Slow Bern and Don Denied – your guide to tonight
It’s been awhile since we talked, and I apologize for giving in to my corporate overlords and actually – ya know – working, lately. But let’s talk about tonight:
What’s at stake, Dems: For Bernie, every Tuesday is an existential puzzle. He’s 300 pledged points down at halftime, and would have to perform in the second half as well as Hillary did in the first half, just to go to overtime (the convention). Caucuses and demographics should favor him in Idaho and Utah – should! – where a total of 56 delegates are at stake. But the AZ primary should go big for Hillary – should! – where there are 75. Tonight looks to be a big night for no one, but Bernie probably won’t gain any ground in his first series of the third quarter. It’s going to be death by 2382 cuts for him, but he’s going to make Hillary earn every one.
What’s at stake, snacilbupeR: On Feb. 18, we said of Trump
…if anyone is going to knock him off and win outright, they have to have made it a two-horse race by the end of March. If the goal is just to deny him the nomination, and prolong the fight over a slow April … then two other candidates have to emerge as winners in several states between now and March 16. If Trump hits the Arizona primary on March 22 with a big lead and a fractured field, no one can stop him.”
A lot of that has happened. The field is no longer fractured, and the lead is big but not BIG big – a plurality only. At stake tonight is Arizona’s 58 delegates, Utah’s 40 proportional delegates, and American Samoa’s mighty 9 unbound delegates.
If Cruz is going to make it a two-horse race, he has to knock out Kasich. Which explains what no TV pundits I saw could: Why is Cruz spending so much time in a winner-take-all Arizona race he can’t win? Because he has to destroy John Kasich – plan A – while denying Trump over 50% and making him look vulnerable and looking like a strong finisher himself so that a brokered convention – plan B – turns to the strongest-looking non-Trump.
It’s still Trump’s race to lose, and he just may. He won’t close it out in March, and he won’t in April, either, nor yet in May, unless he wins EVERY bound delegate between now and Washington State on May 24. He can’t actually win during that time, and he can’t actually lose. But he can be denied.
It all comes down to June 7, with proportional New Mexico, and four winner take all states, including California.
Then on to Cleveland where, after this summer, “The Mistake by the Lake” takes on a whole new meaning.
Can’t wait for Cleveland. Have a feeling it is going to be epic!
1There are alternating theories regarding the Super Delegates. Mine is that these are not stupid people (discounting Debbie WTF Schultz and a notable other few) and their prime objective is nominating a candidate who will win the general election. That favors Bernie. Wut you say? Well, consider, the pledged delegates that are giving Hillary her delegate lead are mostly from RED states. When either Alabama or Mississippi vote for a Democratic president, both Bernie and Hillary will long have been footnotes in history. Should Bernie win the majority of delegates in blue and purple states, expect the Supers to give that serious consideration. Really. 😀
Now, on to the st00pid, where there are three flavors of rancid and a possible parachute of putrid from which to select. That comes down to either a putsch or screw the pooch.
2I agree with the Gentleman from Nevada in that the prime objective is to nominate a winner, and that the super delegates will take that as their motivation in selecting a nominee.
I disagree with my esteemed colleague on several, several levels that Bernie is the most electable, but what I believe is not at issue. What the super delegates believe is what they have already indicated by their endorsements. They are not going to switch, without something really wild happening. Bernie finishing second in a field of two is not really that wild a something.
3It will soon be time to watch Chris Hayes and Rachel for results and insight. Rachel is Really Smart about political stuff. Well, and most everything else. Primo and PKM, y’all are pretty sharp too. The crowd that hangs out in TWMDBS are smart and wise folk. This may be one of the funnest political seasons I’ve had. Thank ya!
4It’s become an inadvertent habit of mine, (most of my habits, now that I think about it, are inadvertent),to hark back to Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, (Hunter S. Thompson), during POTUS election cycles.
Bless his heart… he just THOUGHT he experienced mind-twisting fear and loathing! Now, I’ll grant you, Nixon was one nasty little bugger, and his popularity said more than a mouthful about the meanness of American voter… the sheer stupidity and howling-at-the-moon madness of his supporters, who were legion.
And there was this very decent, progressive, competent guy named McGovern, who should have beat him. And didn’t. Even though the Watergate scandal broke before the election.
When will we ever learn?
By the way there is a true, smart progressive Democrat running against Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in Florida. She’s a “brilliant fund-raiser,” which to say she’s for sale, as her initiatives and performance have shown. My dimes go pretty much only to good Senatorial candidates, but I have made an exception for Tim Canova. At least he can give her a run for her millions. If you have a dime to throw to a Representative other than your own, please pitch it his way.
I live in Arkansas, for God’s sake. ANY progressive from anywhere is my own.
5I like Sanders–his politics are probably closer to mine than Clinton’s are–but having watched John Kerry swift-boated, the ACA labelled as “death panels,” and the term “patriot” redefined to mean right-wing only, I have serious doubts that any socialist could win in this country. I’m afraid the Repubs would hang that label around Sanders’ neck like an albatross. It doesn’t matter that there’s nothing bad about it; I can’t see a Muslim or atheist getting elected any time soon either.
