“The Public Doesn’t Really Decide The Nominee”: Leaders Move To Limit Democratic Choice in The Democratic Convention

As we have been discussing, establishment figures in the Democratic party and the media have been preparing to block any nomination of Bernie Sanders, including using the “superdelegates” to hand the nomination to another candidate. The New York Times reported Thursday that the Democratic establishment was preparing for open warfare over blocking Sanders, even if it shatters the unity of the party. If Sanders does not receive the necessary votes, they intend to take away the nomination even if he has the most votes in the first round. The key again are the superdelegates who are not elected in the primaries but given votes as elected officials.

On MSNBC, former Obama adviser Anton J. Gunn was particularly blunt. He declared “The party decides its nominee. The public doesn’t really decide the nominee.”

In 2016, many of us objected to the concerted effect of the Democratic establishment and the Democratic National Committee to rig the primary for Hillary Clinton. Later it was revealed that the Clintons have largely taken over the DNC by taking over its debt and the DNC openly harassed and hampered Sanders at every stage. Despite this effort, Sanders came close to beating Clinton, who has never forgiven him for contesting a primary that she literally bought and paid for with the DNC. The simmering rage was still evident in Clinton’s attack on Sanders and suggestion that she might not support him if he were the nominee (a suggestion that she later took back).

Well the supers are back and Sanders may again find that it is the party elite, not the voters, who determine who will be the next nominee. The irony is that the elite hardly has an inspiring record. In 2016, every poll showed that voters did not want an establishment figure so the establishment rigged the process for the ultimate establishment figure. Clinton lost to the most unpopular Republican candidate in history. I remain convinced that Sanders could have won that election, a position recently suggested by Michael Bloomberg.

Yet, the same people that gave us the Clinton nomination will be working their magic again at the Democratic Convention. What is fascinating is that the establishment would prefer to risk the election by alienating the huge young following of Sanders rather than allow Sanders to be the nominee. If they give the nomination to another establishment figures like Biden or a billionaire like Bloomberg, the establishment would enrage millions of Sanders followers who could well stay home in 2020.

140 thoughts on ““The Public Doesn’t Really Decide The Nominee”: Leaders Move To Limit Democratic Choice in The Democratic Convention”

  1. 1789:

    The Constitution grants the states the power to set voting requirements.

    Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying European males (about 6% of the population).

    – Wiki
    _____

    11% – Voter participation in 1789.
    __________________________

    One man, one vote democracy always succumbs to corruption. Republican democracy was created with a restricted vote by the Greeks and perpetuated with a restricted vote by the Romans and the American Founders. Never did the American Founders intend for one man, one vote democracy. We gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it,” said Ben Franklin. America couldn’t.

    To reestablish the “original intent” of the American Founders, states must reimplement vote restrictions.

    As Tytler revealed, one man, one vote democracy always devolves to dictatorship. The dictatorship in America is the corrupt and deeply hidden “powers that be” – the Deep Deep State.
    ______________________________________

    republic noun

    re·​pub·​lic | \ ri-ˈpə-blik
    \
    Definition of republic

    b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
    ______________________________________________________

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”

    – Alexander Fraser Tytler

  2. Meanwhile, in South Carolina, the crooked Republicans have recruited some of their members to pretend they are Democrats, for the purpose of voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary, because Trump thinks he can throw enough manure on Sanders, and with Russia’s help, he can cheat to win, again. He knows he can’t beat Biden. So, they’re trying to skew the vote toward the candidate they believe is weaker.

    Also meanwhile, the physicians and others at the CDC have been ordered not to speak with the media or to reveal new cases of coronavirus, nor any other information about this crisis, all of which must go through Mikey Pence, chosen solely for the deep shade of brown on his nose, plus his established willingness to lie. That’s, of course, to feed the narrative that COVID-19 is fully contained, that King Donnie slew the virus, all of which King Donnie thinks will stop the stock market free fall. Seems King Donnie didn’t like it when the docs from the CDC contradicted the lies he told at the news conference on Wednesday, so he’s putting a stop to that right now. How is this any different from communist China?

