Top Sanders supporter falls for Fox ploy to divide Bernie and Hillary

Prominent Bernie Sanders supporter Shaun King (who is openly campaigning for Sanders) just used Facebook to promote a conspiracy theory concocted by Fox News ultra-conservative commentator, and comedian, Dennis Miller.

According to Miller — in a comment posted on Facebook, which King then shared approvingly with his followers — Bernie Sanders would be winning the Democratic nomination right now if it weren’t for “the rigged [superdelegate] game.”

The not-terribly-objective Miller recommends that Bernie Sanders’ supporters “don’t take it,” and “rise up.”

Lest anyone think that Dennis Miller is recommending this out of his great love for progressive ideals, Miller has previously claimed that Democrats created the “birther” lie, and that President Obama “has Islamic sympathies.” Miller also suggested that the protester who was sucker-punched at Donald Trump’s recent rally shared some of the blame for getting hit in the face. That’s who Dennis Miller is. (He went off the rails about 15 years ago.)

Here’s what King and Miller posted on Facebook:

by default 2016-03-17 at 7.47.37 PM

Let’s put aside the fact that Sanders announced last night on Rachel Maddow’s show that if he can’t win the popular vote, he’s going to try to take Hillary’s superdelegates in order to secure the nomination anyway. It will be interesting to see if Shaun King now criticizes Sanders’ effort to rig the election by superdelegate.

A few other points:

1. Superdelegates are not Bernie Sanders’ biggest problem right now — it’s regular “pledged” delegates.

Bernie Sanders would not be winning if the game weren’t “rigged.” Hillary Clinton is not ahead in this race because of the superdelegates. She is ahead because she’s won more states than Sanders has, and thus has more pledged delegates than Sanders has — those are the delegates you win in the state-by-state electoral battles.

Nate Silver, who most people on the left respect as an accurate and objective election statistician, wrote the other night that superdeleates are the least of Bernie Sanders’ worries right now:

I’m intrigued by the parallels to the 2008 campaign perhaps because it’s where FiveThirtyEight cut its teeth. I spent a lot of time in the spring of 2008 arguing that Obama’s lead in elected delegates would be hard for Clinton to overcome. But Clinton’s lead over Sanders is much larger than Obama’s was over Clinton at a comparable stage of the race. At the end of February 2008, after a favorable run of states for Obama, he led Clinton by approximately 100 elected delegates. Clinton’s lead is much larger this year. Clinton entered Tuesday’s contests ahead of Sanders by approximately 220 elected delegates. But she’ll net approximately 70 delegates from Florida, 20 from Ohio, 15 from North Carolina and a handful from Illinois and Missouri. That will expand her advantage to something like 325 elected delegates.

Sanders will need to win about 58 percent of the remaining 2,000 or so elected delegates to tie Clinton. Since the Democrats allot delegates proportionally, that means he’d need to win about 58 percent of the vote in the average remaining state to Clinton’s 42 percent, meaning he’d need to beat Clinton by around 16 points the rest of the way. Sanders would also have to overcome Clinton’s huge lead in superdelegates, although that’s probably the least of his worries.

….Sanders can’t afford to merely come close in [the upcoming primary] states, as he did on Tuesday. Nor would narrow wins suffice. He needs to win these states going away to make up for his delegate disadvantage.

There’s no particular reason to expect he will do so.

So the reason people are saying that Sanders is unlikely to win the nomination is because it is unlikely he can win enough pledged delegates at the ballot box. Superdelegates simply aren’t the problem, and the game is not rigged.

2. Superdelegates were already part of the package when Sanders decided to run in the Democratic primary.

Our electoral system is a bit insane. We all know it. From elected delegates to pledged delegates, superdelegates, the electoral college, and hanging chads, there has got to be a better way for a democratic people to elect their political leadership. One such example is the whole delegate system each party uses to pick its presidential candidate.

But, that system was already in place when Bernie Sanders, who is not a Democrat, decided to run in the Democratic primary. The rules were not “rigged” to stop Sanders. They were set in place long before anyone thought Sanders was going to run. And until now, everyone who chose to run as a Democrat, has accepted those rules as part of the admission price for running as a Democrat.

So feel free to not like primary rules. Hell, I don’t like them. But let’s not pretend that they’re something new, or something that was set up with the express purpose of thwarting Bernie Sanders. And, as Nate noted above, the superdelegates are not Bernie Sanders’ biggest problem right now — his problem is that he is simply not winning enough states by a wide enough margin.

3. No one outside of Fox News should be quoting Fox News.

oreilly-dennis-millerDennis Miller did not write what he wrote out of the goodness of his heart. He wrote it because he realizes that with Donald Trump a hair’s breadth away from winning the GOP nomination, the Republicans are in serious trouble. They’re heading, at best, to a brokered convention — and at worst, to a general election with a racist, sexist, unhinged warmongering homophobe at their helm. They are terrified about how many House and Senate races Trump will take down with him. And the only thing that’s going to save the GOP is ensuring that Sanders’ and Clinton’s supporters hate each other enough to refuse to endorse the other in the general election.

