The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Lord MJ]

I also want to add that other Western nations that also had supplied arms to the Saudis essentially have been pulling back to various degrees specifically because of the Saudis appalling record.

As far as fracking, it doesn't have to do with Wall St, but does have to do with support and relationships from fracking companies.

And the thing is that even with all of her deep money in politics ties she could've easily been able to present herself as a leader in dealing with the money in politics by saying "YES when big corporations donate to politicians they do so because they want a return on investment. They do that with me, with President Obama, most of Congress, all of the Republicans. It is a messy and ugly system. I know the game and how to play it. I'm the best candidate here to maneuver through this shady system to deliver results for the American people." But she didn't do that. She has made little effort to deal with money in politics at all and has instead decided to consider it a personal attack against her.

[maraxus2]

Basically calling her our for supporting terrorists would leave her dazed and confused. The second to last debate when Bernie was hitting her relentlessly Hillary was lost. It helped that that was one of the few debates that the moderators were at the top of their game and of high quality (except for trying to once again associate Bernie style socialism with Venezuelan style socialism which is really is something that I despise.)

Was it? Honestly I can't say that I recall. Certainly doesn't seem to have hurt her campaign much.

[Lord MJ]

It was one of the few debates where Bernie had the clear superior debate performance. But alas she still won Florida anyway.

[maraxus2]

I also want to add that other Western nations that also had supplied arms to the Saudis essentially have been pulling back to various degrees specifically because of the Saudis appalling record.

As far as fracking, it doesn't have to do with Wall St, but does have to do with support and relationships from fracking companies.

And the thing is that even with all of her deep money in politics ties she could've easily been able to present herself as a leader in dealing with the money in politics by saying "YES when big corporations donate to politicians they do so because they want a return on investment. They do that with me, with President Obama, most of Congress, all of the Republicans. It is a messy and ugly system. I know the game and how to play it. I'm the best candidate here to maneuver through this shady system to deliver results for the American people." But she didn't do that. She has made little effort to deal with money in politics at all and has instead decided to consider it a personal attack against her.

To be sure, but other countries don't play the same role in "guaranteeing Saudi security" that the US does, and you can define that particular euphemism however you want.

And does it? Oil companies don't seem to have much of an issue exporting that technology wherever it's profitable. Which it isn't now.

Why on earth would Hillary say that she's taken money as a quid-pro-quo? She's far too cautious of a politician to say something as flip as that. As for the other remarks, she HAS been saying that. Over and over. It just doesn't work on Sanders supporters because Sanders supporters do not seem to care very much about working within the system. They want to burn the whole thing down.

As far as her doing little about money in politics, what exactly can she do? The State department doesn't have a big role in domestic policy, and the deck is stacked pretty firmly against the reform efforts anyway. All we can really rely on her to do is the same thing that Obama is doing; grin and bear it for the moment and appoint a crop of lefty judges to the federal courts so that some day they have enough president to overturn Citizens. You think the Dems want to stay at a permanent financial disadvantage vis a vis the Republicans?

And she should absolutely consider Bernie calling her, and all the other Dems in congress for that matter, crooks as a personal attack. Bernie has the luxury of not needing to raise money from corporate interests. My old Congressman, Ami Bera, who represents the swingiest of swing districts in California does not have that same luxury. So to hear one of their colleagues, who doesn't need to raise money to win re-election (and doesn't raise money for anyone else, by the by) go on this holier-than-thou crusade where he calls everyone a bunch of crooks? That'd piss me off too if I were an MoC, and definitely if I was a staffer.

[maraxus2]

It was one of the few debates where Bernie had the clear superior debate performance. But alas she still won Florida anyway.

Debates aren't useful at winning votes unless you monumentally fuck up. They're useful for getting a candidate on TV and getting their message heard. Hillary, and Bernie for that matter, did not need it.

And she won Florida because she, y'know, actually bothered to campaign there. Markedly unlike Sanders.

[Lord MJ]

I also want to add that other Western nations that also had supplied arms to the Saudis essentially have been pulling back to various degrees specifically because of the Saudis appalling record.

As far as fracking, it doesn't have to do with Wall St, but does have to do with support and relationships from fracking companies.

And the thing is that even with all of her deep money in politics ties she could've easily been able to present herself as a leader in dealing with the money in politics by saying "YES when big corporations donate to politicians they do so because they want a return on investment. They do that with me, with President Obama, most of Congress, all of the Republicans. It is a messy and ugly system. I know the game and how to play it. I'm the best candidate here to maneuver through this shady system to deliver results for the American people." But she didn't do that. She has made little effort to deal with money in politics at all and has instead decided to consider it a personal attack against her.

To be sure, but other countries don't play the same role in "guaranteeing Saudi security" that the US does, and you can define that particular euphemism however you want.

And does it? Oil companies don't seem to have much of an issue exporting that technology wherever it's profitable. Which it isn't now.

Why on earth would Hillary say that she's taken money as a quid-pro-quo? She's far too cautious of a politician to say something as flip as that. As for the other remarks, she HAS been saying that. Over and over. It just doesn't work on Sanders supporters because Sanders supporters do not seem to care very much about working within the system. They want to burn the whole thing down.

As far as her doing little about money in politics, what exactly can she do? The State department doesn't have a big role in domestic policy, and the deck is stacked pretty firmly against the reform efforts anyway. All we can really rely on her to do is the same thing that Obama is doing; grin and bear it for the moment and appoint a crop of lefty judges to the federal courts so that some day they have enough president to overturn Citizens. You think the Dems want to stay at a permanent financial disadvantage vis a vis the Republicans?

And she should absolutely consider Bernie calling her, and all the other Dems in congress for that matter, crooks as a personal attack. Bernie has the luxury of not needing to raise money from corporate interests. My old Congressman, Ami Bera, who represents the swingiest of swing districts in California does not have that same luxury. So to hear one of their colleagues, who doesn't need to raise money to win re-election (and doesn't raise money for anyone else, by the by) go on this holier-than-thou crusade where he calls everyone a bunch of crooks? That'd piss me off too if I were an MoC, and definitely if I was a staffer.

