Democratic "superdelegates" endorse Bernie

[anon91351441]

@aluchko

finance reform that will probably fail since she won’t extend sufficient political capital.

She will not have any political capital to extend in the first place. If she gets elected (disclosure: I placed an actual bet on Trump at 1/3), she will do it by the scruff of the neck, with very low turnout and only because responsible people will hold their nose and vote for “not Trump”. There will not be any Dem wave, whereas Trump does have large coat-tails that can be exploited (something GOP operatives on the ground have accepted by now, hence the truce).

So, in theory, from a progressive/liberal perspective, she will start as a weak and unpopular president facing an adversarial Congress. This will suit her perfectly though, because clintonites love to triangulate against their left flank. I can write her campaign speeches for 2020 right now: “We wanted this and that, but we had to settle for {terrible right-wing compromise which is even worse than previous status-quo} because of them ugly Republicans”.

President Sanders could start as a blank slate, but would have some intensity behind him, some momentum; he’d be first non-party President since whenever, a good ol’ underdog story to milk for months in the press, stuff that generates political capital. Despite her most strenuous attempts, Clinton will not have any of that; she will not be “the first female president”, but rather another political operative who wormed and fundraised their way to the Oval Office, someone half the country actively hates and the other half mostly tolerates while secretly dreaming about her husband.

Anyway, none of this matters, because you’ll get President Trump (and I’ll make a few quid). Like Robin Williams said in his French Smoker skit where he handed a cigarette to a kid, “suck on this cigarette, my baby! Life is shit, get to know this!”

[anon50609448]

@GideonTJones

I think people only make this argument when they’re trying to call the results of the election into question.

That’s fair. A lot of people who bring up the media coverage issue probably are saying the result of the primaries is somehow illegitimate.

@GideonTJones

Many of Bernie’s supporters have been making this argument the entire campaign. From the very start a lot of them argued that Bernie would improve his performance with POC once we got to know him. Then they shifted to dismissing POC as “low info voters”. Then to arguing that Black people in the south were “low info voters”, but that Black people in the north and west were better educated and would surely embrace Bernie. And now a great many of them are arguing that he lost due to unfavorable media coverage, with the implication being that white people somehow “saw through” the media’s lies, and POC didn’t.

Yeah, that’s why I acknowledged that some people really were saying that black people didn’t support Clinton because they were less media savvy or low information.

So this is why I said I feel like demographic analysis invites racism. These idiots are blaming black people for not voting for Sanders. The thing is, that “when people learn about Sanders they’ll like him” thing - that’s true. Sanders’ favourability rating with black Democrats is great. Looking at this breakdown of favourability among different racial and ethnic groups from the beginning of primary season (scroll past the top numbers down to the actual breakdown)

A lot of people were saying for themselves they didn’t know Sanders well enough to rate him. And those that did rate him liked him just fine. But even if we balance things out to ignore the “don’t know” numbers, what we see is that black Democrats who know Sanders like Sanders, but they still like Clinton better (as an aggregate, no extrapolation to individuals). So when people blame black voters for not voting Sanders and try to chalk it up to “low information” or whatever, they are not only engaging in racist stereotypes, but they are also denying the fact that black people might just see things differently than them, that with perfect information there could still be demographic divides because people have different priorities.

@GideonTJones

Demographic predictions have been pretty much spot on this entire campaign. It’s why basically every knowledgeable observer knew it was over after SC voted.

I disagree with this. “Knowledgable observers” in politics are historically as good as coin flips. Clinton won because she got the most votes. There are a thousand different axes you could analyze that on, and racial demographics are just one of them. Election results are mostly about being in the right place at the right time.

[jerwin]

AP count: Clinton has delegates to win Democratic nomination

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Striding into history, Hillary Clinton will become the first woman to top the presidential ticket of a major U.S. political party, capturing commitments Monday from the number of delegates needed to become the Democrats’ presumptive nominee. The victory arrived nearly eight years to the day after she conceded her first White House campaign to Barack Obama. Back then, she famously noted her inability to “shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling.”

Clinton has 1,812 pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses. She also has the support of 571 superdelegates, according to an Associated Press count. The AP surveyed all 714 superdelegates repeatedly in the past seven months, and only 95 remain publicly uncommitted.

[aluchko]

@anon50609448

The large media outlets consciously avoided reporting on Sanders success at fundraising and crowd sizes last summer.