    Also, it was revealed that the COVID-19 victim from Vacaville, CA, which is near Travis Air Force Base where people with or exposed to the coronavirus were taken, was refused testing for the virus by the CDC because they didn’t think she met the criteria. She is now on a ventilator, fighting to survive. We don’t have anywhere near enough testing kits for the virus because the US is behind in dealing with this infection, all due to Trump’s dismantling of the rapid response team. That team would have been on top of this infection when it was first manifest last year, and would have been gathering data on risk factors and how the disease spreads. The US is way behind. Also, if you’re thinking you’d like to have some face masks on hand just in case you might need them in the near future, good luck finding any. The city where I live has none because all of the doctors’ offices bought them up. I tried to order some online, and the site I was on crashed repeatedly.

    But, Mikey Pence will reassure us all that King Donnie was successful in slaying the virus. Problem is, no one believes anything coming from Trump and that’s why the market is doing so poorly.

    1. I’ve always thought that Trump, in his efforts to ‘brand’ his policy statements, has someone hand him a list of the 10-20 most obnoxious possible things he could do to enrage his adversaries and then he picks one or two and trots them out the next day. Dismantling the Rapid Response Team fits right in with that sentiment plus Trump probably saw whatever the team costs per year as an unnecessary expense in his Washington real estate, umm, morbid attempt at governance experiment.

      Solid strategy. Nice one, Donnie.

      Meanwhile the market dropped ten plus percent *at the fastest rate in U.S. history* and he’s freaked out so he’ll try to quickly put some sort of response team back together again. Might have some success because the scientists will step up due to the stakes involved…, but slapping a gag order on them??? And dealing with the fact it’s fully a year too late??? This crew just can’t get out of their own way. Surprise, surprise, their time in Washington is turning out to be more than insider trading episodes and buying off Senators to blunt impeachment attempts. Doh!

      1. Paulie J.,
        This recent stock market drop is not “at the fastest rate in history”. I don’t know where you got that information, but it is not accurate.

        1. Quickest 10 percent drop in history….signified by this:

          Meanwhile the market dropped ten plus percent *at the fastest rate in U.S. history* and he’s freaked out

            1. In October 1987, the stock market dropped over 20% in one day.
              We’re now we’re seeing a sharp pullback that may turn into full- fledged bear market.
              As far as sharp, fast declines go, this recent decline is nothing compared to that October 1987 rout.
              I doubt that it’s even in the top ten in the category of fast market declines.

              1. I remember that day. I was caddying for these guys that told me where to play the snap back the day after. But I was in college and had no money. My loss.

                Here let me get a list…

                  1. Going to have to read up and quantify Velshi’s terms. Interestingly enough on that chart on the Wikipedia you can see the crash coming in ’87 a few months ahead of time.

                    My guess is the the fact the Dow is more than 10x what it was in ’87 plays into it. And the fact that there were fairly immediate snap backs in ’87. Both in that 22% daily drop and the big one that followed ten days from that.

                    This week was brutal one day after the next. No snap backs.

                  2. Had it wrong. My bad.

                    Rather it was the biggest *point* total drop inside of one week. Now granted, that’s a function of the Dow being in such lofty heights to begin with. But we’re talking huge drop here.

                    To me, it’s the price shock the market has been seeking for months since it’s largely running on momentum and has been so for awhile. This week just pointed out an underlying reality about the market. Now, will there be a snap back? Yes, might even touch recent highs. Volatility at the end of longer trends can be quite spectacular as the market ‘fights it out’ over what it wants to do, obviously.

                    But think of it like this: there’s a tree and there’s an axe. This week was one huge axe strike to the trunk of that tree. Will it drop the tree by itself? Maybe, maybe not. But it most certainly gives travel directions for where things are headed in the future.

