Is Global Trade for the 1%, or the Global Poor?

Provocative stuff from Jonathan Chait:

The argument for restricting this trade rests on protecting the interests of the working class in rich countries at the expense of the global poor who are taking their jobs. In an interview last summer, Ezra Klein pushed Sanders into more or less conceding that his trade plans would look out for American workers at the expense of poor workers overseas. “I think what we need to be doing as a global economy is making sure that people in poor countries have decent-paying jobs, have education, have health care, have nutrition for their people,” Sanders replied, when asked how he would balance the two. “That is a moral responsibility, but you don't do that, as some would suggest, by lowering the standard of American workers, which has already gone down very significantly.”

This is the meat of the debate between free-trade Democrats and protectionist ones. On the one side, free traders arguing that trade lifts up the global poor and reduces barriers to exports. On the other, an argument that we need to lift foreign workers up to our standard of living for their labor. It's a rather straight-forward debate.

Chait goes further in though:

Sanders argues that the correct response to the system that is allegedly failing rich and poor countries alike is “real change,” stripped of nativist sentiments: “we do not need change based on the demagogy, bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiment that punctuated so much of the Leave campaign’s rhetoric — and is central to Donald J. Trump’s message.” But Trump’s message, for all its demagoguery and racism, is at least connected to a factually coherent analysis of how trade works, as Annie Lowrey points out. Trump is arguing that trade deals have helped foreign countries and screwed American workers. He’s straightforward about his intention to screw over foreign countries.

Sanders, on the other hand, wants to pretend that a policy that screws over the global poor can be undertaken not only without overt bigotry, but that it will also benefit the global poor themselves. Between the two, Trump’s case is the more realistic one.

And here in lies the provocative part of this- Trump at least gets global trade, while Bernie and his supporters don't. I don't know that I buy it- a certain amount of rhetorical ignorance has to be allowed to any policy point. With that said, Trump's appeal does get the zero-sum nature of this issue- he casts it as "American workers vs. the global working poor." Sanders is trying to cast this as a "workers of the world vs. the rich" debate. Trump's case is the factually accurate one. It is also the factually dangerous one. It promotes xenophobia, hyper-nationalism, and frankly, racism. Bernie's perhaps does over-simplify who should be aligned with who, but nails the fact that really, no worker should be exploited just because of where they live. I think Chait hits on some important points here. I just also think he's boiling the issue down further than we really should.

On Bernie's Proposed Changes to the Process

It's kind of fascinating what a candidate will fight for at the end of a Presidential campaign. Is it the policy lines in the platform? Process changes? Removal of personalities? The Vice-Presidency or a cabinet post? What ultimately makes them tick, when the top job is off the table?

So Bernie Sanders has reportedly put out a list of things he wants, and they tend to focus on process- complete open primaries, ending the super-delegates, removal of the DNC Chairwoman and several other party leaders, and same-day registration in every state. Open primaries and same-day registration is not a decision of the party, while the super-delegate process and the party leaders are. I only support one of these four proposals, and am open on one. Here's why:

• Same-Day Registration- I support Bernie on this one. There should be same-day registration everywhere. We should make it as easy to vote as possible. Voting is a right. The problem with this, of course, is that state legislators need to approve this. They won't all be very excited to do this.
• Super-Delegates- I am certainly open to changing this system, but elimination would actually have negative consequences. If we eliminated super-delegates for 2020, members of Congress and Governors would be running for delegate slots against every day people who run. We would have a convention that would end up full of elites, and no one else. Now, I agree that super-delegates should not be allowed to over-rule the pledged delegate count, but 1.) they never have, and 2.) that's the only reason Bernie is still in the race. I don't think the super-delegates are a big problem, but i'm not totally opposed to making them pledged based on the results either. I don't see it as a priority though.
• Open Primaries and Caucuses- No. Absolutely not. I'm with the Congressional Black Caucus here, I want Democrats picking the Democratic nominee. If you can't join the party, why should you pick it's nominee? If you want to make registration easier, i'm fine with that. You still should join the party, if you want to make decisions regarding it.
• DNC Leadership- No. Absolutely not. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has her flaws, but she's done a good job. You do not reward people who are ignorantly claiming that she rigged the system. She did not. You don't reward sour grapes and misinformed statements.

Those are my thoughts right now. There's some things to work with, and some things to dismiss out of hand.

Hillary Folks- Stop Telling Bernie People to "Unite"

Eight years ago this month, Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race for President, conceding the nomination to then-Senator Barack Obama. During that campaign, I had worked for her, and at that time I was very, very disappointed. It took me a little time to accept the result and move on. I did, and I voted for President Obama, and I'm proud that I did. I can't lie and say it was easy though.

Right now, supporters of Bernie Sanders are in a similar situation. Hillary is about to be nominated in July's convention in Philadelphia. Bernie Sanders, after a long and hard fought campaign, is going to come up a little short of victory. His supporters, some of whom have put their heart and soul into the race, are now forced to come to grips with that, and make their decision about how to move forward. It's tough. I wasn't with them during this campaign, but I feel their pain. You don't come around over night, despite pledges to do so every time.

I have complete and total faith in most of the Sanders supporters. Are there some "Bernie or Bust" people who can't be reached? Sure, and I have made my opinions clear about them in the recent past. The overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters are smart and decent people, with whom I share many values- a commitment to combatting climate change, a living wage for an honest day's work, support for public education, a desire to see universal health care, a belief in common-sense gun laws, and many more progressive positions. We may not agree on the details to do it, but we share the goals. I believe that 85-90% of the Sanders supporters are good, decent people who will come to the responsible decision about moving forward in this Presidential race, in part because of our shared values, and in part because of Donald Trump.

The Sanders supporters don't need my advice on what to do, they're adults and can figure out what's right for them. They also don't need me to tell them "it's time to unite." They should work on their time line and come to their own decision. The folks who need my advice are my fellow Clinton supporters. We need to win with some level of decency. Stop telling Sanders people what they need to do right now. It's June. They can think and come to their own conclusions. Do they need to accept the reality of the race at this time? Yes. Do they have to "get on board" with it today? No. Give them time.

I have faith that things will work their ways out. Give them time to do so. For my fellow Clinton supporters, put your energies into positive things, working hard to talk to voters and donate to the campaign. Don't put your energies into badgering Sanders volunteers into supporting us.

Closing the Book on the Democratic Primaries

When something's over, you move on from the emotions of it. As the 2016 Democratic Primary fight reaches it's ending, it is high time to move on from it. Does that mean all grievances are settled? No, probably not. It does mean you move on though.

I've made it clear throughout this process that I support Hillary Clinton. Yes, I'm with her. I support her the person, the candidate, her ideas, and her track record. I do not believe she is corrupt, ineffective, "Republican-lite" or anything else negative. I think Hillary Clinton will make a great President, and she is exactly who I want in office.

