Lazy Saturday Reads

CeZbWfRWsAApGvo

Good Afternoon!!

Today should be a big day for Bernie Sanders supporters. Get ready to hear about how Sanders now has the “momentum.” There are caucuses today in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington, and he could win all three. There hasn’t been much polling so we still don’t know for sure; but most likely Sanders will cut into Clinton’s pledged delegate lead after today, possible by as much as 50 delegates, according to Al Giordano. 

Interestingly, it least writer in Hawaii, Anthony Pignataro, thinks Hillary could win in Hawaii. Kate Bradshaw at “Political Animal” in Tampa Bay: A different bird: Saturday’s Hawaii Democratic caucus might not turn out the way you expect.

Anthony Pignataro, editor of Maui Time Weekly (and one-time mentor to this reporter, who cut her teeth at said publication), says Maui’s strong progressive community, which packed the house at Maui Plantation to see Sanders’ wife, Jane, speak, in recent years has had enough of a voice to get voters to sign off on a GMO ban, but he’s not sure the same can be said for Sanders. Speaking of teeth, we have teeth whitening products along with Teeth whitening tips.

“He’s definitely riding the same wave of supporters who fueled a recent ballot measure that attempted to ban GMO cultivation in the county (though successful at the ballot box, the measure was later thrown out by the courts),” Pignataro said in an email. “At the same time, though, Clinton is generally favored to win the state.”

He said while there’s no real polling being done, (Hawaii is not exactly a high stakes state), but UH Political Science professor Colin Moore, who “makes the rounds” at election time and correctly forecast Trump’s win in the states caucus, has predicted a win for Clinton.

We’ll probably have to wait until tomorrow to find out, since it’s 6 hours earlier in Hawaii than on the East Coast.

Honolulu, Hawaii

Honolulu, Hawaii

Here’s another take on today’s contests from CNN’s Chris Moody:

Democrats will hold presidential contests in Hawaii, Alaska and Washington state on Saturday, three states expected to be friendlier to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders than former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
But with Clinton leading Sanders by more than 300 pledged delegates, and because none of the contests are winner-take-all, Sanders needs stunning wins in each state to give the Clinton campaign any real anxiety about the outcome of the race.
In the run-up to the votes, Sanders has left nothing to chance. His campaign has spent millions on ads in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii, including a powerful television spot featuring Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned her position with the Democratic National Committee earlier this year to endorse Sanders.
Going into Saturday’s contests, Sanders needs to net an estimated 75% of the remaining delegates, while Clinton only needs 35%.
Read what Moody thinks we should watch for at the link.
Anchorage, Alaska

Anchorage, Alaska

Anyway, if today goes very well for Bernie, Hillary’s lead could fall a bit below 300 delegates. Then there will be a break in the primary schedule until April 5 when Wisconsin holds its primary. The two candidates are close in the polls there, and Bernie thinks he could win the state. On April 9, Sanders will most likely win the Wyoming caucus.

Bernie supporters will be in ecstasy until the New York primary on April 19. New York will go big for Hillary. Then there there will be another break until Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island vote on April 26. Each of those states looks very good for Hillary, although I don’t think there’s been much polling in tiny Rhode Island.

Basically, there’s close to zero chance that Sanders will catch up to Clinton, but I still expect him to stay in until the convention. It’s really unfair to many of his young followers, because he’s taking money from them knowing he can’t win the nomination.

Meanwhile, the Hillary hate on blogs and social media is getting more unhinged than ever before. It’s hard to know how much worse it can get, but I expect it will get worse.

Bernie supporters are claiming election fraud in every state that Hillary has won, except possibly the Deep South states that they call “the Confederacy.”

Seattle, Washington

Seattle, Washington

Yesterday Dakinikat wrote about scandals and conspiracy theories. Here’s one the Sanders folks dreamed up. I can’t believe Booman Tribune actually published this: 

Ryan Hughes, MI and PA Bernie State Director, Accused of Accepting Hillary Super Pac Money

I have been holding onto this information, but since Niko House has posted a video regarding this allegation, I’ve decided to lay out for you what I know.

Ryan Hughes was the Sanders campaign’s state director for Michigan, and is now the state director for Bernie’s Pennsylvania campaign, as well. Mark Craig, the founder of a grassroots volunteer group in Michigan that supports Bernie Sanders, Flint4Bernie.org, had many dealings with Ryan Hughes after Hughes came to Michigan. Mark Craig also said he was one of the principle [sic] organizers for Bernie’s March 2nd rally and speech to thousands of people at the Breslin Center on the campus of Michigan State University. His grassroots organization was started in 2015, long before Ryan Hughes showed up as the paid director for Bernie’s campaign in Michigan.

Mr. Craig stated to me that knows a a senior employee who works for Priorities USA Action (“Priorities USA”), a Hillary Super Pac. In late February, after Craig casually mentioned to her that Ryan Hughes was running the Sanders’ campaign, that person told him Hughes was receiving direct payments from Priorities USA, all while Ryan Hughes worked as the Sanders’ campaign’s state director for Michigan, along with several other paid Sanders’ Michigan staffers….

Priotities USA Action is a Super Pac, to which unlimited contributions may be made, that supports one candidate in this election cycle: Hillary Clinton. As noted in my post yesterday about Mayor Weaver of Flint MI endorsement of Hillary, thetop donors to Priorities USA Action include many of Hillary’s wealthiest and most prominent supporters, including billionaires such as the J.B Pritzker and his wife, George Soros, James Simon (hedge fund manager worth over $15 Billion), Steven Spielberg, and many other wealthy individuals in the finance and entertainment industries.

Does that make any sense? Not to me. Why would a superpac that supports Hillary waste money on paying Bernie’s employees to sabatage him? If it happened, why are these people still working for Bernie’s campaign? Furthermore, Priorities USA has to report all expenditures to the FEC, and there were no such payments.  From the managing editor of Crooks and Liars:

But this conspiracy theory is all over Twitter and the Bernie reddit page. Sigh . . .

MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald explains Sanders’ path forward: Why Bernie Sanders Isn’t Dropping Out Despite Hillary’s Lead.

Even though Sanders came up short in Arizona, where his campaign invested most heavily, the Vermont senator ended up netting 17 delegates over Clinton Tuesday, thanks to lopsided wins in the Idaho and Utah caucuses.

He ended up taking away a tidy 57 percent of the pledged delegates up for grabs that day. And as it happens, 58 is the percentage of outstanding pledged delegates Sanders needs to win from now on in order to finish the primary calendar with more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton, according to an NBC News analysis.

On Saturday, Sanders is hoping to win an even larger portion of the delegates in Washington state, which holds the largest caucus of the entire year, with 101 delegates at stake. Alaska and Hawaii will also hold caucuses, which Sanders also hopes to win Saturday.

Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver

Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver

Seitz-Wald says the Sanders Campaign admits this is a “tall order.”

But it’s at least doable. “We’re trying to win more pledged delegates by the end,” Sanders senior strategist Tad Devine told MSNBC Friday. “If we can demonstrate that he is the strongest candidate by defeating her in these states, a lot of superdelegates are going to take a step back and say, ‘What’s the right thing to do?’ And that’s when we will try to persuade them.”

Good luck with that after Bernie has repeatedly attacked President Obama and the DNC and after he admitted he only ran as a Democrat so he could get media attention and raise money.

And then there’s the Sanders campaign’s attack on Hillary Clinton, Amal Clooney, and George Clooney for holding a fundraiser from which most of the money collected will go to downticket Democrats.

The Hill reprints part of the text from a Sanders campaign email:

“In the movie Oceans 11, a gang of lovable thieves successfully heist $150 million from a vault in the basement of the Bellagio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas,” Sanders’s campaign manager Jeff Weaver said in an email to supporters.

“Fueled primarily from high-dollar donations, Hillary Clinton has raised more than that in this campaign, and is now enlisting the support of George Clooney (Danny Ocean) to pad that total at a dinner event that will cost people up to $353,400 to attend.”

Weaver added that the price of admission an “obscene amount of money.”

“It’s a sum that would require an employee making the federal minimum wage to work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for more than 5 years,” he said.

Weaver included a fundraising pitch, saying that the Sanders campaign was relying on small donations from “working Americans.”

Amal and George Clooney

Amal and George Clooney

Again, the Clooney fundraiser is to support Democrats, not just Hillary Clinton. Apparently raising money for Democrats running for the House and Senate is problematic for Bernie, which explains why he hasn’t been raising money for them. Hillary has been doing it all along.

And then there are the demands Bernie is making before he’ll consider supporting the Democratic nominee. Huffpo: Bernie Sanders Lays Out His Requirements For Endorsing Hillary Clinton.

“If I can’t make it — and we’re going to try as hard as we can until the last vote is cast — we want to completely revitalize the Democratic Party and make it a party of the people rather than one of large campaign contributors,” Sanders said in an interview on the progressive Web show “The Young Turks.”

Sanders also listed policy demands he would make of Clinton, including a single-payer health care system, a $15 an hour minimum wage, tougher regulation of the finance industry, closing corporate tax loopholes and “a vigorous effort to address climate change.”

“I am very worried. I mean, I talk to these scientists. This planet is in serious danger. You can’t cuddle up to the fossil fuel industry — you’ve got to take them on,” Sanders said, alluding to Clinton’s ties to oil and gas companies.

He also expressed concern about Clinton’s consistency on policy issues.

“What we need is to create a movement which holds elected officials accountable and not let them flip” on issues, Sanders said.

maxresdefault

Because Bernie has been very consistent. He’s been calling for a revolution for 40 years with zero results. From the NYT:

On the night of the New Hampshire primary, the high-water mark of his presidential campaign, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont called his rout of Hillary Clinton “nothing short of the beginning of a political revolution” and vowed to stop the “billionaire class” from buying elections.

It was barely different from the speech he gave March 15, the day he lost five of five primaries, when he asked thousands of his adoring fans: “Are you ready for a political revolution? Are you tired of a handful of billionaires running our economy?”

Nor, for that matter, was it much changed from his address to a spaghetti dinner of the Addison County Community Action Group in 1984, when he called for a “political revolution” and urged working people to take power from a “very small group of wealthy people.”

It is a political score Mr. Sanders has been singing for the last 40 years, and he does not seem ready to stop anytime soon. Regardless of the results on the scoreboard, the state on the map, the year or even the decade, Mr. Sanders has talked with clockwork consistency about an economy rigged against the working class, a campaign finance system that corrupts politicians and a corporate media that obscures the truth.

While politicians constantly try to stay on message, Mr. Sanders is the king of message discipline. While other candidates have been lampooned for robotic redundancies or caricatured as cut-and-paste campaigners, Mr. Sanders has made oratorical consistency his calling card.

His young and loyal fans practically sing along with his timeless refrains: “the richest one-half of 1 percent” in 1971, the “richest 1 percent of the population” in 1991 and “the top one-tenth of 1 percent” in 2015. Last year, the MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow began a segment on Mr. Sanders’s hyperconsistency by playing an audio clip of Mr. Sanders lamenting “the two-party system dominated by big money,” and asking viewers when he said it. The answer: 1989.

In other words, Sanders has not grown and changed at all over the past 40 years. Is that really supposed to be a good thing?

That’s all I have for you today. What stories are you following?

UPDATE: Please send good vibes to NW Luna, who is braving the Washington Caucuses today!

 

Advertisements

196 Comments on “Lazy Saturday Reads”

  1. bostonboomer says:

    Bernie Sanders felt differently about big dollar Hollywood fundraisers in October 2015.

