Hillary Clinton’s supercilious contempt seems to be mushrooming like, well, a nuclear cloud. First, she declares herself the definite winner with nine races yet to go 1, 2—dripping condescending, self-satisfied conceit in a news clip that’s almost unbearable to watch, and in apparent denial of every plausible scenario in which this might not be true. Including nine more races, a contested convention, and an unresolved FBI investigation that may or may not be a criminal one.
Now, Clinton and media are still calling on Sanders to get out of the race. They never stop trying. They’ve been asking and suggesting and prodding since February. Earlier, even.
Why on earth would Sanders get out now?
He’s won 20 races (21 if you include Democrats Abroad); he’s won three of the last four (the fourth was a tie; Clinton won by .05% of the vote); he’s got 63% of the delegates needed; Clinton’s got 74%. She’d need over 78% of all remaining to avoid a contested convention and that ain’t gonna happen.
Let me repeat that, as you’re unlikely to hear it many other places: he’s got 63% of the delegates needed. Clinton’s got 74% of the delegates need to clinch. She’d need over 78% of all remaining to avoid a contested convention. And they tell him he’s got tough math?
The convention will be contested, and the superdelegates will likely decide. And, self-serving spin to the contrary, they are legally tasked with choosing the candidate who will fare best in the general (NOT the one with more votes; NOT the one with whom they exchanged verbal vows for favors and money before the race even began; NOT the one promised a coronation when she lost in 2008).
He’s got 46% of the popular vote that’s been counted (here’s why we really don’t know the count)3:
In 12 states where Bernie won, they held caucuses in which individual votes are not tallied in the same way as they are in closed primaries.
For instance, in Washington state, which has nearly 7.1 million people, Bernie won 72.7% of the vote there, but not one single vote is counted toward the numbers where Clinton claims a 3 million vote lead over him.
In Alaska, Bernie won 81% of the vote, but not a single vote is counted toward this tally that the Clinton campaign leans on so heavily. The same is true for Maine. There, Bernie won by 29%, but because all three are caucus states, the vote tallies aren’t even included.
This means we really don’t know the vote difference between Clinton and Sanders.
The Clinton campaign knows this. Their friends in the media know this, but they continue to allow the campaign to tout that 3 million number even though they know full well that it’s not accurate. The Democratic primaries and caucuses simply don’t have accurate popular vote totals.
He continues to bring out energized, passionate crowds of people—often 20,000 to 30,000 at a time, well over one million already—who are committed to real change and want to breathe the fresh air of truth and justice instead of the musty recycled rhetorical gas Clinton is blowing. He’ll be bringing out about 200,000 people in California alone, in a grassroots groundswell that would make any movement drool.
He has the love, admiration, and loyalty of millions of voters—and he’s gained that by being honest, smart and real, without corporate money and without a shred of help from the DNC or the mainstream media. His intelligence and integrity are rock solid, personified by a powerfully consistent 40-year record of exemplary experience and action.
Brilliant historian and activist Noam Chomsky says, “Bernie Sanders is an extremely interesting phenomenon. He’s a decent, honest person. That’s pretty unusual in the political system. Maybe there are two of them in the world, you know.”
And one of them is running for President—and he got about half the popular vote (probably more) and won 21 primary contests (so far) in spite of a rigged system consisting of media blackout, endless smeary narratives, widespread voter suppression and likely election fraud.
Think about that.
He’s on her heels with virtually none of the outsized, outrageous advantages she had. Based on actual merit. Fancy that in American politics!
Now, with complete independence from corporate money, he has an historical opportunity to not only become President—but either way to shape a truly democratic agenda and unify a party (or create a new one) that has come utterly undone, imploding with corruption, greed and obtuse egotism.
He rallies people of every color, age, shape, size, and affiliation around greater human themes—morals, ethics, civil spirituality, humanity (quaint and even puzzling as the cynical Clinton sycophants find this). And he is the only one unifying people nationwide, while the hypocrites lip-sync about “party unity” as just one more strategic lever, devoid of any actual care.
She wants him to get out? She does? She who says there’s no way she’s not going to be nominated, just because she says so, because no one’s vote counts from here on? The hawk neocon with arguably the worst popularity/trustworthy/likeability polling in Democratic history, and a comet trail of scandal shooting in perpetuity behind her? Who can’t poll better than a racist buffoon, has an FBI investigation still in front of her, can barely say a true or straightforward thing and has a foreign policy history and plans that terrify many people as much or more than the racist buffoon?
But he should get out?
No more than she should get out.
This is a real race. It has been all along, in spite of every effort by the 1% to shut it down for their nefarious reasons. It’s reasonably close, in spite of Clinton’s narcissistic delusion and her lapdog media’s all-too-willing eagerness to serve it up as news. He has no reason to get out whatsoever except for the convenience and arrogant will of a candidate at least half of this country doesn’t want. (Probably a lot more than half, had everyone been allowed to really express themselves through free and clean elections, supported by fair, balanced, unbiased and full reporting.)
It would not benefit the people of the country, or democracy, for Sanders to get out. It would only benefit the Clintons and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and their insider buds, and the party status quo as it’s been made in the Clintons’ reflection.
As Seth Abramson so aptly points out:
Let’s be clear: the Clintons aren’t merely the most politically successful husband-and-wife team in American history; they’re not merely the scions of a family that has, for a quarter-century, been the most politically influential in the Democratic Party; they literally remade the party into their own image more than two decades ago. The Democratic Party today IS Clintonism.
Clintonism supports all of the above structural flaws only because they, in turn, support the election of Clintons to national office. And that, in a nutshell, is Clintonism: a feedback loop whose motive engine is money and influence and the continued political success of Clintons.
A whole big bunch of us—remarkably big!—aren’t swallowing that spoonfed gruel, thank you very much.
And if they want to paint that as somehow childish and stubborn, well, that’s a really precious case of the pot calling the kettle. It’s just the sick kind of projection and deflection they’ve been perpetrating since day one. Because there’s nothing more babyish and petulant than declaring yourself the winner before the game is over and demanding that the other player leave—just because you’re the rich kid whose parents own the school and the playground.
The bullies can keep shoving, but we’re not leaving. There’s not a rational reason in the world we would. The rational people and the rare authentic journalist will tell you: we’re going all the way because we have a chance and we’re creating change either way.
1 – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/clinton-to-californians-y_b_10053848.html
2 – http://www.inquisitr.com/3115360/hillary-clinton-is-already-declaring-herself-to-be-the-democratic-nominee-says-race-is-done/
3 – http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/king-superdelegates-decide-wins-democratic-nomination-article-1.2642798