Democrat primaries: Soviet style

Your name is Hillary Clinton. You run for president. 6 different dead-locked precincts tossing tie-breaking coins all fall your way. Per Las Vegas oddsmakers, six consecutive appearances of heads-or-tails is a statistical probability of 1.5%. That's 64-to-1 against, an exceedingly lucky outcome. For Democrats, there is no hand–wringing, no equivalent “hanging chads” controversy. Unlike Bush/Gore in 2000 in Florida there are no multiple re-counts demanded, no cadre of lawyers dispatched to Iowa, no lawsuits filed. Mrs. Clinton claims victory before all the results were tallied, ultimately managing a microscopic victory of 4 delegates. That's people not percentage points. (Does she know something the rest of us don't?)

In New Hampshire Bernie Sanders—an avowed Socialist who took his blushing bride to Russia for their honeymoon—gave madame real shellacking by 22 percent. A Donald Trump-like primary performance. That translates into 15 delegates for him to her 9. However, despite the Iowa virtual tie and the clear New Hampshire win, it turns out today that Bernie's been burnt. That's because in the all-important delegate count—the convention electors who ultimately select the Democrat's presidential nominee—she leads him going into Clinton-friendly South Carolina 394 to 44.

Non-existent in the Republican Party for the very good reason that they can easily thwart the voters' intentions, the discrepancy lies in little-understood Democrat superdelegates. These are the “important” people, party insiders like Bill Clinton (no nepotism there). Instituted in 1982—no doubt in large part to Ronald Reagan's landslide 1980 victory over unpopular incumbent Jimmy Carter—superdelegates are designed to prevent brokered conventions and their result: weak or insurgent candidates. They make up 712, a whopping 30% of the 2,382 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

Importantly, unlike Republicans, the Democrat's modern election “process” is ironically autocratic not democratic. Superdelegates may ensure a unified decision-making process, but it is top-down and based upon the party's stamp of approval rather than a generalized expression of whom the voters want. In this way, a top-down process is antithetical to the traditional bottom-up process the Founding Fathers intended: common people choosing informed electors who in turn chose the nominee.

But it's worse than that. Superdelegates beholden to no one—save the party itself—make this nominating process inherently corrupt, based upon back-room dealing completely removed from the American people's influence. Case and point is New Hampshire. With 2 uncommitted, 6 of the 8 superdelegates support Hillary. That evens the scale in the contest to a tie of 15 apiece. Indeed, months before a single vote was cast, Hillarystarted the race with 15% of the total she needs.

Simply put, Hillary wins even though she loses. Superdelegates prove the fix is in, the creeping Clinton coronation is actually in full swing. Likewise, the MSM-moderated debates are a complete sham, extended political commercials peppered with softball questions. In the final analysis, how is this any different then Russia when Vladimir Putin is the only name on the ballot?

Apparently untroubled, debate handshaking Bernie comfortably plays his role in this “Democratic” farce that guarantees Hillary the nomination.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Successful Hillary: worst political year?

Although I agree with Chris Cillizza's worst-year assessment of Jeb Bush—and the now unlikely Bush-Clinton 2016 presidential contest made my skin crawl—how can the same be said for Hillary? Beyond that, Mr. Cillizza is confused on a few key points. The truly “gifted politician” named Clinton is clearly Bill, not Hillary. Furthermore, as a lock for her party's nomination—and with a statistical 50/50 probability of becoming the next POTUS—how can she be mischaracterized by The Washington Post as having the worst year on the Democrat's side? (The unexplained reason for Mr. Cillizza's selection: Hillary is the only viable candidate of the biologically lilly-white three on the Democrat side; in contrast Republicans have ten diverse and serious contenders). Lastly, as historically the first female presidential nominee from a major political party, that seems like success to me rather than failure.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

The secret meaning of debate handshake

As Tuesday's overly chummy Democratic sham of a “debate” demonstrated Bernie Sanders is nothing more than a shill for the Democratic Party. Why else would he leap to a spirited defense of scandal-ridden front-runner Hillary Clinton? Before shaking hands with a grinning Hillary—no symbolism of collusion there—he said:

“Let me say something that may not be great politics, but I think the secretary is right, and that is the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your [Hillary's] damned emails!”

In any case, in the American sense of the word, there is nothing “independent” about Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders; an outspoken advocate of bigger government, a 90% tax rate and further income redistribution á la Obama. As an avowed Socialist, his collectivist views are anti-Capitalist and antithetical to the American economic system. With 93 million able-bodied Americans looking for full time employment— and uncounted by labor statistics which laughably report 5.1%— a politician with Mr. Sanders’s views is too radical to be elected, even by loopy Democrat standards. So why is such a wild card in the race for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president?

Make no mistake: he of the little "I" by his surname is nothing more than a plant for the Democrats. Indeed, he who regularly caucuses and votes with Democrats is a de facto Democrat. In truth, Mr. Sanders is running precisely because he is unelectable. His role in this Kabuki theater is to happily serve the Democrat's collective: to be a smiling, friendly placeholder to populate the stage during debates and in the press. To this end, he has not and will not say anything truly controversial about Hillary Clinton as any legitimate contender would. For example, the best Mr. Sanders can muster is milquetoast platitudes: “Hillary Clinton is a candidate, I am a candidate…. The people in this country will make their choice.” The closest thing to a criticism thus far was calling Mrs. Clinton a “fence-sitter” on the Trans-Pacific trade proposal. Mr. Sanders should know that fence-sitting— and going with changing political winds—is the very epitome of Clintonian politics.

Mr. Sanders's colorful presence creates the illusion of a contest for the Democratic nomination—rather than a coronation—and makes Hillary Clinton appear more politically mainstream—and therefore, more palatable to the general electorate. The payoff to Mr. Sanders is increased personal visibility in the political conversation and a wide platform to promote his anti-American agenda.

Socialists like Sanders believe in the economic fantasy of “free” stuff—which is never really free—and is always paid for by someone else. Hence, his policy of “free” tuition for students at public colleges and universities. Likewise, Clinton believes in cradle to grave government dependence though “free money” welfare programs like the ever-expanding food stamp rolls. With typical Democrat blasé, these birds of a feather operate in a fiscal twilight zone (where an 18 Trillion dollar debt and deficit spending don’t matter) and resources just drop magically from the heavens to serve their dystopian designs. In essence they demonize “Paul” (Wall Street) to justify stealing from him (class warfare) in order to pander for “Peter's” vote. Everything for Democrats revolves around garnering numbers for reelection: maintaining their own political power base. In this case, that is exactly Mr. Sanders’s underlying purpose: to get Hillary Clinton into the Oval Office in 2016.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Clinton coronation: Sanders unelectable, advocates gang rape

With the exception of the last 48 hours and Martin O'Malley's entrance into the race which technically makes 3, there have only been two people vying for the Democratic nomination.  Therefore, it is more than tongue-and-cheek, but journalistically disingenuous of Mr. Cillizza to peddle the fantasy that there is actually a contest rather than a Clinton coronation.  The fact that an outspoken, unelectable Socialist could attract any mainstream Democrat support at all is astonishing especially in light of the emergence of Mr. Sanders' 1972 essay about how women enjoy the fantasy of a 3-man gang rape into every orifice; a fact unmentioned in Mr. Cillizza's superficial analysis of Sanders. 

Make no mistake: this laughingstock of a candidate is both personally misogynistic and politically anti-American.  I don't know why Democratic leaders have gone so far off their philosophical rails (á la Obama; Warren; Sanders; O'Malley) from Jeffersonian Classic Liberalism (the right of the individual over the state) to its radical, polar opposite: Statism.  But the Democratic party resides there now, that much is clear.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ranking-the-2016-democratic-field/2015/05/31/660dd0e8-07a3-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html

Sanders’s Charade For President

In the American sense of the word, there is nothing “independent” about Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders; an outspoken advocate of bigger government, higher taxes and further income redistribution á la Obama.  As an avowed Socialist, his collectivist views are anti-Capitalist and antithetical to the American economic system.  With 93 million able-bodied Americans looking for full time employment— and uncounted by labor statistics­— a politician with Mr. Sanders’s views is too radical to be elected, even by loopy Democrat standards.  So why is such a wild card in the race for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president?   

Make no mistake: he of the little “I” by his surname is nothing more than a shill for the Democratic Party.  Indeed, he who regularly caucuses and votes with Democrats is a de facto Democrat.  In truth, Mr. Sanders is running precisely because he is unelectable.  His role in this Kabuki theater is to happily serve the collective: to be a smiling, friendly place holder to populate the stage during debates and in the press.  To this end, he has not and will not say anything truly controversial about Hillary Clinton as any legitimate contender would.  For example, the best Mr. Sanders can muster is milquetoast platitudes: “Hillary Clinton is a candidate, I am a candidate…. The people in this country will make their choice.”  The closest thing to a criticism thus far was calling Mrs. Clinton a “fence-sitter” on the Trans-Pacific trade proposal.  Mr. Sanders should know that fence-sitting— and going with the changing political winds—is the very epitome of Clintonian politics.

Mr. Sanders presence creates the illusion of a contest for the Democratic nomination—rather than a coronation—and makes Hillary Clinton appear more politically mainstream­—and therefore, more palatable to the general electorate.  The payoff to Mr. Sanders is increased personal visibility in the political conversation and a wide platform to promote his anti-Capitalist agenda.

On the other hand, with only three years of Senate experience under her belt Mrs. Warren is savvy enough to know that the voters are unlikely to elect another third year, neophyte, progressive Senator to the White House.  That's why she who claims to be “1/32 American Indian” will bide her time and cool her moccasin-adorned heels in the legislature.

Progressives like Warren and Socialists like Sanders are birds of a feather: both believe in the economic fantasy of “free” stuff—which is never really free—and is always paid for by someone else.  Hence, their policy of “free” tuition for students at public colleges and universities.  With typical Democrat blasé, they operate in a fiscal twilight zone (where debt and deficit spending don’t matter) and resources just drop magically from the heavens to serve their dystopian designs.  In essence they demonize “Paul” (Wall Street) to justify stealing from him (class warfare) in order to pander for “Peter's” vote.  Everything for Democrats revolves around garnering numbers for reelection: maintaining their own political power base.  In this case, that is exactly Mr. Sander’s underlying purpose: to get Hillary Clinton into the Oval Office.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002