April 2, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
23:22
3249 Will They Steal The Election From Bernie Sanders?
During the 2016 Presidential Election cycle, the Republican Primary has been the focus of the mainstream media and the candidacy of Hillary Clinton has been seen as inevitable. Much like Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has changed the plans of the Republican party establishment - Senator Bernie Sanders continues to be a thorn in the side of Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.The 2016 Democratic National Convention will be held on July 25th, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. With increasing awareness of scandals involving Hillary Clinton – including an upcoming interview with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey – Sanders won’t relent in his battle to become the Democrat nominee for President of the United States. Much like Trump’s battle against the Republican establishment and the large corporate interests funding the other Presidential candidates, Sanders has faced an uphill battle against the Democrat establishment and the lobbyist/special interest groups which resist political change of any kind. Sources: http://www.fdrurl.com/bernie-sanders-electionFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
So, Bernie Sanders, the irascible wild-haired senator from Vermont, is rapidly making a rather giant Tyrannosaurus-sized footprint, that's not a reference to his age, in the American political landscape.
And will he be the Democrat presidential nominee?
Well...
He could be, but there's one thing that stands in his way, and that is, in fact, many of the Byzantine rules of the Democratic National Committee.
So, of course, the road to the presidency is defined by the Constitution.
However, becoming the party's nominee for president, that is according to the internal politics of the party themselves.
So let's have a look at how...
The Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party machine might deny Bernie Sanders his legitimate shot.
Now, of course, during the 2016 presidential election cycle, the Republican primary has been, well, let's just say, the focus of the mainstream media.
And the candidacy of Hillary Clinton has been seen as inevitable.
Now...
Much like Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has changed the plans of the Republican Party establishment, Senator Bernie Sanders continues to be a thorn in the side of Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.
Both of these candidates can be seen as a reaction to the sense that large corporations' massive special interests Groups, those with the fire hose of infinite campaign cash and the political action committees, have stolen the voice of the people, and now the government only responds to large special interest groups, ranging from the military-industrial complex to corporations to public sector unions to you name it, everything but the common people as a whole.
Now, the 2016 Democratic National Convention will be held on July 25th, 2016, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Now, with an increasing awareness of the giant whirlpool-like scandals involving and surrounding Hillary Clinton, including not anybody's favorite day, an upcoming interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, well, Sanders simply will not relent in his battle to become the Democrat nominee for President of the United States.
Now, much like Trump's battle against the Republican establishment and the large corporate interests funding the other presidential candidates, Sanders has faced, well, an uphill battle, let us say, against the Democrat establishment and the lobbyist and special interest groups, which tend to resist political change of any kind, particularly if it's not directly in their favor.
So let's look and see.
This is votes cast in primary elections as a percent of eligible voters.
And here you can see in 1980 there was a fairly big turnout.
This was the age of Reagan, of course.
course, it kind of diminished in the 90s.
You know, people were fat happy and relatively well off.
And so political interest tended to diminish, as you can see, spiked around 2008, because a lot of people, of course, wanted to get Barack Obama in power, because as we all know, he completely cured America of race issues.
And of course, 2016, we're seeing a big resurgence, and in particular, among the Republicans, and to a smaller degree, among the Democrats.
And, And the Republican surgence is due to Donald Trump and the surging on the Democrat side, I would argue, is pretty much to do with interest in Bernie Sanders and his message.
So the people are speaking, at which point you can generally expect the establishment to go, la, la, la, la.
As loud as they possibly can to avoid the thunderous noise of public approval.
Now, the Democrats' Super Tuesday voter turnout percent decrease compared to 2008.
Now, I would argue this is because we're expecting, or most people are expecting, Queen Clinton to be crowned without much competition.
But Bernie Sanders is, I would argue, decreasing the decrease, right?
He's getting more people back into politics.
So, Virginia...
Since 2008, Super Tuesday voter turnout is down by 21%.
Texas, 50%.
Tennessee, 41%.
Georgia, 28%.
Arkansas, 31%.
Alabama, 26%.
Massachusetts, Vermont 13, Oklahoma 20, and Minnesota 9.
I know you can read, but remember, there's a podcast as well.
So only Colorado has had an increase in turnout from 2008.
That increase is a relatively unstaggering 2.27%, or 2,760 votes.
So...
Hillary Clinton.
