Sanders caught in political trap

[RandySF]

Looking at the tough political layout of the five states voting Tuesday, Bernie Sanders’ advisers are expecting him to win the smallest of them (Rhode Island) and hope he can surprise Hillary Clinton in the biggest (Pennsylvania).

But even under that best-case scenario, Sanders will face a familiar problem. His delegate deficit is likely to grow, and the campaign will continue to find itself caught in a unique bind that the Vermont senator and his top aides have chewed over countless times in meetings and conversations in Burlington, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. over the past week: Sanders is too strong to concede, but too weak to win.

His online money machine continues to pump along. He still draws thousands to his jam-packed rallies. There’s even the prospect of a series of likely May wins peeking over the horizon.

Yet the path to the Democratic nomination has all but vanished after his 16-point loss in New York last week. Now, with national polls showing him roughly even with the former secretary of state and with $17 million in his pocket as of the beginning of April, Sanders is faced with a series of tricky questions about his place in the race over the next two months — the first of which is how, exactly, to articulate his remaining route to victory.

He hasn’t yet figured out how to answer them.

“[Sanders] is now the rule, not the exception,” said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, the campaign manager for Howard Dean’s insurgent 2004 campaign – which ended in February of that year. “We’ve just entered the stage now with either super PACs or online fundraising that means the second- or third-place candidate is likely to always have enough money and grassroots support to go to the end. Normally you’d be dead the day after South Carolina [which Sanders lost by 48 points]. He would’ve been under the old funding model."



http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/sanders-caught-in-political-trap-222380#ixzz46oWfFuB9
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[Surya Gayatri]

1. K & R. Thanks for posting.

[highprincipleswork]

2. The answer is California. Won't be over till we have a shot at it out here.

[Garrett78]

20. If tomorrow goes as expected, CA won't be relevant.

If Clinton's lead is back up around 300 after tomorrow's primaries, the states that follow simply won't be consequential in terms of the end result.

[highprincipleswork]

22. Thnks for, as usual, telling us wsome kind of misplaced disdain what is reality & what is relevant.

How bout you try living with you own reality, which, if you're a Hillary supporter, is already skewed in a direction I neither understand not care to understand.

She's a weak candidate. She's a longtime affiliate of the rich and powerful over those who have less. (Oh, I know, she'll throw out a few crumbs from time to time, which may serve to cam the masses.) . She doesn't tell the truth. She certainly is no Progressive by any meaningful measure other than that of this new breed of "New Democrats".

I won't go on. But let's just say I don't give two whits for your reality of what is relevant, particularly as it chooses to try to take away the right of expression of so many and also doesn't seem to care that they are included, in the end, in the process in any way.

Your exclusionary ways are sure to hurt the Democratic Party, not that you'll find that relevant.

[CajunBlazer]

25. Why does pointing out facts about Sanders's chances drive you into attack on Hillary

Did you figure you couldn't argue the facts so you belabored us with your opinions. Or are you just frustrated that Sanders' campaign is essentially doomed.

It should be clear by now we don't a rat's butt about you opinions of Hillary Clinton of whether you think she is in league with "the rich and powerful". You're entitled to your opinions of course, but I am not going to fall for you deflection. Moreover your opinions have absolutely no barring on whether the race will be over before the California or whether Sanders very narrow path way to the nomination is going be covered by a rock slide or Hillary voters tomorrow.

And please don't start with your "she's going to lose in November because you chose the wrong candidate" or the "we're not going to vote for her" memes. They are very old and very boring, and again not germane to this discussion about the outcome of the nomination process.

[highprincipleswork]

48. Learn how to spell "bearing".

[CajunBlazer]

49. Is that all you got? That extremely sad.

[highprincipleswork]

52. That plus the fact you only want to throw shit around.

[CajunBlazer]

53. Ahhh.... me thinks he got his little feeling hurt

[Garrett78]

30. I expressed neither disdain nor support for a particular candidate in my post.

[highprincipleswork]

47. Yes you believe you're being "factual". You're not.

[highprincipleswork]

57. Voters like a "sure winner". They do, which is stupid enough, but especially if you think that is H

[highprincipleswork]

62. No, I''m not calling a anybody in particular stupid, Just saying that voting for a

"sure winner" is often "stupid", because no winners are sure. That's one. Secondly, Hillary is no sure winner, in the polls and in the minds and hearts of many. She's got some serious work to do if she wants to win that distinction.

