Pledged Delegates can change their minds, that is the beauty and the ONLY good thing about the way our elections work. Clinton has done nothing BUT change her platform, one day, one week, one month - change after change after change. And WHY? Because of the power of the truth from Bernie Sanders and the ethics of his backers, his true democratic group of voters who stand with him due to DECADES LONG PLATFORM stances which are true to Working Class, Seniors, Students in this country. HE has been honest with The People. She Changes Her Mind Every Other Day, and SPEAKS out of both sides of her mouth, in order to win and keep that so-called Black WALL of loyalty. Why are people loyal to her? I cannot understand that kind of blind, don't bother to look at the policies that have HURT YOU thinking. This is what we KNOW about the GOP - loyal to their Party Leaders to a FAULT, hurting themselves over and over. The same thing is happening in parts of the democratic voting population, and it is not based upon the historical facts. It IGNORES the facts of what her policies, votes and beliefs have done to their very own lives, their families, their OPTIONS in this country. Morgan Freeman-- what the heck are you thinking? This is a moment of the biggest lack of thought I've ever seen coming from you. You really disappoint me.
6
If the super delegates use their votes to take the nomination away from Bernie, I'll vote for Trump in protest. The DNC needs to do away with the rule that lets office holders vote as super delegates. Unfair things like this keep me as an Independent.
7
Let us not forget. Millions of voters invested money in Sanders and they want a return on their investment, like Goldman Sachs etc. expect a return on their investments of "hospitality" towards the Clinton Campaign, the Clinton Foundation, The Clinton dynasty.
6
In every debate Bernie keeps harping on the fact that Hillary voted in favor of the Iraq war and he didn't. A lot Congressmen voted for the war. The congress and the nation were lied to by the Bush administration and were duped into believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. She, like everyone else, was misled. If it had turned out that Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction, Bernie would have been on the wrong side of history. Bernie didn't have special knowledge that no one else had. He really didn't care about the weapons issue - it had nothing to do with his vote. He simply voted against the war because it violated his anti-war principles. Throwing the vote into Hillary's face - with the 20-20 vision of hindsight - is a cheap shot and a red herring.
3
That incorrect vote by Hillary Clinton, in favor of George Bush's Oedipal war against his father's would-be assassin, is a career-defining moment for Ms. Clinton, a political act that can no more be taken back than can the lives (or limbs, or in many cases normal mental and psychological functionality ) needlessly lost be restored. Yes in many respects it could have gone the other way, but in government you live with your actions and choices, just as others must live and die by your votes whole in office. Those that vote correctly are entitled to credit for their good decisions, and those on the wrong side carry it on their record as permanent "fair game," no matter how much time elapses. When the damage is undone, the record is expunged or off the table.
2
Well I guess a man standing up for his principles in the face of fervent criticism means nothing to you eh? Well you go ahead and enjoy Hillarys hot air ride and see where that ends up landing.
7
We the people knew the 'cry for war' was a hoax. Bush I lied his way into the first Gulf war with the Nayirah hoax and Bush II picked up where he left off.
Hillary knew and every Congress member knew. They knew and most went along with it. especially if they had presidential ambitions (Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Clinton, Lieberman).
Only Senator Sanders had the moral courage to know it was unnecessary and to vote against it.
Hillary knew and every Congress member knew. They knew and most went along with it. especially if they had presidential ambitions (Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Clinton, Lieberman).
Only Senator Sanders had the moral courage to know it was unnecessary and to vote against it.
8
I am a life long Democrat and I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. Unlike Bernie Sanders, she doesn't care about the good of average Americans. The United States is at a critical crossroads with the chance to elect a social democrat who can help make the long over due changes we need in education, healthcare and the financial sector. Hillary Clinton is the past; Bernie Sanders is the future.
17
A 75 year old ex hippie socialist who can't attract minorities is not the future.
He's a recipe for disaster for the Democrats.
You don't like Hillary OK great!
Then start deciding which you're going to love more
President Trump or President Rubio
Either of them destroy Bernie in a General Election Match!
With Sec Clinton it will be the most expensive nastiest fight the Republicans have ever waged but Sec. Clinton can WIN!
He's a recipe for disaster for the Democrats.
You don't like Hillary OK great!
Then start deciding which you're going to love more
President Trump or President Rubio
Either of them destroy Bernie in a General Election Match!
With Sec Clinton it will be the most expensive nastiest fight the Republicans have ever waged but Sec. Clinton can WIN!
3
Venezuela is the future under Bernie
1
super delegates dont count, and should not be counted until july
13
The tilt towards Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders has gone beyond all acceptable boundaries. This article begins by stating that Mr Sanders is slipping significantly behind Mrs Clinton, because she has built up a vast lead in the delegate count of 502-70, including delegates won in the three state contests and the super delegates. But the reality is that the delegates won in the three contests so far are tied at 51 for each, so Mr. Sanders is hardly “slipping significantly”! Hillary’s advantage is entirely among the non-elected super-delegates of the Democratic establishment, who favour Hillary by a margin of 451 to 19. And yet this crucial lead in super-delegate which is the basis of the entire article is not mentioned until much later in the article.
A day earlier, in the same vein, the front page Times story on the Nevada outcome stated that categorically in the third para that voters in many predominantly Hispanic neighbourhoods backed Mrs. Clinton. The implication was that Mrs Clinton had won the Hispanic vote, when the caucus polling in Nevada showed Mr Sanders winning this group by 8 points. A few days earlier, 16 February, a lengthy Times story headlined “Left-Leaning Economists Question Sanders Plans” stated that Mr. Sanders proposals would increase the size of the federal government by a whopping 50%. Not a single economist who believes Mr. Sanders proposals are doable was interviewed.
A day earlier, in the same vein, the front page Times story on the Nevada outcome stated that categorically in the third para that voters in many predominantly Hispanic neighbourhoods backed Mrs. Clinton. The implication was that Mrs Clinton had won the Hispanic vote, when the caucus polling in Nevada showed Mr Sanders winning this group by 8 points. A few days earlier, 16 February, a lengthy Times story headlined “Left-Leaning Economists Question Sanders Plans” stated that Mr. Sanders proposals would increase the size of the federal government by a whopping 50%. Not a single economist who believes Mr. Sanders proposals are doable was interviewed.
18
I'm disappointed that the Times has been so obtuse when it comes to evaluating the mood of the electorate in this election. Note to editors: Stop tossing your story ideas back and forth to each other in your editorial offices, forget about the polls, and go talk to real people who really vote. You'd be amazed at how many very mainstream people (previously designated as "moderates") are ready for a real political revolution, an end to Citizens United, an end to seeing the economy hollowed out, an end to obscene income inequality, and an end to endless war. Believe it or not, Bernie's support is not just a bunch of angry college kids who want free tuition.
19
Hillary will win the Nomination with more Delegates at the end before the Convention and the super Delegates vote.
1
If the popular vote goes to Bernie (as it is now 151,000 - 95,000) but the nomination goes to Hillary via super-delegates, make no mistake: the uprising in the streets will make all the marches of Occupy Wall Street look like a picnic. People are sick and tired of being disenfranchised. People are voting for Bernie because he is our only hope of restoring any semblance of democracy in this country right now. How will he do it? We are all paying attention to the local elections as well... the House is up for re-election and it's Berning.
15
I am not a Super Delegate but I have elected 21 of them . They are the Chair & Vice Chair Of the California Democratic Party & our 19 DNC members. Any registered California Democrat can run to be a DNC member. We are now in the midst of the election for the next group of DNC Members(Super Delegates for 2020). We will elect them in June- 20 this time(10 men,10 women) then we will have state party officer elections in the Spring of 2017. Other states have similar processes & procedures.
I do not understand.
Politico says the delegate count today is
Clinton 52 Sanders 51
The NY Times page A1 says the delegate count is
Clinton 502 Sanders 70
You may notice there is a difference. Any idea why?
Duane Campbell
Politico says the delegate count today is
Clinton 52 Sanders 51
The NY Times page A1 says the delegate count is
Clinton 502 Sanders 70
You may notice there is a difference. Any idea why?
Duane Campbell
11
Progressives might have to look to the future for inspiration. If this becomes a brokered convention for Hillary, progressives will abandon the party in November and republicans will win. It has to be that way, so next time they won't do it again. The Democratic establishment will no longer take its core for granted after that.
12
If this primary is decided by super delegates, I may vote third party.
10
Great idea.
1
The delegate counts are even. 100% even at the moment. Whoever wins the popular vote will win the nomination. Stop trying to sell this moronic idea that the Superdelegates are going to be the determining factor in this race.
If the Superdelegates vote against the Will of the People and tip the scales, installing Queen Hillary the First, half of Bernie supporters will stay home and a good number (myself included) will vote for whoever the GOP nominates. Let's see how well that works for them.
If the Superdelegates vote against the Will of the People and tip the scales, installing Queen Hillary the First, half of Bernie supporters will stay home and a good number (myself included) will vote for whoever the GOP nominates. Let's see how well that works for them.
13
What this is saying, is that the nominating process for the Democratic party isn't really that democratic after all, especially considering the super delegate process, where nobody but the insider elites count.
19
Please someone- explain these numbers to this dumb Democrat: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina= 500+ Delegates for Hillary Clinton?
10
Why doesn't Hillary Clinton release the transcripts of the speeches she made to Wall Street? This smells like Mitt Romney's refusal to release his Tax Returns. What is she hiding? What is so damaging to her campaign? Press her to reveal those transcripts so that the Democratic voters can determine how transparent and truthful she really is.
20
If a judge had Clinton's level of financial attachment to Wall Street - between her and her husband receiving $100 million from firms over the years in financial contributions, the judge would have to recuse her or himself from any proceeding because of compromised impartiality. From her track record, receiving $600,000 from Goldman Sachs for 3 speeches after being Secretary of State, we must conclude she would be getting many millions after being president. Can she be the peoples' advocate? Is there no conflict of interest?
13
Jokes on them because the youth vote isn't showing up in November if Bernie doesn't win so they're effectively giving Trump more ground. We are jaded with this process and we are jaded with these type of candidates we will simply opt out and you all can deal with the aftermath.
16
I am so disappointed that the NY Times has stooped to the level of Fox News in its determination to dismiss Bernie Sanders and tell everyone they are stuck with accepting Hillary Clinton as the lesser evil to Donald Trump.
If the Times continues to disenfranchise Sanders' voters, those voters just might feel that there is no reason to vote. The fix is in either way.
The Times could very well bring on a Trump presidency if they don't change their ways.
If the Times continues to disenfranchise Sanders' voters, those voters just might feel that there is no reason to vote. The fix is in either way.
The Times could very well bring on a Trump presidency if they don't change their ways.
28
Thank you for saying it.
18
The irony here is that Sanders is actually MORE likely than Hillary to be able to beat each and every one of the possible Republicans -- and this is based on objective national polling data, across multiple polling firms, consistently over several months of polling.
While either Democrat would beat Trump, Hillary is likely to lose against Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich, according to these "head to head" polls. Sanders, on the other hand, is very likely to beat Rubio, Cruz and Kasich, if the national election were held now.
You can view the poll results on RealClearpolitics.com:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential...
While either Democrat would beat Trump, Hillary is likely to lose against Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich, according to these "head to head" polls. Sanders, on the other hand, is very likely to beat Rubio, Cruz and Kasich, if the national election were held now.
You can view the poll results on RealClearpolitics.com:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential...
20
Once again: Bernie has not had any negative or oppositional research propaganda shown 24/7 on Fox News yet or anybody running negative ads against him. Independents (and even many dems) watch Fox News and they (Fox) have steered clear of Sander's to keep his positives up and negatives down. Clinton has treated Sander's largely with kid gloves. Those poll numbers you sight will be completely different once somebody runs a general election campaign against Sander's.
2
I'm in total agreement.
The DEM political Establishment, along with the media Establishment may very well be stomping for a spoiler, hoping for the return of the Clintons.
The DEM political Establishment, along with the media Establishment may very well be stomping for a spoiler, hoping for the return of the Clintons.
The analysis is very good. And it is very unfortunate.
This piece and comments by readers indicate a disjuncture that is very characteristic for this country today. It is a disjuncture between heart and mind. The author's calculations are convincing but I am still unconvinced. I wonder if his heart is in the right place. And it is a sad commentary on America today.
This country was not built on calculations. Who could calculate at the beginning of the American Revolution that this country would become independent? Those who inspired and led the Civil Rights movement in this country also did not do so because they calculated its success. No, they did it because that’s where their heart was. Both the leaders of the American Revolution and the leaders of the Civil Rights movement were dreamers. Of course they did their calculations but they did not do what they did because of their calculations. Their heart AND their mind were in the right place. Unfortunately, I do not see this connection in America of today.
Has this country that was founded on a dream stopped dreaming? Can it still imagine a new future? These are key questions in my view. The future of this country depends on how we answer these questions.
This piece and comments by readers indicate a disjuncture that is very characteristic for this country today. It is a disjuncture between heart and mind. The author's calculations are convincing but I am still unconvinced. I wonder if his heart is in the right place. And it is a sad commentary on America today.
This country was not built on calculations. Who could calculate at the beginning of the American Revolution that this country would become independent? Those who inspired and led the Civil Rights movement in this country also did not do so because they calculated its success. No, they did it because that’s where their heart was. Both the leaders of the American Revolution and the leaders of the Civil Rights movement were dreamers. Of course they did their calculations but they did not do what they did because of their calculations. Their heart AND their mind were in the right place. Unfortunately, I do not see this connection in America of today.
Has this country that was founded on a dream stopped dreaming? Can it still imagine a new future? These are key questions in my view. The future of this country depends on how we answer these questions.
9
How misleading of the author to include the super-delegates in that count when informed individuals know that those votes are fluid. All in all, Clinton and Sanders have just about equal REAL delegates. This is the establishment trying to bury Sanders as usual.
31
Be young and uneducated: vote for socialism. We will discover enough oil to create a wotkers paradise
2
Democrats should not overlook how strong the ABH (Anyone But Hillary) sentiment is among both Republicans and Democrats. It is enough to bring some GOPers to vote for a candidate they don't even believe is Republican - Donald Trump. And enough to keep some Democrats home. Sanders, on the other hand, does not provoke the same strong reaction and brings a great deal of enthusiasm in from young people and independents. I believe, unlike the ABH Democrats, most of her supporters will turn out to vote for Sanders because they take the issues (not just persona) very seriously.
22
Dear deirdrepierson:
As strong as Hillary's unfavorable ratings are, second only to Trump's, she has been given an indirect gift courtesy of the Republicans. They are on the verge of nominating the biggest buffoon in Manhattan bar none. If so, even Sanders could win and so you are correct in that estimation.
I have supported Hillary since 2000 and she always fought hard and does her homework. She has the resilience of the phoenix. She already has proven she can overcome amazing odds. Whereas Sanders, in his forty years in government, has produced very little legislation, but is beloved in the Green Mountain state. This contest is in fact the hardest campaign he's run and I believe his Last Hurrah. Imagine the Clintons will be more than happy make him an offer he can't refuse to go third party.
No matter what occurs, 2016 has the promise of becoming even more of a silly season than the norm. That says a mouthful.
DD
Manhattan
As strong as Hillary's unfavorable ratings are, second only to Trump's, she has been given an indirect gift courtesy of the Republicans. They are on the verge of nominating the biggest buffoon in Manhattan bar none. If so, even Sanders could win and so you are correct in that estimation.
I have supported Hillary since 2000 and she always fought hard and does her homework. She has the resilience of the phoenix. She already has proven she can overcome amazing odds. Whereas Sanders, in his forty years in government, has produced very little legislation, but is beloved in the Green Mountain state. This contest is in fact the hardest campaign he's run and I believe his Last Hurrah. Imagine the Clintons will be more than happy make him an offer he can't refuse to go third party.
No matter what occurs, 2016 has the promise of becoming even more of a silly season than the norm. That says a mouthful.
DD
Manhattan
3
Dennis,
Imagine Bernie Sanders accepting this offer by the Clintons "that he can't refuse" to go third party (something Sen. Sanders has already said he would not do).
Now, think of the number of votes that would be pulled away from the democratic candidate by such a third party candidate.
Yeah. Ooops!
Imagine Bernie Sanders accepting this offer by the Clintons "that he can't refuse" to go third party (something Sen. Sanders has already said he would not do).
Now, think of the number of votes that would be pulled away from the democratic candidate by such a third party candidate.
Yeah. Ooops!
3
As an older Baby Boomer and a Sanders supporter from way back, I can tell you that there's a lot more to Bernie than you give him credit for - you may not consider "amendments" to bills as relevant, but he got in many of them and was able to build bipartisan coalitions to change the direction of several laws. He didn't get the moniker "The Amendment King" for nothing. Here are just three examples: Getting Tough On Child Labor (July 2001): A Sanders amendment to the general appropriations bill prohibited the importation of goods made with child labor. 2. Protecting Our Troops (October 2007): Sanders used an amendment to win $10 million for operation and maintenance of the Army National Guard, which had been stretched thin and overextended by the war in Iraq. 3. Fighting Corporate Welfare and Protecting Against Nuclear Disasters (June 2005): A Sanders amendment brought together a bipartisan coalition that outnumbered a bipartisan coalition on the other side to successfully prohibit the Export-Import Bank from providing loans for nuclear projects in China. Take a close look at these and many more.
As far as Trump goes, I agree with you. Hopefully the American public will wake up and smell the roses rather than the stench of a Donald Trump whose misogyny, racism and lack of presidential social skills will lead us down the path to World War III with the rest of the world.
As far as Trump goes, I agree with you. Hopefully the American public will wake up and smell the roses rather than the stench of a Donald Trump whose misogyny, racism and lack of presidential social skills will lead us down the path to World War III with the rest of the world.
9
If Sanders dislikes the Democratic party so much, why did he join the Democratic party just as he announced his candidacy ?
He should definitely run under a party whose rules he approves of.
As should Trump.
If these "anti-establishment" types want to come off as something other than complete hypocrites, they ought to stop mooching off the establishment and then biting the hand that feeds them.
He should definitely run under a party whose rules he approves of.
As should Trump.
If these "anti-establishment" types want to come off as something other than complete hypocrites, they ought to stop mooching off the establishment and then biting the hand that feeds them.
4
Had Sanders run as an independent it would have been much, much worse for Clinton. What he did was to the benefit of Clinton and to the benefit of the DNC. If he ran as an independent, Clinton would not have a chance.
5
If the party did not view Sanders as a legitimate contender for the nomination, they should have been more honest about that to begin with.
I understand the DNC's frustration. The Clintons have legitimately done a LOT of work (and, yes, raised a LOT of money) to build the Democratic machine for 2016. I get that the Clintons in general and Hillary in particular have worked hard for the party, and have had to withstand countless political and public attacks.
But Sanders does not have the baggage that Hillary has, and make no mistake she will withstand the most withering attacks in living memory. Sanders? Little personal baggage and the more they hammer away at the "socialist" label the sillier they look. People actually LIKE Sanders, and in head-to-head polling he has repeatedly done better than Hillary has.
By a lot of measures, Bernie seems more electable than Hillary, and the party should bear that in mind. Barring that, they should come clean and tell him he never was welcome in this race.
I understand the DNC's frustration. The Clintons have legitimately done a LOT of work (and, yes, raised a LOT of money) to build the Democratic machine for 2016. I get that the Clintons in general and Hillary in particular have worked hard for the party, and have had to withstand countless political and public attacks.
But Sanders does not have the baggage that Hillary has, and make no mistake she will withstand the most withering attacks in living memory. Sanders? Little personal baggage and the more they hammer away at the "socialist" label the sillier they look. People actually LIKE Sanders, and in head-to-head polling he has repeatedly done better than Hillary has.
By a lot of measures, Bernie seems more electable than Hillary, and the party should bear that in mind. Barring that, they should come clean and tell him he never was welcome in this race.
4
The Republicans have been withholding their attacks on Sanders so far but they are surfacing some. He has plenty of personal baggage such as his two marriages with his second honeymoon in the USSR, his son by a woman to whom he never married, his sell out to gun manufacturers (and many other pro gun votes such as in National Parks, against trigger locks, in DC, multiple votes against the Brady Background bill, etc.) Republicans would love to have Sanders as a candidate, to the point that they have been actively supporting him.
2
Maybe include a link to your editorial http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/opinion/superdelegates-clarify-your-ro... . So that readers of this articles don't get the wrong impression...
2
The only way we can hold these delegates accountable, including the super delegates, is to publish, and widely disseminate their names, and addresses.
Anyone? Anyone, please help in the cause of a democratically elected President, untouched by the stain of corrupted voting processes!
Anyone? Anyone, please help in the cause of a democratically elected President, untouched by the stain of corrupted voting processes!
5
Um, OK, you imagine they are not proud of who they are? Addresses? Orwellian much? This process has been in place for decades. Where was your outrage then? Please step away from the Kool-Aid.
6
The Super Delegates were needed in 2008 because neither candidate had enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright. That won't be the case this year. Hillary will easily win SC and the rest of the SEC states. Sanders will pick up some delegates along the way particularly in VT, probably MA and in the caucus states. Still, it won't be enough to surpass Hillary. 2016 won't be a repeat of 2008.
6
Careful, you just put forth a rational, odds-on argument. Bernie folk are gonna pummel you!
4
M-
I'd like to ask you to bring the level of condescension down a notch, please and thank you. Are you here to agitate the other side, or are you here to convince them you have the right ideas? You said to me earlier that we need someone who is electable come November. Neither of our candidates will be electable without the other's base coming along post-nomination.
Peace
I'd like to ask you to bring the level of condescension down a notch, please and thank you. Are you here to agitate the other side, or are you here to convince them you have the right ideas? You said to me earlier that we need someone who is electable come November. Neither of our candidates will be electable without the other's base coming along post-nomination.
Peace
3
I read in the LA Times today that Bernie's supporters there are organizing a huge May Day rally there, something which I haven't seen mentioned in this publication, but I will admit I missed it. I've started reading newspapers around the country to get out of the east coast echo chamber. It's interesting to see how the race is viewed in different parts of the country.
Also, I'm still waiting to read a mention in this paper of Clinton's CBS interview in which she told Scott Pelley with a straight face: "I don't believe I've ever lied to the American people....I never will lie to the American people." (I'd like to read the commentariat thoughts on that one.) I guess it all depends on what your definition of "misspeak" is. Of course, it's worse that Pelley let her get away with it.
Also, I'm still waiting to read a mention in this paper of Clinton's CBS interview in which she told Scott Pelley with a straight face: "I don't believe I've ever lied to the American people....I never will lie to the American people." (I'd like to read the commentariat thoughts on that one.) I guess it all depends on what your definition of "misspeak" is. Of course, it's worse that Pelley let her get away with it.
21
Well, Margaret, here's your big chance: what lies? Go ahead:
4
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/mar/25/hillary-c...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hillary.asp
And here's a whole list:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byrul...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hillary.asp
And here's a whole list:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byrul...
3
M, First, refusing to disclose the content of paid speaking engagements doesn't speak well to Clinton's honesty or transparency. Especially when they include six figure payouts from Citi-group, Lehman brothers and a long, long list, that google can help you find, of the folks that brought about financial catastrophe to our nation, and also gave funds to the Clinton Foundation.
But more importantly, her lies in relation to the FBI investigation (...s three actually) that is ongoing and looming. I've been voting since 1988 and can't remember a presidential candidate that had that amount of heat on them from a federal bureau. Clearly we don't really know, but it seems that organization doesn't play around.
But more importantly, her lies in relation to the FBI investigation (...s three actually) that is ongoing and looming. I've been voting since 1988 and can't remember a presidential candidate that had that amount of heat on them from a federal bureau. Clearly we don't really know, but it seems that organization doesn't play around.
8
The only reason Sanders is behind is that Clinton started with a huge lead that was given to her by the establishment. If we only counted those of us for whom one vote doesn't equal one delegate, Sanders would probably be the stronger candidate (between delegate counts and fund raising).
Super delegates should be banned.
Super delegates should be banned.
27
How does one "start with a huge lead" You think she did something "wrong"? "Given to her by the establishment" Please expound. You make it all sound like Clinton did something outside the norms. Did she? What was that? How is it different to always? Clinton did not create the superdelegate process. She didn't. Not one bit.
5
Bernie is a fool for thinking he could win against the DNC, DWS and the Clintons. He will never see the nomination because the system is rigged to nominate who the party insiders consider the "best" candidate. The voters are tools in thinking they somehow matter.
4
Bernie is still not even a democrat. The ultimate opportunist. Pulling the wool over fewer and fewer eyes as time goes on. Sorry you got suckered in.
4
One person's opportunist is another person's realist. A gallup poll in 2015 says 43% of Americans identify as independent. Nobody gets elected outside of the parties and everyone knows it. Independents who tend to vote Democrat know just as well as the Democrats who are voted in by Independents that they both rely one another to succeed in this political landscape. That's the reality.
Peace
Peace
3
I am sympathetic to Sanders' supporters but before you call for Clinton's head let's remember that this is not a system she created and that when she ran against Obama she initially had the support of more superdelegates. They remain uncommitted until the convention and would likely follow the lead of the people. Have superdelegetes ever contradicted the popular vote? If not, let's all clam down.
9
We call for her head because her #1 adviser signed NAFTA, which she personally went to bat for, and deregulated Wall Street. The US can't afford another Clinton as Pres.
19
Jim. Sigh. Much simplistic revisionism and condensing of history.
3
I am really not surprised that Hillary is bubbling to the top of the Democratic cesspool. She is clearly the most qualified of any of the candidates. Bernie has been in government for 25 years and has nothing to show for it. His message is attractive but he could never deliver. He has no network and virtually no endorsements. Wake up you feel the Bern people or you will end up with Trump as your president!
6
"Democratic cesspool"? Clearly you are anti-Democrat, and you are encouraging Democrats to vote for Hillary. Not really surprising, given that she is showing up in polls as the Unelectable One. Far too clever.
5
What has Hillary ever delivered apart from the war in Iraq, the WS crash when she was senator and Benghazi when she was secretary of state?
14
As Senator, Hillary sponsored three bills over eight years:
1. designated a landmark
2. Named a highway
....wait for it....
3. Named a post office!
She sure does get things done!
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jun/23/jeb-bush/did-hi...
1. designated a landmark
2. Named a highway
....wait for it....
3. Named a post office!
She sure does get things done!
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jun/23/jeb-bush/did-hi...
5
So Sanders supporters are outraged...about what? These posts are absurd. Are you sure you understand how this all works, because Obama and Bill Clinton seemed to do fine. Maybe...just maybe, it's Sanders who isn't going to be the nominee because he isn't making sense when you get past the endlessly repeated talking points. Hillary is really a highly competent, experienced candidate who gets why being closer to the middle than the far left is how democracy works best when opinions differ.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
15
Ditto, this time the Clintons did not leave the outcome in doubt. The stacked the deck on the executive committee. They hand picked the super delegates. So Bernie supporters take your loss in stride and make sure you show up to vote in November and vote for the candidate that makes $675,000 an hour from Wall Street. I m sure as a communist Bernie understands that Democracy only works when you vote for the right candidate.
2
Hillary supporters need to consider what happens if she is indicted for her crime of mishandling classified documents. Is that an impeachable offense? I'm quite sure the Republicans would think so. Does the country really need that distraction?
11
Dear jacobi:
I am sure that every thing Hillary does as president, as has been the case with President Obama, will come under the scrutiny of the Republicans as an impeachable offense. The real offense is Republicans who have gone off the deep end, so filled with righteous indignation that they will continue to obstruct with abandon.
Hillary has said indictment or not she will continue her quest. Republicans already have the obstruction of a Supreme Court Justice in the works, along with the impending doom of Trump becoming their nominee. If they want to add a third strike and your out to end their scoreless inning this lifelong Dems urges them on: have-at-it.
DD
Manhattan
I am sure that every thing Hillary does as president, as has been the case with President Obama, will come under the scrutiny of the Republicans as an impeachable offense. The real offense is Republicans who have gone off the deep end, so filled with righteous indignation that they will continue to obstruct with abandon.
Hillary has said indictment or not she will continue her quest. Republicans already have the obstruction of a Supreme Court Justice in the works, along with the impending doom of Trump becoming their nominee. If they want to add a third strike and your out to end their scoreless inning this lifelong Dems urges them on: have-at-it.
DD
Manhattan
10
1. Geez, boys and girls, learn the rules before you play.
2. When the Right throws words like, "lib'ral," or "leftist," or "socialist," around, it's genrally a stupid insult and attack. When somebody calls Bernie Sanders a socialist, it's a description. For pete's sake, that's what HE says!
3. One wonders who people think get helped by the loud screams about conspiracy, attacka on the DNC, and vows ne'er to vote unless you get what you want.
2. When the Right throws words like, "lib'ral," or "leftist," or "socialist," around, it's genrally a stupid insult and attack. When somebody calls Bernie Sanders a socialist, it's a description. For pete's sake, that's what HE says!
3. One wonders who people think get helped by the loud screams about conspiracy, attacka on the DNC, and vows ne'er to vote unless you get what you want.
6
He does not refer to himself as a socialist. He refers to himself as a democratic socialist. There is a difference.
10
Public Education
City Fire Departments
City, State, and Federal Policing Departments
Unemployment Insurance
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Central Intelligence Agency
Social Security Administration
Etc.
To name a few, what are these entities, that we take for granted? They are Socialistic Institutions of our local, state, and federal governments.
City Fire Departments
City, State, and Federal Policing Departments
Unemployment Insurance
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Central Intelligence Agency
Social Security Administration
Etc.
To name a few, what are these entities, that we take for granted? They are Socialistic Institutions of our local, state, and federal governments.
7
If there's a difference, how come no one including Bernie can explain the difference?
2
To those complaining that the system is rigged, I suggest that you start from the ground up with your state legislatures. Unless most state legislatures are controlled by the Democrats after 2010, congressional districts will remain gerrymandered and your outrage will have been completely ineffective. The Oregon house and senate are currently controlled by Democrats and four of the five US house seats are held by Democrats, not to mention, both Senate seats.
9
The dream of the 90s is alive in Portland!
2
Pak you live in utopia compared to NJ, one of the most hopelessly corrupt states in our country. It makes no difference here whether a democrat or a republican is in office. You think you are voting for someone who represents the interests of the majority of the state's citizens but it's false optimism. What an incredible disappointment it was to see Cory Booker standing on that stage with Albright and Clinton. The people lose again.
4
Hillary Clinton is an able, intelligent candidate with a foreign policy background and should be supported by all Democrats unless they want this country to fall to Cruz or Trump. The effort should be to elect a Democrat that will win the electoral votes in 50 states necessary to secure the presidency. beating Sanders is not the issue; beating the Republicans is the issue.
There is nothing new about delegates and conventions.
There is nothing new about delegates and conventions.
20
Please take another look at the polls. There is much evidence to support Sanders playing stronger than Clinton against the GOP. From realclearpolitics:
Sanders v Trump: 47.5 - 41.5
Clinton v Trump: 45.3 - 42.5
Sandes v Cruz: 45.7 - 41.0
Clinton v Cruz: 44.5 - 45.3 (LOSS)
Sanders v Rubio: 44.0 - 44.0
Clinton v Rubio: 42.8 - 47.5 (LOSS)
Peace.
Sanders v Trump: 47.5 - 41.5
Clinton v Trump: 45.3 - 42.5
Sandes v Cruz: 45.7 - 41.0
Clinton v Cruz: 44.5 - 45.3 (LOSS)
Sanders v Rubio: 44.0 - 44.0
Clinton v Rubio: 42.8 - 47.5 (LOSS)
Peace.
22
The silence from republicans about Sanders is deafening, Rather, they are lovin them some Bernie. No doubt they'd prop him up in the polls. Please don't take any comfort in it.
3
You're presumption relies on a conspiracy to inflate those polls. I can't argue against conjecture when I'm just trying to deliver the statistics. If those aren't enough though, here's another one that should reinforce my point a bit further:
Favorability Rating -
Sanders: 51%
Clinton: 38%
Look, I'm not one of those anti-Hillary types. I understand fully how important it is to keep the GOP out of the white house. I'm simply saying the idea that Hillary is more electable than Sanders is just not supported by the stats.
Peace
Favorability Rating -
Sanders: 51%
Clinton: 38%
Look, I'm not one of those anti-Hillary types. I understand fully how important it is to keep the GOP out of the white house. I'm simply saying the idea that Hillary is more electable than Sanders is just not supported by the stats.
Peace
2
Don't write off Bernie....so fast....you Healy and Charles Blow...
Just wait until Hillary gets hoisted on her own petards....i.e. published
speeches....they will be here ....way before June..
This time the steadfast runner...is going to beat that fake ..shrewish
turtle...who likes to ...cut corners ...to win the race...and cheating is
what she knows best...
Slow and steady....used to but steady...will do it in this race...wait and see
Just wait until Hillary gets hoisted on her own petards....i.e. published
speeches....they will be here ....way before June..
This time the steadfast runner...is going to beat that fake ..shrewish
turtle...who likes to ...cut corners ...to win the race...and cheating is
what she knows best...
Slow and steady....used to but steady...will do it in this race...wait and see
15
able to stop any momentum of an outsider, able to leap over the will of the people, it's super delegate! the fix is in
12
Sanders' supporters are constantly screaming unfair! when they are committing character assassination of Hillary Clinton (as opposed to considering the policies of the candidates).
To Sanders supporters: Instead of constantly attacking whoever and whatever doesn't agree with you, maybe you should take a deep breath. Obviously you really want Trump or someone to win, but politics is indeed based on votes. The swiftboating of Hillary Clinton is ongoing and a good sign is the constant character assassination.
People in the South are suspicious of a Socialist, or someone at the top of the Democratic ticket who is not a registered Democrat and therefore hasn't really supported the party's platform across the years, and someone who has unrealistic and unrealizable goals. No, of course, the Republican Congress will not support free college, universal health coverage, and Sanders' other proposals. He has had decades to make a difference in Congress, and has not been endorsed by the majority of his colleagues.
There is a reason that John Lewis, Jim Clyburn and other trusted leaders of the Civil Rights movement support Hillary Clinton: they think she is the better candidate with the right background.
I have already voted for Hillary Clinton today in early voting for Super Tuesday. She will be a brilliant and powerful president who really will get things done on behalf of women, minorities, the working class, and all Americans.
To Sanders supporters: Instead of constantly attacking whoever and whatever doesn't agree with you, maybe you should take a deep breath. Obviously you really want Trump or someone to win, but politics is indeed based on votes. The swiftboating of Hillary Clinton is ongoing and a good sign is the constant character assassination.
People in the South are suspicious of a Socialist, or someone at the top of the Democratic ticket who is not a registered Democrat and therefore hasn't really supported the party's platform across the years, and someone who has unrealistic and unrealizable goals. No, of course, the Republican Congress will not support free college, universal health coverage, and Sanders' other proposals. He has had decades to make a difference in Congress, and has not been endorsed by the majority of his colleagues.
There is a reason that John Lewis, Jim Clyburn and other trusted leaders of the Civil Rights movement support Hillary Clinton: they think she is the better candidate with the right background.
I have already voted for Hillary Clinton today in early voting for Super Tuesday. She will be a brilliant and powerful president who really will get things done on behalf of women, minorities, the working class, and all Americans.
15
Jim Clyburn was bullied by Bill Clinton several years ago. I suspect that pressure was applied once again. I will no longer think of John Lewis as standing for anything but big money, big establishment.
6
Well, that's the "conventional wisdom," but it isn't the truth.
Hillary isn't being swift boated, she's encountering the results of her own dubious ethics and unwise choices over three decades of public life.
As for getting things done for minorities, the working class and all Americans, her record suggests that's wishful thinking--a pose that hasn't had any reality to it since she and Bill were co-opted by the Democratic Leadership Council in the 1980's (Google it).
As for Feminism, ask the women Bill smeared, when the came forward to confront his womanizing throughout his political career!
Hillary thinks her Presidency is bought and paid for...but she has alienated so many people in her climb to the top, even in her own Party, that a victory in November is far from assured, even if she manages to get the nomination with the help of a well-oiled political machine.
This is not the year of conventional wisdom,or conventional politicians, so don't start counting your chickens. This is a LONG way from over!
Hillary isn't being swift boated, she's encountering the results of her own dubious ethics and unwise choices over three decades of public life.
As for getting things done for minorities, the working class and all Americans, her record suggests that's wishful thinking--a pose that hasn't had any reality to it since she and Bill were co-opted by the Democratic Leadership Council in the 1980's (Google it).
As for Feminism, ask the women Bill smeared, when the came forward to confront his womanizing throughout his political career!
Hillary thinks her Presidency is bought and paid for...but she has alienated so many people in her climb to the top, even in her own Party, that a victory in November is far from assured, even if she manages to get the nomination with the help of a well-oiled political machine.
This is not the year of conventional wisdom,or conventional politicians, so don't start counting your chickens. This is a LONG way from over!
12
People in the South are suspicious of a Socialist
Perhaps the people of the South need to hear and understand the meaning of a Democratic Socialist? If they only get their information from the Right, MSM and Talk Radio, etc. they will never understand that all this time they have been manipulated to vote against themselves. Time to hear and contemplate another side.
Perhaps the people of the South need to hear and understand the meaning of a Democratic Socialist? If they only get their information from the Right, MSM and Talk Radio, etc. they will never understand that all this time they have been manipulated to vote against themselves. Time to hear and contemplate another side.
7
Based on the logic of this article, Senator Sanders should never have even run as he was already in an insurmountable "delegate hole." And to insinuate that the delegate gap, based on a bogus system of superdelegates, somehow represents a superior strategy on the part of Mrs. Clinton is a absurd.
27
Now the evening summary states that Bernie "is far behind" Hillary in delegates. This is Fox News journalism. The actual score is 51-51. The Times should be ashamed!
36
expect honesty in reporting, this is what i received in my NYTimes email.....
"Delegate Count Leaving Bernie Sanders
With Steep Climb
By PATRICK HEALY
The delegate count in the Democratic primary shows Mr. Sanders slipping behind Hillary Clinton in the race for the nomination, and the odds of him overtaking her are growing increasingly remote. "
51 to 51
"Delegate Count Leaving Bernie Sanders
With Steep Climb
By PATRICK HEALY
The delegate count in the Democratic primary shows Mr. Sanders slipping behind Hillary Clinton in the race for the nomination, and the odds of him overtaking her are growing increasingly remote. "
51 to 51
20
The headline is very misleading. The NYT ombudsman needs to address this.
22
But what about the Super Delegates William. Are you saying they don't count as that would be great by me!
That's interesting.
I hear that they both have 51 pledged delegates.
Those sound like the important delegates to me.
What numbers are YOU guys citing to for your statements???
I hear that they both have 51 pledged delegates.
Those sound like the important delegates to me.
What numbers are YOU guys citing to for your statements???
22
Bernie was put out about Hillary taking more delegates out of New Hampshire even though he won the popular vote? It's called spreading the wealth, Bernie. If you believe in it so much, then don't complain when your "wealth" gets redistributed to more "deserving" candidates.
7
Your comment is illogical and poorly composed.
13
Bernie should be cheering the fact that the central planners in the DNC are redistributing delegates according to their idea of fair. Surely Bernie doesn't think he can keep those delegates because he earned them!
4
William, the truth hurts
It seems dishonest to cast Clinton as the overwhelming leader when she and Sanders are exactly tied at 51-51 on delegates.
Who are "superdelegates" aside from party insiders who REALLY get to choose the nominee?
Who are "superdelegates" aside from party insiders who REALLY get to choose the nominee?
24
I'm a middle-aged feminist and I will burn off my own arm before I vote for Hillary Clinton. The way the Democratic elite have shoved this unpopular, mediocre, Wall-Street-appeasing non-entity down our throats makes me sick. And they are going to be sorry. They are making one of the worst political mistakes in history. If they manage by super-delegate trickery to make her the Democratic nominee (and that's by no means certain, because they're moving heaven and earth to convince us that it's 'impossible' for Sanders to win), then she will lose to Donald Trump. Yes, she will lose to him, just like the polls say. They can't seem to wrap their minds around the idea that people just don't like Hillary, and that Sanders actually has a better chance to beat Trump. And when President Trump is inaugurated, that will be the end of the Democratic elite, if not the entire Democratic party.
44
Sort of like how the Republican and independent voters came out to support George W and third party candidates. Those were votes against the Clinton presidency and all its scandals. I was very disappointed that Gore lost by the electoral vote. I was very annoyed that Hillary became senator of NY as a carpetbagger. I was very dismayed that Obama made Hillary SOS. I am now totally disgusted and will also look for anyone but Hillary and the corruption she represents.
9
Burn off your own arm? That's the way to "feel the Bern".
This kind of anger is what President Obama has faced for years now. As for the polls, look at 538 and Nate Silver.
Frankly, if Sanders cared anything about America's future, he wouldn't be dividing the country the way he is doing. His white audience are the flip side of Trump's, and his sense of fantasy is equal to Trump's. Both are masters of the ego and narcissism. A 74-year-old Socialist will not win a general election. People should get real.
But feel free to commit hari-kari.
This kind of anger is what President Obama has faced for years now. As for the polls, look at 538 and Nate Silver.
Frankly, if Sanders cared anything about America's future, he wouldn't be dividing the country the way he is doing. His white audience are the flip side of Trump's, and his sense of fantasy is equal to Trump's. Both are masters of the ego and narcissism. A 74-year-old Socialist will not win a general election. People should get real.
But feel free to commit hari-kari.
13
You're no feminist, Cynthis. Trust me; your comment reads about as misogynistic as they come.
6
It really makes me angry because in the last several elections I've wanted to vote for a particular candidate but I couldn't because I wasn't allowed to vote in the CLOSED primaries in my state. Of course there is write-in, but once candidates lose that party nomination they usually bow out. Later on in the real elections I'd write in my guy's name anyway even after he was out of the race because it was the principle of the thing. This process is structured to keep the status quo that is our current two-party problem. You can't shut voters out of one stage of the election process based on party affiliation. You can't force people to register with a party just so they have a chance to vote for their candidate. It's undemocratic. It's disenfranchisement and if it's not unconstitutional it ought to be. Independents out there- get mad and speak up. Tired of the dirty tricks and scare tactics. Tired of the money games. I want the DEMOCRACY that we are supposed to have. I spent a lot of time overseas in a corrupt cesspool of a country and I see the same happening to the greatest nation on Earth. It is truly sad and outrageous at the same time. Remember, there is no such thing as "throwing your vote away". Your vote is your voice and every time you choose a candidate that you didn't really support but has a better chance of winning "just so the other guy doesn't win" you yourself are participating in the farce. You are eroding democracy. You are letting yourself be manipulated.
13
To those who say that refusing to vote for Clinton is childish or petulant: I disagree.
There's way too much at stake to continue to endorse a status quo that's destroying this country. The Republican-lite philosophy may drag us down more slowly than the alternative, but it's still dragging us down to the murky depths while the billionaires climb onto our shoulders.
We need to say that enough is enough, and refuse to put up with a governance strategy that rewards the the top 0.01% at the expense of everyone else. We put up with wrongdoing when Bush Jr. was handed the presidency, and look what happened. It's time for the monied interests, who include Mrs. Clinton, to be shown the door. Jeb! is out. Now we have to remove the Clintons and protest a superdelegate system that allows party insiders to vote for her regardless of how popular elections go.
There's way too much at stake to continue to endorse a status quo that's destroying this country. The Republican-lite philosophy may drag us down more slowly than the alternative, but it's still dragging us down to the murky depths while the billionaires climb onto our shoulders.
We need to say that enough is enough, and refuse to put up with a governance strategy that rewards the the top 0.01% at the expense of everyone else. We put up with wrongdoing when Bush Jr. was handed the presidency, and look what happened. It's time for the monied interests, who include Mrs. Clinton, to be shown the door. Jeb! is out. Now we have to remove the Clintons and protest a superdelegate system that allows party insiders to vote for her regardless of how popular elections go.
