This is What Will Happen at the Democratic Convention - an excellent read here!

[ebayfool]

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention/



Can Sanders do it? Or is Clinton truly inevitable?
Math vs. Media: Part One

Bernie Sanders has vowed to fight relentlessly for the 2016 Democratic Party’s nomination up to the convention and, despite the apparent consensus of the media’s talking heads that the campaign is a lost cause, he has held fast to his claim that there is a “narrow path to victory.” I am reminded of Galadriel’s ominous words of advice, in the Fellowship of the Ring: The quest stands upon the edge of a knife — stray but a little, and it will fail… ÷

It has even become something of a weekly occurrence for Hillary Clinton and her Wallstreet-backed campaign to imply, insinuate, or flat-out demand that Sanders withdraw his bid for the nomination — they are growing increasingly indignant about the fact that Sanders is trying to win. Which brings us to the heart of the issue — can Bernie Sanders–can we–win the delegates needed for the nomination?

The answer to this question is as simple as it is misleading — No. No, my friends, we cannot. And yet–! And yet, neither can Hillary Clinton — and I am going to show you what the media is willfully hiding from you. I am going to show you why, using the one thing that even the media can’t hide: Math.

Why Clinton Will Not Secure the Nomination, According to Math

According to the Green Papers, Clinton stands (today, April 28th) with 1,664 pledged delegates, while Sanders has gathered 1,371. The amount of delegates needed to secure the nomination is 2,383 and, if you’ll pardon me for my use of arithmetic, I will now demonstrate why that number is hopelessly out of reach for the Clinton campaign.†

Hillary needs 719 more delegates to reach 2,383 because:

2,383 – 1,664 = 719

Now, the pledged delegates that are available to grab in the remaining states all-together amount to 1,016 and in order to attain that blessed number, Clinton will have to win an average of 70.7% of the remaining states. This is because:

719 ÷ 1,016 = 0.707677 or approximately 71%

You might be thinking that 71% is not such an unattainable number for Hillary and her powerful Wallstreet backers — you might be thinking that but you’d be betting against longer odds than would be wise. You see, of the 1,016 delegates remaining, 475 of those delegates are to be won in California, alone — California, which has a semi-open primary. California, where Clinton is polling at a mere 49%. California, where Clinton’s support has been declining as the Sanders Campaign gains visibility and momentum. California — the ace that Sanders, as much as the media, have concealed up his sleeve.

It is no secret that Sanders, a previously invisible independent senator from the tiny state of Vermont, consistently climbs in the polls as he begins to campaign in the weeks before each state has had its primary. You don’t have to take my word for it — check the poll-histories for yourself or read this.

Because Bernie Sanders performs at his absolute best in open primaries and because he consistently rises in the polls, while Clinton consistently falls, it is extremely unlikely that Clinton will perform better than 49 points, let alone win the contest. Let’s do some more math:

Of the 475 delegates available in California on June 7th, lets say Hillary takes 49% of those (even though she will almost certainly take less). That would give her 232.75 delegates, which we’ll round up to an even 234.

475 x 0.49 = 232.75

Next, let’s add that to her current total of 1,664, bringing her up to 1,897. Now, she needs an additional 486 delegates to reach the magic number of 2,383, right? Let’s find out how many delegates Clinton would have to win in the remaining states (besides California, of course).

Of the 541 delegates left, once the 475 CA delegates have been subtracted from the 1,016 delegate total, Clinton is going to have to win almost 90% of the remaining non-California delegates! This is because, when you divide the number of delegates that Clinton needs after California by the number of delegates remaining after California, you get 0.898 or 89%, rounded down:

486 ÷ 541 = 0.898 or 89.8%

Now, how likely does that sound? It’s not likely in Oregon, a fairly progressive state that shares its general attitudes with Washington, a state that Sanders won with about 70% of the vote. It’s not likely in West Virginia, either, where Sanders is currently leading in the polls. Nor is it likely in Indiana where Sanders and Clinton are almost neck-and-neck, which votes on May 3rd. That nomination is feeling a lot further away now, isn’t it?

Okay, okay — maybe you’re thinking, “John, I think you’re being unfair, Clinton could certainly win California.” To which I would reply: I admire your optimism, my friend — and since you’re so optimistic, let’s run those numbers again — but this time, let’s assume that Clinton, for whatever reason, defies the consistent trends that have prevailed over the entire primary season. Let’s say, she jumps up 11% now, winning the California primary with 60% of the vote. So:

475 x 0.6 = 285

Now, add the 285 delegates to Clinton’s current total:

285 + 1,664 = 1,949

But:

2,383 – 1,949 = 434

So, Clinton will still need to scrape up 434 delegates somewhere other than California, some how. Which means — Hold on, first we have to figure out how much of the remaining delegates she’ll have to win:

