Support NeoGAF

[Veritigo_X]

We can't win, please elect me!

We can win everything!

[2 years later]

Fuck this! Nothing gets done!

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

DAMN.

I SAID DAMN.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/697852256557928448

Nicely done.

 

[Black Mamba]

That figure is from registered Democrats supporting Sanders, not primary voters. So, yes, 10% of Sanders voters not voting for Clinton is about 3.8% at this point.



...and rapidly rising above 3.8%.

10% of registered Sanders supporters among Dems is nothing. So many Dems don't vote in any election (goes for GOP too). A bunch of them are independents who have/will register Dem just to vote in the primary.

People who don't vote in in the GE aren't necessarily non-affiliated.

It'll end up being in the low hundred thousands, almost all concentrated in irrelevant states like California and Mississippi.

 

[NeoXChaos]

some more excerpts.

So in 2008, the primary process technically went all the way, not to the convention but through all the states. However, it was clear for months before June that Obama had the inside track to be the nominee even as Clinton was winning two-thirds of the vote in West Virginia and Kentucky and – but the problem for Democrats is that – or for the second place person on the Democratic side is that the delegates are awarded proportionally, and so it’s so hard to really make up ground. That’s why really all Clinton needs to do is essentially play even for the rest of the process and she’ll win because of the super delegates.

So the Democratic race could go until June again, it’s just that it may effectively be over in early March if Clinton, say, does really well on that Super Tuesday in March in the South. She may build a little bit of a delegate lead and reassure the super delegates, which is probably good enough, at which case she would just be in this long slog with Sanders, losing some states, but the ultimate outcome wouldn't necessarily be in doubt.

But the other thing hanging over this race is that there’s the question of the emails for Clinton, which I don’t think you can just totally discount. And if something were to happen that forced her from the race, then it becomes very difficult to handicap because you could see – you could still see Joe Biden or someone else get in and try to deny Sanders a majority at the convention, at which case maybe Biden could be nominated at the convention. Again, this is all super hypothetical, but it’s just something you have to keep in the back of your mind even if you look at the Democratic race and say, oh, well Clinton’s probably going to be the nominee still. So the answer on the Democratic side is that we may have a good idea here pretty soon who the nominee is going to be, but the process could still go for a very long time.

On the Republican side, the process does go through the start of June. And one of the most important states – or the biggest state – California votes on the first Tuesday in June – I think June 5th or June 7th. I forget the exact date, but – so that’s a prize waiting at the end if the votes continue to go on. However, we’ll – about 75 percent of the delegates will be decided by April, by early April, which is also when Mitt Romney kind of officially won the nomination last time. So we may have a good sense of things by the end of March, I think. But Trump is such a nontraditional potential nominee – so is Cruz, actually – that it’s going to be hard for the other – the other candidates are not going to want to surrender to one of them, nor is the party leadership going to want, say, Rubio, Bush, or Kasich, or whoever’s left, to surrender. And so even if Trump or Cruz built a delegate lead, I think some of the other candidates might think, “Well, if I can just stay in this race and deny them a majority of the delegates, then maybe I can win at the convention.”

So it was different in 2012 and really 2008 as well because John McCain and Mitt Romney, despite having some troubles during the nomination process, were certainly acceptable to the party leadership, and the other candidates who were competing with them (a) recognized that they weren’t going to win, and (b) I think also felt comfortable surrendering to candidates like McCain and Romney because they were mainstream, traditional kinds of potential nominees. The mere fact that Cruz and/or Trump could be the frontrunners may motivate other candidates to stay in because there’s going to be a big part of the party who doesn’t want them to be the nominees.

So I guess what I’m suggesting is that the Democratic race could go for a very long time, even if we have a sense as to who’s going to win it. And there – there’s some signs that the Republican race may go very long as well. But there are a lot of delegates that are won in March, so we may have a good sense of it by the end of March.

 

[East Lake]

We can win everything!

[2 years later]

Fuck this! Nothing gets done!

Sounds like a certain former senator who knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[Basileus777]

Anyway, Hillary's problems in messaging is pretty simple. Bernie Sanders is running a Bullshit campaign. Just like Trump. They're running the same campaigns. They promise the moon, ignore reality, and moronic voters eat it up. Hillary is trying to run a practical campaign and people don't like hearing about incremental change and strengthening things, they want to be told they will become rich and famous instantly. They want their egos stroked and Bernie is doing that while providing the lube for free!