28
This ''republican-lite'' attack on HRC is getting old. Nothing could be further from the truth. She is an absolutely mainstream Democratic liberal and always has been.
6
If "mainstream liberal" means "Hubby and I took >$100 million from the people who created the great recession," and "I was on Wal-Mart's board of directors and didn't say anything about their slave wages" and "Donating to our foundation will get you a sweetheart deal on weapons while I'm Secretary of State," then I don't want to see a "mainstream liberal" as the US President.
16
To LS who would have us hold our noses:
You either stand for something or you stand for nothing.
You either stand for something or you stand for nothing.
12
The voting delegates out of each of the first three states for the Dems are
Iowa: Hillary - 23, Bernie - 21
NH: Hillary - 9, Bernie - 15
Nevada: Hillary - 19, Bernie - 15
So the totals:
Hillary - 51
Bernie - 51
Once again more corporate lies. Since all media in this country are owned by 6 corporations that want to see the current establishment stay intact they have a vested interest to lie. The super delagates vote does not get counted until June at the (un)democratic convention. At this point they are at an even tie 51/51. #Hilalryisgoingdown #Bernierocks
Iowa: Hillary - 23, Bernie - 21
NH: Hillary - 9, Bernie - 15
Nevada: Hillary - 19, Bernie - 15
So the totals:
Hillary - 51
Bernie - 51
Once again more corporate lies. Since all media in this country are owned by 6 corporations that want to see the current establishment stay intact they have a vested interest to lie. The super delagates vote does not get counted until June at the (un)democratic convention. At this point they are at an even tie 51/51. #Hilalryisgoingdown #Bernierocks
37
The real picture is the demographic one. Small populations, mostly white states are the ones that support Bernie Sanders. There are many states ahead where he is not expected to be competitive, and that is what the delegates are representing and what they are looking at.
5
SMB, are you forgetting that 9 months ago, ALL of the demographics favored Hillary by margins of around 60 %???
I'm not sure if you've ever heard of it, but there is something called momentum, you should look it up.
9 months ago, no one knew who Bernie Sanders was. The more people learn about him, the more they realize that he is the obvious choice, which is why we saw him nearly winning the Hispanic vote in Nevada, despite Hillary having more name recognition and establishment support than any candidate in U.S. History.
I'm not sure if you've ever heard of it, but there is something called momentum, you should look it up.
9 months ago, no one knew who Bernie Sanders was. The more people learn about him, the more they realize that he is the obvious choice, which is why we saw him nearly winning the Hispanic vote in Nevada, despite Hillary having more name recognition and establishment support than any candidate in U.S. History.
10
I'm concerned that the Democrats could lose a generation of voters who support Sanders and would think that perhaps the system was rigged against him with the super-delegate structure, and that breaking en-mass for Clinton. Any feeling they would have that these things are rigged by power brokers for insiders (which they are) could turn them off politics in general and the Democratic party in particular.
24
Hummm...in 2008 Hillary beat Obama in the popular vote, with 17.9 million vs. 17.6 million. But then Obama cinched the nomination with the help of the Super delegates. Was there a similar uproar then compared with what I'm seeing in Bernie vs. Hillary now? What's the standard? (hint: just hating Hillary doesn't count).
19
The standard, as with the Presidential election, is that some states are winner take all, and the circumstances required to win the electoral college do not purely match the popular vote. Superdelegates do not reflect the Sanders/Clinton scenario in which they are tied in elected delegates. Listen before you speak!
2
I believe that democratic voters would overwhelmingly support one-person, one vote for both the primaries and the national election. Google India voting election to see how citizens in even the most remote locations can cast their electronic votes.
5
This article is simply trying to keep people from voting for Sanders. Making them feel like it's not worth it. This is how the Times propaganda machine does it. Down at the bottom of the article mentioned once is the actual delegate count 51 each. But they do not want you to know that. Super Delegates can change if Sanders wins enough states. And he has a very good chance in some of the big ones, New York, California, Michigan, Ohio. I was wondering what the super delegate count was when Mr. Obama started. I bet it was very similar to this, with Hillary way ahead. The game is rigged against Sanders and really all of us. People have to get out and vote for Mr Bernie, than the powers that be will have no choice.
49
To Fran, who will never vote for Clinton and the 787 people who agree with her:
If it comes to it, grow up, hold your nose for our country. Way too much at stake for you all to indulge in your emotional righteousness.
If it comes to it, grow up, hold your nose for our country. Way too much at stake for you all to indulge in your emotional righteousness.
15
Dear LS:
You either stand for something or you stand for nothing.
You either stand for something or you stand for nothing.
12
It would be best for this country to vote out of office and not elect corrupt politicians like Hillary.
To use her own words, we have "to send a message."
To use her own words, we have "to send a message."
13
No worries - I will not stay home. I will just write Bernie in.
17
I just realized that those of us ,including me, shouting unfair, must come to terms with the fact that the whole thing with the Super-delegates was not manufactured overnight just to defeat Bernie. Its just that when we are faced with a possible choice between Hillary and Trump/Cruz, we have all woken up to the whole process. Its our own fault as well. Harsh but true. Thats what we deserve.
8
People waking up? Yes; Do we deserve it? No. This is a slimy way to tally votes in a Democracy. Thank goodness for the internet. Looks like the Democratic party was not what we all were led to believe. They sure talk a good game.
10
Not sure what you're point is?
1
It is shocking and beyond disappointing to see that The New York Times is going along with the Clinton-establishment line that Sanders is way behind in delegates in an attempt to discourage and bamboozle and mislead potential voters. Do you really believe we are that stupid? Those super delegates could change their mind any time, and they certainly would and should change if a majority of voters choose the other candidate. I am extremely disappointed in the Democratic party for trying to get away with this, and am deeply saddened that the New York Times is aiding and abetting. I used to think the Dems generally took the moral high ground. Not so in this case. It's especially unfortunate when the "leading" candidate is under a moral cloud herself in other areas. Message/warning to Dems: Don't overestimate the loyalty of the base when you pull stuff like this.
30
Why are you Berniebots so upset about the super delegates? Bernie himself favors a centrally planned economy over a free market; so now we have the Democratic Party favoring a centrally planned nomination over a free and open election. The Democratic Party is doing to the nomination what Bernie wants to do to the economy
7
If "Berniebots" are being expected to vote for HRC if she's the candidate, then they are also entitled to a say regarding the superdelegates.
13
If the central planners don't know best, why does Bernie want them instead of the free market running the economy?
2
That's absurd. And the moderator should block this kind of bigotry. Sanders has never said anything of the sort.
7
I won't vote for Hillary for one reason: Her propensity for regime change (under the guise of "humanitarian intervention) and war. She has proven as Sec of State that she will pursue the neo-con agenda. It is ironic that we challenge Sanders' on the "economics" of his proposals when we KNOW (based on her record) Sec. Clinton will plunge our country deeper into debt by way of war and intervention, undermining our capacity to fund important programs and services domestically that we need in order to remain competitive in a global economy.
26
So quickly the NYT forgets its own editorial criticizing the manipulative role of the superdelegates that it turns right around around and jumps right back on the bandwagon letting said manipulative process direct their commentary. You cannot absolve yourself from culpability in this corruption, NYT, when you are happy to continue pushing the narrative that the superdelegate process is inevitably against Sanders no matter the outcomes of the upcoming primaries.
24
What? They didn't "jumps right back on the bandwagon", but rather reporting the actual facts of the process. Sheesh.
8
What are the facts? The pledged delegate count is tied, yet the headline reads "Delegate Count Leaving Bernie Sanders With Steep Climb." They criticize the superdelegate system for being manipulative, yet they continue to play party to that system of manipulation.
16
You confuse reporting for op-ed, Rather. You can't have it both ways to your personal convenience.
2
The Democrat Party has been doing this for a long time. The intentionally convoluted concept of "Super" Delegates is routinely used to usurp the will of the "stupid American voters," as they like to refer to you. Perhaps the most infamous episode was during the 1944 campaign, when the highly popular VP, Henry Wallace, was screwed over in favor of the easily manipulated, dim witted, Harry Truman. The party bosses delayed voting on the first day of the convention. In those days primaries often came down to the convention, and both President and VP were voted on. Once all of the requisite pay offs and back room dealings that are codified in our political system were completed, the delegates sheepishly changed their votes from Wallace to Truman. History would've been quite different had Henry Wallace ascended to the presidency. He was staunchly ant-nuclear, and believed that the US should maintain good relations with the war time Soviet allies. Rewarding Hillary's blatant and naked corruption and criminality may just top the list when all is said and done. The more things change...
7
Reporting like this can only make super delegates and the apparatus that invented them look bad. Maybe the NYT is trying to subvert the process? We've got a tie, a huge win for Sanders and a small win for Clinton. Yet we're constantly being fed this narrative of inevitability for the latter. It's hard to believe that nothing has been learned from 2008 (when Obama had fewer delegates than Sanders now has) or that NYT reporters don't realize that super delegates will be as ready to flip as the head cook at IHOP should Sanders start winning big down the road.
No, I suspect a fifth column within the establishment. The corner offices at the NYT want Hillary so badly that they can't see how the little guys are subverting their will under the headlines of articles they don't bother to read. Because this is just red rag to a bull for anyone who believes in a fair competition; and those who will be voting in primaries to come are watching.
No, I suspect a fifth column within the establishment. The corner offices at the NYT want Hillary so badly that they can't see how the little guys are subverting their will under the headlines of articles they don't bother to read. Because this is just red rag to a bull for anyone who believes in a fair competition; and those who will be voting in primaries to come are watching.
25
How can anyone who believes in fair competition support Bernie the socialist? You should be cheering the centrally planned democratic nomination process
3
RE: Larry. My bet is that type of red baiting won't work this time around. Trump certainly believes he'll win this way. We'll see.
4
The Democratic party has become decidedly undemocratic. It has become the party of cronyism (i.e. protect big banks and make small banks uncompetitive - thanks to Dodd Frank; force people to buy insurance from big insurance companies - thanks to the ACA; privatize gains while socializing risk - as was seen with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and pick favorite private companies to redistribute tax payer funds to - for example Solyndra); backroom deals; and influence peddling (does anybody else find it absolutely incredible that the Clintons left the White House without any significant assets and today have a net worth of $111 million - not to mention the funds in their foundation - without having produced any discernible product or service?). Perhaps Bernie should run as an independent if the Democratic Party is going to thwart a democratic process?
18
Lots of us agree with you. But it isn't over until it's over and I'm sure more people will agree with you as time goes on.
We no longer want to accept the status quo as the only way to run an election. We do not want to feel manipulated any more.
We no longer want to accept the status quo as the only way to run an election. We do not want to feel manipulated any more.
9
I live in New York and, because of the way the electoral college is set up, my vote for President in the general election essentially doesn't count.
1
Don't stop with the dream of getting your perfect candidate or party. There isn't one. Sanders may not be beholden to Wall Street, but he's depending a lot on Unions. Anyone who trumpets rewriting the rules has to play the game.
You still need to ask yourself, do ( want to watch more troops coming home wounded from someone else's endless ethno-religious conflict? Republicans need a perpetual war stance; that's how they and their military-industrial friends see God and America. Do you want to see Social Security not just cut, but entirely dissolved? If you really think Sanders can walk his talk, 'better read the Minnesota Republican Party's manifesto.
None of that is worth some symbolic stay-at-home protest.
You still need to ask yourself, do ( want to watch more troops coming home wounded from someone else's endless ethno-religious conflict? Republicans need a perpetual war stance; that's how they and their military-industrial friends see God and America. Do you want to see Social Security not just cut, but entirely dissolved? If you really think Sanders can walk his talk, 'better read the Minnesota Republican Party's manifesto.
None of that is worth some symbolic stay-at-home protest.
8
Mr. Sanders, face it. The DNC will do everything possible to ensure that HRC gets the nomination. You will get little to no help from them. The only way HRC will not be the shoe-in Dem. POTUS candidate is if Joe Biden jumps in. (I'm not positive that the DNC would welcome that. I think it would hurt Biden stature in the party if he jumps in at this point.)
7
Do you all realize that Joe Biden voted for the Iraq War resolution? But somehow he hasn't been demonized for that. I wonder why?
2
The days of election count mail by donkey are long gone. These ancient and counterproductive election processes need to follow. It's time for one citizen one vote add them up and the one with the most wins. Just imagine if Trump gets in the same way as W. God help us all.
7
I am a lifelong Dem as is Hillary (for all intents and purposes). Bernie is not and only decided to affiliate when he began his run. It's always harder to influence party rules if you are not a member. Not sure why this is a surprise.
14
And it wasn't a steep climb to tie her in Iowa, trounce her in New Hampshire, and come within 4 percentage points in her firewall state?
23
The outcome was decided long before the primary season started.
Everything so far has been a charade to try to validate Hillary, the barking
liar, as an electable candidate
Everything so far has been a charade to try to validate Hillary, the barking
liar, as an electable candidate
18
I made my first contribution to the Bernie Sanders campaign two days ago, just after the Nevada caucus results were in. I am 46 and it is the first time in my life I have ever contributed to a political campaign anywhere.
I see Sanders as a once in a lifetime politician. He is honest, authentic and has a clear and inspiring political platform - to fight for the rights of common and marginalized people who’s lives are increasingly being impeded by the rich and powerful.
On the other hand, I see Clinton as scheming and secretive, unauthentic, a status quo choice, with no clear political platform to tell us why she is actually running for president.
Bernie Sanders for the win!!
I see Sanders as a once in a lifetime politician. He is honest, authentic and has a clear and inspiring political platform - to fight for the rights of common and marginalized people who’s lives are increasingly being impeded by the rich and powerful.
On the other hand, I see Clinton as scheming and secretive, unauthentic, a status quo choice, with no clear political platform to tell us why she is actually running for president.
Bernie Sanders for the win!!
32
Yes, a once in a lifetime candidate. Before I cross the finish line (I'm 80), I look forward to voting for Bernie!
5
Whenever the NYT writes an article quoting a political pundant or some other expert on how something is "unlikely" or "not possible" I immediately assume that it will happen. Bernie sanders is gaining momentum, and Hillary Clinton can be taken down by many of her skeletons in her closet.
19
Yeah, Benghazzi, Travelgate and Vince Foster. He loses one state, and already looks like a lot of his cheering section is going over to the dark side.
1
This is too bad. I wouldn't vote for Hillary in the general election. I don't think she represents enough of a shift from the standard politics as usual. Whether she is running against Trump or anyone else, I will no longer vote on the premise that I'm voting against the better of two evils. I want to vote for someone will be pushing for a serious change rather than working within the current confines.
20
There is nothing "democratic" about the Democrat party anymore. Clinton wins age 65+ and the people that make over $200,000 per year. Sanders wins the hearts and minds of those who look at him. Clinton wins blacks that are in Congress and don't look at her abysmal record with blacks and don't look at Sanders' decades of helping blacks from his activist days being arrested for blacks (while Clinton was going to a wealthy white kid's school) in Chicago. Clinton wins if nobody looks at her pushing for the national crime bill that caused 42% of the male blacks under 30 to be unemployed largely due to being in prison by the time her husband left the White House. That bill was totally racist and she made darn sure it passed. Now she gets the black vote of all those who never look but just follow what rich black politicians tell them to do. The people of all colors are for Sanders if they look. The party does not care. They want their rich old lady to be President so she can help all the rich Democrats and their companies make more money. Pathetic the people can't have what is best for most Americans. Get stuck with a corrupt criminal instead.
14
You sure like saying, "blacks," a lot.
1
I don't hate Hillary Clinton, but the best thing that can happen is the FBI haul her away in handcuffs, not because she deserves it, but because she is standing in the way of something far greater than her.. I think Bernie can turn the tides of inequality, and besides I'd rather Fail horribly, miserably and epically trying to achieve something great than to Be beaten down my mediocrity only to achieve something that has disappeared before the ink of the law is dry.. That's what Hillary wants to deliver, she even said it that we all need to think smaller, dream less, only attempt the achievable.. That's what true politicians do, achieve that which is truly worthless to the common man...
29
She definitely deserves to be hauled in away in handcuffs! Doing so just so Bernie could be the nominee would be unethical and probably illegal; not that THAT would ever stop the party from doing it.
3
Although Bernie seems like a good man and I certainly like some of the things he is saying, I think we all need to understand that his life in government has resulted in few accomplishments. This is why outside of the odd little state of Vermont, none of us have ever heard of an odd Socialist guy named Bernie. Sorry Bernie but this election was preordained for Hillary and you can't beat the Democratic parties machine. You should have run as a Repub where the candidate selection process is much more transparent. After all, even a Bush couldn't go against the will of the people......
9
Calling Republicans people is a stretch.
3
So you're saying that Dem voters are basically sheeple that do the bidding of the the party's proletariat? I agree.
6
Plenty of time for her to pivot back to the middle and sound like a (somewhat) rationale person and not some bomb throwing hippie communist who wants to teach the world to sing while making it a free world, free of money, free of consequences, free of responsibility but most of all free from freedom. But will that pivot be enough? Is Bloomie going to think even more seriously about jumping in, perhaps as a 3rd party candidate?
3
Dear J Lee:
Mr. Bloomberg said that he would "consider" it if the nominees were Sanders and Trump not Hillary and Trump. Otherwise we would have an all-Manhattan election. So much for the Wall Street power elite, huh?
But consider this: one has to declare well in advanced in many states like ours to get on the ballot. Bloomberg is approaching that see/by date. No, most like Bloomberg is teasing, missing some of the attention of being in the public spotlight. Hillary meanwhile is managing just fine.
DD
Manhattan
Mr. Bloomberg said that he would "consider" it if the nominees were Sanders and Trump not Hillary and Trump. Otherwise we would have an all-Manhattan election. So much for the Wall Street power elite, huh?
But consider this: one has to declare well in advanced in many states like ours to get on the ballot. Bloomberg is approaching that see/by date. No, most like Bloomberg is teasing, missing some of the attention of being in the public spotlight. Hillary meanwhile is managing just fine.
DD
Manhattan
7
As many have shared, if the fix is in, and Hillary has the DNC and the delegates in the bag, I fear that the Democratic Party will be left in shambles. The super delegates are not yet committed until the final count is in. My concerns are that the millennials, 75 million strong, are going to view this like they did Ferguson, MO. The government is just one big con job. Individuals, especially ones without money and influence, are not part of the American democracy anymore. Why is the NYT running multiple articles all with a negative bent towards Bernie? Bernie was endorsed by Jessie Jackson, yet the Times is running an article about Bernie losing the African-American vote. I have seen he Chicago Times photos of Bernie getting arrested in the 60s for protesting the Civil Rights cause...I haven't seen anything from Hillary's camp. The truth, it seems, is going to emerge, just not like it appears in the press. Obama had the same experience in 2008.
35
Dear K. Valentine:
As a member of the DNC yes the "fix" is in if you consider a Democrat endorsing Hillary before the election. I did so upon her announcement last April. I know who Sanders is, I have known him for forty years since he waa mayor of Burlington. I like him a lot but not as a candidate for president more than I did like Reagan running in '80 when he was five years younger than Sanders is now. Too old for too tough a job, Plus Sander is a Democrat in name only, since 2015. If he wants to run in the Democratic Party fine but thems the rules he has to play by.
I value loyalty to party and to the person whom I have supported since 2000. Why should I abandon someone them because Sanders supporters would like me to? Please grow up.
DD
Manhattan
As a member of the DNC yes the "fix" is in if you consider a Democrat endorsing Hillary before the election. I did so upon her announcement last April. I know who Sanders is, I have known him for forty years since he waa mayor of Burlington. I like him a lot but not as a candidate for president more than I did like Reagan running in '80 when he was five years younger than Sanders is now. Too old for too tough a job, Plus Sander is a Democrat in name only, since 2015. If he wants to run in the Democratic Party fine but thems the rules he has to play by.
I value loyalty to party and to the person whom I have supported since 2000. Why should I abandon someone them because Sanders supporters would like me to? Please grow up.
DD
Manhattan
11
You make reasonable points, but unfortunately the use of condescending phrases like "grow up" add nothing to your argument and are more likely to sway people away from your perspective.
3
"I value loyalty to party"
Tribalism of the worst sort. If the party puts up a war-mongering, pro-Israel, Wall Street lout, why would any decent liberal support the party?
Tribalism of the worst sort. If the party puts up a war-mongering, pro-Israel, Wall Street lout, why would any decent liberal support the party?
12
Bernie will hang in there because Trump is going to sue Hil if she gets the nom and force a showdown on her emails.
9
Everyone complaining about Super Delegates and how they may effect who is nominated you need to understand something. This is how nominations are decided for the party. Sanders is not a democrat he is simply hijacking the party, because he knows that running as a 3rd party candidate would have resulted in him getting about as many votes as Nader did in 2000.
If you don't like the way that the Democratic Party nominates or backs candidates don't be a member. Start your own party and develop a charter that says something to the effect of that a popular vote will be help and the person with the most votes will be the nominee.
The DNC having the rules they do does not make it "unfair" or "corrupt" it makes Sanders and his whiny supporters look like idiots for hijacking the DNC and expecting them to change the rules for him.
If you don't like the way that the Democratic Party nominates or backs candidates don't be a member. Start your own party and develop a charter that says something to the effect of that a popular vote will be help and the person with the most votes will be the nominee.
The DNC having the rules they do does not make it "unfair" or "corrupt" it makes Sanders and his whiny supporters look like idiots for hijacking the DNC and expecting them to change the rules for him.
17
Sorry, these rules are undemocratic and need to be changed, Marcus.
3
They both have 51 delegates as of today. It a shame Wasserman-Schultz is cheering for one candidate over another, not her job. If the Democrats think they can nominate Clinton by using Super Delegates over Delegates chosen by the people it will be the last mistake they make.
35
Dear T. Skadow:
Au contraire, Tom, 'tis the job of Debbie to exercise her right just as you may exercise yours. That she carries greater clout may seem unfair to you, but we members of the DNC voted for her to give her that right.
I first endorsed Hillary in 2000, did so again in '06, '08. and last April. Sanders is an Independent whom I have known since he was mayor of Burlington. He turned Dem last year to run for Prez. He is a fine man and I wish him well, but I do not appreciate people telling me I should change my endorsement of Hillary to Sanders on their say-so, so stop asking.
I would no more ask you to change your vote to Hillary for me. Do as you see fit. If the Democratic party is to your disliking then please leave and join the GOP. They're in such disarray with Trump they'd be happy to have you. Sanders can always run as an Independent.
DD
Manhattan
Au contraire, Tom, 'tis the job of Debbie to exercise her right just as you may exercise yours. That she carries greater clout may seem unfair to you, but we members of the DNC voted for her to give her that right.
I first endorsed Hillary in 2000, did so again in '06, '08. and last April. Sanders is an Independent whom I have known since he was mayor of Burlington. He turned Dem last year to run for Prez. He is a fine man and I wish him well, but I do not appreciate people telling me I should change my endorsement of Hillary to Sanders on their say-so, so stop asking.
I would no more ask you to change your vote to Hillary for me. Do as you see fit. If the Democratic party is to your disliking then please leave and join the GOP. They're in such disarray with Trump they'd be happy to have you. Sanders can always run as an Independent.
DD
Manhattan
10
It is the miserable Hillary who should join the GOP as her values are completely antithetical to American liberalism.
5
Dennis: Au contraire, 'tis part of Debbie's job to be nonpartisan. Favoritism towards one candidate is a disqualification for holding the job.
5
The game just started. Whether Mr. Sanders gets the nomination or not, he needs to break into the African American votes. He needs to work hard to get the message across the African American voters and convince them to vote for the their future and not the past. A president is for all Americans. My order of preference is Sanders, Trump and Clinton in that order.
12
As a lifelong, leftist Democrat and proud Hillary Clinton supporter, I'm frankly sick of Sanders' supporters vilifying a woman who has long fought for women, children, working Americans, the environment and all sorts of other causes that used to be important to ALL Democrats, but now -- if one believes the self-satisfied pseudo-progressives out there -- are issues that only Saint Bernie can properly speak to. If Sanders' supporters are as disgusted as they claim to be by the state of the Democratic Party, I urge them to start another, third party to combat it. In the meantime, politics remains a tough, bruising, often not-very-pretty pursuit, and Hillary Clinton is the only smart, seasoned fighter with a legitimate chance to put another Democrat in the White House. She has my unequivocal vote. I wish Sanders well when he returns to Vermont in the role for which he is so well-suited -- as the senior senator from that great New England state.
21
How can Hillary be said to be fighting for "women, children, and working Americans" when she cannot even bring herself to support a meager $15.00 an hour minimum wage? Here in Portland, as elsewhere, we have multitudes of working Americans living in tent camps because they do not make enough money to eve rent a room in shared housing, and working women living in dank and dangerous shelters with their children because they cannot afford even low income housing. Do these particular working Americans not deserve to be making even a $15.00 fraction of a living wage?
23
Ottoline: Exactly why are you ignoring that Oregon will be the first in the nation to raise, at least in parts of the state, the minimum wage to nearly $15.00? Do you really think that increase will have a great effect on the homeless and poor in Portland, when so many of the former are afflicted with other problems, for example, addiction, and the latter by outrageous housing costs, that need to be solved at the same time? If you think so, which of the many bridges in Portland can I sell you.
6
Increasing the Federal minimum wage to $15/hour will result in a massive replacement of no-skill, low-skill labor by automation which is becoming increasingly less expensive.
3
I think this publication is consistently wearing its HRC endorsement a bit too prominently on its sleeve. While speculation about where Superdelegates will land is interesting - it's being regularly deployed in these pages as a subtle cue to jump the Sanders ship because all hope is lost.
28
Dear Nick:
It's not NYTimes speculation. As a member of the DNC those pledged delegates endorsed Hillary well before the process began. We've known her work for the party for decades. I endorsed her in 2000, '06, '08 against Barack and last April. Sanders was an Independent then. He just switched to run for president. That's fine, and though I've like him since he was mayor of Burlington, I do not support him for president.
What I find astounding is that his supporters wouldn't mind a bit if I broke my promise, and that is what a pledge is, a promise not a legally binding document, and endorsed Sanders. Please, have you no sense of propriety and decorum? You vote your way, I'll vote mine. See you in Philly this summer.
DD
Manhattan
It's not NYTimes speculation. As a member of the DNC those pledged delegates endorsed Hillary well before the process began. We've known her work for the party for decades. I endorsed her in 2000, '06, '08 against Barack and last April. Sanders was an Independent then. He just switched to run for president. That's fine, and though I've like him since he was mayor of Burlington, I do not support him for president.
What I find astounding is that his supporters wouldn't mind a bit if I broke my promise, and that is what a pledge is, a promise not a legally binding document, and endorsed Sanders. Please, have you no sense of propriety and decorum? You vote your way, I'll vote mine. See you in Philly this summer.
DD
Manhattan
6
Dennis: You're entitled to vote your single-self vote for anyone you want. But your superdelegate vote equals 10,000 "regular" votes. That's something voters can and should have a say about--even the ones who don't like the process.
10
Dear Siobhan:
If you are a member or elected official you do have that right. If you are not a member you do not have that right. The DNC and RNC are political parties. Are you not aware of that?
There may be only two you know of but there are others. If you are dissatisfied as Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan were in 2000 you may join those parties or run as an Independent.
Have you ever heard of the phrase membership has its privileges? If you pay dues to a health club as my wife and I do here which costs a small fortune how would you feel if non-members could come in randomly? I guess you'd find an excuse for that too.
I don't know where you've been in this world or how old you are but there are lessons in life you desperately need to learn before assuming that this nation or life itself is in any respect fair, free or equal unless you fight for it. See you in Philly.
DD
Manhattan
If you are a member or elected official you do have that right. If you are not a member you do not have that right. The DNC and RNC are political parties. Are you not aware of that?
There may be only two you know of but there are others. If you are dissatisfied as Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan were in 2000 you may join those parties or run as an Independent.
Have you ever heard of the phrase membership has its privileges? If you pay dues to a health club as my wife and I do here which costs a small fortune how would you feel if non-members could come in randomly? I guess you'd find an excuse for that too.
I don't know where you've been in this world or how old you are but there are lessons in life you desperately need to learn before assuming that this nation or life itself is in any respect fair, free or equal unless you fight for it. See you in Philly.
DD
Manhattan
4
For all those who think Hillary is more electable than Bernie, please read this Princeton professor's analysis:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/karp-bernie-sanders-electability-clin...
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/karp-bernie-sanders-electability-clin...
22
Dear anne:
I read it. Nonetheless, I've endorsed Hillary. I've supported her since her first race for the Senate in 2000, then in '06. then '08 against Barack, and now. That is the reason She has already garnered so many pledged delegates. She has worked tirelessly for the party for decades.
Sanders is a fine man but he's been an Independent his whole life. He can run on the Democratic ticket if her wants but he has to play by its bylaws. He knows that oh so well. Why don't other Democrats who support him know this as well?
DD
Manhattan
I read it. Nonetheless, I've endorsed Hillary. I've supported her since her first race for the Senate in 2000, then in '06. then '08 against Barack, and now. That is the reason She has already garnered so many pledged delegates. She has worked tirelessly for the party for decades.
Sanders is a fine man but he's been an Independent his whole life. He can run on the Democratic ticket if her wants but he has to play by its bylaws. He knows that oh so well. Why don't other Democrats who support him know this as well?
DD
Manhattan
9
There is another name for super delegates. It is Lord Super Delegate if you get the drift of whose dirty work they do.
6
Dear Steve:
Are you implying it's something like John Lennon's "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" with those supposed hidden meanings and all? If so, well, picture yourself on a boat in a river. with Democrats flowing downstream. I as a member of the DNC have a larger boat than you because of my five decades of work with the party including changing its by-laws in '72 when our man George McGovern lost every state except Massachusetts to Richard Milhouse Nixon, the new, tanned and ready Nixon, this as the Woodstein team was reporting the break-in at the Watergate that summer.
Can you believe that?
Yes, it is we who do the dirty work, but somebody's got to do it, and it is we who gave you Carter, Clinton, Obama and coming soon, H. Clinton, in the Fall, to win, against The Donald.
You're entirely welcome.
Oh, and by the by, Lennon was only writing about Julian's drawing. Sometimes a picture is just a picture, and a cigar just a cigar, if you catch my drift.
DD
Manhattan
Are you implying it's something like John Lennon's "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" with those supposed hidden meanings and all? If so, well, picture yourself on a boat in a river. with Democrats flowing downstream. I as a member of the DNC have a larger boat than you because of my five decades of work with the party including changing its by-laws in '72 when our man George McGovern lost every state except Massachusetts to Richard Milhouse Nixon, the new, tanned and ready Nixon, this as the Woodstein team was reporting the break-in at the Watergate that summer.
Can you believe that?
Yes, it is we who do the dirty work, but somebody's got to do it, and it is we who gave you Carter, Clinton, Obama and coming soon, H. Clinton, in the Fall, to win, against The Donald.
You're entirely welcome.
Oh, and by the by, Lennon was only writing about Julian's drawing. Sometimes a picture is just a picture, and a cigar just a cigar, if you catch my drift.
DD
Manhattan
6
This is going to sound sarcastic but it isn't. Seriously, if Clinton is indicted and eventually sent to prison, could she hold the office of president from behind bars? Or could she pardon herself?
17
I'm sure she would try to retain the post of president at any costs. She's learned how to do that up close.
3
Dear A. Allen:
Oh you sarcastic beast you. No offense taken, but the answer is yes. She in fact has already addressed that question. Yes, she can and says she will continue to run, she can be nominated, people can cast their votes, President Obama can and would most likely pardon her as Ford did Nixon and she would become the president.
If this should occur after Obama has left office when she is already president, since we would assume recalcitrant Republicans would also be holding up the nomination to the Supreme Court, then this would be a repeat of her husband's trials and tribulations.
If Hillary were impeached by the Republicans in the House, it would depend. A Republican Senate would look to convict, to be sure. A Democratic Senate would not, so she would continue her term. If she were convicted by the Republican Senate and removed from office then, like Ford, her VP could pardon her.
How much longer you wish me to continue to conduct this charade while the nation puts all its problems on hold is dependent upon obstructionist Republicans and Hillary Haters. It all depends how revengeful and childish they wish to be. Oh yeah, and one other thing. Just how long will the American people be willing to put up with this nonsense?
DD
Manhattan
Oh you sarcastic beast you. No offense taken, but the answer is yes. She in fact has already addressed that question. Yes, she can and says she will continue to run, she can be nominated, people can cast their votes, President Obama can and would most likely pardon her as Ford did Nixon and she would become the president.
If this should occur after Obama has left office when she is already president, since we would assume recalcitrant Republicans would also be holding up the nomination to the Supreme Court, then this would be a repeat of her husband's trials and tribulations.
If Hillary were impeached by the Republicans in the House, it would depend. A Republican Senate would look to convict, to be sure. A Democratic Senate would not, so she would continue her term. If she were convicted by the Republican Senate and removed from office then, like Ford, her VP could pardon her.
How much longer you wish me to continue to conduct this charade while the nation puts all its problems on hold is dependent upon obstructionist Republicans and Hillary Haters. It all depends how revengeful and childish they wish to be. Oh yeah, and one other thing. Just how long will the American people be willing to put up with this nonsense?
DD
Manhattan
6
Well, DD--So far all your posts are apologias for Clinton. There are investigations swirling around her, one by the FBI. But you display such sang-froid in the face of all that that methinks you know something we don't. Does she have an ace up her sleeve, something that will shield her (other than supine supporters such as you, that is?)
4
NYT, please avoid citing "experts" who actually have vested interests in the campaign, about delegate math. Surely there are better, less biased authorities.
27
Dear Kris:
You don't get any more objective than that warhorse of stats and former NYTimes columnist, Nate Silver. His Five Thirty Eight site lays it out in spades the uphill struggles Sanders faces to the nomination.
That was based on not knowing yet the outcome in the Silver State. With that in her winning column and South Carolina keeping the Hillary surge steaming along throughout the South, it becomes increasingly more difficult for Sanders to recover.
Hillary's team, as we saw, took Iowa and New Hampshire for granted, no pun intended (The Granite State). They had to marshal Reid's raiders in Vegas to turn the odds in her favor. Remember, Hillary has been here before, the best experience one can have. And by the way she beat Barack in votes but, you guessed it, Barack had more pledged delegates. And Hillary played by the rules, which is why she has such loyal support especially from African-Americans, who remember her exit as a class act.
DD
Manhattan
You don't get any more objective than that warhorse of stats and former NYTimes columnist, Nate Silver. His Five Thirty Eight site lays it out in spades the uphill struggles Sanders faces to the nomination.
That was based on not knowing yet the outcome in the Silver State. With that in her winning column and South Carolina keeping the Hillary surge steaming along throughout the South, it becomes increasingly more difficult for Sanders to recover.
Hillary's team, as we saw, took Iowa and New Hampshire for granted, no pun intended (The Granite State). They had to marshal Reid's raiders in Vegas to turn the odds in her favor. Remember, Hillary has been here before, the best experience one can have. And by the way she beat Barack in votes but, you guessed it, Barack had more pledged delegates. And Hillary played by the rules, which is why she has such loyal support especially from African-Americans, who remember her exit as a class act.
DD
Manhattan
7
Generally, I think that the NYT's news coverage is objective and opinions are clearly labeled as such. But the coverage of the democratic primaries is really making me question the impartiality of the NYT.
Clinton and Sanders are TIED in delegates. Counting the pledged super delegates is premature.
It seems like every article, either opinion or not is tilted toward Clinton. This one seems clearly aimed at voters who will vote in the primary based on perception of 'picking a winner.' Why not report that, in little time, Sanders has managed to run even with Clinton if not otherwise trying to persuade voters instead of reporting the news?
Its clear who the NYT supports in this primary.
Clinton and Sanders are TIED in delegates. Counting the pledged super delegates is premature.
It seems like every article, either opinion or not is tilted toward Clinton. This one seems clearly aimed at voters who will vote in the primary based on perception of 'picking a winner.' Why not report that, in little time, Sanders has managed to run even with Clinton if not otherwise trying to persuade voters instead of reporting the news?
Its clear who the NYT supports in this primary.
33
The NYT has already endorsed HRC for President; why are you surprised that they are always in the tank for her?
8
It's clear the New York Times is pro-Hillary.
If Bernie was ahead in delegates, they would still find a way to make it look like Hillary is winning.
If Bernie was ahead in delegates, they would still find a way to make it look like Hillary is winning.
30
I wish the NYtimes would go outside the same old circle of insiders for quotes. With all respect for David Plouffe, he is now an extremely well paid lobbyist for Uber so please, please please think outside the box for quotes. It is also disappointing that since endorsing Clinton, the NYTimes coverage has been so overwhelmingly biased towards her.
25
@Nsher: The Times' election coverage was biased well before they officially endorsed Clinton.
16
If I can't vote for Bernie then I can vote for Trump. At least I don't be voting for a payola taking, nothing will change, supporter of the mercenaries who are trying to take Syria down, who have accomplished the murder of 500,000 civilians and friend of a man whose children profit from being bankers in the Ukraine. And in case these stupid people haven't noticed, what you have in the middle east is an attempt to create a Sunni empire, with Turkey hoping to be its head and Saudi Arabia hoping to be its heart. They expect to obtain control of every other oil source in the region which they can then use to hold Europe hostage.
15
And just think--she accomplished all that while lining her pockets to the tune of 100+ million or so. Plus she started off being "dead broke" when she left the WH last time. Who knew "public service" paid so well?
6
I'm so disgusted with the NY Times that I can't even read the food section or "well" column, which I used to love. How sad that you've chosen to alienate your readership, and it's equally sad that the Democrat party has chosen to move away from democracy...
38
Pardon my ignorance but it was my understanding that 451 super delegates had NOT yet pledged their support. My last count on Saturday evening had Hillary with 50 and Bernie with 49 EXCLUDING the super delegates that had not yet pledged. I don't understand.
24
If this is the case, why vote? Americans need to demand a fair and transparent democratic system.
19
Super delegate situation is nothing new. If you don't like it, you need to be INSIDE the parties to create changes. You don't get to re-make their rules because you don't like them when they aren't working towards your preferred candidate's advantage. Check out this Wikipedia entry for some background and history. Then work to change the rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#History
7
How can this be? I loved the multi married cigar bar misogynists like Imus, Scarborough, OReilly, Stern, Bo Dietl, Bernie etc telling me how great trump is and that he gave to the ranch or warriors. I love Anderson, Don, Rachel etc having 5 heads on the screen talking over each other, or Gergen, Borger, Brazile telling 30 year old tales. I love Trump drawlers saying how women and minorities will get mad at Bengazi and Emaill encryption and vote trump. I love Chris Matthews talking about non existent steel workers voting as REgan Democrats. I will really miss Joseph A Banks ads! Hilary 61- Trump 39. Lots of time to exercise, read, volunteer etc. A joke
2
Thank you NYT. After months of witnessing a dishonest campaign against Bernie Sanders candidacy, I'm now fully committed to doing everything I can to help spread the word about the propagandist effects of the corporate media establishment, including the New York Times.
I'm an active member of the "San Leandro for Bernie" (look it up) volunteer group (in the SF Bay Area). Aside from the phone banking, knocking on doors, emails, social media outreach, community meetings, and all the other activities campaign volunteers engage in, I will make it my duty to do the following:
1. Reach out to members of the community and share my thoughts about how the "Propaganda Model" is being used by corporate media to undermine Sanders' campaign.
2. Demonstrate, step by step, that publications like the NYT are tools of the establishment/ruling elite.
3. Help spread awareness about the deleterious effects of being exposed to corporate media propaganda.
This work, counter-propaganda, needs attention. I'm on it!
I'm an active member of the "San Leandro for Bernie" (look it up) volunteer group (in the SF Bay Area). Aside from the phone banking, knocking on doors, emails, social media outreach, community meetings, and all the other activities campaign volunteers engage in, I will make it my duty to do the following:
1. Reach out to members of the community and share my thoughts about how the "Propaganda Model" is being used by corporate media to undermine Sanders' campaign.
2. Demonstrate, step by step, that publications like the NYT are tools of the establishment/ruling elite.
3. Help spread awareness about the deleterious effects of being exposed to corporate media propaganda.
This work, counter-propaganda, needs attention. I'm on it!
35
With all the awesome comments here, yours is the best by far! This is an essential part of the political revolution. I'll do my best too!
2
Andale, hermano!
4
Thank you for your effort! We should ALL do that, as we ceased to live in democracy.
People must be aware that we are only spectators and/or marionettes. We are just used and manipulated; corporations and the top 0.01 with money, corporate media with propaganda and thru our manipulation they will finally decide who our president will be.
People must be aware that we are only spectators and/or marionettes. We are just used and manipulated; corporations and the top 0.01 with money, corporate media with propaganda and thru our manipulation they will finally decide who our president will be.
7
This shows the power that black voters have in the Democratic Party. For whatever reason, they are more prone to back HRC. The white vote is more split, but not enough in Sander's favor to get him the nomination.
2
Do all of the Democrats -- Hillary or Bernie supporters -- threatening to throw a tantrum and stay home in November realize that there will be a Republican running against the winner, and that Republican may be Donald Trump? I don't care who or how he's beaten, you can't let that man be president. Sure, pledged delegates should make the decision, Bernie and Hillary do differ on policy, but tell that to the innocent Muslims being forced to register if Trump wins. Perspective, please.
6
Since when is Donald Trump a Republican?? Maybe a Nihilist...
3
The Times doubts Sanders will win. What else is new? Sanders has a lot of support and money to go on. I think the pledged delegates are the only ones that matter. If the super delegates give the nomination to Clinton, there's going to be such a stink (think Chicago 1968) that the idea of a Clinton candidacy will be almost worthless. Mark my words: the super delegates aren't going to decide this
18
There is an old Russian saying about the Russian newspapers Pravda (Truth) and Izvestia (News, literally "delivered messages"):
There is no Pravda in Izvestia, and there is no Izvestia in Pravda.
I think the New York Times is trying to beat them both:
There is neither Pravda nor Izvestia in the New York Times, just opinion.
There is no Pravda in Izvestia, and there is no Izvestia in Pravda.
I think the New York Times is trying to beat them both:
There is neither Pravda nor Izvestia in the New York Times, just opinion.
20
1968 was the first time I was eligible to vote for president. I got clean for Gene and strongly supported him, in spite of my Republican family. When Humphrey was nominated I abstained from voting. The result? Nixon won, probably due to me and a lot of other disaffected youth. And a good leader and good man, despite Vietnam, did not become President and we got much more war instead. I will never repeat that mistake. I will vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. For a liberal, doing otherwise is self-indulgent and petty.
10
That was then. This is now. In 2016 both parties are owned by the corporatists. And if you think Hillary is a peacenik, think of her pushing for the invasion of Libya and the assassination of Qadaffy and then her unseemly gloating about it. What a disaster that country has become, with ISIS now gaining a foothold there and the M.E. in chaos. (Plus she voted for war in Iraq.)
10
Sanders's climb would be less steep if media such as the New York Times were willing to report on the dramatic poll results showing who is actually more electable against the Republican candidates. For example:
Quinnipiac University poll, February 18:
"American voters back Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont over Republican candidates by margins of 4 to 10 percentage points in head to head presidential matchups."
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/nat...
Huffington Post on the polls:
"Bernie Sanders Is the Only Democratic Candidate Capable of Winning the White House"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/02/17/usa-tod...
Quinnipiac University poll, February 18:
"American voters back Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont over Republican candidates by margins of 4 to 10 percentage points in head to head presidential matchups."
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/nat...
Huffington Post on the polls:
"Bernie Sanders Is the Only Democratic Candidate Capable of Winning the White House"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/02/17/usa-tod...
22
This super delegate stuff is the most undemocratic aspect of our electoral system, besides the electoral college. The Democrats' rules on this are even worse than the Republicans, which require their super delegates to vote based on the results of their primaries. It stinks.
9
Even if you believe the worst about Hillary, she is infinitely better than any GOP contender (scoundrels all). Assuming she gets the nomination, it is everyone's moral duty to vote for her.
