Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Can't remember where I saw it but they said that, post-Michigan, if he can carry Ohio and Illinois, then he has a chance. Otherwise all he's done is delay the inevitable

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Mar 10th, 2016 at 04:14:58 PM EST
He needs to carry them both and to get more pledged delegates than Clinton in both. Only getting one might not be the end for him, but it would make the remaining task harder. But winning both, by any margin, will keep the sense of momentum building.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Mar 10th, 2016 at 08:18:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I submit that, even if he won both, he'd still just be delaying the inevitable.  It'd certainly be good for his narrative in the press (for whatever that's worth), but in the end it comes down to math.

The problem is that he's down roughly 220 (pledged) delegates.

That's a gap you could close in the Republican primaries, as winner-take-all states come into play.  Cruz is down a hundred or so to Trump right now, but a win in California could more than erase that.

But Dems have proportional allocations of delegates, so a 200-delegate lead is enormous.  Sanders needs to not only win, but win with huge margins the rest of the way.  And, unfortunately for Sanders, the states in which he wins big are much smaller than the states in which she wins big.

Winning Illinois and Ohio by a point or two wouldn't even put a noticeable dent in that.  And keep in mind that Missouri and Florida vote that day, too.  Especially given the likelihood that Hillzilla will win Florida going away, his deficit is probably going to increase on Tuesday.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 08:31:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're probably right, which means the overwhelming bulk of the citizenry is probably screwed.  The only difference between Rethuglicans and DLCers such as the Clintons is that, while Rethuglicans just piss on you and insist you think it's rain, DLCers drink enough beer beforehand that at least the piss is clear.
by rifek on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 02:17:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lets put some numbers to this. By my count there is a pool of 4,051 pledged delegates available, of which 1,314 have been awarded to date. My minimum goal for Sanders would be that he gain at least half of the pledged delegates + ten. "Sanders Has Double Digit Lead in Elected Delegates!" would be a quite legitimate headline.

4051 - 1314 already awarded = 2637 remaining elected or pledged delegates. Half of that = 2025.5. To win he would need 2026. To have a double digit lead in pledged delegates he would need 2036. He already has 549, so, for the ten vote margin he needs 1487. 1487/2637 = 56,39%. That is not the Moon. He has won Colorado by 20% and Minnesota with 18% already. Granted that even winning Ohio and Illinois by 15% each on average would be swamped by Clinton's margin in Florida, Florida is the last state where she has the overwhelming advantage with blacks. And Bernie will take California, Oregon and Washington by large margins I expect and likely also Arizona and New Mexico. This time next week, even, Hillzilla will look more like a gorilla from the zoo.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 04:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, just seeing this now.

So, yeah, as I said on FB that I had her winning Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Illinois, with Bernie winning Missouri.

Instead, she swept all of them, and her win in Ohio was pretty much a blowout.

I don't agree that Bernie will win Oregon, Washington or, especially, California by large margins.  He'll probably lose California.  He likely won't win Arizona or New Mexico.  I'm inclined to give him Oregon and Washington by modest margins, but that's the one region of the country I really don't feel like I have a good feel for.

The math is now pretty much impossible for him.  It's dead-girl/live-boy territory, and it has been since Super Tuesday.  She's beating him soundly.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Mar 17th, 2016 at 07:15:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
After the Tuesday after Super Tuesday I am more inclined to agree. I wanted some more actual results after Michigan before making more definite conclusions. Bernie needed to win Ohio, Missouri and Illinois. Sanders can stay in until the convention and probably will, but the best chance he has to be the nominee is if Hillary implodes or seems VERY unlikely to be able to beat Trump.

That is one reason I am happy to see Hillary start to focus on Trump. If she gets under his rather thin skin and he goes all out against her BEFORE the convention, we will truly see what she has got. If he has as much potency against her as some claim and others fear, better to find out now rather than later. I would prefer to at least keep the social agenda of the current centrists intact even if we cannot make progress on the economic front. And while I do not expect her to do anything too effective about Wall Street I would be pleasantly surprised to see her order prosecutions of financial fraud in the CEO and CFO ranks of major banks. I would happily believe it as soon as we get some convictions.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Mar 17th, 2016 at 11:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
She'd have to implode via scandal.  Even if she's looking weak against Trump, she'd still have the most votes and delegates, so legitimacy issues keep her in.

She's unlikely to look terribly weak against him anyway.  Both she and Bernie have seen their numbers rise against Trump as the GOP primary has become more and more unhinged.  As has Obama, for that matter.

Regardless of who gets elected (even Bernie), I highly doubt you're ever going to see prosecutions for any sort of fraud among CEOs and CFOs of major banks for anything that happened during the mid-2000s.  Mostly because I think you'd find the CEOs and CFOs weren't generally the ones committing the fraud.

In my experience -- mostly antitrust work but some big financial fraud work, too -- the perpetrators don't tend to be the officers.  They tend to be the mid- to upper-mid-level guys.

Not universally true, but generally.