434 ÷ 541 = .802218 or 80%

Wow! Even if Clinton actually wins California with 60% to Sanders with 40%, she will still have to secure about 80% of the remaining vote! Again, this certainly doesn’t seem likely in Oregon, West Virginia, or Indiana, which means the actual percentage would climb each time she failed to take 80% of a state! Now, are you starting to see why I am saying that Clinton will not be securing the nomination before the convention?
Why Sanders Will Win, According to Math

If you’ve found yourself thinking, “Well, Sanders won’t secure the nomination, either!” You are almost 100% right! Well, 99.6% right, anyway. Because, if we take Sanders’ current delegate total of 1,371, subtract that from the magic 2,383, then divide that by the remaining available delegates, we get 0.996, see:

2,383 – 1,371 = 1,012

1,012 ÷ 1,016 = 0.996 or 99.6%

Therefore, Sanders would have to secure a whopping 99.6% victory in all remaining states to secure the nomination! I think this may be one of the few things that both Berners and Clintonistas could agree on: that that is impossible. But to those of you that are thinking, “John! This is terrible” or “Haha! Take that, Sanders!” I would reply: You are both wrong. Mostly. Let me explain:

First off, let’s acknowledge that the math seems to prohibit both candidates from securing the nomination before the convention — so what does this mean? This means that, since Sanders will not give up before the convention, there will almost certainly be a “contested convention.”

“Um… But John…” you may be saying, “Won’t Hillary still be miles ahead of Sanders in votes at the convention?”

To which I would reply: I’m glad you asked, my paid Hillary-supporter friend! Allow me to demonstrate how that will also not be the case, no matter what the media would have you believe. Follow me!

Since neither of them will be securing the 2,383 needed for the nomination, let’s take a look at another number that has been hiding in plain sight for far too long. I’d like you to meet the number, 4,051. That’s the number of total pledged delegates that are available from all 50 states, plus DC, US territories, and the Democrats abroad. As it should be obvious, a majority of these delegates would be 2,026 because:

4,051 ÷ 2 = 2,025.5

At the convention, this number is going to matter more than the unattainable 2,383 delegates that no one will have. That being the case, let’s take a look at what Bernie Sanders would have to do to get there. If Sanders won 60% of the remaining contests (and remember how 475 of 1,016 are in California, where Sanders will do well), then the numbers at the convention would look like this:

1,016 x .60 = 609.6

Round that to 610 and add it to Sanders current total of 1,371, then divide that by the total delegate count, 4,051:

610 + 1,371 = 1,981

1,981 ÷ 4,051 = .489 or 48.9%

So, in the scenario where Sanders takes about 60% of the remaining vote, we’re essentially looking at a 49 to 51% vote total at the convention — not so bad, eh? And that’s easily within Sanders’ reach, if we do well in California (which we almost certainly will). Let’s look at what happens if he takes 70% (just like he did last time we went to the West/Left Coast):

1,016 x .70 = 711.2, round it down to 711, then:

711 + 1,371 = 2,082

2,082 ÷ 4,051 = 0.513 or 51.3%

If Sanders took 70%, the convention would look like 51.3 to 48.7%, in favor of Sanders! But 70%, while possible, is a bit of a stretch — the new magic number, for Sanders anyway, is actually 64.4% of the remaining states, which would mean winning 655 of the 1,016 remaining delegates, pushing his total up to 2,026, the bare majority of delegates, leaving Clinton one delegate behind at 2,025.

Now, does Sanders winning 64.4% sound too far-fetched? Not particularly, especially when we consider his advantages on the Left Coast, in California’s 475 delegate semi-open primary. An uphill climb, though? Certainly. Remember, though: it is all but certain that Clinton will not secure the nomination, while Sanders supporters are going to be pouring into Philadelphia for the convention by the tens of thousands. Even if Bernie fell short by a few points, we’re still essentially looking at a tie. And that’s when all hell is going to break loose.

Things are going to become very interesting if we have a near-tie at the convention to be decided by the super-delegates.

Things are going to become very interesting when they look back at the many states that are still crying out for a re-vote, states fraught with “voting irregularities,” polling station closures, and voter roll purges — all states which Clinton won and all states which so far have not received justice.

Things are going to become very interesting when the DNC and the super-delegates realize that Sanders, unlike the Wallstreet-backed Clinton-Machine, will bring in not only millions of independent voters that were unable to vote in the primaries, but even defecting Republican votes, sealing the GOP’s utter defeat in November.

Things are going to become very interesting when, while they are thinking about all of these things, they are doing so to the earth-shaking, thunderous chants of “Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!” from his tens of thousands of supporters outside, who have time-and-again proven their ability to rally by the tens of thousands — do you think that we won’t do the same at the convention?

