I think it's fair to say the most divisive candidate in this race is not Donald Trump but Hillary Clinton. Think about it: She's the candidate who may single-handedly cause millions of disaffected Democrats to stay home, and prompt millions of otherwise indifferent Republicans to get out and vote.
4
Sadly Bernie's actions are now just delusional if not only by the fact that they are clearly unprecedented.
If he really wants to seem more presidential, he could take a cue from Hillary Clinton and how she handled this similar situation in 2008.
It would be insightful if the NYtimes could do a story about when Sanders would have had to concede to be on par with Hillary's 2008 standards.
Oh wait... what's that?
She didn't concede until 4 days after the last primary where Obama secured enough pledged/super delegates to outright win nomination.
Crazy!?!
On June 7th, Clinton will surpass the delegate threshold, but Sanders has until June 11th before he would potentially break with Clinton's 2008 playbook.
Let's see what happens.
If he really wants to seem more presidential, he could take a cue from Hillary Clinton and how she handled this similar situation in 2008.
It would be insightful if the NYtimes could do a story about when Sanders would have had to concede to be on par with Hillary's 2008 standards.
Oh wait... what's that?
She didn't concede until 4 days after the last primary where Obama secured enough pledged/super delegates to outright win nomination.
Crazy!?!
On June 7th, Clinton will surpass the delegate threshold, but Sanders has until June 11th before he would potentially break with Clinton's 2008 playbook.
Let's see what happens.
5
It's interesting how losers of whatever political stripe always blame the "media" -- never their own failures. Sanders never demonstrated convincingly that he was more than a Johnny one note. There never was any evidence of how he might go about making his "revolution". And by now he's lost his perspective along with the race. (What we're hearing is a Trumpish me, me, me). If he's really all that worried about America he'd do well to get on with supporting Hillary, not rearing her down.
19
Ah, facts and figures, those inconvenient trifles that partisans so loathe.
18
It's not math, it's votes. Talking about "math" makes Hillary's victory seem more mysterious and complicated than it is because many people have no understanding of math. Hillary is winning because she won many many many more votes. Simple. Democratic. More votes.
23
Super Delegates should not be permitted to declare their support for any candidate until ALL voters have had their say... To declare allegiance and subsequent victory before ANY voters have spoken is undemocratic and reeks of corruption...
7
As a Democrat, I get concerned about how a very inflexible Sanders and his supporters will act when all is said and done. If Donald Trump's behavior, character, and ideas does not bring Democrats together, we will all suffer. I can see by some of the posts that accepting the final outcome will not be easy.
11
Sanders lost my interest when his supporters coronated him as a political messiah figure. There are no saviors in politics--just flawed people fighting a grueling, thankless battle. Hillary has sported the largest target imaginable on her back for decades. It's amazing she's survived and clawed her way to where she is today. I'll take the survivor. I'm most definitely with her.
27
The reason for superdelegates, as I understand it, is do that leaders in the Democratic Party can intervene if it looks like the hoi poloi are going to make a big mistake and pick someone unelectable. So last year they wanted to make sure there chosen candidate made it in. A year later, maybe the calculus needs some revision. Most Americans neither like or trust Clinton, she keeps gerribg caught in lies,, and she has an open FBI investgation on a matter she has already been burned on by an IG investigation. On top of that, polld are showing her winning over Trump is hardly a dure thing.
Asking duperdelegates to defect for Sanders sounds more and more like asking them to do the job they exist for.
No one has wone until Philadelphia, no matter what the NY Times or other Clintonites would like it to be otherwise.
Asking duperdelegates to defect for Sanders sounds more and more like asking them to do the job they exist for.
No one has wone until Philadelphia, no matter what the NY Times or other Clintonites would like it to be otherwise.
5
There's a lot more to this election than math. HRC will lose to Trump.
17
Mark your calendars for July 1st, the Friday before the next three-day weekend. It's an opportune time for the FBI to publish their report on Hillary's email!
5
I am a sanders supporter, and I have understood for a while that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. I'm not blind, nor stupid, as this condescending "these are the facts you idiots" column suggests.
That said, I hope that Bernie staying in the race prevents Hillary from tacking to the right. I am glad that his staying in the race prevents Clinton from appealing to republican suburban soccer moms whose primary fear is terrorism. Every time I read an article in this newspaper about how Hillary wants to get these voters it makes me sick. The irrational fear these ignoramuses and their ilk have for crime, terrorism, and high taxes have caused great damage to this country. When I voted for Obama, I thought that manipulation of these irrational fears had had their day. Now I can look forward to seeing if Hillary gets the chance to bomb as many countries as Bill did.
That said, I hope that Bernie staying in the race prevents Hillary from tacking to the right. I am glad that his staying in the race prevents Clinton from appealing to republican suburban soccer moms whose primary fear is terrorism. Every time I read an article in this newspaper about how Hillary wants to get these voters it makes me sick. The irrational fear these ignoramuses and their ilk have for crime, terrorism, and high taxes have caused great damage to this country. When I voted for Obama, I thought that manipulation of these irrational fears had had their day. Now I can look forward to seeing if Hillary gets the chance to bomb as many countries as Bill did.
22
We can't argue with that, but it'll be a sad day in America come November when we have to hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two evils the Mad Hatter or Queen Grimhilde. Try telling that to the Hillary Clinton supporters who are giddy over her eventual coronation. Apparently they don't see her in the same way the rest of the country see her. They live in a cold Machiavellian universe where a person's character is irrelevant when it comes to expertise and anybody who dares to dream big is a fool. Regardless of who wins, it'll be midnight in America no matter how we look at it.
21
What the New York Times should have done, through this campaign year, is not tell us its hunches of who will win, but inform us of the priority issues and the merits of the candidates' positions on them so we can elect the best.
That would lead to nomination of Bernie, who would beat Trump, and then avoid dangerous wars and work to recover America from the Money-Political-Insider Royalty, for The People.
Alas, instead the New York Times has drowned us in diversionary election trivia and horse-race predictions fit for Las Vegas bookies. That stuff leads the Democrat super-lemmings toward nomination of the worst conceivable candidate, Hillary -- the path to a presidency of Trump.
That would lead to nomination of Bernie, who would beat Trump, and then avoid dangerous wars and work to recover America from the Money-Political-Insider Royalty, for The People.
Alas, instead the New York Times has drowned us in diversionary election trivia and horse-race predictions fit for Las Vegas bookies. That stuff leads the Democrat super-lemmings toward nomination of the worst conceivable candidate, Hillary -- the path to a presidency of Trump.
29
This article is wrong. You say Hillary has received at least 33% in every state but Vermont. Bernie won 81% in Alaska and 72% in Washington. These aren't impossible things to look up.
22
The Democrats and their super delegates need to clean up their name, soiled by Hillary's private email server and all the public lies so far to cover it up, if they want the country's respect and any Bernie and Independent votes.
9
I don't favor Bernie because he spent about 30 years in Congress and accomplished little. He ran a surprisingly successful campaign but failed to convince rank-and-file democrats like me that his main goal was to beat republicans and win elections in November. When all is said and done he and most of his supporters will line-up behind HRC in the anti-Trump campaign. Hope he makes this easy and concedes like a professional. Not clear to me at this point that he will.
44
This is not and should not be treated as business as usual!
Clinton should be able to clinch the nomination WITHOUT super delegates, and the super-delegates should only be allowed to vote AFTER the FBI report comes out. Like this, their action can be seen as obstruction of justice to cover up a big corruption mess at State (90+ people knew about the private server) if Hillary gets the white house and then buries the FBI investigation.
Clinton should be able to clinch the nomination WITHOUT super delegates, and the super-delegates should only be allowed to vote AFTER the FBI report comes out. Like this, their action can be seen as obstruction of justice to cover up a big corruption mess at State (90+ people knew about the private server) if Hillary gets the white house and then buries the FBI investigation.
7
Which is why I'm leaving the democratic party as soon as the California primary is over.
18
For me, as a Sanders supporter, if Sanders loses the nomination, I don't see it as voter fraud. I do see a gross unfairness in this primary process, though.
Most of the super delegates expressed their support for Hillary before the beginning of the primary process, before any public campaigning took place. Thus the voting Democratic public knew Hillary was the favorite within the Democratic Party before that voting public had a chance to compare candidates' ideas. This disadvantaged not only Bernie but also O'Malley. Why would any loyal Democrat vote for anyone else other than Hillary, if the Democratic establishment is loudly shouting that Hillary is the best before any voter got to compare the candidates? This whole Democratic primary process was tilted toward Hillary from the very beginning.
I'm surprised Bernie has done as well as he has, given that, from the very beginning, the Democratic establishment and the supposed liberal news media (NY Times, MSNBC) was clearly for Hillary and tried to ignore or disparage any other candidate. It does make me wonder how Bernie would have fared in a less biased environment, and it does make me angry that the environment was biased.
Bernie needs to continue his campaign all the way to the convention for the sake of his ideas. Those ideas should be the central ones of the Democratic Party, regardless of who's the nominee.
Most of the super delegates expressed their support for Hillary before the beginning of the primary process, before any public campaigning took place. Thus the voting Democratic public knew Hillary was the favorite within the Democratic Party before that voting public had a chance to compare candidates' ideas. This disadvantaged not only Bernie but also O'Malley. Why would any loyal Democrat vote for anyone else other than Hillary, if the Democratic establishment is loudly shouting that Hillary is the best before any voter got to compare the candidates? This whole Democratic primary process was tilted toward Hillary from the very beginning.
I'm surprised Bernie has done as well as he has, given that, from the very beginning, the Democratic establishment and the supposed liberal news media (NY Times, MSNBC) was clearly for Hillary and tried to ignore or disparage any other candidate. It does make me wonder how Bernie would have fared in a less biased environment, and it does make me angry that the environment was biased.
Bernie needs to continue his campaign all the way to the convention for the sake of his ideas. Those ideas should be the central ones of the Democratic Party, regardless of who's the nominee.
25
If he trails by 8% he would have only had to do 4% better to be tied assuming that 4% came from Hillary's votes. I thought Nate was a math guy?
13
Why does Bernie's campaign persist in this nonsense? The answer: his campaign manager will do anything to avoid returning to managing a comic book store.
31
Gerry Brown - California's Governor - endorsed Hillary. Immediately Sanders brushed that off as he is one of the "establishment." Never mind that Gerry Brown holds similar populist views as Sanders. The difference is - he has been around the block - running for office, serving in elected office and know that governing is a pragmatic endeavor. You do compromise, you do give up your purist views. The NYT had an excellent article on Gerry Brown (before his endorsement) and how he has had to change and include a hefty dose of pragmatism to this strategies to deliver the best for his constituents.
44
As someone who donated early on to Sanders, I'm starting to feel the "burn" for ever feeling the "Bern."
Sanders made himself a symbol as an advocate and champion for the common citizen. Unfortunately, as time moves on I'm starting to believe more and more that there are many reasons why he remained largely obscure in spite of so many years in congress.
Bernie, you had my attention for a stretch by speaking passionately, honestly, and with dignity. It was the combination of these three qualities that made you appealing. Leading your followers along on the "unfairness" of the nominating process leaves you with only one of these virtues and it isn't either of the last two...
You never embraced or advanced the Democratic party until you decided it could be a vehicle to the White House. If you want to change the rules, start participating in the party you claim to represent.
Sanders made himself a symbol as an advocate and champion for the common citizen. Unfortunately, as time moves on I'm starting to believe more and more that there are many reasons why he remained largely obscure in spite of so many years in congress.
Bernie, you had my attention for a stretch by speaking passionately, honestly, and with dignity. It was the combination of these three qualities that made you appealing. Leading your followers along on the "unfairness" of the nominating process leaves you with only one of these virtues and it isn't either of the last two...
You never embraced or advanced the Democratic party until you decided it could be a vehicle to the White House. If you want to change the rules, start participating in the party you claim to represent.
56
The vacancy on the Supreme Court is too important an issue not to vote.
Given the presumptive candidates being Hillary vs. Der Fuehrer Drumpf, this will be a "hold your nose and vote" election for me.
I will proudly VOTE AGAINST Der Fuehrer Drumpf (and only incidentally for Hillary) because I am not prepared to see a bloviating megalomaniac become POTUS and try to run the US Government as poorly as he runs his private companies, with 4 bankruptcies so far.
My comment to those who choose not to vote at all is "Don't blame me for the outcome when you gave up your opportunity to shape the outcome."
Given the presumptive candidates being Hillary vs. Der Fuehrer Drumpf, this will be a "hold your nose and vote" election for me.
I will proudly VOTE AGAINST Der Fuehrer Drumpf (and only incidentally for Hillary) because I am not prepared to see a bloviating megalomaniac become POTUS and try to run the US Government as poorly as he runs his private companies, with 4 bankruptcies so far.
My comment to those who choose not to vote at all is "Don't blame me for the outcome when you gave up your opportunity to shape the outcome."
16
Before we even get to June 7, analyses like this are already infuriating. If Clinton is declared the winner after New Jersey, based on superdelegates, of course it will be "...igniting the fury of some Bernie Sanders supporters." The article suggests that this is an unreasonable response. But superdelegates are not official, and reporting that Clinton's tally is enough to win because of those unofficial numbers, and before Californians have a chance to vote, is clearly meant to dampen turnout in the most populous state in the country. Isn't that a good reason to be angry?
How about a simple solution: just give the count without superdelegates. Don't worry whether they help Sanders or Clinton. Just report on the actual counted results of the primary.
This whole primary process has essentially been a sham. The NY Times and other media have reported Clinton as the likely winner from practically the first day of the primaries. Why did we even bother to have the expense of such a process when the whole thing was designed to bring about a pre-determined result right from the start?
How about a simple solution: just give the count without superdelegates. Don't worry whether they help Sanders or Clinton. Just report on the actual counted results of the primary.
This whole primary process has essentially been a sham. The NY Times and other media have reported Clinton as the likely winner from practically the first day of the primaries. Why did we even bother to have the expense of such a process when the whole thing was designed to bring about a pre-determined result right from the start?
19
The national popular vote, You mean the like 10 million people that voted in mostly closed primaries, that are picking a candidate for 362 million people? I don't think national popular vote was the term you wanted there. National popular vote is only what happens in November, although even then it doesn't actually choose the president.
Look, a vast majority of Bernie supporters are actually pretty intelligent people. You can tell me a twisted version of your facts as much as you like, I know the real numbers and the real reasons. Bernie lost because he had no coverage at all until after NH, the media labelled him unelectable, independents like me were disemfranchised by silly party rules, Hillary started with a 400 superdelegate head start, and his platform fell a bit flat among black people (they don't want to hear about class issues, they just want to hear that's it's only about racism, and Hillary is better and pandering that view).
Millenials aren't idiots. You've been cramming advertising down my throat since I was in the womb, and it means I can smell lies and propaganda from a mile away.
Look, a vast majority of Bernie supporters are actually pretty intelligent people. You can tell me a twisted version of your facts as much as you like, I know the real numbers and the real reasons. Bernie lost because he had no coverage at all until after NH, the media labelled him unelectable, independents like me were disemfranchised by silly party rules, Hillary started with a 400 superdelegate head start, and his platform fell a bit flat among black people (they don't want to hear about class issues, they just want to hear that's it's only about racism, and Hillary is better and pandering that view).
Millenials aren't idiots. You've been cramming advertising down my throat since I was in the womb, and it means I can smell lies and propaganda from a mile away.
15
Hillary shills are trying hard to shut the process down, but just as this article appears, others are showing how uncomfortable Dems are with her. They are desperately looking for an out from having to line behind for Nixon in a pantsuit.
The latest trial balloon of Biden and Warren seems feasible. Neither of them have Hillary's negatives or legal problems at least. There are many people like me who want to decide who to vote for - rather than who is the least dishonest.
The latest trial balloon of Biden and Warren seems feasible. Neither of them have Hillary's negatives or legal problems at least. There are many people like me who want to decide who to vote for - rather than who is the least dishonest.
10
Sanders has his supporters so convinced that Hillary is only winning because of super delegates. I almost wish she'd make a speech and offer to agree that they would both ask the super delegates to sit out the primary and have the winner be the winner of the actual votes. But obviously Bernie would feel that's unfair too.
23
Make sure to say closed primaries.
4
We have a process in which the voters get to voice their preferences for those who pose for campaign portraits. The process limits choices to 1 of many out of a divided field, based on declared party affiliation either at registration or by declaration on the ballot. It's the only time before the general election that individual voters have an official say in the slate.
Why the sudden need to interrupt the process by declaring the winner through simple math? We call ourselves a democracy, but you seem over eager, as do your pundit and columnist colleagues at The Times to shut it down. That, to me, betrays a fear of calamity pending should your chosen candidate fail to perform to expectations. Why don't you and the NYT just relax and let the process play out. It will benefit the candidates and assure the people that their voices were heard, not muffled under a steady blanket of "get out now" rhetoric, backed by elegant and indisputable math.
Frankly, the NYT is behaving in this election cycle like an overbearing guest at a house party to which they were not invited. You may think that that description fits Bernie, but Bernie has credentials and something to build on, something that you lot would like to stifle. He has sparked the imagination of a new generation of voters, and the NYT doesn't seem to want that to happen.
Sorry NYT, but you are viewing this election cycle through last season's lens's and have missed the big story.
Why the sudden need to interrupt the process by declaring the winner through simple math? We call ourselves a democracy, but you seem over eager, as do your pundit and columnist colleagues at The Times to shut it down. That, to me, betrays a fear of calamity pending should your chosen candidate fail to perform to expectations. Why don't you and the NYT just relax and let the process play out. It will benefit the candidates and assure the people that their voices were heard, not muffled under a steady blanket of "get out now" rhetoric, backed by elegant and indisputable math.
Frankly, the NYT is behaving in this election cycle like an overbearing guest at a house party to which they were not invited. You may think that that description fits Bernie, but Bernie has credentials and something to build on, something that you lot would like to stifle. He has sparked the imagination of a new generation of voters, and the NYT doesn't seem to want that to happen.
Sorry NYT, but you are viewing this election cycle through last season's lens's and have missed the big story.
13
"Legitimizing the Clinton Campaign"
-Nate Cohn, June 2, 2016
We have two presumptive nominees who are hated by clear majorities of the electorate. The DNC doesn't represent liberalism in this country anymore than the RNC represents conservatives. The two party system needs to go.
-Nate Cohn, June 2, 2016
We have two presumptive nominees who are hated by clear majorities of the electorate. The DNC doesn't represent liberalism in this country anymore than the RNC represents conservatives. The two party system needs to go.
9
The better question is why has Sanders done so well? Clinton has the backing of the entire democratic establishment, Sanders has lived on millions of small donations. Clinton is a centrist system candidate and many people think the system is rigged and giving bad answers to what ails most in the US and the planet. And these people, no matter the drone of "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated" think it important to fight to keep the Sander's counter narrative as germane as possible for as long as possible
11
Thanks for the clear-eyed analysis, which says Clinton will get the nom just because of the math. Be prepared for hysteria from Bernie supporters who believe in fairy tales.
20
I will address the last line regarding voter fraud. In most states where voter fraud was alleged the dynamic of it affected poor and minority voters. In the case of New Mexico (a Republican led state) the district that was hit the worst had early vote totals favoring Secretary Clinton by nearly 30 points. Why would that vote have all of a sudden flipped to Sanders. The case is similar in New York City.
Either you are assuming she knew how to identify Sanders voters and purge them from the rolls of highly favorable Clinton districts. Or she actively campaigned to purge voters from areas she was largely winning. Doesn't the flaw in this line of reasoning stand out like Flavor Flav at a Trump Rally.
Either you are assuming she knew how to identify Sanders voters and purge them from the rolls of highly favorable Clinton districts. Or she actively campaigned to purge voters from areas she was largely winning. Doesn't the flaw in this line of reasoning stand out like Flavor Flav at a Trump Rally.
8
It is time for the Sanders supporters to choose: Hillary or Donald? Berni seems like he has another agenda for after the November election. He may revert back to his Socialist Democratic roots and promote it to become a mainstream party. I say good luck with that! However, if after June 14, D.C. Primary he still refuses to concede, then President Obama, Elizabeth Warren and the rest of the Democratic Party will start endorsing Hillary and thus, making Berni irrelevant. This election is too important to lose, our nation can not afford to have Trump as president.
19
Long since time for Bernie Sander to butt out. There's too much at stake in this election for him to continue campaigning to no other purpose than to stoke his own ego.
15
So happy this will be over. The democratic nomination fight has gone on too long, and is now hurting our ability to crush Trump. Keep your eye on the prize: Supreme Court judges. This will impact the US long past Bernie and Hillary have passed on.
12
The important word is "probably". Unless there is an indictment. You are Probably right. Nice of you to point out the situation. But the fact remains that when everyone conspires to ignore, avoid, distort, and lie, it works. It's politics as usual. That's why I like Bernie. Poor Hillary, she is the "get it done" candidate. Go to her website and read her 7 biggest accomplishments. All but one are empty from this manager's perspective. What is she going to do to win my vote? I'd almost rather see the country go down in flames than vote for her. Maybe if Bernie was VP. But it would still be a hard decision. Congrats, the Hillary religion will win something, just not sure what.
3
The Bernie Bros, like the Hillary Pumas in 2008, will wake up Wednesday morning a little hungover, but thinking more clearly. Their candidate, having campaigned heroically just as Hillary did in 2008, "until every vote is counted," will also rally his troopers to her side, just as she did on Obama's behalf.
Despite his persistent caricature in the press, Bernie is not some kooky old crank running a vanity campaign. He has advanced policy priorities that he's advocated for decades and has brought them to the center of Democratic debate. This is an historic achievement, which he's not likely to squander by tilting at political windmills.
Despite his persistent caricature in the press, Bernie is not some kooky old crank running a vanity campaign. He has advanced policy priorities that he's advocated for decades and has brought them to the center of Democratic debate. This is an historic achievement, which he's not likely to squander by tilting at political windmills.
3
Bravo, Nate - this is one of the most reasoned breakdowns I have seen. It's not rigged, it's just the way the voting is set up. To win, you have to, you know, win.
17
Your first paragraph can be summarized by saying do not bother voting because it's a done deal.
4
And what kind of "fraud" is it when people (read Bill Clinton or Harry Reid) go into states like MA, KY, and Nevada and visit the state house, a city like Louisville or a casino and tell people what to do and lock step, they exit the state house or their union jobs and they vote for Hillary. (Or it's the deep South and the Clintons invade the black churches.) That's why getting rid of the caucuses won't really help. And why voting booths don't really help either. When people don't trust going into a voting booth and voting freely; when they think they have to follow directions or be fired, or just be a follower rather than an independent thinker, then we don't have democracy. That's why or how Hillary will have won, and people all need to search their souls about this. (If Trump wins, it will because the Republican Party failed to reject him at the beginning, they were so afraid of a third party wrecking their chances. We have something good with democracy; the whole world seems to want it, and we're throwing it away. Ourselves. Then if we are independent thinkers and we find we have no one we feel is honest enough to win our votes, we get screamed at by everyone that we still have to vote. All the apples are rotten but, we are told, we still have to choose a rotten one. Don't try to sell me nothing but rotten apples for months and then tell me I've got to buy one of them. A rotten apple is not edible. It's mush.
3
Bernie is as phoney as Donald and took advatage of the fear, hatred and division mongering created by the Republican Party over the past 8 years. He is a professional politician serving Congress for 30 years. And, his accomplishments - almost zero. Only three bills in 30 years showing his super leadership abilities. He often talks about "revolution"- where was he during the Wall Street movement. He takes advantage of the anger and fear as Donald does to manipulate people. Bernie promises the world- free education, health care. Alas, he has no idea where the money will come from. It will add 18 trillion dollar deficit to our budget. Alas, some people are falling for this power hungry clueless politician. Californians and Jerseans- please look at his true color and get him defeated by a landslide.
18
Supporters of Hillary should stop disparaging Bernie. Given more time and better press I believe he would have been the nominee. Now he is doing what she did: Fighting for the last votes. It will all come together after the convention, and she will win the Presidency (please, god!) Bernie is a fighter, and one that I wish had won the fight. Bernie is not a spoiler nor is he a megalomaniac. How could we have two of those in one presidential run? Our country missed a unique opportunity to have a real change.
10
Infuriating. She will not "clinch the nomination" without superdelegates on June 7th, as she would need to win 59% of the pledged delegates to do so, and that's not going to happen. The entire establishment, politicians and pundits included, are willfully ignoring the fact that there will be a contested convention at which the superdelegates will have to decide which candidate best represents the interests of the party and has the best chancing of winning the election, and there's a very strong argument for why that candidate will be Bernie Sanders.
13
The people making fun of Sanders supporters because they can't do math based on this article are the joke themselves. Sanders didn't need to do 8 points better in every state like the appalling math in this article states. He had to do just 4 points better, because by doing 4 points better she would have done 4 points worse, and there's the 8 points.
Now I haven't done the rest of the math to figure out if the 8 point presumption was used as a basis for the rest of the conclusions and analysis, but if it was, the entire article is trash. And if it wasn't, then at least a good explanation must be forthcoming.
Now I haven't done the rest of the math to figure out if the 8 point presumption was used as a basis for the rest of the conclusions and analysis, but if it was, the entire article is trash. And if it wasn't, then at least a good explanation must be forthcoming.
11
As a California Bernie supporter, I have been well aware that his chances for victory for the last few months have been slim to none. Sure, I am disappointed about the outcome. But what I find infuriating is the fact that because I have lived in CA (the world's 8th largest economy, by the way) for the past 25 years, my vote has never actually mattered in the presidential primary, other than to "send a message". What is even worse, is being confronted with this fact by pundits who, this year more than ever, have proven their worthlessness.