I also made it clear that I did not support Bernie Sanders in this process. Rather than going through everything, I will be succinct- I disagreed with some of his positions, I didn't like the tone of his campaign, and I did not share his want for a "revolution." I say this while sharing some of his goals- a higher minimum wage, a national health care system, fair trade deals, and others- to name a few. I just never came around to his details. I think he's a fine Senator and hope he continues to do good work there.

As this ends, there is a certain level of animus on my end that will slowly fade away. Sanders message became something that I not only disagreed with, but find to be dangerous. I am mad. Despite being insurmountably behind for months, he continued to batter our presumptive nominee as a tool of right-wing interests. He continued to cast aspersions on the validity of our nominating process, feeding people who did not understand the process and sometimes in it for the first time, with feelings that they were being robbed. He called great elected leaders, people doing wonderful things, "the establishment" in a condescending way. He and his campaign viciously smeared our DNC chair, state chairs, and party leaders. I found the tone and message, calling for a "political revolution" after eight years of President Obama, to be offensive. I found it to be an affront to all Democratic Party members. I found it to be ridiculous.

In short, I found his attacks on the Democratic Party to not only be false, but to completely turn me against him. In short order, I will be over it. In short order (like after Tuesday), I won't even mention these disputes again. As we close the books though on this process, it's time to move on. I agree with Bernie Sanders on many, many items of policy, and I actually agree with his supporters on many of our goals too. There's no sense kicking a dead horse any more, so I won't. It's time to start closing the books and moving on. If Senator Sanders wants to "take it to Philadelphia," he has earned that right, and it won't matter much in the end anyway. As far as I'm concerned, this is basically done.

Democratic Primary Update- Any Minute Now

This weekend, Hillary Clinton swept the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, putting her within a stone's throw of the Democratic nomination. The delegate count at this point:

• Hillary Clinton- 1,809 pledged delegates, 548 super-delegates, 2,357 total delegates (needs 26 more).
• Bernie Sanders- 1,520 pledged delegates, 46 super-delegates, 1,566 total delegates (trails by 791).

So here's what will happen next. Hillary Clinton will receive 26 delegates without any effort, so she will effectively become the presumptive nominee at 8 pm on Tuesday when New Jersey polls close (or possibly before if super-delegates endorse her). At 11 pm, when California polls close, Clinton will pass the 2,026 mark of pledged delegates, meaning she will have won the majority from the people.

Sanders can decide for himself if he stays in beyond Tuesday. His hope is that super-delegates will change their mind by the end of July in Philadelphia. That seems to be highly unlikely, since she will have won the majority of the votes and pledged delegates. With that said, Sanders has certainly earned the option of either having a roll call vote or making some form of deal with the presumptive nominee on speaking and on the platform.

Uniting the Party Comes Down to a Small Pocket of People

While we've all been battling over the Hillary-Bernie fight, a funny thing has happened- the primaries have reached their ending. Hillary Clinton will cross 2,383 delegates on June 7th when the polls close in New Jersey, and will at that point be the presumptive nominee. At that point, Bernie can either drop out or simply continue to Philadelphia without really any chance at winning, but that will be his call. She will begin searching for a VP, forming a transition team, and doing all the things that presumptive nominees do. Another part of this will begin to happen though- unification. That will essentially fall on Hillary and Bernie, more so than anyone else, to decide if they are on the same team or not.

Bernie will probably have to make the first choice- does he take this fight to a roll-call vote, or does he want a primetime speaking opportunity Monday or Tuesday. Given that the vote is Wednesday, he will have to make up his mind before the convention about what he intends to do. Then the real fun starts. Is he considered for VP? What parts of the platform does he get influence over? What lasting impression will he get to leave on this race? These are tough questions.

In the end though, it is Hillary Clinton who will need the Sanders supporters, as every nominee needs their rival's backers. Bernie Sanders will end the primary season in the neighborhood of 13 million votes strong, a large chunk by any measure. A very typical two-thirds of them say they will vote for Clinton now, meaning about 8.5 million are in her column. I would venture a guess that about ten percent of them will never vote for her, about 1.3 million. That 9.8 million still leaves 3.2 million out there. I suspect that once the nomination fight ends, a few more people will trickle into her column, giving her about 75% of them, or 9.7 million. Given those that she can't get, that leaves about two million people.

Now, maybe you think two million votes matters, maybe you don't. I tend to think it does. It doesn't to the point of bending over backwards to give Sanders anything and everything he would ever want, but it does to the point that the Clinton campaign should try to give him a dignified and celebratory exit. A nod to his supporters on the Vice-Presidential choice (to be read: a progressive), integrating some of his policy plans, a prime-time speaking spot, and perhaps a nod to him that as President she will join him on some major policy position that he tries to pass in the Senate, would all make sense. While this race has turned bitter, Bernie has done more than well enough to earn a strong consolation package for his campaign. Hopefully Hillary can bring herself there.

Susan Sarandon, Rosario Dawson are Embarrassments

Bernie Sanders won't go there. Why? Well, for one, he realizes the Hillary Clinton "e-mail scandal" is not a scandal at all, and he's not willing to sell himself out to the American right-wing to score cheap points. Two, of course, because there's nothing there. I give Bernie Sanders big points for that show of principle.

This doesn't mean that everyone is as principled as him, not even within his own campaign. Susan Sarandon had no such pause, going right for the e-mail attack. Sarandon, an actress and not a lawyer, declared that Hillary Clinton will be indicted. How does she know? I don't think reality matters to this lunatic. She knows "because she knows," I assume.

Sarandon is not alone in her behavior though. Rosario Dawson amazingly tried to use Monica Lewinsky in an attack on Hillary Clinton. Aside from the fact that Lewinsky has nothing to do with how Hillary would serve as President, it is absolutely disgusting to use her husband's affair against her.

Sarandon and Dawson are absolute jokes, not just as surrogates, but as people. They will stoop to any low just to get their way. Don't expect me to take in either of their works any time soon.

I Don't Care if You're "Bernie or Bust"

I actually found this gem on Facebook. I think they can't spell.

It's the end of another long, drawn-out Democratic nominating process. Feelings are hurt. People are tired of it. The Presidential general election looms, and both sides feel like they deserve the nomination. One side is clearly ahead, and so the other wants the super-delegates to tilt things their way. Stupid things are being said all over. We've all seen this before, provided we were alive in 2008. It shouldn't be shocking to us.

Bernie Sanders is behind and will lose the nomination. Some of his supporters are very angry about that, and are saying it's "Bernie or Bust." They've taken to calling Hillary Clinton names like "Hitlery" or "Hiliary" and other ridiculous, childish names. They want to tell us repeatedly they will never back her. They want us to know they are serious. I have a message for them- we hear you, and we believe you. We just don't care.

