowly. If folks think voting for Clinton will somehow save us from whatever hell the GOP candidate is selling, then they are sadly mistaken. Democrats and Republicans together, moved us to the edge of this cliff. The fact that Bernie has so wisely used the resources of the Democratic Party, while maintaining his independence, is a thing of beauty, and for a lot of people like me, is the only reason we're willing to vote Democratic in this election.
Bernie has definitely started something that isn't going away. Whether or not this momentum will win him the presidency is yet to be determined, but he has also built momentum for radical change. That momentum will carry forward as more and more folks experience the power of grassroots organizing around things they really care about, in their own communities. The political revolution has begun...
Thomas Frank nails the essence of the democrats that support Clinton. And there are many-----too many which is why this race is so close.
“The party of the left chose openly to transform themselves into the party of the professional class, the new-economy winners rather than the party of workers. When the party of the left does that, that's very naturally going to give you a situation like what we're in today—inequality, plutocracy, oligarchy.”
“The Republicans serve the hierarchy of money. The Democrats serve the hierarchy of status. The hierarchy of money is business, the hierarchy of status is people whose achievement stems from education and professional achievements. Those people tend to be Democrats.