[QUOTE=playwrite;554795]The fact checkers have had a field day with Sanders attempt at the artful smear of Clinton over oil&gas contributions -

http://americablog.com/2016/04/factc...donations.html

Sanders's criticism cuts to the heart of the arguments over super-PACs (or PACs in general). The fossil fuel donations to Clinton were bundled into her superPac , giving her plausible deniability. And the criticism came from Greenpeace, not the Sanders Campaign directly. As well, at $54,000, donations by fossil fuel companies (I wonder which) are small potatoes compared to the millions of small donations Bernie has received.
I wonder how the Army, Air Force and US Postal Service manage to legally make campaign donations to anybody.
As for Boeing, that helps explain why Bernie did so well in Washington. And I'm still waiting to see how big a donation Tom Steyer is making to the Sanders Campaign.

Originally Posted by playwrite

She handily won in FL, OH, VA, NC, and at least tied in NV - is there another swing state you have in mind?

Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio too (probably not Illinois, although it was close there between Bernie and Hillary).

Polls have her ahead of Trump and maybe Cruz in those states, but those are the swing states that Republicans hope to steal from her. FL, VA, NC can be considered southern, although they are swing states too. Trump apologists think he can win those middle-west industrial states with "uneducated" middle class white men. We know how much Trump "loves the uneducated voters."

Originally Posted by marypoza

Thought this was an April Fools joke but it's not:

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-w...cratic-caucus/

Boo-yeah!

Obama did that in Nevada 8 years ago too.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

When every group looks inward, the concept of a coalition dies on the vine. Identity politics is nearing the end of its run. It's a huge unknown how that will play-out in the future. If it plays out as a aggregate of demanding self-centered groups unwilling to give an inch, the left is doomed. As weak as the right is today, you still can't beat something with nothing.

Or it plays out as the wealthy playing identity groups against one another.("Here's something for you and a little for you and a little for you...")

Originally Posted by playwrite

Millions of people are voting in the primaries (on whole, Clinton has 2.5 million more than Sanders) and yet we're "shutting the People up" - I guess that's a new way of describing your frustration that people don't vote the way you want them to?

The institution you are talking about that creates the two-party system is the Constitution's one-man-one-vote and majority rule. It's not directly dictated but it is dictated by the math; a pretty straightforward presentation of the math of "the first past the post" elections is here -

http://themoderatevoice.com/why-a-tw...o-do-about-it/

Labeling the issue as an oligarchy or some other evil bumper sticker 'thingee' is just intellectual laziness.

My point wasn't that open primaries are out of line. The point is if Maryposa's benchmark for fraud is early voting, then she should be at least as disgusted with the 'fraud" of open primaries given that both are ultimately about getting more people voting. Capiche?

If two parties are dictated by "first past the post" voting, this is a good reason to have automatic runoff preferential voting in which voters rank candidates by preference. Automatic runoff means that minor parties become much more important by the way those parties direct their voter's second preferences. And it can be implemented state by state by voter initiative. Preferential voting, amongst other things could undo a lot of the House gerrymandering that favours the Republicans.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Early Missteps Seen as a Drag on Bernie Sanders’s Campaign
By PATRICK HEALY and YAMICHE ALCINDORAPRIL 3, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us...nton.html?_r=0

....Despite the urging of some advisers, Mr. Sanders refused last fall and early winter to criticize Mrs. Clinton over her $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, an issue that he now targets almost daily. He also gave her a pass on her use of private email as secretary of state, even though some allies wanted him to exploit it. And he insisted on devoting time to his job as a senator from Vermont last year rather than matching Mrs. Clinton’s all-out effort to capture the nomination. Some advisers now say that if he had campaigned more in Iowa, he might have avoided his critical loss there.

