Berners Deliver Ultimatum to Clinton's WA superdelegates

[mominatrix]

Mar 30, 2016 14:11:53 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Mar 30, 2016 14:03:44 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Oooo... I looked it up. Gov. Inslee was elected in 2012 and here are the WA stats:

Year:2012

Estimated Voting Age Population Registered : 5,221,125

Percentage of Voting Age Population Registered: 74.79%

Votes Cast: 3,172,930

Percent of Registered Voters Voting: 81.25%

So doing the math, that's 81.25% of registered voters or 61% of eligible people. Being conservative, just over ten times the amount that turned out in the WA caucuses.

Source: www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voter-participation.aspx

This is excellent work. Excellent work.

So people elected by 60% percent of the voters should acquiesce to >5.8% of the voters or lose their jobs?

yes.

because that 5.8% are White men loud and all over social media.

[downtoearth]

Mar 30, 2016 14:06:50 GMT -5 FloFTW said:

Mar 30, 2016 13:23:14 GMT -5 heyjude said:

I don't know! I'm waiting for more numbers.

I did Iowa upthread! I tried Hawaii but I cannot find total amount of registered Dem voters.

I'm not sure of the accuracy of this spreadsheet, but the US Election Project says this for the caucus states:

Iowa 15.7%

Nevada 8.2%

Colorado - not noted

Minnesota 8.5%

Kansas 5.5%

Maine 6.1%

Nebraska - not noted

Alaska 6.2%

Hawaii 4.6%

Idaho 21.4% (WOW high?)

[downtoearth]

Mar 30, 2016 14:10:31 GMT -5 Dig Ophelia said:

Mar 30, 2016 13:26:05 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Yet somehow you will have the power to control Congress with the sheer force of your will?!

GTFO with this "what can little old me do?" shit.

This.  This WHOLE THING.  Bernie Sanders and his whole campaign and his Berners and his Bros and his fucking lazy ass can't even wash a cereal bowl revolution makes me all:





and makes me want to say this:


I've gone full Lewis Black on in here.  

It's fitting you picked Lewis Black - he endorsed Bernie long ago.

Source: www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/23/lewis-black-endorses-bernie-sanders-tells-bill-cosby-to-f-himself.html

[miniroller]

Mar 30, 2016 14:05:18 GMT -5 blink said:

Why is the next primary not for another week? The crazies need another election to flail about because I am so tired over hearing about superdelegates in WA.

Also, I bet the Bernie Bros won't eat crow if WA's primary results in May completely contradict the caucus results. Fuck is this election over already?

I'm very curious for a time estimation of how much longer the Berner's will push, in some cases forcefully shove, their agenda down throats, expecting a change in projected results. Will they become more shrilly threatening as time increasingly dwindles his chances? Will their heads pop off in May as they realize the primary results reflect those projected by the caucus results?

It's an interesting phenomenon, that's for sure, though I'm super grateful I can watch from a pretty comfy pro-Hillary spectator spot.

[Vespasia]

Mar 30, 2016 14:24:48 GMT -5 Dig Ophelia said:

Mar 30, 2016 14:17:33 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

It's fitting you picked Lewis Black - he endorsed Bernie long ago.

Source: www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/23/lewis-black-endorses-bernie-sanders-tells-bill-cosby-to-f-himself.html

YOU JUST RUINED LEWIS BLACK!!!   

Thanks, downtoearth !  

In his defense, I think we all felt a lot most positively towards Bernie 9 months ago. 

[blink]

Mar 30, 2016 14:26:58 GMT -5 miniroller said:

Mar 30, 2016 14:05:18 GMT -5 blink said:

Why is the next primary not for another week? The crazies need another election to flail about because I am so tired over hearing about superdelegates in WA.

Also, I bet the Bernie Bros won't eat crow if WA's primary results in May completely contradict the caucus results. Fuck is this election over already?

