I’ll have some post-election analysis soon, but this is the most important fact on the Democratic side from last night:
For Mrs. Clinton, Tuesday’s double-digit victories netted her so many delegates that her lead over Mr. Sanders is now about three times what Barack Obama’s was over her in 2008.
Of course, Clinton had some low single-digit wins, too.
So happy this morning. Hillary 2016, and beyond!!!!
Are you a software program?
Please type the letters into the box: B&yKx
Ha!
I haven’t been supportive of Sanders candidacy but I don’t think he should get out of the race.
The race to actually win the nomination is over, his goal should be to get as many delegates as he can to influence the party platform and help reinforce the party’s nominee.
It would probably help too, if the rhetoric between the 2 camps cools off a little too and we come together to crush the GOP
Sanders should not get out.
Nope.
that’s what I said in my first sentence
Bernie has already said that he will stay in through all primaries so everyone can have their say. I believe him.
In so doing, he’s documenting the size and organization of the Left. That’s important, and so is the money he’s raised. It establishes a constituency that continues to exist whatever the nominee.
Yes. He stays in for two reasons.
First for the same reason HRC stayed in long after “the math” said she couldn’t win in ’08. The POWER. Only Bernie is doing it for US and not for his personal power and self aggrandizement. For US so that this time we need not be bullied into voting for “lesser evil” without compensation. And that means as big a pound of flesh as the Clintons took out of Obama’s hide in ’08.
Second so that every DEM voter can tell everyone who they are. Which side they’re on wrt the question of income/wealth inequality, with the people or the corporations, for less war and bombing POC around the world or more of that peculiar fixation among Americans, for the truth or lies. This time they’ll own all the bad that’s done in their name. No more “who could have known?” or “who could have predicted?” for anything that was so easily known or predictable that Sanders and millions of people took in the daunting task of going up against the most formidable and consolidated DEM Party machine that’s ever existed since at least 1968. The year when we fought back against the same crap but were too small in numbers to avoid getting smashed like bugs.
Marie3,
I watch your posts and I can tell you’re a smart and dedicated woman (I presume from “Marie”). Your rhetoric, however, forces me to discount much of what you say. You are so ideological that I just shake my head and find you a divisive entity rather than a Democrat.
Bernie Sanders is a good man who makes interesting points and has been running an excellent campaign. He’s no saint, however. So come on board, find the good you can with the Democratic party, and — with your excellent understanding of the history of politics — make the turn to help defeat the Republicans.
I’m happy to hear that you’re not an ideologue. Now I can stop shaking my head. Bernie Sanders said he’s staying in until the convention. Let’s deal with a man who knows what he’s doing: challenging the grinding Democratic Party Machine (not mentioning any names).
I don’t know how to sugar coat New Deal DEM principals and policies. I’m not even more of a socialist than Frances Perkins or what FDR laid out in Four Freedoms They were divisive when rolled out in their time as well. Why are those that espouse the right thing to do labeled “divisive?” Yeah, I and millions of others were divisive when we support the Civil Rights movement, anti-Vietnam War movement, women’s and gay rights, environmental/ecological movements and opposed the wholesale destruction of regulation that had protected the people from the predators, military waste, fraud, and abuse, and the Iraq War. Why aren’t those bent on hurting people viewed as the divisive ones?
I’ve been turning out to defeat Republicans since 1972. Most of them won, but when they didn’t, we still got more GOP policies and little to nothing that resembled New Deal policies. And who defeated the ERA?
Platforms are a joke! Platforms are just propaganda. They are forgotten the instant an election is over.
Not Clinton platforms. She’ll do her best to do what’s in her platform, just like her husband did. The question now is whether we can get a Democratic House so we can get real, permanent increases in the minimum wage, reform immigration, end high frequency trading, close 1% tax loopholes, defederalize marijuana policy and a slew of other great things. Otherwise all we’ll get is some reversible executive orders and maybe Scalia’s seat.
The strangest thing — I missed that the ’92 and ’96 DEM platforms highlighted:
Capital gains tax cuts
Deregulation of energy, telecom, banks/stockbrokers, commodity futures trading
DOMA
Incarcerating millions more POC, predominately men
No peace dividend with the collapse of the USSR
Pardoning Marc Rich (would have gone for pardoning Leonard Peltier and/or Mumia Abu Jamal).
Militarization of local police departments
Continuance of the Reagan/Bush policies to under-invest in public infrastructure.
I must have voted to stop GHWB’s flag burning amendment.
On the local front in Illinois:
Well, I am happy on the local front for the results from last night.
Anita Alvarez had to go. I had never been fond of her, but I was done with the result of the Rekia Boyd murder. From the result of that, I just felt nothing but disgust when I saw her. So, seeing her go down made me very happy. And, those who put up that fraud More shot themselves in the foot – More didn’t take votes from Foxx – she took them from Alvarez.