All those decisions stemmed in part from Mr. Sanders’s outlook on the race. He was originally skeptical that he could beat Mrs. Clinton, and his mission in 2015 was to spread his political message about a rigged America rather than do whatever it took to win the nomination. By the time he caught fire with voters this winter and personally began to believe he could defeat Mrs. Clinton, she was already on her way to building an all but insurmountable delegate lead..........

Although that lead may not be as insurmountable as it appears. Hillary won much of the vote in the Southern states through organised early voting--as early as January. The vote totals in FL and NC for people who actually voted on Election Day was far closer. In other words, borrowing from Obama's playbook, Hillary closed the deal with as many voters as she could, particularly African-American and Latino voters, as soon as she could.
The Mid-Atlantic States do not allow early voting. While Hillary's lead in those states continues to shrink (down to 10 points in NY from 30 points with 2 weeks to go). So Bernie could sweep the Mid Atlantic States except for Maryland.
Electability arguments that Bernie makes will be a lot more cogent--if the Republicans do stop Trump short of a first ballot victory and nominate a more conventional and electable candidate like Kasich. I would expect a real shift in superdelegates to Sanders should that happen--to take place on the eve of the Convention after the results of the Republican Convention are known.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Sanders's criticism cuts to the heart of the arguments over super-PACs (or PACs in general). The fossil fuel donations to Clinton were bundled into her superPac , giving her plausible deniability. And the criticism came from Greenpeace, not the Sanders Campaign directly. As well, at $54,000, donations by fossil fuel companies (I wonder which) are small potatoes compared to the millions of small donations Bernie has received.
I wonder how the Army, Air Force and US Postal Service manage to legally make campaign donations to anybody.
As for Boeing, that helps explain why Bernie did so well in Washington. And I'm still waiting to see how big a donation Tom Steyer is making to the Sanders Campaign.

Bernie's contributions from the military and some of the biggest corporations in the world is using the same metric that they used to paint Clinton beholding to fossil fuels. It's aggregating the employers of small donors. One would have to be a moron to believe those working for certain businesses always vote in support of their employers, but hey, a lot of morons seem to have gravitated to either the Sanders or Trump factless campaigns. It's just a biXtch for The Bern when the same artful smear is turned around on them, no?

No candidate controls any PAC; it is illegal. They can't stop where the money comes from or what it is used for. PACs are a big problem, and destroying them by changing the SCOTUS is what this election is all about.

But even without that, Greenpeace own numbers -

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...contributions/

- indicate that the total of all fossil fuel money going to any support of Clinton is 0.8% of her total funding. That's less than what Obama got, and we've seen what's happen to coal under his watch; it's not going to get any better for fossil fuels under Clinton's watch either - it's the markets, the handwriting is already on the wall. Suggesting otherwise is just more of the artful smear you t-baggers-on-the-Left equivalents have mindlessly pursued in hopes of bring on a 'revolution' that you are under the delusion that you would survive.

I'll stick with those awarding the 3-4 Pinocchio awards.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio too (probably not Illinois, although it was close there between Bernie and Hillary).

Polls have her ahead of Trump and maybe Cruz in those states, but those are the swing states that Republicans hope to steal from her. FL, VA, NC can be considered southern, although they are swing states too. Trump apologists think he can win those middle-west industrial states with "uneducated" middle class white men. We know how much Trump "loves the uneducated voters."

Sanders may have put Michigan in play for the general with his artful smears of Clinton. He'll need to man-up and fix that for the Dems in the Fall; Elizabeth Warren should also be a big help in turning that around and showing Trump's deadend.

And for all states, Trump has to pull over 70% of the White male vote, beating Romney's amazing 62%. Where are those votes going to come from, former White males that voted Obama? I don't think so. There's going to have to be at least a 17% increase in White male voter turnout - a group that already is one of demographics of high turnout, and 17% seems a small increase in a lot of things but it is a huge increase in voter turnout demographics. And that is before even considering the change that will likely take place in the largest demographic voting bloc - women - if Clinton runs against Trump.

