Bernie Sanders declares war on reality

[factfinder_77]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/05/02/bernie-sanders-declares-war-reality/68txAVboFpkpbLXarTH33O/story.html

Instead of coming to grips with the overwhelming evidence that Democratic primary voters prefer Hillary Clinton be the party’s 2016 presidential nominee, Bernie Sanders continues to create his own political reality — devising new and creative excuses to explain why he’s losing to her and why he should be the party’s standard-bearer in November.

First there was the complaint that Southern, conservative states have their primaries early, which “distorts reality,” because these states won’t support a Democrat in November. This is certainly a compelling assertion from a candidate who has won such red-state stalwarts as Utah, Alaska, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, and Wyoming.

Next the Sanders camp argued that the primary system is unfair because places like New York have a closed primary that doesn’t allow independents to vote. By this logic, it is undemocratic not to allow voters not registered as Democrats to vote in a Democratic primary tasked with choosing the Democratic nominee for president. If independents could vote, claims Sanders, it would be a different race (even though Clinton has actually won more open primaries than Sanders).

For Sanders, it seems, the only fair and equitable manner for choosing a Democratic nominee is one that favors him.

This brings us to the Sanders campaign’s latest “the dog ate my homework” excuse. In what was a bizarre press conference Sunday at the National Press Club in Washington, Sanders took aim at a new target — superdelegates.

Sanders made three arguments, none of which are remotely consistent. First, he said that this summer’s Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia will be “contested” because Clinton will not have enough pledged delegates to win on the first ballot.

Clinton needs to get 2,383 out of 4,766 delegates to win the nomination. However, by Sanders’ argument, she should not count superdelegates toward that total (even though Sanders is still including the 715 superdelegates in that 4,766 number). I realize that math is tricky, but if you subtract 715 from 4,766 and divide it in half, Clinton would actually need 2,026 pledged delegates for a majority — a fairly achievable goal for her.

It should also be noted that under the rules of the Democratic nominating system (rules that were readily available on the Internet when Sanders announced his candidacy), a candidate can assemble a coalition of both pledged delegates and superdelegates to get the 2,383 delegates needed to win the nomination.

Second, Sanders thinks superdelegates are apportioned unfairly. He argued Sunday that they should follow the popular vote of the state they represent rather than exercising free will. It doesn’t seem fair to Sanders that, for example, even though he won 70 percent of the vote in the Washington state caucus, he doesn’t get all the superdelegates from that state.

Putting aside the fact that caucuses are not exactly a bastion of fair and democratic representation, the biggest problem with this argument is that even if they all voted the way that Sanders wants, Clinton would still have a 363-to-147 advantage in superdelegates. Overall that adds up to a more than 500-delegate lead, which makes sense, since Clinton has won the most states and the most votes.

Sanders’ third argument, however, is the real doozy, because to buy it you basically have to ignore everything else he has said about the unfairness of the primary system. According to Sanders, superdelegates shouldn’t actually be guided by the will of the people. They should be guided by who can win in November. Surprisingly enough, Sanders thinks that he would be that person.

Superdelegates should ask themselves, he said, “do they want the second strongest candidate running against Trump, or the strongest candidate?”

If your head is spinning, it’s with good reason.

The same candidate who has been railing against independent voters being disenfranchised, who has called the primary system undemocratic, and who has complained about superdelegates, in general, is now calling on those same superdelegates to vote against Clinton (that would apparently include delegates from the states Clinton has won), even though she will almost certainly have the most pledged delegates and the most votes. In head-to-head general election polls, Clinton trounces Trump, but since Sanders trounces him by a bit more, he argues that he should be the nominee.

In the realm of illogical, self-serving, hypocritical, intellectually dishonest political arguments, this is practically the gold standard. But with six weeks to go until the last primary, I have great confidence that the Sanders campaign will find some way to top it.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. He has become a parody of himself. nt

[roguevalley]

33. ha ha ha. let it go. if he loses, fine if not, hooray.

I never saw so many undemocratic people before. Reminds me of the Soviet Era when the ptb chose the one candidate.

[TM99]

2. Still going with that

popular vote myth I see. Some factfinder you are. You might need more training before your next pay review.

Technically, the count is accurate, but in reality the claim that Clinton is leading the votes is another Hillary distortion, a reflection of the dishonesty that leads to her being highly distrusted by most voters. But none of the mainstream media have called her on this distortion.

