Maddow: Don't be mad, its not me being mean. Its math.

[workinclasszero]

[Octafish]

1. Childish and Undemocratic.

And that's being nice.

[DrDan]

34. you're kidding, right? absolutely nothing childish or undemocratic about it - just the truth

presented in an objective message.

[Octafish]

42. Look at the background.

Adult?

[DrDan]

43. a bit sensitive?

[Octafish]

46. No, accurate. (NT)

[Adrahil]

49. Butthurt. Butthurt everywhere. NT

[Octafish]

58. Asinine.

But, you knew that.

[radical noodle]

52. She always uses that background for debunking things

[Octafish]

59. Great.

Hope she continues to shine as a rising star of corporate journalism.

[radical noodle]

60. I always thought truth in journalism was the goal...

The use of that background has nothing to do with corporate journalism and everything to do with getting people to pay attention to the truth.

[Octafish]

62. Great points.

Truth is the point of journalism. Perhaps injecting interesting and entertaining graphics, like dumbed down discussion, is what some people need to pay attention. My problems with Rachel and her colleagues stem from seeing news devolve over the decades to become little more than the propaganda arm of War Inc.

[SidDithers]

2. DU rec...nt

Sid

[rbrnmw]

3. kick

[Surya Gayatri]

4. Loved that sequence when I saw it last night! LOL!

Poor old Bern...math doesn't love him anymore!

[all american girl]

5. That was funny at the end.

[CrowCityDem]

6. She's absolutely right.

[samson212]

7. Lame. No actual math here.

I'm getting a bit tired of people citing Math without actually doing any. If Bernie needs to win 65% of the remaining delegates, he got damn close in WV. 65% of the delegates is just under 19. He got 18.

Also, saying he needs 65% of the REMAINING delegates includes states other than WV. I'd say getting 62% (of the delegates) does NOT preclude totaling 65% in the remaining races; in fact, Bernie's on track to make that happen.

This win DOESN'T discount Bernie. If anything, it strengthens the argument that he can win. It's an uphill battle, but WV shows that it's possible.

[hack89]

10. The hard math is the required margins of victory to win that 65%

he has to absolutely blow out Clinton in every remaining state to even have a chance. That is not going to happen.

[samson212]

11. It's not a certainty

As I said, it's a longshot. But you're ignoring my point, which is that Bernie's win in WV is in line with that goal. Rachel is claiming in this video that the results in WV mean that he can no longer hope to win, when in reality, the situation is essentially unchanged from before the WV election -- he still has to win 65% of the delegates going forward. It's dishonest to claim that it's now impossible for Bernie to win, because of WV.

[YouDig]

15. No, she's saying that Bernie couldn't win before WV, and he still can't win.

And it's right. She was responding to the dishonest arguments in the media saying that WV somehow makes this a race, and Bernie is right back in it.

The truth is, his prospects are worse than they were before WV, and his prospects before WV were already grim.

[mythology]

19. No it's really not

Because it ignores the demographics of the race. For whatever reason Sanders hasn't made in roads with black and Hispanic voters. So you can't plausibly assume he's going to start doing so now. So if you give an overly generous 50 50 split in states like New Jersey and New Mexico, you're looking at needing to win 70% in other states. That's been done only in Vermont.

There is no viable path to the nomination for Sanders that doesn't involve a sudden shift of super delegates against the pledged delegates.

[samson212]

63. Yeesh

First of all, if anyone is ignoring demographics in this race, it's you. It's true that Bernie didn't do great amongst black voters at the beginning of the primaries, but that doesn't mean he hasn't made inroads. From that article:

So which point of view is correct? Sanders does horribly with minority voters? Or the media do a bad job of telling the story of Sanders' existing minority support?

"Well, I think, looking at the exit polls," Randy Brown of Edison Research told NPR, "they're both correct."

Edison conducts entrance and exit polling for American elections and has conducted polls on primary voters and caucus goers in 20 states so far this election.

Brown said, by some measures, Sanders actually leads among black and Latino voters.

"Among African-Americans, who are 17 through 29, Bernie Sanders is actually leading that group, 51 to 48 [percent]," he said. "Among 17- to 29-year-old Hispanics, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 66-34."

This election is about age more than anything else.

Secondly, as I said, I acknowledge that Bernie's campaign is a long shot presently. All I was arguing is that Rachel skewed the numbers by looking at the popular vote and not the delegate count, ignoring the fact that there were several other candidates who approached pluralities in the WV primary.

