Actually, I've ignored the superdelegates in my math because I've basically assumed that they will go with whoever has the popular vote at the convention, but since you brought them up....

There's one scenario no-one has considered yet; probably because it's extremely unlikely, but just for fun, let's say Bernie continues as projected and arrives at the convention trailing Hillary by about 200 delegates. Meanwhile, Trump has been attacking the ever-loving hell out of Hillary and her poll numbers in the general election are starting to look REALLY bad, as in Trump might/could/probably will/almost certainly will win.

So far, this is all pretty much what's going to happen.

But in this strange alternate dimension, the DNC pulls its head out of its collective arse and realises "holy shit, we could lose the white house! Hang on, Bernie polls much better against Trump!". Unable to convince Hillary to drop out, the superdelegates swing en masse to Bernie handing him the nomination AGAINST the popular vote.

How do you feel about this? On one hand, yay, #FeelTheBern, #FuckYouTrump and on to the white house and potentially the most significant change in US politics in decades (or not, who knows how much one president can actually do).

On the other hand.... there's no way around the fact that the DNC will have subverted the will of the people. If the situation was reversed, and the superdelegates gave the nomination to Hillary where Bernie (hypothetically) had more pledged delegates, well, there would be riots.

Interested to hear your thoughts on this scenario (unlikely as it is).

BTW, the fact that your vote is essentially meaningless (luckily for you, it happens to be meaningless in your favour) in your state is yet another symptom of just how very fucked the electoral college is.

@newtboy - I suspect that the reason you haven't seen it in print that Dems who support Clinton will vote for Sanders is because you don't read anything but Sanders stuff. Dan Savage has even said in print he will support Sanders -- and yet what you repeated was the fact that he supports Hillary. You missed that he will gladly vote for Sanders. How could that be?

We all have our biases. And we all are, more or less, trapped in our own echo chambers.

What bothers me most about the attacks on HIllary is that the vast majority are bogus that were ginned up by the REPUBLICAN SMEAR MACHINE. And nobody looks that nasty beast in the eye and names it. Or when Hillary has done it, she is ridiculed for it. Instead, these lies are repeated as truth. You say you don't like lies -- how about pushing back on that crap, instead of embracing it, since it helps your candidate?

What I don't get from your position is what exactly you want to happen? Hillary is ahead on delegates and the popular vote. You want her to just concede right now? Is that what you think should happen?

I have lost track, but last I read, Sanders needed to win something like 65% of the remaining contests to win the nomination.

So do it. Go out and do it.

And I'll vote for Sanders.

To me, this is all more proof that you want the world to be different than it actually is.

And as I have said repeatedly, as much as idealists annoy the hell out of me with their purity tests and unrealistic, not of this world, points of view -- I am desperately glad these idealistic warriors exist. Because otherwise, nothing would ever change.

(I'm not happy about conservative idealists -- Tea Party purists who are constipated, me-me-and-mine ideologues. And I have to acknowledge that we need them, too. The continual pulling of the middle by the fringes -- that is indeed the way the world works. The pendulum that swings back and forth throughout human history.)

FYI the politifact piece that Jon is going by is written by Riley Snyder,. With all the retweets he does of Jon Ralston(one of the bigger "violent bernie-bros" pushers) I highly doubt he gave the claims a fair investigation.

He clearly ignored the Roberta rules being pushed through at 9:30 while delegates were still in line to get in. It did not have a 2/3 majority. The rest of Riley Snyder's fact checking was just as reliable.

It is politics as usual, and not nearly as bad as what happened to Ron Paul supporters in the Republican primary.

Vote for the candidate that you think will represent you the best not just the lesser of two evils.

I thought 53% sounded small.
78% is going to be difficult, but he has done it before, so not impossible.
He's my guy until he's not a candidate. I'm not sure Clinton can ever be MY candidate. Because I'm in California, it doesn't matter, the Democrat will win my state, so I'm free to vote with my conscience without fear that it hands the office to Trump.

