Bernie Sanders is a dead man walking.
If you want to hang on to this idea that he’s somehow turning a corner well that’s great.
But the candidate, who’s running to be the Democratic nominee cannot continue to be so obviously ignorant.
His new stratagem is, ostensibly, to compel super-delegates from states he’s won to support him in equal measure to the wide margins he’s won in those states.
Fine. Let’s do that.
So then all the super-delegates from Clinton’s blowouts should then do the same, nay?
And then all the states that were won 51-49, 55-45, 60-40 etc, ought to be allocated equally proportionally then, yes?
So then you have a contest in which the super-delegates have no influence. They would only add to the sum of each total, having no effect on the ratio.
So again, fine, let’s do that. I never liked super-delegates anyway.
That’s where the real calculation is unearthed:
Sanders is not asking for equal allocation of super-delegates, he’s asking for super-delegates in states he lost to subvert the results of the states they represent to make him the nominee, against the popular will.
Now I can understand if you think the results today are a harbinger of a turn in momentum that will catapult Sanders into the lead…
But don’t pretend that is what Sanders is saying.
He knows what I know: that he’ll be crushed in New York, if not Wisconsin. He’ll then face, a week later, 5 large contingencies of Democrats in closed primaries and will likely lose dramatically.
If you’re counting on that to somehow not happen then you’re not who I’m talking to. To you I’d say: I disagree, but good luck, nonetheless.
I’m speaking to those that know this is true, and I’m asking them: why is Sanders the better candidate when he will obviously lie to his supporters? Why is he the better candidate when he will pretend that a request for the super-delegates to support him extraordinarily is not a request to subvert the democratic reality?
Let’s face some facts.
Alaska: 440-99
Hawaii: 23,530-10,125
Washington: 19,159-7,140
Idaho: 18,640-5,065
Utah: 61,133-15,666
That’s people.
So in a population of 14,000,000, 161,000 were heard.
But, for example, in Arizona, near 400,000 Democrats cast votes.
One state. Not even a particularly big state, just a primary state instead of a caucus. A state that didn’t even let everyone vote, whether it be for Clinton, Sanders or Trump.
Those 400,000 — in that one state — chose Clinton by a wide margin.
And as much as Sanders obfuscates, he knows this too.
He’s agitating to subvert the popular will. He’s proposing that: because he won a few caucuses, the bulk of the super-delegates should support him, despite the inevitable loss he faces, democratically.
How can someone who bases his campaign on the idea of fairness, on the idea of a revolution that makes democracy real, retain any credibility when he obviously perceives his only path to the nomination only by undermining the process of democracy?