Brown’s Statement


Not sure how much impact this will have on the race in California, but Jerry Brown has weighed in:

On Tuesday, June 7, I have decided to cast my vote for Hillary Clinton because I believe this is the only path forward to win the presidency and stop the dangerous candidacy of Donald Trump.

I have closely watched the primaries and am deeply impressed with how well Bernie Sanders has done. He has driven home the message that the top one percent has unfairly captured way too much of America’s wealth, leaving the majority of people far behind. In 1992, I attempted a similar campaign.

For her part, Hillary Clinton has convincingly made the case that she knows how to get things done and has the tenacity and skill to advance the Democratic agenda. Voters have responded by giving her approximately 3 million more votes – and hundreds more delegates – than Sanders. If Clinton were to win only 10 percent of the remaining delegates – wildly improbable – she would still exceed the number needed for the nomination. In other words, Clinton’s lead is insurmountable and Democrats have shown – by millions of votes – that they want her as their nominee.

But there is more at stake than mere numbers. The Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has called climate change a “hoax” and said he will tear up the Paris Climate Agreement. He has promised to deport millions of immigrants and ominously suggested that other countries may need the nuclear bomb. He has also pledged to pack the Supreme Court with only those who please the extreme right.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Our country faces an existential threat from climate change and the spread of nuclear weapons. A new cold war is on the horizon. This is no time for Democrats to keep fighting each other. The general election has already begun. Hillary Clinton, with her long experience, especially as Secretary of State, has a firm grasp of the issues and will be prepared to lead our country on day one.

Next January, I want to be sure that it is Hillary Clinton who takes the oath of office, not Donald Trump.

With respect,

Jerry Brown

Meanwhile, the last sane man, Paul Krugman, fights on:

This is my fifth presidential campaign as a New York Times columnist, so I’ve watched a lot of election coverage, and I came into this cycle prepared for the worst. Or so I thought.

But I was wrong. So far, election commentary has been even worse than I imagined it would be. It’s not just the focus on the horse race at the expense of substance; much of the horse-race coverage has been bang-your-head-on-the-desk awful, too. I know this isn’t scientific, but based on conversations I’ve had recently, many people — smart people, who read newspapers and try to keep track of events — have been given a fundamentally wrong impression of the current state of play.

And when I say a “wrong impression,” I don’t mean that I disagree with other people’s takes. I mean that people aren’t being properly informed about the basic arithmetic of the situation.

Now, I’m not a political scientist or polling expert, nor do I even try to play one on TV. But I am fairly numerate, and I assiduously follow real experts like The Times’s Nate Cohn. And they’ve taught me some basic rules that I keep seeing violated.

First, at a certain point you have to stop reporting about the race for a party’s nomination as if it’s mainly about narrative and “momentum.” That may be true at an early stage, when candidates are competing for credibility and dollars. Eventually, however, it all becomes a simple, concrete matter of delegate counts.

That’s why Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee; she locked it up over a month ago with her big Mid-Atlantic wins, leaving Bernie Sanders no way to overtake her without gigantic, implausible landslides — winning two-thirds of the vote! — in states with large nonwhite populations, which have supported Mrs. Clinton by huge margins throughout the campaign.

And no, saying that the race is effectively over isn’t somehow aiding a nefarious plot to shut it down by prematurely declaring victory. Nate Silver recently summed it up: “Clinton ‘strategy’ is to persuade more ‘people’ to ‘vote’ for her, hence producing ‘majority’ of ‘delegates.’” You may think those people chose the wrong candidate, but choose her they did.

I feel his pain. I miss Shrillblog.

Open Thread: Meanwhile, At the Dem Intramurals…


That was the day after the Washington Post reported:

The relationship between the Democratic National Committee and Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) grew more heated Saturday after the DNC rejected his campaign’s request for the removal of the co-chairs of the standing committee on rules.

In a letter sent Friday, the Sanders campaign labeled the committee co-chairs, former congressman Barney Frank (Mass.) and Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, as “aggressive attack surrogates” for the Clinton campaign, whose criticism had “gone beyond dispassionate ideological disagreement and have exposed a deeper professional, political and personal hostility toward the senator and his campaign.”…

“In a March interview, Mr. Frank defamed Senator Sanders as ‘outrageously McCarthyite,’” Sanders campaign counsel Brad Deutsch wrote in the letter to the DNC. “Malloy has even ventured that Senator Sanders should be ‘held accountable’ for the ‘death and destruction’ cause by his ‘mistake.’”

The DNC responded in less than 24 hours, mentioning none of the ad hominem criticisms that Malloy or Frank had made. Instead, Jim Roosevelt and Lorraine Miller, co-chairs of the Rules and Bylaws committee, said that the Call for the 2016 Democratic National Convention had duly elected Frank and Malloy in January.