The eagerness to declare Clinton's presumptive victory is just the latest method by the media establishment to avoid focusing on Sander's unexpectedly strong performance in the primaries, and to deprive his movement of meaningful coverage that focuses on the many important issues he has raised during the campaign. Thanks for the vacuous horse-race coverage NYT! Can't wait to cast my vote on Tuesday.
The eagerness to declare Clinton's presumptive victory is just the latest method by the media establishment to avoid focusing on Sander's unexpectedly strong performance in the primaries, and to deprive his movement of meaningful coverage that focuses on the many important issues he has raised during the campaign. Thanks for the vacuous horse-race coverage NYT! Can't wait to cast my vote on Tuesday.
22
Well, at least you don't live in Alabama. There's really no point in voting in the general election down here. The Republican candidate will win, usually by about 2-1 margin. And that's without any help from vacuous horse-race prognosticators calling the race before the polls close. So why bother? I haven't voted in a general election since 1984, and that was pointless, too. It's all about the electoral college.
4
According to the DNC rules, no one wins the nomination until Philadelphia. The race is ongoing, and will be even after California. Clintonites want to con everyone into thinking it is a done deal.
The media have been calling HRC the "presumptive nominee" basically since February. There never was a proper contest for the party nomination. One more announcement of the always already presumptive nominee status is not news. This phrase has accompanied almost every mention of HRC in the NY Times for at least a month. (A more significant news story at this point would be some coverage of the huge rallies Sanders continues to assemble in California even as his campaign is supposed to be hopelessly lost, and which have barely been mentioned in papers like the Times.) Whether Clinton is the nominee or not, she still has to win a general election in which she has less entitlement than in the controlled and proprietary process of her own party, and needs to do so by roping in a very substantial mass of voters who have backed Sanders on strongly held philosophical and ideological grounds (as well as those who were unable to participate in the primary process due to lack of party affiliation). She won't do this without making concessions to the left, and armies of HRC supporters scolding Sanders supporters on social media are not doing her any favors. It is not on Sanders supporters to come around to the lesser evil. It is on Clinton to become "less evil," and on her supporters to take seriously the widespread discontent on the Democratic side, as well as the populist skepticism of the party system, that will undoubtedly play a decisive role in this process post-nomination.
13
Bernie should be indicted for loitering on Capitol Hill for 25 years.
He speaks. Nothing gets done.
He speaks. Nothing gets done.
21
I have only one thing to say, if Clinton loses this election the blame will lay solely with the Superdelegates who ignored all the polls and signs that Bernie Sanders by far was the better candidate - as for those in the media or the establishment who continue to suggest that Bernie has not been scrutinized to the degree with which the 40 years of baggage Clinton carry's I simply say this, TRUMP will not be able to talk about Iraq, Libya, Syria, Emails, her husbands extra marital affairs, his impeachment, White Water the list goes on - Bernie Sanders worse day of criticism can't come close to what lay ahead until November with Clinton who is a risk because the FBI has to weigh in yet too and this election is not an election to gamble with there is simply too much as stake.
21
This is the most inane argument Sanders and his supporters have been making. Let's cast aside the will of voters - 13.2 million votes to date - because of general election polls showing Sanders with a larger lead over Trump (but Hillary still beats him). Anyone who knows anything about the electoral map, demographics and history understands that GE polling at this stage is extremely premature. In May 2012, Romney was beating Obama. More importantly, Bernie hasn't been touched by GOP oppo research yet. Hillary has been tested for 25 years. She has successfully built Obama's coalition, which won handily in 2008. Since the primary is continuing, the bulk of Bernie supporters who will align with the nominee are not even being factored in yet. See fivethirtyeight.com or Benchmarkpolitics.com for respected statistical analyis and electoral map preductions. Clinton is in an incredibly strong position and the majority of voters have chosen her so we are not going to throw out those results for early GE polling.
12
I’ve noticed that some people feel the need to vindicate the vote they made: if their candidate was elected, it takes a lot before they may admit dissatisfaction later; if their candidate was not elected, their choice will be proved right because it couldn’t be proved wrong. (Human beings—what’re you going to do?) Therefore, if you can vote for Sanders but know Clinton will still win, then why not vote for him? For the rest of your life, you will have been absolutely right about at least one thing, although most of the people I personally know seem to have been right about everything they ever did in life—just ask them.
4
Happy for Hillary, looking forward to our first female president. One who brings savvy political survival skills, extraordinary field experience, a terrific work ethic and the drive, desire and ability to stay in the game. And win!
31
Clinton did not win a majority of pledged delegates. To say she won through pledged delegates just isn't true - she won more but not enough.
9
Unless I win, the system is rigged.
That is Bernie Sanders' entire argument.
That is Bernie Sanders' entire argument.
35
Exactly! Something seems to be in the air this election cycle. With Bernie, it is either he has won and that is BIG or he was cheated and lost.
1
I am a 52-year-old woman who has always voted Democrat. I volunteered for Obama in Ohio in 2008. But I must say I agree with many of these comments: the fact that Hillary Clinton is under investigation by the FBI makes her an incredibly weak potential nominee. Surely we Democrats can pull our heads out of the sand and do better!
Until recently, whenever I heard about those "dam emails" my eyes would just glaze over. I just assumed it was more right-wing claptrap. But then the non-partisan State Department's Inspector General report came out, and I actually clicked on the pdf and read for myself (thank you NYT for providing it). It is a scathing report. Given the fact that foreign and domestic entities donated tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State, and given potential serious conflicts of interest, all official State business needed to be conducted in a completely transparent, squeaky-clean manner. That just sadly was not the case.
She can't credibly stand up to Trump with this hanging over her.
I am so glad Bernie is still in the race!
Run Bernie run, all the way to Philadelphia!
Until recently, whenever I heard about those "dam emails" my eyes would just glaze over. I just assumed it was more right-wing claptrap. But then the non-partisan State Department's Inspector General report came out, and I actually clicked on the pdf and read for myself (thank you NYT for providing it). It is a scathing report. Given the fact that foreign and domestic entities donated tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State, and given potential serious conflicts of interest, all official State business needed to be conducted in a completely transparent, squeaky-clean manner. That just sadly was not the case.
She can't credibly stand up to Trump with this hanging over her.
I am so glad Bernie is still in the race!
Run Bernie run, all the way to Philadelphia!
22
Ma'am, all I can wish for is that after Sanders passes through Philadelphia, he will, and should, continue on back to Vermont, where he's been hiding out since he went there in the sixties to avoid the Draft. And please read the Comment two Comments before your's and you'll witness what an informed citizen believes when they don't drink the Sanders Kool-aid.
With Sanders entire political career having been shaped while living in Vermont, a state of merely 600,000, I find it impossible to imagine Sanders could ever hit the ground running as President. There's way more to being the President of the mightiest country in the world than holding rallies for crowds of supporters who are mostly in their teens and twenties, that generation of Millennials seeking free college educations and the absolution off their ill-gotten Student Loan Debt.
And he's a predator. Without Sanders constant prodding, in a totally selfish and self-serving fashion mind you, of these Millennials for their oft-mentioned, humble $30 donations, he'd never have gotten as far as he has, which is why he keeps telling his supporters, "We can still win this thing."
With Sanders entire political career having been shaped while living in Vermont, a state of merely 600,000, I find it impossible to imagine Sanders could ever hit the ground running as President. There's way more to being the President of the mightiest country in the world than holding rallies for crowds of supporters who are mostly in their teens and twenties, that generation of Millennials seeking free college educations and the absolution off their ill-gotten Student Loan Debt.
And he's a predator. Without Sanders constant prodding, in a totally selfish and self-serving fashion mind you, of these Millennials for their oft-mentioned, humble $30 donations, he'd never have gotten as far as he has, which is why he keeps telling his supporters, "We can still win this thing."
6
You mean ignore all the people who have voted for her and all the pledged delegates she has won overwhelming Bernie! Guess democracy is being challenged!
1
I so love the angry men bent on power at any cost in this primary race! How did we end up with only two? Can we bring any back?
10
Already voted for Sanders in California, and I support his message and his desire to give Californians the motivation and opportunity to make their positions known. The fact that Sanders has run as a Democrat, as opposed to an independent or Green Party candidate, is a political fact more significant than even the Trump candidacy. It means that the left-of-center portion of the country has grown up and learned the bitter lesson of the Nader candidacy. It has learned that this nation is a two-party system, something that has been with us since 1776 and before. The way forward is to reform the Democratic party, and to move it away from the Clinton triangulation strategy as fast as the actual voting electorate will allow. Now, in order to do that, we all have to support the Democratic presidential nominee, who will probably be Hillary. The "parties" and factions left-of-center, including Bernie and his campaign staff, have a role to play in bringing focus to issues, but hopefully delusions about winning national elections will not take hold and realism about the historic context at hand will prevail. If the Republican Party ever falls apart, and it might do so soon, then an 1860 moment will be at hand where the lines are redrawn. Until then, it's Democrats shading to the left and Republicans way over to the right.
4
It is time for democrats to get behind the candidate who has accumulated the most votes and thus delegates. By 8:00 Eastern on Tuesday night this will be Hillary Clinton. Senator Sanders needs to man up and get behind the presumptive nominee at that point. If he doesn't he could be enabling a Trump Presidency. Is that really what he spent all this time and energy for?
25
Someone asked earlier what the Dem race would look like if the Democrats followed the Republican format with winner take all states. I figured pledged (+Super) delegates would stand at:
Hilary = 1997 (2540)
Bernie = 1272 (1316)
Hilary = 1997 (2540)
Bernie = 1272 (1316)
18
First I was told that Sanders really isn't a Democrat and didn't belong in the first place. Next I was told I was foolish for supporting Sanders, who is nothing more than a bully, unrealistic, and irrational.
Now I'm told how I should vote for Hillary (a candidate that just last week again demonstrated how she's failed to earn peoples' trust and confidence via the the OIG's report) because Trump.
What a lot of HRC's faithful don't realize is that Sanders supporters are not going to flock to her, and not just "Bernie Bros" but a large majority. The work that has been done beind the scenes not only for Sanders but also to change the political process has been moving into other areas. This election cycle has taught us that it's not the lesser of two evils but the same evil, time and time again. We're tired of things never changing, or told how we need to put up with the incremental changes that never materialize. Had any of you spent time behind the scenes actually working with some of the groups that supported Sanders, you'd know this. You'd also have realized a long time ago there was more at stake than just "my candidate over yours."
It's that same level of frustration that pushes so many across the entire political spectrum to consider Trump; the sooner people choose the nuclear option to blow up the political mendacity, the sooner we can achieve the real change that is long overdue.
Now I'm told how I should vote for Hillary (a candidate that just last week again demonstrated how she's failed to earn peoples' trust and confidence via the the OIG's report) because Trump.
What a lot of HRC's faithful don't realize is that Sanders supporters are not going to flock to her, and not just "Bernie Bros" but a large majority. The work that has been done beind the scenes not only for Sanders but also to change the political process has been moving into other areas. This election cycle has taught us that it's not the lesser of two evils but the same evil, time and time again. We're tired of things never changing, or told how we need to put up with the incremental changes that never materialize. Had any of you spent time behind the scenes actually working with some of the groups that supported Sanders, you'd know this. You'd also have realized a long time ago there was more at stake than just "my candidate over yours."
It's that same level of frustration that pushes so many across the entire political spectrum to consider Trump; the sooner people choose the nuclear option to blow up the political mendacity, the sooner we can achieve the real change that is long overdue.
14
I'm so tired of this conversation. this country, from the DNA of the constitution, is simply not amenable to revolutions- we haven't had one since its birth. the three branches of government, the checks and balances, virtually guarantee incremental change. revolution by Bernie or Donald ain't gonna happen.
if you are think "the sooner people choose the nuclear option to blow up the political mendacity, the sooner we can achieve the real change that is long overdue", what you will be doing with a Trump presidency is ensuring a very, very long period of suffering when it comes to doing something about climate change, civil rights and supreme court.
I am part of a small population of people who will be fine, we have resources and means to escape this. but many, many people don't and- except for Trump voters and those who sit out the election because of so called "principles"- they don't deserve what will happen.
if you are think "the sooner people choose the nuclear option to blow up the political mendacity, the sooner we can achieve the real change that is long overdue", what you will be doing with a Trump presidency is ensuring a very, very long period of suffering when it comes to doing something about climate change, civil rights and supreme court.
I am part of a small population of people who will be fine, we have resources and means to escape this. but many, many people don't and- except for Trump voters and those who sit out the election because of so called "principles"- they don't deserve what will happen.
16
Revolutions can have unpredictable. Blowing things up often has terrible consequences. For proof, you can look to today's Middle East or if you prefer to be more Euro-centric you can think about the revolutions of France and Russia. Be careful what you wish for.
1
"Mrs. Clinton has won at least 33 percent of the vote in every primary except Mr. Sanders’s home state, Vermont."
I don't know remember the percentage that Clinton won in every state, but without looking anything up I can recall three states in addition to Vermont that Sanders won by 70% or more. I live in Hawaii. Sanders won here by over 70%. He also won about the same amount in my parent's state, Washington, and more than 80% of the vote in Alaska. The fact that the New York Times omitted these seems suspicious in the same sense that the media has repeatedly claimed that Sanders has not succeeded in states with large non-white populations (sometimes even citing Hawaii as an example of a white majority state that Sanders won) when in fact 75% of Hawaii's population isn't white. None of these blatant distortions of reality go towards promoting trust in the media.
I don't know remember the percentage that Clinton won in every state, but without looking anything up I can recall three states in addition to Vermont that Sanders won by 70% or more. I live in Hawaii. Sanders won here by over 70%. He also won about the same amount in my parent's state, Washington, and more than 80% of the vote in Alaska. The fact that the New York Times omitted these seems suspicious in the same sense that the media has repeatedly claimed that Sanders has not succeeded in states with large non-white populations (sometimes even citing Hawaii as an example of a white majority state that Sanders won) when in fact 75% of Hawaii's population isn't white. None of these blatant distortions of reality go towards promoting trust in the media.
20
I believe the author is making a distinction between the percentage of support the candidates receive in primaries, compared with party caucuses. Both Washington and Hawaii are caucus states, and herein may lie the apparent discrepancy. One difficulty I see in the current state of our political debate is that we rarely assume goodwill on the part of those who hold a different view. It's not the case that Mr. Cohn was misrepresenting the facts; he merely stated a fact that seems at odds with what you hold to be true. If we can assume goodwill (a challenge, I admit), I think we can have more productive discussions about the areas where we disagree.
8
Primaries... His big wins all came from Caucuses.
1
Look at the quote you cite. It says "primary." The votes in Hawaii, Washington and Alaska were all caucuses. Clinton actually won the Washington primary. So you're the guilty one, not the NYT.
1
Yes, Hillary Clinton has the math on her side--she leads by 54%. But the American people still have the right to vote for the candidate they believe will be the better nominee. With Mrs. Clinton's history of criminal activity, flip-flopping on views and pandering to corporate interests, a candidate like Bernie Sanders is the more attractive choice.
15
After watching Mitch McConnell firmly state how the age for Social Security must be raised, taxes must be lowered and regulations must be stripped away from business on Charlie Rose last night, young people had better think long and hard about showing up this November. If they don't, they'll probably all be relegated to a life of sixty hour workweeks and die at their workstations. Welcome to 21st century America, republican style.
23
Your story is incomplete. Agreed speculation is called for but you say nothing about what Sanders will do after he loses.
That is the critical point, ie, what does Clinton need to do to get Bernie's whole hearted support..ie..
1-How many planks does he want?
2-What statements does he want her to say?
3-Does he want the VP and would it make sense?
These are the critical questions to be speculated on because without Bernie's whole hearted support Hillary could be in trouble.
That is the critical point, ie, what does Clinton need to do to get Bernie's whole hearted support..ie..
1-How many planks does he want?
2-What statements does he want her to say?
3-Does he want the VP and would it make sense?
These are the critical questions to be speculated on because without Bernie's whole hearted support Hillary could be in trouble.
3
Closed primaries, pre-pledged superdelegates, the biased mass media, a rigged debate schedule, and leftover black loyalty for Bill in the South is what kept Clinton in this race...
With decades of opportunities, what has Clinton really ever accomplished except invading the wrong country based on Bush and Cheney lies, making a mess of Libya then leaving it for John Kerry to clean up, firing up a personal email server to conduct top secret business, support job destroying trade agreements, and lie about ducking bullets in Kosovo?
I'll giver her credit, she did make a fortune for herself taking bribes from Wall Street crooks disguised as top secret "speeches"... If Hillary does manage to win the nomination, she will be the worst Democratic nominee in my lifetime...
With decades of opportunities, what has Clinton really ever accomplished except invading the wrong country based on Bush and Cheney lies, making a mess of Libya then leaving it for John Kerry to clean up, firing up a personal email server to conduct top secret business, support job destroying trade agreements, and lie about ducking bullets in Kosovo?
I'll giver her credit, she did make a fortune for herself taking bribes from Wall Street crooks disguised as top secret "speeches"... If Hillary does manage to win the nomination, she will be the worst Democratic nominee in my lifetime...
14
I think you need to look more closely at her entire record instead of listening to others who oppose her. Try reading about her life.
As an attorney, I concur with Andrew P. Napolitano's opinion rendered today that “Clinton diverted all of her email traffic to her private server — some 66,000 emails, about 2,200 of which contained state secrets.
“She now awaits an interrogation by impatient FBI agents, which will take place soon after the New Jersey and California primaries next week. Her legal status can only be described as grave or worse than the grave.”
This crisis for Hillary may come before the Democratic Convention and may drastically affect the nomination outcome there.
“She now awaits an interrogation by impatient FBI agents, which will take place soon after the New Jersey and California primaries next week. Her legal status can only be described as grave or worse than the grave.”
This crisis for Hillary may come before the Democratic Convention and may drastically affect the nomination outcome there.
11
At some point, people have got to return to the planet earth. Hillary Clinton's legal situation is not grave, nor is she remotely likely to be indicted for having a private email server that everyone in the State Department knew about. It would be nearly impossible to prove the intent element of any crime she could conceivably be charged with, and equally difficult to prove the other elements of any other crime she could conceivably be charged with. This notion that she is going to be indicted is another symptom of some kind of increasingly delusional approach to the election and what is happening in it.
Here's a dose of reality. Donald Trump is a pathological liar, a racist, a misogynist, and a disgusting con man. It is a disgrace that leaders in the Republican Party that I thought at least cared about their country so nakedly put party before our nation in lining behind this embarrassment to the United States. Hillary Clinton, with her paranoid ways and unattractive characteristics, cannot rationally be compared to the apparently unbalanced Trump, who threatens to torture at will, kill the families of terrorists, default on Treasury bonds, sue papers he doesn't like, etc. etc., etc. Hillary Clinton is a politician, with all the unpleasant characteristics thereof. She is NOT an insecure kook who's knowledge of policy might (or might not) extend only to knowing that there are three branches of government. In any event, she's not going to be indicted.
Here's a dose of reality. Donald Trump is a pathological liar, a racist, a misogynist, and a disgusting con man. It is a disgrace that leaders in the Republican Party that I thought at least cared about their country so nakedly put party before our nation in lining behind this embarrassment to the United States. Hillary Clinton, with her paranoid ways and unattractive characteristics, cannot rationally be compared to the apparently unbalanced Trump, who threatens to torture at will, kill the families of terrorists, default on Treasury bonds, sue papers he doesn't like, etc. etc., etc. Hillary Clinton is a politician, with all the unpleasant characteristics thereof. She is NOT an insecure kook who's knowledge of policy might (or might not) extend only to knowing that there are three branches of government. In any event, she's not going to be indicted.
15
Andrew Napolitano is the chief judicial analyst for Fox News.
Listen up: 56-42.
If you're leading a "Revolution" and can't get more than half of the votes, it's likely that either (i) there won't be a "Revolution" or (ii) if it comes, you won't be leading it.
The popular vote at 56% -42% is not close. I can appreciate that in the Sanders camp, the "what next?" Issue can be to drive it as far as possible for purposes of negotiating a platform or policies. But only works if you've got some leverage left. After Tuesday, there will be no leverage (save, I suppose, for a truly outlier event, the probability of which is like me getting into the batters box and hitting a home run off a major league pitcher when I don't play baseball.)
Bernie is a shouting idealist, not a leader. His refusal to concede around the obvious (he'll lose) and the essential (beating a fascist) is good enough reason to leave him behind.
If you're leading a "Revolution" and can't get more than half of the votes, it's likely that either (i) there won't be a "Revolution" or (ii) if it comes, you won't be leading it.
The popular vote at 56% -42% is not close. I can appreciate that in the Sanders camp, the "what next?" Issue can be to drive it as far as possible for purposes of negotiating a platform or policies. But only works if you've got some leverage left. After Tuesday, there will be no leverage (save, I suppose, for a truly outlier event, the probability of which is like me getting into the batters box and hitting a home run off a major league pitcher when I don't play baseball.)
Bernie is a shouting idealist, not a leader. His refusal to concede around the obvious (he'll lose) and the essential (beating a fascist) is good enough reason to leave him behind.
27
But Bernie is so admired for being an 'outsider' by his fans. They seems to ignore that this man who spent his political life as an Independent, running against Democrats and even calling for the sitting Democratic president, Obama to be primaried in the 2012 election.
He then, instead of having the guts of forming his own party, e.g. a Social Democratic party, became a carpetbagger hooking his wagon to the Democrats.
As of now he is not even a registered democrat. And he dares to attack the party he chose to run for, while being nothing more than a pied piper of Hameln promising his adoring crowds the stars and the moon, similar to the one on the arch-right.
He then, instead of having the guts of forming his own party, e.g. a Social Democratic party, became a carpetbagger hooking his wagon to the Democrats.
As of now he is not even a registered democrat. And he dares to attack the party he chose to run for, while being nothing more than a pied piper of Hameln promising his adoring crowds the stars and the moon, similar to the one on the arch-right.
33
Just imagine, if Bernie were to follow Hillary’s example in 2008 by swallowing hard, suspending his campaign, and endorsing Hillary by the end of the week, he could win a news cycle for the Democrats with spectacular Trump-size success.
11
Explain the huge swings in exit polls vs. computer based voting booth results? Nope. Okay, how about addressing it? Nope. NYT is going to do what they always do when faced with facts that don't fit the narrative they're pushing: ignore it. That's okay, plenty of places to read about how the huge discrepancy in the results is mathematically impossible without fraud. This is the story of this election. But just like allowing Trump to bluster on for months without being challenged, sitting on relevant facts and pretending they're not happening is not journalism. It's bowing to power, out of fear or something worse. Yet then media Barron's wonder why the can't seem to capture the minds of the ever elusive millennialist. Because they see what your doing from a mile away. Once the trust is gone, what do you have to sell? FYI: both sides have asked that the super delegates not be counted until after they actually vote.
4
There is a difference between describing yourself as a 30 yr.victim of your chosen profession or as a survivor. Everyone has worked with and been in meetings with the eternal victim, they light up the room with their anger and what they don't like offering very little to bridge the gap to reality. They savor the "I told you so moments" believing that's their big contribution to results. Bernie describes his whole life as a victim of the very system he participated in for 30 yrs. and now someone has to pay. Bernie is in his last run, swinging for the fences looking to victimize the survivors.
13
Sure, Hillary did it all on her own, without her name or her gender, she'd be another Martin o'malley or Jim Webb(lol remember them?), but sure former Secretary of State Martin webb would be in exactly the same place right now, keep telling yourselves you live in a democracy liberals, definitely not a game played by elites where name recognition and identity are traded for power, nope don't live there
1
Hillary won, fair and square. All the facts say this, and only this. Meanwhile, Senator Sanders has chosen to have his 'issues-based' campaign harp on the purported injustice of the Democratic Primaries instead of a litany of other real institutional problems in this country. I hope that he is able to find some dignity in this race but based on his rhetoric and finger-wagging I can't help but wonder if he has the temperament to find any kind of victory in what should be an honorable defeat.
22
When the Bernie clan entered the race they knew the rules - he is losing and should stop mocking the Clintons and asking for a change in the rules half way through the race. This is childish and may be reflects the childishness of his followers as he is panders to them and as a senator from a small state he is just a speck on the senate floor. Get out Bernie
16
The second paragraph of this article is astounding in it's arrogance. "Hillary Clinton will be declared the presumptive nominee for president by the news media, probably on Tuesday...It will happen even if she loses every remaining contest". I was not aware that it is the news media that "declares" who will become the nominee for president.
16
The article didn't state that they would declare her the nominee, but the presumptive nominee. If she is ahead in both pledged delegates, and the support at the time of super delegates, than it is basic logic to presume that she will be the nominee and thus label her the 'presumptive nominee'. That doesn't mean that she will be the nominee, but it does mean that votes would have to shift to have a different result.
5
Oy vey already! They're just reporting the numbers! They are stating FACTS.
1
Declare, announce, report? Regardless of the verb, it's going to happen.
1
Okay Bernie now will you become a team player and help the Hilary?
15
Hillary's wining the nomination locks in Corporate Friendly candidates from both parties. Wall Street's millions of dollars invested in Hillary Clinton will grease Hillary and Bill Clinton's return to the White House as agents of Wall Street.
Spoiler Alert: Bernie's supporters don't like Hillary and worse reject her on the basis of her selling out to Wall Street and simply not trusting her. The only revolution left to Progressives is the "Sampson Solution" of bringing down Wall Street's political temple by voting for Donald Trump and destroy both parties in 2-4 years.
Spoiler Alert: Bernie's supporters don't like Hillary and worse reject her on the basis of her selling out to Wall Street and simply not trusting her. The only revolution left to Progressives is the "Sampson Solution" of bringing down Wall Street's political temple by voting for Donald Trump and destroy both parties in 2-4 years.
