Actually, we must be clear: The system was rigged in Bernie's favor.
Proof one: Hillary won the primary in Washington state. Unfortunately, the primary is non-binding. The delegates are based on the caucuses, which the BernieBullies were able to game -- he got nearly 73 percent of the caucus votes to Hillary's 27 percent.
Proof two: Nebraska. Same story. Clinton won a non-binding primary, 61-39. But she lost the caucus, 58-42.
We need no further proof to declare all caucuses corrupt and undemocratic. If not for the rigged caucuses, Sanders would have nothing like his current totals -- he would not have developed any momentum, he would have been treated as a fringe candidate, and he would not have garnered so many donations.
The BernieBullies are engaging in classic mirror imaging, pretending to be the victims when they are, in fact, the victimizers. And they have no counter-argument. All they can do is resort to their usual disgusting tactics: Name-calling, false accusations of bad faith, changing the subject. They cannot specifically address the results in Washington and Nebraska, and they cannot address the larger issue of inherently undemocratic caucuses. They have no argument.
15 comments:
I agree, the Caucus system is undemocratic. But there is a tension between making it possible to challenge incumbents and preventing deliberate spoiling tactics. Reform should consider both issues or you will get a nepotistic system.
Regarding who has benefited from free press, this is the only thing I have seen attempting to quantify.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?_r=0
Harry
Forgive me for making another point in another comment. Didn't think it through.
The results in Arizona suggested the system was rigged. If one looked more closely, it was rigged by the Republicans in the state, who cut back on voting machines in neighborhoods which leaned Democrat. This is a useful thing to get to the bottom of before a general election. Arizona is definitely in play.
My reading in NYC is that it was rigged here too. I don't know who died it yet but the preliminary take is that republicans rigged it again, switching registrations to republican. Other things may have happened add well but it is not clear. Whether you hate Bernie or not, shining a light on strange things in elections is definitely a good thing to do.
Harry
They do, tho. I saw them discussing Nebraska as if she tried to steal it or as if the media slanted it.
They also completely dismiss the 3 million votes because "it doesn't take into account caucus states."
The Bernie Brigade has offered 'this' up as an argument: Bernie didn't rally his troops for the non-binding contests because they weren't important--he'd already won the delegates.
I read a heated exchange over the subject last night. Absolutely agree that if anything the election set-up and the media have given St Bernard more than a fair shake. As for the super delegates? Bernie knew how the rules played when he entered the contest. He's been lambasting the arrangement since he started losing, now wants the super delegates to overturn the will of the voting public and install him as the nominee. With Hillary Clinton clearly in the lead with delegates earned and the popular vote.
His campaign has lost its thread. Gone are the days of income inequality and economic justice. Now it's all about him and the many excuses, focused and geared towards delegitimizing Hillary Clinton's inevitable nomination.
Shame on him!
There's a General Election to be won. Time for Bernie Sanders to get out of the way.
Peggysue
Peggysue, it never ends. The latest? A meme that "proves" NBC is going to call California for Hillary before people finish voting. Chris Matthews was asking Weaver how it would affect California voters when Hillary's win is called before they vote....meaning the previous win which will put her over the threshold.
Oh, the humanity!!! The fevered Berlievers are proclaiming that shall not stand, it's America, after all!
And poor Greg Palast. He should've stuck to outing PBS and NPR, which have been taken over. But instead he's feeding these nuts by proclaiming the media doesn't tell WHY the noble Berlievers rioted. He can't be picky, I guess, to prop up his brand.
Obviously caucuses are inherently undemocratic. By design, though, so I'm not sure you can call them corrupt.
I'm generally amused by the American electoral system, but the idea of voting in a non-binding primary is particularly ridiculous. Literally throwing your vote away.
I think you're overstating the role of caucuses, though. Sanders has 42.7% of the popular vote, 45.8% of the pledged delegates and 40.3% of all delegates.
Stephen, thanks for posting the math, but I somewhat disagree with your take on the results. If Bernie Sanders has 3.1% more pledged delegates than popular vote, that means Hillary Clinton has 3.1% fewer pledged delegates than the popular vote, because of the Caucuses.
Clinton has 57.3% popular vote, 54.2% of the delegates.
Sanders has 42.7% of the popular vote, 45.8% of the delegates.
____57.3 vs 42.7 is basically a landslide.
but 54.2 vs 45.8 is a very solid win, but not a landslide.
Sanders has avoided being the landslide loser because of the caucus wins and he's using his caucuses to counter punch Hillary Clinton, counting the caucuses among his wins so that he can claim 20 state wins and counting.
The Sander's supporters argument that the Democrat Primary votes in Washington and Nebraska don't matter is no excuse to not vote. The effort needed to vote in the primary was much, much less than it was to vote in the caucus.
If Sanders supporters are too lazy to cast a vote now, how they are going to be the "minions of change" later on?
What is also fascinating about those numbers Stephen, that YUGGGE super delegate lead only produces a 2.4% swing in Hillary Clinton's favor in terms of total delegates vs popular vote.
This super delegate vs popular vote "bump" for Hillary Clinton is LESS of a delegate bump percentage wise than Bernie has gotten from the unfair caucus delegates bump he has gotten.
Headline in CNN: "She did not comply". Subhead: "Clinton 2015: 'It was permitted'"
drip, drip, drip.
Dear Emailghaziwhitefostergaters:
Would you like some Spurious Special Sauce on your Big Fat Nothingburgers? xD
The 'Gaters have spent 25 years (more, counting the time when Bill was governing the Arkanshire) trying to nail the Clintons on one trumped-up (rimshot) charge or another, but have enjoyed about as much success as this furry fellow.
Remember the 2000 election when Gore was painted as "the lesser of two evils", and the media played up all those phony stories about his "lies"?
Remember when the Bradley purists and the Naderites convinced gullible "progressives" to throw their votes away? How bad could the affable, down-to-earth Bush actually be? Who would you rather have a beer with?
If Trump wins, I blame the media. We no longer have journalists. We have "pundits" selling story lines and narratives.
Let's elect Trump! It will be great for ratings, and the shit storm that follows will be so much fun to cover.
Journalism used to be important in this country. Now it's all money and spin. No integrity, no ethics. They should be ashamed.
Go back to the Powell Memo, if not earlier. Trump's fellow oligarchs and their hired brains created the current climate of pseudo-journalism, or maybe I should say "re-yellowed journalism".
The brighter oligarchs and hired brains are looking at Trump, and starting to realize how Dr. Frankenstein felt.
I only discovered your blog recently and I immediately bookmarked it because I appreciate all that you are writing about.
And I just noticed the side panel about your dog's diagnosis -- really hope he is doing OK and that you are able to keep giving him the medicine he needs. I send you a small donation but I hope it will help.
Keep fighting the good fight, both of you,
Post a Comment