10
So what you're saying is that MY scoundrel is better than THEIR scoundrel. Here's a thought: Let's not elect scoundrels. Let's not elect people who are bought and paid for.
10
It's simple. It's a decision between much-less-than ideal business as usual, or certain disaster.
2
She's just another scoundrel, and everyone's moral duty would be to vote for someone else even if it means writing them in. In any case, that's what I'll be doing.
4
You would think that columnists Krugman and Blow would both be behind Bernie Sanders as a man who has finally brought the argument further to the left, but instead they push him aside with disregard, shame on you both.
18
Glad to see cronyism is still alive and well with the Clintons. Love how the insider superdelegates just ignore the will of the people. If Clinton wins get ready for Bush # 3!
12
Super delegates should NOT even be considered as part of the delegate count at this point of an election. Not only is this undemocratic it is bad journalism. They are free to change their mind whenever they like. Of course, what they are doing and think is part of the nominating process and it should be analyzed but this uncritical reporting leaves me sad for the state of political journalism at the New York Times and in this country. I call foul.
18
Way to go Hill. You rock.
7
The delegate count is 51-51, and super-delegates will ultimately support whoever wins the voted delegates. But all Democrats should be scared that the Democratic Party and the media are still pushing a candidate who will put Big Money in the White House. Whose candidacy could blow up any minute because of ongoing investigations; and because her donors, advisors, and campaign personnel are corporate banks, oil and gas, healthcare, private prison, lobbyists etc. Clinton consistently polls behind Sanders in the general election; polls 12-15% among Democrats for "honesty and trustworthiness;" polls downward in favorability--the more people know her, the less favorable she is. Right now, 33% of voters are "scared" of a Clinton nomination (Trump 38%, Sanders 28%).
Sanders could not only win the nomination--delegates 51-51. But right now, has a much better showing for the Presidency.
Sanders could not only win the nomination--delegates 51-51. But right now, has a much better showing for the Presidency.
18
I don't understand. Iowa was a tie, Bernie wiped out HIlarly in New Hamshire, and Hillary barely won in Nevada. How does she get more than 7 times more delegates? In a fair election, Bernie would have more delegates. The fix is in. It's disgraceful.
17
They both have 51 delegates. That's a tie, and Bernie's goin' to be the next pres!
JB
JB
16
Suggestion to the NYT: How about an article explaining the Super Delegates including a little history about when and why the concept was put into place. I suspect lots of folks are commenting about something they don't understand.
One key point: Mr. Sanders is democratic socialist and is not member of the Democratic Party, who is running for the nomination of the Democratic Party. Not sure why anyone is surprised that the party establishment (i.e., Super Delegates) is more likely to support Mrs. Clinton.
One key point: Mr. Sanders is democratic socialist and is not member of the Democratic Party, who is running for the nomination of the Democratic Party. Not sure why anyone is surprised that the party establishment (i.e., Super Delegates) is more likely to support Mrs. Clinton.
9
Because Bernie has been more true to Democratic values....
12
When did my party become as ignorant as the Republican party? Listen up folks, there is nothing corrupt about super delegates. Hillary is not corrupt. Yes, she is a Republican in almost every way except that she calls herself a Democrat. Guess what, the country is not ready for a Socialist president. We cannot make the changes we want all at once. We cannot force the country back to the center by simply electing one man. First we need to take back Congress for the Democrats. Then we need to organize a real socialist party and get a significant number of representatives elected. Then, and only then, will we be able to elect a socialist president that has any hope of getting a socialist platform even partially implemented. This pie in the sky nonsense that electing Sanders will give us all free tuition and free health care is just not helpful.
6
It's total gridlock anyway, so what do you think Hillary will accomplish?
10
Bernie is no more of a socialist than FDR was, and the top marginal tax rates that he is proposing are lower than what we had under Eisenhower. Americans are more than ready to have federal tax-supported universal health care and college tuition. It's not free, and every other advanced industrialized nation has had these for decades.
13
OK--let*s be real here.
Talk about *party disloyalty* and *why is he running as a Democrat when he*s never been one* is nonsense. Sanders has almost always supported broad Democratic legislative interests. His vote has been crucial to Democratic victories in Congress.
Every time I see a new Clinton endorser, or the gang of snarling Democratic henchwomen around her, I can*t help wondering what plum position each has been promised for their support. I do not sense adoration or even faith. I wonder what force was exerted on Jim Clyburn to get him to abandon his longstanding stance of not endorsing before a primary, and that urgency suggests to me that the Clinton camp was frantic, not confident.
I have never voted for a Republican or conservative, nor for far-left fringe parties. I do not like labels and when I was a Noo Yawkuh I declined to register as a Democrat so gave up the right to vote in primaries. In NH I was able to vote for Sanders and then revert to *undecided* re party.
My loyalty is to broad standards of social justice and rational foreign policy. Neocon Hillary can never be my candidate.
And as much as Trump has been maligned--and as much as he has failed the moral test in regard to his own family history--I was struck by his courage in defending Planned Parenthood as a provider of essential health services for women, and distinguishing those from the provision of abortion. What politician has shown that courage?
Talk about *party disloyalty* and *why is he running as a Democrat when he*s never been one* is nonsense. Sanders has almost always supported broad Democratic legislative interests. His vote has been crucial to Democratic victories in Congress.
Every time I see a new Clinton endorser, or the gang of snarling Democratic henchwomen around her, I can*t help wondering what plum position each has been promised for their support. I do not sense adoration or even faith. I wonder what force was exerted on Jim Clyburn to get him to abandon his longstanding stance of not endorsing before a primary, and that urgency suggests to me that the Clinton camp was frantic, not confident.
I have never voted for a Republican or conservative, nor for far-left fringe parties. I do not like labels and when I was a Noo Yawkuh I declined to register as a Democrat so gave up the right to vote in primaries. In NH I was able to vote for Sanders and then revert to *undecided* re party.
My loyalty is to broad standards of social justice and rational foreign policy. Neocon Hillary can never be my candidate.
And as much as Trump has been maligned--and as much as he has failed the moral test in regard to his own family history--I was struck by his courage in defending Planned Parenthood as a provider of essential health services for women, and distinguishing those from the provision of abortion. What politician has shown that courage?
13
Super delegates are not firmly pledged, it would be better to count the number actually won rather than running headlines this early stating that a lead is 'insurmountable'.
11
For all the Berniacs who are frothing at the mouth about Superdelegates and vowing to stay home on election day if Hillary wins a close contest at the convention, why do you only care about the Presidency? Do you think this political revolution you want is going to happen if you don't even bother to vote for all the other offices on your ballot? Do you vote in every election, volunteer to support candidates by phoning, canvassing, and talking about the issues with your friends? How did we end up with the revolution in 2010 that turned the country red at every level in many states? Where were you then? How much more might Obama have accomplished if voters understood how critical every office in every election is to moving the country forward?
13
If you think 2010 occurred because Obama supporters didn't show up to vote, then why didn't the Democrats get majorities in 2012???
5
Seriously "why do you only care about the Presidency?" Perhaps you live in a deep dark cave or you wanted to get in on the business of pollinating rank generalities. We care because of articles like this. We care because we want the best country for all of us. We are not monolithic in composition nor committed to the Democrat party institution (or Republican) as the be all and end all of our politics. And yes, many of us believed that Obama would reach out to invigorate participatory democracy after he promised to do so. If he had, perhaps the gridlock would have been different. We didn't disappear then and we are not going to disappear now.
8
I do everything you insultingly suggest "Berniacs" don't do. I vote in every election, I canvass, call, and talk to friends and family.
If this headline is correct, it sounds like the rest of primary is practically pointless and thus our votes.
Protests, most petitions, and even votes by the people, don't seem to make any difference to many politicians already elected. If those things mattered, Obama should have been able to accomplish much more in his first two years, before "the revolution in 2010 that turned the country red at every level in many states".
I don't think you are seeing the whole picture when you accuse "Berniacs" of not fully participating. I think people are just getting very frustrated thinking we live in a country where our voices and opinions matter. The majority of polling indicates most average people want many similar things yet our country continues to move the opposite direction; politicians continue to get more and more conservative and lead by monetary interests and corporations. You can't tell a current moderate Democrat from what used to be considered a moderate Republican.
If this headline is correct, it sounds like the rest of primary is practically pointless and thus our votes.
Protests, most petitions, and even votes by the people, don't seem to make any difference to many politicians already elected. If those things mattered, Obama should have been able to accomplish much more in his first two years, before "the revolution in 2010 that turned the country red at every level in many states".
I don't think you are seeing the whole picture when you accuse "Berniacs" of not fully participating. I think people are just getting very frustrated thinking we live in a country where our voices and opinions matter. The majority of polling indicates most average people want many similar things yet our country continues to move the opposite direction; politicians continue to get more and more conservative and lead by monetary interests and corporations. You can't tell a current moderate Democrat from what used to be considered a moderate Republican.
12
Can't this kind of reporting wait till at least after Super Tuesday? You are adding to the feeling that "the fix is in." Let it play out just a but more.
8
I can see Sanders supporters are going to fixate on the word "superdelegates" and never, ever admit they lost fair and square, whatever the outcome. But what's key about superdelegates is that they do not hard-pledge to a candidate; they are there to minimize the chance of deadlocks and help ensure the most "electable" candidate wins. If Bernie beats Hillary among regular delegates, proving her vulnerability, you can be sure that her support among superdelegates will erode as well.
5
It's 51-51 right now. What is your definition of a loss?
14
The next time the NYTimes writes an article about Sanders that does not belittle him or contrast him unfavorably to Clinton will be the first.
Come on, Times. I teach research ethics and you guys fail the test. The story is not how Hillary supposedly "gained" momentum by her "sweeping" victory, but rather how she lost a ton of it in the waning weeks despite having a huge head start in every way in Nevada.
Your stories, and certainly your headlines, should be far more balanced than what they've been over the past 6-12 months. Don't let your ownership dictate how you report the story.
Come on, Times. I teach research ethics and you guys fail the test. The story is not how Hillary supposedly "gained" momentum by her "sweeping" victory, but rather how she lost a ton of it in the waning weeks despite having a huge head start in every way in Nevada.
Your stories, and certainly your headlines, should be far more balanced than what they've been over the past 6-12 months. Don't let your ownership dictate how you report the story.
21
My prediction: If Clinton wins the primary, which seems likely, we're going to see the lowest voter turnout in history (at least proportionally) for a presidential election. I still think she'll win the presidential. Buyers' remorse will set in instantly, & she'll be a one-term president.
8
Bernie Sanders has only been a democrat for 3 months. How could it not be a steep climb when independent and 3rd party candidates are excluded from debates (don't think Bernie wouldn't have been arrested) and national news coverage? The fact that he has to change his affiliation to Democrat to have any legitimacy may very well be the choice that undoes him, as I suspect the leaders of the Democratic Party hoped.
3
With all due respect, I think it is waaaaay too soon to call Bernie's candidacy
in big trouble yet.
He is tied with Hillary in delegates won. She has Super Delegates but she has
some looming big problems:
* money taken from Goldman Sachs for speeches
* the looming FBI e-mail investigation
* the fact that women don’t like her or trust her
* the fact that a lot of men don’t like or trust her
* the really big fact that millennials really don’t
want to vote for her as the leader of their future
* Elizabeth Warren could endorse Bernie
* Bernie could get Elizabeth Warren to join him on
his ticket
* Bill Clinton might do his thing and alienate Hillary
voters some more
* Chelsea could tell some more lies about Bernie’s
Health Care thinking . . .
and a lot more that you already know.
I don’t think that those women, men, and young people
that don’t like or trust Hillary will automatically swing their
votes to her if she wins the nomination. Oops. Big problem !!!
Some of the Super Delegates may switch before or at
the convention. Oops. Big problem !!!
If Hillary put Bernie on the ticket she might survive at the
convention and against Trump. But that is unlikely.
So, while things look like a long shot for Bernie today, Hillary
looks like a question, maybe a long shot, for a clean win.
in big trouble yet.
He is tied with Hillary in delegates won. She has Super Delegates but she has
some looming big problems:
* money taken from Goldman Sachs for speeches
* the looming FBI e-mail investigation
* the fact that women don’t like her or trust her
* the fact that a lot of men don’t like or trust her
* the really big fact that millennials really don’t
want to vote for her as the leader of their future
* Elizabeth Warren could endorse Bernie
* Bernie could get Elizabeth Warren to join him on
his ticket
* Bill Clinton might do his thing and alienate Hillary
voters some more
* Chelsea could tell some more lies about Bernie’s
Health Care thinking . . .
and a lot more that you already know.
I don’t think that those women, men, and young people
that don’t like or trust Hillary will automatically swing their
votes to her if she wins the nomination. Oops. Big problem !!!
Some of the Super Delegates may switch before or at
the convention. Oops. Big problem !!!
If Hillary put Bernie on the ticket she might survive at the
convention and against Trump. But that is unlikely.
So, while things look like a long shot for Bernie today, Hillary
looks like a question, maybe a long shot, for a clean win.
10
GS and emails are "looming problems"? The email thing is a slow simmer, and the fact is she did not violate the law at the time she was SOS- there is no there there. All they are doing is saying some such sumptin in an email would have now been classified. GS is a big whatever. She gave speeches to big crowds, believe me, is she was giving away the store and making promises of untold political largess someone who was there would have come forward by now to take her down. Y'all think GS is in the bad for Clinton or vice versa, but if you really wanna know who they are in the bag for is the republicans. Those GS goes are not stalwart dems, they'd love to chop Clinton off at the knees. I'm sure her speeches were boring platitudes about the relative fabulousness of stuff in general. there is no smoking gun. Your wish list above is not all that interesting.
6
Margaret Sullivan, as the Public Editor it is high time you get on this shameful coverage campaign that makes the good old Pravda or Izvestia paragons of fairness in the press. Can you weigh in given 2369 responses so far!
13
Margaret Sullivan has flown the coop, left the sinking ship and is headed here to Washington DC, to collect Jeff Bezos paychecks to finish running the Washington Post into the ground.
6
I would rather watch sausage being made than watch Hillary pillage her way to the nomination. The corporatocracy is pulling every lever at their disposal, including their minions at the Times, only serving to turn apathy into disgust. 2016 will be a banner year for the Green Party.
16
I will never under any circumstamces vote for that cynical, lying, war-mongering greedster Hillary Clinton.
16
Super delegates are less a check and more a spoils system for candidates willing to barter votes for future political gain --- in spite of public opinion and interest.
The DNC presents super delegates as a rational way for the party to "brake [] irrational exuberance." But, super delegates open the door to insider political backscratching. Elected officials and party "elders" comprise super delegates. They can vote any way, regardless of public opinion or primary voting numbers.
In a recent interview, the DNC Chair and congresswoman Wasserman Schultz explained the arbitrariness of the super delegate system: "Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists." According to Wasserman, the system is designed to reward party elites while closing the door to motivated and capable community leaders.
In this case, Sanders would not qualify as a typical grassroots activist. But, even though he is not a traditional democrat, he signed on as a democrat in this election. For DNC standards, he is a grassroot activist that is widely popular with young people in the Democratic party -- the future of the party. By using a spoils system to reward Clinton (an admittedly competent public servant) the DNC is alienating and disenfranchising the future of the party.
The DNC presents super delegates as a rational way for the party to "brake [] irrational exuberance." But, super delegates open the door to insider political backscratching. Elected officials and party "elders" comprise super delegates. They can vote any way, regardless of public opinion or primary voting numbers.
In a recent interview, the DNC Chair and congresswoman Wasserman Schultz explained the arbitrariness of the super delegate system: "Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists." According to Wasserman, the system is designed to reward party elites while closing the door to motivated and capable community leaders.
In this case, Sanders would not qualify as a typical grassroots activist. But, even though he is not a traditional democrat, he signed on as a democrat in this election. For DNC standards, he is a grassroot activist that is widely popular with young people in the Democratic party -- the future of the party. By using a spoils system to reward Clinton (an admittedly competent public servant) the DNC is alienating and disenfranchising the future of the party.
4
This headline is very misleading and obviously another attempt by the NYTs to make people think HRC is the only viable choice for the Democratic nomination.
Given the misleading and biased articles published in this paper since the NYTs endorsed HRC, I'm seriously considering canceling my subscription to the NYTs.
Accurate and unbiased information is essential in a true democracy.
Given the misleading and biased articles published in this paper since the NYTs endorsed HRC, I'm seriously considering canceling my subscription to the NYTs.
Accurate and unbiased information is essential in a true democracy.
18
I'm disappointed NYT published this intentionally misleading article. Super delegates switch due to popular vote. Even Bill Clinton voted for Obama instead of Hillary in '08.
NYT feigned and spread ignorance by making it seem as though Hillary has a nearly 500 delegate lead. This "journalism" is intended to mislead, not inform. Disgusting and frustrating.
NYT feigned and spread ignorance by making it seem as though Hillary has a nearly 500 delegate lead. This "journalism" is intended to mislead, not inform. Disgusting and frustrating.
21
Can somebody please fact-check this article?
It says Clinton "has" 502 delegates. That is absolutely false. It would only be true if certain superdelegates had already voted for her. And no superdelegates have voted for anybody yet--that happens at the Democratic National Convention in July. To imply otherwise is incorrect and misleading.
I am startled to see this lack of accuracy in a NYT article.
It says Clinton "has" 502 delegates. That is absolutely false. It would only be true if certain superdelegates had already voted for her. And no superdelegates have voted for anybody yet--that happens at the Democratic National Convention in July. To imply otherwise is incorrect and misleading.
I am startled to see this lack of accuracy in a NYT article.
19
I have voted in every election held in my lifetime, except the one the day after my father died. That is the structure our government operates under. Those who decide not to vote, whatever their rationale are simply not doing their job. You have that right, but I don't believe it's anything to brag about in public. It just makes you irrelevant for the next 4 years.
6
Like some of those who have posted, I know quite a number of people who, although they cannot articulate a reason, have succumbed to the GOP smear tactics and hate Hillary with a blind and hot hate. Is she a perfect candidate? No, however, I see no perfect choices. I believe there are even more who would never, ever vote for Bernie.
I was concerned about the Supreme Court in 2008, and 2012, and I am still concerned. We survived 8 years with Bush, but we will have Alito and Roberts for many, many years to come.
We MUST have an electable candidate, and I think Hillary is our best bet.
I was concerned about the Supreme Court in 2008, and 2012, and I am still concerned. We survived 8 years with Bush, but we will have Alito and Roberts for many, many years to come.
We MUST have an electable candidate, and I think Hillary is our best bet.
4
"Right now Mrs. Clinton is focused on building her lead among pledged candidates."
Right now, she doesn't HAVE a lead among pledged delegates. The two candidates are tied at 51 to 51. But that crucial fact is the buried lead to the story. Hillary and Bernie are TIED in the delegate count after the first three state contests. Methinks I smell some pro-Hillary bias here.
Right now, she doesn't HAVE a lead among pledged delegates. The two candidates are tied at 51 to 51. But that crucial fact is the buried lead to the story. Hillary and Bernie are TIED in the delegate count after the first three state contests. Methinks I smell some pro-Hillary bias here.
11
Pardon me, NYT? Your spin is obvious and corrupt. You snicker about controlling the election. I can hear you.
21
This deserves an investigative team at the Times to clarify how the Super delegate system is undermining our democracy in the same way Citizens United does. Please stop the disinterested recitation of political "reality" when it subverts the basic tenants of democracy.
9
Compromise on one side only pushes the entire country to the right. Staking out a principled position on the left moves opinion and politics in a progressive direction. The Clintons are the paradigm of triangulation and corrupted compromise, with little or nothing to show progressive Democratic voters over the all the years of Bill's administration and Hillary's government service. We need a fundamentally different approach, which Bernie beautifully embodies and forcefully advocates. Even if he loses, Bernie will move our country's thinking in the direction it needs to go. Win or lose, Hillary represents the status quo.
12
In addition to the danger of another international tragedy if Clinton gains the nomination, Sanders is the only candidate that will seriously attempt to override Citizens United by appropriate appointments to the Supreme Court. It is not reasonable to assume that a candidate supported by millions of dollars from Superpacs and billionaires (and personally paid over $625,000 for three speeches to a Wall Street firm) will seriously attempt to bite the hand that promoted her selection.
10
My fellow progressives, I plead for a moment of clarity.
The catastrophe that has befallen our political system has one cause and one cause only: progressives don't vote. We barely trickle out in election years and we don't show up at all for mid-terms. The result has been 8 years of GW Bush and Republican control of the House and Senate. Our apathy has saddled the next Democratic president with a Republican House that will make it impossible to accomplish anything that can't be achieved by executive action.
The good news is we can fix the problem by getting out and voting every two years until we've dug ourselves out of this hole, but I'm terrified to see so many commentators engaged in infighting and threatening not to vote. What self-destructive impulse compels us to blame Hillary for the superdelegate system, which has been out in the open since 1982 as the official policy of the Democratic party? If you think this policy is bad for democracy, let's change it, but don't let that be an excuse to sit home and allow Trump, Cruz or Rubio to become President.
The lie that there is no difference between the mainstream of both parties is no longer sustainable. Republicans have become so extreme that there is an ocean of difference between the most conservative Democrat and the most moderate Republican. If for no other reason than Supreme Court nominations, a Democratic White House is an existential necessity.
Let's make this the year we put aside cynicism and go vote.
The catastrophe that has befallen our political system has one cause and one cause only: progressives don't vote. We barely trickle out in election years and we don't show up at all for mid-terms. The result has been 8 years of GW Bush and Republican control of the House and Senate. Our apathy has saddled the next Democratic president with a Republican House that will make it impossible to accomplish anything that can't be achieved by executive action.
The good news is we can fix the problem by getting out and voting every two years until we've dug ourselves out of this hole, but I'm terrified to see so many commentators engaged in infighting and threatening not to vote. What self-destructive impulse compels us to blame Hillary for the superdelegate system, which has been out in the open since 1982 as the official policy of the Democratic party? If you think this policy is bad for democracy, let's change it, but don't let that be an excuse to sit home and allow Trump, Cruz or Rubio to become President.
The lie that there is no difference between the mainstream of both parties is no longer sustainable. Republicans have become so extreme that there is an ocean of difference between the most conservative Democrat and the most moderate Republican. If for no other reason than Supreme Court nominations, a Democratic White House is an existential necessity.
Let's make this the year we put aside cynicism and go vote.
13
If Bernie has the right stuff and can tough out the fight to gain the nomination..we shall all vote for him with pleasure! If he does not get the nomination, the threat to sit out the election as a punishment for the entire nation is short-sighted and childish. We are facing the abyss as a democracy - which side are you on?
4
Not sure if you mean me specifically or people in general, but I'll be out there in November with bells on to vote for either Hillary or Bernie. Either one will make the county a far better place than the alternative.
4
My uncle died in defense of the ability to vote!!! My dad was shot up in the neck in defense of the freedom and values that America represents across the globe!!! I will always vote no matter how much any forces seek to undermine the fair process that open elections promise. I vote not just because I have a living history with this country, but because it is the RIGHT THING TO DO!!! When no candidate is listed on election forms, I, too, write in the proper candidate. This is not a wasted vote. There is too much at stake!!!
2
Super delegates have been a part of the Democratic Party’s nomination process since 1982. If Bernie Sanders didn’t know this, then he should have spent a little more time learning about the party that he’s joined. Even if the process changed, it shouldn’t be in the middle of an election where the voting has already started.
4
It's early days in a long race. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are tied in the elected delegate count. But Sanders is tapping a deep reservoir of hope and discontent with huge potential for momentum and Clinton can not escape her terrible choices on Wall Street, big money PAC's and the war in Iraq. A disaffected electorate wants a straight arrow, which Bernie Sanders is and Hillary Clinton isn't. Sanders will keep fighting to win the elected delegate count, then dare the Democratic Party machine to hand the nomination to Clinton.
14
This journalist took eleven paragraphs to get to the truth of the matter: "A New York Times analysis found that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are tied in the pledged delegate count, at 51 each". Does the NYT proof these articles before publishing them? Sheesh
16
The Republicans have made a mockery of voting rights through extensive gerrymandering by state legislatures and governors bought and paid for with right wing dark money. The DNC should not be colored by the same contaminated brush. Yes, Bernie is an honorable and admirable candidate and I have serious doubts about the strength of the leftist revolution in a country awash in heavily financed right wing extremism. Nevertheless, Democrats must maintain what remains of our democratic process and let the cards fall where they may. Let the debate be vigorous, and let the best candidate win on their merits.
2
Meanwhile the Democratic Presidential nomination is being bought with the same dark money and establishment gerrymandering.
Hypocrisy, thy party is Democrat.
Hypocrisy, thy party is Democrat.
7
As a barrister you should know that bluster is not evidence.
4
The dam always looks good until it breaks. The firewall seems great until the flames are lapping on the other side. Then, all hell breaks lose. Bernie is not beaten by the writing of mere newspaper articles. There's this new thing called the Internet. People now get to hear what their neighbors think and feel. They are not dependent upon the smoke and mirrors deployed by Oz.
8
When the Democrats really stand for something, then and only then will they get my unconditional party vote. As far as I am concerned they do not seem too much better than the Republicans. Under Obama we have had regime change in Ukraine, Libya and an attempt at regime change in Syria. We seem to have reignited the cold war with Russia. We are supporting Saudi Arabia in their mercilessly bombing of Yemen and their focus on overthrowing Assad in Syria all the while ISIS and al Qaeda are getting stronger in Yemen. We are now again bombing Libya against ISIS. Meanwhile ISIS is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Give me a break. How are the Democrats much different?
8
A new day, a new reason from NYT why Bernie Sanders can't possibly win. We get it, you are essentially a giant corporation, obviously far more interested in money then in news, and so you are in the bag for Hillary so hard that not even journalistic integrity will get in the way. In reality, the only concrete advantages Hillary has are superdelegates and a media bent to her will, and if she wins because of either then you may as well hand Trump the keys to the White House and spend the next 4 years trying to justify this Fox news level drivel.
16
I'm a little surprised at the vitriol expressed toward the delegates in the earlier comments. Bernie Sanders chose to run for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. He joined the Party in order to do that. Hillary Clinton and her husband have been active in Democratic politics for over thirty years. Both have campaigned for and contributed to many Democratic candidates, many of whom are community leaders. So, what did you expect, Sanders supporters? This isn't a faceless "party", it's made up of people who have relationships. Some people have cultivated those relationships, some have not.
6
Gawd I hate politics. All America ever talks about, an unending fixation.
Every time I ask a Sanders supporter --who complains about superdelegates why didn't he just run as an independent where none of these rules impede his progress--they quickly snap by that would be career suicide.
They go on about the benefits of running inside a party. Well guess what --it wasn't magic elves who provide resources, operational intelligence of each state, and a commitment to fund the race with manpower and cash. Those magic elves are called superdelegates. They spend untold hours building the party--to be something that Sanders desired to run under because the advantages are so great. If they left--it would be tantamount to running as an independent. So the people who build the party,and feed its survival get a say in the leadership. If you would rather skip that process---no state would prevent you from being on the ballot without a party.
They go on about the benefits of running inside a party. Well guess what --it wasn't magic elves who provide resources, operational intelligence of each state, and a commitment to fund the race with manpower and cash. Those magic elves are called superdelegates. They spend untold hours building the party--to be something that Sanders desired to run under because the advantages are so great. If they left--it would be tantamount to running as an independent. So the people who build the party,and feed its survival get a say in the leadership. If you would rather skip that process---no state would prevent you from being on the ballot without a party.
5
Obama won on Superdelegates. Why shouldn't Hillary?
Hillary raised $26 Million for the DNC. Bernie raised $0.
Maybe if Bernie had become more involved with the DNC, some of those Superdelegates would have supported him. As it is now, he didn't help them get elected to their offices, so why should they help him???
Bernie is a Democrat only when convenient. Maybe VP, but not Prez.
Hillary raised $26 Million for the DNC. Bernie raised $0.
Maybe if Bernie had become more involved with the DNC, some of those Superdelegates would have supported him. As it is now, he didn't help them get elected to their offices, so why should they help him???
Bernie is a Democrat only when convenient. Maybe VP, but not Prez.
5
Yes, a steep climb - but only thanks to superdelegates. Many of these elected officials have already pledged to support HRC because, apparently, they need Goldman-Sachs money to stay elected too. The dem primary is even more undemocratic than the republican primary.
9
Dear NYT Editorial Staff,
This is the first time I haver ever felt absolute disgust reading a NYT article. This article essentially reads like Hit Piece. From the headline to the buried facts, everything here oozes with slime. No, Ms. Clinton does not hold a 502-70 lead in delegates. It's tied, 51-51. You bury the fact that Super delegates can always change. The story you spin here is so nauseatingly shameless, you've clearly let your bias influence the voice and tenor of your articles, and op-eds. This is the latest--and worst--example.
I am honestly sickened by this piece. It brings to mind your putrid reporting of WMDs leading up to the War in Iraq. Honestly, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Your bias is incontrovertible, overt and utterly nefarious.
Perhaps your proximity to Wall Street, or allegiance to the Clintons is influencing these decisions. But, I have to tell you, the New York Times' reporting of Bernie Sanders' campaign has hit a new low. Shame on you, New York Times Editors. Shame on you.
Since reading this piece I am enraged and even more inspired to support Bernie, with my money and my voice, and my time.
You call this reporting? I call it Yellow Journalism.
This is the first time I haver ever felt absolute disgust reading a NYT article. This article essentially reads like Hit Piece. From the headline to the buried facts, everything here oozes with slime. No, Ms. Clinton does not hold a 502-70 lead in delegates. It's tied, 51-51. You bury the fact that Super delegates can always change. The story you spin here is so nauseatingly shameless, you've clearly let your bias influence the voice and tenor of your articles, and op-eds. This is the latest--and worst--example.
I am honestly sickened by this piece. It brings to mind your putrid reporting of WMDs leading up to the War in Iraq. Honestly, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Your bias is incontrovertible, overt and utterly nefarious.
Perhaps your proximity to Wall Street, or allegiance to the Clintons is influencing these decisions. But, I have to tell you, the New York Times' reporting of Bernie Sanders' campaign has hit a new low. Shame on you, New York Times Editors. Shame on you.
Since reading this piece I am enraged and even more inspired to support Bernie, with my money and my voice, and my time.
You call this reporting? I call it Yellow Journalism.
29
"You call this reporting? I call it Yellow Journalism."
How about calling it pro-Clinton propaganda?
How about calling it pro-Clinton propaganda?
14
"If Sanders wins the popular vote, he should get the support of the super delegates and I believe he will."
I agree.
Hillary had a bunch of "committed" super delegates in 2008 too, and she planned to do an end run around Obama at the convention. In the end, though, the super delegates told her: "Look, Hillary, Obama has crushed you in the primaries, and he's not a "McGovern" who has no chance of winning in November. We can't thwart the will of the Party's voters. We've got to side with Obama." And Hillary, to her credit, caved in the end (not that she had much choice at that point).
It might be the same this time, or not. If Bernie's supporters don't give up and Bernie kicks Hillary's butt in the remaining primaries, Bernie will be in the same position as Obama was in in 2008. With one possible exception: The Party establishment may conclude that Bernie can't win in November, and so they WON'T side the the Party's voters.
In any case, if Bernie's supporters just give up now, simply because Hillary's supporters are reminding them that she can always play the "super delegates" card, Hillary will cake-walk to the nomination, almost certainly with "voter support" because Bernie's supporters will have rolled over and played dead. That's exactly what Hillary is hoping.
I agree.
Hillary had a bunch of "committed" super delegates in 2008 too, and she planned to do an end run around Obama at the convention. In the end, though, the super delegates told her: "Look, Hillary, Obama has crushed you in the primaries, and he's not a "McGovern" who has no chance of winning in November. We can't thwart the will of the Party's voters. We've got to side with Obama." And Hillary, to her credit, caved in the end (not that she had much choice at that point).
It might be the same this time, or not. If Bernie's supporters don't give up and Bernie kicks Hillary's butt in the remaining primaries, Bernie will be in the same position as Obama was in in 2008. With one possible exception: The Party establishment may conclude that Bernie can't win in November, and so they WON'T side the the Party's voters.
In any case, if Bernie's supporters just give up now, simply because Hillary's supporters are reminding them that she can always play the "super delegates" card, Hillary will cake-walk to the nomination, almost certainly with "voter support" because Bernie's supporters will have rolled over and played dead. That's exactly what Hillary is hoping.
6
From my perspective, it would be embarrassment if Hillary only wins because of the super delegates. That is why I think that she would work extra hard to earn the most pledge delegates.
1
As many commenters have noted, The New York Times has been aggressively emphasizing the super-delegate factor in order to convince their readers that Bernie Sanders campaign against Hillary Clinton was hopelessly doomed. We are repeatedly told that Clinton outmaneuvered Sanders using the party elites. In short, The New York Times reminds us to vote for Clinton or else.
But this particular tactic utilized by The New York Times might have significant blow-back: If The Times continues to trumpet each day how Clinton has easily beaten Sanders via super-delegate influence and other antidemocratic methods, what message does that send to young Democratic voters?
The last thing the Democratic Party needs is for the Republican Party primary to seem more honest and forthright. By continually trumpeting how Clinton has beaten Sanders using these underhanded tactics, you are building a very negative image of Hillary for the general election. Is this truly the best strategy? Sometimes The New York Times can be its own worst enemy.
But this particular tactic utilized by The New York Times might have significant blow-back: If The Times continues to trumpet each day how Clinton has easily beaten Sanders via super-delegate influence and other antidemocratic methods, what message does that send to young Democratic voters?
The last thing the Democratic Party needs is for the Republican Party primary to seem more honest and forthright. By continually trumpeting how Clinton has beaten Sanders using these underhanded tactics, you are building a very negative image of Hillary for the general election. Is this truly the best strategy? Sometimes The New York Times can be its own worst enemy.
16
The actual count is 51 pledged delegates each. The count of the super delegates is far from official. Nothing about the data, particularly the trend line, suggests that Sen. Sanders is losing momentum. I find it disturbing that in both the Republican and Democrat contests the news media, NY Times in particular, are shaping the outcome.
10
As is unfortunately becoming the norm, a lot of fiery commentators quite obviously didn't bother to read the article before launching their bottle rockets. It quite clearly explains why Sanders faces an uphill climb gaining delegates, and Sanders advisors concur. It quite clearly states the superdelegates are unlikely to support any candidate who in the end has not won the most elected delegates. It explains in detail the 2008 delegate process and how this all worked with Clinton vs. Obama. Shouting louder will not elect Bernie.
6
How can the NYT have NOTHING good to say about Bernie? Are you not listening to him? Your pro-Hillary bias is so glaring that I am embarrassed for you.
10
It is time for the NYTimes to stop misleading readers with headlines and graphics that insinuate that Clinton is far head of Sanders in delegates, when, in fact, they have exactly equal numbers of elected delegates. It is deplorable that the NY Times bias is so transparent.
The only good that may come from this manipulation is to alert Sanders' supporters--and all Americans--to the travesty of the superdelegate tool by which our democracy is being hijacked by those who "know better." I am eagerly awaiting the outrage sure to come and only hope that the NY Times will not do too much damage in the meantime by undermining the incredible grassroots campaign that Sanders is running.
The only good that may come from this manipulation is to alert Sanders' supporters--and all Americans--to the travesty of the superdelegate tool by which our democracy is being hijacked by those who "know better." I am eagerly awaiting the outrage sure to come and only hope that the NY Times will not do too much damage in the meantime by undermining the incredible grassroots campaign that Sanders is running.
13
The sooner Mr. Bernie is stopped from paralyzing youth democratic voters with the hangover of a fantasy overdose the better.
2
There is a sense that Sanders is getting the short end of the stick. But he is not without fault. He entered the race late. He has never courted party regulars. His platform makes him an independent, just as he was during his years in Congress. Clinton, by contrast, is the party insider and has been for a long time. So Sanders put himself in a position where he had to take Democratic voters by storm pretty much from the outset. A long, hard slog was never the idea. A maverick either catches fire or loses. Sanders put himself in this all or nothing position. So Super Tuesday is make or break for him. Blaming that on anyone but Sanders is naive.
5
The fact is that Clinton for president is every bit as unappealing to Democrats as Jeb! was to Republicans: A terrible idea, not liked at all outside of the incestuous group of insular elites living in their bubble-world, isolated from reality.
13
One has to wonder why the Times wasn't in Hill's corner in 2008. What has changed editors, Obama certainly wasn't the better choice. Far from it. No experience at all and yet they were all over him as their man. Now the Clintonian Times (formerly known as The NY Times) is squarely behind the corporate shill (aka Hillary Clinton).
What gives?
What gives?
5
No no no.
The NYT "was" in Hillary Clinton's corner in the beginning, then Maureen Dowd fired the first salvo against a Clinton dynasty and the betrayal began. Suddenly Obama was the best thing since sliced bread. The dominoes began to fall when the Obama campaign played the race card to score the comeback win in South Carolina.
You gotta go back and look at the news archives of the 2008 primary. Absolutely fascinating to see.
The NYT "was" in Hillary Clinton's corner in the beginning, then Maureen Dowd fired the first salvo against a Clinton dynasty and the betrayal began. Suddenly Obama was the best thing since sliced bread. The dominoes began to fall when the Obama campaign played the race card to score the comeback win in South Carolina.
You gotta go back and look at the news archives of the 2008 primary. Absolutely fascinating to see.
4
In this dimension, or in yours?
In service to America, you should stop writing and seek recovery at some retreat until late November. Take the other kids in the NYTimes Entertainment Tonight and warped horserace election reporting with you.
What America needs is not this stuff -- it's coverage of the issue priorities and the merits of the candidates' positions on them. That will require serious coverage of Bernie's issues and ptiorities.
Re you horserace:
In pledged delegates from Americans' votes, Bernie is even with Hillary.
In votes from Americans -- three states so far -- he is far ahead.
In the polls, Hillary is sinking slowly. Despite the 8-month Bernie blackout at the NYTimes, Bernie is rising like a rocket.
What America needs is not this stuff -- it's coverage of the issue priorities and the merits of the candidates' positions on them. That will require serious coverage of Bernie's issues and ptiorities.
Re you horserace:
In pledged delegates from Americans' votes, Bernie is even with Hillary.
In votes from Americans -- three states so far -- he is far ahead.
In the polls, Hillary is sinking slowly. Despite the 8-month Bernie blackout at the NYTimes, Bernie is rising like a rocket.
17
I say the delegates are promised to the Democrats shouldn't go to Sanders at all. The "Democratic Socialist" is a farce.
1
It's really untrue to claim that the superdelegates are all for Clinton. If you remember back in 2008, most or all had come out for Hillary, or Biden, or Edwards at one point, and very few for Obama. Here's the way you get superdelegates on your side: win more primaries. It's not any harder than that. Counting them as "for Clinton" is a fiction, and it plays into an "unfair" stereotype that helps to ignite the Bernie base. Superdelegates would only come into play if there is no clear winner by the time of the convention, and it was there after some bad experiences, notably 1972. Obama turned superdelegates favorable for him by winning over and over where he was not expected to. And then the Kennedy endorsement sealed the deal. So, don't presume it's fixed against Bernie. It's not. And I back Hillary.
5
The title of this article is so misleading. It's my understanding they are tied, or virtually tied, in elected delegates. I can't believe the super delegates, regardless of the candidate they now support, would not vote to nominate the candidate with the majority of the elected delegates. So it is at present a tie.
9
Aside from Bernie's votes against gun control, why are all the Trump supporters, masquerading as Bernie partisans here, so fervent for the Democrats to chose him as their candidate: is it simple misogyny or the chance to have an easy victory in the general election?
4
Those are fair questions. I'm certainly not a Trump supporter, but that doesn't matter. I've never felt Bernie could win in November. I now think Hillary has very little chance. That changes the analysis: If your candidate isn't going to win anyway, should you pick your candidate for the same reasons you'd pick him or her if he had a realistic chance of winning? I think not; the reasons change, and they point toward picking Bernie.
1
Not sure how it is that Sanders is "losing" momentum when he chipped away at the big leads Clinton had in Nevada, narrowing her double digit lead to about 5%. The HMS Clinton is a sinking ship but just hasn't realized the damage the Sanders has inflicted. If it appears she finagled the nomination through Super Delegates, by November the Democrats will have a dispirited electorate that will not turn out.
10
The problem here is that the people's choice is being decided by the establishment. The idea that these super delegates should be casting their votes before real voters is offensive. We shouldn't hear a peep from them until the will of voters is known. If Hillary wins fine, but she needs to do it at the ballot box and not on K Street.
12
I love Bernie, but he has run as an Independent most of his career. As such he has not had to be subject to the constant barrage of slander and lies that most Democrats are constantly fighting throughout their careers. Being an Independent has been a great advantage for Bernie. Hillary, on the other hand has been a Democrat, and subject to decades of hateful slander and lies by Republicans and the media, to the point that most voters do not even know what she has accomplished, - let alone that she has been fighting for Democrat goals for over 35 years. She is an amazing woman who has constantly weathered ruthless inane attacks while fighting for the disadvantaged and women. The Super delegates know all this, so they vote accordingly, because they know Hillary. But this whole topic is over blown, because she is winning anyway, and Bernie would make an excellent VP.
5
In the 35 years under the clintons there have been more pens built than schools... history is repeating itsself and im not sitting around to see more of my powerful minded youth brothers go back in. For anothe 20 to life.
Bernie 2016-2020
Bernie 2016-2020
6
After Clinton's initiatives on crime prevention, there was a 90% drop in gun deaths in NYC from 1992-2015. That was a savings of over 31,000 lives. When you look at the stats, white death rates stayed the same. Almost all lives saved were Blacks and Latinos. Yes Black lives matter, and the Clintons have saved 10s of thousands of them.
5
Bernie supporters are already beginning to whine and make excuses for their loss. Superdelegates are unfair, boo hoo, the establishment is against us, boo hoo, Hillary's corrupt, but we don't slander her, because Bernie is so nice, boo hoo, All of us Independents (even Bernie) changed our party affiliation to Democrat so we could elect Bernie. If he doesn't win, we will take our toys and go home, boo hoo.
Man up Bernie fans, we have a long road ahead and you ain't seen nothing yet. We women and the people you propose to help, the Latinos, AAs, etc. are behind Hills and we're not going to let you win. Get out your Kleenexes.
Man up Bernie fans, we have a long road ahead and you ain't seen nothing yet. We women and the people you propose to help, the Latinos, AAs, etc. are behind Hills and we're not going to let you win. Get out your Kleenexes.
6
First of all, This article really shows me NYT is not objective in reporting. NYT please fix this, or how can I trust your other news coverage?
Secondly this article motivates me to donate to Bernie's campaign again. If you have not yet, check out the NYT report on campaign funds accumulated so far per candidate.
The future is down to each of us! What is the people's opinion? Let the career politicians see it by our numbers.
Secondly this article motivates me to donate to Bernie's campaign again. If you have not yet, check out the NYT report on campaign funds accumulated so far per candidate.
The future is down to each of us! What is the people's opinion? Let the career politicians see it by our numbers.
9
Could the reason be the 'Superdelegates' are unrepresentative & thus undermining the intended democratic process of party prmaries?
Bernie Sanders is running against entrenced unaccountable politicians.
He's pretty corrageous to do so, isn't he ?
Bernie Sanders is running against entrenced unaccountable politicians.
He's pretty corrageous to do so, isn't he ?
6
It is not/shouldn't be surprising to me, but wow the NYT is shilling for Hillary! Your allegiance is so clear....how disappointing.
9
Silly Bernie supporters are relegated to living their adult lives from their parents's basements, because the current Progressive president has ensured economic stagnation, and yet they think the answer to low opportunity is to skip the actual production part and get straight in line for the compensation.
May I recommend Venezuela, they have a lot of lines already formed up there.
Truthfully, Hillary and the DNC machine aren't going to allow a foolish old man to get the nod. Hell, she has committed felonies in the light of day and has never been held to account, what is going to stop her now, the notion of fairness? Please, give me a break.
