Media Whores Online

For those of you who don't remember (or could not remember because you're young), a little history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Whores_Online

A good if very pro-Clinton media watchdog site during its run, and as the page says, often cited by long-time Clinton operatives James Carville and Paul Begala.

Damn!

What we saw last night was almost exactly the same as the 2008 Clinton-Obama numbers! Indeed, it was peak Clinton in New York already back then! But unfortunately the challenger did no better. Turnout did not increase. (We will see where these big irregularity stories lead, one can't be confident given how consistently elections now go wrong in this country and how consistently nothing is done about it.)

The structural stability on the NY-Democratic side is amazing, I'll have to concede. We don't have a two-party system, we have two single-party systems that hold their own rules-rigged "elections" - and New York may be the worst of it.

These two primary systems determine the choices for everyone and are subsidized by taxes on everyone. There is no justifying a closed system impervious to ideological challenge, that actually has contempt for the outsiders. If New York had been an open, choose your party, same-day registration vote, or a theoretical combined primary, Sanders would have outpaced everyone. And many of you here are proud and thrilled that it's instead this closed, bureaucratic, undemocratic process that benefits career status-quo politicians (and in Albany produces legislatures literally run as single-man empires, even if the emperors sometimes get caught and fall).

The Republican single-party system is in breakdown, but the D's seem to have weathered it this year. I am calling the D's a strong party and that will be taken as praise by many here, but it's not meant that way. A strong nomenklatura (a party machine) that is less popular than ever.

The era since the Clinton ascendancy has been one long decline for the D's - in registered voters, governorships and statehouses, and Congress, in everything except the presidency (which happens despite the farcical nature of the process to involve the most democratic election, you should note). That is because the party no longer believably represents the principles that once made it popular. Organizationally a fortress is no guarantee of victory in November. And of course the party establishment has already conceded Congress until 2022, and made themselves quite comfortable with that idea, so there's even an element of playing to lose rather than allowing change.

No, what's interesting is 120,000 purged, apparently...

while registration in every other county went up.

What's interesting otherwise is a system where most people aren't allowed to vote until their choices have been predetermined for them by an opaque process.

And there are worse things than "armchair," such as the role of the big money, the corporate media, and the ossified smug nomenklatura, the 99-year hacks who run the party machines - hard workers, all.

All this blah blah before polls close amounts to attempted voter suppression.

Not that anyone who has yet to vote is reading this forum, but witting or not, that's how it functions.

I just voted for Bernie Sanders and I don't regret it!

I like how the settlements are spun into good news.

Hey, after massive fraud on an economy-wide scale by the megabanks, plundering hundreds of billions and crashing the entire world finance system resulting in mass unemployment and suffering globally, the government over the next eight years hit them up for a fraction of that in settlements that mooted the hundreds of criminal cases that should have been brought - effectively collecting a small chunk of the taxes due while sending a crystal-clear message to the actual decision makers responsible for mass fraud: CRIME PAYS. DO IT AGAIN!

I was going to say same thing.

These people are not being covered by polling. And no doubt the overwhelming number, besides already being in the youth demographic, are motivated to vote and will be voting for Sanders. Still, you can't expect 100 percent turnout.

A huge chunk of the young and the cell-phone equipped of course are also not covered by the polling.

What matters in all this polling is the likely voter model in each case. It has little to say about turnout for an insurgent candidacy, however. This may be why most of the poll numbers have barely budged during this campaign.

We'll see on Tuesday! It's all about the turnout. Sanders is right: if it's high, he wins.

It's a terrible thing!

All these.... people who haven't served as loyal party hacks for 99 years coming in and thinking they should have a say.

First of all, most VOTERS are not Democrats.

Maybe you've noticed that elections are won by winning the independents?

Second, Sanders has won 17 Democratic primaries and caucuses, so obviously he's got Democratic supporters.

The problem is in the money-corrupted corporate service of the Democratic politicians. That's what has turned so many people off. You can blame the people who are rightly disgusted with the neoliberal New Democrats, or you can blame the parties actually responsible for having turned the D's into a total corporate party.

Clinton doesn't know? Bullshit.

In a fair news environment this would be given the same treatment that Sanders' Daily News interview got and is still getting, except with the key difference of course that in Sanders did know what he was talking about and it was the Daily News interviewers who were confused.

But you know what? HRC is not stupid and she was Secretary of State. Of course she knows all about this issue. So here we do not see her being astonishingly ignorant of something that was central to her portfolio as SoS. We do see her surprised by the question, and not ready with a smoother prevarication. So she has to resort to the blatant lie of "I don't know."