Let's start with the obvious- there is always a "or bust" crowd at this stage in the game. Remember the PUMA's? They made a lot of noise, got no concessions at all, and ended up irrelevant. The psychology of any "or bust" crowd is that the threat of them not being on board for the nominee is so dangerous to the party and the nominee that the party will capitulate and give them what they want. It's essentially trying to over-rule majorities by being louder. No one is going to give in to that. We aren't a party run by any group of childish people on the losing side, whether it was 2008 or 2016.

Let's also address the threat of what you are saying as a "buster." You are under the impression that your are a quantifiable enough group that we will lose because of you. It's possible, but how probable it is could be debatable. Bernie has received about 10.5 million votes so far. I'm going to give him another 2.5 million (thanks to California for a chunk of that), for math's purposes. Right now, Sanders supporters are behaving similarly to Clinton's backers in 2008, in that about a third of them are saying they will not back Hillary. Besides the fact that most of them did come around in 2008, if we assume these numbers hold, Bernie would cost Hillary about 4.33 million votes. If Bernie's backers end up mostly behaving like Hillary's did in 2008, he'd cost her about 2 million votes. The first number would turn the Presidential election into a very close affair, though Clinton would still have a chance to win. The second number would probably just cost her some of the strength of her mandate. Yes, these votes matter, and Democrats are better off with them, than without them. No, even at the maximum end, they don't make it impossible for her to win.

Then there's the idea that somehow or other this is "teaching the Democrats a lesson," and that it would open the door to a more progressive party in the future. First, the only way a boycott of Hillary gets anyone's attention is if she loses as a result, and even then, I doubt that the reaction of Hillary supporters and "establishment" Democrats would be to want to welcome you into the party. Second, historically a Democratic loss has lead to a more centrist Democratic Party. Sure, we got Dukakis, McGovern, and Stephenson as nominees after Democratic defeats, but in each case the next Democrat to win was a more "mainstream" political figure- Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton. Even Barack Obama comes more out of the mainstream of American political discourse, even though he was the response to the ultra-conservative Bush Presidency. In short, a boycott doesn't get anyone's attention, and a Clinton loss doesn't mean we're going to have a nominee in 2020 that is quoting from Marx. Generally speaking in American politics, you only can move governing leaders from being inside the tent, as that's where the conversations happen. Establishing that you aren't a part of the party probably means the party doesn't care about you anymore.

In short, I'm skeptical that the "Bernie or Bust" movement is the force it's acting like it is, and even if it is, I don't think it's going about this in a constructive manner, for themselves. LGBT activists brought President Obama around by being inside of his tent, and he ended up being the best President they've ever had for their interest group issues. Womens' groups didn't take their ball and go home when Hillary lost in 2008, they supported President Obama and got Lilly Ledbetter right out the gate. The Occupy Movement on the other hand has largely stayed away from electoral politics, and we have yet to see the kind of massive income inequality-fixing legislation they want. There's a lesson to be learned here.

Beyond this though, I really don't care if you're "Bernie or Bust." I am not taking you as being especially "principled" for being that, I'm actually taking you as a less-serious actor. This crowd seems to want to tell us all the time about how committed they are to not backing Secretary Clinton, and I actually believe some of the folks on the internet all day saying so. I just don't care. I voted for Hillary, and I want her to be the nominee. You can say all day that you think she's corrupt, an "oligarch," or any other negative things you would like, I just don't agree with them. Neither do most of her voters. Neither do her delegates to the convention. Here's the kicker though- neither do the super-delegates. This line of attack hasn't worked, and we're not all going to wake up on July 25th and see your light. I'm sorry, but no. If you want to be "Bernie or Bust," so be it, that is your right. You can vote your conscience, I'm not going to think any differently about you for it (I'm already skeptical of you just for saying you'd do this). I just don't want to hear it anymore. Take that noise elsewhere. For all the reasons above, I don't care. We're not going to hand the nomination that Hillary won over to the Bernie campaign. It's just not how this is going down.

Sorry, not sorry.

The Democratic Nomination Update- California Doesn't Matter

A week from tonight is the California Primary- or as Senator Sanders calls it, "the whole enchilada." While that sentiment might make sense if you watch cable news, the truth is that California's winner or loser won't matter much. As a matter of fact, if Senator Sanders doesn't exceed expectations by a lot in New Jersey, she will probably clinch the presumptive nomination before voting closes in California.

To the current tally:

• Hillary Clinton- 1,769 pledged delegates, 543 unpledged delegates, 2,312 TOTAL DELEGATES
• Bernie Sanders- 1,501 pledged delegates, 44 unpledged delegates, 1,545 TOTAL DELEGATES

To win the nomination, 2,383 total delegates are needed. To win the majority of the pledged delegates, 2,026 are needed. Remaining on the map are:

• Virgin Islands- June 4th- 7 pledged delegates, 5 unpledged
• Puerto Rico- June 5th- 60 pledged delegates, 7 unpledged
• New Jersey- June 7th- 126 pledged delegates, 16 unpledged
• North Dakota- June 7th- 18 pledged delegates, 5 unpledged
• South Dakota- June 7th- 20 pledged delegates, 5 unpledged
• New Mexico- June 7th- 34 pledged delegates, 9 unpledged
• Montana- June 7th- 21 pledged delegates, 6 unpledged
• California- June 7th- 475 pledged delegates, 71 unpledged
• Washington, DC- June 14th- 20 pledged delegates, 25 unpledged

There are a remaining 781 pledged delegates. Clinton needs 257 more delegates to win the majority of the pledged delegates, making her the choice of the voters, which is 32.9% of the vote. Given that New Jersey polling puts her way ahead, and California gives her a tiny lead, and proportional in their delegates,  she is going to top that easily. That's even conceding that she doesn't blow him out in California. If she gets half of those delegates from those two states (300), and just 30 percent of all the others- a huge, huge stretch of the imagination- she ends up with 360 delegates, or 103 more than she needs. I see this as virtually her floor. In other words, you can expect her to walk away with 2,129 total pledged delegates- minimally. 

That number puts her narrowly shy, 254 delegates, of the nomination. Fortunately for her, she already has 543 unpledged delegates backing her, and presumably the oncoming endorsement of the President and others. Given that she is actually at 2,312 delegates right now, another 360 means she will reach 2,672 delegates. That comfortably makes her the nominee. It also means she clinches the nomination when New Jersey is called, basically. Assuming she will win at least 30 more delegates in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, she will need just 41 more delegates, a number she is assured basically when New Jersey's polls close, even if she lost a stunning collapse.

In other words, despite the cool coverage of Bernie having rallies or going to Golden State Warriors games, or despite debates about debates, there's a simple truth to all of this- it's the math. Hillary Clinton will both win the majority of our elected delegates and the majority of our delegates on the night of June 7th, around 8 pm, when New Jersey's polls close.

Have fun watching cable news.

