Superdelegates, Explained

Samantha Bee explains the whole superdelegate thing for y’all:

Open thread!






264 replies
  1. 1
    Unabogie says:

    How is it that in the space of a few months, caucuses went from “hugely obscene spectacles where *GASP* a coin toss can decide delegates” to a “happy place where opinions can be swayed by passionate young activists!”

    Also, Superdelegates are an “abomination against democracy”, but let’s call them at all hours and force them to choose Bernie even if he loses the popular vote and has fewer delegates because “they should substitute good judgment over the stupid voters!”

    Just wondering.

  2. 2
    Jeffro says:

    Love the clip, Betty!

    Btw here’s a quote from Saint John of the Sunday Morning Shows, once he heard Paul Ryan refused to run for prez at the upcoming GOP convention:

    “We’ve got so many problems—there are a myriad of problems. None of this is going to turn out well for the Republican Party,” McCain told Bloomberg.

    That karma, she’s something else, isn’t she John?
    And you’re right as rain…none of this is going to turn out well for the Repubs.

    Made my morning!

  3. 3
    Thoroughly Pizzled says:

    They’re just at-large delegates. “Superdelegates” gives the impression that their vote counts for more than other delegates.

  4. 4
    Anonymous At Work says:

    @Unabogie: Sadly, when it turned out that one side could dominate caucuses but not large primaries and needed the corrupt, insider, money-grubbing superdelegates to suddenly needed all of them on their side.
    I’m not sure if anyone has seriously asked Bernie this; I’m scared that he is bubbled-up. What’s his end-game? Fight tooth-and-claw at convention and make a spectacle?

  5. 5
    Hal says:

    Robert Deniro was on the today show this morning and sounds like an anti-vax spokesperson. The hosts offered no push back at all, and just let him spread his anti-vax bullshit. The today show should be ashamed of themselves.

    https://www.statnews.com/2016/04/13/de-niro-vaccines-vaxxed-autism/?utm_content=buffer065a8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    “I think the movie is something that people should see,” De Niro told cohost Savannah Guthrie, recommending it alongside another anti-vaccine documentary called “Trace Amounts.” “There’s a lot of information about things that are happening with the CDC, the pharmaceutical companies, there are a lot of things that aren’t said,” De Niro said.

    At another point in the segment, when De Niro was asked whether he thought his son Elliot developed autism “overnight,” he said, “My wife says that. I don’t remember.”

    Even as Guthrie and cohost Willie Geist pointed out that there is no scientific evidence of a link between vaccines and autism, De Niro dug in his heels. “It’s much more complicated than that. There is a link, and they’re saying there isn’t,” he said.

  6. 6
    the Conster, la Citoyenne says:

    @Unabogie:

    Just wondering.

    Kool Aid.

    Speaking of which, poor Shaun King gave his rebuttal to the NYDN endorsement today. I was glad to see his tweet cuz I figured he’d need to be on suicide watch. I wish someone loved me as much as he loves Bernie.

  7. 7
    Yellowdog says:

    @Anonymous At Work: From all indications, yes. I do not think he will endorse Clinton.

  8. 8
    marduk says:

    @Unabogie: The mythology Clinton supporters are developing about this election is starting to rival the worst of the wingnut flights of fancy. “Bernie’s trying to overturn the election via superdelegates” is right up there with Volcano Monitoring and Bear DNA.

  9. 9
    rikyrah says:

    By Opposing Obama, the Republicans Created Trump
    Steven Rattner
    APRIL 13, 2016

    MEMO to Republican legislators biting your nails over the New York primary, wondering if you can finally derail Donald J. Trump’s candidacy with, gulp, Ted Cruz: You brought it on yourselves.

    Not just by failing for too long to take Mr. Trump seriously or by lacking an effective response once you did. That’s well-covered territory. Most important, you created the anger that lifted his candidacy by years of systematically and effectively preventing passage of legislation that might have ameliorated the tough economic state of Mr. Trump’s core voters.

    Mr. Trump’s biggest supporters are disproportionately white, middle-aged, working-class men without college educations, a group whose fortunes have flagged as globalization and new technology have rendered millions of jobs obsolete and cut into the wages of many more. While the trade agreements that Mr. Trump bashes have played a role, the mistake was not having entered into them, but having failed to sufficiently help affected workers adjust to the new dynamics.

    For too many, those new dynamics have been painful indeed. In Michigan, where Mr. Trump won big, wages in manufacturing have fallen from a high of $28 per hour in 2003 to $21 at present, after adjustment for inflation, a stunning 25 percent decline.

    Meanwhile, the number of manufacturing jobs in the state has fallen from almost 900,000 in September 1999 to just under 600,000 at present, a picture that is repeated across the country.

    Throughout his presidency, Mr. Obama has put forward constructive proposals to help those displaced workers. For its part, the Republican Congress has been behaving like Nero.

  10. 10
    April says:

    Samantha Bee is killing it with her new show! she packs so much pow in her punches I’m not sure I could handle it if she did 4 shows per week. Great format for her.

  11. 11
    Cheap Jim, formerly Cheap Jim says:

    @Hal: He sounds like a mook.

  12. 12
    rikyrah says:

    Summer Jobs for All City High School Students
    By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
    APRIL 13, 2016

    …………………..

    The city runs a summer jobs program that cost about $80 million last year and employed 55,000 young people, most of them high school students. But only about half of those who applied by lottery got a spot. The program is financed mainly by the city, and funding typically remains uncertain until the last minute. As a result, the community organizations that place young people in jobs often don’t know how much money is available until just days before the program begins in July.

    On such short notice, the organizations can do little more than rush teenagers into jobs at summer camps or positions for which they have not been screened and for which they might not be suited. And because entry is based on lottery, it is highly unlikely that a teenager will be able to participate in two consecutive years. This means that many miss out on the benefits that several years of summer work would offer.

    The Community Service Society proposal would make the program universal so that every high school student who wanted a job could have one. Under the proposal, placement organizations would work with an entire school over the course of the year to develop job opportunities that relate to each student’s interests and academic experiences. Screening and other preparation could begin many months in advance, with outreach to encourage more companies to take on young workers.

    A well-planned, expanded program that served 110,000 young people would probably cost about $242 million. The city would not have to come up with all of it but could seek help from the state and federal governments. It could start with a pilot program that covers, say, about 20 of the city’s 438 or so high schools.

    Given the profound difference that meaningful, career-related summer jobs can make in the lives of the young, this proposal is well worth pursuing.

  13. 13
    starscream says:

    Do we know who Bernie voted for in 2000 and 2012? Would be interesting to see if he stuck with Obama.

  14. 14
    EconWatcher says:

    @April:

    Among his many abilities, Jon Stewart was really great at spotting talent: Samantha Bee, Assiv Mandvi, and of course the guys who made it really big (Steve Carrell, Stephen Colbert).

    Never did care for John Oliver, though. Something about him really puts me off (and no, it’s not the accent).

  15. 15
    Chyron HR says:

    @marduk:

    Stop repeating the things Bernie and his campaign manager say! It’s making them look bad!

    Well, clearly that’s OUR fault, then. Sorry!

  16. 16
    marduk says:

    @Chyron HR: Always nice to see a good faith argument. Any other quotes you’d like to invent?

  17. 17
    April says:

    @Chyron HR: yep. Super delegates are a sign of corruption, unless they switch their support to me, then they are a sign that democracy is working! Just like Bernie millionaires are good guys but Clooney’s support of Hillary is a sign of corruption.

    I also like how a blind quote attributed to “someone in the Clinton campaign” from CNN is reason to start calling Hillary unqualified to be president but actual quotes from Bernie’s campaign manager are to be waved away as a “mythology” created by Clinton supporters

  18. 18
    WarMunchkin says:

    @marduk:

    “Bernie’s trying to overturn the election via superdelegates” is right up there with Volcano Monitoring and Bear DNA.

    There have been different messages depending on the surrogate. What you’re trying to defend is this:

    “If you look at the math, if you want to talk about math, the truth is is that it is very, very, very unlikely that either candidate, either Secretary Clinton or Sen. Sanders, will go into the convention with a majority needed of pledged delegates in order to win,” Weaver told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on “New Day.”

    Here, Weaver is saying that even if Clinton is ahead of Sanders in pledged delegates, she won’t have a majority of total delegates without supers, so supers can still vote for Sanders outright. This is what is meant by overturning the election via super delegates.

  19. 19
    Eric U. says:

    obviously the superdelegates are going to vote for the person with the most votes. If that was Bernie, they would vote for him. But it’s not going to be him

  20. 20
    bystander says:

    @EconWatcher: I’m with you on Oliver. He’s another “both sides do it” comedian.

    Samantha Bee is great, tho, and so’s her old man. His new series is kind of unappealing, tho. I wonder how much Bee benefits from not grinding out 4’shows a week, but her program is so much better than the current Daily
    Show.

  21. 21
    April says:

    @bystander: I don’t get sam’s husband’s humor. Too bro for me and his new vehicle? Ugh!

  22. 22
    the Conster, la Citoyenne says:

    @marduk:

    I’ve been reading the Salon articles and comments long enough to realize that a lot of Sanders supporters are as deluded as freepers, and any valid criticisms of him cause them to run to their safe space. Watching them deny that he agreed he’d be meeting the pope is hilarious, but supporters of Hillary are delusional. OK.

  23. 23
    benw says:

    @April: loving Sam Bee’s new show! Every segment I’ve seen so far is a fantastic blend of informative, brutal and hilarious. I love her facial expressions.