That’s why Dennis Miller wrote what he wrote. It wasn’t just factually incorrect. It was intentionally inflammatory.

There’s been concern for a while over the Republicans using “fake grassroots (aka “sock puppets”) to deluge the Internet with phony commenters promoting paid messaging. Many of us were concerned that the Republicans will do this — and likely already are — to secretly sow discord between those who are “with her” and those “feeling the Bern.”

But no one thought a leading progressive voice would willingly promote the debunked conspiracy theory of an Obama-hating Fox News propagandist.

Shaun King has done a lot to shine a light on a large number of underreported issues. This, however, is not his finest hour.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis  — Win a pony! (not really)

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

108 Responses to “Top Sanders supporter falls for Fox ploy to divide Bernie and Hillary”

  1. joe ho says:


    You are a fool living in a pretend world.

    Most progressives are not self-destructive extremists like you.

  2. Shwah Kram says:

    You are a liar and will reap what you sow for claiming progressives are cattle that will follow The Party cattle.

  3. Shwah Kram says:

    Sacrifices will have to be made. Things may need to get worse before they can get better. Complacency is strangling progress and Trump will unite the left. Clinton will only divide.

    Clinton and Trump inspire more opposition than support therefore whoever gets elected will help the opposition party.

  4. Shwah Kram says: Read this Factcheck concludes that Clinton can not be credited directly for the birther movement however her supporters are responsible for spreading it in the primary (the same bullies who use childish terms like Bernie Bro).

    This is why she must be stopped at all cost, she is turning the Democratic party into the Republican party full of hate and vitriol for progressives, they use the exact same language when speaking of progressive ideals as “childish” and “free stuff” the both defend and turn a blind eye to money influencing politics, they want war with Iran. This is what the Democratic party is to become? Two neo-con parties are infinitely worse than the one, Trump can not possibly do as much damage to progress as Clinton as it’s complacency that is killing progress in America.

  5. Shwah Kram says:

    You Clinton supporters sure know how to alienate allies. She will lose because of this.

  6. Shwah Kram says:

    Did you seriously deride someone for criticizing your dear leader, a public figure running for president and therefore open for scrutiny of using ad hominem attacks and then go on to use a direct ad hominem attack on them? BernieBrats? Seriously? You bullies are going to reap what you have sown. Your kind strengthens the resolve of those who will never vote for Hillary along with he band of bullies.

  7. Shwah Kram says:

    And there you have it folks, a superdelegate lead runs about $18.4 million. The Democratic party is for sale!

  8. Prometheus_Wept says:

    I love the argument that a vote for anyone other than Hillary is a vote for Trump.

    Pathetic logic.

    The same argument says that a vote for anyone other than Trump is a vote for Hillary.

    By that reasoning, if I vote third party, I’m actually voting for Hillary AND Trump.

    No no no no no

    I’m voting Bernie Sanders.

    It’s not about having a D or an R after your name. It’s about honesty, integrity, and hope. It’s about cleaning up the mess that’s been left for us. It’s the 99% versus the 1%, and I’m done voting for more corruption.

  9. Prometheus_Wept says:

    Millennials maybe. White working class males, maybe not.

  10. worldemoc says:

    Why would any American want to be part of a Political Party that ‘Discounts’ Your Vote ! ??
    Giving More Clout to Some over All Others just defines that the Democrats are not much better than 3rd World Dictatorships.

  11. Amwatching2c says:

    If Bernie can’t beat someone who people are unwilling to vote for, he stands no chance in the fall.

  12. joe ho says:

    You’re living in a fantasy world.

    Millennials will flock to Clinton against Trump.

  13. joe ho says:


    Childish protest.

    “The progressives of the party and the independents will never vote for Hillary.”

    Polls show you’re wrong.

    Bernie’s millennial supporters will flock to Hillary against Trump.

    So not only are you childish. You’re narcissistic.

  14. JKingle says:

    Clever! I guess it wouldn’t hurt, but I don’t think loyalty oaths are necessary for her. Her supporters have been with her for decades and know more about her than they know about anybody else. OTOH a large percentage of Bernie’s supporters wouldn’t have been able to pick him out of a lineup a year ago, and his personal and private background information has not been exploited yet… yet… (I mean other than the masturbate/rape story thing and the dirt floor thing, and the first job at 40 thing, but that’s nothing, just wait, the Republicans have mastered mean and nasty).

    Bernie’s now approaching 75, the same age as (oldest president in history) Reagan was near the end of his second term when Nancy was whispering answers into his ear. I just hope he’ll be able to hold up to the stress of the campaign. We might have seen a crack the other day when he surprisingly ended an interview when asked a question about his wife and Arpaio. For the record, we still don’t know exactly what that question was, but it must have been a doozy.

