Sanders – A chip and a chair
Last night’s Super Tuesday races shaped up about as we discussed. Bernie blew the doors off in Vermont. Shrodinger’s cat was indeed alive in both Colorado and Minnesota, and the race was indeed close in Oklahoma, where Sanders won, and Massachusetts, where he lost.
But Hillary ran up impressive victories across the South. Her 78% in Alabama nearly matched Sander’s 86% in Vermont, and the remainder of all her other states showed at least 30-point wins across the board, with some margins running 2-1 or even 3-1. But it was the tiny win – MA – that was the dagger.
By any measure, including compared to Donald Trump, Clinton did extremely well and, among pledged delegates, maintains a 544 to 349 lead over Bernie, or almost exactly the 200 delegates we discussed yesterday.
By virtue of winning almost all the states he tried to compete in, Bernie maintains a narrative that the race is not over. He can claim viability, and, in fact, in a race where 2,383 delegates are needed for victory, no one is yet close to winning.
However, there is the small matter of unpledged delegates, aka Super delegates. Sanders has 22 of them, which rockets his total to 371. Clinton has 457, which gives her 1,001 delegates, or 42% of the total needed for the nomination.
The SuperD’s are, of course, a bone of contention, but even if they disappeared tomorrow, and the race were to be decided by pledged delegates alone, Sanders would have to average 54% for the remainder of ALL the primaries. In other words, if only white people come out from now on he has a shot at a hypothetical victory. But if Hillary loses every remaining contest averaging 47%of the vote, she still wins the pledged delegates.
In order to even build the case that the SuperD’s should not be used to tip the result, Bernie needs a game changer. In the next 2 weeks, roughly another thousand delegates will be awarded, the bulk of them in states where Hillary is posting poll numbers like the SEC primary last night. He’s got to cut into this lead, to re-challenge Hillary’s inevitability narrative.
In poker, you’re said to still be in the game if you’ve got just “a chip and a chair.” Bernie still has plenty of money, and a narrative. But unless he starts winning, and winning soon, and winning big, he’ll be ready to cash out in two weeks. The hole will just be too deep.
~Primo
I think the Colorado results say all that needs to be said about the process in the Democratic party (data per HuffPo, 9:25am, March 2):
Colorado vote share: Sanders 59%, Clinton 40%
Co. delegates (still 11 outstanding): Sanders 33, Clinton 34
What would it take to win?
1However the primaries turn, Senator Sanders has done HRC a major favor. Your words, Primo – “re-challenge Hillary’s inevitability narrative.” That’s a good thing for her. The media meme of ‘presumptive nominee’ was never a good thing for her.
2It was not surprising that Bernie won in Minnesota. During the last 2 weeks, two Bernie doorknockers stopped by my house and I received at least 3 phone calls reminding me about the caucus and asking if they could count on me to vote for Bernie. I like both Bernie and Hillary but my vote was for Hillary. At the caucus last night, it was great seeing a very diverse group of democrats show up representing all ages and races. Democracy in action (but a primary would have been better than a caucus). Having every one show up at the same time really limits parking options.
3Should Secretary Clinton become the Democratic presidential nominee, Bernie’s voice in the Senate will continue to be invaluable and irreplacable. We will need both of them to break through RKlan obstruction and battle the influence of the super rich so that real progress can be made in bettering our country and the lives of all Americans.
4Two thoughts:
1. A good place to begin understanding the Trump appeal would be reading Eric Hoffer’s True Believer. In a nut shell, the true believer is someone who so hates his situation that he seeks to cloak himself in a new identity. Trump appeals to the TBs by giving them a new identify, telling them that their situation is not their fault and that the solution is to “make America great again.” Funny thing about TBs, if their new identity is taken from them they often will move from one extreme to the other. Theoretically if Trump should stumble, some dissatisfied folks will migrate to Sanders rather than some other Republican. To a lesser extent, it seems to me that there are TBs among the supporters of Sanders and Cruz.