In general, this election cycle has been full of people and pundits making proclamations backed by "math", while ignoring simple mathematical realities. A statement like

There is no viable path to the nomination for Sanders that doesn't involve a sudden shift of super delegates against the pledged delegates.

discounts the fact that is a path to nomination -- he'd need to win a large percentage of the remaining delegates. You could say it was impossible if there weren't enough delegates left for him to get a majority, but that is not the case!

We'll see how Bernie does in the states to come. Frankly, I'm not convinced he'll win the primary by pledged delegates (though I hope he will), I just get offended when people say it's mathematically impossible. As a mathematician. Particularly when it's someone I used to have a lot of respect for.

[Corporate666]

61. It's not dishonest at all and WV hasn't "proven" anything...

Each primary is a discrete contest - there are no links between any two. Sanders winning WV has zero effect on his likelihood of winning any other given primary. The campaign knows this, and people know this (whether they admit it or not), considering virtually all efforts are being focused on California.

Furthermore, since Sanders' likelihood of winning any given primary are separate from any other.. and given that he needs to average 65%, that means he needs to do substantially better than 65% in some, because it's extremely likely he will come nowhere near 65% in others. And because each primary has a different # of delegates, he really needs some huge blowouts in the smaller ones he is favored to win to make up for larger ones (NJ) he's expected to lose.

And it's not intellectually honest to pick a starting point right before the previous primary and use that as the metric for whether he's on track or not. "on track" would be >50% of all delegates, which he isn't close to. He needed 56 or 58% of all delegates prior to NY, so it's not reasonable to discount the fact that he fell much further behind during that period, and then to pick one small race where he only failed to meet his target by a small amount, and call him "on track to win".

It's sort of like getting every answer wrong on the first half of a test, then getting the first question of the second half correct, and proclaiming that you're on track to ace the test.

[lagomorph777]

24. You noticed she said "now he'll have to do even better" but gave NO NUMBER?

So he went from needing 65.4% of remaining candidates to needing 65.8%

Wow, horrible - it's now 0.4% harder than it was on Monday.

Sad.

So no Rachel, when you don't show the MATH don't pretend that it's just MATH. You are being mean and not presenting the MATH.

[Wilms]

8. Is the math she's waving her hands about...

...the math that her accountant used to show how Bernie's tax plan would effect people making $7,000,000 a year?

[redstateblues]

12. The last Dem to run in the GE on raising taxes on the middle class was Walter Mondale

He won ONE state-his home state MN

[Wilms]

14. Maybe we should elect a DINO, then.

We can leave taxes low for the rich, starve the country of revenue, let the infrastructure crumble, and call that official "a progressive".

Tell me again. Who is selling fantasy?

[leftynyc]

21. Hyperbolic bullshit

doesn't change the facts. Promising to raise taxes on EVERYBODY is a losing strategy and we have the proof for that in Mondale. A 49 state blowout of proof.

[Wilms]

22. Mondale didn't propose medical and tuition coverage.

It's an unchangeable fact, that despite your rude assertion, serves proof of who is being hyperbolic.

[leftynyc]

26. And if you think THAT message

will resonate or even get heard in the heat of a campaign, I feel very sorry for you. Bernie and his platform would get torn limb from limb.

[Wilms]

27. Save the sympathy for one who needs it.

I think his message is getting through amazingly well when all is considered.

Limb from limb? First off, limbs are attached to the torso, not other limbs. Second, why do you think he has polled so well against republicans?

[leftynyc]

32. I think I'll feel sorry for

whoever I damn well please. Right now it's for the man who is getting some pretty horrid advice from someone who wants to keep collecting $800K a month.

[Wilms]

36. You always this angry? n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

56. To "tear limb from limb"

is an expression:

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/tear+limb+from+limb

[SheenaR]

30. Only this time

Many of us (not all obviously) are waving our hands and saying YES we will pay the taxes if we can get our people Health Care and our elderly taken care of by lifting the cap on SS.

1984 was not for the greater good in my opinion. Sanders is. (although DU thinks he is all for himself)

[nc4bo]

9. Except Maddow you've been toeing the same shitty line since day one.

So Rachel, there's that fact.

We already called you out on your bullshit for nearly as long as Sanders began his campaign so don't act like you're doing anything different now.

Fuck off.

[Armstead]

13. Her "mischievous" style only seems stupid theses days since she is hewing to the Comcast line

She used to be great when she had a soul, was an independent thinker and before she got carried away by how "funny" she thinks she is.

But that act wears thin and is inappropriate since she got the memo that it is to be MSNBClinton from now on. (Probably with Comcast's vision of overturning telecommunications and Internet regulations and favorable stances towards future mergers under a Clinton administration dancing in their heads.)