The Democratic Nomination Fight Isn't Overly Close

Let me start by saying something that should have been obvious all along- Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. We get very caught up in micro-events during Presidential elections, when they don't really matter. We get caught up in "the horse-race," mostly because that's the way the race is covered. The coverage is outside of reality though, frankly. We've heard a lot about Bernie Sanders success in this race, and that is actually fair coverage, but then the media has morphed that into the race being excruciatingly close. That is false.

The Democratic Party process is created to do two things- give us a quick and decisive winner, and to make sure every demographic and issue group gets representation. What that does is it gives us an insurmountable leader by the end of the second month in the process, but it also means they won't "clinch" the nomination until June, if they ever do. If you watched in 2008, Barack Obama had an insurmountable lead in delegates by the end of February (month two) of about 160 delegates. At no point could Clinton close that all the way to a tie, or get herself a lead. President Obama never clinched though, actually being pushed over the top by the super-delegates after finishing the primary process with a lead that was about 1/3 the margin of Hillary Clinton's lead right now. The race was over in February. The nomination wasn't technically clinched until July's convention. This is how our process works.

It's important to understand though- Clinton has a much bigger lead than President Obama ever had on her. She has almost three-million more votes, a number neither of them ever lead by. She has a lead of 768 delegates. Her elected delegate lead is 269. She basically leads under any and all ways to configure this fight, as illustrated above. Her lead is significant.

It's also worth noting that nothing in this process "showed weakness." Bernie Sanders ran a credible campaign. He won states. He has a lot of delegates. Even after he was basically too far behind to win the nomination, he continued to win states. Most of the western U.S. will look very good for Bernie on a map when this is over. All of that is good for Bernie, but it's not significant to the general election. Hillary Clinton won contests after she had no shot of beating Barack Obama. Jerry Brown won contests against Bill Clinton after he had no shot. This happens. Voters who support the second place candidate do not become less passionate because they are behind. They don't stay home because the opposition declares they will win. Those second place candidates win some late primaries. It happens. On the final night of the 2008 primary process, I remember watching Hillary Clinton win primaries even as Barack Obama was celebrating crossing the delegate threshold to win (using super-delegates, mind you). She was out of the race quickly and without attacking the then-Illinois Senator. I suspect Bernie Sanders will win several states on June 7th. He may even win California, though i'm not so sure there. Even if he does, it won't matter. Hillary is highly likely to cross 2,383 delegates on June 7th, using her super-delegate endorsements as well. She will have won the contest.

The odds are that Clinton is going to win this race fairly easily. She's going to cross 2,383 early on the night of June 7th, and probably end up with at least 2,700 plus delegates, winning by over 700. She's going to cross 2,026 pledged delegates on the night of June 7th, clinching the majority of the elected delegates, and probably securing herself over 2,100 pledged delegates in the process, possibly keeping him below 2,000 total delegates even. She's going to lead in the popular vote. She's going to win this race by every metric, and we know that over a week before California even votes. That means the race was not overly close.

Perhaps this is not something pleasant for Sanders supporters. I understand, been there and done that. It isn't going to change though. The first female nominee for President is not going to have the nomination taken from her, even though she got the most votes. The super-delegates, whom she currently leads by about 500, are not going to switch sides and go with the second-place finisher. I totally understand why someone who supports Bernie Sanders would want them to, they want their candidate to win. That is not going to happen though. So while we argue about all kinds of nonsense about this primary contest, please understand- we know who is going to win now. She's going to win cleanly, and with a healthy margin. There really isn't much drama here.

Blame Him- Bernie is Just Being Bernie

Bernie Sanders has spent his entire career as the "alternative" to the mainstream Democratic Party. He has been loosely affiliated with it in the sense that he has caucused with the House and Senate Democrats in Congress for a quarter century. He never joined the party in all these years though, and that's because he was standing as the "progressive alternative" to it, at least in his own mind.

This puts him diametrically opposite to Hillary Clinton, his opponent in this primary in both partisan-membership and view of the Democratic Party's utility. While they substantively voted together over eight out of every ten times a Senate vote came up, Clinton was the person out at fundraisers for other candidates, speaking at candidate kick-offs, endorsing candidates, and lending her voice to help other Democrats for all of these years. Sanders has held himself up as a more "pure" progressive than much of the party for all of these years, and has largely avoided raising money, campaigning, or speaking on the behalf of Democrats.

When you consider things that way, it's actually really benign to say that the "super-delegates," all party and elected officials, would support Clinton. Of course they would. It's also reasonable to understand why a Sanders supporter would hate that- they are supporting him in no small part out of a distaste for the party's performance in office. They feel the party hasn't fought hard enough for some of the highest aspirations of some trains of more liberal thought- national health care, wealth re-distribution, free college, and other proposals that Sanders is putting forward. If you think that the party isn't doing a good job, you back Sanders. If you think it is doing a good job, you back Clinton.

Of course, this is the most clear reason for why I am supporting Hillary Clinton. I am as annoyed as anyone when I hear the common attacks on the Democratic Party- it doesn't fight hard enough, it's corrupted by money, it's not responsive- are you kidding me? It may not fit your ideal for outcomes, but we've watched President Obama sign the Affordable Care Act, the Stimulus Bill, new rules for overtime, immigration enforcement, minimum wage for federal contractors, and Dodd-Frank, to name a few of his many achievements that are touching peoples' lives right now. While in a fantasy world we could have passed Medicare for All instead of the ACA, I realize that just isn't plausible. I realize my party did it's best. I also prefer having a candidate for President who will stand up for her party, for it's elected officials everywhere, and defend them from some of the outrageous attacks they take from both the right and the left in American politics. It quite frankly is insulting to hear about how bad our party is from people who never were willing to stand in and fight on the behalf of the progress we made. It makes my choice for President rather easy.

To be fair, Bernie has just been Bernie throughout this process. His message is consistent with his entire career. It's just not a message I can endorse. I think the Democratic Party has done great work, both in it's post-1932 historical form, and in it's last eight years of concrete achievement form. I want to support a candidate who shares my positive view of our party. So while I get what Bernie's doing, I can't be a part of that "revolution."

Don't Blame Him- Bernie is Just Being Bernie

The other day, I came home to find my dog had ripped open a pillow. He's two, he's playful, and I left him alone for a while. I was mad for about 30 seconds, and then I realized something- he was just being a dog. I should know that if I leave him alone for a while, he's going to do something like this. It's my fault for allowing the behavior.

I've spent the last two months being angry at Bernie Sanders and his campaign. I've been angry at the nasty tone they've taken towards the Democratic Party. I've been angry that he won't drop out of a primary race that he can't win. I've been angry at the incorrect way that he has vilified the Democratic process. It's become annoying to watch him tell his supporters he still has a chance when anyone with an iota of a clue about how the process works, and an ounce of honesty, knows he can't win. The whole thing has been maddening.