I'm just saddened to hear the laments of all the moronicals that not only thought that they could get everything for free, but also thought they had a say in the DNC.
May I recommend Venezuela, they have a lot of lines already formed up there.
Truthfully, Hillary and the DNC machine aren't going to allow a foolish old man to get the nod. Hell, she has committed felonies in the light of day and has never been held to account, what is going to stop her now, the notion of fairness? Please, give me a break.
I'm just saddened to hear the laments of all the moronicals that not only thought that they could get everything for free, but also thought they had a say in the DNC.
2
The Dems have it rigged for their special money interests to triumph regardless of what the 'people' want..
5
As a Democrat who will support either Sanders or Clinton, I am saddened to read the constant negativity and vitriol from many Sanders supporters every time the possibility of a of Hillary nomination is even mentioned. I really do not think Bernie Sanders would approve of this ---and my guess is that if she does win the nomination, he would probably vote for her as they are aligned on so many issues. He certainly would not want a Republican to win the election!
8
"Aligned on many issues"...................well yes she's lifted them all from Bernie.
5
Wow!
NY Times moderators are deleting comments from subscribers who are announcing subscription cancellations over the NYT misleading coverage of the Sanders campaign.
So much for a free press y'all.
NY Times moderators are deleting comments from subscribers who are announcing subscription cancellations over the NYT misleading coverage of the Sanders campaign.
So much for a free press y'all.
15
I won't vote for a triangulating, poll-sniffing, Goldman Sachs lap dog for president. Better to have the disaster of four years of Republican depredations than to have the Democrat Party tainted for decades in the hearts and minds of decent citizens all over this country desperate for something good and true about this country to believe in and get out in the streets for once again.
7
Thanks, Dan. Completely agree--couldn't have said it better myself.
"I am the hope and the dream of the slave," so Maya Angelou wrote.
Black Americans have dreamed long enough: MLK had a dream and many are still slumbering awaiting the morning light of equality; now we have Mr. Sandman with a bagful of moon dust attempting to lull the masses. Your turn to dream, White America; we will be campaigning and voting for Hillary.
What physical civil rights activities has Senator Sanders partaken in since 1963? Participation in sit-ins and marches back then for young Whites was analogous to a domestic Peace Corps. I mean not to diminish the commitment and bravery of those who lost life and limb for the cause as most were genuine, but admittedly there were some hangers-on seeking only adventure.
Senator Sanders offers too little, too late for us to feel the Bern, in his speeches he seems to see me and mine only as impoverished and crime-ridden, but Black citizens face the same obstacles and issues as our White, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American co-citizens. Unfortunately, as always, it is the minority citizens who have the most to lose under a Republican administration (to tell the truth at times a Democratic as well) and it is for that reason we cannot afford risking the nomination to the unelectable Bernie Sanders.
But! Should he become the Democratic candidate, he will have my vote and I hope the same can be said of the Berners should Hillary Clinton prevail.
Secretary Clinton 2016, 2020
Black Americans have dreamed long enough: MLK had a dream and many are still slumbering awaiting the morning light of equality; now we have Mr. Sandman with a bagful of moon dust attempting to lull the masses. Your turn to dream, White America; we will be campaigning and voting for Hillary.
What physical civil rights activities has Senator Sanders partaken in since 1963? Participation in sit-ins and marches back then for young Whites was analogous to a domestic Peace Corps. I mean not to diminish the commitment and bravery of those who lost life and limb for the cause as most were genuine, but admittedly there were some hangers-on seeking only adventure.
Senator Sanders offers too little, too late for us to feel the Bern, in his speeches he seems to see me and mine only as impoverished and crime-ridden, but Black citizens face the same obstacles and issues as our White, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American co-citizens. Unfortunately, as always, it is the minority citizens who have the most to lose under a Republican administration (to tell the truth at times a Democratic as well) and it is for that reason we cannot afford risking the nomination to the unelectable Bernie Sanders.
But! Should he become the Democratic candidate, he will have my vote and I hope the same can be said of the Berners should Hillary Clinton prevail.
Secretary Clinton 2016, 2020
5
Here you go: a summary of Sanders and civil rights.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/20-examples-bernie-sanders-powerfu...
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/20-examples-bernie-sanders-powerfu...
3
I have been a Democrat for 40 years. Maybe I'm a Reagan Democrat (whatever that is).
But I have never been, and will never, ever be, a Clinton Democrat.
But I have never been, and will never, ever be, a Clinton Democrat.
8
You have readers picks and NYT picks. In the NYT picks I sense a very Clinton bias. But maybe not. Can somebody write a program that compares positive bias for Hillary versus positive bias for Bernie in the NY category? It would be based on keywords such as unelectable. Then run that against the biases in the readers's picks category as a baseline. It could be "enlightening".
5
Right now Barry Sanders has a better shot at the Democratic Presidential nomination than Bernie Sanders.
3
Right now Col. Sanders has a better shot at defeating Donald Trump in a general election as the Democratic nominee.
3
It really doesn't make a difference if my man, Bernie Sanders wins the primary. He'll return to the Senate as a Super Senator. His inspiring message of a new America will reverberate long after he & I are gone & one day in the future Bernie's ideas will be put in practice & our grandchildren will live in a better country where the rich get less rich & the poor will do much better.
Donald Trump is working to make sure a Republican will not win in November. For that I give The Donald my thanks. Hillary Clinton will be an OK president cut from the 1990s presidency of her husband Bill. I like Bill but due to his triangulation, he did a few horrible things that gave us the unhappy US we live in today...& I don't mean his sex life.
NAFTA has gutted the US for the working man. In my small city 10 thousand workers of Whirlpool & subsidiaries are working jobs that pay 1/4 of what they made for 20-30 years with zero benefits. Factories & good jobs are still leaving the US in record numbers. The ending of Glass-Steagall on Bill's watch gave an opening for Fox News & Rush Limbaugh to grow in size to be able to ruin the minds of our Tea Party less than no-information voters.
Hillary will learn & do better but still....she will not be inspirational like Pres. Bernie would be. Of course our politics & government are too corrupt for a Pres. Bernie, but Bernie let the cat out of the bag & Americans will demand more & better in the future because of him. My 2 kids are why I want better!
Donald Trump is working to make sure a Republican will not win in November. For that I give The Donald my thanks. Hillary Clinton will be an OK president cut from the 1990s presidency of her husband Bill. I like Bill but due to his triangulation, he did a few horrible things that gave us the unhappy US we live in today...& I don't mean his sex life.
NAFTA has gutted the US for the working man. In my small city 10 thousand workers of Whirlpool & subsidiaries are working jobs that pay 1/4 of what they made for 20-30 years with zero benefits. Factories & good jobs are still leaving the US in record numbers. The ending of Glass-Steagall on Bill's watch gave an opening for Fox News & Rush Limbaugh to grow in size to be able to ruin the minds of our Tea Party less than no-information voters.
Hillary will learn & do better but still....she will not be inspirational like Pres. Bernie would be. Of course our politics & government are too corrupt for a Pres. Bernie, but Bernie let the cat out of the bag & Americans will demand more & better in the future because of him. My 2 kids are why I want better!
3
idk, bernie has 40 years in politics and hasn't done much. No, he did not get the Federal Reserve audited. he did get 2 post offices in Vermont named though. Not built, named.
3
If you want to see how hard the media is playing for Hillary, just count the votes without the super delegates. They are tied at 51. Doesn't sound like "far behind" to me.
9
Except they are going into the next 12 states looking for a win--and it is hard to find. She is up by double digits in 9 of 10 states, She is tied in 1/12 and close in 1/12/. The only decisive win he is looking at is his home state. So....is it media or is it just reality.
3
This article is proof that Bernie Sanders has a very good chance of being the Democratic nominee. The NY TImes and the country's elites want to run a con game on millennials and the middle class and make you think that Clinton is winning. She is not. Superdelegates will fall in line behind who the voters vote for. They will do what they're told or there will be riots and Trump will win. Make no mistake. Do no believe the NY Times. If you are middle class, they are not your friend.
15
Do those counts reflect actual committed delegates or also delegates who say they PLAN to support Clinton. Circumstances can change, you know.
4
If you subtract Hillary's 449 superdelegates, she only has won 53 by popular vote. Bernie has 19 superdelegates, so has won 51 by popular vote.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) will lobby the uncommitted superdelegates to vote for Hillary. Their machine is powerful. Most of the superdelegates hold their elected positions thanks to the endorsement of the DNC, so, they feel obliged to do what the DNC wants. And the DNC can destroy political careers.
It takes courageous superdelegates to stand up to the DNC.
Sanders and Clinton are two delegates apart with the popular vote. Essentially, at this point, neck-in-neck. If Clinton wins thanks to her superdelegates, her victory will be a reflection of a party machine, and not the people's will.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) will lobby the uncommitted superdelegates to vote for Hillary. Their machine is powerful. Most of the superdelegates hold their elected positions thanks to the endorsement of the DNC, so, they feel obliged to do what the DNC wants. And the DNC can destroy political careers.
It takes courageous superdelegates to stand up to the DNC.
Sanders and Clinton are two delegates apart with the popular vote. Essentially, at this point, neck-in-neck. If Clinton wins thanks to her superdelegates, her victory will be a reflection of a party machine, and not the people's will.
6
You forget they aren't standing up to Sanders. They don't like him. He is mean, He spits on the party every second he gets. And he has not made many friends.
They don't want to run with a man on the top of the ticket who swears he will rease payroll taxes by 2.6 percent. No person who has ever said they were raising middle class taxes have survided. So be clear. They are siding with who they want.
They don't want to run with a man on the top of the ticket who swears he will rease payroll taxes by 2.6 percent. No person who has ever said they were raising middle class taxes have survided. So be clear. They are siding with who they want.
3
Manny, you forget, the reason Super Delegates were created is because Democrats had difficulty coalescing around one candidate at nominating conventions. The Democratic National Committee did not think this disorganization looked good to voters, and decided to inject the idea of electability into the equation, that is, they started considering who looked better on television, who spoke better, who seemed more sincere, things that had nothing to do with actual platforms, but definitely contributed to the electability of a candidate.
Hillary's husband was Bill. She already had a brand name--Clinton. Voters tend not to like or trust her, but they liked Bill, so many vote for her because of that. She talks a lot at debates--empty words--but because of her brand name, not her ideas, the DNC thinks she is most electable.
They also created Super Delegates, to ensure one candidate would be definitively nominated for President. I happen to believe that Democrats, overall, have a far better platform than Republicans, but the influence of the DNC on these Super Delegates is powerful. After all, the DNC endorsed them and helped elect them.
Your words are a bit harsh vis à vis Bernie. He's well-known, well-liked and a long-standing member of Congress. He does not spit on his allies.
If your taxes were raised 2%, but all of your medical care and medicine were free, wouldn't that be a worthwhile tradeoff? Right now, I imagine your deductible is higher than 2% of your income.
Hillary's husband was Bill. She already had a brand name--Clinton. Voters tend not to like or trust her, but they liked Bill, so many vote for her because of that. She talks a lot at debates--empty words--but because of her brand name, not her ideas, the DNC thinks she is most electable.
They also created Super Delegates, to ensure one candidate would be definitively nominated for President. I happen to believe that Democrats, overall, have a far better platform than Republicans, but the influence of the DNC on these Super Delegates is powerful. After all, the DNC endorsed them and helped elect them.
Your words are a bit harsh vis à vis Bernie. He's well-known, well-liked and a long-standing member of Congress. He does not spit on his allies.
If your taxes were raised 2%, but all of your medical care and medicine were free, wouldn't that be a worthwhile tradeoff? Right now, I imagine your deductible is higher than 2% of your income.
1
Good grief super delegates are NOT NEW. They were around in 2008 as well and even before then, some folks need to pull their big boy and big girl pants up and stop acting like little spoiled children. Come November I will happily vote for either Sanders or Clinton, both are WAY better than any republican candidate. All this hand wringing and folks stomping their feet declaring they will not vote for the other candidate is a sure fire way to end up with a President Trump, Rubio or Cruz. Wake up Democrats and STOP doing the republicans work for them!
9
If it truly is "experience" that's guiding voters in the Democratic nomination process then people need to do some digging and learn who really is the more experienced civil servant in this race; since when does the position of First Lady, a short stint as Senator and another as a cabinet member eclipse decades of legislative positions? The problem is that, as an insurgent, Bernie never really wanted to run on experience (until you'll notice he was pressured into responding so wisely reiterated with the description of better judgement). This was always supposed to be about us not him; and it still is...but I guess we are not up to the task. What a genuine disappointment; we could've really made history.
3
I think once we start focusing on the popular vote now rather that delegates that can change their minds the outlook will get better. For such an epic underdog news outlet are very pessimistic for Bernie while remaining optimistic for Hillary who's middle name should really be "Scandal".
4
I feel sorry for Bernie's supporters. Bernie raised false hopes in pursuit of what was at best a very risky strategy.
Rather than aiming to upend the system in one glorious stroke, the path for progressive change is slow, and requires working in organizations and for causes that are poorly served by the Democratic Party.
Yes, the system is "fixed." It goes as far back as the Constitution, which is intended to prevent what founders considered to be excesses of democracy. Madison is explicit about this in Federalist 10, and it seems to have worked his way.
Yes, wealthier Americans have more input in the system than poorer people. At best, the Democratic Party is a coalition that *includes* organizations that fight for the interests of poorer people. It's not a labor party. Labor is politically weak in the US, so a labor party would also be weak.
As a wise man once said, people make history, but not under conditions that they choose.
Rather than aiming to upend the system in one glorious stroke, the path for progressive change is slow, and requires working in organizations and for causes that are poorly served by the Democratic Party.
Yes, the system is "fixed." It goes as far back as the Constitution, which is intended to prevent what founders considered to be excesses of democracy. Madison is explicit about this in Federalist 10, and it seems to have worked his way.
Yes, wealthier Americans have more input in the system than poorer people. At best, the Democratic Party is a coalition that *includes* organizations that fight for the interests of poorer people. It's not a labor party. Labor is politically weak in the US, so a labor party would also be weak.
As a wise man once said, people make history, but not under conditions that they choose.
5
This article oddly frames the delegate math. It leads off with a delegate count that includes super delegates in the mix. If they are included, Clinton is posting a strong lead. It fails to mention that, in contrast, if we ignore super delegates, and focus on those specifically earned from registered voters in the state contests so far, then Clinton and Sanders are actually tied. It should be noted that these are the delegates earned democratically, whereas super delegates are obtained through an insider system of appointed delegates, which is suspect because of the patronage system it promotes.
That odd framing is reversed when talking about the 2008 primaries, when Clinton also had a large lead in super delegates. Obama's comparative numbers are instead counted based on the delegates he earned by voters, and do not include super delegates who, at this early stage in the primaries, Obama had yet to attract.
That switch in framing does a serious disservice to the reader, and amplifies the less than fair, and less than upright reporting that the NYTimes has been engaged in.
That odd framing is reversed when talking about the 2008 primaries, when Clinton also had a large lead in super delegates. Obama's comparative numbers are instead counted based on the delegates he earned by voters, and do not include super delegates who, at this early stage in the primaries, Obama had yet to attract.
That switch in framing does a serious disservice to the reader, and amplifies the less than fair, and less than upright reporting that the NYTimes has been engaged in.
11
It really is a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. Sigh. . . .
3
Bernie Sanders wants to play hard ball with the big kids but on his terms, dismantling Democratic party procedures and instituting a democratic socialism? Yes, we need dreamers, but with them comes danger. The most immediate dangers he poses to the party is that 1) his one-plank platform makes him unelectable and 2) his supporters moan, groan, and sit home pouting on election day rather than vote for a woman who has dedicated her life and career to public service and party loyalty and played by the rules of the world we actually live in. Sorry, but Sanders is also the GOP's dream candidate.
7
Super delegates in the Democratic Party can cast their votes for any presidential candidate who suits their pleasure, without attention to the voting mandates of rank and file Party members. This extra-democratic authority is an affront to the democratic voting process and a slap in the face to all primary voters and caucus goers, a shameless thwarting of the people's will by the Party's professional political class and the economic elite who seek to extract influence in exchange for their campaign contributions.
I have been a life long Democrat my entire life and would like to remain so, but should these super-delegate votes be cast in contravention of the popular, majority will of Democratic primary voters, I will leave the Democratic Party. Moreover, I will be forced to consider whether I will vote for any presidential candidate.
With the Supreme Court possibly in the balance, a decision not to support the official Democratic nominee at the voting booth is one I wiill not make lightly. I understand the potential consequences of a Republican president, yet I also have no wish to be personally complicit in the ongoing degradation of our electoral process. Should Party leaders give us the back of their hands they will be responsible for the SCOTUS nominee outcome. However the Democratic leaders address the issue of super-delegates, their decisions wil also, I dare say, have a profound effect on the outcome of the election, the Party and the future of the country.
I have been a life long Democrat my entire life and would like to remain so, but should these super-delegate votes be cast in contravention of the popular, majority will of Democratic primary voters, I will leave the Democratic Party. Moreover, I will be forced to consider whether I will vote for any presidential candidate.
With the Supreme Court possibly in the balance, a decision not to support the official Democratic nominee at the voting booth is one I wiill not make lightly. I understand the potential consequences of a Republican president, yet I also have no wish to be personally complicit in the ongoing degradation of our electoral process. Should Party leaders give us the back of their hands they will be responsible for the SCOTUS nominee outcome. However the Democratic leaders address the issue of super-delegates, their decisions wil also, I dare say, have a profound effect on the outcome of the election, the Party and the future of the country.
8
If you were friends with HENRY KISSINGER and claimed to be a liberal, would you not keep that appalling fact to yourself, rather than publicly advertise it to the world? It's like she's baiting us. “I can hitch my wagon to the most disgusting war criminals and the most depraved policies and you'll all vote for me anyway because you have no choice.“
This woman is in for a major awakening. Of course, after losing the election, she'll walk off into the sunset with her Mount Everest of Wall Street money and we'll be the ones who suffer.
This woman is in for a major awakening. Of course, after losing the election, she'll walk off into the sunset with her Mount Everest of Wall Street money and we'll be the ones who suffer.
Am I understanding this correctly? If the Sanders supporters do not get their guy on the ballot, a significant number of them will either not vote for Hillary Clinton refrain from voting at all? How is that responsible? God forbid the GOP takes the POTUS, then I guess we know who to place blame when the GOP craziness goes into even higher gear beginning next year. Unbelievable.
7
Stop playing games James and stand for your convictions.
8
The Sanders supporters who have vowed not to vote for Clinton or that they will instead vote for the GOP or not vote at all if Sanders is not the Democratic nominee are the ones who are playing a dangerous game here.
8
We don't regard government as a game sir. And neither should you.
6
I wonder how the NYT is going to cover the picket lines at the 2016 Democratic National Convention when Bernie supporters (maybe even Bernie Sanders himself) are marching up and down the street blocking traffic singing "We Shall Overcome"...how rich is that train wreck going to be America?
6
So all the super dellegates are Hillary supporters, bought and paid for?
Yet we are told this is the Democratic Party? Whats so democratic about that? Why bother with debates and primaries, if they mean nothing? Its obvious The Democrats themselves are sick of cronyism... Meanwhile we in the GOP are being conned by a New York con man. Stay tuned...
Yet we are told this is the Democratic Party? Whats so democratic about that? Why bother with debates and primaries, if they mean nothing? Its obvious The Democrats themselves are sick of cronyism... Meanwhile we in the GOP are being conned by a New York con man. Stay tuned...
9
Hi NY Times and whoever you are that screens comments,
I've been a longtime reader of the NYT. It's the only online digital rag I subscribe to. However, your coverage of the Democratic race is an example of journalistic malfeasance.
So, soon I will end my subscription to the NYT. All it's good for at this point is the sweet maps and graphs which show how the votes are won for each primary. After the election is done I'm canceling my subscription. I'm a student so all I pay is $8 a month but let me tell you, this newspaper isn't worth a dime anymore.
So nice job losing a customer.
I've been a longtime reader of the NYT. It's the only online digital rag I subscribe to. However, your coverage of the Democratic race is an example of journalistic malfeasance.
So, soon I will end my subscription to the NYT. All it's good for at this point is the sweet maps and graphs which show how the votes are won for each primary. After the election is done I'm canceling my subscription. I'm a student so all I pay is $8 a month but let me tell you, this newspaper isn't worth a dime anymore.
So nice job losing a customer.
26
They are broken hearted. What they should have been doing is tailoring their news content to your particular likes and needs and political persuasions. How could they have gotten that all so wrong?
2
I pay $35 per month, and have come to the same conclusion.
3
I've been a NYT subscriber for a while and this is an open rebellion.
2
This is like the NYT advocacy of the Iraq War, fitting since Hillary also strongly supported that.
They are tied, 51:51 in delegates.
The super delegates the NYT assigns to Clinton are not bound to her. They abandoned her in 2008 in favor of Obama. They can and might abandon her again.
Super delegates are there to prevent what is happening to the Republicans in a fractured primary. When it is one-on-one, they are not meant to coronate the loser despite the vote. It is highly unlikely such sophisticated politicians would be so stupid.
This is pure propaganda. It is misleading, and meant to mislead, planted by one side. It is no better than the Judith Miller stuff on Iraq.
They are tied, 51:51 in delegates.
The super delegates the NYT assigns to Clinton are not bound to her. They abandoned her in 2008 in favor of Obama. They can and might abandon her again.
Super delegates are there to prevent what is happening to the Republicans in a fractured primary. When it is one-on-one, they are not meant to coronate the loser despite the vote. It is highly unlikely such sophisticated politicians would be so stupid.
This is pure propaganda. It is misleading, and meant to mislead, planted by one side. It is no better than the Judith Miller stuff on Iraq.
27
Cut the nonsense with the SuperDelegates.
10
Actually, the Super Delegate process was created to avoid backroom deals and sham elections.
Get informed, don't just assume bias because your favored candidate is or is not getting the coverage you personally desire.
Get informed, don't just assume bias because your favored candidate is or is not getting the coverage you personally desire.
6
The process was created by Dems to avoid backroom deals and sham elections?
That means the Democratic Party Super Delegates System is the Obamacare of election rules.
Haha!
That means the Democratic Party Super Delegates System is the Obamacare of election rules.
Haha!
This article paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign!
24
Broken, corrupt, predetermined, and criminal. Just the way Democrats like it.
4
Bernie keeps reminding us how the system is rigged.
1
As I said in my first comment, which didn't get published -- and as many other commenters have pointed out, this is a remarkably misleading article. Anyone skimming the front page, would assume it's all over. Only those of us who had time this morning to read the full article, would see that Bernie and Hillary are actually tied in the delegate count 51-51, and the rest of Hillary's "delegates" are "Superdelegates." This is the real news. It would be great if you would publish a front page article discussing what exactly a "Super Delegate" is, the fact that these are not set in stone, and they can change depending on how the primaries play out. The NYT has repeatedly shown its bias in this race, and this article reads like just another attempt to discourage Sanders voters. I have not made up my mind whom I will vote for. However, I suspect that misleading front page articles like this are more likely to drive voters on the fence away from Clinton. No one wants their candidates choses by party hacks.
33
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, do we get your two-cents-worth here, or are your rates so high as to make your counsel available only to candidates with billionaire backing?
14
Under Sanders nothing would get done. Obama has left the Deems in Governors, state houses and Congress in a position to block anything he has tried to propose. Sanders would destroy the deem party and leave the GOP in charge to continue destroying the environment, choice and you name it.
Mr. Anthony, if the young will stay home it will still let the GOP rein even more terror. The young generation don't even realize how much is hanging in the balance & just don't have the experience to see from the past into the future. That's why the super-delegates were created -to avoid another deem disaster.
Mr. Anthony, if the young will stay home it will still let the GOP rein even more terror. The young generation don't even realize how much is hanging in the balance & just don't have the experience to see from the past into the future. That's why the super-delegates were created -to avoid another deem disaster.
3
The Super Delegate count shows one thing: The Democrats are not democrats.
6
The Super Delegate count shows one thing: Bernie Sanders has never considered himself a Democrat.
"We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’” - Bernie Sanders
My guess is that the Super Delegates are asking themselves, "Why should we work with Bernie Sanders?"
Frankly I find it alarming that not a single one of Bernie Sanders' colleagues in the Senate have pledged support for him. Who will he work with in Congress if he does become President? Or does he want to "throw out all the bums"? Is Bernie Sanders the ONLY elected official pure enough for Bernie Sanders and his supporters?
The Super Delegates aren't some secret, backroom boogeyman. They are Democrats who serve (or have served) as: Governors, Representatives, Senators, Presidents and VPs and others who have worked their entire careers for the Democratic Party.
"We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’” - Bernie Sanders
My guess is that the Super Delegates are asking themselves, "Why should we work with Bernie Sanders?"
Frankly I find it alarming that not a single one of Bernie Sanders' colleagues in the Senate have pledged support for him. Who will he work with in Congress if he does become President? Or does he want to "throw out all the bums"? Is Bernie Sanders the ONLY elected official pure enough for Bernie Sanders and his supporters?
The Super Delegates aren't some secret, backroom boogeyman. They are Democrats who serve (or have served) as: Governors, Representatives, Senators, Presidents and VPs and others who have worked their entire careers for the Democratic Party.
4
Without the need for any improbable political revolutions, the sequence Clinton/Bush/Obama/Clinton is much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much better than Clinton/Bush/Obama/Trump or Clinton/Bush/Obama/Rubio.
5
The establishment has the game rigged folks. Your only choice to break their stranglehold on our country is Donald Trump. We game ends here. The gig is up. Fed Up!
4
Extremely disappointing to see the Times pursuing this false narrative weeks after it was debunked.
But when the Times' largest shareholder is a billionaire buddy of the Clintons, Carlos Slim, it's easy to see how this kind of stuff makes it to print.
But when the Times' largest shareholder is a billionaire buddy of the Clintons, Carlos Slim, it's easy to see how this kind of stuff makes it to print.
35
Superdelegates are part of the process.
If Sanders wants to court them he is at least 20 years behind Hillary and her multitude of contacts and sordid deals but can still try.
He has a few of them. Very few.
And there is no way that he is going to pull this off.
And, no, it will not split the party one tiny bit.
He will just be another would-be candidate who has tilted at the windmills and, through no fault other than his own not-ready-for-prime time persona and lack of the years of work that The Hillary Machine has put in, can join McGovern, Dean, Dukakis, and others who wanted to be president and just never connected in a way that made it happen.
I hate Hillary and will be voting for her come November.
If Sanders wants to court them he is at least 20 years behind Hillary and her multitude of contacts and sordid deals but can still try.
He has a few of them. Very few.
And there is no way that he is going to pull this off.
And, no, it will not split the party one tiny bit.
He will just be another would-be candidate who has tilted at the windmills and, through no fault other than his own not-ready-for-prime time persona and lack of the years of work that The Hillary Machine has put in, can join McGovern, Dean, Dukakis, and others who wanted to be president and just never connected in a way that made it happen.
I hate Hillary and will be voting for her come November.
5
Your last line is so sad. Don't you think we deserve a better choice?
8
Such a sad sad statement. Very sorry that you or anyone else feels this way.
4
Absolutely we deserve a better choice.
And Bernie has no way of becoming that choice.
He simply cannot sell the unsellable: a grouchy, 74 year old, Jewish, Socialist from Brooklyn ( I am Jewish, left, gay, born in NYC, and almost his age) to enough people to make it happen.
Sorry kids.
I have been through this before, many times.
With candidates that some of you may never have heard of.
The prospects of the Republicans taking over will have me and most Democrats voting for whomever can defeat them and I truly don't believe that Bernie is that person. If he carries Vermont in a general election that would be a lot.
I will vote for Hillary knowing it could be much worse if we don't take the White House, Congress, and choose the next few Supreme Court justices.
And Bernie has no way of becoming that choice.
He simply cannot sell the unsellable: a grouchy, 74 year old, Jewish, Socialist from Brooklyn ( I am Jewish, left, gay, born in NYC, and almost his age) to enough people to make it happen.
Sorry kids.
I have been through this before, many times.
With candidates that some of you may never have heard of.
The prospects of the Republicans taking over will have me and most Democrats voting for whomever can defeat them and I truly don't believe that Bernie is that person. If he carries Vermont in a general election that would be a lot.
I will vote for Hillary knowing it could be much worse if we don't take the White House, Congress, and choose the next few Supreme Court justices.
3
Reading the comments, I have to wonder where all these complaints were in 2008 when Obama had a super delegate advantage?
Seems like when super delegates are for your candidate then the candidate is "running a great campaign" and "gaining momentum," but when it's for an opposing candidate, suddenly, "the vote is fixed!" "It's an outrage!"
Seems like when super delegates are for your candidate then the candidate is "running a great campaign" and "gaining momentum," but when it's for an opposing candidate, suddenly, "the vote is fixed!" "It's an outrage!"
7
When Barack Obama was trailing Hillary Clinton on the eve of the 2008 South Carolina Primary and the NYT/establishment media went to work playing the race card against Hillary and the superdelegate hijinks started that was it for me.
I became a registered Republican the day Barack Obama accepted the 2008 Democratic Party nomination and I have never looked back.
Trump 2016.
I became a registered Republican the day Barack Obama accepted the 2008 Democratic Party nomination and I have never looked back.
Trump 2016.
2
What a lie! Obama won the nomination in 2008 because he got more *elected* delegates.
For most of the campaign the super-delegates were mostly supporting Hillary. Only at the end of the process, well after super-Tuesday, when Obama had a large advance in *elected* delegates that Clinton could not hope to reverse did some super-delegates change boards.
But in any case, the primary was not decided by super-delegates.
If they had tried to do that, we would be at the end of the second McCain mandate. If they try to do that this year, the next president will be Trump.
For most of the campaign the super-delegates were mostly supporting Hillary. Only at the end of the process, well after super-Tuesday, when Obama had a large advance in *elected* delegates that Clinton could not hope to reverse did some super-delegates change boards.
But in any case, the primary was not decided by super-delegates.
If they had tried to do that, we would be at the end of the second McCain mandate. If they try to do that this year, the next president will be Trump.
2
Democratic Party leaders like Charles Schumer, John Lewis (the Black vote) James Clyburn (whose daughter got a cushy WH appointment to the FCC) and an avalanche of Democrats in Congress switched allegiances from Hillary to Obama. There was no question that the DNC pressured 2008 superdelegates to switch to Obama, and if Hillary had not AGREED to withdraw and throw her support behind Obama (presumably to be VP, which Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett vetoed so she took Sec of State) there could have been a fight on the floor of the 2008 DNC.
This is all documented history Joel, it's not like I am back in Jeffersonian times deciphering charcoal drawings of political events.
This is all documented history Joel, it's not like I am back in Jeffersonian times deciphering charcoal drawings of political events.
4
Hillary and Bernie's delegates are split evenly if you look at the primaries alone-in other words, according to the regular people who've already voted.
Hillary only leads because she has the majority of pledged super delegates so far. Gee, what a surprise, the group she denies being a part of is responsible for her lead. That is, the establishment.
Hillary only leads because she has the majority of pledged super delegates so far. Gee, what a surprise, the group she denies being a part of is responsible for her lead. That is, the establishment.
6
Nominate the candidate with the highest negatives for honesty? Winning strategy? Or, is this a Trump card?
5
This article should read "Super Delegate Count Leaving Bernie Sanders With Steep Climb." From the past three primary contests, Clinton and Sanders are tied with 51 delegates apiece. The real climb for Sanders, unfortunately, lies in convincing the Democratic Party establishment to back him. That is where Clinton has the real edge.
9
Why would the Democratic Party establishment want to back him over Clinton? He's not even in the party, hasn't supported any of their candidates, and has been an antagonistic force who otherwise has gotten nothing done his whole career.
Meanwhile Clinton is a Democratic stalwart and one of their strongest advocates for the last two decades.
What is the rational choice for them?
Meanwhile Clinton is a Democratic stalwart and one of their strongest advocates for the last two decades.
What is the rational choice for them?
4
Hmm. So why did I just (now) receive an email from the Sanders' campaign stating that as of today he is tied with Hillary Clinton with 51 delegates apiece. Is this just more pro-Hillary, ant-Bernie wishful thinking? Yes, I know all about the "superdelegates" supposedly for the establishment candidate (aka Sec. Clinton), but even there there is much uncertainty. As far as I can tell, this is still a horse race and the Times should not be supporting Sec. Clinton, except on its editorial pages. Let's not rush to judgment, especially with Super Tuesday looming. Or is that the point?
14
Bernie Sanders's naiveté was his downfall. The fact that, as an Independent caucusing with the Democrats for decades, Sen. Sanders should have known (and perhaps did know, wink wink) that his candidacy was just a ruse to make it appear that this was not the coronation of HRC. The Democrats put up the most unelectable person possible: a socialist / communist that honeymooned in the U.S.S.R. during the height of the cold war whose platform would utterly bankrupt our country.
Once he's out of the way the fun and games are over and the fireworks are about to commence once the F.B.I. completes its criminal investigations and recommends criminal charges against HRC
Once he's out of the way the fun and games are over and the fireworks are about to commence once the F.B.I. completes its criminal investigations and recommends criminal charges against HRC
1
Get ready for President Trump if Hillary Clinton 'wins' the Democratic nomination because of the so-called super-delegates.
11
I am not alone in claiming a journalistic bias by the NYT. The truth is they are equal in delegates at this juncture, however the Super delegates make Hillary seem like the presumptive winner. Those super delegates will pledge fealty to whomever wins the popular vote. Bernie is just winding up; it would serve the NYT well if it published more balanced reporting, and stopped the Hillary crusade!
21
I have a tough time, as somebody who is at the edge of being successful, but not really, about whether I identify as a regular person, who would benefit from Bernie Sanders, or as a corrupt elitist, who would benefit from Hillary Clinton s decades of careerist scheming and parochial influence peddling. I suspect many NYT readers find themselves in the same quandary.
4
What - people seriously thought that old socialist nut-job would actually do anything outside the confines of New Hampshire? Oh, that's too funny.
No, it looks like the hopes of Democrats everywhere will now rest in the hands of the US Justice Department and whether or not Hillary serves the prison time she so rightly deserves.
No, it looks like the hopes of Democrats everywhere will now rest in the hands of the US Justice Department and whether or not Hillary serves the prison time she so rightly deserves.
1
If he wins the general vote and loses due to the super delegates, it will trigger a storm, the end of the democratic party. I will quit my job if I have to, to go to work to elect Bernie as an independent. NO to Hillary. Just NO.
6
This article is such a deep pile of bull-manure. Shame on you, NYT. The number of primary delegates is EQUAL, and Clinton and Sanders are virtually TIED in national polls. A large umber of super delegates have been purcha... I mean, "pledged" to Clinton, but we know what that's all about. You really are stretching and twisting and manipulating facts to slant your news. It's off-putting, to say the least. The truth is, Sanders' momentum is rushing fast and furious toward success, and every bit of data indicates he will achieve it, whereas Clinton is struggling to maintain her appeal. I know it's hard to believe or accept, given that your newspaper and its owner have endorsed/funded Clinton, but that's the truth.
11
I agree with you. I am worried: look at the current polls regarding Clinton vs. Trump. I think he will beat her. She drags around so much negative baggage, and it seems she's working on adding to that with every stump speech! Trump has NO history politically, and apparently he looks really good to a whole host of voter (esp. white, male, uneducated, unemployed, racist, isolationist, etc.) faced with this choice.
3
Sanders is a typical left wing liberal who thinks nobody else is good enough but him. He has no organization. He has spent the last 30 years condemning the Democratic Party, its leaders, their agenda and achievements. Now he wants the mantle of leadership of a party that was “not progressive or good enough to be worthy of his membership”.
Someone times a person can go so far to the left that they tragically end up in bed with the most rabid extremists on the far right.
Sanders efforts to seek a challenger to President Obama in 2012 in the face of the most vicious, vitriolic and extremist GOP opposition is deplorable. Colluding with GOP extremists to run the most brilliant first family in the history of the nation out of office is insidious and totally unacceptable.
Those who dimish the lives and accomplishments of Black people in this country do not deserve the support of African Americans and their allies.
Sanders is either seriously confused or simply needs a Civics 101 lesson. He knows or should know that the GOP will control the US Congress until 2021 because of gerrymadering that locked a majority of Congressmen into safe GOP districts. He knows that none of his ideas will see the light of day in a GOP controlled congress.
Don’t be fooled. At stake in this election is the legacy of President Obama and the accomplishments of the Democratic party, its leaders and progressive agenda. In this regard, Sanders has failed the test.
Someone times a person can go so far to the left that they tragically end up in bed with the most rabid extremists on the far right.
Sanders efforts to seek a challenger to President Obama in 2012 in the face of the most vicious, vitriolic and extremist GOP opposition is deplorable. Colluding with GOP extremists to run the most brilliant first family in the history of the nation out of office is insidious and totally unacceptable.
Those who dimish the lives and accomplishments of Black people in this country do not deserve the support of African Americans and their allies.
Sanders is either seriously confused or simply needs a Civics 101 lesson. He knows or should know that the GOP will control the US Congress until 2021 because of gerrymadering that locked a majority of Congressmen into safe GOP districts. He knows that none of his ideas will see the light of day in a GOP controlled congress.
Don’t be fooled. At stake in this election is the legacy of President Obama and the accomplishments of the Democratic party, its leaders and progressive agenda. In this regard, Sanders has failed the test.
7
If you don't like "let wing liberals" maybe you're supporting the wrong party? Its actually you that needs the lesson, both in civics and elementary democracy. Dissent is of paramount importance to it.
It was actually Clinton who ran against Barack Obama if you can remember back as far as 2008.
What evidence do you have that Sanders is in bed with "rabid" elements of the far right? Since you have made up a Sanders quote I expect it doesn't exist.
Whom do you speak of that has diminished the "lives and accomplishments of black people"? I assume its an implicit reference to the Clintons, who de-stabilized the inner cities with NAFTA, cuts to welfare, and policing programs which criminalized poor urban males. Certainly you can't be writing of Bernie who has spent his life involved in issues of racial justice.
It was actually Clinton who ran against Barack Obama if you can remember back as far as 2008.
What evidence do you have that Sanders is in bed with "rabid" elements of the far right? Since you have made up a Sanders quote I expect it doesn't exist.
Whom do you speak of that has diminished the "lives and accomplishments of black people"? I assume its an implicit reference to the Clintons, who de-stabilized the inner cities with NAFTA, cuts to welfare, and policing programs which criminalized poor urban males. Certainly you can't be writing of Bernie who has spent his life involved in issues of racial justice.
4
It was the immoral Democrats that declared no Supreme Court nomination during lame duck year of President in 2007....what goes around...comes around.
3
Amen Lisa!
The Trump 2016 Campaign Commercials detailing how Hillary stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders are writing themselves, complete with images of misleading NYT articles.
The Trump 2016 Campaign Commercials detailing how Hillary stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders are writing themselves, complete with images of misleading NYT articles.
1
I do not understand why there is such high dudgeon about the nomination process in 2016, when it differs little from 2008.
4
Don't let them mislead you. Union bosses may have endorsed Clinton but not the rank and file where the votes are. Far from it.
10
Why is everyone so surprised that Bernie thinks the Dem Party machinery is his to use even though he spent zero time and effort building it? He's a Socialist, that's his whole outlook on life, including our paychecks!
5
I'd like to be able to say that such a cheap shot is unworthy of Hillary but sadly I cannot.
(Will this be the fourth of such retort against an especially slimy anti-Sanders comment to be censored by the threads admin?)
(Will this be the fourth of such retort against an especially slimy anti-Sanders comment to be censored by the threads admin?)
1
This is a theater of absurdity.
A socialist (Sanders) runs as a Democrat.
A democrat (Trump) is running as a Republican.
The republican establishment candidates are running as the war mongers.
The democratic establishment darlings are running as the Pinocchios of the special interests.
How should we vote?
A socialist (Sanders) runs as a Democrat.
A democrat (Trump) is running as a Republican.
The republican establishment candidates are running as the war mongers.
The democratic establishment darlings are running as the Pinocchios of the special interests.
How should we vote?
5
Flip a coin. Worked for Hillary.
1
Sen. Sanders needs to show that he has a significant white base across all age groups and income and class background outside of New England. Mr. Sanders supporters would make great missionaries! Bernie is great. Bernie is good. All worship to Bernie! A bit too much if you ask me. More silence from the "progressive"' Sanders supporters would do his campaign far more than tell African Americans to start "listening". Paternalism sounds the same wherever it originates.
Education and health care? In some advanced industrial nations, these are considered human rights, and necessary for enabling citizens to participate fully in their societies. The U.S., for all its wealth, has lagged behind other nations in ensuring that all of its citizens have their basic needs provided for. Thanks to Sen. Sanders for keeping it in the forefront, But it cannot be my way or no way as some supporters shout, then again nothing gets done.
Education and health care? In some advanced industrial nations, these are considered human rights, and necessary for enabling citizens to participate fully in their societies. The U.S., for all its wealth, has lagged behind other nations in ensuring that all of its citizens have their basic needs provided for. Thanks to Sen. Sanders for keeping it in the forefront, But it cannot be my way or no way as some supporters shout, then again nothing gets done.
9
Thank you.
I think and I hope we are the silent majority.
I think and I hope we are the silent majority.
1
It would seem that when it comes to the idea of who can beat whom in the Presidential election, many democrats are STILL in a state of denial. Despite all the perceived rhetoric about whether or not Bernie Sanders can be elected, ALL the polls done up until now indicate quite clearly that in a head to head Presidential election, in all categories, Sanders has a considerably better chance of beating his Republican rival, no matter who it is, than does Hillary.
6
How about some semblance of neutrality NYTimes?
10
They are tied 51 to 51, not counting superdelegates. And the superdelegates change their votes later based on where the public goes.
A Clinton victory is a loss for Democrats. Just a few months ago the DNC rolled-back Obama reforms made 8 years ago. I don't care about Clinton or Sanders specifically as much as having an increasingly less corrupt process. So I'm voting for Sanders.
A Clinton victory is a loss for Democrats. Just a few months ago the DNC rolled-back Obama reforms made 8 years ago. I don't care about Clinton or Sanders specifically as much as having an increasingly less corrupt process. So I'm voting for Sanders.
6
The candidate with the most experience should win the nomination.
Hillary Clinton: senator from 2001-2009, Secretary of Sate from 2009-2013. Her time as First Lady does not count, for me, as experience, except possibly organising dinners at the White House.
Bernie Sanders: mayor of Burlington, VT from 1981-1989. Congressman in the House of Representatives from 1990-2007. Senator from 200-2015.
All clear?
Hillary Clinton: senator from 2001-2009, Secretary of Sate from 2009-2013. Her time as First Lady does not count, for me, as experience, except possibly organising dinners at the White House.
Bernie Sanders: mayor of Burlington, VT from 1981-1989. Congressman in the House of Representatives from 1990-2007. Senator from 200-2015.
All clear?
3
No accomplishments as SOS, Libya anyone? Very little as carpetbagger from NY.
Nuff said.
Nuff said.
Well, Root, I think she did manage to get a NY post office or two renamed during her time in the Senate. That apparently counts as valuable experience.
This circus is becoming more and more distasteful.
How about the Times asking the question whether HRC's "firewall" black voters remember her statement during the '08 primary race that "hard-working white folks won't vote for him" and Bill's dismissive and rude comment after Obama won South Carolina, "Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina too."
The Times is becoming more and more irresponsible. Bernie Sanders may or may not be electable, because of his demographic and forthrightness. Given how unattractive a candidate HRC is (not to mention the possibility of an indictment down the road), I can't help thinking that if Martin O'Malley had been given a fraction of coverage that the two current candidates have given, Democrats would be feeling a lot easier about facing Trump or Cruz or Rubion in November.
But of course O'Malley doesn't sell newspapers.
How about the Times asking the question whether HRC's "firewall" black voters remember her statement during the '08 primary race that "hard-working white folks won't vote for him" and Bill's dismissive and rude comment after Obama won South Carolina, "Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina too."
