Democratic Party

Sanders Supporters May Lose the Presidency Today, but Win the Party

Even as Clinton reaches the delegate threshold, the Dems attempt to cater.

|

Clinton and Sanders
ABC/Disney / Flickr

The two men in the back of the pick-up truck in Culver City, California, yesterday yelling their support of Bernie Sanders to passing traffic probably are not dissuaded by the Associated Press' calculation last night that Hillary Clinton has the necessary delegates to clinch the nomination. Their man, Sanders, isn't accepting defeat, either, pointing out that superdelegates are putting Clinton over the top, and they don't really, truly count until the convention.

Sanders is technically accurate while, you know, probably going to be wrong. There is a chance that Sanders could actually win California today. All the latest polls have Clinton ahead by just two points, and there's been a surge of new voter registrations in a state that has seen voter participation plunge recently. Sanders played to large rally crowds in California. But California is not a winner-take-all state. They're distributed based on congressional districts. Even if Sanders wins, Clinton is probably going to come out of the state with additional delegates. Sanders may close the gap, but the path to beating her is hard to visualize.

Back in March, I theorized that California's primary could actually matter to Republicans this year, because it represented the possibility of Donald Trump reaching his delegate threshold. But then all of Trump's competitors imploded. With Sanders performing better than expected, there was again an increased possibility that California would still actually matter, but this time on the Democratic side.

The AP's declaration on the eve before six primaries seems to again declare California (and New Jersey—where Clinton has a huge poll lead) again irrelevant, but Sanders is saying he's going to stay in the race up until the convention. And why shouldn't he? He is tapping into a significant frustration among leftist voters that could help shape what the Democratic Party stands for moving forward.

Reason predicted something like the Sanders movement happening back prior to the last midterm election in 2014. We started seeing the fissures earlier with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, but the real preview was likely Zephyr Teachout's challenge to Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary for New York's governor. Teachout managed to grab 34 percent of the vote running far to the left of Cuomo (she has subsequently endorsed Sanders).

Emma Roller at the New York Times has a piece today asking Sanders supporters what they're going to do given the likelihood that Clinton is going to get the nomination. It does seem likely that many will, if reluctantly, line up to pull the lever for Clinton.

Clinton has been rather savvy in not dismissing the concerns of the Sanders supporters. Part of her counterargument to Sanders during debates is that she would be better situated, given her experience, to actually put liberal policies into place. And when the movement to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour became too loud to ignore, she diplomatically folded and said that despite previously supporting a smaller increase to $12 an hour, she would sign legislation for a $15 national minimum wage as president. It's a signal that she's willing to bend further to the left if need be.

She joins California Gov. Jerry Brown and Cuomo here, both of whom are seen as more centrist Democrats (a little erratically in Brown's case) and both of whom have capitulated to the $15 an hour movement. It's a terrible economic policy that will harm many Americans in the long run, but not Brown, Cuomo or Clinton. Brown even acknowledged the political expediency of relenting on a massive minimum wage increase when he signed it into law.

All of this is to suggest that we won't see a massive crack-up in the Democratic Party in this election. The party's establishment players are paying attention and responding. But the absurdly unrealistic "free college" movement indicates that this is all far from over. If she wins, Clinton seems likely to be facing a constant push toward the left that seems more pronounced than it was under Barack Obama. If it restrains some of her more bellicose and interventionist foreign policy proposals, that's good news. But for domestic economic policies, her capitulation on the minimum wage and her flip-flopping on trade should be seen as dire warnings.

NEXT: Anthony Bourdain: "I support your inalienable right to say really stupid, offensive shit."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sanders may close the gap, but the path to beating her is hard to visualize.

    *** closes eyes, imagines irrefutable FBI leak ***

    No, it’s not that hard.

    1. Imagine there’s no Hillary
      It’s easy if you try

      1. No Whitewater below us
        A server that’s not wiped

      2. No hellion in the White House
        Above us only a cracked glass ceiling, aye

        1. Imagine there’s no pantsuits
          Saves us 5 grand, plus 2

        2. Imagine all the emailllllssss
          ooh ooh oo oo oooh!

      3. This is like the worst poetry slam ever.

        1. To be expected here in the worst chatroom ever.

        2. I’m just getting a naked Bill doing a Lennon cuddle on Yoko-Hillary.

          1. *blood-pukes over keyboard*

            Great… only the second time this week… so far..

            *passes out*

            1. He’s dead, Jim.

              *Notices TM’s Red Shirt*

        3. Well, it made me laugh…

  2. So the nations oldest political party and a party that has virtual one party rule over large areas of the country is going to go full National Socialist. Forgive me if I don’t find that to be good news or any reason for optimism.

    1. At least it’s an ethos, John.

      1. What’s a nihilist, Walter?

        1. Shut the fuck up, Donny!

          1. Check it, Bleed..

      2. I am the walrus.

    2. Yeah, it’s a bit distressing. Very discouraging that so many young people buy the Bernie shit. Maybe some of them will grow up.
      I think we are long overdue for a shakeup of the parties, but I don’t see a lot to be positive about from either party at this point.

