The worst possible outcome will be a series of strong Sanders victories that just come up short

[Recursion]

Right now 897 delegates remain to be pledged, and Sanders needs 587 of them, or 64.5%, to gain the majority.

He has five states coming up that should be good for him: KY, OR, MT, and the Dakotas. If these are WA- and WV-level wins, he'll get 42 delegates from KY, 46 from OR, 16 from MT, 15 from SD, and 14 from ND (and I think he'll outperform that in a couple of those) for a total of 133, leaving 454 he'll still need.

Clinton also has some races coming up that look strong for her: NM, NJ, VI, PR, and DC. If NM goes like AZ, Sanders will get 14 delegates. If VI goes like AS (not that they're much alike except for being territorial islands) Sanders will get 3. Let's say they split PR evenly; he gets 30 (the politics of PR are opaque to me and I haven't seen any polling). And let's say DC goes like Maryland, he'll get 8. And if NJ goes like NY, he'll get 56.

That leaves CA, from which he'd need 343, or 72%. That's unrealistic. But 60%, or 285 delegates, is conceivable, particularly since CA is semi-open and there won't be a contested GOP race (and, for that matter, the GOP having decided helps Sanders in every upcoming open or semi-open race, which is to say VI, PR, CA, MT, and NJ). That means he would go to the convention with 1968 delegates to Clinton's 2083, or a difference of 115 out of 4051 (a 3 percent difference or so).

I think the floor vote could get really ugly if that's what happens.

[PatrickforO]

1. Good. Because the Third Wayer empty suits have screwed us for far too long.

Let it get ugly, because the Democratic party deserted working class Americans and now we want it back! That's why Bernie is so good. Clinton would NEVER be campaigning this far left unless forced and Sanders has elevated the national discussion around issues that we've been needing to discuss for decades.

[Recursion]

3. Yes, yes, I know: white people everywhere want stuff "back"

It's very apparent this election cycle.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Why the uggliness

at least locally the crew that supports Sanders is quite mostly minority, POC

[Recursion]

8. Because the resentment is ugly and Sanders hasn't been ashamed to tap into it

One of the things that makes me leery about him, though he's the least-bad candidate remaining, unfortunately.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Because the young kids are all white?

that is a talking point that is ugly, and unproven by states like well HAWAII. I guess it is still white. Which is a surprise to them.

[Recursion]

15. Because the resentful middle-aged people in the rust belt are all white (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. But the kids in HI for example are not white

and they voted for Sanders. See this is a nasty race baiting.. which I see you guys still pushing.. Hell, today I saw a heck of a dog whistle. It is to the point where apparently myself am white and from the midwest. It is that bad.


Go read this #berniemademewhite

By the way. People in the midwest are resentful of NAFTA... and that is independent of skin color. So are a lot of the folks here who used to work for Aeronautic companies that these days work out of Mexicalli.

[Recursion]

21. Did I say they were white?

What is so hard to understand about pointing out that Sanders has tapped into working class white resentment? Can you not actually see that? Or do you think the claim that he does that means that that is his only support?

I honestly don't understand your response: I'm complaining about how Sanders has talked to a lot of white voters. You're saying "some of his supporters in some places are not white". How on earth does that relate to my complaint?

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Because you are exagerating what you are seeing

and continue to play that card, What part of HAWAII is the most diverse state in the US and it was called a white state by a member of the campaign are you missing? And people are pissed over things like NAFTA. This is independent of melanin content and to be brutally honest, the resentment of NAFTA is not just limited to the United States.

[Recursion]

26. Why do you keep bringing up Hawaii? That has absolutely nothing to do with the rust belt

That's honestly about as different from a rust belt state as you can be. I'm complaining, very specifically, about how Sanders has talked to poor and lower middle class white voters, and you keep deflecting to parts of the campaign that have absolutely nothing to do with that. Why?

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Because it has all to do with the shitty race baiting from people like you

and the rust belt voted the way it did because of things like once again NAFTA. It was not just white folks voting their ever decreasing wallets. You keep deflecting the fact that this is a fucking change election brought by things like yes free trade agreements that among other things have sent jobs to places like Mexico, and yes SOUTH Korea. And people are also voting due to the TPP.