Perhaps it's time to stop being mad at Bernie Sanders for being Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist candidate in Vermont all of these years, has never been a member of the Democratic Party. In fact, he has stood his entire career as an alternative to what he believes to be an unprincipled, ineffective Democratic Party. He has existed in Vermont as an alternative to a national party that doesn't make enough progress to satisfy voters there, and he's never been anything but straight forward about that. That he is now standing there and doing the same thing he's always done during the Presidential race should not be shocking. He's usually there to make progress when it's needed most, but the rest of the time he is "critic in chief."

Perhaps, the blame lies with people like me. Democratic leaders from the local to the national level, we all rolled out the red carpet to allow him to run in the primaries, in no small part to avoid him running as a third party candidate. Was that the right decision? Tactically, yes, though perhaps I shouldn't have carried his petition (I don't really regret carrying for his delegates, just him). Perhaps we should have confronted him earlier in the race, and confronted his view of the Democratic Party. Perhaps, months and months ago, we should have confronted his record in the Congress, his view of the Democratic Party's effectiveness, and the plausibility of his proposals. Perhaps we should have, but we didn't. And so Bernie ran, and so his message sounded good to a sizable minority of Democratic Primary voters. I guess we can be mad about that, but we shouldn't be. We should be mad at ourselves for allowing it.

Trump Surging? Not So Much

Republicans fall in line, not in love. I want you to remember that as you watch the polls in the coming weeks and months, and act surprised that Donald Trump isn't losing by 15-20% in them against Hillary Clinton. Every time you hear how she's surprisingly weak against him, or how Bernie would do better remember what I said. Of course she's not doing better than Bernie, she's actually a candidate for the general election. Of course Trump is close or even leading some polls, he's the Republican nominee.

Look, eight years ago at this time, Hillary was doing better than President Obama in general election polls. When you're not going to win, you're being attacked less, and you do better. It's really not hard to figure out. Much as the Republicans would have attacked Hillary with every vicious lie that they are now in 2008, Republicans would turn on a dime and utterly decimate Bernie Sanders if he were the nominee. There's lots to attack, and i'm not even talking about calling him a socialist, though i'm sure they'd turn him into some combination of Mao, Castro, and Stalin by November. To be polite, Bernie is benefitting from less than full coverage. I think his Senate Chairmanship of the committee that oversees the Department of Veteran Affairs from 2013-2015 alone would disqualify him in the general election. Of course he polls well right now- because he isn't going to win. That is the main point. The person who is going to lose, always looks better at the end of the process.

So with that out of the way, let's talk about Trump's "surge." When he initially became the presumptive Republican nominee, Hillary Clinton had a double digit lead on him. Now he's tied or leading in many polls, causing a lot of people to grow concerned about her in the general election. We're a far cry from when most of the articles were talking about his bad map. Clearly this is bad for Democrats, right?

No. After winning the GOP nomination in 2008, John McCain enjoyed a good Spring in the polls. Mitt Romney did very well about now in 2012, after clinching the GOP nomination. What did I say in the first line of this article? All of this is just the GOP base-consolidating behind Trump. To be clear, i'm not saying Hillary Clinton is a stone-cold lock, or that she'll have a ten point lead in a month. Not at all. I'm saying the current polling is a product of formerly skeptical Republicans decided that Donald Trump is superior to Hillary Clinton amongst their choices. This is to be expected- they are Republicans. Coming in around 46% is also quite consistent with where ultimately McCain and Romney came in as well. The only recent Republican to do better than that in a general election was George W. Bush. Trump continues to suffer from all of the problems that Romney and McCain did in the last two elections against President Obama- bad polling numbers amongst African-Americans, Asians, Latinos, Women, Youth, and all other non-old, white, and male groups. You cannot win a national election just winning white people. Not in 2016. That day in American politics has come and gone.

I guess this is as good of a time as any to address the "Bernie or Bust" worries though. While no one is as annoyed as me at these people, it is worth noting that I don't think they are the end of the world that we treat them as. For one, about 66% of Sanders national support says they will back Clinton in the general election, a number that is in line with where Clinton supporters were with President Obama at this point in 2008. In the end, the overwhelming majority of the holdouts came around to the President, and there is no compelling reason right now to believe that won't happen. Some will not, but I'd also wager a guess that most of those voters have not been past Democrats. Do I like that this process goes on and continues to be nasty and divisive? No. However, in the end I believe she will get 85% or more of the Sanders support in the general. If i'm right, it will be enough. The real hardcore "Bernie or Bust" people will make their point, and that's fine. They can embrace their privilege of choice any way they'd like.

Now, none of this means i'm saying Hillary is in the clear. She has high negatives, and that's not being helped by this primary fight. Unlike President Obama in 2008, she is underwater with independents. She will have a tough time winning this race, and it probably will look more like 2012 than 2008. Could she end up as our generation's George H.W. Bush, winning a third term for her party in a landslide? Sure. She could lose too though, even though I doubt it. My point is that she's in for a fight.

Back to the main point at the beginning though- Republicans fall in line, not in love. Donald Trump is their nominee now. They hate Hillary. This isn't hard for them. Trump isn't really "surging" by picking up Romney and McCain voters. He needs a lot more than that to win. He's simply consolidating his base, something Clinton has not done yet.

No Bernie- The Democratic Party is a Pretty Damn Good Institution

I guess this was inevitable. The "likable" Bernie Sanders that rose the polls and raised a lot of important issues had to eventually go after his opponent, Hillary Clinton. That's just politics. What's happened beyond that though is simply something we all should have seen coming. Bernie Sanders is a United States Senator, a known brand, a person who has stood as a progressive alternative to the Democratic Party for years. Some would call him an allied person, a member of Congress who stands with our party in the caucus and votes for our leaders. Others would say that he is an enemy, someone who's narrative of a weak and feckless Democratic Party reinforces what the American-Right says- that Democrats are morally bankrupt people with no spine, who are ineffective at what they do. I guess that depends on how much you value the institution of the Democratic Party though, and whether or not you really do think it's a worthwhile institution. I happen to think it is.

I guess I happen to think the modern Democratic Party is an institution worth having because of the lives it effects. This President, the one whom Senator Sanders says he wants to move to the left of, has done things that have helped millions of Americans. Just last week, he extended overtime rights to millions of workers who were not eligible before that. He signed the Affordable Care Act, which has extended health care to millions of Americans. He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, extending equal pay to millions of women. I could go on and on, but the point is that the Democratic Party may not be exactly what you individually want it to be, but it is an incredibly effective institution at helping millions who don't have a voice of their own. It also is a clear and contrasting with the Republican Party on issue after issue, even if the positions of the Democratic Party are not as liberal as everyone wants. Getting everything your way at all costs is not superior to improving the lives of millions. The perfect is not the enemy of the good.