Too many people in this country–especially Repubs–have given up thinking in favor of just reacting emotionally to labels. Unfortunately, that tactic works well for Repubs.
6We went to the caucus in Moscow, Idaho tonight. Got there about five, and there were at least 150 people in line outside the school, probably that many more in a snake line inside, and then when we got in the gym —–huge crowd. Lots of UI students and lots of folks up to age about 75. Most of Hill’s supporters were women 50-70 or so. Our group (Bernie) outnumbered Hill’s at least three to one. Granted, it’s a university town, and I think a similar scene was in Boise. We voted, visited, waited and when we found out there were hundreds still in line when the doors were to be shut at six (but anyone in line could still get in) we decided to leave our second round ballot with the proxy folks. Left at seven and there were about 50 people still outside the school. And it was lightly raining the entire time. There had been 1200 online registrations as of last Friday and the gym seemed to have all of those and more. A very respectful crowd sang the national anthem right before seven o-clock.
7Hearkening back to the 2008 presidential election, I do recall the RKlan throwing the label “socialist” at Barack Obama. I had many a conversation with neighbors and friends trying to convince them he was not, and in most cases they were too frightened of that word to see reason. They equate it with communism, which Drumpf has already labeled Bernie.
Although I do admire Bernie and his independence from Big Money, the fact that he has labeled himself a socialist will turn away many independents and moderate Repugs whose votes might otherwise go to Cruz or Kasich.
8So I am now afraid of the word socialist, not because of its meaning, but because of what it could do to the Democratic presidential race.
With due diligence, I beg the indulgence of the resident expert, Primo Encarnación. Our normally chaotic life has reached a new level of chaos with the weather changes. If time permits, I will return later today to explain how little New Hampshire and not Nader through the election to Bush in 2000. Then make my leap to why blue/purple/red election results are not totally statistical.
9threw not through. although ‘through’ works in mysterious ways where I will be going with this.
10Bowing to Primo’s experience and expertise, I too will stipulate that both the delegate and electoral process are fair. All candidates know the rules for the Democratic and democratic processes, unlike whatever the snacilbupeR will cobble together for their Mistake by the Lake Slug Fest. (either slug applies; to hit or a slimy creature.)
As always I respect Miss Juanita Jean’s request that we respect the fact that the Democratic candidates are good people who deserve a discussion that is both factual and fair. In addition, I have a rule of my own I hope to adhere to: never do the opponent’s opposition research for them. Thus, to state the statistical case for Super Delegates switching from HRC to Bernie forgive me if I omit any answers that might assist the snacilbupeR.
Think back to the year 2000 and forget Floriduh, please. Look north to New Hampshire where Gore lost in a then purple state. Had NH been true Blue, Gore would have had the electoral college votes in spite of the Floriduh shenanigans. For the sake of argument in favor of brevity, I’ll stipulate that the purple states will be evenly split between the Democratic and nacilbupeR candidates.
Unless there is a similar “really wild happening” as Primo mentioned about the primaries in the general election, or in this case hell freezing over for the Red states to vote Democratic, I’m giving those to the snacilbupeR. Sorry Texas, as I truly do love you. Albeit, I’ll like you better, when you turn Blue. 😀
That brings us to the Blue states, where Sec/Sen Clinton leads by two pledged delegates in Illinois and one in Massachusetts. Sen Sanders gained 7 delegates in Michigan. Give Sanders a lead of 4 so far. Then we can throw in his landslide victories in NH, Maine & Vermont which he would be likely to replicate in a general election, but again I’m not counting Red & Purple. Nor Green; sorry Vermont.
Here’s a handy map for following which states have voted, the number of delegates and the states yet to vote: http://www.electoral-vote.com/
This is an interactive map of the states for the 270 electoral college votes for your prediction fun: http://www.270towin.com/
Blue states to watch: WI, CA, OR, WA, CT, DE, MD, NY, PA, RI. My premise and prediction is that IF Sen Sanders does well in the majority of those states, the Super Delegates will take a closer look at him and his “elect-ability.” Primo’s contention is that the Super Delegates are bound by endorsement to Sec/Sen Clinton. With no disrespect intended or any slight to the loyalty of the Super Delegates, I am merely contending they might take a second look at Sen Sanders.
Correct me, if I’m wrong Primo, but I think we both agree that the role of the Democratic National Convention is to select a winning candidate for the general election. The difference in our perspective is that of you, a seasoned political expert and me, a somewhat optimistic millennial differ in the degree the Super delegates will weight the Red and Purple states vs the Blue states.
Questions? Fire away, and will do my best to respond as to why I am optimistic about Sen Sanders chances. And, Primo, please don’t pull your punches. This rookie is tough and loves the opportunity to learn from an expert.
11I actually got polled by phone last night (I keep a landline). The pollster was calling from CA. I had to tell her to slow down and take a deep breath, she was tripping over her tongue to get the questions out. I made it clear that I’m feeling the Bern, but will support the eventual D nominee because all on the opposite side are disastrous.
12