And finally, things are going to become very, very interesting when the super-delegates and the DNC are forced to choose, publicly, whether to hand the nomination to Clinton and watch the millions of independents walk away, along with millions of former-democrat Sanders-supporters, basically handing the general election to the neo-fascists Trump or Cruz — or, to hand it to Sanders, a leader who will have the support, not only of the entire Democratic Party, but of millions of Independents, Green Party voters, and — yes, indeed — even Republicans defecting from the extremist GOP. That will be the most interesting part, I think. I’ll see you all in Philadelphia.

In Solidarity,
John Laurits

P.S. Please feel totally free to reproduce this article, re-post, re-use, re-cycle, or whatever, in whole or in part — credit would be lovely but, ultimately, I don’t really care! Do as ye will! Peace!

#SeeYouInPhilly

[ebayfool]

1. Math vs. Media: Part Two

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/29/math-vs-media-part-two/

Feel the Math

On account of the “yuge” response and the sustained interest in the topic, I have decided to publish a hastily-written follow-up article to “This is How the Democratic Primaries Will End,” which will address the most popular challenges that I found in the comment sections, while offering you another round of sound, promising-looking numbers to bolster the Berners’ already-unshakable resolve.

The Clinton-Machine, the DNC, and the media want us to believe that the fight is over — and, my friends, if we do believe that, then it will be over. Which is why we must refuse to accept their shaky narrative, no matter how many times the million-dollar troll-army repeats it! They may have all the power and money but they still don’t get to think for us — we will dispel their silly illusions with fearlessness, solidarity, tenacity, and, strangely, arithmetic.

NOTE: As always, please check my math and, if there are any problems (or typos), I shall fix them immediately — thanks in advance!

Now, in the last article, (If you didn’t read it, HERE ya go) we went over the math, step-by-step, that shows that:

1.) Hillary Clinton will not be “clinching” the nomination before the convention on July 25th, and that:

2.) If Bernie Sanders (cheers) were to secure 64.4% of the remaining vote, he would be going to the convention with 2,026 pledged delegates, which would be a majority of the delegates that we actually voted about (that is, if you did indeed get to vote for them — the DNC sincerely appologizes, particularly to Arizona and New York. What a pity. Apparantly, independents can go #$%@ themselves…).

Therefore,

3.) It is within Sanders reach to contest the convention with a majority of pledged delegates, the certain promise to bring millions of independent votes into the race, and a fairly impressive list of valid complaints against the primary processes, which often seemed to skew the results in his opponent’s favor. The super-delegates will have time between the last primary and the convention to consider all of this — in addition to the fact that a recent WSJ/NBC poll shows that 58% of the people “cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton,” while Sanders, as well as having the democratic vote, would bring in his millions of independent supporters who were unable to vote in most primaries — the same independents that will make up 43% of voters in the general election! Bottom line: If Sanders can make it to 2,026 pledged delegates, he will be in command at the convention.

Now, let’s address the most often utilized counter arguments that I was finding in the comments.

Counter-argument #1:

The most pervasive critique — and a fair, if incorrect, one — was some variation of “the author measured Clinton’s odds against gaining 2,383 delegates but measured Sanders’ against gaining 2,026 delegates — and that’s misleading.”

I can understand how this confusion arose for some of you and I fully sympathize, as the primaries are a convoluted, headache-inducing, and often counter-intuitive process (and don’t get me started on why “they” set it up that way). But this math is **not misleading** and let me tell you why:

First, let me clear this up: the so-called “super-delegates” do not cast their vote until the convention in July. Until then, they’re basically just talking. Of course, they could vote against the people’s will — but that would be unprecedented because, in the past, they have aligned with the candidate who had the most pledged delegates. Now, since neither Clinton’s nor Sanders’ super-delegates count until the convention, I proceeded to use only those delegates that actually count, right now.

In the first part of the article, I showed you the math which demonstrates the extreme unlikelihood of Clinton reaching 2,383 delegates before the convention, which would’ve “clinched” the nomination for her. Because a few people had trouble with this, here is my rationale: it’s true that she could gain 2,026 delegates before the convention but 2,026 delegates does not “clinch” the nomination. I started with that bit of math because the media has been repeating the narrative that the primaries are basically over, while praying to their twisted corporate gods that someone wouldn’t expose their tomfoolery by doing the math themselves. So I did it. Sorry, not sorry.

The first part of the article was only to show that it was almost impossible for Clinton to avoid a contested convention by clinching the nomination.

