Before you opine on a "Bernie loss" watch this

Presented without comment:

tjohn said:

nan said:

If elections were fairer my first choice would have won.

They are fair.  If you are  member of a party, you get to play in the party's sandbox.  Otherwise, you get to vote in November.

Now, if Bernie secured the majority of the pledged delegates and still didn't make it, then your fairness complaint would have more of a basis.

They are not fair.  Even Debbie Wasserman Schultz admitted that super delegates were there to stop grass roots canidates.

paulsurovell saiderhaps this was an oversight, but your statement that "more voters back Clinton than Sanders" should have been "more voters have backed Clinton than Sanders thus far."

With that in mind, here's an excellent article on the remaining primaries and caucuses in Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Mexico, Oregon, California -- and New Jersey -- as well as Puerto Rico and Guam.

Ok, yes, I should have add "thus far." It is a bit of a pedantic point you're making, though, as there's no realistic scenario where Sanders ends up getting more votes, even with the remaining primaries. The article you linked to doesn't seem to dispute this - it's an argument for Sanders having influence over the party platform, not an argument that he will somehow get more votes than Clinton. 

On the issue of how democratic the Democratic Party nominating process is, I assume you agree that the superdelegate appointments are undemocratic and that Bernie is justified in seeking to win their support.

Sure.  Doing so does pose a pretty severe legitimacy problem, of course, overturning the results of actual voters, but Sanders is certainly justified in trying to do what he can to win.

OTOH, I think one of Sanders biggest weaknesses is his actual political skills. Convincing a majority of superdelegates to back him would be an amazing demonstration of vote wrangling - a fundamental skill in politics - and would go a long way toward addressing this perceived weakness. It would be so at odds with everything Sanders has demonstrated so far that it would certainly cause me to reevaluate him. So yeah, Sanders should definitely go for it - prove to us doubters that he's actually a cunning political genius who for some reason has been waiting until the end of primary season to reveal himself.

But that raises two additional issues that you overlooked -- exclusion of independents and the lack of same-day registration. To make the Democratic Party nominating process fully democratic, the party needs to make its primaries open and allow same-day registration, so independents and unregistered citizens are not excluded from the process.  And if these changes had been adopted in 2016, along with doing away with superdelegates and caucuses, there is much evidence to suggest that you would have said "more voters have backed Sanders than Clinton thus far."

No, there's not evidence, just a whole lot of assumptions. But hey, you're positing an alternate reality, so write whatever story you like for it - just don't mistake it for "evidence."

mod said:

No one expected Bernie to do as well and come as far as he did but he hasn't been vetted like a front runner or viable candidate.  Hillary had been vetted and then some.  She has withstood a berage of "investigations" , released 30 years of taxes, has a record as a Senator, Secy of State and First Lady.  This is already baked into the polling.  Bernie has released one year of taxes , his congressional record is consistent but he has not authored a lot of legislation.  He has not been under the same lens as Hillary has as an independent senator from a small state.  We're he the nominee that would all change and so would the polling.

I think he can handle scrutiny, besides, he's right.

nan said:

tjohn said:

nan said:

If elections were fairer my first choice would have won.

They are fair.  If you are  member of a party, you get to play in the party's sandbox.  Otherwise, you get to vote in November.

Now, if Bernie secured the majority of the pledged delegates and still didn't make it, then your fairness complaint would have more of a basis.

They are not fair.  Even Debbie Wasserman Schultz admitted that super delegates were there to stop grass roots canidates.

But that didn't come to pass, did it.

It's not over.

mod said:

No one expected Bernie to do as well and come as far as he did but he hasn't been vetted like a front runner or viable candidate.  Hillary had been vetted and then some.  She has withstood a berage of "investigations" , released 30 years of taxes, has a record as a Senator, Secy of State and First Lady.  This is already baked into the polling.  Bernie has released one year of taxes , his congressional record is consistent but he has not authored a lot of legislation.  He has not been under the same lens as Hillary has as an independent senator from a small state.  We're he the nominee that would all change and so would the polling.

But, but, but, but .... haven't you heard?

Its Clinton fault. Definitely Clinton's fault that Bernie hasn't released his taxes:

Sanders’s wife, Jane, who serves as a political adviser, was on TV saying that
her husband would release more of the couple’s past tax returns
once Clinton releases the transcripts of her paid Wall Street
speeches.

nan said:

tjohn said:

nan said:

If elections were fairer my first choice would have won.

They are fair.  If you are  member of a party, you get to play in the party's sandbox.  Otherwise, you get to vote in November.

Now, if Bernie secured the majority of the pledged delegates and still didn't make it, then your fairness complaint would have more of a basis.

They are not fair.  Even Debbie Wasserman Schultz admitted that super delegates were there to stop grass roots canidates.

Is the Republican way better?