I'm very curious for a time estimation of how much longer the Berner's will push, in some cases forcefully shove, their agenda down throats, expecting a change in projected results. Will they become more shrilly threatening as time increasingly dwindles his chances? Will their heads pop off in May as they realize the primary results reflect those projected by the caucus results?

It's an interesting phenomenon, that's for sure, though I'm super grateful I can watch from a pretty comfy pro-Hillary spectator spot.

Well apparently they do think he is winning the popular vote.

Someone (Pro-Bernie) on my Facebook posted FiveThirtyEight's real delegate count where Clinton is only ahead by about 230 and someone responded with: "What message does it send when Bernie wins more primary votes but Clinton wins the nomination because of super delegates ..."

[aurora]

Mar 30, 2016 14:44:32 GMT -5 blink said:

Mar 30, 2016 14:26:58 GMT -5 miniroller said:

I'm very curious for a time estimation of how much longer the Berner's will push, in some cases forcefully shove, their agenda down throats, expecting a change in projected results. Will they become more shrilly threatening as time increasingly dwindles his chances? Will their heads pop off in May as they realize the primary results reflect those projected by the caucus results?

It's an interesting phenomenon, that's for sure, though I'm super grateful I can watch from a pretty comfy pro-Hillary spectator spot.

Well apparently they do think he is winning the popular vote.

Someone (Pro-Bernie) on my Facebook posted FiveThirtyEight's real delegate count where Clinton is only ahead by about 230 and someone responded with: "What message does it send when Bernie wins more primary votes but Clinton wins the nomination because of super delegates ..."

I think Nate knows how some of his delegate targets have been misinterpreted. Right below the chart in

fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/

He emphasizes - with italics! - thet they are targets that Sanders would need to win, not predictions.

He says it's unlikely.

[downtoearth]

Mar 30, 2016 14:24:48 GMT -5 Dig Ophelia said:

Mar 30, 2016 14:17:33 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

It's fitting you picked Lewis Black - he endorsed Bernie long ago.

Source: www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/23/lewis-black-endorses-bernie-sanders-tells-bill-cosby-to-f-himself.html

YOU JUST RUINED LEWIS BLACK!!!   

Thanks, downtoearth !  

[jojoandleo]

What is this cereal bowl thing? Did I miss something?

Also, this shit is fucking ridiculous. Do I think Superdelegates are totally awesome? Not really. But seeing the republicans this year, I kind of get it. But they aren't just extra state delegates who vote with the state. They are PARTY delegates. Their vote gets to count, too. They don't just vote with the state.

[downtoearth]

Mar 30, 2016 15:16:10 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

What is this cereal bowl thing? Did I miss something?

Also, this shit is fucking ridiculous. Do I think Superdelegates are totally awesome? Not really. But seeing the republicans this year, I kind of get it. But they aren't just extra state delegates who vote with the state. They are PARTY delegates. Their vote gets to count, too. They don't just vote with the state.

pandce.proboards.com/thread/515121/millennials-real 

Synopsis - cleaning cereal bowls is too time consuming, so market research shows that millennials just use those disposable plastic-kill-the-environment-packages-of-cereal and don't bother with boxes of cereal that you have to pour into a bowl anymore.

[downtoearth]

Mar 30, 2016 15:08:16 GMT -5 Dig Ophelia said:

Mar 30, 2016 15:00:32 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

No worries! It's already forgotten about ...

Oh, I wasn't worried...

[jojoandleo]

Mar 30, 2016 15:38:06 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Mar 30, 2016 15:16:10 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

What is this cereal bowl thing? Did I miss something?

Also, this shit is fucking ridiculous. Do I think Superdelegates are totally awesome? Not really. But seeing the republicans this year, I kind of get it. But they aren't just extra state delegates who vote with the state. They are PARTY delegates. Their vote gets to count, too. They don't just vote with the state.

pandce.proboards.com/thread/515121/millennials-real 

Synopsis - cleaning cereal bowls is too time consuming, so market research shows that millennials just use those disposable plastic-kill-the-environment-packages-of-cereal and don't bother with boxes of cereal that you have to pour into a bowl anymore.