  15. JKingle says:

    I think you misread his comment. The ‘debatable who won/lost’ part of the exchange was about Missouri. The writer was disputing the claim that Bernie gave Missouri to Hillary to save taxpayers money. Bernie’s running a campaign and it’s illogical to think he’d give away a state just days after a night when he’d already lost four out of five. The Missouri vote count was completed with no claims of anything irregular. Hillary won.

    Regarding the Feb.1 Iowa Caucus, the count was very close and yes, on Feb 4 the Des Moines Register ran an editorial calling for a recount. That recount happened and was completed three days later on Feb.7th. There were 14 questionable precincts and errors were found in five. Hillary lost some votes but remained on top.

  16. JKingle says:

    Campaigning in front of polling places is perfectly legal and common as long as they’re 150 feet from the front door. In some states it’s 100 ft.

  17. Fireblazes says:

    Oh no!

  18. Fireblazes says:

    Most independent aren’t as foolish as those that would hand the country over to a fascist. Go build your own party, mine is just fine.

  19. Fireblazes says:

    I find your personal ad hominem attacks on A great woman baseless. It amazes me that in a modern age a woman could be so bigoted against another woman.Using such words as, evil, horrible. (Go ahead use the b word, or if you want the c word, that’s what you are thinking) You are just another Republican misogynist hiding behind a weak candidate to get your hero Trump elected. As if that wasn’t enough you go on to attack me personally. So to heck with your silly bigoted opinions about a great woman. I stand with Hillary because she is the most qualified. #BernieBrats demanding that everyone else be quiet because they know best will only get them more derision.

  20. PolyEsta Wyldesage says:

    If you dislike lies, you’re supporting the wrong candidate.
    Oh well, at least we know she may be arrested soon. I know you silly fools like to think there’s no criminal investigation… but prosecutors don’t get involved and grant immunity, if there is no reason to believe a crime was committed.

  21. PolyEsta Wyldesage says:

    Actually, there is. In fact, the Des Moines register, a paper that actually supported and endorsed HIllary, found the Iowa primary so fraudulent that they are demanding a recount.

    I say that considering the majority of the states are still uncounted, and that Bernie clearly got the global primary win.. he still has a chance of a natural win, even with the fact the rigging should clearly be investigated. However, if that doesn’t happen.. I dare say you’ll be facing a contested convention both inside the building and on the streets surrounding it…. probably one that makes 1968 look like a charity fun run. (albeit, todays kids have all those cameras and auto upload apps.. so they can prove any rioting was started by the authorities and not them, if violence occurs)

  22. PolyEsta Wyldesage says:

    Not to mention stump speeches directly in front of polling places

  23. PolyEsta Wyldesage says:

    Not really, you don’t have to split the vote. You could easily help Bernie get nominated instead of hoping to nominate the candidate that is nonviable in the general election, with people being unwilling to vote for her.

  24. PolyEsta Wyldesage says:

    It’s a terribly short-sighted opinion. Aside from the long term strategic benefits to voting for a write in or alt party candidate, that I outlined in reply to Joe Ho…. there’s also the fact that a Trump win is actually better for the people of this nation than a HIllary win. Don’t get me wrong, he’s evil and he’d be a HORRIBLE president.. but he’d also be one that people would stand up and fight, and also one we’d be supported by the international community in getting rid of. With Hillary we’re like frogs in a stockpot. She’s just as evil and horrible.. but of the sort we’d just sit around complacently while the water heats incrementally, until it’s too late.

    Also, Trump is a buffoon. It’s easier to fight a stupid evil tyrant than an intelligent evil Tyrant. I’d take a Trump presidency over Hillary, any day just for that.

    Of course, you could make it a non issue and help us get Bernie nominated… so ALL of the democrats AND the independents can vote together against Trump. Just sayin. Whining about your opinion isn’t going to induce anyone to vote for Hillary, if you hadn’t figured it out by now.

  25. PolyEsta Wyldesage says:

    Actually, not really. Strategic protest vote. Independents now outnumber democrats. According to pew research, we’re nearly half the electorate. We outnumber both you and the republicans. The more we protest vote, the more we up the tallies for alternate parties. At best it will break the corrupt and indefensible two party system and ensure actual voter choice… at worst, the democratic party will be forced to start representing the people to get anywhere.

  26. PolyEsta Wyldesage says:

    I think it’s brilliant personally. If Bernie gets the delegates, the establishment will get rid of them lest something like that happen again.

  27. Max_1 says:

    Saying you deserve a living wage is an insult?
    Man, I think you done your own insulting right there…

    Saying Universal Health care is a human Right is an insult?
    Man, you do deserve better, but don’t let me insult you…

  28. Max_1 says:

    It’s NEVER “in” when Bill Clinton is “in”…

  29. Max_1 says:

    150 FROM the Front door… but didn’t say what side he had to be away from…

  30. Max_1 says:

    I’m just surprised Hillary and her crew haven’t been demanding Loyalty Oaths…

  31. Max_1 says:

    Must protect the Establishment… Must protect Superdelegates.