2. Th electorate is trending to the left. With Republicans that movement is on economic issues, while with Democrats it is both economic and social issues.
5@Uncle Dave—You present a thoughtful comment, but I have to take issue with your idea that “if Trump should stumble, some dissatisfied folks will migrate to Sanders rather than some other Republican.” Not here in Texas. No way, no how.
In my own district our incumbent Republican state rep. was challenged by a guy who characterized him as “too liberal.” Given the incumbent’s record on abortion, guns, illegal immigration, that’s like calling the Easter Bunny “too cute and fluffy.” People here reflexively check the [R] box on their ballots. It’s ingrained in their psyche.
And the whole religion thing would raise its ugly head. Vote for a guy from the East Coast? And a Jew to boot? I don’t think so. Maybe elsewhere in this country, but I really think that the Trumpeters would rather put a sharp stick in their collective eyes than vote for Bernie.
6Uncle Dave, in my opinion, Trump could stumble into a ditch full of pig poo and his followers would be there to give him hugs.
7I have always said I would vote for the Democratic nominee in the general, whomever that may be. Both Clinton and Sanders would be good presidents. In the end, stopping the Trump/Cruz/Rubio party is all that matters.
If nothing else remains of Bernie’s candidacy in a couple of weeks, the one positive will still be that he has pulled Hillary to the left. She’s no lefty by any means, but she is a lot further left in rhetoric and thought than she was 6 months ago. That makes her much more electable.
However, I am dismayed and angered by DNC chair Wasserman-Schultz’s heavy and under-handed support for Hillary and other center-right dems. I think it’s inappropriate and maybe just a little evil to load the dice in favor of any specific candidate.
8Linda, You’re right. The True Believers among Trump’s supporters, and I am convinced their number is substantial, do not care what he says or advocates so long as they can enthusiastically wrap themselves in his campaign and ignore their sense of defeat and worthlessness. He lets them believe that nothing is their fault, unhappy things are the fault of Muslims, Latinos, and a president who, after 7 years in office, is still black.
9Linda Phipps: Trumps followers would eat him out of that poo and tell the world it tasted like chicken. They are that nuts. Sigh…..
10It’s results like this that keep me disgusted with our “democratic” elections. There should not be delegates, or super delegates (apparently who make the decisions, accountable to no one). It should be up to the people. A primary election to choose your candidate, and a final election to choose the president. All votes counted, no electoral colleges or other shifty groups “representing” a state. Majority rules, the most votes wins.
11Don’t get me wrong, I will be voting this November for whoever the Democratic candidate may be. Yellow dogs included. But living in Texas that will not matter. My vote will count here in the minority and be meaningless on the national scale, because Texas will represent as red. Very depressing, especially because we have the vast majority of minority votes available.
Maybe someone can run the scare ads we need letting minorities know what will happen if the RKlan wins.
Sorry for the rant, woke up on the wrong side of the state today.
I agree with most all of what Eric Hoffer’s True Believer says about fanatics. I’m not sure I can see in Hair Drumpf an ability to use the fanatic to win POTUS. IMO The TB’s strength is also his greatest weakness, which is attention span. If someone shouts “squirrel” the TB’s look around and sometimes forget north the next moment. I’d be inclined to see them bounce from candidate to candidate for that reason.
12@charles r. phillips
Many of us agree with you aboot Wasserman-Schultz. It is time for her to move along. But don’t let her abrasiveness keep you from keeping the main thing the main thing: stopping Drumpf/Cruz/Rubio snacilbupeR is all that matters.
13I’m more interested in “down ballot” races — like Louie Gohmert and Farenthold and particularly Mr Bankston. How did they fare?
14Once again
15I must question why alabama with almost zero democrats in office, and those that are being rethuglican lite, with almost zero chance of a d winning in the general should have any voice in the D’s choice much less the ability to steamroll a progressive who has won true blue states and swing states.