Go on, continue to play race. I mean we all know that PoC were not part of that Middle Class that lost jobs to the tune of at least tens of thousands in Detroit? RIGHT? And for the whole state, they did not lose 154,497 Trade-Related Michigan Job Losses in Michigan due to NAFTA.

You believe all those were white jobs?

This is why your use of race is so damn disgusting. Have a good evening.

[Recursion]

33. It's absolutely not a shared narrative. It's entirely white. Look:

Poorest black quintile line:



Compared to the poorest white quintile line:



The lowest three quintiles, black and white:



Stagnant wages is a racial narrative, in response to PoC finally beginning to catch up with the white quintile below them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. As usual you are misusing charts

go argue with African Americans and statistics

Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent. The average under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, “has always been double” [that of Whites] but it hasn’t always been 14 percent. The administration was silent when Black unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011.

Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent. The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently, more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.

http://www.blackpressusa.com/is-black-america-better-off-under-obama/

As I said, the rust belt with includes minorities was not about white people fearing whatever, it was about economics. And myself am sick and tired of your race bating, and by you, I mean all of you. Just stop it. And I say this as a POC, ok., STOP IT!

[lancer78]

55. It was a Bernie supporter

who said "We want it back". That sounds pretty close to the Tea Party "Take our country back".

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. And that could be taken ten ways to Sunday

you know that.

We want it, what is it, in this case? White privilege, or a working economy for the middle class?

This is why this is shitty as a divisive tool. This will make people like me distrust people like you from now on. There are many good reasons by the way, that I do not consider many HRC supporters my allies anymore. I trust them as far as I can thrown them. These days with a tweaked back and an old EMS injury it is not too far, but you get the point.

[votesparks]

63. As a rust belter

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. The resentment is widespread and goes across all demographics, because people watched trade deals destroy their communities and families. How hard is this to understand?

Do you walk to the store and see half of the buildings boarded up?

We do. That affects the psyche of everyone who lives in these areas, and not in a positive way.

On the issue of economics, they are rightfully resentful.

I campaign in majority minority communities all the time. The resentment is also heavy among older minorities who formerly worked in manufacturing and industry, who watched their jobs shipped off, and their communities fall apart due to neoliberal free trade deals, which made the rust belt rusty.

[pinebox]

74. Chicago, Detroit, etc are all white?

[Armstead]

77. And middle aged white people don't matter....Hoooookay

[Recursion]

18. If you want to ignore the supremacist sentiment behind "I want my (whatever) back", feel free

It's hard for me to ignore it though.

[Recursion]

27. And there's a reason I didn't vote for Clinton in the primary

What do your valid complaints about Clinton have to do with my worries about Sanders's willingness to stoke lower class white resentment?

[silvershadow]

46. The reason you see that is the Bankers and Wall Street stole every god-darned thing

that wasn't nailed down, and we thought President Obama was going to do something about it. We voted for him in numbers sufficient to land him the White House twice. I poured my heart and soul into it, just as I have this Bernie campaign, right down to tweeting out on election day important info being broadcast on TV, including "Stay in line, you have the right to vote" or a poll hours extension, etc. What happened was an EPIC crime of massive proportions. So far, not much has happened, the problem is still there and getting worse. You can't throw millions of hard working families out of their homes fraudulently and not expect blow-back. When the corporate interests became worse, not better, under President Obama, whom for the most part I have still supported, and particularly defended against these wholly embarrassing and undignified attempts at complete nullification by congress, I am more than disappointed. That I will get my justice under another President is a given, now. Sanders has tapped into exactly that. He's caught lightning in a bottle. It was there all along, for the taking. He just chose to reach out and grab it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. It is what they know and then they call Bernie Supporters racist

it is tone deaf in the extreme

[Fairgo]

54. I agree

There something so slimy about this. I am actually a bit disgusted.

[amborin]

28. even centrist economists agree FTAs harm the US economy; Bernie presents facts

[Recursion]

29. That's completely untrue

They said they cost manufacturing jobs, which is not the same thing as "harming the US economy".

[That Guy 888]

39. Yay the racism charge again.

The Southern states were called "the confederacy" just to deliberatly insult African American voters, and had nothing to do with the "Blue Dog Democrat Coalition&quot about 80% of them were in "the confederate state&quot . Or being told by the DNC that Democratic candidates can't win in the South unless they're conservatives.

Implying that there was a deliberate racist insult is not Clinton "tapping into" racism for her own ends.

