Saturday, March 26, 2016

Clinton is on track to win it 

Looking at what has happened so far, and at the contests coming up, here's my unscientific view of what is going to happen over the next two months:
First fact: the total number of delegates needed to win is 2300.  As of yesterday, Hillary needed about 700 more delegates, and Bernie needed about 1400 more.
Second fact: From now until the end of May, there will be 13 primaries and caucus, awarding about 1,100 delegates.
Based on results so far with Bernie winning the smaller caucuses and Hillary the larger primaries, I think Bernie and Hillary will continue to split many of these votes.  But I believe Hillary is on track to achieve significant wins in the closed primaries in New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky, while Bernie's only large blowout will be today's open caucus in Washington.
As a result, over the next two months, I think we will see Hillary gain maybe 600 to 700 delegates -- which brings her pretty close to the goal -- and Bernie gain maybe 400 to 500, which leaves him still about a thousand delegates short.  And there are only about 700 delegates remaining in all of the June primaries.  So even though he gained about a hundred at the Saturday caucuses, which is cheering to his supporters, in the long run these delegates aren't going to help.
I must say now that its becoming clear that Hillary is going to win -- because millions of Democrats actually like her a lot -- I'm glad to see more people pushing back against some of the Hillary hatred which has polluted blogs like Daily Kos for the last several months.  In refuting Matt Taibbi's incoherent Clinton trashing, Kevin Drum goes point by point while Booman gives everyone a valuable history lesson in what happened during Bill Clinton's presidency. Booman concludes:
The choice between Clinton and Sanders is not a choice between today and 1992; it’s a choice about who you think is best prepared to be president and who can win by the biggest margin. It’s also a bet, or a gamble on how much change you think the system can bear. And it’s a guess about which candidate can get more out of a reluctant Congress.
It’s no easy choice, and I don’t want to pretend that it is, but it’s not a choice between good and evil, and it’s not obvious who is right.
The more I see of Bernie, the less I think of him. As Kevin Drum puts it:
Bernie Sanders too often lets rhetoric take the place of any actual plausible policy proposal. He suggested that his health care plan would save more in prescription drug costs than the entire country spends in the first place. This is the sign of a white paper hastily drafted to demonstrate seriousness, not something that's been carefully thought through. He bangs away on campaign finance reform, but there's virtually no chance of making progress on this. The Supreme Court has seen to that, and even if Citizens United were overturned, previous jurisprudence has placed severe limits on regulating campaign speech. Besides, the public doesn't support serious campaign finance reform and never has. And even on foreign policy, it's only his instincts that are good. He's shown no sign of thinking hard about national security issues, and that's scarier than most of his supporters acknowledge. Tyros in the Oval Office are famously susceptible to pressure from the national security establishment, and Bernie would probably be no exception. There's a chance—small but not trivial—that he'd get rolled into following a more hawkish national security policy than Hillary.
I'm old, and I'm a neoliberal sellout. Not as much of one as I used to be, but still. So it's no surprise that I'm not always on the same page as Taibbi. That said, I continue to be surprised by the just plain falseness of many of the left-wing attacks on Hillary, along with the starry-eyed willingness to accept practically everything Bernie says without even a hint of healthy skepticism. Hell, if you're disappointed by Obama, who's accomplished more than any Democratic president in decades, just wait until Bernie wins. By the end of four years, you'll be practically suicidal.
Finally, here's Hillary's latest speech, on terrorism and how she intends to deal with it  -- hint:  she's not carpet-bombing ISIS, or closing the borders, or patrolling Muslim neighbourhoods. As well as laying out her own positions, she is also testing out the attack lines she intends to use during the election campaign against the Republicans.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers | 13 comments


I think it's great that America could finally have a woman in the White House. I just wish it wasn't Hillary. For every argument you can make for her there are every bit as many against her. Yes, Sanders, has his flaws but so does Hillary and hers are more worrisome. There's a reason that Hillary can't attract the youth vote. They see through her. It's really not that hard to do.

By Blogger The Mound of Sound, at 1:14 am  

The video was a waste of time. It's as though she's totally unaware that ISIS, the massive refugee crisis and security issues are a result of the invasion of Iraq and Libya for oil. She no doubt feels somewhat bad about the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, but the Cruise missile attacks on Baghdad and the Drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen that produce nothing but terrorized enemies seem to be par for the course from her warped point of view. The woman who openly gloated and delighted over the murder of Muammar Gadaffi isn't fit to lead a nation. Ending her speech with the usual rubbish about America being the great nation whose leadership is there for the benefit of the world is just pathetic self-delusion. Humanity and the USA deserve a whole lot better than the likes of Hillary Clinton. Bring on Bernie.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:07 pm  

Well, first of all, there was no invasion of Libya. Obama got NATO to start air strikes and arm the resistance because Quadaffi was on the march to slaughter tens of thousands of his own people. Maybe the West should have just let him do it, I don't know, but that was the choice that NATO made.
Second, I wonder if anyone remembers now what America was like between 2001 and 2003, after 9-11. Basically, they all lost their minds. its easy to say now that Clinton should have voted against the invasion of Iraq. She was the senator from New York so she didn't have either the choice or the inclination to vote against a war that was sold as the only way to keep America safe from future attacks.
And Mound, I'm glad its Hillary -- she will be a good president, in spite of all the negativity she faces.