Clinton against Trump: the battle of the sexes!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Sanders may have put Michigan in play for the general with his artful smears of Clinton.

I don't think so. I think Bernie won my state because (1) his position on free trade and (2) the polls that said he was so far behind that it was safe for Clinton supporters (like the kettlebell instructor at our gym) to vote on the other ballot for Kasich because she detested Trump. As I told her, Trump was so far ahead I thought it would be pointless to try to rat-fuck the Republicans and so I decided to go YOLO and vote Bernie. I was pleasantly surprised when he won. My optimism was soon crushed

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Although that lead may not be as insurmountable as it appears. Hillary won much of the vote in the Southern states through organised early voting--as early as January. The vote totals in FL and NC for people who actually voted on Election Day was far closer. In other words, borrowing from Obama's playbook, Hillary closed the deal with as many voters as she could, particularly African-American and Latino voters, as soon as she could.
The Mid-Atlantic States do not allow early voting. While Hillary's lead in those states continues to shrink (down to 10 points in NY from 30 points with 2 weeks to go). So Bernie could sweep the Mid Atlantic States except for Maryland.
Electability arguments that Bernie makes will be a lot more cogent--if the Republicans do stop Trump short of a first ballot victory and nominate a more conventional and electable candidate like Kasich. I would expect a real shift in superdelegates to Sanders should that happen--to take place on the eve of the Convention after the results of the Republican Convention are known.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "mid-Atlantic - Virginia has already voted for HC; as you said MD probable will; Delaware probable will as well but its pretty small.

If your thinking PA, that's traditionally more Clinton country than OH, and we all know what happen in OH, right?

That leaves NY and NJ. Labeling those as Mid-Atlantic states is kind of like labeling Great Britain as part of Scandinavia. It's a bit of a stretch, but let's go with it. And you probable can assume the two will vote pretty close given demographics and the level of interchange between most of the populations.

Sanders could get a bounce out of Wisconsin and go it with 'momentum' into NY/NJ primaries, but he's going to have to win WI big, like at least 10 percentage points. It's doable but again this whole "momentum thingee" looks more real in the headlights than it winds up being in the taillights - do you remember New Hampshire or Michigan? Most people don't.

Bernie has had some big bad karma happening in the last couple days that is too soon to show up in the polling, particularly for the NY/NJ 'mid-Atlantic' area. First, as Eric first posted, there was the pre- post-mortum mea copa of Sanders staff on the front page of the NY Times - that is a pretty popular rag in this area, by the way.

That was compounded by Paul Krugman's critique of the NY Times piece. He is about as near to a Liberal god in this area as anyone can get - his takedown was noted in Queens and Brooklyn at least as much as it was in Manhattan.

That was taking place at the same time as Bernie's interview to the Daily News Editorial Board, which people here don't admit to reading but probable read more of it than the NYT (psss, don't tell anyone!). The people who know, but not necessarily like, the financial sector in this city (and by self-proclamation that includes everyone living in NY/NJ and most of the surrounding states) were pretty shocked with Sanders lack of basic understanding of how things actually work and pretty naive about how extremely hard it is to wave magic wands in this town. An example of a typical takedown by those in the know (and that includes everyone around NY/NJ) is here -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/0...ulatory-scheme

Sanders demonstrates extreme ignorance of the banking industry and relevant regulatory scheme

Admittedly, that is going to go over the heads of a lot of voters in Wisconsin or later in California (sorry Eric, but we don't understand computer RAM v. ROM either), but that is certainly not the case here in the Empire State, even in far-flung upstate redder-than-Red parts of our state map. With a modification of the South's 'that dog don't hunt" - here, in starbase central, "that cab don't drive."

The other thing that is interesting is NY has some very Liberal colleges and Millies, but as Liberal as those kids are, they are much more savvy about banking and the financial sector, a lot of them have relatives working there and want to work there themselves; they're not going to be impressed or even amused with that Sanders' interview.