[frylock]

44. No, no. You know fuckall if that's your takeaway.

[think]

50. I won't pick up your corporate trash. Litter bug....

[Ash_F]

57. Sanders won the most diverse state in the nation.

[Lizzie Poppet]

70. Off to Ignore with you and that steaming load of race-baiting shit.

Seriously...fuck that.

[pinebox]

73. What a disgusting statement

[PatrickforO]

80. Race or ethnicity has nothing to do with it. Substitute working class for white and you will be

closer.

For generations, since this nation was founded on the blood of slaves and native Americans, the elites have used race as a wedge to divide and conquer the working class so that people would a) not notice the elites picking their pockets, and b) blame and hate each other instead.

Hey, divide and conquer works. It's why Bernie is behind on delegates. You bet. Because his platform would help us all and remove much of the economic incentive for white working class racism. But, of course, we're not allowed to say that. Oops. I just did...

[2banon]

37. This!^^^^^^10000!

[yeoman6987]

47. Do they have second ballots like GOP?

[Recursion]

53. That would only happen if a bunch of the supers sit out the first round, or vote for someone else

I mean, if a lot of the supers voted for de la Fuente or O'Malley or somebody in the first round, neither Sanders nor Clinton would have a majority on the first ballot. I'm doubting that will happen.

[msongs]

2. why ugly? 50% plus one = winner nt

[Recursion]

4. Have you seen the past few months?

I'd expect a lot of harassment of unpledged delegates, for one thing...

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Just a note on your analysis

the CA D party has opened it's primary to NDPs. (which in this state actually are more than both parties combined.) BUT, it has not opened it's primary to Republicans. Assuming they wanted to OP Chaos the D side of the House, the deadline passed already.

As to the rest... there is a possibility for him to win very narrowly the whole thing Highly unlikely, but possible. It does hinge on this state. YAY we matter! Sort off.

I am still going to vote for minimum wage, the primary remains an after thought.

My error the deadline has not passed, so I suppose a few Rs could change to NDPs, which I doubt many will.

[Recursion]

7. Right, but NDPs might have been tempted to get an R ballot to vote for (or against) Trump

Which means that any NDP who requests a Presidential ballot is probably going to request a D one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. They could not

You needed to register Republican to vote in their very much closed primary, why the Cruz Rally had more registrations forms than the Sanders rally, no I am not kidding. They had people registering at the 13K Sanders rally, I spotted a total of five, and they had the same at the Cruz 2000 person rally. The greens also have a closed primary. This is my state. So I know this. We report on this regularly.

The enthusiasm is incidentally very high and in San Diego, there is this little increase the Minimum Wage on the ballot, which should in theory pump up our historically low turnout. June Primary electorate trends far more conservative, older and white... but that is on the ballot.. so there is that. The crew from South of the 8 might actually show up, and VOTE.. and for sake of low wage workers I hope they do.

Way, way, way too much inside baseball as to SD politics, I know.

[Live and Learn]

10. The deadline is May 23rd, or did you mean something else. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Earlhy voting already started

let me check though, because I think that already passed. My registrar will have it. Give me a sec

[Live and Learn]

14. 15 days before the primary. I know because we have been registering people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. I cover this shit, I have not registered a single voter, but I hope

due to us posting the info from the registrar as is... helped people to register.

I just take the news release and post it.

[Live and Learn]

20. I know you do which is why I thought I misunderstood. We have reigstered thousands of people.

It has really been incredible this year.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. We have so many balls in the air

tomorrow is yet again, COURT.

Oy

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. My error, you are correct

[highprincipleswork]

30. Hillary and the Democratic Party need to embrace Sanders supporters instead of Republicans. That is

the far more prudent and also much easier way to victory.

Bernie has already shown that he can attract plenty of Republicans, even with Progressive positions. He can also raise plenty of money without kowtowing to Wall Street and vested interests.

Why can't Hillary do the same? Is it because, contrary to public opinion around here on the Hillary side, that she really can't help herself from being a CONSERVATIVE!!!

[Recursion]

31. Maybe, maybe not: that's an arithmetic question

Is she more likely to pick up people to her left or to her right, given Trump's nomination? She can't do both, and she'll probably move to her right because that's where more of the voters are.

[highprincipleswork]

34. Bullshit. The perception is that is where the voters are, but that is a Reagan era perpetrated

fallacy. So much wrong and misguided thinking gets us exactly to where we are today.

