Imagine...

[Lodestar]

Imagine — I mean really imagine — that you’re watching CNN on June 7th and Hillary has just lost California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. This comes on the heels of losses in Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oregon. Clinton hasn’t won a state since April; she’s behind Donald Trump in national polling; she’s tied with or behind Donald Trump in all of the battleground states; she’s lost the pledged-delegate battle to Bernie Sanders 53 percent to 47 percent since March 1st; she’s lost 19 of the final 25 state primaries and caucuses; her unfavorables are the highest of any Democrat the Party has considered running since World War II; she’s losing independent voters to Donald Trump; she’s still under investigation by the FBI, and an international criminal is claiming (credibly) that he successfully hacked her basement server and stole classified and top-secret data; 40 percent of Sanders supporters are saying they won’t vote for her; and she’s come to look exactly like two other Democratic losers — unlikable policy wonks Al Gore and John Kerry — rather than the movement candidate Bernie Sanders is and Barack Obama was.

The Clinton camp is betting that Hillary loses zero super-delegates in this situation because — well, just because.

The Sanders camp is betting that the Democratic Party cares more about winning in November than gamely running a terrible dynasty candidate against a beatable Republican foe.

In the hypothetical John King has imagined, that bet doesn’t seem so unreasonable.

Every non-partisan in the national media who’s actually looked at the above scenario has concluded that super-delegates would switch to Sanders in the situation described here — the only question is how many. And if you’ve actually imagined the scenario described above — if you actually imagined the rank panic that would be running through the Democratic Party should Hillary lose the largest state in the country to Bernie Sanders at a time when all the hard-data and environmental indicators are suggesting she’s a possible loser in the fall — you’re thinking, as I am, that the answer to the question, “How many supers would jump ship in that scenario?” is the same answer I got from John King when I asked him this question directly after the Indiana primary: “Lots.”

To get to that point, Sanders has to win Indiana — which he’s already done. And he has to win West Virginia, which he now has. Now he’s looking ahead to Kentucky and Oregon next week, and Oregon looks like a safe win while Kentucky an eminently possible one. Should he sweep Clinton for the third Tuesday in a row, he’ll be looking forward to just one final test: June 7th. Sanders is a plausible winner on that date in California, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and New Mexico; his longest odds are in New Jersey, a state where he nevertheless polled within single digits of Clinton in the second-to-last poll taken in the state (the most recent poll is far less favorable, but also, given the political make-up of the state and the fact that Trump’s lack of competitors on the GOP side will drive up interest and turnout on the Democratic side, less plausible). More importantly, perhaps, King’s scenario doesn’t even require that Sanders win New Jersey — merely that he take nine of the final ten contests, and therefore a still-staggering 18 of the last 25. This isn’t just doable — it’s entirely possible, given the momentum, demographics, and polling in the upcoming states.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/11/bernie-sanders-could-still-win-democratic-nomination-no-seriously

[baldguy]

1. Imagine defeat against Trump...

[LWolf]

2. That's why we're imagining Bernie.

Because that's how we beat Trump.

[baldguy]

3. Trump gets beat by writing the lines he uses against Clinton?

Members of a tag team aren't out there to fight each other. Trump and Sanders are the tag team.

[LWolf]

5. Trump gets beat by Sanders.

At least, according to every poll.

You know, I think you need to hold a mirror up to your sig line.

[baldguy]

6. Yeah, Tweedle-Dum beats Tweedle-Dee every time.

Unfortunately, they're not running against one another.

And Clinton still wins against both of them.

[LWolf]

7. I don't think

Clinton, should she be nominated, will beat Trump.

[baldguy]

9. Then you don't beleive the polls.

The same ones you cite showing Sanders beating Trump.

[LWolf]

10. Sure I do.

I not only beleive them, but I believe them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511953192

[baldguy]

11. If Candidate C beats Candidate B and Candidate T,

and Candidate B can beat Candidate T, but can't beat Candidate C, who's the stronger candidate?

C > B > T

And that's with Candidate T & Candidate B tag-teaming Candidate C (with T in the driver's seat), and before Candidate T unloads on Candidate B, of course.

[LWolf]

12. So far,

Trump is the last candidate standing, so it can be said that he "beat" his primary opponents.

The Democratic Party process is far from over, so that's where your bizarre attempt breaks down.

Should HRC win the nomination, and she might, she is shaky against Trump, at least according to "the polls" you wonder if I "beleive" in. Sanders is not.

HRC has some strong support within the Democratic Party, but not outside the party. Sanders has broad cross-over support. That's why Clinton could beat Sanders in the primary and lose the GE...which is what I think the outcome will be should the worst happen at our Democratic Convention.

[baldguy]

14. Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true.

And everything you say has been repeated ad infinitum by the Republicans.

[Hiraeth]

15. Allow me. Fixed your sigline for you:

Last edited Fri May 13, 2016, 11:49 AM - Edit history (1)

As of this moment, and from now on, the leader of the "Not Bernie" Party is Donald Trump. And as long as Clinton continues her campaign, she's acting as one of Trump's minions.

You're welcome!



PS: Actually, both Clinton and Trump are working together to keep Sanders out of the White House. This is what is meant about upsetting the status quo. One is the dog and one is the pony and together they are putting on quite the show.

[baldguy]

16. Riiiight - Trump and Clinton are using the same attacks, word for word, against Sanders.

Because Sanders poses such a threat to both of them.



You're not even in the same universe with that.

[Hiraeth]

17. ? your post makes no sense. You do understand what a dog and pony show is, right?

The dog acts one way for the audience and the pony acts another way. Together, in tandem, they steal all the thunder.
Thing is they are both happy for the other one to win.
They have accomplished their Main Goal of keeping Sanders out of the White House.

This is the main objective.

[LWolf]

18. I haven't lied to begin with, let alone repeated any, and

it's disingenuous at best to say that I have. At worst, it's your own lie.

Republicans? Since I don't tune in to them, I wouldn't know. I know I haven't said anything here I haven't heard other Democrats say, though.

You are really bad at conversation.

[anotherproletariat]

4. I'm saving this one to use in my abnormal psych class next semester...thanks! nt

[firebrand80]

8. I think it's a silly argument

To say that the SDs would or should go to Bernie because he's won "x out of the last y" number of states.

1. When or where you got your delegates is not the proper standard. How many delegates you have is.

2. Hillary was fighting a 2 front war for the last 1/4 of the process, while Bernie has had the luxury of not having to look past June.

3. Momentum is a myth. Each candidate has pretty much performed as expected on the basis of demographics. Any precieved momentum had been a function of how the calendar happens to fall. Bernie's "7 out of 8" didn't help him in NY, MD, or PA. Those wins for Hillary didn't help her in WV. If all the Southern states voted in June, Hillary would have the "momentum."

4. This argument treats all states as equal. Hillary has won almost all of the large delegate, GE battleground states: OH, PA, FL, VA.

[Tarc]

13. Imagine that you're watching CNN on June 3rd 2008, and Obama has just lost

South Dakota and Puerto Rico, on the heels of losing Kentucky, West Virginia, India, and Pennsylvania?

How's that work out for ol' Barack?