9
Mr. Cohn, I agree that Clinton is not winning (only) because of superdelegates and that Sanders got an assist from the caucus states. An analysis of why Sanders appears on the verge of losing the Democratic nomination should include, in my opinion, the contribution played by the NYT and much of the mass media. The biased, distorted and unbalanced reporting has been stunning, unexpected (from "my" newspaper) and disheartening. Further, it seems to me the media has already begun to demonize Sanders and, through that, to delegitimize his and others' highlighting of the urgent need to address obscene levels of inequality if we are to maintain a viable "social contract" in the U.S.
15
I'll say it again. Bernie isn't a Democrat - he never has been. He, and many of his followers, are not democrats, or anything else for that matter. They're upset, and in my opinion, acting a little immature in the process. They care more about their failed, ultimately quixotic campaign than they do about the actual direction this country will take following this election. Those that can see beyond the end of their own nose will hold it and vote for Hillary. I myself support Hillary whole-heartedly. Those that care not for the country, but only the "Burn", will waste a vote, or worse yet, not vote at all.
Hillary has won the nomination process, fair and square. Let's move on together, for the betterment of the whole country.
Hillary has won the nomination process, fair and square. Let's move on together, for the betterment of the whole country.
24
Paranoia is a hard emotion to shake. Bernie Sanders is in its grip. If it's not one conspiracy theory, it's another. The latest is a rigged election.
Bernie has whipped his followers into a frenzy of anger and hate towards Hillary. Only if he recants, will the spell be broken and will they feel free to support her.
It may come, but I fear, too little and late to undo the damage he's done.
Bernie has whipped his followers into a frenzy of anger and hate towards Hillary. Only if he recants, will the spell be broken and will they feel free to support her.
It may come, but I fear, too little and late to undo the damage he's done.
35
Sen. Sanders seems like a smart man. Doesn't he realize that every day he spends fighting Sec. Clinton is a big gift to the Donald??? Sanders has brought so many important issues into the campaign, but now is sounding more like an ego-driven cult leader, working his supporters up into an anti-Hillary frenzy that Trump is delighted with I'm sure.
35
cheer up millennials. just like in little league, bernie will get an award too. "For Meritorious Participation in the Political Process" it will read.
16
That last line about fraud wasn't funny at all. It may be far too prophetic, in fact.
If Trump loses in November, do you think he and his angry mob will concede gracefully?
At a bare minimum, Trump will put up a court fight that will make Bush-Gore look like a friendly classroom debate. He will spend the rest of his life claiming that the outcome was fraud. And I wouldn't put it past his mob to turn violent.
The U.S. has held itself together through many difficult times by respecting the process and taking defeats graciously. That's how we have limited ourselves to just one civil war and, so far, no outright coup d'etat.
If Trump loses in November, do you think he and his angry mob will concede gracefully?
At a bare minimum, Trump will put up a court fight that will make Bush-Gore look like a friendly classroom debate. He will spend the rest of his life claiming that the outcome was fraud. And I wouldn't put it past his mob to turn violent.
The U.S. has held itself together through many difficult times by respecting the process and taking defeats graciously. That's how we have limited ourselves to just one civil war and, so far, no outright coup d'etat.
8
I'm for Hillary, though I would have worked for Bernie had he finished first. I find this article's analysis useful.
However, if Bernie "trails in pledge delegates by about eight percentage points [46% to 54%], wouldn't he have had to "improve by about [FOUR] points in every state to be tied today"? Since if he improved by four to 50%, that would have cut Secretary Clinton's percentage by four as well?
Secretary Clinton will be a deserving winner. As you demonstrate, if every state had held an open primary, she would have done even better. Bernie benefited because he has been the Ben and Jerry's flavor of the month; Hillary benefited because she is a known Democratic commodity, having worn the party label and worked for the party for decades.
I saw what happened in 1968, 1980, and 2000 when righteous idealists ignored the accomplishments of Hubert Humphrey, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore, helping to elect instead Nixon, Reagan, and Dubya. Let's not do that again.
Those wrong choices did not somehow cleanse the system. They worsened and prolonged Vietnam, launched the Southern strategy, blew up the debt with voodoo economics, began the Great Inequality, got us into stupid wars, failed to forsee and forestall the Great Bush Recession.
However, if Bernie "trails in pledge delegates by about eight percentage points [46% to 54%], wouldn't he have had to "improve by about [FOUR] points in every state to be tied today"? Since if he improved by four to 50%, that would have cut Secretary Clinton's percentage by four as well?
Secretary Clinton will be a deserving winner. As you demonstrate, if every state had held an open primary, she would have done even better. Bernie benefited because he has been the Ben and Jerry's flavor of the month; Hillary benefited because she is a known Democratic commodity, having worn the party label and worked for the party for decades.
I saw what happened in 1968, 1980, and 2000 when righteous idealists ignored the accomplishments of Hubert Humphrey, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore, helping to elect instead Nixon, Reagan, and Dubya. Let's not do that again.
Those wrong choices did not somehow cleanse the system. They worsened and prolonged Vietnam, launched the Southern strategy, blew up the debt with voodoo economics, began the Great Inequality, got us into stupid wars, failed to forsee and forestall the Great Bush Recession.
31
Not to get all math like, but your 4% comment would be correct if all states were equal in population and we were exactly halfway through. I didn't run the numbers myself, but it is reasonable to think that since we are near the end of the process it would take a larger victory margin by Bernie to make up for the fewer remaining delegates.
4
NOVEMBER 2016
In the place marked “write in” on my mail in ballot
if necessary, I will proceed with 13 letters
BERNIE SANDERS
I will be voting for a man, a President, not a party
The remainder of my ballot will be marked for
All progressives who ultimately decide the seats on the
SCOTUS, pass bills and make laws
Many will point to the theory of “Anti-War Nader” that gave us Bush
Although it was the supporters Of War
With their Votes (The Votes That Really Counted)
that invaded Iraq
“Shock And Awe” causing thousands of deaths
and destabilizing the world. That title should have been enough to
decide to cast a vote of no.
Well, suppose enough people voted for Nader
I Rest My Case
In the place marked “write in” on my mail in ballot
if necessary, I will proceed with 13 letters
BERNIE SANDERS
I will be voting for a man, a President, not a party
The remainder of my ballot will be marked for
All progressives who ultimately decide the seats on the
SCOTUS, pass bills and make laws
Many will point to the theory of “Anti-War Nader” that gave us Bush
Although it was the supporters Of War
With their Votes (The Votes That Really Counted)
that invaded Iraq
“Shock And Awe” causing thousands of deaths
and destabilizing the world. That title should have been enough to
decide to cast a vote of no.
Well, suppose enough people voted for Nader
I Rest My Case
And still HRC still is the least liked of any Democratic "presumptive" nominee. That's what drives Sanders followers, she is unpalatable.
17
Luckily for all concerned, this is an election, not a dinner party.
1
@leonard
No offense, but what "drives" Sanders' supporters is something very base and mean-spirited -- And it really doesn't have to be that way.
Another thing. For someone being "the least liked...", Clinton is still ahead in votes...and Delegates.
No offense, but what "drives" Sanders' supporters is something very base and mean-spirited -- And it really doesn't have to be that way.
Another thing. For someone being "the least liked...", Clinton is still ahead in votes...and Delegates.
1
The media has no place calling Hillary Clinton the presumptive nominee until after the DNC Convention is concluded.
11
No, once it is concluded she will either be the actual nominee or not. Presumptive only applies to before the convention. Read the dictionary.
20
After the convention, she won't be the presumptive nominee, she'll be the actual nominee.
3
Um, that's why the word "presumptive". After the DNC convention she will be just "the nominee".
3
With every condescending comment from Clinton supporters that Saunders is an angry dreamer, that his supporters can't add and won't accept the truth, more Sanders supporters will vote for Trump. Why should we vote for a campaign whose candidate, as well as her supporters, treat us with disdain? I assume from Clinton's supporters' comments that they have no need for Sanders supporters votes this fall. I will be voting a straight Democratic ticket, except for President.
14
I do not think that many Bernie supporters will lower themselves to vote for Trump.
2
Why do you perceive Sanders supporters are being treated with disdain? And why is presenting the facts about delegate numbers "condescending"? As far as voting for Trump if Sanders does not get the nomination there are only two words that might bring you to your senses, "Supreme Court".
2
Are you seriously planning to vote for Trump just because you can't vote for Sanders? Do you really think risking the election of that charismatic numbskull will further Sanders' cause? Yeesh.
2
I used to like Bernie, and thought he should stay in until the convention, the same way Hillary did.
But he's now a destructive force that needs to leave.
But he's now a destructive force that needs to leave.
47
Hillary and her lies and server Gate are the true destructive force. Her shenaningans with the Clinton Foundation (read Clintob Cash) when she was at State are a destructive force. That needs to leave. Bernie is the most honest man in the race!
1
Many of us Liberals & Democrats become infuriated when Republicans turn their backs on Math & science when it comes to issues like climate change & womens' rights but yet we have a great chunk of Bernie supporters who are doing the same. Do they see the irony?
33
Thank you Mr. Cohn for your excellent statistical analyses. I often tell my students that numbers speak. If carefully analyzed any bias can be minimized, measured and reflected in decision-making. I wonder if one were to parse the key words from Mr. Sanders rallies, debates, etc., what sentiments would he reveal most frequently? The NYT reported applied a textual analysis to Mr. Trump's speeches, finding fear to be the most frequent sentiment. For Mr. Sanders, though anecdotal, I would suggest anger. He is angry at a system; he is not losing the nominating process; it is a rigged system. He is angry at the largest financial institutions; but not his failure to
articulate how US capital markets could operate in a global economy without such institutions. He is angry at the media, yet he seeks every opportunity to obtain media coverage including his efforts to solicit a meeting with Pope Francis and yes, even a debate with Mr. Trump. He is angry about big donor and super pac campaign financing; yet he continues to solicit contributions to a failing campaign from small donors, who perhaps can ill afford such contributions. I wonder if Mr. Sanders can put aside his anger and allow democrats and independents to unite for the benefit of this great country.
articulate how US capital markets could operate in a global economy without such institutions. He is angry at the media, yet he seeks every opportunity to obtain media coverage including his efforts to solicit a meeting with Pope Francis and yes, even a debate with Mr. Trump. He is angry about big donor and super pac campaign financing; yet he continues to solicit contributions to a failing campaign from small donors, who perhaps can ill afford such contributions. I wonder if Mr. Sanders can put aside his anger and allow democrats and independents to unite for the benefit of this great country.
33
Yes, numbers do speak which is why he conveniently left out the actual pledged delegate count. She still needs 614 pledged delegates to clinch it and she won't have then on June 7th or June 14th. She on't have them until the convention and only then if she can keep her email from blowing up in her face. If the media calls it for her without her being extremely close in pledged delegates, not super delegates, then the media should pack their bags and call it a day because they will have lost all objectivity and integrity.
15
@renee
THANK YOU for one of the most insightful and rational comments I have read in a long time.
THANK YOU for one of the most insightful and rational comments I have read in a long time.
If you can't finish the Democratic Primary and beat Trump in the general election you have no business running for president. If everyone is so worried about Hillary being able to beat Trump, maybe they should pick a more electable candidate. The fact that she is viewed as less honest than trump is worrisome to me as she will not be able to attack his lack of honesty.
21
Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump. What a sad state of affairs in American politics.
26
@sweet
No. "Sad" is if Donald Trump wins the Presidential election.
American politics will never survive a Republican President, Congress, and Supreme Court.
No. "Sad" is if Donald Trump wins the Presidential election.
American politics will never survive a Republican President, Congress, and Supreme Court.
My vision: Hillary will be the presumptive nominee into the convention where a floor fight will insue over her e-mail violations at the State Department. Enough super delegates to swing the nomination to Bernie will abandon Hillary for Sanders.
Nominee Sanders and Vice President nominee Elizabeth Warren will prevail over Trump along with a democratic majority in the Senate to have a fairly successful first term.
After Bernie retires at the end of his first term, President Warren will prevail and lead the nation in a burst of progressive legislation with demo leads in both houses.
Nominee Sanders and Vice President nominee Elizabeth Warren will prevail over Trump along with a democratic majority in the Senate to have a fairly successful first term.
After Bernie retires at the end of his first term, President Warren will prevail and lead the nation in a burst of progressive legislation with demo leads in both houses.
25
Dream on. The email issue is so trumped up; I'd say yes, Hilary is guilty of a need for privacy, which influenced a poor choice re her server, for which she has apologized. She violated policy, but not the law; (same re previous Secretary of States: Colin Powell and some Condoleezza Rice employees...)
I believe Elizabeth Warren is best placed in the Senate where she can continue to implement progressive reform, work effectively for the Democratic Party and for the incumbent president; (Hillary please)! And - be free to tweet the likes of Donald Trump - which she seems to relish! Love her! But not as President. Hillary's the best qualified. By far!
I believe Elizabeth Warren is best placed in the Senate where she can continue to implement progressive reform, work effectively for the Democratic Party and for the incumbent president; (Hillary please)! And - be free to tweet the likes of Donald Trump - which she seems to relish! Love her! But not as President. Hillary's the best qualified. By far!
24
In our dreams, Michael Kittle. Luckily, I think an HRC Presidency will be pretty good too with Senator Warren waiting in the wings in any case.
1
The sad part about this article, and many of the angry anti-Bernie comments that accompany it, is the clear vision of people who are enraged about a single politician who speaks the desires of most Americans: help tax paying citizens, provide justice and health care, stop selling weapons instead of arbitrating disputes, and end the corruption of money in our political system. The enemy of democracy isn't nutty Trump-like thugs. It is middle-of-the-roaders crunching numbers and advocating the least-awful alternative.
20
Love the message just don't trust the messenger. Bernie Sanders is not honorable. He is bitter, dishonest and destructive. He has guided his cult to ensure they mistrust Hillary even while he continues to milk their hard earned contributions by lying to them that he has a path. We all want a better country, income equality and so forth but alas Bernie Sanders is just as opportunistic as Donald Trump. He's channelled the naïveté as well as disenchantement of the masses into his own vehicle for his ego and for settling a personal vendetta. So nobody hates the messge just not buying the Bern.
14
The middle of the roaders crunching numbers have done more to help us than Nader and Bernie rolled together.
2
The question that most concerns me, and I would assume most Democrats, and anti-racists, is how best can we ensure that Trump is defeated. If polling this summer shows that Hillary is not our best bet against Trump the Convention needs to find a better candidate. I would think Biden would be a sure bet against Trump. If Hillary is polling behind Trump she should withdraw. The election is about the future of the country, and our poor planet, not about individuals.
13
Please remember that polling does not matter in our elections. We do not have a national election, winner take all. We vote for Electoral College reps from each state. Look
Carefully at those stats. Hillary wins by a mile taking a Democratic Senate with her.
Carefully at those stats. Hillary wins by a mile taking a Democratic Senate with her.
7
Being a Democrat and a anti-racist, I agree with you.
But I think it's fair to say that we can rule out Joe Biden, as up until now he hasn't openly expressed any interest in being V.P.....again.
Also. Best not to put too much faith in polls (and I say this as someone who has worked them for a major news outlet) -- they are notoriously inefficient.
But I think it's fair to say that we can rule out Joe Biden, as up until now he hasn't openly expressed any interest in being V.P.....again.
Also. Best not to put too much faith in polls (and I say this as someone who has worked them for a major news outlet) -- they are notoriously inefficient.
Nominees are chosen by delegates elected by voters. Choosing a nominee based on polls is a fool's errand.
4
Sanders is a shill who happens to have a populist message. He is a lousy money manager who has outspent Hillary 2 -1 and she still is leading in LEGALLY won pledged delegates and popular vote. He is a flame thrower who is standing by to watch the conflagration he started but won't get blamed for the chaos he is pushing at the Convention. He is trying to ensure people continue to send him money. I suspect one of things he will be bargaining for with Hillary (as she had to do) is to help him pay off the debt with which he will be left.
His attempted ploy to debate Trump was the lowest of the low. This man is not the innocent haloed angel that people think.
I keep saying it and hope I am wrong, but this man is as dangerous in his zeal as they come. I hope the Convention planners and Philadelphia are putting security measures in place. Forget Cleveland and the Republicans.
Clinton voters and supporters have been marginalized by the press. We are seldom interviewed and are simply lumped in as a statistic.
We need change, but I know of two ways to move a mountain 1 - blow the mountain to heck up
2 - move it boulder by boulder
Sanders and his supporters want No. 1. I hope they realize that the debris from an explosion travels far and wide and they may be in the path.
Again I hope I am wrong but listening to him again over the last couple of days leave me doubtful.
His attempted ploy to debate Trump was the lowest of the low. This man is not the innocent haloed angel that people think.
I keep saying it and hope I am wrong, but this man is as dangerous in his zeal as they come. I hope the Convention planners and Philadelphia are putting security measures in place. Forget Cleveland and the Republicans.
Clinton voters and supporters have been marginalized by the press. We are seldom interviewed and are simply lumped in as a statistic.
We need change, but I know of two ways to move a mountain 1 - blow the mountain to heck up
2 - move it boulder by boulder
Sanders and his supporters want No. 1. I hope they realize that the debris from an explosion travels far and wide and they may be in the path.
Again I hope I am wrong but listening to him again over the last couple of days leave me doubtful.
45
Sanders's socialism is a watered down version. Scrape the rust and paint off this old used car and it looks like nothing more than "tax and tax and spend and spend." Restructure the federal tax system to force corporations and wealthy citizens to pay their fair share? Yes. Significant student debt relief? Yes. But elect a guy who has never been honest enough to tell us what his proposals will cost and where the massive amounts of money will come from? No.
34
Sanders would be a return to the goals and policies of FDR. Hardly a boogeyman to be afraid of.
3
Everyone is ignoring the fact that Hillary's pledged delegate lead is based on her having won most of the delegates in the "red" states - and those states will undoubtedly vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. Bernie's strength and dominance have been in the "blue" states - those states which will vote democratic in the general election. By this logic, Bernie is the stronger candidate. One can argue that a candidate should be selected on the basis of winning the popular vote, but this ignores the reality of our electoral system by which electoral college votes are determined by each state's final tally. Thus, a democratic primary win in a reliably "red" state will provide no benefit to that candidate's electability in the general election, and should not be considered a useful determinant of a primary candidate's ultimate success. Perhaps it would be better to "weight" the primaries' results based upon the prior voting histories in the respective states.
14
Except that Obama won the nomination by winning the red states in the primaries. And he only went on to win two general elections.
If blue states vote democratic every time, what is the strength in winning them? They are already in your column. It's the abilit to win red and purple states that dictates the result
If blue states vote democratic every time, what is the strength in winning them? They are already in your column. It's the abilit to win red and purple states that dictates the result
36
Are you talking about Sanders' strength and dominance in the blue states of New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, etc etc?
In case you're missing my sarcasm, Clinton obliterated him in all those states.
In case you're missing my sarcasm, Clinton obliterated him in all those states.
5
Sure, let's 'weigh' all those red, Southern states. Perhaps they can each count as only 3/5ths of a vote?
Since March 15th Sanders has won the majority of pledged delegates. That by itself is a stunning reflection on Clinton's candidacy.
Sanders may well win enough pledged delegates through Tuesday to have won the majority in states Obama carried in 2008 (he is only 74 behind that right now) or 2012 (only 67 behind that), the majority except for the GOP states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina (only 47 behind that now).
Let's wait and see how the next five days play out before coronating anyone.
Sanders may well win enough pledged delegates through Tuesday to have won the majority in states Obama carried in 2008 (he is only 74 behind that right now) or 2012 (only 67 behind that), the majority except for the GOP states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina (only 47 behind that now).
Let's wait and see how the next five days play out before coronating anyone.
25
All those Clinton wins toward the end of the 2008 Democratic primaries were a stunning reflection on Obama's candidacy too. Clinton had quite a run of wins in the final weeks of the 2008 primaries against Obama. As I recall, she won 9 of the last 12 primaries. She beat Obama in California that year too. In fact, Clinton finished the primaries much closer to Obama in delegate totals and popular votes than Sanders will likely be to Clinton.
We all know what happened next.
We all know what happened next.
3
Actually, it's not a negative reflection on her candidacy at all. In 2008 she won almost all of the bigger states and the democratic strongholds (including many states down-the-stretch like NJ and CA). She has a MUCH bigger pledged delegate lead over Sanders now than Obama ever had over her. She has a close to 300 PLEDGED delegate lead (it has been over 300). Democrats all over help choose the party's nominee, and they should. This race has been over for a long time and it was NOT a coronation. It was a win.
4
Loved the cheerful "since March 15," cherrypick. Plan to use it myself, as in "Donald Trump only won his primary since Dec. 15."
Innumeracy is a hallmark of socialism that thrives on fudging numbers and substituting slogans for facts. By now I am so totally burned by Bernie that I refuse even to discuss the substance of his proposals with my friends some of whom still, regrettably, support him. A single-payer health care? Great idea but not coming from a demagogue who can't even explain what kind of single-payer he wants (there are several different models). Lowering college tuition? I'm all for it, but not when it is proposed by a man who substitutes gratuitous insults and empty rhetoric for actual policy proposals. And don't let me start on his foreign policy, if it even deserves this name. Hillary cannot be nominated soon enough!
50
Yes go away please Bernie! Can't wait to see the back of your evil disgraceful ways!
Sanders' supporters need to 1) learn math and 2) stop trying to have it both ways. To calculate a majority of delegates, you divide the numerator (number of delegates by candidate) by the denominator (number of total delegates). This means a majority of the total delegates is 2383 to clinch the nomination. This number is calculated by dividing all of the delegates supporting the candidate by the total number of delegates. Sanders supporters don't want super delegates counted in the numerator, but they do want them counted in the denominator in order to deny that HRC hasn't "clinched" the nomination. That is trying to have it both ways. If you don't want to count the super delegates, then subtract them from the numerator AND the denominator and you come up with 2026 needed to clinch the nomination. There are only two candidates. One of them will have a majority of the pledged delegates. It will not be Bernie Sanders. The elections were not rigged or stolen. Bernie just didn't get enough votes.
56
That's true. Sanders supporters also have to understand that there are lots of people who disagree with him... Lots of people who prefer Hillary. I think the Sanders campaign has become insular, overlooking not only the right, but also the center of the country.
8
I am a 52-year-old woman who has always voted Democrat. I volunteered for Obama in Ohio in 2008. But I must say I agree with many of these comments: the fact that Hillary Clinton is under investigation by the FBI makes her an incredibly weak potential nominee. Surely we Democrats can pull our heads out of the sand and do better!
Until recently, whenever I heard about those "dam emails" my eyes would just glaze over. I just assumed it was more right-wing claptrap. But then the non-partisan State Department's Inspector General report came out, and I actually clicked on the pdf and read for myself (thank you NYT for providing it). It is a scathing report. Given the fact that foreign and domestic entities donated tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State, and given potential serious conflicts of interest, all official State business needed to be conducted in a completely transparent, squeaky-clean manner. That just sadly was not the case.
She can't credibly stand up to Trump with this hanging over her.
I am so glad Bernie is still in the race!
Run Bernie run, all the way to Philadelphia!
Until recently, whenever I heard about those "dam emails" my eyes would just glaze over. I just assumed it was more right-wing claptrap. But then the non-partisan State Department's Inspector General report came out, and I actually clicked on the pdf and read for myself (thank you NYT for providing it). It is a scathing report. Given the fact that foreign and domestic entities donated tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State, and given potential serious conflicts of interest, all official State business needed to be conducted in a completely transparent, squeaky-clean manner. That just sadly was not the case.
She can't credibly stand up to Trump with this hanging over her.
I am so glad Bernie is still in the race!
Run Bernie run, all the way to Philadelphia!
40
"the fact that Hillary Clinton is under investigation by the FBI makes her an incredibly weak potential nominee."........Yeah right, and there were something like 34 Benghazi hearings. Why? Because the Republicans know she is going to br the Democratic candidate and they can't beat her straight up. Sanders on the other hand is working on his third Senate term; he has nothing to show for it and made such a great impression on his Senate colleagues that only one of them supports his campaign.,
21
Please do your research. Certain donations to the CLinton Foundation especially those from countries does not, did not go to the Clinton Foundation. They go directly to the NGO or organization that implements the strategies/programs for which these NGO's/organizations request funds.
6
Great comment.
What I haven't read anywhere is an acknowledgement by polling media that they both create and describe reality. Lots of people read The Upshot, or FiveThirtyEight, etc. Such sites have been saying that Clinton is all but inevitable from the beginning. To what extent might you have had a role in shaping the reality? Your readers deserve a thoughtful answer to that question.
22
Math is reality.
7
Bernie Sanders has been in the US senate for some time.What pieces of legislation has he helped to our attention. Also being in the established government for so long ,how does he intend on bringing his big ideas into law? With the US congress that is elected now, dream on. Won't happen.
13
I wish the media would do more of these type of stories, explaining rationally what is happening, and countering the whining from the Bernie Bros (egged on by the campaign itself) that he is somehow being cheated or the nomination is being stolen from him.
A lot of his voters seem quite gullible and aren't particularly aware of how the system works, but the candidate and his staff, especially his campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, certainly know better.
A lot of his voters seem quite gullible and aren't particularly aware of how the system works, but the candidate and his staff, especially his campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, certainly know better.
29
The news media won't resist announcing Clinton as "winning" the nomination before polls close in California, but it will be irresponsible journalism, akin to announcing projected winners from exit polls prior to the end of polling. More so, actually, because exit poll predictions are actually based on statistical analysis, not assumptions about how politicians will act behind closed doors.
