According to CNN, "Many Democrats fear that if Sanders does not rein in his supporters, an ugly scene could take place at the DNC in July." However, it's Clinton, not Sanders, who must rein in her supporters. It's Bernie Sanders who defeats Trump by a wider margin, without an FBI investigation. Furthermore, if more scenes like Nevada's state convention take place, the Democratic Party is looking at a serious fracture if Clinton, and not Sanders, becomes nominee.
Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by 13 points, and has defeated Donald Trump by a wider margin than Clinton since last year. Hillary Clinton defeats Trump by 5.2 points in an average of polls, a margin that dropped by .5 points in less than one week. Keep these numbers in mind, when reading about a potential fracture at the Democratic convention, and a system many voters feel is corrupt.
Winning on November 8, 2016 means rallying around Sanders, not Clinton.
Less than 300 pledged delegates away from Clinton, Bernie Sanders has managed to force a contested convention against the most powerful politician in the Democratic Party. All of Hillary Clinton's Wall Street and foreign donors, and the might of a giant political machine bolstering her candidacy, hasn't been enough to stop Vermont's Senator. With Bernie Sanders winning Oregon, he's now defeated Clinton in 21 contests and continues to achieve what FiveThirtyEight, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, believed to be impossible.
Ironically, these are also the same people saying Sanders should drop out of the race, while completely ignoring the FBI criminal investigation into Clinton's emails.
Once again, FiveThirtyEight, The New York Times, and The Washington Post never imagined Bernie Sanders would fight Hillary Clinton "until the last ballot."
Although I firmly believe the FBI will recommend indictments of Clinton and her top aides, and the DNC will eventually rally around Bernie Sanders, an irreparable fracture has already shattered Democratic Party unity.
Vox explains exactly why Hillary Clinton was able to surpass Bernie Sanders in delegate count after the Nevada state convention:
At the state convention, Clinton ultimately had 1,693 delegates while Sanders had 1,662, according to the Las Vegas Sun. That lead was only possible because state officials disqualified 56 Sanders-supporting delegates who had filled out incorrect paperwork or hadn't registered as Democrats in time, the Sun reported. (Fewer than 10 Clinton delegates were similarly disqualified.)
... Ultimately, Lange, the state's party chair, awarded seven of the remaining 12 national delegates to Clinton and the other five to Sanders.
... In 2008, 67 percent of Americans thought the presidential nominations were being conducted fairly, according to Gallup. That number is now at around 30 percent for 2016, with only 32 percent of Democrats saying that they trust the election system. (About 51 percent of voters told Reuters they consider the primary system "rigged.")
... But the bigger worry for Democrats may not be that Sanders's supporters view Donald Trump as a better presidential candidate, but rather that they come to regard the whole electoral system -- and Clinton's nomination -- as inherently fraudulent.
Thus, even a centrist and apparently unbiased Vox article addresses the political repercussions of "only 32 percent of Democrats saying that they trust the election system."
With 51% of voters viewing the system to be "rigged," it really doesn't matter if establishment Democrats feel the Democratic Primary has been conducted fairly.
The perception, among millions of Bernie Sanders voters, is that the Democratic Primary has been skewed in favor of Hillary Clinton. The unfair nature of this election is summarized in a brilliant Huffington Post piece by Tony Brasunas titled "Only Voter Suppression Can Stop Bernie Sanders". In addition, history is also a guide to understanding how the Clinton campaign engages in voting irregularities.
The reality of how Clinton earns many votes is summarized in a 2008 Atlantic piece titled "Obama Manager Accuses Clintons of Widespread Dirty Politics":
David Plouffe, in a succinct statement appended to a released quotation from his boss, Barack Obama, said the Obama campaign was investigating more than 200 reporters of irregularities in Nevada.
"We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign's efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week's worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself."
Plouffe asks Nevadans to call a toll-free number, and report any other problems.
Obama, for his part, said he "ran an honest, uplifting campaign in Nevada that focused on the real problems Americans are facing, a campaign that appealed to people's hopes instead of their fears."
Sound familiar, Bernie voters?
Yes, in 2008, "the Obama campaign was investigating more than 200 reporters of irregularities in Nevada."
Do you think it's a coincidence that in 2016, Nevada is the scene of discontent regarding voting irregularities?
Another article from 2008, this time in The Washington Post, highlights the same issues with Nevada and Clinton:
Barack Obama said he is "proud" of the campaign he ran in Nevada, calling it "honest" and "uplifiting" and saying that "That's the campaign we'll take to South Carolina and across America in the weeks to come, and that's how we will truly bring about the change this country is hungry for."
But his campaign manger, David Plouffe, said the campaign has reports of more than 200 incidents of "trouble" at caucus sites that may have kept Obama's supporters from offering their support at the caucus. He blamed the incidents on premeditated "Clinton campaign tactics" that he said "were part of an entire week's worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself."
So is it Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama? Or, is it Hillary Clinton?
The voting irregularities and voter suppression taking place in 2016 is nothing new. Clinton had engaged in this type of campaign against Obama, and her campaign has repeated these tactics against Sanders. To think a system that even President Obama believed was unfair would change in only eight years is naive. Most importantly, to think Hillary Clinton has changed in that time period is also naive.
A Donald Trump presidency could result from the Democratic Party's overt disdain of Bernie Sanders and his supporters. The level of emotion, and intensity of discontent is difficult to describe to voters used to Clinton's scandals, and willing to choose a lesser evil. Furthermore, many Clinton supporters would vote for her even with criminal indictments.
In contrast, Bernie voters want to break up Too Big to Fail Banks, end perpetual quagmires, implement free public college tuition, and push for single-payer healthcare. If he fails to achieve these goals, and other objectives, at least progressives have addressed the structural issues plaguing this country. Bernie has raised the funds needed to battle until the end, and he'll continue to defy the odds, despite the what the naysayers think of lofty goals and cherished principles.
One must attempt to solve dilemmas, rather than simply giving up and voting for a person at risk of DOJ indictments.
Also, the reality is that 33 percent of Bernie Sanders voters will never vote for Clinton, and that number could skyrocket. The DNC would be wise to treat Bernie Sanders, and his supporters, with greater respect. Calls for Vermont's Senator to drop out, or to rein in his voters, ignore rampant voting irregularities and a system viewed to be corrupt. The DNC risks a fractured convention, if a system already viewed as dishonest simply doubles down, and further alienates its grassroots base. The notion that most Bernie voters would unite around Clinton even now, is far-fetched; the possibility of a fractured convention confirms this reality.
Imagine what could result in Philadelphia, if the DNC continues to foment tension and engage in election fraud. I explain in this YouTube segment what might happen in the contested Democratic convention, if the DNC continues to allow voting irregularities. In my latest MSNBC appearance, I explain why Hillary Clinton, and not Bernie Sanders, should drop out of the race.