Hillary hasn't called for getting money out of politics. She called for getting unaccountable money out of politics which basically is saying you can still flood the system with money you just kind hide yourself doing it. The legalized bribery still happens.

The reason Hillary needs to acknowledge that yes when she gets campaign donations people expect things in return is because it would be impossible for her to make a credible case that getting money out of politics would be a priority for her and her administration if she didn't do so. It would indicate that yes, she does indeed understand the problem.

Why is it that Ami Bera (I don't know much about him full disclosure) needs to raise so much money in corporate cash. Why can't he do similar to Sanders and get it from the people? While I think any transition from the big money for Democratic congressmen would require multiple Democratic congressmen coordinating to maximize grassroots funds, it is possible if the candidates put forth policies and fight for policies that average people would turn out to vote for and open their wallets to support.

You think the Dems want to stay at a permanent financial disadvantage vis a vis the Republicans?

The problem with that is the line of thinking is that the GOP is taking the bribe money so we need to take it too. Nevermind that doing so automatically shifts the policies that Dems can support because they have to stay in line with what their donors expectations are.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll concede whatever you want to interpret Bernie's statement as. One thing you're not going to be able to get anything back from is how the black communities are interpreting the statement because Clinton won 7 in 10 black voters and is back nearly to her Deep South numbers after that statement. They're interpreting something from it.

People keep trying to frame it as Bernie's problem, that he can't connect to them, with the implication that Bernie is somehow hostile to black people and their interests. But maybe there's something more to it than that.

Every individual has their own reasons for how they vote, of course, and their are legitimate reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton, but if we're talking overall trends, here's one that I think doesn't get nearly enough attention because its not considered polite to bring up:
[...]

But their's a thing here that's not getting talked about much, which is that one of the demographics where Bernie has the least support is also one with a documented history of having a substantially higher rate of anti-semetism than the national average.

Make of that what you will.

No, there's an even more basic reason why Bernie doesn't connect well among Black voters, namely that he's never had to actively campaign for their votes. Vermont is among the whitest states in the nation, if not the whitest. Black voters make up an absolutely tiny share of the overall vote and is basically nothing relative to, say, Progressive Party voters who make up a much bigger share of Bernie's hometown political base. That doesn't make him racist per se; just clueless when it comes to campaigning among Black voters. He probably doesn't personally know the major Black political leaders, and he very obviously doesn't know how to campaign among Black voters. See his clumsy, though not particularly racist, comments on "ghettos" for instance. Bernie has apparently never been great at understanding racism in a modern political sense, and sounds a lot more like the old-line socialists (that he clearly is) on race than Obama-era liberals.

Hillary by contrast has literally decades of being on a first-name basis with all of the major Black political leaders. Not to mention she's got Obama in her corner, and his approval rating among black voters is, has been, and remains sky high.

Bernie doesn't have to be racist to be bad at campaigning for Black votes. He just has to be inexperienced. And he is. As a matter of fact, his national base of support looks a hell of a lot more like his Vermont base, namely white, more-liberal-than-average, and not particularly attached to political parties.

Again, their is evidence that Sanders has strong support from certain racial minorities- its just they generally aren't as big a part of the electorate as African Americans.

Hawaii, Alaska, etc.

But leaving that argument aside, their's no reason that both points can't have some validity, rather than it being one or the other. Bernie may not be particularly skilled/experienced at tailoring his arguments to appeal to a lot of African American voters. He may also be suffering from anti-Semitism. I doubt one factor is entirely responsible for Sanders' problem with getting strong African American support.

What I object to is insisting that it is entirely Bernie's fault, without considering any other possible factors.

And again, it is worth noting (and has gotten very little attention), that their is known to be a higher rate of anti-semitism in the African American community than in the American public as a whole.

[Lord MJ]

So to hear one of their colleagues, who doesn't need to raise money to win re-election (and doesn't raise money for anyone else, by the by) go on this holier-than-thou crusade where he calls everyone a bunch of crooks? That'd piss me off too if I were an MoC, and definitely if I was a staffer.

I would also add that also in this case even if you were right that he absolutely needs to raise corporate cash to win. He and the rest of Congress can acknowledge that "YES this money does influence us, the donors want things in return. WE need to come up with a way for our party to end our dependency on corrupting money in politics." If instead he gets offended or his staff gets offended, then yeah he is part of the problem.

I would also add, that STATE legislators that have adopted the Wolfpac amendment had the awareness to say that the donor money is corrupting not just do to the expectations that they have meet to placate their donors but also the sheer amount of time it takes to raise money.

If a state legislator can do it, why can't a MoC, or Hillary Clinton for that matter.

[maraxus2]

Hillary hasn't called for getting money out of politics. She called for getting unaccountable money out of politics which basically is saying you can still flood the system with money you just kind hide yourself doing it. The legalized bribery still happens.

The reason Hillary needs to acknowledge that yes when she gets campaign donations people expect things in return is because it would be impossible for her to make a credible case that getting money out of politics would be a priority for her and her administration if she didn't do so. It would indicate that yes, she does indeed understand the problem.

But they don't necessarily. People give money to campaigns for lots of reasons, including supporting candidates that would already support their views. Do you think that Hillary wouldn't support abortion rights of NARAL wasn't funding her campaign? Or Unions giving to Bernie? And sometimes candidates receive money from people who outright oppose them, even if it wouldn't actually change their vote. Lois Capps is another of my former Reps. She represents the Santa Barbara coast, which had massive oil spills in 1969 (started the modern environmentalist movement btw) and 2015. She received some money from Exxon in her 2012 re-election campaign, despite it never making any difference whatsoever when she votes on environmental issues. And her record reflects that.

I know this is going to sound Clintonesque when I say it, but there's a difference in American politics between corruption and corruption. Democrats absolutely shouldn't unilaterally disarm on the fundraising front, especially when the Republicans already have a massive financial advantage in elections. If the Democrats had some other large fundraising source, Big Labor for instance, that might be a different story. But they don't. And given that there is absolutely no political consensus on publicly financed elections, it's hard to argue that she should pursue policies that obviously aren't going to go anywhere.