Will she be the Democrat presidential nominee?
Well, as you can see, I guess looking sideways, maybe this is Kim Kardashian in a mermaid costume.
I don't know.
I'm working on it.
But you can see it's gone from 80% likely she's going to be the presidential nominee for the Democrats to...
Down to 60, back up, down, up.
So we'll see as this goes along if the scandals, like the FBI has got, what, 147 agents investigating her possible misuse of security restrictions through her private email server, as well as possible foreign influence coming in through her and Bill Clinton's Clinton Foundation.
So we'll see where these numbers go.
So Bernie Sanders...
So, people are a little bit frustrated at the lack of debates.
There's a perception, which I happen to share, that more debates is going to benefit the underdog because it puts the underdog front and center and has people hear his or her message.
So, many Democrats have criticized the Democratic National Committee, the DNC, specifically Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for limiting the number of Democrat debates.
Originally, only six debates were scheduled, the first occurring relatively late in October, and candidates were barred from participating in what were called unsanctioned debates, due to the imposition of an exclusivity rule that if you went into some kind of debate that the DNC wasn't sponsoring and in control of, well, they would just take their debates and go home.
According to DNC Chairwoman Debbie Washerman Schultz, quote, These six debates will not only give caucus-goers and primary voters ample opportunity to hear from our candidates about their vision for our country's future.
They will highlight the clear contrast between the values of the Democratic Party, which is focused on strengthening the middle class, versus Republicans who want to pursue out-of-touch and out-of-date policies.
Now, Bernie Sanders has said, Here's a statement from Democratic National Committee Vice Chairs Tulsi Gabbard and R.T. Ryback.
Quote, The decision to limit presidential candidates to six debates with a threat of exclusion for any candidate who participates in any non-DNC sanctioned debate is a mistake.
It limits the ability of the American people to benefit from a strong, transparent, vigorous debate between our presidential candidates as they make the important decision of who will be our Democratic presidential nominee.
Governor Martin O'Malley has said, At a time when so many people in our country are given up on the political process, and the turnout is so low, when public consciousness about government is not high, I would like to see us be debating all over this country.
I'd like to see the DNC have more debates.
I believe the more debates, the better.
Howard Dean commented, Ah!
And I've heard that there's a rule that says if you participate in an unsanctioned debate, then you can't participate in a sanctioned debate.
That I don't agree with.
It's not right.
When asked if the DNC was, quote, putting a thumb on the scale in favor of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders said, I don't know, maybe...
O'Malley strategist Bill Hires said, quote, The schedule that they have proposed does not give voters, nationally and especially in early states, ample opportunity to hear from the Democratic candidates for president.
If anything, it seems geared toward limiting debate and facilitating a coronation, not promoting a robust debate and primary process.
Although several additional debates were later scheduled, bringing the total up, I guess, to eight compared to the 20 or more, which occurred in 2008, many were still frustrated with the less-than-prime-time nature of the debate scheduling.
3 a.m.
Hawaii time!
Two of the debates were scheduled on Saturday nights.
Now, it's been a while since I was single and or a non-father.
Saturday nights, if I remember, are the times when you go out, see bright lights, listening to pulsating music, acquire street meat, and fail to acquire taxi.
So Saturday night is the second lowest rated night of the week.
Another debate took place on the Sunday night during Martin Luther King Day weekend, which was also expected to negatively impact ratings.
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has repeatedly denied suggestions that the debate scheduling was coordinated to protect front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Now, despite its name, the Democratic Party decides its nominees in a decidedly undemocratic way.
29.9% of the delegates needed for a nomination are not decided in the voting booth, right?
So you know the way it works.
People vote in their states for delegates, and then the delegates are bound to the candidate.
Except...
Sometimes they're not, and they're bound to something else entirely.
This is from Wiki.
In American politics, a superdelegate, least effective member of the Marvel Universe, or most perhaps, is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is seated automatically and chooses for whom they want to vote.
So they're not bound by what people chose beforehand.
These Democratic Party superdelegates include distinguished party leaders.
Elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate, and sitting Democratic governors.
Other superdelegates are chosen during the primary season.
Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination.
This contrasts with convention-pledged delegates who are selected based on the party's primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination.
Because Now, this has actually happened before.
Because in 2008, there are some calculations that Hillary Clinton got more votes than Barack Obama, but Barack Obama had this expert who had helped line up the superdelegates.
