The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Highlord Laan]

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.

The truth is often harsh and painful, ain't it? I've often wondered if most politicians actually know they're corrupt, vile, double-speaking, lying, conniving, cheating, greedy political whores that only hold power because their system is self perpetuating, or if they actually believe they in any way work for the people, represent their interests, or are themselves any form of decent human being.

[The Romulan Republic]

Bernie does raise money.

He just doesn't do it through super pacs.

That he's been able to hold his own without super pac money is pretty damn incredible in and of itself.

[maraxus2]

The truth is often harsh and painful, ain't it? I've often wondered if most politicians actually know they're corrupt, vile, double-speaking, lying, conniving, cheating, greedy political whores that only hold power because their system is self perpetuating, or if they actually believe they in any way work for the people, represent their interests, or are themselves any form of decent human being.

Oh fuck off. Have you ever worked with an elected before? Have you ever talked with your MoC before? They run the whole gamut of human emotion and competence. Some are extremely bright, and some are extremely dim. Some are clean as a whistle, and some are nothing short of out-and-out crooks. And some are supremely competent and driven, and some I wouldn't trust to pour piss out of a boot, even if there were instructions written on the heel. In other words, they look, act, and feel a lot more like regular folks than the dark cabal of incompetents you are imagining.

And speaking of wondering, I've often wondered whether you know you're an obnoxious, hyperbolic low-content little twerp, or whether it just comes naturally to you.

IN other news, Ted Cruz continues to own Trump at everything except for being friendly and likeable.

Ted Cruz notched another delegate landslide Saturday, stretching his advantage in a competition that might never occur: the second ballot of a contested Republican National Convention in July.
Cruz won at least 65 of the 94 delegates up for grabs Saturday (and he may have won more, but Kentucky's 25 delegates haven't revealed their leanings). The Texas senator has so thoroughly dominated the fight to send loyalists to the national convention that if front-runner Donald Trump fails to clinch the nomination on the first ballot, Cruz is well-positioned to surpass him — and perhaps even snag the nomination for himself — when delegates are free in subsequent convention rounds to vote for whomever they want.
Story Continued Below

On Saturday, he nearly won 19 of 20 seats available in Maine, losing just one to a Trump backer: Gov. Paul LePage. He also won all nine delegates on the ballot in three Minnesota congressional districts, picking up support in the lone state won by Marco Rubio. Cruz also grabbed one of three delegates in South Carolina's 6th Congressional District, while the other two went to an uncommitted delegate and a supporter of Gov. John Kasich.
Cruz's biggest windfall, though, came from Utah, where at least 36 of 37 national delegates will be aligned with Cruz, who crushed Trump in the state's caucuses on March 22. Included in the Utah delegation: Sen. Mike Lee, Gov. Gary Herbert, and Reps. Mike Bishop and Mia Love. Only Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, the 37th delegate, is a wild card -- he hasn't revealed who he supports.
But Cruz's dominance may be for nothing. Trump's dominant victory in New York last week, along with expected victories across the northeast on Tuesday, put him on the cusp of earning the nomination without any convention drama in Cleveland. On the first ballot, most delegates are required to vote according to the results of state primaries and caucuses, and that's where Trump has a wide edge -- 845 to Cruz's 559.
If Trump can dominate the remaining 15 primaries and acquire mandatory support from 1,237 delegates, he'll secure the nomination automatically. And polls show he has an edge in Indiana's crucial May 3 primary, where 57 delegates will be apportioned, and that he's pulling away in California — the biggest prize of the entire primary season — where 172 delegates will be assigned in a June 7 primary.

In the meantime, Cruz has owned the secondary battle to elect loyalists to the convention and can only work to limit Trump's gains over the next six weeks of primaries. Republican activists that tend to run to become delegates and vote in those obscure contests are typically more aligned with Cruz.
Kentucky, where Trump narrowly edged Cruz in a March 5 caucus, was the only delegate on the day. Party insiders who control the delegate process there unveiled a slate of 25 delegates headlined by newly elected Gov. Matt Bevin, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Rand Paul. At the Kentucky state GOP convention Saturday, it was approved overwhelmingly by the nearly 500 attendees.
McConnell and Paul have been critical of Trump, but the remainder of the delegation, according to sources familiar with the list, wasn't vetted based on candidate support. Instead, it featured a long list of party veterans picked based on their work for the Kentucky GOP over the years. It's unclear which way the delegation will lean if the convention becomes a floor fight.
"Our process for delegates is not candidate focused. It never has been," said Steve Robertson, former chairman of the Kentucky GOP and one of the 25 delegates selected.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/t ... z46lCDBKnO
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[The Romulan Republic]