    SANDERS/BEE 2016

  24. 24
    scav says:

    The Samatha Bee on The NRA eagle was a great joy. And I’ve appreciated Oliver for a good while, on beyond Bugle. The long format and gamut of topics are also a plus for me.

  25. 25
    Shell says:

    “There’s a lot of information about things that are happening with the CDC, the pharmaceutical companies, there are a lot of things that aren’t said,”

    “things”

    Way to get specific, DeNiro.

  26. 26
    gwangung says:

    @marduk: This is an example why Clinton supporters can’t take you seriously.

    When Weaver and Devine have been quoted multiple times floating a plan that you deny was ever mentioned, you look like a fool.

  27. 27
    April says:

    @benw: I am ashamed that I find Sam’s standing distracting. She stands with her legs far apart and I keep thinking she is going to bolt off screen or rush the camera. It is weird, of me, not of her, just that I have a problem with it for an odd reason.

  28. 28
    Germy Shoemangler says:

    A good time for Chico Marx
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLdhbk91Zc4
    When is it not a good time for Chico Marx?

  29. 29
    Calouste says:

    @Eric U.: How they read that in the Bernieverse:

    obviously the superdelegates are going to vote for the person that is the purest and the only one that isn’t corrupt. And that is Bernie, so they will vote for Him. It’s going to be Him

  30. 30
    Horatius says:

    @marduk: if your first comment is an example of a good faith argument, i dont know what a bad faith argument from you would look like.

    Self awareness FAIL.

  31. 31
    bystander says:

    @April: Yes, but at least it’s Canadian bro humor.

    I was just listening to Mrs. Greenspan interviewing somebody and was struck by how much I’d love to see Ted seizing a moment for a photo-op with a major telenovela star. Luz with Cruz.

  32. 32
    El Caganer says:

    @Germy Shoemangler: He was always a hell of a lot funnier than Karl.

  33. 33
    benw says:

    @April: I hadn’t noticed that! But looking at the image from the inset video in the OP, she really does have a “legs-wide, shoulders-back” posture. Curse you, April, how will I ever unsee this now!

  34. 34
    joes527 says:

    I’m not feeling the love for superdelegates. 2008 and 2016 clearly show that their primary function is to give candidates an occasion to hurl shit at each other (while getting plenty of shit on themselves)

    On what planet would it be OK for the superdelegates to override the majority of pledged delegates? They can make a squeaker look more like a landslide, but if they should choose the candidate that has fewer pledged delegates, look for the Dems to lose the general.

    Her point about superdelegates being there to save us from a Trump is stupid both-sidesism. It isn’t a coincidence which party is nominating Trump. If Dems are ever this stupid then they _ought_ to lose the general.

    Superdelegates and caucuses … Just get rid of them.

  35. 35
    April says:

    @benw: she’s gonna rush you, watch out! Sorry if I lessened your enjoyment.

    By the way, you just cursed a whole month, not just me. April will get you back (the month, not me, I’m harmless)!

  36. 36
    NR says:

    Even Hillary supporters are starting to be alarmed by her terrible favorability numbers. And it’s worth pointing out that those numbers are still getting worse, proving that the argument made around here that she can’t possibly go any lower is complete nonsense.

  37. 37
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @marduk: except for the part where his supporters actually are doxxing and harassing super delegates.

  38. 38

    Wow, that was a really good explanation. Fun and contextual.

    @joes527:
    I don’t think anybody here loves them. They’re just annoyed by the drama, and calling out particularly inaccurate, paranoid, or hypocritical examples. It’s not the same as liking either caucuses or super delegates.

  39. 39
    Calouste says:

    @joes527:

    On what planet would it be OK for the superdelegates to override the majority of pledged delegates?

    As shown by a couple of quotes and links in this thread, the planet where that would be ok is planet Bernie. His campaign manager very much implied that.

  40. 40

    Bernie needs to shut up, his voice is hoarse from all that shouting. Go back to Vermont, grandpa.

  41. 41

    @joes527: superdelegates come into play when pledge delegate leader is found to like skull fucking kittens

  42. 42
    joes527 says:

    @Frankensteinbeck: like I said. Just an occasion for folks to hurl shit at each other.

    What would the circular firing squad do if we didn’t provide ample ammunition?

    And Sam B. Does seem to wrap up with a superdelegates-are-cool message.

  43. 43
    JMG says:

    Do you know what I think would be a good job? Working on commission for all media outlets as one of those anonymous “senior Democrats” who’re always worried about Hillary, or Bernie, or Obama or whatever and are sure doom is around the corner.” There can’t be more than three of these people, since they say the same things in every damn “Dems in trouble” article. I could make it four, and it wouldn’t require anyone to lie. I’m a Democrat and I’m a senior.

  44. 44
    John D says:

    @joes527: You know what superdelegates are for?

    Trump.

    How anyone in 2016 can openly wonder why superdelegates exist is beyond me. WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE RIGHT NOW.

  45. 45
    joes527 says:

    @Calouste: oh please. We’re you alive in 2008, or has it just gone down the memory hole? “Superdelegates will save me” is the staple of the side that is behind.

  46. 46
    Germy Shoemangler says:

    @El Caganer: Karl did some good standup but sold out after they gave him his sitcom.

  47. 47
    japa21 says:

    @NR: Only problem with your statement is that not a single Clinton supporter is quoted as being worried, much less alarmed.

  48. 48
    Paul in KY says:

    @Yellowdog: He’ll endorse her. How genuine sounding that will be (if he’s not on the ticket), we’ll have to see.

  49. 49
    Tim C. says:

    @joes527:

    Two scenarios, neither of them likely, and probably with better solutions, could involve super-delagates playing a positive role:

    1) Late primary, major revelation makes it clear a presumptive nominee is unfit/unable to win the general and everyone knows it. Imagine if in 1984 Gary Hart was slightly ahead in pledged delegates and all his stuff hits the fan a month before the convention. Supers handing it to Mondale at that point would make *some* sense.

    2) 10 way clusterfudge of a primary leads to someone coming in with a say plurality of 20% of the delegates. This is is currently even less likely than scenario 1 the way the primary calendar is laid out, but still possible. In that case Supers could help make sure someone broadly acceptable to everyone is the nominee.

    In reality though you are pretty much correct, the whole system has major flaws and should be changed.

  50. 50
    Tripod says:

    I see noted neo-liberal and corportist sell out Tom Hayden endorsed Hillary.

  51. 51
    Paul in KY says:

    @EconWatcher: Oliver is quite a talent, even if you do not care for him.

  52. 52
    joes527 says:

    @John D: any party that would nominate Trump or a trump-like candidate should be allowed to die, not saved.

    I happen to disagree with your assessment that the Dems are just like the reps.

  53. 53
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @joes527: and the argument deserves to be mocked whenever made.

  54. 54
    WereBear says:

    @Hal: I am a little more sympathetic now that I know they have an autistic child.

    Such strong emotions will play havoc with logic.

  55. 55
    John D says:

    @joes527: Who said anything about “like the [GOP]”?

    The superdelegates exist to prevent a candidate like Trump from winning the nomination. That was explicitly the rationale for their existence when they party added them in the 1980s. Are you arguing that this is not the case?

    I’m not arguing whether this is a good or a bad thing. I’m not arguing whether that means the party should live or die.

    I’m saying that the reason for their existence is writ plain by the success of Trump as a candidate.

  56. 56
    Aqualad08 says:

    @marduk: “Bernie’s trying to overturn the election via superdelegates” is right up there with Volcano Monitoring and Bear DNA.”

    OK, so why have Tad and Jeff floated that exact trial balloon on numerous occasions? When Hillary gets to 2,026 after California is called, what mechanism will they use to justify him going to Philly without dropping out? “When we arrive at the convention, it will be an open convention, likely with neither candidate having a majority of pledged delegates.” Weaver SAID THAT. HE SAID THAT. He can’t take that back.

    I was a self-admitted O-bot in 2008. HRC doing the right thing for the party is one of the reasons I’m supporting her today. Bernie’s been done since Ohio. He’s more than welcome to keep fighting for his vision, but dragging Hillary down at this point doesn’t help his alleged cause. He’s been awful here in New York, and it’s not working. That he doesn’t see that makes me question his judgement.

  57. 57
    joes527 says:

    @John D: why override the stated will of the party.

    If your party is composed of racists and know-nothings, it should let its freak flag fly.

  58. 58
    Tripod says:

    So it’s agreed:

    We’ll rename “Super delegates” to unpledged delegates and forget about it till the next time there’s a contested nomination… and our candidate is losing.

    Caucuses suck, except when there’s no contested nomination, and no one can be arsed to give a shit about that inside politics stuff but a handful of elected officials and party activists.

  59. 59
    Paul in KY says:

    @JMG: Oh, JMG, they just make all that up. They don’t need an actual ‘Senior Democrat’.

  60. 60
    Mai.naem.mobile says:

    Maybe I am wrong but I really see superdelegates as an insurance policy in case something completely unforeseen happens late in the campaign – a candidate dying / candidate found in bed with live boy/dead girl scandal kind of situation. Also, a candidate has to work with other people as president. If a candidate can’t even convince their own party VIPs to vote for him/het then it doesn’t say much for their persuasive abilities. And,oh yeah, this isn’t supposed to be easy. You’re going for a very tough and powerful job.