EDIT: Of course, if the 'super delegates' vote like the people did, I think those numbers change. Bernie has earned nearly 1/2 the super delegates, but has not been 'awarded' many at all, 4 the last time I checked. If the super delegates choose the candidate, the DNC may be hammering in it's death nail.

We'll have agree to disagree on the merits of Clinton and Trump.

As for the rest....

I haven't been "duped" by the media. The dem primary is over in all but name. Yes, it's not mathematically impossible for Bernie to win, but it's also highly improbable.

I've done the math.

Ignoring the super delegates, Clinton has 1768 vs Bernie's 1494.
There are 714 delegates still up for grabs, so Bernie would need to win 495 of them to be the popular pledged delegate candidate. That means Bernie needs to win 69% of the remaining delegates.

The vast majority(66.6% \m/) of those delegates are in the California primary where Bernie is projected to lose. Even the most optimistic poll has him losing by 2 points. If that happens it is mathematically impossible for him to win. Even if he manages a miracle and wins California by a few points, it's STILL mathematically impossible for him to win. He would have to win at least 53% of the vote in California to even stand a chance.

Finally, you're preaching to the converted. AFAIC, Bernie is so blatantly the obvious choice, I really can't understand why anyone wouldn't vote for him. Well, I can, it's because "boo! SOCIALISM!!! Oh teh noes!", but I find it depressing to accept. I've said before that in a sane political system, you would have a choice between a centre right candidate (Hillary) and Bernie.

And yes, Bernie beats Trump more than Clinton, but the democrats don't seem to have gotten that message.

I say that it's impossible to say that Trump is much worse or more evil....but you can make the assertion that his STATED PLANS are much worse than her STATED PLANS. It's important to note, however, that neither of them are at all likely to stick with anything they've said so far. Trump has already come out and said to ignore the entire primary season, it was all bluster and hyperbole to get him the nomination, and Clinton has a clear history of changing her position at the slightest breeze. Now we get a second season of different bluster and hyperbole (from both sides) to try for the presidency. Only once they're in office will we have any idea what they really plan on doing with their power. Neither Trump or Clinton have a record of consistency, so comparing them is impossible until after the fact.

The reason you don't see other candidates is that the primaries aren't over. Only the Democrats and Republicans play this game of 'the race is over...don't go vote, it won't matter' before the vote is over, even mathematically (which it still is not, BTW, contrary to your assertion. It is POSSIBLE, however unlikely, that Sanders could win despite the super delegates being in Clinton's pockets and the fix being in by the DNC, with only California's delegates, but they've duped you like millions of others into thinking it's been over for months now, and Clinton is our only remaining choice, and supporting Sanders now is like a vote for Trump, which is outrageously insulting BS).
Because Sanders has ALWAYS polled better than Clinton against Trump, if it's really a fear of yours that we might elect Trump, you should all be shouting at everyone possible to vote for Sanders on June 7th (EDIT: and warn them to not allow the poll workers to give them a provisional ballot which aren't counted, but insist on a democratic crossover ballot which will be). Clinton VS Trump is at best a toss up at this point (and she's not even indicted yet), Sanders VS Trump is consistently a landslide for Sanders. Just DUH, people. It's like...come on.

Oh FFS. Look, I wish Bernie was the nominee too, but it's not going to happen.

Clinton IS the nominee, whether you like it or not. That's not media bias (although that certainly put her in this position), that's MATH.

Bernie is nearly 200 delegates behind her in pledged delegates, never mind the super delegates.

He would need to absolutely trounce Clinton in California, where the polls are predicting the opposite.

It's sad and your electorate made the wrong choice (on both sides) but it's reality and Bernie supporters need to wake the fuck up and deal with it.

Your video, More Sanders Delegates Re-registered As Republicans, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tangentially, in Nevada, Sanders was set to scoop a majority of the remaining 12 delegates today through better mobilization of his delegates (even though Clinton took the state, he managed to get more state delegates to the state convention).