    NYT: Bernie Sanders has Fund-Raiser at Fancy Hollywood Home.

    • NW Luna says:

      And his supporters go on about big money in politics. No replies when I pointed out Bernie spends more than Hillary in the states he’s lost, and BTW he outspent her 2 to 1 in Arizona and still lost. How’s that big money workin’ for ya, Bernie?

      BB, thanks much for the shoutout for me. I walked into my caucus location surrounded by hordes of Bernie’deluded people. Lots of Bernie schwag was worn. Felt like I was back in high school as an outsider among the Bernie cliques. Young women with “Hot Chicks for Bernie” buttons. I was sure grateful for the SkyDancer energy!

      • bostonboomer says:

        I don’t know how you got through it, but you did! You’re a strong woman, Luna.

      • Fannie says:

        Good for you Luna.

      • Tmarie says:

        I also went into the caucus knowing it would be filled with Sanders supporters. He won my precinct 67% to 33% but only got 3 delegates to Clinton’s 2.

        There was a person spouting Democratic Underground bullshit about Hillary being evil and cold and a liar. There were people consumed by Wall Street money. And others thinking Hillary could get LESS done than Bernie as president.

        I hate the caucus system. I have three people in my immediate circle who also love Hillary, but had no intention of caucusing. It is intimidating going into a caucus when you know the other side has blind rabid fans, and they were all “nope”.

        I am going to caucus at the next level on April 17th. It will be interesting if some of the Bernie supporters come to their senses.

  2. dakinikat says:

    My friend Mary who was here a few days ago is at her caucus. Her daughter Emily who met Dr. Daughter in kindergarten is also caucusing for Hillary as are Drs.Daughter and Son in law. The kids live in the gay enclave area of Capitol Hill in Seattle so it’s likely to be Hillary country. Hope I can get some reports! But, don’t forget Spokane and all the military bases!

    • dakinikat says:

      Here’s Mary’s caucus results from Hippy Dippy Gig Harbor

      Precinct caucus results, first vote: Bernie 19, Hillary 17 , 2 uncommitted = 3 delegates each to the county convention. Second vote: Hillary 21, Bernie 17 = 3 delegates each to the county convention.

  3. Valhalla says:

    I just caught a segment on CNN with Hillary Rosen, a Democratic communications and media consultant. After listening to some 20-something Sanders campaign person babble on about how Bernie has a viable path to the nomination, Rosen shut that crap down and then said (I’m paraphrasing): It’s obvious that a lot of people like Bernie and still want to hear from him. But they want Clinton for President.”

    With the increasingly frenzied, delusional and nasty attacks coming from both Sanders and his campaign, it’s becoming harder and harder for me not to outright hate him or all his supporters, or his campaign messages on issues, not just the “bros” section of his fandom.

    So Rosen’s statement really struck me as probably the best I can do in terms of thinking generously towards any of his supporters.

    In other news, Nate Silver today said that Clinton has the Dem nomination unless she outright “chokes” and the ‘bros are losing their minds over it.

    Caucuses should be illegal. Honestly, the elections in the former Soviet Union were more democratic.

    • NW Luna says:

      Caucuses should be illegal. Honestly, the elections in the former Soviet Union were more democratic.

      That gets a weary “Hell, yes!” from me after living through this ’12 caucus session.

    • Caucuses and people running as ‘Independents’ under the coverage/money/volunteers of the Democratic Party. Also the endless flack about voter fraud is so Republican it is nauseating. Enough, give evidence or stop it. Rosario Dawson who claims to be for a site advocating voting surely can see the Dog Whistle in yelling VOTER FRAUD by Bernie Sanders supporters and the damage it does to people of color (who are the first aim of such allegations).

      Oh, and the attacks on Dolores Huerta continue…so even suggesting she be deported…cough, cough, cough…ahem…her family is generations back as part Native/Spanish. Good luck on Bernie supporters deporting her.

    • List of X says:

      In case you’re interested, in Soviet Union election the ballot only contained the name of just one candidate. Voting meant picking up a ballot and dropping it in the ballot collection box.
      But at least with one pre-approved candidate, supporters of competing candidates weren’t tearing into each other online and on the streets. 🙂

  4. ANonOMouse says:

    “In other words, Sanders has not grown and changed at all over the past 40 years. Is that really supposed to be a good thing?”

    Bernie has a 40 year old schtick and he’s schticking to it.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      And looking back at myself from 40 years ago, I’m a lot different person and I believe a better person all around. I think most people are and that likely explains why Seniors are going overwhelmingly for Hillary. We’re looking at him and saying, WTF are you thinking Old Man?

      • babama says:

        Thank Goddess yes, I am different and better for it though I loved my back to the land days and still miss them. I taught for several years at a yearly spiritual event in Vermont. Nice progressive white people, but clearly very insulated in a beautiful bubble. Clean, green, quaint and untainted by the “messier” aspects of modernity, such as multiculturalism. Very proud of their purity and quite judgmental with each other. It took me a while to understand how many of them came from/had money. Real money. They loved their Bernie. Bernie has been privileged to live his adult life in a beautiful progressive Disneyland, his own version of Lake Wobegon. Why would he ever change? He’s been living his dream. Now he wants to export it to the rest of us. Why aren’t we more grateful to vote for the best life EVER???

    • Sweet Sue says:

      Funny!

  5. ANonOMouse says:

    That’s his story and he’s schticking to it!

  6. ANonOMouse says:

    We’re with you Luna!!!