  32. Finn says:

    Always knew this was the case but the last couple of weeks has been hilarious…

  33. WarrenHart says:

    So they’re making accusations about a phoney rigged superdelegate system then in the next breath asking the superdelegates to rig the system for Bernie Sanders. Gotcha.

  34. Moderator3 says:

    Taken care of.

  35. joe ho says:

    lol. childish protest vote.

  36. heimaey says:


  37. Coffacuppee says:

    I’ll be fine. You got problems “and YOU say I’m the one who needs Valium” moron. I told you I’m not the one who said that and yet you continue. Master’s degree my ass. Lawyer. Policeman. Fireman. Indian chief. Hog caller. Poll worker? Who knows what your skills are? Political fact specialist isn’t one of them. Now go away.

  38. heimaey says:

    Feel bad for you.

  39. Coffacuppee says:

    Check again “master’s degree” — I’m not the one who told you that. Your reading comprehension is not “master’s degree” level.

  40. Fireblazes says:

    Pretty thin skinned, but ok.

  41. Fireblazes says:

    You offer no proof other than your opinion, if you wish to sway people to your viewpoint, it is necessary to offer proof through citation, reference and fact.

  42. Fireblazes says:

    In what manner am I wrong? Are you a cop? Are you a lawyer? Are you a political expert?

  43. Moderator4 says:

    Yes, of course you may. Just avoid the ad hominem attacks on others.

  44. heimaey says:

    No they just don’t align with what you believe about her.

  45. heimaey says:

    Well you’re wrong.

  46. Fireblazes says:

    Might as well vote for Trump. Just my opinion

  47. Fireblazes says:

    Just a guess based on your comments.

  48. Fireblazes says:

    Not your dude.

  49. heimaey says:

    And YOU say I’m the one who needs Valium. OK. I’ll take my dumb self (and my master’s degree) away from you. :/

  50. Fireblazes says:

    Your comments about Hillary are untrue.

  51. heimaey says:

    You don’t have to like what I say about Hillary, they’re not awful they’re my opinion, but yeah keep it civil dude.

  52. heimaey says:

    How do you know I’m not a lawyer or policeman?

  53. Fireblazes says:

    I understand. I will keep my comments on Bernie and his misguided candidacy. Is it ok if I refute the awful personal comments made about Hillary?

  54. Coffacuppee says:

    I didn’t sign up for a popularity contest and I don’t give a flip about your version of class and respect. You are ignorant of the facts and deliberately deceitful and I stand by that. It is you who’s the pissy little snit who spits lies, then whines because somebody dares to set you straight.

    If you tell the truth I may not like it, but I’m good with truth. If you decide to make vile accusations that you can’t factually back up, then somebody like me is going let you know. Plan on having that horrible experience for the rest of your life.

    You’re “sure” it’s “debatable” Missouri hasn’t really been decided even though it has. Bernie didn’t just “give” Hillary that state, you moron. What are you thinking? You’re “sure” Hillary stole the MA primary. You’re “sure” Bill Clinton bla bla bla. And AmericaBlog is a sham. And Snopes is lying. It must suck to be non-dumb like you with the whole world against you. I’ve refuted every accusation you’ve made and you have nothing in return except to call me a typical Clinton supporter. If that’s so, common sense should tell you to strive for that, since most Hillary supporters operate on facts, not Facebook.

    Meanwhile based on our exchanges, I bet my left shoe you can’t even name your Congressman and Senator or what s/he campaigned on. Do you even know what a superdelegate is and how it works, how long has it been used and for what reason it was started? Can you cite arguments for even a single important Supreme Court case? I bet you can’t even NAME an important case. How long is a Senator’s term? How many Senators are there and why? Closed vs open primaries, know anything about that? Anything about Bernie’s wife since you want her to be FLOTUS? Did she ever work? Know what kind of education Bernie has? Did he even graduate college? Has it ever even crossed you mind that you should know some/all of those things? Do you think you could even pass a basic citizenship test? Your lack of knowledge of how polls work is frightening, so it’s clear you have very limited (or zero) experience in voting.

    If you spew garbage then fight back with more garbage after you’ve been corrected, yes, you’re dumb. If you classify me fighting back with the truth as bullying then you’re in for a world of hurt once you move out of your mother’s basement.

    It’s all just a matter of knowing what you’re talking about. Being an informed American citizen is a tough job and casting a vote is not something to be taken lightly. You’re probably a fine person, but woefully ignorant of how the big world works with regard to the subject at hand. Your problem is that you fight back forcefully without facts. With all candor and good will, I encourage you to learn what you’re talking about and then one day you can be a ‘bully’ like me, able to truthfully argue to protect those things you believe in. Until then nobody’s going to take you seriously. Bye. I’m out.

  55. Moderator4 says:

    Speaking of calming down, we would suggest that you, yourself stop insulting people and telling them they should go on Valium, etc.
    Disagree all you want, put cease the ad hominem attacks.
    This is your first warning.

  56. Ninja0980 says:

    Shaun King was shown to be a fraud a while back, why does anyone listen to him still?

