A bounce-back weekend for Bernie

But a last hurrah as well.

Sunday's debate brought a little more clarity to the state of play for the Democratic presidential nomination; our favorite mensch got the best of the exchanges between he and Hillary Clinton last night, and that dovetailed with the news that he had prevailed in the Maine caucuses, after winning two other caucuses -- Kansas and Nebraska -- on Super Saturday (Clinton won Louisiana's primary in a walkoff).  This continues the pattern of Sanders winning mostly Caucasian states that caucus (no pun intended), and Clinton running up large leads in Southern states that vote the usual way.

Sanders' good weekend is just not going to be enough.

While the crowd seemed to be with Bernie, and some punches were landed, he did not deliver the knockout punch many pundits said he needed to turn around his prospects for a Michigan primary win this coming Tuesday. 

RealClearPolitics.com’s most recent report of polling within Michigan shows Clinton leading Sanders by an average of 20%. While Michigan’s 148 delegates will be allocated proportionally, a loss of that magnitude would be devastating for Bernie. 

Enthusiasm may get a candidate votes; the right number of delegates gets a candidate the party nomination.

[...]

... short of a new scandal or the worsening of an already existing scandal, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.

More from Politico, including some unsolicited advice.

With Sanders now having won a total of seven primary or caucus contests to Clinton’s 12 (he lost even liberal Massachusetts, his neighboring state)—he is sailing into ever-more challenging electoral waters ahead. Party operatives have begun gaming out just how and when Bernie should say “when.” He doesn’t want to give up too easily. Nor should he stay on so long that he severely harms Clinton—now more than ever the likely nominee—in the fall. 

In his election night rally in Vermont on Tuesday, Sanders declared that his campaign was, among other things, “about dealing with some unpleasant truths that exist in America today and having the guts to confront those truths.” 

The big unpleasant truth is this: Sanders may have already changed things in this campaign as much as he ever will. By credibly challenging Clinton in the early days of the race, Sanders moved the needle—and Clinton herself—on the issues he cares most about, from trade to Wall Street regulation to expanded access to health care. If history is any judge, there is only so much more that Sanders could expect from a victorious Clinton, or that she would be willing to give him. It seems all but inconceivable that she’d choose him as her running mate ( he is too old, and too unpalatable to too much of the country). She would not offer him the one Cabinet post he might covet (say, Treasury Secretary?) and it’s unlikely he would trade his perch in the Senate for one she might proffer (say Labor or Health and Human Services). 

[...] 

At 74, Sanders knows this is it for him. He’s too old to run for president again, and his small-donor fundraising base makes him immune to the sort of establishment pressures that might induce a more typical candidate to drop out. (On Tuesday morning, his campaign announced he had raised $42 million from 1.4 million contributions, averaging $30, in February alone.) 

“At the end of the day, what does he care if he alienates Hillary Clinton?” asks Anita Dunn, a longtime Democratic strategist who worked on Bill Bradley’s ill-fated challenge to Al Gore in 2000. “He’s got an 80 percent approval rating in Vermont. He’s still going to be a senator, in a closely divided Senate, and if he walks out on the Democratic Caucus, he could cost them control, so he is pretty untouchable. But the real thing to think about is why he is running to begin with—which is his message, his belief that the progressive wing of the party was not going to be represented in the process if he didn’t run, and all that speaks to me of the place he may really want to use his accumulated delegates—that is, the platform.”

Read on there about the Democratic Party's past platform negotiations, the comparisons to Jesse Jackson's quixotic '88 bid, the conciliatory plum of a speaking slot in prime time during the convention, and ... that's it.  A little more unity hoo hah, and then "it's time to GTF on the bandwagon, you dirty hippies".

The same old song and dance every four years from our shitty corporate Democrats.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not falling for the banana-in-the-tailpipe, Kucinich/Jackson/Dean head fake any longer, even when it ultimately comes from Sanders himself.  No matter the hugs and kisses and browbeatings about the Supreme Court that will eventually replace things like this ...

@queenofdorkdom @PDiddie FUCK YOU Everyone, especially Bernie is blaming Hillary for everything her husband did. Guess that part is okay.

— Dakota (@doodlebug0) March 7, 2016

@PDiddie Bernie would be. He has perverse sexual fantasies. Can't imagine being in bed with that fuckhead.

— Dakota (@doodlebug0) March 7, 2016

That's what passes for the Clinton campaign's outreach today.