Hillary Clinton has since hired that expert to help her round up the superdelegates.
And Lord knows what kind of backroom, ghastly, underhanded, handshake-with-a-tickle, smoky room deals are being done to sway these superdelegates.
So Democratic National Committee is responsible for signing superdelegates who are unelected individuals that are free to vote for whomever they choose at the Democratic Convention in July.
University of Georgia lecturer Josh Putnam.
The reason superdelegates came into being?
To allow the party establishment an increased voice in the nomination process?
Make no mistake, that is code for giving the party the opportunity to put a check on the decision of the people's choice.
And no, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
For the Democratic Party, that was a strategic decision based on the prevailing conventional wisdom of the time, that primary voters are typically more extreme, or at least further to the left or right, than general election voters.
It was a basic electability argument.
And again, for those who are bothered by the voices, remember, there are podcasts who need to know when I'm talking in somebody else's.
UCLA political scientist, like that's a science, Lynn.
Vavrek said, quote, What's highly correlated with who becomes the nominee is the number of party elite endorsements a candidate has in the year before the election.
The idea is not that anybody hears that someone has endorsed you and then that sways their vote.
The idea is that party elites have a sense of who is viable and electable as a candidate.
So all of this is basically just Orwellian speak for, well, you guys can have a voice, you voters, and as long as your votes accord with what we want, we will honor your votes.
If it doesn't accord with what we want, we will use every evil Dungeons& Dragons trick in the book to override your particular preferences.
It's very platonic.
Now, Clinton currently has 469 superdelegates in her corner, while Sanders has just 31.
That being said, the superdelegates are unbound and can change their mind before the convention.
So...
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz again, quote, The purpose of superdelegates, which, by the way, have never been a determining factor in who our nominee is since they've been in place since 1984, is to make sure that party activists who want to be delegates to the convention don't have to run against much better known and well-established people at the district level.
Again, I don't know what that means.
I'm not sure anybody does.
But what I hear is a swish and thud of earth being thrown on a body to hide it from the truth.
Hunt, commission, member Geraldine Ferraro.
I don't think that's a commandment.
Although, she said...
The superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow.
They were and are expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country.
See, you don't want to let voters choose that madness.
There's a quote that says, Democracy is beautiful in theory.
In practice, it is a fallacy.
No, that wasn't the DNC. That was Mussolini.
Bernie Sanders on March 27, 2016, after winning Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, quote, We've just won six out of the last seven contests.
We have the momentum.
We won three landslide victories yesterday.
You're assuming that every superdelegate who now supports Secretary Clinton will stay with her.
I think the superdelegates are going to have to make a very difficult decision, and that is, if a candidate wins in a state by 40 or 50 points, who are you going to give your vote to?
That's a clear will of the people thing, so that's what he's saying.
Los Angeles Times has said, Sandra's advisers are targeting these party leaders and elected officials who have outsized influence in deciding who gets to be the Democratic nominee and whom Hillary Clinton moved swiftly and aggressively to lock down early in the race.
Each one of their votes at the convention in July is weighted as heavily as those of thousands of voters.
Hey, you've probably heard that thing from Stalin.
It's not who votes, it's who count the votes that counts.
It might not be wildly inappropriate.
Scientist strategist Tad Devin said, quote, We don't have 300 superdelegates waiting to go to Bernie tomorrow, but she, Clinton, has emerged as a weak frontrunner.
So this is the popular vote count as of March 30th.
Bernie Sanders, almost 6.4 million.
Hillary Clinton, just over 8.9 million.
So Clinton has 58.2% of the total vote.
Sanders has 41.8.
Primary delegate count.
So there are 2,073 delegates still to go.
You need to win 2,383.
Hillary Clinton has 1,243.
Bernie Sanders has 980.
Superdelegates, as we mentioned, 469 versus 31.
So, yeah, that second step is just a little bit of a doozy at the moment.
Delegates needed to reach the nomination.
Hillary Clinton needs 1,140.
Bernie Sanders needs 1,403.
So, in other words, Hillary Clinton needs 54.9% of the remaining delegates.
Bernie Sanders needs 67.7%.
And again, the superdelegates are, let's just say, a little bit of a manipulatable wildcard.
So, what is still up for grabs?
Well, quite a few.
These are the delegates that are still available now.