And then there was the decision to raise the minimum wage a couple of days ago. Both Sanders and Clinton applauded the effort, but it was Clinton who was standing next to the Governor when he announced it. And here is what she hammered home -

The morning that he signed legislation that will bring New York City’s minimum wage to $15 an hour over several years and institute a partially paid family leave policy, President Barack Obama issued a statement commending him, and tweeted out his laurels for good measure: "Nobody should have to choose between losing a paycheck & caring for their family. I applaud @NYGovCuomo for taking a big step on paid leave.”

When finally he emerged victorious onto the stage, Hillary Clinton strode beside him, to the thump of Bon Jovi’s "Work for the Working Man."

“We owe the governor a huge debt of gratitude,” said Clinton. “But I also really appreciate that what the governor did shows the way to getting an increased minimum wage at the federal level."

Cuomo “had to put together the votes,” she said. “Now some people get bored by that kind of talk. 'Don’t bother me with the details. Let’s jut make it sound good. Let’s just feel good.' Well, I think we’d still be sounding and feeling good if it hadn’t been for the hard work and the incredible commitment that the governor made to this issue.”

That was powerful in this state. Missouri may be the "show me state" but New York is the "money talks and bullshXt walks" state. That minimum wage is a big deal and it's being pinned as a medal on Clinton here, not on The Bern.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "mid-Atlantic - Virginia has already voted for HC; as you said MD probable will; Delaware probable will as well but its pretty small.

If your thinking PA, that's traditionally more Clinton country than OH, and we know what happen in OH, right.

That leaves NY and NJ. Labeling those as Mid-Atlantic states is kind of like labeling Great Britain as part of Scandinavia. It's a bit of a stretch, but let's go with it. And you probable can assume the two will vote pretty close given demographics and the level of interchange between most of the populations.

Just a nit -- NY and NJ have always been considered part of the mid-Atlantic region, particularly NJ. Neither are New England. Of course, both are also considered the northeast, too, but then, so is Philly. Likewise, Virginia is considered mid-Atlantic, but is also part of the South (although where I live in Virginia is hardly Southern).

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... I think Bernie won my state because (1) his position on free trade...

And that was the artful smear I was talking about that resonated in Michigan.


It's ridiculous to blame a 1st Lady for the passage of a trade bill (NAFTA) or WTO membership (China).

But diving deeper, relative to China coming into WTO, NAFTA had little if any impact on manufacturing jobs in the US - those jobs actually increased for 5 years after NAFTA's passage -

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...s-factory-jobs


China is the real bugaboo, but what were the trade-offs and how much of the outcome is pointed at with 20/20 hindsight? Look at the media of the day and you see that there was a lot of promise that US manufacturing would actually benefit, like with NAFTA, from opening China up to our more sophisticated manufacturing -let them make the cheap babbles of the day and we'd sell them cars and computers. Obviously, China's manufacturing skills and sophistication increased at a rate no one was projecting at the time; hell, cell phone manufacturing was more a Finland thing than either Apple HQs or China thingee at the start of the 00-00s. And no one predicted how laissez faire the Bush Administration was going to be about off-shoring. Sure, that turned out to be wrong, but there sure are a ton more geniuses claiming they know that now that there was 16 years ago.

And then there's the counterfactual of geopolitics if China's integration into the global economy had been not only slower but purposefully slowed by the US. Would we have the relative strategic agreements and calm we have today or would we be into several years of a South China Sea war that's gotten only hotter and a Russian, Iranian, N. Korea military alliance all linked by China and nuclear tipped?

I realize that these are nuances beyond the capacity of most voters' consideration. And I realize a purist who was never wrong on any issue of any weight because he never actually had any actual weighted responsibility on such issues might be appealing to some uninformed people or people a bit too young for an oversupply of wisdom. But for some old fart that's pretty informed, this is the guy -



- you actually voted for?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Just a nit -- NY and NJ have always been considered part of the mid-Atlantic region, particularly NJ. Neither are New England. Of course, both are also considered the northeast, too, but then, so is Philly. Likewise, Virginia is considered mid-Atlantic, but is also part of the South (although where I live in Virginia is hardly Southern).

