May 4, 2016 at 7:36 am #19750duxruleParticipant
At least according to this guy:
This is What Will Happen at the Democratic Convention
https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention/May 4, 2016 at 10:03 am #19751
That guy is incorrect.
It’s been over (per the math) for two months now.
I feel like I’m trapped in a bad dream; arguing with stone blocks.May 4, 2016 at 10:35 am #19752
No, you aren’t in a bad dream.
The “clash” here is one of basic worldviews. In the traditional, mainstream world view, others pay, we vote, and all of that results in policy. Then we vote again, and here we are.
The people behind Bernie, and Sanders himself, are rejecting that view. When the choices are bad, fund better ones. We pay too, and when we pay, we don’t have to ask for stuff. It then moves to power, leverage, etc…
That math argument one is an interesting one as far as perception goes. And it’s giving the entire process consideration, which most media framing I’ve seen does not.
There are lots of comparisons to past races, and in particular how Obama and Clinton resolved this in ’08.
What isn’t being said much, and what I have come to understand here, is those two operate on basically the same paradigm. They have their differences in leadership vision, etc… and all of it is real and meaningful. I do not intend to marginalize any of it.
They both were and are not today, party and paradigm challengers. This makes a deal possible and plausible. Clinton gets Sec of State, Obama gets the Presidency, and both careers as well as the national party vision get advanced. It’s equitable, reasonable, and obviously it happened.
From an economic point of view, doing that also made good sense. Clinton had debt to retire, they both shared common cause with the party, and the overall agenda. It’s more efficient to make that deal, combine forces and enter the general strong, unified. And that is precisely what they did.
The big question today is, “Why isn’t Sanders doing that?”
Different paradigm. Sanders represents a challenge to the party as well as his opponent. The motivations are different, policy vision different, leadership style and vision different. Even the money is different.
One could make the case for Obama and Clinton working on a similar pool of money. Obama did get individual donations, and he got a lot of them, which was notable, but not the whole story at the time.
Today, one can also make the case for Sanders operating on what is largely new money as far as the party and national politics in general go. A lot of that money would not exist, if it were not for the resonance between his vision and what ordinary people feel they need from government.
Because the whole affair is basically paying it’s own way, Sanders and people for Sanders self funding, the dynamics are very different. There is little economic value in having Sanders step out of the race, for one. That money evaporates when it’s not linked to that strong resonance seen in the Sanders campaign. The “new money” isn’t shared money, in the same general sense it was for Clinton and Obama.
Running the whole process builds movement politics too. The idea of funding new candidates, outside the current field of players, is an attractive one, and it’s not aligned with the party politics either. That idea goes well beyond the primary process, which can be seen as both a run for President, and a building of the movement, funding, communications channels, etc… all needed to go ahead and impact Congress too.
Both are happening. Sanders isn’t focused much on this, but will be when the process completes and he knows what he’s doing. Should he be running for President, he’s going to delegate the Congressional efforts and put his funding and name behind it to get that started in parallel with a national run for President.
If he’s not President, then he’s going to be doing some targeted campaigning to advance the policy vision, while building and deploying the effort to get after Congress.
And that dynamic is very different from ’08. It’s a mixed game, long and short. I’ve not seen any significant media even begin to understand or talk about this. They should. It’s going to be news in the near future.
But I digress…
The process is clear. Where voters make a definitive decision, say one candidate gets enough delegates to deny the other a win outright, then it’s settled, and the Superdelegates are a formality.
Where that is not true, and it appears “the math” indicates that to be the most likely case, both candidates enter the conference needing Superdelegates to close the deal. At that point, the voters will is not definitive, and a case gets made to the Supers at that time.
They vote, and then there is a nominee.
Sanders is going to run the entire process, start to finish, make the case, and then it’s settled. Until then, the incentives for him, and the movement are not aligned with dropping out, or the traditional framing of this contest.
One example of that is the “trophy position” and the assumption that the loser would want to be in the cabinet, or get some significant office or other from which to build their career. Sanders wants policy, not any of that. And he’s at a point in his career where a trophy position carries too high of an opportunity cost to accept. It’s higher value to focus on the movement and policy goals regardless of whether or not he’s got the nomination.
Media does not currently understand this AT ALL. And again, they should.May 4, 2016 at 10:46 am #19753
So yes, “the math” indicates it’s extremely unlikely Sanders gets the nomination. True.
However, he’s being paid to run the whole process, and build a movement as well as seek the nomination. In this sense, the only math requirement is that a nomination be possible, which it currently is.
Few understand this too. Understandable as we simply aren’t seeing any meaningful coverage of Sanders in the deeper sense. And that’s sad, as the national dialog could be more significantly changed, which is a Sanders goal in all of this, with that coverage happening.
Finally, there is a risk with Clinton and the FBI, who isn’t writing off their investigation. They obviously aren’t making positive statements, though they did deny it being a benign “security review” and affirm “law enforcement matter.”
I sure hope that is settled.
As I’ve written earlier, I don’t know enough to know if it’s a big deal or not. I suspect not. Hope it’s not. But, the question is out there dammit! It needs to be resolved.