  61. 61
    CONGRATULATIONS! says:

    Oh, JMG, they just make all that up. They don’t need an actual ‘Senior Democrat’.

    @Paul in KY: No shit. They just ask their mental image of a Democratic voter to make some shit up and print that.

    In previous years, such behavior was rightfully considered a sure-fire sign of a mental disorder. Now…it’s “the Press”.

  62. 62
    benw says:

    @April:

    she’s gonna rush you, watch out! Sorry if I lessened your enjoyment.

    By the way, you just cursed a whole month, not just me.

    No worries, Bee’s still awesome. I did notice that it was funny that the date underneath your nym was a repeat: “April. April…” So I knew I was picking a fight with the whole month! :)

  63. 63
    Aqualad08 says:

    @NR:

    Even Hillary supporters are starting to be alarmed by her terrible favorability numbers. And it’s worth pointing out that those numbers are still getting worse, proving that the argument made around here that she can’t possibly go any lower is complete nonsense.

    No, no… nonsense is not realizing her favorability numbers are taking a hit because Bernie supporters are mad their unicorn ponies won’t be delivered next January. They’ll go up once he decides to stop listening to Comic Book Guy.

    Also too: when favorability numbers are your best weapon in a primary fight, and your candidate is still losing to someone with bad favorability numbers, your candidate *may* not be very good at this….

  64. 64
    Marc says:

    We’re about to see a worked example, on the republican side, of what happens when you try to overturn the outcome of the primary season votes. It’s going to be an object lesson on why super-delegates are an idea that was never good (instituted in 1982 to make insurgent candidates less likely).
    And of course Sanders is making a play for them – as Clinton already did, by locking a ton of them up – and they’re creating nothing but bad blood and headaches without doing anything positive.

    No clever procedural gimmick will work if your primary process is so utterly screwed up that you end up favoring a candidate like Trump.

  65. 65
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @Tim C.: In some respects this reminds me of the salary cap in reference to the NFL vs MLB: The NFL has a cap but would probably remain competitive without one (due to the leveling effects of the college draft & relatively short player careers plus a fairly equal revenue stream consisting mostly of national TV contract $$ shared among the teams). MLB has no cap but needs one (mostly because team revenues are so unequal & top players spend more time at the apex of their skills).

    The Dems have a boatload of superdelegates but this year’s primary season is working out just fine on its own. Meanwhile the GOP is in dire need of a shitpile of superdelegates to restore (a semblance of) order but have very few. And so long as any Thug with a bazillionaire $ugardaddy to fund him can join the race & hang in until the cows come home or the ca$h $pigot gets turned off, they’re odds-on to keep having that problem.

  66. 66
    Humboldtblue says:

    The California legislature, led by Democratic women, has passed a minimum wage bill for $15 an hour; expanded payments for paid family leave to 70% of an employees salary for those at low end of the wage scale and to 60% of an employees for nearly every other worker in the state; passed a bill that allows for a minimum of three paid sick days per year and they are on the cusp of passing a law that removes the statute of limitations for rape.

    Those measures combined with the legalization for the cultivation, production and distribution of medical marijuana, the changing of harsh sentences for non-violent offenders (although that was forced by Gov. Brown to meet federal rulings to lower prison population), and a half dozen other measures like ensuring you can go before a judge to contest a traffic ticket before paying a fine, have made life a little bit easier for a lot of people in this state.

    That’s what happens when you elect people invested in their communities and who recognize that even the least powerful has a voice in government and can play a key role in society.

  67. 67
    Marc says:

    @Aqualad08: Unless Clinton supporters are obnoxious enough to antagonize them into not voting, for example. Piss people off and insult them enough and you reap what you sow.

  68. 68
    joes527 says:

    @Mai.naem.mobile: candidate dying can be addressed at the convention.

    Live boy/dead girl. – if the candidate can’t be convinced to pull out before the convention, then there is a possibility that the superdelegates would make an even bigger mistake.

    Scenario: late in the primary season, there is a scandal regarding the leading candidate. The leader refuses to pull out, so the superdelegates make sure that the nomination goes to #2. After the convention it comes out that the “scandal” was actually a dirty trick from #2’s camp.

    What do you think would happen in the general?

    Reasonable convention rules could take care of these cases with fewer occasions for mud-slinging than with superdelegates

  69. 69
    Tripod says:

    @Mai.naem.mobile:

    It’s an important constituency.

    Tough shit if it bothers some that OMG! politics is happening.

  70. 70
    Paul in KY says:

    @Aqualad08: Excellent point on the person with the ‘good’ favorability getting beat by someone who’s favorability numbers are supposed to be like Ted Bundy’s.

  71. 71
    WarMunchkin says:

    @Marc: I don’t understand this argument. To some degree, yes, building a coalition for November relies on making sure you get 70 million or however many people to go vote for you, which means you alienate nobody. But there’s also the fact that it’s a high cost to the campaign to chase after the recklessly emotional voters that seem to threaten to vote third party at every opportunity. I wish it were more of a sure bet to expect voters to make their decisions with sobriety. But then again, “if men were angels…”

  72. 72
    Paul in KY says:

    @Humboldtblue: Sigh…I wish I lived in California. Enjoy it out there.

  73. 73
    Amaranthine RBG says:

    @Humboldtblue: The legislature’s passage of the $15/hr minimum wage was to preempt a ballot measure that would probably have passed.

    The legislative version phases it in over a longer time period and has provisions to suspend the increases if the economy slows down – which, obviously, it will over the next 5 years.

    People who are too fucking stupid to look at the details think this bill is a GREAT thing!!!

  74. 74
  75. 75

    @Hal: You know what does cause autism? Older dads. Just sayin’…

  76. 76
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @WereBear:

    I am a little more sympathetic now that I know they have an autistic child.

    Such strong emotions will play havoc with logic.

    I have an autistic child (now in college, thank you), and I have no sympathy for their made-up bullshit.

  77. 77
    Amaranthine RBG says:

    @Major Major Major Major:
    That and “diverse” urban environments, probably.

  78. 78
    The Lodger says:

    @Mai.naem.mobile: “Live boy/dead girl” – is this why we won’t see Dennis Hastert on Morning Joe?

  79. 79
    cleek says:

    i love the idea that Clinton supporters need to be nice to Sanders supporters or Sanders supporters will passive-aggressively aid and comfort the GOP.

    nothing screams “I Really Care About Policy Outcomes” more than threatening to work against getting the best policy outcomes possible.

  80. 80

    @Tripod: Uh, actually they are named “Unpledged PLEO [party leader, elected official]” delegates.

    In the Missouri delegate selection plan (really easy to find via online search):

    “[….]
    B. Unpledged Delegates
    1. Unpledged Party Leaders and Elected Officials
    a. The following categories (if applicable) shall constitute the Unpledged
    Party Leaders and Elected Official delegate positions:
    (1) Members of the Democratic National Committee who legally reside
    in the state; (Rule 9.A.1, Call I.F, Call I.J, & Reg. 4.13)
    (2) Democratic President and Democratic Vice President (if
    applicable); (Rule 9.A.2 & Call I.G)
    (3) All of Missouri’s Democratic Members of the U.S. House of
    Representatives and the U.S. Senate; (Rule 9.A.3, Call I.H & Call
    I.J)
    (4) The Democratic Governor (if applicable); (Rule 9.A.4, Call I.H &
    Call I.J)
    (5) “Distinguished Party Leader” delegates who legally reside in the
    state (if applicable); [Persons who qualify as “Distinguished Party
    Leader” delegates are: all former Democratic Presidents or Vice
    Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all
    former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives
    and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former
    Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.] (Rule 9.A.5, Call I.G
    & Reg. 4.13) [….]”

    The “so-called Super Delegates” is lazy old media shorthand for the same thing.

  81. 81
  82. 82
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @Marc:

    Unless Clinton supporters are obnoxious enough to antagonize them into not voting, for example. Piss people off and insult them enough and you reap what you sow.

    Pot, meet kettle.

  83. 83
    NR says:

    @Aqualad08:

    No, no… nonsense is not realizing her favorability numbers are taking a hit because Bernie supporters are mad their unicorn ponies won’t be delivered next January. They’ll go up once he decides to stop listening to Comic Book Guy

    Right. It’s all mean ol’ Bernie’s fault that over half the country can’t stand Hillary and two thirds think she’s dishonest. Her numbers are still dropping today but they’ll go up later because reasons.

    Just keep right on whistling past that graveyard.

  84. 84
    joes527 says:

    @WarMunchkin: the last poll I saw Bernie supporters were saying that they would vote for Hillary if she is the nominee in greater numbers than Hillary supporters were allowing that they would vote for Obama at this point in 2008.

    Everything really is fine. There is no need to clutch pearls when some random person on the internet says something outrageous.

  85. 85
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @Marc:

    We’re about to see a worked example, on the republican side, of what happens when you try to overturn the outcome of the primary season votes. It’s going to be an object lesson on why super-delegates are an idea that was never good.

    In fact you are completely, utterly, irredeemably wrong, as this link clearly shows:

    In the Republican Party, the only people who get superdelegate status are the three members of each state’s national party. This means that in the GOP, superdelegates are only about 7 percent of the total number of delegates..

    That’s about 150, with 1,237 needed to nominate.

    The more important distinction, though, is that Republican superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for whichever candidate they please. The Republican National Committee ruled in 2015 that their superdelegates must vote for the candidate that their state voted for.

    IOW the GOP doesn’t have enough supes to affect things & they are all committed to the victor in their states on the first ballot.

