Sanders And Clinton Split Victories, Clinton Has Nomination In Sight

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders split victories in Kentucky and Oregon last night, and Clinton is now less than 100 delegates away from an historic victory.

Clinton Sanders Debate

Bernie Sanders won the Oregon primary as expected and Hillary Clinton pulled off what appears to be a narrow victory in Kentucky last night, but once again the real story of the night is Hillary Clinton coming one step closer to becoming the first woman to win the Presidential nomination of a major political party in American history:

Senator Bernie Sanders prevailed over Hillary Clinton on Tuesday in the Oregon primary, according to The Associated Press, while Mrs. Clinton claimed victory in a tight race in Kentucky, the day’s other contest.

Mrs. Clinton raced around Kentucky in the two days before the primary, hoping to fend off Mr. Sanders in a state that she won easily in 2008. In unofficial results late Tuesday night, Mrs. Clinton edged Mr. Sanders by about 1,900 votes, or less than half a percentage point, with all counties reporting. The Associated Press had not declared a winner by midnight.

The close result meant that she and Mr. Sanders would effectively split the state’s delegates. Nonetheless, winning Kentucky would give her a symbolic triumph that could blunt the effect of her loss in Oregon as she turns her attention to Donald J. Trump, her likely general election opponent.

With a lead in delegates that is almost impossible for Mr. Sanders to overcome, Mrs. Clinton is moving closer each week to claiming the Democratic nomination. But her march has been encumbered by Mr. Sanders’s persistence in the race and his success in recent contests, including victories in Indiana’s primary on May 3 and West Virginia’s last week.

His continued strength has put a spotlight on her vulnerabilities as she heads toward a likely general election matchup with Mr. Trump, and on a lack of unity, and even fractiousness, within the Democratic Party.

Last weekend, bitter feelings from Mr. Sanders’s supporters spilled into view at Nevada’s state convention, which descended into chaos, prompted death threats against Nevada’s Democratic chairwoman and raised the prospect of discord at the national convention in July in Philadelphia. The fury was sparked after a dispute over convention rules and delegate qualifications that supporters of Mr. Sanders saw as unfair.

With Mr. Sanders pressing on with his campaign and Mr. Trump now the presumptive Republican nominee, Mrs. Clinton has been campaigning against two opponents at once, trying to defeat Mr. Sanders in state after state while also building an argument against Mr. Trump.

Her task was on display as she campaigned on Sunday and Monday in Kentucky, where she spoke at a pair of black churches in Louisville, greeted patrons at a smoky diner in Paducah and held a series of rallies where she warned about Mr. Trump while urging voters to support her on Tuesday.

In an acknowledgment that she was still engaged in a primary battle, she faulted Mr. Sanders for voting against the auto industry bailout, a claim that is not as clear-cut as she suggested it was.

But she was more expansive in taking aim at Mr. Trump, calling him a “loose cannon” and warning about his views on foreign policy, which she said “will be a big part of the general election.”

“I’ll tell you this,” she told patrons at the diner on Monday, “I’m not going to give up on Kentucky in November.”

Mr. Sanders also spent time in Kentucky, with rallies over the weekend in Bowling Green and Paducah.

He, too, looked toward the general election, arguing that he, not Mrs. Clinton, was the more formidable candidate to take on Mr. Trump, citing polls of hypothetical matchups.

Speaking on Tuesday night at a rally in Carson, Calif., Mr. Sanders said: “There are a lot of people out there, many of the pundits and politicians, they say, ‘Bernie Sanders should drop out. The people of California should not have the right to determine who the next president will be.'”

“Well, let me be as clear as I can be,” he continued. “We are in till the last ballot is cast.”

More from The Washington Post:

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton declared victory in the Kentucky primary on Tuesday, potentially disrupting a string of expected primary losses this month that had threatened to weaken her even as she turned her focus to her likely matchup against Republican Donald Trump in the general election.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, meanwhile, was declared the winner of Oregon’s Democratic primary.

The outcomes will do little to change the dynamics in the race. In Kentucky, Sanders had hoped to continue a state winning streak that began in Indiana and West Virginia this month.

With 99.8 percent of precincts counted, Clinton was ahead by less than 1 percentage point, and the Associated Press declared the race too close to call. Asked whether Sanders would consider seeking a recount, spokesman Michael Briggs said in an email: “We’ll take a closer look at the numbers in Kentucky and make a decision on Wednesday.”

Although Sanders had been favored to win Kentucky in recent polls, Clinton’s advisers sensed an opportunity to pull out a victory and invested heavily in the state in recent days. Clinton campaigned in Kentucky throughout the weekend and sent surrogates to appear on her behalf, including former president Bill Clinton.

Sanders drew large audiences across the state, while both Clintons at times faced unfriendly crowds in a state that once supported Bill Clinton overwhelmingly but that, in part because of the decline in the coal industry, has evolved into a redder state.

Sanders also spent time and money in recent days in other primary states, including Oregon and California. At a rally in Carson, Calif., late Tuesday, Sanders said: “It appears tonight that we’re going to end up with about half of the delegates from Kentucky.”

He also declared that winning the nomination remained possible. “No one can predict the future, but I think we have a real shot to win the primaries in a number of the states coming up,” he said. “Don’t tell the secretary of state. She might get nervous. I think we’re going to win here in California.”

Notwithstanding Senator Sanders’ optimism, which is bordering on the delusional, the story of this week in the Democratic race mirrors the story that we have seen for the past two months or more. Regardless of whether or not Bernie Sanders continues to pick up victories here and there, the advantage that Hillary Clinton gained with her early victories in the south beginning in South Carolina, combined with delegate allocation rules that tend to undercut the value of the big victories that Senator Sanders has had in some states since this race began, mean that she is moving forward with an advantage in the delegate count that is essentially unstoppable at this point. With last night’s results and the estimated delegate distributions from Oregon, where Sanders’ victory appears to have only given him a four delegate advantage, and Kentucky, where the candidates appear to be evenly splitting the delegates for the most part, Hillary Clinton is now only 91 delegates away from clinching the Democratic Presidential nomination. More likely than not, her victory will become official by the end of the night on June 7th regardless of the outcome of the individual races, although Clinton’s campaign would obviously prefer to end the race with victories in states like California and New Jersey rather than winning the nomination even though Sanders managed to win several more primaries. As for Sanders, he stands at more than 850 delegates away from being able to claim the nomination, which means he’d have to win an effectively impossible 90% of the remaining delegates or convince the vast majority of Superdelegates to support him notwithstanding the fact that Hillary Clinton has garnered more delegates and more popular votes than he has. Neither one of these things is going to happen, and it strikes me that it’s long past time for Senator Sanders to start being honest with his supporters and stop deceiving them with claims about victory that simply aren’t going to come true.

One result of Sander’s lack of honesty with his supporters has been a sense of growing conflict inside the Democratic Party over the outcome of the nomination fight between him and Clinton that could portend problems at the convention in Philadelphia. Hints of what could come became apparent last weekend at the state Democratic convention in Nevada, which erupted into shouting and violence as Clinton and Sanders supporters clashed over the selection of delegates to the national convention. Those events, combined with the fact that Sanders has increasingly been directing his rhetoric against the Democratic Party as a whole, have led many top Democrats to worry that restive Sanders supporters could cause problems at a convention that, not too long ago, most people assumed would be a coronation for Hillary Clinton. At some point, it seems clear that Sanders is going to have to tell his supporters that they must face reality and rally behind Clinton, or he will end up doing more harm than good to the causes he purports to represent. The choice is his at this point.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2016, US Politics, , ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. KM says:

    At some point, it seems clear that Sanders is going to have to tell his supporters that they must face reality and rally behind Clinton, or he will end up doing more harm than good to the causes he purports to represent. The choice is his at this point.

    Considering his response to the sh^tshow in Nevada and his supporters use of death threats on innocent family members, don’t hold your breath. He glossed over it the same way Trump did and reiterated that they were being cheated and that’s what’s important here people!!!

    I’ve commented on this on the other thread. All this drama was started with an attempt to pack the caucus with Sanders delegates, a petition to change the rules to favor Sanders (even though Hillary won originally) that didn’t get adopted and their 64 “tossed” delegates didn’t do their freaking registration paperwork. But they were cheated! Cheated on the voice vote! And when they started twitter death threats, Yelp! takedowns of businesses and screaming insults & throwing chairs…… nothing. Quick boilerplate “my supporters are peaceful” and back to the complaining.

    We need to seriously consider the fact that Bernie Sanders doesn’t care if he damages the Democratic Party or its chances in the general. Jesus Christ, at this rate we’re going to end up with President Trump ….

  2. al-Ameda says:

    As for Sanders, he stands at more than 850 delegates away from being able to claim the nomination, which means he’d have to win an effectively impossible 90% of the remaining delegates or convince the vast majority of Superdelegates to support him notwithstanding the fact that Hillary Clinton has garnered more delegates and more popular votes than he has. Neither one of these things is going to happen, and it strikes me that it’s long past time for Senator Sanders to start being honest with his supporters and stop deceiving them with claims about victory that simply aren’t going to come true.

    This is normal campaign kabuki – I completely expect Bernie Sanders, having come this far, to … at the very least, see it through California. He’s probably exceeded his own expectations and he’s going to see just far this can go, and there will be no second guessing as to ‘what if’ he’d shut it down before California, etc. Besides, it’s good insurance: ‘what if” Hillary Clinton becomes more embroiled in the 9 times investigated “Benghazi/email” “scandal.”? Bernie becomes insurance.

    Also, Bernie Sanders is not deceiving his supporters, this is what they want to believe, it’s a form of self-delusion.

  3. C. Clavin says:

    Sanders and his supporters need to get over themselves and get with the program.
    4 years of Trump is a terrible consequence for an out-sized ego.

  4. stonetools says:

    @al-Ameda:

    He and his campaign leaders are still talking about victory, and taking the fight to the convention. I truly hope this is just a pose, to be abandoned after California votes. It really is time for all good people to come to the aid of the party. Hillary should be focused on the general election, not this primary BS.

  5. James Pearce says:

    His continued strength has put a spotlight on her vulnerabilities as she heads toward a likely general election matchup with Mr. Trump, and on a lack of unity, and even fractiousness, within the Democratic Party.

    Yep.

    As the GOP unites behind Trump, the Dems appear ready to eat their own. While I understand and share the Sanders supporters’ dislike of Hillary Clinton, she will be the nominee. And if the left doesn’t grow up and act like the “reality based community” they claim to be, Donald Trump is going to be our next president.

  6. James Pearce says:

    @KM: (Read your comment after I typed in mine. Jinx!)

  7. KM says:

    @James Pearce:

    You owe me a pop, then. 🙂

    I am heartened though by a growing number of Sanders supporters who are just as peeved by the lack of response as Hillary supporters are. After all, its one of the major criticism of the left that Trumpkins are getting hostile/violent while he refuses to denounce it. For Sanders to not step up and prove he’s better then Trump at this is a disappointment for those who think he’s a decent leader. There’s a story going around that an pro-Sanders employee at Roberta Lange’s bar (currently under Yelp! attack by angry BernieBros) was shocked at how people were attacking him on the phone. The ugliness is getting to people.

    Perhaps we are witnessing the beginning of the separation of BernieBros from regular Sanders supporters. The latter are reasonable people who have objections to Hillary/the party/the process that can be addressed; the former are cult of personality individuals on par with Paliniastas and Trumpkins. It’s a shame they are the ones who seem to be driving the truck now, though…..

  8. Lit3Bolt says:

    @stonetools:

    Everything I’ve heard/seen/read leads me to believe Sanders drinks the most of his own Kool-Aid.

    At this point, if they were smart, they could bargin with the Imperialists some concessions for their cause. Or, for the sake of an old man’s ego, they could damage the Left in America for another 30 years as people watching TV see “socialists” fighting with police at the convention. The funny thing about ideological purity, is that it somehow hampers long-term thinking…

  9. An Interested Party says:

    As the GOP unites behind Trump, the Dems appear ready to eat their own.

    Eh, it seems to go back and forth with both parties…there are still Republicans who don’t like Trump and will act accordingly…meanwhile, Sanders needs to decide whether or not he wants to be another Nader…does he really want to help Trump become president…

  10. James Pearce says:

    @KM:

    You owe me a pop, then. 🙂

    But I’m the one who said jinx….. 🙂

    Perhaps we are witnessing the beginning of the separation of BernieBros from regular Sanders supporters.

    Hmmm, I don’t know. I’m not so sure it’s a political phenomenon. I think it’s a social phenomenon brought on everyone wanting a “safe space*” where their ideas are not challenged, while also having the ability to block or unfriend anyone who does challenge them.

    When you can tolerate no disagreement, then position yourself where you don’t even experience it, this is what happens.

    * Before I get jumped for being a Trump-loving, liberal-hating MRA, I’ll point out that even conservatives want a “safe space.” They just call it “Fox News” and “Breitbart.” We’re all intolerant of differing points of view, and becoming more so.

  11. Jenos Idanian says:

    Sanders, like Trump, wasn’t even a formal member of the party until recently.

    Sanders, like Trump,, really, really doesn’t like the party establishment.

    Sanders, like Trump, is really, really disliked by the party establishment.

    Sanders, like Trump, is drawing a very large portion of his support from people fed up with the party establishment.

    Sanders’ supporters see their failure to win within the established rules not as a sign of their own failure to understand the rules, but as evidence that the system was rigged to make their guy lose.