Why is it that Ami Bera (I don't know much about him full disclosure) needs to raise so much money in corporate cash. Why can't he do similar to Sanders and get it from the people? While I think any transition from the big money for Democratic congressmen would require multiple Democratic congressmen coordinating to maximize grassroots funds, it is possible if the candidates put forth policies and fight for policies that average people would turn out to vote for and open their wallets to support.

Bera needs to raise that kind of cash because he: A. Sits in an extremely expensive media market (Sacramento is one of the pricier ones in the state), B. He sits in a swing district where his grasp on the electorate is always a bit tenuous. C. Relies on a coalition that already has low turnout (think Latin@s and the smallish Hmong population), and D. Always has a well-funded challenger with lots of name recognition.

Again, Bernie has the luxury of not needing to deal with any of these things. Republicans haven't won federal office in Vermont since 2000, and there's no reason to think they'll start anytime soon. Vermont is mostly rural and actually has fewer people in it than most congressional districts. It is plausible for Bernie to literally meet most of the people who will wind up voting for him. And he has sky-high popularity in that state and no sensible Republican would be dumb enough to run against him. All of these advantages are sorely lacking in contestible Democratic seats. It's not comparing apples to oranges re: Bernie vs. everyone else; it's comparing apples to elephants.

And issues do not make a campaign work. Believe it or not, the vast majority of elected representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, hew pretty closely to how their districts vote and are concerned about local issues. That does not stop someone from falling if they get caught napping or get outspent by a huge margin against a great opponent. Obviously money has its limits too, but it's a part, and an important part, of the whole package.

And for what it's worth, I actually work as a campaign consultant, albeit on a smaller scale than federal races. I've yet to see anybody outside of extremely low-turnout elections win against a well-funded incumbent (or a challenger for that matter) with no money but a right stance on all the issues.

The problem with that is the line of thinking is that the GOP is taking the bribe money so we need to take it too. Nevermind that doing so automatically shifts the policies that Dems can support because they have to stay in line with what their donors expectations are.

Again, if you have examples of a quid-pro-quo on Hillary's side, please provide them. The examples you've produced so far are pretty weak sisters that don't stand up to much scrutiny.

I would also add that also in this case even if you were right that he absolutely needs to raise corporate cash to win. He and the rest of Congress can acknowledge that "YES this money does influence us, the donors want things in return. WE need to come up with a way for our party to end our dependency on corrupting money in politics." If instead he gets offended or his staff gets offended, then yeah he is part of the problem.

I would also add, that STATE legislators that have adopted the Wolfpac amendment had the awareness to say that the donor money is corrupting not just do to the expectations that they have meet to placate their donors but also the sheer amount of time it takes to raise money.

If a state legislator can do it, why can't a MoC, or Hillary Clinton for that matter.

Because a state legislative race is radically different from federal races, to say nothing of the presidency? You can't just scale your campaign up, and people who carry over their old staff and methods from the state house tend to lose their election campaigns. It's an arms race, and until the courts decide that money is that green stuff you buy things with, and speech is that stuff that comes out of your face, preferably with some forethought, we're not going to get anywhere.

You don't think that MoCs want to get money out of politics? They all do! For a very basic reason! It sucks up an absurd amount of their time, time that could be better dedicated to, y'know, actually representing people. Fundraising is by far the worst part of a campaign, particularly on the national level. All the staffers hate it, and the electeds hate it most of all. But you must do it, otherwise you will lose your seat. Simple as that.

Again, their is evidence that Sanders has strong support from certain racial minorities- its just they generally aren't as big a part of the electorate as African Americans.

Hawaii, Alaska, etc.

As mentioned above, we don't actually know that, but to continue.

But leaving that argument aside, their's no reason that both points can't have some validity, rather than it being one or the other. Bernie may not be particularly skilled/experienced at tailoring his arguments to appeal to a lot of African American voters. He may also be suffering from anti-Semitism. I doubt one factor is entirely responsible for Sanders' problem with getting strong African American support.

What I object to is insisting that it is entirely Bernie's fault, without considering any other possible factors.

And again, it is worth noting (and has gotten very little attention), that their is known to be a higher rate of anti-semitism in the African American community than in the American public as a whole.

To be sure, but one argument seems much more convincing to me than the other. Bernie has demonstrated significant missteps when it comes to getting the Black vote, though the impact is much less marked among younger Blacks.

You are saying that Bernie is losing among Black voters in part due to anti-semitism. I see no particular evidence for this, especially from a suspect source like Abe Foxman and the ADL, who see anti-semitism behind every rock and bush.

I see plenty of evidence that Bernie's performing poorly among Blacks because he sucks at campaigning among Black voters. These things are not mutually exclusive, but one aspect is really doing the heavy lifting in his case. He might also be performing poorly because Black voters are markedly less receptive to Bernie's brand of political revolution. People forget that Black South Carolinians had to be persuaded for months that Obama would be a viable political candidate prior to the 2008 Primary.

How all of these things parse out is a bit beyond my pay grade, but, again, if you have evidence suggesting that widespread anti-semitism is behind his losses, please provide it.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Hawaii is just so fucking white, right? As is Alaska.

It's either willfully ignorant or outright dishonest to say that Bernie's only supporters are white, and deceptive to say most of his supporters are white because, shockingly, most of every candidate's supporters are white because America is... get this... Mostly white!

But let's just ignore Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, a shockingly (or maybe not so shocking, considering Hill-dawg's actions as Sec of State) number of Arab Americans... Fuck, I've been paying more heed to what minority women have been saying on the two Democratic candidates that any other group because they're some of the most ignored people in the nation. Interesting to see the perspective differences, you know?

We don't actually know what Bernie's demographics in those states look like since they don't have exit polling available (one of the many, many, many reasons why we should collectively ditch the caucus system). And AFAIK we don't even have exit polling information on Arab-Americans given how small they are relative to the rest of the electorate, nor does the Census specifically label them as such.