  57. Fireblazes says:

    In reality, you not being a lawyer, policeman etc, does not qualify you to indict, convict and sentence anyone. It is only you and you alone that hold this silly and pointless idea that by being in the state polling place some unknown or ethereal law was broken. Trust me there were all kinds of poll watchers there. If as you say a a law was broken then they would be duty bound to say something. But only you have raised this silly notion. Yes, you should calm down, you are making an ass out of yourself.

  58. heimaey says:

    Calling me dumb and telling me to get back to my Dr. pepper and chips shows how classy and respectful you are. Belittling me just like a bully – typical from a Clinton supporter. Good luck to you.

  59. heimaey says:

    Should I? Should I just ignore it and be cool man like whatever – he’s breaking the law? Is that it?

  60. baxtus says:

    I won’t be supporting Hillary in the general, if not Bernie then Jill Stein

  61. 2karmanot says:

    Seriously, D LIST comedian Dennis Miller gets this much attention on AB. This Sander’s supporter is not amused.

  62. Doug105 says:

    Ya, I remember liking Dennis till i found out what was under the used car sellers banter.

  63. Fireblazes says:

    But it’s on her smartphone from another BernieBrat, so it must be true!

  64. Fireblazes says:

    You should have 2 Valium.

  65. Fireblazes says:

    So somehow because Bill shows up at one lousy polling place, Hillary stole the entire primary. Good Lord, BernieBrats need to take a Valium.

  66. Fireblazes says:

    It would be awesome if they could find a better way to campaign than just lie about HRC. All they care about is maligning Hillary. No talk of the issues, just some vague promise to change politics. Bernie’s version of “Make America great again”.

  67. Fireblazes says:

    “Doners” rhymes with…

  68. Fireblazes says:

    Joe Da*****s All
    democrats when running for office sign a pledge to help raise money for
    down ticket fellow democrats to help with their election . bernie
    signed that pledge when he asked to run on the democratic party ticket
    …hillary raised $18.4 million just for
    them so far . omalley raised $2.7 million . sanders raised $0. He
    reneged on his pledge . many of the superdelegates are some of those
    down ticket democrats these funds are meant to help . there is no way
    any of these superdelegates are going to change their support from
    hillary who is helping all democrats t. To sanders who lied and did not
    keep his word on his pledge . thats why counting superdelegates is ok .
    they will never support someone who lied and wont support them .

  69. Coffacuppee says:

    Yes I see that. My God – you’re ridiculous. Can’t you read? Here are my words which you apparently skimmed over:

    “State laws generally allow him or anybody INSIDE and they can meet
    people (WORKERS), but they can’t actively campaign (WITH VOTERS), can’t even wear candidate tee shirts, buttons, hats etc.”

    He’s allowed to be there and so are you or anybody else. It is common and lawful. Repeat it then hit yourself in the head with a hammer so it’ll sink in.

    This from Boston Mag, “Inside the polling location, Clinton purchased a cup of coffee from a bake sale and shook hands with poll workers. When another woman asked for a photo, he said, “As long as we’re not violating any election laws.”

    These were poll workers or bake sale people, not voters. Got it? If you had much experience voting you’d know these things because you’d see them in virtually every polling place in America.

    He’s allowed to be inside. Pay attention. If you’d been “doing that stuff” of working the polls which you implied you do, you’d know how this works– but it’s clear you’re just as dumb and deceitful as you seem, and clearly you don’t want to your precious waste the time to figure research. Gotta get back to the Dr. Pepper and chips, eh?

  70. heimaey says:


  71. Baal says:

    Shaun King has had several not so fine hours of late.

  72. BeccaM says:

    You’re welcome, and thanks. BTW, I also believe the GOP will very probably institute a number of primary elections rule changes after this current election cycle to prevent what is happening now from happening again. Assuming, of course, neither Trump nor Cruz get elected and blow us all to kingdom come. Wouldn’t surprise me if they adopted something like the Dems’ super delegate system.

  73. BeccaM says:

    Because super delegates could potentially deny a racist, xenophobic insane fascist demagogue like Donald Trump from winning the nomination and thereby destroying the party and potentially the federal government itself. That’s one of the non-corruption reasons.

    Ever since adopting the delegate / super delegate system in the wake of the 1968 Democratic convention debacle, not a single nomination has been thrown by super delegates to the Democratic party candidate who didn’t receive the most regular delegates.

  74. Nelson Kerr says:

    How is the superdelagate systm anything other than “Machine’ politics, It w should not be possible to win the most delegates in elections and lose to machine deligates. Other than corruption why would you fave non-elected delegates in the first place?

  75. Amwatching2c says:

    At some point in time Bernie’s revolution will begin to help Trump. Feel the Trump yet?

  76. Coffacuppee says:

    Yes I’m aware he was outside campaigning, I’ve seen the videos. But none show me anything I haven’t seen dozens of times before. Again — it’s 150 ft from the front door, not 30 ft from the side of a brick building. As I said, try to actually find out what MA had to say about it instead of whining. No charges were filed so maybe you should fly to MA and set them straight since you’re an expert.