When the state chair saw that Sanders was going to scoop more of the leftover delegates, they changed the rules at the last minute to give 7 of the 12 to Hillary.

More on the Nevada debacle http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/nevada-democratic-convention-what-happened-roberta-lange-delegates-election-fraud-videos-recount-denied/

You would be correct, but that's not what happened.
Yes, many independents didn't register as Democrats by October, but many more were removed from the rolls or had their party affiliation changed without their knowledge...and many 'new' voters were sent official notices that the primary is in November! THOSE are what people are outraged about, that people didn't register in time, that's just disappointing and a terrible system.
That many didn't vote, that is conspiracy not lazyness, because so many didn't vote because their polling places didn't open until noon, or closed all together.
It's the DNC and Clinton's fault if she and the DNC collude to secretly remove thousands of NEWLY REGISTERED DEMOCRATS from voting rolls, or change their party affiliation so they can't vote in the primary, close polling places in 'Sanders strongholds' like Brooklyn, and cut the hours that others are open by 1/2....which is what happened.
It is clearly and definitely a conspiracy....just POSSIBLY not one Clinton is personally responsible for (although that's incredibly unlikely). It is POSSIBLE that the DNC is doing all this underhanded voter suppression themselves in order to ...I just can't figure it out...to throw the election for Trump? That's what is likely if they continue this shoving Clinton down our throats...she won't be getting independents votes and they know it. I can't fathom why they want to lose the election so badly.
What's been reported, the DNC putting a Clinton campaign worker in charge of the 'voter suppression investigation', is also TERRIBLE and smacks of conspiracy. OF COURSE they aren't going to find any issues, since all inconsistencies have benefited Clinton.
In open primaries (the only ones that come close to mirroring an actual election), Bernie does quite well. He's also probably going to take California by a landslide, which is a good reason they haven't reported a single poll from here. If he wins there (here) like he did in Alaska, he wins, unless the 'super delegates' steal the election for her...which is a likelyhood.

EDIT: I suppose you don't think THIS is an underhanded conspiracy either?
http://videosift.com/video/Hillary-8482-s-Paid-Trolls-Take-Down-Bernie-Facebook-Pages

I think that the GOP is in full-on panic mode, and doesn't care about legitimacy / shot at winning for this election.

They (the party elites) will do absolutely everything they can to prevent Trump from getting enough delegates to lock up the nomination. Hence Colorado and Wyoming. Those actions make it seem like they prefer Cruz, but actually they dislike him close to as much as they hate Trump.

Although it is still mathematically possible for Cruz (559 delegates) to get enough delegates to lock up the nomination (1237 needed), realistically it is out of reach (826 still available). Trump (756 delegates), on the other hand, could well manage it. So, the GOP strategy is to avoid that at all costs by encouraging people to vote for Cruz or Kasich in primaries, or even better to encourage more state GOP offices to hold a smoke-filled room convention that grants all the delegates to #NeverTrump instead of even bothering to let people vote.

If they manage that, the contested national convention will get ugly. They (GOP elites) would turn on Cruz instantly -- cast aside. In any other election cycle they would have turned on him already, but with juggernaut Trump, they have to use him to get to the contested convention.

So the question becomes who if not Trump or Cruz? Who will the GOP try to push in? I think that right now, they aren't as worried about answering that question as they are about trying to get there. That being said, they have some options:

Mitt Romney was their first thought. He took some tentative steps towards playing along with the GOP plans, failed to generate any excitement, and has since faded back into relative obscurity. But he remains an option.

Next up was Paul Ryan. A lot of the GOP see him as the future of the party; the "great white hope". There was a flurry of activity making it seem like he was going to take up the flag, but has since denied that he would be interested in or even accept getting the nod. However, he was cagey and close to as vocal against getting the nod to be speaker of the house, and then accepted that. You never know.

Kasich would be another option. He's relatively benign, and wouldn't offend many more of the republican base than the GOP is already ready and willing to offend in order to prevent Trump (and to a lesser extent Cruz).