  7. William says:

    The Sanders “political revolution” consists of caucus wins, and Rove-funded and Limbaugh-exhorted crossovers of conservative Independents. There has been no increase in Democratic registration or turnout. And Sanders makes no efforts whatsoever to help downticket Democrats in any states, virtually assuring that none of his supporters are going to care about that, either. Right now, the Democrats have only a sliver of a chance to win the House; and some recent articles have suggested that lack of funds is hurting with regard to taking back the Senate. With
    the legislature in Republican hands, Sanders’ revolution would consist of waving hsi hands around and angrily declaiming against the Congress, to no effect at all. Too bad his supporters can’t be bothered to think about actual political realities, and governing the country. Too bad it is not a fun movie where it all comes out wonderfully at the end A shame that Hillary Clinton has to spend precious campaign funds on an elongated primary campaign, instead of using the money in the Fall to win the general election and help take back the Senate.

    I’m not a big fan of Rolling Stone magazine, either politically or musically. But Jann Wenner’s endorsement essay was pretty good. The giddiness of the McGovern campaign in ’72 led to the reality of a humiliating defeat for the Democrats; the “mandate” for Nixon to try to turn the country into a fascist state; and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party so destroyed in terms of power, that there was a vacuum in ’76, into which stepped Southern conservative Jimmy Carter, who was so ineffectual that the Republicans made hay out of running against him for the next 16 years. And I don’t think that these starry eyed teenagers who cheer wildly at the Sanders rallies, are going to have any interest in “revitalizing the Democratic Party,” or in working for any other candidates, or in doing much of anything, outside of snarking and sneering at Hillary. The McGovern people had ideals, but the wrong candidate; the Sanders people mostly just want their free college education, and the fun of an “our side vs. their side” game.

  8. NW Luna says:

    Back from caucus hell. My precinct had 3 delegates to elect. Individual votes were 37% for Hillary, 61% for Bernie. The caucus system math gave 1 delegate to Hillary and 2 to Bernie. First glance the %s look like Bernie would have had 74% of the individual votes, but no, that’s how the caucus system works.

    I wrote notes on some of what the Bernie bros and gals said in their speeches for him. “Bernie has the spirit of Obama,” “He’ll get things done where Obama didn’t because it’s a movement.” Because of his supporters, the youth energy” “Change happens from the bottom up.” “We don’t have time for incremental change.”

    One guy went on about why he didn’t like Hillary because he didn’t like Bill Clinton. When he was told that to judge Hillary on what Bill did was sexist, loud cries of ‘No!” were heard from Berniebros & gals. Dead silence to my point that Bernie far outspent Hillary in every state he’s lost to her, and he spent 2 x as much in Arizona. I don’t even want to relate the myths about Hillary’s health care policies that they believed. After a few more egregious claims, such as Bernie having such a wide base of support from diverse populations, and Bernie will get us single payer health care, I said “Hillary was working on health care, women’s rights, and children’s health and education since back when Bernie was writing rape fantasies.” The rebuttal: “So? I have rape fantasies” said the Berniegal. I shit you not, that’s what she said. I need to take a shower.

    Thank the Goddess that’s over. I did meet some more good Hillz supporters nearby to join up with.

    Oh yeah, one final example of what I heard: “I really hated when Hillary made fun of Bernie by saying he was going to raise a magic wand to make things happen. It’s not a magic wand. It’s a movement! It’s the people!” The people, yes. Kids, Hillary knew that a long time ago.

    • bostonboomer says:

      Thanks for the great report, Luna. I’m glad you survived. I wonder how many female Bernie supporters are making this argument at caucuses?

      “Hillary was working on health care, women’s rights, and children’s health and education since back when Bernie was writing rape fantasies.” The rebuttal: “So? I have rape fantasies” said the Berniegal. I shit you not, that’s what she said.

      Wow. That’s devotion.

      • ANonOMouse says:

        I’m with Luna, that “I have rape fantasies” makes me feel the need to shower too!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s won’t be too long before she looks back on the comment with regret.

      • NW Luna says:

        Hell, that’s waaaaay too far beyond devotion for me.

        Thanks, BB. There was so much infuriating misinformation about Hillary — and about Bernie, from the Bernedbrains. I spared you.

        • babama says:

          I believe you, please don’t retraumatize yourself in any way : ) Cleanse your aura now and be proud. I hope you can spend the rest of the day doing whatever you please! So glad you met other supporters. This grateful citizen heartily thanks you for your service!

          • NW Luna says:

            Thanks, babama! All done in service for Madame President-nearly-elected!

            Hey! I’ll cheer myself up and go throw a bit of money at Hillary. Being the evil big money donor that I am with a $25 or thereabouts.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      Sorry you had to endure that, but I’m proud of you for speaking your mind, taking the heat and casting your vote. Good work Sister.

      • NW Luna says:

        Thanks, Mouse, my Hillary Sister! I did it for you and all the rest of us.

        The first speaker for Hillary in our precinct was an older woman; her voice quavered a little, maybe from anxiousness, maybe from some age-related changes, and was not very loud. I’d chatted with her a bit earlier, and she could list any number of accomplishments & reasons for supporting Hillz. Afterwards she thanked me for speaking up when I did later on with rebuttals to the Bernie propaganda. She was worried she wasn’t a good proponent, since she’s older. I nearly had tears in my eyes, and thanked her for her courage in speaking up to voice the good and logical reasons we have to support Hillary. She thought that sexism underlay a great deal of the anti-Hillary talk we hear. We both agreed that the real revolution would be to have Madame President in office. And that life experience taught us to look really carefully at candidates to tell substance from seeming. The energy I got from this interaction really felt good!

        • ANonOMouse says:

          I’m so glad you stood with the older woman and helped her to have the courage to speak up and feel good about her advocacy for Hillary. And I completely believe your assessment of “sexism” is spot on. I’ve been looking at the exit polls very closely and “white men” aren’t voting for Hillary. Hillary support is coming from women, AA women overwhelming and AA men at very high percentages and Latinos. I am totally convinced that the majority of Bernie supporters just cannot stand the thought of a woman POTUS.

    • Riverbird says:

      Thank you so much for going and for reporting back to us.