    So far, according to you, Americablog is corrupt, the state of Missouri is wrong, Massachusetts is wrong, superdelegates are paid criminals who eat babies, and now Snopes is not telling the truth. And you wonder why all those Dr. Peppers and chips are causing your face to break out.

    And yes, based on your response regarding being a poll worker, I AM saying you don’t “do that stuff” because if you did, you wouldn’t refer to it as ‘stuff’. Your ignorance on these things personifies why Bernie supporters have such a shitty reputation — all bread and no meat in the sandwich.

  77. An_American_Karol says:

    I really hate all the blood loss in the primaries. However, I understand the need for
    all the vitriol. If Clinton can’t withstand an assault from Sanders
    or Sanders from Clinton, nether will make it through the general
    where they can plan to really get clobbered. Clinton and Sanders
    should be bringing everything but the kitchen sink up right now. Hit Hillary up
    as a corporate flunky and point out Sanders is a socialist, teetering on
    communist. Just wake me up in time to vote in Nov. By the time California
    has its primary; we will have a candidate to support. Either of ours is better
    than the clowns in the Republican clown car.

  78. BeccaM says:

    My state — NM — doesn’t have a primary until Jun 6th. By then, the handwriting will be on the wall whether my preferred candidate has a chance or not, but hey, I’ll vote for Sanders if he hasn’t already conceded. However, if Clinton is the nominee, she gets my vote, my support and maybe even some volunteering time if I can manage it. Because as you say, stopping the GOP — who looks poised to select an openly fascist and possibly insane candidate as their nominee — is more important than anything else this cycle.

    Not just the Presidency is at stake here — so’s the Senate, the House, and all those state and local races.

  79. heimaey says:

    They’re aware – they’re just not going to do anything. Snopes is disingenuous here because he did break the 150 foot rule – in that very picture at the top of the page – it’s just not been investigated.
    Who says I don’t do that stuff?

  80. Ol' Hippy says:

    And to think I liked Dennis back in the 90’s on SNL. Well he did get fired by NBC for something,(don’t remember what though). WE the Dems have got to stop the GOP at all costs, I’ll support Bernie in the primary. It’s just that by the time my state’s primary comes around,(June NM), the nominee is usually a done deal. So after the primaries are over we ALL need to register and VOTE to keep the GOP out at all costs.

  81. Coffacuppee says:

    No the results are not debatable. There’s no evidence, no allegations nor suspicion of fraud or miscounting. Nothing. But go ahead and make stuff up if it makes you feel better. And if you have specific information regarding Bill Clinton breaking the MA electioneering law you should bring it to Bernie’s attention or the MA election officials, since you’re “sure” that’s the only reason she won.

    State laws generally allow him or anybody inside and they can meet people, but they can’t actively campaign, can’t even wear candidate tee shirts, buttons, hats etc. Outside, they can campaign all they want outside the boundary, usually 100-150 ft (150 for MA) from the front door, not the building, not the windows, but the front door.

    I’ve been a poll worker for over 35 years in four states and I’ve seen a lot, and of course he was there to make a presence on her behalf. But he knows the rules and how to push them to their limits. I’m pretty sure the state has already decided that’s what happened. As an aside, I highly recommend if you want a revolution, go work the polls an learn the ropes. You’ll then be equipped to help others on your side. Plus you can make a couple hundred $ for the day in most states.

  82. timncguy says:

    The MSM does a TERRIBLE job of explaining super delegates. They report them as having been allotted to a candidate if they have made a public announcement of support for a candidate. But, a super delegate can change their mind as many times as they would like to all the way up to the convention. Their vote is not actually a vote until they finally cast it.

    If the media is going to report on super delegates, they should report the numbers separately from the pledged delegates. A lot of outlets do it that way. Some even make sure they only report the super delegate totals for states that have already had their primaries. But, all media outlets should make sure that they report PLEDGED delegates as a separate figure.

  83. BeccaM says:

    This: “No one outside of Fox News should be quoting Fox News.”

    It’s simple. If it takes assuming all of the super delegates currently endorsing (not pledged to, but simply endorsing) Clinton to push Sanders ahead in the count, then it is not fair to claim it is somehow more democratic for them to override the results of the last 28 primaries and caucuses in the states and territories, and the likely outcomes in the primaries and caucuses remaining.

    Using none but the elected, pledged delegates, Clinton is currently ahead by 325 REGULAR delegates. Going simply by the polls and the current polling trajectories, Sanders is simply not going to win enough of the remaining primaries and caucuses to catch up to and erase Clinton’s lead.

    However, there is no reason to believe that if Sanders somehow were to gain a majority of regular delegates — as Obama did in 2008 — the super delegates would not switch to support him. Again, these so-called ‘super delegates’ do not have ‘super’ votes. They cast their votes at the same time as these regular delegates, along with their states’ delegations at the convention. For the last half century, they have served only to emphasize the party’s choice, not to swing it away from the candidate with the highest number of regular delegates going into the convention.