LOL, I thought this was something about Bernie.  Like he had a cereal bowl washer.  BUT, ummmm, have these people never heard of a dishwasher?  Like...what?

[secretlyevil]

I continue to be just floored that six percent of the population turned out and some how that counts as "the will of the people."

[jojoandleo]

Mar 30, 2016 15:51:50 GMT -5 Dig Ophelia said:

Mar 30, 2016 15:41:24 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

LOL, I thought this was something about Bernie.  Like he had a cereal bowl washer.  BUT, ummmm, have these people never heard of a dishwasher?  Like...what?

No, it was just me saying that if many of these young Berners and Bros can't even be bothered to wash a cereal bowl, then it's no surprise that they can't even be bothered to show up to caucus.  And of course if they can't even be bothered to do either, how the hell are they going to start a "revolution" like this country has never seen?  lol  

LOL. Reading fail on my part. But, seriously.  Maybe they are hoping for an online revolution they can do from their couch? Email congress and they will shape up? Post hateful/threatening comments on their social media? Viva la revolution (so long as I can do it from my mom's basement*)!

*This in no way, shape, or form is me saying that every single Bernie supporter is a basement dwelling slacker. If you think I am saying you are one, though, I probably am.

[blink]

Mar 30, 2016 16:00:28 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

Mar 30, 2016 15:51:50 GMT -5 Dig Ophelia said:

No, it was just me saying that if many of these young Berners and Bros can't even be bothered to wash a cereal bowl, then it's no surprise that they can't even be bothered to show up to caucus.  And of course if they can't even be bothered to do either, how the hell are they going to start a "revolution" like this country has never seen?  lol  

LOL. Reading fail on my part. But, seriously.  Maybe they are hoping for an online revolution they can do from their couch? Email congress and they will shape up? Post hateful/threatening comments on their social media? Viva la revolution (so long as I can do it from my mom's basement*)!

*This in no way, shape, or form is me saying that every single Bernie supporter is a basement dwelling slacker. If you think I am saying you are one, though, I probably am.

I'm now picturing that Bruce Willis movie Surrogates, where everyone stays at home and interacts with the world via robots. I bet that's the revolution the Bernie Bros* (same caveat as above) would get behind.

[heyjude]

Mar 30, 2016 16:00:28 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

Mar 30, 2016 15:51:50 GMT -5 Dig Ophelia said:

No, it was just me saying that if many of these young Berners and Bros can't even be bothered to wash a cereal bowl, then it's no surprise that they can't even be bothered to show up to caucus.  And of course if they can't even be bothered to do either, how the hell are they going to start a "revolution" like this country has never seen?  lol  

LOL. Reading fail on my part. But, seriously.  Maybe they are hoping for an online revolution they can do from their couch? Email congress and they will shape up? Post hateful/threatening comments on their social media? Viva la revolution (so long as I can do it from my mom's basement*)!

*This in no way, shape, or form is me saying that every single Bernie supporter is a basement dwelling slacker. If you think I am saying you are one, though, I probably am.

It's the same group of kids that thought they could catch an international war criminal with rubber bracelets and hashtags.

[junieolive]

I know you're talking about caucuses now, but it kills me that Bernie supporters complain about superdelegates, when Bernie is a superdelegate according to Wikipedia.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016
Please correct me if I'm wrong....

[FloFTW]

Mar 30, 2016 16:07:21 GMT -5 junieolive said:

I know you're talking about caucuses now, but it kills me that Bernie supporters complain about superdelegates, when Bernie is a superdelegate according to Wikipedia.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016
Please correct me if I'm wrong....

All sitting members of the House and Senate, and all governors are...so yes.