Of those, I tend to think that Romney is the most likely choice for the GOP in the end. I think it would be extremely stupid to foist "future of the party" Ryan into this election, which would certainly taint his political future. Kasich makes a lot of sense, but on the other hand, "in for a penny, in for a pound" -- as long as the GOP is willing to go to these great lengths to keep Trump out they might as well just own the illegitimacy of it, shoot the moon, and hand pick someone that a) they have complete control over, and b) has nothing to lose in terms of political future. Voila, Mitt Romney.


I also don't think that the GOP will just throw in the towel if Trump locks down the number of delegates needed for the nomination. I'm sure they already have some last-ditch, scorched earth preliminary plans in place for that contingency.

However, I think that they essentially already have thrown in the towel with regards to the election in general. At least to a sufficient degree that they don't give a rats ass about the chances for whoever is the republican nominee winning. That's a *distant* priority behind NOT TRUMP, among other things. Which is pretty stupid, because the likely nomination of Hillary on the democrat side gives them what should be a *golden* opportunity to steal the election. IF they could come up with a vaguely tolerable candidate ... which they won't.

I think Cenk is getting a little bit overexcited at around the 5:30 mark, when he thinks that these polls show that America is center-left, as opposed to the long-standing belief of Fox News that America is center-right.

What I think they show is that America is much more radically anti-"sleazy politician" than ever before.

Trump has the biggest portion of the republican side of things, because he is clearly NOT a normal politician, and however you feel about him you must admit that he is not an "establishment" kind of figure. Sleazy? Sure. But not "sleazy politician". Cruz doesn't appeal to the republicans that like Trump, because he is closer to being a "sleazy politician".

On the Democrat side of things, it is a similar picture if you just go by opinion polls rather than delegate count. Hillary is another "sleazy politician". Even among Democrat-leaning respondents, a high percentage of people polled prefer straight-shooter NOT establishment-friendly Sanders to Hillary, precisely because of that. Democrats are tired of sleazy politicians too.

To be fair, the Democrat side is less divided, because a lot (possibly most) of the real pro-Sanders people will hold their nose and vote for Hillary over any of the opposition, if she is the nominee, even though they would (greatly) prefer Sanders.

Trump supporters will *never* vote for Cruz, especially now that Colorado and Wyoming just gave all their delegates to Cruz without even bothering to allow their residents to vote. Cruz doesn't actually *have* any supporters -- the GOP is only trying to persuade Republicans to vote for him so they can deny Trump the delegates needed to lock up the nomination and go to a contested convention -- at which point the GOP will have no further need for Cruz and ditch him like a used condom. The few registered Republicans that want Kasich are very likely to NOT vote for Trump if he is the nominee, and will likely be similarly displeased with whichever asshole the GOP tries to shoehorn in in the event of a contested convention.

So yeah, the Republican side of things is a real clusterfuck. But the likely nomination of Hillary for the Democrats seems like a very big mistake to me, mitigated only slightly by the dog and pony show that is their opposition in the GOP.

I do tend to believe Sanders has been boosted by a lack of negative attacks with Hilary believed to be the presumed nominee due to her influence over super delegates regardless of how the remaining states vote (and Hilary's lead overall).

If the Democratic primary were still in serious dispute I think you would see a lot more socialist labels from the right to try to discredit him which would dent his approval with independents and swing voters.

Polling this late in the primary might usually be pretty reliable but this year is exceptional because (1) most primaries are settled, nominees 'crowned' and challengers stepping to the wayside much earlier before the convention, (2) usually candidates who make it this far are much more 'establishment' material which makes them all a much more known quantity.

I wish I had her faith in the delegates switching their vote, but when 70% of votes go to Bernie (Washington state) yet NONE of the state's super delegates (all elected officials mind you) cast for Bernie, you have to wonder if they really are a safeguard against despotism or simply a means of protecting a party's status quo.