      1. I don’t want the Democrats to be so insane that it becomes impossible to hold the Republicans accountable. If the alternative is Bernie Sanders or Bill DiBlasio, a Republican has to be pretty bad not to be the least of the two bad options. The better the Democrats are the better the GOP is forced to be and vice versa. Like it or not we have a two party system and as long as we do everyone has an interest in both parties being at least not insane.

        1. The Democrats are so insane because they are rarely ever held accountable for their batshittery. The Republicans at least have to be wary of a hostile media.

          1. Yep. A state run media is essential for implementing a one party system.

            The fact that the media WILLINGLY backs one party, indicates that they are god damned traitors.

        2. If the alternative is Bernie Sanders or Bill DiBlasio, a Republican has to be pretty bad not to be the least of the two bad options.

          And yet, they managed.

          1. Of course they do. Somehow the answer is always to vote Democrat. Funny that.

            1. You mean Johnson isn’t on the ballot? When did that happen?

              1. Oh Yes, you will vote Johnson. I am totally sure of that. You just do so with the firm conviction that Democrats are always better than Republicans. Yeah.

      2. Maybe some of them will grow up.

        Doubt it. One thing Bill Clinton did in office that has skewed American politics ever since was creating a popular distinction between tax rates for the rich and tax rates for everyone else. Prior to that tax increases and decreases were generally across the board, perhaps growing a little more or less progressive with each increase or cut, but still recognized as a broad element of policy. Since then, the U.S. tax structure has grown increasingly progressive. So much so that many Americans have no, or relatively trivial income tax burdens. So, that “sticker shock” when young people moved into the labor force really isn’t there. Most will be able to keep their youthful delusions entirely unscathed.

        1. Prior to that tax increases and decreases were generally across the board

          I’m not sure that’s accurate, really. Prior to Reagan, the rates on the wealthiest people were astronomical – far, far higher than on the middle and lower classes. This is why Reagan got the “tax cuts for the rich” label, although he was actually just bringing what the wealthy pay down to something more proportional to what everyone else was paying.

          Clinton simply cashed in on the anger over “tax cuts for the rich” and turned that into “tax hikes for the rich” and, as you point out, “tax cuts for likely Democratic voters.”

          1. Rates were higher. But, there were a lot more deductions. And only some of those deductions were available to the middle and lower classes. And the highest rates actually effected relatively few high income earners (If I set a high tax rate on income over $1 billion, it’s not going to do much on the degree of progressivity, since few people will pay that high tax rate). I recall a chart comparing the proportion paid by the wealthy over time. It has gone up.

            1. I recall a chart comparing the proportion paid by the wealthy over time. It has gone up.

              And this was exactly the logic, wasn’t it – that you can tax $1B at 96%, but you’ll just ensure that no one makes that much. If you lower those rates, then people come into those brackets, and you actually get more money. Although I’m assured by Progressives that this is a vicious lie, so it can’t really have happened that way.

  3. The rightwing in this country is now beholden to a right wing populist who is big on protectionism, anti-immigration, and anti-trade. And he’s fine with the welfare state.

    The leftwing in this country is now pretty much socialist.

    We’re Europe now, basically. Libertarian moment!

    1. I fucking hate socialism, and I fucking hate nationalism. Both are just collectivist forms of slavery to government (or the “nation-state” according to nationalist assholes). One focuses on phony “patriotism” or jingoism, the other on “humanitarianism” and feel-good bullshit. Socialism and nationalism are evil twin siblings.

      1. Eh, all nationalisms aren’t the same. I think it’s even possible to be a “libertarian nationalist”: libertarians who aren’t for endless, uncontrolled immigration, in part because it adds more statists.

        1. “libertarian nationalist”

          Does not compute.

          Libertarianism is antithetical to any form of collectivism or statism. I disagree that “uncontrolled” immigration (something which can never be “controlled” without a massive police state) brings in more statists, but whatever. To each his own, we have enough native statist fucks as it is.

          I just don’t see how one big government policy is supposed to stop another. Especially when hardly anything in government is ever a “temporary” program.

          1. This computes for me.

            Unfettered immigration (open borders) only works if you do not have a welfare state. If you have both then immigrants come for government handouts and not for increasing commerce and state force expands.

            1. I’m not even sure it works without a welfare state. We all know the syndrome: people flee a sucky economy caused by leftist policies, then vote for the same things in their new homes. Ask New Hampshire natives about the voting patterns of immigrants from NY, MA, CT.

              1. psst – NY, MA and CA are not foreign countries. . .

                1. Square = Circle – Don’t piss on his (and my) dreams.

                  1. Of course they aren’t foreign countries, but it’s the same principle, duh. The point is that people fleeing a cultural/political problem often bring that cultural/political problem with them. Latin Americans are not immune to that effect. Neither are Muslims.