For example, in Washington state, where there are, according to the 2015 census numbers, about 7.17 million people, here are the numbers, Sanders won 19,159 votes for 72.7%. Clinton won 7,140 votes for 27.1%. Based on those numbers, Bernie Sanders gets a 12,000 voter advantage in Hillary's way of counting. Really? 12,000 voters are all the credit Bernie gets for winning a state with over seven million people? (actually, over 250,000 participated in the caucuses. Still those numbers don't reflect the size of the state's population.)

If you do the math on all the caucus states, Bernie's wins could easily represent populations that exceed Hillary's 2.5 million votes, not even including the primary state votes he won. It is insulting to the people of Washington to suggest that they be counted based on the 26,000 who voted in the caucuses.
Because Minnesota is a caucus state, Bernie only gets an advantage of 45,000 when it should be hundreds of thousands. The same is true in Kansas, where he only gets credit for 14,000 advantage, when it should be at least 80,000. Colorado would give him a 23,000 advantage based on caucuses, but he should get at least a 120,000 advantage based on population.

This applies to the following caucus states that Bernie won, Washington, Utah, Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, Nebraska, Maine, Idaho, Alaska, and Hawaii, representing about 32 million people.
Bernie won many of these by 60, 70, even 80%. Of course some are primarily conservative, which has an effect on the numbers. Let's say that Democratic leaning voters represented 45%, which would be 14.4 million. If Bernie won with an average of 60 to 40% that would be a 20% difference, or 2.9 million. Of course voter turnout has to be figured in.

Let's compare Massachusetts with Minnesota. MA has about 6.7 million people. Minnesota has about 20% less, with 5.5 million. Hillary won MA by a 1.4% margin. Bernie won MN by a 23.4% margin. Hillary gets 17,000 margin for her miniscule margin win. Bernie, with a margin thats gets 44,000. A proportional accounting, for a state that large would give him close to 750,000, or 700,000 more. The same kind of math applies to all the caucus states mentioned above.

The truth is that using popular vote numbers is a deceptive way to talk about comparing campaigns. An honest candidate would not attempt to do so. Clinton embraces it.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hillary-s-Disingenuous-Cla-by-Rob-Kall-2016-Presidential-Primary-Candidates_Hillary-Clinton-160401-967.html

[ProgressiveEconomist]

12. Preposterous!

If you put this post in your journal and reread it in a few weeks, sutely you'll want to delete it. So do it now.

[TM99]

26. No thanks.

I really am sick of you pompous people talking down to us like we are fucking children.

Deal with some reality that you can't or don't want to deal with and leave me the fuck alone with your bullshit.

[Demnorth]

16. I'm sorry,

I can't get a grip on his logic in the second paragraph.

[TM99]

25. Well that sounds like a personal problem

to me.

[Blanks]

38. Here's the thing...

In your post:

Bernie's wins could easily represent populations that exceed Hillary's 2.5 million votes,

And then you go on to count up how Bernie wins in smaller states should be able to overcome ACTUAL votes for Hillary based on some kind of elaborate formula.

2 things:

1) The rules are out there for the candidates at the beginning. When a candidate chooses not to campaign in a state (and loses that state as a result) that decision (not to campaign there) is likely based on their understanding of those rules. Deciding that other rules would help your candidate is cheating.

2) Any formula that you use to boost one candidate's popular vote number at the expense of the other candidate is usurping the will of the people.

Clever argument, but quite flawed.

[TM99]

39. So math isn't math

when it doesn't support you agenda and candidate?

Gotcha. There is nothing else to discuss. The argument is not flawed. You just don't like the math.

[uponit7771]

3. I don't think Sanders is a details kinda guy

[chwaliszewski]

4. I don't understand why Hillary hasn't closed this out yet...

it's her time, and yet, people keep voting for Bernie. It's almost as if people like him or something.

[Demsrule86]

17. Same thing in 08

But she had the most popular vote of course. Bernie has nothing. She won Indiana in 08. Bernie is done and is only hurting his legacy and the party by continuing.

[Nonhlanhla]

19. But more people have voted for Hillary

It's almost like they prefer her to him.

It's called democracy.

[The Second Stone]

5. I can feel the burn of that takedown

Let's face it, the system of majorities and math used by the elite establishment is corrupt and full of lies. It is under investigation by a circle of pot smoking college students in a sociology department in Evanston, Illinois. When directed to the math department, these students retort that the math of the old is not the math of the young and upcoming generation, and that the old system of math will face certain indictment by the National Archives, to which they sent a reference request to an off-duty District of Columbia librarian. They say that a revolution in mathematics is certain to happen any day and that they will burn their draft cards. They then called Dad and asked for 10 checks for $27 each.

Sanders opposition to compulsory k-12 education makes a little more sense in light of his math abilities.

[Waiting For Everyman]

6. Reality is, he won tonight.

Deal with that reality.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Yes, but in doing so, his position actually got worse.

Sanders needed a massive win to be on track for the nomination.

While 52.7% is undeniably a win, it means that the fraction of votes he'd need from subsequent primaries actually increased rather than decreasing.

[Waiting For Everyman]

9. It'll be fine.

[NurseJackie]

31. "Tis but a scratch!" "A flesh-wound!"

Still image of the "Black Knight" scene from the 1975 film Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[Betty Karlson]

7. Which reality is that: the echo-chambered bubble around Clinton where everyone still

parties like it's 1999?

[Katashi_itto]

13. +1000

[eridani]

10. Reality = fracking and endless war? Thanks, but no thanks n/t

[Petrushka]

11. So?

There was a War on Drugs declared and, now, there are more addicts than ever.

There was a War on Poverty declared and, now, there are more kids going hungry and people living on the street.

So, if a War on Reality is declared . . . ? What's next?

[Armstead]

14. Clinton fought til the last primary in 2008

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511890934

[Demsrule86]

20. Clinton won the popular vote

And the race was much closer. And we had McCain...a normal candidate...not Trump who has said he would use nukes. Sorry Bernie's reason for staying (California down ballots) ended last night. He needs to get out and soon. If he doesn't then he shows his true self...he knows he can't win. The "I am the most electable " is nonsense anyway. There is plenty of oppo on Bernie...the GOP wants him as their candidate...gives them a chance.

[Armstead]

22. Race was closer -- but at the time she was told the "math" was impossible

You'll probably have to deal with the "inconvenience" through California at least. Just as Obama had to contend with Clinton.

Might as well get used to it and stop trying to drive away people who support Sanders. That attitude only fuels the energy of opposition.

[chwaliszewski]

23. Preach it!

I love the fact that Bernie is not a quitter.

[hobbit709]

15. Like this reality you prophesized?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1890026

[Adrahil]

18. Calculators are shills for Hillary! NT

[Broward]

21. Finally, a war that Hillary can't get behind.

Even she has her limits.

[catnhatnh]

24. Great source...

"Michael D. Cohen is an American lawyer, best known for his work as an attorney for Donald Trump and The Trump Organization. He joined the Trump Organization after having been a partner at the Phillips Nizer law firm."-wiki

[Jester Messiah]

27. He rejects your reality and substitutes his own.

As he should, because the current reality is unacceptable on many levels.

[BillZBubb]

28. I love the irony of your handle!

"factfinder" and you post this subjective nonsense. Perhaps you should rename yourself "propagandaposter"?

[nolawarlock]

29. It's the drain that brings the pain ...

Hillary dropped out with far less between her and Obama.

There's got to be something psychological to all of this. Maybe he feels if he goes to the convention and gets the boot, he'll have a better shot at martyrdom. Heck, with all his pandering to Pope Francis, maybe he's hoping to get declared a saint. I'm sure there's enough people on DU alone who would vouch for a miracle or two caused by the Bern. Hey, there's always that bird.

[gordyfl]

30. Hillary Was Favored to Win the Indiana Primary

Last edited Wed May 4, 2016, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)

A 90% favorite. Bernie only 10%.

Indiana rejected the "presumptive nominee" and had their voices heard. Sounds like Democracy to me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. I hope they follow his advice and do what's good for the country...and the world.

[Gothmog]

34. Sanders is lying about contested convention to keep small dollar donations coming

[Beacool]

35. This......

"Next the Sanders camp argued that the primary system is unfair because places like New York have a closed primary that doesn’t allow independents to vote. By this logic, it is undemocratic not to allow voters not registered as Democrats to vote in a Democratic primary tasked with choosing the Democratic nominee for president. If independents could vote, claims Sanders, it would be a different race (even though Clinton has actually won more open primaries than Sanders)."

IMO, all primaries should be closed. Caucuses should have been shelved years ago.

[Gothmog]

36. I have never accepted the argument that Sanders is electable

Sanders is totally unvetted because the new media does not believe that he will be the nominee and the Clinton campaign has been treating Sanders with kids gloves. There is a ton of stuff that would be used by Trump to destroy Sanders. I am not willing to risk the control of the SCOTUS to a candidate who I firmly believe is not electable. Trump and Rove has way too much material that would destroy Sanders in a general election.

[Scurrilous]

37. K & R