    Sanders’ supporters are choosing to make the focus of their anger Hillary and her supporters.

    Anyone who doesn’t see Trump having a YUUUUGE opportunity to pick up a bunch of support that no other GOP nominee could dream of snagging is a moron, willfully blind, or both.

    And while I’m fairly certain that Hillary won’t figure out how to stop that from happening, I’m unsure if it’s even possible.

  12. Jenos Idanian says:

    Oh, and Hillary has announced her Grand Strategy for fixing the economy: she’s going to put Bill in charge of it.

    I’m having flashbacks to 1992, and Bush 41 promising to fix the economy by putting James Baker in charge. That was the point when I knew he was going to lose.

    And this was the latest in YUUUUGE unforced errors by Team Hillary that will cost her dearly.

  13. Paul Hooson says:

    Yesterday, I predicted that Clinton would narrowly edge out Sanders in Kentucky as well as a 53-56% Sanders victory in Oregon. Currently with the vote counting going on, Sanders is at about 55%. – I knew a FOX poll that claimed that Clinton would win by 15 points in Oregon had to be deeply flawed days ago, predicting that the expected margin would be that 53-56% win.

    At this point, Sanders and Clinton evenly split the Kentucky delegates, but Sanders wins 28 to 24 delegates in Oregon, and that is the real math that matters.

  14. Moosebreath says:

    @Paul Hooson:

    “Sanders and Clinton evenly split the Kentucky delegates, but Sanders wins 28 to 24 delegates in Oregon, and that is the real math that matters.”

    True. And what matters even more is that roughly 100 of the delegates which were still up for grabs on Monday are not on Wednesday, and Bernie only netted a few delegates out of them, even though they were pretty good states on paper for him, so he needs to win an even higher percentage of the remaining delegates than before. And given that the vast majority of them are being chosen in New Jersey and California, two states he is unlikely to win, much less win overwhelmingly as he needs to, his long odds became far longer.

  15. Jen says:

    This election cycle is rapidly devolving into those who understand how elections and government work on one side, and those who appear to think that if you just wish/yell/believe hard enough, you’ll get what you want regardless of the process, numbers, or reality, on the other side.

    @Jenos Idanian: I don’t disagree with that analysis. But it’s probably important to add to the bottom line of the equation the number of GOP members who have either gone on record as saying they’ll support Clinton, or have publicly refrained from supporting their own nominee–and those saying they won’t vote for either of them.

    It’s cutting both ways this cycle, and we won’t know until election day what the real effect is.

  16. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Anyone who doesn’t see Trump having a YUUUUGE opportunity to pick up a bunch of support that no other GOP nominee could dream of snagging is a moron, willfully blind, or both.

    Just because Bernie supporters are anti-establishment doesn’t mean they want the Mexican wall, the Muslim ban, the destruction of our “special relationship” with England, detente with Kim Jong Un, or anything else that Trump is selling.

  17. C. Clavin says:

    Breaking…
    Trump just announced 11 potential SCOTUS nominees.
    Not a single minority among them.
    The GOP truly is the party of old white guys.

  18. PJ says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Trump just announced 11 potential SCOTUS nominees.
    Not a single minority among them.
    The GOP truly is the party of old white guys.

    One popular complaint about Clinton is that she was against same sex marriage until 2013. Same sex marriage is now legal, but those who refuse to vote for Clinton or would vote for Trump since Sanders didn’t get elected should ask themselves which of the two nominees is going to nominate Supreme Court Judges who would want to restrict marriage to only a man and a woman again, and which of them who won’t do that.

  19. James Pearce says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Not a single minority among them.

    There are 3 women, though, and one of them, Allison Eid, is married to an Arab-American.

    I’m not defending Trump’s picks by any means. Just pointing out that this particular criticism is a bit facile.

    Here’s a better response to Trump’s picks: Thanks, but don’t need em. It’s not your vacancy.

  20. Tyrell says:

    It is obvious that the Democratic leadership has favored Hillary
    and tried to set the table for her. And now that the road has got
    rough and dusty a lot of people are going independent.

  21. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James Pearce:

    They are, to put it mildly, unacceptable. My own first reaction was “Mike Lee’s brother? Clarence Thomas clerks? Bill fricking Pryor?? LOL, whose conservative acid trip was this?”

  22. Jen says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Sen. Grassley’s (conservative acid trip) I’m guessing.

  23. Ben Wolf says:

    Doug,

    You were the kid who quit when he fell behind in the race? Cause you sure don’t seem to understand the mindset it takes to be a winner.

  24. PJ says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    Cause you sure don’t seem to understand the mindset it takes to be a winner.

    Does Sanders have some mental issue that is somehow affecting his mindset? Because you’re not a winner if you’re 10 miles from the finish line and the other runner is about to cross it.

  25. James Pearce says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    LOL, whose conservative acid trip was this?

    No doubt, but I expect nothing less from Republicans. The court is their deep safety, existing only to serve their agenda.

  26. Moosebreath says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    “LOL, whose conservative acid trip was this?””

    That’s exactly the point. Trump is trying to show he won’t appoint squishes to shore up his support among Republicans.

  27. Ben Wolf says:

    @PJ: You’ve chosen to answer “yes” to a question you weren’t asked. Makes sense given you comment history, though, so fair enough.

  28. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Moosebreath:

    He was always going to get the wingnut / crazy vote. This doesn’t help him in that regard, and it can only hurt him among moderate Republicans. This list is tantamount to being an anti-abortion / guns for everybody! chorus.

  29. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    At this point (i.e. as of this morning), Sanders must achieve better than 65% in every remaining contest just to tie Clinton in pledged delegates. Obviously, he has to exceed that figure in order to overtake her.

    Given that his showing last night in crunchy liberal Oregon didn’t even break 56%, California is polling +9.5 Clinton at present, New Jersey might as well be a closed primary and New Mexico is a closed primary / heavily Hispanic state, you should know by now that even tying her in pledged delegates is a non-starter. The superdelegates are not going to entertain flipping unless and until Sanders at least ties her in the pledged delegate count. It’s just not going to happen.

    Given further that party rules do NOT require an absolute majority of pledged delegates – but instead require a simple majority of all delegates, in any combination of pledged and unpledged – in order to win the nomination, it seems pretty clear that Clinton (who is now roughly 92 delegates away from having a first ballot lock) will walk into the convention with a surplus of delegates & be nominated on the first ballot, and that’ll be the end of this little drama.

    You seem like a bright guy, so surely you’re bright enough to understand how this works and what the outcome is going to be. Sanders put up a good fight, although I’m less impressed with what he’s allowed his campaign to become, but it’s over. He’s not going to be the nominee.

    And I think you probably already know that.

  30. Moosebreath says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    “He was always going to get the wingnut / crazy vote. This doesn’t help him in that regard, and it can only hurt him among moderate Republicans.”

    I will disagree. The NeverTrumpers are, at least in part, afraid that he won’t hew to Republican orthodoxy. This is one of several steps he is taking to show there isn’t anything to worry about and to unite his party.

  31. Ben Wolf says:

    @HarvardLaw92: That’s another “yes” to a question the responder wasn’t asked. You don’t understand the mindset of a winner nor does the other guy; but you aren’t of interest to me, Doug is.

    Not that I blame him for refusing to engage. The commentariat here is less than civilized.

  32. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Moosebreath:

    That’s the problem. What has become Republican orthodoxy is pretty much Tea Party rhetoric. The mileage to be garnered from running attack ads about anti-abortion judges (which will happen) – and this list is pretty much entirely comprised of anti-abortion judges – is pretty large. It’ll certainly impact Trump among moderate Republican women, where he’s already in trouble to begin with.

  33. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    So, your response is effectively sticking your fingers in your ears and spouting “can’t hear you!” at the top of your lungs.

    Got it. Best of luck with that strategy – (you’ll need it …)

  34. PJ says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    So, your response is effectively sticking your fingers in your ears and spouting “can’t hear you!” at the top of your lungs.

    Got it. Best of luck with that strategy – (you’ll need it …)

    Delegate math is so hard. But when a bird lands on your podium you automatically win!

  35. Neil Hudelson says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    You see, the mindset of a winner is one who keeps running, even after the other runners crossed the finish line, the medals were handed out, the audience went home, and the stadium was closed for the night. That’s when real winners win–when they exist in a reality all of their own.

    You, Doug, and all of Hillary’s shills don’t understand winning. Heck, I bet Hillary thinks that just because she’s 2.5 million votes and 700 delegates ahead of Sanders, she’s “winning.”

    Ha. Shows what she knows.

  36. Paul Hooson says:

    @Moosebreath: Absolutely correct. There just are not enough states left for Bernie Sanders to expend energy and money to only gain four delegates for all the effort. His only real hope is to hang around and hope for the Clinton Email scandal to blow up where he is awarded the nomination as the runner-up much like a disqualified beauty contestant has to hand over their crown to a runner-up.

  37. Neil Hudelson says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    Cause you sure don’t seem to understand the mindset it takes to be a winner.

    Well don’t be coy, buddy. Tell us how Sanders’ awesome winning mindset is going to make him a winner.

  38. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Neil Hudelson:

    I feel pretty certain that – if he engages at all – he’ll come back with some jeremiad about having influenced the future political direction of the party.

    Which will tell me that he doesn’t understand the difference between rhetoric (which is what you say in order to convince people to vote for you) and governance (which is what you actually do once you’re elected and have to face the realities of a polarized governmental environment and at least one house of Congress controlled by the opposition).

    I’ve seen this confusion a lot among Sanders supporters – they’re willfully confusing rhetoric with governance because the alternative – accepting that they’ve likely effected little, if any lasting change – is too unpalatable for them to consider.

  39. PJ says:

    Clinton was a winner in 2008. When the primaries were over, she conceded and did everything she could to make sure that Obama won. But then, foremost, she’s a Democrat and she also knew that she may get a second chance eight years later.

    Sanders in 2008? Nothing but a sore loser. But then he knows that he has no future…

  40. Ben Wolf says:

    @HarvardLaw92: I’m more than satisfied for the few who bother to read comments to look at our exchange and decide for themselves who is inserting digits into aural cavities.

    About 95% of you have been doing so while the other 5% warned nearly a year ago Trump could be the nominee. Most of you gouged out your own eyes rather than acknowledge Clinton needed to take Sanders seriously as a threat beginning with his entry into the campaign. Later, OTB denizens overwhelmingly agreed Clinton’s poll numbers would ensure victory over Trump, numbers which collapsed within a week. And so many of you have proclaimed certainty Trump would lose the general with only moderate effort from Democrats because moderate Republicans would defect, an event which now appears in serious doubt.

    After all this your opinions won’t be the one’s I give much thought to. By all means continue on with the panglossian “we don’t need Sanders people” thinking given how well your political instincts have served.

  41. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    I was about to edit my earlier comment to say “or he’ll come back with ‘you can’t win without us, so we’ve got you by the gonads’ or something to that effect.

    I’m not upset about Trump being the Republican nominee. I consider it to be Christmas in November.

    Truthfully, no, we don’t really need Sanders supporters to win in a winner take all general election environment in which we’ve basically got 242 electoral votes already locked up. We’re posting better than a 75% probability of winning. If you want to get onboard the winning train and have some small chance at having a voice at the table, then by all means get behind Clinton.

    Or don’t, and be in exactly the position you’re already in – irrelevant. If you guys had any political savvy at all, you’d be cutting deals right now to advance your interests in exchange for your support.

    Instead, you appear to be throwing tantrums and bloviating about ideological purity.

    And yet you wonder why we treat you like children and don’t take you seriously? You’ve answered your own question.

  42. PJ says:

    I always thought that people would learn something from voting for Nader.

  43. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Jen: don’t disagree with that analysis. But it’s probably important to add to the bottom line of the equation the number of GOP members who have either gone on record as saying they’ll support Clinton, or have publicly refrained from supporting their own nominee–and those saying they won’t vote for either of them.

    It’s cutting both ways this cycle, and we won’t know until election day what the real effect is.

    A very valid point. My personal hunch is that there are a lot of anti-Hillary types in the GOP who will hold their noses, as long as Trump gives them a fig leaf they can use to rationalize their switching.

    On the other hand, the Sanders supporters, by and large, lack that element of pragmatism, and will hold a LOT of resentment towards Hillary once she has the nomination.

    The problem is, as I see it, is that we have two elements on both ends. The trend around here is to call them the “sanes” and the “crazies,” but I prefer the “pragmatics” and the “passionates.” Two elements, two parties: 4 factions. (It’s grossly simplified, but I think it’s good enough to make my point.)

    In this equation, if a candidate can pull together three factions, they win. Right now, Trump has the GOP passionates, while Clinton has the Democratic pragmatics. That puts the GOP pragmatics and the Democratic passionates in play.

    Scenario 1: Trump cuts a deal with the GOP pragmatics, and peels off enough of the Democratic passionates to win.

    Scenario 2: Hillary gets enough of the GOP pragmatics to back her (or at least back off), and wins over enough of the Democratic passionates to win.

    The problems with Scenario 2 are huge. (I’ll spare you the “YUUUUUGE!” this time.) First up, the Democratic passionates have a ready-written victim scenario, complete with their tragic hero who was betrayed by Hillary and her cronies. Second, let’s assume that the GOP pragmatics hate Trump as much as the Democratic passionates hate Hillary. Of those two groups, who is more likely to be swayed to compromise with the candidate they hate?

    I will say that this is the most entertaining election I can recall.