    2. The Libertarian Case for the US Joining the EU

    3. We are not Europe. We are becoming Latin America. Gee, letting millions of Latin Americans in the country has resulted in the country’s political culture looking more like Latin America. Who could have seen that coming?

      1. Somehow, I’m sure that it’s considered “racism” to notice that.

        1. Not racism, but it is obnoxious collectivism.

          1. Noticing collective, average characteristics is not “collectivism.”

            1. It is if it determines how you treat a whole group of people.

              Native born Americans are also on average dumb-ass socialists who will vote for whoever has the best promise of goodies for them. Agitating to raise the voting age would probably be much more effective at fighting creeping socialism than attempting to close off the border.

              1. Zeb,

                Is it possible in your view to make any statements about nations or groups of people? Is any judgement that generalizes beyond the individual just “collectivism”? If not, then where is the line between legitimate generalization and this evil “obnoxious collectivism” you speak of?

                Lastly, can you give a few examples of obnoxious collectivism that don’t involve positions you disagree with? Are there any?

                1. Make statements? Yeah, sure. There are certainly factual things you can say about any group of people, on average or in general. But laws and immigration policies apply to individuals, not groups.

                  Lastly, can you give a few examples of obnoxious collectivism that don’t involve positions you disagree with? Are there any?

                  As I am opposed to collectivism, it should be pretty clear that there aren’t any.

                  1. Make statements? Yeah, sure. There are certainly factual things you can say about any group of people, on average or in general. But laws and immigration policies apply to individuals, not groups.

                    I don’t disagree. No one is saying every Latin American supports this culture. But that fact doesn’t mean the influx of a large number of Latin Americans into the country has not had this effect.

                    If we let millions of Muslims into the country and the country became more socially conservative and politically more like say Turkey, would it be an obnoxious generalization to point that out?

          2. California did flip from pretty Republican to one-party rule by Democrats coincidental to the huge influx of immigrants from the south, resulting in a new demographic majority. Could be just a random coincidence, but I have my doubts.

            1. It wasn’t a coincidence.

              1. That definitely helped, but it was far from the only reason. The GOP has trouble getting 55% of the white vote (Obama even won it in 2008) in a state where Reagan used to get more than that in overall vote. Also, a large portion of the immigration has been from Asia, and Asians (at least nowadays) vote Democrat as much or more than Latinos do.

        2. No, it’s just stupid; scapegoating foreigners for supposedly behaving how American voters across the political spectrum *already* behave, and then ridiculing them for it as if people from Latin America are inherently worse.

          Why blame “those foreigners” for not behaving like cream-of-the-crop citizens when they’re just copying the average middle-class “THEY TOOK ‘ER JERBS!” voters?

          1. Look at Latin American politics, dude. It’s noticeably to the left of US politics. The Mexican schools are run by one big socialist union. Do you think they teach libertarian principles? Do you think poor Latin American immigrants all know they are fleeing statist failures, and thus are keen to vote for less government in the US?

            1. Who votes for less government these days? White voters have voted primarily for Trump and Sanders, with Clinton a close 3rd. What about that screams small government?

              1. How do they vote?

                Exhibit A: Chavez

                Exhibit B: Maduro

                Exhibit C: Correa

                Exhibit D: Lula

                Exhibit E: Dilma (currently impeached)

                And that’s just three countries…

                1. I mean how how, y’know? How are they able to walk into an American polling place and cast a valid vote? I know it’s thought a small percentage of non-citizens vote, but supposedly these millions of poor brain-washed Hispanics are crossing the border and turning everything D.

                  1. How are they able to walk into an American polling place and cast a valid vote?

                    They often come over with fake social security numbers so that they can get decent jobs. This would allow them to vote. In my experience, only the ones who intend to stay and raise families, who eventually get green cards and become citizens, pay attention to politics and vote.

                    Again, anecdotal, but my experience has been that they vote D not because they are particularly socialist – they often are quite skeptical of government – but because they perceive the Rs as being actively hostile to their interests.

                    1. They often come over with fake social security numbers so that they can get decent jobs.

                      Otherwise known as Identity Theft and Fraud.

                      From the linky:

                      We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships

                      Right form the LP Preamble.

      2. Bullshit. The GIMMEDAT native voters were already “Latin America,” whatever the fuck that means.

        The voters of this country want the Welfare-Warfare State without having to pay for it. If anything, they’ll maybe support cracking down on spending if they’re led to believe that those dirty immigrants will qualify for their precious benefits.

        1. The voters of this country want the Welfare-Warfare State without having to pay for it.

          Yes and thank you for providing an example supporting my point that we are becoming Latin America. What do you think the voters in Latin America want?

          And since you clearly don’t know much, let me let you in on a secret, Latin American countries have some of the most nasty immigration laws on the books. And Latin Americans are nativist and racist towards each other at a level you have never seen in this country.

          1. Yes and thank you for providing an example supporting my point that we are becoming Latin America. What do you think the voters in Latin America want?