I'll pass on standing with folks like that.  At any time in the future.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance congratulates all the winners of last week's primary elections as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff explored the pros and cons of universal vote by mail.

Libby Shaw ,contributing to Daily Kos, argues that there are under-the-raar tactics taking place at election polls, at least in Harris County, that discourage voter turnout. The Texas Blues: The More Subtle Aspects of Voter Suppression.

Socratic Gadfly says RIP to Ponzi-scheming fracking grifter Aubrey McClendon and his apparent suicide by vehicle.

In an unrelated Ponzi scheme, the Lewisville Texan Journal reports that the FBI and SEC are investigating a Grapevine real estate investment trust after recent allegations of such.

So is Democratic turnout in primary elections to date up, or is it down? PDiddie at Brains and Eggs is asking for a friend.

This week's Texas primary went as expected for most races, but Texas Leftist was happy to see some history made as Democrat Jenifer Rene Pool became the first transgender candidate to win an election in Texas. With so much news dominated by Trump and Cruz, it's great to have some progress worth celebrating.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is sad to see the tuition at Texas public universities go up. Oligarchs pay low taxes and greedy lenders get more student debt payoffs. Republicans like the rich best.

Stace at Dos Centavos reviews his predicted wins and losses from last Super Tuesday.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston describes the process by which the people standing behind the candidate at political rallies are chosen.

Neil at All People Have Value visited the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

======================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Texans for Public Justice is keeping an eye on the TxPUC's $17-billion takeover of Oncor Electric, and how it benefits one of Greg Abbott's largest campaign contributors.

Tar Sands Blockade checks in after a hiatus with the recent inspection reports from KXL's southern leg revealing the falseness of TransCanada's claims about "the safest pipeline ever built".

Ashton Woods at Strength in Numbers tells the inconvenient truth about early voting.

The TSTA Blog reminds us that elections especially have consequences for education.

The Lunch Tray interviews Sen. Debbie Stabenow on child nutrition.

BOR pens a letter of greeting to the new Travis County GOP chair. And Newsdesk digs a few of the ads he's placed in the Austin Chronicle from their archives.

Grits for Breakfast laments the results of the Republican primaries for the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Better Texas Blog explains the Texas coverage gap.

The Makeshift Academic assures us there will not be a contested convention.

Finally, the TPA maintains neutrality in the breakfast taco wars.

Last night's results, tonight's debate

Vox has the most straightforward report on last night's returns: Trump wins Kentucky and Louisiana, Cruz wins Maine and Kansas.  Sanders wins Nebraska and Kansas, Clinton wins Louisiana.  Rubio and Kasich falter everywhere, and Trump calls on Rubio to drop out.

“Marco had a very, very bad night. I would call for him to drop out,” Trump said at an event in West Palm Beach, Florida. 

He went on: “I would love to be able to take on Ted one on one. That would be so much fun, because Ted can't win New York, he can't win New Jersey, he can't win Pennsylvania, he can't win California. I want Ted one on one, OK?"

Rubio is closing on Trump in Florida, which votes on March 15, so that's not going to happen unless he loses to Drumpf in his home state (and then Rubio will quit the next day).  There will be one more GOP debate between now and then, on March 10 in Miami.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will debate this evening in Flint, MI and appear at a town hall forum tomorrow night hosted by Fox.  Expect the former secretary of state to be asked questions about Libya and about her e-mails.  Michigan (and Mississippi) vote on Tuesday, March 8 and Clinton still has a big lead in the polls.  On Thursday Wednesday March 9, she and Bernie will debate again, also in Miami.

Next week's events -- tonight through next Thursday evening -- will culminate what has been a furious month in the two leagues' championship semifinals.  In nine days, we'll know whether we have a Clinton-Trump fall classic, or something else.

In other developments ... Godwin's Law no longer applies.

Donald Trump makes members of his Orlando crowd raise their right hands and swear to vote in the primary. pic.twitter.com/EVenRilJrV

— Jenna Johnson (@wpjenna) March 5, 2016

Trump supporters have also been read quotes from Adolph Hitler, and thought they were Trump's words.  We've crossed the Rubicon, y'all.

More Democratic voters seem to be looking for the exits.  Hillarians still seem confused as to why, and they're lashing out again at Sandernistas.  The fault lines are cracking further open, even as some former Democrats move over to Trump.