In the second part, I briefly touch on the percentage (99.6%) that Sanders would need to do the same, which is obviously beyond his reach. From there, since no one will be clinching the nomination, I switched to the number 2,026, which is the “tipping point” where a candidate would have a majority of pledged delegates — and that number, my friends, is within reach of both candidates. I assure you that, regardless of how the media portrays what is happening right now, both Sanders and Clinton are very, very, mindful of this number — because whoever gets it will use this as a powerful argument for their nomination at the convention. [cue dramatic music]

This is the game, for right now — to cross the line of 2,026 delegates. And we do that with 64.4% of the vote — or higher.
Counter-argument #2:

“But Sanders would have to win the rest of the races with margins that he hasn’t achieved since the race in his own home-state of Vermont!” I saw this one a lot, too.

Well, I’m honestly surprised that variations of this “argument” were popping up all over the place because it’s complete non-sense. Again, the Clinton campaign and their corporate-media accomplices, however sly they may be, are no match for numbers! Remember, the “margin” that they’re referring to is Sanders winning with 64.4% of the vote, at the moment. Now, let’s take a look at all the reasons that these statements are rubbish — all 9 of them.

Since Vermont (which he won with 86.1%), Sanders has won:

1. Minesota with 61.6%

2. Kansas with 67.7%

3. Maine with 64.3

4. Dems Abroad with 69%

5. Idaho with 78%

6. Utah with 79%

7. Alaska with 81%

8. Hawaii with 69.8%

And, last but certainly not least,

9. Washington with 72%

All of these victories — which were all since Vermont, I might add — average out to 71.4% over 9 states–well, 8 states and one “Democrats Abroad” primary, anyway. Like so:

61.6 + 67.7 + 64.3 + 69 + 78 + 79 + 81 + 69.8 + 72 = 642.4

And

642.4 / 9 = 71.37 or 71.4% on average

Now, because I am refuting the nonsense that Sanders hasn’t shown that he can win with 64.4% since Vermont, I chose not to include Vermont’s 86.1% victory and to only include those victories that were with over 60% since Vermont to drive that point home. But, of course, now you’ll say, “John, aren’t you being disingenuous by not including the other states that Sanders won by a narrower margin?” To which I would reply, “My god, you’re right! Well, we’d better remedy it then — shall we?”

Of course, as you’ve astutely pointed out: Sanders, defying all expectations, also took Michigan in that time period with 49.8% in an unprecedented upset, won Colorado with 59%, Oklahoma with 51.9%, Nebraska with 57.1%, Wisconsin with 56.6%, Wyoming with 55.7%, and Rhode Island with 55%. If we include these 8 victories, our number will drop a bit, but let’s see how it all works out…

642.4 + 86.1 + 49.8 + 59 + 51.9 + 57.1 + 56.6 + 55.7 + 55 = 1,113.6

And

1,113.6 / 17 = 65.505 or 65.5% on average

As you can see, the average percentage with which Sanders dispatches the elections that he wins is actually 1.1% higher than 64.4%, the average Sanders will need to take the lead in pledged delegates before the convention. Of course, the goal of 64.4% will fluctuate, depending on how many states Clinton takes and how much higher we can push our margins in other states. Anyway, let’s take Indiana first and see if we can even the odds a bit (that means you, phonebanking!).

It will be a fierce battle, probably very much like the one between Rohan and Saruman at Helms Deep — but it can be won. There are 14 primaries to go and Sanders is widely expected to do well in the western states, including Oregon, which is likely to bern like Washington did (I’m in the Portland area, incidentally, and let me tell you…), and California, where there’s a semi-open primary and where Sanders is widely expected to do well. In fact, a majority of the states coming up are looking promising for many of the same reasons that Sanders pulled off his last 8 out of 10 streak — the same streak, I’ll remind you, which included numbers like 78, 79, 81, and 69.8%. The only state that seems particularly iff-y is New Jersey — so, if there are any New Jersians (New Jerseyites? Jersoholics? Nevermind…), you all should get on those phones, now! And fan the flames!

Anyway, I expect not to hear this non-sense from now on. I will surely live a life steeped in disappointment, but I expect it nonetheless, on principle.
Don’t listen to those trolls,
WE CAN WIN

Remember, no matter how hopeful you become — and truly, there is every reason to be hopeful — do not become complacent, friends! This is not the time to sit back! We are going to have to fight for every single delegate that we can get — even in the face of rigged elections, “voting irregularities,” and, god forbid, voter roll purges — but if we remain united, throw all of our support behind Sanders, and show up by the tens of thousands (or more!), then I really believe that we can do this and that another way of living is possible. Over the last day, 250,000 people have visited this site alone, not to mention all the news sites that have used these numbers or reprinted this story, and I’ve heard from people across the entire world that were inspired by these numbers. I think it’s meaningful that we say we “feel the bern” because Bernie Sanders, this movement — all of us — we have sown a kind of fire on the world and, now, we should tend it to a blaze. We can win — or so a little #birdie told me…

In Solidarity,
John Laurits

#SeeYouInPhilly

P.S. If there are any other points that you’d like me to address, please comment them! I will edit them in as we go along!