            Uhhh… Duhh….If they’re fleeing socialist Latin American countries, there’s at least a chance that they’re open to capitalism. The statist native fucks in this country should try living under *real* socialism for once.

            And since you clearly don’t know much, let me let you in on a secret, Latin American countries have some of the most nasty immigration laws on the books. And Latin Americans are nativist and racist towards each other at a level you have never seen in this country.

            Right, so we should become more like them knowing how racist and nativist they are towards each other. FFS, John…

            Open immigration reduces illegal immigration since people can move freely instead of being motivated (with incentive) to carry out “illegal” behavior.

            1. f they’re fleeing socialist Latin American countries, there’s at least a chance that they’re open to capitalism.

              Empirically, this doesn’t seem to be the trend at all. I believe the Cuban immigrants in the last century were largely that way, but not the central and south americans that are coming recently.

              1. ^True.

              2. It probably doesn’t help that the side of the political spectrum that is more opposed to socialism also isn’t terribly kind in talking about poor immigrants from points south.

                Poor illegal immigrants aren’t voting anyway. But their children will. And Republicans are doing a pretty shitty job trying to appeal to those voters. And there is a great case to be made to first generation Americans like that for free markets and capitalism.

                1. Poor illegal immigrants aren’t voting anyway.

                  The Democratic Party disagrees.

                  Might I suggest Zeb that denying that large scale immigration has any negative effects and calling anyone who is negatively effected by it a racist when they complain about it isn’t the best way to engender comity among natives and immigrants.

                  I have never met a single person who supported open borders who didn’t directly and personally benefit from it in some way. And I have never met a single pro open borders person who didn’t absolutely loath anyone who objected to open borders or not completely reject as illegitimate anyone who claimed to have been harmed by them. The attitude forever seems to be “everyone else should be happy to suffer for my principles and of course personal benefit”.

                  Maybe that attitude isn’t helping matters very much.

            2. Uhhh… Duhh….If they’re fleeing socialist Latin American countries, there’s at least a chance that they’re open to capitalism. The statist native fucks in this country should try living under *real* socialism for once.

              Yeah, that is why the influx of Latin voters has made California so capitalist over the last 30 years. right?

              Right, so we should become more like them knowing how racist and nativist they are towards each other. FFS, John…

              We are becoming more like them whether you like it or not. Actions beget reactions. Do you think the idiot racists burning American flags and waving the Mexican flags in San Jose last week are making the country less nativist?

              Where do you think nativism comes from if not identity politics? And there are few better ways to spread identity politics where none were before than to introduce a large group who practices it. Once one group starts, the rest will follow out of self interest if nothing else.

      3. Is there really any evidence that the hispanic population is large enough to effect massive policy sweeps at the national level, though?

        1. If they can swing a few big states in Presidential elections, like Florida and California, then it would appear so. The electoral college favors Democrat candidates, even though Republicans control the House and Senate. The President generally is able to set the national political agenda.

          1. California would be Democrat easily just from white, black, and Asian voters. The GOP sometimes wins the white vote, but not by enough to offset the other two groups.

            1. California would be Democrat easily just from white, black, and Asian voters.

              ^ This.

      4. We are becoming something different from either of those things. I’d say closer to Europe than Latin America.

        1. Latin American politics is basically divided between a right wing corporatist party usually lead by a strong charismatic rich guy and a left wing socialist borderline communist party made up of the poor and the academic class.

          You don’t think the US is getting closer to that?

          Neither the Democrats nor the GOP, even if you believe the worst about Trump look like the parties in Europe. Trump is not despite the fevered dreams otherwise, a rightwing candidate like LePen. He is far too supportive of capitalism and too much like the American right for that. People just think otherwise because they have bought into the leftist ideal that American nationalism is the same as European fascism.

          And Bernie and the current SJW left in the US is much cruder and more incompetent than even the worst of the European left. They are much closer to Chavez or whatever the dumb ass leftist President of Brazil a few years ago.

          Its Latin America not Europe.

          1. Wrong, John.

            Zeb’s right: It’s pretty much The United Kingdom of the American Union at this point. Trust me, John, I’m in the smack dab middle of psuedo-Commie-topia, and it won’t take much more for the soon-to-be-UKAU to be fully realised.

            The Powers-That-Be can’t afford a bona fide Latin States of America: The populous is too well armed.

            1. I agree with you about that. And that explains why they hate the 2nd Amendment so much. But I firmly believe the powers that be don’t want Europe. Europe is too middle class and too hard to lead. They want Latin America where a few rich people run rough shod over a large population of disarmed peasants who have neither the arms nor the money to be much of a problem.

              1. Europe is becoming that way too, John. Oligarchy ain’t just for the Russian Federation, and the USA is becoming more and more polarised and stratified into the economic binary you described, you are correct about that. Even if by some miracle Ole Bern found his way into the WH, you can be damn sure K Street *WILL* tell him what’s what. Even Fauxcahontas, current champion fundraiser for the current DNC (Denying Non-Native Criminality), knows where her bread is buttered.