No one "wins" the nomination until the convention. It is reasonable to announce a winner after all challengers drop out, or if under the rules truly known delegates (ie pledged) bring a candidate over the top. But this campaign will be settled by super-delegates. Even if one believes that it is unlikely for there to be mass defections, there is little for super-delegates who might be considering changing to gain in tipping their hand ahead of the completion of major primaries. The difference of a few percentage points in the most populace state might well make the difference between holding fast and changing sides. Responsible journalists shouldn't be influencing elections.
I feel sure though that the NY Times won't resist crowning their golden child ahead of time.
No one "wins" the nomination until the convention. It is reasonable to announce a winner after all challengers drop out, or if under the rules truly known delegates (ie pledged) bring a candidate over the top. But this campaign will be settled by super-delegates. Even if one believes that it is unlikely for there to be mass defections, there is little for super-delegates who might be considering changing to gain in tipping their hand ahead of the completion of major primaries. The difference of a few percentage points in the most populace state might well make the difference between holding fast and changing sides. Responsible journalists shouldn't be influencing elections.
I feel sure though that the NY Times won't resist crowning their golden child ahead of time.
17
@ Thomas Jackson, Clinton will be considered the presumptive nominee if she finishes the primaries with a majority of the popular vote, pledged delegates, and superdelegates, as she almost certainly will. If Sanders does not concede at that point (as Hillary conceded to Barack in June 2008), I expect many superdelegates will reaffirm publicly their intention to vote for Hillary at the convention in late July.
10
That's why the networks will announce the presumptive nominee next Tuesday. It's not a new or nefarious thing for them to do.
2
All the characterizations of Sanders supporters within the comments are hugely disappointing. As a Sanders supporter, I think I have a good understanding of the math and the process. I'm realistic and I understand that Clinton is far ahead and she will likely win with the help of the superdelegates (many of whom have been on her side before people even start voting).
I also want to encourage people to vote and have new voters in the system. This isn't (as apparently many are inclined to believe) just about the nomination or declaring a winner or loser. It matters how many people vote and even what the margins of victory are. It matters that people stay engaged in the process even beyond voting.
It does us no good to talk down to each other or call people delusional when you do not truly understand their intentions or expectations.
There is so much time between now and July and between July and November. HRC supporters would be far better served by actually talking about her positions rather than continually worrying about the process or merely suggesting that Sanders supporters should switch their support before November. Give reasons that you support HRC.
I support Sanders because he is talking about income inequality and has plans to make education more affordable and improve access to health care. HRC supporters have their issues (many of which overlap) that cause them to want to support her, but sadly too many would rather stress over the race. Why?
I also want to encourage people to vote and have new voters in the system. This isn't (as apparently many are inclined to believe) just about the nomination or declaring a winner or loser. It matters how many people vote and even what the margins of victory are. It matters that people stay engaged in the process even beyond voting.
It does us no good to talk down to each other or call people delusional when you do not truly understand their intentions or expectations.
There is so much time between now and July and between July and November. HRC supporters would be far better served by actually talking about her positions rather than continually worrying about the process or merely suggesting that Sanders supporters should switch their support before November. Give reasons that you support HRC.
I support Sanders because he is talking about income inequality and has plans to make education more affordable and improve access to health care. HRC supporters have their issues (many of which overlap) that cause them to want to support her, but sadly too many would rather stress over the race. Why?
18
@ Steven, I like your positive tone and agree with you that Clinton supporters need to spend more time promoting the strengths of Secretary Clinton's policy positions. But I don't agree with you that there's a lot of time between early June, when the primaries will end, and the November general election. In order to defeat Trump in November, Democrats need to start now focusing all of our energy, time, and financial resources on defeating Trump. If Senator Sanders continues contesting Hillary Clinton's nomination all the way to the Democratic convention in late July, he will leave the party very little time to unite behind Clinton and focus on Trump. Consider, for example, what news coverage will look like if Sanders stays in the race after the primaries end in June. All summer, the press will continue covering Clinton vs. Sanders as well as Clinton vs. Trump. Clinton will continue to be portrayed negatively as a candidate who is not yet fully supported by her party. Meantime, Trump was already declared the presumptive nominee back in May, and he has all the time in the world to go at Clinton, full tilt, with no distractions.
On June 7, 2008, Hillary gave a magnificent concession speech and started campaigning for Obama to help him win in the Fall. I expect Sanders to do the same for Clinton, since I believe he cares about defeating Trump.
On June 7, 2008, Hillary gave a magnificent concession speech and started campaigning for Obama to help him win in the Fall. I expect Sanders to do the same for Clinton, since I believe he cares about defeating Trump.
8
I too am flummoxed by many of the comments from Hillary supporters. You'd think they'd be trying harder for party unity at this point. And, yes, I'd appreciate the reasons why they've supported Hillary over Sanders, rather than just hearing the lazy "you're all Bernie Bros" refrain, repeated over and over and over.
3
Has Bernie ever provided a detailed plan for free tuition that is feasible?
We are indeed stressed about the race because the tremendous costs and dangers of a Trump victory are top-of-our mind. Perhaps Sanders supporters would do well to think about the same instead of their relentless cries of "rigged, rigged!"
We are indeed stressed about the race because the tremendous costs and dangers of a Trump victory are top-of-our mind. Perhaps Sanders supporters would do well to think about the same instead of their relentless cries of "rigged, rigged!"
Sanders supporters keep talking about supper delegates and they want them to switch to Sanders--which is very unrealistic. However, if you take out the supper delegates entirely, the number of delegates needed for nomination will drop down and the winner of those delegates will be the nominee. Sanders has nearly 300 delegates less than Hillary! How he thinks is going to catchup? He decided to run as a democrat based on the exciting rules not based on new rules. But irrespective of the fact that anyway one calculates, there is no viable path for him to pull off a win. Unless, of coarse, he believes that because he has honored the democrats by running as a democrat, the nomination should be handed to him. And that is another one of his unrealistic pipe dreams. It ain't happening. It is time to move on.
16
I get tired of people who call themselves leftists showing this much refusal to deal with the plan old numbers.
But then, I get tired of faux leftists who sneer at people like Clinton because they slogged it out for decades, and worked for little things like women's conventions in China and the S-CHIP programs before they even got out of high school.
And I REALLY get tired of "leftists," who don't know the first thing about Marx, the history of unions, how ideology works, what capitalism is, why the civil rights movement has always advanced on a slow, patient dialogue between Washington and DuBois, little things like that.
Bernie Sanders, kids, is a politician. Not Jesus, and not a victim of a Vast Conspiracy. He's done his best, he's made compromises, he's bargained and negotiated to get things done. And he's made mistakes: they go with the territory.
Clinton? Same deal. Was the Iraq vote wrong? The e-mail server dumb? Well, duh. But she's been there, working, since 1964, no matter how much you sneer.
And above all: it isn't leftist not to know the numbers, or to wave your little fins and demand that they disappear.
Getting things changed demands exactly the slow work, and the politicking, that you despise.
But then, I get tired of faux leftists who sneer at people like Clinton because they slogged it out for decades, and worked for little things like women's conventions in China and the S-CHIP programs before they even got out of high school.
And I REALLY get tired of "leftists," who don't know the first thing about Marx, the history of unions, how ideology works, what capitalism is, why the civil rights movement has always advanced on a slow, patient dialogue between Washington and DuBois, little things like that.
Bernie Sanders, kids, is a politician. Not Jesus, and not a victim of a Vast Conspiracy. He's done his best, he's made compromises, he's bargained and negotiated to get things done. And he's made mistakes: they go with the territory.
Clinton? Same deal. Was the Iraq vote wrong? The e-mail server dumb? Well, duh. But she's been there, working, since 1964, no matter how much you sneer.
And above all: it isn't leftist not to know the numbers, or to wave your little fins and demand that they disappear.
Getting things changed demands exactly the slow work, and the politicking, that you despise.
47
Your comments sum it up exactly as I see it, thank you!
1
I'm framing this! Thank you.
1
So the chance of Bernie pulling off a coup, a win, is what? one in a hundred? By what ratio would I prefer Bernie as president to Hillary? for my own reasons, focussed , say, on her coziness with Netanyahus' Israel, let's say a thousand. As a good Bayesian subjectivist, it follows I wish him to continue to fight. Feel the math - and don't patronise the followers of an honorable man.
17
In Washington State Sanders won the caucuses and the majority of delegates but lost by a wide margin in the non-binding primary. His enthusiastic followers are outnumbered by voters. Should he volunteer to give up his delegates here....only to be fair of course (sic)
17
I am an ardent supporter of Sen. Sanders and I am dismayed by this piece and the comments. Where is your fighting spirit America? What happened to the Americans who fought for a five-day work week, or cheered on President Kennedy when he encouraged us to put a man on the moon "in this decade"? The defeatist attitude of my fellow Americans surprises me. Free college tuition at state universities? This idea is constantly derided, yet, CCNY, UCLA, and many other fine institutions used to be tuition free. "Give up, Bernie!" cry the critics. In the meantime, those of us who have not lost our fighting spirit, are rallying around Sanders by the thousands--by the time Sanders leaves CA he will have spoken to more than 100,000 at rallies. Sanders is bringing more people into the democratic process, encouraging people to get involved and vote. This is very positive for our country. I am old enough to remember Nixon and both Trump and Clinton are far worse. America hasn't seen a fight for the democratic nomination on the floor of the convention in many years--this is the year you will see it again. #MeetusinPhilly
15
Where is your fighting spirit America?....If you can add, do the math. The only way any of Sander's ideas will have a chance to be enacted is if Clinton is elected . Now, maybe you really don't care to make progress?
10
I agree. Every time I hear someone say that Bernie's ideas are pie in the sky, I just can't help but think of the civil rights movement, the creation of Social Security, the recognition of gay marriage and other developments in our great nation, and cannot imagine where we'd be if people just back and said "too hard, can't happen" or "too fast." I thank god daily I'm not one of these people.
2
I suspect a lot of super delegates will change their mind come convention-time. Trump and Clinton simply have too much baggage, and America is primed for a fresh new voice at the executive level. Of course, there is irony in that the oldest man running is providing that new voice, but nonetheless that is the case. Now the establishment can disagree with Bernie's momentum, but they need to reckon with the fact that many of us would prefer him to any of the other candidates. Will we vote for Hillary if Bernie drops out? Yes. Will we vote for Bernie if he runs as an independent? Yes. It's a matter of going to the election booth and voting your conscience.
9
The painful truth:
Bernie Sanders will never be, and would never have been, the Dem candidate for President.
It has nothing to do with HRC. If HRC were shown to be a North Korean And Islamic State Spy tomorrow, the convention would select Joe Biden (or someone like him) to run in the general election.
It is delusional to imagine that a deeply flawed general election candidate like Sanders would ever be chosen, when an experienced, personable, centrist candidate like Biden (or equivalent younger guy) is available.
So, those who say Bernie was allowed to run to provide a foil for HRC are correct. But if Bernie was too stupid to realize that, we have yet another reason to question his suitability to be Commander in Chief.
Bernie would lose massively to any "normal" Republican candidate, and would probably lose to Trump as well. The delegates for Clinton, super and committed, are well aware of this, and would act accordingly.
Bernie Sanders will never be, and would never have been, the Dem candidate for President.
It has nothing to do with HRC. If HRC were shown to be a North Korean And Islamic State Spy tomorrow, the convention would select Joe Biden (or someone like him) to run in the general election.
It is delusional to imagine that a deeply flawed general election candidate like Sanders would ever be chosen, when an experienced, personable, centrist candidate like Biden (or equivalent younger guy) is available.
So, those who say Bernie was allowed to run to provide a foil for HRC are correct. But if Bernie was too stupid to realize that, we have yet another reason to question his suitability to be Commander in Chief.
Bernie would lose massively to any "normal" Republican candidate, and would probably lose to Trump as well. The delegates for Clinton, super and committed, are well aware of this, and would act accordingly.
22
"Allowed to run?!" Who gave Bernie permission to run? He has earned everything he has achieved in this primary season through his own hard work, with no help from the establishment or the corporate media.
6
So New Jersey will get the credit for casting the deciding vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential Primary. Historic. The first major party woman presidential candidate.
23
Sanders is just riding the high at this point but I wonder if the DNC and Chairwoman Debbie Schultz are going to have a bit of self reflection and hopefully, in the future, not outright say the process is designed to exclude people like Sanders live on CNN.
At least the Republicans are open about their back room dealings being the real deciding moments.
At least the Republicans are open about their back room dealings being the real deciding moments.
9
Reading so many of these comments reminded me of the stages of grief. Is denial one of those stages?
31
Wonderful that the media will be declaring Hillary the winner on the super delegate count after New Jersey, not the elected delegate count after California. And people wonder why Sanders supporters believe everything is rigged.
Maybe if the media used their brain and treated super delegates as the superfluous actors they are, rather than the deciders they are not, there wouldn't be so much infuriated confusion.
Maybe if the media used their brain and treated super delegates as the superfluous actors they are, rather than the deciders they are not, there wouldn't be so much infuriated confusion.
18
It is likely that she will win a majority of the elected delegates after California and will be declared "presumptive" after the polls close in New Jersey. Super delegates are a good barometer throughout the campaign of the sentiments of party members and elected officials. The drift to Obama last time was because he won the elected delegates.
4
you have to face the facts now. It's time.
Sander's never expected to be a contender. He expected that he would cause the Democratic to move to the left. As he progressed, he became progressively more egotistic and reverted to a Marxist position, namely that a class struggle exists and that Clinton is a representative of the capitalist class. Further, by supporting the Iraq war she is a pawn of the industrial-military complex.
Sander's has apparently rejected the need of the Democratic Party to represent the broad base of the party and win the election. He seeks either to engineer a coup-d'etat or destroy Clinton and cause her to lose the election and set the ground work for a left wing movement. Sander's has been blinded by his electoral popularity in thinking that he is capable of being the president even though he lacks the ability and experience necessary for him to become commander-in-chief or an effective leader. Hubris has destroyed many people and may severely damage the nation.
Sander's has apparently rejected the need of the Democratic Party to represent the broad base of the party and win the election. He seeks either to engineer a coup-d'etat or destroy Clinton and cause her to lose the election and set the ground work for a left wing movement. Sander's has been blinded by his electoral popularity in thinking that he is capable of being the president even though he lacks the ability and experience necessary for him to become commander-in-chief or an effective leader. Hubris has destroyed many people and may severely damage the nation.
30
Always good to read rations, fact based analysis. I'm so tired of sore losers blaming a rigged system. Hope to see the sanders supporters at the midterms and local elections each and every time from now on. That's how the revolution happens!
32
Duh. The point now isn't who will win, the point now is to show that there is a large proportion of democrats who are no longer willing to accept business as usual. A vote for Bernie isn't a failed vote for a president who will never be, it is instead the raising of one's voice in protest of a system, and calls for a new consideration of the values of our politics. Here's for better wages, health care as a right, education based on ability instead of wealth. Here's to asking ourselves, how will this policy affect my day to day life. Here's to Bernie!
20
Absolutely. Thank you.
3
Let's not presume anything until votes are cast on Tuesday.
5
Then Comey indicts...
5
Bernie is being delusional to think the super delegates are going to vote for him. He wasn't even a Democrat until yesterday. The party will remain loyal to Hillary.
31
Light of Bernie's original purpose and now hi authenticity is fading--burned out on Bernie.
10
The Wall Street Journal begs to differ:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-might-not-be-the-nominee-1464733898
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-might-not-be-the-nominee-1464733898
11
It ends with a whimper followed by a battle of insults between the least-liked candidates ever to run for president, the only bright spot is that younger voters will eventually prevail over the leftovers served up by a dysfunctional political system founded on keeping the people entertained and oblivious, well-funded elected representatives who refuse to govern and a sadly misinformed electorate. In the meantime, we burn, they fiddle, while the infrastructure crumbles, incarceration rates soar, the climate is past the tipping point, and the wealthy few continue to reap the benefits of the political system they have purchased.
12
If Sanders supports really want a revolution, here is what they can do: vote for the most progressive candidate in all the races on their ballots, from county commissioner and mayor up to US senator. A revolution needs supporters in positions of influence to grow. And then, vote for Hillary Clinton, if she is the candidate. Why? One word: judges. There are many vacancies on the federal appellate courts, as well as on the Supreme Court. If you wish a real revolution to succeed, you need judges who will give progressive policies a fair hearing. If Donald Trump nominates these judges, no revolution will make it past the litigation. We are so close to a real sea change in our government - and the final miles in a marathon are the hardest. Get the judges in place. Morning is coming.
40
While this is all true, I wonder what (if any) effect the email investigation will have? This is a mantra for Sanders supporters. If Clinton is indicted, will that change things? If convicted?
7
Email issue is no better than so called "Benghazi issue"--all made into a phony scandal by the Republicans! There is no issue there. Even the Inspector general's 1000 page report did not find a violation of law. Three former secretaries also used their private emails... So called "rules" were nothing more than guidelines--not mandatory. Republicans have nothing else to complain about and keep hoping for something which is not coming. And Sanders supporters are drinking the Republican cool-aide. In the meantime, 5000 people's class action lawsuit against Trump and NY Attorney general's fraud suit is getting lost in the process. Just imagine if Hillary had committed even one of those con jones as Trump has committed, she would have been run out of the country by the Republicans! It is time for Democrats to unite behind Clinton and stop repeating the Republican talking points against her.
16
The point is missed here. I don't care what your opinion of the email issue is yet. I'm inclined to agree with you, actually. But, unless I'm wrong, nobody undertaking the investigation is asking for Bzl15's opinion (or mine).
My question is, what WOULD happen if indictment and/or conviction happen. How will that play into this calculus?
My question is, what WOULD happen if indictment and/or conviction happen. How will that play into this calculus?
1
The fact that Bernie and Jane Sanders can't do math was evident months ago. Free everything for everyone, save nothing that works - and the middle class tax rates go up to "what"? Message without substance or execution is futile, no matter how well-intentioned the message. Can you imagine what a Republican House & Senate would do with that budget? At the top of the ticket, he cannot carry either house to a Democratic majority.
Claiming the system is rigged, then trying to game said system is also pretty disingenuous. Independent Bernie literally crashed the (Democratic) party to gain some legitimacy. How can he expect support of the vast majority of Democratic office holders (i.e., super-delegates) across the country when he has made a 30-year career in Vermont (population 626,000) out of running against Democrats? More people live in my city than that whole state.
As altruistic as Sanders supporters are - totally their right to be loyal - many Clinton put-downs sound like recycled Trump nastiness (and vice versa). But, two wrongs don't make it right (or true).
Claiming the system is rigged, then trying to game said system is also pretty disingenuous. Independent Bernie literally crashed the (Democratic) party to gain some legitimacy. How can he expect support of the vast majority of Democratic office holders (i.e., super-delegates) across the country when he has made a 30-year career in Vermont (population 626,000) out of running against Democrats? More people live in my city than that whole state.
As altruistic as Sanders supporters are - totally their right to be loyal - many Clinton put-downs sound like recycled Trump nastiness (and vice versa). But, two wrongs don't make it right (or true).
53
Excellent analysis, thanks for this.
2
It might be worth mentioning the results of the non-binding Washington primary vs. the Washington caucuses. Sanders places great weight on his, admittedly overwhelming, margin in the low participation caucuses. But, as I recall over twice as many secret ballot, maill-in voters participated in primary and Clinton won that handily.
Besides questions of which system is more democratic, representative, and less subject to activist voting day persuasion; we should also keep in mind that Washington's primary was held a couple of months after the caucuses. That sort of blunts the idea of a rising Sanders swell.
Besides questions of which system is more democratic, representative, and less subject to activist voting day persuasion; we should also keep in mind that Washington's primary was held a couple of months after the caucuses. That sort of blunts the idea of a rising Sanders swell.
34
I grew up in Washington and still have family there. Anyone who lives there who understands how the political system works doesn't participate in the mail ballot presidential primary because it doesn't actually affect the outcome of the election at all. The caucuses are the only part of the Washington presidential primary process that actually select candidates and long time Washington voters/residents know this. That is why there would be lower turn out among Sanders supporters because reasonably informed voters know that the mail-in version does not serve a purpose.
6
The progressive down ballot candidates probably would have benefited from Sanders' supporters voting in the primary. :-(
3
Excellent point, ARKdeEREH.
Sanders got a late start and he didn't have the kind of support network built up in the Democratic party that Clinton had. Those were huge disadvantages. Considering those handicaps, he actually made a great showing.
I think Sanders and his supporters, instead of bellyaching, going all hater on Hillary, and crying foul, should be looking at what is, in fact, a tremendous success.
Their campaign put universal health care back on the national agenda. The health insurance industry thought they had killed the issue off finally when the forced Obama to concede on the issue. Sanders brought out the fact that there is still widespread support among Americans for universal health care coverage, and made it a real possibility that the Democrats will continue to fight for it.
Their campaign highlighted social and economic inequality, and although these are issues Clinton has pledged to take on as well, the Sanders campaign gave these issues a big boost in the national consciousness.
Their campaign gave a similar boost to the issue of affordable higher education, so that the college and university system in American doesn't just become dominated by the super-wealthy as a place to keep their kids separate from middle-class Americans.
The Sanders campaign got young liberals excited again. Since the 1990's pretty much all the political recruiting on college campuses was being done by Republicans.
We should all thank Sanders for bringing young liberals back into the political process.
I think Sanders and his supporters, instead of bellyaching, going all hater on Hillary, and crying foul, should be looking at what is, in fact, a tremendous success.
Their campaign put universal health care back on the national agenda. The health insurance industry thought they had killed the issue off finally when the forced Obama to concede on the issue. Sanders brought out the fact that there is still widespread support among Americans for universal health care coverage, and made it a real possibility that the Democrats will continue to fight for it.
Their campaign highlighted social and economic inequality, and although these are issues Clinton has pledged to take on as well, the Sanders campaign gave these issues a big boost in the national consciousness.
Their campaign gave a similar boost to the issue of affordable higher education, so that the college and university system in American doesn't just become dominated by the super-wealthy as a place to keep their kids separate from middle-class Americans.
The Sanders campaign got young liberals excited again. Since the 1990's pretty much all the political recruiting on college campuses was being done by Republicans.
We should all thank Sanders for bringing young liberals back into the political process.
24
yogi-one, that's a nice sentiment, but it assumes the Sanders supporters will display maturity and stay engaged in the process so Trump is defeated and just as importantly, down ticket Democrats are elected. But media coverage of the "never Hillary" faction of Sanders supporters seems to say they want to stay home and sulk. Let's hope they get over it.
28
Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton made clear in the debates that Senator Sanders' ideas of universal healthcare, a $15 minimum wage, and free tuition for public university students were impossible....these were Scandinavian ideas and she looks only to America for ideas. As for the New York Times and these ideas, it panned them as "unicorns". This old progressive will most likely not vote the top of the ticket this year, for the first time ever.
7
After the cooling off period, they'll get over it. Most of them seem pretty smart and able to look long-range.
The point is simply this: at the convention, neither Clinton nor Sanders will have enough legally bound delegates to claim the nomination by right. Either candidate would need the support of superdelegates, whose choice is not legally bound until the actual vote at the convention. Superdelegates COULD change their mind prior to the vote for any number of reasons, including the political calculation that a Sanders nomination would be more likely to prevail in November and more likely to help down-ballot Democratic candidates.
None of the above makes it less likely that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president. But dishonestly leading the public to believe that Clinton has sown up the nomination by right unhelpfully feeds the narrative that Clinton and her surrogates are substantively dishonest. If Clinton wants to unite Democrats, she should reject the misleading narrative and explain that her superdelegate support is not legally bound.
None of the above makes it less likely that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president. But dishonestly leading the public to believe that Clinton has sown up the nomination by right unhelpfully feeds the narrative that Clinton and her surrogates are substantively dishonest. If Clinton wants to unite Democrats, she should reject the misleading narrative and explain that her superdelegate support is not legally bound.
20
the article says she has enough pledged delegates to win without even counting super delegates. yes she can claim the nomination.
4
If Hillary Clinton needs the superdelegates to formally win the Demo nomination then, as others have pointed out, all this talk about 'clinching' the nomination after the Calif and NJ primaries is premature. Right now it appears Clinton is doing poorly against the 'orange haired ogre' being barely ahead of the orange haired one in national polls. It's ridiculous to blame Sanders for this. It's the Demo Party establishment's poor early choice. The Sanders candidacy is response to it. The real question will be the poll numbers (I know polls are often misleading) at the time of the Demo convention. If it appears Trump is leading heavily against Clinton in the polls relative to a hypothetical match-up against Sanders, then the superdelegates would be crazy to stick with Clinton.
23
the article says she wins by every metric without super delegates.
6
There is no reason why the "crazy" Super Delegates should switch their position to the candidate less likely to win enough votes for the nomination.
In the end, it's about the Math --- Nothing else.
In the end, it's about the Math --- Nothing else.
5
Poor Hillary. She looks tired and worn out and is limping into the nomination with no momentum. The best reason she can give for being President is having the most experience. If that was important then Reagan would have lost in 1980, Bill Clinton would have lost in 1992, and Obama would have lost in 2008.
36
Running for President is a grueling ordeal, and nothing to make light of.
And unless you are unfamiliar with World events, having "experience" is an invaluable asset to have for this job.
And unless you are unfamiliar with World events, having "experience" is an invaluable asset to have for this job.
17
Funny, she's won more states at the end than Obama did in 2008...so much for momentum. I think I will take experience over the racism and misogyny offered by the other side.
28
Experience is relative. Reagan had done two stints as governor of California, Bill Clinton had done the same in Arkansas and Obama was a senator when he won the presidency in 2008. Mrs. Clinton had been a senator as well, and was Obama´s secretary of State when Donald Trump was running beauty contests.