For these reasons, it’s clear that progressives should be wary of arguments that recessions or financial crises lead to opportunities for progressive policymaking. Rather, they foster exactly the sort of divisiveness that strengthens right-wing movements, at least for whites. For all the talk of “the working class” supporting Trump, few pundits have noted that the working class is increasingly diverse. The idea that economic peril alone creates Trump support is belied by the fact that working-class people of color aren’t flocking to Trump. The reason so many liberal and moderate whites are flocking toward Trump is simple: racism.

"Working class", indeed, is not a racial demographic.  It is in fact exactly what socialism in historical context is all about.  But that won't stop Clinton's people from calling Sanders' folks racist.

Sunday Funnies

Is Democratic turnout up or down?

Charles Kuffner has the numbers that indicate local turnout is just fine in historical context, even if the 2016 Blue Team scoreboard is about half the Republicans'.  In the national analysis, a few poli-sci profs have been quoted in recent days as saying there's nothing for Dems to worry about.  Two links for your deeper dive, one from NPR and one from AMERICAblog, with the abridged version being "competitive primaries increase participation and uncompetitive ones don't'.  One pull-quote:

These circumstances tell us a lot about why turnout is what it is in the parties’ respective primaries, but they tell us very, very little about what voter turnout will look like in a Trump/Clinton general election. A more telling predictor is the fact that the general election is likely to be polarized to epic proportions, which on balance has been shown to increase turnout, among other forms of political participation. The causal story for this jives with everything we know about rational political behavior: When voters perceive a greater difference between two candidates, there are greater benefits and costs associated with the outcome of the election. This increases the incentive to cast a ballot for one candidate or the other.

That's all reasonable enough.  I still contend that a universe of Americans where about half the population is not registered to vote, and the other half don't show up at the polls on a regular basis isn't very healthy for democracy, but none of the system's players really care about that or intend to do anything about it.

The duopoly and its enablers in the corporate media would rather see everyone quarreling over the personalities involved; not so much the actual policies.  That is, until they tire of that.

Markos “Kos” Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, a popular liberal web site, wrote a blogpost on Friday asking the site’s community of writers, readers and commenters to begin moderating their criticism of Clinton starting on March 15, in the likely event that Clinton solidifies her hold on the nomination with additional primary wins. 

If Sanders does not turn the tide, Moulitsas wrote, “then on March 15 this site officially transitions to General Election footing. That means, we will focus our attention not just on Donald Trump or his rivals, but also on the Senate, the House, and state-level races.” 

Markos tipped this shot across the bow earlier in the week when he called people who suggested that Hillary was winning primaries in states she would lose in the general election "dicks".  Kos has, throughout his rise to (alleged) Democratic pre-eminence, often arbitrated disputes, brokered agreements, and made official pronouncements and declarations of this type.

Moulitsas went on to lay out specific guidelines for talking about Clinton if she becomes the nominee. 

He distinguishes, for example, between “constructive criticism” of Clinton from a progressive perspective, and using “right-wing tropes” to attack her. He even prohibits liberal-themed name calling, like saying “she’s a sell-out corporatist whore oligarch.” 

Writers and commenters who violate the rules will make themselves eligible to be banned from the site.

Online Democrats, for those unfamiliar, are significantly more Caucasian, older, and progressive -- not the Clinton definition, the actual one -- than Democratic primary voters (in others words, Berners).  So this "get on the bandwagon or GTFO" deadline is being met with considerable derision.  I spend more time at the other place where Democrats hang out online, Depleted Uranium, and I can testify that there's been a serious cleaving of the Sanders camp from the Clintonites.

The powers that be at DK and DU (they can read the ominous Clinton GE polling, too) are trying to stitch up the wounds that the primary battle has blasted open before they face wholesale desertion among the partisan, straight-ticket-voting ranks.  If you don't frequent either of those two websites, you've surely seen the same dynamic play itself out on Facebook and Twitter.  It's also rational to start enforcing this command now because, left to fester, the intramural snipe fest will continue to endanger Clinton's inevitable march to the White House.

If this sounds like sheepdogging, it's more like herding cats.  Still, the fence-mending needs to start happening or else the low turnout (yes, it is) will indeed be exacerbated by the lingering resentment of the Sandernistas, and they very well might defect to the Greens ... or return to electoral apathy.

We'll have to watch this development and see if the cuts are too deep or if some scabs grow over them in time for November.  Almost nine months; you can make a baby in that time, from "Netflix and chill" all the way to DOB.

No bets taken on whether it will be a boy or a girl until later this summer.

Update: Kuff also posts and links to the Texas Observer's article that I interpret as another portent of low Democratic turnout in the fall.