                The only thing that’s really missing is the fully implemented Social Welfare State that Tony had been prattling on and on about for years and what makes him cum AIDS rancid buckets daily.

        2. We are becoming something different from either of those things. I’d say closer to Europe than Latin America.

          Yes. We’re even starting to see people happy to throw away our core strength: our ability to take in immigrants, assimilate them, and incorporate the best features of their cultures to achieve actual progress.

          1. Racial purity is the only path to prosperity.

          2. Toss a few carrots into your stew pot, and they assimilate and make the stew better. But quantity has a quality all its own: add a bushel and all you get are wet carrots.

        1. Some day you will same something informative or interesting and the world will stop with amazement. It will be like seeing a midget dunk a basketball or a retarded kid suddenly start solving differential equations.

            1. There is nothing to demolish nor would I want to demolish it if there were. You are just stupid. Maybe some day you will get smarter, but I doubt it.

      5. Yes John, it’s Latin Americans’ fault that white Republicans are nominating a populist moron like Trump and why white Democrats are mostly voting for a socialist moron in Bernie Sanders.

        But you and Papaya don’t let that get in the way of the narrative

        1. Mass illegal immigration is indeed what is fueling Trump’s campaign. Are you disagreeing with that?

          1. So it is their fault, because they goaded the Republicans into supporting Trump? So much for personal responsibility.

            Illegal immigration was definitely a part of it, but I think his trade policies and general “anti-PC, anti-establishment” posturing where just as important or more important.

            Essentially the same number of Trump supporters say free trade has been bad for the US than say immigrants are a burden on the country or Muslims should be subject to more scrutiny.

            http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..on-issues/

            Heck, if you scroll down, almost half of Trump supporters are ok with illegal immigrants being allowed to stay if certain requirements are met.

        2. We have a political culture that is much more like Latin America than it was. And that change correlates to a huge influx of Latin Americans into the country. Why do you deny there is any causality?

          I get it that Mexicans are nearly as sacred as the gays and Muslims but is it not possible that they have had an effect on the culture beyond their holy taco stands? And how can the largest minority in the country not at least bear some of the blame for the state of that country’s political culture?

          1. “We have a political culture that is much more like Latin America than it was.”

            You could say the same thing (and with arguably better accuracy) about other regions of the world, like Europe.

            “And that change correlates to a huge influx of Latin Americans into the country. Why do you deny there is any causality?”

            First off, that isn’t how causality works. And I’m basing that off the fact that there’s little evidence to suggest Latin Americans are making white Democrats vote for a socialist. And you can only say the same about making Republicans vote for Trump in a very roundabout way that absolves GOP voters of any personal responsibility for their vote and excuses their reasoning.

            1. First off, that isn’t how causality works.

              Yes it is. Correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation but it doesn’t preclude it and is in fact a necessary element of causation. So it sure as hell is evidence of it.

              Pointing out what is going on doesn’t absolve anyone of anything. If you want to social signal and hat the GOP for voting for Trump, have fun. Your moral judgement are your own.

              The fact remains, however, if there had never been such a huge influx of immigrants, there would have been no backlash for Trump to capitalize on and no Trump. Trump is a predictable and inevitable reaction to 30 years of unrestrained immigration and a corrupt political class that has told the majority of the country that wanted something done to fuck off.

              And while the influx of Latin Americans has not made white liberals become socialist, it certainly has made the Democratic party more tribal as it sees its future in the Latin vote and has become openly hostile to the white working class, which in turn has of course fed Trump’s success.

              So yes, we had a huge influx of Latin American immigrants and as a result, the political culture looks more like Latin America. It is what it is. If you want to see it as a reason to hate white people, as I said your moral judgements are your own.

              1. “Yes it is. Correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation but it doesn’t preclude it and is in fact a necessary element of causation. So it sure as hell is evidence of it.”

                If you seriously think you have a scientifically sound hypothesis and proof you are nuts.

                And just as I suspected, you’ve got nothing besides blaming Latinos for (some) white people reacting negatively to their presence in the country. Along with a bogus accusation of white hate.

                “Trump is a predictable and inevitable reaction to 30 years of unrestrained immigration and a corrupt political class that has told the majority of the country that wanted something done to fuck off.”

                That “something” isn’t necessarily what you (or Trump voters in general) want. Polls have repeatedly shown that less than half of the GOP, let alone the country as a whole, is insistent on mass deportation.

                1. That “something” isn’t necessarily what you (or Trump voters in general) want. Polls have repeatedly shown that less than half of the GOP, let alone the country as a whole, is insistent on mass deportation.

                  Yeah, that is why Trump got more votes than any other GOP candidate in history and is neck and neck with Hillary. No one cares about immigration. They must like his hair or something. You have a poll after all so who needs actual election results.