4
Well, the system is still rigged. Even with the rules, it's rigged because of the enormous amounts of money needed to run. It's rigged by the way candidates are chosen and their image is manipulated before the public. A better way to choose candidates is to have folks present proposals before a nonpartisan government body. Their proposals should be brought before the people to discuss and debate to build a consciences. I know that's a pipe dream. But Americans need a change from these beauty contest every four years. The world we live in is getting to risky.
10
The sad irony is that Mrs. Clinton's string of victories in the South (the ones that pretty much locked up the nomination for her) will mean virtually nothing come November. With the possible exception of Florida and- maybe- Georgia she has no chance of winning those states in the general election. Hopefully, those "victories" will not leave the country facing four years of President Trump instead of four years of President Sanders.
40
Wouldn't it also be sad irony if Sanders' string of victories in caucus states such as Wyoming & Utah would also mean virtually nothing come November as those and others are won by Trump.
48
Stu, a number of Sanders's wins came in red states like Oklahoma that wouldn't help him in the general election if he were the Democratic candidate either. Keep in mind that Clinton won in several critical swing states -- Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Viginia -- that will be the most important states for her to win in the general election.
But how a candidate performs in the primaries is a poor predictor f how the candidate will perform in the general election, because of course it's a different electorate in the general.
Recall that President Obama lost the California primary to Hillary Clinton in 2008, but went on to win California in the general election. If Bernie wins California next Tuesday, it won't mean a thing about Hillary's chances of winning California next November. She will win our reliably blue state, no problem.
But how a candidate performs in the primaries is a poor predictor f how the candidate will perform in the general election, because of course it's a different electorate in the general.
Recall that President Obama lost the California primary to Hillary Clinton in 2008, but went on to win California in the general election. If Bernie wins California next Tuesday, it won't mean a thing about Hillary's chances of winning California next November. She will win our reliably blue state, no problem.
28
Did a similar string of victories give us 8 years of Romney? No. This is an asinine statement meant to disenfranchise southern (and black) votes.
13
One other comment. the last time I looked, the number of pledged delegates separating Clinton and Sanders was between 280 and 300. Using percentages does a disservice and distorts the truth.
That is like saying a president won by a land slide, because they had well over 300 Electoral Votes, but the popular vote was 52% to 48%.
Percentages, without context and real numbers, are useless.
That is like saying a president won by a land slide, because they had well over 300 Electoral Votes, but the popular vote was 52% to 48%.
Percentages, without context and real numbers, are useless.
25
Willful ignorance and the refusal to accept what the rules are is considerably worse.
Nor, by the way, is this sort of thing reassuring with regard to some of Bernie Sanders' other numbers, like his fanciful figures on single-payer insurances.
It's fine to disagree. Sanders seems to be a good guy, with principles I admire. He's also going to lose the primary, period.
And I hate to break this, but the man's a politician, not Jesus.
Nor, by the way, is this sort of thing reassuring with regard to some of Bernie Sanders' other numbers, like his fanciful figures on single-payer insurances.
It's fine to disagree. Sanders seems to be a good guy, with principles I admire. He's also going to lose the primary, period.
And I hate to break this, but the man's a politician, not Jesus.
55
Robert I see frustration in your post. I was pointing out that the author of this article should have included actual numbers with his percentages. This is called being accurate in reporting. It has nothing to do with Sanders or Clinton. But, readers will get the wrong idea from the percentages presented, without numerical context.
18
More like Moses.
Bernie Sanders has brought a great message to the American people. His vision, although perhaps not in every way he speaks of, is ultimately where we are headed, given our changing population, beliefs and needs.
What he needs to do is stay in the real world and get behind Clinton when the time is right. If he can't convince at least a good number of his supporters to do the same, and Donald Trump is our next president, his idealism will not have served us well.
What he needs to do is stay in the real world and get behind Clinton when the time is right. If he can't convince at least a good number of his supporters to do the same, and Donald Trump is our next president, his idealism will not have served us well.
59
Voting for hillary will not serve Americans well.
7
The time won't be right until after the nomination, and only if Clinton wins and she is willing to significantly embrace the ideals he and his supporters have worked for.
The former is reasonably likely. The latter is more distant.
The former is reasonably likely. The latter is more distant.
2
We knew how this was going to end, when Mr. Obama won his second term. The Democratic Party decided it will be Hillary Clinton. They just had to put in place to get their end. First, was to drive any reasonable alternative away (Biden, Warren, etc.). Then hold a show primary, and Mr. Sanders was suppose to be the "fall guy". Just to make the primaries look some what legitimate. It was designed so Ms. Clinton would win the nomination around Super Tuesday. And, by the time 7 June rolled around, Ms. Clinton would have almost all the delegates. Thus, making the July convention, in Philadelphia, a real party.
The problem, with this plan, was that Ms. Clinton was not well liked by a lot of people. This was obvious in 2008. But, ahead the DNC went. The next thing the DNC did not expect, Sanders did too good a job being the "fall guy". Quite the opposite happened. He went from a nobody Senator from a very small state, to making the primaries a real contest. Making a lot of the inner circle and the feminist movement very nervous. So, nervous, that the Clinton waltz to the nomination has become a slog.
It doe snot help that Clinton is running on no change, status quo and will have Bill Clinton as an integral part of her administration. Meanwhile, Mr. Sanders is running like FDR and LBJ.
Well, this is what happens when a democratic process is hijacked and controlled by a political party. We are very familiar with this practice; think USSR, China, North Korea, Warsaw Pact nations.
The problem, with this plan, was that Ms. Clinton was not well liked by a lot of people. This was obvious in 2008. But, ahead the DNC went. The next thing the DNC did not expect, Sanders did too good a job being the "fall guy". Quite the opposite happened. He went from a nobody Senator from a very small state, to making the primaries a real contest. Making a lot of the inner circle and the feminist movement very nervous. So, nervous, that the Clinton waltz to the nomination has become a slog.
It doe snot help that Clinton is running on no change, status quo and will have Bill Clinton as an integral part of her administration. Meanwhile, Mr. Sanders is running like FDR and LBJ.
Well, this is what happens when a democratic process is hijacked and controlled by a political party. We are very familiar with this practice; think USSR, China, North Korea, Warsaw Pact nations.
52
I don't think that you understand what a political party is: it's a group of people, in this case quite a few, millions in fact, who are members of that party and make decisions through primaries and through the activities of those members who hold political office about whom they will support for a political office, in this case the presidency. It is not a strictly democratic group, since you have to be a member (although membership is free!). The group may be said to be free to choose the person from their membership they think, collectively to be sure and not without dissent and discussion, can win an election. Senator Sanders was not a member of the Democratic party, and although I admire him and supported him at first, he seems not to care at this point about the fate of the party whose nomination he is still seeking. And some of his followers and supporters seem to think as well that the system is "rigged," which is a misnomer, since the rules for nomination, including the Super Delegated, are made by the party.
You entitled to your view of Secretary Clinton and to your view of the process that will make her the nominee, but a party playing by the rules of political association (as Edmund Burke called it long ago) is not hijacking anything.
You entitled to your view of Secretary Clinton and to your view of the process that will make her the nominee, but a party playing by the rules of political association (as Edmund Burke called it long ago) is not hijacking anything.
17
Thanks for the recap of the Bernie Sanders' theory of election rigging.
An alternate view, starting with a fact that I see often overlooked: Sanders has run a very effective media operation. His paid advertisements are well produced and, throughout the primary schedule, their state-by-state placement has been well-timed for maximum impact. Sanders has raised roughly the same amount of money as Clinton but spent more, conserving nothing.
Nevertheless, Sanders will not win. Contrary to Jeff Weaver and Jane Sanders, he's not being robbed, he's just losing fair and square, by getting fewer votes.
Time for Sanders to plan his end game, which I still hope involves enthusiastic support for the Democratic party and its nominee, Hillary Clinton.
An alternate view, starting with a fact that I see often overlooked: Sanders has run a very effective media operation. His paid advertisements are well produced and, throughout the primary schedule, their state-by-state placement has been well-timed for maximum impact. Sanders has raised roughly the same amount of money as Clinton but spent more, conserving nothing.
Nevertheless, Sanders will not win. Contrary to Jeff Weaver and Jane Sanders, he's not being robbed, he's just losing fair and square, by getting fewer votes.
Time for Sanders to plan his end game, which I still hope involves enthusiastic support for the Democratic party and its nominee, Hillary Clinton.
36
You and many other supporters of Bernie Sanders speak very disrespectfully toward those who voted for H.Clinton. In fact, the tone sounds disconcertingly similar to Trump's.
Yes, Democrat office holder and party officials favored a candidate they viewed as the strongest option. However, as Jeb Bush will tell you, being an establishment darling is no assurance of success. In the end, votes must be counted, and Clinton got more of them than Sanders.
Personally, I don't love the idea of another Clinton as President. However, I think Sanders and his supporters display serious problems with innumeracy that extend both to calculating costs of new federal programs and to tallying votes to determine a legitimate electoral winner.
Yes, Democrat office holder and party officials favored a candidate they viewed as the strongest option. However, as Jeb Bush will tell you, being an establishment darling is no assurance of success. In the end, votes must be counted, and Clinton got more of them than Sanders.
Personally, I don't love the idea of another Clinton as President. However, I think Sanders and his supporters display serious problems with innumeracy that extend both to calculating costs of new federal programs and to tallying votes to determine a legitimate electoral winner.
44
Thank you for this piece. I think most Sanders supporters assume the system is rigged. The reality is that there are genuinely a lot of us Dems out that there that truly admire Secretary Clinton. During Obama's first term I was amazed at how impressive Clinton was as Secretary of State. In fact, I think a lot of Obama's foreign policy mistakes would have been lessened if he had listened more to her than to his pollsters pointing to the feelings of the far left. She won, fair and square, because she's the best candidate that got the most votes, not because the system is rigged. I respect Sanders, but now let's get on to fighting the biggest threat to this nation in decades, Donald Trump.
116
While it's true that Hillary is winning fair and square, in the sense that the rules of the Democratic Party have been followed. It is also true that the Democratic Party has established rules that hurt its chances in the general election; namely, that the states of the Old Confederacy have early primaries that have favored Hillary but will count for nothing in the general election. Perhaps worse, the policies of the Democratic Party have alienated what should be their base; i.e., the working class. As one analyst wrote, Bill Clinton's five major achievements during his administration were goals that had been established by the GOP.
9
You fail to mention the caucuses that favored Sanders which will also mean nothing in November.
1
@AlanP
Obama said that his greatest regret of his administration's terms was the way Syria was handled. I saw that as him throwing Clinton under the bus, as she was the architect of that humanitarian disaster, who chortled about Quadaffi, "We came, we saw, he died" and cackled like a sociopath. And you admire that? Pathetic.
Obama said that his greatest regret of his administration's terms was the way Syria was handled. I saw that as him throwing Clinton under the bus, as she was the architect of that humanitarian disaster, who chortled about Quadaffi, "We came, we saw, he died" and cackled like a sociopath. And you admire that? Pathetic.
1
Sanders already won on message. He needs to go to the convention with strong momentum to influence the party to move away from the dependence on donations from filthy rich. Also, he can keep fire under Clinton if she occupies White House. We can trust Sanders and Warren in the senate to block Clinton proposals that favor Wall Street. If the country can move half the way towards Sanders agenda, that is good for the country.
33
You do know the reason Sanders chose to run as a Democrat instead of a Independent is because of those "donations from the filthy rich", don't you??
Those deep pockets helped him get to where he is now.
And granted, he has made some valid points.
But it's usually wise not to bite the hand that feeds you.
Those deep pockets helped him get to where he is now.
And granted, he has made some valid points.
But it's usually wise not to bite the hand that feeds you.
8
Why do you trust Sanders to do anything in the Senate as his whole career has been spent as a back bencher sponsoring symbolic legistlation?
4
NOVEMBER 2016
In the place marked “write in” on my mail in ballot
if necessary, I will proceed with 13 letters
BERNIE SANDERS
I will be voting for a man, a President, not a party
The remainder of my ballot will be marked for
All progressives who ultimately decide the seats on the
SCOTUS, pass bills and make laws
Many will point to the theory of “Anti-War Nader” that gave us Bush
Although it was the supporters Of War
With their Votes (The Votes That Really Counted)
that invaded Iraq
“Shock And Awe” causing thousands of deaths
and destabilizing the world. That title should have been enough to
decide to cast a vote of no.
Well, suppose enough people voted for Nader
I Rest My Case
In the place marked “write in” on my mail in ballot
if necessary, I will proceed with 13 letters
BERNIE SANDERS
I will be voting for a man, a President, not a party
The remainder of my ballot will be marked for
All progressives who ultimately decide the seats on the
SCOTUS, pass bills and make laws
Many will point to the theory of “Anti-War Nader” that gave us Bush
Although it was the supporters Of War
With their Votes (The Votes That Really Counted)
that invaded Iraq
“Shock And Awe” causing thousands of deaths
and destabilizing the world. That title should have been enough to
decide to cast a vote of no.
Well, suppose enough people voted for Nader
I Rest My Case
22
You'd just he making it a little more likely that Donald Trump becomes our president. Please, before you do that, consider very carefully if that's what you really want, since there is absolutely no practical benefit to that particular action.
6
And the millions of us who voted for Hillary rest our case.
MILLIONS more of us than you.
We won. You lost. Face reality.
The VOTERS have spoken.
wo woY
MILLIONS more of us than you.
We won. You lost. Face reality.
The VOTERS have spoken.
wo woY
8
But the president picks supreme court appointments, not down-ballot progressives. Not that I'm worried about a vote in Montana hurting the Democrats, however.
2
It has been a long and difficult road for Hillary. Had it not been the time for Obama, she would have been our president.
By virtue of her extensive experience in public service, she has earned the right to be President. That she is a woman is, in the final analysis, is irrelevant .
Once again the Donald has re-enforced his image of women in his criticism of Hillary:
In todays NYT Trump said
“She is a Woman who is ill-suited to be president because she has bad judgment.”
By virtue of her extensive experience in public service, she has earned the right to be President. That she is a woman is, in the final analysis, is irrelevant .
Once again the Donald has re-enforced his image of women in his criticism of Hillary:
In todays NYT Trump said
“She is a Woman who is ill-suited to be president because she has bad judgment.”
42
I, and millions like me, do not think that Clinton deserves the president simply because she has been campaigning, working political machinations, and feeding big money into her coalition for decades. In fact, I think these things argue against her suitability, and the party leadership who have worked to try and make their insider the inevitable choice.
14
"By virtue of her extensive experience in public service, she has earned the right to be President. "
No one earns the "right" to be president, voters determine that, right or wrong. And as far as her "public service", most of it has been "self service" and she is cashing in on that now, with extreme prejudice. Therefore, not right for the presidency.
No one earns the "right" to be president, voters determine that, right or wrong. And as far as her "public service", most of it has been "self service" and she is cashing in on that now, with extreme prejudice. Therefore, not right for the presidency.
4
Somewhere in your logic, you forgot to mention the millions of everyday, non-Wall Street Americans who voted for Clinton.
You also forgot that there are certain advantages to being a (long-standing) member of the Democratic Party.
These are things that will matter significantly in the end.
You also forgot that there are certain advantages to being a (long-standing) member of the Democratic Party.
These are things that will matter significantly in the end.
3
Go ahead, Nate, insinuate that the grievances of Sanders' supporters are ridiculous. Dismiss the most stunning insurgence of an anti-establishment candidate the U.S. has ever seen as a failure as people are still coming out in droves to support that candidate. You must be shaking your head when you watch those rallies. Here's a thought for you to ponder: How low will Clinton have to sink in the polls against the Donald before EVEN you wished Sanders were the nominee?
28
Oh please spare us this baloney.
Bernie Sanders is "anti-establishment?" How long in the Senate? What has he done there? Mr. Sanders voted in tandem with Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, 95 percent of the time. Curious.
Mr. Sanders, while whining about the "unfair" super-delegates, now seeks them out on the bravado of claiming he is the better candidate to beat the Mogul. In fact, Mr. Sanders' poll numbers go up in precisely the same ratio as The Mogul's go down. Angry white men apparently think alike.
Mr. Sanders began his tirade first and foremost by co-opting what has always been the Democratic Platform, claiming that he will accomplish what eight years of fighting Republicans in the House could not. No details. Film at 11.
Until Sanders vicious, though redundant, campaign that has impugned the respectable record of Secretary Clinton, more has indeed united than divided us.
One more thing. Mr. Sanders is a closet sexist. One woman on his Dem Platform nominees? And, why should Hillary be ashamed of making money for speeches when she was a former Secretary of State with a lot to say?
Sick of Bernie and friends.
Bernie Sanders is "anti-establishment?" How long in the Senate? What has he done there? Mr. Sanders voted in tandem with Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, 95 percent of the time. Curious.
Mr. Sanders, while whining about the "unfair" super-delegates, now seeks them out on the bravado of claiming he is the better candidate to beat the Mogul. In fact, Mr. Sanders' poll numbers go up in precisely the same ratio as The Mogul's go down. Angry white men apparently think alike.
Mr. Sanders began his tirade first and foremost by co-opting what has always been the Democratic Platform, claiming that he will accomplish what eight years of fighting Republicans in the House could not. No details. Film at 11.
Until Sanders vicious, though redundant, campaign that has impugned the respectable record of Secretary Clinton, more has indeed united than divided us.
One more thing. Mr. Sanders is a closet sexist. One woman on his Dem Platform nominees? And, why should Hillary be ashamed of making money for speeches when she was a former Secretary of State with a lot to say?
Sick of Bernie and friends.
11
First of all, it's been said many times that Bernie Sanders would be polling far worse against Donald Trump if the Republicans actually attacked him like they do Mrs. Clinton, and that they clearly hoped all along that Mr. Sanders would be our nominee because he would be the far weaker general election candidate. This much is obvious.
Secondly, Bernie Sanders has not been the most astonishingly successful insurgent candidate of the last half-century, let alone all of American history. George McGovern was, because he actually, y'know, won the nomination.
Secondly, Bernie Sanders has not been the most astonishingly successful insurgent candidate of the last half-century, let alone all of American history. George McGovern was, because he actually, y'know, won the nomination.
12
Polls are usually not the most efficient means of determining anything for any length of time, as they change daily.
I don't think the point of the article was to insult or insinuate.
Mr. Cohn deals with the numbers. In short, it's only about the MATH.
Another thing, for all his vision and rhetoric, Mr. Sanders is not the silver-bullet answer to all which ails this country -- and any comparison between Trump and Clinton will not alter that fact.
I don't think the point of the article was to insult or insinuate.
Mr. Cohn deals with the numbers. In short, it's only about the MATH.
Another thing, for all his vision and rhetoric, Mr. Sanders is not the silver-bullet answer to all which ails this country -- and any comparison between Trump and Clinton will not alter that fact.
2
Nate Cohn, citing the news media's misleading use of superdelegates is no justification for doing it yourself. If Sanders were to win a majority of pledged delegates, then superdelegates would follow him. That's why superdelegates don't matter right now. Pledged delegates are the only guaranteed vote for either candidate. The news media blasting this nonsense about Hillary having an "insurmountable" lead against Sanders is a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you keep throwing out this tripe about Clinton needing only 73 more delegates to win the nomination, you are flagrantly disregarding the truth and Sanders supporters have every right to be upset. Whether it's purposeful or just a result of ignorance or stupidity, this is exactly what media bias looks like. No one can "clinch" the nomination before the convention unless they get 2,383 pledged delegates. Saying otherwise is just plain wrong. What readers should know is that there is less than a 1% chance that Clinton will have 2,383 pledged delegates by the convention. Which means, the deciding factor for superdelegates -- when they make their choice on convention day -- will be who has the majority support of the voters. All Sanders ever needed to do was gain the support of a majority. If he had that, superdelegates would switch. But with the news media distorting the numbers for months now, I'm sure tens of thousands of people have just given up on Sanders.
27
Did you only read the section of this piece about superdelegates? Because if you read the whole thing, you'd know what you're saying is flat-out wrong.
6
Okay, so that still leaves 2 million or so more that voted for her. How can so many people ignore real votes cast?
3
Minor technical detail: not only are superdelegates not going to flip, and not only has Sanders just plain lost the popular vote, and not only were six of Sanders' victories in caucus states where very few made the decision, but it's kind of much to scream about how undemocratic superdelegates are, and then turn around and swear up and down that Sanders will win because of superdelegates.
4
NYTimes:
Wow! Every article that I read on the Opinion/Editorial pages of the the times (including the recent Krugman article) basically ignores a major problem that Hillary has. Question: What happens if FBI indicts Mrs. Clinton? Is that Times that broke the story in the first place not willing to even ask the hypothetical and answer it on this page? Why?
Wow! Every article that I read on the Opinion/Editorial pages of the the times (including the recent Krugman article) basically ignores a major problem that Hillary has. Question: What happens if FBI indicts Mrs. Clinton? Is that Times that broke the story in the first place not willing to even ask the hypothetical and answer it on this page? Why?
24
Wouldn't it be funny if both Clinton and Trump ended up in jail? she for unauthorized e-mails, he for Trump University fraud?
3
Because Cohn's writing about actual numbers, not stuff that ain't happened and probably won't.
Whyn't you just demand that he discuss the odds that an asteroid hits New Jersey?
Whyn't you just demand that he discuss the odds that an asteroid hits New Jersey?
8
Because it is not going to happen. Clinton broke no laws.
4
"You’re ignoring the voter fraud! O.K., time to cut this off."
Here are a few more:
-You're ignoring momentum!
-You're ignoring Sanders' polling numbers against Trump in November!
-You're ignoring super delegates switching en masse at the convention!
-You're ignoring Hillary's emails (which the country is NO longer sick and tired of hearing about)!
-You're ignoring the system is rigged!
Here are a few more:
-You're ignoring momentum!
-You're ignoring Sanders' polling numbers against Trump in November!
-You're ignoring super delegates switching en masse at the convention!
-You're ignoring Hillary's emails (which the country is NO longer sick and tired of hearing about)!
-You're ignoring the system is rigged!
19
"Here are three simple, inalienable facts about the Democratic election so far:
1.Clinton has received more votes than Sanders to date.
2.Clinton has won more states than Sanders.
3.Clinton has won more pledged delegates than Sanders.
Sanders has no legit claim to superdelegates as long as those three facts remain.
Sanders plans to drag his heels all the way from the last primary in California to the convention in Philadelphia in hopes that the superdelegates will pick up a copy of the collected works of H.A. Goodman, start feeling the Bern and support him at the convention. That would be a perfectly fair outcome in the mind of the democratic socialist senator from Vermont. But, in truth, that outcome is the one that would be unfair, unjust and would expose a "rigged system." If the superdelegates did flip-flop their way into the Sanders camp, then they would give him victory over a candidate who won more votes, more states and more pledged delegates. That would be superdelegates abusing their power. That would be undemocratic."
1.Clinton has received more votes than Sanders to date.
2.Clinton has won more states than Sanders.
3.Clinton has won more pledged delegates than Sanders.
Sanders has no legit claim to superdelegates as long as those three facts remain.
Sanders plans to drag his heels all the way from the last primary in California to the convention in Philadelphia in hopes that the superdelegates will pick up a copy of the collected works of H.A. Goodman, start feeling the Bern and support him at the convention. That would be a perfectly fair outcome in the mind of the democratic socialist senator from Vermont. But, in truth, that outcome is the one that would be unfair, unjust and would expose a "rigged system." If the superdelegates did flip-flop their way into the Sanders camp, then they would give him victory over a candidate who won more votes, more states and more pledged delegates. That would be superdelegates abusing their power. That would be undemocratic."
48
He didn't ignore your first and last points at all. He stated very clearly that the ground Bernie needs to make up at this point to run even with Mrs. Clinton is completely unrealistic, thereby addressing your momentum point. And he clearly debunked the theory that Bernie has lost because the system is rigged with a link at the end of the piece. The other three points are nor relevant to the Democratic primary horse race, which is what this piece is about.
5
No one ever mentions that Sen. Sanders was not even a Democrat. Sec. Clinton always was and always will be. She had my vote!
3
No matter how you spin it HRC is a deeply flawed candidate.
Gender bias and right wing attacks aside, lots of thoughtful people fear a Clinton presidency. Clinton's paranoia and secretiveness are Nixonian.
Since when did, "she did nothing criminal!", become a campaign slogan.
Gender bias and right wing attacks aside, lots of thoughtful people fear a Clinton presidency. Clinton's paranoia and secretiveness are Nixonian.
Since when did, "she did nothing criminal!", become a campaign slogan.
33
"lots of thoughtful people fear a Clinton presidency". Who do you consider thoughtful? President Obama, VP Biden, Paul Krugman, Rep. John Lewis, Senator Ted Lieu, Governor Jerry Brown, millions more voters than Sanders' uber-wise ones? Maybe you're just fearful, but it's not clear who you should blame. It can't be Clinton because you were, apparently, also 'wronged' under Obama.
3
Tom Frank's next invaluable book needs to be What's Wrong With Blacks? Despite the fact that Bill Clinton turned the party of FDR and MLK into the party of Goldman Sachs, earning tens of millions for his pains, and despite the fact that his welfare and crime bills hurt poor blacks even worse than Reagan did, blacks were as easy for Hillary to con for Wall St into voting against their economic self-interest as clueless whites voting for the Kochs and against themselves are in Kansas. Too bad that the blacks that being fooled by the Clintons have elected their arch-enemy Trump. By the Democratic. convention, he'll be well ahead of Hillary in the polls, while Bernie will still be beating him soundly. Blacks will be irrelevant and helpless in the fall, since white workers in the Rust Belt will decide the winner. They love Trump and Bernie and rightly the Clintons for throwing them under the Goldman bus too with NAFTA.