“Your challenge does not allege that there was any violation of the provisions of the Call in the conduct of their elections,” they wrote. “Having carefully reviewed your challenge, we find that it fails to meet the criteria.”…

“The way he’s been acting now is a demonstration of why he’s had no support from his colleagues,” Frank told The Washington Post this month. “The problem that most committed liberals have had with Sen. Sanders is that we don’t think his approach is effective. It’s a self-righteous view that if you just say something loudly enough, you win.”

Malloy, who beat the 2010 Republican tide to win a close election, was long seen as a progressive experimenter. While Republican-run states cut back on benefits and public employees, Malloy raised taxes, presenting Connecticut as a laboratory of democracy to contrast with Kansas or Texas. This year, however, Malloy’s approval ratings cratered as he proposed a compromise, cost-cutting budget to close the state’s deficit…



Give the man this, he has an unshakeable conviction of his own worth…

Beyond Exasperated Open Thread: Strategery — How Does It Work?

The Sanders campaign has turned into an inadvertent lesson in the narcissism of small differences, but at least its leader seems to be figuring out (no sooner than time) that calling the Democratic primaries “rigged” makes him look like someone too dumb to figure out the rules. Or too self-involved to think he needs to worry about them…
Read more

No One Could Have Predicted- Trump/Sanders Debate

To the surprise of no one but and some clown from Vermont, Donald Trump is not going to debate Bernie Sanders:

“Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second-place finisher,” Mr. Trump said.

“Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders — and it would be an easy payday — I will wait to debate the first-place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be,” Mr. Trump said in his statement.

Mr. Sanders is trailing Mrs. Clinton by hundreds of delegates and has repeatedly said he would look forward to debating Mr. Trump. Mrs. Clinton declined an invitation from Fox News to debate Mr. Sanders ahead of the California primary. Mr. Sanders is locked in a tight race with Mrs. Clinton in California and has been trying to generate free media in the state, where it is expensive to advertise.

There is no upside to Trump debating Sanders, just as there is no upside for Hillary standing on stage graciously being yelled at and having Bernie wag his finger at her. Why? Because he LOST. It’s over.

At this point Sanders is just making an ass out of himself while making Joe Manchin look like a good Democrat. Well played, Bernie. You just got rickrolled by a douchebag and probably still doesn’t even realize it.

It’s All Over But the Crying

I honestly don’t give a shit if Bernie debates Donald Trump- it’s his god damned reputation he’s ruining. This is over, and this Molly Ball piece nails it:

But in the world Sanders’s supporters inhabit, this is all so much media manipulation. “Do you trust the media?” asked one of his introducers, the television host Cenk Uygur. “No!” yelled the crowd. “Do you believe they’ve treated Bernie Sanders fairly?” “Fuck the media!” yelled someone standing near the press riser. (Sanders was also introduced by two actors, Dick Van Dyke and Rosario Dawson.)

Sanders and his people have their own sets of rules. All you have to do is unskew the delegate counts, they explain, take out the superdelegates, imagine they all vote for Sanders, imagine certain primaries had been conducted according to different rules. Angry memes about missing votes and stolen precincts ricochet around social media. Did you see what happened in Nevada, when the party, Sanders’s supporters claim, changed the rules to keep them from getting more delegates at the state convention? The game is rigged!

The Sanders movement has become impervious to reality. Some have even called into question the nature of reality itself: “Bernie Sanders’ ‘political revolution’ is political only inasmuch as thought is political,” a self-described “metamodernist creative writer” named Seth Abramson wrote in the Huffington Post a few days ago. “By the very nature of things—we might call it perceptual entropy—the impossible, once perceived, enters a chain of causation whose natural conclusion is realization.” By this logic, Abramson reasons, Sanders is actually winning. It’s, like, the Matrix, man, or something.

The Abramson piece is priceless and a must read for Sokol fans. This was my reaction the other day when I read it:

Ball continues:

The question is what it will take for Sanders to be satisfied with some sort of moral victory short of the nomination. This week, he was given five slots on the Democratic platform committee, which will allow him to influence what the party stands for—presumably an important goal. Sanders is also thought to be interested in reforms to the nominating process that he has derided as “rigged.”

But while his aides have occasionally alluded to these sorts of goals, Sanders continues to behave like a candidate who still believes he can win. On Monday, he criticized Clinton for turning down one last debate; on Tuesday, he sought to wring an additional delegate out of Kentucky by challenging the vote count in one district. His speeches give about as much critical time to both Clinton and Trump, and his crowds boo both with equal vehemence.

Is Sanders—the onetime liberal gadfly whose views few of his colleagues heeded—simply enjoying the spotlight’s validating glow for as long as it lasts? Or is he as delusional as some of his dead-ender fans? It’s impossible to tell.

Alternate working theory- he’s just a cranky old asshole and we’re finally seeing the Bernie Sanders that his colleagues have been putting up with for decades. That’s why all the Super Delegates went with Hitlery.