  44. Pch101 says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    Sanders is getting his backside kicked. He’s behind in pledged delegates, superdelegates and the popular vote.

    Not sure how much more obvious that this defeat need to be. If a basketball team is consistently 16-20 points down during a game, there isn’t reason to believe that the losing team will win simply because it scores some shots. It is necessary to score the most points, not just some.

  45. MBunge says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Truthfully, no, we don’t really need Sanders supporters to win in a winner take all general election environment in which we’ve basically got 242 electoral votes already locked up.

    I know some folks are allergic to simple facts when it comes to this election but according to the Roper Center, self-professed liberals made up 25% of the 2012 electorate. That was bigger than African-Americans and Hispanics combined. They went 86 to 11 for Obama. In fact, a bigger percentage of conservatives voted for Obama than liberals did for Romney.

    What happens in 2016 if liberal turnout drops to 22% and only 80% vote for Hillary?

    Mike

  46. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Somewhat OT, but this gives you an idea of just how amateur hour Trump’s campaign organization actually is.

    One of the 11 judges on his SCOTUS list has a history of mocking Trump on Twitter.

    You just couldn’t make this guy up if you tried …

  47. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @MBunge:

    Helpful hint – a rather large chunk of those “self-professed liberals” are African-American.

    Beyond that, self-professed liberals, who only make up 21% of the Dem electorate to begin with, tend to be young, and historically don’t turn out in material numbers to begin with.

    Collectively, moderate and self-professed conservative Democrats make up 66% of the Dem electorate, and they tend 1) to be older and 2) to turn out in material numbers on election day.

    So no, the original point remains. We can win without you. We’d like to have you on board, and there’s fertile ground for you to be cutting deals at the moment to that effect, but we don’t need you to win the White House.

    Even more damning for you – if you DO choose to sit this one out and we win without you, your future political power (with apologies to Sorkin) will rank somewhere near that of the Save The Spotted Owl Society. You’ll have established in no uncertain terms that you can safely be ignored.

    This is an adult game, so you’d better learn how to play it if you expect to have any influence at all going forward.

  48. Jen says:

    @Jenos Idanian: That’s an interesting analysis, but I believe there’s a fifth category: unaligned voters who are baffled that these two candidates are their choices and may just sit this one out.

    I don’t think this is a realignment election. I think it’s going to be a bloody battle for turnout, because both bases have what appear to be some pretty deep issues. What remains to be seen is how this affects those who don’t truly identify with either party but are typically reliable voters. Will they vote or not, and if they do vote, who will they break for?

  49. Jenos Idanian says:

    @HarvardLaw92: I’m feeling the overwhelming urge to screencap that, bookmark it, print and frame that. Because it so perfectly encapsulates the thesis of this article.

  50. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Jen: That’s an interesting analysis, but I believe there’s a fifth category: unaligned voters who are baffled that these two candidates are their choices and may just sit this one out.

    That fifth category, if they do sit it out, simply give each person who does vote that much influence. I kinda like it when the uninterested choose not to vote.

    They may make the difference, if they choose to vote. I tend to think of them as most likely to turn out when they have a very good reason to: a candidate that they really like, or one they really dislike. In this case, there are a lot of people who like Trump, a lot of people who really dislike Trump, and a lot of people who dislike Hillary. She really doesn’t inspire the passionate support that Trump gets, that Obama got, that Clinton got, that Reagan got. Hell, I’ll toss in Bush ’43, who also inspired a certain level of passion — albeit in both directions.

    The key to getting those to vote is to give them a reason to vote. Either make your candidate really likable, or the other one really unlikable. Actual issues of substance don’t tend to make that much of a difference to a lot of voters.

  51. michael reynolds says:

    There is this romantic notion that a refusal to face reality, and just go running straight into a brick wall is bold and brave and admirable. Never retreat! Never surrender! Never apologize! Cue the trumpet fanfare! Yay!

    This is a Hollywood hack’s view of the world. It’s also a world view beloved by totalitarians. It’s Hitler in the bunker refusing to allow retreat and ordering attacks by phantom armies.

    You know how birds evolved to not fly into tree trunks? Because all the birds who did fly into tree trunks died and thus removed their DNA from the gene pool.

    Bernie is done. He is not going to be the nominee. If we had become the nominee, he’d have been crushed. If by some miracle he were elected, he wouldn’t have 10 votes in the Senate for his plans. This is now about three levels removed from reality.

    It was always an illusion. Bernie is just a snake oil salesman selling dreams to the credulous. And now his “movement” is showing its sexist, lily white and bullying tendencies. If he and his followers hope to salvage anything at all from this, it’s time to stop acting like petulant children and grow the f–k up.

  52. PJ says:

    I’ve always loved the argument that we should vote for the candidate with the most childish and egoistic voters because otherwise these voters will throw a tantrum and refuse to vote.

  53. Jenos Idanian says:

    @PJ: Vote for? Hell, no. But we have a democracy, not a meritocracy, and you don’t get to choose who gets to vote and who doesn’t, based on whatever you decide the standard should be. (“Rationality” and “sanity” tend to be defined as “those who agree with me.”) (Yes, technically, we’re a constitutional democratic republic, but the point’s still valid.)

    You have to take them into account because they vote, and every one of their votes counts just as much as yours does (geographic vagaries notwithstanding).

    Hillary better have a plan to sway the Bernie backers — at least a significant number of them — or they’ll sit it out or, worse for her, vote for Trump. They might be bought off with a couple of planks in the platform.

    Or they might not.

    One thing is certain, though: Trump has a plan to get the GOP establishment to fall in line. It certainly won’t work entirely, and might not work at all, but he has a plan.

  54. gVOR08 says:

    We have an incident in Nevada and a whole lot of blog comments. But I’m not sure how much of this Bernie Bros as PUMAs stuff is real and how much is the horse race press desperate for conflict and for a both-sides-do-it narrative.

  55. Tyrell says:

    @Jenos Idanian: It would be a mistake for Hillary to move further to the left. She also needs to stay far away from the president, especially considering his actions of the last few weeks. Hillary needs to stay in the middle – right. Otherwise she will be so far out in left field she will be standing on the foul line !

  56. stonetools says:

    The sad case of Ben Wolf just seems to prove that left wing ideologues can be as self deluded as right wing ideologues. I just hope he returns to sanity once this primary campaign is over.
    As to Trump’s list of Supreme Court nominees, what surprises me is that it doesn’t include such dream wing nut candidates as Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owens. I agree that this stunt is a signal to right wing ideologues that he will do their bidding on judicial appointments.

    This is an adult game, so you’d better learn how to play it if you expect to have any influence at all going forward.

    Indeed. I’m hoping that somehow, Sanders or his people are behind the scenes negotiating with the Clintons. They should be asking for things such as a prime time speech during the convention, having a couple of Bernie’s ideas adopted into the Democratic platform, maybe having Clinton support Sanders for a Senate committee assignment.
    Sadly, it doesn’t seem like Sanders is doing anything sensible like that. Instead, he is doubling down with his attacks on Clinton and indeed the Democratic Party. As someone would put it, sad!

  57. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Tyrell: That’s pretty conventional advice. The problem is, this is the most unconventional election I can recall.

    In our incredibly polarized society, I sincerely think that left/right is one of the least important aspects in the minds of voters. Hillary going middle-right is a strategy for a candidate whose left is secure and whose opponent can be painted as far-right. (See 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980…)

    This time around, Hillary’s left is anything but secure, and her opponent is all over the ideological map. The conventional rules don’t apply. Or, even if they do, they don’t matter anywhere near as much as they have in the past.

  58. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @stonetools:

    maybe having Clinton support Sanders for a Senate committee assignment.

    That’s possible, although in my opinion unlikely. The next Dem Senate majority/minority leader (depending on the outcome of the election) is very likely to be Chuck Schumer (who I admit to viewing with something approaching distaste).

    He’s as vindictive as they come, indeed as they have ever come, and if Sanders keeps this current attack stance of his up, the long knives will be waiting for him when he returns to the Senate. At this rate, he may even find himself being primaried in 2018.

    Sanders has grossly misread the tea leaves on this one.

  59. James Pearce says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    Later, OTB denizens overwhelmingly agreed Clinton’s poll numbers would ensure victory over Trump, numbers which collapsed within a week. And so many of you have proclaimed certainty Trump would lose the general with only moderate effort from Democrats because moderate Republicans would defect, an event which now appears in serious doubt.

    I’ve predicted a Clinton victory, but not based on poll numbers. I’ve also held out the possibility that Clinton would underperform. She really is a terrible candidate.

    Donald Trump is remaking a party in his own image, but what’s Clinton doing? Talking about his tax returns. And I don’t mean to dismiss the tax return business entirely, but it’s such a politician’s move, the kind of thing a couple of Washington phonies argue about so they don’t have to argue policy. “I released my tax returns, look how ‘transparent’ I am with all my ‘disclosures.’ You didn’t, so you’re hiding something.” It’s kinda pathetic.

    As for Republican defections, I’ve never thought there’d be any. I always knew they’d line up behind him. If they were bright, they wouldn’t be Republicans.

  60. An Interested Party says:

    I know some folks are allergic to simple facts when it comes to this election…

    That’s incredibly amusing considering the source…for month’s now those supporting Sanders as well as the candidate himself have failed to acknowledge reality…and this isn’t an attack it’s simply a statement of fact…meanwhile, these concern trolls (who would attack him if he were the Democratic nominee in the fall) who are lamenting his current fate are even more amusing…

  61. An Interested Party says:

    Words off wisdom for Sanders and his supporters as well as some facts showing the difference between 2008 and now…

    In 2008, Team Obama pushed out foreign policy adviser Samantha Power and sidelined Obama national co-chair Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. for slagging Hillary Clinton as a “monster” and mocking her New Hampshire tears, respectively. Obama himself directed his team and supporters to lay off the Clintons, while the Clinton campaign ultimately forced out Geraldine Ferraro over her racial bitterness, and wouldn’t let the PUMA faithful anywhere near the Denver convention, to the point where some of them turned on Hillary herself as a traitor to the cause.

    By contrast, Sanders and his team have seemed at times to encourage the bitter-enders to fight to the proverbial death, with the campaign itself vowing to contest the nomination right onto the convention floor. It’s not clear what Team Sanders hopes to achieve, beyond a platform battle in Philadelphia that will make for a great TV spectacle, but won’t change the outcome.

  62. Jenos Idanian says:

    @HarvardLaw92: There’s your arrogance, in a nutshell:

    He’s as vindictive as they come, indeed as they have ever come, and if Sanders keeps this current attack stance of his up, the long knives will be waiting for him when he returns to the Senate. At this rate, he may even find himself being primaried in 2018.

    Sanders has grossly misread the tea leaves on this one.

    You’re projecting your own priorities on Sanders. When has Sanders ever given the slightest sign he gives a rip about getting along with the Democratic powers that be? He spent nearly all his political career as a non-Democrat, he only officially joined the party to run for president, and in his entire Senate career, he passed exactly three bills — two of which renamed Vermont post offices.

    Sanders doesn’t operate by what you think is smart. He operates the way he chooses.

    And he’s the one who’s been in public office non-stop since 1981, never lost an election before, and keeps winning primaries.

    He might get primaried in 2018? In 2012, he won with 71% of the vote. And even if he loses, he’ll be 77 on election day, with a nice, comfy pension.

    He could hit up his wife’s former employer for a cushy academic job, but Burlington College is shutting down next week. It seems that while she was in charge of the school, she took on a whole lot of debt that they couldn’t pay off, and now they’re going under.

    So it sounds more like you “grossly misread” Sanders if you think he’ll be too bothered if he has to deal with The Wrath Of Schumer.

  63. Jenos Idanian says:

    @An Interested Party: Is that the same Samantha Power that is currently the ambassador to the UN, and whom Obama elevated so she wouldn’t be Hillary’s nominal subordinate?

    Obama also told Hillary that she couldn’t have Sid Blumenthal on her staff, so she set him up at the Clinton Foundation as her Secret Go-To Guy. And Obama let her get away with that.

    So Obama’s personnel moves? Not that impressive.

  64. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to make here, beyond “I don’t like you”.

    I assure you that I couldn’t care any less, but toil away if it makes you happy 🙂

  65. An Interested Party says:

    So Obama’s personnel moves? Not that impressive.

    The bottom line is that in 2008, in the end, Obama and Clinton came together for the benefit of the party and for the nominee…Sanders hasn’t shown any of that yet…

  66. jukeboxgrad says:

    HarvardLaw92:

    We’re posting better than a 75% probability of winning.

    I see 61. Where did you find “better than a 75%?” Just curious.

  67. Kylopod says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Anyone who doesn’t see Trump having a YUUUUGE opportunity to pick up a bunch of support that no other GOP nominee could dream of snagging is a moron, willfully blind, or both.

    This is the sort of genius “analysis” that eight years ago was used to predict that the selection of Sarah Palin would draw in all those disgruntled Hillary supporters, especially women.

  68. michael reynolds says:

    Bernie’s advisers basically admit they don’t give a damn if they bring down the only person left who can stop Trump.

    So much for pretending to really care about progressive issues, so much for caring about the future of this country and of the world. Sanders and his followers are nothing but spoiled, narcissistic aszholes.

    Just like 1968 when the same sort of morons elected Nixon and ended up killing tens of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, millions of Cambodians.

    Just like 2000 when they elected George W. Bush and ended up bringing on the resultant middle east shitstorm.