[epphd]

Mar 30, 2016 18:13:47 GMT -5 spunbutterfly said:

Democrats’ caucuses aren’t very democratic

Originally published March 29, 2016 at 7:15 pm | Updated March 30, 2016 at 2:52 pm




The way the state Democratic Party picks a presidential nominee is so insular and clubby it scarcely qualifies as democracy.


Section Sponsor





Share story


Share


Email


Tweet



Maybe the state Democratic Party should change its name. Because it isn’t at all democratic how they’re choosing a presidential nominee.

The caucuses held here last weekend were described in media reports as “packed” and “bursting at the seams.” Lines around the block were reported, as well as crowds in overflow rooms. It gave the feeling of massive civic engagement.



But in reality, only 5.8 percent of the state’s registered voters showed up. That means 94 percent of voters didn’t. Even the most moribund municipal election for, say, water commissioner, gets turnout rates five times that amount.

This also means that Bernie Sanders’ landslide win was earned with the backing of just 4 percent of our 4 million registered voters.

Can you call something a peoples’ revolution with that few people?

The problem isn’t with the candidates or their caucusing supporters. It also isn’t just public apathy.

It’s the hidebound political party that simply refuses to let the people fully into its nominating process.

We could have voted in a primary election this year, using mail-in ballots, but the state Democratic Party flatly rejected that. They stuck with a caucus system that, quaint as it may be, dramatically suppresses the vote.


The party likes it because people have to give their email addresses and phone numbers. This contributes to “party-building,” meaning the recruitment of volunteers and the creation of fundraising lists. What it does not contribute to is equity, access or the enfranchisement of the people, especially for marginalized populations — all things the Democratic Party says it cares deeply about.

The party rightly opposes “Voter ID” laws as a contrived burden that depresses voting by race and class. So then this same party makes people come stand in a gymnasium for two or three hours on a weekend?


Two political scientists from Brigham Young University studied these events, resulting in a paper called “Who Caucuses?” Mostly it’s “the wealthy, educated, white and interested.” This fits with The Seattle Times portrait of one caucus in the city’s most nonwhite neighborhood: “While the caucus was located in the racially diverse but gentrifying Rainier Valley, most of those who turned out were white.”

If the caucuses were put through a race- and social- equity test, I bet they’d fail.

Compare it to what happened earlier this month in Arizona. That state cut back on the number of polling places in some urban areas, resulting in long lines of voters. The mayor of Phoenix called this out as the type of institutional bias that disproportionately affects poorer voters.

“If you’re a single mother with two kids, you’re not going to wait for hours; you’re going to leave that line,” he told The Washington Post. As a result, “tens of thousands of people were deprived of the right to vote.”


This was headlined: “Arizona’s voting outrage is a warning to the nation.”

But what’s the difference between that and our caucuses? Theirs was done by the state; ours by a private organization. Maybe theirs was an intentional disenfranchisement of certain groups; I’m guessing ours was not. But in the end if there’s such unnecessary burden heaped on the single mother that she doesn’t vote, either way she’s disenfranchised.





It’s a harsh accusation, but the numbers don’t lie. Massachusetts, a state of 6.8 million, held a primary March 1 with regular ballot voting, and the Democratic side alone drew 1.22 million votes. Our state, with 7.1 million people, drew only 230,000 to the caucuses. That’s a million-vote difference.


The Democrats’ caucus system here likely repelled on the order of a million votes.

Now the Sanders supporters are upset about another antidemocratic fixture of the Democrats, the superdelegates. These are the party bosses who can sway a close election. Sanders supporters righteously demand that they “heed the will of the people!”

Can you invoke the people’s will when 94 percent of the people weren’t there?

We’ll never know if Hillary Clinton might have won here if we had had a primary.

But we can say there’s a serious problem if a candidate wins a 45-point landslide, yet even that isn’t enough to tell who the voters in a real democracy might have chosen.