When Trump attracts voters by being against trade bills, is that to the Left or to the Right? Answer, to the Right. Do people on the "Left" and the "Right" dig it? Yes, because they know they are getting screwed.

Hillary, if she continues the way she normally goes, will lose this election by going Rightward. I promise it. Also because Republicans of any kind are going to have a hard time voting for her and getting beyond their natural and long-ingrained animosity.

Trump will attack on the Left, if she's not careful, and she's going to be left with nowhere to stand but with her loyal minorities. Will that be enough? That's where your arithmetic will come in. But with roughly half the Democrats and Independents who have votes in the Democratic primaries pulling Sanders way, she's find far great numbers there than she is ever going to get out of Republican voters.

It also is more appealing. Party unity and all that.

But if these centrist assholes keep wanting to fight with those who sympathize with traditional Democratic values that are now considered Leftish, they will have a bloody fucking fight on their hands, for as long as we have a leg to stand on. I promise you that.

[Recursion]

36. I realize you very strongly believe that. Gallup says you're wrong

Last edited Thu May 12, 2016, 03:35 AM - Edit history (1)

So does every other poll I know of. You could be right, but I don't think you are.

[highprincipleswork]

42. You and I don't read the same polls. And if you don't think the reality of what most people think

has been skewed for decades by the media, part of the reason we are now in this hellish hole, then I don't know what to say.

if you ask people to identify what they are, they will predict moderate or conservative. If you ask them what policies and programs they believe in and want, Bernie Sanders pretty much takes the cake.

Be honest, most people who vote against him even here are voting for reasons of
she's a woman
he's a white male
they think she's got more experience
they think his supporters got too rowdy

Things like that.

Even Hillary has tacked far towards his positions on just about everything in order to get this far in the nomination process. Why then does it make sense to abandon those she picked up that way, plus a sizable portion of invigorated Bernie supporters both Democratic and Independent and Republican, in order to gamble she will pick up Republicans that lean more rightward?

On the face of it, that is the dumbest strategic move I can think that is possible. And surely doesn't make Clinton out to be the "Progressive" every Hillary supporter here defends her as. No, that seems to mean she just can't help herself from veering back to that position, which is why so many longtime Progressives just simply don't trust her at all.

No, the simplest, easiest, most unifying thing she can do is continue with the stances she has taken to get this far, knowing that the American people are just fine with that. In fact, we should learn from Bernie's miraculously unbelievably successful campaign (as well as Trump's success with some of the same anti-trade deal and outsourcing positions) that the American people are practically willing to undergo "revolution" to get relief in these areas. She doesn't have to call it revolution, but c'mon, Populism sells.

Embrace it and ride with it, or Trump will beat you to the punch and will win in November.

[Ash_F]

61. 63% of Americans think the minimum wage should be $15 by 2020

A position that is objectively to the left of Sanders' plan, which is by 2022.

Sanders is right in line with American public opinion on every position, except the death penalty.

And history will prove him right on the DP just like it did with segregation and gay rights.

[Beartracks]

35. "attract Republicans even with Progressive positions"

Go Bernie! Progressive ideas help everyone.

But when I read about Hillary's recent support from Republicans afraid of Trump, I fear it wasn't because her positions are particularly progressive.

====================

[lapfog_1]

40. lets say that this works out the way you see it

perhaps after the first vote comes up short for both bernie and Hillary...

the dems do something of a compromise and suggest Elizabeth Warren at the top of the ticket. With the active support of Bernie and enough Hillary defectors... I could see her winning on a second or third ballot.

Note to Hillbots and Berners... I am not suggesting that this is the best thing for the Democratic Party... but we have a unique opportunity to elect a "far left" candidate because Trump is simply so crazy... so Warren is possibly the best compromise.

[CentralMass]

45. I'm going to guess that Senator Warren has no desire to be Hillary Clinton's VP.

[CoffeeCat]

41. So basically what you're saying is that

the monkeys are still in control of the cabana.

[joshcryer]

48. Clinton lost by 62 pledged delegates in 2008.

If Sanders contests, like people thought Clinton would do, he'd be ethically worse than Clinton, and I simply don't see that happening.

[Recursion]

49. I'm more pessimistic than you

And even if Sanders himself does the right thing I have no idea what a lot of supporters will act like...