And, as for Ken Dunkin…don’t let the door hit you on your way out. I absolutely despise Michael Madigan..but, even when you have the Devil in your midst, somehow, there always happens to be an even worse Devil in the form of our Governor- Bruce Rauner. We have been without a State Budget since July. The thought…the mere thought.,..that ANY Democrat would side with Rauner – FOR ANY REASON – I didn’t give two shyts what Madigan decided to do to Dunkin. So, good riddance to him, and I hope the 30 pieces he got from Rauner was worth it, considering the thousands of the ‘least of these’ in my state that have been hurt because of Dunkin’s paid -for ‘ independence’. Negro, please.
And, Tammy Duckworth won. Wasn’t feeling her, but Andrea Zopp didn’t even reach out to the Black community like she should have..so, oh well. I’ll support Duckworth to get rid of Kirk.
I saw where Alvarez went down, but didn’t know about Dunkin. Thanks for the update.
I don’t think it’s terribly important. It’s nice for her narrative, but I don’t find narratives very interesting.
The math has essentially been unworkable for Bernie since Super Tuesday. He needed to break through with AA voters, and he couldn’t do it.
The states in which she wins big are simply larger than the states in which he wins big.
HRC had a bit better night than many Sanders supporters were hoping. But give Sanders narrow wins in Ohio, Illinois and Missouri, and the math still isn’t there.
So I know who to blame for unemployment.
Yes, the rank and file Dems have rejected Bernie and we can now see her attempt to woo the Sanders supporters. It’ll be a hard sell, and she will largely fail IMO, so there will be a substantial drop-off of Dem voters come Nov.
The Repubs now have a clear path to block Trump should they actually want to do it (assuming he can’t win the majority of delegates). Their most qualified candidate, Kasich, has emerged from the shit to be the Last Establishment Man Standing, and all of the now “free” establishment delegates from past primaries will have no objection to him. As long as Cruz and Kasich continue to win more delegates than Der Trumper, they can unite the Establishment/Conservative wings of the party under a Kasich/Cruz banner in Cleveland.
They are both terrible campaigners/candidates, but the idea that someone who hasn’t run in a single primary (Ryan for example) will be the brokered convention nominee is pundit fantasy
There’s no real reason an unqualified prez candidate like Cruz should refuse the Kasich/Cruz deal.
If Trump or Kasich have Cruz for a VP, they really should employ a taster. Seriously.
Had the same thought but didn’t know how to word it so precisely. Thanks.
Did anyone else watch the Cruz speech and come away with feeling that deep down inside that man he is really a human incarnate of Satan? The dude is just ultra-creepy in so many ways. And every time he makes some bold declarative statement, he gives this quick little evil micro-grin. If you blink you miss it, but he does it every time. After watching the whole thing I felt like I needed to take a shower.
Didn’t see it, but that’s been my visceral response to Cruz when I’ve seen him in the past. Imagine that’s how many people experienced Joe McCarthy. And in real time, I got the similar vibe from Richard Nixon. Probably George Wallace as well.
Someone on another blog’s description of Cruz:
He has a face for a Criminal Minds episode.
I had truly been torn on who to vote for yesterday. My head was telling me to vote for Hillary. Rationally, that seemed the wiser choice. Sherrod Brown, whose opinion I tremendously respect, had endorsed her. We had our annual State Party Dinner on Sunday evening and Sherrod gave a very convincing presentation on why he thought she was the best candidate. Both Hillary and Bernie were also there, and Hillary was impressive. Bernie gave his standard speech, but there was a lot of enthusiasm for him there, though clearly the majority were Clinton supporters.
So I left that Dinner on Sunday pretty well convinced I was going to cast my vote for Clinton. My wife had already made up her mind that she was going for Sanders. But yesterday afternoon, as I stood in the voting booth, I paused for a bit. Then I filled in the circle for Bernie Sanders. For some reason it just felt right and fitting that, on principle, I cast my vote for the Democratic Socialist from Vermont. I guess that as often as I have argued with conservative friends and family for the very issues that Sanders has supported for so long, it seemed as if it would have been a betrayal of those principles to not vote for the person who had been willing to make these issues a serious part of the national discussion. And while he ended up losing my state, he is leaving an indelible mark on a lot of people, myself included.
At this point, it is pretty much a certainty that Clinton will be the nominee. And I will work hard to help get her elected. But I will never regret my vote for Sanders. He has helped to move the Party in a more progressive direction and made important the issues that normally will only get lip service during normal campaigns. Thank you, Bernie Sanders.
“My head was telling me to vote for Hillary.”
Then you need your head examined.
But I will never regret my vote for Sanders.
No you won’t. You’ll be like my mother who until the end of her life proudly proclaimed that the only vote she ever cast with a totally clear conscience was in the ’72 primary and for Shirley Chisholm.
MikeInOhio, I found your comment very moving and honest. The pressure to vote for the Clintons—and pressure it is from the media, DNC, Hollywood, Wall Street, etc.–is overwhelming. No one can deny that what Bernie Sanders has managed up to now is just short of a political miracle.
Mike, I did exactly the same thing. My husband, son, and I all voted for Bernie and will support him til the bitter end.
I’ve been a mild Clinton supporter, for very pragmatic reasons, but now that she’s clearly the nominee, I will feel free to vote for Bernie. The time wasn’t right for him this year, so now it’s time to finish building the foundation upon which his movement can grow.