Say the FBI announces intent to prosecute criminally. Say that happens at various times. Now? Maybe we run with Sanders, or maybe we find we can resolve it with Clinton. But it can get settled before we have a commit on the general election run. Maybe they announce after the nom, during the general. That won’t play well, and that is a scenario I find completely unacceptable. Trump, rightfully, would have a goddammed field day with that shit.
Finally, we win the White House, and then those clowns announce. Great! We start off with a big mess right out of the gate. This is tolerable, but not desirable.
Sanders has a strong incentive to stay in to let this, and funding play out too. Sanders has what he needs to run a full race, not incur debt, and see what comes. Clinton appears to have that as well, but there are questions. I don’t give that a lot of weight, but I can understand Sanders seeing that as an advantage coming into the Conference in Philly, assuming he does well in remaining contests.
In short, his case to the Superdelegates may well be significantly improved between now and that time. He’s being paid directly to run a full, vigorous race, and will do that as he’s got zero incentive to do otherwise.
That, the media does not understand either. They have yet to really process the economic differences and how those play out in terms of motivations for the two campaigns to do what they appear to be doing.
All in all, quite interesting this year! I’m happy to vote for either, and I’m pleased with Sanders doing long game as well as short game politics right now. That’s smart, and something I hope plays out in new and interesting ways over the next two years.May 4, 2016 at 10:49 am #19754VitalogyParticipant
So what does Sanders’ win mean? Virtually nothing. If Clinton had performed as the polls predicted, she would have picked up seven delegates. Instead, she loses six. That’s a swing of 13, or 0.5% of the total needed for nomination. So, the victory gives Sanders “momentum,” which he will “maintain” for the rest of the month, since the next few states to vote (West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon) are very friendly to him. And then, we will get to June, by which time Clinton will have about 2,300 delegates, and she will be put over the top by New Jersey and California.
In his victory speech, Sanders insisted he still has a path to victory. If we humor him, and agree that he does, what would that path look like? Well, in addition to winning the remaining May contests, he would need to (a) crush Clinton in California and New Jersey, and then (b) leverage those wins to convince a lot of superdelegates to flip. But those are two enormous ifs; there’s currently no evidence to support any of it taking place. And note that flipping superdelegates is now literally Sanders’ only path to nomination: He was mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination in the primaries on Tuesday.May 4, 2016 at 11:21 am #19756
With respect, you’ve not convinced me of anything, Missing.
Trump is now the uncontested GOP nominee.
Sanders will not be the Democratic nominee. Period. It’s really, really, not going to happen. The hard cold facts do not support any other contention.
Every day this drags out he and his supporters are damaging Hillary for the general and making the Trump nightmare scenario more possible. That’s all that’s going on.May 4, 2016 at 11:34 am #19758
Always with much respect. 😀
Like always, I’m bringing what I see to the table.
More in a bit… I wanna talk about this, but I also need to drive.May 4, 2016 at 12:16 pm #19759
Kasich out!May 4, 2016 at 12:20 pm #19760radiodorkSpectator
I can’t wait tell crooked Hillary gets indicted for the e mails. I still think there is a pretty substantial chance that she will be indicted. They were talking about it on Cnn this morning and it’s still a dark cloud looming over her.May 4, 2016 at 1:02 pm #19761Andy BrownParticipant
dork “I can’t wait tell crooked Hillary gets indicted for the e mails. I still think there is a pretty substantial chance that she will be indicted.”
That isn’t going to happen, dork. Try breathing some clean air once in a while, you’re clearly unable to absorb facts and analyze.
LG “I feel like I’m trapped in a bad dream; arguing with stone blocks.”
That’s not a new phenomenon around here. Never has been, never will be. Suffice it to say that in an open forum, there will always be the presence of those that can read but can’t process sufficient facts to understand any point of view and simply jump on someone else’s train of thought.
LG: “Every day this drags out he and his supporters are damaging Hillary for the general and making the Trump nightmare scenario more possible.”
Actually, Hillary was quite damaged when she was the First Lady, then again when she lost to Obama and a third time as Sec. Of State. What Hillary has is chutzpah. Most successful politicians have it. Many unsuccessful ones have it too. The difference is that some, like Hillary, do get some work done. Others, like Cruz, get nothing done as they spend their time obstructing others from getting things done.
Supporting Bernie does not hurt Hillary’s chances one bit nor does it help Trump’s chances, either. In a CBS News poll in March, only 24 percent of respondents said they view Trump favorably, while 57 percent said they view him unfavorably – a net favorability rating of negative 33. Clinton’s numbers are slightly better than Trump’s, but not much: 31 percent of respondents told CBS News they view her favorably, while 52 percent said they view her unfavorably – a net favorability rating of negative 21. A CNN/ORC poll released Wednesday showed Clinton ahead of Trump nationwide, 54 to 41 percent, a result that’s roughly in line with other recent polls. A Suffolk/USA Today poll from the end of last month found Clinton up 11 points, 50 to 39 percent. And a CBS News poll from mid-April showed Clinton ahead of Trump, 50 to 40 percent. I’m not claiming these polls are anything more than a comparison which shows Trump’s negatives are larger than Hillary’s already, before the head to head part of the campaign gets into gear. In fact, although those numbers will change as the election draws near, it does show that both have some serious baggage that isn’t going to go away and will get worse more than likely as partisans make their choice now that the field of competitors has gone for the most part.
Bernie staying on the trail will in the end only help Hillary, not hurt her. The path to unifying her party comes at the convention when her platform adopts some of Bernie’s rhetoric. Trump on the other hand, is totally unpredictable. It’s hard to believe that Cruz’s devotees would ever embrace Trump’s scorch the earth approach to governance.
No. It’s clear that Trump, as I said a few months ago, will never be elected by the masses to the presidency. With no Latino support, no female support of significance, no labor support, a lifetime track record of blowing up jobs and working to keep wealth and power concentrated at the top all add up to Trump’s destiny as the loudest big mouthed loser in a Presidential election in quite a while.
Of course, come election time in the South, voting machines will be rigged by Republican power brokers and their success at making it near impossible for minorities to vote in some areas will just not be enough. The Democratic big blue wall gives Hillary a huge head start and I’ve yet to see anything that will change that equation.
dork “They were talking about it on Cnn this morning and it’s still a dark cloud looming over her.”
CNN plays in the game to make ratings, not to deliver a complete picture. Try reading and viewing numerous sources and use them when making a point, otherwise your attempts here are easily disregarded by anyone with half a brain.May 4, 2016 at 2:51 pm #19762
Andy, I share most of those sentiments. No harm, potential party gains with Sanders.
Philly is the best point of resolution in my view too. There is no undoing the campaign at this point. Way too much has been invested, and that is both personal and financial too.
If the body of Sanders supporters do not have a path forward, it’s a mess. Resolving it in Philly is where that path will be made clear.
Re: Sanders nom
Extremely unlikely. Totally agreed.
I’ll take a simple and short route this time LG:
First, it’s not really about convincing anyone as much as it is gathering and resonating support for a decidedly left economic policy vision. This is Sanders core game.
He, quite simply, is speaking for those who hire him. Those who have done so want a full run, all options properly and duly exercized. Sanders will deliver on that.
The math just doesn’t mean the same thing to Sanders and supporters as it does most others. The overall policy goal is advanced and made more possible nomination or not. It’s much better and faster with too.
IMHO, that is the big disconnect. Sanders just isn’t playing the same game most are used to.
He has significant support among future voters, and this campaign will, and already has, changed the economic dialog. IMHO for the better too. That, and the longer game plan are the basis for my own support.
I want a strong party. Sanders is speaking right to that, and doing well. I’m happy, nom or not.May 4, 2016 at 3:32 pm #19763
I’m not convinced wanting a strong party aligns with anything else you’ve outlined. It actually seems directly contradictory.
Attacking the presumptive Democratic nominee is likely not enabling the outcome you’re hoping for.May 5, 2016 at 12:44 am #19772
Let’s sort out attacks from contrasts.
Sanders has done very little in terms of attacks. He has drawn a contrast between himself and Clinton. The choice be for the voters is Stark as are the potential impacts.
To deny these is a little like saying the shit sandwich popularity and favorability would be way up if people didn’t know they could be getting beef.
Sanders doing that is good. I don’t think it would hurt this nation one bit to tack left on economic policy. Plenty of people agree. Hearing that debate in the Democratic Party speaks volumes compared to the one the GOP just had. People in Indiana were polled on this and the dominant response was energizing.
I also think having the next generation of regular voters age in hearing those things is awesome. Had Sanders done it independent, it would not be good. Having him do it as a Democrat, and he will run in all future elections as a Dem, speaks to the potential party future. Very good.
The future is very likely to trend Sanders way, unless no one speaks to it. Now that it is out there, people are going to work for it.
The unqualified mess was not good, and that’s a straight up attack.
As for the nominee? Well, Clinto is very likely to win, and it’s on her to represent her party well. If she does that, support will be very good and it will have been Sanders who brought it out and maximized it.
Should she not do that, support won’t be so good, and that goes back to the shit vs beef sandwich point above.
Overall, Clinton is either well vetted by the GOP or not? Assuming she is, there isn’t anything said in the primary that is a worry. Tepid at best. The Donald is going to be attacking, in the attacking sense fully and vigorously.
So which is it? Is she ready, or delicate? The former means Sanders has done no harm, and a lot of potential good. The latter is a meaningful question of electability.May 5, 2016 at 12:50 am #19773
When the longer game kicks in, the plan is to win contests and seat Progressives at various levels of government.
This is extremely good for the party. The President will need it anyway, and the GOP did this, seating a bunch of crazies. Long past time to remedy that
And it may put good policy on the table for realz too.
Deffo no harm, and one of those stark contrasts between Clinton and Sanders all in one. We have one candidate with a vision to improve government, and we have the other one basically saying they can win, and that they can get stuff done with the government we have.
This definitely is a matter for voters to consider.
I honestly have questioned the harm argument the whole time. Unless we have some ugly problem nobody is talking about, either of these two people should be able to win against Trump.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.