2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFiveThirtyEight Endorsement Update: Hillary 342, Biden 16, O'Malley 1, Sanders 0
UPDATED 4:17 P.M. EDT | OCTOBER 2http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)Politics
"Bernie Sanders is the first candidate to reach a million donations this year, says his campaign"
reformist2
(9,841 posts)riversedge
(70,246 posts)ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)deadlinetony
(48 posts)And can be changed in a whim.
October 13th will change the game. And history will not be so kind to Clinton, once again.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Out of son 4400 delegates the super delegates will be important. I would not downplay the value of these delegates.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)if bernie gets the votes and the supers think they are going to steal it for hillary, they can kiss the party as well as the ge goodbye.
the sentiment and tactic expressed here could not be more illustrative of the problem of. money, power, and corruption in our political process.
thank you for making it crystal clear the importance of this election.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Super delegates count in a big way in the end. NH, let's say Bernie gets 16 delegates and Hillary gets 12, if NH has 5 super delegates all voting for Hillary, that means she gets 17 to his 16. See how that works?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)of the process. but the delegates should be in line to support the people's will, not to override it. if the votes support one candidate and the supers tilt it in another direction, that is wrong. and if hillary gets the votes, i would not want supers (lets say bernie has at that point sd support) to override it for bernie, as much as i would want him to win.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)From TheDemocraticStrategist.com
A (Qualified) Defense of Superdelegates
(NOTE: This guest post, by Dr. Stephen Medvic, Associate Professor of Government at Franklin & Marshall College, addresses claims that superdelegates threaten to overturn the popular will of Democratic voters.)
During this presidential cycle, criticism of the Democratic Partys superdelegate system has been widespread and, at times, vociferous. Much of it has emanated from supporters of Sen. Barack Obamas candidacy, who fear a superdelegate coup on behalf of Hillary Clinton to overturn the pledged delegate results from primaries and caucuses. But theres a legitimate and important debate over the institution of superdelegates above and beyond their impact on this particular contest, and thats what I will address in this essay.
There is no doubt, as many knowledgeable observers have pointed out, that the creation of superdelegates in the early 1980s was a move by party insiders to enhance the power of the party establishment. But the arguments made against their role in the process are a bit misguided.
First, todays superdelegates are hardly the party bosses of yesteryear. Prior to 1972, the party establishment did wield considerable power in selecting the partys nominee and that establishment did consist, for the most part, of older white men. Taken as a group, these men were certainly less progressive than the reformers who changed the party rules following the 1968 election. It is a mistake, however, to think of them as a homogenous cadre of conservatives. As Byron Shafer noted in Quiet Revolution, his history of the post-1968 Democratic Party reforms, the orthodox Democratic coalition was essentially blue-collar and included not only organized labor but civil rights organizations as well. It was replaced, incidentally, not by the rank-and-file, as is often suggested by opponents of the superdelegates, but by an alternative Democratic coalition of elites that was thoroughly white-collar.
Nevertheless, todays establishment embodied by the superdelegates is extremely diverse, especially when compared to party insiders circa 1968. It is true that over 60 percent of the superdelegates are men, but that is the result of the fact that elected officials continue to be disproportionately male. Among the roughly 400 superdelegates who are not elected officials this discrepancy virtually disappears because party rules produce a significant level of gender balance on the Democratic National Committee (and members of the DNC serve as superdelegates). And while I am unaware of the precise demographic make-up of the superdelegates, it is safe to assume that minorities are represented in proportion to their numbers among Democratic Party constituencies. Indeed, party rules for DNC membership encourage representation as nearly as practicable of minority groups, Blacks, Native Americans, Asian/Pacifics, Hispanics, women and youth, as indicated by their presence in the Democratic electorate.
Furthermore, the notion that nearly 800 party leaders might coordinate their decisions in some sort of modern day smoke-filled room is laughable. The superdelegates cannot even be accused of group-think, since they are currently split almost evenly between support for Hillary Clinton and for Barack Obama. And because half of them are elected officials, they are likely to consider their constituents preferences when they determine their own. The charge against them, then, must simply be that they werent chosen in primaries or caucuses. But is that process worthy of the devotion that critics of the superdelegates appear to afford it?
