This sounds rather "desperate" to me.

Look, guys, don't hold your breath for this one to come true, okay?

I wonder how long he and Bernie have been pals?

An assistant professor of English?? And yet that site, and the original poster, accept it as newsworthy?

And consistently denied by a certain campaign who have now resorted to all lies, all the time, in their scorched earth approach. If that campaign manages to win the nomination after all, the party is DOOMED in the GE. Too many burned bridges and all that: it will be 2014 all over again. Thanks Debbie.

Sanders' numbers continue to climb as hers continue to fall. She has nowhere to go from here....

Start as a prohibitive favorite, and the line just keeps sloping negative until election day. Her only hope is to run out the clock. She has never risen in her polling for an election. Remarkable record.

who will never win. You are so right about this.

just a few other states? I thought this article from the Buffalo News was interesting.

and it's a mess to try and paste but here they are in all their 'glory'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

Stuart Appelbaum
Laphonza Butler
Yvette Clarke
Bill Clinton
Maria C. Cole
Sheila Comar
Vivian Cook NY
Joseph Crowley
Jennifer Cunningham
Andrew Cuomo
Leah Daughtry
Ralph Dawson
Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel
Eliot Engel
Herman Farrell
Hector Figueroa
Kirsten Gillibrand
Emily Giske
Brian Higgins
Steve Israel
Jay Jacobs
Hakeem Jeffries
Sarah Kovner
Nita Lowey
Carolyn Maloney
Sean Patrick Maloney
Gregory W. Meeks
Grace Meng
Stephanie Miner
George J. Mitchell
Jerrold Nadler
David Paterson
Charles Rangel
Dennis Rivera
Kathleen Rice
Chuck Schumer
José E. Serrano
Louise Slaughter
Gerry Sweeney
Paul Tonko
Nydia Velázquez
Randi Weingarten
Rob Zimmerman
NY National Committeeman (vacant)

I'm pretty sure you're missing this point in an article that had more than one.

The Clintons had to woo most of this list (if accurate) when they moved to New York. What's important about this list is to realize that before voters get to decide, these people have their say. Of course an ex-president is on the list himself now. It's a list of politically powerful NYers, and Bernie Sanders, or his campaign, will know just what names belong on it these days.

More, I've read that the first mountain for any aspiring candidate to conquer is actually about 15+/- NY long-entrenched power figures, whose names may not be not on this list. Bill Clinton is not one of them. They're the ones who really choose who's going to be on that ballot. Want even a chance to win statewide office in NY? Get as many as possible of that group on your side first. I actually have their names as of a decade ago in a book about HRC's long, hard struggle to become U.S. Senator from New York, even though NYers initially came to her and asked her to run.

You write,

There is no version of Democracy, or any other political system, that will ever not include people who become more politically powerful through their own efforts. We can and have at times locally put ceilings on that power, but usually we can't be bothered. And that's just reality.

Whatever new order you imagine will also be formed by people and thus will include human flaws.

This is a seminal difference between liberals and those farther left. Liberals want to improve our existing order by fixing problems and and limiting power -- within our model of government of, by, and for the people, while those farther left delude themselves that they can replace the existing order with something far better. But it cannot be.

Your new order is government of, by, and for the rich. It is a plutocracy, not a democracy. It has sputtered underground for the length of our nation's history but finally hatched in the late 70s (Powell Memo) and took form under Ronald Reagan. A few years later, it insinuated itself into the Democratic Party through Al From and Bill Clinton. It took the reins of government out of the hands of the people and transferred them to the corporate/wealthy class who proceeded to use government for their own ends at the expense of the citizens.

What Bernie Sanders wants, and what I want, is to return control of the government to the people through their elected representatives -- not through a well-fed faction within a political party that does what it can to keep the people from using their government to secure their inalienable rights. That, after all, is the purpose of government.

You may think you're keeping the barbarians at bay, but the coup has already occurred and you are proudly and staunchly defending it as "reality."

What we have now is not what our nation's founders intended.

that only they have the answers -- and everyone else is corrupt and thus must be defeated instead of worked with -- is a fatal flaw that dooms them to failure and sidelining.

Darned good thing too because there are a bunch of other flaws, such as really bad judgement, absolutism, lack of empathy, and contempt for the rights and wishes of other people that make far-left leaders and governments very, bad, far more similar to those of the far right than to our democracy.