                  And as far as “white hate”. The country is going tribal. That is not a good thing but that is what is happening. I am pretty sure those people burning police cars and throwing eggs and waiving the Mexican flag out in San Jose last week are not too fond of white people and have very little interest in anyone’s views but other Hispanics. And sadly, the people on the other end of those eggs likely left there closer to being the same for their group. Once you let lose a group that plays identity politics like that, you end up with everyone doing it.

                  I guess you can pretend there is no such thing as LaRaza and no mobs of Hispanics who show up and waive the Mexican flag and attack anyone who disagrees and that that hasn’t been going on for years now and happening long before Trump ever decided to run. That no doubt makes you happy. But the rest of us have to live in the real world.

          2. We have a political culture that is much more like Latin America than it was. And that change correlates to a huge influx of Latin Americans into the country. Why do you deny there is any causality?

            By the same token this country has come more and more to resemble Nazi Germany since 1945. There’s also been a massive influx of German immigrants since then.

            Coincidence?

            I’ll let you be the judge.

            1. I don’t think it is anything like Nazi Germany. And even if it were, there hasn’t been an influx of German immigrants.

              Try harder.

              1. there hasn’t been an influx of German immigrants.

                Since the end of WWII? Are you mental?

                The point – I think you missed it. Surprised, I am not.

  4. Not enough mention of how bad Trump is. WHY IS REASON IN THE BAG FOR TRUMP?!?

    1. WHYCOM PALIOS NO ATTK TURMP

      1. DEY TUK ER JERBS!!!!

  5. Go, Berntards! GO! GO! GO!

  6. The AP’s declaration on the eve before six primaries…

    as well as CNN, and pretty much everyone else simultaneously…

    The math they’re using to justify their “call” is the same bullshit forecasting that existed before the Puerto Rico primary.

    Then why now?

    It seems to me that the media wants to create the impression that “nothing else matters” BEFORE people vote. Why the urgency?

    Because every primary where Clinton fails to crush Sanders leaves the impression that she doesn’t actually have a mandate.

    Because her weak showing in the largest and Bluest of the states in the US is expected, and it terrifies the establishment. So start waving victory flags and play down any further votes as ‘meaningless’.

    The Sanders crowd is crying “vote suppression”, and they’re right.

    This is one of the grosser and more shameless efforts by the media to frame the narrative i’ve ever seen. Even if there’s some bare-justification for their math (which as noted – was true well before the ‘day before the california primaries’) – why make such a big deal out of it even if its true? What’s the urgency of the story TODAY as opposed to say, Wednesday?

    because they see that 2% margin and it bothers them that Hillary can’t get more than 50% of her own party. the same criticism these same news outlets were saying ‘doomed trump’ in the general.

    1. Well said.

    2. Yup. Well analyzed.

    3. While I’d LIKE to agree with this, it can be argued that the AP did the exact same thing with Trump. They declared Trump the presumptive nominee based on the delegate math.

      While I do agree with Sanders voters that Publicly Pledged SuperDelegates that have declared for Hillary should not be counted until they actually vote, this is on the hope that they’ll have different revealed preference than their stated preference, or that an 11th hour conversion can be made in… literally hundreds of SuperDels that have declared.

      I don’t see this as much of a media conspiracy– considering there’s so much more awfulness in the media that can be pointed to. Make no mistake, they’re going to drag Hillary over the line, but this story really isn’t new. I’ve been hearing it for two months: Hillary leads in delegates, Hillary has clearly won the popular vote.

      If anything, one could almost see it as a conspiracy against Hillary– that they kept the horse-race coverage going long after it was viable.

      1. Except Burnie was winning primaries, even if he was doomed by superdelegates. And Trump is the candidate the media wants the GOP to put up, because he’s their punching bag in the general.

        1. Note “popular vote”. The media and the Hillary campaign have been hammering this point home for two months. Hillary has won more votes in total than Bernie.

      2. They declared Trump the presumptive nominee based on the delegate math.

        yes, but the GOP doesn’t have a massive slug of “Superdelegates” which (in theory) are free to vote however they choose at the convention.

        in the case of trump, the math was ‘final’ because none of the challengers – due to their number – had amassed anything close to even a symbolic threat.

  7. I have a friend who is a huge supporter of Bernie and asked her what she will do if he loses? She gave some opaque answer but I told that with all the energy and money you’re giving to this hopeless campaign, why don’t you, yourself go out there and do some charitable shit?

    Her answer was pretty much we can’t have equality and higher standard of living till we change the government we have.

    1. Well, that’s true.

      1. Yeah, I have to give it to her for being honest. What irritates me about people like her is that they do absolutely nothing charitable but then have this smugness when they vote for politicians that preaches the doctrine of wealth redistribution.

        1. Ask her why she outsources her personal responsibilities. Isn’t outsourcing evil?

          Why is she evil, Ed?

        2. For the left, having the government steal from X to give to Y is the highest morality.

        3. Ed, I have tried that same tack only to be told that private charity is evil because it reduces the need for government action. I only recently found out that that is a widely held belief on the left. Apparently that is why so many of the rich lefties contribute next to nothing.