[joshcryer]

51. Fair enough. You can't predict the ethics of some "supporters."

But the first floor vote is on the nomination, Sanders isn't a fool, he'll have long conceded before then, and the word will be out on platform messaging. Talk to the drafting committees, pull some influence, he still comes out on top.

Delegates will be well aware of this going in to the process.

The best thing to happen would be a vote by acclamation, but I dunno if that happens. Probably Clinton wins the nomination vote, Sanders gets to speak about his platform, and his stuff is added by vote in the wee hours of the night, as Clinton delegates retire to their hotels.

[think]

52. Ethics....

[Ash_F]

58. This is not fully comparable to 2008.

The difference is that Obama won even though the machine backed Clinton. It was not close to a fair fight but he still won. A testament to the youth movement back then.

Clinton had the backing of the establishment this time too. If Sanders had the establishmment and came up short then it would be comparable to 2008.

[joshcryer]

60. Sanders is not less ethical than Clinton was in 2008.

She bowed out gracefully and even went to far as to end the vote and nominate him by acclamation.

The "establishment" has nothing to do with it. The supers jumped ship to Obama as it was clear he was ahead. Clinton had no choice, and neither will Sanders.

It's a matter of unifying of becoming a pariah.

[SidDithers]

65. "It's a matter of unifying of becoming a pariah."...

It really is that simple.

Well said.

Sid

[morningfog]

66. It has nothing to with ethics, it's just the process.

A process caused by the use of super delegates.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. She could have used that strong support as a mandate to promote her vision.

I'm leaving the obvious unsaid.

[BreakfastClub]

59. It's not going to happen. Sanders is running out of money now.

It won't be long...

"Meanwhile, Sanders officials say they “probably” won’t spend more on television advertising in the notoriously expensive state, which some California political experts say is virtually a declaration of surrender.

In another sign of trouble, a senior aide says the campaign is likely to stop producing new TV spots all together. That, after the campaign has cut more than 264 different TV ads."
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-hobbled-heading-golden-state

[LWolf]

62. I think that would be a positive and

healthy thing for the party.

[ViseGrip]

64. And after a six month blackout, and polling ahead of Trump, he does have a strong case.

[texstad79]

67. Slim chance

of that happening IMHO. The Dakotas and Montana are the only states left, where he can win big. Everything else will be a `virtual tie` or a big loss for Sanders.

[B Calm]

68. .

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. When has the Vermont independent won a state as large and heterogeneous as CA by 20%

[Bluenorthwest]

72. There is no State as large as CA, so your question is specious. Hillary beat Barack by 8.3%

in CA on Super Tuesday 2008. And CA demographics are unique to CA, and this link will lay them out for you. Also you can enter other States and the site will list the stats side by side for comparison. It's super useful:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/06

[Bluenorthwest]

71. I think that's a great scenario for many reasons.

It's good for the candidate for the convention to be a lock walking in, but it is good for the people for it to be a close count and a process of engagement to get to the nominating number.
In 1992 Jerry Brown seconded his own nomination as a vehicle to get a speaking slot, not allowed to him as he had not withdrawn his candidacy.
Bob Casey caused a big stink because he was not given a speaking slot, claimed it was because he was anti choice, but they had 5 anti choice Democrats speaking.

Conventions with contentious processes are not ugly, they are exactly what such conventions are meant to be. It's supposed to be a process, not a sort of Christmas morning for the nominee.

[George II]

75. With the republican nomination sewed up and California being "semi-closed", its quite possible....

...that a large group of "independents" that will vote for Trump in November will cross over and vote for Sanders in the Democratic primary. That's not going to get Sanders the numbers he needs, but it could make that primary a lot closer or even tip it to a very close Sanders win.

But it won't be enough - no matter what happens Clinton will get anywhere from 200-300 delegates anyway.

[aikoaiko]

76. I don't see this as a worst case scenario at all.

The party has to come to grips with Bernie's agenda.

The more votes and delegates he receives, the less likely the DNC can ignore that agenda.

[Thinkingabout]

78. Hillary needs 148 delegates, now seriously, do you really think she will not get 148 more delegates?

Those super delegates which have not endorsed will provide this number and Hillary will gain 148 and more in the remainder primaries and this will lock Sanders out of obtaining the needed delegates. Sanders had twenty five years to establish relationships, he did not.