https://time.com/4305927/charles-koch-h ... publicans/

But he did not endorse her



RECOMMENDED FOR YOU
Ted Cruz Seeks to Mend Fences with Republican Elites
Ted Cruz Seeks to Mend Fences with Republican Elites
What Marcia Brady Looks Like Now Is Insane! Promoted
What Marcia Brady Looks Like Now Is Insane!
Recommended by
Conservative billionaire Charles Koch thinks there’s a chance Hillary Clinton could be a better choice for president than any of the Republicans in the running.

The powerful player in Republican politics weighed in on the 2016 election during an interview with ABC News that aired Sunday. Koch was first asked whether he thought Bill Clinton was a better president than George W. Bush. “In some ways,” he responded. “In other ways, I mean he wasn’t an exemplar.”


When asked if it was possible that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton could be preferable to another Republican, Koch told ABC’s Jonathan Karl: “It’s possible.”

Koch was critical of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump during the interview, saying that there are “terrible role models” among those vying for the GOP nomination. However, he said he is not yet ready to endorse Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. “We would have to believe her actions would be quite different than her rhetoric. Let me put it that way,” Koch said.

Hillary Clinton made it clear she didn’t want Koch’s support in response to his comments. “Not interested in endorsements from people who deny climate science and try to make it harder for people to vote,” she wrote on Twitter.

Definitely looks bad for Clinton, though I wonder how sincere he's being. This could be either an attempt to discredit Clinton with her own base, or simply an acknowledgement that anything is better than the circus on the other side.

And speaking of the moron circus:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/policitcs ... ald-trump/

(CNN)Ted Cruz and John Kasich are joining forces in a last-ditch effort to deny Donald Trump the Republican presidential nomination.

Within minutes of each other, the pair issued statements saying they will divide their efforts in upcoming contests with Cruz focusing on Indiana and Kasich devoting his efforts to Oregon and New Mexico. The strategy is aimed at blocking Trump from gaining the 1,237 delegates necessary to claim to GOP nomination this summer.
The extraordinary moves reflect the national strength Trump has shown and the inability of Republicans who oppose the New York billionaire to come together to stop him. Dividing up some of the remaining primary states by putting forward one strong option to Trump in each could be enough to take away delegates and curb Trump's run to the nomination.
Trump is the only candidate who can realistically get a first-ballot victory -- there's no mathematical path for Cruz or Kasich to clinch the nomination heading into the convention.
Republican Party braces ahead of critical 'Acela primary'
Cruz campaign manager Jeff Roe said in a statement the Texas senator will focus on the May 3 Indiana primary. He called Trump at top of the GOP ticket "a sure disaster."
He added: "To ensure that we nominate a Republican who can unify the Republican Party and win in November, our campaign will focus its time and resources in Indiana and in turn clear the path for Gov. Kasich to compete in Oregon and New Mexico."
Kasich's chief strategist, John Weaver, said in a separate statement: "Due to the fact that the Indiana primary is winner-take-all statewide and by congressional district, keeping Trump from winning a plurality in Indiana is critical to keeping him under 1,237 bound delegates before Cleveland. We are very comfortable with our delegate position in Indiana already, and given the current dynamics of the primary there, we will shift our campaign's resources West and give the Cruz campaign a clear path in Indiana."
Sunday's move is also what many in the GOP have urged on for a while -- a combined "Never Trump" strategy. Both campaigns have each sought to be the one that denies Trump a first-ballot win at the Republican convention. Each has offered their own rationales for why GOP delegates would then turn to them as the party standard-bearer.
But these strategies by Kasich and Cruz have fallen short as Trump has proved a nearly unstoppable force in the Republican primary season. Kasich has won only his home state of Ohio, more than a month ago, and is far back in the delegate chase.
Cruz has remained a steady second behind Trump, but his victories have been sporadic. His initial strategy to sweep the South with heavy support for evangelical voters fell flat. Cruz has in recent contests focused more on the delegate game, picking off support in individual congressional districts even as he lost statewide in several places.
The two statements were the only public comments Sunday night from the campaigns, and notably only refer to three states -- Indiana, New Mexico and Oregon. California, with its treasure trove of delegates, Nebraska and West Virginia are among the states not included.
As Trump continues to lead, and especially following his romp in New York last week and expected victories in northeastern states this week, tensions have been mounting, especially for Cruz. According to CNN estimates, Cruz would have to win every available delegate to reach 1,237 on the first ballot, a virtual impossibility.
Cruz has consistently called for Kasich to move aside, touting the fact that only he and Trump have won multiple states and have a way to secure the delegates needed.
"The primary has done the job it's supposed to do, it has narrowed the field. As we stand here today, there are two people with any plausible path whatsoever to the nomination, me and Donald Trump," Cruz said Sunday in Terre Haute, Indiana.
An audience member then shouted out, "John Kasich."
Cruz's response: "As I said, plausible path."
CNN's Betsy Klein contributed to this report