Craig Holman of Public Citizen recently complained that superdelegates are a device to try to reduce the influence of one-person, one-vote, as if the non-superdelegates (or pledged delegates) represent equal numbers of voters. Of course, they dont and there are numerous ways in which they fall short of that standard. The most obvious is the use of caucuses to allocate pledged delegates in some states. In Nevada, more people turned out in support of Clinton and, yet, Obama received more delegates. To be sure, most of those critical of superdelegates are also likely to oppose caucuses for selecting delegates. But are primaries considerably more democratic?
Presumably, delegates could be selected in a manner that approximates equal representation for all voters. But current Democratic Party rules penalize voters in non-Democratic states by apportioning delegates, in part, based on the states past presidential votes. Thus, Washington is awarded 97 delegates while Indiana has only 84, despite the fact that the population of the two states is nearly identical. Is it fair that a loyal Indiana Democrat will be underrepresented at the national convention for no other reason than that most of the voters in his or her state are Republicans? (There are party-building reasons for this like giving state parties an incentive to mobilize Democratic voters but it violates one-person, one-vote nonetheless.)
Furthermore, given varying rates of turnout, the delegate-to-voter ratios among the states are anything but equal, even if we remove the superdelegates from the calculation. Thus, in New Mexico, each pledged delegate represents 5,373 voters while delegates from Wisconsin represent 14,998 voters. That is a rather striking violation of political equality. In addition, voters in large states are underrepresented by delegate apportionment. In fact, among states that have held primaries to this point, those we might consider large (defined as having a population of at least four million) have a pledged delegate-to-voter ratio of 1 to 11,901 while in small states (those with a population of less than four million) the ratio is 1 to 8,753. It turns out, then, that even if there were no superdelegates (and no caucuses), the process of selecting delegates via primaries would distort the principle of one-person, one-vote.
The least convincing of the critics arguments is the claim that the will of the voters will be done so long as the superdelegates dont subvert it. This assumes either that the voters who are participating in the process of selecting the Democratic Party nominee are themselves all Democrats or that it is acceptable for non-Democrats to help pick the Democratic Partys nominee. Clearly, the former is not the case. More than half of all nominating contests will be open; that is, they will allow independents and, in some cases, Republicans, to participate. The real question, then, is whether this is acceptable.
Why should the Democratic Party allow its presidential nominee to be determined, if even in small measure, by those who do not consider themselves members of the party? Critics of the superdelegates seem to forget that the process so many people are now participating in is party business. It is not an election to public office. It is a way for the party to select its standard bearer. The party may choose to pick the person that best represents the principles of the party; or it may decide that electability is most important. But independents, and certainly Republicans, shouldnt have a say in that process.
This essay is a qualified defense of superdelegates, rather than a wholehearted one, because I am also bothered by the possibility of elites determining the nominee of a party. (Whether that is avoidable under any system is another matter.) But I find more troubling the idea that anyone including not only those who choose not to affiliate with a party, but those of the opposite party - should be allowed to help determine the direction of a political party.
If the critics of superdelegates are serious about democracy, they should seek first and foremost
1. To ban caucuses.
2. Next they should urge the Democratic Party to require all primaries to be closed.
3. And, finally, they should insist that delegates are apportioned equally, based either on the population of a state or on some measure of the number of Democratic voters in a state.
I prefer to get rid of the superdelegates too; but not until rank-and-file Democratic voters and only rank-and-file Democratic voters - are allowed to determine the partys nominee on a truly one-person, one-vote basis.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)still not a fan of supers, and i believe in open primaries, despite the party's "right" to determine their standardbearer.
i do agree about apportionment. not sure how i feel about caucuses
thanks!
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Clinton's Superdelegate Tipping Point
Bloomberg News, August 28, 2015
"For starters, superdelegates are formally unpledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention who are chosen by position, not through votes in primaries and caucuses. The two big groups are elected officials (members of Congress, governors) and party officials.