    Sanctimonious, smug, infantile creeps. Disgusting.

  69. Jenos Idanian says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Remarkable. You picked up perfectly on the subtext (no, I don’t like you), yet totally missed the actual text.

    So let me spell it out for you, you precious idiot savant: you asserted that “Sanders has grossly misread the tea leaves on this one,” and said he might even get primaried for daring to defy Hillary’s coronation. I pointed out the far more likely explanation is that Sanders didn’t misread anything he simply doesn’t care, and you were threatening him with an extremely unthreatening payback.

  70. Jenos Idanian says:

    @michael reynolds: So much for pretending to really care about progressive issues, so much for caring about the future of this country and of the world. Sanders and his followers are nothing but spoiled, narcissistic aszholes.

    You’re basing your opinion on an assumption that electing Hillary is synonymous with advancing progressive issues caring about the future of this country and the world, and all that horsecrap.

    The Sanders voters, obviously, disagree with your assumption.

    Maybe they see something about Hillary that you don’t.

    Or won’t.

  71. An Interested Party says:

    You’re basing your opinion on an assumption that electing Hillary is synonymous with advancing progressive issues caring about the future of this country and the world, and all that horsecrap.

    Actually, the correct assumption is that wounding Hillary will allow Trump to win the presidency and that will destroy the advance of progressive issues that Sanders and his supporters care so much about…

  72. Lit3Bolt says:

    @michael reynolds:

    What are you talking about? 1968 was a liberal milestone! America watched the 1968 Democratic convention and said proudly, “That’s the party for me.”

    Also, I remember the Green Party achieving great reforms by pushing President Gore to the left after the 2000 election! Think of all the liberal policy agendas that got passed, along with all those famous Gore judges!

    /s

    Somehow, the Far Left in this country mixed up communism and nihilism, or became convinced that the fastest way to “Burn the System Down” was to give Republicans power at every opportunity.

    Pro tip: Want to be pandered to in this country? Vote, preferably for a party that can pass your agenda as opposed to simply being starved for funds! If you go home and wallow in ideological purity or vote for People’s Liberation Party, who’s being feckless?

  73. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Wurlitzer:

    Nate Silver

  74. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Yawn …

    Have a nice day, concern troll 🙂

  75. MBunge says:

    @Lit3Bolt: give Republicans power at every opportunity

    Do you mean like when Bill Clinton completely discredited the entire liberal agenda when he announced “The era of big government is over?” Or when Bill Clinton spent the years after that working with Newt Gingrich to pass a Republican agenda? Is that the kind of empowerment you mean?

    Mike

  76. Pch101 says:

    Nate Silver has a fine sports analogy to describe this not-too-closely-contested race:

    To me, it’s like when a college football team — Clinton University — is favored by 24 points. Their opponent, Sanders State, kicks a field goal to go ahead 3-0. But then Clinton U. pulls ahead 14-3 on Super Tuesday and leads the rest of the way. Sanders State never makes it a one-score game, and in the end, Clinton U. wins by 14. So Sanders State beat the point spread, but you wouldn’t really call it a close game — Clinton U. was in control almost the whole way.

  77. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @MBunge:

    True liberals, a la Sanders, are a distinct minority in this country. They discredit themselves, much in the same way that their Tea Party counterparts on the right do.

    Funny, when I recall the Clinton administration, I remember a booming economy and a general sense of optimism in the country. Tacking back to the center as Republicans have essentially abandoned it has delivered the White House to us for 16 out of the last 24 years, and we’re probably on track for at least 4 more.

    In contrast, passing what most observers would consider to be a liberal piece of legislation (PPACA), however beneficial or well intended, has arguably cost us control of Congress for the last 6 years, will deny us the House through at least 2022 (thanks to redistricting conducted in the wake of the 2010 Republican wave) and makes us picking up control of the Senate in this cycle (our best situated one, no less) likely to be a squeaker. At basis, this is not a liberal country.

    I think I have come to the conclusion that true liberalism (the far left variety) is premised on emotion, in exactly the same way that far right conservatism is. Neither is a practical or workable political entity, because neither has much of, if any, interest in compromise.

  78. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pch101:

    I blame the media. They needed a horserace to keep people motivated to tune in and click click click, so they essentially created one where one doesn’t exist.

  79. bookdragon says:

    @michael reynolds: On the good side, a glimpse at dkos (I know, I know… but they’re an interesting microcosm on this) the last couple days indicates that Sanders’ complete lack of moral leadership following the NV mess has lead a lot of folks to rethink their support. The rec list has been full of #BernieLost Me type diaries.

    …of course the TrueBelievers spam the comments with accusations that the writers were all bought off by David Brock or something, and a certain number of people are feeling tarred by the disgust aimed at the worst offenders who threw tantrums and then doxxed, threatened and harassed the NV chairwoman, but I think most people are starting to come around.

  80. jukeboxgrad says:

    HarvardLaw92:

    Nate Silver

    This is what you said:

    We’re posting better than a 75% probability of winning.

    This is what Silver said:

    I put Trump’s chances of becoming president at 25 percent

    I thought that “we’re posting” was a reference to some actual data somewhere. I didn’t realize it meant ‘I’m citing one person’s gut feeling.’ Silver was supposedly thinking about betting markets, but the ones I have seen do not support his number. I also don’t know where you got “better than.”

    I also notice this betting market where today Clinton is at 57. There’s a long way between 57 and “better than a 75%,” so hopefully you won’t miss this chance to make some easy money.

    In related news, Clinton’s lead over Trump in the RCP average is now down to 3.3%.

  81. jukeboxgrad says:

    passing what most observers would consider to be a liberal piece of legislation (PPACA), however beneficial or well intended, has arguably cost us control of Congress for the last 6 years … At basis, this is not a liberal country

    Link:

    58% of U.S. adults favor the idea of replacing the law [ACA] with a federally funded healthcare system that provides insurance for all Americans

    Since you think that ACA is too liberal, and “this is not a liberal country,” hopefully you will explain why a majority want something even more liberal than ACA.

  82. Moosebreath says:

    @James Pearce:

    “As for Republican defections, I’ve never thought there’d be any. I always knew they’d line up behind him. If they were bright, they wouldn’t be Republicans.”

    Speaking of which, one of Trump’s Congressional supporters lets the mask slip from Trump’s signature proposals:

    ” The first member of Congress to endorse Donald Trump for president doesn’t envision one of Trump’s main campaign promises – a wall at the Mexican border – ever becoming a reality that stretches from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.

    “I have called it a virtual wall,” Rep. Chris Collins said in an interview with The Buffalo News.

    “Maybe we will be building a wall over some aspects of it; I don’t know,” the Clarence Republican said of Trump’s proposed barrier to keep illegal immigrants and drugs from crossing the southern border.

    Collins, who has become one of the presumptive GOP nominee’s main media surrogates, also cast doubts on another central Trump campaign promise: the candidate’s vow to deport the nation’s 12 million undocumented immigrants.

    “I call it a rhetorical deportation of 12 million people,” Collins said.

    He then gestured toward a door in his Capitol Hill office.

    “They go out that door, they go in that room, they get their work papers, Social Security number, then they come in that door, and they’ve got legal work status but are not citizens of the United States,” Collins said. “So there was a virtual deportation as they left that door for processing and came in this door.”

    Collins added: “We’re not going to put them on a bus, and we’re not going to drive them across the border.””

    I suspect even this will not get his supporters to realize that they’ve been played.

  83. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Wurlitzer:

    I trust Nate Silver more than I trust some gimmick internet site, but thanks for playing.

    You may, of course, believe whatever you wish to believe / whomever tells you what you want to hear. I have no interest in enabling you, so feel free to talk to yourself about that.

    58% of U.S. adults favor the idea of replacing the law [ACA] with a federally funded healthcare system that provides insurance for all Americans

    Sure they do – as long as someone else is paying for it

    I mean, who doesn’t like free stuff? 🙂

  84. HarvardLaw92 says:

    In related news, Clinton’s lead over Trump in the RCP average is now down to 3.3%.

    Obama’s polling lead over Romney in 2012 (RCP Average) was +0.7.

    How’d that one turn out?

  85. stonetools says:

    @MBunge:

    The 1990s were a different country. I like this LGM post on the difference between the Bill Clinton and Obama eras. The conclusion:

    Another way of putting it, as I elaborate on in the piece, is that if you compare the body of legislation signed by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, it looks as if the latter is considerably more liberal. But most of the difference is that the Democratic coalition to the whole has moved to the left, not differences in their personal views. Had he assumed office in 2009 Clinton would have governed much more like Obama than like he did in the 90s. And there’s never been a penny’s worth of difference between Obama and Hillary Clinton on domestic policy. The relative success of the Sanders campaign both reflects and (if played correctly) should accelerate the leftward shift of the party.

    Indeed. To paraphrase Chris Rock, a liberal President will be as liberal as their options. Give Hillary Clinton a liberal House majority and a filibuster proof liberal Senate majority, and you’ll see a flood of liberal legislation. Give President Bernie Sanders the current Congress, and you’ll see a few executive orders and no liberal legislation at all.
    This is something the Sandernistas seem unaware of , btw.

  86. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian: “On the other hand, the Sanders supporters, by and large, lack that element of pragmatism, and will hold a LOT of resentment towards Hillary once she has the nomination”

    I understand why this makes sense to you. Since you have absolutely no core beliefs beyond “pissing off the other guy,” you assume that everyone else is the same way. And so someone who supported Bernie will vote Trump to piss off Hillary.

    But unlike you, a lot of Bernie voters support him for the causes he stands for. And Trump is diametrically opposed to all of them.

    Believe it or not, there are people in the world who will actually vote for the person they think will be more likely to do what they believe in, even if it doesn’t piss off someone they’re mad at.

    You see, Little Jenos, some people actually give a damn.

    But yeah, I get why you can’t understand that.

  87. jukeboxgrad says:

    I trust Nate Silver more than I trust some gimmick internet site

    Here you can find an example of Silver citing the same site I cited. Now that you know that Silver himself decided to “trust some gimmick internet site,” do you still trust him? Or is that site “some gimmick internet site” only when they show data you find inconvenient?

    Sure they do – as long as someone else is paying for it

    And this is no different than any policy, ever, promoted by anyone. Polls that ask the public if they support policy X don’t normally bother asking ‘how much are you willing to personally pay for it’ because in every instance we will learn that people like policies “as long as someone else is paying for it.”

    And you didn’t answer the question.

  88. wr says:

    @An Interested Party: “The bottom line is that in 2008, in the end, Obama and Clinton came together for the benefit of the party and for the nominee…Sanders hasn’t shown any of that yet…”

    Nor had we seen it from Hillary and her supporters by this time in 08. We’re not at the end yet. People need to take a pill.

  89. Pch101 says:

    Based upon the average of 19 UK bookmakers, Clinton’s current odds of winning are 72%, with a range between 69% and 75%.

  90. Blue Galangal says:

    @Jen:

    That’s an interesting analysis, but I believe there’s a fifth category: unaligned voters who are baffled that these two candidates are their choices and may just sit this one out.

    I think that’s true, just based on my observations of what’s going on around me. I know some people who are diehard conservatives who will not vote for Trump because he is not a godly man. To the point that these people – who vocally supported Ted Cruz, for instance, on their FB pages – are also publicly calling out friends and family on those same pages regarding their support for Trump. In the five or so years I’ve been on FB with these people, I’ve never seen this happen before. I’m also friends with conservative Tea Party types (Cincinnati conservatives are an interesting mix :D) who won’t vote Democratic regardless – but won’t vote for Trump. At this point, they feel they are staying home, and are, as you say, baffled.

    It’s a very interesting dynamic that’s playing out here. I also see the “overprivileged white males” (TM) breaking for Bernie in a big way absolutely pulling the lever for Trump, because they were never going to vote for Hillary to begin with.

  91. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Wurlitzer:

    And this is no different than any policy, ever, promoted by anyone. Polls that ask the public if they support policy X don’t normally bother asking ‘how much are you willing to personally pay for it’ because in every instance we will learn that people like policies “as long as someone else is paying for it.”

    It’s directly relevant, because Sanders proposes to raise taxes(dramatically) in order to pay for his giveaways.

    If these people are liberal, why don’t they support tax increases? Are you asserting that liberal means “the rich should pay for everything I want”? That liberalism is, in essence, some sort of mentality of graft that entitles itself to whatever of someone else’s property it wants simply because it wants it?

    If so, your boy Sanders doesn’t seem to agree with you.

  92. wr says:

    @Lit3Bolt: “Also, I remember the Green Party achieving great reforms by pushing President Gore to the left after the 2000 election! Think of all the liberal policy agendas that got passed, along with all those famous Gore judges!”

    Easy as it is to blame Nader and the Greens — and yeah, I do — the fact is that Gore ran strongest when he ran on progressive points. But he let himself be talked out of his populism by the DLC crowd that still ran so much of the party, and he threw away the things that separated him from the person Bush was pretending to be.

  93. jukeboxgrad says:

    If these people are liberal, why don’t they support tax increases?

    No one likes to see their own taxes go up. Every single government program would poll poorly if the poll told people their own taxes would go up. And you still didn’t answer the question.

    Wurlitzer

    That’s not my name. Resorting to gratuitous personal insults is a good way of calling attention to the weakness of your argument.

  94. Pch101 says:

    Every single government program would poll poorly if the poll told people their own taxes would go up.