[myrna minx]

17. I was a fan of Rachel going all the way back to 2004 and Unfiltered

With Chuck D and Lizz Winstead. I enjoyed her lengthy preambles and thought so highly of her until one night.

The night where she pulled a shady stunt that wholly mischaracterized Senator Sanders' lengthy and powerful rebuttle to Trump's horrendous abortion comments ended any respect I had for her. Her stunt, where she "breathlessly" ran back uptown to get Clinton's reply to her horribly mischaracterized framing of what Sanders said was sooo shady and I was stunned by her tactics. It was such a Fox noon move.

You can't unknow that about someone's character. It broke my heart.

[bettyellen]

23. Bernie did blow it big time by characterizing abortion as a lesser concern.....

That was incredibly foolish- even if he misspoke. But his inaction on womens' issues only adds to that. Cosigning is not enough.

[myrna minx]

33. He hasn't characterized abortion as a lesser concern.

That's how Maddow framed it, its not what he said at all.

[bettyellen]

35. He did: "Maybe, just maybe, we might want to have a serious discussion about the serious issues"

He idiotically said flat out that abortion is not a serious issue- in the snarliest way possible. Foolish.

[myrna minx]

37. Here is what he said and not in the "slarliest way possible"

This is much different than the horrible and dishonest mis-characterization given to him - especially by a journalist. I expect it from people on a message board, but not an anchor of a news program.


http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-full-transcript-rachel-maddow-interview-442491

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: After, uh, the word spread that Donald Trump had made those remarks today about abortion, that a woman needs to be punished, uh, if she seeks an abortion and abortion should be banned, you said today that was shameful.

What is shameful about it?

SANDERS: Well, I think it is -- shameful is probably understating that position. First of all, to me, and I think to most Americans, women have the right to control their own bodies and they have the right to make those personal decisions themselves.

But to punish a woman for having an abortion is beyond comprehension. I -- I just -- you know, one would say what is in Donald Trump's mind except we're tired of saying that?

I don't know what world this person lives in. So obviously, from my perspective, and if elected president, I will do everybody that I can to allow women to make that choice and have access to clinics all over this country so that if they choose to have an abortion, they will be able to do so.

The idea of punishing a woman, that is just, you know, beyond comprehension.

MADDOW: And Mr. Trump has made -- is making headlines on -- on this issue today, obviously, because of what he said. It's sort of, you know, taken the media day by storm.

Um, that said, I think there may be a case to be made -- and I'd love your -- just your response to this, your perspective on this, uh, that his opponent, Senator Ted Cruz, is more extreme on this issue. And I say that, in part, because one of his national co-chairs on his Pro-Lifers for Cruz coalition, is a man named Troy Newman, who once wrote a book saying that abortion providers should be executed.

Is Ted Cruz even further out on this issue than Donald Trump is?

SANDERS: Well, you -- you know, you're living in crazy world there. And that is why, uh, you know, the Republican Party, if they continue in this direction, will be, as I mentioned a moment ago, a fringe party.

Uh, look, they have nothing to say. All they can appeal is to a small number of people who feel very rabid, very rabid about a particular issue, whether it's abortion or maybe whether it's gay marriage. That is their constituency. They have nothing of substance.

You know, you mentioned a moment ago, Rachel, that the media is paying attention to Donald Trump.

Duh?

No kidding. Once again, every stupid remark will be broadcast, you know, for the next five days.

But what is Donald Trump's position on raising the minimum wage?

Well, he doesn't think so.

What is Donald Trump's position on wages in America?

Well, he said in a Republican debate he thinks wages are too high.

What's Donald Trump's position on taxes?

Well, he wants to give billionaire families like himself hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks.

What is Donald Trump's position on climate change?

Oh, he thinks it's a hoax perpetrated, shock of all shock, by the Chinese. You know, on and on it goes.

But because media is what media is today, any stupid, absurd remark made by Donald Trump becomes the story of the week. Maybe, just maybe, we might want to have a serious discussion about the serious issues facing America. Donald Trump will not look quite so interesting in that context.

MADDOW: Are you suggesting, though, that the media shouldn't be focusing on his call to potentially jail women who have abortions? Because that's another stupid --

SANDERS: I am saying that every day he comes up with another stupid remark, absurd remark, of course it should be mentioned. But so should Trump's overall positions. How much talk do we hear about climate change, Rachel? And Trump? Any?

MADDOW: He said that he cares more about nuclear climate change, which is a term that he's invented.