P.P.S. Please reuse any of this material, as you see fit — attribution would be nice but, when all’s said and done, I don’t really care — Peace

[truebluegreen]

2. I love math. And facts. And stuff.

Feelin' the Bern.

[ebayfool]

4. This guy is awesome! And he sez feel free to spread far and wide - smack down those myths!

I hope people click through to his site, he's got some terrific stuff there!

And ammo to counter some of the dreck being passed off as gospel around here!

[ebayfool]

3. Math vs. Media: Part Three

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/05/02/math-vs-media-part-three/

Welcome, friends — and welcome, foes, as well — to the third chapter in our impromptu chronicle of the ongoing struggle between critical, independent analysis of events and the long-unchallenged, dominant media-narrative! Make no mistake — this is a battle to wrest control of our collective story back from the moneyed brigands who’re attempting to control the perception and monopolize the interpretation of the elections processes. These organizations, which Mr. Noam Chomsky quite aptly refers to as the “manufacturers of consent,” will stop at nothing to maintain control over the story-telling of world events — how it’s told, who you should root for, and — perhaps most frighteningly — what it all will mean. This is because they know that, if they can convince you, dear friends, that there is no hope — then, it will all be over because you will stop fighting for it and there will not be any hope. This is what is at stake.

We must therefore keep questioning their narrative and, no matter how loudly and obnoxiously they repeat it, we must answer with real numbers, with dissident reasoning, with humor, and with thoughtful critique.

Today, I’ll be addressing some of the more insidious spins and monotonous misguidances that I’ve seen slinking about amongst the goodly denizens of the comment section. They’ve been sending more and more thought-police in these last few days — that means that we’ve hit a nerve.

But before we dive in, look! Bernie Sanders himself seems to be feeling the math — check out Bernie’s recent press conference here!

Alright, now let’s dive in…
Flimsy Narrative #1:

Of all the retorts I’ve received over these last articles, an overwhelming amount of them have boiled down to some variation of the following sentiment:

“But Bernie Sanders can’t possibly win by those margins, you’d have to be totally delusional to believe that he could! I think you’re being way too optimistic.”

To which, I say: poppycock! Moved, inspired? Maybe. Determined, caffeinated? Probably. Hopeful, perhaps, that seems likely — but not delusional. To be clear, I am not in the prediction-business — ne’er have I claimed that Sanders’ victory was an inevitable event and I believe that it should be fairly clear from everything I’ve written that I believe it will take an immense amount of effort, solidarity, and even a bit of good, old-fashioned belligerence to get Sanders elected. Nonetheless, I believe that we can do it and, more importantly — the math shows us that we can. But lets talk about “delusion” for a moment, shall we?

This is a chart of the polls leading up to Iowa, the first of the Democratic primaries:



And here is the same, but leading up to New Hampshire, just a bit afterwards:



And this was Massachusetts in the time leading up to their primaries…



Nevada…



…and Wisconsin:



Now — unless you are indeed delusional — you will probably have begun to notice a pattern.

In fact, I bet that almost all of you will be able to guess — more or less — what California has been looking like:



FUN MATH FACT: Super-professional, statistical-geometricianists, like myself, call this shape a “tipped-over-wizard’s-hat shape,” on account of its uncanny resemblance to what we believe a wizard’s hat might look like if someone were to tip it over on its side.

New Jersey, too:



Now, since I don’t want to burden you with too many charts (but I assure you that, if you dive into the rest of the poll histories, you’ll find they all look like this), I’ll just go ahead and show you the aggregated national polls for the 2016 Democratic Primaries over the same time period, which — provided you aren’t delusional — is just about what you’d expect:



Now, I’d like to ask the question: when noticeable, consistent trends emerge, over and over again, in a wide range of data that is collected over a significant period of time, is it reasonable to guess that those trends will generally continue?

Or would it be more reasonable to assume that new data is going to drunkenly splatter itself around randomly or reverse its course, suddenly and for no apparent reason?

Now, ask yourselves: based on the consistent patterns of the polling data, do you think it could be reasonable, at least, to believe that Sanders’ numbers will continue to rise, while Clinton’s continue to fall in California, New Jersey, and the nation, in general? I’m asking you, the person looking at this data — I’m not asking what the media’s consensus is nor am I asking you what you’ve been told by the talking heads — I am asking you, personally, whether you think that the belief I mentioned above could be a reasonable one?

But I won’t tell you what to think — I trust your innate intelligence.

Flimsy Narrative #2:

“Bernie can only win in states that are heavily white — he can’t win California because he won’t get the [insert racial demographic here] vote.”

This was another common one and I’m becoming rather bored with it — though it is true that the Sanders campaign has struggled in some places (particularly the deep south, where, in Bernie’s own honest words, “we got murdered!”), luckily, the numbers just don’t add up to support this claim. Take Hawaii, for instance.