The Times is becoming more and more irresponsible. Bernie Sanders may or may not be electable, because of his demographic and forthrightness. Given how unattractive a candidate HRC is (not to mention the possibility of an indictment down the road), I can't help thinking that if Martin O'Malley had been given a fraction of coverage that the two current candidates have given, Democrats would be feeling a lot easier about facing Trump or Cruz or Rubion in November.
But of course O'Malley doesn't sell newspapers.
5
This is grossly misleading. Clinton and Sanders are tied with 51 pledged delegates each. The super delegates will decide based on what happens as the race goes forward; they aren't "pledged" to Clinton. Shame on you, New York Times.
7
Here's a thought: the popular vote in the primaries should count. Instead, what is outlined in this article, and applies to most states, is a kind of Electoral College system (winner takes all) per Congressional district. In this system, a candidate can win 49.9% of the vote in a district and get no delegates.
The political parties have a vested interest in getting the contest for the nomination over as quickly as possible. We, the people do not. Voters in the later primary states wind up having no say in who gets nominated. Further, laws in many states require delegates selected for one candidate to vote for that candidate, at least on early ballots.
The system should be set up so that the actual votes of citizens, numbers, count toward the nomination. Perhaps one third to one half of the delegates could be chosen in this way. It might even be possible to make the change this year, but it should certainly be made before the next presidential round in 2020.
As it is now, strength brings strength, which reduces choice, narrows the potential solutions to problems offered and the convention winds up being a week long, rather meaningless show of rah, rah, rah.
Every four years, citizens are asked to roll all of their concerns, all of their hopes and aspirations for themselves and their nation into one candidate. This is, itself, kind of crazy in a nation of 320 million, but limiting the choice of nominees constricts democracy even more. The fixed game needs to be opened up.
The political parties have a vested interest in getting the contest for the nomination over as quickly as possible. We, the people do not. Voters in the later primary states wind up having no say in who gets nominated. Further, laws in many states require delegates selected for one candidate to vote for that candidate, at least on early ballots.
The system should be set up so that the actual votes of citizens, numbers, count toward the nomination. Perhaps one third to one half of the delegates could be chosen in this way. It might even be possible to make the change this year, but it should certainly be made before the next presidential round in 2020.
As it is now, strength brings strength, which reduces choice, narrows the potential solutions to problems offered and the convention winds up being a week long, rather meaningless show of rah, rah, rah.
Every four years, citizens are asked to roll all of their concerns, all of their hopes and aspirations for themselves and their nation into one candidate. This is, itself, kind of crazy in a nation of 320 million, but limiting the choice of nominees constricts democracy even more. The fixed game needs to be opened up.
4
If the super delegates give the nomination to Clinton while Bernie wins the regular delegates, you can bet a large number of Democrats will not vote in November. We have had enough of corrupt politicians.
Nothing on earth would induce me to vote to see smirking Hillary in the White House for eight years, while Bill chases interns around his desk,
Nothing on earth would induce me to vote to see smirking Hillary in the White House for eight years, while Bill chases interns around his desk,
5
I hope Bernie wins just to show up the biased reporting of the NY Times.
They are TIED. Except for superdelegates, the scourge of the DNC, they are TIED. He came out of nowhere to surprise everyone. THAT is the story. Why aren't you covering it?
They are TIED. Except for superdelegates, the scourge of the DNC, they are TIED. He came out of nowhere to surprise everyone. THAT is the story. Why aren't you covering it?
7
So much for the un-Democratic party. Time to become an independent.
4
There's a lot of reform needed in campaign rules, but these are the rules in 2016. Sanders knew the rules, and if he expects a revolution to give him the win, he needs to hurry up and promise more than his one issue. He wants us to vote for a very far-fetched fiscal change that will require almost unanimous support of the country, since Congress will surely shut it down.
He has little to offer on all of the other issues. What do Sanders supporters think will happen to the country if his one big promise fails? Then what happens? Hmm?
He has little to offer on all of the other issues. What do Sanders supporters think will happen to the country if his one big promise fails? Then what happens? Hmm?
5
This is a fine expose` of the deep corruption in our so-called democratic elections. Bernie is right that we need a revolution. It is very insulting for Hillary to claim that all that money will not affect her decision making. However there is one certain way to PROVE that. That way is to not take it. Having already done so her only hope is to publicly give it back and repudiate those who gave it to her. Where are those in the media when these hard questions need to be asked? I too am a registered Democrat, but if Hillary is the nominee I will leave the party and not vote in the presidential election.
3
Less than 15,000 people voted in Nevada. Three million people live in the state. If I were the DNC and Clinton I'd be more worried about that fact than anything else. In states where establishment politics rule the day, the voter turn out is paltry. Thus, the Democrats are in big trouble in November.
5
I am a life long Democrat and contribute to the DNC and the Sanders campaign this go around. The DNC better be prepared to fix this ASAP. If Bernie has the votes but not the delegates and he looses because of that then kiss any chances of Hillary in the WH goodbye. As other have said this reeks of a broken, even corrupt, system. Much like the what happened to Gore v Bush. This cannot happen!
7
Good Lord, it's not like Bernie Sanders is new to any of this, he's been in the House and Senate for 25 years. If he were actually "against" Hillary Clinton and as oblivious as some of his supporters, he would have run as an Independent. He was fully aware of this process going in as a Democrat. I find some of his groupies so petulant, willfully ignorant, and hateful of his Democratic opponent that they might as well be working over at Ted Cruz's campaign headquarters. Obviously if Bernie Sanders doesn't win the nomination, he will be voting for HIllary Clinton. The Hillary-bashers obsessively shouting out their ignorant rhetoric, who are also claiming they're supporting what Bernie Sanders stands for, aren't really showing any true respect for Mr. Sanders. Some of them are obvious trolls, some of them are oblivious supporters, but all in all they aren't really showing any real respect for either Democratic nominee.
10
Super delegates...super PACS... but no super presidents. The "party elders" might want to play their cards a little more closely to the vest. In politics, perception is everything and the Bernie campaign has been very effective in communicating that the system is rigged. Superdelegates openly committing to Clinton prior to their state's primaries plays directly into that perception. In fact, the only real enthusiasm in the race so far has been generated by Sanders. the danger is that hat enthusiasm, if frustrated, will turn into disaffection and apathy. If that happens, truly progressive democrats will stay at home in November. If only the GOP had superdelegates....hmmm.. What would the Donald do?
4
Well, to hear the NY Times tell it, the democratic primary is already decided. Guess I needn't bother getting out to vote.....
9
Surely there must have been someone in attendance at the many Wall Street speeches Hillary has made for $$$, who is not completely in thrall to a second Clinton administration. I can't imagine that such a person didn't have her or his cell phone at the time and recorded the event. What's needed is a 99% moment (à la Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe).
7
There is one thing you forget. I don't think that she can sustain her candidacy WHEN the FBI recommends indictment. She has already admitted to so many violations of laws that are beneath her. Not only did she have classified (above top secret) info on her server, she admitted to destroying subpoenaed emails and she admitted to "making mistakes". Even the private unsecured server by itself is a violation of national security.
4
Let's take an honest look at the standings. I'll do just percentages and elected, not bought, delegates.
Clinton Sanders
Iowa 49.9 / 23 49.6 / 21
NH 38.0 / 9 60.0 / 15
Nev 52.6 / 19 47.3 / 15
sum 46.83 / 51 52.3% / 51 delegates
It is a neck and neck horse race in a honest race.
Notice the press isn't reporting it that way
Clinton Sanders
Iowa 49.9 / 23 49.6 / 21
NH 38.0 / 9 60.0 / 15
Nev 52.6 / 19 47.3 / 15
sum 46.83 / 51 52.3% / 51 delegates
It is a neck and neck horse race in a honest race.
Notice the press isn't reporting it that way
14
It's also a fact that it will no longer be neck and neck once we hit the Deep South. Check out Nate Silver's trusted site "538".
5
You'll think back and remember my post in the future:
By God, that crazy guy commenting on the NY Times site was right. Hillary DID start another horrifying and pointless war in which vast numbers of people lost their lives with no end in sight.
By God, that crazy guy commenting on the NY Times site was right. Hillary DID start another horrifying and pointless war in which vast numbers of people lost their lives with no end in sight.
7
Just canceled my NYT subscription. The candidates are TIED at 51 apiece in pledged delegates, the delegates who represent the will of the people. Counting superdelegate endorsements as firm voting commitments is pure Clinton propaganda, but what else should we expect from the New York Times?
14
Sanders does not have support of diverse group of people. His support base is limited to young working class white voters. That is the problem. He might not be able to even win popular votes at the end of primaries, leave superdelegates apart. In 2008, superdelegates were with Hillary initially but they changed side later. So superdelegates are not a problem.
4
That's simply not true. Every Sanders event I've attended in Ohio has shown a wide diversity of people.
1
As a progressive, I denounce Sanders. Not his ideas, which are humane and critical to our survival, but his candidacy. If you think there is vile hate against Obama, it would even be worse for a "Socialist Jew."
The backlash would create a GOP president and a GOP Supreme Court.
The backlash would create a GOP president and a GOP Supreme Court.
4
We grownups have known and admitted this for a long time. Can you imagine the photoshopping the GOP will do with an edlerly "socialist Jew?" Oh, and I don't look forward to the not so subtle dog whistles.
3
David, you are dating yourself (so to speak). If you haven't noticed, american Republicans have become Israels strongest supporters (outside of Israel, that is). And when was the last time you heard the derogatory use of "pinko" or "commie". No, the vile hatred of the Clintons by Republicans (and Independents) would probably exceed that of Obama, particularly if you subtract the racial element.
Bernie was foolish to use the term socialist. Brainless Americans associate that with Soviet gulags, not the many socialist countries enjoying more freedom, more leisure, better health care, better longevity, better security and better quality of life than Americans.
2
How many articles has the NYT published against Bernie compared to negative articles about Hillary? I just did a search and there was one published today about Hillary not getting the money Bernie is right now, but there are SIX negative articles about Bernie published JUST TODAY. I mean, yeah, that is real fair. The GOP will have a field day with Hillary. Bernie hasn't slung any mud, though he could. She will be destroyed by the GOP in the general election and people hate her, I mean, hate her. She does not stand a chance.
12
Do we get to include Maureen Dowd's going back years and years and years?
3
Republicans have to be happy that the feisty Machiavellian Hillary Clinton is likely to win the Democratic nomination through clever manipulation of the nomination process.
Because Republicans desperately want Clinton as the nominee. They know, just like many rank and file Democrats are coming to realize, that Clinton is not electable.
Trump, for one, would eat her lunch. Sanders would have a shot against Trump. Clinton? Not a prayer.
Because Republicans desperately want Clinton as the nominee. They know, just like many rank and file Democrats are coming to realize, that Clinton is not electable.
Trump, for one, would eat her lunch. Sanders would have a shot against Trump. Clinton? Not a prayer.
7
Hillary, please don't use your super delegates advantage to steal the primary from Bernie if he wins pledged delegates with a small margin. Because Trump will surely claim that the democratic candidate is fake and chosen against the will of democratic base.
In that case, I would imagine anyone concerned about democracy won't vote for her. And Trump will "have so much winning" in every state.
It must be a nice reality TV show though.
In that case, I would imagine anyone concerned about democracy won't vote for her. And Trump will "have so much winning" in every state.
It must be a nice reality TV show though.
3
NYT your blatant bias to HRC is showing. The headline and the first 10 paragraphs of this article are all slighted against Sanders and towards Clinton before the following sentence appears, "A New York Times analysis found that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are tied in the pledged delegate count, at 51 each."
Superdelegates can change their pledge and they will if an opposing candidate wins the popular vote. Shame on the NYT for this misleading article!
Superdelegates can change their pledge and they will if an opposing candidate wins the popular vote. Shame on the NYT for this misleading article!
10
Are we on the verge of seeing Sanders supporters torpedo Hillary Clinton's campaign?
Will we see Sanders supporters protesting outside the 2016 Democratic National Convention? Oh this has 1968 written all over it. And in the most delicious or ironies, Barack Obama built this by overpromising to wake up the far left progressives in 2008 and under delivering, which is why Sanders is riding such a wave of progressive support.
Will we see Sanders supporters protesting outside the 2016 Democratic National Convention? Oh this has 1968 written all over it. And in the most delicious or ironies, Barack Obama built this by overpromising to wake up the far left progressives in 2008 and under delivering, which is why Sanders is riding such a wave of progressive support.
5
I wonder if the Millenials will vote for Hillary when by overwhelming numbers, they have been backing Bernie, the Communist. I hope they stay home and do NOT vote for Hillary - why should they reward her with a vote when she STOLE their support by destroying Bernie.
1
Bernie is not a "Communist". Please - respectfully - research the difference between Communism and Socialism. They are very, very different things.
1
Do a bit of research on voter turnout and you'll see that millennials have the lowest proportion of voter turnout among the age demographics. They probably wouldn't get off their smartphones to go to the polls for Bernie if he made it to November.
3
I got to say something here: clear and firm. This obsession with superdelegates as somehow clinching the deal for Ms Clinton easily does not bode well for Democrats of all shades of Center, Middle, Progressive and Far Left. There needs to be an open discussion and investigation on this SuperDelegate issue. People don't get it, they are worried for all the right reasons and they are suspicious for all the right reasons. And for Clinton supporters to keep saying. "Superdelegates will decide, and Senator Sanders will never make it no matter how many Super Tuesday States he wins comfortably."
DNC rules do allow for SuperDelegate system to be evaluated and modified if necessary. So start the investigation, the discussion and the transparent evaluation with modification, if necessary, now.
All this media hype and DNC support for Superdelegates without discussion and transparence is not looking good for democracy or progress.
Start the investigation, the discussion and transparent modification on SuperDelegates now.
DNC rules do allow for SuperDelegate system to be evaluated and modified if necessary. So start the investigation, the discussion and the transparent evaluation with modification, if necessary, now.
All this media hype and DNC support for Superdelegates without discussion and transparence is not looking good for democracy or progress.
Start the investigation, the discussion and transparent modification on SuperDelegates now.
4
30% of the total number of delegates needed to win the Democratic party nomination are superdelegates--the party insiders.
The Democratic party has set up a system that guarantees that the party nominee also will be a party insider.
The Democratic party has set up a system that guarantees that the party nominee also will be a party insider.
3
The disturbing part of this article is that it is completely focused on the calculus of winning, something we have seen with increasing emphasis each electoral cycle. Hillary's campaign, as Mark Shields of the Washington Post put it, is based on "[I]t’s Hillary’s turn. She’s strong. She’s tested. We live in a dangerous world, and she’s ready, and you need somebody there who is steady and ready, [and] do you want Barack Obama’s third term? I promise you, I will give that." Not much of a message, so to compensate, we get Bernie-wanna-be promises, with fingers crossed behind her back. But all the while, the slick campaign numbers crunchers have the delegate counts worked out to maximize the chances of winning. In the end, it's all about winning, not developing a transformational message and political agenda that will move the country away from the selfish, greedy individualism we have experienced since 1980 and restore the sense of social, economic and political justice we yearn for.
5
999 how many posts??? Let us really know how many people are disgusted with this misleading story rather than hiding behind fuzzy mathematics!!! I've lost immense respect for the Times and Paul Krugman during this election cycle. And this is from an hourly reader!!
8
Why did you have respect for Paul Krugman, the economist equivalent of a quack who sold his credibility for 3 magic beans in 2010 when he began cheerleading for Obama's failed economic agenda?
2
How ignorant are voters, especially those who hopped on the Bernie-mobile, who are now stunned that The Times is already writing Sanders demise?
Perhaps that's because the writing is on the wall, but newbies to the political process seem bewildered. Well, get used to it. Your options? Not many. You can join the club, play by ITS rules, or go make up your own game and see how far that goes.
When less than half the electorate votes, and that is but every Leap Year, and they go on about how life isn't fair, why are they so unaware their apathy is the problem. A nation's disinterest in the minutiae required to become immersed in the process gets them the government they deserve.
Casting blame on everyone but the people themselves is wrong. Look in the mirror. There's your problem. If you're upset with the way things are going for old Bernie keep this in mind: He was an Independent for forty years. He became a Dem last year to run for Prez. Hillary has been mining the DNC for years lining up votes within her party well before this election cycle began. What is so new to people about a system which has been in place for four decades. Why was no one concerned Hillary has the votes but not the delegates in '08? Short-term memory?
Check The Times stats: Hillary has 500 delegates, Bernie 10% of that.
Hillary is a quarter of the way to the nomination. That's why the Obit.
DD
Manhattan
Perhaps that's because the writing is on the wall, but newbies to the political process seem bewildered. Well, get used to it. Your options? Not many. You can join the club, play by ITS rules, or go make up your own game and see how far that goes.
When less than half the electorate votes, and that is but every Leap Year, and they go on about how life isn't fair, why are they so unaware their apathy is the problem. A nation's disinterest in the minutiae required to become immersed in the process gets them the government they deserve.
Casting blame on everyone but the people themselves is wrong. Look in the mirror. There's your problem. If you're upset with the way things are going for old Bernie keep this in mind: He was an Independent for forty years. He became a Dem last year to run for Prez. Hillary has been mining the DNC for years lining up votes within her party well before this election cycle began. What is so new to people about a system which has been in place for four decades. Why was no one concerned Hillary has the votes but not the delegates in '08? Short-term memory?
Check The Times stats: Hillary has 500 delegates, Bernie 10% of that.
Hillary is a quarter of the way to the nomination. That's why the Obit.
DD
Manhattan
7
Blacks have been the worse victims of the gun culture that permeates American society. From Treyvon Martin, who did nothing to deserve Zimmerman blowing a hole in his chest, to the young man who was blown away by the police after he knocked on someone's door needing help after a car accident to the young woman who was blown away by the homeowner in a similar strait seeking help after a car accident, to the countless victims of inner city drug violence Black Americans have borne the brunt of our obsession with guns. I as an African American man personally like Sanders policies however his voting to shield gun manufactures from liability and other pro gun votes are unforgivable.
6
Reading comments make me sick sometimes.
1. We are not a pure democracy, we are a representative democracy. Therefore, you get to have a life outside of voting for every issue that passes everywhere; instead, legislators who you vote for vote in your place. Superdelegates are party leaders that you, or people like you, have elected - either in your town, your district, your state, your country. They are the President/nominee will have to work with directly on a daily basis to push party agendas forward. So yes, it's fair that they get a vote, their voices and opinions do matter more (meditate on this fact that people who have a) more experience and b) will have to interact on a first person basis with the elected...have more say in the process.), in the same way that your rep. votes for bills in congress that you do not directly participate in.
2. People who say, "I'm going to sit out in protest if Hillary gets nominated" or "I'm voting for the other party if Hillary gets nominated" - in short, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?! So, to make yourselves heard, you will purposely wreck that person who will enact the same (be less extreme) ideals by voting for the enemy? The only thing that will prove is that Republicans have indeed succeeded in brainwashing the American people very well, and that America will get what it deserves with this electorate. Stop acting like 5 year old children and throwing fits when something don't go your way...ah, I see what you prefer Sanders/Trump now.
1. We are not a pure democracy, we are a representative democracy. Therefore, you get to have a life outside of voting for every issue that passes everywhere; instead, legislators who you vote for vote in your place. Superdelegates are party leaders that you, or people like you, have elected - either in your town, your district, your state, your country. They are the President/nominee will have to work with directly on a daily basis to push party agendas forward. So yes, it's fair that they get a vote, their voices and opinions do matter more (meditate on this fact that people who have a) more experience and b) will have to interact on a first person basis with the elected...have more say in the process.), in the same way that your rep. votes for bills in congress that you do not directly participate in.
2. People who say, "I'm going to sit out in protest if Hillary gets nominated" or "I'm voting for the other party if Hillary gets nominated" - in short, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?! So, to make yourselves heard, you will purposely wreck that person who will enact the same (be less extreme) ideals by voting for the enemy? The only thing that will prove is that Republicans have indeed succeeded in brainwashing the American people very well, and that America will get what it deserves with this electorate. Stop acting like 5 year old children and throwing fits when something don't go your way...ah, I see what you prefer Sanders/Trump now.
4
I for one will happily "purposely wreck that person" because I think she is completely immoral and no more deserves to be in the WH, than, say any one of the homeless I see on the street every day, probably less so. And don't get me started on her husband.
Given the danger of Trump the demagogue and the anti-charisma of Bern, the old white kook, Clinton is the only hope of avoiding the catastrophe of President Trump. The Bern is just a burnt out hippie who couldn't get a single bill through Congress just like Trump he sells snake oil by promising his followers what they so dearly want but has no way to every actually deliver on this promises. Good riddance to a distraction.
1
You buried the lead! Sanders and Clinton are tied in pledged delegates! I'm sorry that you've already endorsed Clinton and are flogging the idea that she is the inevitable candidate. In an another article today, you are noting that Sanders is energizing so many young people in his campaign. If the superdelegates act against the will of the people proving it to be the UnDemocratic Party, the Democratic party could lose a generation of young people. It is not necessary for Sanders to win the solid South to win the nomination, so save your obituaries, please.
7
Any discussion of Hillary's delegate total needs to carry a VERY BOLD DISCLAIMER that almost all of it (at this point) is due to superdelegates. This entire discussion seems to be psyops against Bernie supporters, because it gives the impression that it's an impossible battle. Put it this way, if Bernie won more elected, pledged delegates than Hillary, and she still tried to claim the nomination on the strength of superdelegates, that would be seen as monumentally illegitimate and anti-democratic.
2
2 problems with this article:
1. Whether or not Hillary is ahead with Latinos is very much in question due to a NY Times poll which had Bernie ahead by 8 points in that group: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/21/clinton-campaign-...
2. It assumes that the superdelegates pledged to Hillary won't switch sides if the popular vote goes against them. Most pundits assume they will, rather than risk fracturing the party.
These two factors drastically impact the conclusions drawn by the author.
1. Whether or not Hillary is ahead with Latinos is very much in question due to a NY Times poll which had Bernie ahead by 8 points in that group: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/21/clinton-campaign-...
2. It assumes that the superdelegates pledged to Hillary won't switch sides if the popular vote goes against them. Most pundits assume they will, rather than risk fracturing the party.
These two factors drastically impact the conclusions drawn by the author.
3
Let's see how Bernie does in in the next 30 days before we get upset, shall we? What a bunch of whiners!
6
Of course, missing from this article is an accounting of actual voted upon delegates... (remarkably) tied at 51 each. The difference is all in the super delegates (which are not fixed and may change as the primaries proceed.
3
The most important thing that happened this past weekend was that we got rid of Jeb Bush. Good riddance !!! Now a warning. Do not trust Hillary Clinton.
For those who do, you will regret it. The only candidate who will do anything for
The general population is Bernie Sanders. He is our last hope.
For those who do, you will regret it. The only candidate who will do anything for
The general population is Bernie Sanders. He is our last hope.
4
OK, folks, move along. There is nothing to see here.
1
I like Sanders' progressivism but many of his supporters are no more than the left's version of the Tea Party. They're extremists. Aside from reading Sanders' extremist supporters' comments about an establishment and mass media conspiracy against Sanders, they threaten not to vote for HRC should she become the nominee. This is a clue to how they would govern. Governance by extortion. That is not in the national interest.
4
Yep, so America you really want to make your country better? Vote Hillary, bring back a majority Republican Congress and possibly Senate as well and then pray. And while your at it, if one of these Republican lunatics happens to get elected President, then I suggest you start building your bomb shelter.
1
Not until the tenth paragraph of this screed does the reader learn that Clinton and Sanders are tied 51-51 in committed delegates. The "super delegates" aka party hacks, may indeed be in Clinton's pocket, as is The Times reporter in this article that should be labeled as opinion, or at the least, analysis.
4
Establishment Democrats are like a monopoly strangling their customers.
3
The Democrat Party is not about democracy nor is it democratic.
To cast a vote that will actually be counted & represented, vote for TRUMP.
And why not? After all, he's a WINNER!
To cast a vote that will actually be counted & represented, vote for TRUMP.
And why not? After all, he's a WINNER!
1
The NYT editorial board and the paper's columnists can endorse whichever candidate they prefer, but articles like this, and there have been far too many like this, have no place in the newspaper of record. The point of this story, apparently, is that the race is over, Hillary Clinton has won, despite the fact that Clinton and Bernie Sanders have won exactly the same number of seats in the three primaries and Sanders has garnered more popular votes so far. At the end of the day, the voters will decide who wins the nomination and likely it will be Hillary Clinton, thank in no little part to the NYT. I grew up reading and admiring the NYT and in my thirty years as a reporter in Canada always considered it the gold standard for journalism. Until now. I don't know Carolyn Ryan, but she should apologize to NYT readers for the shoddy and slated coverage of the Democratic Party's presidential nomination race.
10
Bernie has shown how unelectable HRC is and now he can go back to whatever non value-adding activities he does everyday.
Look, Bernie's argument that he is very electable because of the millions of new voters he will turnout has just fallen rather flat. Turnout didn't increase in Nevada, though he outspent Clinton 2-1 on the ground there. But he blames his loss on "Wall Street money"--and "low turnout." I don't think he has what it takes. Mobs will win him the election and force Mitch McConnell to accede to all his demands. But the mob also taketh away...
Besides, this is an issue within the Democratic party--of which Bernie has only been a sort-of member for a few months, whereas Hillary has worked within it and for it for many years, raising over a million dollars for them.
Besides, this is an issue within the Democratic party--of which Bernie has only been a sort-of member for a few months, whereas Hillary has worked within it and for it for many years, raising over a million dollars for them.
4
And hundreds of millions for herself.
1
The current delegate count is now 51-51, but the media keeps counting superdelegate 'pledges'. I don't have a problem with super delegates, they're mainly there to cast a swing vote in a close race. Makes sense, it is a representative democracy after all.
I think Hillary supporters really need to get practical. Nothing will guarantee a Republican president like a Hillary nomination. I 'm pretty sure I speak for a lot of Democrats when I say I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton for President! Her nomination will be incredibly demoralizing for the left. The right on the other hand will remain all fired up and ready to sail into the Presidency.
I think Hillary supporters really need to get practical. Nothing will guarantee a Republican president like a Hillary nomination. I 'm pretty sure I speak for a lot of Democrats when I say I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton for President! Her nomination will be incredibly demoralizing for the left. The right on the other hand will remain all fired up and ready to sail into the Presidency.
8
@babymf,
"I'm pretty sure I speak for a lot of Democrats when I say I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton for President!"
You don't speak for me. Those for whom you speak will destroy this country. Some revolution. Grow up.
"I'm pretty sure I speak for a lot of Democrats when I say I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton for President!"
You don't speak for me. Those for whom you speak will destroy this country. Some revolution. Grow up.
4
Face it Bernie...this country will never be ready for an out-of-the-closet communist like you. However, Clinton is still in the closet, so the low informed socialist will go for her...
If Democrats (and their superdelegates) are supporting Hillary because they think she is more likely than Bernie to defeat Trump (or Cruz or Rubio) in November, then *they* are the ones being naive, not Bernie's supporters. In this very publication yesterday, Frank Bruni correctly wrote of the Trump phenomenon, "the people voting for him aren’t evaluating him through any usual ideological lens. They’re not asking what kind of Republican he is. They’re not troubling themselves with whether the position he’s selling today matches the position he was selling yesterday or even what that old position was. They want to try something utterly different—utterly disruptive..."
Why does anyone think that Hillary would crush him, or even narrowly defeat him, in a general election? She is the epitome of the establishment: part of a family entrenched in the last 20 years of American politics. And if that family is beloved by some, they are reviled by many. Why assume that she would win? Trump would have all the room to grow from July to November, and would easily be able to call himself the outsider and Hillary the elitist. He couldn't do that with Bernie, who doesn't come with the same baggage.
Bernie is more electable.
Why does anyone think that Hillary would crush him, or even narrowly defeat him, in a general election? She is the epitome of the establishment: part of a family entrenched in the last 20 years of American politics. And if that family is beloved by some, they are reviled by many. Why assume that she would win? Trump would have all the room to grow from July to November, and would easily be able to call himself the outsider and Hillary the elitist. He couldn't do that with Bernie, who doesn't come with the same baggage.
Bernie is more electable.
7
The democrat elite and the MSM have always been in the tank for Hillary. This election year, Americans have woken up to the corrupt and devious of that party. Beginning with Iowa....Hillary won by the toss of a coin? This is democracy? NH..Bernie won by a landslide because the corrupt Democrat machine had no way to manipulate the people and the vote. Nevada was a win, sure...but by a very slim margin...and had not dirty Harry forced his union leaders and their followers to get out and VOTE FOR HILLARY, or else, ...the contest could have been even, or maybe Bernie would have won. We'll never know. And now the Super Delegates. If those democrat elites do not vote with the majority of voters in their state, they should be fined, thrown in jail, or thrown out of the party. The Super Delegate system is corrupt, unfair and has no business in our electoral process.
4
I'm kinda surprised by the amount of lashing out by the Sander's supporters. And I'm a little stunned that they didn't appreciate in advance the quixotic nature of his campaign, the fundamentals of the party's primary process including the allocation of delegates, nor the weight of the vested interests within the party.
Which is a shame. Sanders chose to run as a Democrat and he HAD to have appreciated these hurdles. Perhaps he felt that an Obama-like call to arms would steamroll the party, but Obama was always playing the inside game. But if he didn't fully explain the difficult path he faced to his younger voters then he is responsible for any potential disillusionment they may feel, or even their withdrawal from political activism.
Sure, their naivete is on them, but if he was playing with that then it was a cynical move on his part.
Which is a shame. Sanders chose to run as a Democrat and he HAD to have appreciated these hurdles. Perhaps he felt that an Obama-like call to arms would steamroll the party, but Obama was always playing the inside game. But if he didn't fully explain the difficult path he faced to his younger voters then he is responsible for any potential disillusionment they may feel, or even their withdrawal from political activism.
Sure, their naivete is on them, but if he was playing with that then it was a cynical move on his part.
3
The lesson a lot of commentators ought to be learning about politics is this: you show up regular, or you don't get a vote.
It's all very well to get all enthused about Sanders or whoever, and show up for that. But if you skip the midterms and don't vote down ticket, you end up with a Republican Congress and state houses that start changing the rules on you.
Don't like superdelegates? Fine. Show up for all the boring stuff, show up on days when you have better things to do, show up even if you lost the last fight. Show up, fight, and get things changed.
Sorry, but the diff beween a lot of you and Hillary Clinton is that she showed up, and has been showing up since 1962. That's how it works: you show up.
Don't mistake me: she's very far from my ideal candidate. I'd rather vote for the President again, another guy who showed up, and I sure don't care for the Iraq vote or the Wall Street ties...but the Wall Street ties are there, in part, because the liberal/left types yelling at her now didn't show up in 2000, they didn't show up in 2010, and they didn't show up in 2014.
So if you can't be bothered to show up, shaddap.
It's all very well to get all enthused about Sanders or whoever, and show up for that. But if you skip the midterms and don't vote down ticket, you end up with a Republican Congress and state houses that start changing the rules on you.
Don't like superdelegates? Fine. Show up for all the boring stuff, show up on days when you have better things to do, show up even if you lost the last fight. Show up, fight, and get things changed.
Sorry, but the diff beween a lot of you and Hillary Clinton is that she showed up, and has been showing up since 1962. That's how it works: you show up.
Don't mistake me: she's very far from my ideal candidate. I'd rather vote for the President again, another guy who showed up, and I sure don't care for the Iraq vote or the Wall Street ties...but the Wall Street ties are there, in part, because the liberal/left types yelling at her now didn't show up in 2000, they didn't show up in 2010, and they didn't show up in 2014.
So if you can't be bothered to show up, shaddap.
5
Donald Trump is clearly proving on the Republican side that this election is about the anti-establishment. If Trump prevails...the dumbest thing the DNC could do is run an establishment figure like Hillary Clinton against him. Bernie Sanders is the Democratic anti-establishment candidate who can pull votes from Trump. That Hillary Clinton is ahead in the delegate count soley due to the so-called super delegates...simply shows how much the system is rigged for the establishment.
4
I wouldn't vote for either of those commies... I am glad to hear Jebby Bush quit on Saturday!
Clinton leads 502-70 - after two dead-heat caucuses and one blow-out primary, in which she was the one blown out of the water. All three contests in small states accounting for nowhere near 572 delegates. In fact, in those three delegate counts Sanders and Clinton are exactly tied with 51 each.
Ah! Halfway down the page you say she's got a huge lead in superdelegates. The chart shows it - 451-19. And that lead has nothing to do with a democratic election or caucus but purely with politicking and god knows how many promises of mutual back-scratching - i.e., corruption.
So this article should have been about superdelegates and the unfairness of how they're awarded. But that's not the Times's agenda. Instead, the Times continued its hammering of the Sanders campaign - from the beginning, its very existence has obviously irked the Times's news editors, and so we readers are treated to a constant barrage of "news" articles belittling, dismissing, critiquing, and smirking at what the Times's news division has decided are Sanders's presidential delusions.
I've tried to get the Times's public editor to write again about this phenomenon, to no avail. I do know she's watching, however, and I hope she sees this article for what it is - a blatant attempt to take down Sanders.
Ah! Halfway down the page you say she's got a huge lead in superdelegates. The chart shows it - 451-19. And that lead has nothing to do with a democratic election or caucus but purely with politicking and god knows how many promises of mutual back-scratching - i.e., corruption.
So this article should have been about superdelegates and the unfairness of how they're awarded. But that's not the Times's agenda. Instead, the Times continued its hammering of the Sanders campaign - from the beginning, its very existence has obviously irked the Times's news editors, and so we readers are treated to a constant barrage of "news" articles belittling, dismissing, critiquing, and smirking at what the Times's news division has decided are Sanders's presidential delusions.
I've tried to get the Times's public editor to write again about this phenomenon, to no avail. I do know she's watching, however, and I hope she sees this article for what it is - a blatant attempt to take down Sanders.
5
But - but - it's the democrat's process and the Times is reporting on it!! If the Times said it was "unfair" THAT would be bias and would belong on the Op-Ed page. Their job is to report facts. Superdelegates are factual things (people, actually). I just don't get you guys. This is actually the way things are, it just makes you sad.
2
Sanders recently decided he was a democrat and his supporters say, "Hey, of course that's OK! He's always really been a democrat all along." And now those same supporters want to be angry about the democratic primary process. The irony, it berns. He could have just stayed an independent, and apparently given all the disgust supporters have for the democratic party, he should have. Everyone would be happier.
4
And Hillary will lose in a landslide without progressives.
1
How many times have we read this? "I will never vote for Hillary."
The usual response from Hillary supporters is: "Then who WILL you vote for – Trump?"
A fair response, but it overlooks another possibility: They won't vote, period. If Bernie supporters do what they say they will, Hillary will lose in November. But if Bernie supporters just stay home, Hillary will lose in November too.
The usual response from Hillary supporters is: "Then who WILL you vote for – Trump?"
A fair response, but it overlooks another possibility: They won't vote, period. If Bernie supporters do what they say they will, Hillary will lose in November. But if Bernie supporters just stay home, Hillary will lose in November too.
1
@MyTwoCemts,
If Bernie's petulant supporters would just grow up, decide they are in fact Democrats, and vote for the Democratic nominee whoever s/he turns out to be, this would be a moot point, since the Dems would clearly win. If these clowns jus stay home, however, the mind-boggling reactionary consequences will play out for decades. Maybe that's why they call it a revolution.
If Bernie's petulant supporters would just grow up, decide they are in fact Democrats, and vote for the Democratic nominee whoever s/he turns out to be, this would be a moot point, since the Dems would clearly win. If these clowns jus stay home, however, the mind-boggling reactionary consequences will play out for decades. Maybe that's why they call it a revolution.
2
Well, after they are done acting out about their outrage that Sanders did not come true they will hopefully see what is in their best interests. Time has a way of allowing people to shift from immovable positions. No one is going to hold them to their promise not to vote - or to, bizarrely, claim they will vote for Trump. No one will notice if they head to the polls and no one will know how they voted. But maybe, at the last moment, they'll finally realize that politics is the long game - something Obama's been teaching up for over 7 years now. They have to remember this is all playing out on the other side, with forlorn Bush supporters saying "goodbye cruel world - I will NEVER vote for Trump!!" - until of course they do. And that's what everyone on the dem side needs to remember: there's almost as many of them as there are us.
2
And Mrs. Clinton is better positioned than Mr. Sanders to win big in more delegate-rich districts, like those carved out to ensure minority Democrats in Congress, where she remains popular.
---------------------------------------------------------
When Republicans do this you scream gerrymandering.
---------------------------------------------------------
When Republicans do this you scream gerrymandering.
3
If you get voters mad enough, you don't get them to fall in line and vote for the establishment. You get them to split off and start a third party. The DNC insiders who are pushing for Hillary might want to give their behavior around superdelegates some careful thought, because if they lose the young voters, the young voters aren't coming back.
4
People have been saying that each and every primary cycle. People have been pronouncing the 2-party system dead, since, well, there's been a 2-party system. For better or worse it's been a very stable, continuous phenomenon since the early 20th century in its current D/R format, And there have been young voters during that whole time period. By this time next year no one will even much care what happened at the convention. No one is caring much now that Obama got superdelegate support to beat out Clinton last time we did all this.
4
It's becoming increasingly obvious over the course of this election season that a large portion of the American electorate believes BOTH parties have failed to truly represent the interests of the American people. Regardless of who wins the election in November, the best thing for the country would be for both the Republican and Democratic parties to be so damaged in the process that they lose their stranglehold on politics once and for all, thereby providing an opening for "we the People" to take back our place as arbiters of America's destiny.
4
I'll take thinking voters every time, over the corporate media in America and Canada, when commenting on national elections.
2
This news piece is just another example of what I see as clear pro-Hillary bias by the Times in its news analysis and primary election coverage. (Disclaimer: I am a Sanders supporter).
The real story is that Bernie Sanders has proven to be competitive in every contest so far, remains a viable candidate, and approx 90% of regular delegates are still up for election.
The Times should know better than to negatively distort Sanders' prospects by including superdelegates in the total delegate count at this early stage of the primary process. Many of these superdelegates vowed to support the establishment candidate Clinton months before a single primary was ever held and are not bound to vote for either candidate when it comes time for the convention. (If Sanders were to legitimately win a majority of regularly elected delegates, many superdelegates would surely change their mind at convention time).
In the past, the Times has criticized the superdelegate system as anti-democratic and called for a primary schedule that reduces the undue influence of a handful of small states. By declaring Sanders a long shot on the basis of superdelegate counts and results from the election of a small fraction of total delegates, the Times feeds into the most technical and anti-democratic elements of the primary election process.
The real story is that Bernie Sanders has proven to be competitive in every contest so far, remains a viable candidate, and approx 90% of regular delegates are still up for election.
The Times should know better than to negatively distort Sanders' prospects by including superdelegates in the total delegate count at this early stage of the primary process. Many of these superdelegates vowed to support the establishment candidate Clinton months before a single primary was ever held and are not bound to vote for either candidate when it comes time for the convention. (If Sanders were to legitimately win a majority of regularly elected delegates, many superdelegates would surely change their mind at convention time).
In the past, the Times has criticized the superdelegate system as anti-democratic and called for a primary schedule that reduces the undue influence of a handful of small states. By declaring Sanders a long shot on the basis of superdelegate counts and results from the election of a small fraction of total delegates, the Times feeds into the most technical and anti-democratic elements of the primary election process.
3
The only reason that Sanders has a steep climb is because theDNC has stacked the "super delegates" in favor of Clinton. So much for honesty and integrity in politics, and the best candidate winning. It really is a shame that the DNC is hell bent on a woman becoming a president and that that woman must be Clinton.
5
Call me cynical, but I do believe nearly all supporters of Bernie who vote in the general election will "hold their noses" and vote for Hillary. She knows that; Bernie knows that; nearly everybody knows that.
The real risk for Hillary is that many Bernie supporters just won't show up to vote. After all, despite Bernie's campaign's strong efforts, turnout for the Nevada caucus was 32% lower than in 2008, the last "contested" year. If turnout is that far down in an important caucus, there is good reason to anticipate it will be down even farther in the general election, after Bernie's campaign has closed up shop.
The real risk for Hillary is that many Bernie supporters just won't show up to vote. After all, despite Bernie's campaign's strong efforts, turnout for the Nevada caucus was 32% lower than in 2008, the last "contested" year. If turnout is that far down in an important caucus, there is good reason to anticipate it will be down even farther in the general election, after Bernie's campaign has closed up shop.
4
People would do well to understand why there are super delegates in the nomination process before complaining about the lack of fairness.
http://genprogress.org/voices/2008/04/09/14916/why-superdelegates-exist/
The 2008 article at the above link lists substantive reasons for having super delegates, none of which have anything to do with Sanders.
http://genprogress.org/voices/2008/04/09/14916/why-superdelegates-exist/
The 2008 article at the above link lists substantive reasons for having super delegates, none of which have anything to do with Sanders.
3
Has it dawned on anyone yet that the DNC decided long ago that Bernie Sanders would not be the party's nominee?
The game goes on but the final score is already in the record books. In fact, it was posted long before the run for the roses got underway...
The game goes on but the final score is already in the record books. In fact, it was posted long before the run for the roses got underway...
2
A sad political reality for the record levels of mass incarceration imprisonment, unemployment and welfare dependency of black African Americans is that Democrats take their loyalty for granted while Republicans presume their hostile antipathy as a given.
While brown Mexican Americans are faced with a similar political dilemma as they live in the illegal immigrant shadows without any possibility of comprehensive immigration reform while being deported in record numbers by President Obama.
The votes of African Americans and Mexican Americans have no political relevance in any of the Republican Presidential primary and caucus states. Neither Carson nor Cruz nor Rubio speak for or to either demographic.
While brown Mexican Americans are faced with a similar political dilemma as they live in the illegal immigrant shadows without any possibility of comprehensive immigration reform while being deported in record numbers by President Obama.
The votes of African Americans and Mexican Americans have no political relevance in any of the Republican Presidential primary and caucus states. Neither Carson nor Cruz nor Rubio speak for or to either demographic.
2
Ah yes, the myth of Black and Brown is alive and well in the liberal circles of ignorance. I am a Black attorney in Washington DC, a millennial working on Capitol Hill. I grew up in a poor Black community and worked my way through college and law school.
The only instances of racism I have experienced in my life have happened with Latinos, Hispanics and "Brown" Americans. The Black community shares approximately NOTHING with Latinos, whether it be culture, language or views of any credible sort. The liberal lumping of Black and Brown into this imaginary monolith was a political calculation, to consolidate a voting bloc into a commodity.
Carson, Cruz and Rubio? None of them are the GOP frontrunner and as the news media and Obama liberals continue to prove, ignoring Donald Trump is only helping him win bigger.
The 2016 Presidential Election is shaping up to be Trump Time. And I could not be happier.
The only instances of racism I have experienced in my life have happened with Latinos, Hispanics and "Brown" Americans. The Black community shares approximately NOTHING with Latinos, whether it be culture, language or views of any credible sort. The liberal lumping of Black and Brown into this imaginary monolith was a political calculation, to consolidate a voting bloc into a commodity.
Carson, Cruz and Rubio? None of them are the GOP frontrunner and as the news media and Obama liberals continue to prove, ignoring Donald Trump is only helping him win bigger.
The 2016 Presidential Election is shaping up to be Trump Time. And I could not be happier.
1
The struggle between Clinton and Sanders supporters is obscuring one fact that the Democratic National Committee should take very, very seriously. The two candidate have genuine differences in opinion regarding some issues; their professional and personal present many contrasts. While I respect Ms. Clinton, her/Bill's personal and ethical baggage will not disappear and may really affect her campaign down the line. Throwing spitballs at Sanders will not erase that.