SANDERS: Nuclear climate change?

MADDOW: That's just what he comes up with when he's asked on the subject.

SANDERS: All that I'm saying is that Trump is nobody's fool. He knows how to manipulate the media and you say an absurd thing and the media is all over it. And my concern is that today in America, you've got millions of people who are struggling economically. They want to know how we're going to expand the middle class. Overwhelmingly, people think we should raise the minimum wage. Vast majority of people think climate change is real and a threat to our planet. They want to do something about that. What do we do? Vast majority of the people think the wealthiest people in this country should start paying their fair share of taxes. But if we don't discuss those issues, it creates the climate for people like Donald Trump to do much better than he really has a right to do.

[bettyellen]

38. he worked to shift the discussion to economics- what else is new?

[myrna minx]

40. That is a far cry from your original characterization and assertion.

If your grievance is he talks too much about economics, have at it that's your right, but it's not your right to mischaracterize what someone said - especially if it's untrue.

What Maddow did was intellectually dishonest and horrible form for a journalist. It broke any trust I had in her integrity.

[bettyellen]

41. It a theme throughout his campaign, he is an ally, but no champion for women....

' “Once you get off of the social issues—abortion, gay rights, guns—and into the economic issues,” he told Rolling Stone last year, “there is a lot more agreement than the pundits understand.”

That quote—offered early in the campaign—has been widely interpreted to suggest that Sanders has ranked his political priorities, and that “social issues” like abortion could take a backseat in the Bernie revolution. “We can’t afford a Democratic nominee for president who treats abortion rights like an afterthought,” wrote Emily’s List president Stephanie Schriock on Friday. She went on to accuse Sanders of treating reproductive rights like “extra credit,” and noted that Sanders doesn’t mention anything about abortion, contraception, or reproductive care anywhere in his entire health plan.

...snip...
Instead of doubling down on issues that specifically relate to women—like abortion, contraception, and equal pay—he uses them to talk about about “establishment” politics or wage stagnation. That approaches “All Lives Matter,” all over again."

http://time.com/4192885/bernie-sanderss-abortion-hillary-clinton/

[myrna minx]

44. These are things "that are widely interpreted to suggest..."

These are opinions and everyone has one. A journalist like Maddow has no right to twist and mischaracterize a candidate's words to be used as weapons for his opponent's benefit . It's hatchet journalism and at one time, I would have thought beneath her.

I am a middle aged feminist and long term DUer and very I'm very confident at Bernie's commitment to women's rights.

[bettyellen]

47. I get that. I have a lot of discomfort around his ignorance on the whole thing...

honestly, blows my mind that people are saying he advocates for NO restrictions at all till birth. That is, politically speaking, impossible and not supported by a vast majority of voters. He doesn't even seem to be aware how ridiculous that position is- and many here touting him as "better" obviously have no grasp on the issues either. It's kind of like the justice issues that he only learned about while campaigning- to me it shows how narrow his priorities and depth of knowledge on some issues are. To me, it is negligence.

[myrna minx]

48. If you dislike a candidate because their positions make you uncomfortable - that's completely fair.

I'm a woman and women's health and choice are vital issues for me, as well. I know Hillary Clinton has a great record in these issues. In fact, I greatly admire the courage it took for her to go to the International Women's Conference in Beijing

Sanders has unwavering support for women's choice and a 100% record with NARAL. He was the cosponsor of the Freedom of Choice bill of 1993. He trusts women and their doctors to make the best decisions. If these issues didn't matter to him, or they were an after thought for him, he wouldn't have co-sponsored this bill during the Operation Rescue and Eric Rudolph heyday of murder and terrorism. There are Dems in congress who care not one whit about women's issues - but I feel Bernie Sanders has always been on the side of women.

I have followed him for *years* and feel very comfortable with his positions - but I can understand if he's not someone's choice. That's fair, but I've seen his record dismissed or discounted which I find unfair. He has been there for women when many DEMS turned their backs on us for political expediency or because they were in the "big tent" but anti-choice.

Now if I was intellectually dishonest, I could mis-characterize Hillary Clinton's "safe legal and rare" comments in the 90's and anti-choice, but we all know that's not true and we all know the climate where those words were spoken. I know full well that Hillary Clinton has a great record on women's rights. I also understand her nuance about late term abortion, but I also understand that Sanders' position is that he wants all decisions to be between a woman and her doctor - this choice is purely a medical decision and not a political decision.

Unfortunately our candidates have been cast as cartoon characters to the competing camps. I don't know if that will change, but alas here we are.

