As Democratic-insider “super-delegates” give Hillary Clinton a seemingly insurmountable lead for the presidential nomination, the former Secretary of State’s negative ratings continue to soar to stunning levels, hitting a net 24-point unfavorable in the new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll.
For an investigative journalist who's not afraid to step away from the crowd-think of the MSM when it comes to the case being made for further aggression in Ukraine... Parry sure is sanguine about this super-delegate item.
This super-delegate item is about as honest as a Used Car Salesman and it has ZERO, ZIP, NADA to do with any faint semblance of Democracy. So why should it be allowed? And shouldn't journalists rail against the unfairness of such a SYSTEM?
Sanders could win, would win, and should win... were it not for the Party Illuminati doing for this election what "The Supremes" did in 2000.
Recent past elections suggest that the "most likable" candidate wins. So this is an important concern among Democrats. Based on likability their strongest candidate would be Joe Biden and it might have been Joe Biden if not for unfortunate personal circumstances, although he has not done well in previous primaries. I think regardless of who the Democratic nominee is the Democrats are counting largely on demographics to win. They win with women, African Americans, and Hispanics. The Republicans win with white males and Evangelicals. In five of the last six elections the Democratic candidate has gotten a larger popular vote (even Al Gore did in 2000) and the demographics are trending toward the Democrats. So, if these demographics hold is seems likely (better than 50-50) the Democratic nominee will win.
And this doesn't even factor in the likelihood that a number of Bernie supporters see themselves as supporting Bernie, and don't necessarily see themselves as Democrats..
I live in California and I reregistered as declines to state. And I asked for a Democratic ballot so that I could vote for Bernie. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, and I don't want to hear the Democratic establishment doing the "make me feel guilty because the Supreme Court argument." If you people really cared about the Supreme Court as opposed to your own priveleged positions, you would get your goddamn thumbs off the lever and let the people choose the candidate we want to see run for president.
At the moment I see absolutely nothing in the Democratic Party worth supporting except Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren. And I think she's far too intelligent to place herself in the vulnerable position that might depend upon the important people in the Democratic Party - virtually all of whom care more about themselves than they do about the people they purport to represent.
I'm stunned at how clueless most of the Democratic establishment truly appears to be. This election does not pit the GOP against the Democratic Party, but rather the electorate against our elected officials. We either want you to listen to us or we want you gone - pick one? And it may not happen in 2016, but if it doesn't ... you can sure as hell count on it happening in 2018 and 2020.
This Revolution is not going away, The only choice for those in power is peaceful or not.
OK folks, altogether now. We don't put super delegates in Hillary's corner at this point, because they sway with the prevailing wind. AND, for an accurate and up to the minute committed delegate count, ignore everyone but Seth Abramson.
Abramson figures Sanders needs less than 200 to catch up, with more than a thousand, AND California, to go. Got that? Good.
To recite what we all know, if the Dems run HRC nobody (few) will vote...and possibly the only candidate she could beat is Cruz. What is less known is the parties care more about maintaining party positions than winning an election, per se. Party bosses need to regulate candidates to do this, and have their horses that run on the correct track so to speak. So, they're willing to lose an election to uphold party cohesiveness which is pointed out by Walter Karp. It's primarily a game between the parties that puts an additional twist in the possibility of democratic representation when winning sometimes means losing. That is if the R.s run a weak enough candidate, Hillary can win (and Trump and Bernie are kept out as threats to party authority). Labyrinthine democracy anyone?
As I have posted here previously, there is a compelling reason, why the Dem. leadership should do everything reasonable to give Bernie the nomination:
In case of a loss of the nomination, he may, unless treated abominably, such as being denied the nomination, despite the majority of the elected delegates, be obliged to support Clinton into the Nov. election, but after that all deals are off!
Any attempt at raising a third party has so far been futile.
HOWEVER and that is a big HOWEVER, should Bernie lose the nomination, he has now enough momentum and progressive support, to gut the Democratic Party and start a brand new Social Democratic Party with an excellent chance for success in 2020 against the Trump demolished GOP and the gutted Democratic Party.
By then there will be a huge shift of demographics in his favor. The 45 year old people will then be 49, thereby reducing the numbers of the older, entrenched Hillary supporters and there will be a brand new force of 18 to 22 year old youth arising.
Considering that possibility, it may even be better for the nation in the long run, if he was not nominated. It would end the egregious two party system, with the assured alternate turn on the trough for each party
"That means a Clinton candidacy will require massive spending on negative
ads to make the Republican candidate so frightening in the eyes of most
Americans that they will vote for Clinton out of fear, not hope."
This has always worked for the party elites in the past, but if they rely upon it again, they might be surprised. Unpleasantly. There are a lot of people who are not going to hold their noses and vote for lesser evil any more. They've learned it doesn't help them in the end.
