Jump to content
zkyllonen8

What if Bernie Wins in New York?

Recommended Posts

If Bernie wins the primary tomorrow I believe that the Clinton campaign will be backed into a corner and they will have a very difficult time in California and the Bernie campaign will have a better chance at the contested Democratic Convention

"Hillary Clinton needs to win 65.3 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to avoid a contested Democratic convention at which she and Bernie Sanders separately plead their cases to the Party’s 714 unpledged “super-delegates.”-.huffingtonpost

This shows that the next few months will be hard for the Sanders and Clinton campaign and In general the Sanders camp will have A very better chance at the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur. The NY primary tomorrow, is a last stand for Bernie. A win gives him a realistic chance going forward. A loss will be a crippling blow. The polls look bad for Bernie but they also did In Michigan where Bernie beat all predictions. Let's hope the unexpected happens again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bernie wins the primary tomorrow I believe that the Clinton campaign will be backed into a corner and they will have a very difficult time in California and the Bernie campaign will have a better chance at the contested Democratic Convention

"Hillary Clinton needs to win 65.3 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to avoid a contested Democratic convention at which she and Bernie Sanders separately plead their cases to the Party’s 714 unpledged “super-delegates.”-.huffingtonpost

This shows that the next few months will be hard for the Sanders and Clinton campaign and In general the Sanders camp will have A very better chance at the nomination.

 

That quote from Huffington Post is a bit misleading.

 

I just ran the numbers in an Excel spreadsheet, using data from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html, on 4/19/2016.

 

Here are the numbers. If no super-delegates existed at all, then to win the nomination:

  • Clinton would need 66.36% of the remaining unpledged delegates to get to 2382.
  • Sanders would need 81.18% of the remaining unpledged delegates to get to 2382.

But super-delegates do exist, and Clinton has the lion's share. Considering superdelegates and how they said they'd vote, then:

  • Clinton needs 37.89% of the remaining unpledged delegates to get to 2382.
  • Sanders needs 79.30% of the remaining unpledged delegates to get to 2382.

But what if they divide the remaining pledged delegates 50-50? (Something in that ballpark isn't unlikely.) Then:

  • Clinton get 2113 pledged delegates
  • Sanders gets 1868 pledged delegates

What if they divide the remaining pledged delegates 55-45 in favor of Sanders? Then:

  • Clinton get 2030 pledged delegates
  • Sanders gets 1950 pledged delegates

They tie in pledged delegates if she gets 42.6% of the remaining and he gets 57.4% of the remaining.

 

So even if Sanders wins all the remaining delegates by as much as 55% to 45% (and it's more likely to be 50-50, given past performance) he still doesn't beat Clinton in pledged delegates.

 

And super-delegates who have already said they'll support Clinton will not likely switch to Sanders when Clinton has more pledged delegates.

 

So unless Clinton is indicted for something, the overwhelming likelihood is that she will be the nominee.

 

On the other hand, if she manages to lose the nomination with such a lead, then she deserves to lose. We go into the general election with Sanders, and I'll have a Sanders sign on my lawn. (Which will get stolen, just like my Obama signs were stolen. And I'll replace them. :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Hillary gets knocked out of the race by an indictment, the Democrat party insiders, IMO, will probably try to push someone else over Bernie. Perhaps Joe Biden, Corey Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Julian Castro, Tammy Baldwin, etc. Most top Democrats are on the take and a Sanders presidency would presage the end of the gravy train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The continuing charge that all Democrats who support Hillary Clinton are corrupt is galling.

 

It is hypocrisy on the part of Senator Sanders to run "as a Democrat," while he and his supporters slander good people in the party. My respect for his campaign has evaporated due to attitudes like these.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics responsive to the electorate has largely given way to politics responsive to Big Money. That includes both parties.

Blue billionaires on top

POLITICO’s list of Top 100 donors of disclosed money tilts leftward.

By Kenneth P. Vogel

01/11/15 08:04 AM EST

Democrats spent much of the 2014 campaign castigating Republican big money, but, it turns out, their side actually finished ahead among the biggest donors of 2014 – at least among those whose contributions were disclosed.