                    1. Paulie J.,
                      When I bought my first stock in October 1974, I knew that the Dow would not drop 1,000 points.
                      Believe it or not, the Dow was at 584 that day when I bought the stock.
                      From Jan. 1973 to December 1974, the Dow dropped over 40%.
                      From about 1060 in early 1973 to under 600 in late 1974.

                1. Actually it’ll take me a day or two. Need to quantify the terms since that ’87 drop was 500 points and change. The DJIA being where it is now it’s kind of apples and oranges. Have to track down Ali Velshi’s #’s on it. His info is who I refer to.

                2. Paulie J.,
                  Things don’t always post when the “post comment” is clicked on.
                  But I posted (or tried to!) post a link that gives the sharpest percentage one day drops in the S&P 500.
                  We had a one day drops of about 4 1/2 %, the worst single day drop for the market this month.
                  And probably the worst drop in about 2 years.
                  But that drop doesn’t even put it in the top 20 of worst one-day declines.

                3. Paulie J ,.
                  I don’t know how closely you follow the stock market or if this is any interest to you……
                  but, there’s an ETF, symbol SH, that moves inversely to the direction of the S&P.
                  I.E., with a 10% drop in the S&P, SH went up 10%.

          1. “Quickest 10 percent drop in history”

            True or not the drop was severe. The President said it right when he related the fall to two factors. The first is that anyone listening to the Democratic debate certainly got scared for the health of the nation when they heard the candidates sounding like lunatics. That alone is enough to cause fear on the stock market. Second, the corona virus might upset supply lines, but the US is the best prepared in the world for the virus. The NYTimes is doing their best to stoke fear and Democrats teased the President over closing our borders to China. They even called him a racist for doing so. However, now they have to live with their words whether the MSM reminds them or not. Trump was right and by closing the borders early gave the US more time which in this case is a very valuable asset.

            Cheers for Trump and may he win in 2020.

                  1. In every sense of the word true. You don’t like it because you know it is correct and one can’t prove differently.

                    1. You’re right, I respect the inherent genius in your opinion. And I’d believe it if it weren’t so delusional.

            1. I’ve seen the headline saying that this was the fastest 10% drop in history, but it’s obviously incorrect. 10% in a week doesn’t compare with 22% in a day.

              1. 22% in a day is pretty spectacular. Either way Trump is stepping up into the big leagues of market crashes and deficit building with Reagan.

                1. Anon always spinning and trying to lie one way or the other. The corona virus is not his fault. He acted quickly securing the border while your ilk accused him of racism. You guys don’t care how many die as long as you gain power. That happened in the “AID” HIV crisis when the left refused to close the bath houses in San Fransisco for political reasons. They preferred to let the entire world get sick and die rather than give up control. A bunch of bast@rds. They also killed over 100Million people outside of war in the 20th century.

                  Trump prevailed over the Democrats or right now we would have already had the virus spread all over the country since people from all over the world and China are constantly flying in.

      2. That didn’t actually happen.

        https://apnews.com/d36d6c4de29f4d04beda3db00cb46104

        “For starters, Trump hasn’t succeeded in cutting the budget.

        He’s proposed cuts but Congress ignored him and increased financing instead. The National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention aren’t suffering from budget cuts that never took effect…

        Bloomberg is repeating the false allegation in a new ad that states the U.S. is unprepared for the virus because of “reckless cuts” to the CDC. Trump’s budgets have proposed cuts to public health, only to be overruled by Congress, where there’s strong bipartisan support for agencies such as the CDC and NIH. Instead, financing has increased.

        Indeed, the money that government disease detectives first tapped to fight the latest outbreak was a congressional fund created for health emergencies.

        Some public health experts say a bigger concern than White House budgets is the steady erosion of a CDC grant program for state and local public health emergency preparedness — the front lines in detecting and battling new disease. But that decline was set in motion by a congressional budget measure that predates Trump.