    The only “object lesson” is that the Thugs should’ve instituted superdelegates in a similar fashion to the Democrats–because if they had they might be able to stop their Klown Kar Kavalkade before it plunges into the abyss.

    But don’t let your inability to read for comprehension or do math beyond finger-counting stop you from shooting your mouth off. It hasn’t stopped the rest of the Sandernista imbeciles, why should you be any different?

  86. 86
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Major Major Major Major: o/t, but have you had your interview yet?

  87. 87

    @NR: She sure is popular when she isn’t running for stuff.

  88. 88
    NR says:

    @Paul in KY: Actually that’s a really stupid point that betrays a complete lack of understanding of the fact that there’s a difference between primary and general electorates.

    Hillary is popular with Democrats and strongly disliked by the rest of the country.

  89. 89
    Amaranthine RBG says:

    @Major Major Major Major: Nah, boring is white, rural and scattered. I’m urban, dense and diverse. I’m very exciting.

  90. 90
    NR says:

    @Major Major Major Major: Well she’s running for something now, so I’m not sure how that’s relevant.

  91. 91
    starscream says:

    Why is it always that Clinton needs to be nicer to Bernie supporters? The only way he wins is by convincing superdelegates to overturn the will of the vast majority of primary voters. He should be nicer to Clinton supporters in case that happens! Or are they finally admitting that it’s over and he’s lost?

  92. 92
    Marc says:

    @Uncle Cosmo: You’re misreading me. The party is attempting to overturn the outcome of the primaries, which is clear; they lack the formal levers to do it with superdelegates, but they’re basically using every other tool that they can think of to stop Trump. The fierce blowback that were seeing is the fact that voters won’t tolerate this.

    If they had superdelegates, Trump would already have filed for a third party campaign and their general election prospects would be nonexistent.

    Step back from the Clinton partisanship a bit. Sometimes bad ideas are bad even if they might favor your preferred candidate in this particular circumstance. Any election where the outcome of the primaries and caucuses is over-ruled by the party is an election where that party is heading for a disaster in the autumn.

    And, in terms of the insult – calling me an imbecile- fuck you. I’ve been vocal about hating the superdelegates in every single cycle.

  93. 93

    @Amaranthine RBG: So’s Cleveland, but it still sucks. Go back to wherever you were on… (checks the Google machines…) March 20.

    @Miss Bianca: Thanks for what I assume is good wishes, it’s in a few hours. (I’m in California.)

  94. 94
    singfoom says:

    @cleek: Bah, everyone’s going to be jerks to everyone. It’s not the parties or the candidates, it’s fucking human nature.

    If I allowed Clinton supporters to influence my vote, I wouldn’t be voting for her. But then, I’m a fucking adult and know what the score is. As others on this blog in other threads have noted, the “Bernie supporters are going to take their ball home” narrative is something that we political junkies and irresponsible media outlets push to keep the horse race going because it gets clicks and discussion.

    In reality, most people regardless of their primary preference will vote for the nominee in the general. If they don’t, then they’re jackasses that care more about their precious fee fees than the country.

    I’m pretty confident Hillary will get the nom at the convention, Bernie will tell his supporters to GOTV for her and downticket races and Hillary will beat Drumpf or whatever so-called candidate the Rs eventually pick.

    What I hope for is that we can get a slim Democratic margin in the Senate so the government can at least get back to the business of fucking governing.

  95. 95
    NR says:

    @cleek:

    i love the idea that Clinton supporters need to be nice to Sanders supporters or Sanders supporters will passive-aggressively aid and comfort the GOP.

    Voting third party is not aiding the GOP.

  96. 96
    Chyron HR says:

    @Marc:

    Sometimes bad ideas are bad even if they might favor your preferred candidate in this particular circumstance.

    Um, Clinton has a majority of the regular, non-super delegates as well. The only person who may benefit from their existence this time around is the guy who’s losing and hopes they will hand him the nomination anyway.

  97. 97
    Paul in KY says:

    @Amaranthine RBG: Will you just fuck off, Debbie Downer.

  98. 98
    Marc says:

    @starscream: Because she’s going to win and she’s going to need their support in the autumn. It’s the job of the winner to make nice with the supporters of the losing candidates.

  99. 99
    singfoom says:

    @NR: Voting third party at this point is a protest vote that makes you feel good. What does it accomplish other than that? Does it help elect people that will do good?

    Does it prevent electing people that will do bad? What’s the pragmatic argument for it?

  100. 100
    joes527 says:

    @Marc:

    And, in terms of the Sanders insult, fuck you too.

    See how superdelegates bring the party together?

  101. 101
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @starscream:

    Why is it always that Clinton needs to be nicer to Bernie supporters?

    Because Clinton is BAD and Bernie is GOOD, of course!

  102. 102
    Thoroughly Pizzled says:

    @NR: Yes it is. Voting should be thought of as a civic duty, not some personal statement.

  103. 103
    Marc says:

    @Chyron HR: We both know that this isn’t happening. The one circumstance where it could occur is if Clinton’s support craters in the final primaries and Sanders ends up with more pledged delegates. If the supers over-rule that, it would be terrible for the party in the autumn. So I really hope that it doesn’t go that way and doubt it will. (I don’t like his campaign manager much at all, to be honest, but he’s not doing anything that the Clinton team didn’t say that they’d be doing in 2008. It was pointless on their end too.)

  104. 104
    NR says:

    @singfoom: I am not advocating voting third party. I’m simply arguing against the bullshit notion that it somehow helps the Republicans.

  105. 105
    Cacti says:

    @starscream:

    Why is it always that Clinton needs to be nicer to Bernie supporters? The only way he wins is by convincing superdelegates to overturn the will of the vast majority of primary voters. He should be nicer to Clinton supporters in case that happens! Or are they finally admitting that it’s over and he’s lost?

    As best I can figure, the “Be nice to me while I call you names, or else!” vibe from Sanders supporters comes from them skewing young.

  106. 106
    Amaranthine RBG says:

    @Major Major Major Major: So I am guessing you’re thinking “How can I be racist? I said ‘diverse,’ which is, like, really respectful. I didn’t call them N*CLANGS or anything.”

  107. 107
    Hal says:

    I can’t help but wonder, Carrie Bradshaw style, how many Bernie or bust folks are regular voters; Democrat or Democrat leaning, vs. independent/conservative leaning people who Hillary would never have appealed to in the first place. In some ways that makes Bernie a strong candidate who could attract voters who might not want to vote for the republican this time around, but it’s also not necessarily an electoral weakness for Clinton either since she wasn’t getting their votes in the first place. If that makes any sense at all.

  108. 108

    @singfoom: Yeah, I’m fairly certain you’re right re: the dems. The vast majority of my friends who are in the “no hillary no way” crowd are Greens/Libertarians anyway, though there’s a couple of Dems who I’m worried about. But this will probably be another 2008… probably. Bernie’s Democrat-come-lately schtick gives me pause.

  109. 109
    Paul in KY says:

    @NR: Keep telling yourself that.

  110. 110
    Poopyman says:

    @singfoom:

    What I hope for is that we can get a slim Democratic margin in the Senate so the government can at least get back to the business of fucking governing.

    As opposed to governing fucking. Although that’s more at the state level at this point.

  111. 111
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @singfoom: NR doesn’t believe in this “doing” of “good.” You know how Max Weber said politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards? Bo-ring, amirite?

  112. 112

    @Amaranthine RBG: I was obviously referring to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which showcases a variety of artists. Try to keep up.

  113. 113
    Paul in KY says:

    @Major Major Major Major: Make eye contact & be confident in your abilities!

  114. 114
    NR says:

    @Paul in KY: I don’t have to tell myself that, I can look at the dozens of polls on the subject and see it’s true.

  115. 115
    gwangung says:

    @Marc:

    (I don’t like his campaign manager much at all, to be honest, but he’s not doing anything that the Clinton team didn’t say that they’d be doing in 2008. It was pointless on their end too.)

    I should note that Clinton supporters agree with both parts of your statement for the most part.

    Because she’s going to win and she’s going to need their support in the autumn. It’s the job of the winner to make nice with the supporters of the losing candidates.

    This is quite fair, but only to a point. There has to be good will on both sides to have a successful negotiation. I know Clinton is amenable to that, since she was on the other side in 2008. I’m pretty sure Sanders is, as well…some of his supporters should keep that in mind, though.

  116. 116
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Cacti:

    As best I can figure, the “Be nice to me while I call you names, or else!” vibe from Sanders supporters comes from them skewing young.

    Nah, no way. In my experience the people who act craziest about Sanders, online at least, are 30-something and up. Their vibe is their nature. They’re only happy when it rains.

  117. 117
    Just One More Canuck says:

    @Amaranthine RBG: you’re one-third correct

  118. 118
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @A Ghost To Most: I’d be a lot more sympathetic if there weren’t evidence that children with older fathers are much more likely to suffer a wide range of psychiatric problems, including autism. See this Swedish study published in 2014:

    When compared to a child born to a 24-year-old father, a child born to a 45-year-old father was 3.5 times more likely to have autism, 13 times more likely to have ADHD and 25 times more likely to have bipolar disorder.

    (emphasis added)

    DeNiro was 53 when his autistic son was born.

    They say that when you point a finger, 3 other fingers are pointing back at you…

  119. 119
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @NR: Someone who considered him/herself enough of a Democrat to vote in a Democratic primary but then withholds his/her vote from the Democratic nominee in the general by either sitting at home or voting for a third-party candidate is prima facie aiding the Republicans.