Well then, we're going to just have to secede from that union! You all talk funny!

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'll stick with those awarding the 3-4 Pinocchio awards.

You think you boomers can get away with shoving hillary down the young's throats, Just like the elite psychopaths want to shove kasich down our throats on the right. Everything about hillary, the elitism, her response to 4T war threats with "we need more love and kindness". Her vote for the Iraq war must be condemned not because we went into iraq but because she continued endorsing the war even after it became a nation-building clusterf*ck. In the mideast we should have Used WW2 "Axis" occupation methods and secured the area as resources appropriation areas and as a staging post for the invasion of Iran and Syria. Taliban Afghanistan should have been carpet bombed as vengeance for 9/11, US troops should have been at Tora Bora not afghan forces. Seeing so many elitist boomers around hillary makes me sick. Words cannot describe how much most Xers and Millies hate the selfish traitors who run our country. The vast Majority of Millennials (and Xers for that matter) want nothing to do with boomer idealists disgusting "utopia" where the majority of human achievement and exertion would instead be lobotomized in favor of worship of Monetary abundance, "human rights" and globalism. Millennials are not going to let boomers destroy everything that is good about civilization and the Human condition.

Restorationism will rise and it would be glorious. I dream of the day when flags emblazoned with the imperial eagle and the American eagle (the one with the arrows and branches). The party leaders would make glorious speeches proclaiming a new era and a new order for our country. The Honorguard and Stormguard paramilitaries would parade down the streets by the hundreds of thousands, if not by the millions. Followed by thousands of cheerleaders and standard-bearers bearing the American flag and the party insignia mentioned several sentences earlier. Afterward real reform could be implemented, the Islamists would be expelled, the old corporate conglomerates would be broken up and their leaders thrown into specially made holding camps in the Rockies and Alaska. The assets of the corporate conglomerates would be divided and parceled out among a new class of meritocratic entrepreneurs the prototypes of which are Xer/Millie cusper and early Millie "new business" execs like Zuckerberg, etc. The would also be created a Meritocratic administrative class that would govern the country. The civil-military education system would be created eventually resulting in the creation of a combined civil and military administrative class.

Then the Vassalization of the Latin America would be followed by the general pacification of the middle east, Here under Millie/Late-wave Xer leadership America would progress from strength to strength. The Mideast would be conquered and settlement zones and settlement cities created and populated by American, Anglophone, Latin American, Indian, African, and Israeli settlers. The Natural resources, Material resources and Manpower resources of the Mideast would be acquired for American use. The Establishment of the settlement zones would be supported by the establishment of Labor settlements because the construction of these proposed cities would be carried out using Arab Muslim Labor. This would be overseen by the Military governors and occupation forces and administered by Meritocratic Entrepreneurs and the administrative entrepreneurs. The Army and Stormguard would provide the security for the pacification of the middle east however the entrepreneurs can also call upon private mercenaries for security and local pacification. Entrepreneurs would then carryout the exploitation and development of the region using local labor resources. Finally Administrative entrepreneurs can call for additional quotas of local labor if needed for those economic development activities whose byproducts are a high labor turnover rate. Restorationism as a whole would also provide the Liberation of the American psyche from the boomer derived Ideological, psychological and Emotional enslavement and manipulation and lead our nation into a bright future in which it would create a new superstate encompassing both American continents, North Africa, and the Middle east which would create a Massive trade conduit to Asia, India and Black Africa. This would lead the world into a new golden age.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

