"Media Unimpressed as Sanders Barely Gets Seventy Percent of Vote"
Satirist Andy Borowitz, who writes for The New Yorker, nails it with the above quip.
"On Saturday, Clinton's Democratic challenger pulled off landslide victories in three caucus states, with wins in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington. Sanders still trails behind the former secretary of state, however, by hundreds of delegates." (CBS -- 3/28/16)
Alaska -- Sanders -- 82% Clinton -- 18%
Hawaii -- " 71% " 29%
Wash. " 72% " 28%
"Hundreds?" Well, 200+. There is still a range of differences on how many delegates each candidate has. Even the figure CBS gave us before the weekend put Clinton ahead by 307. It is generally acknowledged that Sanders had a net gain of around forty delegates. That cuts the gap to 267. The New York Times in its March 30th Upshot column, however, put the gap even lower -- 230.
Strategy for Bernie Here On Out
Pete Gertonson, DNC member and Idaho SuperDelegate, emailed the media on Wednesday that he would vote for Bernie Sanders at the convention. His decision to do so has been followed by a conservative member of Congress from Minnesota, Collin Peterson. Both pointed to Sanders huge win in their states as the reason.
Let's go back to Thursday, March 17th, before the presidential campaign moved west. Symond Sanders, Bernie's national spokesperson, hosted a telephone Press Conference that included both Jeff Weaver, Sanders campaign manager, and Tad DeVine, his strategist. They made the following points: 1) As of today, voters have chosen only half of the delegates. 2) This half of the primary favors Bernie. Clinton got the majority of her delegates from the conservative southern states that went to John McCain in the '08 general election. 3) As the primary moves along and the delegates pledged to Clinton see that she is no longer winning, there will be intense pressure on the Supers to rethink who they will vote for at the convention.
Were Gertonson's and Peterson's decisions the result of this pressure? And were the shenanigans in Arizona the result of Clinton's determination to prevent this from happening? Was her victory the result of the chaos in parts of Maricopa County as well as sufficient polls being placed in wealthier areas to accommodate HRC's supporters? (Hillary got 58% of the vote in Arizona, Bernie 40%)
And we see this comment from ABC:
"But a candidate who has already "won" just shouldn't be losing by 40-odd points in three different states on the same day. The latest wins will help fuel (along with the online donors they will intrigue) Sanders through Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New York, and to California and beyond -- keeping Sanders' message on the air and the pressure on Clinton intense as ever. It may even be enough to lock in the debates neither camp seemed to want any more after the last exchange, in Miami. Clinton would rather be talking about Donald Trump, and, Monday at least, Chuck Grassley and Senate Republicans. But there's a whole lot of Democratic primary voters who seem to really, really want their say first." (ABC News, The Note, 3/28/16)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).