5
@white
With all due respect, this is one of the most racially insensitive comments I've ever come across.
To be sure, if you really wanted to know "What's Wrong With Blacks?", you'd be best served by starting with the American History books.
It will all become clear after that.
With all due respect, this is one of the most racially insensitive comments I've ever come across.
To be sure, if you really wanted to know "What's Wrong With Blacks?", you'd be best served by starting with the American History books.
It will all become clear after that.
2
It is too bad that the Bernie camp couldn't do this math but then it is hard to believe you can't win at the last minute with a half-court three pointer and a flagrant foul.
I'm thinking Bernie knows this is his last hurrah. If he hangs around in the Senate he will not be as warmly embraced by the Democrats as he has been in the past, especially if they retake that body by a reasonable margin. So, since there is little in his future to look ahead too, why not run this moment of glory out as far as he can. So what if it increases the chances of a Trump Presidency.
It is long past time to face reality but Bernie's campaign (and his message) have never been about reality.
I'm thinking Bernie knows this is his last hurrah. If he hangs around in the Senate he will not be as warmly embraced by the Democrats as he has been in the past, especially if they retake that body by a reasonable margin. So, since there is little in his future to look ahead too, why not run this moment of glory out as far as he can. So what if it increases the chances of a Trump Presidency.
It is long past time to face reality but Bernie's campaign (and his message) have never been about reality.
47
If the Senate Dems (almost all corrupt super predators, I mean delegates) want to treat Bernie badly for taking part in democracy, something they don't respect as much as money, then he can always caucus with the Republicans. Honestly going up against the corrupt Dem machine was going to be problematic for him one way or another. Personally I'd prefer he run as an Independent as there are millions of us who need a voice, and we don't have the money to buy any in Congress.
4
I totally agree with every word Michael Currier wrote below. Thank you, Michael.
What Bernie is experiencing right now, is what Hillary experienced in 2012.
Obama won. Hillary learned from her loss. She returned borrowing Obama's playbook. This shows she is smart, courageous, perserving and willing to learn.
Am deeply concerned about the bitter 'ugly' rhetoric coming from Bernie and his top campaign people.
I will be watching Bernie across this week into the Democratic Convention -
How will he choose to nurture the gifted abundance given to him by his supporters? Bernie's words & actions - right now - into the convention will be his true Legacy.
I truly hope he doesn't throw what he has built away; for, I agree with much of his platform. But, not the way he yells & yells about it - and - is so tunnel vision he excludes discussion from various viewpoints to create a stronger whole.
The Goal is the Presidency - Not Bernie's Agenda.
Hillary get this! She is for ALL Americans not just the most Liberal.
I applaud Hillary for going to the higher ground by building a case against Trump - by laying out the danger of a Trump Presidency for the American People and the World with her Foreign Policy speech, today, in San Diego.
We are not canonizing Saints - we are choosing a President of the United States of America - and - the foremost Leader of the World.
Hillary's words & actions show she is qualified & worthy to be Our Next President.
What Bernie is experiencing right now, is what Hillary experienced in 2012.
Obama won. Hillary learned from her loss. She returned borrowing Obama's playbook. This shows she is smart, courageous, perserving and willing to learn.
Am deeply concerned about the bitter 'ugly' rhetoric coming from Bernie and his top campaign people.
I will be watching Bernie across this week into the Democratic Convention -
How will he choose to nurture the gifted abundance given to him by his supporters? Bernie's words & actions - right now - into the convention will be his true Legacy.
I truly hope he doesn't throw what he has built away; for, I agree with much of his platform. But, not the way he yells & yells about it - and - is so tunnel vision he excludes discussion from various viewpoints to create a stronger whole.
The Goal is the Presidency - Not Bernie's Agenda.
Hillary get this! She is for ALL Americans not just the most Liberal.
I applaud Hillary for going to the higher ground by building a case against Trump - by laying out the danger of a Trump Presidency for the American People and the World with her Foreign Policy speech, today, in San Diego.
We are not canonizing Saints - we are choosing a President of the United States of America - and - the foremost Leader of the World.
Hillary's words & actions show she is qualified & worthy to be Our Next President.
88
Another point Sanders should consider is how to accept defeat gracefully. As Clinton did in 2008. That did a great service to the Democratic Party and candidate Obama.
8
Most Americans neither like or trust Clinton, and for good reasons of her own making. I and millions of others in the country do not see her as qualified or worthy to be president. The best that millions more can come up with is that maybe she doesn't stink as much as Trump.
2
Bernie needs to get real and just go away. His policies are sadly unrealistic. If not for the rigged caucus states, his candidacy would be an afterthought. His continuing on this ego driven and vindictive crusade, is hurting Hilary Clinton's chances of being elected, putting the country at risk of a Trump victory next November.
60
How sad that true liberalism in the tradition of FDR is now considered unrealistic. It's proof of how far to the right even the Democratic Party has moved.
8
Sanders biggest problem is that his campaign thought that if they handed out the home phone numbers of the Superdelegates, his supporters would call and try to gently explain their points of view. Instead, they immediately started with insults and threats which has even led to arrests and OF COURSE changed no minds any more than the insults and threats affect our support of Secretary Clinton. Even Times articles about her turn out to be incorrect. I WANT a President who can talk to Wall Street and foreign leaders. And she is bringing downticket Democrats with her. Sanders will get NOTHING done with a Republican Congress.
46
A friend who is a Superdelegate kept the police number handy because of the threats received.
8
Bernie was thrown under the bus by establishment democrats. The dirty little secret is he never had a chance. It was Hillary's turn plain and simple. Bernie was nothing more than a prop used by the establishment to lend credibility to the " process" . The establishment was unpleasantly surprised by just how far he has gotten.
12
@ Peter, as David in Toledo has observed, Bernie Sanders would have had a better chance if he had started his campaign much sooner, for example by running for President in 2008 or earlier. I would add that Bernie did not choose to spend his career building the political infrastructure or the progressive movement needed to bring about the "political revolution" he is now promoting. In other words, his presidential candidacy in 2016 might have succeeded if he had laid a stronger foundation for it. One of my concerns about Bernie, even though I share many of his aspirations for our country, is that he appears to be a person who blames his own shortcomings on others -- "the establishment," "a rigged system," etc., rather than accepting responsibility for his shortcomings and learning from them. And, unfortunately, he encourages his supporters to do the same.
4
It sounds as though you don't think that American voters had anything to do with the fact that Sanders just didn't get the numbers.
Sorry. But you can't blame "the establishment" for everything.
Sorry. But you can't blame "the establishment" for everything.
4
I don't think I've ever seen the news media and the country so contort themselves, so tie themselves up in unnecessary knots, in order to not offend a seventy-something Senator who ran a race and lost.
Because, at the end of the day, like it or not, that's exactly what happened. He lost! Doesn't mean the system is rigged or the DNC lied or stealth Yakuza ninjas were out to get him, stopping him at every turn. It simply means -- get this -- that more people preferred his opponent (in this case, Hillary Clinton) than him.
Sanders is not a child and, for Christ's sake, it's about high time we stopped treating him, and his supporters, like one. We're staring into the face of a dangerous Trumpian demagogue who'll apparently say and do anything. To not vote for the Democratic Nominee is to put unbelievable power into the hands of a mentally unbalanced narcissist -- and the GOP -- and gamble with the rights so many Americans have fought so hard for for so long.
Is it really worth screwing the country over just because you're mad your guy got less votes?
Because, at the end of the day, like it or not, that's exactly what happened. He lost! Doesn't mean the system is rigged or the DNC lied or stealth Yakuza ninjas were out to get him, stopping him at every turn. It simply means -- get this -- that more people preferred his opponent (in this case, Hillary Clinton) than him.
Sanders is not a child and, for Christ's sake, it's about high time we stopped treating him, and his supporters, like one. We're staring into the face of a dangerous Trumpian demagogue who'll apparently say and do anything. To not vote for the Democratic Nominee is to put unbelievable power into the hands of a mentally unbalanced narcissist -- and the GOP -- and gamble with the rights so many Americans have fought so hard for for so long.
Is it really worth screwing the country over just because you're mad your guy got less votes?
88
Yes, yes and yes again
2
They could not have offended him. They barely covered him.
2
Clinton was the DNC choice from day 1, which goes to show how out of touch they are. The RNC is, of course, equally clueless but they were trumped, so to speak, by insurgents. HRC may play well in the Blue States but not elsewhere. No ending has been scripted for this farce.
10
Joseph, on day 1, Bernie hadn't declared himself a candidate or even a Democrat. Had he been a declared Democrat in 2008 and run for the nomination then -- losing to Barack Obama and then supporting him -- he would have had much better credentials when he asked for the votes of enough long-time Democrats to make a difference in his favor in 2016.
Republicans shot their own foot by nominating an independent -- Trump is all about the Trump Party, whatever label he wears in July -- because they could not control the base they had spent decades deluding. The Republican regulars threw the kitchen sink at Trump but, alas, they could not get admiration for hateful irrationality out of their own voters' preferences.
Now you're blaming Democrats for not nominating an independent (though the Party has treated new member Bernie fairly and respectfully)?
Republicans shot their own foot by nominating an independent -- Trump is all about the Trump Party, whatever label he wears in July -- because they could not control the base they had spent decades deluding. The Republican regulars threw the kitchen sink at Trump but, alas, they could not get admiration for hateful irrationality out of their own voters' preferences.
Now you're blaming Democrats for not nominating an independent (though the Party has treated new member Bernie fairly and respectfully)?
15
What you seem to forget is Clinton has been a DEMOCRAT a lot longer than Bernie Sanders, who has stubbornly refused to be considered anything more than the Independent that he is.
Of course, insulting the Democratic Party and its members didn't exactly endear him, any more than it stopped him from reaping the financial rewards of being associated with a major political party.
Of course, insulting the Democratic Party and its members didn't exactly endear him, any more than it stopped him from reaping the financial rewards of being associated with a major political party.
8
Actually, Joseph, Clinton has played well in important swing states like FL, OH, and VA. Of course, how a candidate performs in the primaries doesn't predict how he/she will perform in the general election. Different opponent, different electorate.
It is obvious that this premature declaration of victory shows how unsure are the Clinton supporters in the MSM. They are frightened that if the Democratic race goes on much longer Sanders will do much more to expose Clinton’s faults.
In the meantime, this unseemly speed to declare HRC the winner, even before the polls close in California, will undoubtedly further alienate many Democrats and Independents. If the MSM wanted many people, who would never have voted for Donald Trump, to sit home in November, they are certainly doing the right thing.
Come November, if Clinton is actually nominated in July, and Trump beats her, the MSM will likely try and blame Bernie Sanders. But we will know that, in their clumsy way, the overeager MSM actually ensured a Trump victory through its lack of respect for the American people.
In the meantime, this unseemly speed to declare HRC the winner, even before the polls close in California, will undoubtedly further alienate many Democrats and Independents. If the MSM wanted many people, who would never have voted for Donald Trump, to sit home in November, they are certainly doing the right thing.
Come November, if Clinton is actually nominated in July, and Trump beats her, the MSM will likely try and blame Bernie Sanders. But we will know that, in their clumsy way, the overeager MSM actually ensured a Trump victory through its lack of respect for the American people.
14
The "We was robbed" Sanders folks are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that Hillary Clinton has effectively won the Democratic nomination because more of the eligible voters supported her than their favorite. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work? Bernie's own complaints sound too much like the guy who crashed the party and then complained about the food.
52
We all know the "Mrs." (not Ms. like the rest of us) is going to win the nomination. The real question is whether she will continue to pander to Republicans and ignore the progressive Democrats and independents. If she does so, she will lose the election in November. I hope I'm wrong.
3
So, what you're saying is "pandering" is bad.
Pandering to Republicans is bad.
But pandering to "progressive Democrats and Independents" is good.
You do of course realize that there is a difference between "pandering" and
compromise -- And an effective President knows the difference, and knows how to do it.
Pandering to Republicans is bad.
But pandering to "progressive Democrats and Independents" is good.
You do of course realize that there is a difference between "pandering" and
compromise -- And an effective President knows the difference, and knows how to do it.
5
The question is not whether she will continue to pander to Republicans, because she has not. And this Progressive voters knows Hillary has listened to her.
Sanders has so distorted Clinton's voting record, ideas and principles, with nothing other than accusations to back it up. What he has claimed about her is untrue.
Sanders has so distorted Clinton's voting record, ideas and principles, with nothing other than accusations to back it up. What he has claimed about her is untrue.
4
A great column, laid out rationally and mathematically. Unfortunately, many of Bernie's fervent backers are not all that rational.
37
"Mrs." instead of "Ms"? When did the Times bring *that* back?
1
High strung democrats seem desperate to put the bloody primary behind them. But with Donald Trump sucking all the air out of the room, I think Sanders is doing Mrs. Clinton a huge favor by keeping her in the news.
8
Based on MSNBC's plan to give the nomination to HRC at 8PM EST after the NJ Primary and while Californians are still voting, at what point does Nate Cohn think HRC's right turn on issues will occur?
6
We have known from the beginning of the primary season that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. Early support from party establishment super delegates sealed the deal before the first states voted.
If she is officially declared the nominee on Tuesday matters little to me. I'm still in Bernie Sanders' camp.
If she is officially declared the nominee on Tuesday matters little to me. I'm still in Bernie Sanders' camp.
10
And we can all only hope that doesn't translate into a vote for Donald Trump...
5
I think the thing that steams my broccoli as a Sanders supporter is that Mrs. Clinton's super delegates were added to her column from Day 1, before the first vote was cast, giving her an air of inevitability, and it worked. Isn't there some calculus among Democratic strategists as to who would fare best against Donald Trump in the general election? The election will be much closer than it needs to be with Hillary as our candidate.
9
Nice flip flop by Bernie. He was preaching about how horrible super delegates are and how the voters should decide early on. Then once the voters decided that he should not be the nominee he said the people shouldn't decide and the super delegates should vote for him because.... Democracy?
29
Thank you for pre-writing the response we will all need in our back pockets next Wednesday--when Sanders fanatics will all be out in force insisting it's still not over!
19
Right, she's winning because she swept the former confederate states, all of which she will lose in the general. She has a negative rating of 55% and truckloads of baggage to defend against the aggressive shape shifting Trump. Bernie polls much better than her against Trump and does much better with independents.
If job of the superdelegates is to pick the person who is the best general election candidate. They should do their job.
If job of the superdelegates is to pick the person who is the best general election candidate. They should do their job.
14
How is THAT democracy? How is THAT not the real definition of a "rigged" system? I agree that superdelegates should not be automatically be added to HRC, but even without them, HRC would still have won fair and square (unless you want to argue that 1+2=12)
I hate Trump, but I sympathized with him for that 10 day period when it looked like Ted Cruz was going to use unpledged delegates to essentially steal the nomination from Trump.
I hate Trump, but I sympathized with him for that 10 day period when it looked like Ted Cruz was going to use unpledged delegates to essentially steal the nomination from Trump.
3
First. New York (and quite a few others above the mason-Dixon line) is not a "former Confederate state".
And if you think Donald Trump will go negative (which of course, he will) with Clinton's "baggage", you can be assured that he would do the same with Bernie Sanders...and it wouldn't be very pretty.
And if you think Donald Trump will go negative (which of course, he will) with Clinton's "baggage", you can be assured that he would do the same with Bernie Sanders...and it wouldn't be very pretty.
7
You think that if one is a Democrat but live in a Southern state that they shouldn't be allowed to vote in the Democratic Primary for the Democratic candidate? But Independents, who aren't even a members of the Democratic party, their votes should count? And Northern red states votes, primarily in caucus states that disenfranchise the voters, should count as more important than Southern red states primaries?
This sure sounds like a double standard. if it benefits Sanders, then it's fair. But if it benefits Clinton, then it's unfair.
This also sounds like sour grapes and utter hypocrisy. The usual Sanders propaganda talking points.
This sure sounds like a double standard. if it benefits Sanders, then it's fair. But if it benefits Clinton, then it's unfair.
This also sounds like sour grapes and utter hypocrisy. The usual Sanders propaganda talking points.
3
What's the point of this exercise in gratuitously rubbing it in? Sanders supporters aren't stupid. They can do simple arithmetic. They want Bernie to finish out the race to see how well he continues doing. It will be interesting to go back and look at the projections of people like Nate Silver back when Bernie declared his candidacy. He has proven that neoliberalism belongs in the dustbin of history and that the actual American people are far to the left of what the corporate media have designated as the "middle."
20
This is wrong and gives a distorted view. But the media will do it anyway. It seems they care more about beating Bernie than beating Trump. Too bad, because Hillary can't beat Trump and Bernie can.
9
It's pieces like this that make me seriously consider canceling my NYTimes subscription due to the heavy political favoritism shown towards HRC. Her candidacy is not inevitable, and the voice for all voters needs to matter (cause it has said a different story than what the Times kept predicting).
16
There is always the real possibility of an indictment in the near future of Hillary in which case she will not be the nominee.
The Democratic leadership cannot ask the electorate to vote for a person under investigation by the FBI. There was a time when a person under investigation by the FBI would never be considered as a presidential candidate.
The Democratic leadership cannot ask the electorate to vote for a person under investigation by the FBI. There was a time when a person under investigation by the FBI would never be considered as a presidential candidate.
16
Amen. You are spot on. The State Department's recent IG report regarding Hillary's emails is scathing, and we Democrats ignore it at our peril.
Until recently, I just tuned out mentions of those "dam emails", assuming they were just more of the same right-wing claptrap. But this time I actually clicked on the pdf of the report and read for myself (thank you NYT for providing this). It is a big deal.
Given the Clinton Foundation's receipt of huge donations from foreign and domestic entities, with jaw-dropping possibilities of conflicts of interest during her tenure as SOS, all business had to be conducted with complete transparency, absolutely squeaky clean. Incredibly, that just so was not the case. Then she still stonewalled......
Trump will run with this. Hillary can't attack his credibility while being under FBI investigation herself. Democrats must come up with a better candidate.
Run Bernie run!!!! All the way to Philly!
Until recently, I just tuned out mentions of those "dam emails", assuming they were just more of the same right-wing claptrap. But this time I actually clicked on the pdf of the report and read for myself (thank you NYT for providing this). It is a big deal.
Given the Clinton Foundation's receipt of huge donations from foreign and domestic entities, with jaw-dropping possibilities of conflicts of interest during her tenure as SOS, all business had to be conducted with complete transparency, absolutely squeaky clean. Incredibly, that just so was not the case. Then she still stonewalled......
Trump will run with this. Hillary can't attack his credibility while being under FBI investigation herself. Democrats must come up with a better candidate.
Run Bernie run!!!! All the way to Philly!
3
You cannot 'clinch' a nomination based on super delegates whom have not yet voted.
Baring an indictment Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, but not until July. Anyone saying otherwise is simply trying to depress the vote.
Baring an indictment Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, but not until July. Anyone saying otherwise is simply trying to depress the vote.
9
Your ignoring the Corporate Media's role in favoring the Clintons, who deregulated the Corporate Media in 1996. Of course they had over 90% of congressional Republicans supporting them.
The Times front page obit on Sanders a week before the NY primary was The Classical. Two days ago, as Clinton was free falling, there wasn't a single story on her, save for the business section with a story pondering the unfairness of media coverage, Trump v. Hillary. Media and Sanders? Beyond the Times Political Class lens.
Who needs Republicans when today's Old Deal Democrats and the New York Times can create more right wing policies, without those messy protests.
The Times front page obit on Sanders a week before the NY primary was The Classical. Two days ago, as Clinton was free falling, there wasn't a single story on her, save for the business section with a story pondering the unfairness of media coverage, Trump v. Hillary. Media and Sanders? Beyond the Times Political Class lens.
Who needs Republicans when today's Old Deal Democrats and the New York Times can create more right wing policies, without those messy protests.
12
Superdelegates have not voted yet, so quit counting them toward the total. Many have already flipped their vote because when they signed on with her, she had no one running against her. Dear God, why is this so hard for the media to understand?
8
The super delegates do not vote until the convention. Neither candidate will have enough declared delegates to win the nomination without the super delegates vote so the nomination will be decided at the convention by the super delegates. It seems disingenuous by the media to count the super delegate vote before it has been cast. Remember 42% of this country is independent, 31% democrat, 25% republican. The reason that Hillary is tied in the polls (National and state) with Trump and Bernie is ahead by 10-15% is that Bernie and Trump are carrying the populist message in this campaign not Hillary. Bernie and Trump are bringing fresh voters out that show them winning swing states. In case you haven't noticed there is radical change being demanded by both sides. Nothing will unite the republicans more than a Hillary candidacy. I think everyone best pray that Bernie is nominated, because a Hillary nomination will likely mean a Trump presidency.
23
It's highly unlikely that Sanders will be able to flip enough superdelegates to swing the election to him. Remember, the superdelegates represent elected officials and party leaders. Sanders wasn't even part of the Democratic party until late last year so there won't be any sort of institutional momentum for him to grab in terms of these delegates. After all, he's been basing his campaign on the premise that the establishment (which the superdelegates represent) are corrupt and evil. Seems odd to expect that after insulting these people that they would rally behind him. He is also trailing Clinton the total number of votes cast. If the superdelegates swing to Sanders they would essentially be upending the expressed will of the people.
25
Bernie says he's going to persuade superdelegates to come over to his side. He hasn't so far, and that seems unlikely. He also wants an anti-fracking plank in the platform, which I consider a terrible idea both for energy security and the economies of numerous states.
20
Maybe you should drink the water left behind in those states...
2
A couple of days ago, Bernie Sanders claimed to have enough money to go past California, and on to the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia -- I'm still not sure why, unless it was to make sure Donald Trump wins the election.
At this point, the excuses and accusations of "Media conspiracy", "Rigging" and "Voter Suppression" from his supporters will probably start to pour in.
But in the end, it's really all about the Math.
To be sure, Sanders brought a some very good points to the table.
Too bad he poisoned the meal.
At this point, the excuses and accusations of "Media conspiracy", "Rigging" and "Voter Suppression" from his supporters will probably start to pour in.
But in the end, it's really all about the Math.
To be sure, Sanders brought a some very good points to the table.
Too bad he poisoned the meal.
107
It's not just about the "Math", it is also about democracy, choice, ethics and the will of the people who are NOT all Democrats. There are many of us for whom a vote for Clinton is totally unacceptable. So Sanders is giving us a choice, right up to the end--it's called Democracy, and the Democrat elite DNC hates it.
6
I think at this point he just does not want to go back to the Senate yet. And it does seem a little wrong to me that these candidates running for their Party nominations, not just Bernie, continue to get paid as senators even though they are absent from this work.
@independent
If you honestly think you will have any more of a Democracy under Donald Trump, consider this: a Republican President, a Republican Congress, AND a Republican Supreme Court.
Another thing. Sanders is not a Democrat, so it is not surprising that he has not received a majority of votes from its ordinary members, who are NOT the "Democrat elite DNC".
And the Math proves it.
If you honestly think you will have any more of a Democracy under Donald Trump, consider this: a Republican President, a Republican Congress, AND a Republican Supreme Court.
Another thing. Sanders is not a Democrat, so it is not surprising that he has not received a majority of votes from its ordinary members, who are NOT the "Democrat elite DNC".
And the Math proves it.
1
To put it more simply: Bernie Sanders came in second. No amount of fussing will convince the judges to snatch the blue one off the winner's pantsuit, and trade it for his red one.
56
Bernie might come in second, but not until the convention is over. If Clinton can't finish the democratic primary and beat Trump in the general election I don't think she should be running. The fact that so many people are worried about her chances is troubling, a honest candidate would have no problem beating trump. The biggest problem with Clinton is she is viewed as less honest than "Pathalogical Lier" Trump, and viewed was a bad choice of words, she really is not a honest person.
12
Until the convention, Clinton and Trump are both "presumptive nominees." Just like Obama was, in 2008, after Hillary came in second.
2
It is over, and it was over for Sanders for some time. Sanders has a long history of disingenuous actions when he is running in elections, but we didn't know that because nobody followed Vermont politics. Winning in caucuses which are very undemocratic does not bestow credibility on Sander. Prolonging the genuine wishful thinking for many young voters is also not very ennobling. The longer the race went, the more angry and unpleasant Bernie became. His speeches are like broken turntables - always the same - I wonder about the masochism of the repeat listeners. I am thinking that if not for Trump, who is completely of the wall, Bernie would have faded long ago. Trump by comparison is so bad, that even a flawed candidate such a Bernie had breathing room. The final straw was his appointment of Cornell West and Mr Zogby to the Democratic panels. It shows tha Bernie is not Presidential quality at all. Its is time for the wishful thinking to stop and let reality in. Hillary will be President and Bernie will stay in the Senate. Lesson to Democrats - next time don't let a lifelong independent into the party at the last minute just to run for something - let independents run outside.
138
"The final straw was his appointment of Cornell West and Mr Zogby to the Democratic panels."
Right, Sanders should have appointed Henry Kissinger and Lloyd Blankfein to the panel.
Right, Sanders should have appointed Henry Kissinger and Lloyd Blankfein to the panel.
8
You miss the greater point that the Sanders "movement" made. Many of us are done with the status quo of money in politics, to which the Clintons have belonged for a long, long time. It is not about the democratic party. It is about the future of our government and how long we will put up with its corruption. The "wishful-thinking" have valid wishes very much based in reality. You should not ignore them.
2
Sanders, appropriately offered the opportunity to appoint several members of the Democratic platform committee, turned around and stuck his thumb in the party's eye by naming Cornell West, an abrasive personality who has used over-the-top vitriolic rhetoric to attack President Obama. He could have chosen any number of progressives who would have vigorously promoted Sanders's policies in an effective but respectful way. Robert Reich, for example.