It's really that simple. Bernie is taking advantage of how frustrated people are with politics and promising them everything and that's enough.

I find this handouts and free stuff argument to overly reductionist and dismissive. And I'm not even a Bernie supporter.

 

[RustyNails]

Sounds like a certain former senator who knew exactly what he was doing.

That certain senator also had supermajorities.

 

[Elaugaufein]

People are aware that if everyone thought Obama had done a super great perfect job that Sanders campaign wouldn't have taken off at all, right ? Clinton's been running as his successor the whole time. If people were totally happy with what Obama had accomplished Sanders wouldn't have made it over 15%.

Sanders isn't even criticizing Obama in the way you're trying to make out. He explicitly stated that Obama tried while also making a statement that's true. If he was going to viciously criticize Obama , he'd be way better off criticizing things that Obama didn't even try on (like his government transparency pledge vs actually being incredibly aggressive on whistleblowers) or doing the typical political thing of just leaving out the inconvenient truth that Obama tried and hoping nobody calls him on it.

 

[East Lake]

That certain senator also had supermajorities.

And the luck to run after George W.

 

[Black Mamba]

I find this handouts and free stuff argument to overly reductionist and dismissive. And I'm not even a Bernie supporter.

It's not just "free stuff." It's everything. It's promising a revolution, promising that he will change Washington through the people, that he will take down Wall Street, et al.

It's not limited to just "I'll give you healthcare and college and blah blah." It's more that that. It's why I said he's promising the moon. He promising to basically be Washington's messiah (for liberals) and restore order to a chaotic place.

Obama promised some of this in 2008. His idealism wasn't on policy but rather believing he could change the tone in Washington and bring groups together. It was bullshit but I think a naive bullshit but at least his policy ideas were realistic (with compromise). Bernie's just basically telling people he's the answer to all your problems.

Sure, there's also some "outsider" vs "insider" stuff going on and that he's not in anyone's pockets but the people, etc. But at its base, this is what it's about.

It's exactly what Trump is doing. "We're going to win so much you'll be sick of winning." Same fucking thing.

 

[User 463088]

DAMN.

I SAID DAMN.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/697852256557928448

Yaaaaassss my queen. Yaaasss....

Come through Hillary, come through.

 

[BoboBrazil]

I think he will do well in nevada

On march 1st he will win Vermont

I'd give him very good chances in mass minnesota and colorado

march 6th he will win maine

I'm going to guess he only wins Vermont out of these.

 

[Fenderputty]

I thought some anonymous campaign staffer or something said it was supposed to be like "we're tired of hearing about it, cooperate with the investigation Hillary" but it came off wrong.

FWIW, I remember hearing this the night of the debate myself.

 

[Overlee]

I fucking knew that was an intercept piece.

Is that outlet anything more than greenwald and his friends ability to blog religiously against any left leaning group or person that doesn't share his revolutionary anti-us zeal?



This reads like Glenn Beck's chalkboard webs.

You sound like a conservative that will only watch Fox News cause they tell you what you want to hear.

The fact that so many "writers" would rather pander to ad-revenue and not thought provoking investigative journalism is why Edward R Murrow left the business:

"For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must indeed be faced if we are to survive. And I mean the word survive, quite literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then perhaps, some young and courageous soul with a small budget might do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizen from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

"This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But I am persuaded that the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television in this generous and capacious land. I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard the one that produces words and pictures. You will, I am sure, forgive me for not telling you that the instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you of the fact that your voice, amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other, does not confer upon you greater wisdom than when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before Congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily-by invitation-that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor any longer a director of that corporation and that these remarks are strictly of a "do-it-yourself" nature. If what I have to say is responsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot very well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in mind no reasonable grounds for any kind of personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or perhaps in color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, AND PAY LATER.

....Well, in this kind of complex and confusing world, you can't tell very much about the "why" of the news in a broadcast where only three minutes is available for news. The only man who could do that was Elmer Davis, and his kind aren't around any more. If radio news is to be regarded as a commodity, only acceptable when saleable, and only when packaged to fit the advertising appropriate of a sponsor, then I don't care what you call it--I say it isn't news."

 

[kirblar]

That certain senator also had supermajorities.

Which turned out to be like herding cats since you had 60 people able to hold out and extract concessions.