          How much do the Koch brothers contribute to charity? The Clintons? The Obamas? Pelosi? etc, etc..

          1. private charity is evil because it reduces the need for government action

            Bernie actually said this.

          2. So… is it that government action is the desired end, unto itself? Or is it that they’re afraid that private charity will become unreliable if it supplants government action? I know I’m asking a lot. Answering this requires pondering the thought processes of these assholes. But, better you than me.

            This position fills me with more dread than all other leftist positions combined, truth be told. The excuse for government welfare has always been that charity just wasn’t doing the job. Now, they’re claiming that forced redistribution, even IF it is unneeded, is morally superior to voluntary interaction in all cases. How can one reason with that? We can’t even agree on basic moral premises.

    2. why don’t you, yourself go out there and do some charitable shit?

      Because Bernie’s happily married?

    3. Her answer was pretty much we can’t have equality and higher standard of living till we change the government we have.

      Would that new government employ a massive redistributionist scheme, ala Zimbabwe?

  8. Emma Roller at the New York Times has a piece today asking Sanders supporters what they’re going to do

    ….

    ….

    Tyson Manker was an infantry Marine during the invasion of Iraq. When he was 21, he says, he hung out with a few fellow Marines off base and smoked marijuana, for which he was given an “other than honorable discharge.” That meant he lost aid he would have received under the G.I. Bill.

    “I was suicidal and using drugs and alcohol hard core for the first years after they booted me out,” Mr. Manker said. “It infuriates me. It tells me there’s something wrong with the system.”

    …Now, he is running for county state’s attorney. He wants to fight public corruption and install a separate court system for veterans.

    1. a separate court system for veterans

      Way to bury the lede there. What what what?

      1. Like in starship troopers?

      2. Peter Tosh was the lede. I just needed an excuse to listen to that song.

      3. a separate court system for veterans

        When you’re an uberstatist, it is logical that service to the state means you should be exempt from the rules that apply to little people. This “ex-marine”*’s attitude is hardly different from the SEIU attitude. One set of rules for me, another for thee.

        (*and i’m aware how you’re not supposed to use that phrase)

        1. Once a Marine, always a Marine. Join the proud ranks of Charles Whitman, Charles Chi-tat-Ng, Joseph Swango, Anthony Sowell, Lee Harvey Oswald, Itzcoatl Ocampo, Amir Hekmati, Leonard Lake…

          1. Outstanding! Just shows you what a motivated Marine can do!

  9. I am guessing no news from Greece lately because reporters there no longer have access to electricity and all the carrier pigeons have been eaten?

    Keep it up Berntards.

  10. HOW CAN YOU BERNIE FANS IGNORE THE HISTORICAL PRECEDENT OF THE FIRST BLACK WOMAN PRESIDENT EVAH?!?!!?!!

    SHE IS MAKING HISTORY!!! ALL BOW BEFORE THE MIGHTY VAGINA!!!

    1. Hey now, I have spent a lot of time bowing before a vagina…or two.

      1. At the same time?

        Dude.

  11. And when the movement to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour became too loud to ignore, she diplomatically folded and said that despite previously supporting a smaller increase to $12 an hour, she would sign legislation for a $15 national minimum wage as president.

    … the absurdly unrealistic “free college” movement indicates that this is all far from over.

    ……..

    So, how ’bout them Bears?

    1. dem Bears!

    2. Cutler still sucks.

  12. Sanders Supporters May Lose the Presidency Today, but Win the Party
    Even as Clinton reaches the delegate threshold, the Dems attempt to cater.

    Of course they are. For Hillary to win in November she needs two things:

    1. Sanders voters to come to the polls.
    2. When Sanders voters come to the polls, they vote Hillary.

    Without those two things, she might very well lose in November.

  13. … she would sign legislation for a $15 national minimum wage as president

    That’s just frickin’ insane. I can’t believe someone who would say such a thing is so close to the Presidency.

    1. Where in the Constitution is the federal authority to set a minimum wage, again?

      1. Commerce clause, the Commerce Clause is ALWAYS the progtard answer.

      2. Penumbras and emanations.

      3. Look, if you want it changed, you have to elect the right people to the House, Senate, and White House. Don’t look at me.

        /John Roberts

  14. This is destined to become a classic so I will repeat it:

    “We know Bernie’s numbers don’t work, but the things he wants to do are too important for us to be held back by numbers.”

    /Bernie supporter

    *It just occurs to me that he may have been referring to Bernie’s economic plans, but it works for votes also.

  15. beating her is hard to visualize

    That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

  16. My opinion of this mass-media attempt to herd the Democrats to the Establishment column …

    (which i note above is IMO intended to try and suppress turnout in California in favor of Hillary)

    ..is that its real effect? is going to be to simply accelerate the drift away. People don’t trust the media already. Seeing them basically say after months of non-stop political whinging, that “None of the votes in california *matter* now?” Seems to me to be a deep insult to the democratic process.