Perhaps the most important conclusion of the two campaigns is that Ms. Clinton has not connected with younger voters (regardless of political identification as independent or Democratic). Mr. Sanders has; the DNC now must throw a political tarp over the two campaigns in a generous and forward-looking way. Many people under 30 graduated from public schools where civics, social studies and American history were only minimally taught in an effort to prepare students for the job market. The price? A whole generation has no preparation to assume their roles as citizens and voters.
Perhaps the most important conclusion of the two campaigns is that Ms. Clinton has not connected with younger voters (regardless of political identification as independent or Democratic). Mr. Sanders has; the DNC now must throw a political tarp over the two campaigns in a generous and forward-looking way. Many people under 30 graduated from public schools where civics, social studies and American history were only minimally taught in an effort to prepare students for the job market. The price? A whole generation has no preparation to assume their roles as citizens and voters.
4
Day after day the NYT publishes anti sanders propaganda. I had thought that a former great institution like the NYT would let the voters decide instead of trying to sway the public with pravda like tactics. Putin would be proud of your lack of journalistic integrity.
5
I just cancelled my NYT subscription. It all ends March 1. If I can't trust you to report and comment on the presidential election with even the remotest pretense of objectivity, how can I trust you as my news source? I trained as a journalist many years ago. You were then the gold standard of newspaper journalism. How any of you come into work every day is beyond me.
14
There seriously is nothing non-objective in the article. Take off your Sander's glasses.
2
You could start with the misleading headline, if you need a nudge.
1
I'm taken aback here by the tone of Sanders' supporters comments on the prospect of a Clinton victory. Especially because these same people are likely commenting on the freak show that is the GOP race with disdain and derision. Do they realize that they, themselves, sound like a bunch of children threatening to run into their rooms and never come out, or to hold their breath until they turn blue and die, if they do not get their way?
I don't think Hillary should get the nomination by resort to some sort of special math. But if it genuinely occurs that more primary voters in more states support Clinton than Sanders, I don't see how Sanders supporters can credibly argue her nomination is somehow a fraud, or that he should have it instead. If that be the case, I don't see how they could ever be heard to complain about Republican voter suppression techniques again.
Lastly, I find it somewhat discouraging that there isn't much self-examination going on among Sanders supporters about why Clinton continues to have stronger support among black and Hispanic voters. Clearly, Sanders supporters feel his policies would benefit these voters much more than his opponent's. Yet his message doesn't seem to be resonating there.
Winning campaigns are able to critically assess their flaws and address them. I don't see much of this in the Sanders' camp. I do read comments saying that Bernie is perfectly perfect as can be, which again is what I typically hear from the GOP.
I don't think Hillary should get the nomination by resort to some sort of special math. But if it genuinely occurs that more primary voters in more states support Clinton than Sanders, I don't see how Sanders supporters can credibly argue her nomination is somehow a fraud, or that he should have it instead. If that be the case, I don't see how they could ever be heard to complain about Republican voter suppression techniques again.
Lastly, I find it somewhat discouraging that there isn't much self-examination going on among Sanders supporters about why Clinton continues to have stronger support among black and Hispanic voters. Clearly, Sanders supporters feel his policies would benefit these voters much more than his opponent's. Yet his message doesn't seem to be resonating there.
Winning campaigns are able to critically assess their flaws and address them. I don't see much of this in the Sanders' camp. I do read comments saying that Bernie is perfectly perfect as can be, which again is what I typically hear from the GOP.
5
Super delegates that negate the popular vote are the makings for the second American Revolution. Not too long ago, Gore lost to Bush and many folks were quite upset. If Clinton uses this strategy, rest assured it will blow back to haunt her and her party.
6
How rigged must the system be with Byzantine rules when a man like Sanders appears out of no where less than a year ago to challenge the inevitable nominee and is neck-and-neck with her in the polls, but now he's toast?
He barely lost in Iowa (let's not bring up how Hillary won 10 of 12 coin tosses there, etc.) - - he wallops here in New Hampshire - - national polls put them near even, then he loses Nevada by less than 5%.
Now, Hillary is inevitable, again??
What is the Democratic National Committee thinking? Or, maybe they aren't.
There is only one real candidate on offer? One, whom most voters don't trust, don't get enthused about, but she is "inevitable" ?!? Why so?
I await Michael Bloomberg announcing his candidacy. He would represent real change from what are obviously two very broken political parites.
Trump? Cruz? Rubio? ...or Hillary? None of them will ever get my vote.
He barely lost in Iowa (let's not bring up how Hillary won 10 of 12 coin tosses there, etc.) - - he wallops here in New Hampshire - - national polls put them near even, then he loses Nevada by less than 5%.
Now, Hillary is inevitable, again??
What is the Democratic National Committee thinking? Or, maybe they aren't.
There is only one real candidate on offer? One, whom most voters don't trust, don't get enthused about, but she is "inevitable" ?!? Why so?
I await Michael Bloomberg announcing his candidacy. He would represent real change from what are obviously two very broken political parites.
Trump? Cruz? Rubio? ...or Hillary? None of them will ever get my vote.
6
What is so funny, is that the DNC-NYT establishment, drunk with power and living in a bubble, thinks regular people are stupid.
The corrupt DNC is imploding. Young people can see through it.
Sadly, Hillary's coronation may result in a Trump Presidency, because she cannot beat him, according to the polls. What would help her is a big turnout, and this paper's premature interference in the democratic process will not help her get those young voters.
But Trump sells papers, right?
The corrupt DNC is imploding. Young people can see through it.
Sadly, Hillary's coronation may result in a Trump Presidency, because she cannot beat him, according to the polls. What would help her is a big turnout, and this paper's premature interference in the democratic process will not help her get those young voters.
But Trump sells papers, right?
6
A problem for superdelegates in a somewhat close finish would be if one candidate won more states overall but the other candidate won more swing states, which might be more important in the general election.
Hillary = lies, inequality, the 0.1%, Wall Street, corruption and status quo
Bernie = a chance to restore our Republic
Bernie = a chance to restore our Republic
8
Bernie = a really good chance to have a republican president, a filibuster-proof republican senate, and a republican house of reps. All choosing 1 or 2 or more SCOTUS justices. And all those red state governments will just love working with a solid red federal government. At least you should understand exactly the fire you are playing with.
3
Remove this headline. You are misleading people. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton each have 51 delegates. It is a tie. You are talking about superdelegates and that is a complex and developing story.
8
I like Bernie but he has one note "Wall Street and Big Banks are bad".
His supporters need to look at a map of the states that voted for "Mr Business" Romney and know that a socialist has zero chance to win those states. Then look at states -Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida- that republicans control both the governorship and state legislature that aren't going to vote for a socialist and Democrats must have to win the presidency. Also states like Virginia and Pennsylvania will be hard sells
His supporters need to look at a map of the states that voted for "Mr Business" Romney and know that a socialist has zero chance to win those states. Then look at states -Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida- that republicans control both the governorship and state legislature that aren't going to vote for a socialist and Democrats must have to win the presidency. Also states like Virginia and Pennsylvania will be hard sells
1
Sorry Bernie, I guess the repeal of Glass-Steagall caused more damage than we thought.
This process is totally corrupt and without redemption.
This isn't Lucy pulling out the football; it's Lucy lying that the game has been cancelled so don't even bother to show up.
This process is totally corrupt and without redemption.
This isn't Lucy pulling out the football; it's Lucy lying that the game has been cancelled so don't even bother to show up.
5
Bernie's supporters complain justifiably, but if Bernie crushes Hillary in the remaining primaries (as Obama did in 2008), Hillary probably won't play her "super delegates" trump card. More important: Even if she tries to, her super delegates may balk and support Sanders anyway.
Hillary did exactly the same thing in 2008. She stayed in the race far, far longer than her performance in the primaries warranted. She kept hoping something would come along -- some scandal, I guess -- that would make her super-delegates conclude Obama was unelectable, so that those super delegates would stick with her. That didn't happen, of course, and those super delegates concluded (1) Obama was electable; and (2) it would hurt the Party to nullify Obama's overwhelming support in the primaries. And so the super delegates didn't stick with Hillary at the convention. And, to her credit, at that point – finally, finally – she didn't try to stop them. Instead, she cut a deal with Obama to get her appointed Secretary of State. Obama was happy to put an end to their pointless squabbling, and so he signed up for that deal.
Hillary did exactly the same thing in 2008. She stayed in the race far, far longer than her performance in the primaries warranted. She kept hoping something would come along -- some scandal, I guess -- that would make her super-delegates conclude Obama was unelectable, so that those super delegates would stick with her. That didn't happen, of course, and those super delegates concluded (1) Obama was electable; and (2) it would hurt the Party to nullify Obama's overwhelming support in the primaries. And so the super delegates didn't stick with Hillary at the convention. And, to her credit, at that point – finally, finally – she didn't try to stop them. Instead, she cut a deal with Obama to get her appointed Secretary of State. Obama was happy to put an end to their pointless squabbling, and so he signed up for that deal.
1
For the love of God, stop including superdelegates in delegate totals! Those do not imply the voters' choices, and they are not set in stone. This is incredibly misleading and implies that Sanders has a huge VOTER deficit, when in fact with regards to regular delegates, the candidates are TIED. Even referencing super delegates, which have to bearing on what the people have decided, at this stage in the game, months before the DNC convention is horribly dishonest, especially in the headline of a major news network article. Stop it.
8
First, I must say I'm a Republican. I however, try to find and vote by Facts. I would not vote for either another Bush or Clinton in the WH.
I have my doubts about almost all of the rest of the Republican field. I have a question for Democrats though.
I am truly confused for any candidate running for any office with multiple FBI investigations being conducted. Isn't anyone out there concerned about Ms Clinton's utter lack of care for our country's secrets? I'm not putting this out there to get people angry. I honestly want to understand how Democrats can actually vote for a candidate who has been shown again and again as untrustworthy.
I personally like Bernie Sander as well as "The Donald". Bernie because he actually tells you what he honestly wants to do, and Donald because he's got the GOP so pissed off!
I am waiting to see who makes it through the process on both sides before I decide whom I will vote for. I already know if it's Ms Clinton (on the Democratic side), she will not get my vote.
I have my doubts about almost all of the rest of the Republican field. I have a question for Democrats though.
I am truly confused for any candidate running for any office with multiple FBI investigations being conducted. Isn't anyone out there concerned about Ms Clinton's utter lack of care for our country's secrets? I'm not putting this out there to get people angry. I honestly want to understand how Democrats can actually vote for a candidate who has been shown again and again as untrustworthy.
I personally like Bernie Sander as well as "The Donald". Bernie because he actually tells you what he honestly wants to do, and Donald because he's got the GOP so pissed off!
I am waiting to see who makes it through the process on both sides before I decide whom I will vote for. I already know if it's Ms Clinton (on the Democratic side), she will not get my vote.
Yes, NY Times, for the thousandth time or thereabouts, you have endorsed HILLARY. Carlos Slim and the Clinton Foundation, and all that. Maybe you should do a story on that connection for a change, instead of trying to get everybody out here to ignore the facts.
7
It’s written as news,
so surely it is fact
that Bernie’s sure to lose,
there is no going back.
The numbers don’t lie!
(they’re just stretched and then pulled)
But the vote is a tie!
and they think we’ve been fooled.
Shame on the Times
for overtly misleading,
now enough of my rhymes,
some TRUTH I’d like reading!
so surely it is fact
that Bernie’s sure to lose,
there is no going back.
The numbers don’t lie!
(they’re just stretched and then pulled)
But the vote is a tie!
and they think we’ve been fooled.
Shame on the Times
for overtly misleading,
now enough of my rhymes,
some TRUTH I’d like reading!
10
The Left has spoken and it has chosen to side with the bought and paid for candidate Hillary Clinton. Good luck with that guys. Are you sure you want 4 more years of stagnancy? No Wall Street reform? Yeah good luck with that. Don't say you haven't been warned.
5
Choose your poison: Ethically challenged liar on the payroll for big banking or an avowed Marxist. Democrat Party is in deep trouble.
What happens when the show drops on Hildabeast?
What happens when the show drops on Hildabeast?
1
I can't believe all these negative comments from supposed bernie supporters. They clearly are from right wing operatives. The right wing is scared to death Hillary will be the democratic presidential candidate because she will beat any of their candidates easily.
2
And YOU are clearly from HRC's legions of fawning operatives. The right wing has nothing to fear from another Clinton presidency, any more than happened during Bill's tenure.
Another Clinton presidency will guarantee that Congress will be further augmented with Republicans; as you should recall, after two years of Bill, they won the House for the first time in four decades, and you can expect it to continue with HRC.
Another Clinton presidency will guarantee that Congress will be further augmented with Republicans; as you should recall, after two years of Bill, they won the House for the first time in four decades, and you can expect it to continue with HRC.
2
She won't beat them easily, if at all. Nobody on the right is afraid of Hillary. They are much too worried about Trump to give her a thought at the moment.
Not as easily as Bernie, if you believe in science!
I cancelled my NY Times subscription, so you probably won't be seeing many comments from me in the future. The drill is the same day after day. A badly sourced and poorly written article raises more questions than it answers. Unpaid bloggers post more information in the comments section than the article provides. Twenty bucks a month for this kind of service is too much, so I went on the 99-cent plan. But even at 99 cents I finally reached the point where I don't want to read the NY Times anymore.
14
Bill....don't leave, we need your voice more than ever before.
1
On second thought, if you write a story about the viral feedback on this story, I'll keep my subscription!!
5
why don't you get your own blog and stop trying to force the Times to do what you want?
1
Folks, comment after comment is about how unfair the super delegates are. Bernie could have run as an independent -- the Democratic party would not be involved. He chose not to do so ... so he's buying into the party's rules ... in effect he is joining the party, which he has never been a member of before.
I am afraid that it is abundantly apparent that Bernie's supporters are are not "real Democrats" in the sense of seeing any use or value to the party as a party.
I see that as terribly short-sighted, and indeed a big part of what has brought liberals and progressives to the point we are at today, where the Republicans hold a large majority of the state legislatures and governorships, a strong majority in the house arrived at through gerrymandering, and control of the Senate.
The super-delegates are all those "little people" in the Democratic party -- those of you who are pro-Bernie ... why do you want Bernie to have the DEMOCRATIC nomination?
And to all of you who are of the "if I don't get my Bernie, I'm going to vote for Trump" .... so ... you think you can win an election if the pro-Hillary people take the same attitude? And if Bernie is president ... where do your Bernie-party congressionals come from, eh? Who are they?
I am afraid that it is abundantly apparent that Bernie's supporters are are not "real Democrats" in the sense of seeing any use or value to the party as a party.
I see that as terribly short-sighted, and indeed a big part of what has brought liberals and progressives to the point we are at today, where the Republicans hold a large majority of the state legislatures and governorships, a strong majority in the house arrived at through gerrymandering, and control of the Senate.
The super-delegates are all those "little people" in the Democratic party -- those of you who are pro-Bernie ... why do you want Bernie to have the DEMOCRATIC nomination?
And to all of you who are of the "if I don't get my Bernie, I'm going to vote for Trump" .... so ... you think you can win an election if the pro-Hillary people take the same attitude? And if Bernie is president ... where do your Bernie-party congressionals come from, eh? Who are they?
3
I could care less about the super delegates. I watched as the party devolved. Obama fired extraordinary people like Denny Blair and hired hacks who gave him bad policy advice. The DNC seems to think all Democrats abhor a Bush dynasty and still love a Clinton dynasty. That is what is shortsighted.
In 1990, I ran an anti-PAC campaign for a young buck 28 year old Republican-come-Democrat, Dan "Bull" Durham, who quit his job at the OMB, changed parties and ran against PAC-funded, Notre Dame golden boy, Timothy Roemer, when he was as clueless as a draft horse in the Kentucky Derby. But, no, the DNCC would not have it. They make their picks, whether or not they think they have to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. It is all about money, corporate greed, and the slimy political class, the kind that Jame Monroe warned us about centuries ago. Roemer went on to beat incumbent John Hiler, another PAC puppet, and the rest is history in South Bend.
Democrats lose because they are as bought out and corrupt as the Republicans, and this country cannot abide a third party.
If Sanders loses, my vote goes to Trump. At least he does not hide behind legions of handlers like hot box Cajun Jim Carville and his republican wife.. If we get a plutocracy, so be it. After rejecting the best democratic candidate we have had in a century, we deserve Donald. And a dead political class. That is the silver lining.
In 1990, I ran an anti-PAC campaign for a young buck 28 year old Republican-come-Democrat, Dan "Bull" Durham, who quit his job at the OMB, changed parties and ran against PAC-funded, Notre Dame golden boy, Timothy Roemer, when he was as clueless as a draft horse in the Kentucky Derby. But, no, the DNCC would not have it. They make their picks, whether or not they think they have to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. It is all about money, corporate greed, and the slimy political class, the kind that Jame Monroe warned us about centuries ago. Roemer went on to beat incumbent John Hiler, another PAC puppet, and the rest is history in South Bend.
Democrats lose because they are as bought out and corrupt as the Republicans, and this country cannot abide a third party.
If Sanders loses, my vote goes to Trump. At least he does not hide behind legions of handlers like hot box Cajun Jim Carville and his republican wife.. If we get a plutocracy, so be it. After rejecting the best democratic candidate we have had in a century, we deserve Donald. And a dead political class. That is the silver lining.
1
FDR was a "real Democrat". You sir are a moderate Republican.
1
If superdelegates can make this much of a difference in a close race like the Democratic nomination fight, then why are we not hearing stories about how such superdelegates are behaving for the Republicans? It would seem the party establishment is heavily against Trump, so who are the superdelegates supporting?
Something not spoken or written about: Minus the (corrupt, whether on the Democrat or Republican side) super delegates, the actual votes in Nevada, New Hampshire, and Iowa are nearly tied for Sanders and Clinton.
In the general presidential election, it may be the case that while Clinton supporters would still vote for Sanders, Clinton may not garner the votes of those who support Sanders, as she represents the very thing that a large section of the voting population are disgusted and fed up with.... leading to a Trump (or Cruz/Rubio) victory. Leaving the house, senate and president with extreme right wing republicans. The DNC may be in for a shock if it doesn't recognize the validity of the issues, and how the resonate with his supporters, that Sanders is raising.
Also, all this 'pie in the sky',' utopic' rhetoric is garbage, if anyone would take the time to read Sanders plans they would see the plausibility, and breadth of over 40 years of experience brought into his suggested policies.
Also, kudos to the New York Times for refining the ability to see into the future. Should be as influential as entrance/exit polls in swaying the border voters. There's a difference in endorsing a candidate in editorials, and remaining unbiased in journalism. My index finger is hovering over the cancel subscription option.
In the general presidential election, it may be the case that while Clinton supporters would still vote for Sanders, Clinton may not garner the votes of those who support Sanders, as she represents the very thing that a large section of the voting population are disgusted and fed up with.... leading to a Trump (or Cruz/Rubio) victory. Leaving the house, senate and president with extreme right wing republicans. The DNC may be in for a shock if it doesn't recognize the validity of the issues, and how the resonate with his supporters, that Sanders is raising.
Also, all this 'pie in the sky',' utopic' rhetoric is garbage, if anyone would take the time to read Sanders plans they would see the plausibility, and breadth of over 40 years of experience brought into his suggested policies.
Also, kudos to the New York Times for refining the ability to see into the future. Should be as influential as entrance/exit polls in swaying the border voters. There's a difference in endorsing a candidate in editorials, and remaining unbiased in journalism. My index finger is hovering over the cancel subscription option.
6
Hillary is a corrupt, lying status quo candidate who is in the pocket of the health insurance industry and Wall Street. Voting for her is a vote against your own best interests unless you are in the 0.1%. Just look at her major donors. It is so patently obvious that she is corrupt that it amazes me she has any support.
5
There is a great deal of anger that the super delegates are overwhelmingly for Clinton. "It's just not fair," is the plaintive cry. But think a minute. Bernie doesn't even belong to the Democratic Party. He votes with the Democrats often, but not always, and has worn his Socialist badge like a banner throughout his political career. "I'm pure," he says. "I'm incorruptible."
Well, of course, he is because he's a party of one. Bernie doesn't compromise. He doesn't have to. After all, he only has to agree with himself.
The Democrats accepted him as a candidate, rather graciously in my opinion, but why should elected Democrats who have slogging away in the ditches these last sixteen years trying to get progressive legislation passed past an Iron Curtain of Republican extremism embrace a man who is critical of a Democrat president and takes his marbles and goes home to Vermont when he doesn't want to dirty his hands. Wake up, folks. You can't join the party, just when you want to, and expect the regulars to bow down to your wishes.
Bernie can't take his solitary walks through the woods of ideological purity and expect obeisance from those who've had to try to get things done in a dirty, often brutish Washington quagmire.
Once again, I ask you to join the real world.
Well, of course, he is because he's a party of one. Bernie doesn't compromise. He doesn't have to. After all, he only has to agree with himself.
The Democrats accepted him as a candidate, rather graciously in my opinion, but why should elected Democrats who have slogging away in the ditches these last sixteen years trying to get progressive legislation passed past an Iron Curtain of Republican extremism embrace a man who is critical of a Democrat president and takes his marbles and goes home to Vermont when he doesn't want to dirty his hands. Wake up, folks. You can't join the party, just when you want to, and expect the regulars to bow down to your wishes.
Bernie can't take his solitary walks through the woods of ideological purity and expect obeisance from those who've had to try to get things done in a dirty, often brutish Washington quagmire.
Once again, I ask you to join the real world.
2
You mean the real world with Hillary and the millions she got for her .....speeches ?
I was hoping for a more ethical world ......
I was hoping for a more ethical world ......
1
No doubt that Sander's campaign has a long road ahead and that the wealthiest have lined up super delegates, as well as a staff that knows how to mainstream market an election in America. I wish to say thank-you to the editorial in the NYT recently speaking out about super delegates.
My concern more even than super delegates is that in general, when one looks at the over all numbers of Republicans who will vote in the general election, attempting to find a comparison to numbers of Democrat voters, there is no comparison, so many more Republican voters. These numbers lead me to ask what are the democrats doing wrong ?
My response is that perhaps they are running a dynastic candidate that cannot address contemporary issues or the future of America for voters. Clinton does seem to try by copying her opponent's progressive ideas and policies, but her attempts are transparent and her speeches, inflexible, painful as I watch them. I don't feel rage, nor do I "hate" Clinton. I simply see her anachronistic approach to politics as bringing down what was once a strong and vibrant political Democratic party.
My concern more even than super delegates is that in general, when one looks at the over all numbers of Republicans who will vote in the general election, attempting to find a comparison to numbers of Democrat voters, there is no comparison, so many more Republican voters. These numbers lead me to ask what are the democrats doing wrong ?
My response is that perhaps they are running a dynastic candidate that cannot address contemporary issues or the future of America for voters. Clinton does seem to try by copying her opponent's progressive ideas and policies, but her attempts are transparent and her speeches, inflexible, painful as I watch them. I don't feel rage, nor do I "hate" Clinton. I simply see her anachronistic approach to politics as bringing down what was once a strong and vibrant political Democratic party.
5
For those not born at the time, the super delegate arrangement was instituted to prevent the Democratic Party nominating an un-electable candidate favored by a passionate minority, to wit, a recurrence of the George McGovern fiasco. The idea is that the "permanent Party" includes elected leaders whose interests are aligned with victory, not with proving a point. As unhappy as the Berners may be, this is a sensible arrangement. If the super delegates become convinced that your man is electable, I bet they'd change their votes. So don't get too angry too soon, unless you want to stoke the more emotional Berners who will opt out, thus ensuring a Trump/Rubio/Cruz victory and another 30 years of darkness in the Supreme Court. Remember: Nixon 520, McGovern 17.
3
In other words, we vote for the preselected candidate or our vote doesn't count. Why bother to vote at all? I suspect many young voters may decide just that. Bye-bye Democrat party.
1
The DNC has all the corruption of a monopoly, and the brash shamelessness of knowing that there is no one to break it up or hold it to account.
It's the Party, and you're not invited. Decent words are hard to find.
It's the Party, and you're not invited. Decent words are hard to find.
5
spoken like a true non-Democrat.
1
An incredibly misleading and biased story. You guys obviously want Clinton to win and Sanders to drop out.
If Hillary wins, you can be sure the republicans (whoever may be the nominee) will use all the ammunition against her to beat her in the election and we will have a Republican president for certain.
For an idea of the ammunition that will be used against Hillary, see this link to a Fox News expose and decide if Hillary will escape unscathed after the media start spreading the news.
http://youtu.be/x_zyp2YUvLo
You are a disgraceful rag!
If Hillary wins, you can be sure the republicans (whoever may be the nominee) will use all the ammunition against her to beat her in the election and we will have a Republican president for certain.
For an idea of the ammunition that will be used against Hillary, see this link to a Fox News expose and decide if Hillary will escape unscathed after the media start spreading the news.
http://youtu.be/x_zyp2YUvLo
You are a disgraceful rag!
7
Poor Bernie.... he will shortly be returning, with head hung, to the Senate where he will continue casting his votes with the liberal Democrats - even though they are behind much of what is happening to him now.
Of all parties to have super delegates cancelling the votes of the regular delegates ( just plain people), seems the ultimate display of a party fixing the outcome. I would think if the GOP had this, Democrats would be screaming corruption and hypocrisy and they would be correct. How can Democrats justify this? They try, but it makes no sense: it is so anti-equalitarian. It is like the dictatorships in the communist countries where the "people" are supposed to be in charge, but in fact a ruling cadre is. But, the real story is Bernie did so well in Nevada. The man should have no chance against the Democrat party machine, Yet, he just about split the vote with Ms C. She has so many negatives and young people do not trust her, and with good reason. If the GOP can nominate some one other than Trump, Ms C is going to have trouble in the national election. That is what the close call in Nevada should be telling the Democrats.
5
That's it! I just got off the phone to cancel my subscription. This article reflects exactly what your readers have been voicing frustration about for the past year. Burying the truth that Clinton and Sanders both have 51 delegates under a pile of nonsense to help Clinton gain momentum is outright dishonest. And I, for one, refuse to hand over my money to read it. Small chance I'll come back after the election, but you have quite a bit of trust to earn back.
8
The youth and the hopeful, regardless of political sides or spectrum, are always set-up to fail. Keep your faith, realize you DO live in the greatest country on the greatest planet, and keep doing the best you can do.
2
Not even in the top 20 countries.
The delegate count is actually tied at 51. Sanders supporters know that and are not any more discouraged by the shameless manipulation of the media establishment -- which I guess has totally abandoned their important role in our democratic process to further their preferred candidate -- than we have been since Sanders announced and was ignored, disparaged and mis-characterized relentlessly. You're whistling past the graveyard of your relevance as a news organization. The comment sections are better informed and more substantive than any of your political 'analysis' or supposed hard news. Really pathetic.
5
If Clinton wins on the super delegates count - I will reluctantly vote Trump. He has not cheated.
1
Poor Bernie and his supporters , from the beginning in denial about Democrat union politics, they never saw this coming? such naivete....guess they never heard of the "Chicago Way"
1
So many people want to believe in the Camelot of Bernie Sanders and so many people want to believe in the Reality TV of Donald Trump, but neither are pragmatic. Sure, Bernie's inspirational themes give us something to aspire to and Donald's rants give us something to flee from, but neither have even suggested at the pragmatic logistics of how what they say they would do could actually happen. Clinton, by contrast, neither evokes Camelot nor Armageddon but has shown accomplishments in her domestic and international roles.
I may not want to have a beer with her nor get all goose-bumpy when she speaks, but we should recognize that when choosing a leader for the country, if we do it with magical thinking we are surely going to be disappointed. If we don't blame the real culprits - a Congress who declared at Obama's post-inauguration time they would thwart his every effort - we have no right to be angry at anyone except ourselves. Maybe the government is to blame, but voters put these obstructionists in office. Shame on the office holders and shame on the voters.
Let's not make the same mistakes again. Although history gives that pretty good odds.
I may not want to have a beer with her nor get all goose-bumpy when she speaks, but we should recognize that when choosing a leader for the country, if we do it with magical thinking we are surely going to be disappointed. If we don't blame the real culprits - a Congress who declared at Obama's post-inauguration time they would thwart his every effort - we have no right to be angry at anyone except ourselves. Maybe the government is to blame, but voters put these obstructionists in office. Shame on the office holders and shame on the voters.
Let's not make the same mistakes again. Although history gives that pretty good odds.
3
The rest of the industrialized world doesn't run on "Magic"... Or whatever you are selling!!
1
Yesterday: Supporting Obama against Hillary is just helping the Republicans. He has no chance. Face reality.
Today: Supporting Bernie Sanders against Hillary is just helping the Republicans. He has no chance. Face reality.
Earth to Dem Party: No Bernie, no vote. Not from me. Not from any self-respecting liberal.
Today: Supporting Bernie Sanders against Hillary is just helping the Republicans. He has no chance. Face reality.
Earth to Dem Party: No Bernie, no vote. Not from me. Not from any self-respecting liberal.
8
Perhaps now is the time for Bernie to go for broke and offer reparations to all blacks. That might shake up his election demographics.
Is HRC offering that?
All these commenters here and elsewhere stating that they will sit out the election if their preferred candidate doesn't get nominated shows an inability to shoulder the responsibility of a being a citizen. I and my husband are merit badge counselors for the Eagle rank-required citizenship in the nation merit badge and we teach young boys the responsibility of voting. Voting isn't always easy, in either making your choice or access to the polls in some places, but it is a right and duty of citizenship. For myself, I have voted in nearly every election opportunity since I turned 18, from school board referendums to the presidency and everything in between. For every presidential election except for Obama's, my preferred candidate was not nominated. Regardless, I voted in the general election and voted for who I considered the least awful choice because I considered it my duty as a citizen.
3
Voting for the least awful turns everything to garbage. But glad you got your merit badge!!
1
The Times is being a little misleading by building the story that Sanders is far behind Clinton before admitting halfway through the article that in fact the two candidates are tied at 51 pledged delegates.
4
On securing African American vote in SC, why not report on the actual candidate policies? If voters in SC think a $12/hr min wage is better than $15, run out and vote for HRC. If voters in SC think the status quo is great, we are headed in the right direction, and all we need to do is build incrementally, then run out and vote for HRC. (See http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45000.html) If voters in SC think a Kissinger protege/hawk likely to send their sons and daughters into another meaningless debilitating war is good for them and the US then vote for HRC. If voters in SC think a Wall St. beneficiary will eliminate predatory pay day loans and free parents from a choice between a high risk home loan or buying food go, vote for HRC. If voters in SC think paid tuition is going to let their children get the degree they need to compete and prefer to pay enough to buy a house for their college education instead then vote for HRC. (SC tuition rates: https://sc.edu/bursar/fees.shtml. Median house cost is $137K. See http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45000.html) If voters in SC think Medicaid delivers health care they need or are willing to pay $5K -$15k/year and $6500 deductibles because single payer tips some carts and is not worth fighting for then run to the polls, vote for HRC. If SC voters think the death penalty is equitably sentenced and does not need to be halted, then vote for HRC. If I was a SC voter, I'd be voting elsewhere.
Can I get an Amen?
Can I get an Amen?
5
AMEN!!
1
I want Clinton to win and face Trump
1
And Mr. Trump might actually win in such a duel. Think about it? While I do not agree with a lot that has come out of Mr. Trump's mouth; he are least wins points for "what you see is what you get". Ms. Clinton will lie, cheat and steal to win the election. She learned from the best; her ex-president husband.
1
Hillary is as unelectable as Donald Trump is. So far we haven't heard any negative ads, but I'm sure the Republicans are praying for Hillary to be the Democratic candidate because with over 40 years in the public eyes there's going to be a lot to chose from. I'm waiting for Bloomberg to throw his hat in the ring!
3
It is disheartening to see the over-zealousness of so many Sanders’ supporters. Upon publication of an article so full of facts and pertinent information as this one, most of what we get from them are denunciations of bias, rotten system, conspiracies. and the like. Super-delegates are derided as an unfair feature of the system although it is very clear that they can switch support, and more often than not do, to favor the candidate that wins the most votes. So a cold assessment of the Democratic race shows that Sanders’ path to victory is an improbable one, please just accept it at face value. You can’t possibly imply that the NYT runs this factual article to discourage Bernie’s fans. Bernie’s followers’ complaints would be amusing if it were not because some of the worst GOP candidates ever are vying to win the presidency, which they can only win if the followers of the defeated Democratic candidate do not support the winner. I wholeheartedly wish that the loser of the two Democratic candidates accepts to be the VP candidate and/or campaigns vigorously for the Democratic ticket. Unity of purpose is what we need.
3
Thank you the NYT for this excellent reporting.
We have finally learned that the Democratic Party is actually undemocratic.
We have finally learned that the Democratic Party is actually undemocratic.
4
The real story is buried in the piece: "A New York Times analysis found that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are tied in the pledged delegate count, at 51 each."
The rest is the nyt shamelessly trying to create some momentum for Hillary after her close (not landslide) victory in Nevada out of fantasy numbers.
The rest is the nyt shamelessly trying to create some momentum for Hillary after her close (not landslide) victory in Nevada out of fantasy numbers.
4
If Sanders loses because of this because of this super delegate issue, his supporters will probably not support HRC, since the corrupted way this is pulled off is one of the big reasons Sanders supporters are in this in the first place; to end corruption.
4
It's not corrupt: it's the way it's been since 1968, and I don't recall any of you complaining about it before now. It's also part of the reality-based world, one which many Sanders supporters in these forums seem to be very unfamiliar with.
1
So, its been corrupt since 1968. Just for the record, I always complain about corruption. A corrupt system needs to be chanced no matter how long ago it became corrupted. Sanders is the difference.
1
Yes, the DNC hacks have had the "fix" in for Hilllary from the start. Now if Bernie has some fire in his belly (which is questionable--he has been so spinelessly deferential to her), he will take off the gloves and assert his right to the nomination if he earns it. It is time for Bernie to "feel the Bern" that he generates in his supporters. Hillary is bought and sold by Goldman Sachs and the "Supercorruptdelegates." Time to change the name of the party to the PsedudoDemocratic Party, whose motto is "Some animals are more equal than others."
3
To all of the Sanders supporters saying you won't vote for the Democratic nominee if it's not Bernie, as my mother always said:
"Don't cut off your nose to spite your face." Or are you all so comfortable that you have no actual skin in this game?
I don't believe in your progressive bona fides (not one bit) if you vote (or don't) to permit a Republican to follow Obama in the White House.
Read some history: presidential elections 1972, 2000.
Everyone needs to do a little growing up and white men of all political stripes need to stop screaming about the world coming to an end, because hey, there's a lot of other kinds of people (not white males) feeling like they'd like to have some say in the direction of this country, too. And they/we aren't going away.
n.b.: I believe many of you are Republicans in Bernie Bros. prose, given that your party will have a cakewalk if Bernie is the nominee.
"Don't cut off your nose to spite your face." Or are you all so comfortable that you have no actual skin in this game?
I don't believe in your progressive bona fides (not one bit) if you vote (or don't) to permit a Republican to follow Obama in the White House.
Read some history: presidential elections 1972, 2000.
Everyone needs to do a little growing up and white men of all political stripes need to stop screaming about the world coming to an end, because hey, there's a lot of other kinds of people (not white males) feeling like they'd like to have some say in the direction of this country, too. And they/we aren't going away.
n.b.: I believe many of you are Republicans in Bernie Bros. prose, given that your party will have a cakewalk if Bernie is the nominee.
3
As this newspaper noted from the very beginning, winning the nomination may not be the only measure of Bernie's success. He's clearly awakened something in American voters.
Long suffering liberals may finally have a shot of seeing their movement match the fury of the Tea Party.
Long suffering liberals may finally have a shot of seeing their movement match the fury of the Tea Party.
3
I see a lot of outrage in regard to super-delegates on the comment section and a feeling of powerlessness in regard to them.
Here is one thing you that you can do (and that I have done) if you feel this system is unfair:
(i) If you don't know who your representative is, go to: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
(ii) See if your representative is pledged or unpledged as a super-delegate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016
(iii) If so, write, call, complain, campaign and generally raise hell for that person.
That is the only way that the folks perpetrating this blatantly unfair and anti-democratic system will get the message.
Here is one thing you that you can do (and that I have done) if you feel this system is unfair:
(i) If you don't know who your representative is, go to: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
(ii) See if your representative is pledged or unpledged as a super-delegate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016
(iii) If so, write, call, complain, campaign and generally raise hell for that person.
That is the only way that the folks perpetrating this blatantly unfair and anti-democratic system will get the message.
1
Dear JSD:
Interesting suggestion, but it won't work. The DNC delegates have been pledged to Hillary long before you knew they existed. In '08 Hillary had a hundred more supers than Barack but Barack was a Democrat not an Independent like Sanders was until 2015. What happened is the Obama organization played the game and overcame it by growing in strength. That is not going to happen this time because Sanders is a perceived interloper, latching onto the DNC like a parasite to feed off the party. This time around Hillary has tenfold the supers and has learned a lot from her defeat in '08. Sanders is not going to surpass Hillary. He might have already peaked and that is what the NYTimes is trying to tell its readers, but they write if off as some conspiratorial plot by The Times is running in cahoots with the Clintons. It's not, it's just the facts, and those caught up in Bernie-mania refuse to accept the cold hard truth.
DD
Manhattan
Interesting suggestion, but it won't work. The DNC delegates have been pledged to Hillary long before you knew they existed. In '08 Hillary had a hundred more supers than Barack but Barack was a Democrat not an Independent like Sanders was until 2015. What happened is the Obama organization played the game and overcame it by growing in strength. That is not going to happen this time because Sanders is a perceived interloper, latching onto the DNC like a parasite to feed off the party. This time around Hillary has tenfold the supers and has learned a lot from her defeat in '08. Sanders is not going to surpass Hillary. He might have already peaked and that is what the NYTimes is trying to tell its readers, but they write if off as some conspiratorial plot by The Times is running in cahoots with the Clintons. It's not, it's just the facts, and those caught up in Bernie-mania refuse to accept the cold hard truth.
DD
Manhattan
1
I remember there was once a time that Democrats screamed that the popular vote should settle things in a general election. I guess that only matters when it's convenient. Personally, I think it is disgraceful that Hillary has been able to pile up such a large tally of superdelegates before the state contests are even run. So it seems to me, based on the evidence at hand, that Hillary is capitalizing on the exact sort of rigged system that Sanders is trying to bring down.
I'm only waiting to see now what kind of underhanded tricks the GOP will use on Trump to cut his legs out from under him should he win the nomination by popular vote, which is looking more and more likely. Let's face it people, both parties are interested primarily in their own survival and clinging to political power over the interests and even desires of their electorates. So much for American democracy, but hey, there are bigger interests at stake here than people being allowed to choose their own candidate. Right?
I'm only waiting to see now what kind of underhanded tricks the GOP will use on Trump to cut his legs out from under him should he win the nomination by popular vote, which is looking more and more likely. Let's face it people, both parties are interested primarily in their own survival and clinging to political power over the interests and even desires of their electorates. So much for American democracy, but hey, there are bigger interests at stake here than people being allowed to choose their own candidate. Right?
1
But this is not the general election.
2
The shameless shilling and spin continues from the stable of NYT reporters to Chris Mathews and Chuck Todd. Tell me, do you have no concern what this dishonest activity as supposed journalists does to your reputation as one or was that decided some time ago?
3
Thank you and everyone else for calling out the Times on this. They just won't stop as the threat is too big. Fortunately, a large majority of the Times readers see through this
2
Fro those old enough to remember the 1968 Democratic Convention; it took place in Chicago. This was the era of Vietnam, but also the year where martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated. LBJ decided not to run, leaving the nomination to eventually go to Hubert H. Humphrey. Who, lost to Richard Nixon. Outside, there were full scale riots because of Vietnam, over civil rights and the possibility of putting an LBJ surrogate in the White House. 1968 was probably the worse year in the US, since the depth of the Civil War.
The current situation, in both political parties, are starting to be a repeat of 1968. A divided country, a country which has almost no trust in the government and a populace embracing candidates they want; not the respective political parties.
I am not sure if people would take to the streets if both political parties choose candidates like Ms. Clinton and Mr. Rubio/Mr. Cruz, but there is enough seething anger, that anything is possible.
The bottom line, being ignored by The New York Times, main stream media, and both political parties is that they are underestimating the deep anger in this country. The one thing people agree on is that not matter what your political view is, this country's politics is broken and has been turned over to the oligarchs. We may see a repeat of 1968.
The current situation, in both political parties, are starting to be a repeat of 1968. A divided country, a country which has almost no trust in the government and a populace embracing candidates they want; not the respective political parties.
I am not sure if people would take to the streets if both political parties choose candidates like Ms. Clinton and Mr. Rubio/Mr. Cruz, but there is enough seething anger, that anything is possible.
The bottom line, being ignored by The New York Times, main stream media, and both political parties is that they are underestimating the deep anger in this country. The one thing people agree on is that not matter what your political view is, this country's politics is broken and has been turned over to the oligarchs. We may see a repeat of 1968.
2
Clinton should be indicted and our corrupt government will do nothing to her.
2
The super delegates can change their votes at any time. This article is badly researched, limited in outlook and unworthy of print. It should be revised lest it misleads the public. The fact that Hillary has some super delegates now does not mean that she can retain them. We in the Sanders campaign know that we "have the wind at our back," as Bernie stated Saturday. In terms of the popular vote, he is considerably ahead of HRC. HRC may take the "SEC" states, meaning little, since they will go Republican in November anyway.
2
Superdelegates... Some party. Like Mark Twain said: if voting was important, they wouldn't let you do it.
The DNC is shooting themselves in the foot. Trump is going to win the White House in 2016, and he'll be swept in with the help of angry Dem voters switching horses, or by angry Dem voters sitting out the election, or both.
Once again, the Dems will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The DNC is shooting themselves in the foot. Trump is going to win the White House in 2016, and he'll be swept in with the help of angry Dem voters switching horses, or by angry Dem voters sitting out the election, or both.
Once again, the Dems will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
1
All the money in politics has given us an oligarchy. Recent university studies have shown that legislation favored by the oligarchs gets passed, and legislation favored by the majority of Americans gets ignored. In this respect, American democracy is already half-dead.
We still have our votes, but the big $ donors have a great degree of control over who the candidates are, partly through their control of the media, and the people are often left with a choice of one candidate being bad and the other one being worse.
If we want to return to our former functioning democracy, we need to get rid of this corrupt system through an overthrow of Citizens United. Since Hillary takes so much Wall St. and corporate money, I don't see why she would nominate a person for the Supreme Court who is committed to getting rid of Citizens United, the way Sanders would. She's under the thumb of big $, and this is the biggest difference between her and Sanders.
Vote for Bernie Sanders!
We still have our votes, but the big $ donors have a great degree of control over who the candidates are, partly through their control of the media, and the people are often left with a choice of one candidate being bad and the other one being worse.
If we want to return to our former functioning democracy, we need to get rid of this corrupt system through an overthrow of Citizens United. Since Hillary takes so much Wall St. and corporate money, I don't see why she would nominate a person for the Supreme Court who is committed to getting rid of Citizens United, the way Sanders would. She's under the thumb of big $, and this is the biggest difference between her and Sanders.
Vote for Bernie Sanders!
1
The best possible outcome for this mess is that the country makes a radical shift away from our two party system. Every election year we see the "left" and the "right" duke it out for the presidency. This tug of war between two sides has polarized the nation. Every year we see the two parties back themselves in to increasingly more polarized positions.
And every year we see the pool of votes who count themselves as "independent" grow. This suggests that a sizable portion of the American public does not feel represented by either one of the parties. There is NO major party that represents people who are liberal on social issues like marriage equality, women's rights and separation of church and state, but who have a more conservative view of the economy.
And every year we see the pool of votes who count themselves as "independent" grow. This suggests that a sizable portion of the American public does not feel represented by either one of the parties. There is NO major party that represents people who are liberal on social issues like marriage equality, women's rights and separation of church and state, but who have a more conservative view of the economy.