  120. 120
    Humboldtblue says:

    @Amaranthine RBG: The legislature and Governor Brown cut a deal with labor unions for the minimum wage hike and the only difference between that and the ballot measure is that the Governor can suspend the hike for one years due to economic reasons. The time period for the full increase was the same, through 2020. Not only that, it’s also already having an affect on labor negotiations, today thousands of health care workers approved a new contract that hikes minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour over the next four years.

  121. 121
    Paul in KY says:

    @NR: It helps them when someone who normally votes Democratic in November votes 3rd party. Now, if you are some kind of weirdo who always votes 3rd party & has never really voted for Democratic (or Republican) nominee, then I guess it’s a wash.

  122. 122
    japa21 says:

    @NR:

    Voting third party is not aiding the GOP.

    Definitely didn’t help the GOP in 2000…oh wait.

    Voting third party because your preferred candidate didn’t get the nomination would be pretty close to the definition of passive-aggressive.

  123. 123
    singfoom says:

    @NR:

    I am not advocating voting third party. I’m simply arguing against the bullshit notion that it somehow helps the Republicans.

    So, in a tight race versus a Democratic candidate and a Republican candidate and a third party no-chance candidate (that appeals to Dems). Voting for the third party candidate is a vote that is by definition not for the Democratic candidate.

    I’m afraid I can’t quite grasp how math is bullshit. Can you help me understand?

  124. 124
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Major Major Major Major: Good wishes implied made explicit. Go, M4!

  125. 125
    NR says:

    @Gin & Tonic: It is impossible to “withhold” a vote from the Democratic nominee. That idea presumes that the Democratic nominee is entitled to that person’s vote to begin with. They are not. No one is entitled to anyone’s vote.

  126. 126
    gwangung says:

    @NR: You need to go into a LOT more detail. You’re not even presenting a prima facie rebuttal (i.e., it ain’t passing the sniff test yet).

  127. 127
    joes527 says:

    Bah.

    The focus on Clinton needing to avoid ailienating anyone is a tacit admission that she will be the nominee.

    It _is_ actually more important that the nominee cultivate broad support than it is that the 2nd place finisher do so. Saying that Clinton will need everyone in the general isn’t an attack on her.

  128. 128
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Paul in KY:

    Now, if you are some kind of weirdo who always votes 3rd party & has never really voted for Democratic (or Republican) nominee,

    Somebody who’s always up in arms about partisan perfidy and grouses that right-thinking people have nowhere to turn? That doesn’t sound like every member of the Green Party and/or libertarians.

  129. 129
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @gwangung: Sniff tests are Establishment, man.

  130. 130
    Ken says:

    @NR:

    Voting third party is not aiding the GOP.

    Has NR outed himself as Nader, Ralph?

  131. 131

    @FlipYrWhig: NR’s argument smells like patchouli.

  132. 132
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @joes527: CORRUPT PATSY OF PERMANENT WAR MACHINE ISNT NICE TO US

  133. 133
    joes527 says:

    @japa21: you know who lost 2000?

    Gore.

    This democrats-cant-fail-they-can-only-be-failed bullshit that has become the accepted wisdom re: 2000 is a cancer on the party.

    Gore screwed the pooch.

  134. 134
    singfoom says:

    @NR:

    It is impossible to “withhold” a vote from the Democratic nominee. That idea presumes that the Democratic nominee is entitled to that person’s vote to begin with. They are not. No one is entitled to anyone’s vote.

    I don’t think the argument is that a Democratic candidate is “entitled” to anyone’s vote. The argument is that mathematically, in a contest between a D candidate and an R candidate with a third party candidate who has negligible chance of winning, a vote for the third party candidate is functionally a vote for the R candidate.

    It’s not a +1 for the D, so therefore it helps their opponent….

  135. 135
    NR says:

    @gwangung: What doesn’t pass the sniff test is the idea that the Democratic nominee starts with a bank of votes that can somehow be wrongfully “withheld” or “stolen” by a third-party candidate, thereby giving the election to the Republican.

    The reality is that no candidate starts with any votes. Votes have to be earned. If the Democratic candidate cannot earn enough votes to beat the Republican, that’s the candidate’s fault.

  136. 136
    Emma says:

    I am getting sick and tired of special snowflakes. Get this through your head. Either a Democrat wins this election or we are in deepest, deepest manure for four to eight years. Swallow hard (or spit or whatever makes you happy) and pull the Democratic lever.

  137. 137
    NR says:

    @singfoom:

    a vote for the third party candidate is functionally a vote for the R candidate.

    No it’s not. It does not add a vote to the Republican’s total. It helps neither the Democrat nor the Republican.

    The only way you could view such a vote as helping the Republican is if you presume that vote belonged to the Democrat in the first place. Which it doesn’t.

  138. 138

    @NR: At this point I’d vote for a potted fern if it meant stopping the apocalyptic death cult we call the GOP from getting Supreme Court nominations. It’s not my fault that the rest of the country needs their potted fern to be a particularly shrewd campaigner, and it’s on you if you can’t see that either.

  139. 139
    joes527 says:

    @singfoom:

    It’s not a +1 for the D, so therefore it helps their opponent….

    But it isn’t a +1 for the R, so by your logic it helps the Democrat.

  140. 140
    NR says:

    @Emma: If this election is so all-fired important, maybe the Democrats shouldn’t nominate a candidate who 55% of the country can’t stand and two-thirds think is dishonest. Just a thought.

  141. 141
    singfoom says:

    @Major Major Major Major: While I think NRs argument is not all that cogent, no need for hippie punching.

    ETA: That was light, so maybe it was just hippie poking :p

  142. 142
    Kropadope says:

    @Calouste:

    As shown by a couple of quotes and links in this thread, the planet where that would be ok is planet Bernie. His campaign manager very much implied that.

    If you deliberately misread what Bernie or any of his supporters said to the point of complete inversion, yeah, you could argue that.

  143. 143
    Emma says:

    @NR: No. He presumes that every vote is needed on the Democratic side. He presumes that people should have the common sense of thinking of the issues at large rather than their own special feelings. I dislike Sanders intensely these days — try not to, because it is, I think, mostly a reflection of the crap I’ve taken from his supporters — but I will crawl over broken glass that’s infected with anthrax to vote for him if he’s the candidate in November. It’s not all about me.

  144. 144
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @Uncle Cosmo:

    They say that when you point a finger, 3 other fingers are pointing back at you…

    Or as Mike Cooley says (in “A Ghost to Most”),
    “I guess you’d have to poke a hole in your own,
    to point a finger at somebody else’s sheet”

  145. 145
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @starscream:

    Why is it always that Clinton needs to be nicer to Bernie supporters?

    It’s the tribute that vice owes to virtue

  146. 146
    singfoom says:

    @joes527: @NR: Again, i’m assuming a lefty third party candidate.

    There is a pool of voters to which no candidates are entitled. If that vote is given to the third party candidate it cannot go to the D candidate. Therefore it is a benefit to the R candidate because that vote is denied to the D candidate. Nothing about entitlement just the allocation of a finite resource.

  147. 147
    cleek says:

    @singfoom:

    As others on this blog in other threads have noted, the “Bernie supporters are going to take their ball home” narrative is something that we political junkies and irresponsible media outlets push to keep the horse race going because it gets clicks and discussion.

    the actual Sanders supporters i actually know IRL who actually say they will never vote for Clinton are not following a media narrative. and neither, i suspect, are the dozens of blog commenters i’ve encountered who also refuse to vote for Clinton.

    @NR:

    Voting third party is not aiding the GOP

    in reality, not in the pure progressive pony universe, either the Democrat or the Republican is going to win. and given our voting system, not voting for one makes the other’s goal one vote easier to achieve.

    given 100 voters, split 50/ 50 on basic principles, if one person whose preferences fit team A refuses to vote out of spite, team B wins.

  148. 148
    Kropadope says:

    @Emma:

    I dislike Sanders intensely these days — try not to, because it is, I think, mostly a reflection of the crap I’ve taken from his supporters

    So, it’s OK for you to feel this way. IOKIYACS

  149. 149
    joes527 says:

    @FlipYrWhig: fortunately, your candidate is more mature than you are. As people are pointing out left and right, there is too much at stake to make this about who said something mean about your favorite candidate.

  150. 150
    Marc says:

    @NR: I understand what you’re saying – it’s entirely possible for the Democrats to nominate a candidate who crosses some fundamental personal boundary for someone. In tactical terms, however, you do have to weigh those objections against the consequence of a Republican winning. Given the current Republican party, and the close positions of the two Democratic candidates on many issues, I think that 2016 is light years away from being a hard call.

  151. 151
    Miss Bianca says:

    OK, so having read the article on CO’s caucus kerfuffle and the possible pledging of CO’s superdelegates, I have to admit I’m confused by the breathless “this could mean…” of the “analysis” that follows. I don’t see that the superdelegates actually *have to* change their pledged votes, even if Sen. Sanders does gain another delegate or two. That’s kind of what being a “superdelegate” is all about, right?

  152. 152
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Aqualad08:

    when favorability numbers are your best weapon in a primary fight, and your candidate is still losing to someone with bad favorability numbers,

    We call this ‘the triumph of false consciousness’…

  153. 153
    Marc says:

    @cleek: The number isn’t zero, agreed. But a position with loud supporters online doesn’t actually have to be one that’s common.