I can't imagine any commercial good enough (or terrifying enough) to make me vote for Hillary.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Clinton's negatives are at - 24. And that is the reason that poll after poll shows Mr. Sanders doing much better than Clinton against all the republican candidates.
Assuming that gerrymandering and voter suppression don't win first.
I'm with you on much of what you say. But the fact the NY has a closed primary and that party registration had to be done months ago (much longer than most other states) is not being unfair or corrupt - the system has been in place for years. Now, things like closing polling places, cutting hours, and flipping registrations is another story and we'll have to see if that comes to pass tomorrow.
I used to wonder why the parties had open primaries at all. Why would you want a bunch of people who weren't a party member voting to see who the party chose as its nominee. Then I came to realize if all the states had closed primaries and so many people switching to independent, the two parties might just shrivel up cease to exist for lack of loyalty and interest. The repubs and Dems need the independents voting in at least some of the primaries in order to survive.
Bernie has done great with independents, but unfortunately, New York primary is still closed. That he is this close in the polls is miraculous. I hope you are right that he comes close or even wins. It will be tough though for him.
Hasn't everybody had enough of of neo-liberalism yet? Seems that they have.
Suggested solution to this puzzle:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair
At first glance, this idea seems to make so much sense and yet it falls when you factor in the de facto official status of the two major parties. They no longer are simply parties seeking to find out their members' preference. They are quasi-official arms of the state and as such shouldn't be allowed to exclude vast segments of the citizenry whose tax dollars support the mechanism that is called the primaries. If it really were a matter of a party finding out its members preferences, why is the state providing the platform for it? Why don't they hold private polls paid by the party and its sponsors? They could then exclude anyone they wanted. If they were to do that, it would support the logic of a closed primary.
Count me in! Nothing on this planet could make....nay, allow me to vote for Clinton. If Bernie wins the nomination, we all win. If Bernie loses, then just maybe the momentum for revolution will effect a revolution rapidly. If that crumbles the duopoly, why, we all win again!
The article is well titled. The crash might be more noticeable were the Republicans not headed for a big one of their own. But it's going to be pretty stark.
Here's why. The infamous so-called superdelegates are Democratic Party machine people, and they will vote for Clinton almost right down the line. The party has insisted that they are not committed, but all that means is that they are free to follow their masters or funders or consider where their bread is buttered or whatever.
It would be reasonable, maybe even smart, for someone up the Party chain of command to tell the superdelegate army to roll over and nominate Sanders. That would obviously be the clearest path to a Democrat in the White House. But it will not happen.
It will not happen because the Democratic elect do not like Sanders' policies. There is some overlap, but the difference is big: he is in favor of reducing corporate control and income disparity; they are in favor of increasing both.
OK, so here's what the convention looks like, I suspect. Clinton's popularity has continued to fall, but the party bosses are not going to allow Sanders the nomination. The so-called "super" delegates stand in line and vote Clinton one after another. She squeaks out a nomination. Sanders folds his cards as a candidate as he has promised, though we might hope that he might keep the team he has assembled together in some form outside of party control. Chris Hedges or someone else outside of the convention has all the best lines, and Clinton goes on to face Trump or whoever or whatever hot mess the Republicans shovel up.
Now, there's a problem here, is there not? In order to get the nomination, Clinton has to play hardball and basically steal it from the more popular candidate and the practical best chance in November. There is no real chance that the party elect will not commit that act if they have a chance, but what happens to Mrs. C's downspiraling popularity? Is there any possibility that it does not tank seriously?
There are a few consequences. A Republican president might be one, though Trump seems to have shot the party in one foot, and they seem determined to shoot themselves in the other to get rid of him. I think Clinton can field attacks from this Republican field without much problem, but she has no defense against the knowledge of her actions otherwise, and no defense against criticism from the left insofar as that might be heard. She may win with the lowest popularity polls in history. On top of that, faith in the electoral process is apt to hit a new low--and quite reasonably so, with both parties undercutting their most popular candidates as hard as they can, breaking promises and laws and so forth to do so.
I don't think we lose a thing by pushing with Sanders as hard as we can as far as he goes.
But it is very likely to be time to do something else, and very quickly, come July, because those superdelegates really are going to vote Clinton. Just as they were called committed to make her look good, they are now being called uncommitted to make her look good. My question is what is that other something that we should do.
Glad you point out that many of us are done with the fallacy of lesser of two evils. Thx!
I wouldn't, but I believe, knowing what I know about the man, he would
Very good analysis wicklund, l'm feeling, (hoping) this Tuesday morning that Bernie will slightly beat Hillary tonight much as Bobby Kennedy did in California in 1968 and then it's off to the races and the convention, to battle it out. The Democratic Party, (party leaders) will have to decide if they want to stay with "The Queen of Chaos" or keep the youth engaged and fight for a better America... After tonight, it's a simple decision.