Given that both candidates are tied with 51 pledged delegates each, and that superdelegates can support any candidate they choose, I consider this extremely biased coverage. Now that Hillary and Bernie are tied in national polls, Nate Silver's polling projections show that Bernie has a very good chance of winning the nomination: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanderss-path-to-the-nomination/
The people want the change.
Hillary cannot bring the change.
Any candidate without the loads of previous bad decisions (that put a country on the wrong course) promising to bring the change to America will win the next elections.
It means a vote for Hillary in the democratic primaries is actually the vote for Trump this November.
Hillary cannot bring the change.
Any candidate without the loads of previous bad decisions (that put a country on the wrong course) promising to bring the change to America will win the next elections.
It means a vote for Hillary in the democratic primaries is actually the vote for Trump this November.
1
Democrats loudly complain about the social economic inequalities wrought by the Republicans yet they are completely silent when it comes to the DNR's party cronies who cheat the electorate out of picking the Democratic nominee for the Presidency. Classic Democratic party philosophy: The masses aren't smart enough to know what is best for them, so it's up to us to take care of them, by any means necessary.
1
The primary is devised so that THE PARTY is influential in determining who runs under its banner.
Were either party's nomination process set up otherwise, then perhaps we could have a full, 50-state primary, all held on the same day.
The process is not set up to reflect any particular democratic process. It is to help the party determine whomever IT wants to run.
Were either party's nomination process set up otherwise, then perhaps we could have a full, 50-state primary, all held on the same day.
The process is not set up to reflect any particular democratic process. It is to help the party determine whomever IT wants to run.
1
If super delegates get to determine Clinton the winner, we do not have a democracy.
This system is rigged too.
The Insiders support THE Insider, HRC, no matter the will of the voters.
The Insiders support THE Insider, HRC, no matter the will of the voters.
2
Many commenters are confusing intra-party electioneering with democracy. Where does it say that a political party has to be objective or fair?
Whom a party chooses as its candidate is a matter of institutional interest, not a reflection of the popular will. A party is like a corporation selling a product. Its chief concern is putting forward a candidate who can win in the political market.
Go check out the Democratic Party's charter. It says the party will:
"Establish standards and rules of procedure to afford all members of the Democratic Party full, timely and equal opportunities to participate in decisions concerning the selection of candidates..."
But:
"The National Convention shall nominate a candidate for the office of President of the United States, nominate a candidate for the office of Vice President of the United States, adopt a platform and act upon such other matters as it deems appropriate."
There is no "one person, one vote" standard here. The Democratic Party charter says its members can "participate in decisions" about candidates. That's not the same as "making decisions" about candidates.
I hope all those passionate people out there saying they won't vote for Hillary if she ends up being the candidate understand that.
I like Bernie, too. But if the party moves against him, it won't be a miscarriage of justice. It'll be a party looking after its own interests. Don't let your disappointment about that fact pave the way for a Trump or Cruz.
Whom a party chooses as its candidate is a matter of institutional interest, not a reflection of the popular will. A party is like a corporation selling a product. Its chief concern is putting forward a candidate who can win in the political market.
Go check out the Democratic Party's charter. It says the party will:
"Establish standards and rules of procedure to afford all members of the Democratic Party full, timely and equal opportunities to participate in decisions concerning the selection of candidates..."
But:
"The National Convention shall nominate a candidate for the office of President of the United States, nominate a candidate for the office of Vice President of the United States, adopt a platform and act upon such other matters as it deems appropriate."
There is no "one person, one vote" standard here. The Democratic Party charter says its members can "participate in decisions" about candidates. That's not the same as "making decisions" about candidates.
I hope all those passionate people out there saying they won't vote for Hillary if she ends up being the candidate understand that.
I like Bernie, too. But if the party moves against him, it won't be a miscarriage of justice. It'll be a party looking after its own interests. Don't let your disappointment about that fact pave the way for a Trump or Cruz.
2
Give up Democratic establishment mean girls HRC's minions at the NYT may be capering about to support you but "Bernie Sanders campaign is dead" isn't going to happen.
4
Beware of the snides of March! In March of 2004, the NYT and other corporate media brought down another non-mainstream but popular candidate from Vermont, Howard Dean. Remember the stories about Dr. Dean's wife and quotes from named and unnamed turncoat advisors to Dean who gave voice to doubts?
Dean's crime was admitting on national television that, as president, he would consider antitrust action against Big Media. With Bernie, it's Big Finance.
Dean's crime was admitting on national television that, as president, he would consider antitrust action against Big Media. With Bernie, it's Big Finance.
3
Ah, reality. Hard for some to accept it. Here's the facts - Bush dropped out after just 3 states, why? Because the math was against him, despite millions spent. It was common sense to drop out. Kasich and Carson have not yet faced reality, but they must soon, as their supporters switch to other camps. Reality on the Democrat side must also hit soon, despite the pipe dreams of the rabid Sanders supporters. He will not be the nominee, and if he runs as the Independent that he truly is, he will not affect the general election at all. He is not a viable candidate, time to face reality - or go live in Vermont and watch him do nothing as your state senator. Reality is knocking, time to answer the door.
1
Bernie Sanders is going to trump Hillary.
Hillary has damaged entire political systems that were supposed to be worked; she distorted every way with "artful smear" lying to Americans. Hillary is not popular at all or trustworthy but she is really, really good at taking advantage of confluence of all the power and money are perched at. Biggest fans of Hillary are those working at civil right activist groups. For them, taking photos with the Clintons is their best way to gain publicity and securing their jobs around the world receiving huge donations. The Clintons are using this vast network of interests, cunningly, for the sake of 'honest graft'.
Hillary has damaged entire political systems that were supposed to be worked; she distorted every way with "artful smear" lying to Americans. Hillary is not popular at all or trustworthy but she is really, really good at taking advantage of confluence of all the power and money are perched at. Biggest fans of Hillary are those working at civil right activist groups. For them, taking photos with the Clintons is their best way to gain publicity and securing their jobs around the world receiving huge donations. The Clintons are using this vast network of interests, cunningly, for the sake of 'honest graft'.
3
Anyone who still believes we live in a Democracy is living in a fantasy world. We are heading head long into a race between someone who has used bankruptcy loopholes on at least four occasions to bail himself out. This is white collar welfare. Trump will be running against someone who has a 20 plus year record of lies AND is being actively investigated by the FBI. Add this to the fact that "super delegates" who make up over 15% of total delegates will put Clinton over the top and it makes a recipe that would make our country's founders wretch.
This is an Oligarchy of unequals and what was originally envisioned as a "great experiment" 240 years ago is fizzling out as a failure. Soren Kierkegaard asserted nearly 200 years ago “Let other complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful." He has described perfectly the state of our nation in 2016.
This is an Oligarchy of unequals and what was originally envisioned as a "great experiment" 240 years ago is fizzling out as a failure. Soren Kierkegaard asserted nearly 200 years ago “Let other complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful." He has described perfectly the state of our nation in 2016.
2
Women for Bernie Sanders 2016 (Facebook) shared
National Poll -- Sanders 48, Trump 42 (+6)
In the same poll, Secretary Clinton only barely beat Trump:
Clinton 44, Trump 43 (+1)
National Poll -- Sanders 48, Trump 42 (+6)
In the same poll, Secretary Clinton only barely beat Trump:
Clinton 44, Trump 43 (+1)
2
Through Bill and Hillary Clinton, Wall Street has America by the throat. Follow the money Wall Street to Hillary. And she won't let you into the secrets of her million dollar words to the jackels who ripped the throat of the working class.
3
Yes, the Clinton machine stacked the DNC with some 430 superdelegates even before the primary season began. And for that reason, yes, she currently has more than 500 delegates in her column. But my understanding is that these unelected superdelegates can vote any way they like -- i.e., that they could de-commit themselves at the national convention. If so, and if Bernie continues his upward momentum between now and then, why wouldn't many of these superdelegates switch their vote from Hillary to Bernie? After all, they do want a Democrat in the White House, don't they? And polls indicate that Bernie does better against any Republican opponent than Hillary does.
2
Would so many Times readers be complaining about "super delegates" if Bernie had them or would the process suddenly seem a whole lot more "democratic?"
2
By proclaiming that super-delegates are going to be Hillary's unsurmountable firewall - this newspaper and other media outlets are making sure that Bernie's voters will get disheartened and Hillary will win the popular vote as well. Thus ensuring that the super-delegates will not have to worry about thwarting the popular will.
2
I support Hillary. Sanders' supporters should ask themselves: why aren't members of Congress supporting him? The answer is not that they are the establishment. They know Bernie. He has been all about Bernie in Congress. He is so sure that his way is the right way and the only way. Talk to the Congressional representatives and staffers who were responsible for Obama care. They will tell you that Sanders was not helpful. Hillary has her flaws, as do all politicians, but I trust her to make progress and to work for effective (not necessarily perfect) programs.
1
Abolish 'delegates' and the electoral college.
One person, one vote.
Go, Bernie...he's the only one who can defeat Trump...Hillary doesn't have a prayer. She's just more of the same old, same old...
One person, one vote.
Go, Bernie...he's the only one who can defeat Trump...Hillary doesn't have a prayer. She's just more of the same old, same old...
3
This is very concerning. They tied, he won, she won. Now NYT says she has virtually won. Google 'super delegates' and 'lobbyists' and see what comes up. This is very bad for the Democrats. When candidates are seen as establishment shills, the Democrats lose. This has already happen several times. In fact, the architect of the problem is Bill Clinton. People turned away from the Democrats because Clinton just looked like Republicanism Lite. Then they turned away from Kerry. Then HR Clinton. For some reason it still didn't sink in. This type of unprincipled centrist right liberalism that the Clintons represent is a losing political strategy for the Democrats. They are hoping that the Republicans are so unattractive this election it won't matter. But it will!
3
Super delegates are not bound & should not be counted yet. In 2008 many switched to President Obama late. I find it interesting how most of the national media report Super Delegates as part of the state by state winnings- which is a less than honest reporting of results. Again, the Clinton biased Party apparatus & Beltway insiders have their thumbs on the scale. The reporting may bee technically accurate, but the optics are very bad.
Popular vote- not arcane caucus rules and Super Delegates- should choose the nominee. And I will tell you as an independent voter, if Hillary steals the nomination by insider maneuvering that seems to happen at every corner, I will vote for the Green Party candidate or write in Senator Sanders. There are literally millions or tens of millions like me, and we will vote.
The same applies for endorsers of Ms Clinton, do not come with your hand out asking for my vote, my money or my time. I can accept a fair contest, but not a rigged one, and as time passes it is obvious the Democratic Party establishment is more concerned with nominating Hillary than the future of the party. The below 40 voters who power the Sanders Campaign will not swallow hard & take one for the team if they think the process was rigged from the outset.
Additionally, Southern states may break for Hillary but will not go for her come November. The Quinnipiac poll shows Hillary in trouble with the general election population- not African-Americans in the old Confederacy.
Popular vote- not arcane caucus rules and Super Delegates- should choose the nominee. And I will tell you as an independent voter, if Hillary steals the nomination by insider maneuvering that seems to happen at every corner, I will vote for the Green Party candidate or write in Senator Sanders. There are literally millions or tens of millions like me, and we will vote.
The same applies for endorsers of Ms Clinton, do not come with your hand out asking for my vote, my money or my time. I can accept a fair contest, but not a rigged one, and as time passes it is obvious the Democratic Party establishment is more concerned with nominating Hillary than the future of the party. The below 40 voters who power the Sanders Campaign will not swallow hard & take one for the team if they think the process was rigged from the outset.
Additionally, Southern states may break for Hillary but will not go for her come November. The Quinnipiac poll shows Hillary in trouble with the general election population- not African-Americans in the old Confederacy.
4
To NYT and any other media, if you are going to discuss delegate count then make it clear how many are due to votes from primaries and how many are "superdelegates". Saying Hillary has 502 delegates compared to 70 for Bernie, without making clear that the number of delegates from the primaries is tied at 60 delegates each, is disingenuous. Hillary's lead at this point is solely due to support from the Democratic party establishment, not some mysterious and inevitable "delegate math". If we are going to write off a competitive candidate after only 3 states' primaries, based on superdelegate support, then what is the point of even having the charade of primary elections? The superdelegates should come into play at least after a significant number of state primaries, in order to have a true gauge of popular support, before tipping the scales.
2
Like the GOP establishment that fears Trump getting the Republican nomination, the New York Times seems to be using their front page and Op Ed pieces to try and push Clinton over the finish line.
Why are you so scared of Bernie Sanders getting the nomination?
Why are you so scared of Bernie Sanders getting the nomination?
3
The WPost is exactly the same. Everyday an article supporting Hillary.
1
To those who support Hillary Clinton: If you think that once Sanders has been defeated, I'll hold my nose and vote for Clinton in the general election, you're mistaken. I will not. The Clintons are too craven. I won't vote for a Republican, but I won't vote for Hillary Clinton.
Nor am I alone. Millions of youngsters will sit on their hands rather than vote for Clinton.
Good luck.
Nor am I alone. Millions of youngsters will sit on their hands rather than vote for Clinton.
Good luck.
2
That's essentially blackmail -- vote for Bernie or we'll make sure that TrumpCruz/Rubio will be President. Putting aside how despicable that is, it's plain delusional to believe there is no difference between Hillary and the Republicans. I'm so sick of that disingenuous and objectively false line. So you'll be cutting off your nose to spite your face -- Hillary's world view, instincts, and policy positions are a heck of a lot closer to Bernie's than the Republicans' are, you can look it up.
1
That's just great, really. Because what you're saying worked out really well in 2000 when Ralph Nader supporters did the same thing. Rather than get 75% of their issues worked on successfully, they got two illegal wars and trillions of debt and give-aways. Enjoy the Cruz administration Kilroy.
1
Is this more of your supposedly unbiased coverage of the Democratic race? You manage to bury what should be among the most critical statistics to highlight: the two candidates are tied in pledged delegates. Your continuing spin in favor of Clinton is beginning to make me reconsider what I have dismissed for years, that is, the complaints from Republicans and others that the NYT covers issues in a way that is fundamentally biased.
4
As if Bernie Sanders didn't know the system is rigged.
1
From one end of the scale - the NYT skewed coverage in favor of hIllary over Bernie - to the other - the way procedures at my Nevada caucus on Saturday were slanted to favor Hillary voters - it is obvious that the Democratic establishment is determined that Hillary get the nomination no matter what. The DNC, however, has missed the fact that this is the election is which the limitations of Establishment rule, both Democratic and Republican, have become clear to millions of voters. Polls now show that Bernie would win against Trump but Hillary would not. As a feminist, I would like to have a woman President. But I'd rather wait for Elizabeth Warren.
5
The fix is in.
What a joke the equitable Democrat Party has become.
What a joke the equitable Democrat Party has become.
6
Oh, come on. No serious person ever thought Bernie Sanders would be the nominee. His strength thus far speaks more to how deeply loathed Hillary Clinton is than anything.
In the event that Clinton is unable to accept the nomination, there is a LONG list of alternate names ahead of Bernie.
In the event that Clinton is unable to accept the nomination, there is a LONG list of alternate names ahead of Bernie.
2
Bernie supporters: support your candidate, but if Hilary wins, after your justifiable anger recedes, please please please do not ever think that there is no difference between HIlary and the GOP. One crucial difference (of many): think of Justice Scalia's death. Trump/Rubio will replace Scalia - sadly, the GOP will likely block Obama - very possibly Ginsburg/Kennedy and maybe even Breyer, with Alito types. That would mean 25-35 years of an even more right wing S Ct. Not to mention management of the EPA, the CDC, the DOJ, the SEC.....
2
I am so sick of this argument for embracing an unacceptable status quo.
2
You mean it would be sad for the GOP to black Obama's nomination like when Obama and his fellow Dems blocked Bush's nomination? How time erases your memory.
1
It would be interesting if Rubio won the republican nomination, Trump runs as an Independent, Clinton wins the democratic nomination, and Sanders runs as an Independent. What a race it would be!!
The Democratic Party allows one person (superdeligate) to decide who is going to be their candidate. Regardless of what the majority voted. So what is the point of having a convention and having common delegates vote? That is the moist undemocratic thing I have ever heard of. It's a "Democratic Party" in name only.
5
"There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" Robert Kennedy.
Senator Sanders is as high-minded i.e Robert Kennedy and his older brother President John F. Kennedy and my (white female senior citizen) personal hero Martin Luther King.. Bernie dreams big dreams for our American future. The other presidential prospects including Mrs. Clinton are in my opinion gaming the opportunity. Scheming into office rather than dreaming for and with a population of American citizens who desperately need a new path.
I'm sticking with the dreamer. Wake me when this embarrassing agony is over. I hope and pray someone gets Bernie a food taster?
Senator Sanders is as high-minded i.e Robert Kennedy and his older brother President John F. Kennedy and my (white female senior citizen) personal hero Martin Luther King.. Bernie dreams big dreams for our American future. The other presidential prospects including Mrs. Clinton are in my opinion gaming the opportunity. Scheming into office rather than dreaming for and with a population of American citizens who desperately need a new path.
I'm sticking with the dreamer. Wake me when this embarrassing agony is over. I hope and pray someone gets Bernie a food taster?
5
I agree with your last sentence. I wouldn't put anything past those people.
I thought vote buying was illegal. That is what Clinton is doing with the Super delegates. In an honest vote count based on votes not bribes it is a neck and neck horse race. If the DNC sells the nomination to Clinton I will not vote for her or any other democrat.
6
Looks like Bernie is not going to make it. Time for me to shift my support and donations to Catherine Cortez-Masto, who was Nevada's Attorney General for 8 years. She is running for Harry Reid's seat and controlling the Senate to get liberals back in control of SCOTUS may be more important than occupying the White House.
By the way, what really happened at the ranch In Texas? Conspiracy theories abound in the Nevada desert. Quail hunting?
By the way, what really happened at the ranch In Texas? Conspiracy theories abound in the Nevada desert. Quail hunting?
1
Does Cheney have an alibi?
How's this for a headline? “Las Vegas Strip restaurant workers select next President of the United States – so you don’t have to.”
7
I didn't realize that you had to be a rocket scientist when it came to counting delegates to win the Democratic nomination. If this is an example of the democratic process, it really isn't. How ironic.
11
Dear C Char:
No need for rocket science. You can check the NYTimes Delegate Count for both parties anytime you want. What people don't seem to get is that Hillary's count is ten times that of Sanders. There's a reason for that. If interested you will have to do your own research to find out why that is. There is nothing wrong with what is occurring with this or any other Democratic primary since '72. There's no news here, only for those who have not been aware of it because they do not know how their party operates.
DD
Manhattan
No need for rocket science. You can check the NYTimes Delegate Count for both parties anytime you want. What people don't seem to get is that Hillary's count is ten times that of Sanders. There's a reason for that. If interested you will have to do your own research to find out why that is. There is nothing wrong with what is occurring with this or any other Democratic primary since '72. There's no news here, only for those who have not been aware of it because they do not know how their party operates.
DD
Manhattan
3
This analysis feeds into the long-standing myth of inevitability about Clinton's nomination that the Democratic elite want us to believe. I'm not buying it. Bernie and Hilary are tied in pledged delegates and the super delegates are fungible. What does Bernie have to do to prove his candidacy is viable? He effectively tied Hilary in Iowa, destroyed her in Hew Hampshire and came close to closing a huge gap in the diverse state of Nevada. I actually have not decided for whom I will vote on Super Tuesday, but the strong media bias for the establishment candidate certainly plays perfectly into Bernie's narrative.
22
The prediction markets have Hillary as a 9 to 1 favorite over Bernie, and they are pretty accurate. I don't think her inevitability is a myth.
2
Dear John:
By Bernie's narrative do you mean that "rigged" thing Sanders loves talking about? Yes, it's a rigged game. What I don't understand is why the angst? The rules committee of the DNC put this stop-block in to avoid the disaster of '72.
Unfair? Sure is. But life's unfair. Those are the rules of the party. You are under no obligation to join. That's what stuns many. I don't see why. There's the DNC and RNC. The Republicans do not have this check in place. After this election they may. Things are horrific for them.
Most folks are not aware, don't care about politics until every Leap Year rolls around. Where they've been, who knows, but they're not tuned into how their government operates that's for sure.
Hillary is a well-entrenched member of the DNC, Sanders an Independent. He enrolled as a Democrat last year to run for Prez. He is a interloper like it or not. And the 400 pledged delegates for Hillary are loyal party members and have endorsed Hillary long before this cycle began.
If, when, Bernie loses, he can pick up the pieces and his followers and run for president as an Independent. But Bernie won't. He'll be well-endowed by the Clintons not to do so. And when Bernie caves will his supporters think he sold out to the "rigged" game of Clintons? Yes, maybe, but I doubt very much in the long run it will matter.
DD
Manhattan
By Bernie's narrative do you mean that "rigged" thing Sanders loves talking about? Yes, it's a rigged game. What I don't understand is why the angst? The rules committee of the DNC put this stop-block in to avoid the disaster of '72.
Unfair? Sure is. But life's unfair. Those are the rules of the party. You are under no obligation to join. That's what stuns many. I don't see why. There's the DNC and RNC. The Republicans do not have this check in place. After this election they may. Things are horrific for them.
Most folks are not aware, don't care about politics until every Leap Year rolls around. Where they've been, who knows, but they're not tuned into how their government operates that's for sure.
Hillary is a well-entrenched member of the DNC, Sanders an Independent. He enrolled as a Democrat last year to run for Prez. He is a interloper like it or not. And the 400 pledged delegates for Hillary are loyal party members and have endorsed Hillary long before this cycle began.
If, when, Bernie loses, he can pick up the pieces and his followers and run for president as an Independent. But Bernie won't. He'll be well-endowed by the Clintons not to do so. And when Bernie caves will his supporters think he sold out to the "rigged" game of Clintons? Yes, maybe, but I doubt very much in the long run it will matter.
DD
Manhattan
1
Just another confirmation that the system is rigged and America is not a democracy AND further evidence when Bernie talks about a revolution, the only thing that can change this ludicrous process, not just casting a ballot for the status quo and further disappointment.
1
Come on people. All this talk about delegates and super delegate is a party matter. Primaries are just feelers. This is not the general election.
8
I thought the Primaries sorted out the parties runners to one who gets the support of the party they are running for. Then the General election picks between the strongest from each party. I'm not a Dem but there is something wrong when the people say we want this person and with the power of corruption the super delegates who are influenced by the party are urged to vote against the people's wishes then there is something inherently wrong and that is not called democracy. This election engineering has been going on a long time but people have not noticed it as much as they are now. My guess is you being from Canada do not understand the process or have any skin in the game.
Clinton won 6,316 votes to Sanders' 5,678 in the Nevada caucuses. So there were only 10,894 votes. While not entirely insignificant, it is media drama and overreach to report this as having set the table for a steep climb for Sanders.
23
The results are county convention delegates, not voters. I'm not sure votes are reported for caucases. About 80,000 participated in Nevada. If delegates are proportional to votes, that would mean, roughly, 42,000 votes for HRC, 38,000 for Bernie. Still not a lot considered nationally, but plenty significant as a measure of Democratic opinion in Nevada.
1
You are correct. The voter turn out is the bigger story. Low enthusiasm or accepting the inevitable coronation of Mrs. Clinton?
It would be easier if folks like yourself knew how the system worked. It's not the number of votes that counts. Its the number of delegates. The DNC already knows who will win based on the fact that the super delegates don't have to vote with the popular vote and since they are lawyers, judges, and political office holders will vote for Hillary because they know if they don't they won't go further in their career. Even if Bernie would have won the popular vote like he did in NH the super delegates would be enough for them to swing the race to Hillary. You see your vote does not count. The DNC put this in place after Reagan won to keep the people from picking for them. Congratulations to the state of disenfranchisement.
I guess decay would be quicker under a Republican presidency – Same result though; We are crumbling within.
5
As a Sanders supporter, I will admit that it's difficult seeing Bernie come out as the Democratic nominee. I just wish that he had a fair chance against Secretary Clinton, and the superdelegate system makes that impossible. This two-party system and the corruption within the parties goes against the basic principles of democracy. The fate of our country should not be decided by party elites who are so fixed in the system that they are out of touch with what the American people want and need.
5
No matter! All ready to "write in" Bernie Sanders.
7
What this election is about is not Trump or Crus on the extreme right and Bernie on the extreme left, but the fact that the federal government no longer functions. The Republicans have done such a good job blocking Obama by preventing the Peoples work from getting done that they have destroyed themselves. Nobody, left or right, wants a continuation of the status quo. What people don't realize that the black man they could not even talk to, will no longer be there. But Pandora's box has been opened and I doubt any of the candidates will be able to put the racist demons back in it and close it.
2
Hillary is the most qualified and has the best liberal program that can be passed through Congress, which is the key to success. Sanders has utopian ideas that would meet with the utmost resistance in Congress and therefore not really change anything.
13
You are chanting the Hillary supporter mantra.
I see nothing in Hillary's cv that makes her more qualified.
Exactly what qualities does Hillary have that will make her a superior President?
Bernie is bringing in large numbers of new young voters and independents, so that the Democrats will take back the Senate. Hillary does not inspire these voters, so she will not recapture the Senate. With a Democratic Senate, Bernie will win more of the Liberal agenda than Hillary.
Why hasn't Hillary released the transcripts of her $250k "speeches" to Wall Street? She has a bellicose judgment that worries me terribly. 3AM phone call to the White House, (maybe Bill can temper her judgment?)
I see nothing in Hillary's cv that makes her more qualified.
Exactly what qualities does Hillary have that will make her a superior President?
Bernie is bringing in large numbers of new young voters and independents, so that the Democrats will take back the Senate. Hillary does not inspire these voters, so she will not recapture the Senate. With a Democratic Senate, Bernie will win more of the Liberal agenda than Hillary.
Why hasn't Hillary released the transcripts of her $250k "speeches" to Wall Street? She has a bellicose judgment that worries me terribly. 3AM phone call to the White House, (maybe Bill can temper her judgment?)
1
Shame on you, Patrick Healy and The NY Times. This is so clearly biased and a lame attempt to slow Sanders' momentum.
How about you write an article elaborating the mathematics involved on coin flips in Iowa?
How about you write an article elaborating the mathematics involved on coin flips in Iowa?
26
US population - 325,000,000
Combined population of Iowa, Vermont and Nevada - 6,500,000
Is the NYT and the rest of the establishment media drawing conclusions after a whopping 2% of the electorate have awarded Hillary and Bernie each 51 delegates?
Combined population of Iowa, Vermont and Nevada - 6,500,000
Is the NYT and the rest of the establishment media drawing conclusions after a whopping 2% of the electorate have awarded Hillary and Bernie each 51 delegates?
15
In this unusual Election year, I would not discount anything. Remember all the political pundits predicted the Donald Trump momentum would have fizzled out by now. Nobody predicted that Justice Scalia would pass away and his passing would create new chaos in Washington. We never suspected that IS/ISIL/Daesh would be as powerful as they are, causing such strife among Western political powers and generals.
And who would have predicted that a Brooklyn-born socialist would challenge the Clinton political machine giving them a run for their Wall Street money? Nobody.
And who would have predicted that a Brooklyn-born socialist would challenge the Clinton political machine giving them a run for their Wall Street money? Nobody.
8
I think it is premature for Bernie to abandon the race after only three primaries/caucuses (I think my math is right). Can the Times allow the process to play out before calling Hillary as the nominee? You know, even if Bernie finds himself in a situation where he can't overcome Hillary's delegate count perhaps he should take a page from her 2008 playbook and start arguing for a different type of delegate count for the winner or he should remain in the race to the very end because "something may come up" that would discredit Hillary and prevent her advancement beyond the convention. Have people forgotten that bit of nastiness from the Hillary camp in 2008? I haven't and it is part of the reason why I dislike her and will not vote for her. The Supreme Court argument is moot now with Obama naming another Justice plus and the current makeup of the Court, Anyway, I believe a President Hillary would only pick justices who were Goldman Sachs-approved.
6
What is Clintons coalition that is going to bring her to the White House in the General? Saying she is more electable in the general and then talking about her firewall in with AA voters in the south makes no sense. SC, Texas are NOT going Democrat in November. So Sanders has a problem with the deep south, but wins enthusiastically in swing states like NH- to me that says more electable.
14
Clinton will probably win the nomination based on "voter chosen" delegates. But beware the alternative. It's not just Bernie voters who will be incensed by a Clinton superdelegate victory and perhaps sit on their hands in the Fall. A Clinton nomination secured by party-insiders will hand Trump the very thing he needs to overcome his 5 point deficit in current polling against Clinton.
1
It's hard to beat a woman like Hillary who can win every coin flip and every card draw in the tiebreakers. She even won a precinct in which only one person voted, and the vote was for Sanders.
10
Everyone should remember that the DELEGATE COUNT does not reflect what voters want but rather what the corporatist elite of the Democratic Party wants....a continued focus on the desires of corporations for more power and control over how government runs and allocates its resources and less meaningful controls over how workers are treated, abused. It's travesty for a party that calls itself "DEMOCRATIC"! Shameful.
6
Several commenters criticize Bernie because he's not a "real" Democrat, and so he has no standing to complain about Democratic Party rules.
The Democratic Party establishment may split the Party if they agree with such remarks. I recall the "joking" remark made by John McCain during the 2008 campaign, when Hillary stayed in the race long after Barrack Obama had whupped her badly in primary after primary after primary. (She had a lot of "super delegates" in her pocket that time too, but most of them declined to buck Obama in the end.) McCain said he was "overjoyed" that the Democratic Party might find itself unable to choose between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
No doubt the Republicans would be overjoyed this time if the Democrats can't choose between Hillary and Bernie because the Democratic Party establishment handles things so poorly that Bernie runs an independent campaign.
Let's face it, Hillary's supporters are correct: She's got a lock on the nomination, and always has. If Bernie supporters want to be "good Democrats," they'll suck it up and get behind Hillary. If they want to continue backing Bernie, they'd better be prepared to risk a split in the Party that would hand the election to the Republicans.
It's happened before. Bill Clinton, for example, became President in 1992 even though he won only 43% of the vote. Bush (Sr.) and Perot split the rest.
The Democratic Party establishment may split the Party if they agree with such remarks. I recall the "joking" remark made by John McCain during the 2008 campaign, when Hillary stayed in the race long after Barrack Obama had whupped her badly in primary after primary after primary. (She had a lot of "super delegates" in her pocket that time too, but most of them declined to buck Obama in the end.) McCain said he was "overjoyed" that the Democratic Party might find itself unable to choose between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
No doubt the Republicans would be overjoyed this time if the Democrats can't choose between Hillary and Bernie because the Democratic Party establishment handles things so poorly that Bernie runs an independent campaign.
Let's face it, Hillary's supporters are correct: She's got a lock on the nomination, and always has. If Bernie supporters want to be "good Democrats," they'll suck it up and get behind Hillary. If they want to continue backing Bernie, they'd better be prepared to risk a split in the Party that would hand the election to the Republicans.
It's happened before. Bill Clinton, for example, became President in 1992 even though he won only 43% of the vote. Bush (Sr.) and Perot split the rest.
3
Good old neutral New York Times. The process has barely begun, Sanders and Clinton are very close in actual delegates won via democracy, i.e. "voting," as opposed to Super Delegate processes, and here we are facing the proverbial impossible hill to climb for Sanders.
Of course, the Times "featured" the four economists and Paul Krugman jumping all over the numbers on the Sanders economic projections done by Professor Gerald Friedman of the U of Mass., but the Times didn't see fit to publish economist James Galbraith's courageous rebuttal saying the four and Krugman hadn't crunched the numbers themselves and that Friedman had been using centrist assumptions and numbers following accepted protocols. Galbraith said the results show a large GDP growth spurt because the Sanders' program inputs are very large and implicitly, the cautious five here are so used to dribbles of programs from Carter through Obama under the "new Democratic Party" that they couldn't cope with anything large and bold.
I just guess the Times and these economists know best. How were their track records in predicting the economic crisis of 2008-2009?
Perhaps James Galbraith just doesn't have enough "credentials" to rank with either the Times or the new Democratic Party. That would fit the identity the Clintons' have shaped for it: elitist and anti-populist all the way. It's sickening. And its killing us out here.
Of course, the Times "featured" the four economists and Paul Krugman jumping all over the numbers on the Sanders economic projections done by Professor Gerald Friedman of the U of Mass., but the Times didn't see fit to publish economist James Galbraith's courageous rebuttal saying the four and Krugman hadn't crunched the numbers themselves and that Friedman had been using centrist assumptions and numbers following accepted protocols. Galbraith said the results show a large GDP growth spurt because the Sanders' program inputs are very large and implicitly, the cautious five here are so used to dribbles of programs from Carter through Obama under the "new Democratic Party" that they couldn't cope with anything large and bold.
I just guess the Times and these economists know best. How were their track records in predicting the economic crisis of 2008-2009?
Perhaps James Galbraith just doesn't have enough "credentials" to rank with either the Times or the new Democratic Party. That would fit the identity the Clintons' have shaped for it: elitist and anti-populist all the way. It's sickening. And its killing us out here.
19
Will the NY Times ever stop serving as a Clinton campaign propaganda outlet during this campaign? The super delegates aren't bound. As far as actual voters results go it's currently 51 delegates each.
This newspaper's biased coverage is insufferable.
This newspaper's biased coverage is insufferable.
28
Clinton already bought the delegates over the past couple years. Sorry Bern, she thinks she is somehow above the rules... so far she has gotten away with it.
2
Once again, accusations without any facts. Let me ask you, what legislation has Sanders put forth AND got voted on AND PASSED, in all the many years he has been a senator. This is important, because other than being a mayor of a small city, he has NO other qualifications. And, he was an independent until this run for president. A sometimes Democrat at best.
2
If the super delegates tip the balance to Clinton in the end, she is going to have a hard time to compete with Trump.
7
Why would anyone interested in the nomination process read the New York Times? It is not a source of reliable information.
The facts are that Clinton is treading water, barely staying ahead of Sanders.
And after more free press than anyone in history Trump leads the GOP.
The facts are that Clinton is treading water, barely staying ahead of Sanders.
And after more free press than anyone in history Trump leads the GOP.
10
So it looks as if it is to be between Secretary Clinton and a non-Democrat. If she is elected, I do hope she and the Democratic Party will remember that so many, particularly among the young, supported Senator Sanders and his bold agenda and act accordingly. As a middle-aged person who "has it made", I know many young family members who have felt cheated and left out of our economy and the American Dream. While Chelsea Clinton, who has a degree from Stanford University, worked for a private equity firm and reportedly bought a $10 million apartment in NYC, one of my children, who also graduated with top honors from an elite school and earned her PhD from one of the Ivies, was offered $36,000 a year, without benefits, for a temporary assistant professorship at a public university, even after winning a national competition in her field. That amount is close to what fast-food workers have said they need for a living wage! Not all of us have elite connections or can afford to heavily subsidize our children who are making peanuts compared to the children of the rich. We and they are not asking for the moon, just that working people are appropriately compensated, meaning that those of average education and ability should be able to support themselves, including paying for healthcare, education, and retirement, that some are not disproportionately compensated, by definition at the expense of others, and that those who cannot support themselves have a basic safety net.
21
From a distance, the U.S. election system seems unnecessarily complex. Hardly a good example of democracy. Not to say that Canada's system is any better, but surely there is room for improvement everywhere.
3
As much as Obama liberals don't want to hear it, reality has a bad habit of knocking your door down, instead of just knocking on it.
Should Hillary scheme and superdelegate her way to the Democratic nomination, the core liberal voter base will not turn out for her in November.
The GOP establishment simply cannot stop Donald Trump so we have the makings of a cakewalk, with perhaps Bloomberg entering the race to take more votes from Hillary among moderate Democrats and well to do elitist grownups.
My favorite part of this is watching Obama and his supporters, (i.e. the entire news media) sitting gleefully on the deck of the Titanic as the band plays on...
Should Hillary scheme and superdelegate her way to the Democratic nomination, the core liberal voter base will not turn out for her in November.
The GOP establishment simply cannot stop Donald Trump so we have the makings of a cakewalk, with perhaps Bloomberg entering the race to take more votes from Hillary among moderate Democrats and well to do elitist grownups.
My favorite part of this is watching Obama and his supporters, (i.e. the entire news media) sitting gleefully on the deck of the Titanic as the band plays on...
9
DC Barrister: Hillary cannot scheme her way to nomination, she has to get the votes to earn it, and we know that super-delegates usually favor the one who gets more votes to begin with. If Bloomberg enters the race it would be to prevent a radical to win, and that is not Hillary. Nah, the entire news media does not favor Obama and his supporters as we all know. Your fantasy won't come to pass. Sorry.
2
Here are two things nobody is talking about. One is, polls indicate that Sanders is the one who would beat any of the three Republican frontrunners, NOT Clinton.
Second, the fact that Clinton is right now coddled and cushioned by the DNC. Nobody is allowed to ask the really tough question, and that is the impropriety of getting the office of Secretary of State intertwined with the Clinton Foundation. Clinton misused her influence while Secretary, which is exactly why the administration was hesitating in the first place. That's what some of those emails the Justice Department is examining right now are about. If they decide that there was criminal misconduct on her part, she is toast. If they decide not to pursue it and she is allowed to become the nominee, the republicans aren't going to let this go. This is 'better than Bengazi!" They are going to be all over this thing and she will lose the White House, the Senate, and control of the Supreme Court. Thanks, Debbie Wasserman schultz, Harry Reid, and the rest of the gang.
Second, the fact that Clinton is right now coddled and cushioned by the DNC. Nobody is allowed to ask the really tough question, and that is the impropriety of getting the office of Secretary of State intertwined with the Clinton Foundation. Clinton misused her influence while Secretary, which is exactly why the administration was hesitating in the first place. That's what some of those emails the Justice Department is examining right now are about. If they decide that there was criminal misconduct on her part, she is toast. If they decide not to pursue it and she is allowed to become the nominee, the republicans aren't going to let this go. This is 'better than Bengazi!" They are going to be all over this thing and she will lose the White House, the Senate, and control of the Supreme Court. Thanks, Debbie Wasserman schultz, Harry Reid, and the rest of the gang.
31
You're dreaming. Any one of those candidates can rip he "free stuff" nonsense to shreds.
1
Very true, and many democrats are still in a state of denial nor want to acknowledge this fact in which case they might just hand the presidency to one of the Republican lunatics.
1
I've voted straight Democratic for my entire life. It has become apparent to me that the Democratic party has left the working people of this country high and dry. I will never vote for a corporatist democrat again. The democratic party is dead to me.
Fighting on for Bernie, and win or lose, the political revolution doesn't end with this campaign. This will only deepen the resolve of progressives to organize and grow free from corporate power. Power to the people.
Fighting on for Bernie, and win or lose, the political revolution doesn't end with this campaign. This will only deepen the resolve of progressives to organize and grow free from corporate power. Power to the people.
33
Dear R:
I continue to vote straight Democrat and have since the Sixties. Unlike Reagan or yourself I never thought the party left me, it's just changed, morphed into something different but still remaining true to its core solidified post-Civil Rights Act.
Continue your fight for Bernie, all well and good. You can choose to vote for Hillary or not. It really doesn't matter. And that's what so many people find hard to comprehend, that we are mere specks in the universe, here today, gone tomorrow.
Even someone whom made a difference in our world, Justice Scalia, has now joined the vast Silent Majority, not the one Nixon referred to, but that Great Equalizer. Scalia's influence is great now, but its longevity we be felt for only as long as future generations deem it valid. It's out of his hands, and will soon be out of ours. That's life, man.
DD
Manhattan
I continue to vote straight Democrat and have since the Sixties. Unlike Reagan or yourself I never thought the party left me, it's just changed, morphed into something different but still remaining true to its core solidified post-Civil Rights Act.
Continue your fight for Bernie, all well and good. You can choose to vote for Hillary or not. It really doesn't matter. And that's what so many people find hard to comprehend, that we are mere specks in the universe, here today, gone tomorrow.
Even someone whom made a difference in our world, Justice Scalia, has now joined the vast Silent Majority, not the one Nixon referred to, but that Great Equalizer. Scalia's influence is great now, but its longevity we be felt for only as long as future generations deem it valid. It's out of his hands, and will soon be out of ours. That's life, man.
DD
Manhattan
1
Yes, at last! Someone to vote for! GO, BERNIE!
1
What the Democrats don't quite get is that if the so called super delegates would undo the vote that we all just got done voting in they would lose the general vote in a landslide. And as the establishment puts out the narrative that Clinton is so far ahead when she is not they do the people a disservice and smooth the things over for the establishment and keeps their access in place. Why doesn't the establishment NYTimes editorial board push for the Democrats to actually trust democracy and move away from the party authoratarianism.
15
Why then this sham voting system taking the vote of the people? If the super-delegates have so much influence, stop the voting right now. Nominate Hillary and lets use the money for something else, give it to education. Invest in the economy, do whatever but please stop insulting the peoples will.
9
The superdelegate issue is part of a larger problem for Clinton - she may win the nomination, and even the presidency, but she will have gained power without enough legitimacy to accomplish anything of significant value. Bernie's call for a "political revolution" isn't just bluster - he recognizes that presidents do no have absolute power and face paralysis if Congress is not behind them. To be honest, the obvious bias of the New York Times and other media outlets have worsened Clinton's legitimacy problem by defending her at all cost. If this entire ordeal has revealed anything, it's that the left is as petty as the right.
17
This primary election is "outing" the corrupt activity on both sides of the isle. The "super delegates" on the left - and "the establishment, elite talking heads such as the National Review" trying to control the electorate and the end result. With the internet and other sources - people are the most educated, information not suppose to get out, etc. - have cause the voters to now make their voice known. What ever does happen - it will be a breath of fresh air. Bernie was the way out of Hillary - who still could very well be indicted (and then what). Trump has the same role on the right - both are the result of very angry, disgusted with the corruption in D.C. and fear of people. It is time to take back our Country - and this we can, and will do.
7
We need to recall that Barrack Obama won the nomination in 2008 not due to his experience or better qualifications for the Presidency, but because the people could not stomach Hillary Clinton.
This same chemistry, identical chemistry comes into play today.
Bernie will win not because he has more experience or better qualifications, but because the people of this country vomit at the thought of having the Clinton dynasty raise its ugly head again.
ONE DYNASTY DOWN, the SECOND to GO
BERNIE TRUMPS HILLARY
This same chemistry, identical chemistry comes into play today.
Bernie will win not because he has more experience or better qualifications, but because the people of this country vomit at the thought of having the Clinton dynasty raise its ugly head again.
ONE DYNASTY DOWN, the SECOND to GO
BERNIE TRUMPS HILLARY
17
Wow, all evidence to the contrary, apparently. Good luck with that.
1
Nonsense. You don't speak for me. And your statement does president Obama, as well as Hillary, a great disservice.
They were both extremely strong candidates back in 2008 - it was a tough call for many of us. While Hillary is imperfect (who isn't?), she remains uniquely well qualified for the office of president and has my full support.
While I like some of Senator Sanders' message, I cannot abide a disregard for realpolitik nor of the economic realities of financing grand plans.
They were both extremely strong candidates back in 2008 - it was a tough call for many of us. While Hillary is imperfect (who isn't?), she remains uniquely well qualified for the office of president and has my full support.
While I like some of Senator Sanders' message, I cannot abide a disregard for realpolitik nor of the economic realities of financing grand plans.
2
Bernie Sanders is only in this race for show and has been from the beginning. The only way Bernie becomes the Democrat's nominee is if Hillary Clinton is charged by the FBI for her intentional mishandling of classified and secret information while she was Secretary of State and or the FBI finds something that was done illegally at the Clinton Foundation. I am not sure about the outcome of the Clinton Foundation examination, the Clintons are very clever and unscrupulous lawyers, but it seems clear, just from the evidence leaked so far, that Hillary Clinton should be charged with knowingly and intentionally mishandling classified and secret government information which I understand is a crime. The FBI should speed up its investigation so the Democrats have enough time to choose a replacement candidate if they want someone other than Bernie.
