Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumInteresting analysis.
I still am trying to figure out if all of it makes sense. Talk to me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/5-reasons-bernie-sanders-wins-big-with-cruz-dropout_b_9834348.html
LuvLoogie
(6,995 posts)SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)Basically, the democratic base, African Americans, Hispanics, and Women, should not pick the nominee. Instead, independents, party leaders, and rat screwing republicans should.
There's also a section about Trump and Sanders ganging up on the nominee and Bernie getting more press, because the press loves a lost cause.
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)Seems legit.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Whats the big payoff for helping Trump defeat Hillary?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and the people, so angered by the pain Trump causes will rise and there'll be a REVOLOOSHUN!
Yeah. Right.
Koinos
(2,792 posts)There are many questionable statements in this Huffington Post article. It was written by Seth Abramson, who has a strong Sanders bias. See this Washington Post article alluding to Seth Abramson's strange claim that Sanders is winning the primary:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/23/sorry-bernie-supporters-your-candidate-is-not-currently-winning-the-democratic-primary-race/
Many of Abramson's arguments are based on the same faulty premises that the Sanders campaign has asserted of late. Citing the Rasmussen poll's giving Trump an edge over Clinton is questionable and should raise a red flag. Stating that Sanders could win 22 or 23 of the final primaries is also greatly exaggerated. Moreover, the article also assumes, as the Sanders campaign has wrongly claimed, that superdelegates will be concerned enough about national polling to worry about Clinton's chances. This is based on Sanders' latest creation of wishful thinking.
There are many implausible presuppositions in this quote:
Clinton will not have to spend more money. She will cut back on spending for the primary and pretty much ignore Sanders. She has done well in key states without spending half as much as Sanders. She may lose some primaries by cutting back, but I also believe that Sanders is running out of money, and the FEC will be knocking on his door for repayment of illicit contributions. Abramson also states that Sanders "will avoid attacking Clinton directly." If Abramson believes that, I have a bridge or two to sell him.
The author writes:
I do not think so. Indiana was likely to go to Sanders, due to demographics; but most of the remaining primaries are closed primaries or primaries where "crossing over" to vote Democratic will be difficult and inconvenient. Finally, it is a stretch to believe that Republicans will change parties in great numbers just to vote for Sanders. It is just as or more likely that Republicans will not turn out to vote at all in the coming primaries, now that Cruz is out. Abramson's statement is simply not reality-based.
The author writes:
If you notice, the author skips more recent and more reliable pollsters who give a big edge to Clinton over Trump in the general election. Rasmussen is a bad polling source (read "Republican-biased" . Trump is his own biggest enemy, and that won't change. African-Americans, Hispanics, and Women are constituencies that Trump cannot win over. Again, Abramson is seeing things through the bloodshot eyes of Sanders. Superdelegates will not base their vote on the latest hypothetical polling of the general election. They will base their vote on Clinton's success in the primaries and upon their long-held strong working relationship and friendship with Clinton. Superdelegates endorsed Clinton because they liked her. They won't stop liking her because of a Rasmussen or Fox poll. They know she has been and will continue to be the best candidate for the Democratic party. They have become even more certain of this in the light of Sanders' hostility to the party, temperamental problems, questionable biography, and failure to fund down-ticket candidates. They see Sanders as a very bad bet.
But this is the real fairy tale in the article:
This is Sanders' "fantastical" talking point, simply accepted as plausible by the Huffington Post. See Rachel's and others' take down of this bit of mythical thinking. There will NOT be a contested convention, whatever Sanders or Abramson believes that means.
There are many more problems with the article.
spooky3
(34,439 posts)DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)Her Sister
(6,444 posts)Good to dispel nonsense! Thanks for posting!
BootinUp
(47,141 posts)Koinos
(2,792 posts)Acid sprayed all over the place, just as in Sanders' campaign.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)The main problem with supposition in the article is that the author failed to realize that Republicans can't simply decide to go vote in every remaining Democratic primary and caucus. Note that most of the remaining primaries and caucuses are "closed" to everyone but registered Democrats. (The number of delegates for each contest is provided in parenthesis.
Sat, May 7 Guam Primary (12) Closed
Tue, May 10 West Virginia Primary (37) Mixed
Tue, May 17 Kentucky Primary (61) Closed
Tue, May 17 Oregon Primary (73) Closed
Sat, Jun 4 Virgin Islands Caucus (12) Open
Sun, Jun 5 Puerto Rico Caucus (67) Open
Tue, Jun 7 California Primary (546) Mixed
Tue, Jun 7 Montana Primary (27) Open
Tue, Jun 7 New Jersey Primary (142) Closed
Tue, Jun 7 New Mexico Primary (43) Closed
Tue, Jun 7 North Dakota Caucus (23) Closed
Tue, Jun 7 South Dakota Primary (25) Closed
Tue, Jun 14 District of Columbia Primary (46) Closed
Rules vary for "mixed" primaries. According to official documentation I have found on mixed :
The California mixed primary it works like this: "The Democratic and American Independent parties notified the Secretary of State that they will allow voters who did not state a political party preference to vote the presidential ballot of their parties in the upcoming June 7, 2016, Presidential Primary Election." This to me means that independents (voters who did not state a political party preference) can vote in the California Democratic, but registered Republicans (who did state a party preference) cannot. "Voter registration closes 15 days before the primary election." So currently registered Republicans can vote in the June 7th Democratic primary, but they will have to hurry to change their party affiliation by 5/20. (I don't think many Republicans will bother.)
The West Virginia mixed primary it works like this: "The two major parties both allow unaffiliated voters to participate in party primaries. Unaffiliated voters choose one party's ballot. Party members must vote in their party's primary." "Deadline to register to vote for the Primary Election is April 19th" So independents can vote, but registered Republicans can't."
So the only open contests where Republicans can do their data work are the Virgin Islands Caucus (12 delegates) Puerto Rico Caucus (67 delegates) and the Montana Primary (27 delegates). So only 106 delegates are at risk and 79 of those delegates will be elected in caucus. Are Republicans going to want to sit through a caucus to cast their votes for Bernie? Maybe, but I think that is unlikely.
All in all, Republicans are not well positioned to help Sanders win the remaining primaries and caucuses.