Given that Hillary utterly dominated Bernie in the one state that's voted (so far) with a substantial Indian population (leastwise outside of Coconino County, which has the Navajo and Hopi reservations (which are also extremely low-turnout in practically all elections)), it's a bit of a stretch to say he won that demographic.

And given that Hillary crushed Bernie in the one state where we know for certain large portions of Pacific Islanders voted (American Samoa), it seems a stretch to say he's winning nationally with PIs either.

Again, I could be totally wrong about this. If you have evidence to suggest that Bernie actually did win big among those demographics, I'd be delighted to review. The more you know, y'know?

Hawaii isn't even thirty percent white, so it's kind of hard for him to get 70% of the vote if he's only got whites to bank on. Alaska is less than 70% white, and has a substantial Native Alaskan population. So he sort of needs at least some of their support. Hillary sort of supports the "kill Arabs and Iranians(Iranian is generally considered a separate group)" policy based off her entire record. PDF warning Dearborn, Michigan has among the largest Arab-American populations, felt the Bern.

FYI, this is kind of a nitpick but American Samoa is a territory, not a state. And the sample size is awful for it, too. 237 votes?

I'm quite honestly tired of Hillary supporters whitewashing Bernie supporters. A lot of them are white, yes. But that applies to Hillary, too. Because the US is mostly white. Bernie can at least lay claim to having won the only state where whites are an outright minority. But obviously they were the only ones voting in Hawaii, right?

[maraxus2]

Hawaii isn't even thirty percent white, so it's kind of hard for him to get 70% of the vote if he's only got whites to bank on. Alaska is less than 70% white, and has a substantial Native Alaskan population. So he sort of needs at least some of their support. Hillary sort of supports the "kill Arabs and Iranians(Iranian is generally considered a separate group)" policy based off her entire record. PDF warning Dearborn, Michigan has among the largest Arab-American populations, felt the Bern.

FYI, this is kind of a nitpick but American Samoa is a territory, not a state. And the sample size is awful for it, too. 237 votes?

I'm quite honestly tired of Hillary supporters whitewashing Bernie supporters. A lot of them are white, yes. But that applies to Hillary, too. Because the US is mostly white. Bernie can at least lay claim to having won the only state where whites are an outright minority. But obviously they were the only ones voting in Hawaii, right?

Again, I'm not saying that he didn't win those particular demographics; I'm merely pointing out that we don't know that based on the usual data, such as exit polling. Hawaii in particular has historically been very difficult to poll, in part because of the complex racial identity on the Island. I feign no knowledge of Alaskan natives and their vote patterns, though they are apparently almost as difficult to poll as Hawaiians. As for Deerborn, again the demographics are difficult to parse. Census figures that the city was almost 90% white in 2010, which makes it difficult because the Census doesn't count Arabs as a secondary ethnicity. Slightly over 40% of those voters identify as having Arab ethnicity, Given that Dearborn also has a university with over 10,000 students on it, and Bernie crushes among students (and young voters in general), that's yet another wrinkle in your thesis. Again, this isn't to say that Bernie lost those votes, but rather that the situation is more complicated than you present and we don't have the kind of 1:1 evidence to support your conclusions.

I asked you to produce evidence to support Bernie's victory in those demographics for a reason. This stuff is genuinely interesting to me, and I just haven't seen evidence to support what you're saying. If you have evidence, like a precinct breakdown, for instance, to support your argument. I would like to see it.

I fully concede that the situation is much more complex than Hillary's surrogates might suggest. Bernie was getting his clock cleaned among all Black voters, and now he does well among those under 30. Bernie was getting his clock cleaned among latin@ voters, same thing.

What I do not understand is why you're getting so upset about this. We're talking about math and demographics for God's sake. Nobody (with any sense, at least) is calling Bernie the "white candidate," nor is pointing out that Bernie does worse in more diverse states make all of his supporters white. Nobody, certainly not me, is making a value judgment about you as a Sanders supporter because Bernie sucks at campaigning for Black votes.

By the way, last night Bernie lost The Bronx, the overwhelmingly Black and Latin@ NYC borough, by a roughly 70-30 split. It wasn't even close. Make of that what you will.

[Raw Shark]

By the way, last night Bernie lost The Bronx, the overwhelmingly Black and Latin@ NYC borough, by a roughly 70-30 split. It wasn't even close. Make of that what you will.

The Bronx was inevitable. It's a Subway Series thing.

[maraxus2]

The Bronx was inevitable. It's a Subway Series thing.

NYC is also the Deep South of New York State, so it should be easy to write off. Campaign narrative preserved!

[The Romulan Republic]

This seems more along the lines of what I want to hear from Bernie:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/20/ ... minee.html

Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign manager Jeff Weaver announced this evening that Sen. Sanders will be a member of the Democratic Party for life, and he will support Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination.

Full video of Bloomberg Politics’ With All Due Respect (Weaver segment at roughly the 15 minute mark):



Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver announced that not only will Bernie Sanders stay in the Democratic Party for life, but he will also support Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee.

Mark Halperin asked Weaver, “If Sen. Sanders is not the nominee, will he stay in the Democratic Party forever now?”

Weaver answered, “Well, he is a Democrat. He’s said he’s a Democrat, and he’s going to be supporting the Democratic nominee, whoever that is.”

Halperin followed up, “But he’s a member of the Democratic Party now for life?”

Weaver said, “Yes, he is. Yes, he is.”

Bernie Sanders is going to keep campaigning for a Democratic nomination that he is still trying to win, but the long-term ramifications of the announcement by Jeff Weaver are huge. By keeping his Democratic affiliation, Sen. Sanders may see an even bigger promotion in the Senate if he fails to win the Democratic nomination. Sanders had been caucusing with the Democrats, but there are benefits to being a member of the party.

The second big part of the interview was Weaver’s statement that Sanders plans to support the Democratic nominee. That means that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, Bernie Sanders will be supporting her in the fall. Sanders was widely expected to support Clinton because his campaign has never given any indication that he wouldn’t support her if she won the nomination.



Those of us who have spent years typing (I-VT) after Sanders’ name had better get used to the change. This is a good move for Sen. Sanders. He will have a chance to challenge, change, and reshape the party from within, because Bernie Sanders is now a Democrat for life.

Well said, Senator. Thank you for showing you have more sense than some of your more rabid supporters.

[The Romulan Republic]

Bernie's admittedly long shot plan to get the nomination:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... SKCN0X80Y1

Defying opinion polls and expert predictions, Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders aims to seize the party's White House nomination from Hillary Clinton's grasp with a last-ditch come-from-behind triumph in California.

By far the most populous U.S. state, California is the largest prize of the state-by-state nominating contests, and the vote on June 7 is one of the last before Democrats convene in July to select a nominee for the Nov. 8 presidential election.

An aggressive schedule of large rallies is planned along with heavy purchases of TV, radio and online advertising in three languages and a "far, far more expensive" campaign effort than in any other state, Sanders campaign sources disclosed.

"I think they’re still riding rainbow unicorns if they think there’s a path," said Steve Schale, a Florida-based strategist, of Sanders' bid for the White House.

California has been a reliable source of campaign funds for Clinton, and opinion polls show her ahead there by as many as 14 percentage points. The statistical analysis media site FiveThirtyEight gives her a 91 percent chance of winning the state primary.

The Sanders campaign push aims to net as much as a 10-point win in California, helping him deny the front-running Clinton the 2,383 convention delegates she needs to clinch the nomination and give him the momentum to force a contested convention where he can try to win over the "superdelegates," those not decided by a state nominating contest and free to support anyone, the campaign sources said.

Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, has eroded Clinton’s lead in California, according to a Field Poll released on Friday. Clinton led Sanders by only 6 points in that survey, down from a double-digit lead earlier this year.

'BARNSTORM THE PLACE'

“With California what we’re going to do is something that (Sanders) really likes to do: Barnstorm the place,” said Tad Devine, Sanders' senior adviser, acknowledging Sanders' underdog status against Clinton, the former secretary of state.

That means two or three large-scale rallies a day for weeks, possibly starting in late April to target early voters, he said. Such rallies are a sweet spot for the 74-year-old New York-born democratic socialist's firebrand speaking style championing the working class and vowing to erase economic inequality.

At a late March event in The Bronx, he drew 18,500 people.

Clinton leads in pledged convention delegates - those allocated to candidates on the basis of the state primaries and caucuses - with 1,287 to 1,037 for Sanders.

A candidate needs 2,383 delegates to clinch the nomination. California has 475 delegates, to be divided proportionally according to the June 7 primary vote.

The Clinton campaign plans to put up a fight. Local and national surrogates will speak out in English and Spanish and staff will beef up offices up and down the West Coast as the California vote nears, her campaign said.

Its not entirely clear what their plan is exactly, weather they are seriously hoping to get the super delegates to go to Sanders against the pledged delegates, but I'll more or less reiterate what I've said before- I can probably accept Sanders fighting it out to the convention, albeit with some misgivings due to how ugly the campaign has gotten and the risk of division in the general election. But if he is behind in pledged delegates and popular vote when he gets to the convention, he should concede with dignity, not make a futile, divisive, hypocritical, and embarrassing effort to get the super delegates to swing it to him.

[The Romulan Republic]

Drumpf doesn't need to win or enact any of his policies to grievously damage America:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/ ... sroom.html

A fourth-grade teacher in the U.S. says her students — many of Hispanic descent — often “talk in fear” about the policies of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. “He hates Mexicans and wants to send my family back to Mexico,” one nine-year-old reportedly said.
That’s one of nearly 4,800 alarming responses to a Southern Poverty Law Center survey of U.S. teachers. They show that in the age of Trump classrooms have become a microcosm of an inflamed presidential race.
“We’re deeply concerned about the level of fear among minority children who feel threatened by both the incendiary campaign rhetoric and the bullying they’re encountering in school,” law centre president Richard Cohen said in a statement. “We’ve seen Donald Trump behave like a 12-year-old, and now we’re seeing 12-year-olds behave like Donald Trump.”
The civil rights group’s online survey asked teachers how the campaign is affecting schoolchildren. The answers reveal “an increase in the bullying, harassment and intimidation of students whose races, religions or nationalities have been the verbal targets of candidates,” according to the report.
One child declared in his middle school homeroom that he “stood with Trump” and was ready to “get ‘em all out of here,” his teacher reported. “Two of my Latina students are in that class. They were visibly shaken.”
“If girls wear shorts and halters — they are going to get raped by those Mexican criminals that keep coming in,” an 18-year-old student said, according to another teacher.
More than two-thirds of the teachers reported that students — mainly immigrants, children of immigrants and Muslims — have expressed concerns or fears about what might happen to them or their families after the election.
Heightened tension in the classroom means teachers have been reluctant to discuss those issues at a time when mutual understanding seems especially critical, noted Maureen Costello, who authored the report.

“Schools are finding that their anti-bullying work is being tested and, in many places, falling apart,” she said.
Since June, Trump has called for a massive wall across the southern U.S. border — to be paid for by Mexico — as well as a ban on Muslims entering the country.
The billionaire real estate mogul has also dubbed Mexican immigrants “rapists,” appeared to mock a disabled newspaper reporter and stated that abortions should carry “some form of punishment” if outlawed.
The long-term impact of the campaign on children’s attitudes and civic education is tough to gauge. Some teachers reported that their students are more engaged in the political process this year. Others worry the election is making them “less trusting of government” or “hostile to opposing points of view,” or that children are “losing respect for the political process.”
A protester is removed as U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign event in Buffalo, N.Y., on Monday.
CARLO ALLEGRI/REUTERS
A protester is removed as U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign event in Buffalo, N.Y., on Monday.