Looks that way because Trump is winning and RNC does not want that.  The people have spoken.  Sad, but true (not that Cruz or Kasich are any better).  The convention may be a different story.

nan said:

Looks that way because Trump is winning and RNC does not want that.  The people have spoken.  Sad, but true (not that Cruz or Kasich are any better).  The convention may be a different story.

I'm sorry, have I recently bumped my head? Is Hillary losing? She's won more votes, more delegates and more states but the people haven't spoken?

What is happening?

nan said:

Looks that way because Trump is winning and RNC does not want that.  The people have spoken.  Sad, but true (not that Cruz or Kasich are any better).  The convention may be a different story.

If the Democratic party operated by the same rules as the Republicans, Clinton would have won already.

RobB said:

nan said:

Looks that way because Trump is winning and RNC does not want that.  The people have spoken.  Sad, but true (not that Cruz or Kasich are any better).  The convention may be a different story.

I'm sorry, have I recently bumped my head? Is Hillary losing? She's won more votes, more delegates and more states but the people haven't spoken?

What is happening?

In Bernietopia, things are different.

I'm not an expert on the Republican rules for voting.  I do think they should dump the superdelegates and that everyone should be allowed to vote in the primaries, without changing their affiliation or showing ID or standing in line for hours. Here's a group that started to help some of that that along:

http://www.openprimaries.org/

nan said:

Looks that way because Trump is winning and RNC does not want that.  The people have spoken.  Sad, but true (not that Cruz or Kasich are any better).  The convention may be a different story.

And if the Democrats elected their nominee the same way the Republicans do, how would Bernie v. Hillary look right now?

I'm not in favor of open primaries.    I think there are changes that could be made to make things easier for people to vote (and thereby fairer), but open primaries create big problems.  

We're a two-party system and have been for 200 years.  You want change, pick a party and do some work.   Learn the rules.  Don't accuse people of cheating and corruption because you didn't know the rules - the same rules, by the way, that were in place in 2008 when Clinton lost.  

I think it will be great if Sanders can force some reasonable and workable changes to the primary system.  But let's not pretend that the current primary system was created by DWS and Clinton to deny Sanders victory.  That's just silly nonsense spouted by people who made no effort to understand the system and how/why it developed this way until very recently.   

PS:  I think caucuses are undemocratic.  They completely exclude people who can't spend the time or can't bring themselves to argue their political views in a public venue with strangers (often minorities and poor people).  Let me vote privately and go, please.  

I don't see the point in making people join some party to vote. Where does it say that in the Constitution?  Your right to vote should not be dependent on learning rules and doing work. We want as many people to vote as possible, right?  You should be able to just show up and vote and not spend all day waiting in line. Learning how to work the voter machine is enough confusion for most. I don't get the caucus thing either, and I really don't get the superdelgate thing. 

Its ironic that Bernie did best in the undemocratic caucuses.

This complaining by many Bernie supporters that the Democratic primary system is unfair or undemocratic is mostly sour grapes. 

Where were the whiners and criers about the Democratic party's "unjust" primary system before Bernie ran? Now they they discover its "unjust"? Would they have "discovered this injustice" if Bernie is winning? I don't think so.

Caucuses give disproportionate weight to voters who are passionate about a candidate. Superdelegates prevent nomination of someone who talks a good game within the party but would be a general election disaster.

And the constitution doesn't work quite that way.

But, but, but, but .... haven't you heard?

Its Clinton fault. Definitely Clinton's fault that Bernie hasn't released his taxes:

Sanders’s wife, Jane, who serves as a political adviser, was on TV saying that
her husband would release more of the couple’s past tax returns
once Clinton releases the transcripts of her paid Wall Street
speeches.

What's up with that?  I would have expected Bernie's taxes to be NBD but they have acted very strangely.

RobB said:

Caucuses give disproportionate weight to voters who are passionate about a candidate. Superdelegates prevent nomination of someone who talks a good game within the party but would be a general election disaster.

And the constitution doesn't work quite that way.

While caucuses may give weight to those heavily invested they are patently undemocratic.

We see that by the very low vote counts in caucus states. Not everyone has the privilege to spend hours at a caucus. 

There are retail workers who can't tell their bosses to let them take off for an evening for vote in a caucus. Same with any evening work including professionals like cops, emergency room professionals, etc.

Eight years ago, the exact same Democratic primary system, rules, whatever, resulted in Barack Obama being nominated for President.

Just sayin'

Actually, historically the parties have not necessarily wanted as many votes as possible. You should read about the conventions of FDR and Truman. As has been written all over the internet, the two parties are private clubs. All you have to do is sign up.  I don't want Republicans to vote in my primary. They should not get to determine who the Democrats run for President. 

gerryl said:

Actually, historically the parties have not necessarily wanted as many votes as possible. You should read about the conventions of FDR and Truman. As has been written all over the internet, the two parties are private clubs. All you have to do is sign up.  I don't want Republicans to vote in my primary. They should not get to determine who the Democrats run for President. 