        The broader point about there being “nobody here” to coordinate the response sells short what’s in place to handle an outbreak.

        The public health system has a playbook to follow for pandemic preparation — regardless of who’s president or whether specific instructions are coming from the White House. Those plans were put into place in anticipation of another flu pandemic, but are designed to work for any respiratory-borne disease.

        Among the health authorities overseeing the work are Dr. Anne Schuchat, CDC’s principal deputy director and a veteran of previous outbreaks, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, NIH’s infectious disease chief who has advised six presidents.”

      3. Paulie: you’re giving King Donnie way too much credit by thinking that he has any kind of strategy other than asserting power over other people and seeking affirmation, attention and praise. Plotting ways to piss off adversaries requires way too much thinking and strategy–things he’s not good at. No, his pissing people off comes naturally–a side-effect of his narcissism.

        You are correct that yesterday’s 1,200 point loss was the largest daily point loss in history, in terms of points, not percentages. Trump is way too dumb to understand that by gagging the CDC from informing the public, he can stop the market from continuing losses. What he’s doing is counter-productive. HE is part of the cause because the public has no confidence in him due to his endless lying. He announced Wednesday what the COVID-19 message would be: King Donnie slew the virus. In fact, on Wednesday, he even praised himself for doing a good job. He keeps insisting it will end soon. Based on what? He has no respect whatsoever for science because he’s ignorant about it, so he denies climate change, the effects of pollution, and in this case, the importance of surveillance and planning for public health emergencies that are likely to arise. It has always been a matter of “when” not “if” there would be a global pandemic. We hope COVID-19 isn’t it.

        When it comes to scientists, many left when Bolton was appointed. They have good jobs now in academia or in pharmaceutical research, which they aren’t going to give up just to try to make King Donnie look good. Yes, they are patriotic, but who wants to be part of a massive public cover-up of past mistakes? Which of them would be willing to lie or soft-pedal the risks, the failures of the CDC and Trump administration, which would be one of the main qualifications for this job? Everyone knows that the main qualification to work for this administration is homage to King Donnie. A big part of controlling the spread of COVID-19 is informing the public of where new cases are, what has been learned about modes of transmission, and what should be done to prevent further spread. King Donnie won’t allow this information to be disseminated because it makes him look bad, so scientists, being smart people, aren’t likely to sign up for a job that would likely be only temporary and certainly not professionally satisfying. As Neil Tyson DeGrasse said: “Science really doesn’t care whether you believe in it”.

        1. True…, and daunting.

          I don’t expect the science end to run the gauntlet and rally around Sir Floptop by working within his administration. But research eventually pooled around HIV/AIDS. Public/private partnership will kick in at some level if for nothing other than profit motive with prospective vaccine markets opening up. What an actual smart president would do is to create the avenues for cooperation within the industry otherwise pharmaceuticals will try to monopolize the market by gaining a personal stranglehold on the first vaccine developed. They won’t share and play nice without being forced into it. And they’ll price gouge if allowed to.

          And I actually do give Trump credit with branding/marketing strategy. While he is clearly out of his element in virtually everything Oval Office and given the chance to make a short sighted & awful decision on any number of issues he’ll make it, But what he’s adept at is whipping up the base, finding the wedge points and exploiting them, etc. As we know, this didn’t necessarily translate into success with, say, Trump steaks or Trump Water…, or even a casino. But he seems to have his finger on the pulse of exciting the delusional Trump mutants. (DTM’s I guess??)

          And yes, we’ve just seen the fastest *10% market drop* in history. Just this week. Donnie goes in the record book with this one.

    2. NUTCHACHA

      There you go again, turning into Nutchacha butter.

      The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

      Don’t worry. Be Happy!

      Wouldn’t you be happier in Cuba?
      ___________________________

      During the 2018-2019 season, the CDC estimates 16.5 million people went to a health care provider for the flu and more than 34,000 people died in the U.S. The prior season saw 61,000 deaths.