Here are the survey’s recurring themes:
Xenophobia
“At the all-white school where I teach, ‘dirty Mexican’ has become a common insult. Before election season it was never heard.”
Anti-Muslim vitriol
“Just today, at the high school, I heard students in the hallway going to lunch. One student yelled out, ‘I hate Muslims!’”
“Kids haven’t turned on each other yet, but it has made it OK to say hateful things about Muslims and immigrants … The adults in my town are even worse. People are showing their true colors.”
Racism
“My students are terrified of Donald Trump … They think that if he’s elected, all black people will get sent back to Africa.”
“I have another student at my school who is Indian that has been targeted because the other students perceive him to be a Muslim. He has been harassed by being called ‘Isis’ and with students saying, ‘Allah Akbar’ to him, among other things. His mother confessed to me that they had considered moving because of it.”
Fear for the future
“95 per cent of the 117 students I teach are actually from Mexico … Teenagers are crying in class, students are writing heartbreaking journal entries, and some students have already gone back to Mexico out of pure fear.”
“One of my students from Iraq used to wear a hijab. A few days after the Paris attacks, she stopped wearing it and she told me her mother made her take it off because she was afraid she would get killed.”
Anger at Trump
“Some of my male students have even gone so far as to say that if they had a chance they would like to assassinate Trump … It scares me that Trump’s campaign seems to encourage violence in both Trump’s supporters and detractors.”
“There has been an increase in bullying by way of accusing each other that they are Trump supporters to isolate them from the social groups.”
Encouraging signs
“My students have maintained an openness toward immigrants … There may be some who are increasingly anti-immigrant, but they are less vocal than those who want to support refugees.”
“If anything, my students quite openly make fun of him. My Muslim and Mexican students have used some gallows humor about ‘enjoying their last days in the U.S.’ before ‘President Trump’ ends up in the White House and they get deported.”
These quotes are drawn from 4,796 comments made in response to a Southern Poverty Law Center survey of 2,000 K-12 teachers from across the U.S. between March 23 and April 2. The survey does not claim to be representative of the nation, as respondents were a non-random sample of website visitors and email subscribers.
— With files from PRI’s The World

The sooner and more lopsidedly this man loses the election, the better.

[Lagmonster]

That article describes the real problem. It isn't Trump himself; it's the fact that there are enough citizens around who think like him and are willing to give power to someone like him. Vile leaders aren't always puppet masters - they might just be tapping into something in people that's already there.

Even if Trump loses horrifically, that won't make all the racists and mongers backing him turn civil again, and they're the problem. Trump wouldn't BE a danger if they didn't exist in large enough numbers to grant him the victories he's had.

[The Romulan Republic]

That article describes the real problem. It isn't Trump himself; it's the fact that there are enough citizens around who think like him and are willing to give power to someone like him. Vile leaders aren't always puppet masters - they might just be tapping into something in people that's already there.

Even if Trump loses horrifically, that won't make all the racists and mongers backing him turn civil again, and they're the problem. Trump wouldn't BE a danger if they didn't exist in large enough numbers to grant him the victories he's had.

It may not make them all disappear or change their views, but it may keep them from being further encouraged and condoned as part of the political mainstream, prevent further damage to America's already badly tarnished reputation, and ease the fear Drumpf's rise is causing minorities.

Edit: In short, its not about thinking they'll all just going away. Its about sending a message that they are not the political mainstream and not representative of America as a whole.

[Raw Shark]

In short, its not about thinking they'll all just going away. Its about sending a message that they are not the political mainstream and not representative of America as a whole.

Might actually wake some of them up if it was sent loud and clear enough. I think the biggest disconnect from reality among racists, based on anecdotal experiences with my Dad's side of the family and at work, is that they think there is a silent majority that holds the same views, but is too intimidated by liberal persecution to speak out. Then a guy like Donny Jingles comes along, and they start to say things like, "Trump says what everybody else is afraid to say," and believe the everybody part.

Even if he gets crushed, though, most of them will just chalk it up to Machiavellian thievery and go cuddle with their rifles.

[Khaat]

Even if he gets crushed, though, most of them will just chalk it up to Machiavellian thievery and go cuddle with their rifles.

Is it too much to hope they open-mouth kiss them as well?

[Raw Shark]

Is it too much to hope they open-mouth kiss them as well?

It's like fucking your sister in those circles: it probably doesn't happen as much as people say it does, and is usually accidental, but you shouldn't rule it out entirely as a possibility.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Hawaii isn't even thirty percent white, so it's kind of hard for him to get 70% of the vote if he's only got whites to bank on. Alaska is less than 70% white, and has a substantial Native Alaskan population. So he sort of needs at least some of their support. Hillary sort of supports the "kill Arabs and Iranians(Iranian is generally considered a separate group)" policy based off her entire record. PDF warning Dearborn, Michigan has among the largest Arab-American populations, felt the Bern.

FYI, this is kind of a nitpick but American Samoa is a territory, not a state. And the sample size is awful for it, too. 237 votes?

I'm quite honestly tired of Hillary supporters whitewashing Bernie supporters. A lot of them are white, yes. But that applies to Hillary, too. Because the US is mostly white. Bernie can at least lay claim to having won the only state where whites are an outright minority. But obviously they were the only ones voting in Hawaii, right?

Again, I'm not saying that he didn't win those particular demographics; I'm merely pointing out that we don't know that based on the usual data, such as exit polling. Hawaii in particular has historically been very difficult to poll, in part because of the complex racial identity on the Island. I feign no knowledge of Alaskan natives and their vote patterns, though they are apparently almost as difficult to poll as Hawaiians. As for Deerborn, again the demographics are difficult to parse. Census figures that the city was almost 90% white in 2010, which makes it difficult because the Census doesn't count Arabs as a secondary ethnicity. Slightly over 40% of those voters identify as having Arab ethnicity, Given that Dearborn also has a university with over 10,000 students on it, and Bernie crushes among students (and young voters in general), that's yet another wrinkle in your thesis. Again, this isn't to say that Bernie lost those votes, but rather that the situation is more complicated than you present and we don't have the kind of 1:1 evidence to support your conclusions.

I asked you to produce evidence to support Bernie's victory in those demographics for a reason. This stuff is genuinely interesting to me, and I just haven't seen evidence to support what you're saying. If you have evidence, like a precinct breakdown, for instance, to support your argument. I would like to see it.