[maraxus2]

Probably the latter. Dunno too many Dems who would believe Koch that aren't already convinced that Hillary is Satan.

In other news, Ted Cruz continues to be an almost-as-hateful Plan B

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is intensifying his attacks on chief rival Donald Trump, calling him a phony and liar who is betraying conservative voters.

Over the course of Saturday at campaign stops in both Pennsylvania and Indiana, Cruz coined new punchlines attacking Trump, calling him everything from a master illusionist like Houdini to a man who campaigns like Mick Jagger parachuting into a rock concert concert to someone who should consider writing "The Art of The Betrayal."

Speaking from the bed of a pickup truck in the parking lot of a Plainfield, Indiana, diner, Cruz energized a crowd of supporters by calling Trump "crazy Donald" and a "phony Donald."

"He is laughing at the American people and pretending to be something he's not," Cruz told reporters after the rally. "If you want to be elected president, you need to show the humility to come and ask for the support of the people -- not parachute in like Mick Jagger, give some disjointed speech in a football stadium and then fly out on your jet back to New York City.

"We've had enough politicians who are pretenders," he said.

Cruz also bashed Trump for his opposition to the North Carolina bathroom bill.

"So let me make things real simple, even if Donald Trump dresses up as Hillary Clinton, he shouldn’t be using the girl’s restroom,” said Cruz at a rally in Lebanon, Indiana.

Cruz then laughed, apologizing to the audience for giving them the image of "Donald in a bright blue pantsuit."

"But let me just say to Jimmy Fallon and 'The Tonight Show,' please give us that image," Cruz said.

[Raw Shark]

Speaking from the bed of a pickup truck in the parking lot of a Plainfield, Indiana, diner

Wow. That's almost as good as the W photo-op in a pick-up truck wearing a wife-beater and a cowboy hat with a shotgun and a dog back in 2000.

[maraxus2]

Wow. That's almost as good as the W photo-op in a pick-up truck wearing a wife-beater and a cowboy hat with a shotgun and a dog back in 2000.

Please tell me you have a copy of this picture. My search results for "George W. Bush Wife Beater" on google images have been...less than satisfactory.

Also fwiw, I think Dubya is a more authentic cultural "Texan" than Cruz, even though Cruz is a native(?). Dubya grew up in Midland, which is just about as stereotypically Texas as you can get, and even all that Ivy League polish couldn't wipe the cow flop off of his boots. Cruz could have grown up in literally any right-wing suburb in the US.

[Raw Shark]

Wow. That's almost as good as the W photo-op in a pick-up truck wearing a wife-beater and a cowboy hat with a shotgun and a dog back in 2000.

Please tell me you have a copy of this picture. My search results for "George W. Bush Wife Beater" on google images have been...less than satisfactory.

Here's the closest thing I could find with brief effort, and I may be mis-remembering it as the real deal; it was 16 years ago:

https://www.google.com/search?q=george+ ... qtHfb5M%3A

[Thanas]

Speaking from the bed of a pickup truck in the parking lot of a Plainfield, Indiana, diner

'murica.

Was he wrapped in a US flag as well when he was saying that?

[Raw Shark]

Was he wrapped in a US flag as well when he was saying that?

Only his junk. He was wearing tightey red-blue-and-whiteys under his pants.