I do think you'll see those people go to jail more often simply due to the change in attitude at DOJ, which has been shifting toward a focus on jail time for white-collar crime.  They've changed from viewing it as a civil-type issue requiring fines to viewing it as a property crime requiring jail sentences.

I think she's proposed some good ideas for additional regulation to build on Dodd-Frank.  They'll never pass (at least in whole), in all likelihood, because we won't have enough votes.  But good ideas anyway.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 08:13:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In my experience -- mostly antitrust work but some big financial fraud work, too -- the perpetrators don't tend to be the officers.  They tend to be the mid- to upper-mid-level guys.

Yeah, the high-level guys create the environment and look the other way, almost impossible to catch them on it.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 08:24:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Precisely.  It's a "Well, the numbers look good coming out of the (X) Division."  Ask no questions, tell no lies, etc.

Of course, the high-level guys undoubtedly became high-level guys by doing the same crap and not getting caught.  They were just smart enough to not put it in emails and phone recordings.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 10:38:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...adding:

Not sure why ARG listed CFOs, since CFOs don't really do anything but accounting, SEC stuff (in concert with general counsels) and collecting enormous paychecks.  Outside of cases like Enron and insider trading stuff (like the Apple backdating thing years back), they're not going to be heavily involved in the kind of day-to-day fraud we have in mind here.  

I'm sure there are examples where they are, depending on the company (finance would be the obvious potential exception).  They might well have a more active role in strategy in some places, but not generally.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 10:55:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Enron was hardly a trivial example. And even a failed prosecution of a high ranked official, especially after having 'turned' an obviously guilty lower ranked official, would go a long way towards changing the climate of 'fraud is the business model'.

And I think you significantly minimize the scope for prosecution that has been ignored under 'regulatory forbearance'. A high profile investigation of the NY Fed with a covert agent or another insider who came forward, were it made clear that whistle-blowers will NOW be protected, not outed, with the skills of Carmine Segarra, could be quite devastating. Hell, a Democratic Senate could convene a special committee to investigate the New York Fed and have public hearings with Carmine as the star witness. It would be electrifying: regulatory capture illustrated - with a beautiful, passionate and articulate figure who was there.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 11:30:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Enron was hardly a trivial example. And even a failed prosecution of a high ranked official, especially after having 'turned' an obviously guilty lower ranked official, would go a long way towards changing the climate of 'fraud is the business model'.

I didn't say it was trivial.  I just said it wasn't the norm for what I think you have in mind.  And Enron's CFO did go to jail.  As did executives in the bid-rigging case involving municipal bonds (remember the Jefferson County bankruptcy?).

My point is that you can turn all the low-ranked officials you want.  The CEO-/CFO-types generally aren't the ones involved.

And I think you significantly minimize the scope for prosecution that has been ignored under 'regulatory forbearance'. A high profile investigation of the NY Fed with a covert agent or another insider who came forward, were it made clear that whistle-blowers will NOW be protected, not outed, with the skills of Carmine Segarra, could be quite devastating. Hell, a Democratic Senate could convene a special committee to investigate the New York Fed and have public hearings with Carmine as the star witness. It would be electrifying: regulatory capture illustrated - with a beautiful, passionate and articulate figure who was there.

This sounds great.  I'm all for it.  And I'm sure all six CSPAN viewers would find it riveting.  But this goes to the "What's really scary is what's legal" bit.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Mar 20th, 2016 at 10:52:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"And I'm sure all six CSPAN viewers would find it riveting."

Millions of Progressives would find Carmine Segarra's testimony riveting. It would be like John Dean's testimony before the Ervin Committee all over, but with the New York Fed and the whole way our monetary system is run and (not) regulated as the subject being investigated.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 11:06:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A bank CFO would normally be in charge of at least part of the treasury operations, certainly the management of the held-to-maturity book. London-Whale kind of stuff could happen under their purview.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 10:17:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, but the London Whale was stupidity, not fraud, no?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 01:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Stupidity, hubris and confusion at least. Fortunately for JPM, another unit of JPM unknowingly took the other side of some of his derivative bets, thereby reducing the damage. It was clearly a deliberate violation of Sarbanes-Oxley, the consequences of which are a testament to the lobbying power of Wall Street.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 07:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yves at NakedCapitalism keeps hammering on about how high level guys have to regularly sign off on the quality of their internal monitoring so a failure there would make them personally liable. Sarbanes Oxley is the key word here I think. Don't ask me how practical that would be in the real world.
by generic on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 11:15:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, in theory. In practice I suspect that they'll find some way to blame minions further down. Some sort of strict liability rule may work for civil penalties, but might run into trouble for criminal sanctions.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 11:23:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then the civil penalties should be extended to a lifetime bar from serving in a position of fiduciary responsibility - for starters.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 11:34:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That would be a nice touch - though in Irish law I have a funny feeling it might fall foul of a right to earn a living.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 11:36:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is there such a right explicitly or implicitly  guaranteed in the Irish Constitution? Even if there is a lifetime ban on positions of fiduciary responsibility does not prevent one from making a living - just from doing so with other people's money.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 12:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There's something complicated about it, I don't quite recall what. Might be common law.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 12:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As long as they can carry out menial work their right to earn a living is protected...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 10:14:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do know that Michael Milken is effectively prohibited from ever again working in the financial industry personally. But he still got to keep $500 million in assets and cash. I think a million would have been quite sufficiently generous and certainly no more than $10 million. He did far more damage than that via the junk bond scandal, and $440 million might have gone a ways towards compensating some of the victims, preferably starting with the most vulnerable.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 12:54:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Does this mean that reckless drivers get to keep their licence in Ireland if they need to drive for their living? Or does the Irish Constitution have a special clause protecting bankers?
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 01:07:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No such right in the US.  We take away the ability to make a living above the poverty line with every felony conviction.
by rifek on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 10:18:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Right, that's all going to be civil stuff.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Mar 20th, 2016 at 10:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Strict liability works in crim law all the time.  Look at a number of federal criminal laws (e.g. the environmental statutes) or the bad check statute we have here in Utah, which frankly something out of Kafka.
by rifek on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 10:15:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sanders crushes Clinton in Alaska and Washington Democratic caucuses | US news | The Guardian