    As I noted below, the Democratic leaders decided as they were restructuring their primary delegate selection systems and schedules to keep the super delegates. The reason? In case someone like Trump were to show up and try to hijack the party. The Republicans can’t stop Trump in part because they don’t have any party leaders with a veto…so now the RNC is scrambling to find some way around their own rules to see if they can have a contested nomination.

    The current way primaries are scheduled? Unfair and undemocratic, favoring certain states over others. Caucuses? Inherently undemocratic. Open caucuses and primaries? An invitation to cross-party shenanigans. Winner-take-all primaries? Also unfair and undemocratic, which is why the Democratic party did away with them after the 2008 primaries when some felt Obama’s campaign has unfairly gamed the WTA states, because his delegate lead was not proportional to the actual popular vote cast at the time. Now all the states and caucuses are, by Democratic party rules, proportional. (The GOP still has WTA in many places, however, which is working to Trump’s advantage.)

    Super delegates? Yes, manifestly undemocratic. But thus far in the Democratic party they have yet ever to override the will of the majority of the pledged regular delegates and likely won’t in 2016. Why? Because the Democrats still have a functioning party, whereas the GOP clearly doesn’t.

    Basically though, I’m seeing in some of the comments here a lot of confirmation bias for those who think Sanders’ inability to win enough states is somehow a manifestation of unfairness towards him in how the primaries are set up. Yes, there is a kind of unfairness, but it’s only in how the schedules are structured and the existence of the caucus system itself; caucuses, by the way, which Sanders tended to win at higher proportions because they require only a small number of voters with a higher level of enthusiasm. On average, the caucus states, because they require voters to devote much of a day or an evening to hanging out and arguing with people, have turnouts in single digit percentages.

    The current state and national polls between Sanders and Clinton have been relatively flat, unlike in 2008 when they showed Obama consistently gaining more and more popularity. The remaining large states this season — as in states/territories with at least 50 delegates in play — include Arizona, Washington, Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, California, and New Jersey. Now unfortunately, polling data is rather old for some of those states, but many feel that Washington, Oregon, and Wisconsin are likely Sanders wins. (Sorry, but no, California is probably not in play, despite the strong Bern in the SF Bay Area — the rest of the state swings ‘establishment’.) Simply put, Senator Sanders would need to pull at least 60% on average in all of those large states (or outperform to an unrealistic level in all of the smaller states) in order to erase Clinton’s lead in REGULAR PLEDGED delegates.

    If Sanders was going to end up with a majority of regular delegates, but the party’s super delegates were going to give the nomination to Clinton anyway, the critique would have merit. But that’s not the case. Yes, Michigan showed the polls could be wrong, and even Illinois could be held up as demonstration that Clinton’s support is decidedly mushy in some places. On the other hand, she keeps outperforming expectations in other states, including Mississippi, Ohio, Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida.

    It is generally agreed in political punditland that it is in fact unfair to count super delegate endorsements as part of a given Democratic party candidate’s lead — which is why it’s never mentioned as more than a footnote. Like I said above, by normal delegate counts, Clinton leads by 325 delegates. Sanders has 835 whereas Clinton has 1,162. (The so-called ‘faithless delegate’, someone selected to support one candidate but who switches to the other just because they technically can simply does not realistically exist.) A simple majority of pledged regular delegates is 2,026.

    At present, there are roughly 2,055 delegates yet to be chosen in primaries and caucuses yet to come. To win that simple majority of regular delegates, Sanders would need to take 1,191 of them (or 58%), whereas Clinton needs only 893 (or 42%). Barring some kind of campaign implosion, does anybody realistically think Clinton is going to fail so badly over the next three months that she doesn’t even get an average of 42% of the rest of the allocated REGULAR delegates?

    Seriously, at this point, aside from a Clinton campaign collapse of epic proportions (unlikely), the only way Sanders wins is if HE undemocratically gets the super delegates to pick him instead. Which is even more unlikely.

  84. heimaey says:

    It’s debatable wether he lost and it always will be. Same in MA – with Clinton ILLEGALY entering polling places and taking selfies with people – I’m sure it was enough to sway the vote in her favor.

  85. Phil in FLL says:

    Thank you for bringing up that point in your second paragraph. There is actually a good reason for the existence of superdelegates. If the Republicans had superdelegates (which they don’t), they could stop a candidate like Trump who has a plurality but not a majority of the pledged delegates. I hadn’t thought of that. One of the reasons I read blogs like this is that other readers make good arguments that I hadn’t even considered.

  86. rolomo27 says:

    Quick Sally, if there is still time in your state, run and vote for Bernie! Because if you do not..Trump will be your next president. You are selling out the democratic party by not voting for Bernie!!! (Sally, seek alternative forms of owe that to your country.)

    I know, I know you are going to to reply something like Bernie voters voting for Trump is akin to black voters voting for Hillary, right?