Frankly I think the opposite is true.

With the exception of tiny fringe candidates (Trump without money) the media never blacks out candidates in order to make them lose, they don’t have that luxury. The media covers or doesn’t cover candidates based on what their audience wants. I don’t think the media killed Bernie, I think the media made Bernie.

I never expected Clinton to have an unopposed path to the nomination because that’s really boring and people like to read about political campaigns. When the primaries started getting close reporters started looking for the most viable non-Hillary alternative they could find to report on and they found a lovable wacky independent uncle character from Vermont.

Since then basically all I’ve heard from the media is a) Hillary’s email problems, b) Hillary has huge establishment support but is really unpopular, c) Bernie is massively exceeding expectations, and d) oh yeah, Bernie is basically mathematically eliminated.

The Bernie coverage has basically been one long underdog story, that’s unbelievably positive coverage and I think is why the race has been so close. This wasn’t the media deliberately trying to create a race, they were just delivering the interesting coverage that their audience wanted.

If you really think the media was trying to stop Bernie just look at Trump to see how they try to stop someone they’re truly terrified of. They’ve given him non-stop coverage worth about $2 billion in free advertising.

The media wasn’t trying to stonewall Sanders or promote him, they were just trying to find an audience so they stay in business. And the audience wanted stories about a close primary contest between the plucky upstart and the party machine, and that’s exactly what the media delivered.

At this point I do think the media is trying to shut down Sanders in the sense they don’t think he’s as interesting anymore and are trying to move on. The first female Presidential candidate vs an unfiltered sexist is a much more interesting story.

@toyg

She will not have any political capital to extend in the first place. If she gets elected (disclosure: I placed an actual bet on Trump at 1/3), she will do it by the scruff of the neck, with very low turnout and only because responsible people will hold their nose and vote for “not Trump”.

You’re assuming the media narrative doesn’t change.

I think two big things will happen at the end of the campaign, first Sanders will endorse Clinton and start campaigning on her behalf, the party will unify.

Second the closer we get to the election the more terrified the media will be that the polls are wrong and Trump will win. They’ll start giving Clinton very favourable coverage to try and ensure she’s elected.

I suspect the same would happen with Sanders though it’s a higher risk. Sanders still hasn’t been through the ringer attack-wise and his “socialism” might cause people to hedge their bets in giving him a big mandate.

Personally I’d put Clinton at 85% to win and would put money on it if I were a gambler.

[Schmorgluck]

It may be useful to point out that a large majority of Black conservatives vote Democrat. I would wager that Clinton appeals to them more than Sanders. Now, I don’t know how many they are.

[anon91351441]

@aluchko

first Sanders will endorse Clinton and start campaigning on her behalf, the party will unify.

You forget that Sanders is not a career Democrat; he doesn’t owe the Party anything, he’s probably too old to try again in 4 years and could well retire or endorse a third-party candidate. He could have bowed out already so many times and didn’t. His rulebook is different.

@aluchko

the more terrified the media will be that the polls are wrong and Trump will win

You assume the media doesn’t want Trump to win. I personally disagree on that. Trump is the better story to milk, he carries shock value and entertainment. Like all peronists (as in Juan), he’s no real threat to any corporate interest.

The only way Clinton can win is through a huge alliance of minorities, which might well happen; but it’s 2016 and Trump is not a Democrat, you’ve seen he’s pretty teflon-coated from a media perspective. He’s a “deep republican” the way GWB was during his second campaign; he appeals to the worst in people and fires them up to rediscover their inner caveman. Clinton is just a career politician who, over 25 years under the spotlight, pretty much said and voted everything and its opposite. She can’t significantly split the white Republican vote, lost her leftist credentials in the last 15 years and can’t significantly energise independents. Unless Republican gerrymandering was particularly inept last time around, i don’t think she stands much of a chance, tbh.

@aluchko

Personally I’d put Clinton at 85% to win and would put money on it if I were a gambler.

I’m not a gambler, tbh. I make a few bets on international football tournaments every couple of years, usually lose all my stake by the second or third round and that’s it. I just got tired of not gaining anything from consistently being right on political predictions, so this time I staked a few quid. At the very least, it will make a sad day a bit sweeter

[GideonTJones]

[quote=“toyg, post:87, topic:79070”]
The only way Clinton can win is through a huge alliance of minorities, which might well happen
[/quote]Might? The Democratic party is this close to majority-minority. And almost certainly will be by next election. It’s amazing how many people on the left don’t get this.