Sanders won the contest in Hawaii with about 70% of the vote and Hawaii’s population is merely 22.8% white, which actually makes it quite literally the least-white state in the country, placing it all the way at the bottom of the white-list in 51st place (out of 50 states + DC).

Now — let’s look at Washington, a preferred destination for many Asian immigrants, which also boasts about a 10% Hispanic population, is ranked as the 7th “most diverse” state in the country, has the 9th most Native Americans, and — incidentally — is also a state that Sanders won with nearly 73% of the vote.

Then, there’s our extremely north-western friend, Alaska, a state which is home to the highest population of Native Americans of any state in the country. Hm. This is interesting… If Sanders could only perform well in white states, then why did he win Alaska with an almost startling 81.6%? Unless… Wait! I think I’ve figured it out — if the claim that he only does well in white states is not in accord with our own empirical observations, then that claim must be untrue! Or does the corporate media get to dictate what we observe now, too?

A Challenge

I must be going now (to begin my construction of a top-secret, new article that I hope will prove to be a wooden shoe in the Clinton-Machine’s windmill gears…) but before I go, I’d like to invite you to freely make use of, or re-use/recycle/redesign, whatever math or paragraphs or anything in these articles that seems helpful — I release all copyright or claim upon these “math vs. media” articles. Use them to give hope to everyone or to crush the flimsy narratives of those who would rob our generation of the hope and the fire that’s been lit in the hearts of so many, not only by the SandMan himself, but by all the hard-working volunteers and donors who have selflessly given of their time and resources (we salute you!).

Secondly, I’d like to challenge you all to join me by doing a little math of your own — challenge and dissect the silly narratives that you hear on TV or read in the papers! And, please, let me know what you discover — they can’t fool us if we continue to think defiantly, compassionately, and critically for ourselves! We can win this battle for the soul of our society if we stand together in love and knowledge and solidarity — and damn what the trolls, the critics, and the hopeless are saying! Finally: thanks so very much for reading and commenting — this site has almost reached a half-of-a-million views in the last three days! You Berners and soon-to-be Berners give me so much hope for the future of the world –Keep fanning those flames and kicking up dust…

In Solidarity,
John Laurits

[ebayfool]

5. Indiana: The After-MATH

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/05/03/indiana-the-after-math/

Greetings, friends & foes!
I’ll be brief tonight but I felt that I had to update you all on what Indiana means for us — because lord-knows the media sure as hell isn’t gonna be straight with you! But first, I’d like to congratulate Senator Bernie Sanders as well as all of you Berners because…
**The Sand-Man Has Taken Indiana!**

Tonight we should rejoice! We should rejoice because the movement is obviously still building strength, as our victory in Indiana shows — while Clinton is losing steam and running out of corporate money.

I imagine that some of you may be disappointed that we didn’t hit our target of 64.4% in Indiana — that’s why I’m here to show you that our numbers are still looking good (no matter what the million-dollar trolls below may be blathering about). It is, indeed, true that our target number has shifted slightly — in order to obtain the 2,026 pledged delegates that we’re after, instead of 64.4%, we will now be needing 65.5% of the remaining delegates that are up for grabs.

This is because (as of this moment, 9:00PM PDT) we’ve taken 44 delegates today and Clinton has taken 39, according to the green papers, leaving Sanders with 1,414 and Clinton with 1,704 delegates. Now, remember that 2,026 is half +1 of the total delegate count and that’s what we’re aiming for, right? Now, subtract Sanders’ 1,414 from 2,026:

1,414 – 2,026 = 612

So, now we need 612 out of the remaining 933 delegates, which means:

612 ÷ 933 = 0.655 or 65.5%

Thus, even though we fell a bit short of our 64.4% target, it has only shifted our overall goal by about 1%. Now, we must set our eyes upon the next contest in West Virginia, which occurs on May 10th and is an open primary — and, my friends, our prospects are looking very good there! Let’s see if we can drop that target of 65.5% down a notch or two, shall we?


A Few Quick Numbers from
West Virginia

I shall leave you now, my friends, with this last few numbers, which should embolden you all, fan the flames of hope in your hearts, and spur you to fight for Sanders even more valiantly than you already have! According to PPP’s recent poll in West Virginia, Sanders is leading Clinton with 45% to 37%! According to Public Policy Polling, Sanders and Clinton are neck and neck with registered democrats, with Sanders trailing by only 2 points (43% to 41%) — but, among independents who will be voting in the open primary, Sanders destroys Clinton with 56% to her 19%!

Do not let these numbers lull you into complacency and laziness, however — now is the time for every single one of us who has the time to get on those phones! I want to hear West Virginia ring all the way over here in Oregon! Every single fraction of a percentage point that we can get will lower the targets that we have to hit in future states!

