Again and again, the media keeps pushing Hillary, parroting her talking points without challenge or question. In the past two days, Rachel Maddow and Andrea Mitchell both tell their viewers that “Hillary has 2.7 million more votes” than Bernie.
This is just another deliberate deception by a desperate campaign made possible by a corporate media endorsing their corporate candidate.
In context, these votes are best understood as the collection of points scored in individual games now being disguised as more important that the number of games won.
For example, if the NY Jets had a 12-2 record and the NY Giants had a 11-3 record, one would clearly see that while ahead in the rankings, there is little that separates one from the other and with two games left in the season, anything is possible.
However, in this case, the NY Jets are bragging that they scored a total of 336 Offensive Points and the NY Giants only scored 121 Offensive Points and as it is clear that no football team can realistically score 215 points with two games remaining, the season is over and a winner is clear.
Yes, Hillary has won many states as has Bernie. Yes, Hillary has those super delegates, for now. But no, this is not over.
The media is deliberately fanning the flames of this lie to discourage voter turnout of Sanders voters. If successful, they better worry when that chicken comes home to roost….
I’m a strong Sanders supporter and I hate this. The race for the nomination is over. The race for the direction of the party is not. That is now the role for Sanders and his supporters.
Sanders has lost this race despite an almost unbelievable attempt. He probably shouldn’t have won much more than his home state, but he has. He may help transform the party as well. Attempts like this will not help. If you want to keep fighting, make sure that Hillary and the party hear you on supporting a progressive agenda, not on pushing conspiracy theories or arguing for counterproductive measures at the convention.
If Sanders was in a position to win the most pledged delegates and have the most votes, only to have the superdelegates take it away, then we’d be right to protest vigorously. If they did that, then I think we’d be right to set fire to the house. That’s not what is happening. In fact, what you are supporting is for that to happen but in reverse and have superdelegates take the nomination away from the person with the most pledged delegates and the most votes. It’s undemocratic and it’s stupid (and will only lose you any supporters here).
I
I want to clarify my comment about the race being “over.” The race is “over” in that it is now out of reach barring some outrageous turnaround, especially if Sanders doesn’t sweep today’s contests, which seems highly unlikely according to recent polls. He may have a shot at RI, but that’s likely it. If he loses most or all the states today, the margin of victory he needs in the remaining states keeps going up. It may get to the point that he would need to win CA by 60+ to have a chance. Heck, if he does that, he should just get the nomination for that feat alone.
The policies of the victor are still in play, eh? Or do we just roll over, play dead, and submit that for the USA, we will remain the only developed nation without health care as a human right and that any thoughts of change is just a “theoretical debate that will never, ever happen?”
That’s the fight. Engaging in conspiracy theories or trying to overturn the will of the voters (even if you and I disagree with their choice) is not going to help that.
We have to work to make sure Hillary Clinton earns the progressive votes in the general by championing the progressive positions, and not just by stoking fears about a Trump administration. We have to make sure progressives win in other races (today’s Senate primary in MD is a decent example). And, most importantly, we have to hold Clinton’s feet to the fire if she ends up winning the Presidency, something I think we have not done a great job with for the last two Democrat presidents because we spent more time fending off baseless attacks from Republicans that we let failings on major issues slide.
Nope, that’s your straw man, not mine. As I stated, clearly, Hillary is a corporate candidate and so is the media. No black helicopters here, no chips planted in our dental fillings.
The way to make sure that Hillary earns progressive voters is to get her to take bold progressive positions. Neither she, nor her supporters are willing to do so as of yet.
…would you accept her evolution or just knock her for flip-flopping and sticking her finger in the wind?
Relies on the premise that each win in a state primary/caucus is and/or should be weighted equally. Regardless of either the size of the state or the size of the victory.
The fact is, though, that Clinton has not only won several more contests (“games”) than Sanders so far. She’s also won states: (1) with larger populations on average than those won by Sanders; (2) with more people voting in the Democratic race; and (3) with more pledged delegates at stake. She’s also won by bigger margins, on average.
Setting aside super delegates and today’s likely results, Clinton has won roughly 1400 pledged delegates. That’s 20% more delegates than the roughly 1200 won by Sanders. Clinton leads 54%-46% in actual delegates won so far.
Sanders needs to win by more than 20% points on average in all of the remaining contests just to match Clinton in the pledged delegate count.
Back to your analogy, then, you actually underestimate how many games are left to be played. We’re only roughly 2/3rds through the primary season. Let’s say 11 games in to the 16 game season. But, I think, you also underestimate the different records so far between the two candidates. It’s more like Hillary has a 8-3 record while Bernie is at 5-5. Yes, the season isn’t over. But, to make the playoffs (the general election) Bernie needs to go 5-0 in the next 5 games, while Hillary needs to win just 2 of 5 to match Bernie (with the super delegates as the tie-breaker).