That’s why Trump exists. Because the country is fast headed in the same direction as the Democratic party, because minorities are ascendant, because there are enough of us that we can (and did with Obama) dictate both the Democratic primary nomination, and the general election. White people are slowly losing their grip on power, and they’re freaking out about it.

For there to be no huge alliance of minorities, the Democratic party would basically have to stay home. Which is not going to happen. Especially not with Trump out there threatening the ethnic cleansing of the US.

[anon50609448]

@aluchko

I never expected Clinton to have an unopposed path to the nomination because that’s really boring and people like to read about political campaigns. When the primaries started getting close reporters started looking for the most viable non-Hillary alternative they could find to report on and they found a lovable wacky independent uncle character from Vermont.

The problematic coverage (that is, lack of coverage) in the media of Sanders was last July and August. There was a point where he had held the top 5 largest rallies of all presidential contenders in from either party including a nationwide day of action with more than 100,000 people coming out to events and if you wanted the news at night you would not have seen a word about it. The started covering him when they absolutely had to. What are you going to do, say Hilary Clinton is polling at 60% and we just can’t figure out what happened to the remaining 40%? That’s pretty much the approach that was taken when it was 75-25.

The mass media didn’t make the Sander campaign, a very large number of volunteers did.

[anon91351441]

I share your enthusiasm but it might be a bit premature. The demographics I see on Wikipedia say non-hispanic whites are still 50% of new births, and around 75% of current voters. Sure, those numbers are going down in the long run, but this year there is no minority candidate so they are actually likely to go back up a bit (Clinton will likely have to choose between an ethnic VP or a leftist VP, and whoever doesn’t get the spot will be pretty angry). It will have to be seen whether the anti-muslim / anti-hispanic message from Trump galvanises more adversaries than it does the republican core electorate (who has been waiting for years for the sort of “tea party candidate” Trump is). Republicans were only a few million votes short despite a very uninspiring candidate last time…

[daneel]

@toyg

an ethnic VP or a leftist VP

Keith Ellison or Donna Edwards could be both.

[lolipop_jones]

@aluchko

Hillary is ridiculously experienced and competent

Hmmm, depending on how that adjective can be read, I quite agree with you.

[jerwin]

@daneel

Keith Ellison

would be interesting to see him as a target for Trump’s vitriol.

[nimelennar]

@lolipop_jones

@aluchko

Hillary is ridiculously experienced and competent

Hmmm, depending on how that adjective can be read, I quite agree with you.

Adverb?

[Cowicide]

You should go back and read my posts with less haste and massive chips on your righteous shoulder.

You’re obviously speaking (for me, no less) in utter ignorance. You’re exhibiting a severe lack of reading comprehension and ascribing suppositions to me that are in many cases the exact opposite of what I’ve said.

In other words, you’re barking up the wrong tree. If you’re still confused, read my past posts for clarification. Maybe start with the post you’re hastily and angrily responding to – and read the part where I stated it’s about our grassroots movements, not Sanders alone.

You can then read my past posts that’ve stated this perhaps dozens of times by now.

If you want to have a trite, semantic argument over who specifically qualifies as a bluedog, then I’ll just say that I misspoke and should have said corporatist Democrats instead. Happy now?

[GideonTJones]

[quote=“Cowicide, post:55, topic:79070”]
In other words, you’re barking up the wrong tree. If you’re still confused, read my past posts for clarification. Maybe start with the post you’re hastily and angrily responding to…
[/quote]I wasn’t angry, I was laughing at you for threatening to unseat the Bluedogs, when they’re pretty much kaput. Might as well be ranting about the Whigs.

If you want to have a trite, semantic argument over who specifically qualifies as a bluedog, then I’ll just say that I misspoke and should have said corporatist Democrats instead. Happy now?

It’s not semantics, and it’s not trite. The Bluedog caucus is/was an organized group of people. If you don’t understand that, if you’re just using the term as an insult, it’s hard to take you political declarations seriously.

More importantly, it means that you don’t understand what’s happened over the last 8 years- specifically, you don’t understand that the Democratic party’s moderate/conservative members have already been largely purged from the party. Not by you, but by the conservative voters where they live.

What you say you want, already happened. And you missed it. More to the point, when you get rid of moderate Dems, they aren’t replaced by progressives, but by right wing GOP nutjobs.