    • Sweet Sue says:

      Thanks for taking one for the team, NW Luna. All respect.

    • Valhalla says:

      Thanks so much for braving the caucus!

      Watching the coverage on tv today, and reading Skydancer caucus-goers’ accounts, really upsets me. They are a model for voter suppression. How many people stayed home because they didn’t want to, or couldn’t, fight their way through hours of Sanders supporters bullsh*t to vote? That’s on top of the strong discouragements for people who have to work, take care of their family responsibilities, or have accessibility challenges?

      Not to mention, do we really want our elections to be decided by the people who are the most obnoxious, have the least responsibilities or experience in the real world, or are the most easily influenced by unicorn fantasies? You know things are a problem when the same demographic which advertisers most covet because of their influence-ability is choosing the next President.

      You shouldn’t have to put up with abuse in order to excercise your constitutional rights. And none of this is getting talked about anywhere, but we know d*mn well that if the situation were reversed and Clinton was winning caucuses but losing primaries, all we would hear about 24-7 is how undemocratic and meaningless caucuses are.

      Anyway, enough ranting! Thanks again Luna for going and standing up for Clinton!

      • NW Luna says:

        Thanks, Valhalla! Honestly, so much of the caucus system, besides the non-representational math, is that in a echoey, loud school gymnasium or the like, you have various people speechifying about their candidate without any fact-checking. This is no way to choose a nominee.

        I can raise my voice, I jump out their and speak my mind, I’m good with come-backs and concise 1-liners in support of my stand. I felt as if I was trying to verbally spar with starry-eyed youngsters throwing jello at me!

        Many people are intimidated and don’t go, even if they can get the time off. The whole process took about 2 hrs. That’s a long time to endure misinformation, misogyny, Clinton Derangement Syndrome slurs, and still stay sane!

    • quixote says:

      Good for you! You got Our Hillary one more delegate! Every single one counts. Thank you!

      • NW Luna says:

        Thanks, quixote. Our Girl inspires us! Even if the Bern’dbrains can’t see that.

        • Sweet Sue says:

          I guess we can legitimately call then “Birdbrains” since his fans went nuts because a little sparrow or wren landed on Bernie’s podium.
          Jesus, settle down, kids; it’s not like it was a snow white dove or something!

    • babama says:

      Great idea NW Luna! In honor of WA my home I’ll make one too! $20.16 is my usual number. Cheers to you!

      Apparently there was a work around way to absentee vote in the WA caucus, not sure how it gets counted but pretty smart of Hillary’s campaign to send out affidavits w/ postage paid return envelopes. I hope it helps:

      http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/absentee-votes-flood-in-before-democratic-caucuses/

      • NW Luna says:

        There was, but very poorly publicized by the State Dem Party. I didn’t get anything from Hillary’s campaign. I heard on Friday afternoon of the deadline, and kept trying to fax mine in multiple times — kept getting a busy signal. 😦

        At least they did have an option I’ll know about next time. This sure wasn’t available in ’08 nor I think in ’12.

        • babama says:

          Pretty sure it wasn’t. My good friend was a precinct chair in Spokane both times. She became pretty disillusioned with the caucus process.

    • Fannie says:

      You know I mentioned last week that I told so and so to fuck off….I had my Hillary bumper sticker, and she went and got Hillary for Prison bumper sticker………….

      Nobody like me in the hood now.

      • NW Luna says:

        Just go over one evening and slap a sticker with “Reform” on hers, placed right after the “prison.”

        She’s brainwashed, and being hounded by her man who has his thing shrink whenever he thinks about a woman POTUS.

        Hold your head high, Fannie, you have a brain and a heart! We are modeling our Hillary Girl above-all-the-scrum behavior!

        • Fannie says:

          TY……….I am splitting my gut with laughter………..Lordy, I’ve been out looking for a new neighborhood to move to in the next 10 months or so. Things are going look up when Hillary is president, and I’m ready to move forward.

          Luv you Luna

      • babama says:

        No worries. You’ll be victorious. I’m starting to think of “unlikeability” as a womanly badge of honor!

    • janicen says:

      That rape fantasy remark made me so angry I could just scream. Good thing I wasn’t there, I would have been arrested.

  9. bostonboomer says:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    • NW Luna says:

      That sure says something.

      Oh yeah — I used the term “authentic Democratic” today at caucus and was pounced upon for not thinking Bernie was one. Totally clueless, I tell ya!

      • Bernie Sanders said it himself, he is running as an Independent in the Democratic Party for the money/media/structural support the party offers. Do they not know that, do they not know he is running for his senate seat.

        I

        • Fannie says:

          Reminds me of Trump. He could care less about the voters, the money, or the republican party, but you can bet your ass he cares about the media, their cameras, and their microphones. The revolution would be nothing with television.

      • babama says:

        Reminds me of this paragraph from the well written Rolling Stone Endorsement:

        “You get a sense of “authenticity” when you hear Sanders talking truth to power, but there is another kind of authenticity, which may not feel as good but is vitally important, when Clinton speaks honestly about what change really requires, about incremental progress, about building on what Obama has achieved in the arenas of health care, clean energy, the economy, the expansion of civil rights. There is an inauthenticity in appeals to anger rather than to reason, for simplified solutions rather than ones that stand a chance of working. This is true about Donald Trump, and lamentably also true about Sanders.”

        Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/hillary-clinton-for-president-20160323#ixzz443CiE9P2

        • Carolyn Kay says:

          I tried to post this comment twice under the Rolling Stone opinion piece, and it was removed twice. I have no earthly idea why:

          Thanks for trying to bring sanity to the discussion, Jann, though I’m not sure how much it will penetrate. Just as Hope wasn’t a plan in 2008, and Obama failed miserably to bring about the change his supporters screamed for, Anger is also not a plan.

          Go ahead and support your candidate, Bernie folks, just put as much effort into electing progressives to Congress and to state legislatures, if you really want a revolution. It’s not as easy as just electing the person of your choice as President.

  10. Sweet Sue says:

    Gee, who would I like on my side?
    John Lewis or Killer Mike?
    Morgan Freeman or Spike Lee?
    Dolores Huerta or Susan Sarandon?
    Decisions, decisions.

  11. “The Baxter Bean ‏@TheBaxterBean 14m14 minutes ago

    Howard Dean: “I got more delegates out of Washington state than any other state, and that was after I dropped out of the race.” #FeelTheBern ”

    Amen!

    • ANonOMouse says:

      LOL!!!

    • NW Luna says:

      I was for Dean back then, and let me tell you, because I was following this closely, he didn’t get that many delegates. Both Kerry and Edward won more. I do not think it was before he dropped out, either, probably shortly before.

  12. dakinikat says:

    They just called Alaska for Bernie. He’s still carrying those mostly white outback states. 😉 just to offset the “Confederacy” meme

  13. “AKilluminati
    ‏@An0nKn0wledge

    Update: #OpHillary Research Work Every Scandal/Lie Hillary Has ever Been involved in is 60% Done Still A lot to be Done Need Help Contact Me ”

    No one has vetted Bernie Sanders, those that challenged him on his record like Dolores Huerta are under attack.

  14. Arthur Solari @ArthurSolari

    @CampsNP @Brains4Bern @Bakari_Sellers @CNNPolitics this is just the beginning folks &if you try to steal this.We’ll fight you in the streets

    :8

    Threats of violence from the BernieBros for an ‘Independent’ running in the Democratic Primary?

  15. ANonOMouse says:

    With 74% of the caucus sites reporting in Alaska there aren’t even 400 votes. These caucuses are disgraceful.

    • William says:

      And they very rarely put the raw numbers up, just the percentages. If people realized how few voters come to these caucuses, they would be far less impressed by the results. Caucuses are the political equivalent to a game of “horse.”

    • roofingbird says:

      Wapo reported 99 votes for Clinton and 440 for Sanders as opposed to over 22,000 for the Repubs earlier.

  16. dakinikat says:

    Well the white privilege wall holds … Washington’s called for Bernie but we have to see what he nets … Hope nothing much.

    • bostonboomer says:

      He should net around 50 delegates including all caucuses, unless Hawaii goes for Hillary.

    • mablue2 says:

      Algiordano thinks by 75-25 Bernie would net 50 delegate.

      I think if every contest tonight ends with a 80-20 win for Bernie, he would still be behind by roughly 200 delegates. At no point was Hillary that far behind in 2008.

      • dakinikat says:

        I know but tell that to the math impaired Bernie cult members on my Facebook timeline.

        • NW Luna says:

          At the caucus they were totally deaf to any statement about math. Nope, they think they can run rampant over the next few states and win the nomination. Because “movement.”

          I think they all need remedial math classes.

      • William says:

        She’ll do better in Hawaii. Probably not win, but I think she’ll get at least 40%

      • bostonboomer says:

        That’s if he wins Hawaii. See article in my post predicting Hillary will win there.

        If Bernie does the best he can do, Hillary will still be ahead by more than 250 pledge delegates, not 200.

        • ANonOMouse says:

          These are the next primaries

          Apr 5 Wisconsin · 86 delegates
          Apr 9 Wyoming · 14 delegates
          Apr 19 New York · 247 delegates
          Apr 26 Connecticut · 55 delegates
          Delaware · 21 delegates
          Maryland · 95 delegates
          Rhode Island · 24 delegates
          Pennsylvania · 189 delegates

          I believe Hillary is expected to win WI…NY…DE…MD…PA

          I don’t think there has been any recent polling on WY, CT or RI

  17. bostonboomer says:

    Is anyone watching MSNBC? Apparently Bernie just kicked Jane off the stage.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  18. bostonboomer says:

    Bernie looks really angry. Will Joe Scar tell him to “smile” because he had a good day?

  19. Did you catch that YOUNGER is now <45 age voters? Still discounting the senior citizens of America…

    • ANonOMouse says:

      What else is new? Even though we have been making up roughly 25% of the vote in some primaries, we’re pushed to the back as irrelevant.

  20. bostonboomer says:

    Jeff Weaver just said on CNN that Bernie won the Latino vote in Colorado and Illinois. That is a lie.

  21. RalphB says:

    This is a very important piece of information which is never mentioned in the media.

  22. William says:

    Hillary inching up to 26.6% in WA. Doesn’t seem like much, but each percentage point is probably worth one more delegate for her, one less for him. Maybe she can get to 28%, and that mightt mean 73-28 in delegates. In Alaska, they seem stuck at 73%; they must not be able to count those last twenty or so voters. If it does not get worse there, it is probably about 12-4 for Sanders. That wouldn’t be so bad, particularly if Hillary can come close in Hawaii and lose no more than about five delegates there.

  23. janicen says:

    When there is a fundraiser in Hollywood for Bernie with $2700 donors it’s okay. When Hillary does it it means she’s corrupt.

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-has-fund-raiser-at-fancy-hollywood-home/?smid=tw-share&_r=0

    • bostonboomer says:

      That’s in my post actually.

      • janicen says:

        Ah! I went back and saw it in your first comment. Sorry, I must have missed it.

        • bostonboomer says:

          Oh, I’m sorry. I did put it in a comment. I put the attacks on George and Amal Clooney in the post. Anyway, no big deal. I shouldn’t have even said anything.

          He is such a hypocrite!

  24. RalphB says:

    This seems terribly low. 54% of pct in and only about 11,000 votes in WA.

    • mablue2 says:

      Caucuses are just a bad joke.

      • NW Luna says:

        2 hours of a bad joke for me this morning.

        • Tmarie says:

          It was only one hour for me, but I’m in a small town. I did make the point that Hillary has been through the fire of opposition research and come out the other side. I also made the point that only Hillary is a true Democrat. The other side was unimpressed.