    Millenials are dumb, but they’re not that dumb. They know when they’re being used. And maybe it doesn’t matter, because CNN et al are toast in the longer-run anyway. But it strikes me as pretty shameless and petty, and that impression will likely erode hillary’s support more than it simply expedites the inevitable.

    1. Doing it 12 hours before polls open in CA is so transparent that it’s hard to believe anyone is fooled, especially if Bernie’s voters are more motivated. Isn’t it more likely to worsen Clinton voters’ motivation? Why bother voting for her now that the nomination is sewn up?

      1. Could just be that the media is not concerned so much about the turnout as they are in softening the blow if Clinton does in fact lose the state to Sanders. “Doesn’t matter anyways so in more important news lets talk more about Trump U.”

        1. Could just be that the media is not concerned so much about the turnout as they are in softening the blow

          yeah, that as much as anything else. She WILL win regardless. but the margin was what was so irritating for their optics. If she beats 50% it will certainly look better.

      2. Isn’t it more likely to worsen Clinton voters’ motivation?

        possibly.

        younger voters are the wild-cards when it comes to primaries. generally they don’t show up in the first place. which is why polling is so shitty for primary-forecasting.

        it is possible that the media blitz saying “Its Over” will have no effect in helping hillary. That doesn’t change my view (and i guess yours) that was its intent, however.

    2. I dunno, this is like everyone who SUDDENLY found the electoral college suspicious when it didn’t work out for them. Millennials are so much dumb as they are utterly inexperienced and lacking in historical knowledge.

      They’re “discovering” this superdelegate thing that has existed since 1968 and NOW it’s a big fat problem. Bottom line is, Democrats are going to have to clean up their own house if they don’t like this superdelegate thing. Maybe Millennials can be the generation that takes a long hard look at it.

      For instance, Washington has a caucus system. It’s not a popular vote. Guess who “discovered” the caucus system sucks after it’s been in place for decades? That’s right, Hillary supporters.

      This game can be played by everyone everywhere when an upset occurs.

      1. Millennials are so much dumb

        *not so much dumb*

  17. Despite all of Trump’s whining, Sanders has a much better case of calling foul, and not just on the points that Gilmore made so well above.

    Sanders has 45.6% of the elected delegates right now, but only 7% of the unelected superdelegates.

    I understand why he has so few of the superdelegates, but all the average Sander’s supporter sees is that he is being screwed and screwed hard by the undemocratic Democrat primary process.

    1. Maybe so but I don’t see them pulling against Hillary in the general.

      We are getting another four years of the Clinton dynasty, but she will oversee another recession so I don’t think she will last more than one term.

      1. It’s too early to tell. Bernie voters only have to not show up to hurt her and hijinks like this kill enthusiasm.

        1. True, but unless they are able to unfreeze Reagan’s brain and replace it with whatever is under Trumps mop there is zero chance Hillary loses, whether Bernie fans show up or not.

          Independents despise Donald on a level worse than any candidate in history. He will get embarrassed in the general.

          1. It’s a no-win situation for anyone who values liberty.

            1. As per usual.

              I’ve never voted in a presidential election that had candidates who valued liberty above all else.

      2. That same thinking lost me a couple of bets in 2012.

        1. Wasn’t the problem in 2012 that Team Red did not turnout and pull the lever for Romney ?

          1. That they didn’t turn out to pull the lever for Romney was not the problem, it was a symptom.

        2. “No president has ever been re-elected during record-high gas prices!”

    2. Sanders has gotten screwed. I don’t see how anyone can deny that. They tried to screw Trump but the GOP being the total incompetents that they are failed. Hillary in contrast knows how to properly screw someone.

      1. The Clintons are the Democratic party. The GOP doesn’t have a facsimile to that.

    3. The super delegate scheme was supposed to be a subtle way for the establishment to tip the scales to the “right” candidate if thing got a bit too close.

      The problem now is that they will have to use the super delegates as a blunt object and it will be obvious to even the dimmest observer that the party has rigged the race for the establishment candidate.

      1. The problem now is that they will have to use the super delegates as a blunt object and it will be obvious to even the dimmest observer that the party has rigged the race for the establishment candidate.

        ^ Exactly this.

  18. I want to vote for world chaos, who is the candidate for me?

      1. Huh…I wonder how ol’ Nic is doing?

        *googles Venezuela news*

        He is still fighting the good fight I see. If only right wing forces and foreign powers were not waging an economic war on his country. He is also trying to root out those hoarders and profiteers. He wants to introduce fingerprinting to shoppers. He is still trying to keep the borders closed to stop smuggling.

        Despite all of that it is clear to everyone that low oil prices are the real culprit.

        Christ, its like a checklist of pinko excuses out of a comic book.

        This gem popped up in the search: http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../85294346/

  19. Zephyr Teachout? That has to be a fake name.

  20. The more interesting question is what happens to Team Blue between now and 2018 if Hillary were to lose. I suspect they go full on commie.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.