Just to keep it clear, liberals and those farther left aren't just different strengths of the same general leaning -- they are very different kinds of people. Positions on issues usually overlap strongly, but how they would go about making change happen and the forms government should take reveal enormous differences.

For instance, the far left often follows authoritarian leaders and adopt authoritarian "solutions" that are to be forced on the recalcitrant "others," while liberals are the human race's anti-authoritarians (true libertarians are also, but there aren't many of them, and they're also too extreme and dysfunctional to form stable societies).

Our democracy itself is a liberal construct, and I have my own conceit that when it comes to governing liberals are easily the most competent of us. With all our faults, if we were no more, democracy, with all its faults, would also be no more.

You don't know who I am or what I believe, so please keep the wild-ass red baiting to yourself.

people this election who absurdly refuse to understand and accept, much less admit, that 100 million other Americans recognize the same problems they do and want most of them fixed do fit that caricature all too well.

Fortunately, a large majority of Sanders' supporters are liberals and moderate conservatives who do not -- something those Sanders supporters from the far left also refuse to understand and accept, much less admit.

The JB Society is an ultraconservative, exophobic, nationalist movement on the far right. Interestingly, though Bircher goals are extremely different from those of the far left, the people in both groups are remarkably similar in a lot of ways. And, of course, very dissimilar in others.

Being at outs with most of society and feeling government doesn't represent them is common to both. But, Bircher types are against everyone who is not like them, while far lefters are just against everyone who doesn't join them.

Most of what became what the Tea Party took form as were actually Bircher types, as is most of the remnant GOP's base these days. Read about them and you'll understand why.

... projection like " ...the far left often follows authoritarian leaders ..." and "... a bunch of other flaws ... make far-left leaders and governments very, bad ..."











The Birchers love that shit.

It CAN also be strong in Far Left types, although is not as intrinsic a part of them as it is to most on the Far Right. Nevertheless, far left authoritarianism is very real, and people of the far left will at times choose to support authoritarian leaders and governments. Liberals are repelled by authoritarianism.

That's why there is literally no such thing as "liberal fascism," while "left wing fascism" is far from unheard of and "right wing fascism" is so common that it is a constant threat to democracy.

Within the context of our democratic system, I do not see it as a problem, but I believe I detect a whiff of authoritarianism in Bernie. If it exists, it is probably part of what draws people from both the right and left to the strong voice he projects and the absolutism of his message.

Build a stronger ground game and convince the delegates that he is the better candidate to be our nominee in the fall.

Its not a "contested convention" when one candidate gets a majority of pledged delegates and also has a majority of superdelegates. The only "contest" in that case is can Bernie inexplicably convince enough superdelegates to overturn the will of the people. Theres no evidence he will be able to do so. Neither candidate will get enough pledged delegates to total a majority of all delegates, but that's a ridiculous goal. By this definition 2008 was also a "contested convention" because Obama required superdelegates to reach the number he needed but that was not any "contest", it was a foregone conclusion. 2382 total delegates are necessary to secure the nomination but to expect one candidate to receive those only through pledged delegates means they have to get 59% to win... that makes no sense. These are machinations of the Sanders campaign to prolong the contest.

Then both sides have to stand up in front of everyone at the convention ( and watching on tv) and state why exactly they are supporting their chosen candidate.

I would hate to have to try and sell hillary under those conditions.. there ain't no Ignore buttons at the convention.

The people will have already chosen her in a majority. There is zero pressure to switch and tremendous pressure not to in that scenario.

There is a rather large distinction.

Or about 2.4 million less of them so far. Oh wait those were confederates those arent people. My bad.

they would not subvert the will of the people. The nominee will be the person who has the most pledged delegates. Barring some unforeseen event, that person will be Hillary.

They can switch allegiance. If neither candidate has 2383 pledged delegates, which is very likely, then it is indeed a contested convention. The superdelegates could even throw their weight behind a third candidate nominated from the floor, like Biden, and force second and third votes where even the pledged delegates are no longer committed.

Seriously after arguing for months how the democratic establishment has been against Sanders at every turn, now the grasp at straws argument is that they will reverse field and overturn the will of the voters after he's lost a majority of delegates?

Convention still several months away. Who would have guessed Trump would be leading GOP field 4 months ago?

