Skip to content

Let’s Change the Rules!


So, do you believe in democracy or not?

The Washington Post couldn’t find any change in the rules that would give Sanders a win. Right now, the only way he could become the nominee is if most of the superdelegates ignore the will of their voters, abandon Clinton and decide to vote for Sanders. Sanders has been touting this argument since March, but so far not a single superdelegate has switched (none have even talked about doing it).

To his credit, Bernie Sanders himself is starting to make some motions of coming around. He is spending more time attacking Trump — even giving Trump the nickname of “Mr. Macho“:

Let me not worry about Hillary Clinton right now. Let me worry about Donald Trump — this big, brave, macho guy, my goodness. He said he wanted to debate Bernie Sanders, then he said he didn’t, and then he said he did, and then he said he didn’t. So I say to Mr. Macho that I am open to a debate anytime, any place here in the state of California, hopefully before the June 7 primary.

Sanders also hasn’t ruled out being Clinton’s pick for vice president.

And for those of you who still have an uneasy feeling about Clinton, here are two posts from Facebook. The first is from Gavin Newsom, the current Lieutenant Governor of California and formerly the mayor of San Francisco:

In 2004, after I ordered the city clerk to give same-sex couples marriage licenses, I quickly became a pariah in the Democratic Party. I was accused of endangering Sen. Kerry’s campaign for president, my speech at the national convention was cancelled, and most hurtful, major democratic candidates and elected officials — some of whom were my friends — refused to be photographed with me or even be in the same room with me. I was being demonized by the left and the right. Only one major figure in the Dem party was willing to be photographed with me: Hillary Clinton. In 2004, we did an event together down at Delancey Street in San Francisco. I’ll never forget that moment — that when I was being attacked for my position on same sex marriage and what we did in San Francisco, she was willing to stand with me in public when no one else was. ‪#‎ImWithHer‬

The second Facebook post is from someone named Scott Wilson:

Just who were you expecting? Seriously. When a woman finally captured the nomination of a major party for President, what kind of a woman did you think she would be? Did you think that she might be tough-minded and pragmatic, someone who knows how to work the system and who is willing to do that? Did you think she might be someone flawed, who has made mistakes, but who is also resilient enough to withstand two and a half decades of relentless attacks? Did you think she might be a fighter, carrying the scars of a fighter? And if you thought she would be any of those things, did you really expect that anyone would like her, given what we demand of women in this culture? Let me tell you something: I have not liked this woman, either. I don’t agree with some of the things that she’s done, and some of the things that she stands for now. But I admire her. I am moved by who she is, given what we have put her through. And I am absolutely for her.

Matt Bors
© Matt Bors



  1. Arthanyel wrote:

    More media propaganda. More bad math. there are enough voters and pledged delegates still left in Caltfornia, New Jersey, etc. to have Bernie end up ahead.

    It’s not likely. It’s very UNlikely. But it is not impossible, and every push to anoint Hilkary before the race is really over pushes more people into the “Bernie or Bust” camp.

    It is widely reported that there are coordinated plans from our “independent” media to announce Hillary has won next Tuesday BEFORE CALIFORNIA POLLS CLOSE. if that happens, it is the last in a series of clear indications that the major media outlets are prejudiced and willing to try and suppress voters to favor Hillary.

    Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 7:05 am | Permalink
  2. ThatGuy wrote:

    As I’ve said before, proportional without superdelegates would be preferable. Add to that all states being primaries rather than nonsense caucuses. Once again, if we’re going to insist on superdelegates, they ought to wait at least until their state has voted or act only as tie vote breakers. Setting up one candidate with several hundred delegate lead from the get-go just isn’t a good idea.

    Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 7:14 am | Permalink
  3. Arthanyel wrote:

    I don’t have an issue with superdelegates. I have an issue with counting votes before they are cast. It’s like calling the election based on polls. And I have an issue with bias and propaganda.

    Hillary is very likely to be the nominee, and I will back her when she is, but the more the “establishment” proves the game is rigged the more people are ready to burn down the whole system.

    Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 7:44 am | Permalink
  4. Hassan wrote:

    ARTHANYEL, they been announcing from first day that Hillary is won, in fact all news networks (lately CNN has stopped doing it) always counted Super delegates that Hillary was born with in total. It is easy to say now Hillary won fair and square, but from day 1 all the machinery was against Bernie, and constant bombardment to people that Hillary has massive lead so just vote for her has effect of rigged system.

    I find very convenient that they are talking about Math now, if DNC chair and all super delegates had been neutral, and medica been neutral, we would have had a fair race.

    Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:07 am | Permalink
  5. Iron Knee wrote:

    I think the fact that Sanders is still in the race is pretty much proof that the game is not (substantially) rigged. Not to mention the fact that Trump would never have won the Republican nomination.

    Hassan, the media didn’t announce Hillary had won any more than they announced that Jeb had won. And I had to giggle at your assertion that the establishment strategy was to tell people that “Hillary has massive lead so just vote for her”. Like that would have worked in any election, let alone this one. If they actually said that, I think it would have helped Sanders far more than Clinton.

    Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 9:17 am | Permalink
  6. ThatGuy wrote:

    My primary issue with “the establishment,” as it were, is that Clinton was the clear favorite of the DNC from the beginning, which led to terrible debate times designed to minimize both potential damage to their candidate of choice and starve the other candidates of air time. This fit the media narrative that it was Hillary’s nomination all along (a position I think germinated independent of the DNC, but jived with each other) and only served to magnify Trump’s nonsense because there was only one “real” race to report on.

    But, one could always argue that the media likes horse races (though parties play into this too). They’ll try to make one of Clinton/Trump no matter what. I just think they didn’t need a Democratic horse race when they had a Republican circus. In any case, it’s clear the media readily accepted Clinton’s line that “we’re not Denmark” without much thought to disqualify progressive programs while giving ample time to the idea that we could bar Muslims from entrance or build a massive wall and pay nothing for it.

    Finally, Arthanyel, my issue with superdelegates is that they are, in some cases, casting votes before any voters actually get out there. In my opinion this is worse than analyzing polls or announcing favored candidates. It’s often anti-voting by cancelling out the will of actual voters.

    Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 9:32 am | Permalink
  7. Hassan wrote:

    Expect more of same corruption of Obama from Hillary:

    So BOFA instead of paying full money back to people (who could be of any political persuasion), just donated small fraction to liberal groups and cleared their settlement. No wonder people hate establishment of both parties who join together to screw majority of people.

    Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 10:20 am | Permalink
  8. redjon wrote:

    The Washington Examiner is not exactly the Washington Post, is it? A bank reducing its exposure as agreed to as part of a binding legal settlement? In the USA? I’m just shocked.

    Remind me again, how many administration officials have been formally charged, much less convicted, of any actual crime?

    And corruption in the American banking system? Again, I’m just shocked. This NEVER happened before Barack Obama was elected POTUS. Until that point, the whole system was absolutely squeaky clean.

    ANY possible corruption, when it exists, is on him. F@#$%^&g Obama!

    Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:31 pm | Permalink
  9. Hassan wrote:

    REDJON, I have only lived under George Bush and Obama. 1 year under Clinton. I do not mind George Bush being in jail for his crimes either.

    Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 2:03 pm | Permalink
  10. ebdoug wrote:

    Hassan, George baby Bush is in jail for his crimes. Every day he gets more notches on his guns from the killing in Iraq. EVERY SINGLE DAY. Penetration of IS, bombings, etc that Saddam Hussein kept out of Iraq. Bush knows he did wrong. Why don’t we see or hear of him? Because he is painting. Somewhere sometime someone might forgive him for invading a sovereign country, but probably not before he dies. He hasn’t forgiven himself. That is jail.

    Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 2:31 pm | Permalink
  11. Mike wrote:

    What I saw was that Hilary didn’t have the needed delegates in all but two of the sets of proposed rules.

    It astonishes me that, in a year when anti-establishment sentiment is at an all time high, the Democrats are determined to nominate the most establishment candidate possible.