The 100 biggest donors of 2014 gave nearly $174 million to Democrats, compared to more than $140 million to Republicans, according to a POLITICO analysis of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service.

Donors who gave mostly or exclusively to Democrats held down 52 of the top 100 spots, including that of the biggest by far – retired San Francisco hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer, who spent $74 million helping Democratic candidates and groups.

Of course, that edge doesn’t take into account contributions to deep-pocketed non-profit groups that don’t disclose their donors. They heavily favored Republicans, with reports showing conservative secret money non-profits outspending liberal ones $127 million to $33 million. While that’s just a fraction of the overall undisclosed money spent in 2014, it’s indicative of a dramatic imbalance in a type of big money spending that likely would close the gap between Democratic and Republican top donors, if not put Republicans ahead.

( Also on POLITICO: Bush and Romney: Ready to rumble?)

For instance, the network of mostly secret-money non-profit groups helmed by the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers was on pace to spend $290 million in 2014. Yet David and Charles Koch, who Democrats worked to vilify as the very personifications of the corrupting effect of big money in politics, ranked as only the 10th and 29th biggest givers of disclosed cash in POLITICO’s analysis.

Nonetheless, the analysis suggests that rich liberals have gotten over any lingering qualms about writing huge checks to unlimited-money groups like those made legal under a pair of 2010 federal court decisions – including Citizens United vs. FEC – that liberals including President Barack Obama had blasted as undermining American democracy.

POLITICO’s analysis is the most comprehensive assessment to date of elite donor spending in the first full midterm election cycle following Citizens United. The analysis relies on FEC data processed by the Center for Responsive Politics (a non-partisan non-profit group), supplemented by IRS data aggregated and made available for downloading by Political Moneyline, covering donations made during the 2014 cycle, including reports filed last month that detail contributions through the final days of the race. The analysis incorporates checks written by donors, their spouses and closely controlled corporations to federal candidates’ campaigns and national party committees, as well as to political action committees and super PACs registered with the FEC. The analysis also covers donations to national non-profit groups established under a section of the tax code – 527 – that allows organizations like the Democratic and Republican governors associations and EMILY’s List to accept unlimited contributions for political spending, provided they disclose their donors to the IRS.

The list contains some familiar names in the world of big political spending from across the political spectrum, including the hawkish Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson (who ranked No. 3; with $13.2 million in disclosed donations, but who also donated another $10 million or more in undisclosed money), as well as the liberal financier George Soros and his son Jonathan Soros (Nos. 16 and 38, respectively, giving a combined $5.6 million).

- snip -


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary is too warhawkish for me. Sadly it's either her or whoever the Republicans put up for election. I'd vote Jill Stein if I thought it would do any good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, everyone is corrupt except Bernie Sanders :glare:

And me. Don't forget me. I'm a friggin' Mother Teresa. Except I'm a man. And not Catholic. And not named Teresa. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And me. Don't forget me. I'm a friggin' Mother Teresa. Except I'm a man. And not Catholic. And not named Teresa. :D

Mother Teresa was pretty corrupt, and a pretty terrible person overall. She was good friends with Jean-Claude Duvalier, who stole millions from the poor. She often baptized the dying without regard to their personal wishes, and generally thought suffering was a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mother Teresa was pretty corrupt, and a pretty terrible person overall. She was good friends with Jean-Claude Duvalier, who stole millions from the poor. She often baptized the dying without regard to their personal wishes, and generally thought suffering was a good thing.

Well alrighty then. I'm much better than friggin' Mother Teresa. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most top Democrats are on the take and a Sanders presidency would presage the end of the gravy train.

Bollocks. BS. Quatsch. Tu pête plus haut que le trou.

 

Prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The continuing charge that all Democrats who support Hillary Clinton are corrupt is galling.

 

It is hypocrisy on the part of Senator Sanders to run "as a Democrat," while he and his supporters slander good people in the party. My respect for his campaign has evaporated due to attitudes like these.

