Home | About | Donate

Sanders and Supporters Celebrate 'Momentum' Following Triple Win


Sanders and Supporters Celebrate 'Momentum' Following Triple Win

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

After handily winning Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii on Saturday, Sanders is closing in on Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and he says he has the "momentum" to seal the deal.

"We've won the last five out of six contests, all of them in landslide victories," the Vermont senator said on CNN on Sunday, referring also to wins in Utah and Idaho last week.


"Superdelegates": As in, "All men are created equal but some are more equal than others".


The problem with convincing superdelegates to support Bernie is that most of them are part of same establishment Clinton is. They're beholding to corporate interests just like her. They would lose clout if Bernie became POTUS. Their power comes from the plutocrats and Wall Street, too. Why would they switch to Bernie? Democracy? Dream on.


What a lot of people don't get is that Sanders' complaint isn't about Clooney. The actor does a lot of good things with his millions. The problem is that we shouldn't have a campaign finance system that allows millionaires and billionaires to make such grotesquely large contributions to political campaigns. That power influences elections and later on the politicians who get elected. It's undemocratic.


Actually, both stances are apropos of mention, and ought not be regarded as competitive.

It is a shame that Clooney did use his celebrity to endorse someone as pro-corporate and pro-military as Clinton; AND it's a threat to what's left of Democracy that Big Money has been given a pass by a ridiculously (when Scalia was alive) right wing Supreme Court to PURCHASE candidates, election outcomes, and ultimate policy.

(BTW: The term is beholden to... not beholding to... as written in your earlier comment.)


I like the last para of the piece:
""He still can’t argue the math is on his side; it isn’t," added Graves.
"But there’s a good case to be made that enthusiasm really is. If
enthusiasm is contagious – and the Sanders variety does show signs of
that – that means time may well be on his side. No wonder he keeps
trying to run out the clock.""

That enthusiasm, his own and ours, can propel him to success. Bernie supporters must, must, must believe that, in spite of what those less sensitive to enthusiasm will say, or write, in trying to damp it down.



As I suggested in an earlier post it now all depends on whether African-Americans vote their
real interests or continue to support HC out of a sense of loyalty to the old Democratic Party or whatever.


Superdelegates have sworn to Party loyalty, which since the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was formed in 1985 has included prioritizing sustained corporate cash flow into Party coffers over winning elections. There is no Democrat who is more of a corporate money magnet than Hillary.

The superdelegates will never be chastised by the Party if the candidate they support loses to the GOP. Superdelegates who support a candidate that threatens corporate cash flow, hoever, will no longer be superdelegates.

My two short paragraphs tell readers everything they need to know about superdelegates.


So the two elected Democratic senators from Washington should not be guaranteed a seat at the convention? Because a much smaller number of voters chose nonparty delegates at a caucus? How is that democratic, or Democratic?


Prediction: it will be Trump v Clinton. Prediction: Clinton wins.

Bernie does extremely well in caucus states, where the decisions are made by distinct minorities among voters. By actual count he is 2 1/2 million votes behind Hillary. Democracy, eh?


Hitchens the war monger? If he has anything nice to say about Clinton that would be a problem.


Ah, a little racial condescension.


well i still have an argument with Clooney.


I watched this when it was on this morning.
When asked if he would back Hillary, he refused to answer and insisted that he was in it to win.


The PTB that support and finance HRC et al are a large section of the entire plutocracy, Wall st. Banks and brokerages being just a corner of that support. HRC also has a significant number of the actual Oligarchy ( top .001%) behind her as well. They might not want TRUMP anywhere near the WH , but they especially don't want Sanders there.


tomjohnson, what a lovely, gracious statement, for which, thanks.


FOR THE COMMON GOOD:....WHO serves the common good and who serves the corporate interest.
When she claims these to be true--can you believe her?.... Or do your powers of discernment tell a different story?
For the Common Good & common-wealth of our country:
1. Single Payer Health... (Not single payer insurance).... Even for those of the elites, think of your own self-interest in a system that keeps all people healthy...for there are no barriers that you can prevent from a sick person spreading sickness to you..or thnk of your wallet when non-insured go to emergency rooms for service. To pay for it, go where the money is....go to the insurance companies and their bloated budgets of advertising/marketing and high salaries...the next pharma ad on TV--consider the cost of that one.
2. College Public Education for All:.... a well-educated populace is in the best interest of all. High debts on college students AND THEIR Families do no one any good....except for the banks collecting the debt money.
3. Climate Action & Change.....this Climate Chaos & Instability is in motion and cannot be stopped. We must now adapt and prepare for its consequences...What we do have the power to do is impact the severity upon future generations of our children and grandchildren....(That is assuming that they will have a liveable and habitable environment left to live within). We must move to a low carbon enegy system.... that starts first with reducing our usage of all fossil fuels....conservation, wise choices, efficiency first, then renewables....


Sanders sez:
"We've won the last five out of six contests, all of them in landslide victories."

Odd, that he would shortchange himself. The Democrats Abroad primary results came out during the middle of this run, and he crushed that one, too (69-31). Making it six of seven.

Then again, he may have thought that would simply confuse USAns who hadn't heard of it.


IMSalmon: "As I suggested in an earlier post it now all depends on whether African-Americans vote their real interests or continue to support HC out of a sense of loyalty to the old Democratic Party or whatever."

"It all depends"? That seems to me like an awfully big finger to point at Black folks in this election, and you admit ('whatever") that you haven't even examined what you're pointing at. To win over voters, the candidate's campaign and the media play two huge roles. And if we're just thinking about the math of how this thing will be tallied, then there are those super(undemocratic)delegates that much will "depend" on, too.

But while I dislike your unexamined blaming, as I see it, you do point at an important question: why are (most, so far, although certainly not all) Black voters (which, of course, does not at all mean a majority of Black folks as a whole, nor a proportionate class representation of African Americans, I would guess) voting for "bring them to heel" Clinton? To answer that, I think, requires looking deeply at the history of white supremacy in the U.S., but just as if not more importantly, asking Black folks themselves, and asking many of them. I just did a web search on this question, and really couldn't find much that went beyond mass media non-answering of the question. I think that the legacy of white supremacy actually is part of why such a question isn't even really asked widely and deeply, even though it is one that is ultimately pivotal to progressive change in the U.S. and in the world. That is, the question of how to build a broadly inclusive nonviolent revolution for transformation for universal benefit.

There is one link I want to share, though, for I found it helpful in understanding more about the work needing to be done related to this question:


Funny, it's that last paragraph that irritated me. Isn't it saying that the enthusiasm of idealistic children notwithstanding, the numbers make Bernie the loser? Realism you know...

Also. why is momentum in quotes, implying that there is none?

As to "running out the clock", wrong metaphor. Time is on Bernie's side: the more people see him and hear what his campaign's all about, the more they like and support him.