    The Republicans and the PACs that favor them would undoubtedly hold their tongues and not mention those tax hikes out of respect for your concerns if Sanders was the Democratic nominee. **cough cough**

  95. HarvardLaw92 says:

    No one likes to see their own taxes go up. Every single government program would poll poorly if the poll told people their own taxes would go up.

    So, that’s a yes. Thank you for clarifying what liberalism means for me. Much appreciated. The GOP, of course, would have remained silent about these proposed tax increases were Sanders to have been nominated, right?

    And you still didn’t answer the question.

    No, I didn’t. Gosh you’re observant 🙂

    That’s not my name. Resorting to gratuitous personal insults is a good way of calling attention to the weakness of your argument.

    I give you the degree of credence and respect to which you’re entitled. Live with it.

    Or stomp your feet and whine about it. Doesn’t much matter to me either way. Have a nice day 🙂

  96. wr says:

    @HarvardLaw92: “I think I have come to the conclusion that true liberalism (the far left variety) is premised on emotion, in exactly the same way that far right conservatism is. Neither is a practical or workable political entity, because neither has much of, if any, interest in compromise.”

    I have come to a similar, if slightly more nuanced, conclusion: Every set of political beliefs that don’t mirror mine in every way is premised on emotion. Only my exact beliefs are grounded in facts and reason.

    The good news is that everyone on this forum can adopt this conclusion for him or herself.

    Except for Jenos, of course, who doesn’t believe in anything except annoying people.

  97. jukeboxgrad says:

    No, I didn’t.

    Thanks for admitting that you didn’t answer the question. You can’t, because your premise is wrong. If ACA is liberal, then this is a liberal country, because a majority want something more liberal than ACA.

  98. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Wurlitzer:

    If this is a liberal country, why did the voters essentially revolt over its having been passed and hand control of Congress to the Republicans in 2010?

    This flies in the face of your assertion that the majority of voters want something more liberal than PPACA, because – let’s face it – handing control of Congress to the Republicans in 2010 (and doing it again in 2012 and 2014) certainly wasn’t going to achieve that goal for them.

    So why the disconnect? If this is a liberal country, why did the country react to PPACA by electing Republican majorities? You may phone a friend if you need to.

  99. jukeboxgrad says:

    why did the country react to PPACA by electing Republican majorities?

    Ds lost the House in 2012 even though they won the popular vote for the House, so gerrymandering, not a wave of sentiment against Obamacare, is a better explanation for those results. Also, the poll I cited is about what people are thinking now, not what they were thinking 4 or 6 years ago. When you are ready to address that poll, let me know.

    By the way, here’s another theory to explain those D losses: Obama, Clinton and their counterparts in Congress are centrists. (At The American Conservative you can find a pretty convincing argument that “Obama Is a Republican.”) Ten million votes for Sanders are a clue that there are a lot of D voters who expect more than centrism, and they might be inclined to stay home if the best they are offered is centrism.

  100. An Interested Party says:

    It’s too simple to say this is a liberal or a conservative country…this a complex country with a lot of things going on, like a lot of people who like social programs as long as they benefit people like themselves and don’t go to “those people”…a lot of people don’t like to pay taxes but do like to receive government services…and it doesn’t help that for the past 30+ years we’ve had one political party trashing the federal government at almost every opportunity and yet members of that same party want to control that same federal government, that trashing starts to condition some people after awhile…

  101. An Interested Party says:

    …there are a lot of D voters who expect more than centrism, and they might be inclined to stay home if the best they are offered is centrism.

    Certainly centrism is a lot better than bat-$hit crazy Trumpism…those Ds would do well to remember that…

  102. Kylopod says:

    @wr:

    Nor had we seen it from Hillary and her supporters by this time in 08. We’re not at the end yet. People need to take a pill.

    Agreed. In fact, one thing I find ironic is that eight years ago Hillary was behaving almost exactly the same way Bernie is now.

    Like Bernie, Hillary stayed in the race long after she had any realistic shot at the nomination.

    Like Bernie, she tried to persuade the superdelegates to ignore the results of the primaries and choose her over the frontrunner.

    Like Bernie, she falsely implied the nomination was being stolen from her through a rigged process.

    Like Bernie, there were loads of her supporters who vowed never to vote for the front-runner in the general election. The “PUMAs,” as they were called, actually outnumbered today’s #NeverHillarys.

    Obviously, they (mostly) came home and she came home. I suspect the same will happen with Bernie and his bros.

    There are significant caveats here, however. Hillary had strong incentives to patch fences with the party and support Obama in the general election. She very likely wouldn’t be here now if she’d tried to drag him down. Sanders, as an anti-establishment candidate who spent most of his career as not even a formal member of the Democratic Party, and who doesn’t have much of a political future ahead of him apart from returning to the Senate, has less at stake. That should potentially concern us.

  103. Moosebreath says:

    @jukebox:

    “Ds lost the House in 2012 even though they won the popular vote for the House, so gerrymandering, not a wave of sentiment against Obamacare, is a better explanation for those results.”

    You can do better than that. 2012 voting districts were based off re-apportionment following the 2010 census. 2010 voting districts were based off re-apportionment following the 2000 census. The 2010 losses made possible the 2012 results, but not the 2010 ones.

  104. David M says:

    A poll showing people like a government funded health care system is worth the same as the GOP plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

  105. jukeboxgrad says:

    An Interested Party:

    Certainly centrism is a lot better than bat-$hit crazy Trumpism…those Ds would do well to remember that

    Seeing Clinton as less bad than Trump is an easy analysis if I’m a garden-variety progressive/liberal. The analysis is more complicated if I’m some form of ‘Reagan Democrat.’ There seem to be many working-class whites who like both Trump and Sanders, but not Clinton, and their reasons are not that hard to understand. Dismissing and mocking them (which is what I see in threads like this) is not a recipe for long-term electoral success.

  106. jukeboxgrad says:

    Kylopod:

    Obviously, they (mostly) came home and she came home. I suspect the same will happen with Bernie and his bros.

    It was natural for Clinton supporters in 2008 to come around in the end and support Obama, because the policy differences between them were minor. But I think now we’re in a fundamentally different situation, because there’s a fairly large and substantive gap between Sanders and Clinton, with regard to policy. This should be taken into account when making the comparison between 2008 and now.

  107. jukeboxgrad says:

    Moosebreath:

    The 2010 losses made possible the 2012 results, but not the 2010 ones.

    I was responding to someone who mentioned 3 elections: 2010, 2012 and 2014. I wasn’t claiming that gerrymandering was a major factor in 2010. I was claiming that it was a major factor in 2012 and 2014.

  108. jukeboxgrad says:

    David M:

    A poll showing people like a government funded health care system is worth the same as the GOP plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

    Should polls always be ignored, or only when you don’t like the results?

  109. Moosebreath says:

    @jukebox:

    Sorry, but since the question you were responding to was “why did the country react to PPACA by electing Republican majorities?”, then citing gerrymandering as an explanation does mean you were referring to gerrymandering being a major factor in 2010. That is the first election after PPACA, and when the current Republican majorities began.

  110. Jenos Idanian says:

    @wr: (click)

  111. stonetools says:

    @Kylopod:

    Like Bernie, she tried to persuade the superdelegates to ignore the results of the primaries and choose her over the frontrunner.

    Like Bernie, she falsely implied the nomination was being stolen from her through a rigged process.

    Those two I don’t remember.I remember a lot of acrimony in 2012, but I don’t remember Clinton saying that the Party establishment was corrupt or that the nomination process was rigged against her. I think Bernie’s criticism of the process is harsher and wider ranging than Clinton’s was in 2008.Otherwise , I largely agree with your analysis.
    I am less sanguine that Bernie will “come home’ though. I think Bernie may end up giving Clinton the kind of lukewarm endorsement that Kennedy gave Carter in 1980-and that might not be enough to bring most of the Bernie supporters home.

  112. jukeboxgrad says:

    Moosebreath:

    the question you were responding to was “why did the country react to PPACA by electing Republican majorities?”

    The person who asked the question mentioned “handing control of Congress to the Republicans in 2010 (and doing it again in 2012 and 2014).” I responded by saying this:

    Ds lost the House in 2012 even though they won the popular vote for the House, so gerrymandering, not a wave of sentiment against Obamacare, is a better explanation for those results.

    I think it’s clear enough from what I said that “those results” is a reference to 2012.

  113. Kylopod says:

    But I think now we’re in a fundamentally different situation, because there’s a fairly large and substantive gap between Sanders and Clinton, with regard to policy.

    So that explains why many of them will favor Trump! It’s because of the massive policy gap between Sanders and Clinton, compared to the minute one between Sanders and Trump.

    I need an Advil.

  114. stonetools says:

    But I think now we’re in a fundamentally different situation, because there’s a fairly large and substantive gap between Sanders and Clinton, with regard to policy. This should be taken into account when making the comparison between 2008 and now.

    Noise is one of the problems of a long and acrimonious primary season. Sanders and Clinton voted together 93 per cent of the time. They are in fact closer in policy goals than you think-certainly much closer than either are to Trump.
    As to why some white working class voters prefer Sanders to Clinton, the answer is simple. Clinton is now closely identified with the hated black man in the White House, Sanders less so. THE END.

  115. Kylopod says:
  116. Moosebreath says:

    @jukebox:

    So, in other words, you don’t have an answer to why passing Obamacare led to a massive swing to the R’s in 2010, but are sure that the public doesn’t think it went far enough, so they threw out the people who passed it and replaced them with the people who want to repeal it and return to the prior state of affairs. Pardon me if I find that very far from convincing.

  117. wr says:

    @HarvardLaw92: ” If this is a liberal country, why did the country react to PPACA by electing Republican majorities?”

    Um, guys? Maybe it’s because this country is neither one thing nor the other, but a mess of each with a lot in between?

    And let’s also remember that the Republicans reached their senate majority with a fraction of the vote that democratic senators received. And even House Republicans, I believe, received fewer votes than Dems nationwide, but had gerrymandered districts to ensure their victory.

    So a quick answer to both of you — you’re both squabbling over nonsense, you’re both smarter than this, and you should both move on to something more interesting.

  118. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Ds lost the House in 2012 even though they won the popular vote for the House, so gerrymandering, not a wave of sentiment against Obamacare, is a better explanation for those results

    We must live in alternate realities.

    In mine, Republicans took 63 seats in 2010, and recaptured the House majority, in the largest seat change since 1948.

    Your protest about 2012 completely sidesteps the point – Democrats lost the House in 2010, BEFORE the wave of gerrymandering facilitated by the 2010 elections ever happened.

    What color is the sun on your planet?

  119. wr says:

    Juke: ” The analysis is more complicated if I’m some form of ‘Reagan Democrat.’ There seem to be many working-class whites who like both Trump and Sanders, but not Clinton, and their reasons are not that hard to understand. Dismissing and mocking them (which is what I see in threads like this) is not a recipe for long-term electoral success.”

    Except that these are called REAGAN DEMOCRATS for a reason — which is they stopped voting for Democrats in 1980 or 84, and they’ve never come back. And the Democratic party’s insane pursuit of them at the expense of what became the Obama coalition kept the party from wide success for years.

    White working class men may end up voting for Trump. But they’re the same people who voted for Bush and McCain and Romney. They are not the electorate.

  120. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @wr:

    Um, guys? Maybe it’s because this country is neither one thing nor the other, but a mess of each with a lot in between?

    Of course it is. The entire point of this exchange is to point out the absurdity of Wurlitzer’s facile “this is a liberal country” assertion.

    The electorate in this country spans the spectrum, but the norm is moderate to slightly conservative (depending on the specific issue being examined). It’s no more majority liberal than it is majority Tea Party conservative. They’re both outliers.

  121. Andre Kenji says:

    @wr:

    Except that these are called REAGAN DEMOCRATS for a reason — which is they stopped voting for Democrats in 1980 or 84, and they’ve never come back. ”

    There is a segment of this video of 1988, around the 20:33 minutes mark, talking about Reagan Democrats:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSvg0KmsPDI

    The idea that we have of Reagan Democrats is a stereotype that did not made sense even in 1980´s.

  122. Andre Kenji says:

    @An Interested Party:

    It’s too simple to say this is a liberal or a conservative country…this a complex country with a lot of things going on, like a lot of people who like social programs as long as they benefit people like themselves and don’t go to “those people”…

    Exactly. Minority population is the main reason why is so difficult to implement Social Welfare policies in the United States, and that´s probably the main difference between United States and Europe.

    No wonder that Europe´s far right defends both Social Welfare and immigration restriction on the same time.

  123. gVOR08 says:

    The fact is that majorities in this country are OK with a right to abortion, want better environmental protection, want to preserve SS and Medicare, want rich people to pay higher taxes, and so on and so on. And are even, surprisingly, OK with gay people and with letting people pee where they feel comfortable. On policy we are a center left country. Despite that, a plurality identify as conservative, proving nothing more than that they don’t understand the liberal/conservative thing very well. The fact that the Mighty Right Wing Wurlitzer was able to effectively propagandize against Obamacare changes none of this. And the uninsured rate is now under 10% for the first time since…well, ever.

  124. jukeboxgrad says:

    Kylopod:

    So that explains why many of them will favor Trump! It’s because of the massive policy gap between Sanders and Clinton, compared to the minute one between Sanders and Trump.

    If you are a poor white ex-factory worker in Michigan, and you see both Sanders and Trump as the only candidates who are willing to say out loud that the system is rigged against you, then from your perspective there is indeed a “minute one between Sanders and Trump,” with regard to what matters the most to you.