    As a pragmatic person, I’d rather talk reason to someone being unreasonable than vent at them. The former might work, the latter never does. Even better, just ignore it until they cool down and bring ’em on board in the fall.

  154. 154
    singfoom says:

    @cleek: Sure, such people exist, no argument there. It remains to be seen how exactly numerous they are. I hope they will be negligible in the general.

  155. 155
    Kropadope says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    I don’t see that the superdelegates actually *have to* change their pledged votes, even if Sen. Sanders does gain another delegate or two.

    No one’s saying they have to. They don’t have to do anything. But Bernie won the state by a nearly 20 point margin and 10 of the 12 superdelegates are supporting Hillary, with 2 undecided. It certainly wouldn’t hurt them to consider how the voters in their state voted when making their choice.

    And, yes, for Christ’s sake, that goes for the states where Hillary won too.

  156. 156
    amygdala says:

    The White House Science Fair is being webcast. He’s not just leader of the free world. He’s nerd-in-chief, and I am going to miss him.

  157. 157

    @Kropadope: The superdelegates are going to go for whoever gets the majority of pledged delegates unless the vote-winner gets swallowed by a Burmese python stumping in Florida. This is all just shiny objects we amuse ourselves with until June.

  158. 158
    cleek says:

    @Miss Bianca:
    right.
    the supers can vote for anyone they want to.

    there’s this false but loudly-argued notion going around among Sanders supporters that all the supers either have to, or really should, vote for the state’s winner. inventing rules out of thin air is not a show of confidence. IMO.

  159. 159
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @Kropadope:

    But Bernie won the state by a nearly 20 point margin

    How you come up with that number is a mystery. The CO caucuses were such a clusterfuck that many people could not get in or vote. All that number shows it that the Sanders supporters were more punctual.

  160. 160
    Paul in KY says:

    @joes527: He didn’t run the best campaign. Should not have been close enough for POS Nader voters in FL to be relevant.

  161. 161
    NR says:

    @singfoom:

    If that vote is given to the third party candidate it cannot go to the D candidate. Therefore it is a benefit to the R candidate because that vote is denied to the D candidate

    .

    But again, the notion that a vote was “denied” to the Democrat rests on the idea that the Democrat was entitled to that vote to begin with. You can’t lose something if it wasn’t yours to begin with.

    Without this assumption, voting for neither candidate helps neither candidate.

  162. 162
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @NR:

    Simple Definition of withhold
    : to hold (something) back
    : to refuse to provide (something)

    A Democratic primary voter who sits home in November is withholding his/her vote.

  163. 163
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @joes527:

    there is too much at stake to make this about who said something mean about your favorite candidate.

    Correct. So why does Team Bernie squawk so much about how the Clinton meanies need to stop being so mean or they’ll withhold their votes and _really_ teach them a lesson?

  164. 164
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Gin & Tonic: BUT THEY HAFTA EARN IT

  165. 165
    NR says:

    @Marc: I agree with everything you say here. But I also realize that there are people out there who will not make the same calculation we will. And I will always push back against the notion that they are helping the R by not voting D. The only people who help Republicans win are people who vote for Republicans.

  166. 166
    japa21 says:

    @Kropadope: I really wish you would stop reading things into what other people say.

  167. 167
    joes527 says:

    @cleek: just remember, at this point in 2008, 35% of Clinton supporters were singing the clinton-or-die song. By the general, that # had become vanishingly small.

    The fact that 25% of bearnie supporters are singing the bearnie-or-die song at this point tells us that we are already ahead of the curve.

  168. 168

    @FlipYrWhig: Well it’s different when you say something mean about a saint, not about history’s greatest monster.

  169. 169
    NR says:

    @Gin & Tonic: You cannot “withhold” something from someone if it doesn’t rightfully belong to them.

    The Democratic party does not own anyone’s vote.

  170. 170
    Kropadope says:

    @japa21: I wish people would stop doing it to me. Fair’s fair.

  171. 171
    joes527 says:

    @FlipYrWhig: you really don’t want to give up the fight and win, do you?

  172. 172
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @joes527: past results don’t guarantee future performance. Haven’t seen any evidence yet that Sanders has the humility or class to do what Clinton did in 2008.

  173. 173
    cleek says:

    @NR:

    voting for neither candidate helps neither candidate.

    voting for neither of the plausible candidates forfeits your chance to push policy outcomes in the direction you prefer.

    it also tells the world that actual policy outcomes are less important to you than ideological purity.

    which is fine, i guess. that’s probably true for some people.

    @joes527:
    and i hope they’re all bluffing.

    the consequences of a GOP Presidency would be unpleasant.

  174. 174
    NR says:

    @FlipYrWhig: I can’t believe the idea that politicians have to earn votes is so controversial to you. Maybe we should just do away with elections and institute a dictatorship? Or a monarchy. At least the robes are stylish.

  175. 175
    Bill says:

    Know what I hate most about he super delegates?

    The black magic they use to make 95% of the Democratic electorate forget they exist once a primary ends. How else can you explain the fact that half way through every primary we are suddenly hit with a wave of Democrats screaming “Super delegates exist?! That’s un-democratic!”

    Without the influence of this black magic I assume those voters would take the 4 years between primaries to get involved in their state’s party and either change the system, or become a duper delegate themselves.

  176. 176
  177. 177
    Miss Bianca says:

    @A Ghost To Most: From a related article to the one cited:

    The results will provide only a projection of the eventual winner of Colorado’s 66 delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Those will be selected at meetings up through the party’s April 15 state convention. The state has an additional 12 superdelegates who decide their support independently, with most already backing Clinton.

    The final settling of most delegates will occur based on congressional district-based math that determines 43 of the delegates.

    So, we’re going with the numbers that we have reported, not the numbers that we wish we had reported – i.e., those who couldn’t get in to a caucus, for example.

  178. 178
    Kropadope says:

    @cleek:

    voting for neither candidate forfeits your chance to push policy outcomes in the direction you prefer.

    it tells the world that actual policy outcomes are less important to you than ideological purity.

    This assumes your really committed to the whole two party thing and, furthermore, the specific two parties we have. The first part has been fairly consistent since the beginning of this nation, the second, not so much.

  179. 179

    @Bobby Thomson: They strongly predict future performance though, even when the players are different. The two big open questions this year are:

    1) Maybe the Candidate X-Or-Bust people actually mean it this time?;
    2) Will Candidate X be pragmatic and classy this time?

    I think 1) probably 70/30 no, they don’t; and 2) 50/50. He’ll endorse Clinton but he’ll be a dick about it.

  180. 180
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @NR:

    shorter NR: Hillary can’t have my vote unless she buys it.

    This is not a negotiation, it’s a parade. Either join in, or stfu and get the fuck out of the way.

  181. 181
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @cleek: this offer not valid for Raul Grijalva, Alan Grayson, or Marcy Kaptur.

  182. 182

    @Major Major Major Major: Since it won’t let me edit without my comment going into spam, let me add on to #2 that this is because of his congressional history of tinkering with bills via amendment (good!) and then not supporting the resulting compromise legislation because purity (bad? It’s not like anything ever failed based on his vote though). I’d like to be wrong, maybe he’ll pull a Clinton 2008, but I think we’re looking at more of a Chomsky-esque “vote for Hillary because she isn’t Cruz” situation.

  183. 183
    cleek says:

    @Kropadope:

    This assumes your really committed to the whole two party thing

    it’s not “a thing”, it’s the actual reality. there are only two realistic outcomes for the Presidential elections. neither of them are Jill the-best-town-council-member-ever-to-be-elected-with-less-than-600-votes-ever Stein.

    if you don’t care about policy outcomes, just admit it. quit playing coy.

  184. 184
  185. 185
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @A Ghost To Most: as Al Giordano said, Team Sanders is between anger and bargaining right now.

  186. 186
    Kropadope says:

    @Major Major Major Major:

    He’ll endorse Clinton but he’ll be a dick about it.

    Always the worst possible assumption re: Bernie on Balloon Juice and it has been thus since the beginning of the primary season.

  187. 187
    Chyron HR says:

    @NR:

    I can’t believe the idea that politicians have to earn votes is so controversial to you.

    And yet here you are every day pissing and moaning that those stupid Democrats aren’t giving Bernie their votes in the primary.

  188. 188
    NR says:

    @Bobby Thomson: I like how your “fuck off” link is to something that doesn’t even try to address the point being made. Par for the course around here.

  189. 189
    Kropadope says:

    @cleek:

    quit playing coy.

    With this crowd? Never. I’ll save the sincerity for my friends.

  190. 190
    joes527 says:

    @Bobby Thomson:

    Haven’t seen any evidence yet that Sanders has the humility or class to do what Clinton did in 2008.

    Are you talking about when she toyed with tearing the party apart over Florida.

    Remembering 2008 with the words “humility” and “class” seems really strange

  191. 191

    @Kropadope: See my part 2 for rationale. And I mean this time in 2008 I didn’t think Hillary had it in her either. This sort of thing is hard to handicap from the inside, y’know?

  192. 192

    Just got back from writing at B&N where two old white guys sat down at the next table and one brought up Trump’s comment about patrolling Muslim neighborhoods. I braced myself. Then this guy compared the number of terror attacks by Muslims (he said 4–9/11, Boston Marathon, Sheik trying to truck bomb WTC, and another I don’t remember) to the number of attacks on abortion clinics (16, he said). He was outraged at Trump blaming Muslims and ignoring anti-abortion bombers and shooters.