Again, hundreds of super delegates did abandon Hillary and switched to Obama in 2008 and they are prepared to do so again if it means riding the electoral coattails of Bernie in the general election.

They do know how to protect their personal interests and political careers.

There is zero evidence they will switch to the loser. Furthermore its debatable at best who would be the better GE candidate. And finally Hillary campaigns and raises money for democrats down the ticket, Bernie doesn't. Which makes your scenario that much less likely.

In 2008, the majority of super delegates did indeed support Hillary. They switched once it was determined that the person with the most pledged delegates was Obama. In 2016, that person is Hillary. She has more than double the pledged delegate lead that Obama had in 2008.

If you can't win without telling lies, something is very wrong.

He also has an article where he claims non-white support for Clinton is "collapsing." Yeah, right.

He is not a journalist. He is a Bernie advocate (I won't quite say operative). Not one of his articles is positive for Hillary or negative for Bernie. It is classic outcome-based reasoning.

I think it's fine to be an advocate, but it is hardly impartial analysis.

FWIW, he predict that Kasich will be the GOP nominee.

HRC will win the nom on the first ballot.

.... that misrepresent the facts. Here's the thing. In 2008, Obama did not have enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination. Was there an article from Seth Abramson that it was a contested convention? Of course not. Because the idea that the underdog is somehow gonna wrestle the supers away from the top delegate-getter is pretty ridiculous.

Look at Abramson's articles. He has one goal: Talk Clinton DOWN and talk Sanders UP. He's a partisan. His blog posts have a specific intended political effect. That's bloody obvious.

But the outcome-based thinkers here will say he is just "telling the truth." It's like listening to climate change deniers.

half of the pledged delegates.

It is highly likely that that person will be Clinton. There is absolutely no way that more than half of the superdelegates will then vote against her -- especially as more than half personally support her!

In the unlikely case that it is Bernie who gets the most pledged delegates, I suspect that before superdelegates would put their collective thumb on the scale they would poll or focus group to see the likely reaction. Not to mention, a LOT is gained by APPEARING to be the winner. When the contests are over - whoever has more than half will celebrate and that will set the expectation that that person has won. I suspect that most superdelegates will go for whomever won the pledged delegates -- just as they did in 2008.

Not to mention, it is silly to say the Clinton campaign is collapsing. They are still on target to win the nomination. It is true that they likely expected a race more like 2000, where Gore was the establishment blessed next in line, even though on paper, Senator Bradley was a stronger challenger than Sanders, Gore won every contest. In fact, this is not even like 2004, where Kerry lost only 4 contests - two to favorite sons already out of the race. This is not as tight as 2008, but it may - like 1992 - take until June to clinch the pledged majority. As such, Bernie Sanders greatly exceeded expectations ... especially those that questioned if he could even win Vermont.

I also understand that THEORETICALLY they could give en mass give the nomination to the loser of the pledged count. In fact, that was an idea that the Hillary 2008 team floated after supertuesday when they did less well than expected. 2008 was as close as it comes - and the more establishment choice was the loser. If there were any time when the superdelegates might have been inclined to give the nomination to the one with fewer delegates, it would be that year ... and it did not happen. Remember that a very large group of superdelegates near the end declared they would vote for whomever was the winner of the most pledged delegates.

I think it is insane to think they would do that for Sanders, when many personally have said they prefer Clinton.

That makes it unlikely either of two rather evenly matched candidates can exceed 2383 needed by pledged delegates alone....very possible neither candidate reaches 2000.

who wins the majority of the pledged votes will almost certainly get the majority of the superdelegates. In both 2008 and this year, there are superdelegates who have said they will vote for the one who gets the majority of the pledged votes.

I have no idea what magic you thing 2000 has. Other than being a round number, it relates to nothing.

What magical #berniemath are you using to figure it's possible neither candidate reaches 2000?

Sid

One could have 2000, the other 2051. Neither has enough to get nomination without superdelegates.

After the states decide who their delegates to the DNC will be, they will attend the national convention.

Delegates have switched between candidates before, and when the Democratic National Convention is held, many more state delegates will have had more time to decide which candidate they will support.

And that is when those states' delegates will cast their votes for the candidate.

Not to mention, it is silly to say the Clinton campaign is collapsing.

And then what if she sweeps all five April 26 states, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut and Rhode Island?