1
I applaud Mr. Sanders, who started out with three percent of the vote and no name recognition. He has run a wildly successful campaign. His message has gotten out and he will come in second. Everyone who is paying any attention at all now knows who he is and what he stands for. He has influenced Mrs. Clinton's positions, will no doubt influence the Democratic Party platform and the down ballot contests, and will also influence future elections. The Sanders political revolution is not over, nor will it be when he gives his speech of concession to Mrs. Clinton.
It is now time to focus on the remaining contest and to defeat the flim flam man put up by the other party. You know who: the guy standing at the podium in the straw hat and the red striped blazer, wildly waving his bamboo cane and saying "believe me, believe me."
It is now time to focus on the remaining contest and to defeat the flim flam man put up by the other party. You know who: the guy standing at the podium in the straw hat and the red striped blazer, wildly waving his bamboo cane and saying "believe me, believe me."
108
Yes, we now know what Bernie Sanders stands for:
1) Promising people free stuff for their votes
2) Lying about how he would pay for all that free stuff
3) Hating those more successful than himself
Did I miss anything?
1) Promising people free stuff for their votes
2) Lying about how he would pay for all that free stuff
3) Hating those more successful than himself
Did I miss anything?
2
Although "Bernie or Bust" seems reckless or even childish, it's not an altogether irrational stance, even if it results in a Trump presidency. Most liberals have accepted compromise administrations and platforms for decades, on the logic of not "making the perfect the enemy of the good"; Bill Clinton, who declared "I am very pro-business", the archetypal "New Democrat" truly personified this form of right-centrism democratic politics.
We've had decades of this form of pragmatism, which has only seen the so-called "center" drift rightward as the middle class is eviscerated, millions of jobs exported, consumer debt and inequality skyrocket. Meanwhile the professional economic consensus is recession looms not so distantly.
Bernie's supporters are mostly idealistic, and his strongest base is the college age and under 35 crowd. They are playing the long game. They accept sacrifice for a better future is often necessary, and a 4 year Trump presidency may an acceptable short term shock for the sake of eschewing Clintonesque status quo, business (especially Wall Street) pandering and incrementalism.
We've had decades of this form of pragmatism, which has only seen the so-called "center" drift rightward as the middle class is eviscerated, millions of jobs exported, consumer debt and inequality skyrocket. Meanwhile the professional economic consensus is recession looms not so distantly.
Bernie's supporters are mostly idealistic, and his strongest base is the college age and under 35 crowd. They are playing the long game. They accept sacrifice for a better future is often necessary, and a 4 year Trump presidency may an acceptable short term shock for the sake of eschewing Clintonesque status quo, business (especially Wall Street) pandering and incrementalism.
44
A four year Trump presidency is an "acceptable short term shock" only if the nation survives it.
Ralph Nader and the Supreme Court delivered the 2000 election to George W. Bush, and we barely survived that.
Compromise is how we make progress in an ideologically diverse society.
Ralph Nader and the Supreme Court delivered the 2000 election to George W. Bush, and we barely survived that.
Compromise is how we make progress in an ideologically diverse society.
38
The Supreme Court will be lost along with a woman's right to choose for a minimum of 20 years possibly 30. We still haven't sorted out all the damage from W. Presidential decisions outlast Presidents and an empowered Republican Congress with a pliant commander in chief can do damage that won't be undone by the time today's twenty somethings are 50 somethings. As anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist put it (paraphrasing) Republicans don't need a great leader and visionary they just need a President with a hand and fingers capable of signing the Bills Republicans put in front of him.
Representative democracy is inevitably incremental because the portions of America who don't agree with you can't be counted on to embrace the ideologically pure socialist you're hoping to emerge in your long game. There is no history of it so far. Every social program the Deomcratic party holds dear came from the administration of some deeply flawed politician. We got the EPA from that old liberal Nixon. The civil rights act, Medicaid, Medicare from LBJ.
Representative democracy is inevitably incremental because the portions of America who don't agree with you can't be counted on to embrace the ideologically pure socialist you're hoping to emerge in your long game. There is no history of it so far. Every social program the Deomcratic party holds dear came from the administration of some deeply flawed politician. We got the EPA from that old liberal Nixon. The civil rights act, Medicaid, Medicare from LBJ.
31
As a Sanders supporter, I do not support him for any "ideological" reasons, nor do I find his platform ideological. It is sad that this is how it has been labelled. Removing big money from our government is not ideological. It is the fundamental fix we need to a broken system. The "compromise" in this case is a politician who most likely will not address this, our government's most fundamental problem. This is not progress, but I will vote Clinton to avoid the Trump catastrophe either way.
7
There is no way Nate Cohn can know what would have happened if all of the states had been open primaries. Sanders won almost all of the states with open primaries.
But all this article is doing is apologizing for the way in which the media operates. The "presumptive nominee"? Fine, presume all you want. But that is not how the media will portray it. They will say plainly "Clinton wins".
But neither candidate will have the requisite number of delegates to have won until the convention, unless Bernie Sanders gives up like all of Trump's opponents have done. Sanders will not do that for several very good reasons.
He will wait until the convention and MAKE the super-delegates vote. This is important. These people need to be put on record as supporting Clinton. That way, after Trump stomps her into the dirt and/or the FBI indicts her, we Democrats will know exactly who to blame. And it won't be Bernie Sanders.
But all this article is doing is apologizing for the way in which the media operates. The "presumptive nominee"? Fine, presume all you want. But that is not how the media will portray it. They will say plainly "Clinton wins".
But neither candidate will have the requisite number of delegates to have won until the convention, unless Bernie Sanders gives up like all of Trump's opponents have done. Sanders will not do that for several very good reasons.
He will wait until the convention and MAKE the super-delegates vote. This is important. These people need to be put on record as supporting Clinton. That way, after Trump stomps her into the dirt and/or the FBI indicts her, we Democrats will know exactly who to blame. And it won't be Bernie Sanders.
43
Trump is also the presumptive nominee. Obama was the presumptive nominee as has been every single candidate in the past until the conventions.
16
If the remaining pledged delegates split evenly -- which would be a decrease in the rate at which she has been winning pledged delegates -- Clinton will need just slightly more than a third of superdelegates to win the nomination.
This means Sanders would have to convince 357 of them to switch, after having lost the popular vote in the primaries by three million votes (so far).
On what planet does that make sense?
It would perhaps be better if superdelegates didn't say their preferences out loud until the convention, but since when should, say, sitting members of the US Senate Democratic Senators are superdelegates) not be allowed to say who they prefer as President and nominee? Why should they lose their First Amendment right for eighteen months or so?
The biggest lie in this primary season may not be from Trump. It may be that this is and has been a close contest; it isn't and it hasn't been. Sanders has done a remarkable job in rising from a national unknown from a tiny state to getting ten million primary votes, but he has been losing by a decisive margin for a while. He will not be the nominee.
Oh, and there is little evidence that anything illegal happened with the emails. That is just Trump -- and, shamefully, Sanders -- wishful thinking.
This means Sanders would have to convince 357 of them to switch, after having lost the popular vote in the primaries by three million votes (so far).
On what planet does that make sense?
It would perhaps be better if superdelegates didn't say their preferences out loud until the convention, but since when should, say, sitting members of the US Senate Democratic Senators are superdelegates) not be allowed to say who they prefer as President and nominee? Why should they lose their First Amendment right for eighteen months or so?
The biggest lie in this primary season may not be from Trump. It may be that this is and has been a close contest; it isn't and it hasn't been. Sanders has done a remarkable job in rising from a national unknown from a tiny state to getting ten million primary votes, but he has been losing by a decisive margin for a while. He will not be the nominee.
Oh, and there is little evidence that anything illegal happened with the emails. That is just Trump -- and, shamefully, Sanders -- wishful thinking.
37
Yes, Clinton had more votes than Sanders in the primaries. And many of those votes came from states which would never, ever vote for a Democrat as president.
A Democrat would never win OK, ND, IN, SD, NE, KS, UT, MT, ID, or AK (red states Sanders won). Let alone, VA, MD, KY, TN, TX, OK, GA, MS, LA, AZ, NC, SC, or AR (red states Clinton won). So, when you removed all those states, right now, both candidates are virtually tied in votes. CA will be the decider. And guess what? Clinton won OH, because Democrats and Independents decided to cross over and vote fro Kasich (according to the Ohio Secretary of State). And CO? Well, once you get away from Denver County and Boulder County, Clinton doe snot have a chance. If anything, her being in the election may lead to a a defeat Senator Bennett; losing a Democratic seat. Making a purple state go red. Nice price to pay, isn't it?
Sanders lost Iowa and Nevada due to DNC "interference". He lost New York, due to political machine "interference". Like thousands of people purged from the rolls, and found out after the fact when they tried voting.
In a general election Sanders has a 12% lead over Trump; And a statistical tie with Clinton and Trump. This according to Real Clear Politics.
Clinton will be the nominee, but her being the nominee, will cost seats in the House and Senate. She will end up with even a more hostile Congress than President Obama. She knows this, that is why she is running as the "status quo" candidate.
A Democrat would never win OK, ND, IN, SD, NE, KS, UT, MT, ID, or AK (red states Sanders won). Let alone, VA, MD, KY, TN, TX, OK, GA, MS, LA, AZ, NC, SC, or AR (red states Clinton won). So, when you removed all those states, right now, both candidates are virtually tied in votes. CA will be the decider. And guess what? Clinton won OH, because Democrats and Independents decided to cross over and vote fro Kasich (according to the Ohio Secretary of State). And CO? Well, once you get away from Denver County and Boulder County, Clinton doe snot have a chance. If anything, her being in the election may lead to a a defeat Senator Bennett; losing a Democratic seat. Making a purple state go red. Nice price to pay, isn't it?
Sanders lost Iowa and Nevada due to DNC "interference". He lost New York, due to political machine "interference". Like thousands of people purged from the rolls, and found out after the fact when they tried voting.
In a general election Sanders has a 12% lead over Trump; And a statistical tie with Clinton and Trump. This according to Real Clear Politics.
Clinton will be the nominee, but her being the nominee, will cost seats in the House and Senate. She will end up with even a more hostile Congress than President Obama. She knows this, that is why she is running as the "status quo" candidate.
3
The reason why many Hillary supporters support her is precisely because ofthe presence of Bernie. He pushed her left on social issues, but talk is cheap. The reality is "whose bread I eat, his song I sing". We all know how much bread she and Bill have gobbled down, in excess of $100 million. To know the exact lyrics of the song, we would have to see those transcripts, which are jealously guarded.
The Super-delegates are playing a super dangerous game. They know that what Hillary has said (other than that which is not disclosed), is not what she will do. She will "evolve". As Trump viciously entertains us with Hillary's duplicity, enough duped Democrats will wise up and decide to sit out the election.
The Super-delegates are playing a super dangerous game. They know that what Hillary has said (other than that which is not disclosed), is not what she will do. She will "evolve". As Trump viciously entertains us with Hillary's duplicity, enough duped Democrats will wise up and decide to sit out the election.
26
In their history, supers have never made the difference in determining the Democratic nominee. And it's doubtful they will this year.
Evolution leftwards is a good idea because even if she tried, Hillary could not implement Bernie's platform. Precisely because his platform is completely unrealistic given the numbers in Congress. Bernie and the supers know this. And that's one of several reasons why they won't budge from their commitment to Hillary.
Evolution leftwards is a good idea because even if she tried, Hillary could not implement Bernie's platform. Precisely because his platform is completely unrealistic given the numbers in Congress. Bernie and the supers know this. And that's one of several reasons why they won't budge from their commitment to Hillary.
20
So are you arguing that super delegates should overturn the results of the popular vote and delegate count? Let's look at it this way. If we eliminated superdelegates and determine the winner by gaining the majority of pledged delegates Clinton will *still* win.
6
"Precisely because his platform is completely unrealistic"
Ah, lack of a vision for the future, and honing to your owners' wants, is so comfortable.
Ah, lack of a vision for the future, and honing to your owners' wants, is so comfortable.
4
Should we think of campaign promises as ideals and nothing more? Think of Trump's promises, the wall, barring Muslims and the numerous flip flops on all kinds of issues. Or how about the free stuff candidate Bernie? Or the dull establishment, wonk, Hillary. If we vote ideals, without much chance of success will we sleep better at night or feel better about the country. Yes for a while. We know from Obama that unless Congress supports the president nothing much will change. If the GOP keeps Congress and Trump is president, will you want what the Tea Party controlled Congress has to offer and do you trust Trump with anything? If you trust Trump, why? Is he honest? no. Is he consistent? no. Does he share any of your values? Who knows. Are you so angry and discontented that someone who is a chameleon like Trump can start a nuclear war because he just can?
19
As much as I despise the two major corporate party candidates, and vote Progressive Left, I am more fearful of Clinton starting a war, a nuke one, than Trump. Her neocon aggressive, NATO expansionist policies will confront the other major nuclear power, Russia, while Trump has said he will talk to the Russians. The really dangerous one is Clinton, who demonstrated "she cares about women and children" with the invasions of Iraq and Syria mess, with shock and awe bombing, the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and displacement of millions.
Just look at the record. Trump has no blood on his hands (yet). Clinton could not wash the blood stains off if she were to live another 100 years. The fact that people consider Clinton a legitimate candidate is mind boggling--why not nominate Cheney as her VP?
Just look at the record. Trump has no blood on his hands (yet). Clinton could not wash the blood stains off if she were to live another 100 years. The fact that people consider Clinton a legitimate candidate is mind boggling--why not nominate Cheney as her VP?
8
To further make your point, the ironic thing is Mrs. Clinton stressing how dangerous Trump's foreign policy would be.
3
"Trump has no blood on his hands..."
A ringing endorsement from a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, sounds a lot like having having blood on one's hands.
A ringing endorsement from a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, sounds a lot like having having blood on one's hands.
I voted for Sanders in the recent Oregon primary. I expected him to win, and he did. However, I'm not under any illusions that Mrs. Clinton will be the nominee for the Democratic party, and I will vote for her in November. Well, actually, I'll cast a vote for Clinton, but only as a vote against Trump. I like Sanders, I like how he thinks, and I also like his vision for America. The problem with America, is it is America, where people of different backgrounds, beliefs, points of view, and histories, live, clash, argue, and try to work things out together. Well, at least they used to work together. The Republicans put a stop to that during the Obama years by openly refusing to move America forward, and now with the obstinant refusal to elect a Supreme Court judge. These actions have produced a culture of Trump voters who refuse to see their own candidate for the ugly creature he is, and Sanders supporters who feel so entitled to their moral superiority to such an extent that they will, ironically, refuse to vote in the coming presidential election. They have gone full circle joining the Republicans with the refusal to participate because they don't get their way. Well, grow up. I'd like Sanders to win. Its not going to happen. I want Trump to lose. I have only one way to do anything about that. I'm going to vote for Clinton in November. I'm not happy about that, but I'm also not going to throw America away to the loony bin simply because I won't get my way.
265
Now, who is being morally superior?
2
Amen, Michael. I agree 100%.
1
You mean the media didn't declare her presumptive nominee a year ago? I thought this whole time that this was going to be a coronation by big money and big media. It turned out to be from their perspective, but not the American peoples.
Americans hate being told what to think and who to follow. Of course, every time they mentioned one of many legit concerns with Clinton, they were told they were misogynist sexist blah blah buzzword...
So, now we go into the finals, and the only radical guy out there is Trump. I have a feeling that Hillary will pick up a majority of Bernie supports, and no Bernie supporter can support Trump, they are pretty much mutually exclusive. The big winners this year will be the Libertarians and the Greens. I hope by next election they are viable parties and we can finally end the cronyism that is today's politics.
Americans hate being told what to think and who to follow. Of course, every time they mentioned one of many legit concerns with Clinton, they were told they were misogynist sexist blah blah buzzword...
So, now we go into the finals, and the only radical guy out there is Trump. I have a feeling that Hillary will pick up a majority of Bernie supports, and no Bernie supporter can support Trump, they are pretty much mutually exclusive. The big winners this year will be the Libertarians and the Greens. I hope by next election they are viable parties and we can finally end the cronyism that is today's politics.
33
Exit polls by MSNBC in West Virginia revealed that 34% of Bernie voters were going to vote for Trump in the general even if Bernie won the Democratic nomination. So, there are no certainties in this election.
1
The race for the Democratic nomination is over. Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. As a person with an American Studies degree (honors), who has been determined to be a "low information" voter by Sanders supporters due to my support for Clinton, I celebrate this development with, yes I admit it, malicious glee.
lol (honers)
lol (honers)
48
The time has come for us put our differences to rest and unite as Democrats and as free-thinking individuals to make sure that there will never, ever be a President Trump. Nothing is more important. Let's get moving and focus, because the Republicans are absolutely going to rally around Trump and voters are all too easily seduced by fear and false notions of supremacy. As a person I might like Bernie more than Hillary, but as a president I sure as heck like Hillary better than the Donald.
88
"and as free-thinking individuals"
That would rule out most Democrats, who will vote for a neocon war monger, professional liar and greedy money grubbing corporate pawn if told by their betters to do so.
I will never "unite" with that.
That would rule out most Democrats, who will vote for a neocon war monger, professional liar and greedy money grubbing corporate pawn if told by their betters to do so.
I will never "unite" with that.
5
Well. That sounds like a vote for Donald Trump.
Good Luck with that.
Good Luck with that.
Bernie was always a long shot. In the beginning of the campaign nobody even thought he would get this far. But yes he should have won states with a lot of delegates with a bigger margin. Because Hillary, when she won, she won with a bigger margins than he did, when he won. So, now, except if he wins California and New Jersey with the margin he won Vermont with, he can't win. That's really a simple math. Clinton is preparing to become the president from a year before she left White House as the first lady. She invested an incredible decades-long effort to get where she is now, and she will be crowned for her perseverance. Hopefully, Bernie's success and his crowds will keep her on the straight and narrow throughout the rest of the elections and her presidency. And hopefully Trump gets arrested for his college scam before she gets indicted for her email-gate. The US became an interesting country...
19
The democratic caucuses were the most unfair (in Sanderistas lingo "rigged") part of the primary season. I wish Nate had articulated a little more forcefully the disadvantage the caucuses were for Hillary. In both WA and NE, Sanders "won" the caucuses in a landslide, but Hillary won the primaries in both states (but the primaries don't count towards delegate haul). Bernie's biggest margin of victory, outside his homestate, was Washington state where 250,000 democratic voters (out of 4 million registered democrats) participated in the caucuses and Bernie won 230K votes. In the mail in WA state primary, 800,000 democrats voted by ballot and Hillary won by 5 percentage points but garnered NO delegates. There are many points along the campaign that Sanders undermined his own integrity, but his reliance on the caucuses to support his "winning" narrative was bogus and disingenuous. He should have come out against the very unfair caucus process even though it would have shown that he was never winning in this primary. It's astounding that the math has been so blatantly ignored by Sanders and even the media up until recently. Hillary has been winning (percentage wise) by a landslide in the popular vote and near landslide in pledged delegates. She's been the presumptive nominee since she swept the south; and yet the socialist carpetbagger has been living in this alternate universe, supported by his rabid followers and a media that needs a horse race.
142
Not really a fair analysis, is it? Voters knew that the caucuses were binding for the presidential elections and that the primaries weren't. Presidential elections have always drawn much more turnout than down-ticket primaries. It'd be one thing if more people voted in the WA and NE primaries, but I'm sure the opposite is true, that many more voted in the caucuses. Not saying that they SHOULDN'T have voted in the primaries, but you can't point to a result months later that every voter knew didn't matter and use that as evidence that the caucuses weren't accurate in representation.
The Sanders campaign is like a team that way behind in points in the Super Bowl refusing to accept that they've lost and trying to steal the game from the team that's ahead. They try to rationalize and say that they won more points in the 4th quarter so they have momentum. But that doesn't make any difference if they lost in total points. It doesn't matter where in the game a team scores points. it's the points accumulated at the end that count.
And Team Sanders says, well, we're going to talk to the referees and tell them to overturn the score because we have a majority white team that won points in the North and they have more Southern black athletes and you know that blacks only get 3/5 of a point for a score. Blacks scores really shouldn't count unless, of course, they’re for our team.
And then Team Sanders says, forget the actual points accumulated by each side, I have a louder cheering section so that means the other team has lost. I want the referees to overturn the whole game and award the the trophy to our team. It doesn’t matter that we lost in points and we’re cheating the other team and their supporters. We’re the only ones that matter because I declare our team superior.
These arguments literally makes no sense at all. They’re illogical, ignore reality and nothing but an extremely poor loser who thinks that he can demand that the score be changed just because he doesn’t like the end result.
And Team Sanders says, well, we're going to talk to the referees and tell them to overturn the score because we have a majority white team that won points in the North and they have more Southern black athletes and you know that blacks only get 3/5 of a point for a score. Blacks scores really shouldn't count unless, of course, they’re for our team.
And then Team Sanders says, forget the actual points accumulated by each side, I have a louder cheering section so that means the other team has lost. I want the referees to overturn the whole game and award the the trophy to our team. It doesn’t matter that we lost in points and we’re cheating the other team and their supporters. We’re the only ones that matter because I declare our team superior.
These arguments literally makes no sense at all. They’re illogical, ignore reality and nothing but an extremely poor loser who thinks that he can demand that the score be changed just because he doesn’t like the end result.
160
The Democratic establishment is stupid and foolhardy to ignore the will of the significant minority of their bloc that supports Bernie Sanders. Can't you see what happened to the Republicans? Their party is shattered because they didn't really listen to what their voters wanted. They commissioned a report after Obama's second election which told them they needed to be more responsive to the interests of Hispanic voters and women, among other insights. What did they do? Doubled down on their own goals: obstructing Obama's presidency, interfering with women's health care, repeatedly trying to overturn existing health care reforms, and stripping LGBT people of their human rights. And now look. A con man has stolen away more than half of their voters.
The Dems need to abandon business as usual and swing hard to the left. Hillary's flexible enough. She needs to bend or that con man will win.
The Dems need to abandon business as usual and swing hard to the left. Hillary's flexible enough. She needs to bend or that con man will win.
6
First, let me state unequivocally that I am probably to the ideological left of Bernie Sanders.
Most of the US is not. Tens of millions of Americans think Barack Obama and Clinton are Socialists. There is pretty good evidence that most Americans do not want to abolish the private insurance system and replace it with a single-payer only system (cost savings and better outcomes notwithstanding).
Nor does there seem to be a statistically significant level of support beyond the college-aged for free college tuition. (Many of the countries that offer this separate the university-bound from the non-university-bound when students are ten or eleven. I wonder why Sanders doesn't talk about this.)
Sanders and Clinton voted the same on over 90 per cent of votes when they were both Senators. Sure, she is a centrist. Most Democratic Presidents after FDR have been.
Americans vote in the centre. When Democrats nominate someone who is perceived as being too liberal, the nation votes to its own ideological right (Reagan, Bush the Elder).
Sanders polls better than Trump now because it is a three-way race, we are more than five months from the general, he has never been vetted at a national level (all those funky counter-culture things he wrote back in the groovy past would be in national ads the day after he clinched, not to mention his face between Stalin and Mao's).
The US won't elect a Socialist to the Presidency.
Even one running against a sociopathic narcissist like the Donald.
Most of the US is not. Tens of millions of Americans think Barack Obama and Clinton are Socialists. There is pretty good evidence that most Americans do not want to abolish the private insurance system and replace it with a single-payer only system (cost savings and better outcomes notwithstanding).
Nor does there seem to be a statistically significant level of support beyond the college-aged for free college tuition. (Many of the countries that offer this separate the university-bound from the non-university-bound when students are ten or eleven. I wonder why Sanders doesn't talk about this.)
Sanders and Clinton voted the same on over 90 per cent of votes when they were both Senators. Sure, she is a centrist. Most Democratic Presidents after FDR have been.
Americans vote in the centre. When Democrats nominate someone who is perceived as being too liberal, the nation votes to its own ideological right (Reagan, Bush the Elder).
Sanders polls better than Trump now because it is a three-way race, we are more than five months from the general, he has never been vetted at a national level (all those funky counter-culture things he wrote back in the groovy past would be in national ads the day after he clinched, not to mention his face between Stalin and Mao's).
The US won't elect a Socialist to the Presidency.
Even one running against a sociopathic narcissist like the Donald.
28
Instead of constructing a straw man analogy to attack, why not deal with the facts?
Clinton will go into the convention with more legally bound delegates than Sanders, but not enough to outright claim victory. This is because she did better in the nominating contests.
At the convention, we expect (based on their public statements) that more than enough non-legally-bound superdelegates will vote for her too. But since they are not legally bound to vote for Clinton, it's entirely appropriate for candidates to vie for their vote.
One reason they might vote for Sanders is that they honestly believe, at the time of the convention, that he will be a stronger candidate against Trump. This is WHY the Democratic party has superdelegates in the first place. So that a wise choice can be made at the convention.
Why is there anything unethical about letting the convention process play out? What's the rush?
Frankly, if the concern is that Sanders supporters will petulantly withhold their vote in November, then the way to address that is to let Sanders lose fair and square - either when Clinton gets enough legally-bound delegates before the convention (not gonna happen) or at the convention when superdelegates actually vote.
Clinton will go into the convention with more legally bound delegates than Sanders, but not enough to outright claim victory. This is because she did better in the nominating contests.
At the convention, we expect (based on their public statements) that more than enough non-legally-bound superdelegates will vote for her too. But since they are not legally bound to vote for Clinton, it's entirely appropriate for candidates to vie for their vote.
One reason they might vote for Sanders is that they honestly believe, at the time of the convention, that he will be a stronger candidate against Trump. This is WHY the Democratic party has superdelegates in the first place. So that a wise choice can be made at the convention.