You think you boomers can get away with shoving hillary down the young's throats, Just like the elite psychopaths want to shove kasich down our throats on the right. Everything about hillary, the elitism, her response to 4T war threats with "we need more love and kindness". Her vote for the Iraq war must be condemned not because we went into iraq but because she continued endorsing the war even after it became a nation-building clusterf*ck. In the mideast we should have Used WW2 "Axis" occupation methods and secured the area as resources appropriation areas and as a staging post for the invasion of Iran and Syria. Taliban Afghanistan should have been carpet bombed as vengeance for 9/11, US troops should have been at Tora Bora not afghan forces. Seeing so many elitist boomers around hillary makes me sick. Words cannot describe how much most Xers and Millies hate the selfish traitors who run our country. The vast Majority of Millennials (and Xers for that matter) want nothing to do with boomer idealists disgusting "utopia" where the majority of human achievement and exertion would instead be lobotomized in favor of worship of Monetary abundance, "human rights" and globalism. Millennials are not going to let boomers destroy everything that is good about civilization and the Human condition.

Restorationism will rise and it would be glorious. I dream of the day when flags emblazoned with the imperial eagle and the American eagle (the one with the arrows and branches). The party leaders would make glorious speeches proclaiming a new era and a new order for our country. The Honorguard and Stormguard paramilitaries would parade down the streets by the hundreds of thousands, if not by the millions. Followed by thousands of cheerleaders and standard-bearers bearing the American flag and the party insignia mentioned several sentences earlier. Afterward real reform could be implemented, the Islamists would be expelled, the old corporate conglomerates would be broken up and their leaders thrown into specially made holding camps in the Rockies and Alaska. The assets of the corporate conglomerates would be divided and parceled out among a new class of meritocratic entrepreneurs the prototypes of which are Xer/Millie cusper and early Millie "new business" execs like Zuckerberg, etc. The would also be created a Meritocratic administrative class that would govern the country. The civil-military education system would be created eventually resulting in the creation of a combined civil and military administrative class.

Then the Vassalization of the Latin America would be followed by the general pacification of the middle east, Here under Millie/Late-wave Xer leadership America would progress from strength to strength. The Mideast would be conquered and settlement zones and settlement cities created and populated by American, Anglophone, Latin American, Indian, African, and Israeli settlers. The Natural resources, Material resources and Manpower resources of the Mideast would be acquired for American use. The Establishment of the settlement zones would be supported by the establishment of Labor settlements because the construction of these proposed cities would be carried out using Arab Muslim Labor. This would be overseen by the Military governors and occupation forces and administered by Meritocratic Entrepreneurs and the administrative entrepreneurs. The Army and Stormguard would provide the security for the pacification of the middle east however the entrepreneurs can also call upon private mercenaries for security and local pacification. Entrepreneurs would then carryout the exploitation and development of the region using local labor resources. Finally Administrative entrepreneurs can call for additional quotas of local labor if needed for those economic development activities whose byproducts are a high labor turnover rate. Restorationism as a whole would also provide the Liberation of the American psyche from the boomer derived Ideological, psychological and Emotional enslavement and manipulation and lead our nation into a bright future in which it would create a new superstate encompassing both American continents, North Africa, and the Middle east which would create a Massive trade conduit to Asia, India and Black Africa. This would lead the world into a new golden age.

Trump is also an old fart, just like Clinton. And Sanders.

The only viable Non Boomer candidate is Cruz.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Trump is also an old fart, just like Clinton. And Sanders.

The only viable Non Boomer candidate is Cruz.

Sanders, born in 1941, is a Silent, not a Boomer. Although he does seem to be wearing the hat of the Gray Champion.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Sanders, born in 1941, is a Silent, not a Boomer. Although he does seem to be wearing the hat of the Gray Champion.

And oh yes. Sanders just won 56.1% of the vote in the Wisconsin Primary and 45 delegates to Hillary's 31, closing the gap between them by 14 delegates. Next stop, Wyoming caucuses this Saturday. Sanders is in Laramie WY. The guy is going to every state to get every delegate that he can. Especially now that he can afford to do it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio too (probably not Illinois, although it was close there between Bernie and Hillary).