 

Bill

 

Yes, everyone is corrupt except Bernie Sanders :glare:

 

Bill

 

And me. Don't forget me. I'm a friggin' Mother Teresa. Except I'm a man. And not Catholic. And not named Teresa. :D

 

Well alrighty then. I'm much better than friggin' Mother Teresa. :D

 

Bollocks. BS. Quatsch. Tu pête plus haut que le trou.

 

Prove it.

 

Ha ha ha. Funny. I can understand why people with no authentic argument would resort to lashing out with ad hominems and expletives. The truth must hurt.

 

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18798/liberals-election2016-Sanders-Chait-Leftism

January 25, 2016 Liberal Pundits Aren’t Amused By Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Anymore—They’re Terrified

In recent weeks, major liberal pundits are putting in overtime to freshen their case against Bernie Sanders, urging citizen’s to ignore their conscience and quit screwing with the interests of the moneyed elite.

 

The objective of the week for liberals appears to be to make clear Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is some kind of pariah. Despite how his candidacy has transformed into a phenomenon over the past months, establishment liberals maintain the U.S. senator from Vermont should not be considered a “serious” candidate. They believe it would be a huge mistake if a Democrat with unapologetic socialist leanings won the nomination, especially over Hillary Clinton.

But these cases against Sanders are really arguments against citizens voting their conscience. The uncertainty and dismissiveness toward Sanders serves to silence any critics of the corporate-driven politics entrenched in the Democratic Party. It suggests a fear that Democrats might actually stand against corporate power for a change.

- snip -

This rhetoric fits a playbook the American liberal class has followed for the past decades. As writer Chris Hedges argued, “The liberal class’ disposal of its most independent and courageous members has long been part of its pathology.” After World War I, and especially after World War II, corporations gradually sought more and more control of the state. Corporations now hold government completely captive and the liberal class, which “purged itself of the only members who had the fortitude and vision to save it from irrelevance,” bears some responsibility.

Those in power expect liberals to police others on the left who would threaten their supremacy. So, when a political elite such as Clinton is faced with a formidable opponent, liberal pundits wittingly or unwittingly devise arguments for why Americans should vote against their interests and support someone who would likely manage government in a manner suitable for the corporate state.

- snip -

It is one thing to vote for Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, who are more than happy to serve the moneyed elite, if you actually believe in what she stands for as a presidential candidate. But it is quite another thing to delude people into voting for her simply because it is your view that Bernie Sanders’ vision is difficult to make a reality. That position accepts the status quo and embraces a politics of low expectations, where the best elected officials can do is triage the effect of wealth and power becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of the few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bernie wins the primary tomorrow I believe that the Clinton campaign will be backed into a corner and they will have a very difficult time in California and the Bernie campaign will have a better chance at the contested Democratic Convention

"Hillary Clinton needs to win 65.3 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to avoid a contested Democratic convention at which she and Bernie Sanders separately plead their cases to the Party’s 714 unpledged “super-delegates.”-.huffingtonpost

This shows that the next few months will be hard for the Sanders and Clinton campaign and In general the Sanders camp will have A very better chance at the nomination.

It's not going to happen. Hillary will win New York by double digits. Bernie is starting to become unhinged in his campaign. The math doesn't favor Bernie after New York, nomatter what happens. All of the down ticket campaigns for Senate and House seats, will force the remaining delegates to back Clinton, and Bernie will hurt his own brand if he uses the rest of the money on a losing campaign, instead of supporting the down ticket candidates. Bernie did an admiral job forcing Hillary to move left, and he still holds sway with younger voters he can hold over her head until the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not going to happen. .

 

I'm resigned to it. The last best hope for the middle class is probably electoral toast.

 

http://inthesetimes.com/article/19068/hillary-clinton-and-the-soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations

April 19, 2016Hillary Clinton and the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

Do young people oppose Clinton because they’re sexist—or because they’re looking for something more in politics?

 

It’s not that Hillary Clinton is, as she said recently, “not a natural politician.” It’s not that she’s a powerful and self-assured woman. Sexism surely explains some of the hostility toward her, but it doesn’t begin to account for the fact that Clinton is among the most disliked and distrusted candidates in modern American politics.

