UPDATE: The Oregon Primary Strikes Back!

UPDATE: The Oregon Primary Strikes Back!

May 20, 2016

(snip)

Behold! I have discovered the true numbers — and no one is reporting them! Google’s primary results and the Guardian’s primary tracker (both of which receive their numbers from the Associated Press) both show that Bernie Sanders has won 320,746, out of 572,485 total votes. Both of them also show that Sanders, so far, has 56.0% of the vote. The Guardian says 95.5% of the vote is in and Google has rounded that up to 96%. I am writing you today to tell you that they are both full of — um, well — let’s just say that they’re lying!

According to the Guardian, all counties have 100% of precincts reporting, except for Multnomah County (which has the largest population), which they report with only 77.7% of precincts reporting — but remember:

We don’t have precincts.

The Oregon BoE confirmed for me that, indeed, Multnomah county has quite a bit of counting left to do. And, according to Multnomah County Elections Divisions, they have so far confirmed that they’ve received:

185,723 out of 269,994 ballots sent out — and counting!

much more: https://johnlaurits.com/2016/05/
-------------------------

This portends well for the Sanders campaign. NO wonder he trudges on. I suspect May will end up being VERY good indeed to him.

Maybe that Unity ticket being bandied about won't be Hillary/Bernie...

Maybe it will be Bernie/Biden?

Why Clinton’s Claim Of Having 3 Million More Votes Than Sanders Is A Total Lie

Why Clinton’s Claim Of Having 3 Million More Votes Than Sanders Is A Total Lie

In an article posted to the New York Daily News, Activist and writer Shaun King made a startling revelation which could change the way we view the entire Democratic primary race.

Since the tide has turned in the direction of Hillary Clinton, the candidate has put much emphasis on her apparent lead in the popular vote. According to Hillary Clinton, she leads Sanders by more than 3 million votes nationwide. This is the number that we hear cited commonly at events and in corporate media. This number helps to give legitimacy to Clinton’s campaign in the face of Sanders’ populist message. Though Sanders may complain about how the system is rigged and wonder why Superdelegates aren’t more loyal to their constituency, Clinton has always had the power of the popular vote behind her.

But what King revealed in his groundbreaking article is that the 3 million vote advantage Clinton holds is a lie.

This is due to the fact that primary races don’t just feature voters going out and casting a ballot. Instead, several states opt to hold caucuses where a group of representatives vouch for their candidate. The candidate with the most representatives in the room wins in that district, and the candidate which wins the most districts is the winner of the state.

more: http://trofire.com/2016/05/19/hillary-clintons-claim-3-million-votes-sanders-lie/

I keep seeing this meme floating around "Those Superdelegates won't switch!".

It will sure be interesting to compare and contrast the difference in votes between the Corporate Delegates (lobbyists, etc) as compared to a Traditional Delegate.

Barbara Boxer's actions both during the Nevada convention and after can easily

be explained in my mind. She is not only furthering the meme coming out of Camp Clinton that she is winning and viable, but also is a direct gas lighting attempt at Sanders and his supporters.

It can easily be explained as: She fully expects to be one of the 50% Women appointed to Cabinet positions- along with DWS.

It sure will be hard to court me if I have you on ignore. nt

Make No Mistake, Sandersism Has Defeated Clintonism

Make No Mistake, Sandersism Has Defeated Clintonism

05/18/2016 02:23 pm ET |

Seth Abramson
Attorney; Assistant Professor, UNH; Series Editor, Best American Experimental Writing

In 2008, Hillary Clinton — on her way to losing the Democratic nomination — won nine of the final 25 nominating contests. In 2016, she may well — despite being treated as the likely winner of this year’s Democratic primary by the mainstream media — win only seven or eight of the final 25 state primaries and caucuses.

If you’re wondering how Clinton could perform worse in the second half of the election cycle in 2016 than she did in 2008 and still be in a position to win, there’s a good explanation for it that goes beyond the fact that the neck-and-neck Democratic primary race we’ve had for over two months started with a brief but solid run for Clinton. In 2008, both Democratic candidates were sanctioned by Party elders, so super-delegates were free to pick whoever they thought was the stronger candidate without fear of reprisal. In 2016, super-delegates are expected to go with Clinton even if the insurgent Sanders has clearly shown himself, by mid-June, to be the stronger general-election candidate in terms of both head-to-head match-ups with Trump, favorability ratings among independent voters, and performance in the second half of the nominating season.

Super-delegates will fall into line — the thinking goes — not because Clinton is a strong general-election bet, or liked by many people, or a real spokeswoman for the ideology of the Party base, or able to win independents, or nearly the same candidate in May that she was in February, or capable of winning over her current Democratic opposition the way Obama did after the primary in 2008, but because Democrats in Washington have made clear that any super-delegates who back the now-stronger horse in Philadelphia this July — Sanders — will be ostracized from the Party. Fear, then, is what could make Clinton the Democratic nominee even if (a) super-delegates are officially charged with voting for the strongest general-election candidate, and (b) Clinton goes on a historic losing streak in the back half of the primary season election calendar.

But all that’s horse-race nonsense, and won’t matter very much to political historians looking back at this period in American history from the vantage point of, say, 2116.

more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/make-no-mistake-sanderism_b_10008136.html

Benchmark Politics - the latest addition to David Brock's pro Clinton propaganda machine By Toby Zi

Benchmark Politics - the latest addition to David Brock's pro Clinton propaganda machine

By Toby Ziegler
Thursday May 12, 2016 · 4:32 PM EDT

Benchmark Politics, the oft quoted political site announced yesterday, on Twitter, that they will be joining BNR (Blue Nation Review) as their “expert political analysts on polling and data”.

Why is this of any significance? Take a look at who controls Blue Nation Review in this article by The Huffington Post:

Sale Of Blue Nation Review Gives Hillary Clinton Camp Its Very Own Media Outlet

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton ally David Brock is acquiring a media outlet, sources involved in the negotiation and sale of the site tell The Huffington Post.

True Blue Media, a newly formed company incorporated by Brock, has acquired progressive news website Blue Nation Review. BNR’s previous owner, MOKO Social Media Limited, will retain a 20 percent stake in the new entity while

Brock will hold the remaining 80 percent equity balance.

more: WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton ally David Brock is acquiring a media outlet, sources involved in the negotiation and sale of the site tell The Huffington Post.

True Blue Media, a newly formed company incorporated by Brock, has acquired progressive news website Blue Nation Review. BNR’s previous owner, MOKO Social Media Limited, will retain a 20 percent stake in the new entity while

Brock will hold the remaining 80 percent equity balance.

more: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/12/1525612/-Benchmark-Politics-Brought-to-you-by-David-Brock

Chris Hayes just said the Sanders campaign was going to take a close look at the numbers

and decide by Wednesday on whether or not to challenge Kentucky...

Clinton apparently lost 15% of her base, compared to 2008...