And then if she finishes the race with wins in New Jersey and California?

My guess is that they will still try to spin it as a collapsing campaign.

In the end, Hillary will probably finish with a higher percentage of the pledged delegates than Obama had in 2008.

I haven't seen recent polling on DE, CT and RI.

There hasn't been any recent polling done in those states.

I imagine that those numbers will grow wider after her big win in New York. At the very least it will probably prevent Sanders from getting any new momentum heading into the April 26 states.

I think she will win New York by double digits and follow up with a 5 state sweep a week later.

Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Sid

Her actions, her baggage, her poor judgement.

Time to hang it up, Hillary.

Here re:Hillary.

She does not know what "CP" is and interprets it in a way she knows " Cautious Politician"

Seems ok to me.

In my lifetime, I have never witnessed this level of crony capitalism and machine politics. It has existed in other, third world countries, but certainly not in modern nations. Iceland made its PM resign for having an offshore account. Britain is pressuring its PM for the same reason. But here in this country, a bank can pay Hillary $675,000 for three luncheon chats and the establishment does not peep about it.

Sanders looks to have enough momentum that he might catch up, but his rising popularity seems mainly due to the masses' finally having learned who the fuck he is. He's played the longest game he could, with the relative unknown making steady inroads into demographics that wold have been Clinton's by default.

Clinton is in no way "collapsing." Voters' choices have just been expanding, and many are realizing that a vote for progressivism isn't necessarily going to be thrown away.

The English Prof. needs to make a visit to the Math Dept. and swing by Journalism. His articles remind me of when Fox News told their viewers that Mitt Ronney was going to win the 2012 election.

In real life, Hillary is ahead by double the pledged delegates that Obama had when he won the nomination in 2008.

There won't be a contested convention. The person with the most pledged delegates will be the nominee.

Hillary can't do a long campaign. The more people see her, the less they like her. And when someone asks her a question that she hasn't been prepped for, she gets nasty and combative.

As Secretary of State, her only "diplomacy" was to bomb people and overthrow governments she disagreed with.

If you don't donate to her money-laundering foundation, you're toast.

My powers of prognostication are a little cloudy at the moment, but I believe it should be clear to everybody who is paying any attention at all that The Bern is here to stay.

The Bern will not be intimidated, scolded, cajoled or marginalized. The Bern will not be ignored. The Bern will be recognized as a force to reckon with.

Feel The Bern!

Abramson proves it and he is right.

And according to Bernie supporters, this is the 52nd consecutive week that her campaign is collapsing.

Given Hill's lead in votes, delegates, and super-delegates, I'm sure Bernie wishes his campaign was "collapsing" this way, too.

So I guess her 2016 campaign has been "collapsing" for nine years then.

And yet she's still the front-runner, still ahead in votes, delegates, and super-delegates.

Amazing for someone whose campaign has been "collapsing" for all that time, isn't it?

They will excoriate Bernie and then drop out of participating in the election process by shunning the nominee by refusing to vote for Bernie.

losing most of the next states then the problem may solve itself with many of the supers logically jumping ship. How many are malleable, to reason though?

If she has brought an intractable gaggle enough to stymie the inevitable conclusion THEN it must be brokered. If Bernie has not actually won enough of the next states, they sure as hell will double down for misery in the fall and will continue as they have to try to bluff down Sanders.

Then we will have drama galore. I don't see Hillary ever agreeing to a third choice. Not even Bill. At some point enough have to revolt to bypass her.

Fearsome speculation for a party that just didn't want any bother this year.

that's the crux of the issue: they not only thought there wouldn't be a real challenge to their whole machine, but that everything was hunky-dory for Dems since we had the ACA and killed OBL and Qaddafi for reasons of liberalism

they thought that their machine was so big nobody would even have a reason to challenge it since everyone'd been made to participate, that by coopting any possible challenge they'd keep Sanders under 20%--remember all those "he can't crack X" posts? that was desperate self-reassurance; since he was left of Kucinich he should get only half the votes

The fact that Sanders supporters think that this will be an open convention is really funny

Along with Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman ?@paulkrugman · 14m14 minutes ago

How can Clinton be ahead? Sanders just won 7 states, total pop 20 million; Clinton won Florida, pop 20 million, by 30 points. No mystery.



But I guess Florida doesn't matter because it's the deep South . . .