 

[Gruco]

Which turned out to be like herding cats since you had 60 people able to hold out and extract concessions.

Plus, said supermajority lasted for four months.

 

[Coriolanus]

Obama promised some of this in 2008. His idealism wasn't on policy but rather believing he could change the tone in Washington and bring groups together. It was bullshit but I think a naive bullshit but at least his policy ideas were realistic (with compromise). Bernie's just basically telling people he's the answer to all your problems.

Chicago politician. Fenomenously realistic perception of what he had to do to take down hills. Somehow still naive.

There's a point where calling him naive for that is kinda insulting to the man's intelligence.

 

[Elaugaufein]

It's not just "free stuff." It's everything. It's promising a revolution, promising that he will change Washington through the people, that he will take down Wall Street, et al.

It's not limited to just "I'll give you healthcare and college and blah blah." It's more that that. It's why I said he's promising the moon. He promising to basically be Washington's messiah (for liberals) and restore order to a chaotic place.

Obama promised some of this in 2008. His idealism wasn't on policy but rather believing he could change the tone in Washington and bring groups together. It was bullshit but I think a naive bullshit but at least his policy ideas were realistic (with compromise). Bernie's just basically telling people he's the answer to all your problems.

Sure, there's also some "outsider" vs "insider" stuff going on and that he's not in anyone's pockets but the people, etc. But at its base, this is what it's about.

It's exactly what Trump is doing. "We're going to win so much you'll be sick of winning." Same fucking thing.

We need a political revolution =/= I am a political revolution. He's trying to encourage people to get out there and take control of the political system not promising that he's going to do it for them. If you look at his campaign messaging it's about that (and it ties into his focus on income inequality since the vast disparity in wealth allows those its concentrated in to effectively control the political system). He's not personally talking about making great deals with X like Trump is.

 

[Overlee]

edit: double post

 

[ivysaur12]

I fucking knew that was an intercept piece.

Is that outlet anything more than greenwald and his friends ability to blog religiously against any left leaning group or person that doesn't share his revolutionary anti-us zeal?



This reads like Glenn Beck's chalkboard webs.

I kind of feel the exact same way -- it's gone from legitimate criticism to veering into something much uglier.

 

[kirblar]

Chicago politician. Fenomenously realistic perception of what he had to do to take down hills. Somehow still naive.

There's a point where calling him naive for that is kinda insulting to the man's intelligence.

It wasn't really naivete, it was that polarization had radically changed congress. He made a last attempt at doing thing the old way and they spit in his face.

 

[User 463088]

It wasn't really naivete, it was that polarization had radically changed congress. He made a last attempt at doing thing the old way and they spit in his face.

He was naive. He completely underestimated what the Republicans were capable of. That's why Hillary's "The clouds will part" was just the best thing in the world to me. But, I've got a black stone where my heart used to be, so who I'm probably in the minority on that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You sound like a conservative that will only watch Fox News cause they tell you what you want to hear.

The fact that so many "writers" would rather pander to ad-revenue and not thought provoking investigative journalism is why Edward R Murrow left the business:

Wtf at Edward r Murrow.

And greenwald doesn't do reporting he does prosecutions. Which can be good for certain things but he treats many of his subjects with such contempt. He intentionally presents a misleading and one sided picture with no attempt at trying to get at any their point of view (in fact he openly mocks the idea of doing this)

 

[Veritigo_X]

How can Rubio fight ISIS when he can't even handle a Twix bar?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/...-marco-rubios-molar-gets-a-campaign-trail-fix

 

[kirblar]

He was naive. He completely underestimated what the Republicans were capable of. That's why Hillary's "The clouds will part" was just the best thing in the world to me. But, I've got a black stone where my heart used to be, so who I'm probably in the minority on that.

I think the attempt was worth it, if only to prove the counterfactual.

Now we don't have an excuse for not knowing better, because we tried it with a guy with astronomical approval ratings and a mandate and they still wouldn't budge.

 

[Overlee]

I kind of feel the exact same way -- it's gone from legitimate criticism to veering into something much uglier.

How can you honestly say it's something "uglier" when most news outlets don't actually report the details behind the headline? The headline that reads "CBC endorses HRC" deliberately intended to sway you with half-truths.

Presenting only the side of history you agree with is far, far uglier.