Danny Westneat’s column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or [e-mail]

www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/democrats-caucuses-arent-very-democratic/ - paywall

ALL OF THIS.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Mar 30, 2016 11:23:49 GMT -5 heyjude said:

And they are DEMANDING elected officials follow the "will of the people."

This made my day.

I've got a Berner on Facebook that posted an "article" about how it's time for Clinton to now concede to Sanders.

[heyjude]

Mar 30, 2016 18:13:47 GMT -5 spunbutterfly said:

Democrats’ caucuses aren’t very democratic

Originally published March 29, 2016 at 7:15 pm | Updated March 30, 2016 at 2:52 pm




The way the state Democratic Party picks a presidential nominee is so insular and clubby it scarcely qualifies as democracy.


Section Sponsor





Share story


Share


Email


Tweet



Maybe the state Democratic Party should change its name. Because it isn’t at all democratic how they’re choosing a presidential nominee.

The caucuses held here last weekend were described in media reports as “packed” and “bursting at the seams.” Lines around the block were reported, as well as crowds in overflow rooms. It gave the feeling of massive civic engagement.



But in reality, only 5.8 percent of the state’s registered voters showed up. That means 94 percent of voters didn’t. Even the most moribund municipal election for, say, water commissioner, gets turnout rates five times that amount.

This also means that Bernie Sanders’ landslide win was earned with the backing of just 4 percent of our 4 million registered voters.

Can you call something a peoples’ revolution with that few people?

The problem isn’t with the candidates or their caucusing supporters. It also isn’t just public apathy.

It’s the hidebound political party that simply refuses to let the people fully into its nominating process.

We could have voted in a primary election this year, using mail-in ballots, but the state Democratic Party flatly rejected that. They stuck with a caucus system that, quaint as it may be, dramatically suppresses the vote.


The party likes it because people have to give their email addresses and phone numbers. This contributes to “party-building,” meaning the recruitment of volunteers and the creation of fundraising lists. What it does not contribute to is equity, access or the enfranchisement of the people, especially for marginalized populations — all things the Democratic Party says it cares deeply about.

The party rightly opposes “Voter ID” laws as a contrived burden that depresses voting by race and class. So then this same party makes people come stand in a gymnasium for two or three hours on a weekend?


Two political scientists from Brigham Young University studied these events, resulting in a paper called “Who Caucuses?” Mostly it’s “the wealthy, educated, white and interested.” This fits with The Seattle Times portrait of one caucus in the city’s most nonwhite neighborhood: “While the caucus was located in the racially diverse but gentrifying Rainier Valley, most of those who turned out were white.”

If the caucuses were put through a race- and social- equity test, I bet they’d fail.

Compare it to what happened earlier this month in Arizona. That state cut back on the number of polling places in some urban areas, resulting in long lines of voters. The mayor of Phoenix called this out as the type of institutional bias that disproportionately affects poorer voters.

“If you’re a single mother with two kids, you’re not going to wait for hours; you’re going to leave that line,” he told The Washington Post. As a result, “tens of thousands of people were deprived of the right to vote.”


This was headlined: “Arizona’s voting outrage is a warning to the nation.”

But what’s the difference between that and our caucuses? Theirs was done by the state; ours by a private organization. Maybe theirs was an intentional disenfranchisement of certain groups; I’m guessing ours was not. But in the end if there’s such unnecessary burden heaped on the single mother that she doesn’t vote, either way she’s disenfranchised.





It’s a harsh accusation, but the numbers don’t lie. Massachusetts, a state of 6.8 million, held a primary March 1 with regular ballot voting, and the Democratic side alone drew 1.22 million votes. Our state, with 7.1 million people, drew only 230,000 to the caucuses. That’s a million-vote difference.


The Democrats’ caucus system here likely repelled on the order of a million votes.

Now the Sanders supporters are upset about another antidemocratic fixture of the Democrats, the superdelegates. These are the party bosses who can sway a close election. Sanders supporters righteously demand that they “heed the will of the people!”