    Old white guys come in for a fair amount of abuse sometimes. These two redeemed Their People a bit.

  193. 193
    Calouste says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Correct. So why does Team Bernie squawk so much about how the Clinton meanies need to stop being so mean or they’ll withhold their votes and _really_ teach them a lesson?

    It’s about coloreds, olds, women, and queers not giving enough deference to their straight white young male Berniebro betters.

    That was pretty obvious from the point where Team Bernie started to go on about how Clinton wins in red Southern states shouldn’t count, while Sanders wins in red states like Wyoming and Idaho should.

  194. 194
    NR says:

    @Gin & Tonic: Do me a favor. Go to a bank and ask for a million dollars. When they don’t give it to you, call the police and tell them they’re withholding the money from you. Let me know how far you get with that.

  195. 195

    @Kropadope: I actually never thought about the dickish thing until recently, as in the last couple of weeks. Could just be burnout.

    And I’ve seen much, much worse assumptions about Bernie here ;)

  196. 196
    dogwood says:

    @Kropadope:
    I’m sure if Bernie ends up with more pledged delegates than Hillary the vast majority of super delegates will switch to him and put him over the top, the Colorado supers included. All the Clinton super delegates did exactly that in 2008. A huge number of supers never endorse in the first place. Complaining about this seems like you’re just looking for something to be outraged about.

  197. 197
    NR says:

    @cleek: It’s possible to care deeply about policy and also think that neither major party is going to accomplish your policy goals.

  198. 198
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @NR:

    It’s possible to care deeply about policy and also think that neither major party is going to accomplish your policy goals.

    Maybe your candidates should be Putin/Assad, like BiP. Those guys get shit done!

  199. 199
    Miss Bianca says:

    @NR:

    It’s possible to care deeply about policy and also think that neither major party is going to accomplish your policy goals.

    Yeah, but using deep concern about policy issues to say “a plague on both your houses” and vote third-party, say, is counter-productive.

  200. 200
    Aqualad08 says:

    @NR: LOL, I love being lectured by a Bernie supporter MY “magical thinking.”

    Keep fucking that chicken, buddy….keep fucking that chicken… :)

  201. 201
    NR says:

    @Miss Bianca: Not necessarily. If your most important issue is climate change, for example, neither major party’s platform is in any way adequate. The reality of climate change is vastly outpacing even our most pessimistic models. It may already be too late to stop the worst of the consequences, but if we’re even going to have a chance we need drastic action today. Action that neither major party is proposing.

    Under those circumstances, I can see why someone would think that voting for a major party would be counterproductive.

  202. 202
    NR says:

    @Aqualad08:

    LOL, I love being lectured by a Bernie supporter MY “magical thinking.”

    If you don’t want to be lectured on magical thinking…. don’t engage in magical thinking.

  203. 203
    cleek says:

    @NR:

    It’s possible to care deeply about policy and also think that neither major party is going to accomplish your policy goals.

    that’s true in a very technical sense.

    however, the goals of Sanders and a typical supporter of his will overlap, usually to the point of being identical to, Clinton and one of her typical supporters. and, the ways they differ will be mostly in magnitude, not in direction. and, most importantly, any differences between Sanders and Clinton will be far less than the differences between either of them and Trump (or Cruz).

    so, no, i don’t buy it.

  204. 204
    Miss Bianca says:

    @NR:

    If your most important issue is climate change, for example, neither major party’s platform is in any way adequate. The reality of climate change is vastly outpacing even our most pessimistic models. It may already be too late to stop the worst of the consequences, but if we’re even going to have a chance we need drastic action today. Action that neither major party is proposing.

    Under those circumstances, I can see why someone would think that voting for a major party would be counterproductive.

    Now you are being too ridiculous to take seriously. That might – *might* – work on a purely local level – and the only reason I say “might”, is because I can think of a local example. I have a friend who is, in fact, a genuine office-holding Green Party member in Telluride. He’s a Commissioner for San Miguel County. On that level, he might be able to stop some bad development or vote against fracking. But on a national level? Makes no sense at all to vote third-party as a “that’ll show ’em!” gesture. The Greens won’t be a force to reckon with nationally until they can start winning a few more elections at local/regional/state levels. And even then – dubious.

  205. 205
    Mike R says:

    @Emma: this about a million times

  206. 206
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    Now you are being too ridiculous to take seriously.

    Now? NR has been singing this same stupid line for weeks. It is in search of the perfect, and won’t settle for the good. Incremental progress is simply not good enough; we MUST have a revolution, or it will sit and sulk.

  207. 207
    NR says:

    @cleek: A candidate’s stated policy goals are only one piece of the puzzle. Voters also have to trust that a candidate will actually do what they say once they’re in office.

    And when two-thirds of voters don’t trust your nominee, that’s a big problem.

  208. 208
    cleek says:

    @NR:

    If your most important issue is climate change, for example, neither major party’s platform is in any way adequate.

    the NC GOP just took away tax credits that were doing wonders for solar and geothermal home energy installations. had we not been fucked by our first builder, our new house would’ve had solar electricity and geothermal heat and AC. and the government would’ve picked up tens of thousands of dollars in installation costs.

    but the NC GOP killed those tax credits. so even if we could afford to swing the initial cost now (which we can’t), the loss of tax credits makes them significantly less attractive to us and everyone else, from a money perspective. and it’s killing the businesses who install these things.

    see also, NC GOP’s law to forbid the state from using global warming in its sea level estimates.

    so, no difference!

    still not buying it.

  209. 209
    Emma says:

    @Kropadope: Nice cherrypick. You missed the rest of what I wrote in your rush? Again, in simple words: you can feel anyway you want. But vote for the Democrat, whoever it turns out to be. It’s important!

  210. 210
    NR says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    Makes no sense at all to vote third-party as a “that’ll show ’em!” gesture

    In the example I gave, it’s not a “that’ll show em!” gesture. It’s realizing that neither major party is going to adequately address the issue you care the most about.

  211. 211
    NR says:

    @A Ghost To Most: I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills. They’re clearly lacking.

  212. 212
    Brachiator says:

    @NR:

    If your most important issue is climate change, for example, neither major party’s platform is in any way adequate.

    This might make sense if your only issue were climate change and that was the only problem facing the nation. But it’s not.

    It’s also not true that both parties have the same stance with respect to climate change. Ted Cruz, for example, is a climate change denier:

    “If you’re a big-government politician, if you want more power, climate change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory … because it can never, ever, ever be disproven.”

    If you vote for Clinton, you may get someone who does not move fast enough, but if you vote for Cruz and probably any other Republican, you may end up voting for someone who will work to suppress the scientific evidence for climate change. Not sure about Sanders’ views or the degree to which he would make this issue a priority. But it clearly is not his most important issue.

    The reality of climate change is vastly outpacing even our most pessimistic models. It may already be too late to stop the worst of the consequences, but if we’re even going to have a chance we need drastic action today. Action that neither major party is proposing.

    The reality of climate change is beyond the power of any single government to remedy. Your preferred candidate could win the presidency and it still might not matter at all. Now what will you do?

  213. 213
    NR says:

    @cleek: It’s possible for the major parties to differ on an issue and still completely fail to address it in a meaningful way. Climate change is arguably one of those issues. Look at the warming data. Tax credits for renewable energy is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point.

  214. 214
    Calouste says:

    @NR: So that’s why you want the candidate who keeps lying about his tax returns? Because of trust?

  215. 215
    cleek says:

    @NR:
    then you will never vote for anybody because the power to stop GCC is way out of the hands of any President.

    glad that’s settled.

    so, um, pose on.

  216. 216
    NR says:

    @Calouste: Sorry, I couldn’t hear you over the sound of sniper fire.

  217. 217
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @NR:

    Oh, I understand you perfectly, you whiny little shit. You are throwing a temper tantrum because you are not getting your way.

    So Sad, Too Bad. Fuck off, whiNeR.

  218. 218
    NR says:

    @cleek: Not what I said, but if I did make that decision it would be based on an issue and not some abstract notion of “purity” like you claim.

  219. 219
    cleek says:

    @NR:
    you’ve made perfect the enemy of the good.

    and that’s just posturing.

  220. 220
    NR says:

    @cleek: On some issues, merely “good” isn’t good enough. Climate change is (arguably) one of those issues.

  221. 221
    NR says:

    @A Ghost To Most: You seem like a very angry person.

  222. 222
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @NR: Yea, and you seem like a clueless hipster who hasn’t had to compromise ever in it’s life.

  223. 223
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @NR:

    It’s possible to care deeply about policy and also think that neither major party is going to accomplish your policy goals.

    Another word for the realization that many of your deepest wishes aren’t coming true no matter how eagerly you wish them is called “adulthood.”

    WHY I HAFTA WEAR PANTS! BECAUSE ESTABLISHMENT. SO DISLUSIONS

  224. 224
    ThresherK says:

    @Iowa Old Lady: How do I differentiate myself in appearance, in that far-off day when I start to resemble an old white guy? I’m already a not-so-young white guy. And introverted, so it’s not like I’m the kind of person I write about below:

    In early 1999 in a package XC ski tour in Yellowstone Park I had to listen to some asshole spout off about who the next president of the USA would be. I was on a trip which was almost Olympic Hide-and-Go-Seek from the outside world*, and this other paying guest just had to flap his fking yap when nobody asked him.

    *Monty Python reference.