I fully concede that the situation is much more complex than Hillary's surrogates might suggest. Bernie was getting his clock cleaned among all Black voters, and now he does well among those under 30. Bernie was getting his clock cleaned among latin@ voters, same thing.

What I do not understand is why you're getting so upset about this. We're talking about math and demographics for God's sake. Nobody (with any sense, at least) is calling Bernie the "white candidate," nor is pointing out that Bernie does worse in more diverse states make all of his supporters white. Nobody, certainly not me, is making a value judgment about you as a Sanders supporter because Bernie sucks at campaigning for Black votes.

By the way, last night Bernie lost The Bronx, the overwhelmingly Black and Latin@ NYC borough, by a roughly 70-30 split. It wasn't even close. Make of that what you will.

What is more likely, that Bernie did well in Hawaii because he was broadly popular, or because 24% of the population constituted 70% of the vote? In Alaska, what is more likely? That he did well among the non-white groups in Alaska or that the whites zerg-rushed the caucus to defy the will of the Native Alaskans and other minority groups?

Saying that Bernie does badly in diverse states is an enormous lie that erases people of color in Alaska and Hawaii. Hawaii is the most ethnically diverse state in the country. Whites aren't even the largest minority population. Asian-Americans are, by a margin of over 10% You sound like Ian Sams, saying that Hawaii isn't diverse because it is "only 2.5% black." Statistical probability says that his performance in Hawaii involves a lot of non-whites to have voted for him there. His performance in Alaska suggests that, unless participation was awful among Native Alaskans, he did well with them. You quoted that 40% self-identified Arabic figure so statistically it is the most reasonable assumption that he did well with Arab-Americans.

Fuck's sake, I've been paying attention to what people of color, particularly women of color, have been saying on the election more than what whites have been saying because their voices are so often ignored. Want to know what I've heard a lot of blacks saying about the massive support Hillary sees in the South? To a large extent, Southern blacks are pretty damn conservative. They don't vote Republican because the Republicans are perceived as a bunch of racist bastards that want to fuck over black communities. Hillary Clinton is a household name, she's buddies with a lot of black community leaders. Bernie, on the other hand, seemingly popped up out of nowhere. He's an unfamiliar old white guy from Vermont. He hasn't made connections. And shockingly, a segment of the country that has been fucked over repeatedly by outsiders claiming to have their interests at heart aren't prone to immediately believing some new guy saying "I've got your backs."

It pisses me off because it's white washing a movement. It's erasing people of color. It's treating people of color as a monolithic block, which is racist as hell. It's racial politics, plain and simple.

[maraxus2]

What is more likely, that Bernie did well in Hawaii because he was broadly popular, or because 24% of the population constituted 70% of the vote? In Alaska, what is more likely? That he did well among the non-white groups in Alaska or that the whites zerg-rushed the caucus to defy the will of the Native Alaskans and other minority groups?

Saying that Bernie does badly in diverse states is an enormous lie that erases people of color in Alaska and Hawaii. Hawaii is the most ethnically diverse state in the country. Whites aren't even the largest minority population. Asian-Americans are, by a margin of over 10% You sound like Ian Sams, saying that Hawaii isn't diverse because it is "only 2.5% black." Statistical probability says that his performance in Hawaii involves a lot of non-whites to have voted for him there. His performance in Alaska suggests that, unless participation was awful among Native Alaskans, he did well with them. You quoted that 40% self-identified Arabic figure so statistically it is the most reasonable assumption that he did well with Arab-Americans.

Okay, lets walk through the demographics together. The turnout in the Alaska and Hawaii caucuses was pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. The Alaska Caucus had roughly 6.5% of the eligible Democrats show up to vote, and Hawaii had even fewer, an abysmal 4.6, the lowest in the primary so far. Alaska had roughly 10,000 voters show up to caucus, while Hawaii had 34,000. Let us take Alaska as a case-study. Caucuses have a marked tendency to disenfranchise people of color and low-income voters, the very same people you suggest broke for Bernie. Given that Alaskan natives, like practically all other indigenous groups, have a dramatically higher poverty rate than the population at large, does it seem "statistically probable" to you that the miniscule slice that caucused represented state demographics as a whole? Or does it seem likely that maybe, just maybe, it's skewed towards higher-income voters, who happen to be white.

As for Dearborn, the data above shows no such thing. It merely shows that there are lots of Arab residents in Dearborn, not that there are a particularly large number of Arab voters, nor does it show that Bernie actually won that tiny demographic. Per the most recent census, something like a quarter of Dearborn's population are foreign-born. This does not mean that they aren't citizens, but it indicates that there are probably a fair few number of that 40,000 who cannot vote. Likewise, nearly 30% of the residents are under 18. The Census figures I listed aren't precise enough to show that breakdown among Arabs, but it's safe to assume that there aren't a whole lot of 17 year-olds voting for Bernie. Not evidence that he lost, just evidence that your crappy analysis is crappy analysis.

Again, I'm not asserting *anything* about Bernie's demographic victories in those states, just pointing out flaws in your argument. You are essentially asserting that Bernie won Asian-Americans and Alaskan Natives because he won Hawaii and Alaska, but you're not looking at any of the impacts the caucus system *might* skew that data. You're drawing bad conclusions from incomplete evidence.

Fuck's sake, I've been paying attention to what people of color, particularly women of color, have been saying on the election more than what whites have been saying because their voices are so often ignored. Want to know what I've heard a lot of blacks saying about the massive support Hillary sees in the South? To a large extent,Southern blacks are pretty damn conservative. They don't vote Republican because the Republicans are perceived as a bunch of racist bastards that want to fuck over black communities. Hillary Clinton is a household name, she's buddies with a lot of black community leaders. Bernie, on the other hand, seemingly popped up out of nowhere. He's an unfamiliar old white guy from Vermont. He hasn't made connections. And shockingly, a segment of the country that has been fucked over repeatedly by outsiders claiming to have their interests at heart aren't prone to immediately believing some new guy saying "I've got your backs."