      – U.S. News & World Report

      1. During the 2018-2019 season, the CDC estimates 16.5 million people went to a health care provider for the flu and more than 34,000 people died in the U.S. The prior season saw 61,000 deaths.
        _______________________________________________

        The corona virus is 5 times more infectious and the the death rate is 100 times greater. Using your numbers that would mean there could be 80 million cases with a death toll of around 15 million.

        1. “The corona virus is 5 times more infectious and the the death rate is 100 times greater.”
          ______________________________________________________________________

          MR/MZ. NUTCHACHA,

          Is that scientific or NUTCHACHA-anecdotal?

          Those are not my numbers. They are U.S.News & World Report’s.

          Here’s your number:

          The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

    3. Natacha: voting in an open primary is legal. Democrats do this to Republicans, as well. That is why some Republicans say it’s only fair since Democrats do this to them, and there’s nothing Republicans can do about it. I’ve always said that at some point, Republicans will start playing by the same rules Dems do, and the Dems might not like turnabout.

      I agree with you that I don’t like it. To stop it requires a rule change, such that one must be registered to vote by a certain cut off with a party affiliation to vote in the primary of that party.

      But then how to get around the freedom to change one’s party?

      Here in CA, they make it easier and easier to vote last minute. We now have voting centers where people can vote in any part of the state they wish. It does not need to be their home polling district. They are using brand new software. Who knows if it is accurate. All times previously I voted they did not ask me for proof of ID, so the scope for abuse seems rather high. All it takes is for someone to get the rolls of everyone who died in 2019, and vote in their names at any voting center they choose. Democrats also engage in ballot harvesting, especially at senior centers. They have Democrat representatives drive to a senior center, collect all the ballots, and turn them in. Do they fill them in themselves? Do they tell people with dementia where to mark? Do they throw away all the Republican ones? No one knows.

      Would you hand your ballot to a Republican volunteer who promises to turn it in to be counted?

      Democrats fight voter fraud prevention measures tooth and nail. Perhaps that was not a good idea.

      https://youtu.be/RkLuXvIxFew

      1. You need to stop watching Fox. Yes, positions were eliminated for the rapid response team. The US should have been ahead of this crisis, like it was with EBOLA, MERS and SARS, which is why the US didn’t have a big crisis with these infections. Preparedness would include having enough testing kits well in advance of when they might be needed, but only about 200 cities have them now. The main reason Trump de-funded the rapid response team was because it was from Obama’s administration.

          1. Snopes is for dopes!
            _________________

            “Thus, when I reached out to David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes’ trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail’s article and writing the entire article off as “fake news.

            “It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety ‘I’d be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I’m precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.’

            ‘This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement.

            “In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of ‘it’s secret.’

            “From the outside, Silicon Valley looks like a gleaming tower of technological perfection. Yet, once the curtain is pulled back, we see that behind that shimmering façade is a warehouse of good old fashioned humans, subject to all the same biases and fallibility, but with their results now laundered through the sheen of computerized infallibility. Even my colleagues who work in the journalism community and by their nature skeptical, had assumed that Snopes must have rigorous screening procedures, constant inter- and intra-rater evaluations and ongoing assessments and a total transparency mandate. Yet, the truth is that we simply have no visibility into the organization’s inner workings and its founder declined to shed further light into its operations for this article.

            “Regardless of whether the Daily Mail article is correct in its claims about Snopes, at the least what does emerge from my exchanges with Snopes’ founder is the image of the ultimate black box presenting a gleaming veneer of ultimate arbitration of truth, yet with absolutely no insight into its inner workings. While technology pundits decry the black boxes of the algorithms that increasingly power companies like Facebook, they have forgotten that even the human-powered sites offer us little visibility into how they function.

            “At the end of the day, it is clear that before we rush to place fact checking organizations like Snopes in charge of arbitrating what is “truth” on Facebook, we need to have a lot more understanding of how they function internally and much greater transparency into their work.”