  225. 225
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @NR: I DEMAND ACTION! WAIT WHERES MY ACTION THERE ARE SO MANY OF ME

  226. 226
    The Sheriff Endorses Baud 2016 says:

    Welcome to Shit Purity Ponies Say To Make Themselves Feel Better, Volume MCCCXXII.

  227. 227
    the Conster, la Citoyenne says:

    Why does anyone bother with these passive aggressive thumb sucking Sanders dipshits? They’re useless whiny manbabies. Let them GTFO so the rest of us can accomplish things. So much tiresome I know you are but what am I I’m not going to do what you want because I’m too special and better than you fucking bullshit. So tiresome.

  228. 228
    NR says:

    @A Ghost To Most: No, I mean you seem really angry. Like, it’s actually bad for you angry. Maybe take a walk or something. When you get back, you can read my comments again and actually comprehend them this time.

  229. 229
    NR says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Another word for the realization that many of your deepest wishes aren’t coming true no matter how eagerly you wish them is called “adulthood.”

    I know, right? All those silly little children marching for civil rights in the 1960s. If only they’d been mature adults and realized that their deepest wishes could never come true.

  230. 230
    Kropadope says:

    @the Conster, la Citoyenne:
    /| You know whom I see frequently asserting his of her apparent superiority? This one|
    |———————————————————————————————————————–

  231. 231
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @NR:

    Fuck you, you whiny pissant. I understand what you are saying; I raised kids. And you are acting like a petulant, spoiled child.

    It’s assholes like you that are burying the Sanders campaign.

  232. 232
    Miss Bianca says:

    @NR: Refer to the first sentence of my last reply. If that’s where you’re at, I’m done.

  233. 233
    NR says:

    @A Ghost To Most:

    I understand what you are saying;

    Clearly you don’t, or you would not be making all these spittle-flecked, raging comments.

  234. 234
    Miss Bianca says:

    @A Ghost To Most: Slightly o/t, but were you serious about possibly coming to the state convention?

  235. 235
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @Miss Bianca:
    Probably not; large crowds are not my thing. Unless the convention you are talking about is the Balloon Juice convention.

    @NR:
    Anyone on this blog who has raised children can recognize when a child is throwing a temper tantrum.

  236. 236
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @joes527: and as shitty as her behavior in 2008 was, she made amends. She campaigned hard for the nominee.

  237. 237
    Kropadope says:

    @Calouste:

    It’s about coloreds, olds, women, and queers not giving enough deference to their straight white young male Berniebro betters.

    That was pretty obvious from the point where Team Bernie started to go on about how Clinton wins in red Southern states shouldn’t count

    Second statement is a lie and first statement represents an attitude Clintonites here had about Sanders supporters well before the first vote was cast which no fact would disabuse you of.

  238. 238
    Miss Bianca says:

    @A Ghost To Most: ah, too bad. I was going to raise a Green Ballon for meeting up in Loveland, but looks like I’m going to be busy with Delegate Stuff Friday night, and since I have to shepherd one of our other delegates around (older lady), and we’re leaving Saturday night, looks like, there’d be no time…pity! Some other time for Front Range meet-up, I hope!

  239. 239
    joes527 says:

    @Bobby Thomson: So, why all the preemptive pearl-clutching and couch-fainting over a contested primary that is incrementally more civil than the last?

    All the: “but but but … the other team are all poopyheads” that passes for comment here is just so much masturbation.

    Everything is going to be OK. We should spend more time focusing on what brings us together than what divides us. (even if hurling shit is more fun)

  240. 240
    Kropadope says:

    @joes527:

    All the: “but but but … the other team are all poopyheads” that passes for comment here is just so much masturbation.

    I pretty much spelled out a couple threads back that I still plan on voting for Hillary and am coming here to have fun at people’s expense who have been absolute assholes. Some of them are such poopyheads they couldn’t grok the concept. See perennial favorite John D.

  241. 241
    NR says:

    @A Ghost To Most: Once again, your reading comprehension failure is your problem, not mine.

  242. 242
    NR says:

    @Kropadope: Indeed. The anger at Bernie and his supporters here for fucking up the coronation has been palpable for months.

  243. 243
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @NR: So, um, thing is, if you check the history books, it turns out that members of the civil rights movement kinda liked the idea of voting for major party candidates.

  244. 244
    joes527 says:

    @Kropadope:

    I totally get that trolling, and troll-trolling has a long and storied history, and can be a lot of fun. But does every blog and news site’s comment section have to be reddit?

  245. 245
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @NR: To be fair, your petulant nonsense has been quite capable of inciting anger since long before Bernie Sanders decided to run for president.

  246. 246
    NR says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Only because one of those major parties championed the cause they cared about.

    If the Democratic party had taken your attitude with the civil rights movement back in the 1960s, I guarantee you that not many of the movement’s members would have voted for them.

  247. 247
    Aqualad08 says:

    @NR: If you don’t want to be lectured on magical thinking…. don’t engage in magical thinking.

    He said, updating his his connection to hillaryindictmentwatch.com for a dose of confirmation bias…

  248. 248
    lethargytartare says:

    @NR:

    @Miss Bianca: Not necessarily. If your most important issue is climate change, for example, neither major party’s platform is in any way adequate. The reality of climate change is vastly outpacing even our most pessimistic models. It may already be too late to stop the worst of the consequences, but if we’re even going to have a chance we need drastic action today. Action that neither major party is proposing.

    Under those circumstances, I can see why someone would think that voting for a major party would be counterproductive.

    yes, by all means, the most effective reaction to a political system where one side is actively hostile to your goals and the other is supportive but insufficiently active and motivated for your goals is to refuse to choose. Good Luck!

  249. 249
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @NR:

    Only because one of those major parties championed the cause they cared about.

    Uh, not really. It was in all the papers.

  250. 250
    Kropadope says:

    @joes527: (ETA)I’ve been posting here for 8 years and reading this site for over a decade. This approach is new to me, mainly a response to the election season./ ETA

    I tried playing nice. You’ll be surprised, I got about the same reaction.

  251. 251
    NR says:

    @lethargytartare: Choosing a third party is still choosing.

  252. 252
    lol says:

    @Marc:

    You sound like every white male self-described “ally” who’s ever threatened to withdraw his support if he doesn’t get his way.

  253. 253
    Betty Cracker says:

    For a while, I vacillated between amusement and angst about the never-ending Hillbot vs. BernieBro wars, but I’ve come to see it as just a form of entertainment for the participants, which should have been obvious from the get-go because blog — duh! If these discussions and the relentless sniping have changed a single mind or taught someone a single new thing, I haven’t seen it.

    I’m still right where I was when it started, which is understanding the appeal of both candidates and respecting fellow Democrats’ right to make the case for their candidate as vigorously as they can — as long as we agree to come together in November to vote for whomever wins the nomination and defeat whichever walking nightmare emerges from the GOP convention. I’ve got zero respect for anyone who can’t understand the importance of doing that.

  254. 254
    NR says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    I’ve got zero respect for anyone who can’t understand the importance of doing that.

    Does this also apply to the Democratic party? Because nominating a candidate who 55% of the country can’t stand and two-thirds think is dishonest is not the best way to win a critically important election.

  255. 255
    JGL says:

    @NR: But the “best way” to win would somehow be to nominate the guy who can’t even beat her?

  256. 256
    NR says:

    @JGL: As I said before, the primary electorate and the general electorate are different.

  257. 257
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @NR:
    I don’t have to. You’re a one trick pony; you either get your way right now, or you are going to stamp your feet and whine.

    Please proceed, governorwhiNeR.

  258. 258
    NR says:

    @A Ghost To Most: Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself? Because that’s all you’re doing at this point. Though I suppose it’s a step up from giving yourself a rage-induced coronary like you were on the verge of earlier.

  259. 259
    Soylent Green says:

    It may already be too late to stop the worst of the consequences, but if we’re even going to have a chance we need drastic action today. Action that neither major party is proposing.

    If you clap louder, the U.S. will adopt every possible measure that might help arrest global climate change. Political obstacles will play no role whatsoever in implementing these policies.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, things work a little differently. I work for a federal research agency that is actively trying to mitigate climate change impacts. We are following the current administration’s direction. This research was hindered, if not banned outright, by the Bush administration.

    It’s sad that 16 years after the Naderites claimed no difference between the parties you dopes are still clinging to that notion.

  260. 260
    cleek says:

    @NR:

    On some issues, merely “good” isn’t good enough. Climate change is (arguably) one of those issues.

    come the fuck on.

    GCC is important, but literally nobody on the fucking earth is actually a one-issue voter. nobody is living his entire fucking life just to prevent GCC.

    quit it with the bullshit hypotheticals.

  261. 261
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @cleek: Hey, voting for a hapless third party candidate is totally a great way to accomplish something for climate change. It makes the following good things happen:

    .
    .
    **&($

    NO CARRIER

  262. 262
    cleek says:

    i can get +50% with plan A or -90% with plan B. hmm.

    guess i’ll just go throw myself in a volcano!

  263. 263
    Paul in KY says:

    @Betty Cracker: Hear, hear!!

  264. 264
    Paul in KY says:

    @NR: Last comment to this nimrod, but the GOP hasn’t trained their fire on Saint Bernie yet. In fact, they’ve been helping him with his message (to stop Hillary, who they fear much more).

    If Bernie got the nom, you would see an avalanche of true & untrue stuff that would paint him as Lenin’s love child, set up by the KGB to bring down Murca, etc. etc.

Comments are closed.