Why is there anything unethical about letting the convention process play out? What's the rush?
Frankly, if the concern is that Sanders supporters will petulantly withhold their vote in November, then the way to address that is to let Sanders lose fair and square - either when Clinton gets enough legally-bound delegates before the convention (not gonna happen) or at the convention when superdelegates actually vote.
6
Bernie's declaration that he intends to keep running for the White House until the convention is disheartening. Can we all just close our eyes and imagine if Clinton had done the same thing in 2007 against Obama? The media, pundits and the Democratic Party establishment would have excoriated her as arrogant and entitled.
The irony is that in 2007, Clinton only lost to Obama at the end of the primaries by 50 pledged delegates and she had more than 100 super delegates with her. Contrast that with her race with Sanders where she leads him by over 200 pledged delegates and he only has around 40 super delegates and one sees the absurdity of Bernie's self destructive posture to keep running.
My hope is that after June 7th, the Democratic Party stops the charade that there is still a nominating contest and rally's around the presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders deserves to be ostracized until he does the right thing and shows that he is not a sore loser and gets behind Hillary Clinton for the good of the party and the country. For Bernie to do otherwise, would be breaking with the long held custom of our democracy to exit a lost political race for the presidency with grace and to back the winner in your own party.
And by the way, does Bernie really want to be remembered as the man who tried to overturn the historic moment that a woman clinches her parties nomination for president?
The irony is that in 2007, Clinton only lost to Obama at the end of the primaries by 50 pledged delegates and she had more than 100 super delegates with her. Contrast that with her race with Sanders where she leads him by over 200 pledged delegates and he only has around 40 super delegates and one sees the absurdity of Bernie's self destructive posture to keep running.
My hope is that after June 7th, the Democratic Party stops the charade that there is still a nominating contest and rally's around the presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders deserves to be ostracized until he does the right thing and shows that he is not a sore loser and gets behind Hillary Clinton for the good of the party and the country. For Bernie to do otherwise, would be breaking with the long held custom of our democracy to exit a lost political race for the presidency with grace and to back the winner in your own party.
And by the way, does Bernie really want to be remembered as the man who tried to overturn the historic moment that a woman clinches her parties nomination for president?
169
RE: "....Can we all just close our eyes and imagine if Clinton had done the same thing in 2007 against Obama? The media, pundits and the Democratic Party establishment would have excoriated her as arrogant and entitled."
This is a perfect example of the double standard that still exists no matter how strong the denial. Thank you RJS for your comment which I think would make a great NYT Pick.
This is a perfect example of the double standard that still exists no matter how strong the denial. Thank you RJS for your comment which I think would make a great NYT Pick.
27
We made history with the election of Obama, and what did it get us. More corporate governance. Let's not make history again, at least until w have a woman candidate who is totally unlike Hillary Clinton.
"does Bernie really want to be remembered"
The Dems have been smearing Ralph Nader, a true public servant with the RIGHT to run for elective office, for 16 years. When Clinton loses, and she will, they'll blame Sanders for 50 years, no matter what the reason for her loss is, among the many possibilities, FBI dragging her off to prison, her own flawed (a mild word) character, corruption, decades of lying.
No, the Democrats will NEVER take responsibility--that would involve character and honesty, qualities completely lacking in the DNC and machine Dems. I'll vote third party, for Dr. Jill Stein, unless it is very close between Trump and Clinton. Then I might vote Trump. For payback.
"does Bernie really want to be remembered"
The Dems have been smearing Ralph Nader, a true public servant with the RIGHT to run for elective office, for 16 years. When Clinton loses, and she will, they'll blame Sanders for 50 years, no matter what the reason for her loss is, among the many possibilities, FBI dragging her off to prison, her own flawed (a mild word) character, corruption, decades of lying.
No, the Democrats will NEVER take responsibility--that would involve character and honesty, qualities completely lacking in the DNC and machine Dems. I'll vote third party, for Dr. Jill Stein, unless it is very close between Trump and Clinton. Then I might vote Trump. For payback.
3
@RJS Clinton didn't throw in the towel for the good of the party, she did it for the good of Hillary.
Clinton bought stuff she needed by agreeing to give up the fight - she had enormous campaign debt, she got her SoS job and the party support for the 2016 run.
But even against Trump it is doubtful she will ever be President, which is what the superdelegates need to think about.
It is all about trust (or lack thereof).
Clinton bought stuff she needed by agreeing to give up the fight - she had enormous campaign debt, she got her SoS job and the party support for the 2016 run.
But even against Trump it is doubtful she will ever be President, which is what the superdelegates need to think about.
It is all about trust (or lack thereof).
3
There is only one reason Clinton will win- Donald Trump. If she were to be challenged by any sane opponent on the Republican side in the general election (snide comments expected here about who's sane or not) she would be sent packing back to Arkansas or wherever she claims to be from. A sad commentary on the state of affairs we find ourselves in this election- a really bad candidate will win because her opponent is even worse.
26
And even Hillary's win is not a given. The cost to the country of our campaign finance situation means that campaigns are long, very expensive and a terrible way to find the best person for legislatures or the presidency. Many are suspicious of candidates who have careers in politics because they are thought to be bought. The Tea Party did nothing to improve the situation. Citizens United and other campaign contribution opinions give the very wealthy the loudest and longest voices in politics. That cannot be democratic.
Hillary if elected might be able to work with Congress. Trump is a wild card and Bernie has no chance to work with Congress.
Hillary if elected might be able to work with Congress. Trump is a wild card and Bernie has no chance to work with Congress.
18
The only way I want to see a Democrat reach across the aisle to a Republican is to snap the handcuffs on the other side. But you're right about Clinton being able to "work with the Republicans". She would, for more war, more TPP and bad trade deals, more corporate governance, you know, all those Democrat initiatives that benefit we the little people so well.
2
@Randy—Fine. But Trump is the only reason that Sanders would win as well. A strong likable moderate republican would win against Sanders easily.
I feel sorry for Bernie. He started off great. But then it became apparent that his policies lack real substance. He is exciting the young, but also creating false hopes because what he promises could never happen as he leaves folks to believe. Even if he won the election, disillusion would follow.
I have lost respect for him. His stance on guns is simply not supportable, even though he lives in Vermont. Voting against the Brady Bill? Come on -- sell it to your constituents if you care about the country.
Bernie also has a very light record of accomplishments during his tenure as Senator. The only foreign policy matter upon which he pronounces is "no to trade deals". He has no grasp of international affairs.
And although I have no problem with him staying in the race, he flirtation with harming Hillary while the danger of Trump lurks, is very troublesome.
I have lost respect for him. His stance on guns is simply not supportable, even though he lives in Vermont. Voting against the Brady Bill? Come on -- sell it to your constituents if you care about the country.
Bernie also has a very light record of accomplishments during his tenure as Senator. The only foreign policy matter upon which he pronounces is "no to trade deals". He has no grasp of international affairs.
And although I have no problem with him staying in the race, he flirtation with harming Hillary while the danger of Trump lurks, is very troublesome.
222
Why do all the Bernie smears have a common thread of fantasy about him and his proposals. I write and edit professionally. I can see what is going on. If you are not part of David Brock's "Correct the Reocrd", then you are missing out on the chump change that the others are making. Too bad.
6
Bernie has betrayed the young people by giving them false hopes.
As in lying to them.
As in lying to them.
4
Thank David Brock for your beliefs that Sanders "has made promises he can't keep, his economic policy doesn't work, he knows nothing about foriegn policy and he can't do any thing anyway." They were messages shaped to create the impression that he wasn't competent, which is not true. They have also tried to create the perception that he is dishonest as well, knowing she is seen that way.
As for Bernie "hurting" her, are you talking about his (foolish) refusal to attack her on the email server, a situation that is quite different from the way she described it? If she is "hurt", it is self-inflicted amd Trump will not go is gently on her as Bernie has. She has a ton of baggage, none of it created by Bernie. If you think the GOP and their henchmen are going to leave it on the table, you are quite mistaken. That said, it is hers.
She is responsible for being dishonest, for flaunting policy that didn't suit her, and for trying to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act, created in the wake of another secretive and dishonest politician, Richard Nixon, who no doubt she admires. I fear in Mrs. Bill we are headed for Nixon all over again, brought by the gentle tutor, Kissinger.
Ugh! Disgusting.
As for Bernie "hurting" her, are you talking about his (foolish) refusal to attack her on the email server, a situation that is quite different from the way she described it? If she is "hurt", it is self-inflicted amd Trump will not go is gently on her as Bernie has. She has a ton of baggage, none of it created by Bernie. If you think the GOP and their henchmen are going to leave it on the table, you are quite mistaken. That said, it is hers.
She is responsible for being dishonest, for flaunting policy that didn't suit her, and for trying to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act, created in the wake of another secretive and dishonest politician, Richard Nixon, who no doubt she admires. I fear in Mrs. Bill we are headed for Nixon all over again, brought by the gentle tutor, Kissinger.
Ugh! Disgusting.
5
Hey, Nate, Mrs. Clinton has had eight years to figure out how to clinch her nomination. Which she has almost done. Next Tuesday, according to your lights, is "C Day" - Clinch Day for Hillary. The night she will become the presumptive Democratic Nominee. Bernie coulda, woulda, shoulda, but he has run a great and valiant race and the proof is that his campaign finances were donated in small amounts by those who fervently believe in his message, and will go on believing until the nomination for Hillary Clinton is made at the Philadelphia Convention end of next month. And we all will hope that Donald Trump will be revealed, finally, to his followers, as the scammer and schemer and bully he is, and not worthy or qualified to be our President.
77
"Those who fervently believe..." are we talking reality, or religion?
3
It is completely irrelevant whether Trump's followers suddenly realize who and what he is. All we need is for everyone else to vote against him. I don't care if you don't like HRC or do, if any of us care about this country we'd better vote like our lives depend on it.
1
I'd like to personally thank you Nate, on behalf of the anti-establishment zeitgeist that has swept over the country, for your consistent transparent promotion of Hillary which has driven and will continue to drive so many fed-up Bernie supporters to the one remaining anti-establishment candidate.
I also find it amusing that so many writers and commenters here still think Hillary has a chance in November (assuming she's not in jail before then). Very impressive head-in-sand technique on display.
I also find it amusing that so many writers and commenters here still think Hillary has a chance in November (assuming she's not in jail before then). Very impressive head-in-sand technique on display.
84
@asdfj: I don' t understand how an account of what has actually happened and what percentage of votes Sanders would have needed to win, represents a promotion of Hillary. As to the second paragraph, it, indeed, is an example of a "very impressive head-in-the-sand" technique.
147
You live in a bubble if you think a 74 year old Socialist would ever become president of the US today. You may think flyover country is some bright colors on the map, but it is the source of the majority of our young military personnel and they vote and the undecided voters there would never support Bernie. I know, I lived in several states there. Polls this early don't really predict final election results and polls have consistently undercounted minority turnout for the last two president elections. The Latino vote is energized with voter registration up just to vote against Trump. So I do think Clinton will win. And I find it amusing that Bernie supporters consider themselves morrally superior when they really are just filled with such condescention and hate.
44
She will beat Trump , with or without you
13
Thank you for this very clear analysis. I'm afraid, however, that it will still fall on deaf ears to many of Sen. Sanders' supporters. This is quite frightening when college students, college or even graduate school educated, and ostensibly high-information voters can't seem to grasp or accept the math. I truly get that passion and fervor can sometimes cloud judgment and logic. Anyone who has fallen in love and failed to see glaring character flaws that are later clear as day in their mate can appreciate this phenomenon. What concerns me, however, is if even the supposed learned individual are pulling binders over their eyes, then what about the rest of the electorate? Sadly, I feel as though I'm right back in elementary school where my fellow students are so easily swayed by the popular kid who is running for President because he makes promises pie-in-the sky promises that he could never keep. Coca-cola and candy machines for all! Extended recess and lunch break! No more pop quizzes! ....sigh.
214
"I'm afraid, however, that it will still fall on deaf ears to many of Sen. Sanders' supporters." I do hear, loud and clear, what Bernie is saying and I am a little hard of hearing at 74.
Write in Bernie in November!
Write in Bernie in November!
2
It's one thing to show up at Sanders rallies, another to actually VOTE. I'm in my 60s, and work with six Millennials, all of them just out of college and feelin' the Bern. During the FL primary, only 1 of the 6 voted because the rest either forgot to register in time (and shrugged it off as no big deal) or forgot to change their party affiliation from "Independent" to Dem/GOP so they could vote for an actual candidate. Let's hope Bernie rallies his troops in November to actually, you know, VOTE.
1
Fine column. Along with Thomas Friedman's piece yesterday, it should be required reading for everyone who has been following this race closely. A large part of Bernie's delegate count comes from caucus victories--e.g. in Wyoming, where fewer than 300 people voted, so it is very unfair of his campaign to complain of a "fixed process." He did well, he raised very important issues, but in the end he lost, period. Now let's hope he will be a good loser. The threat of Trump is real and very frightening.
350
Cohn and Friedman are in on the elite DNC gravy train. The Times represents the views of the elite establishment, but one can occasionally get accurate information and good recipes if one reads between the lines. For real truthful news, go to The Real News Network, Democracy Now!, The Intercept, and even RT, Russia Today, is much more truthful than the NY Times. It's a shame, but they are shameless.
6
Only Bernie beats Trump.
6
I agree with you except for the fact that so far Sanders has not proven to be a "good loser". There is no reason to expect that this will change.
3
Thanks for a careful analysis. Too often Bernie supporters in their excitement and enthusiasm assume that their guy must win. They then turn their disappointment into anger and resentment by focusing on super delegates, viewing the system as "rigged," and feeling cheated. Unfortunately, in recent weeks Mr. Sanders has chosen the very unwise course of encouraging these beliefs. Unwise, that is, unless he truly wants Mr. Trump in the White House. I presume that Mr. Sanders can see that Hillary's positions are far closer to his own than are The Donald's. Hopefully he will begin to pivot to the fall and do the only sane thing - encourage his supporters to support the Democratic nominee.
288
My "trust" issue on the "D" side revolves around Bernie.
By putting out his ridiculous theories about super delegates etc., he has encouraged his supporters to be angry and vengeful.
He will have betrayed them when he loses.
He's still at it with his negative attacks against the Party which so generously let him in.
Bernie's not pure. IMHO he's not even good.
By putting out his ridiculous theories about super delegates etc., he has encouraged his supporters to be angry and vengeful.
He will have betrayed them when he loses.
He's still at it with his negative attacks against the Party which so generously let him in.
Bernie's not pure. IMHO he's not even good.
12
It looks like Sanders is blinded by his own unachievable ambitions.
8
Good comments here. My own theory is that Sanders has let crowd size alone go to his head, almost as if 40 years of frustration were finally coming to the fore. For the first time he was taken seriously by audiences. Problem is, he has not received an equal number of votes or endorsements--simply stating you are the better candidate does not make it so, and denigrates the 3 million more voters who have chosen her over him. As an aside, Clinton knocked it out of the park today in her foreign policy speech. You want presidential? Now that was presidential.
5
What if the Democrats had the same rules as the Republicans? That is, a certain number of states were winner-take-all. Conversely, what if the Republican contests had been played out by Democratic rules, with proportional awarding of delegates? How would that have affected both races?
I'm wondering if, in such a world, Clinton would have been the presumptive nominee for some time, with Ted Cruz in the Bernie Sanders role for Trump.
I'm wondering if, in such a world, Clinton would have been the presumptive nominee for some time, with Ted Cruz in the Bernie Sanders role for Trump.
12
Distortions of the popular vote like winner-take-all primaries and closed primaries give us the unpopular candidates we have: Trump, who lacks the support of a majority of Republicans, and Clinton, who lacks the support of a majority of general election voters. I do not for a second believe that Nate Cohn has become a statistical wiz and has a grasp on the likely outcome if all primaries were open. Until he shows me his methodology, I have no reason to trust that he's using reasonable assumptions. Doing something as simple as saying "Sanders lost by an average of X points in closed primaries, so that must be the points he gains if all primaries were open," is about the least sophisticated method you could possibly use.
17
Please go read the data based analysis on political statistics websites. Clinton wins and wins big. In fact, Bernie has more delegates than he would have if it was based on popular vote.
18
Yes, I'd be interested in seeing the numbers for a hypothetical winner-take-all model for the Democrats. You could argue that the proportional system is actually a good counterweight to the superdelegates, perhaps.
The race for the Democratic nomination is over. Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. As a person with an American Studies degree (honors), who has been determined to be a "low information" voter by Sanders supporters due to my support for Clinton, I celebrate this development with, yes I admit it, malicious glee.
181
Thank you! As someone who is a news junkie and who stays reasonably well-informed about politics, I resent the Sanders supporters "low information" charge against anyone who does not agree with their assessment of their choice. I think a lot of it stems from a generation or two being praised too often for their merely adequate choices and actions and being too seldom told that they were wrong about anything. Life may continue to be hard for them.
35
Malicious glee doesn't win Sanders supporters.
4
Hail President Trump!
3
Nate Cohn reaches the same conclusion as Nate Sliver and Harry Entin at 538. Any rules changes proposed by Bernie Sanders and his supporters would actually have widened Hillary Clinton's lead in delegates. Sanders was beaten by a wide margin because more Democratic voters want Hillary Clinton to be the nominee.
Certainly, Sanders and his team must know this, but ignore this reality when speaking to his supporters. One then has to wonder what kind of person is Bernie Sanders that he would purposefully mislead his supporters into believing that the nominating process was "rigged" against him? People claim to be worried about Hillary Clinton's statements regarding her use of a personal email server, but here Sander's shows a lack of integrity by lying about the process by which we are choosing the next president, in the vain hope of changing the outcome. To me, that makes Sanders the far more dangerous and sinister figure.
Certainly, Sanders and his team must know this, but ignore this reality when speaking to his supporters. One then has to wonder what kind of person is Bernie Sanders that he would purposefully mislead his supporters into believing that the nominating process was "rigged" against him? People claim to be worried about Hillary Clinton's statements regarding her use of a personal email server, but here Sander's shows a lack of integrity by lying about the process by which we are choosing the next president, in the vain hope of changing the outcome. To me, that makes Sanders the far more dangerous and sinister figure.
470
Unfortunately, Nate Cohn provides no evidence that his way of "estimating" what the results would be with completely open primaries is actually reasonable. And the entire premise of the article is misleading -- superdelegates aren't officially counted until the convention, which means her huge lead in superdelegates is practically irrelevant when it comes to talking about the actual primary contest right now. The media has been pushing this "insurmountable" lead of hers for weeks, and that has contributed to a pervasive sense that Sanders is "finished," when actually it will be impossible for Clinton to clinch the nomination until the convention -- she cannot reach the 2,383 number without superdelegates. So, people have just given up on Sanders, partly thanks to people like Cohn, who keep blasting this idea that Clinton only needs 73 delegates to win (which is, by any definition of "win," completely false).
78
"To me, that makes Sanders the far more dangerous and sinister figure."
That's just crazy talk. Clinton could be indicted for numerous violations of the Espionage Act, has taken millions of dollars from corporations hostile to their little people (most of us) victims and from governments such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, has rubber stamped illegal wars of aggression to keep up with the boys in the Senate. Wars Sanders opposed. Of course, your comments are more pro Clinton propaganda. Get a grip.
That's just crazy talk. Clinton could be indicted for numerous violations of the Espionage Act, has taken millions of dollars from corporations hostile to their little people (most of us) victims and from governments such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, has rubber stamped illegal wars of aggression to keep up with the boys in the Senate. Wars Sanders opposed. Of course, your comments are more pro Clinton propaganda. Get a grip.
16
Will -- please read the story again. It says she will be the presumptive nominee -- just like Obama was in 2008. It amazes me how Sander's most avid supporters really believe that they can flip superdelegates at the convention -- delegates who are mostly made up of dedicated long-time Democrats and party faithful who have been demonized by Bernie and his followers for months.
24
Andy Jones, Were you born yesterday? have you never watched a democratic nomination contest unfold? Did you sleep through 2008? Obama was declared winner after final big primary night because with super-delegates he clinched the number of delegates needed to get the nomination. Hillary then conceded based on those same numbers and results, and within about 24 hours they were meeting to plan how Hillary could help convince her loyal voters to support Obama. She at that moment was headed back to the senate, just as Sanders so clearly is now. She had to consider how her post-clinching behavior would affect the general campaign that November but also all her relationships and the view of her in history: he's clinched a historic nomination fight (first AA to get major party nomination) and Bernie faces the same hurdles and public and private rubican. Every utterance he makes from here on out will affect history's view of him, and any negative comments or vain behavior will sully democratic chances of defeating Trump in the Fall. Moreover, he has profoundly damaged his standing amongst colleagues in the senate already and must consider his return there. But most of all, Hillary Clinton will make substantial history on Tuesday, clinching nomination as first woman to do so and Bernie better recover the better angels of his nature or he will go down in history as an vain fool, like Newt throwing his tantrum on the WH plane (but much worse).
369
I do believe that Bernie will be the recipient of a nasty backlash when this is all over. His colleagues in the Senate plus loyal Democrats are probably already seething. We Dems may a lot quieter than the youthful Bernie supporters, but our feelings easily run as deep. We will not forget his negative impact on the Party and possibly on the nation itself.
It's really too bad. He offered Hillary some good and needed stiff competition, and he brought the very important issue of income inequality to the fore.
Bernie could have been a hero if he had been able to stop the negativity on time. Looks like his hubris got the best of him.
It's really too bad. He offered Hillary some good and needed stiff competition, and he brought the very important issue of income inequality to the fore.
Bernie could have been a hero if he had been able to stop the negativity on time. Looks like his hubris got the best of him.
221
You must be privy to conversations most of us will never hear -- how, exactly, do you know he has damaged his standing among his Senate colleagues? Sanders has been an Independent since stepping foot in the Senate, and he has gained remarkable traction as a person who can cross the aisle and actually get things done. He also founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus in 1991. If anything, the people on the left in the Senate are grateful for all the work Sanders has done in promoting their message. He has been an incredible light in the dark. He will go down as a hero for the left, not a villain.
Also, if anyone is going to throw a "tantrum" on Air Force One, it's Hillary Clinton. She is known for being a nasty person who is obsessed with her own image. There's a reason she has the highest disapproval ratings of any presidential candidate in history (other than Trump, of course). Clinton is one of the worst candidates the Democrats could have chosen. If she wins, it will be by less than a 5% margin, I guarantee it. The only thing saving her candidacy is the fact that Trump is on the other side. It is undeniable that Sanders is favored by more of the general electorate than Clinton, so even if Democrats want Clinton, Sanders is what the country wants (out of the three choices).
Also, if anyone is going to throw a "tantrum" on Air Force One, it's Hillary Clinton. She is known for being a nasty person who is obsessed with her own image. There's a reason she has the highest disapproval ratings of any presidential candidate in history (other than Trump, of course). Clinton is one of the worst candidates the Democrats could have chosen. If she wins, it will be by less than a 5% margin, I guarantee it. The only thing saving her candidacy is the fact that Trump is on the other side. It is undeniable that Sanders is favored by more of the general electorate than Clinton, so even if Democrats want Clinton, Sanders is what the country wants (out of the three choices).
78
Actually, Hillary didn't concede until June 7, when it became mathematically impossible for her to win. I suggest anyone who doubts this check out Wikipedia for the true facts on that campaign rather than trying to rely on obviously faulty memories. And yes, she was heavily criticized for staying in so long because it was "harming" Obama's chances in the election, blah, blah and so on. In general, primary candidates drop out early because they run out of money, not because they're behind in votes, and Bernie has plenty of money in his campaign chest. Another major reason why he's staying in is to try and influence the Dem's platform as much as possible. He's already successfully driven Clinton's campaign considerably to the left of where she wants it to be.
13
It is bad journalism not to count the pledged delegates based on primary results separately. It gives voters a distorted view of how the primary is going and could well cause unnecessary bad feeling. If Hillary is winning the most pledged delegates that should be clear in every story. Bernie would only have cause for complaint if he had the most pledged delegates but lost because of party insiders.
89
I think of the pledged delegates as a function of the party system which often rewards people who have worked long and hard for it. Obama was an exception because he had not raised much money for the Democratic party when he ran for president. Hillary and Bill, however, have been consistent fund raisers. You say this should not be so and maybe you are right. And the reality is that the GOP has a handful of very wealthy contributors who have a willingness to give millions and maybe billions to their preferred candidates. If you refuse to play by the rules, you usually lose. The unspoken rule is that a candidate need not have the most money. The candidate must have enough money to compete.
The Times has been telling us that Clinton is the presumptive nominee since last August.
Distinguishing between pledged and super delegates would be too much of a feint toward real journalism...
Distinguishing between pledged and super delegates would be too much of a feint toward real journalism...
7
So Bernie has no cause for complaint.
2
More importantly, even as the "Messiah from Vermont" has proclaimed that he will personally campaign and do everything to make sure that Trump is not elected President, many Sandersistas still refuse to accept the fact that sometimes when you lose it is better to "get on the train" to achieve or maintain the greater good than wind up with nothing at all.
So here's my admonition to all those Sanders followers that are grooming themselves to wander in the wilderness for the next forty (40) years with all those Nader wannabees:
If you want to sit on your thumbs and guarantee the next 2 - 3 Supreme Court justices are Scalia-like clones, then I hope that upon Trump's election all of you will have to spend the greater majority of your adult lives putting your sisters and daughters on Air Canada flights to Toronto or Vancouver to terminate first trimester pregnancies; not to mention undoing 40 years of progressive legislation passed by and signed into law by - you guessed it - Democratic Congresses and Presidents.
Then perhaps that "pragmatism" that you railed against in 2016 will look a lot better than that ship you went down with to preserve your ideological purity.