For insight, perhaps we could turn to a younger Hillary Clinton—the one who said, during her graduation speech to Wellesley’s Class of 1969, “We're not in the positions yet of leadership and power, but we do have that indispensable task of criticizing and constructive protest.”

The one who said, in the same speech: “There are some things we feel—feelings that our prevailing, acquisitive and competitive corporate life, including tragically the universities, is not the way of life for us. We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating modes of living.”

The one who concluded that speech with these lines from a poem: “And you and I must be free/Not to save the world in a glorious crusade/Not to kill ourselves with a nameless gnawing pain/But to practice with all the skill of our being/The art of making possible.”

- snip -

Today, the latter script says that we face dire challenges across a range of sectors—climate change, the corruption of our politics by private money and special interests, gun violence, racial injustice, our deteriorating infrastructure, health care costs, income inequality and more. Yet the best we can hope for, those adhering to that script argue, is maintaining the status quo or, in the best case scenario, incremental reform.

Whatever her early ambitions about “practic[ing] with all the skill of our being the art of making possible,” for much of her career Clinton has worked from a script whose central theme is, as George W. Bush once put it, the soft bigotry of low expectations. Its plot is determined by the path of least resistance.

It would have taken courage for Clinton to vote against the Iraq War in 2002; or to “evolve” on same-sex marriage before her party did; or, as a senator from New York, to oppose the bankruptcy bill of 2001, which favored banks and the credit card industries; or for to her lead the fight for a $15 minimum wage rather than supporting a $12 federal standard. But political courage has never been the Clinton brand, of course.

- snip -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm resigned to it. The last best hope for the middle class is probably electoral toast.

 

http://inthesetimes.com/article/19068/hillary-clinton-and-the-soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations

It wasn't in the cards for him. The best hope for the middleclass is a Liberal judiciary. That's where the focus has to be. Along with a Democratic Senate. Clinton won't be able to sign any pro corporate legislation, because Liberals in the Senate will never let it reach her desk. If she wins, and the Dems take back the Senate, the Republicans are back benched for at least 6 years, as Senate terms are that long. Bernie has created a Liberal movement with his campaign, and it will be even stronger in the elections in the future. With a solidly Liberal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The biggest victory of all for Liberals, and the middleclass is forcing the Republican party to move to the left. It will take few years for that to sink in. But as Bernie would say, it's YUUGE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh heh. I thought YUUGGE was parlance of The Donald.

 

But seriously, you are basically correct in what you say.

 

Bernie may be too old for a future presidential run, but he has started a movement that, given the singular difficulty of our times, is likely to grow in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha ha. Funny. I can understand why people with no authentic argument would resort to lashing out with ad hominems and expletives. The truth must hurt.

There's no ad hominem here. You made a sweeping and unsupported assertion, when you wrote that "Most top Democrats are on the take". I take issue with that and call BS. Ad hominem means I attack your argument by attacking you; which I don't do. I take it for granted that you're an honorable person. But your statement that most top Democrats are on the take must either be supported by evidence, or else been seen as BS. I call BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I provided evidence which you fail to acknowledge. Those on the take are not going to report themselves. Now maybe you should provide some evidence that top democrats are NOT taking money from large corporations. I haven't seen anything yet.


 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/

rulings%2Ftom-mostlytrue.gif
Hillary Clinton’s top 10 donors are mainly "banks, corporations and media," while Bernie Sanders’ top 10 donors are labor unions.

 


There's no ad hominem here. You made a sweeping and unsupported assertion, when you wrote that "Most top Democrats are on the take". I take issue with that and call BS. Ad hominem means I attack your argument by attacking you; which I don't do. I take it for granted that you're an honorable person. But your statement that most top Democrats are on the take must either be supported by evidence, or else been seen as BS. I call BS.

 

You called BS with expletives but no explanation. Why was that? Maybe that's all you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What expletives? "Bollocks" is British slang for our "BS". The French phrase is more colorful (literally "farting higher than the hole"), but means the same.

 

Taking donations from corporations is legal. I have no doubt that politicians take money from corporations.