  87. BeccaM says:

    The SDs cast their votes along with their state’s delegation at the Democratic nominating convention. They are not pledged or obligated in any way up until that convention, but it is common practice now for front runners to collect super delegate endorsements. However it is nothing but optics and political momentum in terms of obligation. In 2008, the super delegates switched their intentions to vote from Clinton to Obama, when it became clear he was going to have a solid majority of (regular) pledged delegates from the primaries and caucuses.

    The one thing the Democrats have over the Republicans is they, unlike the GOP, actually would still have the means to stop a Trump-like nomination if someone literally dangerous to the party were to somehow muster a plurality of won state primaries.

  88. Coffacuppee says:

    If one’s whining about not getting any superdelegates, uh huh, yes.

  89. rolomo27 says:

    When do super delegates cast their votes? Is it common for the msm to always show delegate totals with lumped in with the super delegate totals?

  90. Coffacuppee says:

    Winning nine states isn’t winning 27. And he didn’t “give” MO to her, he conceded defeat — he realized contesting wouldn’t have helped him win enough (possibly one delegate?) to overcome looking like a grouchy loser, since a recount won’t even begin for another month and could stretch way beyond that. That’s not something you want to be top news for several weeks, and Hillary would make sure it was. And you can bet he looked at the internals of every county for abnormalities before deciding. He lost, fair and square. Saving taxpayers money was not his primary motivation, it was a strategy move.

  91. timncguy says:

    His campaign manager said on a phone call with reporters that they would also be targeting Clinton’s “pledged” delegates because in the Dem Party process, “pledged” delegates are not “bound” delegates like the republicans have. They are not legally BOUND to vote for the candidate they are pledged to.

  92. timncguy says:

    Super Delegates are “chosen ahead of time and shoved down your throat”. How they are “chosen” is well documented. It’s in the party rules. They are elected officials and party officials. Every Democratic member of the US House ans Senate is a super delegate. Every Democratic governor is a super delegate. You act like Debbie Wasserman Schultz just went out on the streets and selected hundreds of passers-by and gave them each $100 to be a super delegate for Clinton.

  93. 2karmanot says:

    “and constantly insults us, our policies and our President.” and that’s a bad thing?

  94. 2karmanot says:

    Oh please, Dennis Miller, the Sara Palin of loser comedians? NEXT!

  95. heimaey says:

    Not winning states? Last count he had won 9 and gave MO to Hillary to avoid tax payers legal fees.

  96. Phil in FLL says:

    There are some opinions that because of the existence of superdelegates, “the game is rigged.” That is easily disproven. If the existence of superdelegates, rigs the game, then Hillary would have won the 2008 primary. She did not because, although the race was neck and neck up to the end, it was finally apparent that Obama had more pledged delegates than Hillary… and… so… the 2008 superdelegates did in fact switch to Obama in order to honor the people’s choice at the ballot box. If Bernie winds up with more pledged delegates by summer, there is no doubt that the superdelegates would do exactly what they did in 2008. Please drop the “game is rigged” conspiracy theory.

  97. Sally says:

    Nobody is shoving anything down your poor throat. Hillary is winning states; Bernie is not, for all the ‘revolution’ he’s going on about. If he can’t win states, he can’t get the nomination. How is that being shoved down your throat? You have to decide if you want the chosen Democrat in the WH, or an abomination like Trump or Cruz. Really, this is pretty simple, and we don’t need a former pathetic comic to ‘shove his opinions down our throats,’ do we?

  98. heimaey says:

    The leaders of the party and some large party doners – remember, they get SD votes too.

  99. rolomo27 says:

    pretty sure bernie supporters already know that super delegates being chosen ahead of time and shoved down our throats is rigging the system. We didn’t need a faux news person to tell us that. We know that EVERY msm outlet is rigging the game against Bernie..even ghost “news” sites like this one. taking names.

  100. heimaey says:

    It’s a really bad tactic by AB and shows they don’t have a lot to be down on Bernie about because he’s not corrupt enough. They have to make things up.

  101. heimaey says:

    We don’t need Dennis Miller to divide the Democratic Party – it’s already divided and they are falling behind the times quickly. If they don’t wake up to the fact that ideas are changing they’re going to implode like the GOP.

  102. noGOP says:

    he said that the superdelegates would need to consider which candidate could win the general.

    this is a misleading hit piece

  103. heimaey says:

    He did NOT say that.

  104. Susanne says:

    Also, Bernie doesn’t have superdelegates because superdelegates are Democratic party leaders and officials who support Democrats and Bernie IS NOT A DEMOCRAT. He doesn’t support or contribute to our down-ticket candidates and constantly insults us, our policies and our President. The leaders of the party are unlikely to flip to an opponent of the party.

  105. timncguy says:

    Super delegates are NOT either given out by the party or awarded as Miller claims. They are decided by the individual delegates. Each super delegate makes his/her own decision on which candidate to support.

  106. michtom says:

    “Our electoral system is a bit insane.”
    No! Our electoral system is hugely corrupt.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS