Fixed that for you.

He's not turning that ship around in the Time left before March primaries

Wait, so he never met with John Lewis? Did he meet with any members of the CBC?

He tried. Only 6 showed up.


Bernie Sanders Meets With The Congressional Black Caucus — And Mostly Talks Policy - BuzzFeed News

I agree... but some still hold onto... something, I guess.

Let's not pretend that Lewis and the CBC aren't part of "The Establishment," now. It seems pretty safe to assume that the Clinton machine is preventing any meaningful dialogue there.

Sure, but just like Romney met with the NAACP, you still make the attempt. And the fact that he apparently hadn't already built up a good relationship with the CBC before even running for President kind of explains the demographic problems he's facing right now.

My take is that the NAACP and the CBC are two very different things, at least when it comes to the reach/influence of the Clinton machine. I think I recall that Sanders showed up at an NAACP event in the fall or winter, and I know that Ben Jealous (former NAACP president) endorsed Sanders a week or so ago.

As elected officials, they are pretty much all part of the establishment by definition. And, every member is a superdelegate, too. Assuming that some members that were on the fence are taking this opportunity to announce their own individual endorsements, HRC is also adding to her lead in delegates.

The endorsement was made by the CBC PAC, not the CBC.

The majority of the CBC PAC board members are lobbyists, not congressman.

Jim Webb rules out independent run for president - POLITICO

It's like Sage Rosenfels holding a press conference to announce he's not interested in the Broncos' starting QB job if Manning retires.

Are you assuming they are unrelated? CBC PAC is the CBC's political arm, and in response to the endorsement a half dozen CBC members are going to South Carolina to campaign for Clinton, including John Lewis. In fact, they held off endorsing anyone because they wanted to wait for SC Rep Jim Clyburn to endorse... and he's planning on endorsing Clinton, so they've gone ahead.

Sanders has a narrow path to staying competitive after Super Tuesday. It involves making states like Georgia, Virginia and Texas respectable (call it >40% results) and winning all of Minnesota, Vermont, Colorado and Massachusetts. If he can also stay close in Nevada and respectable in South Carolina, he could actually emerge from Super Tuesday in a slightly positive pledged delegate position.

Those are all big ifs, and I tend to side with the "there's not actually much of a race going on" contingent.

According to Rep Barbara Lee,

"Amy, first of all, I want to make it clear there’s a clear distinction between the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus PAC. We actually have a Republican in the Congressional Black Caucus. I don’t want the viewers, your viewers, to believe that the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus PAC are one and the same."

"Well, I am not a member of the CBC political action committee. And I think it’s important to discuss that with the PAC members. Once again, there’s a clear firewall. There’s a clear distinction."

As Congressional Black Caucus PAC Prepares to Back Clinton, Barbara Lee Withholds Endorsement | Democracy Now!

Uh... of course there is a firewall between the two groups - they are carrying on political action on behalf of Congressmen. However, they are clearly doing the work of the group they are associated with. Do you not understand how PACs work?

And remember what I said about the CBC PAC waiting for SC Rep Jim Clyburn to make a decision? He's not on the board of the CBC PAC... he is, however, a major member of the CBC proper.

Here's wiki:

Political action committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The non-connected part means there does need to be a firewall between the group and their PAC. And make no mistake, it is their PAC. See the picture on the "About" of the CBC PAC website (under "Who We Are")?

http://www.cbcpac.org/about-us

That'd be the Congressional Black Caucus... not the CBC PAC board, but the CBC proper.

They're still distinct entities. An endorsement from the CBC PAC is not an endorsement from the CBC.

Agreed here, except -- I think he has to win Nevada, period. That's his one chance to show some lasting power before he starts to fade out. A win, not a close loss, could stem that tide and uncork some more dollars to feed on. But I think he's all in there.

Yes, it's an endorsement from the political arm of the CBC... still a major deal. The CBC never endorses anyone as a group. Their PAC does. The resources of the CBC's PAC are now in service of the Clinton campaign.

Now Ellison saying something similar to Lee. Are they splitting hairs, or is there a rift here. I'm reading that the CBC is sending Representatives to SC to shill for HRC on one hand, and on the other some individuals are saying that the CBC hasn't endorsed anyone.

Cong'l Black Caucus (CBC) has NOT endorsed in presidential. Separate CBCPAC endorsed withOUT input from CBC membership, including me.

— Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) February 11, 2016

Without input from "all" CBC members would be correct. They clearly had input from some members, and until we hear from more than 2 people questioning this endorsement, it's unlikely that a poll of all members would've changed anything.

There are always defections from endorsements. I doubt all Human Rights Campaign members will vote for Hillary, for example.

...

Bingo. It's not like union endorsements are made by a vote of the entire union, for instance. The CBC's political arm has endorsed Hillary Clinton (and as I point out, waiting for influential CBC member, Rep Clyburn, who isn't on the board of CBC PAC, at least not currently), but that doesn't mean that all the members of the CBC are necessarily in agreement. That'll happen with any organizational endorsement, as pointed out the Human Rights Campaign members aren't going to vote all en bloc.

So it appears that after the debate, journalists such as Jonathan Alter and David Axelrod (no conservatives) went to Twitter to say that Senator Sanders was full of it when he implied he didn't savagely go after President Obama. I think that's the first time Sanders has been caught like that before in this campaign.

The Sanders supporters on my FB feed have gone absolutely apeshit. They're attacking John Lewis of all people and using a photo that purports to show Bernie at the Selma March, which is almost certainly NOT Sanders. It's getting really tiresome. Love Bernie Sanders. His supporters? Not so much.

Did anyone else think that Clinton was like super close to Christi-ing (not in the bridge-closing way, the what-he-did-to-Rubio way) Sanders? I mean Sanders' response to him improving race relations over the Obama Administration was going to take tax breaks away from the rich!!!

What's a Super Delegate, and Why Did Clinton Win Them? - NBC News

Sorry, bub.

And according to NBC, Sanders did win 15-14 in delegates after the DNC Super Delegates re-arranged the outcome a bit...but I'm guessing he should've won by a bit wider of a margin.

Don't get hung up on super delegates. They don't have to commit until the convention. Whomever wins the voting is going to get the nomination. The world is too public to pull any shenanigans with super delegates.

Now, I'll agree the media should stop reporting the counts with super delegates or at least make clear the difference between earned and pledged delegates.

Yeah, if the super delegates ever wanted to flex their muscle like that, then 2008 would've been the perfect time. It was close enough for them to have given the edge to Hillary, but most ended up flipping to Obama to reflect the voters' choices.

So who invests in these irrelevant super delegates and what is it's purpose then?

It's all noise unless/until Bernie wins SC or NV. If he does, then it is panic time in Clinton-land. If he does not, then the superdelegates won't matter b/c Clinton will beat him in earned delegates.

They were created, IIRC, back in 1968 with the idea that if there ever was such a contentious convention again that threatened to break out into violence, the superdelegates could bring some order to the proceedings.

Also if there was a wide open field of 4 or 5 viable candidates and none of them could get the majority of pledged delegates, the superdelegates could come up with a victor, rather than going through multiple rounds of voting (as happened in the past).

This piece (from 2008) points to them being given such influence as a direct result of the McGovern & Carter defeats. Not a source I'd usually quote from frankly but the use of quotes & coverage from other sources seems legit enough ... fwiw

A Brief History of Superdelegates

Free Beacon Poll: Clinton and Sanders Tied in Nevada

I mean, if she can't put away Bernie Sanders, then how the hell is she going to beat whomever the hell the GOP puts up?

The GOP candidate will likely be much easier to beat than Bernie Sanders.

In the last month, the only thing I've heard about Hillary is that she put our national secrets at risk and that she has Madeline Albright stumping for her and demanding ALL women vote for her or they will go to a "special place in hell".

I seriously doubt people are dumb enough on a large enough scale, to vote her into office. She has to be the most worthless candidate of the entire bunch.

No, not even close. I'd go out & gather names on tombstones for her before I'd risk Sanders in office.

We the people allegedly voted in Bush twice so yes, the people are dumb enough to vote in Hilary.

Okay, hang on. She might be an undesirable candidate for any number of reasons, but you can't be seriously suggesting that she lacks the substantive qualifications to be a candidate?

It's hardly an unbiased source, but this poll, with a relatively large N, spells huge trouble for Clinton in Nevada:

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/upl...v-toplines.pdf

(reading the questions asked, this is really a push poll, so I'd take the results with at least one grain of salt despite the larger N).

Clinton was +23 seven weeks ago in a much smaller Gravis poll.

If this is how she's doing with solid establishment backing, the wall could easily crumble just as quickly as it did eight years ago.

We can argue over her qualifications or whether she'd be good in office. I don't think, at this point, it can be argued that she isn't one of the worst campaigners we've ever seen. No matter whether her institutional advantages pull this nomination out for her or not, this is the second time she's blown what was thought to be an insurmountable lead.

You might be able to argue that Obama was a transformational figure. But Bernie Sanders... I've been a Sanders fan for years, and I scoffed when he announced his candidacy. I figured that the best he could hope for was to push her slightly to the left. As of now, the campaign is being fought almost entirely over his issues. It's truly amazing.

Yeah, but how many people even know what her issues are?

+1

They only need to look at the latest polling.

spoilered for size

I think what it shows is that there is a hunger out there among the populace for something completely different than the typical established candidate. The reason Sanders keeps trending up is because he offers a departure from the systemic buying and selling of candidates by big businesses, etc. He offers a departure from the nature of politics by not playing the attack ad game, coming off as very genuine (because in all likelihood he is very genuine) and just generally not being a typical politician. I think in much the same way, Trump has captured the same type of crowd from the opposite side. Maybe what they stand for as candidates doesn't play to everyone, but who they are compared to the traditional candidates is what makes people want to hear and see what they can do. The public pretty much knows what they can expect from the typical candidate by now. They're ready for something different.

Even if neither Trump nor Sanders was able to get their ideas through congress, I think this is a lasting push back we're seeing from the people. Typical candidates aren't going to find themselves being looked at favorably any more when an alternative makes itself available. This day and age it is easier than ever to prove you are not who you say you are, and I think that reflects in the polls. I hope it carries down through the house and senate as well, and I hope it results in the eventual face lift our lawmaking body needs in order to earn some level of trust among the people they govern.

No good polling out, but the signs are all pointing to Nevada being close.

I mean, if she can't put away Bernie in Nevada?

The Dems will either be stuck with Bernie or with a candidate who had a hell of a time beating Bernie. Neither bodes well.

I'm trying to think of the sports equivalent of Hillary's performances the last two cycles. The USA Men's basketball teams before Colangelo took over?

heh - that's really good.

Does it really count as "a hell of a time" if she destroys him on Super Tuesday?

Though three polls just came out in South Carolina, all of them have Hillary around +20. Southern firewall.

No, it doesn't. And if it happens that way, and then she rolls on to win the big midwestern states afterward, then it won't be much trouble in the final analysis.

But insiders forget just how many outsiders there are. Sanders won NH. Wow, big deal, we knew that. We immediately got into margin and message and money and so forth. But the headline was still SANDERS WINS in big letters.

Then, based mainly on the completely predictable outcome in NH, Sanders got momentum and money to go fight a legit fight in Nevada. And the "before things got hot" polling there was a Clinton landslide too. Now it's a toss-up. That's just how the state-by-state system works.

I still think she's the winner at the end. But if he wins Nevada by any margin at all, he could gain some momentum to not get completely flattened in the deep south, and he could make it a pretty substantive and possibly drawn-out race.