Polls have her ahead of Trump and maybe Cruz in those states, but those are the swing states that Republicans hope to steal from her. FL, VA, NC can be considered southern, although they are swing states too. Trump apologists think he can win those middle-west industrial states with "uneducated" middle class white men. We know how much Trump "loves the uneducated voters."

We're educated.

Wisconsin got Berned

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Trump is also an old fart, just like Clinton. And Sanders.

The only viable Non Boomer candidate is Cruz.

-- gawd help us if it's Cruz.

Originally Posted by marypoza

Wisconsin got Berned

Congratulations!

Bernie appears to have netted 10 delegates.

But, Clinton picked up 7 super delegates earlier. Bottom line: Sanders gained about 3 delegates but is still behind over 250 pledged delegates and with the supers, nearly 700. I'm not yet feeling the Bern.


And this morning Bernie was welcomed to New York -



It's going to get a tad ugly. It will be interesting to see if Bernie can handle it.

I have predicted that Hillary will get 877 more delegates, and Bernie 784. Bernie will need 155 more than I predict, and Hillary 155 less, in order to pull just ahead in pledged delegates, and have a case to make to the supers and uncommitteds. Bernie did what he had to do in WI to stay in the game, but actually got less than I predicted (although I stated that my WI prediction was generous. I had predicted a 56 to 30 split in favor of Bernie, which he could not improve on. He got 48-38. So now he actually needs 5 more than I said he needed before.

So, for the next group of primaries, after Wyoming, we are back on Hillary's turf. This is my prediction, and how much better Bernie needs to do than my prediction, for these states:

STATE, HILLARY-BERNIE, BERNIE NEEDS + (& HILLARY NEEDS -)
WY 4-10 Bernie needs +2
NY 147-100 +16
CT 30-25 +10
RI 10-14 +2
MD 60-35 +12
DE 13-8 +5
PA 100-89 +8

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I have predicted that Hillary will get 877 more delegates, and Bernie 784. Bernie will need 155 more than I predict, and Hillary 155 less, in order to pull just ahead in pledged delegates, and have a case to make to the supers and uncommitteds. Bernie did what he had to do in WI to stay in the game, but actually got less than I predicted (although I stated that my WI prediction was generous. I had predicted a 56 to 30 split in favor of Bernie, which he could not improve on. He got 48-38. So now he actually needs 5 more than I said he needed before.

So, for the next group of primaries, after Wyoming, we are back on Hillary's turf. This is my prediction, and how much better Bernie needs to do than my prediction, for these states:

STATE, HILLARY-BERNIE, BERNIE NEEDS + (& HILLARY NEEDS -)
WY 4-10 Bernie needs +2
NY 147-100 +16
CT 30-25 +10
RI 10-14 +2
MD 60-35 +12
DE 13-8 +5
PA 100-89 +8

The Panama Papers are hitting at just the right time to enable Bernie to get those delegates. They make the Clinton Foundation relevant in a bad way for Hillary. Bernie is already hitting Hillary hard on the Panama free trade agreement. We'll be hearing a lot more about this in next week's debate in NY. Panama Papers have hit 2 weeks before the NY Primary--more than enough to add another 10 percentage points to Bernie's margin (and I think Bernie was already on track to win NY and PA before the Panama Papers hit (Clinton is only 10 points ahead of Bernie --down from 40 in March with two weeks to go in NY and only 6 points ahead of Bernie in Pennsylvania with 3 weeks to go, with no primaries in between). http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-d...clinton-221592 http://theantimedia.org/panama-paper...llary-clinton/

Originally Posted by playwrite

And this morning Bernie was welcomed to New York -



It's going to get a tad ugly. It will be interesting to see if Bernie can handle it.

Being against a logically absurd lawsuit is "callous"?