This brings me back to Bernie Sanders, and the way this Democratic Primary has gone off the rails a bit. The Vermont Senator is now actively campaigning against the DNC Chairwoman, and accusing her of stacking the deck against him in this process. This twisting of reality is sad, because it suggests to his supporters that they should feel cheated- and honestly, he just lost fair and square. Sure, there are things I agree with him on that are wrong with the process we held- Saturday night debates and the existence of super-delegates come to mind first- but that doesn't change that the voters have chosen her by every metric imaginable to a sane person. Some don't want to accept that. This is why you have things like the near riot in Nevada. That is why Bernie's statement afterwards was so troubling to me- it seemed to reinforce the idea that it's the party, not the results, that are causing him to lose. The truth is, she's just winning this race, under the system that existed before either of them were running.

There is a point where every primary has outlived it's usefulness. The side that is behind tries to extend the race in hopes of a different result, and the fighting becomes more personally negative. Clinton supporters are resorting to calling Sanders a communist, a Republican plant, and attacking his party registration. Sanders supporters are embracing bogus Republican talking points about Hillary being corrupt, Benghazi, her e-mails, and all other sorts of madness. Since we know who will win the most pledged delegates at this point, it's time for the super-delegates to make clear they aren't switching sides, and end this discussion. For the sake of the election, we've reached that point.

For the sake of the party though, I really don't know what the right answer is. Here's the truth- you can't shut up Bernie or his supporters. We have a first amendment here. They can, and seemingly will, attack the Democratic Party in the same fashion the Tea Party destroyed the Republican Party as an institution. I happen to reject their view, that the Democratic Party is corrupted and ruined, and think the party has done mostly admirable things in recent years. It would be nice if more Democratic leaders would stop bunkering down, stop just telling the Sanders people to shut up, and would take on their attacks on the party. Otherwise we may see a damn good institution get burned to the ground.

What I Question About Bernie (And What I Don't)...

At some point between now and July 28th, Bernie Sanders will have to bow to reality- he won't be the nominee for President of the Democratic Party unless something truly amazing happens. He won't have as many pledged delegates, and the super-delegates will never switch to him, and he will finish in second place in this Democratic race. Senator Sanders will return to the U.S. Senate and presumably finish his career out in that, or some other role besides President. What will remain beyond him is the agenda that he has put forward, the vision for the country. Ultimately, this always mattered more than the person anyway.

I have never actually questioned the feasibility of what Bernie Sanders has proposed. "Medicare for all," free-college for all, breaking up the banks, getting money out of politics, expanding Social Security, raising the minimum wage, and even the accompanying tax breaks are all actually possible things, on paper. If you have the political will to pass these laws, the resources are there, you just have to make the accompanying values judgments to do them. If you're willing to spend less on Defense spending, if you're willing to uncap Payroll Taxes, if you're willing to cast the votes in Congress to defy the interest groups that would line up against all of these ideas, America could do them. I'm not passing judgment here on whether or not we should, but it's entirely possible.

Aside from whether or not these ideas are right, I've never believed we have the political will to actually do all the things Bernie is proposing. President Obama essentially lost Congress for three-fourths of his Presidency to pass the Affordable Care Act. Bernie's "revolution" is not going to suddenly spur a more conservative Congress to act on all of his big ideas, and the American people are not going to suddenly support his big actions to the levels to make Congress want to risk their jobs for him. If the Congress we had in 2009-2010 would not expand Medicare, Bernie isn't going to pass "Medicare for All." If the Congress we had in 2009-2010 gave us Dodd-Frank, Bernie isn't going to ride in like he's Teddy Roosevelt and destroy the banking system in America. To be fair, things like overturning Citizens United or at least raising the minimum wage somewhat are very possible in the next Presidency, and perhaps it's a good long-term goal to want free college and Medicare-for-all, but he's proposing an activist legislative agenda that is simply not going to happen in the next four years. To make it worse, nothing in Bernie's Congressional career suggests that he's the guy to make this happen.

I don't believe that Bernie Sanders is going to be the Democratic nominee, much less the next President of the United States, so really the question of what he can do is not that relevant really. The next President should be a Democrat, probably one that will preside over a divided Congress and have limited ability to pass legislation. My guess is that this next President, probably Hillary Clinton, will be able to pass a few choice items- a minimum wage increase of some kind, possibly immigration reform (if Paul Ryan is willing to let it see a vote), some sort of grand tax bargain that includes exchanges on corporate taxes and payroll taxes that both sides will have to accept, maybe some improvements on student loans, and possibly some improvements on infrastructure and energy. That is not nearly as exciting as the agenda that Bernie has put forward, but I think that's the reality we live in. Only a wildly effective President and legislature can structurally change Social Security's future path, short of an actual crisis arriving for the program, and things like free college for all and Medicare expansion for everyone are not going to be able to pass in this next term.

The real question is the long-term though, and whether or not some future progressive will be able to pick up Sanders' platform and run with it. I don't doubt that it is possible to do the things Sanders' proposes. I don't doubt that you can do the things he's proposing, but I do doubt their political viability. Can some currently nameless future candidate for President change the political dynamic and make passing free college tuition and single-payer health care possible? That is probably the more important question that comes out of this primary campaign, moving forward in progressive politics.

Why I'm Done Slamming Bernie Sanders, But Not Done With the "Bust" Crowd

It hit me during a conversation this weekend with a local Bernie volunteer leader- this primary doesn't need to be a contentious event. Back a year ago, when Bernie Sanders was entering the Presidential race a country mile behind, I was a fan. I also predicted he would sell well to the Democratic base, and be a factor in this race. I wasn't going to vote for Sanders, I backed Clinton, but I liked him. I thought the Ben N' Jerry's angle was cool, and I admired his clarity in a political world defined by grey areas. At different points, I flirted with even backing Bernie, but I never did. Now things have become quite nasty

Things have become nasty, and to be sure, I'm not excited about him running a hopeless campaign all the way to the convention in late July. Math is math, and Bernie will not win the pledged delegate count at the end of this process, which means there is zero chance the "super-delegates" overturn the results of the popular vote and delegate count to make Bernie the nominee. While Sanders supporters have convinced themselves that the super-delegates will view him as more electable and change their mind, that's not going to happen. As a 2008 Clinton supporter, I can guarantee you of that. The super-delegates have rightly concluded that current polling is not indicative of how a November race would look, at least with Bernie. This argument is not going to sell.

Beyond that though, I do prefer Clinton to Sanders on the issues. I don't believe we should scrap the Affordable Care Act at this time to move to "Medicare for all" Single-Payer health care, as Bernie Sanders does. I don't believe in making all college education free, and flooding the market with degrees as a result. While I agree with regulating Wall Street, I don't agree that we need to bust up the banking industry beyond recognition to do that. I'm more in tune with her positions, in the current day. I also think there's a better chance of her positions becoming law. I do agree that we will move towards Bernie Sanders' positions, in time, and that the Democratic Party would be well advised to move left on issues such as trade, to Bernie's positions. I also think the party would be smart to use his positions as cover to move left on student loans, tougher regulation of Wall Street, and access to health care. I just don't want to go where he's gone.