 

[User 463088]

How can Rubio fight ISIS when he can't even handle a Twix bar?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/...-marco-rubios-molar-gets-a-campaign-trail-fix

I have to respect a republican who can eat at a Cracker Barrel without worrying about the optics.

 

[Ogrekiller]

You sound like a conservative that will only watch Fox News cause they tell you what you want to hear.

The fact that so many "writers" would rather pander to ad-revenue and not thought provoking investigative journalism is why Edward R Murrow left the business:

To start their own echo chambers where they won't be criticized. Hmm.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

How can you honestly say it's something "uglier" when most news outlets don't actually report the details behind the headline? The headline that reads "CBC endorses HRC" deliberately intended to sway you with half-truths.

Presenting only the side of history you agree with is far, far uglier.

The use of this to defend greenwald is lol.

This is his whole shtick

Theres a way to point out the CBCpac isn't the CBC without the kind of conapiratorial insinuating article that you posted

 

[Overlee]

How can you honestly say it's something "uglier" when most news outlets don't actually report the details behind the headline? The headline that reads "CBC endorses HRC" deliberately intended to sway you with half-truths.

Presenting only the side of history you agree with is far, far uglier.

Wtf at Edward r Murrow.

And greenwald doesn't do reporting he does prosecutions. Which can be good for certain things but he treats many of his subjects with such contempt. He intentionally presents a misleading and one sided picture with no attempt at trying to get at any their point of view (in fact he openly mocks the idea of doing this)

He doesn't have to take ad-revenue money so he's free to speak his mind. That's good for journalism even if you don't agree with what he says.

 

[Coriolanus]

It wasn't really naivete, it was that polarization had radically changed congress. He made a last attempt at doing thing the old way and they spit in his face.

Im sure that being unable to carry out some things, like closing gitmo, came as legit surprises to him (and why should they not, really?). I just favour the opinion that he simply pushed the hope and change angle because he believed that that rethoric was the most effective one a candidate in his position could employ at the time. Because thats what a smart man would do, and Obama is a very smart man indeed.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

FWIW, if Sanders doesn't win Nevada, I think he'll almost certainly win Vermont, Maine, Utah, Idaho and Wyoming, plus have more likely than not odds at Washington, Minnesota, Montana, Colorado, Nebraska, Alaska, Oregon, North Dakota, Kansas and Wisconsin.

 

[maabus1999]

Not quite, The Congressional Black Caucus PAC did:



So white lobbyist support Hillary....

Factually incorrect, and quiet honestly frightening news piece you posted. Here is the real news:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/congressional-black-caucus-slams-bernie-sanders-219132

Leading members of the Congressional Black Caucus sharply criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday for being “missing in action” on issues close to the African-American community.

During an endorsement event for Hillary Clinton, African-American lawmakers said that Sanders, a democratic socialist from Vermont, does not have a history of activism for minorities that could rival Clinton's.

Georgia Rep. John Lewis, the last living member of the “Big Six” civil rights activists, said he never met Sanders during the tumultuous 1960s in the South.

“To be very frank, I never saw him, I never met him,” said Lewis. “I chaired the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for three years, from 1963 to 1966. I was involved in sit-ins, in the Freedom Rides, the March on Washington, the March from Selma to Montgomery ... but I met Hillary Clinton.”

 

[User 463088]

I think the attempt was worth it, if only to prove the counterfactual.

Now we don't have an excuse for not knowing better, because we tried it with a guy with astronomical approval ratings and a mandate and they still wouldn't budge.

Sure, it was a nice idea. It really was. However, I think the writing was on the wall. They weren't going to work with either Obama or Hillary, each for potentially different reasons. Hillary called it months before. He was just too naive about what he could actually achieve, even within his own caucus. It's sad, but it's true. Hillary has always had a better understanding of what the GOP (and Blue Dogs) are capable of doing and blocking. He just didn't want to hear it. I think that's one of the things he mentioned when eh said his people were too dismissive of Hillary. Ha he come in with an actual plan of how to break the wrists of people who wouldn't go along, maybe we wouldn't have had so much trouble.

 

[Overlee]

To start their own echo chambers where the won't be criticized. Hmm.

Says PoliGAF....

I'm sure I'm not the only one that would like more discussion in this thread then re-tweets of opinion pieces and narrative fluff.

 

[Suikoguy]

We need a political revolution =/= I am a political revolution. He's trying to encourage people to get out there and take control of the political system not promising that he's going to do it for them. If you look at his campaign messaging it's about that (and it ties into his focus on income inequality since the vast disparity in wealth allows those its concentrated in to effectively control the political system). He's not personally talking about making great deals with X like Trump is.