Superdelegates were added in the 1980s for two reasons. One was practical: It was the only way to ensure that those party leaders could get to the convention, at least as delegates. The other was political: Democrats were concerned that their new system didnt place enough weight on electability and believed a larger voice for politicians and formal party leaders would tilt the nomination in that direction.
In the event, the supers have never tilted the nomination; they always line up with the candidate who won the most delegates in the caucuses and primaries. Thats essentially what happened in 2008: Clinton had an early lead in superdelegates, but as Barack Obama started winning caucuses and primaries, he wound up picking up almost all the undecided supers and even some defectors from Clinton."
[link:http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-28/clinton-s-superdelegate-tipping-point|
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i imagine an "overturn" would lead to quite a spectacle,which a major party probably wants to avoid.
deadlinetony
(48 posts)and what's more... they can drop Hillary like a bad habit when the writing's on the wall, when the delegates begins to outpace Hillary's superdelegates and force Clinton to compete and lose like she did in 2008.
Welcome to DU!
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)deadlinetony
(48 posts)will be beginning soon.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)If the delegate count was close and Bernie had the super delegates you would want Bernie to win, huh. Is Bernie even trying to get endorsements from the super delegates?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)if that is hillary, so be it. the people's votes should not be overridden by "more important" ones, no matter what outcome that might lead to.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)the idea that some votes count more than others, have more weight, makes me ill.
i also am not a fan of ec although some states divide the ec votes which makes it a little less distasteful imo.
i like one person, one vote. and count 'em up.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)then they can support candidates of their choosing. if the vote goes one way and sd's go another way, then in theory, they have the ability to override the popular vote. that to me seems disproportionate and unfair. i know in the end the supers end up going with the candidate with the votes, but the fact that they COULD change the outcome is very unsettling imo.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)how can that be considered democratic? this is not in reference to any particular candidate but as a general principle. How can people in the party think that that's OK to do? Again, I don't think it would actually happen, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me in a democracy to have party "special people" decide over the will of the people at least in theory if that's possible, who gets a nomination.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)number of delegates, the super delegates was split, he ended up with the most delegates and was the nominee. Did you see threat of civil war, no, was there a civil war, no. Gore won the popular vote, but Bush with the help of Florida and SC was president. The presidential selection is not just based on popular count, delegates by state are usually shared if the percentage is high enough. BTW, this has been the DNC process for several years, it did not start this year.
If Hillary wins the popular vote, wins the highest number of delegates, are you still going to have a problem with the nominee?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)of one person, one vote, not all this delegate/formula bs. as to the bush "victory," that still raises my bp when i think about it.
and to answer your question, if Hillary wins the popular vote, she should be the nominee. I want the nom to be the person that most voters want to be the nominee. Whoever that ends up being.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)maybe it is pie in the sky, but i like one person one vote, and i think the ec system was set up for reasons other than equitable voting access.
NealK
(1,870 posts)That system became obsolete a 100 years ago. Reforms are badly needed.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Government was set up then. It has worked many years and unless the US fails it will work longer. I am not sure we have the right people to do the reform and it continues another four hundred years.
NealK
(1,870 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Bernie will fall short, very short so the supers won't need to "steal" anything for Hillary.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)then the problem will solve itself. i just don't want to see a situation where the votes go one way and the nom goes the other. its like when the popular vote is higher but the candidate loses because of ec. its just wrong imo.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)If Bernie gets the votes he deserves to win. I just don't think he will.. not even close.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but i am glad we agree that the one who gets the votes SHOULD win. only time will tell who that will be.....
NealK
(1,870 posts)10/05/15 07:52 AMUpdated 10/05/15 08:10 AM
Hillary Clinton has always been viewed as the Democrats best general-election candidate. But new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls of Iowa and New Hampshire show that Bernie Sanders outperforms Clinton in those two general-election battleground states.
In Iowa, Republican Jeb Bush leads Clinton by 10 points in a hypothetical general-election match up among registered voters, 50 percent to 40 percent, and Donald Trump is ahead of her by seven points, 48 percent to 41 percent - essentially unchanged from the polls results a month ago.