            – Kalev Leetaru, Forbes

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#2015ee6b227f

          1. Paul: that fat slob you call “President” has NO TEAM. He did away with the rapid response team, primarily because it was from the Obama Administration. That was stupid and short-sighted. Science knows no politics.

                  1. They’re called “U.S. Attorneys”, one is appointed for each Federal District, and those under them are called “Assistant U.S. Attorneys”. There’s still only one Attorney General. States also have just one “Attorney General”.

                    1. “NUTCHACHA – Obama got rid of all the AGs in the country, except one.”

                      – PCS
                      _____

                      NUTCHACHA: Deflection
                      ____________________

                      FACTS:

                      Obama to replace U.S. Attorneys

                      By JOSH GERSTEIN

                      05/15/2009 08:34 AM EDT

                      President Barack Obama plans to replace a “batch” of U.S. Attorneys in the next few weeks and more prosecutors thereafter, according to Attorney General Eric Holder.

                      “I expect that we’ll have an announcement in the next couple of weeks with regard to our first batch of U.S attorneys,” Holder said Thursday during a House Judiciary Committee hearing which stretched out over most of the day due to breaks for members’ votes. “One of the things that we didn’t want to do was to disrupt the continuity of the offices and pull people out of positions where we thought there might be a danger that that might have on the continuity–the effectiveness of the offices.But…elections matter–it is our intention to have the U.S. Attorneys that are selected by President Obama in place as quickly as they can.”

                      Holder’s comments begin to resolve questions in the legal community about whether the new administration would hesitate to replace the chief prosecutors en masse because of the intense controversy that surrounded President George W. Bush’s unusual mid-term replacement of nine U.S. attorneys in late 2006. In addition, legal sources said some Bush appointees were looking to burrow in, in part to avoid a grim economic climate for private-sector legal jobs.

                      However, by using terms like “elections matter,” Holder seems to be signaling that Obama plans to install new leadership in most offices.

                      Pressure from lawmakers and local Democrats to replace the sitting prosecutors has been significant. Holder’s comments Thursday came in response to a question from Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) “Many jurisdictions are waiting desperately to see what is going to be done. As we understand it, the protocol has been that U.S. Attorneys would hand in their resignations and would give the new administration an opportunity to make new appointments, we don’t see that happening quite fast enough,” she said, pointing to complaints about prosecutors in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.

                      Waters seemed satisfied with Holder’s answer, but she was intent on creating a sense of urgency. “There is a danger with some of them being left there. So whatever you can do to move them we appreciate it,” she said.

                      – POLITICO

    4. Natacha – they are in the process of evaluating the criteria and CA has 400 new kits. Are they expecting an epidemic after the fear mongering of the Democrats, including you, over the last few days?

      1. “fear mongering of the Democrats”? Do you think the rest of the world blames U.S. “Democrats” for “fear mongering” over the impact of COVID-19? Why has Japan closed schools for 2 months? Why did Nestle and Facebook cancel all group meetings? It is deeply stupid not to take this threat seriously, something Trump wouldn’t do. He dismantled the rapid response team because it was from the Obama administration. That was a very stupid thing to do.

        More pro-Trump tripe from Fox. King Donnie said it was no big deal, and would be over soon, and he’s gagged the CDC to make sure no facts seep out that contradicts him like the docs did at Wednesday’s news conference.

        Just now, they’re getting out kits, trying to line up scientists to figure out what to do? We are way behind.

  3. I never thought about it much but always thought the Republican Party less Democratic in their Presidential nominations than the Democratic Party. However, I note that the outsider, Trump won the Republican nomination and Sander’s was stopped by the Democratic Party elite once and now perhaps twice.

      1. Anon, do you wish to provide the full details of what actually happened or just the ones that promote a single point of view.