4
For show? Since Bernie entered politics, he has pretty much practiced what he preached. It is the other candidates who are telling people what they want to hear. Who is more honest?
1
I support Senator Sanders because he's addressing wealth inequality head-on, which I believe is a first and foremost concern to middle class voters. Hillary's always been strong on social justice equality issues, but too cozy with the Wall Street power elites. So my campaign contributions go to Mr. Sanders campaign. Should HRC emerge as the DEM party nominee, I will begrudgingly vote for her because she's much less odious than any of the GOP candidates. I urge all Sanders supporters to not let the bitterness of a HRC nomination deter them from voting DEM in November. There's simply too much at stake to lose.
8
All this talk of campaign strategy and comparing this time's democratic nominee and Obama's last election instead of HRC is waste. There was no strategy as to the democratic party the last two presidential elections. The only reason Obama won both times is the Republican party put forth unelectable candidates, McCain and Romney. The GOP does not have the luxury this time to throw the election because Trump has found them out and exposed them for the anti American citizens sell-outs they are. Neither Senders nor Ms. Clinton have a chance against Trump as a very large chunk of republicans will vote this time given a real candidate instead of those farces like McCain or Romney or their planned failure Jeb Bush.
1
The corrupt politicians and special interest lobbyists cannot determine the national course of America any longer.
Only the voters can do it.
Our monetary policy cannot be determined by a handful of bankers sitting on the Fed Bank Board.
Only the voters can do it.
We should have the national referendum with two simple questions:
Are you against the free trade regime that forces you to compete for the same jobs with the Chinese workers deprived of the basic human rights and environmental protection, meaning do you want the mandatory balanced foreign trade?
Do you want that the government takes over the monetary control of the dollar out of hands of the Fed Bank and print the money to pay off the national debt because otherwise this colossal debt will never be paid off, thus burdening the future generations and America forever?
Those are two simple yes or no questions.
Let the voters directly decide their future!
Only the voters can do it.
Our monetary policy cannot be determined by a handful of bankers sitting on the Fed Bank Board.
Only the voters can do it.
We should have the national referendum with two simple questions:
Are you against the free trade regime that forces you to compete for the same jobs with the Chinese workers deprived of the basic human rights and environmental protection, meaning do you want the mandatory balanced foreign trade?
Do you want that the government takes over the monetary control of the dollar out of hands of the Fed Bank and print the money to pay off the national debt because otherwise this colossal debt will never be paid off, thus burdening the future generations and America forever?
Those are two simple yes or no questions.
Let the voters directly decide their future!
2
Some superdelegates switched from Clinton to Obama in 2008. It's not a done deal.
14
True, buy why let the facts get in the way of a temper tantrum or the latest conspiracy theory?
1
Thank you NYT for your efforts on behalf of Clinton. You should refrain from this kind of reporting. You are meddling in the election before the vast majority of people have even voted. You are using your power to influence voters to discourage them from voting for Sanders because he is already "way behind" in delegates. You are part of the DNC apparatus and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
But I understand why you do it. Sanders is a threat to the elite establishment because he stands for distributive justice. Shame on you.
But I understand why you do it. Sanders is a threat to the elite establishment because he stands for distributive justice. Shame on you.
36
KJ,
this reporting is not against Bernie Sanders.
Reporting the truth is not against anybody. The truth is just the truth.
The smart people use the facts to vote for the party that respects the voter opinion.
It means the voters have either to force the Democratic party to discard the superdelegates or encourage Mr. Sanders to run as an independent candidate this November.
this reporting is not against Bernie Sanders.
Reporting the truth is not against anybody. The truth is just the truth.
The smart people use the facts to vote for the party that respects the voter opinion.
It means the voters have either to force the Democratic party to discard the superdelegates or encourage Mr. Sanders to run as an independent candidate this November.
1
The headline of this article is misleading. NYT's headline writers failed to place Super before Delegate. Superdelegates are the only "count" where Bernie has a "steep climb". He's neck and neck with the inevitable candidate in the ordinary, non-super delegates representing the 99%.
I wonder whether the Democratic party truly wants voters to walk away from this contest with the sense that the super-delegate representing the 1% handed the election to Hillary. It would be sweet irony, but also devastating for Democrats. The jibes from Trump would write themselves.
I wonder whether the Democratic party truly wants voters to walk away from this contest with the sense that the super-delegate representing the 1% handed the election to Hillary. It would be sweet irony, but also devastating for Democrats. The jibes from Trump would write themselves.
27
Now you know how I feel.
Last week the NY Times had a headline boasting that "Blacks See Bias In Scalia Nomination Delay" as if all of us are some kind of tribalist political monolith. I wouldn't trust Barack Obama with the keys to my car, let alone my vote or the keys to the White House, and blocking Obama's pick for the Supreme Court is Politics 101 that Obama himself participated in when he attempted to filibuster Justice Alito's nomination.
Yet the ham handed NYT soldiers on, misleading the American people on behalf of the liberal elite.
Last week the NY Times had a headline boasting that "Blacks See Bias In Scalia Nomination Delay" as if all of us are some kind of tribalist political monolith. I wouldn't trust Barack Obama with the keys to my car, let alone my vote or the keys to the White House, and blocking Obama's pick for the Supreme Court is Politics 101 that Obama himself participated in when he attempted to filibuster Justice Alito's nomination.
Yet the ham handed NYT soldiers on, misleading the American people on behalf of the liberal elite.
1
It's time to do away with the super delegates.
Otherwise, voting by ordinary citizens is just a sham.
Otherwise, voting by ordinary citizens is just a sham.
19
Not to mention the caucuses and electoral college.
The nominating process is created by the party and if you want to see that changed, work from within the party to do it. Those who make these party decisions are among the superdelegates, who are the party leaders from each state.
As an aside, why should party leaders show any allegiance to Sanders, who has never considered himself a member of the party?
As an aside, why should party leaders show any allegiance to Sanders, who has never considered himself a member of the party?
1
How many superdelegates will stick with Hillary if polls continue to show that Bernie has a better chance of beating the GOP candidate?
And what is so damaging in Hillary's Wall Street speeches that she is stonewalling? If the were uncontroversial she would have made them public by now. How will they affect her support when they are finally released?
And what is so damaging in Hillary's Wall Street speeches that she is stonewalling? If the were uncontroversial she would have made them public by now. How will they affect her support when they are finally released?
26
Should we, then, we nominate based on polling or based on the state-run processes of primaries and caucuses.
Pick your polls carefully.
Pick your polls carefully.
1
A casual review of the comments section suggests that Sanders' supporter base may be consistent with the rest of his campaign, in that there is a shared struggle with producing math that adds up.
9
Pay no attention to the value of our arguments!!! Hide behind your self loathing and lack of vision!
1
She has the same super delegates locked down in 2008. So what.
28
Oh you're missing a key fact about 2008.
That was the year Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin and the Democratic Party establishment convinced Senate Dems to flip their support (and superdelegates from Congress) to Obama, after they'd endorsed Hillary before the primaries.
Hillary is playing the role this time around.
That was the year Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin and the Democratic Party establishment convinced Senate Dems to flip their support (and superdelegates from Congress) to Obama, after they'd endorsed Hillary before the primaries.
Hillary is playing the role this time around.
So Hillary is tied in pledged delegates, and behind on the popular vote, to an opponent who began the race with just about no name recognition, and 3% support. Yet suddenly we are to believe she has a campaign juggernaut and Bernie should throw in the towel? Her superdelegate totals - most of whom are party insiders who pledged support to her when she appeared to have an unopposed path to the nomination in the hopes of political appointments and jobs in her administration - say nothing about momentum, and do not reflect the will of the people. Most importantly, they say nothing about her ability (rather inability) to win a general election, as she is reviled by 50% of the electorate (Republicans), and has alienated a significant fraction of the remaining 50% who support Bernie. Slanted articles like this simply feed the energy of Bernie's campaign as they reveal the extent to which the rigged political system he is fighting is enabled by a media that seems intent on announcing her coronation ASAP.
38
I have nothing for nor against Sanders and Clinton, but, CLEARLY, neither one of them is a leader, nor is anyone else a leader from ANY political "party" who is running for the presidency of this country, and it is telling of the magnitude of the lack of diverse life experience and naivete of the public to think differently. Yet, doing nothing except talk (if that) about our problems (that are painfully obvious and keep increasing and getting worse year after year), you will once again, like sheep being led to the slaughter, vote one of these non-leader people into the highest position of leadership in this country. They will once again take care of themselves, and ignore the majority of you - profits and careers over people. Who decided they are the ones to choose from in the first place? And why do you keep letting it happen? How bad does it have to get before you get actively involved in the leadership and governance of your country? Is there anyone who really believes ANY of these people are a REAL leader? If you do, I can guarantee that you have never been around a REAL leader in your life. And you wonder why we have so many unnecessary, serious, and dangerous problems that are increasing in numbers and severity? Face reality, and get seriously involved in your country (stop being so easily distracted and manipulated - sensationalism, sports, entertainment, consumerism, virtual/augmented reality, etc.), or you are going to lose it. You have the power to change it.
2
Leaders are for sheep. I'm an active member of a participatory democracy!! Join us!
1
This is because our REAL leaders are hidden from view because if people figured out who they really are, there would be open revolt.
1
Shame is the most powerful tool for the change in this world.
If you want to change the world, you have to be able to make the people ashamed of their actions.
It means you have to smart enough to understand how to correctly represent their actions form completely different perspective.
It means you have to be able to open their eyes, minds and souls.
How to do it?
It’s called the faith!
If you want to change the world, you have to be able to make the people ashamed of their actions.
It means you have to smart enough to understand how to correctly represent their actions form completely different perspective.
It means you have to be able to open their eyes, minds and souls.
How to do it?
It’s called the faith!
1
Dear Berners, stop your whining about the Democratic Party rigging the system to "coronate" Hillary Clinton. Senator Sanders knew the rules and the super-delegate system when he chose to run for the nomination of the party he has never actually been a member of. The super delegates are not bound delegates -- they can switch their votes as they choose. Politics, they say, ain't bean bag, and Bernie knows how to play in the small pond version of the game. It remains to be seen if he can swim in the national ocean.
It also remains to be seen if his most rabid supporters will just pout and stay home if Senator Sanders is not the Democratic candidate. If you do, and thereby help elect a Trump, Cruz, or Rubio, then your engagement in civic life isn't worth those stars berning in your eyes.
It also remains to be seen if his most rabid supporters will just pout and stay home if Senator Sanders is not the Democratic candidate. If you do, and thereby help elect a Trump, Cruz, or Rubio, then your engagement in civic life isn't worth those stars berning in your eyes.
16
So if I understand you correctly, you are ambivalent about the Democratic Party politics endorsing Clinton, so long as everyone knows the Democratic Party is skewed?
Doesn't that mean you just accept corruption and back-room politics with a shrug?
Secondly, Sanders supporters not voting for Clinton is a stark reality - many of them loathe her. This is a contrast to 'Sanders or stay home' mentality; Sanders supporters want Sanders, not a watered down and compromised version.
Doesn't that mean you just accept corruption and back-room politics with a shrug?
Secondly, Sanders supporters not voting for Clinton is a stark reality - many of them loathe her. This is a contrast to 'Sanders or stay home' mentality; Sanders supporters want Sanders, not a watered down and compromised version.
1
W Pearce, Of course the Democratic Party is skewed. That's the point of political parties. I am not at all ambivalent about supporting Hillary Clinton. Unlike your description of the "It's Bernie or no one" crowd, I will vote for Senator Sanders if he is the nominee. Sanders supporters who stay home if Hillary is the nominee are today's equivalent of the "summer soldier and the sunshine patriot."
Did Bernie think he could walk into the Democratic Party and get the Party to love him/pledge super-delegates. It's hard to say if it's arrogance or naivete. He has not been much of a supporter of Dem legislation like gun control and regularly votes against the good because the good is not perfect as far as he is concerned.
The delegates that represent states at the Democratic Party Convention are not part of a Federal election. If you don't like the way the Democratic Party governs itself, get involved in change it but then you'd probably have to be a super-delegate to do so. That might make you merely good and not perfect.
The delegates that represent states at the Democratic Party Convention are not part of a Federal election. If you don't like the way the Democratic Party governs itself, get involved in change it but then you'd probably have to be a super-delegate to do so. That might make you merely good and not perfect.
11
You're surprised that a Socialist like Bernie thought he could appropriate the Dem Party machinery after spending the last 50 years doing zero work to create it?
1
Many commenters fail to realize that political parties are private organizations that set their own nomination rules. Republican primaries are primarily winner-take-all, while Democrats use a combination of proportional representation and leadership influence. It is up to each organization's members to change the process if so desired.
Please also remember that the two major parties represent a minority of eligible voters. More voters identify themselves as independents than those who identify with either major party.
It is a shame, and an indictment of the electoral process, that the Republican and Democrat candidates will be selected by less than one in four eligible voters - the small number of party regulars who vote in primaries.
The flawed primary process is further magnified by the media, who perpetrate the false premise of a two-party system. It is a multiparty system. Scant representation from independent and minor party candidates is due to discriminatory electoral law reinforced by biased, self-censored media coverage.
The general public's dissatisfaction with the primary system seems to have at least helped influence media coverage. For the first time, a Libertarian presidential candidate debate will be broadcast on a major network, John Stossel's Fox Business program.
Let's hope this leads to more and better exposure of independent and minor party candidates, and their inclusion in multiparty presidential debates once the final candidates are selected.
Please also remember that the two major parties represent a minority of eligible voters. More voters identify themselves as independents than those who identify with either major party.
It is a shame, and an indictment of the electoral process, that the Republican and Democrat candidates will be selected by less than one in four eligible voters - the small number of party regulars who vote in primaries.
The flawed primary process is further magnified by the media, who perpetrate the false premise of a two-party system. It is a multiparty system. Scant representation from independent and minor party candidates is due to discriminatory electoral law reinforced by biased, self-censored media coverage.
The general public's dissatisfaction with the primary system seems to have at least helped influence media coverage. For the first time, a Libertarian presidential candidate debate will be broadcast on a major network, John Stossel's Fox Business program.
Let's hope this leads to more and better exposure of independent and minor party candidates, and their inclusion in multiparty presidential debates once the final candidates are selected.
8
Bernie Sanders has put Hillary's record with National Security Violations and Benghazi off the table. He won't go after her.
Too nice. To beat a Clinton you have to get into the mud pit.
Too nice. To beat a Clinton you have to get into the mud pit.
7
Like it or not, Clinton is going to win because she understood at the outset what she needed to do to succeed within the rules of the game, as currently constructed. She has been courting superdelegates and building up her base in South Carolina for years. In contrast, Sanders came into the race to raise issues, was surprised by the initial success of his campaign, and is now playing catch up. The sad part is that Sanders's colossal win in New Hampshire and close showings in Iowa and Nevada are all the more impressive in light of this disparity. In the expectations game, he should be gaining momentum. But alas, the only way for him to get the nomination now is with an overwhelming and undeniable show of force. He didn't get that last Saturday, and by this Saturday his win in New Hampshire will be a distant memory.
6
The time is perfect to leak a transcript of Hillary promising her Wall Street crooks and cronies that their system of Legalized Larceny will remain safe and intact under her watch...
Anyone? Anyone?
Anyone? Anyone?
22
Politico has the only information I could find: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969
1
This is not entirely factual. The superdelegates that Clinton amassed/had pledged to her in 2008 actually would have pushed her to the nomination to beat Obama despite his lead in regular delegates, but the superdelegates did not follow through to throw the nomination to her. If Sanders got a majority of regular delegates, it's likely the same thing would happen again. The actual fact is that as of today, Clinton and Sanders have the same number of ordinary delegates.
11
The article should have front-loaded this line: "She is likely to win a delegate jackpot from the overwhelmingly black and Hispanic areas in the Southern-dominated Super Tuesday primaries on March 1, when 11 states will vote and about 880 delegates will be awarded.".
Written that way would have left off a lot of the carping about the superdelegates. The math for Sanders is going to get exponentially harder as time goes on.
Written that way would have left off a lot of the carping about the superdelegates. The math for Sanders is going to get exponentially harder as time goes on.
1
"The establishment of the Democratic Party ... did not want HRC entering the general election with a black eye."
For a long time, they felt Bernie was a "good thing." After all, his presence created the illusion that Hillary was having to work for the nomination, but he was so, so polite that nobody could believe anything but good about her. But when Bernie actually started to look "for real," the powers-that-be recognized that the time had come to remind him of how things work.
That's also "how things work" in the Republican Party, by the way. They're just more open about it.
For a long time, they felt Bernie was a "good thing." After all, his presence created the illusion that Hillary was having to work for the nomination, but he was so, so polite that nobody could believe anything but good about her. But when Bernie actually started to look "for real," the powers-that-be recognized that the time had come to remind him of how things work.
That's also "how things work" in the Republican Party, by the way. They're just more open about it.
3
This is blatant biased reporting. In terms of delegates elected by the Democratic voters, Sanders is about even with Clinton, period. Should Sanders win the majority of the elected delegates, the super delegates will then have a choice to make. That's the news the news that's fit to print.
21
Why do the Dem elite all favor Clinton? Because the status quo is working very well for them, thank you very much.
27
For the election, its looking like America will have to choose between an entitled establishment crony, and an unstable, pathological, manipulator. How unfortunate for us.
6
Bernie's been in government for 25 years. How is that not "establishment"?
1
This propaganda is exactly why so many Democrats can't stomach Hillary and are working for Sanders.
The headline makes no distinction between one kind of delegate and another, a clear attempt by the Time and Patrick Healy to confuse or deceive readers into thinking that the race is nearly over.
Then, buried deep in the article is this tidbit:
"A New York Times analysis found that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are tied in the pledged delegate count, at 51 each."
The Times is so in the tank for Hillary they can't even report the story straight.
Yuck!
The headline makes no distinction between one kind of delegate and another, a clear attempt by the Time and Patrick Healy to confuse or deceive readers into thinking that the race is nearly over.
Then, buried deep in the article is this tidbit:
"A New York Times analysis found that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are tied in the pledged delegate count, at 51 each."
The Times is so in the tank for Hillary they can't even report the story straight.
Yuck!
34
If I were a Sanders supporter, I would stop worrying about superdelegates - which are not going to vote against the winner of the pledged delegate count in any event - and start worrying about how Sanders is going to win the pledged delegates.
5
All you have done since Sanders declared his candidacy is first ignore him and when he started showing promise, denigrate him as you are doing now. You are supposed to be a newspaper informing the news and leaving your slated opinions on the opinion page. All black people don't go to church and, contrary to what you constantly publish about black people, always linking them to a church by the hip as though they had no minds of their own is racist. You think doing that will convince other black people whom you don't think much of, as following along lock-step. Nothing can be further from the truth. Your negative articles about a man who is concerned more about people than money and wants to give them a chance to have a chance in this country...and that's all people, because the power elite is preying on the people to the extent that we will all become serfs, paying what little money we are allowed to earn to support them. I for one am mad as hell and so are hundreds of thousands of Bernie supporters.
25
Did anyone really think for a moment the DNC would give Sanders a snowflake in Hades chance of getting anywhere near a nomination?
5
"the odds of him overtaking her are growing increasingly remote."
------------------
Please, that statement, from any mainstream media source today, can only come from editorial rooms where schadenfreude is the overriding sentiment.
------------------
Please, that statement, from any mainstream media source today, can only come from editorial rooms where schadenfreude is the overriding sentiment.
8
Well, the NY Times was instrumental in painting Sanders as unelectable - but he's not. The superdelegates are being pressured to vote for Clinton in opposition to the choice of the American people - not because Clinton herself has won so many votes. Of course, if the DNC insists on that, to their own detriment, they will lose the votes of the millennial generation. Basically, this is the DNC being even more oligarchical than the Republicans, and saying, "Sure, Hillary Clinton, we'll give you the nomination as we promised you four years ago... we'll follow that promise right out the window, and you'll lose the election. Have a nice trip on the way down." The DNC and the NY Times are powerful co-consipirators who are going to succeed in putting a Republican in the White House if they insist on opposing the will of the people like this.
7
"The DNC and the NY Times are powerful co-consipirators who are going to succeed in putting a Republican in the White House if they insist on opposing the will of the people like this."
An affecting and very poignant statement.
An affecting and very poignant statement.
Imagine if the home town fans could get to decide all the penalties in a football game, strictly for the reason they can yell louder. This is what's happening in the political spectrum today. One side changes the rules mid stream by fiat and bluster and the fact that it benefits their side enormously is excused as well, it's for the good of all. Really? Folks we have a "bully" in room, how ironic is where that bully comes from.
1
Such a terribly misleading headline--I've never seen such a ham-handed attempt at burying the true lede, which is that Bernie and Clinton are tied at 51 pledged delegates. Clinton has an "insurmountable" candidate advantage because of the superdelegates. But as someone else earlier mentioned, the nomination will not be one purely or even mainly won on the superdelegate count. If it is, it will split the party because people despise being manipulated like this. And this is coming from a moderate Democratic voter who sees the strengths and weaknesses of Bernie and Clinton in equal measure.
I used to be with Bernie, though now I'm on the fence between the two, and my doubt stems from Bernie's electability during the general election. However, this is the type of behind-the-scenes chicanery that angers me and brings me back again to Bernie. The Clinton operatives and their supporters in the NYT editorial desk need to realize that these types of articles are not making things any better with the average Democratic voter. They hope it may persuade just enough to see Clinton as inevitable, but this type of manipulation can backfire, and big time.
I used to be with Bernie, though now I'm on the fence between the two, and my doubt stems from Bernie's electability during the general election. However, this is the type of behind-the-scenes chicanery that angers me and brings me back again to Bernie. The Clinton operatives and their supporters in the NYT editorial desk need to realize that these types of articles are not making things any better with the average Democratic voter. They hope it may persuade just enough to see Clinton as inevitable, but this type of manipulation can backfire, and big time.
12
This is headline is very offensive, even more offensive to the rest of the country that three states, three small states, and three states that did not give Clinton a real majority of the vote, determined the outcome of this election. You've discounted the rest of the country, the rest of the people of this country. It's over, none of us matter. I am getting more angry as I write this.
19
It sounds to me from this like it's not just the political financing system that broken, but the whole political selection process as it was conceived and structured itself. Elitism is simply an inherent part of it from the get-go, superPAC money is only a distraction from the real issue. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it, like everything else that's standard operating procedures.
One-person-one-vote . . . sounds almost as quaint as Jack-and-Jill-went-up-the-hill . . .
One-person-one-vote . . . sounds almost as quaint as Jack-and-Jill-went-up-the-hill . . .
2
Some campaign insight from the people who managed to misread the campaign almost every step of the way. Three months ago Carson/Bush and Hillary were inevitable, and Trump and Bernie were gadflies to be swatted away.
The whole country can feel the winds of change except certain (nearly all) writers at certain (nearly all) news organizations.
Stay tuned, and show us these prognostications again during the conventions. I have the feeling crow will be eaten.
The more people learn about Bernie the more they can see that every word he speaks in the truth. And he hasn't fabricated these statements just to get your vote. He's spoken with clarity and integrity on nearly every issue since his college days.
Name one other politician in the world who you can honestly say that about.
The truth will prevail.
The whole country can feel the winds of change except certain (nearly all) writers at certain (nearly all) news organizations.
Stay tuned, and show us these prognostications again during the conventions. I have the feeling crow will be eaten.
The more people learn about Bernie the more they can see that every word he speaks in the truth. And he hasn't fabricated these statements just to get your vote. He's spoken with clarity and integrity on nearly every issue since his college days.
Name one other politician in the world who you can honestly say that about.
The truth will prevail.
8
Will be voting for Trump if it's between him and Hillary. Myself and many others are all set with the Clintons. Watch "A Noble Lie" on YouTube and you might be too.
6
I clicked on this story expecting it to dive into the nuances of the headline. Instead, the lead paragraph said Bernie Sanders would fight on "after losing the Nevada caucuses." The second paragraph said he was "slipping significantly behind" Hillary Clinton. It wasn't until the last sentence in the tenth paragraph that the crux of the situation was revealed; they were tied at 51 pledged delegate votes each in the only contests open to us not including the superdelegates. (Hillary had a huge superdelegate tally right out of the gate in Iowa.)
The media loves to talk about winning vs. losing instead of relative gains and losses and the meeting (or not) of expectations.
The real story is the popular vote vs. the super delegate vote or the combining of the two in keeping a running scorecard. The article helped crystalize my perception that the Democratic Party/Machine chose not to educate or engage the American public early on through more frequent debates at times people were likely to view them. The intent was to bury Sanders or any candidate other than Clinton by making sure that the press focused on the front runner and never exposed other candidates or policy positions to a wide enough electorate to overtake her in the popular vote.
As I like to say, the older I get, the more I trust my paranoia.
The media loves to talk about winning vs. losing instead of relative gains and losses and the meeting (or not) of expectations.
The real story is the popular vote vs. the super delegate vote or the combining of the two in keeping a running scorecard. The article helped crystalize my perception that the Democratic Party/Machine chose not to educate or engage the American public early on through more frequent debates at times people were likely to view them. The intent was to bury Sanders or any candidate other than Clinton by making sure that the press focused on the front runner and never exposed other candidates or policy positions to a wide enough electorate to overtake her in the popular vote.
As I like to say, the older I get, the more I trust my paranoia.
14
If Clinton wins because of Super delegates it would be like Bush won because of the SCOTUS. It's about as democratic as a, a ,a ...well an Oligarch. Think about the field day the republicans would have.
7
the gist of this article is not clinton bias but the intricacies of the delegating primaries. in 2008 clinton was rounded by obama in the superdelegate count, and clinton in 2016 shows she learned the lesson and has applied it.
but clinton 2008 was no political neophyte and could afford the best political advisors, and the fact that a superdelegate majority was used to beat her then indicates that the primary process is as intricate as a master game of chess.
there is nothing "undemocratic" about it. the constitutional and federalist authors display a healthy wariness of what "we the people" will do if left to their own impulses: the electoral college, the bicameral congress, the legislative election of senators, are all indications of the founding fathers' sentiments. the "vox populi" needed to be filtered through the deliberations of the experienced, the judicious and the wealthy.
the point is made that both the sanders and the trump campaigns are fueled by populist anger. certainly true. but what makes the anger futile is that it is linked to an ignorance of how the system works, and gasping surprise when it works as it was designed to work.
sanders, if elected, will have to deal with an obstructionist congress. trump, if elected, will feel the annealing effect of power and political opinion. no matter what, things will keep going in the direction they are headed now: breed people, exploit the planet, deny the facts, live for today.
but clinton 2008 was no political neophyte and could afford the best political advisors, and the fact that a superdelegate majority was used to beat her then indicates that the primary process is as intricate as a master game of chess.
there is nothing "undemocratic" about it. the constitutional and federalist authors display a healthy wariness of what "we the people" will do if left to their own impulses: the electoral college, the bicameral congress, the legislative election of senators, are all indications of the founding fathers' sentiments. the "vox populi" needed to be filtered through the deliberations of the experienced, the judicious and the wealthy.
the point is made that both the sanders and the trump campaigns are fueled by populist anger. certainly true. but what makes the anger futile is that it is linked to an ignorance of how the system works, and gasping surprise when it works as it was designed to work.
sanders, if elected, will have to deal with an obstructionist congress. trump, if elected, will feel the annealing effect of power and political opinion. no matter what, things will keep going in the direction they are headed now: breed people, exploit the planet, deny the facts, live for today.
3
Trump? Can you spell IMPEACHMENT?
Now Margaret Sullivan, the public editor, "suddenly" moves to the Washington Post. Perhaps she couldn't take having to stay quiet with the overt pro-Hillary corruption that has totally engulfed the Times. Ultimately, she would have certainly been one of the most ethically guilty parties, considering her position. Whether she fired or left - good for her. You don't want this on your record.
8
Or maybe she got a better offer from the Post. Or maybe she prefers to live in Washington DC. Or maybe knowing that her tenure as the public editor would end in August, 6 months from now, she decided to look for another job ahead of that date. Or maybe... Well you get my drift. Maybe there is nothing ideological or political about her move. And if the Post comes out for Clinton in the near future, what rumor will you attempt to start then?
1
Time to convert to a parliamentary democracy. The American way is not only stupid, but corrupt.
3
So it's beginning to look more and more like it's going to be a choice between Hilary and the Donald, from our major political parties?! Is this what Jefferson and The Federalists were expecting to happen?! I knew I never should have read that book about the Best and the Brightest! So, you too Johnny and Jane, and Vito and Vincenza, and Kemal and Kaisha, and Raul and Rita, and Sid and Sarah, (Oy!) can grow up to be President of The United Sates! Wake me up when it's all over, cause I'm sorry, these two are not my reality of that City on that Shining Hill.
4
What I simply do not understand is why, if Mr. Sanders and his advocates so deeply loathe and despise every element of the Democratic Party, he would attempt to become its presidential nominee?
6
Would you prefer him to run as an independent, against Clinton and Trump?
Dial up internet, super delegates and the electoral college. All concepts that are are left over from last century and beyond. Let the people decide!
2
One person one vote.
I think the media is incapable of publishing anything positive about Bernie. It's disgusting. Completely biased towards Clinton. It blows my mind that people can be so naive to the criminal that she is. I'm a staunch democrat and was going to vote for her if she won the nomination, but she has been so conniving and nasty that I will never vote for that snake.
Stay strong, fellow Bernie supporters! We can do this! He's the only good person running!
Stay strong, fellow Bernie supporters! We can do this! He's the only good person running!
11
If we do not overturn Citizens United and end the purchasing of our government (or specifically, the hearts, minds, and pocketbooks of our elected representatives) by the rich, there is no hope for our democracy. It breaks my heart that minorities can be so easily led to vote for Hillary with her empty promises, unfulfilled by her for decades, as she marches forward with her family's fortune-generating machine. She is in politics for one reason: to make an enormous amount of money. She has used every office that her husband and she has occupied to amass hundreds of millions of dollars. She is now among the uber-rich who work the government for their own benefit and no one else's, and yet she is out there telling black and hispanic people she is in their corner; she won't make the overturning of Citizens United a plank in her platform; she is beholding to numerous PACs, and she still hasn't shown us a single transcript of one of those speeches she gave to Wall Street executives for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'll give you that she is ambitious, but her ambition long ago drowned any integrity she may once have had, or any ideal she ever held. The NYT revels in glorifying her gamesmanship (which also includes the ability to cheat whenever she can get away with it), but winning the presidency without integrity will mean, for us, the People, only a continuation of the downward spiral, our government run for the profit of big business instead of for the People.
3
Read the headline and knew I'd get "burned" by the comments.
Many of Bernie's supporters (and I realize some of them are actually Republican shills) become very angry when the Times writes anything that concludes Bernie might not succeed.
It's really quite shocking, since up till now they have loved this paper and columnists such as Krugman and others.
Many of Bernie's supporters (and I realize some of them are actually Republican shills) become very angry when the Times writes anything that concludes Bernie might not succeed.
It's really quite shocking, since up till now they have loved this paper and columnists such as Krugman and others.
6
We have heard only from three (3) States in the matter of a Democratic nominee for President. There are 47 more to go plus perhaps a territory or two. Although we have just about been robbed of our voting franchise in this country, it is still the votes of the people that matter and that are counted, hopefully, one by one at the ballot box. The Supreme Court interrupted that facet of our "democracy" once and hopefully it will NEVER happen again.
We have managed to cast one family dynasty to the side of the road in this Election Campaign of 2016. With some good fortune and clear thinking we will be able to cast aside another round of the Clintons in the White House. We have been there, done that, seen that and heard that. A lot of time was wasted in America due to their soap opera antics as President and First Lady. Like leopards, Clintons do not change their spots. The United States has fallen into a governmental, societal and cultural abyss and has failed to climb out of that for about 25 years, if not longer. America cannot afford to slip further down in that abyss by returning to the mindset, policies, thinking, attitudes and behaviours of a woman and her family who have failed us, embarrassed us and humiliated us previously. America used to be and should be again about progressing moving forward. It has been a long time since we had a senior statesman as President. A new, youth movement is already standing up for the Sen. Sanders.
We have managed to cast one family dynasty to the side of the road in this Election Campaign of 2016. With some good fortune and clear thinking we will be able to cast aside another round of the Clintons in the White House. We have been there, done that, seen that and heard that. A lot of time was wasted in America due to their soap opera antics as President and First Lady. Like leopards, Clintons do not change their spots. The United States has fallen into a governmental, societal and cultural abyss and has failed to climb out of that for about 25 years, if not longer. America cannot afford to slip further down in that abyss by returning to the mindset, policies, thinking, attitudes and behaviours of a woman and her family who have failed us, embarrassed us and humiliated us previously. America used to be and should be again about progressing moving forward. It has been a long time since we had a senior statesman as President. A new, youth movement is already standing up for the Sen. Sanders.
7
So what are we waiting for? Let's start the Political Revolution right now!
Start by cancelling all your paid subscriptions to ANY and ALL media establishments that have shown a clear pattern of blacking out and dismissing our choices of candidates. It's not fair and it's not democratic. Shame on those corporations - if only they had any shame to feel.
Then if you live in an open primary state, send a message to the corporate Democratic Party by changing your voter registration from Democrat to Independent. Corporates only understand numbers, so when you drop off their rolls, they will notice. You can still vote in the primary and it will send a powerful message to the Party establishment that they don't own us.
As Bernie has reminded us, it extremely difficult to go up against the Triplets of Establishment Power - financial, political, and media. If we're to be effective in restoring Democracy to an Oligarchy, we must be empowered, smart Supervoters. We must use the limited clout we have.
The fact is the financial/political/media cabal only understands the language of numbers, particularly when they are preceded by $$$. It's perfectly clear where this is going unless we immediately put our Political Revolution into practice so we can even have a REAL say and a FAIR shake in the electoral process.
Please join the Political Revolution for future generations of Americans who need us to do start doing our part NOW. There's no time to waste!
Start by cancelling all your paid subscriptions to ANY and ALL media establishments that have shown a clear pattern of blacking out and dismissing our choices of candidates. It's not fair and it's not democratic. Shame on those corporations - if only they had any shame to feel.
Then if you live in an open primary state, send a message to the corporate Democratic Party by changing your voter registration from Democrat to Independent. Corporates only understand numbers, so when you drop off their rolls, they will notice. You can still vote in the primary and it will send a powerful message to the Party establishment that they don't own us.
As Bernie has reminded us, it extremely difficult to go up against the Triplets of Establishment Power - financial, political, and media. If we're to be effective in restoring Democracy to an Oligarchy, we must be empowered, smart Supervoters. We must use the limited clout we have.
The fact is the financial/political/media cabal only understands the language of numbers, particularly when they are preceded by $$$. It's perfectly clear where this is going unless we immediately put our Political Revolution into practice so we can even have a REAL say and a FAIR shake in the electoral process.
Please join the Political Revolution for future generations of Americans who need us to do start doing our part NOW. There's no time to waste!
7
No more Bushs, No more Clintons! One gone, one to go!
13
Mrs. Clinton has been around for a very long time. Whether she likes it or not, she is part of the Establishment. All her chums and buddies have been around her as well, and they're part of the Establishment. The comment about Sen.Leahy now voting for her, although his constituents may favor Sen. Sanders points out the"old boy network" in action. This is exactly how the system is rigged and it's the system itself that Sen. Sanders is running against. How is it that Mrs. Clinton lost by a large margin in New Hampshire, but the old boys and gals, the super delegates support, put her within a few numbers of Sen. Sanders.
It think that Mrs. Clinton will make no change whatsoever to change anything with respect to the voting process. She never has. Everything is set up to benefit her. The article says that she is now working to shore up her super delegate, the party elders count, a system that was fashioned by Congress (surprise, surprise) and which benefits the incumbent. Congratulations to Sen. Sanders on speaking truth to power. He has the courage and the integrity that others lack.
It think that Mrs. Clinton will make no change whatsoever to change anything with respect to the voting process. She never has. Everything is set up to benefit her. The article says that she is now working to shore up her super delegate, the party elders count, a system that was fashioned by Congress (surprise, surprise) and which benefits the incumbent. Congratulations to Sen. Sanders on speaking truth to power. He has the courage and the integrity that others lack.
5
The NY Times published an editorial called "Superdelegates, Clarify Your Vote" just three days ago and still insists on counting the "superdelegate" vote together with the pledged vote totals in this article today. That was the last straw. Although I still enjoy NYT's non-political articles, this continuing biased political coverage is unproductive (especially since it didn't work in the 2008 primaries). After debating it for several months, I cancelled my NYT subscription this morning. That's $15 per month more that I can send to Bernie's campaign.
As others have noted, the pledged delegate count is 51-51. Superdelegate votes will not count until the convention in July. Reputable news organizations should report that, instead of writing entire articles and front-page headlines based on the misleading "superdelegate" count. NYT's well-informed readers often fill the gaps with their comments, but not everyone reads the comments.
This New Yorker article might explain why the NYT is fighting for the establishment candidate as though it's fighting for its own survival:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/22/did-social-media-produce-th...
As others have noted, the pledged delegate count is 51-51. Superdelegate votes will not count until the convention in July. Reputable news organizations should report that, instead of writing entire articles and front-page headlines based on the misleading "superdelegate" count. NYT's well-informed readers often fill the gaps with their comments, but not everyone reads the comments.
This New Yorker article might explain why the NYT is fighting for the establishment candidate as though it's fighting for its own survival:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/22/did-social-media-produce-th...
10
In Nevada, Whites consist 59% of total voters of which Sanders captured 49% and Clinton 46%.
Non-whites comprise 41% of total voters of which Sanders captured 42% and Clinton 56%.
At best, the results would suggest there was an even split in votes between the two candidates.
Yet Sanders earned 15 delegates while Clinton earned 19 delegates !!! This is weird.
Even more weird is that after three primaries and caucuses Sanders is in the lead having earned 51 delegates while Clinton earned 48 delegates, yet among Superdelegates, Sanders is way behind having earned only 19 while Clinton earned a whopping 451 !!!
There is something wrong in the American system for electing party leaders. I do not understand this Delegate and Superdelegate system. It should be based on a popular vote system, like that used in the rest of the civilized world.
But then the US is the only country in the world still using the imperial system (miles and gallons) while the rest of the world is using the metric system (kilometres and kilograms).
But then again the US has the highest death rate by guns and the highest incarceration rate in the civilized world.
Was the American system for electing party leaders born in Disneyland ???
Non-whites comprise 41% of total voters of which Sanders captured 42% and Clinton 56%.
At best, the results would suggest there was an even split in votes between the two candidates.
Yet Sanders earned 15 delegates while Clinton earned 19 delegates !!! This is weird.
Even more weird is that after three primaries and caucuses Sanders is in the lead having earned 51 delegates while Clinton earned 48 delegates, yet among Superdelegates, Sanders is way behind having earned only 19 while Clinton earned a whopping 451 !!!
There is something wrong in the American system for electing party leaders. I do not understand this Delegate and Superdelegate system. It should be based on a popular vote system, like that used in the rest of the civilized world.
But then the US is the only country in the world still using the imperial system (miles and gallons) while the rest of the world is using the metric system (kilometres and kilograms).
But then again the US has the highest death rate by guns and the highest incarceration rate in the civilized world.
Was the American system for electing party leaders born in Disneyland ???
1
I've had enough of the NY Times obvious bias towards Clinton. So far, I have yet to contribute to Sander's campaign. But I'm so angry after reading today's deceptive articles regarding Sanders, that I will be donating to his campaign tonight!
Let's start having some NY Times pieces that focus on how amazing Bernie's come-from-behind campaign has done and how millions are passionate about changing the status quo. That should be top headlines.
Let's start having some NY Times pieces that focus on how amazing Bernie's come-from-behind campaign has done and how millions are passionate about changing the status quo. That should be top headlines.
8
Interrupting your beer pong championship to donate?!
You go, kiddo!
You go, kiddo!
2
The big risk to the Democratic Party here is NOT that Bernie will win the primaries but Hillary will pull the rug out from under him at the convention by playing the "super delegates" card. No question, that would be very bad for the Party but I don't foresee that happening.
The BIGGER risk to the Democratic Party is that Hillary wins the primaries because voters conclude they don't matter, since Hillary is prepared to play the "super delegates" card at the convention if she has to.
If that's how it plays out, Hillary can just waltz into the convention and say: "See, I've won the primaries. So when all those super-delegates vote for me, they'll not be thwarting the will of Party members; they'll simply be confirming what the voters have already said."
The BIGGER risk to the Democratic Party is that Hillary wins the primaries because voters conclude they don't matter, since Hillary is prepared to play the "super delegates" card at the convention if she has to.
If that's how it plays out, Hillary can just waltz into the convention and say: "See, I've won the primaries. So when all those super-delegates vote for me, they'll not be thwarting the will of Party members; they'll simply be confirming what the voters have already said."
4
The Democratic Party is identical to the Saudi Arabia.
The people are free to vote and play democracy as much and often as they want, but the decisions are made somewhere else.
Only the fools would vote for the Democratic Party as long as the superdelegates exist.
Only the fools let somebody else make the decisions in their name in a truly democratic country.
The people are free to vote and play democracy as much and often as they want, but the decisions are made somewhere else.
Only the fools would vote for the Democratic Party as long as the superdelegates exist.
Only the fools let somebody else make the decisions in their name in a truly democratic country.
5
This paper has become such a joke, the ridiculous pro-Hillary bias is so obvious.
8
Amazing (and sad) that the New York Times, an ostensibly respectable publication, continues to perpetuate the myth that Sanders lost the Hispanic vote in Nevada. There clearly is a concerted effort to ignore facts to spin the story that he is unelectable. It is one thing to endorse a candidate; it is a completely different matter to act as a propaganda mouthpiece for that candidate.
8
The Democrats are tactically useless. Hillary believes she only has to run for president of the Democratic Party and the rest will be gravy. That arrogance and shortsidedness is going to cost us in November, when she has to win back all the young voters and independents she alienated with her slash-and-burn strategy.
7
"Delegate Count Leaving Bernie Sanders With Steep Climb"
What odd timing for this. I'ts based on superdelegates, so it could have been written before Iowa or NH or Nevada, and it would still be true if Sanders had won the caucuses as convincingly as he won NH. Steep climbs are what Bernie does.
What odd timing for this. I'ts based on superdelegates, so it could have been written before Iowa or NH or Nevada, and it would still be true if Sanders had won the caucuses as convincingly as he won NH. Steep climbs are what Bernie does.
8
Bernie Sanders has the lead in the popular vote. In Nevada, only 2% of registered democrats participated in the caucus. Discounting the super- delegates for the moment, the lead in delegates is in no way noteworthy, given that the three states that have thus far had their primaries / caucuses have a combined number of delegates less than many of the larger states yet to be polled. -- If Sanders wins the popular vote and the superdelegates give the election to Clinton, there will be a roar of anger such as never before heard in American politics.
9
Were you roaring in 2008? Because Hillary won the popular vote over Obama.
3
Unfortunately if Ms. Clinton wins, it more or less guarantees a Republican victory in the fall. I am a strong supporter of Sanders but would not vote for Hillary Clinton. I know many people who feel the same way that I do. That is why polls show Sanders winning in the general election against all the Republican candidates and Clinton losing. A Clinton victory is a loss for Democrats and a greater loss for America - a missed opportunity to arrest the negative trends of the last two or three decades: wealth over-concentration, financialization of the economy, ballooning debt, environmental degradation and the corresponding diminished prospects for the lives of our children.
12
So, this is the author's take, not an objective analysis of the election so far. The election has barely started and the New York Times allows it's correspondent to declare that the election is all but sewn up in an article that purports to be a news article. I see no header saying "OPINION" or "NEWS ANALYSIS here.
This is a shameful new low for the New York Times. Basically calling the election for Hillary Clinton on the front page before 99% of the voters have had a chance to vote.
Horrible reporting and a disservice to the public.
"Math doesn't lie: Hillary Clinton has all but sewn up the Democratic nomination. Bernie needs "landslides." My take: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/delegate-count-leaving-ber... …"