I, for one, have faith in you all — the numbers are with us!

In solidarity,
John Laurits

#StillSanders

*All numbers pulled from the Green Papers (also, keep in mind that, at the time of writing, there was 97% reporting from the Indiana primary)

[riderinthestorm]

6. BIG K&R! Wow! nt

[Peace Patriot]

7. Wow! Corrupt Media narrative vs somebody who actually does math!

It is refreshing!

I have thought, since before Indiana, that Sanders can certainly prevent Clinton from getting the magic number of delegates, just glancing at the math, and still has a long shot to get the magic number himself. But I hadn't laid it out to myself like this. It was just a cumulative effect feeling from reading many analyses, and gaging the level of panic on the other side mostly from comments here at DU (--and I think they are both panicked at the prospect of an open convention and furious that Sanders won't shrivel up and die like they want).

I also pay some attention to the Corrupt Media and study their lies and disinformation. (It's useful if you have training at text analysis, which I do.) They have been such miscreants in this primary--creating Donald Trump, as they did, out of nothing, by giving him non-stop coverage since his announcement, while completely black-holing Sanders for months, and only giving grudging footnotes now. They are continuing with the footnote treatment. ('Yeah, he won Indiana, but it means nothing. Yawn. Back to Trump....') (It's bizarre!)

The more Clinton supporters, the Clinton campaign and the Corrupt Media behave this way--indicating how threatened they feel--the higher go Sanders chances in my estimation. But it's good to have the math to back it up, so I know I'm not just fantasizing. I'm a very good text analyst, but it is an art not a science.

Speaking of art, I want to say something about "momentum," because I think it is very, VERY important at this point, and it is WHY the Clinton crew keeping calling for Sanders to withdraw. They know he wont't. Yet they keep doing it, NOT to force him to withdraw but to get his voters to stay home and/or to sway iffy voters their way. This fits with their overall discouragement tactics, their taking advantage of voter suppression which favors them (or engaging in it--we don't know which), and their effort to reduce public participation by boring people to death. (Has there ever been a more boring candidate than Clinton? Her scandals are the only thing interesting about her.)

ebayfool confirms my intuition that Sanders is doing very well and that he can, at the least, prevent her coronation and throw the convention open. If she is unable to get rid of this 'pesky fringe candidate' by the convention, she is in whopping big trouble.

The Corrupt Media gave way more coverage to a true fringe candidate, Cruz, than they gave to Sanders re-gaining momentum in Indiana, a much, MUCH more important news story. Trump has been "inevitable" since the Media decided to fund his campaign with free TV--since he announced. But Clinton is no longer "inevitable" and THAT is news. She hasn't been "inevitable" for some time, but Indiana confirms it, undeniably. They should be changing their narrative, but they are not. They don't want Sanders. He threatens their bosses' profits, and their posh lifestyles, and their 'winner' status in the 'hunger games' of Corrupt Media employment. So they are helping the Goldman Sachs candidate by trying to demoralize Sanders voters (and volunteers and donors) and confuse the undecided.

So, MOMENTUM. Sanders and his campaign, and all of us supporters, have ALWAYS had to create our own momentum. We don't even get neutrality from the DNC and the Corrupt Media. We are dealing with hostility on all establishment fronts. But we've been dealing with this all along. Sanders supporters are very creative and very determined, and will find the way around this blockade, even now, when it has become an "Iron Curtain." Like climbing green vines, we will find every nook and cranny in the wall and slither in, under, over and around it to a green and glorious victory.

[NJCher]

8. As a gardener

I loved that last sentence.

It is also interesting how all the obfuscation techniques have backfired. The pundits were so horrified that Trump won. David Brooks was so distraught he says he may have to move to Canada.

I seldom use the word "all," but this has been the most interesting election in terms of unintended consequences. It seems that everywhere one turns, there is backfire. If ebayfool's scenario plays out, it will be the ultimate in unintended consequences for the dnc. And I will laugh, oh, how I will laugh.

That is after I'm through demanding "Bernie! Bernie" outside the convention hall.

Cher

[Peace Patriot]

10. I'm not sure that the Corrupt Media's creation of Trump was unintentional.

It looks more like kabuki theatre to me--that they created Trump out of nothing to be the easily beatable foil for their Goldman Sachs candidate, to make her look good and more "liberal," to make people swallow her faux feminism, to make her seem sane compared to this nutball, to mask all her flaws--her corruption, her warmongering, her flip-flopping, her scandals, the FBI investigation, her shrillness and brittleness, all of it--by making it all invisible compared to Trump's racist and sexist blurtings and absurd egocentric posturings. The deliberate creation of "fear of Trump" as her campaign slogan.

