wanted us to go with the ".. whoever gets the most votes.. wins"..

Now what is it? The most Delegates are out, too.

Mahalo & StaySafe, Hermit

It would be nice if no Saranwrap showed up, too.


You be safe. Being hermits, my wife and I are in our natural routines during this crisis. It's just painful to know that we, like South Korea, could've used science to save tens of thousands of lives.

that we have the sadistrump in charge of our country especially when the deadly coronavirus took over the world.

I'm grateful for those leaders in countries like South Korea who actually were caring and intelligent Enough to do something about it immediately. This could have been so much worse if not for these leaders.

Now we just have to get rid of trump so we can survive as a nation and her People.. before he and putin kill us all. I wish I were exaggerating.

We're all Hermits Now!

One will see it frequently claimed that Sanders having perhaps a third of the votes, and a somewhat larger portion of convention delegates (though still a decidedly minority cohort) entitles him to some substantial 'influence' in the convention. This is nonesense. He is entitled to nothing more than he could win in a floor vote. The majority may be moved to grant some points to him, but he is owed nothing, and is entitled to nothing. Democracy emphatically does not mean if you have a third, or two fifths, of the vote or the delegates, you are entitled to have a third or two of the matters before the convention decided in your favor. One grows quite weary of people who seem to think that is the case, and who can be relied on the squeal, if not to bolt, when that is proved a fallacy in the event.






"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

a profound gratitude to those who came out and voted for him in the primaries.

They're the ones who are owed.. not the ones who tried to smear him any which way they could.. and it didn't work

I think it was tweeted on March 1st..

Link to tweet

Orwell comments on how success at punditry (he was referring to comment on events in WWII) owed nothing to accurate analysis and successful prognostication, but simply telling some audience or other what it wanted to hear at any given moment.

Cillizza's comments reflect the great overestimate of Sanders strength that most media seems to have held at the start of this year's campaign. This seems to have owed largely to the media simply tallying up comments on social media, rather than investigating and assessing the actual shape of political life.


"When someone says it's raining, and someone says it isn't, a journalist's job is not to report that opinions differ, but to step outside and see if he gets wet."






"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

the cash hauled in, and the size of the Sanders' rallies attended.

Thanks for Orwell's comments on the punditry of his time. How true.. some things never change.

That will be the result, certainly.

A little presumptuous at the time.

if somebody else had the most votes than he'd say something else.

But somebody else clearly WILL have the most votes, and he decided NOT to say something else.

Of course, when he said it, he thought there was a very good chance it would be he who had the most votes, but he also had to know that it was not a certainty by any means.

Mr. Biden will have a solid majority of delegates. There is no question today that the majority prevails, and there never will be.

Sanders spoke while there was a crowded field, in the expectation he would have a plurality of delegates, but one well short of a majority. In such a situation, in which it would be obvious that a great majority of voters had rejected Sanders, but had divided that rejection up between several candidates, Sanders proposed that he should carry the nomination, even though he might have no more than a third or so of the delegates. He intended to tar as illegitimate any combination at the convention of his several rivals behind any single one of them. Without a majority, Sanders could not have gained the nomination on the first ballot, and on subsequent ballots, delegates would be free to vote as they thought best, and delegates at large could vote as well. The danger, from Sanders' point of view, was that on a second or third ballot, the two thirds of delegates who did not want Sanders (probably raised closer to three quarters with delegates at large added into the total), would unite behind a single candidate to provide him or her in numbers that would secure the nomination by a solid majority for someone other than Sanders.

Sanders spoke not in support of a convention result that reflected the will of most voters and delegates (which would be that Sanders not be nominated), but rather in support of the proposition that a candidate rejected by an overwhelming portion of primary voters, and whom a great majority of convention delegates opposed, should nonetheless carry the nomination. Because out of a field of four or five candidates, his share of delegates might be larger than that of any single one of his opponents. This would be good enough for a 'first past the post' election to office, but that is not what a Party convention is. A Party convention is not a formality ratifying the sum total of primary and caucus results in the various states and other jurisdictions. A Party's convention is an assembly in which delegates selected, whether by primary or caucus or the Party itself, gather to decide collectively whom they wish to be the Party's standard-bearer. The rules for this require a majority of delegates. Some years ago, in the Democratic Party, nomination for President required two thirds of the delegates voting for a candidate.





"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

I shall do you the courtesy of not taking it seriously, but of instead continuing to believe you capable of understanding the difference between the actual meaning of a statement in context, and the meaning which, stripped out of the context in which it was made, a statement can be made to appear to convey.

Sanders made that statement in support of the proposition that he, with a minority of total delegates, should be granted the nomination even though a great majority of the Party's voters and delegates did not want him to have it. For extra spice, he pitched this stand for his minority share to prevail as a defense of democracy and enactment of the people's will.

In the present context where Mr. Biden will have a solid majority of delegates on the first ballot, Sanders statement is mere noise, on a par with announcing he agrees the sun should rise in the east every morning. There is no doubt the majority prevails, and no one need rise to declaim in support of that. Even Sanders recognizes, evidently, the pointless futility of demanding the candidate with the smallest share of delegates should be granted the nomination.





"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

As I said, nothing you put forth contradicted what I said. Specifically, it was an additional point, rather than the refutation of my point that you had indicated it to be by the opening "not quite, sir." I trust you understand the difference, sir.

At least here, for now.

Your evident determination to avoid engagement with the meaning of the statement you presented in a false light, once called on it, is sufficient demonstration you were simply attempting to snipe in a cheap 'gotcha' point, without having given the matter much thought. A resolve you seem to be sticking to....


"Many people would sooner die than think, and often do."





"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

StaySafe

of the 3,979 pledged delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination (on the first ballot).

None so blind as those who will not effin listen.

Pura Vida. 🌻