        One informed quote that is at the essence of the problem: ” When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign…”

      2. Cat got your tongue Anon? Here is another quote for you to digest. Take another Nexium / Valium mixture before reading. You and your other personalities just can’t get anything straight.

        “Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

      3. I keep hearing Anon exercising his tongue under multiple aliases but when challenged he runs away like he did when he started on the blog as Jan F.He was a coward then and a coward as Anon and continues to be a coward under a whole host of names.

        Here’s another quote: “Right around the time of the convention, the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races.’

        All of these quotes point to one thing, the DNC wasn’t fair and “Sander’s was stopped by the Democratic Party elite” to which Anon says “That’s false”, but once again you don’t know what you are talking about.

  4. Super delegates are elected officials. My senator would have a say.
    If Bernie wins the nomination then he will lose to Trump.
    Bernie vs. Trump is NY vs. NY. Turdy turd and a turd. 33rd St. & 3rd Ave. Trump can speak with a cleaner accent and will thus win.

  5. “Despite this effort, Sanders came close to beating Clinton, who has never forgiven him for contesting a primary that she literally bought and paid for with the DNC.”

    Okay, so let’s quantify our terms in terms of numbers, because basically HRC beat Bernie by more than Obama beat her in the primary in 2008. And there was illusion of closeness afforded to Bernie by his staying in the race longer than someone usually would being as far behind as he was in late spring ’16. So we’re looking at a likely general election this year in which the two old NY guys lost by a little more than 6 million votes to HRC.

    I feel her pain. Ha.

    Having said that, the Dems would be making a mistake to try to override a delegate lead to overthrow Sanders. Better strategy for the “establishment” side would be to attach a progressively acceptable VP candidate of color and staff incoming the Sanders administration in a mutually satisfying way. After all, Trump’s hollowing out of inter governmental agencies leaves an opening in the aftermath to shape things a positive direction on the heels of Trump ineptitude and malfeasance through creative re-staffing.

    1. History being history – despite JT’s avoidance – we agree on 2016.

      As to a brokered convention, I don’t agree on principle or practicality that a minority of democratic voters should prevail in choosing our candidate, if that is what it comes to. By law, we have to suffer with not only plurality, but down right vote losers in the general election, but not the primary. We can be pretty sure that Sanders will not win a majority because the Democratic Party is not the Democratic Socialist Party, and a majority, in the only state that has voted in a primary so far – f… the caucus states – has gone clearly for moderate candidates, not Bernie.

      1. Agreed. And let me say, as ‘front runner’ Bernie has already made two questionable decisions…, jumping in on what the press will portray as a ‘ride or die’ proclamation about Castro and proclaiming publicly he’ll refuse Bloomberg financial help in the general.

        Certainly there are better ways to admire Castro’s reading programs than to get in a taunting match with the audience at a debate. And he’s skated, and been allowed to skate, on his answers about how the Medicare 80/20 dilemma will be dealt with in Medicare for all…and also the fact the Medicare program is largely subbed out to private insurance companies. He’s kind of using cartoon explanations to explain his intentions and not dealing with important details. Seems details aren’t currently in vogue in American politics though. Medicare for all’s fate may be more closely tied to ‘let’s build a wall and have Mexico pay for it than it would otherwise seem. Ha.

        We’ll see, Bernie has proven exceptional at staying on message in a way Dems have always struggled with. Fascinating time in history.

  6. The problem is that Napoleon didn’t displace Farmer Jones from Manor Farm after sidelining Snowball in 2016. So, the rest of the swine hierarchy have to deal with Snowball’s popularity among the pigs.

  7. JT repeats the same Bernie Bros and Trumpeter falsehoods in this column about easily renewable facts. No, Bernie did not almost beat Hillary. He lost the primary votes by 56-43%. That’s a slaughter. He also did not suffer dirty or clean tricks from the DNC, which allowed him to participate though he is not even a democrat. If JT thinks there were dirty tricks, name them. Voters did and are rejecting Bernie.