By Blogger Cathie from Canada, at 1:30 pm  

Quadaffi was murdered because he was about to free Africa of the American petrodollar reserve standard to a gold Dinar. Hillary danced on his grave for her banker masters. She will not make a good president, she's a self serving racist warmonger.

By Blogger Kim, at 4:19 pm  

@ Cathie

There was no excuse for Hillary Clinton to vote for the invasion of Iraq or to go along with the bullshit, lies and fakery that was peddled which led to the horrific deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent, defenceless men, women and children, and the maiming of thousands due to contamination from depleted uranium. Decent people risked and forfeited their careers to speak out against the Bush regime's war for oil scheme, but Clinton chose her job instead of honesty and integrity. She has shown what she's all about and her kind of politician should be regarded as relics from a bygone era.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:36 pm  

It is unbelievable how far the Democratic Party has fallen. They have to choose between a communist and a criminal.
How could someone like Hillary be the front runner! She looted the White House and was forced by the GAO to pay back taxpayers $200,000. She attacked Bill's "bimbos" and stuck by her rapist husband. She brazenly lied to the family members of the 4 who were killed in Benghazi. She was a complete and utter disaster as Secretary of State.

Also she is a serial liar. Who could ever forget her claim that she ducked sniper fire in Bosnia when getting off a plane? Even CBS, yes CBS, the rabidly leftwing news channel of Rathergate infamy, showed the video of her being welcomed by young girls in Bosnian attire giving her flowers.

Bernie Sanders may be a crazy bum who never had a job until he was 40 y/o, but at least he appears to be honest (for a politician).

When one asks Hillary supporters why they support her, they hem and haw and then limply claim because she is a woman.
Awful sexism and misandry. Just awful.

Extremely Extreme Extremist (Triple E)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:20 am  


By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:45 pm  

@Anonymous 1:45

Wow, she is sticking her finger at that woman, almost poking her.
She must be tired. Low energy like Jeb!

Triple E

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:53 pm  

If we in Canada are rightfully concerned about the TPP, we can only hope neither Hillary or a Republican wins.....

Secretary Clinton made this tax evasion worse by supporting the Panama Free Trade Agreement in 2011, even though she opposed it when she was running for President against Barack Obama in 2008.

Bernie, on the other hand, opposed this disastrous trade deal from day one.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:03 am  


By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:04 am  

If Hillary got in the White House, her hubby the horny hillbilly would be molesting women again, using female interns' privates as humidors for his cigars!

Huma Adelin, Hillary's right hand woman, is married to Anthony Weiner aka Carlos Danger, another sick pervert!

Does the country really want these 2 sicko perverts in the White House?! NO!

Extremely Extreme Extremist (Triple E)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:18 pm  

The more I learn about Hillary Clinton the less I like what I see.

I have not read the book, only heard a CBC interview with the author, Alex Perry (link below) but his account of starvation in part of Somalia suggested that Obama and Clinton's policies may have been a major factor in the 2011 Somalia famine and may come close to war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Certainly, her policies as Sec of State is not reassuring. She does not seem to have ever met a war she didn't like and seems happy to follow traditional US policy of always supporting right wing dictators.

The best that can be said for her is that she is several 100% better than the Republican candidates--A nutty immature poser and an extremely right-wing christian fundamentalist sociopath.

What the devil has happened to US politics? Twenty or thirty none of the current candidates except Sanders who I am beginning to like-- at least he has a consistent policy history for 30 years-- would have been allowed to carry the candidates bags to the bus.

Pity Elizabeth Warren was not a Democratic candidate.


By Blogger jrkrideau, at 5:48 am  

I guess Kathie is probably right: Clinton will be a moderately good, conventional, center-right, US president willing to work incrementally at the margins, if it doesn't rock too many boats or upset too many apple carts. She'll also probably feel compelled to push US militarism and support the military and police stranglehold on the country out of fear that she'll otherwise appear to be a weak, girly-girl woman. It is very unlikely that she'll do much to challenge the 0.1% or that she'll do much to ameliorate the anger and frustration that the great unwashed masses feel throughout the world. In other words, Clinton will be a decent, BAU president who will not discomfort the political status quo. Be still, my beating heart.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:25 am  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Email me!