Well, FWIW…I agree that Sanders is formidable in California. He’ll do very, very well in the SF Bay Area and Central Coast. He will begin to struggle a little as the race heads south toward Los Angeles, which is where the majority of the state’s population is. However, if Bernie crushes it in Nor-Cal, he could hold steady in So-Cal and possibly pull it off. Interesting times.
asahi,
He might be able to claim all those things … but would also have to accept that he lost the pledged delegate count, lost the popular vote by even more, and even lost most of and the most important swing states in the process.
He will know that storm all he wants he would not and should not get a majority of superdelegate support in that circumstance. If he both won the pledged delegate count and the popular vote they would switch and should; without either? Even he knows better. Will he cause some harm for the general on the way though? Maybe some and again I clearly am afraid of that possibility.
But the dramatic harm that you envision? No. He will pivot before then.
Trump can slump.
Cruz would lose.
Chill. It’ll be Hill.
I would be careful about how she decides to punch back. If I were Hillary, I think I would try to operate with a controlled aggression and sense of confidence. I think she needs to acknowledge that Bernie’s run a successful campaign and try to tout her strengths rather than going after what she thinks is Sanders’ weaknesses. She needs to show how she’s had her Bernie moments in her career (healthcare reform champion in 1993, before it was mainstream, etc). I think going for Bernie negatively would be a disaster, honestly.
asahi,
That has been her tactic so far and probably should continue to be … take the punches with some aplomb and don’t hit back very hard. But his doing well enough to hurt her in the general is increasingly likely as she continues to weather negative attacks without responding in kind (worst she’s done was her calling him out on his 3 Pinocchio lie about the oil and gas industry donations). I think not fully fighting back has to be killing her.
Meanwhile I am very “entertained” by the comments on the 538 election night blog. Yes, best not to judge a candidate by his/her supporters, but boy some of Sanders supporters really come off worse than Romney’s skewed polls people. The bile they spew at the 538 crew for pointing out that the math is still such that Sanders is not on path, that he needs an unrealistic 58% of all remaining delegates to catch up on the pledged delegate count (which would still leave him without a popular vote mandate), is something else.
Here’s the deal. The way that the DNC set this whole thing up is nothing new; it’s not novel. What’s novel is the election cycle and the protest vote that’s impacting it in ways that the DNC couldn’t have envisioned. They thought 2008 was a wacky cycle, but they hadn’t seen shite until 2016. A lot of the people who vote for Sanders are absolute democrats: one person, one vote. One state contest, one win. They don’t have time for all this parsing of ‘electors’ and procedures. From their perspective, the country’s fucked and Bernie’s the guy who can unfuck it – like right now. They’re not going to be swayed by arguments pointing to delegate rules. In their minds, these procedures are part of the problem and evidence that they need to shock the system. That’s why I think the Dems are going to have a significant problem on their hands come August. The only way to address that problem is to acknowledge the power that Sanders constituents have and find a home for them in the party while not alienating the middle ground. I think that can be done, but attacking Sanders pointedly would be a bad, bad move IMO.
Sorry, I haven’t been following Wisconsin at all— was Trump expected to win? Was Hillary? Seem like everyone is shocked with the results. Was it who won, or how much they won by?
Being a Californian, I have to say it’s a really weird feeling that our primary might actually matter!!
Perhaps, but as the post you were replying to hints at, most of those people who won’t “be swayed pointing to delegate rules” would probably think the nomination was stolen from Bernie by The Establishment for Hillary with any result other than “Bernie gets the nomination.” In which case, might trying to “find a home” for them be a waste of time, the same way trying to reason with the “skewed polls” people in 2012 was?
What happens to the pledged delegates for those that have suspended their campaigns?
Do they still vote for “their” candidate in the first round, or can / do they go over to someone else?
And who makes that decision?
Argh! No! Cruz is supposed to be falling apart as the race moves out of the South! Bad GOP!
That said, Bernie got 56.5% of delegates in a primary, not a caucus; which is about where he’s supposed to be to stay a threat. 61% would have been really swell, but this is OK. I expect this showing will be dismissed with some bizarre excuse by the Clinton fans.
Certainly AFAIAC. Boy howdy, did this ever justify my lack of faith in them! I’d hope that Nate & Co. would at least move them down into the D range. I think they’re getting worse over time.
Yeppers to all this. 
No, good GOP! The more confusion on that side, the better! 
How about: too little, too late?
Speaking of showings dismissed with bizarre excuses, didn’t the Sanders team just compare Clinton’s SC win with winning Guam? I think that wins the category for this primary season.
Which one do they believe? (Oh, I know the answer is whichever one gives the outcome they want, but I have to ask anyway.)
No, no one actually believes that Wyoming equals Texas. No one believes “one state one win.” No one actually believes that superdelegates should be WTA per state either (despite Sanders apparently arguing they should).
You do of course realize that a belief in “one person one vote” would logically obligate someone to say that even if Sanders overtook Clinton in the delegate count but was still behind in the popular vote, superdelegates giving it to him would be very fucked up? I really do think that his supporters are smart enough to realize that as well.
Sanders is very unlikely to win outright, and even if he gets to within a range where the supers could flip it for him, they’re very unlikely to do so. However, the more delegates he brings into the convention, the more influence he carries, especially if he does get to that threshold where the supers could flip it. Which is what he’s trying for: Influence.
[quote=“Jackmannii, post:78, topic:750566”]
*"Sixty-three percent of Wisconsin Democratic primary voters said they were looking chiefly for a candidate who “cares about people like me” or who “is honest and trustworthy”
Too bad they didn’t apply the same yardsticks to their governor. :smack:
Trump, then Cruz, then Bush!(tee hee) Hey, ANYthing can happen at a brokered convention. I believe TPTB in the Republican Party will HAVE to nominate Trump to get back SOME control. If they don’t, he goes 3rd party or whatever else up-threaders have posited. They are damned if they do, but more damned if they don’t.
An interesting sidenote:
Maybe the GOP should consider adopting Children of Men as its official book. :eek:
That’s the way I do it. I like a some bite in my bloody. Not sure if that would work with beer.
I support Sanders, but it should be noted that Obama beat Clinton by a larger margin in 2008.
I’m very disappointed Wisconsin voters went with Bradley over Kloppenburg for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Bradley is more of an empty suit than Thomas is on the US Supreme Court.
Kloppenburg got endorsements and kudos from the of the state’s major newspapers, but Bradley got about $2 million campaign help from the Kochs.
Money wins again.
No, a Wisconsin Bloody Mary is chased by a bear.
I can’t wait for Clinton to win NY. It won’t shut Bernie up by any measure, but at least I might stop hearing ‘momentum’ in my sleep.
Me, I would love to see a Clinton beat down in New York. Maybe I’ll stop hearing “inevitable” in my sleep.
But I won’t hold my breath for it.
Right winner, wrong margin; Cruz won by 13.
Nailed it!