[Borgholio]

So about the announcement that Cruz and Kasich are going to work together to block Trump from the nomination. As a Democrat, I am watching with a smile on my face as the GOP tears itself apart. However I'm also very surprised they would announce such a thing publicly. Would that not make some people vote for Trump out of sympathy, now that the "GOP Establishment" has freely admitted to colluding against him? They basically admitted to what Trump was accusing them of all along.

[Flagg]

The truth is often harsh and painful, ain't it? I've often wondered if most politicians actually know they're corrupt, vile, double-speaking, lying, conniving, cheating, greedy political whores that only hold power because their system is self perpetuating, or if they actually believe they in any way work for the people, represent their interests, or are themselves any form of decent human being.

Oh fuck off. Have you ever worked with an elected before? Have you ever talked with your MoC before? They run the whole gamut of human emotion and competence. Some are extremely bright, and some are extremely dim. Some are clean as a whistle, and some are nothing short of out-and-out crooks. And some are supremely competent and driven, and some I wouldn't trust to pour piss out of a boot, even if there were instructions written on the heel. In other words, they look, act, and feel a lot more like regular folks than the dark cabal of incompetents you are imagining.

And speaking of wondering, I've often wondered whether you know you're an obnoxious, hyperbolic low-content little twerp, or whether it just comes naturally to you.

Only Sanders' faults are to be excused! The idea that all politicians are corrupt asshats is as stupid as the idea of trusting a politician. That's not to say you don't put trust in them, you do that when electing them, but by trusting them to do what they are supposed to do (maintain their oaths seems number one) without watching their every move. But oversight is hard!

[Flagg]

So about the announcement that Cruz and Kasich are going to work together to block Trump from the nomination. As a Democrat, I am watching with a smile on my face as the GOP tears itself apart. However I'm also very surprised they would announce such a thing publicly. Would that not make some people vote for Trump out of sympathy, now that the "GOP Establishment" has freely admitted to colluding against him? They basically admitted to what Trump was accusing them of all along.

The Canadian and the Commentator vs the Comedian!

[maraxus2]

So about the announcement that Cruz and Kasich are going to work together to block Trump from the nomination. As a Democrat, I am watching with a smile on my face as the GOP tears itself apart. However I'm also very surprised they would announce such a thing publicly. Would that not make some people vote for Trump out of sympathy, now that the "GOP Establishment" has freely admitted to colluding against him? They basically admitted to what Trump was accusing them of all along.

It wasn't a very smart move! Good thing it started unraveling pretty much immediately!

On Sunday night, it finally happened. Just before 11 p.m., the campaigns of Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz released matching statements promising to work together to stop Donald Trump from clinching the Republican nomination before the convention. The agreement they struck was that Kasich would stop campaigning in his neighboring state of Indiana, to give Cruz a chance to catch Trump there, and Cruz would stop campaigning in his neighboring state of New Mexico, as well as Oregon, in the hopes of boosting Kasich there. Anti-Trump voices had been calling for candidates to work together for months (Cruz trampled over Marco Rubio's frantic appeal for help in Florida); the alliance was a sign that reality had set in.

But one thing missing from the agreement was any indication that Kasich and Cruz would actually tell their voters in Indiana, New Mexico, or Oregon, to support the other guy. And sure enough, while eating at a diner in Philadelphia on Monday morning, Kasich decided to pour water on the whole plan. Would the governor, a reporter asked, tell his supporters in Indiana to vote for Cruz? No, Kasich said. "I've never told them not to vote for me; they ought to vote for me." He explained that the deal had nothing to do with strategic voting—it was only about whether to campaign or not campaign. Sounds like a strong alliance!

This is the most passive-aggressive thing Kasich has done since the last time someone tried to make a deal with him:
"Kasich Spox Rob Nichols on Rubio (standing down in Ohio to beat Trump everywhere): "We were going to win in OH without his help, just as he's going to lose in FL w/o ours"

Also, people in this thread...

[Flagg]

Also, people in this thread...

I kept getting awesomely sad/pathetic emails from moveon.com (I want to know how all of these crazy people got my email, though I forever **heart** Markos Moulitsos for getting kicked off of MSNBC for making cracks about Joe Trump-Borough having a dead intern in his office) asking me to sign an Internet petition to CNN (which will undoubtedly be shunted to their junk file and rightly ignored) demanding they stop counting Superdelegates who have pledged to support Clinton from the delegate count... Because it makes it seem like Clinton is farther ahead when she could have the British plant a Snuke in her Snizz and set it off killing millions therefore making all of those delegates go to Sanders!

Fucking reality!

[The Romulan Republic]

Hasn't even the DNC said its inappropriate to count super delegates in the totals for each candidate?

Why would that change just because Clinton's lead has gotten bigger?

And while I fully admit that it is highly unlikely, it is theoretically possible for Sanders to win. Though at this point I suspect he's staying in more to ensure he has as much influence as possible at the convention.

[Gandalf]

How much influence can he wield if he doesn't stop Clinton getting across the line?

[Dominus Atheos]

At this point I'm hoping that he forces her to choose someone like Elizabeth Warren as her VP, who then runs as POTUS in 2024 and then maybe we can make some progress on helping people.

(People I expect to benefit under a Hillary Clinton presidency: 1. Hillary Clinton, 2. Hillary Clinton's close friends and supporters; People I expect to benefit under a Sanders presidency: 1. More than that)

[maraxus2]

Hasn't even the DNC said its inappropriate to count super delegates in the totals for each candidate?

Why would that change just because Clinton's lead has gotten bigger?

And while I fully admit that it is highly unlikely, it is theoretically possible for Sanders to win. Though at this point I suspect he's staying in more to ensure he has as much influence as possible at the convention.

No? Quite the opposite, actually? At least, I don't believe they have and I certainly could be wrong.

We can argue about the lower-case d democratic virtues of the superdelegates, but they do get to cast votes at the convention. I get why Sanders supporters think they shouldn't be counted, but they're definitely delegates that are going to get her to 2,383. I dunno why they should be counted while caucus delegates shouldn't.

And all things are "theoretically possible." It's theoretically possible that Hillary could get indicted tomorrow. It's also theoretically possible that Bernie could get hit by a meteor tomorrow. Given the drubbing he's likely to take in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, and Delaware tomorrow, I'm not sure whether or not the latter is actually more likely.

This primary has been effectively over since March 15th. Bernie's own campaign people acknowledge that they cannot win without superdelegate support, and he certainly cannot close the gap in the pledged vote.

How much influence can he wield if he doesn't stop Clinton getting across the line?

Probably minimal. There actually isn't a whole lot of daylight between Clinton and Sanders on the issues that matter to most Democrats. That's been part of Bernie's problem; Hillary's juuuuust liberal enough to get most of the squishy liberals who might otherwise go for Bernie to cobble together the nomination. Add to that the fact that she can't do a complete about-face on her policy positions without getting flak for it, and you have a nominee who will need to say nice things about Bernie

That being said, Bernie might be able to wangle some minor appointments out of Hillary in exchange for being a good sport. But losing nominees basically don't have much influence on the Democratic nominee or the platform. Hillary certainly didn't in 2008, and she was a much stronger candidate than Bernie is this time around.

[Terralthra]

The argument that they shouldn't be counted right now is because they haven't voted yet. Primary and caucus delegates are bound to vote for the candidates who won a certain of votes in their states' primaries and caucuses. Superdelegates may have said "I intend to vote for Hillary", but that counts for literally nothing until the convention when they actually cast it.

[maraxus2]

The argument that they shouldn't be counted right now is because they haven't voted yet. Primary and caucus delegates are bound to vote for the candidates who won a certain of votes in their states' primaries and caucuses. Superdelegates may have said "I intend to vote for Hillary", but that counts for literally nothing until the convention when they actually cast it.

Fair enough. It's a small concession that the media outlets should probably make to keep Bernie's supporters happy and out of their inboxes. Though I don't know that either of them will actually reach 2,383 in pledged delegates alone; they'll need the superdelegates to ratify their victory unless Bernie completely shits the bed.

[maraxus2]

At this point I'm hoping that he forces her to choose someone like Elizabeth Warren as her VP, who then runs as POTUS in 2024 and then maybe we can make some progress on helping people.

(People I expect to benefit under a Hillary Clinton presidency: 1. Hillary Clinton, 2. Hillary Clinton's close friends and supporters; People I expect to benefit under a Sanders presidency: 1. More than that)

How would he go about forcing her to pick Elizabeth Warren (assuming she even wants the job)?

[The Romulan Republic]

No? Quite the opposite, actually? At least, I don't believe they have and I certainly could be wrong.

We can argue about the lower-case d democratic virtues of the superdelegates, but they do get to cast votes at the convention. I get why Sanders supporters think they shouldn't be counted, but they're definitely delegates that are going to get her to 2,383. I dunno why they should be counted while caucus delegates shouldn't.

I am certainly not arguing that super delegates are not allowed to vote at the convention. Terralthra already corrected you on this point.

And I don't think most Sanders supporters think that they shouldn't be counted. Although personally I'd rather scrap them before next election, or limit the situations where they can vote to resolving a tie.

And all things are "theoretically possible." It's theoretically possible that Hillary could get indicted tomorrow. It's also theoretically possible that Bernie could get hit by a meteor tomorrow. Given the drubbing he's likely to take in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, and Delaware tomorrow, I'm not sure whether or not the latter is actually more likely.

Sanders would just have to do really well going forward to win. Implausibly so, yes, but theoretically doable, particularly if the hypothetical Clinton indictment occurred (although that is looking increasingly unlikely).

I will note, in particular, that a landslide Sanders win in California (unlikely, yes, but California isn't until June) could theoretically erase Clinton's current pledged delegate lead by itself, because California is that damn big.

Also, while its a little state that isn't likely to affect the overall picture much, my understanding is that Connecticut is quite close, certainly too close for the outcome their to be likely to be fairly called a "drubbing."

And regardless of odds, I don't like one candidate being declared the victor before they've won based on probability. Its frankly undemocratic, and leaves a bad taste. Let everyone vote, tally it up, and then declare a winner.

This primary has been effectively over since March 15th. Bernie's own campaign people acknowledge that they cannot win without superdelegate support, and he certainly cannot close the gap in the pledged vote.

I'd like a source on Bernie's campaign saying that, though it wouldn't surprise me.

As for the campaign being over since March 15th.... bullshit.

Hell, at that point, Sanders would have only had to win, what, 58% of the pledged delegates going forward to have a majority and make a strong case to super delegates? That's uphill, but hardly undoable. Hell, its not even technically undoable now, with California and a whole bunch of other states left to vote. Just unlikely.

As to what influence Sanders can wield if he loses... it depends on how big the gap is, I suppose, and on how worried the Democrats are about "Bernie or Bust" and similar such idiocy (though Sanders, of course, doesn't condone it).

Bottom line, though, I don't like treating a primary as over when their are still two candidates in the race, it is mathematically possible for either to win, and a whole bunch of states including the biggest by population in the country haven't had a chance to vote yet. It smacks of Clinton entitlement, like you're saying Bernie should just get out of the way and let the Chosen One take her crown without worrying any more about silly things like voting.

I don't claim Sanders is likely to win, but he has every right to keep going forward if he wants to.

[Dominus Atheos]

At this point I'm hoping that he forces her to choose someone like Elizabeth Warren as her VP, who then runs as POTUS in 2024 and then maybe we can make some progress on helping people.

(People I expect to benefit under a Hillary Clinton presidency: 1. Hillary Clinton, 2. Hillary Clinton's close friends and supporters; People I expect to benefit under a Sanders presidency: 1. More than that)

How would he go about forcing her to pick Elizabeth Warren (assuming she even wants the job)?

Just staying in the race keeps the "Bernie Or Bust" movement alive. In other words, I'm hoping that he makes a big enough "split" in the party that Hillary is forced to do something big to patch it.

[Flagg]

Superdelegates are so fucking stupid and (small 'd') undemocratic, that you'd think they were part of the Republican nominating process. Much like the electoral college, Superdelegates, closed primaries, and caucuses should be buried up to their necks at waters edge during low tide on a deserted island.

That said, with the numbers where they are, the chances of (I)Sanders pulling even let alone ahead of Hillary, and you know, the date, I think it's perfectly acceptable to include Superdelegates in the count as long as you make clear that you are doing so. But the point I'm making is that many (I)Sanders supporters take issue with fucking reality because it makes their guy look like he's losing. Because, you know, he's losing.

It's the same shit Clinton backers were pulling in 2008 when it was clear that short of a bullet Obama was going to get the nomination, only they were trying trying to say caucus delegates shouldn't be counted because "Waaaa, undemocratic and we will get rid of caucuses!" Funny how we still have caucuses.

This is about the time when all Obama supporters were misogynistic assholes, so I expect anyone anti-Sanders (or, unlike me, which that description fits because he's laughably unelectable and has only one issue, pro-Clinton) will start being called anti-Semitic or ageist.