    As to 2020, Bernie is benefiting from a fractured moderate vote, so it is most of democratic voters that want him gone, and there will be more delegates for moderate candidates than there are super delegates.

    JT should quit pretending he is a disinterested commentator instead of the Trump shill he proves he is almost everyday.The act is getting stale.

    1. “If JT thinks there were dirty tricks, name them.”

      Reading comprehension isn’t your thing. He names them. Go and actually read the article numb-nuts.

      “JT should quit pretending he is a disinterested commentator instead of the Trump shill he proves he is almost everyday.”

      You’re the partisan shill projecting your psychological issues on him. Turley hasn’t changed in the decades he’s been in the spotlight. He voted against Trump and he’s always been a Democrat. He just cares about the law and the Constitution…I know how hard it is for you to understand someone with principles.

  8. I’d say pass the popcorn, but I’ll wager the capacity of ‘the Establishment’ to pull that off is just about nil. It will be interesting to see if the South Carolina returns prove a shot in the arm for Sundown Joe and Steyer. Currently, our single best guess is that there is no state in which Sanders will not win, place, or show; that he will at least place in every state bar Florida, Georgia, and Oklahoma; and that he will win all but five states holding contests in the next month. That may change, of course. Right now, the smart money says a preference cascade for Sanders may just wash the others away.

    Klobberherworkers leads in her home state but otherwise is otherwise just north of Tulsi Gabbard in surveys, Booty-gag isn’t leading anywhere and places only in some New England states, and Princess Spreading Bull is currently trailing Sanders in her home state and hardly does better than show anywhere else. Wagers all three will be out of the race in a week.

  9. Isn’t there a SC case on this point? The party can do whatever they want. Screw the people! Screw the Bernie Bros.! Burn Milwaukee!

    1. Paul C. Schulte,
      I would give odds that one of the Democratic candidates will have the required (c.2000) number of delegates well in advance of the convention.
      I think the last time there was an exception to that was 1976; Ford led Reagan in the delegate count as the convention opened, but did not have the required majority number at that point.
      Ford ultimately rounded up enough extra delegates to win on the first ballot.
      If I’m wrong and nobody shows up with a majority of delegates at the start of the 2020 Democratic Convention, then all hell will break loose.

      1. Anonymous – except for the caucus states, it used to be winner take all. Now, because Bernie whined about it, it is proportional, if you have at least 15% of the vote. You need slightly over 1700. Bernie has 41.

        Since it is not winner take all, should Biden (which ever Biden it is, Joe or the other Biden) Bernie will make the 15% and get delegates. At best Biden comes out of South Carolina 2 delegates behind Bernie.

        1. Paul C. Schulte,
          That’s true, but we have about 1400-1500 delegates at stake over the next few days.
          So. Caroline on Saturday, then Super Tuesday alone has about 1350 on March 3.
          I think the picture will look a lot different after these primaries, and someone will emerge with a commanding lead.

  10. “If they give the nomination to another establishment figures like Biden or a billionaire like Bloomberg, the establishment would enrage millions of Sanders followers who could well stay home in 2020.“
    *********************
    And Where’s the problem? The Dims always only allow the veneer of democracy and freedom. They’re the authoritarian party. Nothing new. If they keep an avowed socialist out of the White House and lose the election, I don’t see a downside. Do you?

    1. And Where’s the problem? The Dims always only allow the veneer of democracy and freedom
      ______________________________________________

      The deep state swamp will make sure Trump gets reelected.
      If the economy goes bad they will have to resort to desperate measures to get that done.

  11. “Ahead of the critical Super Tuesday contests, Sanders is leading in the delegate count over the seven other Democratic candidates still in the race. Sanders has argued that the candidate with the most delegates, if they can’t achieve a majority, should be declared the nominee — a different stance from 2016.”
    ——————–
    From CNN, Thursday, Feb. 27

Leave a Reply