Bernie Sanders won overwhelming victories in Washington state and Alaska on Saturday, narrowing Hillary Clinton's still significant lead in the race for delegates to win the Democratic nomination for president.

Sanders defeated Clinton in Washington's caucuses 75% to 25% and 79% to 21% in Alaska's, with about 38% and 72% of the states' precincts reporting.

"We knew from day one we were going to have a hard time politically in the deep south - that is a conservative part of the country," Sanders told supporters in Madison, Wisconsin. "But we knew things were going to improve as we head west.

"We are making significant inroads in Secretary Clinton's lead," he said. "We have a path toward victory."

Clinton won Arizona 57% to Sanders' 41%.
Oregon primaries are May 17.
California and New Mexico June 7.

by Bernard on Sun Mar 27th, 2016 at 07:14:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Those margins will get it done if he can keep winning to a similar extent.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:32:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Washington was a genuinely impressive win for Bernie, but he's running out of real estate.  I suspect he'll nab similar wins in Oregon, Montana, the Dakotas, and whatever else is left in the Plains and Mountain West.

He'll probably take Wisconsin as well.

I suspect Hillzilla will get fairly big wins in New York, Jersey and whatever's left of the Northeast.

California should be fairly close.  I'd guess slight edge to Clinton.  And I suspect she wins New Mexico.

At that point, I think we're done.  She'll win by a few hundred delegates.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:33:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Depends on the amount of Disney shit.

by generic on Wed Mar 30th, 2016 at 10:47:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The animal omens favor Sanders. But he needs at least a tie in New York and New Jersey, a win plus some in California and big wins in most other states to even tie her in pledged delegates. Not impossible, but Clinton has better odds.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Mar 30th, 2016 at 02:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is the only upside to these interminable marketing races, that the extra time can give more chances for something disruptive to emerge and mature.

For a black swan to turn white.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2016 at 08:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are 2,968 delegates left, divided in half is 1,484.  Clinton is said to have 1,223 to Sanders 574. The winning first ballot 2,383.  In a closely contested campaign Clinton can get there, Sanders can't.  

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 10:57:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As always, I acknowledge that Sanders' task is daunting. I don't think it is impossible. There are more than three months left and a lot can happen. I will not concede that Sanders cannot get the nomination until he has not. Hillary might not be a complete disaster, but Bernie could be as good as it will ever get.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 11:15:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Question is: What happens to the Sanders organization when the campaign is seen to be a hopeless cause? If does appear to be a hopeless cause.  (I grant there's still a hope as a 3/11/16.)  Is it going to be another crash into apathy as what happened with Obama in 2008 - 2010  or are they going to continue the fight?

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 01:11:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Obama campaign held on to their systems and data and wanted to shut down the activists, as they had already implied more than they wanted to deliver and Obama had need of the system for 2012 and to assist whoever he wanted in 2016. Bernie is in a different situation. He wants, first and foremost, to bring about the change he has been advocating, preferably now by winning the presidency. I would expect him to want the campaign to continue to build support for his program and to influence the 2018 midterm and 2020 election.

If he loses the nomination, his organization, his volunteers and the data they have amassed would be quite a mantle to bestow on a suitable successor. That is what I would expect him to do. We will know the answer soon enough, should he not get the nomination. He could do what he could to help Hillary and to get a more progressive Congress and Senate. Both would help him push his agenda from the Senate. He ran this time because no other viable progressive emerged.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 03:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Getting a more progressive Congress and helping Clinton are two, very different things.  No DLCer wants progressive anything, and Sanders knows change will never happen with the DLC in charge.
by rifek on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 10:26:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Pardon my ambiguity. I should have said 'saddle' Clinton with a more Progressive House. I didn't expect her to like it any more than Obama liked the Democratic Progressive Caucus he had. Who likes a bad conscience that won't keep quiet in public?


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Mar 22nd, 2016 at 08:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A progressive rebirth is the DLC's worst nightmare.
by rifek on Wed Mar 23rd, 2016 at 10:32:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series