Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings > Interesting Links: Apr 13, 2016

Interesting Links: Apr 13, 2016

Readers of this blog might remember that, a month or so ago, I had posted a piece about how Bernie will almost certainly take the fight to the democratic convention in July to ensure that the public image of Shrillary (and the DNC) is damaged beyond repair. At that time, some of you thought that Bernie would either not take it that far or be too nice to go through with such a destructive plan. Well.. it turns out that “professional” journalists are now starting to consider the plausibility of that scenario.

A Contested Democratic Convention Is Now a Near Statistical Certainty

Hillary Clinton needs to win 65.3 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to avoid a contested Democratic convention at which she and Bernie Sanders separately plead their cases to the Party’s 714 unpledged “super-delegates.” Democratic candidates in 2016 need 2,383 pledged delegates to win the Party’s nomination via pledged delegates alone. Barring Senator Sanders dropping out of the Democratic race prior to the New York primary, it is virtually impossible for Secretary Clinton to hit that mark.

Few can doubt that, from a practical standpoint, the stronger case at a contested Democratic Convention lies with Sanders — given that the purpose of any Party-sponsored primary race is to find the candidate most likely to win in a general election — but nearly 100 percent of mainstream media pundits predict that not only will Sanders not win a majority of super-delegates, but also that his case to them (above) is unlikely to sway more than fifty of the 714 total super-delegates (7 percent). If the two competing arguments above look like a 93 percent-to-7 percent Clinton win to you, congratulations — you don’t struggle with cognitive dissonance and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia this July is likely to make perfect sense to you.

Hillary Clinton’s Superdelegate Problem

It’s possible that Sanders would do what Clinton did in 2008 if he loses the final pledged-delegate count. Campaigns, including Clinton’s in 2008, have a tendency to promise that they’ll fight all the way to the convention as a means of rallying supporters, but once the voters have finished voting, they call it a day. But Hillary Clinton in 2008 was a much different person than Bernie Sanders is in 2016. She was, and is, a party player, and taking her doomed fight to the convention in 2008 would have crippled her legacy within the party and her chances for running again in the future. Sanders, as the Clinton campaign likes to point out, is much less a party man, and he’s also in his mid-70s, meaning it’s highly unlikely that he would run for president again. What does he have to lose by contesting the convention other than the admiration of his peers, which he never had in the first place?

Democrats created superdelegates to give party leaders a final check over nominations after the reforms of the 1970s, in their opinion, gave too much power to primary voters. But the superdelegate trigger has never been pulled. Voters have always chosen nominees that the party deems acceptable, and it would destroy the party if superdelegates ever did overturn the clear preference of the voters. What superdelegates have done is dilute the pool of pledged delegates and make it that much harder for the leading candidate to compile a delegate majority solely from pledged delegates. That in turn gives someone like, say, Bernie Sanders a justification for extending his fight into the convention if he’s willing to shatter certain norms of intra-party etiquette. And as you’ve probably noticed, norms aren’t doing so hot in politics these days.

So there you have it. The presstitutes are now starting to consider the scenario which was simultaneously obvious AND beyond their willingness to imagine it. Then again, almost nobody in any position of power at the start of WW1 or WW2 thought those wars would last so long and have such profound and lasting effects on human history.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. Ed
    April 14, 2016 at 8:12 am

    I remember that the super-delegates were needed to push Mondale over the top in 1984. However, he didn’t need that many and had a substantial enough lead in the popular primary vote and pledged delegates that it wasn’t an issue.

    The 2008 primaries is a more interesting case. Hilary Clinton actually got more votes than Obama, according to the relevant Wikipedia article. Obama’s lead in pledged delegates (same article) was only 102. Hilary Clinton had a legitimate opening to push things to the convention. I suspect there was a deal between the Clinton’s and Obama, which included giving here the Secretary of State position and the presidential nomination at a later date.

    This election is probably more like 1984, where Clinton will probably wind up leading in the pledged delegate count and votes and will only need a little help at the end to be pushed over the top. If things get messier, there is less scope to make a deal given that this is Sanders’ last hurrah and there is much more ideological polarization between the two sides. Also looming over this is the possibility of Clinton being forced out of the campaign due to health or legal problems. The rarely spoken logic behind the Sanders campaign is to put him in a strong enough position that it becomes hard for the Democratic establishment to substitute someone else as the nominee in that scenario.

  2. April 15, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    on another note, one of your pwecious prostitutes…

    http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/former-prostitute-takes-aim-at-her-clients-in-scathing-letter/news-story/6f28870d436544514a909d581467d06f

    notice how she has no problemo taking the $$$$ but she thinks guys like you are absolute garbage….

    • P Ray
      April 15, 2016 at 1:18 pm

      Someone must not have told Tanja Rahm about the truth behind prostitution:
      It’s an easy earner for many women,
      AND
      you can always play the victim card after.

      Nothing new to see here, just another former ho trying to get sympathy after the money.

      http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/prostitution/feminist-arguments-against-prostitution-dismantled
      Excerpt:
      Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception
      Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked

      I have been converted by the arguments of the antifeminists, that

      the feminist movement’s main goal is to reduce male choice in female partners, to force men to dedicate their lives to unattractive, high spending, ruinously expensive feminist sex partners.
      I add to this my hypothesis

      The balance of power between men and women tilted in favor of women because

      Men mostly stopped using physical & economical power,
      women maintained their superior social manipulation power and thus,
      world-wide, women are biasing laws totally in their favor in clear detriment of men
      In evolutionary times (EEA, environment of evolutionary adaptedness), males had superior physical strength, fighting skills, and economical power as meat providing hunters.

      Females, to defend their interest, had to use social skills, social manipulation, shaming, intrigue, cunningness trying to counter male physical superiority (anyone got research links on that?)

      Now males surrendered the advantages of physical strength, even of economic strength. Suddenly, in the last half century, in the male-female conflicts of interest, all the female agendas win in politics. Feminists hide their agenda behind absurd warped arguments, shaming, willful misuse of language,
      Feminists argue that prostitution is dangerous, unhealty, unpleasant, demeaning, not a free choice. These arguments that can be brought against menial jobs, professional boxing, military service. Personally, I think that spending one’s life fixing up people’s teeth, staring into smelly mouths all day long, is demeaning. And going to a war that one is opposed to, this is like a year long repeated rape.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: