The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[maraxus2]

Yeah, picking Warren would be throwing down a major gauntlet, and since she's more or less beat Bernie to the nomination, she's probably going to follow her usual pattern and start tacking towards center-left. That doesn't necessarily disqualify Warren, but it does make her a little less likely.

There's no more-or-less about it. She did beat Bernie, and pretty badly at that. So far, she has shown no interest in tacking to the center, and she doesn't have to. She can beat Trump outright exactly where she is today.

Kaine is possible, but he lacks name recognition to some degree (at least, this campaign was the first I'd ever heard tell of him). Of course, I don't follow politics terribly closely, so it's possible that he might be more recognizable to others.

He's pretty well-known among politicos. Former Mayor, Governor, and DNC chair, defeated a good candidate in 2012 to win his Senate seat. Doesn't offend anyone and has hidden assets (he speaks fluent Spanish, for instance, while Julian Castro doesn't). So far, his only major ding comes on his squishiness on abortion rights, namely that he uses that old Catholic saw about being "personally opposed" to abortion while supporting abortion rights in the Senate. Might hurt him, but his record is strong enough that he'd need to seriously offend NARAL before they tried to veto him.

I have no idea who Sherrod Brown is as well. A Senator from Ohio, apparently. *shrugs*

And a damn good Senator at that. Brown is a hard-nosed progressive Senator who can win tough campaigns, has good relations with the rest of the Democratic caucus, and can get shit done in the Senate. His main downsides are that he's not interested in the job, and that John Kasich can appoint his successor. A tough choice in an election where the Dems might barely hang on to the Senate.

Cory Booker... now I know that name, he's made a few waves. But he's said he's not being vetted for the role, so I suspect he's not on the list.

And for good reason; the progressives would go apeshit if he were picked. He has deep ties to Wall Street and was extremely friendly with Christie when he was Newark's mayor. His record on public sector unions has been less than sterling, and there are better options available.

Castro, Perez and Becarra... about the main reason, frankly, that they'd be picked is that they're Latino. Apart from Becarra they don't have much political experience.

Quite the contrary. Castro was mayor of San Antonio when he was 35, no small feat for a city of a shade under 1.5 million people. Perez doesn't have elected experience, but he has a reputation as a formidable administrative politician and was the assistant attorney general for civil rights prior to becoming Labor Secretary. He's also pretty good on the stump. Honestly, Becerra's probably the least likely of all of them, if for no other reason than because he's a pretty colorless speaker. He can speak fluent Spanish, though, unlike Castro.

Al Franken would be genuinely interesting, and it's not like actors haven't entered politics before, but I think he's a little too outside the lines for Clinton.

Franken's my dark horse of choice. He has a reputation for being an extremely hardworking Senator who knows his shit WRT policy and can actively engage with people on the stump.

No comment on the rest; again, don't know anything about them, other than Mullen is former military, and there's a lot of those floating around.

Frankly, Warren is the most visible option, potentially the most likely, but Kaine would be a safer option in many ways. It's hard to say right now how it's going to go down.

No need to know anything about them, since they're not going to get selected. If Mullen gets within a thousand miles of the Veep, I'll eat my boots. Smart money is on Kaine, since Warren is quite likely to outshine Hillary and less likely to be a good soldier for the Administration. An important (and highly underrated!) quality in a Veep.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think a good argument could be made for either Kaine or Warren, in terms of who is more likely to be picked.

Kaine might be the "safer", more conventional choice, but Warren would inspire more enthusiasm, reach out to progressives, and be someone who could take on and has taken on Trump head on.

Anyone else, now, would be out of left field a bit.

[Dalton]

The election forecast on 538 has begun: Link. They predict an 80% chance that Clinton will win, and the highest probability of the EV at ~358. Here's what the electoral map is predicted to look like with the possibility of a split EV in Nebraska.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, that's encouraging, and we can only hope that they're right, although they also predicted for a time that Donald wouldn't win the Primary, as I recall.

Any predictions on how House/Senate seats are likely to break down?

[The Romulan Republic]

In other news, it appears that Donald Trump, or someone on his team, is soliciting campaign donations from foreign politicians in what may be a violation of election law:

https://fortune.com/2016/06/29/donald-trump-spam/

If so, it might violate federal electoral rules.
Presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump could be a spammer.

Politicians in both the U.K. and Australia say they have received e-mails from the Trump campaign and signed by both the nominee and his son Donald Trump Jr., asking that they donate cash to his campaign. At least one e-mail was published online by Natalie McGarry, MP for Glasgow East, who received it on June 22. In the email, signed by Trump’s son, he noted that the Trump Campaign raised millions of dollars to fight “Crooked Hillary,” the term Trump uses for his presumptive opponent Hillary Clinton.

“If you haven’t given yet, I’m asking you to donate right now to help you the campaign at this critical time,” the message reads with a link to a Trump donate page. “Crooked Hillary has corrupt, deep-pocketed donors backing her. That’s why your involvement and financial support is so important.”

McGarry surmised that Trump might have purchased a list and blasted them out to anyone. But she responded, declining the request and saying that “it seems quite extraordinary that [Trump] would be asking foreign nationals for money; especially people who view his dangerous divisiveness with horror.”

Get Data Sheet, Fortune’s technology newsletter

But McGarry was far from the last foreign politician to sound off on the alleged Trump e-mails. As CNET, which earlier reported on the e-mails, noted, Sir Roger Gale MP brought up Trump and “spam” in the House of Commons chamber on Tuesday.

“Members of Parliament are being bombarded with electronic communications from Team Trump on behalf of somebody called Donald Trump,” he said, according to a Points of Order transcript published on the House of Commons Hansard website. “I am all in favor of free speech, but I do not see why colleagues on either side of the House should be subjected to intemperate spam. Efforts to have them deleted have failed. Would you be kind enough to intercede with the Parliamentary Digital Service to see if they might be blocked?”

Trump has found himself in a bit of a quandary over money. Recent reports have said that Clinton’s war chest is substantially larger than that of Trump’s, which does not bode well in a general election that will require nationwide (and costly) advertising spending. Trump, who has said he’s self-funding his campaign, has received some donations from supporters. But since the beginning of last year, he has raised about 20% of what the Clinton campaign has raised from donations and SuperPACs.


Meanwhile, Trump is falling further behind in the polls and key battleground states.


But there is another issue with the alleged e-mails Trump’s campaign could be sending: they might run afoul of federal election statues. Indeed, a U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) spokesperson pointed Fortune to a brochure about the Federal Election Campaign Act, which “prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating, or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them.”

For more on Donald Trump, watch:

Get Flash Player
The FEC spokesperson said that the office could not “comment on any specific candidate or situation for the potential for matters to come before the agency.”

That said, it’s unknown at this point whether the e-mails did indeed come from the Trump campaign—it’s not hard, after all, to spoof an e-mail address and run amok. The Trump campaign and Trump himself have also not sounded off on the issue. But at least some lawmakers have received e-mails from someone at least claiming to be from the Trump campaign.

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[Elheru Aran]

I'm not trusting *any* predictions until it's at least August or September and the conventions are well past, campaigns on their way. The Republican side of the race is almost decided, but we'll see plenty of drama before it finally simmers down, I suspect. On the Democratic side, I would not be surprised to see Bernie-bro types making a stink at their convention. Never mind the various Independents; they won't have Perot or Roosevelt level performance, but I think they might just have a bit of a stronger showing this election than they otherwise might.

Trump... well I wouldn't be too surprised in the least if he abruptly claims a loss and drops out because he doesn't care to carry through on this madness. Of course, if he carries through with it all, that would be the greater surprise...

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not trusting *any* predictions until it's at least August or September and the conventions are well past, campaigns on their way. The Republican side of the race is almost decided, but we'll see plenty of drama before it finally simmers down, I suspect. On the Democratic side, I would not be surprised to see Bernie-bro types making a stink at their convention. Never mind the various Independents; they won't have Perot or Roosevelt level performance, but I think they might just have a bit of a stronger showing this election than they otherwise might.

Trump... well I wouldn't be too surprised in the least if he abruptly claims a loss and drops out because he doesn't care to carry through on this madness. Of course, if he carries through with it all, that would be the greater surprise...

I wouldn't worry too much about the convention. Their will doubtless be protesters, as their tend to be at such events (my biggest fear their is probably not angry Sanders supporters, but agitators or riots from other factions, be they Trump nuts, generic anarchists, or whatever), but Sanders and his delegates are, for the most part, trying to work civilly with the Clinton camp, and vice versa. Unless the platform of Clinton herself takes a sudden swing to the Right, or she unexpectedly suffers a scandal sufficient to call her legitimacy or electability into question, I do not see much nastiness on the convention floor as likely.

I do get the feeling sometimes that some people almost want something to happen so they can blame those nasty Bernie Bros (not accusing you, just a general comment about some of the attitudes I've encountered), but I think that they'll be disappointed. The unification process is well underway, and proceeding fairly smoothly as far as I can see.

Edit: Agreed, though, that predictions now are rather premature. I won't consider this settled until the votes are counted and a winner declared, personally.

[Dalton]

I think 538 managed to predict the election accurately around this time in 2012. Can't yet find a source though.

[Gandalf]

I find it funny that Warren, by coming out and campaigning for Clinton has effectively sidelined Sanders. He could have been the voice of progressive reconciliation with the rest of the party by dropping out earlier in the race, but then just stuck around for some reason and became the guy who lost to Clinton.

I think 538 managed to predict the election accurately around this time in 2012. Can't yet find a source though.

NYT has some of their running forecasts from June through to the election.

[The Romulan Republic]

I find it funny that Warren, by coming out and campaigning for Clinton has effectively sidelined Sanders. He could have been the voice of progressive reconciliation with the rest of the party by dropping out earlier in the race, but then just stuck around for some reason and became the guy who lost to Clinton.

I think 538 managed to predict the election accurately around this time in 2012. Can't yet find a source though.

NYT has some of their running forecasts from June through to the election.

If you think that Sanders is politically irrelevant, you are very much mistaken.

Neither Sanders nor Warren is the voice of all progressives, of course, but Sanders does nonetheless represent a significant fraction of the Democratic and Left-leaning independent electorate. He is also, aside from that, a long-term and highly popular Senator. And he is sending 40-odd percent of the delegates to the Democratic Convention.

He does not have as much influence as he might have had had things played out differently, of course, but you overstate your case greatly.

And Warren is hardly the only factor responsible for greater party unity. Sanders supporters will not all go to Clinton just because Warren (who never endorsed Sanders) is acting buddy-buddy with her on the campaign trail. It helps, probably, but so does Sanders' more conciliatory approach of late, and the fact that the progressives are actually getting at least some of what they want on the platform. So, frankly, does the fact that Clinton is not acting like a complete jackass towards progressives, as some had feared. And, of course, we cannot discount the effect of fear of Trump/Republicans winning.

In other words, its complex.

[FireNexus]

Sure.

[Dominus Atheos]

I find it funny that Warren, by coming out and campaigning for Clinton has effectively sidelined Sanders. He could have been the voice of progressive reconciliation with the rest of the party by dropping out earlier in the race, but then just stuck around for some reason and became the guy who lost to Clinton.

Sanders was always the second choice for progressives after a very big "Draft Warren" campaign failed.

http://front.moveon.org/200000-american ... -campaign/

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, there is that.

However, since Warren did not run, Sanders did, and Warren did not endorse him, I think she may have lost some of the weight her name once carried with progressives.

Though personally, I think she may have made the right call in not endorsing Sanders, at least in hindsight, as it positions her to help unify the two sides and possibly serve as a progressive VP in the event of Sanders' defeat.

[Terralthra]

I really hope that Sen. Warren, much as I love her for being a progressive firebrand, does not serve as Sec. Clinton's VP. She has much more power where she is, and her leaving the Senate would allow the Republican governor to replace her with a conservative for years, and give that senator an incumbency advantage when they have to run for reelection. I want her right where she is, thanks. I don't know with whom I'd like her to run, honestly. Of the existing short list, Julián Castro is probably my favorite.

I think it's a sad commentary on the US that 1 time in 5, Trump wins this election.

[maraxus2]

Well, there is that.

However, since Warren did not run, Sanders did, and Warren did not endorse him, I think she may have lost some of the weight her name once carried with progressives.

Though personally, I think she may have made the right call in not endorsing Sanders, at least in hindsight, as it positions her to help unify the two sides and possibly serve as a progressive VP in the event of Sanders' defeat.

...lost some of her weight her name carried? Among progressives? Do you read the news?

I really hope that Sen. Warren, much as I love her for being a progressive firebrand, does not serve as Sec. Clinton's VP. She has much more power where she is, and her leaving the Senate would allow the Republican governor to replace her with a conservative for years, and give that senator an incumbency advantage when they have to run for reelection. I want her right where she is, thanks. I don't know with whom I'd like her to run, honestly. Of the existing short list, Julián Castro is probably my favorite.

I think it's a sad commentary on the US that 1 time in 5, Trump wins this election.

There's actually something of a loophole there. MA election law says that the Governor can appoint a caretaker, but that there must be a special election within three months. The MA ledge passed that law when they thought Kerry might win and Romney could appoint someone to the seat. As long as the Dems don't nominate Martha Coakley again, odds are that a Dem would pick up the seat shortly after Warren left the Senate.

Or if you want to get even more slippery, she could resign her Senate seat to time the special election so that her successor could run in November. Presidential Year turnout in MA is pretty formidably Democratic.

That said, I basically agree with you wrt: her staying in the Senate. She doesn't want to play second fiddle to Hillary any more than Hillary does.

I find it funny that Warren, by coming out and campaigning for Clinton has effectively sidelined Sanders. He could have been the voice of progressive reconciliation with the rest of the party by dropping out earlier in the race, but then just stuck around for some reason and became the guy who lost to Clinton.

I think 538 managed to predict the election accurately around this time in 2012. Can't yet find a source though.

NYT has some of their running forecasts from June through to the election.

You're more right than TRR, I think. Sanders got screwed by his apparently firm belief that his supporters would wait until he gave the nod before shifting over to Clinton. Now they're doing that anyway and he needs to play catch-up with the news cycle. And he's lost pretty much every major fight with the Dems post 6/14. He hasn't gotten any of his major policy platforms enacted, apart from things that already had broad support among Democrats. And nobody believes his schtick about fighting on to Philadelphia anymore.

Oddly enough, Sanders might very well *never* concede, at least in the sense that he'd acknowledge Hillary beat him fair and square. He certainly shows now signs of doing that anytime soon.

[Flagg]

Oddly enough, Sanders might very well *never* concede, at least in the sense that he'd acknowledge Hillary beat him fair and square. He certainly shows now signs of doing that anytime soon.

Wait, are all the votes counted? ALL OF THEM?

[Flagg]

I just don't see Clinton picking Warren or Warren accepting. They are about as far apart as you can get between corporatist and populist in the Democratic party so Warren's job would basically just be there to smile at the camera's for the next 4-8 years and she doesn't strike me as the type. Plus she ran 2 Senate campaigns in 2 consecutive years only 2 years ago, and I don't think she wants to spend the rest of this year doing it, but on a national stage.

[Patroklos]

I also don't think Warren is willing to put up with Clinton's shadiness. I am opposed to Warren in as many ways as possible, but she doesn't strike me as corrupt.

[Flagg]

I'm not opposed to Warren in the least, I'd rather see her as the nominee except she's a brilliant Ivy League professor and likely would lose due to Americas anti-intellectual bent. But she is opposite Clinton as I said before, and she wouldn't keep her mouth shut about it.

[maraxus2]

Oddly enough, Sanders might very well *never* concede, at least in the sense that he'd acknowledge Hillary beat him fair and square. He certainly shows now signs of doing that anytime soon.

Wait, are all the votes counted? ALL OF THEM?

Not in California! These dudes who think that Bernie actually won, for instance. Also Superdelegates don't vote until July

In other news, Sanders voters are mostly migrating to Clinton, but there are still roughly 50% (!) of 35-and-younger Sanders voters who say they'll vote for Clinton or Trump (?!) Maybe it's not actually about principles with them? Maybe it's about personal animosity towards Hillary Clinton? Naw, that can't be! That's not what revolutions are made for!

A Sanders endorsement of Clinton could still make a big difference
By Greg Sargent June 30 at 3:24 PM

Is the window closing on Bernie Sanders’s moment? A number of folks, your humble blogger included, have suggested as much. We’ve argued that with Democrats seeming to unite behind Hillary Clinton, it’s possible that the longer Sanders withholds his endorsement for her in the quest to make the party platform more progressive, the less leverage he’ll end up having.

But a new battleground state poll from Dem pollster Stan Greenberg’s Democracy Corps suggests Sanders’ endorsement could, in fact, still have a real impact, meaning he may still have some genuine leverage to try to win more concessions designed to continue pushing the party’s agenda in a more progressive direction.

The poll has good news for Hillary Clinton: It finds that among likely voters in nine key battleground states, Clinton leads Donald Trump by eight points, 49-41.

There are a lot of interesting findings here. One is that Trump’s Rust Belt strategy may be failing: In the aggregate of five of the states — Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire — Clinton leads by eight, 44-36. A second is that Clinton may be able to expand the map because she’s also doing well in the more diverse remaining states: In the aggregate of North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida, Clinton also leads by eight, 47-39.

What about Sanders’s impact? It’s true that the poll also shows that Democrats are very united behind Clinton, with 89 percent of them in these nine states supporting her.

But peek below the toplines, and it’s clear there’s plenty of room for a Sanders endorsement to help Clinton. This becomes clear when you look at the breakdown of numbers among not just Clinton and Trump, but also with libertarian Gary Johnson factored in, because apparently, a lot of Sanders supporters are now going for Johnson.

The poll finds that among voters who supported Sanders in the primary in the nine battlegrounds polled, 69 percent support Clinton, while six percent back Trump and another 17 percent support Johnson. What’s more, among millennials, it’s even more stark: 46 percent support Clinton, 24 percent back Trump, and 22 percent support Johnson.


How is it possible that Clinton can win 89 percent of Democrats, but much smaller percentages of Sanders supporters and millennials? Greenberg tells me that one possibility is that many of them are identifying in the poll as independents, which means that, if Clinton can win them over, her lead over Trump could actually grow larger.

“It’s quite possible that many Sanders voters and millennials may be identifying as independents,” Greenberg says. “Millennials, and white millennials in particular, are still out there and have not consolidated behind her.”

“Of his vote, there’s still a significant bloc voting for the Libertarian Party,” Greenberg continues. “Ninety percent of Sanders voters should be voting for Hillary.” If Sanders were to succeed in consolidating his voters and millennials behind Clinton, Greenberg adds, “it could kick her lead into double digits.”

This dynamic is also borne out in this week’s Washington Post/ABC News poll, which found Clinton up by 51-39 among registered voters nationally. According to figures provided by the Post polling team, among people who wanted Sanders to win the primary, Clinton leads Trump by 65-9, which is substantially less than she should be winning. That’s because an additional 19 percent of them now say they’ll back either libertarian Johnson or Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

A Sanders endorsement of Clinton, presumably, could change this. But Sanders continues to withhold his endorsement, for the explicit purpose of winning more concessions in the party platform when the full Platform Committee meets in coming days, and he has even signaled that he may still hold out until the Democratic convention begins in Philadelphia in late July.

The mood in the Clinton camp about this, as best as I can determine, is that Clinton and her top advisers very much want Sanders’s endorsement and are in serious talks with him about what sort of platform concessions — and what sort of role for Sanders — will be necessary to get it. But there is no sense of alarm among Clinton’s team that I can see. Elizabeth Warren is filling up the space that Sanders might have filled, making an aggressive case for Clinton’s candidacy — and against Trump — to Democrats and progressives nationally. The process of Dem consolidation is under way, even without Sanders’s explicit advocacy on her behalf.

That said, it is clear that Sanders’s endorsement could expand Clinton’s lead over Trump in a non-trivial way. In a race that could end up getting a lot closer, the Clinton team obviously wants the additional room for error that winning most of Sanders’s supporters might provide. And if it doesn’t get closer, winning them could conceivably help lay the groundwork for a much larger victory in November, potentially making governing easier.

[Terralthra]

It is as I said to FireNexus, who dismissed the idea outright upthread. There are a substantial minority of primary supporters of Sen. Sanders who exist and can be won over. Sen. Sanders holds part of the duty to do so by endorsing Sec. Clinton as he has promised he will, and the DNC and Sec. Clinton also have duties to fulfill in compromising with those supporters of Sen. Sanders who are genuinely progressive in their politics and seek the same from the party or candidate for which they plan to vote. Those of them who are sexist or blindly anti-establishment can, naturally, fuck right off. I don't have poll numbers (as it's hard to get people to say "I support Sen. Sanders because Sec. Clinton has had a three-decade campaign against her credibility"), but I'd wager that the portion of diehard Sen. Sanders constituents is enough to flip a house seat or four if they vote downticket, too.

[The Romulan Republic]

For now, I'm going to give Sanders the benefit of the doubt that he'll follow through on what was previous promised- that he will stay in until the convention (presumably mainly to try to influence the party/platform), and that once Clinton is formally the nominee, as opposed to the presumptive nominee, he will endorse her.

I do not for one instant think that he will do anything as stupid and counterproductive as running third party/independent, or backing a candidate other than Clinton. The only question is how quickly and strongly he'll back Clinton.

Edit: That said, I personally do feel that an argument can be made that he should have conceded by now. But as long as the vast majority of Bernie supporters end up voting for Clinton in the end (and that's where it looks to be heading based on recent news/polls) and progressives are able to retain substantial influence in the party, its all good.

[maraxus2]

For now, I'm going to give Sanders the benefit of the doubt that he'll follow through on what was previous promised- that he will stay in until the convention (presumably mainly to try to influence the party/platform), and that once Clinton is formally the nominee, as opposed to the presumptive nominee, he will endorse her.

What fucking good would that do? Bernie's endorsement at the convention is not important in-and-of itself; his voters are already moving towards Hillary's camp. He needs her endorsement for one reason, and for one reason only. Namely to put a pin in any of this weird Dolchstoßlegende that is still circulating among Bernie's supporters, to admit that Hillary beat him fair and square, and that nobody stole anything from anybody. What good does endorsing Hillary post-convention do? Especially after she's won the goddamn election.

I don't mean to be short with you (for once), but the amount of patent bullshit coming out of the Sanders campaign at this point is too much to ignore. His efforts to influence the Democratic platform have been very mixed, particularly on issues that don't already have wide consensus among the Democrats. He is raising a huge stink about party reforms at the convention, while saying he's going to do everything in his power to defeat Trump (won't endorse Hillary right now, though!). His political network of endorsed candidates has been less-than-stellar so far, and there's no reason to think that he'll become much of a long-term force in the Democratic Party, especially not with Elizabeth Warren's rising star on the horizon.

I'm pretty sick of Sanders' lollygagging at this point, and I'm really sick of people defending his foot-dragging as something he's doing for the good of the Party. He very obviously is not.

[Flagg]

It is as I said to FireNexus, who dismissed the idea outright upthread. There are a substantial minority of primary supporters of Sen. Sanders who exist and can be won over. Sen. Sanders holds part of the duty to do so by endorsing Sec. Clinton as he has promised he will, and the DNC and Sec. Clinton also have duties to fulfill in compromising with those supporters of Sen. Sanders who are genuinely progressive in their politics and seek the same from the party or candidate for which they plan to vote. Those of them who are sexist or blindly anti-establishment can, naturally, fuck right off. I don't have poll numbers (as it's hard to get people to say "I support Sen. Sanders because Sec. Clinton has had a three-decade campaign against her credibility"), but I'd wager that the portion of diehard Sen. Sanders constituents is enough to flip a house seat or four if they vote downticket, too.

Yeah, I've no doubt there are a substantial portion, possibly even a slight majority of Sanders supporters who just genuinely believed in his cause and who in good faith can be won over, or will "naturally migrate" to Secretary Clinton, queen bitch (I can finally start insulting her without being lumped in with Berniebros, yay!) of the Democratic party who is currently having that 1930's dustbowl Kansas shitshack pulled off of her as they aren't enchanted by balding old men screaming at the sky who take 5 hour pisses.

[Flagg]

For now, I'm going to give Sanders the benefit of the doubt that he'll follow through on what was previous promised- that he will stay in until the convention (presumably mainly to try to influence the party/platform), and that once Clinton is formally the nominee, as opposed to the presumptive nominee, he will endorse her.

What fucking good would that do? Bernie's endorsement at the convention is not important in-and-of itself; his voters are already moving towards Hillary's camp. He needs her endorsement for one reason, and for one reason only. Namely to put a pin in any of this weird Dolchstoßlegende that is still circulating among Bernie's supporters, to admit that Hillary beat him fair and square, and that nobody stole anything from anybody. What good does endorsing Hillary post-convention do? Especially after she's won the goddamn election.

I don't mean to be short with you (for once), but the amount of patent bullshit coming out of the Sanders campaign at this point is too much to ignore. His efforts to influence the Democratic platform have been very mixed, particularly on issues that don't already have wide consensus among the Democrats. He is raising a huge stink about party reforms at the convention, while saying he's going to do everything in his power to defeat Trump (won't endorse Hillary right now, though!). His political network of endorsed candidates has been less-than-stellar so far, and there's no reason to think that he'll become much of a long-term force in the Democratic Party, especially not with Elizabeth Warren's rising star on the horizon.

I'm pretty sick of Sanders' lollygagging at this point, and I'm really sick of people defending his foot-dragging as something he's doing for the good of the Party. He very obviously is not.

Bernie Sanders demanding party reforms is hilarious. Has he even been a member for a year yet?