Colorado a swing state, Minn. another key part of the D’s map Oklahoma should get tossed upon the electoral rubbish pile with alabama and teen.( If al Gore couldn’t carry his home state in the general why bother even asking what they think about the D’s since it is conspicuously irrelevant). I will give credit for virginia and with the exception of Mass. none of the other states that Hillary won are going blue in Nov. so why give those states any voice at all?
I like that Sanders has pulled the Dem primary to the left, but I also like that Clinton is close enough to the middle that she can win nationally. My own views are closer to Sander’s, but my pragmatic choice is Clinton. She has thrived through decades of Repub smear attacks. And she is great on women’s issues. And has foreign policy experience. And it would be amazing to finally have a woman President. (Besides, if you think the radical right is pissed about a black President, just wait until we get a woman in there.)
What makes me sad is seeing millions of dollars spent on Dems fighting Dems. Better save that money to fight Trump (or Rubio or Cruz).
What make me even sadder is seeing supporters of either Dem candidate treat this as a zero sum game. A win by either is a win for progressives. A loss is not a reason to blame the other candidate.
16So, Ken, what you’re saying is that states that aren’t governed by Democrats should not be able to vote in the Democratic primary? I was under the impression that it’s “one person, one vote,” not “you’re irrelevant, so no votes for you!”
17The handful of Republicans in Vermont voted yesterday in the Primary, 86% of the votes were for Bernie, Vermont is a small State but they are familiar with Bernie’s style of governing and are pretty happy about it.
18Vermont if you know your history was a totally Republican State, until the Republican’s left us. One of the most revered figures is Senator Atkins, you know the one who said about the Vietnam war, “Just declare victory and leave.” he was a Republican.
Many Republican’s vote for Bernie because he does such a good job with his Staff, reponding to people who go to him for help, they sent notes, “I’m a lifelong Republican but beacause of the help I got from Bernie, he will always get my vote.
Bernie will be a lot more powerful Senator now. And I believe him when he says he’s staying in for all 50.
19I am speaking of Party primaries.
Delegates are already awarded by an esoteric formula so why reward states that haven’t voted for a D since LBJ?
This is not the general where 1 person 1 vote ( unless one is of color and lives in one of the traitor states and are blocked by voter id laws another reason to ignore the traitor states)
Thres eunach state parties are usually kept alive, and in thrall to, party “elites” who use party funds to “support” ( pay off) these organization in return for their votes at organizational meetings.
The past D chairman of the WA state d’s used this tactic to stay in power by paying off the county d’s east of the mountains in exchange for their votes and conspicuously couldn’t care just how reactionary they were.
Think FIFA. Blatter paid off small countries for their vote and turned a blind eye to corruption.
I did, and do, support Deans 50 state strategy but the difference was Dean tried to lift up those backwards states rather then the present strategy of pulling everyone else down to the trash heap to mollify the reactionaries in states that will not accept the ignorance that has kept them impoverished to their idolatry of guns, cults and supposed privilege.
When they start electing D’s and trash the history of treason they will earn the right to have a say in D’s politics.
At the present the D’s are allowing rethuglican Lite d’s who will deliver nothing in the general to decide who is going to run in the general.
Weigh delegations vote by what is deliverable in the general.
Right now it is like allowing the Board of Ford allowing GM to select their CEO
20Ken, I deny the premise of the question, which is that “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
21Nor do I accept that nor did I ever say anything like that.
What I am saying is that wholly owned subsidaries of the Rethuglican party should not be allowed to select a Democratic nominee.
Just as I feel that having the Chicago Bears select who the Viking’s draft in the NFL is not a good idea. Giving control to the competition does not spaeak to a good outcome.
22Ken, while I can appreciate your angst, we don’t want to become like the snacilbupeR with a “purity test.” Trust me, I would have liked nothing better than to have gohmert punched Max Baucus; repeatedly. But, President Obama handled him with grace by appointing him to China to suck in some serious air pollution. And, I’m not in jail, so these things work out in the long run.