    Not only is Hilary “establishment,” so far as I can see she has no idea how to deal with an utterly unconventional, non-establishment Republican candidate and seems to think that he’ll self-destruct.

    To the sorrow of 16 Republican candidates, that hasn’t happened yet.

    Unfortunately, this will will yet another presidential election (other than Obama’s two runs) in which I will be casting a not-the- other-guy vote, rather than a positive vote.

    Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:23 pm | Permalink
  12. Carter Shmeckle wrote:

    If you are opposed to Trump, you should want the candidate who has the best chance to beat him in November to win the Democratic nomination. From the polls I’ve seen recently, that’s Bernie.

    Speaking of Trump, reports indicate that, if elected, he will change our national anthem even before he bans Muslims from entering the country:

    Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 9:54 pm | Permalink
  13. Jonah wrote:

    I think that chart above is misleading. Hillary currently has 1770 delegates excluding superdelegates who number 712. The remaining number of delegates from the primaries is about 700. Assume she has 0 superdelegates. Then all she needs to do from this point onwards is to get about 44% of the superdelegates and voting delegates and she would win even though she deserves more than 44% of the SD’s. From the polls that’s a given. So for better or worse, unless the superdelgates renege and more of them are allocated disproportionately to Bernie, Hillary is a fair winner.

    I also find the “change” argument inexplicable. Change from what? Are democrats saying that Obama wasn’t the change they wanted? Or if he is then clearly he seems to prefer Hillary and so do his surrogates. And what change does the % that supports Trump want? Most of his changes take us back to the 2000-2008 times or the pre-clinton times with fewer regulations and more tax breaks for the wealthy and a possible nuclear free for all with the possibility of the environment worsening beyond any hope of repair. So unless everyone who says he/she is voting for Trump is stupid I have to believe the change they want is not the good kind.

    I also think the recent violence at Trump events from what appears to be liberal protestors is likely to be more harmful that helpful. Sure Trump supporters are thugs but all liberals need to do is let Trump and his people spew out all the filth they want and let the media show it on national tv. If the majority of the US population votes for him despite that then that clearly reflects badly on the country as whole. But continuous violence is likely to mask the extremes of the Trump movement and likely to help him land more voters.

    Friday, June 3, 2016 at 5:47 am | Permalink
  14. Jonah wrote:

    Forgot to mention Hillary needs 2383 delegates to win

    Friday, June 3, 2016 at 5:49 am | Permalink
  15. Iron Knee wrote:

    I’m not sure what your point is, Jonah. The chart shows how many delegates Clinton and Sanders have both with (first line) and without (second line) superdelegates. (You say 1770 without supers, while the chart says 1768).

    Sanders asserts most of the superdelegates should flip sides to him because he is better able to beat Trump in the general, but that is based on polls that everyone (especially the superdelegates) know are meaningless before the nominating conventions. Your points seem to be the same points made by the chart, so why are you claiming that the chart is misleading?

    Your ideas for what Clinton and the Dems should do to defeat Trump are very logical. Unfortunately, it is clear that Trump supporters are not acting logical. I’m afraid that we people who already support Clinton (and that includes me) are not the best people to be giving advice on how to beat Trump.

    Friday, June 3, 2016 at 6:35 am | Permalink
  16. Jonah wrote:

    IK, The chart should say Hillary still “leads” and not “wins” since the displayed delegate count is as of now and I see at least one comment indicating that the reader thought this was the final count. A projection of the remaining races would have helped. Until she gets to 2383 she has not “won”.

    The summary of what I was trying to say was that in the end unless Hillary’s win % is less than ~43% in the remaining primaries she would reach the 2383 count with ease so there shouldn’t be any question at that point that she is the legitimate winner.

    Friday, June 3, 2016 at 7:50 am | Permalink
  17. Iron Knee wrote:

    Ah, I understand now. Agreed on all counts. Thanks for the clarification.

    Friday, June 3, 2016 at 2:24 pm | Permalink