I've complained before about ideologues "seeing" only what they want to see, rather then the reality before them, and that is on full display here at RR - but in this particular case on the left, rather than the right. I've said before that I like Bernie Sanders, and I'm glad he's in the race. I think that he had inspired a generation of voters and has made the race exciting - but his race is over.
Reality check: Bernie Sanders has lost the race for the Democratic nomination. He knows that. Everyone with any political savvy knows that.
Of course, it's technically possible for Sanders to still get the nomination. But what he would have to do would take some Herculean efforts. He would have to pull off multiple landslide victories — not just in the handful of states coming up in the next couple weeks, but also in massive, diverse states like California and New Jersey (where Clinton currently has big polling leads) — to overcome his current deficit in the pledged delegates chosen by the voters.
Sanders is behind by about 300 delegates. That is a lot. Because of the Democrats' proportional allocation rules, he'll need to win every state by 65 percent or more to overcome that deficit. These are margins of victory he hasn't seen in any primary except for his home state of Vermont.
To put the odds in perspective: Sanders's fans celebrated after he crushed Hillary Clinton in West Virginia last week. It seemed like a hopeful moment for Sanders's campaign — until you realize that he only beat Clinton there by a 51 to 36 margin, or by far less than what he needs to win by to cut into her delegate advantage.
All that Chris Matthews was saying in that clip is what all the math says.
Hillary Clinton is not the devil incarnate (The jury's still out on Ted Cruz). She is not the "ideal" progressive, but she is firmly on the left side of the ledger. She has far more pull within the party and has been campaigning for down-ballot candidates throughout her campaign. I thought it interesting that the earlier quote left out the following paragraphs:
How much money did Sanders raise for the DNC and state parties in March? Actually, zero. For the quarter, the total was also zero.
And while the typical voter probably doesn’t know or care about candidates’ work on behalf of down-ballot allies, this speaks to a key difference between Sanders and Clinton: the former is positioning himself as the leader of a revolution; the latter is positioning herself as the leader of the Democratic Party. For Sanders, it means raising amazing amounts of money to advance his ambitions; for Clinton, it means also raising money to help other Democratic candidates.
The headline from politico was news because the Sanders campaign has just awoken to this reality. "Bernie Sanders is raising money for a trio of progressive House candidates who have endorsed him, a move that comes just weeks after he faced friendly fire for not committing to fundraise for down-ballot Democrats."
Bernie begins raising cash for down-ballot progressives.
Again, I'm really glad he's doing this, and I'm glad he's pushing the party in the progressive direction. It needs to go there, the country is ripe for that change in direction, and the Clinton campaign is acutely aware of that as well.
What Sanders acolytes refuse to acknowledge is where he wins and why he doesn't. His slice of the general electorate is small, and shrinking - except among the youth. That is a crucial demographic for the future of the Democratic party, but it is still a small slice.
The Hidden Importance Of The Sanders Voter. The good news for Clinton is that she has the opportunity to gain ground among Sanders voters if and when she officially wraps up the nomination, just as Trump did among Republicans. Although many Sanders supporters will start the general election campaign with a negative view of Clinton, they aren’t necessarily eager to vote for Trump. In the YouGov poll, just 55 percent of Sanders supporters said they’d vote for Clinton over Trump in November. However, only 15 percent said they’d vote for Trump. That leaves 30 percent of Sanders voters who say they are undecided, would vote for a third-party candidate or would sit out the election.
Clinton has an overwhelming (87%) lead in registered Democrats, Sanders leads among independents. Clinton needs that vote, but not as badly as Trump does. Clinton will likely get 55-70% of that vote (if polling holds true). Given the registration lead of Democrats over Republicans nationally, and in swing states, that has the true potential for a landslide election. Landslide elections have a strong potential to change the shape of Congress and the country for decades.
Here's the acid question: would it be better for the country to have Clinton in the White House with a Democratic Congress, or Sanders with a Republican majority?