    You can believe that this person is wrong, but you do no good by ignoring them or choosing to not understand them.

    On certain important issues, Trump is to the left of Clinton. Have you not noticed this yet? Because this fact is going to become more and more noticeable.

  125. jukeboxgrad says:

    stonetools:

    As to why some white working class voters prefer Sanders to Clinton, the answer is simple. Clinton is now closely identified with the hated black man in the White House, Sanders less so.

    I’m sure racism is a factor in this way, but it’s also not the whole story, and it’s also not Sanders’ fault. These are people who were not going to vote for Clinton even if Sanders didn’t exist.

  126. jukeboxgrad says:

    Moosebreath:

    you don’t have an answer to why passing Obamacare led to a massive swing to the R’s in 2010

    I don’t accept the premise that the 2010 election was a referendum on Obamacare, but it’s not worth arguing about that because it’s not 2010 anymore. A current Gallup poll showing majority support for government-funded health care is a lot more relevant than an election six years ago that was about plenty of things aside from Obamacare.

  127. jukeboxgrad says:

    wr:

    these are called REAGAN DEMOCRATS for a reason — which is they stopped voting for Democrats in 1980 or 84, and they’ve never come back.

    It’s not that simple. There are working-class whites who are still registered D, but who do not like Obama and Clinton. Link:

    Coal County, Okla., is one of the most extreme examples. There, 80 percent of voters are registered Democrats, yet President Obama won just 27 percent of the vote in 2012. Mrs. Clinton has performed very poorly where the share of voters who are registered Democrats is much greater than the share of voters who supported Mr. Obama.

    These people are supporting Sanders or Trump. And the explanation is probably racism and/or sexism, as least partly, but that doesn’t change the electoral reality.

  128. jukeboxgrad says:

    The electorate in this country spans the spectrum, but the norm is moderate to slightly conservative

    Still waiting for you to explain how that statement is congruent with a poll showing majority support for government-funded universal health care.

    And one more thing about this:

    Are you asserting that liberal means “the rich should pay for everything I want”? That liberalism is, in essence, some sort of mentality of graft that entitles itself to whatever of someone else’s property it wants simply because it wants it?

    Reminds me of someone else with similar beliefs:

    … there are 47 percent who are with him [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them … I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

  129. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Note: the furious wall of text above is why I generally don’t encourage this person. Something about “can’t change its mind / won’t change subject” comes to mind …

    Anybody sad enough to be composing multiple responses offline and then mass posting them probably has no life beyond commenting on internet forums, as this sad piece of work would seem to suggest

    Probably best to disengage before we have another 300(0) post Wurlitzer Marsh mudfight on our hands.

  130. Jen says:

    The one group of Sanders’ voters that I do think could swing to Trump that aren’t part of previous voter equations are young white males. Some of them did not have the opportunity to go to college because of cost, and some who did complete college are nearly drowning in mountains of debt. They are socially liberal, but more than anything else they are mad, mad, mad at the systems and organizations that they perceive have reduced their livelihoods–and therefore Trump’s anti-free trade message and economic populism may mean more to them than ensuring the next President is a Democrat for the Supreme Court appointments, etc.

    From the white collar job group:
    –They are angry at the banks holding their student loans that they feel they will never get out from under
    –They are angry at the corporations they work for, who they see hiring H1B visa workers as a way to pay lower wages
    –They are angry at Wall Street, which wrecked the value of their homes and decimated their 401Ks

    From the blue collar job group:
    –They are angry at seeing their jobs shipped overseas
    –They are angry that they won’t do anywhere near as well financially as their dad or other male relatives, who never went to college but did receive union pensions, and a decent wage

    This group of voters is fairly new to the process, and they do make up a not insubstantial portion of Bernie’s voters. They are also more concerned about their pocketbook issues than pretty much anything else, and I can see them being attracted to Trump’s messaging.

    They are also older than the “don’t worry too much about young voters, they don’t show up” crowd–basically they are in their early- to mid-30s, and are finally hearing something that resonates with them. Had I pursued a PhD in Political Science, this is the group I’d be studying this cycle.

  131. Pch101 says:

    @Jen:

    There will always be some element of cross-party voting and voters whose candidate preferences are not consistent with the left-right spectrum.

    It’s not unusual for about 10% of voters to cross lines. The particulars don’t matter much; it’s bound to happen, regardless.

    The only question is whether Sanders accepts defeat gracefully and throws his support behind the winner, or whether he’ll make some effort to sabotage the general election campaign. If he wants to play the role of a Ralph Nader (which does not necessarily have to entail a third-party run; negative post-convention rhetoric could be sufficient), then he could pose a problem.

  132. Tyrell says:

    @HarvardLaw92: The reports are that next year there will be double digit rate increases on the government health care plan . I don’t know about anyone else, but I certainly would not be able to handle that kind of increase. A lot of people may have to bail out. One teason for these increases is that all those young, healthy people did not sign up for the plan. Many are still on their parents health plan, or are covered through work. So it is mainly older people with health problems who signed up for the thing. I would favor just expanding medicare to anyone who wanted in. It could offer a basic, no frills, no bells or whistles high deductible plan to start and optional coverages could be added.
    On a similar subject, the Fed might be heading towards another rate increase ! There is a bill in Congress that would have an audit of the powerful Federal Reserve Board. Both parties support this bill. It is time the people learn how the Fed makes its decisions and just who is pulling the strings. It is time to pull back the curtain !

  133. anjin-san says:

    Why am I going into moderation?

  134. al-Ameda says:

    @Tyrell:

    The reports are that next year there will be double digit rate increases on the government health care plan . I don’t know about anyone else, but I certainly would not be able to handle that kind of increase.

    Selective amnesia is very powerful.

    All of this handwringing about cost increases in the health insurance plans offered under the auspices of ACA, as if cost increases in benefit plans were non-existent until the passage of ACA.

    Where were people from 1993 to 2009? I know where I was – I was managing business contracts for my organizations, and nearly every year in that period I received notices of increases in health insurance plan premiums ranging from 9 percent up to 22 percent – that is, at least 3 to 4 times the annual rate of inflation.

    Most people didn’t complain because they were not directly paying for their health insurance benefits, rather, their employers were. If people had to personally pay for their health insurance they would think about all of this differently, they might actually be informed, instead of reflexively blaming ACA.

  135. Tyrell says:

    @al-Ameda: This is true. The rates did start soaring then, and even before. One reason was the rise of HMO’s. They were low cost and offered a lot of coverage. Well, the people started using it, and going to doctors like never before: for everything from sore throats to hangnails. And came the rise of specialists. All this doctoring cost. So the HMO’s had to raise prices a lot.

  136. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Jenos Idanian: Memo to the evil alien pod creatures who have stolen Jenos and replaced him with this polite thoughtful version: Please, and by all means, keep the Jenos you have stolen for your horrifying genetic experiments and leave the replicant with us. Thank you.

  137. Andre Kenji says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    There are working-class whites who are still registered D,

    These are basically Democrats in Name only. They used to vote for Democrats in local level(Specially in Arkansas, West Virginia and Oklahoma), but they are voting for Republicans in all levels now.

    Note that Bernie only took 51% of the vote in West Virginia, even with Hillary Clinton being unpopular as hell there.

  138. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Wurlitzer:: Since you think that ACA is too liberal, and “this is not a liberal country,” hopefully you will explain why a majority want something even more liberal than ACA.

    First up, the nickname use isn’t intended as an insult. Whenever I try to respond to you, it gets stuck in the filters. So I’m trying to get around that.

    Anyway, I recall a LOT of people (myself included) saying that the PPACA was a stalking horse for single payer. That it was intended to tear down the old system, then fail itself, leaving only single payer as “the only choice we have now.”

    For saying that, we got insulted, dismissed, and called a lot of names.

    Since that appears to be happening, where do we collect our apologies?

  139. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: You’ll notice that my “polite, thoughtful” comments are still getting significant downtwinkles. I take that as meaning that quite a few people don’t care what I say, they’re going to downtwinkle it anyway.

    I threw some red meat on another thread to see if I could draw the heat away from this one, but the Downtwinkle Dips are still at it…

  140. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Lit3Bolt:

    Somehow, the Far Left in this country mixed up communism and nihilism, or became convinced that the fastest way to “Burn the System Down” was to give Republicans power at every opportunity.

    You may be on to something here. Let me ponder that one.

  141. An Interested Party says:

    The analysis is more complicated if I’m some form of ‘Reagan Democrat.’ There seem to be many working-class whites who like both Trump and Sanders, but not Clinton, and their reasons are not that hard to understand.

    It does seem like those Reagan Democrats are shrinking as a portion of the electorate and being replaced by various minority groups…the question is, which group is it more important to grab the majority of if one wants to win a national election…

    …because there’s a fairly large and substantive gap between Sanders and Clinton, with regard to policy. This should be taken into account when making the comparison between 2008 and now.

    Perhaps, but certainly Clinton’s policies are closer to Sander’s than Trump’s are…

    I’m sure racism is a factor in this way, but it’s also not the whole story, and it’s also not Sanders’ fault. These are people who were not going to vote for Clinton even if Sanders didn’t exist.

    Let us not forget that sexism is also playing a factor in this election…

    Meanwhile, this is very interesting…don’t underestimate the Hispanic vote (not so much in California but in other places with a significant Hispanic population) in this election…

  142. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Jenos Idanian: While I see your point, I must rise to the defense of my fellows on the comment thread. You have a decades long history of creating intense loathing among your fellows and not only acknowledging it, but rejoicing in your role as the smallest minded, most ignorant vile and disgusting, and loathsome troll on our threads. Of course some people are going to reflexively downvote your posts; they probably imagine that you expect it.

    And now I have to face some disappointments of my own. Here I was, hoping that our Jenos had been replaced with a replicant while undergoing painful, demeaning, and disheartening genetic experimentation by evil aliens only to discover that the commentator was merely our own Jenos adopting a serious and thoughtful pose–for far too short a time, as it turned out.

    Oh well, one can always dream.

  143. David M says:

    It’s worth noting that Sanders base is not working class voters, it is young voters. Contrary to some previous claims.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11649054/bernie-sanders-working-class-base

  144. michael reynolds says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Just so you know, it ain’t me, babe. I don’t downvote people for disagreeing.

  145. Kylopod says:

    @michael reynolds:

    I don’t downvote people for disagreeing.

    Same here. In fact, I rarely use the downvote button at all. I’ve basically reserved it for comments that I consider offensive–say, racist or sexist–or disruptive in some way. (I used to downvote superdestroyer a lot when he tried to derail every thread for another one of his “one party state” rants.)

  146. michael reynolds says:

    @Kylopod:

    I suppose different people have different notions of what the up or downvote means. I have the same take as you – I up-vote things I find interesting and only downvote people for being obnoxious.

    On the other hand, there are different approaches, depending on the site. It’s taken me a while for example to decide that I should “heart” tweets directed to me as a signal that I’ve read them. It seemed weird, (particularly given that many of the tweets are from kids.) I wish there was a “Yeah, I saw it,” button, without signaling anything more.

    And I’m still not quite sure what the etiquette is at Reddit.

  147. Todd says:

    I posted this on my Facebook page earlier tonight …

    There’s a very real possibility that Donald Trump will be our next president. When/if that happens, partisan Democrats, instead of looking in the mirror and wondering why they insisted on nominating a terribly flawed candidate that a majority of the country views unfavorably, will blame …

    Bernie Sanders.

    I will never be a Republican. But at this point, my utter contempt for the Democratic party is not too easily suppressed.

    I don’t want to see Donald Trump sitting in the oval office. But at the same time, I really don’t want to see arrogant Democrats (who simply assume that Sanders supporters, who they are currently calling names like ‘delusional’ will “have to” vote for Clinton) to feel in any way rewarded for their decisions.

    Some of the choices the candidates make over the next few months may make a difference. For instance, Donald Trump’s list of conservatives he would consider appointing to the Supreme Court does influence me to be more likely to want to vote against him in November, regardless of who the other choice is. (The Mexican wall and Muslim ban things I don’t take too seriously. SCOTUS appointments on the other hand are promises he would be much more likely to keep if elected).

    Also, I think Clinton’s VP selection could matter. Elizabeth Warren is the wildcard. If she can be convinced to run with Clinton, it would likely be a lot easier for many Sanders’ voters to make that primarily anti-Trump vote, that will have the side-effect of benefiting Clinton. If on the other hand, she chooses a moderate running mate such as Tim Kaine or Mark Warner from VA, then runs a campaign aimed at trying to attract “disaffected moderate Republicans”, she’s going to lose … and down ballot Democrats may suffer too. A not insignificant percentage of people who she (and her supporters) assume are voting for her, will instead stay home, vote 3rd party, or even write in the candidate they prefer.

    The conventional wisdom among politicians and the media tends to overestimate the likelihood that Republicans will remain divided about Donald Trump, while simultaneously underestimating how strong anti-Clinton sentiments run, and not just among conservatives.

    There are already polls showing the race between Clinton and Trump essentially tied, not just nationally, but also in key swing States. Democrats will dismiss these polls as not predictive … in much the same way that Republicans in the primary season imagined that Trump’s inevitable collapse was always “just around the corner”.

  148. wr says:

    @Todd: Wow, Todd. I wish you’d let us know you felt this way before. What a shocking and unpredictable message, entirely different from the 18,000 iterations of the exact same thing you’ve posted here over the year.

    Yes, we get it. You, as a supporter of one candidate, are morally superior to the supporters of another candidate.

    Thank you for sharing.

  149. Todd says:

    @wr:

    I’m probably going to vote for her (actually against Trump) in the end. But if she loses in November, it will be very hard not to at least think (if not outright say) “I told you so”.

    By the way, this not about one person (Senator Sanders).

    This is about how broken the Democratic party is. They keep losing elections (at all but the Presidential level) precisely because they take for granted such a large segment of the population who should be “their” voters, without ever actually addressing their concerns.

    Over an over again we’ve seen Democrats assume that young voters and progressive voters (I am neither of those btw) will show up because they have “no better choice”. They then shape their campaigns to downplay any of the their (especially economic) “liberal” leanings, in order to appeal to “moderate Republicans” who they fantasize will somehow vote for them (never happens). Then when they lose, they wonder why so many of “their” voters couldn’t be bothered to come to the polls on election day.

  150. Jen says:

    @Todd: It’s more complicated than that.

    Democrats do need a deeper bench at the local and state level, but we cannot leave out the effects of redistricting when we look at why Dems don’t hold more seats. They also seem to let what should be easy wins escape them (why, why, why does Massachusetts have a Republican Governor? etc.)

    Secretary Clinton is a horrible campaigner, but she is a good candidate. She has repeatedly shown that over the years–her approval numbers plummet when she campaigns but they rise to good levels once she’s (First Lady/Senator/Sec. of State).

    Sanders should almost be left out of this conversation entirely. He is not a Democrat, and he is showing now EVERY. DAY. why it was a mistake to permit him to run under their banner. Democrats have much to work on, but what he’s doing right now isn’t fair critique, it’s pooping in the punch bowl. He is proving to be an incredibly sore loser and that shows a deficit of character. If he really wanted to reform the Democratic party and process, he’d understand this. Right now he seems intent on destroying it, and that won’t help his cause at all.

    I’ve seen this all before, as have you. Idealists in both parties complain that they are “taken for granted” without ever seeming to acknowledge that political parties, by necessity, NEED to be broad coalitions that appeal to more than just their base or they won’t get elected.

    The candidates who are “Base-Approved/Perfect” will not appeal to the general electorate. Period. It’s too easy to characterize them as extreme.

  151. grumpy realist says:

    It looks like Sanders is showing why card-carrying socialists don’t get much traction in the US.

    He’s pulling a Nader.

  152. Jen says:

    @grumpy realist: Unreal.

    WHY would he think that superdelegates, who are *party loyalists*, would switch to him after he does something like that? He’s almost ensuring that those who are with him currently will switch over to Clinton.

    I’m sorry, this is just not the way an adult behaves, much less a candidate for president.

    Howard Dean essentially said that he’s seen Sanders lose before and he doesn’t do so gracefully. I think this is perhaps the understatement of the campaign thus far.

  153. PJ says:

    @Todd:

    For instance, Donald Trump’s list of conservatives he would consider appointing to the Supreme Court does influence me to be more likely to want to vote against him in November, regardless of who the other choice is.

    The Supreme Court is why this election is so important and why Democrats who understand what electing the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee would mean for the Supreme Court won’t stay home, vote third party, or vote for Trump.

    The support for same-sex marriage is now at 61%, but only 40% of Republicans support it, it would only take five conservative Supreme Court Judges to overturn it. How many of the eleven Judges on Trump’s list support same-sex marriage? Abortion? And so on.

  154. Lit3Bolt says:

    @michael reynolds:

    The etiquette at Reddit is whore/lie/steal/troll for upvotes, constantly.

  155. PJ says:

    Everyone keep saying that the 2008 primary was a lot worse than this primary, but only a few seems to understand that in 2008 there were two Democrats running who both wanted Democrats to win in every election possible.

    This year, not so much.

  156. Mikey says:

    @Lit3Bolt: Eh, that depends on the subreddit. It’s certainly true of the big defaults, but the smaller more “specialized” subs are usually pretty decent.

    But once a sub gets promoted to default, it goes downhill very fast.

  157. Todd says:

    @Jen:

    Sanders should almost be left out of this conversation entirely. He is not a Democrat, and he is showing now EVERY. DAY. why it was a mistake to permit him to run under their banner

    THIS ATTITUDE

    This is one of the primary reasons why Hillary Clinton and the Democrats may not win in November. Senator Sanders is not personally responsible for Hillary Clinton’s unpopularity. He could drop out and endorse her tomorrow, and there would still be millions of people who would swear there’s no way they will ever vote for her. Some most likely will change their minds before November. But for those who don’t this sort of sentiment from Democrats (not just in comments section, but from party leaders) will be a big part of the reason. By saying that Bernie Sanders should never have been “allowed” to run in the Democratic primary (I’m not even sure how “disallowing” any candidate would be possible btw), you are essentially calling millions of left leaning voters illegitimate.

    The more that Hillary Clinton and Democrats act annoyed that Bernie Sanders and his supporters even exist, the harder it will be to persuade them to vote for her in November anyway.

    That’s what you guys don’t get.

    Your annoyance about a candidate who will not win (but has every right to stay in a race where he is still winning States), and even worse the taunting of that candidate’s supporters, only serves to make the likely nominees job of driving turnout in November a heck of a lot harder.

    You guys like facts. The fact is, there are currently a lot more Independent voters in this country than there are Democrats. If you don’t think “those people” deserve to have any say in selecting one of the only two people (the Dem and Rep nominees) who likely has a chance of winning the Presidency in a general election, then you shouldn’t act shocked or upset when a significant enough percentage of them to potentially cost your party the election decide to vote 3rd party instead.

  158. Pch101 says:

    @Todd:

    Why should Sanders lead the Democratic party when (a) he can’t get even a majority of Democratic voters to support him and (b) he isn’t a Democrat?

  159. Kylopod says:

    Everyone keep saying that the 2008 primary was a lot worse than this primary, but only a few seems to understand that in 2008 there were two Democrats running who both wanted Democrats to win in every election possible.

    Well, for one thing, polls at the time showed a lot more Dems saying they’d never support Obama than current polls saying they’d never support Hillary. So there’s that.

    More to the point, though: it’s easy in hindsight to diagnose what happened in 2008. It’s almost a decade later, and we know Hillary came around in the end and that Obama managed to unite the party and score a solid victory. But at this point eight years ago–late in the Democratic primary when Hillary was still blabbing about superdelegates and Bush v. Gore and Robert Kennedy–that was anything but clear-cut. It really did appear to many of us that she was trying to drag the entire party down with her. Her behavior didn’t damage the party in the end, but it very much could have, and it was all due to her putting ego and ambition ahead of what was good for the country. As I said she didn’t have exactly the same incentives as Bernie does now, but the situations aren’t as different as you’re implying.

  160. Todd says:

    @Pch101: I am not arguing at this point that Sanders should be the nominee.

    Clinton will be the nominee.

    If she loses in November, it will be the fault of the voters who selected her during this primary season, not those who didn’t. That’s my only point.

    You can’t keep telling Sanders’ voters to essentially “F off” now, but then turn around and blame them for not voting for YOUR preferred candidate come November. And let’s be real, all over the Internet, that’s precisely what’s happening.

  161. Pch101 says:

    @Todd:

    The sore loser ‘tude doesn’t help your argument.

  162. Moosebreath says:

    @Todd:

    “Clinton will be the nominee.”

    The problem is in part that words like that are not coming out of Sanders supporters. To the contrary, Sanders himself is still saying that he believes he can win the nomination.

    Moreover, a large part of the problem is that Clinton supporters are very tired of being told by Sanders supporters that:

    a. there is something illegitimate about following the rules which were present before the campaign started, and the proper response to a person following the established rules is to make death threats.

    b. that Hillary is fundamentally corrupt, a tool of Wall Street, untrustworthy, and dozens of other statements which are indistinguishable from what Trump is saying.

    c. that the Democratic Party needs to be torn down, as it is also fundamentally corrupt and untrustworthy.

    d. that is Sanders is not nominated at the convention, they plan to riot to show their displeasure.

    In other words, Sanders supporters are telling Hillary supporters to “F off” and that they plan to take measures to make Hillary less electable.

    And then they are upset when Hillary supporters fight back in kind.

  163. Kylopod says:

    Another thing: In a sense Bernie has more legitimate motivations than Hillary did eight years ago, in that he wants to tug the Democratic Party leftward and get it to accept at least some of his proposals. He’s going too far, I’d agree, and at this point doing more damage than good to his cause. But Hillary eight years ago didn’t have any such concerns. She wasn’t trying to remake the party, she wanted to win and she was throwing a hissy fit over losing. Her objections to Obama were mostly not about policy or ideology, her message was simply “It’s my TURN, goddammit, and this vapid upstart is taking it from me instead of waiting in line!!!”

  164. Jen says:

    @Todd: I believe the ballot access rules vary by state, but I am fairly certain that there was a question as to whether Sanders could put his name on the ballot as a Democrat here in NH. The DNC had to step in and say that they were okay with it. That is what I meant by allow.

  165. PJ says:
  166. Todd says:

    @PJ: First off accepting the reality that barring unforeseen circumstances Clinton will be the nominee, is not the same as endorsing the idea that Bernie Sanders should get out of the race now due to that reality.

    Let’s be clear here, Clinton is not being hurt because Sanders is in the race, and still criticizing her. She’s being hurt because he’s still winning primaries. If she was blowing him out at this point, because his supporters had all given up, then he wouldn’t matter. But the fact is, a whole lot of primary voters are still very interested in expressing the fact that they don’t want her to be the nominee … and yes, many of them do accept that it won’t matter in the end.

    Also, the idea that the Sanders campaign has nothing to gain by staying in the race is just plain wrong. One of Sanders’ primary goals has always been to change the Democratic party. The more delegates he brings to the convention, the more leverage he’ll have towards that end.

    Finally, should party leaders such as President Obama, Vice President Biden or Senator Warren endorse Clinton at this point? That would be extremely counter-productive. Many Sanders supporters are already very upset (and yes, some of them irrationally so) about DNC favoritism towards Clinton during this primary campaign. If you really want to see things blow up at the Philadelphia convention, let there even be a hint that Sanders was “forced” out of the contest before the last votes are cast in California.

    As for mending the divide when the smoke settles … Sanders has stated that he will do all he can to ensure that Trump does not get elected. That may or may not involve any sort of endorsement that Clinton supporters would deem to be acceptable.

    But the more that Clinton and her supporters continue to snipe at people whose votes they supposedly want, the less likely it is that endorsements will matter anyway … some of them will stay home purely out of spite.

  167. Pch101 says:

    @Todd:

    She’s being hurt because he’s still winning primaries.

    That doesn’t hurt Clinton. Nobody expected Clinton to win 100% of the vote.

    What hurts the party is a guy who isn’t a member of the party who makes noises that would suggest that he intends to divide a party to which he doesn’t belong. The Tea Party-style petulance is not impressive.

  168. Todd says:

    @Pch101: For the last time, it’s not about one F’ing guy … it’s about millions of people from the left side of the political spectrum who (still) do not want Hillary Clinton to be the next President.

    That’s a BIG problem for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party … and it’s one that THEY will have to figure out how to solve before November.

    Bernie Sanders may very well end up being part of the solution. But Clinton’s Democratic party is going to have to give his supporters a lot more than simply “we won, you lost, now please shut up.”

  169. Pch101 says:

    @Todd:

    You see, this how political parties work:

    -Some folks slug it out for the nomination. During that process, many unkind things may be said.
    -That slugfest ends with a convention that chooses one, and only one, nominee.
    -Following the convention, the losers lose graciously and unify behind the winner, even if they have to hold their noses.

    The petulant types who insist on either their way or the highway need to stay on the fringes where they belong. They are impossible to please and should be kicked to the curb with other members of the can’t-play-nicely-with-others club, since they can only bring headaches.

    The GOP made the mistake of getting into bed with hotheads who won’t compromise and now they’re paying for it. The Dems shouldn’t make the same mistake; they’ll pay dearly for it if they try to cozy up with the always-discontent purists who think that compromise is a dirty word.

  170. charon says:

    @Todd:

    ” … But Clinton’s Democratic party is going to have to give his supporters a lot more … “

    Which would be what? Support for single payer? Free college tuition? Bernie’s heart’s desire in the Platform?

    And if she won’t make promises she can’t keep?

    “Median voter theory” comes into play here too.

    If Bernista votes are just too hard to get, perhaps hunting ducks where the ducks are might be better – perhaps moderate voters who usually vote GOP but are uneasy about the currently available GOP choice. Or, perhaps, unmotivated centrist voters who might be energized by the right appeal.

  171. Monala says:

    @Todd:

    @Pch101: For the last time, it’s not about one F’ing guy … it’s about millions of people from the left side of the political spectrum who (still) do not want Hillary Clinton to be the next President.

    And what exactly are Clinton or the Democrats to do about that? Clinton cannot stop being herself. She can change her policies to reflect Sanders’ positions more, or do more specific outreach to Sanders’ supporters, but she is who she is. If some people on the left do not want her to be president no matter what she does, then why should she try to reach them?

  172. Mikey says:

    @Todd:

    For the last time, it’s not about one F’ing guy … it’s about millions of people from the left side of the political spectrum who (still) do not want Hillary Clinton to be the next President.

    Well, unless they prefer President Trump, there will come a point (and some of us believe it has already been reached) at which the Democrats must unify behind the presumptive nominee, which barring some Black Swan event will be Hillary Clinton.

    I voted for Sanders my state’s primary, but that was a while ago and I’ve come to understand he’s not got a snowball’s chance in an H-bomb explosion. It’s time for him to stop dealing damage to the Democrats’ opportunity to win the White House.

  173. Todd says:

    @Pch101:

    Actually, it’s usually the winners who are magnanimous and gracious … which helps the losing side to accept that they fell short, and eventually get on board.

    Right now, the Clinton campaign is being anything but magnanimous and gracious. They are clearly annoyed that Senator Sanders is still in the race … and very reluctant to make any concessions to gain his support.

    In 2008, Clinton also stayed in the race well past the time when it was fairly obvious she had no chance to be the nominee. She also continued to attack Obama well past the time when it would have made a difference. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-drop-out-election

    The difference is, Obama did not hold this against her.

  174. Todd says:

    @Monala:

    And what exactly are Clinton or the Democrats to do about that? Clinton cannot stop being herself.

    And that’s been my point all along. Democrat’s could be hurt by their refusal to acknowledge earlier on that a whole lot of voters whose support they may have been counting on might have actually been serious when they’ve been saying for years (in some cases) that there is no way they will vote for Hillary Clinton.

    It’s back to that whole electability argument from earlier in the primaries.

    @charon:

    perhaps hunting ducks where the ducks are might be better – perhaps moderate voters who usually vote GOP but are uneasy about the currently available GOP choice. Or, perhaps, unmotivated centrist voters who might be energized by the right appeal

    That idea will ensure that down ballot Democrats will suffer too. Hillary Clinton is not going to win the election by trying to go after Republican votes.

    What’s really scary is that some of you still won’t admit that there’s a chance she might not win the election at all … no matter what type of voters she tries to attract.

  175. Pch101 says:

    @Todd:

    The Democrats don’t trust Sanders because he isn’t a Democrat. I can’t say that I blame them.

    Clinton was ultimately a party loyalist and could be expected to come around, in spite of the rhetoric. In contrast, Sanders has no apparent loyalty and it appears that he may want to pull a Nader. Hence, the concern.

  176. charon says:

    @Todd:

    That idea will ensure that down ballot Democrats will suffer too. Hillary Clinton is not going to win the election by trying to go after Republican votes.

    Not necessarily, depends how she does it. There do exist actual swing voters, I am not talking about real GOP issues. I give the lady credit for actually understanding how politics works, she has been at it quite a while now.

  177. Jen says:

    @Todd: You seem to be basing much of your argument on the assumption that the majority of people who are voting for Sanders are doing so only because they hate Clinton.

    While I’m sure there are quite a few who fit that description, it is not by any means all of them. Many, many of my friends are pro-Sanders because they like his ideas (primarily single payer, but some of them are also keen on his free college idea as they have kids nearing that age…), not because they hate Clinton. In fact, some of them are rather appalled at the tone his campaign has taken as of late. They will happily vote for her in the general election (albeit somewhat less happily than they would have for Sanders) because they find the idea of a President Trump utterly horrifying.

    These are anecdotes, of course–we don’t really know what percentage of Sanders’ overall vote total is “I love him but she’s fine too” versus the “Bern it down” group.

    The one thing that I think is beyond argument at this point is that he is doing damage to the Democratic Party.

    Not just the presumptive nominee. The Party itself. And to him, this seems to be a feature not a bug.

    And that is the rub at this stage in the game. He seems to think that being combative will earn him a seat at the reform table. It might–heck, it probably will. But I think it is entirely fair to ask how much support from them he thinks he’s going to get when he’s been tearing them down –ever increasingly–rather than understanding the potential damage he’s doing to the party when they need to be at full strength.

    I have no problem at all with Sanders staying in the race and continuing to collect as many delegates as he can. What I do take issue with is the rhetoric and tone that is focused on the process, rather than issues. What started as a message campaign is now fueled it seems by spite, and that will detract from his ability to make the changes he has said are important to him.

  178. Moosebreath says:

    @Jen:

    “The one thing that I think is beyond argument at this point is that he is doing damage to the Democratic Party.

    Not just the presumptive nominee. The Party itself. And to him, this seems to be a feature not a bug.”

    This!!!!

  179. KM says:

    @Todd:

    Actually, it’s usually the winners who are magnanimous and gracious … which helps the losing side to accept that they fell short, and eventually get on board.

    There’s such a thing as a graceful loser as well, which Bernie and his supporters are certainly NOT being. You keep attributing all this negative attitude towards Hillary but absolve Sanders that same. Sanders is shedding supporters daily with angry behaviors and the increasingly odd accusations like deliberately scheduling elections during graduations. Because every college in the state graduates on exactly the same day, you know. It’s not like these things were decided well ahead of time – nope, disenfranchisement!!! Keeping the independents down (little I of course since big I indicates a separate political party altogether).

    If you are expecting concessions, here’s a helpful hint: stop acting like you’re standing in a puddle of gasoline and screaming “I’ll do it!!!” with a lit match. The word concession implies negotiation, not hostage taking. The more acrimonious this gets, the more likely a cold shoulder awaits at the convention. Sanders supporters are making the same assumption many on OTB are: namely, that we need them for her to win. Hillary might have better luck fishing in the disaffected GOP pond then if then waiting for the poisoned primary waters to clear. At the very least, if she can get people like Doug and James to sit it out (if not pull the lever), it might come out a wash. There’s not nearly as many as they think there are, simply because when facing the rock or the hard place, you take the devil you know.

  180. KM says:

    @Jen:

    You seem to be basing much of your argument on the assumption that the majority of people who are voting for Sanders are doing so only because they hate Clinton.

    Not only that, his argument is that they hate her so f’cking much they’ll go Trump or 3rd party just for spite. While these people certainly exist and will totally go R this year, they are not the majority of the Sanders camp by a long shot. Because her Arrogance somehow is worse then Trump’s means they gladly take the guy who’s 180 on so many of their cause de jour. I mean, it’s not like he was in the business of making you pay for college or anything….

    I do believe the Hater BernieBros will be quite shocked in the next few months when their fellow revolutionaries start talking about Hillary’s policies and how she’s not so bad. The Facebook and Twitter blocking will be epic. Even if he goes full Nader, their numbers will dwindle from those who remember what happened with Perot et all to those who take a look at the number and realize it ain’t gonna happen. There’s going to be an large attrition rate; any gains will likely come from Trumpkins who want a saner version. The loss will be hurtful but it may not be a fatal wound to the Dems.

  181. PJ says:

    @Todd:

    First off accepting the reality that barring unforeseen circumstances Clinton will be the nominee, is not the same as endorsing the idea that Bernie Sanders should get out of the race now due to that reality.

    Did I say anything about Sanders getting out of the race? No, I didn’t.

    My question is quite simple, who should be responsible for mending Sanders’ scorched earth tactics? Sanders or Clinton?

    But, from your answer, I’m getting the idea that you think it should be Clinton. But please correct me if I’m wrong.

  182. PJ says:

    Getting down votes, but no replies from any Sanders supporters other than Todd. And I really didn’t get an answer from Todd.

    I guess I gets harder and harder to being able to argue the point that Clinton should be the one to mend things, so his supporters just down vote…

  183. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @michael reynolds:

    The question possibly should be “who in their right mind cares one whit about passive aggressive voting on an internet forum?”

  184. wr says:

    @Todd: I agree with you about the mistakes of the Democratic party. Howard Dean was the best thing that ever happened to the party, and they threw out most of his playbook when he stepped down from the DNC.

    I simply don’t agree that an attitude of smug superiority is going to get liberals anywhere. This will come as a surprise to some Bernie voters — maybe even you — but many of us supporting Hillary agree with their goals. We just don’t see a path to getting them leading through his candidacy.

    I’d guess most Bernie supporters see themselves as passionate advocate. I’d guess that many Hillary supporters see themselves as pragmatists. And that’s great — the party needs both.

    What we don’t need is those who fancy themselves so morally exquisite that they will vote for someone they believe to be a monster if they can’t have their first choice just to teach everyone else a lesson. Not much of a surprise to me that those who threaten this are the ones who are least likely to be hurt under a Trump presidency — young, educated and white.

  185. wr says:

    @Todd: “But the more that Clinton and her supporters continue to snipe at people whose votes they supposedly want, the less likely it is that endorsements will matter anyway … some of them will stay home purely out of spite”

    It’s a political campaign. You keep treating it like it’s a third-grade softball game and everyone picks their team primarily on who was nice to them at recess.

    Maybe this is your approach to politics, but I don’t think that most people take it this personally. What you keep describing is pure narcissism. “I give my vote to whichever candidate has nicer voters.” Do these people you keep hearing this from care about the country at all, or is their commitment to politics simply about making themselves feel good?

  186. wr says:

    @Todd: “What’s really scary is that some of you still won’t admit that there’s a chance she might not win the election at all … no matter what type of voters she tries to attract.”

    I am so sick of this straw man. We get it from you, from Reynolds, from Baby Jenos… I haven’t heard anyone deny there’s a chance Trump could win. Everyone who isn’t supporting him is horrified at the notion and planning to work to make sure it doesn’t happen.

  187. Todd says:

    This post from TPM gives a little more context to the 2008 comparison. BLUF: calm down, he probably will concede and work to bring the party together, we’re just not at that point yet.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/riding-the-tiger

  188. Todd says:

    @PJ:

    My question is quite simple, who should be responsible for mending Sanders’ scorched earth tactics? Sanders or Clinton?

    But, from your answer, I’m getting the idea that you think it should be Clinton. But please correct me if I’m wrong.

    Ultimately it’s Clinton who will need to bring Sanders supporters around … although Sanders being on board will likely be a necessity. Contra Jen’s point above, a substantial percentage of the Bernie vote is actually a good deal anti-Clinton. He will not be able to just snap his fingers and have people change their minds. The sincere reaching out is ultimately going to come from her.

    … although I do also concede that at some point the Clinton campaign may make the rational decision that nothing she can say will be “good enough”, so reaching out is just not worth it.

  189. An Interested Party says:

    …he probably will concede and work to bring the party together, we’re just not at that point yet.

    We can only hope…

    Meanwhile, and I don’t mean this with any snark or malice…any liberal/progressive who is now for Sanders…how could they logically not vote for Clinton and/or vote for Trump? Do they think that Trump and a Republican Congress will do anything to help the progressive cause…

  190. Jen says:

    @Todd:

    a substantial percentage of the Bernie vote is actually a good deal anti-Clinton.

    Is this data, or supposition? I’d love to see a link to any (validated, reasonably scientific) evidence of this. I’ve acknowledged that my statement was based on what I’ve been seeing among my friends and acquaintances, and not data–because I haven’t seen any valid breakdown of this.

  191. Todd says:

    @Jen: Admittedly anecdotal. I know a lot of Sanders supporters, and as much as I get taunted here, of my group of (left-leaning) friends, I’m probably the most likely to eventually vote for Hillary Clinton anyway.

  192. Jen says:

    @Todd: Gottcha.

    As you can imagine, being in NH with many of my friends from NH and VT, I know a lot of Sanders supporters too. But my friends/acquaintances are predominantly females–so even though they’d prefer Sanders, they understand fully well that a Pres. Clinton is going to be better for them and their issues than a Pres. Trump. Thus the “I’ll vote for her if I can’t have Sanders” mindset that I’m seeing. I can only think of one female friend who is a Sanders supporter who, at this stage, has said that she refuses to vote for Clinton (and no, she won’t vote for Trump, she hates him even more).

    I’d really like to see an actual study/breakdown of this post-election. My completely unscientific gut tells me that those who are currently Sanders supporters who are also vehemently anti-Clinton will weigh heavily to young-ish white males (20-34).

  193. Todd says:

    @Jen: Actually, my friends who are most vehemently anti-Clinton tend to be female … but yes, otherwise your point is well taken.

    As I said in my long original comment, most left-leaning voters will likely end up voting for Clinton in the end. However, their (the candidate’s) actions will matter.

    If Clinton does try to “tack to the center” and crafts a message designed to appeal to Republicans, then some of the more extreme elements on the left will be vindicated in their (misguided) “see she’s no different from the Republicans” ideas. That may end up being the rational strategy at some point, but I personally don’t think there are enough actual “swing” voters for this to be a good idea. In 2016, even those who don’t follow politics closely do tend to lean (sometimes strong) towards one “tribe” or another.

    Trump on the other hand, won’t be hurt so much by the outrageous things he said, and certainly not by any attacks made by hapless Democrats, or the Clinton campaign. Instead, what is most likely to bring “wayward” left leaning voters “home” is his actions intended to placate more traditional Republicans. That Supreme Court list was probably worth at least a few percentage points of “I really don’t like Clinton, but damn it I really do have to vote for her” realizations. Likewise, when it comes to his Vice Presidential pick, selecting someone like say Joni Earnst will remind a lot of Sanders voters that yes, there are conservative women in U.S. politics who are much, much worse than Hillary Clinton.

    I still don’t think Hillary Clinton is the right candidate to go up against Trump. She’s too easy of a target. As much as it’s going to confound Democrats, there’s a very good chance that the more they trade barbs, the more effective he will be in driving her unpopularity, while ending up seemingly immune to her attacks. But that ship has sailed, she’s the one we have to pin our hopes on I guess. Fingers crossed, I think we are going to need all the “luck” we can get.