Oh, that's more than a little upsetting.
And it is not only a waste of time but also doomed to fail.
Courtesy of the Washington Post:
"It is virtually impossible for Secretary Clinton to reach the majority of convention delegates by June 14 with pledged delegates alone," he said. "She will need superdelegates to take her over the top at the convention in Philadelphia. In other words, the convention will be a contested contest."
That's true — mostly because, unlike in 2008, Sanders will contest it. Eight years ago, Clinton conceded the race before the convention, recognizing that trying to fight her way to victory on the convention floor was likely to fail, despite her having a slight lead in the popular vote. But Clinton realized the damage that could be done to the party — and perhaps herself — so she didn't.
Sanders doesn't share the former sentiment, as he has made clear. He was an independent until he decided to run for president, and his goal during his campaign has been to upend the system, into which a convention floor fight fits neatly.
But that doesn't mean he has any real shot at winning.
The Post then goes on to lay out what should now be an obvious argument for why Sanders' plans to wrest the nomination is a non-starter.
However, as laid out above, by going to this extreme Sanders IS potentially doing great harm to the Democratic party. But since he is not actually a Democrat he of course feels no sense of loyalty to protect and preserve America's best hope at containing the increasingly anti-woman, racist, homophobic, anti-science, and hawkish Republican party.
And not only does Sanders put the Democratic party in jeopardy, he also places his own legacy in jeopardy.
Courtesy of The New York Times:
He dismissed Clinton victories driven by black voters as products of the conservative Deep South; he suggested that his defeat in New York was unfair because it was a closed primary (you can argue this case either way, but requiring that you identity as a Democrat to choose the Democratic nominee is hardly voter suppression — arguably caucuses are much further from a democratic process); then, with the big loss in the mid-Atlantic primaries,he has turned to a sort of fact-free complaint that any process under which Bernie Sanders loses is ipso facto unfair, and superdelegates should choose him despite a 3 million vote deficit.
At this point it’s as if Sanders is determined to validate everything liberal skeptics have been saying all along about his unwillingness to face reality — and all of it for, maybe, a few weeks of additional fundraising, at the expense of any future credibility and goodwill. Isn’t there anyone who can tell him to stop before it’s too late?
Good question. Is there?
By the way if I were Sanders I would not put all of my eggs in that California basket.
Source http://ift.tt/23k64Bk
And it is not only a waste of time but also doomed to fail.
Courtesy of the Washington Post:
"It is virtually impossible for Secretary Clinton to reach the majority of convention delegates by June 14 with pledged delegates alone," he said. "She will need superdelegates to take her over the top at the convention in Philadelphia. In other words, the convention will be a contested contest."
That's true — mostly because, unlike in 2008, Sanders will contest it. Eight years ago, Clinton conceded the race before the convention, recognizing that trying to fight her way to victory on the convention floor was likely to fail, despite her having a slight lead in the popular vote. But Clinton realized the damage that could be done to the party — and perhaps herself — so she didn't.
Sanders doesn't share the former sentiment, as he has made clear. He was an independent until he decided to run for president, and his goal during his campaign has been to upend the system, into which a convention floor fight fits neatly.
But that doesn't mean he has any real shot at winning.
The Post then goes on to lay out what should now be an obvious argument for why Sanders' plans to wrest the nomination is a non-starter.
However, as laid out above, by going to this extreme Sanders IS potentially doing great harm to the Democratic party. But since he is not actually a Democrat he of course feels no sense of loyalty to protect and preserve America's best hope at containing the increasingly anti-woman, racist, homophobic, anti-science, and hawkish Republican party.
And not only does Sanders put the Democratic party in jeopardy, he also places his own legacy in jeopardy.
Courtesy of The New York Times:
He dismissed Clinton victories driven by black voters as products of the conservative Deep South; he suggested that his defeat in New York was unfair because it was a closed primary (you can argue this case either way, but requiring that you identity as a Democrat to choose the Democratic nominee is hardly voter suppression — arguably caucuses are much further from a democratic process); then, with the big loss in the mid-Atlantic primaries,he has turned to a sort of fact-free complaint that any process under which Bernie Sanders loses is ipso facto unfair, and superdelegates should choose him despite a 3 million vote deficit.
At this point it’s as if Sanders is determined to validate everything liberal skeptics have been saying all along about his unwillingness to face reality — and all of it for, maybe, a few weeks of additional fundraising, at the expense of any future credibility and goodwill. Isn’t there anyone who can tell him to stop before it’s too late?
Good question. Is there?
By the way if I were Sanders I would not put all of my eggs in that California basket.
#BREAKING California Democratic Primary - June 7 (475 Delegates):
— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) May 2, 2016
Clinton 57% (+4 In a month)
Sanders 38% (-1)@surveyusa @ABC7
Source http://ift.tt/23k64Bk