But...maybe the monster they created has developed his own grand illusions and now actually wants all that power. I don't think he ever wanted the responsibility of being president, and may still not want it. But power? He's smelling it. Or, if I'm right, he may still just be the foil that someone (Bill?) asked him to be, and is merely enjoying one more "reality show" while Hillary gets tucked safely into the White House to protect all of his, theirs and their pals' investments.

Cynical? Yeah, sometimes I am. But I find the prospect of a Clinton vs Trump General Election mind-bogglingly strange and unreal. As if we were living in "The Matrix" and everything around us is manufactured to resemble reality. But the truth, outside of "The Matrix," is that we are all being sucked dry to feed the overlords.

I can't think of a more ludicrous and meaningless "debate" as would occur between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. All masks. All posturing. All mud wrestling. Or maybe they just stand there and trade stock tips, or chat about how to get "good help" these days. Or maybe she says, in her brassy voice, "Hey Don! Are you happy with your third tart?" And he shoots back, "You shouldn't be talking about spouses, Missy!" And then the claws come out and they get into a face scratching brawl.

Oh dear! It's late. Maybe I'll work this up into a Saturday Night Live skit. I'll think about it tomorrow.

PLEASE, BERNIE, SAVE US FROM THIS! PLEASE! PLEASE! PRETTY PLEASE!!!

[RobertEarl]

11. Geeezzz

You may be right. The two of them could be conspiring to make sure their world, their matrix, is the last survivor.

The bushes, the wars, the money, the vote stealing machines, new Chinese billionaires, none of it happened by accident.

It's late, I am sleepy, but damn.... it does make sense.

[ebayfool]

17. Bookmarking your excellent post ...

"Like climbing green vines, we will find every nook and cranny in the wall and slither in, under, over and around it to a green and glorious victory."

"So, MOMENTUM. Sanders and his campaign, and all of us supporters, have ALWAYS had to create our own momentum."

You paint with words, Peace Patriot, and they help the rest of keep going. TY!

[JDPriestly]

9. K&R.

This is a once in a lifetime chance to elect a Bernie, a person of real integrity, political understanding, compassion and vision to the White House.

Never have I seen a presidential candidate as wonderful as Bernie.

He has the experience, the relationships and the personality for the job. He is a true leader.

We are working in California with the goal of (my personal goal) 70-80% of the vote going for Bernie.

If you live outside California, even if your state has voted, and you are a Bernie supporter, please make calls and help us with our campaign.

Bernie can win.

It will be extremely difficult and as the OP points out probably impossible for Hillary to go to the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates. Oregon and California are not going to give her the percentages of those delegates that she would need to do that.

This is by no means over. By no means.

Keep working. Please. Work as if the future of America depends on your work because it does.

Feel the Bern!

This is a life or death matter for many good young kids in our military who need Bernie in the White House, Bernie who will work to keep them safe not just during their service but afterward too.

We discuss the economic good that Bernie's plans would do for Americans very often here, but we most of all need to talk about what Bernie's willingness to negotiate and to treat everyone including people in foreign countries with respect will mean for the future of our country.

And Bernie is the strongest candidate on environmental issues. He is not bought by the oil industry. He will make sure that all Americans learn the truth about the risks of continuing to use fossil fuels to the extent we are now using them.

America needs Bernie.

Please keep the faith. Keep working for Bernie. He can win. There is a way. We just have to forge it with him.

Feel the Bern! Don't let up.

[Peace Patriot]

13. Thank you, JD! A beautiful comment!

[ebayfool]

18. Awesome, JDPriestly.

You state the very reasons that giving up is not an option. I have kids, grandkids!, that I'm fighting for. And not just mine. Everyones. We can do better. We WILL do better. Bernie is the start to that better!

I'm in California, too. Knocking on doors, preaching it (and I'm agnostic ) and Bernie is catching on. People like what they hear, once they are exposed to his platform. It's the lack of exposure that we have to overcome. Most of the people I talk to have no clue who stands where on what, and are relying on 'teevee' to pick it up. Not helpful when 'teevee' bends over backwards to avoid the issues!

[senz]

12. Thank you so very much for this OP

The comments in the link are also interesting.

I wish strength and sustenance to all who are staying in the fight. You are heroes.

[roguevalley]

14. alaska voted highest for him. I'm so proud

[ebayfool]

15. The writer is awesome!

When I stumbled over him and saw he was saying ... 'Use it. Use my words. Fight back with facts and maths', I came back to the group as fast as I could to repost! I felt energized. Unfortunately he's having to deal with the 'Brock hordes' with increased exposure. But dayum - he's got a talent!

[corbettkroehler]

16. No Troll Accusations Of BernieMath?

I'm truly shocked. Give it time. I suppose that the sequence of steps is too precise to withstand a shill's cries of favoritism!