I step back though from all of this and remind myself of something- Bernie Sanders isn't the enemy. He's not even bad, and if he somehow did wrestle the nomination away from Clinton, i'd probably even vote for him, even if not enthusiastically at this point. The guy wants to move America to the left economically, and frankly, that's a good thing. The corporations have moved us to the right for decades, and a bit of push back against that is a good thing. Wages should rise, health care should be easily accessed, trade deals shouldn't kill American jobs, and college shouldn't leave us in deep debt. I like Bernie Sanders. I should like Bernie Sanders.

Beyond that, I should stop beating on Bernie for another reason- there's no point. If I actually believe Hillary Clinton is on her way to the nomination, I have no reason to beat up on a U.S. Senator who caucuses with my party and usually votes the way I like. Sure, I didn't like his votes on gun-manufacturer immunity and immigration reform, and I don't like his wife trying to fool people into believing Hillary Clinton will get indicted, but this is a campaign. It's hardball. If my candidate is ahead though, and likely to win, there's no reason to kick Bernie anymore.

With that said, the tone of this campaign has gone down a rabbit-hole that elicits emotional responses. For his part, Bernie Sanders has largely avoided labeling Hillary Clinton a criminal, corrupt, or many of the other negative adjectives that some of his supporters have. He has never entered into the misogynistic territory, calling Hillary a "bitch" or any other negative term. His campaign has largely avoided that talk too. Bernie has largely been decent in this race, but some of his supporters have not. As I watched the protests in California at the Clinton rally, and heard some of the terms being hurled at her supporters from Bernie supporters, I realized something- this is out of control.

As with any campaign, there are good and bad supporters. There are realists and people living in another reality. There are people who are responsible and able to view the election reasonably, and those who aren't. You may agree with Bernie more than Hillary, and therefore support him, and that's fine. If you think that Donald Trump is a better option than Hillary, you're not being motivated by an honest look at the candidates, but something less reasonable. You're also not being truthful about what Bernie is all about.

I'll be honest at this point, and they can tweet at me or comment here all they'd like- I have no use for the "Bernie Bros" or the "Bernie or Bust" crowd. They are taking a position their candidate is not (Senator Sanders has called Hillary a better option than Trump already), and that is not grounded in reality. As President Obama said the other night, your options are steak or fish- there is no third way. Someone will win the Democratic nomination, and it appears clear at this point that someone is Hillary Clinton will be it. If you choose to make her earn your vote, that is perfectly reasonable and fine. If you reflexively say "no" to her candidacy, you are effectively helping Donald Trump without any further thought. In America, there are two real political parties, and you get two real choices- steak or fish. Voting in a primary, then stamping your feet and demanding you get your way after losing, is not something reasonable people do. It's not how our political system works. If that's how you wish to behave, you'll probably not really ever be an effective political actor.

Beyond that though, I guess this comes down to how you view the stakes in this election. I believe President Obama has been a historic and game-changing progressive President. I believe his achievements are generational, and that he will go down as one of the most consequential President of my lifetime. If you think he sold you out, or moderated too much, or wasn't really a progressive, I guess this is the part where we part ways, and I disagree with your position, but I understand that it's your view. I believe it's crucial that we protect his legacy. I think it's crucial that his replacement be someone who will protect his achievements and expand on them. I think Hillary is obviously the closest candidate to him on policy, and so I prefer her. I think that regardless, we must elect a Democratic nominee and fight to cement his achievements and continue his direction for America. It is absolutely crucial to me that we elect a President who will defend the ACA and Dodd-Frank bill, and continue to enforce the many laws and executive orders that this President has put in place.

I also think that it's crucial that we elect a Democratic President if we want to continue making progress. If you want Citizens United overturned, the Voting Rights Act protected, labor rights secured, or any of the contentious issues that will face the Supreme Court in coming years to go our way, it's crucial that we win this election, and put a Democratic President in a position to appoint future judges. I think it's crucial that we put a person in place that can force the issue on immigration, student loans, guns, and a whole host of other issues that will come before this nation in the coming years. This is not an abstract thing. The next President will appoint judges to the Supreme Court, our cabinet, and many other crucial positions. Throwing away one's vote on Jill Stein or writing in Bernie after the fact has no utilitarian value at all. It will not move the political system, in fact we have seen before that defeat generally drives the Democratic Party back towards the center, and victory pulls it left.

I am generally annoyed that Bernie Sanders is going to keep running. For the record, Hillary did finish out the primaries in 2008, but was much closer than Sanders is in the delegate count, and did drop out after that. I also did not support a floor-fight then. In the end though, if the worst thing that Sanders does is force some floor votes in Philadelphia, that will not end up being the end of the world. Knowing that, i'm done slamming Bernie. Bernie is not the enemy. In fact, at some point in the not-so-distant future, I'll like Bernie Sanders again. Bernie is an ally in the fight, long term.

I'm not done with the "or Bust" crowd though. It's irresponsible. It doesn't show core values, it shows stupidity. If that's where you want to go with things, fine. I'm not with you, and you're not with me either. The line drawing in the sand is a two way thing, and while I think Bernie deserves say in the platform, and an increased profile in the Senate for running a fine campaign, i'm prepared to offer absolutely nothing to those who think Hillary Clinton is a "bitch," "corrupt," or a "criminal." For you, I quote the classic movie Willy Wonka- You get nothing, you lose.

Bernie's Value

I didn't vote for Bernie Sanders, I voted for Hillary. I'm proud of that vote, and think Hillary Clinton will make a great President. This does not mean that Bernie Sanders has not shown real value to Democrats and progressives of all types.

Bernie Sanders biggest value to the American left, after his race has ended, will be the blueprint on how to run to blue-collar white voters. His anti-trade message will end up as the future Democratic message in places like West Virginia and Michigan, and may serve as a way to fight off Democratic losses amongst white voters in those "Rust Belt" states. Hammering corporate greed also clearly has become an alternative to the Republican scapegoating of immigrants and minorities. In short, Bernie has written a "how to" guide for future Democrats wishing to win, or at least narrow losses with white, working class voters.

To be clear, I don't buy into Bernie's overall economic message. I don't believe we should pass "Medicare for All" or "free" college education at this time, nor do I think we should decimate the American banking system over some bad actors right now. In time, massive changes in these sectors can be done, but a more clear-headed, sober-minded approach than Bernie's rhetorical guillotine can and should be used for that. I'm not a believer in his "political revolution," but I do see value in parts, and perhaps a longer term blueprint within it. I also see a shorter term value for Democrats to adopt parts of his agenda now.

It Ain't Anti-Establishment Politics Tying Donald and Bernie...