          I really hate dudebros. Sigh.

          • ANonOMouse says:

            Well, should Bernie miraculously win the nomination the dudebros are going to be knocked on their asses with the OP research that the GOP has on Bernie. Hillary isn’t going to use it, but they will not be so generous. They will rip him to shreds.

          • NW Luna says:

            TMarie, I don’t think any points could get thru their delusions. They are in denial. One at the caucus was even going on about his “long record in the civil rights movement”!? Yeah, how’d that work out with all the black Americans in the “Confederate States?”

          • NW Luna says:

            Hi Tmarie, what area do you live in? We should meet up, I hope.

          • Tmarie says:

            I’m on the coast. I can’t wait to see Hillary win the whole thing and become our first woman President! Let the poor dudebros cry and lament how the bitchez are ruining the feel of their bern.

          • NW Luna says:

            Yessssss!

    • bostonboomer says:

      Only about 22,000 people caucused in Utah I heard.

    • Valhalla says:

      On CNN today they were flipping out over all the “enthusiasm” for Sanders and especially because WA state might beat the 2008 participation record of around 20-21k or so. So this is probably right, it’s just that caucus participation is truly that low.

      There are only two states with caucuses where participation breaks 10% (of eligible voters), NV and IA (that’s not from cnn but my own research, cnn would never mention that because it breaks up the enthusiasm meme they’re pushing.)

      Bernie’s running out of white state caucuses.

    • NW Luna says:

      So, doing the math, Bernie spent $1,360,000 million in WA, for 11,342 caucus votes. Worked out to about $120 per person.

  25. janicen says:

    This doesn’t look like a very good return on investment. Here’s what Sanders spent to get those 74 delegates.

    • NW Luna says:

      Yeah, so much for Clinton’s “Big Money” buying the elections.

      • janicen says:

        I’m sure the Bernie supporters who cite this as a reason they can’t vote for Hillary will not switch once they read this! 😀

        • bostonboomer says:

          And Hillary’s superpac hasn’t spent one cent yet in the primaries. Meanwhile Bernie has the nurses and Karl Rove spending hand over fist to support him.

          • ANonOMouse says:

            I’m hoping Hillary gets back on the campaign trail quickly. I also hope they are spending money in the April primaries that favor her because we want the win margins to be as wide as possible.

  26. bostonboomer says:

    Now Al says Bernie will get +60 tonight, but I don’t think that includes Hawaii. She will make that up in New York, lol.

    • janicen says:

      Well you know the bros are delusional when you look at the numbers of people who voted. 20k total votes in WA. That’s some revolution.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      By my calculations he has a +52 right now. The Hawaii caucus might give him a +60 if he loses, but if he wins he will get more than +60. Unless this somehow gives Bernie some momentum going into WI that leads to a big win there, this will basically be the last, best stand for Bernie. If past is prologue the only States remaining that could set Bernie up for big Percentage wins after WI will be WY 14, MT 21, OR 61, ND18 & SD 20. Hillary will have NY 247, PA 189, MD 95, CT 55, IN 83, NJ 126, NM 34, DC 20, WV 29, KY 55, DE 21, RI 24. CA is the big prize with 475 delegates and the last poll I saw she was up by 7. She may not win all of the States I believe favor her, but I think she will win most of them. If she loses any of those States she won’t be blown out, keeping the delegate split relatively even.

  27. William says:

    If the Clinton campaign had somehow gotten 1,000 people to move to Alaska last year for one year, so they could register as residents; and they all then voted in this caucus for Hillary, she would have won the caucus with 70% of the vote. That is how ludicrous all this is.

  28. Pat Johnson says:

    Wait a minute: I will concede WA state but it looks like only about 550 bothered to vote in Alaska and this stands as a “victory”?

    I know a win is a,win but this is ridiculous!

    And he elbowed his wife out of the way so he could hog the stage. What an assailed!

    • ANonOMouse says:

      Pathetic, isn’t it?

      • Pat Johnson says:

        Have I got the numbers right? About 22,500 in WA and this is “big”? Jesus!

        • ANonOMouse says:

          With 87% reporting 13,517 votes cast in WA. Totally ridiculous. In AK there were only 539 votes cast.

        • Valhalla says:

          The Alaska numbers aren’t the number of voters, they are the precinct delegates count won, or something like that. The actual vote numbers aren’t out yet, that I can find.

          That being said, in 2008, RCP estimated they had about 9k voters in the Dem contest. Out of a total al pop of about 737k and a voting-eligible population of about 475 k. That is a little under 2% of eligible voters.

          • NW Luna says:

            That sounds right. WA state caucus-goers are about 3%. So today Bernie won a whopping 2% of WA State voters. Ffffffffffttt!

  29. ANonOMouse says:

    The Hawaii caucuses have been going on since 1pm their time. They’ve been at it for about 3.5 hours.

  30. Pat Johnson says:

    Hey guys, I just won $2.00 on a,scratch ticket! Does,this make me a member of the wealthy 1 percent?

    If Bernie can brag about those paltry wins so can I!

    • ANonOMouse says:

      According to Bernie you’re now an elitist. I read one of the berniebros the other day who said that if you leave an inheritance over 250K that everything over 250k should be taxed at 90%. So that means if a mother wanted to leave her only child $1 million dollars the inheritance after taxes would be $325k for the child and the government would get $675k. Sorry, but I don’t think the bernbros see how unfair that is to families. I don’t fall into the category of person who has a $1 million dollar estate, so no one in my family will have to be worried about that. Still, I think a 90% tax rate on inheritance over 250k is unfair, but I guess the government is going to need that to send all the kids to college for free.

  31. janicen says:

    I can’t get this delegate count straight. the NYT is reporting Sanders got 36 and Clinton got 11. That’s not counting HI, but still. Have to wonder who is counting what.

