Home | About | Donate

Bernie Sanders Could Still Win the Democratic Nomination — No, Seriously


Bernie Sanders Could Still Win the Democratic Nomination — No, Seriously

Seth Abramson

Last night on CNN, while discussing Bernie Sanders’ landslide victory over Hillary Clinton in West Virginia — which followed a 5-point Sanders win in Indiana last week — Michael Smerconish said that “Democratic super-delegates might have to rethink” their support of Hillary Clinton given how dramatically better Sanders fares in head-to-head match-ups against Donald Trump.


Demonstrate, protest, make some noise that you want the popular vote to count, write a letter, send an email telling the Dems you won't vote for Hillary because they have rigged the game, write to a newspaper and tell them how you feel, remember the independents and help them have their voices be heard.

Do something before it is over and then too late. Support Bernie... He deserves to be the nominee but we have to show them that that is true! The votes of the people (independents included) count and should be counted!

We want democracy from the Dems not a rigged game! Show them that they can't get away with taking away our votes for whomever the people want to be the nominee. Demonstrate to show them that your vote counts and that the superdelegates should reflect the popular vote.




But Abramson ignores this:

The Democratic party leadership is more strongly committed to the neoliberal project, than it is to the White House. It would rather lose than compromise.

The uber-delegates were not only designed to derail the nomination of a candidate who would go on to lose in November. That's the plausible story, and there is some truth to it. But more to the point of the Sanders / Clinton fight: The uber-delegates were designed to prevent an insurgent candidate from wresting leadership of the Party from the neoliberals.


The race in 2008 was much closer. This year Clinton is far aheaded because of the way delegates are award proportionally. Of the remaining 11 contests 6 are closed which is not good for Sanders. In the second largest primary, New Jersey, he is trailing in the polls by almost 30 points which makes it hard to believe he will win, particularly since the adjoining northeastern states all went strongly for Clinton. It is hard to see how he will win in DC with its large African American vote. In California minorities are in the majority and Clinton has led in all the polls. The head-to-head match of Trump vs Sanders don't mean mcuh because the Republicans have never really attacked Sanders as they have almost entirely focused on attacking Clinton. If he did run against Trump then the polls would be of more value. It is really difficult to see the Superdelegates reversing the will of the African American voters by switching to Sanders. No group has been more loyal to the Democrats than African Americans. Are they going to say sorry we know you wanted Clinton but we with our expert judgement have looked as the match-up polling data against Trump and that to win the election we believe that the nominee should be Bernie Sanders? But please come out to vote in November. Bernie Sanders certainly will need your votes.


From the article:

"When super-delegates were created in 1984..."

Why, how very "1984" ... that this decision can so substantially mock the meaning and experience of so-called Democracy. (That is, as in today's case, if Hillary squeaks out a "win" due to the loyalty of these insiders... regardless of the popular vote and will of the majority of citizen-voters).

Thanks for the optimistic analysis, Mr. Abramson. It is certainly plausible...

Let's hope Sanders does take California!


New Jersey and California primaries are major challenges for Sanders.

A greater PERCENTAGE of New Jersey voters are employed directly or indirectly in the financial services industry than in New York or Connecticut, making a candidate who wants to corral Wall Street a tough sell in those markets.

In view of their track record of launching Ronnie Raygun's political career in 1966, and recalling Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 to install Arnold the Terminator just as Davis was about to approve single payer medical insurance, confirms that Californians are way more celebrity obsessed than progressive.


This seems a little too Rube Goldbergesque for me. Maybe I'm just tired of all the words.


Don't jump!


Well, I don't know. By this point in 2008, liberal media made it clear that Barack Obama could not possibly be elected, so we needed to unite behind Hillary Clinton. Could they ever be wrong?


New Jersey is one of the smallest states in the country.


So... DC's black voters prefer Clinton because Sanders is white? How does "the black vote" fit into anything? Black people make up roughly 33% of the US population, and they are split by party (really -- they don't all think alike!).

The Dem Party knew from the start that if Clinton is selected, Trump would be elected. Decades of studies have shown that most voting choices come down to economic issues. Think back: Clinton/Gore targeted the poor. In Gore vs. Bush, the poor (and those who get why it matters) voted third party or withheld their votes, and the middle class picked Bush. Twice. If it's Clinton/Trump, we'll see this repeated.

Are the Clinton fans going to say, "Sorry, we know you wanted Sanders but we with our expert judgement have looked at the match-up against Trump..." etc.? Well, yes. Back in 2008, liberal media insisted that the data showed that Obama couldn't possibly win, so we needed to give our support to Clinton.


Yep, been doing that for years, election after election.


Always interesting to see what form your attack on Sanders will take.

It's nice that we don't have to wait for an official response from the Clinton machine, we get it straight from you.


Thank you, Matt, for pointing out the distinction between the "declared function" and the "true function" of super delegates. You are so right. As someone said here recently, "If voting made any difference, they'd make it illegal." The machine isn't going to hand over the keys to someone they don't own.


"Sanders is a plausible winner on that date [June 7] in California..." On what polls is this statement based? I haven't seen any that have Sanders any closer than 6 points, in a Fox News poll. On average he's behind her by 9.7 points in CA. I wish it weren't true, but...


I have to say there isn't much I agree with here. In at least 10 primary contests: Sanders beat Clinton handily, according to "unadjusted exit polling" or what election statistician Richard Charnin identifies as the 'true vote' - but lost the final tally AFTER the poll count is adjusted to match the vote tally. There is no democratic government in Europe that would accept this absurd reporting method as anything but a blatant attempt to cover up the actual result. HRC is in first place only due to rigged voting machines 'and or' by other nefarious mechanisms. Yes "this is a thing" and is the only reason Democrats do not control Congress this very minute. The truth is Senator Sanders is crushing Hillary Clinton - and African Americans adore him as well. It would be far more irrational to award Clinton "any super delegates since she's been winning by cheating." Therefore she could also lose the general election due to her lousy favor-ability numbers And perhaps she's got plausible deniability going for her - but she isn't stupid and is fully cognizant of Sander's authentic popularity for his consistent decades long fight for a just society, over her history of questionable judgment.
Do you really think these 'super delegate insiders' are so naive as to not comprehending how she's remained in first place? Of course they do.
Hillary maybe the presumptive nominee but she isn't a popular choice. Without Senator Sanders in the race to push her left; her platform would be far more rigid and she'll govern center right if elected. Count on it. Sure she'll make history but, the people of this country will again be denied a chance for a real shift toward a just society. She's a phony and I'll not vote her into office.


Who won Nebraska Dems? NYT says it was Bernie.

www nytimes com/elections/results/nebraska

(Sorry, "New users can't post links"...)


Moving news of the Democratic Nomination to the sidebar is all part of "framing the message". The subliminal message is "it's no longer an important issue", "the nominee has already been decided", "this is a secondary concern", etc. All in aid of installing the meme in our minds that Bernie is out of the race. All in aid of draining the enthusiasm from the Sanders movement. Let's not read or watch the MSM. Not only is the subliminal message hard to resist but it's useless as news.


"Black people make up roughly 33%" In 2010 it was 12%, don't think it's gone up that much in 5.5 yrs.