Who do you think will be the next president of the United States?

I kinda suspect both the time and the delegate halfway counts will come and go with no change in the "Bernie can still do it" mantra. It's looking more and more like the scenario will be the Democrats' split will last until the convention - long past, by the way, the point when the contest between the two Dem candidates stops being beneficial to the party.

I'm of the opinion that Bernie should keep slugging away, because it is good for both 'little d' and 'big D' democratic politics. But there's a way for him to go about it. If Hillary gets an insurmountable lead, I think he needs to at least stop taking potshots at her and aim his fire across the aisle at the big loudmouthed orange target. If he continues campaigning as if he can beat Hillary past the point when everyone knows he can't, it becomes something that's not about anything but ambition, hurt feelings and sour grapes.

"Equal Access". Why should they be disenfranchised because they aren't doctrinaire? Why should we be trapped in a two party system? Why is the system rigged to weed out any challenge by a third party candidate, except to "spoil" a race? How many parties does Canada have? Aren't your elections set up to allow for multiple parties in an election?

I actually think that second tier of seat as more critical than the presidency and I don't see any of the BoB supporters following anyone in that area.

If I lived in the US I'd be superconcerned.

We have multiple parties in Canada - but only party members are involved in the selection of the party leaders.

I've got no sympathy for independents being part of the selection process for party leaders. I would actively campaign against that.

There are plenty of political parties in the US. Some of them are much better matches for people who are currently candidates for the two major parties.

I've got pretty strong negative feelings about people running in parties they aren't part of and obviously don't belong to.

In a first-past-the-post voting system, any third party challenger of any significance will tend to friendly-fire its own side of the political spectrum, like Nader ruined Gore's chances in 2000. That's why these systems tend to remain 2 party systems, local exceptions notwithstanding. It's the English model, for short.

In it, what you decry is better than the alternative. If Bernie runs as independent, Clinton is toast. He does the right thing by going through the democrat primaries, given the US election system.

Mr. Sanders is not a Democrat. He has no place running in that party (IMNSHO).

Canada is first past the post - we've rotated through 3/4/5 parties provincially and nationally. I like it since it doesn't allow any one party to become too cocky. Some parties disappear for a while, fix themselves up, and reappear - as in our most recent federal election. The Liberals went from 3rd party status (and barely that) to a full majority. I also like it as it allows us to have minority governments, where negotiation is required to get things going - and usually better things happen for the country overall than during a majority.

I'm sure there's a legalistic response to that, e.g. what business of yours is it to tell the US democratic party whom to accept or reject in their primaries? But more importantly your position is based on an a priori rather than pragmatic. The dems accepted Bernie's candidacy for a reason: because it suited them, it worked for them.

that is why I used IMNSHO

Right.

I'm all for a renewal of the US political system by way of a revolution. Why not 3, 4 or 5 parties like in Canada, indeed? Diversity is a good thing most of times.

With two parties congress can not get anything done with the full faith and credit of the US being put at risk a number of times and now we can not get a new SC judge a hearing!!!!!

God know how must will get done with another few parties in congress.

It could be better than the current system, but it won't be if nothing changes.

The US is trying to function with two right-wing parties fighting over a quarter-inch of territory.

We all know, at least anyone who read my now long ago thread on her, that I'm not very fond of Hillary, but that is far from saying that she is equal as a worry for me as Trump or Cruz. She has, besides the stuff I and others have not liked, done many things I appreciate her for.

Much as I like Bernie, I'm not convinced he can both win and get things done.

True.

We are halfway through the primaries.

We have had 32 contests and there are 25 left. We have had 29 states hold their primaries or caucuses. There are 21 left.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Of the 4051 regular delegates that will be allocated 2050 have already been allocated to a candidate, Clinton has 1170, Sanders has 880.

To get 50% of the regular delegates, Sanders has to get 57% of the rest of the regular delegates. That is unlikely to happen with the polling in NY and California showing Hillary with a lead in those 2 states which make up 1/3 of the rest of the delegates.

She looks very strong in Pennsylvania and New Jersey too. No blowouts there.

21 to go? Sounds close enough to halfway to me to me, especially when California is still in the wings, as well as Alaska, Hawaii, Washington State, Wisconsin, Wyoming Democratic, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Indiana plus a bunch more.

Less than half of the population has gotten to say what they want yet.

Something Is Going Seriously Wrong at Arizona Polls Today [View all]
Nathan Wellman / US uncut


Arizona’s primaries aren’t even done yet, and there’s already legal action being taken as a result of incompetence or possibly even intentional sabotage.

Leaders from the Arizona branch of the Democratic Party have confirmed that its lawyers are officially making an inquiry after multiple Democratic voters showed up to the polls only to find that they were listed as independents, Republicans, or had no party affiliation at all.

Many voters wound up having to wait in line under the hot Arizona sun only to find that they were ineligible to vote for the candidates of their choice. To add insult to injury, the polling locations have been so poorly planned that many voters had to wait in line up to four hours before finding out that their information had been improperly filed.

Poll workers have been giving out “provisional ballots,” according to 12 News. It’s unclear at this time as to whether these ballots will actually count in the Arizona primary, and whether intentional or not, it could result in the disenfranchisement of Arizona voters. Some frustrated residents are taking to YouTube and social media to voice their frustrations.

full story here:
http://usuncut.com/news/arizona-polling-disaster/

Rosario Dawson takes it to the people and talks truth.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/rosario-dawson-bashes-dnc-during-speech-for-sanders-650519619521

Actually, you would be wrong on that too.

Delegates are awarded to states proportionally by population. More delegates have been awarded than are left. Texas, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, Massachusetts have already conducted their primaries. 10 of the largest 15 states have conducted their primaries. I haven't done the actual math but it would appear over half the population has had their say.