To be snapped up in this political race, Wisconsin has 96, Wyoming 18, New York 291, Connecticut 70, Delaware 31, Maryland 118, Pennsylvania 210, Rhode Island 33, Indiana 92, Guam 12, West Virginia 37.
Now, if you want to go out and participate in this process, Wisconsin comes up April 5th.
Wyoming, April 9th.
New York, April 19th.
April 26th, the cluster of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.
May 3rd is Indiana.
Guam, May 7th.
West Virginia, May 10th.
But wait, there's more.
Kentucky, 61.
Still remaining up for grabs.
Oregon, 74.
Virgin Islands, 12.
Puerto Rico, 67.
Although I think with debt, that's infinity.
California, the massive state of California's delegates, 546.
Montana, 27.
New Jersey, 142.
New Mexico, 43.
North Dakota, 23.
South Dakota, 25.
District of Columbia, 45.
Those dates are coming.
Kentucky and Oregon, May 17th.
Virgin Islands, June 4th.
Puerto Rico, June 5th.
June 7th.
Oh, yes.
California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota.
And Columbia, District of Columbia is June 14th.
So, let's go big screen and just give a few conclusions.
Look.
Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, I have policy issues with both of them, but both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump reflect an incredible frustration which is completely understandable, which is that everybody with half a brain perceives, rightly so, that...
Politicians have kind of turned into NASCARs.
You know, the advertising stickers should be all over, but they're not.
There are backroom deals, there are PACs, there's probably hidden smoke signals, carrier pigeons, yogurt cups with string between all of these organizations, which aren't supposed to coordinate, but probably do.
And the ordinary person is crowded out.
In other words, it is a sham process designed to get you to approve of various corporate and public sector interests, pillaging you from here to eternity, selling off your children to the foreign banksters in order to bribe voters in the here and now.
And it is no longer a very participative process, which is why two outsiders have come in and really threatened to upset the apple cart, Donald Trump, who is independent of the Republican National Committee because he is not taking money from them.
He's not taking money, of course, from corporations or unions or public or private sector unions from the military industrial complex.
So he's a wild card.
And Sanders, with his very laudable criticism of the degree to which money is corrupting politics, is also stepping in, with also some weariness of the continual scandals around Hillary Clinton.
Now, both the Democratic and the Republican Party establishment are pulling out A fairly filthy series of dirty tricks, in my opinion, to derail candidates who have significant popular support behind them.
It is the people versus the crusty old dinosaur establishment who uses the people as a human shield for their endless predation on the body politic.
There are things to significantly admire about Bernie Sanders.
He opposed the war in Iraq, one of the greatest disasters in American history and now European civilization.
And he has been a strong anti-war candidate throughout his political career, which is great.
I mean, the military industrial complex, so beloved by many Republicans, is saunterly opposed by significant numbers of Democrats who have strong commitments, some of them to non-interventionist policies overseas.
Nation building turns out to be civilization destroying.
Sanders has also brought significant attention to the issue of money in politics, the degree to which money is corrupting politics.
Now, that having been said, we all know, you know, deep down in our heart of hearts, that when Bernie Sanders, you know, rides up on his white horse of Federal Reserve-powered fiat currency, offers free college education, Medicaid, rides up on his white horse of Federal Reserve-powered fiat currency, offers free college and just gives and offers more and more free stuff, quote, free stuff to voters, that is not exactly keeping money out of politics.
You know, if you're offering people free stuff in return for their vote...
It starts with a B and ends with bribery.
And I just don't think that is in particular keeping money out of politics.
So that's just something to think about.
So there is significant corruption.
We've talked about it recently in how the nomination may be withheld from Donald Trump, even if he legitimately gets what's necessary.
We also wanted to talk about how The nomination may be withheld from Bernie Sanders, even if he gets the legitimate numbers that would otherwise be granted to him, or even if he gets a majority.
Bernie Sanders supporters, should he not end up being the nominee, I would invite you to expand your horizons.
Don't just necessarily vote for Hillary because she's got a decadent, dissolute, no, Democrat, next to her name.
There are other options out there.
And if you want to get money out of politics, there are other options other than simply going to Hillary if...
Bernie Sanders doesn't make it.
And I'm not, you know, I'm not very big on creating political chance.
But if I were, and if I wanted to do one, it would go a little something like this.