Can you invoke the people’s will when 94 percent of the people weren’t there?

We’ll never know if Hillary Clinton might have won here if we had had a primary.

But we can say there’s a serious problem if a candidate wins a 45-point landslide, yet even that isn’t enough to tell who the voters in a real democracy might have chosen.


Danny Westneat’s column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or [e-mail]

www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/democrats-caucuses-arent-very-democratic/ - paywall

I'm glad I have company!!!

[elleblue]

Mar 30, 2016 19:11:11 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Mar 30, 2016 11:23:49 GMT -5 heyjude said:

And they are DEMANDING elected officials follow the "will of the people."

This made my day.

I've got a Berner on Facebook that posted an "article" about how it's time for Clinton to now concede to Sanders.

Right. She's ahead by 200 pledged delegates and over 2 million more people have voted for her - she should definitely concede. No doubt about it, Bernie is winning.

Wut. 

[StrawberryBlondie]

Mar 30, 2016 19:20:41 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Mar 30, 2016 19:11:11 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I've got a Berner on Facebook that posted an "article" about how it's time for Clinton to now concede to Sanders.

Right. She's ahead by 200 pledged delegates and over 2 million more people have voted for her - she should definitely concede. No doubt about it, Bernie is winning.

Wut. 

Momentum.

HTH.

[elleblue]

Mar 30, 2016 19:25:32 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Mar 30, 2016 19:20:41 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Right. She's ahead by 200 pledged delegates and over 2 million more people have voted for her - she should definitely concede. No doubt about it, Bernie is winning.

Wut. 

Momentum.

HTH.

Oh right. Must be my silly lady brain and my voting vagina getting in the way of me understanding that clearly. 

[heyjude]

Mar 30, 2016 19:20:41 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Mar 30, 2016 19:11:11 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I've got a Berner on Facebook that posted an "article" about how it's time for Clinton to now concede to Sanders.

Right. She's ahead by 200 pledged delegates and over 2 million more people have voted for her - she should definitely concede. No doubt about it, Bernie is winning.

Wut. 

Well that bird landed on his podium so...

[StrawberryBlondie]

Mar 30, 2016 19:27:14 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Mar 30, 2016 19:25:32 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Momentum.

HTH.

Oh right. Must be my silly lady brain and my voting vagina getting in the way of me understanding that clearly. 

It's a college friend. I'm pretty sure he loves the free college proposal. Considering he's gone to school for at least 3 different things since college.

[elleblue]

Mar 30, 2016 19:32:08 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Mar 30, 2016 19:27:14 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Oh right. Must be my silly lady brain and my voting vagina getting in the way of me understanding that clearly. 

It's a college friend. I'm pretty sure he loves the free college proposal. Considering he's gone to school for at least 3 different things since college.

I can see why free college would be incredibly attractive. Imagine being able to be a lifelong college student with very little personal expense. 

[jeaniebueller]

Mar 30, 2016 15:48:42 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

I continue to be just floored that six percent of the population turned out and some how that counts as "the will of the people."

6 percent of registered DNC voters. Even worse.

[secretlyevil]

[quote author="jeaniebueller

" source="/post/11296954/thread" timestamp="1459385493"]

Mar 30, 2016 15:48:42 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

I continue to be just floored that six percent of the population turned out and some how that counts as "the will of the people."

6 percent of registered DNC voters. Even worse. [/quote]


Yeah, that's so much worse.

[looseseal]

Mar 30, 2016 19:11:11 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Mar 30, 2016 11:23:49 GMT -5 heyjude said:

And they are DEMANDING elected officials follow the "will of the people."

This made my day.

I've got a Berner on Facebook that posted an "article" about how it's time for Clinton to now concede to Sanders.

My cousin posted that, too! Big surprise, white male who lives in Boulder, CO. Except I thought he would just be a supporter, and not a BernieBro.