23This is not a “purity” test but rather a performance test.
24If the state D’s can deliver then their voice is heard and influence is accepted.
If on the other hand the state parties cannot deliver anything why give them any say as to the message and candidate that the national party will run?
Giving them not just a voice but the ability to create a bandwagon effect subverts those states who can, and do, deliver and seek an adult conversation about how to energize D’s rather then worry about offending R’s.
Hey, quit hanging the crepe on Bernie’s campaign. it is no where near to over and it is not purely symbolic as some like to suggest.
‘Fact is, much of the country is just getting to know our Bernie now; but once they do, liberals generally “feel the Bern.”
Bernie still does better than Hillary in a match-up against any of the GOP contenders, even Trump; and that is not something that the super-delegates (declared or undeclared) can ignore.
I remember rooting for Obama at this point in his match-up with Hillary and hearing the same kind of talk about ‘”t’s over” and “he should get out.”
Last night’s victories for Hillary were not unexpected; and Bernie carried Colorado big time. Massachusetts was extremely close.
I am not hostile to Hillary, but I don’t like her chances in the general. She doesn’t inspire enthusiasm any more; and Bill Clinton’s presence on the trail reminds most thinking people that he was anything but progressive in his administration.
Hillary is a uniter….for the Republican party! Her presence on the ticket unleashes the dog whistles.
I’m with Bernie because I know he can get the job done. That’s why he received such overwhelming support in Vermont.
He’s been fighting the good fight on our behalf for a quarter of a century and we’re not tired of him yet!
25I live in MA…
I voted for Bernie…
It’s up to y’all now!
26So glad that cat made it.
27What y’all said.
28I don’t think you could unite THIS Republican Party with Gorilla Glue and wood clamps, tightened by actual gorillas.
29Geejay, where was your precinct? My caucus was southeastern burbs, Henry Sibley High School to be specific. I was there early, talked with some candidates, voted and then hung around to listen. A 93 year old woman I know was there. I chatted with a 27 year old about Hillary or Bernie. It was great.
Votes were cast at 7:00. When I left at 7:45 the line was waiting to vote was huge! I had no idea because I’d been sitting in the classroom all the time. Holy moley. I heard turnout was record breaking. I love the high rates of participation Minnesotans always have.
It was great! It was awesome! It was so much fun!
You’re right though geejay, primaries would be best.
30I love that we Democrats are trying to decide between good and better candidates. In the meantime, snacilbupeR are gagging over which repulsive candidate they’re going to be stuck with.
Ain’t it great being a Dem! Woo-hoo!
31Try to learn the raw vote totals for your counties. It’s highly instructive.
In Franklin County, Vermont (my home and probably the most conservative in the state) this is what happened:
Sanders: 7,060
Clinton: 808
Trump: 1,782
Rubio: 939
Cruz: 508
Kasich: 1,217
Bernie garnered six times Trump’s total; Hillary got less than half. The only candidate who fared worse than Hillary was Cruz.
32daChipster, like you I doubt that one could unite THIS Republican Party with Gorilla Glue and wood clamps, tightened by actual gorillas.
But I’d sure like to do it anyway.
And I’d get to choose where to put the clamps.
33I just voted in the Democrats Abroad Primary in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico. I voted for BERNIE because I agree with EVERYTHING he says and I love him. I will vote for Hillary if
34she is the candidate, but she is way too Centrist for me.
As a point of interest, we had exactly 500 people vote in our primary. The results will be added to those in the other Dems Abroad in Mexico and from all the others across the globe.
We send 17 delegates to the Convention and have 4 super delegates. And our members are active and vocal here.
Note: There is no Republicans Abroad organization.
Postscript to my earlier posting.
35About Bernie — he is the one getting the votes from young voters — not Hillary. Which means our electorate for the next few years will have way more voters sympathetic to Bernie’s way than Hillary’s. I think that is a really good thing — we need more like him.