Getting into a process that has followed these rules for years, and then saying they are cheating is childish. No one is going to change the rules because you don't like the game. You can work to have the rules changed at another time, but not in the middle of everything. 

Yes and choosing to run as a democrat rather than an independent you need to abide by the rules.  It is not as if the rules changed after Bernie got in the race.

Just because they have been this way for awhile does not make them right. They are being noticed now and this election has she'd light on the problem. The canidates should be selected by the people, not party insiders.  I can't believe some of you are fine with party insiders getting a bigger say, but don't want Independents or Republicans to have one regular vote.  

There is a difference between "democratic" and "fair". Fair means the rules are the same for everyone.

A Primary is not an election. It's a method of choosing a candidate to run in an election. I see nothing wrong with restricting to right to pick the candidate of a Party to the members of that Party.

I also see nothing wrong with asking for some minimal commitment from a person who wants to be a member of a Party.

If that minimal commitment is just showing up for a caucus once a year or once every four years I do not see that as much of a burden. Is it a "burden" to attend Mass in order to be a Catholic?

 I have watched an Iowa caucus on TV. I found it very democratic. Everyone who showed up had the same vote. The caucuses in Nevada were held at the Casinos in order to make it easy for Casino workers to attend. The caucuses are local so they require little traveling. I guess they could be held on Sundays and it could be mandatory for employers to give people time off work to attend. Those with essential jobs could be allowed to vote by proxy.

There are many reforms that can be put into place. If we had had one Nationwide Primary on one date to pick the Republican and Democratic Candidates this year there is a pretty good chance it would have ended up where we seem to be now.

nan said:

Just because they have been this way for awhile does not make them right. They are being noticed now and this election has she'd light on the problem. The canidates should be selected by the people, not party insiders.  I can't believe some of you are fine with party insiders getting a bigger say, but don't want Independents or Republicans to have one regular vote.  

Yes, noticed now - Bernie sour grapes.

Bernie Sanders isn’t losing. Just ask many of his backers or listen to some of his own complaints. He’s being robbed, a victim of antiquated rules, voter suppression, shady arithmetic and a corrupt Democratic establishment. The swindle includes the South’s getting inordinate sway and the poor none at all. If Americans really had a voice, they would shout “Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!” until too hoarse to shout anymore.

Why would any Democratic party member want to have Republican party members decide who the Democratic party puts forward?

nan said:

Just because they have been this way for awhile does not make them right. They are being noticed now and this election has she'd light on the problem. The canidates should be selected by the people, not party insiders.  I can't believe some of you are fine with party insiders getting a bigger say, but don't want Independents or Republicans to have one regular vote.  

Sanders had benefited the most from the caucuses, which aren't the most democratic of voting methods. Hillary leads the vote total by 2.5 million, without California and New Jersey yet voting.

mod said:

No one expected Bernie to do as well and come as far as he did but he hasn't been vetted like a front runner or viable candidate.  Hillary had been vetted and then some.  She has withstood a berage of "investigations" , released 30 years of taxes, has a record as a Senator, Secy of State and First Lady.  This is already baked into the polling.  Bernie has released one year of taxes , his congressional record is consistent but he has not authored a lot of legislation.  He has not been under the same lens as Hillary has as an independent senator from a small state.  We're he the nominee that would all change and so would the polling.

You seem to implying that Bernie has some skeletons in his closet that he has not been hit with yet.  Am I right?

Regarding Hillary being vetted, Bernie has specifically resisted vetting her on the email scandal which is most current and in my opinion not nothing.  I think history will reveal this to be a major mistake. 

A primary is just as important as an election.  I can't believe that some of you are fine with an exclusive club influencing the vote or making people jump through hoops to cast a ballot for the candidate of their choice.  Seems undemocratic to me.  Glad the young seem to want to fight for more equality and are more aware of damaging power structures.  I have some hope.

Red_Barchetta said:


Regarding Hillary being vetted, Bernie has specifically resisted vetting her on the email scandal which is most current and in my opinion not nothing.  I think history will reveal this to be a major mistake. 

Email scandal? What can Bernie vet? Unless something new comes up there's nothing left to "vet." The email has been brought up ad infinitum. I'd like to spend just one week without hearing about it. Won't happen.

If there is a scandal, then the scandal is on the senders of the "secret" emails. 

When you possess secret documents, you are required to keep them secure. Emailing them to a non-secure location is a violation. Its as bad as sending secret documents through regular postal mail.

At least Clinton had a private server. Unlike Colin Powell who has his emails sent to his AOL address. The point being, its a "scandal" because Clinton is running for president.