I understand that you have sincere reasons to not support Sanders. I disagree - but that's the nature of politics. We all have our views and choices.

My beef in this whole thing is with a Rachel Maddow who I once believed was of high character, pulling a sleazy political stunt. This stunt symbolized the uphill battle Sanders has had all along - but this one was a gut punch for me. I never expected Sanders to do as well as he has - (I'm happy he has!) and he's wildly exceeded any of my expectations, but to have a completely unnecessary, smarmy stunt like this, pulled by someone I once respected, is very upsetting. Did she earn any more votes for Secretary Clinton with this stunt? Probably not. Did she lose the respect of many? Yes.

[bettyellen]

51. it has been galling to hear so many here slime her record on women's health issues....

now someone here is claiming she wants to aid Catholic hospitals sell peoples babies. Honestly, this kind of idiocy hurts his campaign. Not sure why SBS supporters here only rarely take issue with the crazy memes and fake quotes and scandals.

[jillan]

57. Hillary is the only candidate running on the Dem side that is willing to change Roe V Wade.

Clinton replied, "No—I have been on record in favor of a late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortions

Why doesn't Rachel ask Hillary about that?

Bernie has a flawless record on fighting for women's rights. Even Gloria Steinem made Bernie an "Honorary Woman" for his support of women's rights.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/11/gloria-steinem-called-bernie-sanders-an-honorary-woman-in-1996/

He has won a lifetime acheivement award for fighting for women's rights & has a 100% rating from NARAL....
http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm

So that whole poutrage from Maddow was complete bullshit just because he didn't want to continue to talk about Trump!! He answered her question but she asked it a second time & that is when he changed the subject, as he should have! Msnbc has become the Trump Show. Absolutely pathetic when there are real problems, real issues that need to be discussed.

[beedle]

16. 0.1% short of the target

and Maddow makes it seem like this was a disaster for Bernie?

Before WV there were 926 delegates remaining, Bernie needed 608 of them to rach 2026. That meant he needed 65.7% of the remaining delegates.

After WV, there are 897 delegates remaining, and Bernie now needs 590 to reach 2026. That means he needs 65.8% of remaining delegates.

Not sure that being 0.1% required a sneering "Oh, goody good, Bernie missed his target by 0.1%" Maddow 'take down'?

I'd prefer to look at it as Bernie staying very close to target and with a little bit of luck on one of the bigger states he can make up the small 'misses' with a comparatively small relatively small over performance. If missing the target in tiny WV by 0.1% is considered a huge disaster, them imaging what a massive catastrophe for Hillary if Bernie beats the 65% by 0.1% in California?

So basically, very little has changed, other than Bernie continues to stay very close to target.

[aikoaiko]

18. Odd. She confronts hyperbolic newspaper headlines, but aims her snark at Sanders supporters.

Does she really think the Daily News or NYT would think she was being mean or doesn't understand the math?

From someone as smart as Maddow, that's dishonest journalism.

[lunamagica]

20. K&R!. My favorite part is her showing how much the insults from the Sander's camp affect

and intimidate her...as in not at all.

[Lucinda]

39. Yep!

[trudyco]

25. It's not the math, it's her fangirling Hillary all along that bugged me.

Not responsible journalism.

[uponit7771]

28. Reality sucks for them

[Cali_Democrat]

29. Rachel Maddow is the best!

[forjusticethunders]

31. If Bernie was capable of hitting his targets

He'd already be winning. His current numbers + 30-40% with AAs and 50+% with Hispanics means he's winning, and winning pretty handily. I had thoughts that Bernie could have built an intersectional coalition if he tried...but honestly I'm starting to think that if he DID try, white "progressives" would have run for the hills saying Bernie is "selling out to identity politics" or some bullshit.

[lagomorph777]

45. Actually, it's not the math, it's Rachel being mean. Changed from 65.4% needed, to 65.8%

Did you notice she omitted that tiny little fact?

[DesertRat]

50. It's human nature to be angry at the messenger

when you don't like the message. But, Rachel is just speaking the truth.

[jamese777]

53. Trump Voters For Sanders

West Virginia primary exit polls showed that 39 percent of Sanders voters said they would vote for Trump over Sanders in the fall. For Clinton, nine percent of her voters say they plan to come out for Trump in the general election.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-voters-boost-sanders-west-virginia
There's always a "mischief factor" in open primaries; people who have no intention of voting nmthe general the way they voted in the primary.

[mcar]

54. Kick!

[mcar]

55. Some Earl Grey under the bus, Dr. Maddow?

We'll have scones, as soon as I can figure out how to make them.