Bernie is no sure winner either, but I feel he has a better chance in this year. And he stands for something that doesn't change every second. And that something is truly Progressive, and has been consistently for a long time.

The word "stupid" itself is offensive, I agree. So, I probably shouldn't use it, because everyone votes from their own point of view. And you're right. America is probably voting for the same old shit. More wars, less opportunity for everyone under the 1%. More triangulation. More compromise with Republicans and their Reagan values. I guess even Democrats like this.

[Ghost Dog]

27. There will be historical reasons, sure, of which

I'd be interested to learn, but, why are not all State primaries held on the same day?

[onenote]

56. Among other things, it would kill off anyone except the richest candidates

At the start of the race, there typically are a number of candidates, some with a strong base of support and cash and some looking to build support and cash. If every candidate had to campaign in every state, the ones trying to build a case for themselves would be toast before they ever got a chance.

[NurseJackie]

3. If he's "too weak to win" then he MUST withdraw ...

... it really doesn't matter grow how "strong" (read: stubborn) he may be. If he can't win then he has no other option than to concede.

Even in defeat, the reality of the situation eludes him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. He is rallying America toward essential changes

There is no national platform remotely comparable to a robust high level Presidential campaign for doing so. He would not have an hour of prime time television tonight at a Town Hall tonight meeting for example if he were not still a declared candidate for President of the United States. To the contrary of your statement, as long as there is not a pledged majority of overall delegates to give the nomination to someone else, it would be crazy for Sanders to concede and withdraw.

[B Calm]

5. If he withdraws, the more right Hillary goes.

[Red Knight]

6. Bingo!

He HAS to stay in to give the left a voice.

He has to remain to hold the party accountable to progressive values.

[B Calm]

8. She already started by ignoring Bernie and going after Trump. Bernie

must stay in until the end.

[Demsrule86]

17. Waste of money to go after Bernie

She needs to turn her attention to the most likely GOP candidate. Bernie is done. I don't think he will win Rhode Island which borders Connecticut after his Sandy Hook statements. Also, a prom shooting yesterday...not good for a person with Bernie's position on guns.

[B Calm]

19. Now that she thinks she has it all sewed up, watch for the right turn.

[CajunBlazer]

28. Oh, so you've notice that how you get elected President in this country

What does that say about the majority of the voter's views of your far left ideology?

Face it, you are in a voter demographic which only appeals a very small percentage of the populations if you don't try to bribe young people and tell the truth about what all of the socialist gifts will cost most people in the form of higher taxes.

Only about 31% of the voters say they are socially liberal, and included in that number are the 13% of the voters who say they are very liberal. Meanwhile about 31% of the voters say they are conservative. The 38% in the middle are very wary that someone is going to tax them more.

That's why every Democratic and every Republican nominee traditionally tacks towards the middle after they secure their party's nomination. That's how you win in this country. Whether or not they succeed and win the Presidency depends in no small part on how far left or right they had to go to convince their party members to nominate them.

[tonyt53]

34. Truth hurts sometimes

But Bernie-ites can't handle the truth. That one word that he has used for years "socialist" will doom him with a lot of people over 50. That group does vote reliably. Bernie can't get a damned thing done if he was President without at least a Democrat majority in the Senate. He has done nothing to help those candidates. Nothing. Bernie-ites are so naive that they think the President can make those changes without the help of at least the Senate. Not helping Democrats get elected to the Senate will relegate him to some minor committees if he wants to huddle with the Democrats. Given his bitter attitude of the past couple of weeks, he might actually start hanging out with the GOP.

[B Calm]

46. I notice how you conservatives have no problems giving tax cuts to

wealthy corporations and then turn around and whine about socialism.

[CajunBlazer]

51. Now your have regressed to using juvinal tactics

Take you name calling out into these school yard. your shoulc feel right at home with the 5th graders.

[B Calm]

58. Excuse me, I was responding to a post by CajunBlazer #28 who used those juvinal tactics

you described.

[hellofromreddit]

7. "If at first you don't succeed, just give up." --Said Nobody Worth a Damn

[NurseJackie]

11. Bernie isn't "The Little Engine that Could" ...

... reality differs greatly from children's books.

[B Calm]

13. and Hillary is a proven loser. .

[CajunBlazer]

29. What do that make Sanders if he is losing badly to a "loser"?

[Human101948]

33. In one year Bernie has closed in on the most recognized , admired woman in the world...

Doesn't say much for her star power. Besides lacking policies that will excite the electorate she has a history, fairly earned or not, that does not bode well for the general election.

[tonyt53]

35. Exactly how so?

[B Calm]

59. Ask Obama. .

[hellofromreddit]

14. Well, if you'd like to discuss reality....

The reality is that most people in the US ignore politics completely until presidential elections. So if you genuinely want to change the conversation that people will have in this election and the next, you'll have to make a big splash in a presidential run. Thanks to Sanders' campaign people now discuss income inequality in terms a bit more productive than calling the poor lazy. Police reform and the drug war have gotten some real attention. And now that so many people are aware of how stacked our system actually is against reform they'll start taking voting (and impediments to voting) more seriously. Clinton did none of that.

Sanders has done all of that and continuing to run only amplifies his message. Nobody except Clinton benefits from Sanders dropping out early, but I'm sure she'll be just fine despite being so very put upon.

Look at it this way: Hillary's first run paved the way for aggressive female campaigns for president despite her loss. If Hillary hadn't run again this time, that path would still be cleared for whoever did run. Sanders is blazing a trail for reformist candidates. Even if he ultimately loses, the longer he stays in the running the more work he will do for the next in line.

[NurseJackie]

18. That's a healthy attitude.

Thanks to Sanders' campaign people now discuss income inequality in terms a bit more productive than calling the poor lazy.

Agreed, and people making broad-brush suggestions that poor-people-don't-vote really isn't very productive either.

Clinton did none of that.

Bullshit.

continuing to run only amplifies his message.

If that's what he (you?) truly believe, then it's a short-sighted "strategy" so to do at the expense of damaging the party enough that the GOP is able to win the White House.

Nobody except Clinton benefits from Sanders dropping out early

A very myopic and self-centered point of view for Sanders to adopt. Defeating the GOP is more important that one man's vanity.

Sanders is blazing a trail for reformist candidates.

No he's not. He's "blazing a trail" for himself. If he was truly concerned about "reform" he'd have been doing his damnedest for down-ticket candidates an building the party. One thing that comes to mind is making sure that the voters who had registered (protest-registration) "Independent" knew about the rules for closed primaries. Or, he'd be doing more to raise money for more than just HIMSELF, and he'd be working with MORE than the three candidates who just happened to endorse him.

Again, a very selfish thing to do. "I'll only endorse you if you endorse me" isn't the way to keep the enemy (GOP) in check while building a "revolution". If that's really what he wants to do, then he's doing it wrong.

Even if he ultimately loses,

When, not if. (And even using the word "when" is a courtesy. He's already lost, he and his fans just aren't admitting it yet.)

the longer he stays in the running the more work he will do for the next in line.

The more division he cultivates and the more sound-bites he provides for the GOP.

He needs to get out now. The bar is closed, the band has gone home, and the staff is already starting to divide the tip-jar, stack chairs on tables and mop the floors, but he refuses to take the hint and leave. At some point this kind of oblivious and stubborn defiance crosses the line from being merely embarrassing to absolutely humiliating.

[highprincipleswork]

21. This "provides ammunition for the GOP" thing only works if GOP runs to the Left of Hillary.

Do you honestly think that Bernie's criticisms from the Left can help the GOP? Only if in the general they run to the Left of Hillary, in which case she deserves to get the flack.

If Hillary stays Progressive in substance and tone, she stands a chance of re-uniting the party, gaining the bulk of Sanders supporters, adding Independents and even Republicans who realize we've been tacking Right for far too long.

If she veers back to the Right, which seems her normal tendency, she will continue to lose the support of Sanders supporters (which obviously is a much bigger hunk of advocates than Clinton supporters generally allow), lose the Independents, and probably pick up very few if any Republicans, because they just generally hate her so much.

If she doesn't turn her back on what she has been saying in order to get this far in the race, she'll be just fine. If she does turn her back on what she has been saying and on all the rest of us, she deserves whatever fate befalls her.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Exactly. And if the electorate is really as moderate as they claim it is, he offers her the

opportunity to define herself by contrast. "See, I'm the pragmatic progressive" blah blah blah.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. It's not damaging the party. He's doing her a favor by staying in.