And Carly Fiorina leads Clinton in the Hawkeye State by 14 points, 52 percent to 38 percent.
But when Sanders is matched up against these same Republicans, his numbers are stronger: Sanders leads Trump by five points in Iowa (48 percent to 43 percent). And he narrowly trails Bush (46 percent to 44 percent) and Fiorina (45 percent to 42 percent).
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-outperforms-clinton-general-election-matchups-ia-nh
TM99
(8,352 posts)of the money & power games that lead to an invisible primary.
So blah blah blah us all you want, but here it is. It is not a conspiracy theory. This is reality. We all know it - a game of backroom deals with the establishment elites. We the people are secondary in the process from debates to union leaders early endorsements to congressional endorsements (or else!) to CU.
And we are fighting it this time. We are standing up and shouting out! Over 30,000 in Boston just last night said this is a revolution we intend to win.
So enjoy your endorsements and MSM status quote predictions all you like. Sanders will either win or Clinton will lose to the GOP. Your choice.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... win against the GOP candidate . As my spouse sometimes has to tell me "It's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee ".
NealK
(1,870 posts)Socialist, socialist, socialist. He's a Democratic socialist. Gee, thanks for doing the Repukes' dirty work.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)The "old" problem is that he is 74 years old -- NOW -- and looks it.
NealK
(1,870 posts)Also:
Sanders outperforms Clinton in general election matchups in IA, NH
10/05/15 07:52 AMUpdated 10/05/15 08:10 AM
Hillary Clinton has always been viewed as the Democrats best general-election candidate. But new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls of Iowa and New Hampshire show that Bernie Sanders outperforms Clinton in those two general-election battleground states.
In Iowa, Republican Jeb Bush leads Clinton by 10 points in a hypothetical general-election match up among registered voters, 50 percent to 40 percent, and Donald Trump is ahead of her by seven points, 48 percent to 41 percent - essentially unchanged from the polls results a month ago.
And Carly Fiorina leads Clinton in the Hawkeye State by 14 points, 52 percent to 38 percent.
But when Sanders is matched up against these same Republicans, his numbers are stronger: Sanders leads Trump by five points in Iowa (48 percent to 43 percent). And he narrowly trails Bush (46 percent to 44 percent) and Fiorina (45 percent to 42 percent).
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-outperforms-clinton-general-election-matchups-ia-nh
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:27 AM - Edit history (1)
to handle an extremely mentally and physically challenging job through the next 5 years, given what's at stake they should be able to use the incumbent advantage to go for -- and SERVE well -- a second term.
In 2024 HRC will be 78. Bernie will be 83. It's a valid and significant issue for both of them. I don't believe either of them can reasonably EXPECT to be fully functional 9 years from now, only hope. Not ruling either of them out on this alone, but it is a solid negative for any candidate in this age group.
These are averages and don't hold for every individual, of course - much less for people whose brains are continually highly exercised (who more than presidents?), but some decline in cognitive function with age is inevitable. We now have good reason to believe President Reagan, who served from ages 70 to 79, was progressively impaired by dementia through much of his presidency.
Please rethink your notion of cheap shots, NealK. Not every negative pointed out for your candidate is one, and this is, again, serious business.
NealK
(1,870 posts)and make them listen to clasical music before processing them into Soylent Green? Einstein died when he was 76 and was still smarter than the vast majority of people. Newton died at the age of 84 and Tesla was 86. All of them smarter then you and I and certainly Hillary put together. Ageism sucks.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Ageism based on nothing but bias does suck, but no one's suggesting we should staff the next Mars mission with septuagenarians. There are reasons for that.
NealK
(1,870 posts)oldest man to fly in space by serving as a payload specialist on STS-95 aboard the space shuttle Discovery.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/bios/shuttle_mission.html
He was 77 and performed very well. So fuck it with the silly non sequiturs. You and I won't be alive if they ever send humans to Mars anyway. Yes, Ageism based on nothing but bias does suck and you're very biased. Raygun was 69 years old when becoming a pathetic President, Hillary will be older than him if she is elected.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)He chose himself.
NealK
(1,870 posts)no amount of political power would have provided him with a seat on that shuttle.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Have a nice one.