Good for you! Listening to women of color makes you a real mensch. But the anecdotes are not the plural of data. In fact, we can actually test thisBoris Shor has a wonderful data set about the ideological polarization on the state legislative level. If you take a look at it, you'll notice that most of the southern states are either more ideologically polarized (indicating a more defined liberal-conservative split), or are stuck pretty close to the middle (reflecting an ideological balance you'd expect). The major wrinkle is that practically all of the Democrats in the South are Black, thanks to the wipeouts from 2010 and 2014. The only exceptions to that rule are Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, while Virginia, Texas, and North Carolina have much more liberal Democrats in their state houses.

If Black voters are so conservative, why do they keep sending (relatively speaking) lefties to their state governments?

And it's not a matter of perception; Black voters, taken as a whole, are easily the most loyal partisans in American politics. Nobody even comes close to matching Blacks as a unified voting block. You could probably run a dead dog for President and expect it to get around 86% of the Black vote, provided it was a loyally Democratic dead dog.

The fact that Bernie has so much difficulty winning over this crucial demographic is a huge problem for his campaign, and largely the reason why he's 275 (last I checked anyway) pledged delegates behind Hillary at this point.

And BTW, please point out where I said that a state isn't diverse if it isn't black.

It pisses me off because it's white washing a movement. It's erasing people of color. It's treating people of color as a monolithic block, which is racist as hell. It's racial politics, plain and simple.

I'm not white washing Bernie's victory at all, leastwise I don't think I am. I'm merely pointing out that Bernie is doing badly among Black voters and Latin@s. Which he is.

[The Romulan Republic]

Interesting comment from Joe Biden that seems to be praising Sanders and critiquing Clinton (which the Sanders campaign, of course, has been quick to tout):

https://berniesanders.com/vp-biden-like ... -approach/

OAKS, Pa. – Calling Vice President Joseph R. Biden “a great son of Pennsylvania,” U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday welcomed the vice president’s support for what The New York Times called Sanders’ “aspirational approach” over Hillary Clinton’s “caution.”

“I like the idea of saying, ‘We can do much more,’ because we can,” Biden told John Harwood during an interview last Friday.

“I don’t think any Democrat’s ever won saying, ‘We can’t think that big — we ought to really downsize here because it’s not realistic,’” Biden added. “C’mon man, this is the Democratic Party! I’m not part of the party that says, ‘Well, we can’t do it.’”

There's more on the page in question, but this bit alone says quite a lot. While Biden has not endorsed anyone, this is a thinly-veiled questioning of Clinton's electability on the basis that she is too timid and unambitious.

And yes, its from a Sanders page, so not an unbiased source, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they're not outright misquoting the VP.

[The Romulan Republic]

The New York Attorney General is investigating the voter registration issue in Brooklyn and the Board of Elections has suspended Brooklyn's chief clerk without pay:

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/04/21 ... l-removed/

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — A top official for the Board of Elections in Brooklyn is being removed following thousands of voting complaints on New York’s primary day.

The board suspended Diane Haslett-Rudiano, the chief clerk in Brooklyn, without pay following the primary elections mess.


CBS2 reported the names of 126,000 Brooklyn voters were removed from the rolls ahead of the election.

“The administration of the voter rolls in Brooklyn is of major concern to our office and is a focus of our investigation,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement.

The board said it “will fully cooperate with the investigations currently being conducted” by the New York State attorney general and the New York City comptroller.

“Why is it alleged that 125,000 people have been removed from the voter rolls? Why did 60,000 people receive notices to vote that didn’t have the primary date? Why were people told they were in the wrong polling placetime and time again?” New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer said Tuesday. “The next president of the United States could very easily be decided tonight and yet the incompetence of the Board of Elections puts a cloud over these results.”

Stringer said he was going to audit the Board of Elections.

Schneiderman’s office said it received over 1,000 complaints from voters on Tuesday. The attorney general said it is the largest volume of complaints they have received for a general election since taking office in 2011. The office said they only received 150 complaints in the 2012 general election.

“I am deeply troubled by the volume and consistency of voting irregularities, both in public reports and direct complaints to my office’s voter hotline, which received more than one thousand complaints in the course of the day yesterday. That’s why today, we have opened an investigation into alleged improprieties in yesterday’s voting by the New York City Board of Elections,” Schneiderman said in a statement Wednesday.

The most common complaint was voters being told they weren’t registered, followed by being told they were not registered with a political party, and the denial of affidavit ballots when requested.

Tommy Hartung, of Queens, told CBS2’s Hazel Sanchez the New York primary was the first time he registered to vote after finding a candidate he supported.

“I was approved in their system. I got an approval letter,” he said. “And I went to the polls station and I wasn’t in the book.”

And he wasn’t the only one. Several viewers sounded off to CBS2.

“Voted in Brooklyn and they couldn’t find me and I’ve voted for 40 years straight,” Ramona Holman wrote.

“Couldn’t vote because they dropped my name from the list despite being an active registered voter at the right location. Pathetic,” Ryan McLoughlin wrote.

Board of Elections Director Michael Ryan spoke to CBS2 about the complaints.

“Any of those issues are absolutely 100 percent regrettable. We do a post-elections analysis to make sure those mistakes do not happen again in the future ,” he said.

Ryan said the voters were removed from the roll because they moved out of the borough or were classified as inactive after changing addresses or failed to vote in two successive elections and didn’t properly re-register by the March 30 deadline.

This is not the first time Haslett-Rudiano has been involved in a scandal after she previously owed taxes on her Upper West Side townhouse, which neighbors said was an eyesore. She eventually sold the townhouse for $6.6 million after originally paying $5,000 for it in 1976, according to the New York Daily News.

While Clinton's win in New York was big enough that even if this only effected Bernie's supporters, I don't think it would change who won the state, its obviously nonetheless important that this be investigated, that every voter be treated fairly. Also, it could affect the margin of victory somewhat. And its definitely looking like their's something here, given how seriously its being taken.