I think this mostly gets what i've begun to suspect about 2016:

But first, allow me to rebut their ongoing theory of the case which is that this is all just a rebellion against “establishment politics” and “anger at Washington.” That argument held some water against dynastic sleepwalkerJeb Bush or Gang of Eight-er Marco Rubio, but most of the other candidates were not part of the establishment. But the greatest proof against this theory was demonstrated Tuesday night:

 

Ted Cruz, whatever else you think of him, is the most anti-establishment figure there is, and he was standing onstage with a high-powered, wealthy CEO who has never held public office, yet Trump managed to beat them all.

The reason is crystal clear, and always has been: it’s the racism, stupid. More broadly, though, it’s the racism’s kissin’ cousin, white male resentment, which isn’t just for white males. Trump has been forgiven every possible deviation from conservative orthodoxy and simple human decency because he has remained rock-steady about fighting the dirty Mexicans, the evil Muslims, and the uppity criminal blacks and their liberal allies. In his desperation, Ted Cruz actually managed to pick the only kind of hate that doesn’t sell so well anymore.

Van is onto something about Bernie Sanders, though it isn’t some general anger at Washington, either. Sanders’ largely white liberal support comes from a different strain of white resentment, a more patronizing one. While they all pay lip service to having the “right” positions on black issues, their overarching theory is that what’s good for everyone is especially good for black people, and if they’d only listen, they would get that. This is essentially what Bernie said at the beginning of his campaign, and what his campaignis still saying now. Yes, he was pressured into rolling out a racial justice platform, but even in that document, pivoted to his broader economic policies. Ask him today what needs to be done first, and his answer will be to overturn Citizens United and end economic inequality. "[Read more]

This author nails my sentiments about the current political season. 

Pundits and those in the chattering class like to dance around the real reason for the rise of Donald, but no matter how they try they can't escape the reality. Just look at the majority of his supporters and listen to what they are saying. 

And look, I get it. Angry working class whites who feel that they are entitled to god jobs and a Ozzie &  Harriet existence in America, cannot understand why they are losing everything, and Donald trump, with his Make America White Great Again brand, could not have come at a better time.

Whether we're talking about white nationalism or white liberalism, it's about a "White America" that is gone, and some don't want to accept that. I'm not a fan of identity politics, in general, but it's kind of hard to deny that which is staring you in the face.

A Little Reality for Bernie and His Busters

Bernie Sanders secured a great victory a few hours ago in Indiana, a victory he and his supporters should be proud of. He's run a pretty remarkable race, winning 1,400 delegates to this point, and many states along the way. He has built a passionate following, and is beloved by his base of voters.

Soon, this will all end. Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. She has 1,682 pledged delegates so far, just 344 short of a majority. If she just continues to run, she will reach that number. With 931 remaining pledged delegates out there, she needs literally only a little more than a third of the remainder. Long before she even gets to that point, she will have crossed 2,383 total delegates though, because the super-delegates have chosen her. That will not change. Bernie cannot catch her under proportional delegate allocation rules that govern the Democratic Party, so he will not win the elected delegate count, which means there is zero chance any super-delegates switch to his side. He can talk all day about a "contested convention," but a convention is not contested if the outcome is assured. He can win every primary still out there, and he'll still come up short. I can't state this enough different ways- Hillary won this nomination. If all the super-delegates were forced to follow their voters, she still won easily, and frankly any other way you try to warp the rules, she won.

So with that in mind, it's time for Bernie voters to begin considering how they will react. What does he, and they, want? If it's simply "give us the nomination," then the answer is no, and will be no in July too. If it's major process changes to the nomination in the future, he may have a chance with getting super-delegates diminished in the process, but that's it. If it's platform points and a speaking slot- yeah, Bernie's probably going to be able to get that. The careful line he has to walk is that the same delegates who are nominating her are also voting on these other matters- so he could also get nothing if he overplays his hand. Given how well he's done, that would be a shame.

Of course, the alternative is true- he and his supporters could withhold their support from Hillary Clinton. That may (and I stress may) cost her the election in November, which obviously would hurt her. It's not a guarantee that this would work, or frankly has any organizational possibility, but it is the highest form of leverage they have. If Bernie supporters wrote him in, or voted for Jill Stein, or even voted for Trump, we could indeed have a repeat of the 2000 election. That's actually possible. We all know what that cost us though.

The stakes we face in 2016 are without recent equivalent. A man who has run a white-nationalist campaign, vowing to ban Muslims from our nation and build a Berlin Wall style fence could be our President. A man who has insulted POW's, women, Muslims, Hispanics, and African-Americans, to name a few, is the Republican nominee. Donald Trump has run the most bigoted campaign in recent memory, while not really breaking from Republican orthodoxy as much as you think. He is a terrifying candidate for President.

There are always hurt feelings at the end of an election. Someone has to lose. If you're comfortable with the possibility of Trump, so be it, then don't vote for Hillary. That's your call.

If Bernie Ever Really Had a Shot, His Movement Would Have Died

The best thing that ever happened to Bernie Sanders campaign, if you believe in his positions and policy statements more than the person himself, is Hillary Clinton. The front-runner has been the subject of virtually everyone's negative attacks, from Bernie to the Republicans, and through the media. Her relative strength has sucked the oxygen out of the room, and basically allowed Bernie Sanders to exist, and build a movement. As one could predict, that movement grew and grew, and made people believe it had a shot to win, but it was just a little too late.

Had anyone in the media, political establishment of either party, or the public actually believed that Bernie Sanders ever had a real shot to win the Democratic nomination in 2016, we would not be here right now. Bernie's proposals to make college free for all, expand Medicare to the entire public, destroy the banking sector as we know it, end the private financing of elections, and raise taxes dramatically would all be undergoing a deeper vetting than what they have. It would be the New York Daily News interview on steroids. Bernie the person would have undergone much more expansive vetting, in bigger ways than just his personal taxes. Beyond just looking at these things, Bernie would be taking negative advertisements from all sides if he were in the hunt to win the election. Thanks to Donald Trump's antics and Hillary Clinton's seeming inevitability, Bernie Sanders has not been the object of scrutiny in this race. He and his ideas are fortunate for that.

Under the cover of not having a shot, Bernie Sanders spent the opening year plus of his campaign building a movement and selling his ideas to younger supporters who will vote in the decades to come. That's much easier to do when you are not taking incoming fire from both sides of the aisle. The good news for Bernie supporters is that this makes the next "Bernie candidate" for President slightly more likely to win, but the bad news is that he can't win as a result.

It's important to remember that when you hear someone say that Bernie and John Kasich are popular, part of why they are popular is that they can't win. No one is attacking candidates who won't be the nominees with television ads. No one is digging through the details of their plans, since they will never actually come to pass. Actual governing is not popular in the moment, and the fact that Bernie won't be doing it is helping him build an enduring movement that might.