 

Being "on the take" is different. It connotes illegality. Are you suggesting that the top Democratic politicians are doing something illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of Citizen's United bribery has become legal. As a result, top Democrats are no longer responsive mainly to their constituencies but to special interests which fund their campaigns and lobby in Congress.

 

 

This article reveals who is giving funds to many top congressional Democrats. The corporations which fund politicians expect a return on their investment. They are not charitable organizations for the benefit of politicians.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/congress-corporate-sponsors


What expletives? "Bollocks" is British slang for our "BS". The French phrase is more colorful (literally "farting higher than the hole"), but means the same.

 

Yeah. And don't forget "friggin' Mother Teresa". You used that as an argument also. Funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You made a sweeping and unsupported assertion, when you wrote that "Most top Democrats are on the take". I take issue with that and call BS. Ad hominem means I attack your argument by attacking you; which I don't do. I take it for granted that you're an honorable person. But your statement that most top Democrats are on the take must either be supported by evidence, or else been seen as BS. I call BS.

 

First you call BS on my assertion that most top democrats are on the take.

 

Taking donations from corporations is legal. I have no doubt that politicians take money from corporations.

 

Being "on the take" is different. It connotes illegality. Are you suggesting that the top Democratic politicians are doing something illegal?

 

Then you contradict yourself by saying it's legal and politicians do take money from corporations ... Making my point for me. Can't have it both ways, you know.

 

It's not productive to defend such unethical practice as legalized bribery. Citizens' United must be repealed as a necessary step to make government responsive to the electorate again and not special interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First you call BS on my assertion that most top democrats are on the take.

 

Then you contradict yourself by saying it's legal and politicians do take money from corporations ... Making my point for me. Can't have it both ways, you know.

 

It's not productive to defend such unethical practice as legalized bribery. Citizens' United must be repealed as a necessary step to make government responsive to the electorate again and not special interests.

While I agree that Citizens United must be repealed, that's something only the SCOTUS can do.

 

But both your characterizations are BS, and here's why: Both "on the take" and "legalized bribery" imply a quid pro quo. That's something donors probably want: about that you are correct. But there's only quid pro quo if the person accepting campaign contributions does something as repayment.

 

That's where you've provided no evidence. Do you have evidence that Hilary Clinton is corrupt? As far as I know, not even Bernie Sanders has accused her of that.

 

And if that's not the case, there's a certain apparent holier than thou attitude when a candidate is smeared as corrupt, without evidence, for doing something legal, that every other candidate has always done.

 

Bernie is a good guy. He's been to the Vatican and he's seen the damn pope. (I can imagine him saying that in almost exactly those words. :)) But there's no moral purity here, he's not perfect, he's a human being just like Hillary Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any politician who raises more money from Big Interests than small donors is on the take. The Scalia SCOTUS made corruption legal with the deceptively named "Citizen's United" decision. Big Donors give to politicians expecting a return on their investment. If there is no favorable legislation, the funds dry up. I call that legalized bribery. It makes politicians in both parties, more responsive to Big Interests than their constituencies. That is not how our Nation was intended to work.

 

Hillary most of her funds from big Wall St firms like Goldman Sachs. They are not giving money to her out of the kindness of their hearts. She owes Wall St legislation which is bound to be detrimental to Main St.

 

Now ... I have provided plenty of evidence of corruption and you have provided no evidence of purity except denials.

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

Top Contributors - Hillary Clinton

 

Emily's List

$907,510 Citigroup Inc $891,501 DLA Piper $852,873 Goldman Sachs $831,523 JPMorgan Chase & Co $801,380 Morgan Stanley $765,242 University of California $686,509 Time Warner $603,170 Skadden, Arps et al $562,182 Corning Inc $492,750 Kirkland & Ellis $491,066 Paul, Weiss et al $430,919 Greenberg Traurig LLP $422,195 Akin, Gump et al $398,898 Sullivan & Cromwell $395,807 National Amusements Inc $386,698 Harvard University $384,769 Ernst & Young $377,082 21st Century Fox $373,482 Lehman Brothers $362,853

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...