And he's not dropping out now, no matter how many times you demand he do so.

[tonyt53]

36. Thank you

Thank you for a very well explained difference in the two.

[NurseJackie]

42. :-)

[Human101948]

39. Sanders was correct about poor people not voting and you are seriously wrong...

It so happens that the gap between voters and non-voters breaks down strongly along class lines. In the 2012 election, 80.2 percent of those making more than $150,000 voted, while only 46.9 percent of those making less than $10,000 voted. This “class bias,” is so strong that in the three elections (2008, 2010 and 2012) I examined, there was only one instance of a poorer income bracket turning out at a higher rate than the bracket above them. (In the 2012 election, those making less than $10,000 were slightly more likely to vote than those making between $10,000 and $14,999.) On average, each bracket turned out to vote at a rate 3.7 percentage points higher than the bracket below it.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/income-gap-at-the-polls-113997#ixzz46sbC747l

[hellofromreddit]

41. Check your tone and maybe I'll respond.

[NurseJackie]

43. No response needed. It's over.

[GreatGazoo]

9. Hillary got a Sec of State deal in 2008 when SHE couldn't win

What's YOUR offer?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. heh

[Orsino]

15. Yes. Primaries are about so much more than a winning number of delegates.

Politico and many of us are in such a hurry to declare a winner that we forget about little matters such as the presidential platform, running mates, Cabinet positions, etc.

Thankfully, our candidates are well aware of these things even if we are not.

[tonyt53]

37. Platform

Uh, you must be a newcomer because the "platform" produced at the convention is put forth and voted upon by the delegates. The Presidential candidates have very little to say about that.

[Orsino]

61. Yep. And the delegates haven't all taken sides yet.

The platform will indeed by influenced by the delegates with as-yet-undetermined loyalties.

Those of us who aren't n00bs know this.

[CajunBlazer]

31. Sanders reward for behaving himself and not damaging the Party more

Last edited Mon Apr 25, 2016, 06:33 PM - Edit history (1)

He gets to remain in the Democratic (if he remains a Democrat) Caucus and his colleagues don't strip him of his committee memberships. Otherwise they will make the Senator from Vermont irrelevant in the Senate.

[tonyt53]

38. Bingo!!!!!

[FlatBaroque]

50. Wow, CajunBlazer, your keen understanding of congressional politics

and the dynamics of this years electoral politics quite impressive.

JK

[aikoaiko]

16. MUST? -- that's funny.

I'm glad Bernie is staying in it to win every vote possible and every delegate possible in order to keep Hillary from ignoring more liberal voices within the party. Plus, see my sig line.

[nichomachus]

26. You mean like Hillary did in 2008?

[Bluenorthwest]

12. But you are ultra comfy with ignorant bigogted lies:

[CajunBlazer]

32. Another poster who can't contribute meaningfully to this discussion.

So he/she resuscitates an old complaint. How transparent can one get?

[CajunBlazer]

40. When do we get to the point where Sanders instisting he can win....

... so his supporters continue to send him money become a corrupt act?

a) Now

b) When Hillary stretches her lead in pledged delegates tomorrow?

c) When Hillary's pledged delegates + promised super delegates put her over the delegate total necessary to win the nomination

d) When Hillary stretches her lead in pledged delegates where any rational person would say that Sanders has no chance of equaling her total of pledge delegates.

e) After the last primary

[Human101948]

44. Never...but we know that you want to deflect attention from Hillary's corrupt money grubbing...

And she is so successful that it is hard to believe that she will ever participate in any significant effort to reform the legally corrupt system of campaign financing that we have now.

[CajunBlazer]

45. We will have to wait and see won't we

But in the mean time thanks for your esteemed opinion; it is highly valued I'm sure.

[Agnosticsherbet]

54. Proportional distribution of delegates

means there is no practical route to victory.

Sure, he could win every primary with a 16 point margin of victory, but how likely is that.

Tomorrow, Clinton will win most, if not all, of he primaries.
Before she gets to California, she will have enough delegates to win outright.

But that is a month and a half away, and his campaign staff must be paid.