NealK
(1,870 posts)Have a wonderful day.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)They were told she is inevitable, like it or not. Any fact or event which belies that crap causes so much internal dissonance, that they have to strike out with bullshit.
If they were honest, and I am sure that one or two are (much like how trump discusses messsicans ), they would look at the graph of polling trends and smell the coffee.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)The one wher they added Biden to dilute Hillary's numbers?
I think Biden is going to anounce that he is not running then his numbers revert back to Hillary. Then she will be back to a 30 point lead over Bernie.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Biden a welcome addition for this reason.
The more that people are edjumikated about issues from a democratic perspective, the more the country will benefit. so far the clown car is the only message, and it sucks. Debating fine points and differences is a great (free) way to get good info out, regardless of which D candidate eventually wins.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Young people know where the jobs went: China.
And what kind of government does China have?
This article is about the formal administrative structure of the state, its branches, departments and their responsibilities. Most, but not all, positions of significant power in the state structure and in the military are occupied by members of the Communist Party of China which is controlled by the Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China, a group of 4 to 9 people who make all decisions of national significance. As the role of the military is to enforce these decisions, the support of the PLA is important in maintaining Party rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_China
What is more, many Americans like me have traveled or lived in Europe and are not fooled by scary labels and the propaganda of people like the Koch Brothers and the remaining members of the John Birch Society.
I am not a socialist, but I realize that we are headed in a direction with regard to inequitable wealth distribution that is not sustainable.
We are surviving and living well on a trade deficit that permits us to buy products from overseas at cheap prices thanks to the near slave labor of people in a number of countries with which we trade.
We can only run up a deficit of a certain amount, and we can only lose so many jobs, skills, factories, and we will begin (are already seeing) a drop in our standard of living.
The statistics on our economy can fool us into thinking all is well. But we have towns an cities, like Ferguson, Missouri that have a tax base that cannot support even the basics like a decent police force and fire department without all kinds of punitive ticketing and gimmicks to raise money.
If you followed the stories on Ferguson, Missouri's fundraising methods, you will unerstand what I am talking about.
Young people are having a tough time finding jobs. They are saddled with student loan debt that in some cases forces them to still live at home or on the streets or to take jobs, pay back their loans and delay marriage and starting a family.
There is a post in the video section of this website featuring Peter Schiff -- not a socialist as I understand it --. He points out that home ownership is at the lowest point since 1967. I don't know when that speech was given, but it was fairly recent.
Bernie is popular for a reason.
And that reason is that our economy sucks.
We have been sold out, our young people have been sold out, by a lot of greedy folks at the top of our financial pyramid.
So have seniors. Our retirement system is a mess. I'm 72. The income I depend on is Social Security. Bank rates are extremely low. Investing in the stock market is not recommended at my age. The bank rates tell the whole story. They are very low because money to invest in America, in our economy, is not in great demand.
Inflation -- I see it when I go to the grocery store, but not so much when it comes to goods manufactured in other countries.
The "socialism" threat is not as powerful as it once was and for good reason.
And by the way, our Constitution, especially in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protects private property from being taken without just compensation, so there is no need to worry about our government stealing our private property.
Bernie is speaking for millions and millions of people. Including those who lost their homes to the injustice and fraud perpetrated by Wall Street and the banks beginning early in this century.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)sorry to say.
He is not a 'self-proclaimed socialist', he is a Democratic Socialist. The hardcore party faithful GOP think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Socialist so Sanders never had those votes anyway. All Democratic party faithful will vote for him in the GE. And the independents who are the largest part of the electorate at this time are LOVING Sanders 'socialism'.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)That's quite a statement from those in-the-know.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)They don't want to see the changes that will make it better for the average American. That would mean having to kiss their corporate gravy trains goodbye.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)These people are indeed insiders and politically well informed. They know the strengths, weaknesses, dangers and potential issues of each candidate better than most. The fact they choose Hillary tells me they think she can win despite her "scandals" and supposed weakness as a campaigner. More than anything they want a Democrat to win and they will support the best horse in the race and that clearly is Hillary.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What is the saying about money walking?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Gothmog
(145,344 posts)SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)MindfulOne
(227 posts).