  32. roofingbird says:

    Wapo reports 95.8% with Sanders for the win at 72.6% and 18093 votes, 23 delegates. Clinton is 27.2% and 6789 votes and 8 delegates. Interestingly Pierce and King Cos. are still tablulating. Pierce doesn’t have that many votes. King Co is at 88.2% reporting and Sanders is only 66.4% to Clinton’s 33.4% there.

  33. NW Luna says:

    Website for WA caucus results: http://www.wa-democrats.org/caucus-results

    119 delegates. If %s hold, Bernie will get about 87 of the delegates. He spent $1,360,000 in WA state, so that’s $15,632 for each delegate.

  34. roofingbird says:

    This date seems like it was a rotten pick for these states. Everyone is shopping for Easter and putting out eggs.

  35. roofingbird says:

    Pierce Co in WA just closed… Sanders won, 73.3% vs Clinton 26.5%. King Co is 94.1% reporting with Sanders 66.8% vs Clinton 33%

  36. roofingbird says:

    HI is still not reporting.

  37. janicen says:

    Sanders won HI. I’m going to go look at all of the headlines about a Sanders sweep. 😉

    • janicen says:

      Hahahahaha! I predicted it. Headline on the NYT, front page, “Sanders Sweeps 3 States Routing Clinton”

      And the Bernie Bros whine about the press favoring Clinton.

      • Riverbird says:

        Yes. That story was written by Amy Chozick, author of many negative stories for the Times about Hillary. “Senator Bernie Sanders routed Hillary Clinton in all three Democratic presidential contests on Saturday, infusing his underdog campaign with critical momentum and bolstering his argument that the race for the nomination is not a foregone conclusion.”

        • Riverbird says:

          The coverage this morning motivated me to make another small donation to her campaign.

        • janicen says:

          Amy Chozick is the NYT reporter who follows the Clinton campaign.

          • ANonOMouse says:

            I’m anxious to see Hillary start spending money and getting to work in the remaining States. I don’t want her campaign to take anything for granted because when she finishes Bernie off the momentum needs to be strong so that she can have a good Summer campaigning. I wish they had competed a bit harder in the west, but I suppose the strategy was save the money for the States that will put her over. I hope the calculation was correct.

          • janicen says:

            It is correct.

  38. ANonOMouse says:

    This is a very good overview of what happened yesterday and what Bernie has to do to
    make yesterday matter.

    http://ipolitics.ca/2016/03/27/clinton-retains-big-delegate-lead-as-sanders-wins-3-states/

    • William says:

      What Bernie has to do is to convince all the remaining states and the DNC to turn the rest of the primaries into caucuses where a few thousand people turn out. Then he can win! If they can find a way that the first five hundred people who crowd into the voting room are the only ones who get to vote, he will rout Hillary! Of course, Kim Kardashian, with her 41 million Twitter followers, would rout both of them! The duplicitous press will simply not point out that caucuses are not primaries, and that they require someone to stand up for hours and hours, argue contentiously with people, try to defend Hillary to a bunch of sneering adolescents; and that many people are constitutionally or pyschologically averse to doing any of that. But telling us that does not fit the media’s agenda, which is anti-Hillary and pro-exciting horse race.

      If one thinks about it, the utter stupidity and bias of the medai, which cannot and will not point out that these “routs” are occurring the minute we move from primaries to caucuses; that there is no “momentum” involved, just demographics and a very tiny percentage of voters, is an embarrassment to democracy.

      • janicen says:

        The party knows this which makes me wonder why it is this way. I read an interesting comment somewhere about why we have state primaries scattered throughout the primary season rather than just one primary on one day and the point was that spacing them out allows for a wider field and doesn’t exclude lesser known candidates with less money. One nationwide primary would involve a very expensive campaign. The Democrats start with a caucus and a primary (IA and NH) in not very delegate rich states and then follow with a caucus and a primary (NV and SC). Some candidates drop out and frontrunners emerge. Then you have a blast from Super Tuesday with some other states scattered in the surrounding days. I don’t know, I’m just riffing, but it seems like it’s planned to coordinate with the super delegate system to ensure that the most electable candidate win in the end but not to end it too soon so that each state gets a say. If they stacked up the monster primaries on the front end, the states with lower populations would always be left behind but I think the caucus system has a purpose in the overall scheme of things even though as voters, we hate them. But maybe the plan is to involve fewer voters in caucus states so that there are fewer delegates allocated and that avoids wild swings as far as who is in the lead.

        I don’t think that the fact that caucuses are undemocratic and not necessarily representative is news to the DNC, I think there is a purpose and a plan to it all.

        • William says:

          Those are all good points. The problem is that last time, they got Obama simply because of this caucus system. Now, that is probably the candidate they wanted. But he came very close to losing the general election, except that the economy collapsed. We remember how Hillary would win primaries in Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, New York, Florida, Michigan, but not pick up all that many delegates, because primaries flatten out vote margins due to the large number of people who vote. And then in red state primaries like Kansas and Idaho and Washington, Obama would get 75% of the very small vote, and pick up more delegates than Hillary could get with all those millions of primary votes.

          So in some sense, this system minimizes primaries and maximizes caucuses. I haven’t counted, but Sanders may have picked up more net delegates in Hawaii than Hillary got in Ohio, which is absurd. Now, if the superdelegates are the buffer against this, fine; but if any of them change because of caucus results, then the system is really screwed up. Actually, you may well be right that there is a plan; but I also think that the DNC simply lets the states which like caucuses, have them. To me they are a vestige of the 1800’s.

          • NW Luna says:

            I also think that the DNC simply lets the states which like caucuses, have them.

            Exactly.

          • janicen says:

            Of course Obama was the candidate they wanted in ’08. They took pledged delegates from Clinton and gave them to Obama to ensure his victory.