Their current records and the Vegas lines (pre-election polls) strongly suggest that Bernie’s chances of running the table here in the December of the primary season are very slim indeed.
the situation with facts.
The lizard people are in charge of all governmental functions, including the media.
It’s over, it’s been over months ago. There was no momentum, he was going to win those stretch of states, Clinton will not have gained any momentum when she win a string of the upcoming states, they were always going to vote that way. It’s just he primary dates. This was never a contest, but Sanders exceeded expectations and that was a story. But that’s it.
Please don’t start posting pictures of the US and comparing the size of Wyoming to Massachusetts and the rest of those bozo Republican talking points.
Reality based.
reality nearly every time you talk about this primary election. Doubleman is on your side, and he’s pointing this out, but you won’t listen to anyone.
Hillary has won the most pledged delegates. Hillary has received significantly more votes overall. She has most of the the super delegates, who are Democrats unlikely to flee to Bernie. By all counts but Sandernista denial, she is winning the primary. The reason this meme came up was to refute the media, which talks about “momentum” and Sandernistas in la-la land. Bernie is losing badly. It doesn’t matter how you try to spin it. I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t suspend his campaign by some time next week. He can’t continue to run against Hillary without damaging her candidacy, and he can’t continue a campaign which has no purpose.
For the most part, Bernie wins in white states where few Democrats live. He also wins younger voters. Hillary wins where the state reflects the composition of the Democratic Party:
Census says that 77% of the US population is white if you include ‘white Hispanics’ (?), and 66% overall. Whites are a majority in every region.
So why is it bad if white people vote for you, when you need to win a majority?
plus you are making up your our groups out of thin air, that doesn’t help your point.
I tried to link to the census Web site, but could not. Google racial demographics and it will come up. They are the ones calculating the percentage of white population, and the ‘white hispanic’ term is theirs. Hence, the question mark as I have no idea what that means.
but combining with caucasian politically is where you start making things up.
.
.
It’s inconvenient for Sandernistas.
As JohnK points out, I said, “Bernie wins in white states where few Democrats live.” Bernie’s supporters say, we won five states in a row, we have momentum. The fact is, he’s won a lot of states where no one lives that have caucuses, the most undemocratic form of primary.
This hasn’t been over for months. HRC does have a commanding lead with delegates, and popular votes. Dems (pun intended) the facts.
Thank you.
It’s been over for at least a month, because that’s when stomv posted a comment explaining the math.
From that post:
The race is over, Ms. Clinton will be the nominee, and it seems to me that the task now is to convert the energy supporting Mr. Sanders into energy ensuring that:
1. Hillary Clinton is elected in November
2. Populist progressive Democrats are elected to the House and Senate in November
3. Effective action is taken, starting in January of 2017, to address the wealth and income concentration issues that have rightly been the focal point of the campaign — and that should remain the central issue in the general election.
the primary hasn’t been over.
The probability is very small that Sanders can win. Practically speaking, Sanders would have to over-perform to an improbable degree. In other words, It has been over since the New York. After tonight, it will be over because the chance of Bernie winning will be practically nil.
Bernie will suspend his campaign in the near future.
…and the aforementioned MSNBC was still trying to explain how Sanders could pull off an NY victory and even if he didn’t what his possible path still could be. Do you seriously object to Maddow and Mitchell pointing out the spread? Last I checked we called that journalism.
part of the vast corporate media cabal.
The Patriots, yes.
If there is a case to be made that the media is being deceptive or is deliberately pushing Clinton’s candidacy, I don’t think you have made it. It really doesn’t seem to be very deceptive to correctly point out that Clinton has 2.7 million more votes. Those votes belong to actual human beings who bothered to go to the polls, they don’t represent “points” in a sports event. By denying those numbers, Sanders supporters risk leaving the impression that they believe that Sander’s voters are somehow more worthy of being counted than Clinton’s voters. I am sure that was not the intent.
I don’t know about Mitchell, but Maddow has been very pro-Bernie at times and has given him a lot of positive attention. I don’t find it very hard to believe that she is part of some pro-Clinton media conspiracy.
What is ironic in all of this is that Clinton and Sanders have raised and spent vast amounts of money that has mostly gone into the pockets of that same corporate media. If the campaign continues like this, that is where our money will continue to go. Perhaps if there is a conspiracy it is not in fact to push Clinton, but to push intra-party strife to keep the money flowing.
I would hope that going forward, that if Democrats are going to spend money on advertising, it be spent pushing a shared message and pointing out the weaknesses of the Republican side.
From context I assume you did not intend a “don’t” in the second sentence of your second paragraph above?