If your a delegate in office and she wins you do NOT want to have been a late endorser.
If you want her support in the future in ANY way, you have to give up your integrity and endorse her.
She's not liked in political circles except by a few creepy pols and hacks like Lanny Davis and Morty B.
Good Democratic Soldiers, is all this is.
Fortunately, Hillary Clinton will never be president.
Her last and only shot already came and went.
I only hope that her ambition and insistence on manipulating the system doesn't, in the end, give us a Republican POTUS.
oasis
(49,393 posts)enid602
(8,620 posts)I can't believe O'Malley only got 1!!!!!?? The othrrs seem about right.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I have never seen such hysteria. It would be funny if it weren't so incredibly bizarre and nonsensical.
Endorsements from members of Congress, labor unions and current politicians mean nothing. Only big crowds at rallies (that not every candidate is even holding right now) and likes on Facebook matter.
And we're weeks away from the first debate and the pre-emptive "explanations" for why certain candidates won't win are thick as kudzu around here. The debates are rigged. The polls are rigged. The endorsements are rigged. Everything is rigged. Like I said, I've never seen such hysteria.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Bernie has the endorsement of the people. If you haven't noticed citizens are rebelling against the establishment so your naming suits who support Hillary is a joke and no one cares.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Does that also count as an endorsement of the people?
mccallen
(24 posts)Stacking the deck? Bern them all, and they'll wonder what just happened.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Look at the older polls! And we still haven't had a debate yet (obviously timed so that it comes after the deadline for voter registration for the primaries in New York)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That's 32,000 endorsements right there.
Then there were the crowds on the West Coast and even in South Carolina.
Endorsements -- nearly every person who bothers to get on a train or bus or pay a parking fee to see him is endorsing him wholeheartedly.
The people who go to see Bernie are very well informed about his policy proposals.
Try campaigning for Bernie as I have done, and you will see that the enthusiasm and support for him is real and enthusiastic -- especially among that crucial group -- young people.
It's quite amazing.
One woman I spoke to seemed shocked when I spoke the words, "Bernie" and "Sanders."
Oh, she said, that's the guy the internet said I agree with the most. Who is he? I explained, and she was thrilled.
So there is an example of someone who has not really heard much about Bernie at all who recognizes in him the person she will support in 2016.
Bernie's support is going to grow as we who are volunteering for him contact his potential supporters. It's going to happen one voter at a time.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
.using the same tactics, thwarted the will of the people who vote for them, once before. It was in 1968 and Nixon won.
I don't think the Democratic Machine cares. Between a Republican and Bernie they'd prefer business as usual, the roles as established and the trough they are feeding atto Bernie.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)What they care about is business as usual. And the party that wins makes no deference to the bottom line.
They don't care who wins the election, as long as it is one of the two people they select.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)Speaks volumes about how 'endorsements' are running counter to the voting & polling
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)the ones who will participate in the primaries and caucuses and actually determine our nominee, the vast majority of them aren't paying all that much attention yet. We here on DU are a self-selected group of political junkies, so we are all paying a lot of attention and we mostly have some pretty strong opinions about who we want nominated.
And most voters won't care very much about endorsements, although if groups like the NEA decide to run lots of TV ads for Hillary, the viewers won't really know or care about the endorsement, but they will absorb the message of the ad.
Sisterwife15
(21 posts)her tweeps want to know.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)anyway!? That would be interesting!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Color me oh so surprised.
Not.
ornotna
(10,803 posts)I'm just one vote, but he has it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)Or is this suppose to be bragging?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)As the link states, endorsements have played a key role in determining past nominees so it only makes sense to track this kind of information for the 2016 election cycle.
Does the article update anger you?
If it does, let me know what kind of information I'm allowed to post.
Thank you in advance.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)unless they're endorsing Bernie.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)It is quite telling that even his most liberal colleagues won't support him.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)It is very telling.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Hillary 342....Sanders 0
But hey Bernie had a big rally the other day.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)The super delegates can play catch up with the people.