Could you show any quotes or excerpts of Sanders talking about the importance of down-ticket voting? By continuing to create a division with Democrats, and not having any other "Sanders Approved" candidates running, how would what you are talking about work?

 

[ivysaur12]

How can you honestly say it's something "uglier" when most news outlets don't actually report the details behind the headline? The headline that reads "CBC endorses HRC" deliberately intended to sway you with half-truths.

Presenting only the side of history you agree with is far, far uglier.

Because he's deliberating misrepresenting the situation in order to make it seem as if this wasn't a democratically elected process within the CBC, that this isn't a "true" progressive organization, and then trying to insinuate that these are white donors, not actual black people behind this organization?

If you want to make an actual distinction between a PAC and the CBC, do it. That was a hit piece for no other reason than disagreement on who they endorsed.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

He doesn't have to take ad-revenue money so he's free to speak his mind. That's good for journalism even if you don't agree with what he says.

Yes, depending on rich benefactors is great for integrity.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Because he's deliberating misrepresenting the situation in order to make it seem as if this wasn't a democratically elected process within the CBC, that this isn't a "true" progressive organization, and then trying to insinuate that these are white donors, not actual black people behind this organization?

It wasn't. CBC members were not consulted. Like, Keith Ellison explicitly said so, he's a member, he'd know.

 

[ivysaur12]

It wasn't. CBC members were not consulted. Like, Keith Ellison explicitly said so, he's a member, he'd know.

Let me rephrase -- from the CBC's PAC. Sorry.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Let me rephrase -- from the CBC's PAC. Sorry.

I don't think the CBC's PAC's membership was consulted either, I think it was decided by the board of directors. Although they are indeed all black.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Says PoliGAF....

I'm sure I'm not the only one that would like more discussion in this thread then re-tweets of opinion pieces and narrative fluff.

Feel free to hit up ot then if you simply want to talk about how great Sanders is. Or reddit if you really must.

 

[B-Dubs]

He doesn't have to take ad-revenue money so he's free to speak his mind. That's good for journalism even if you don't agree with what he says.

That doesn't make it good journalism, that just means he's not beholden to anyone but himself.

 

[ivysaur12]

I don't think the CBC's PAC's membership was consulted either, I think it was decided by the board of directors. Although they are indeed all black.

Well, yes, the board would be the one to make such an endorsement.

I don't think I worded myself as well as I could've, and for that I apologize. I think The Intercept is purposefully skewing the CBC PAC's purpose as a means to delegitimatize this endorsement.

 

[Black Republican]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymLuk691tbo&feature=youtu.be

new Ted Cruz ad on Rubio

 

[Elaugaufein]

Could you show any quotes or excerpts of Sanders talking about the importance of down-ticket voting? By continuing to create a division with Democrats, and not having any other "Sanders Approved" candidates running, how would what you are talking about work?

All contested Democratic Presidential primaries create division with Democrats. That's their very nature. You may think that's a terrible idea, when it's so temporal proximate to Presidential elections (I tend to agree). Obama vs Hillary in 2008 created deep divisions in Democrats too. It spawned the birther movement. There's nothing unique in Sanders creating division in the Democratic Party in a presidential primary. Unless your argument is that he should have run third party because he's not a real Democrat but Hillary supporters would hate him even more for that (and they'd actually have a point in the Presidential system).

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well, yes, the board would be the one to make such an endorsement.

I don't think I worded myself as well as I could've, and for that I apologize. I think The Intercept is purposefully skewing the CBC PAC's purpose as a means to delegitimatize this endorsement.

I agree the donor stuff is sort if irrelevant insofar as that every single PAC takes money from shady people and CBCPAC is no less legitimate in this than any other PAC; although in fairness I also think all PAC endorsement are not particularly legitimate - particularly when they don't poll their members. In the UK I don't actually think it's legal to endorse a party as a union or political affiliate without polling members (although you can do it in your role as board member, just not on behalf of the organization).

 

[Father_Brain]

Obama's post-partisan ambitions really were that naive. It didn't take a genius to look at the 110th Congress and conclude that the GOP would never work in good faith with a Democratic president.

It wasn't. CBC members were not consulted. Like, Keith Ellison explicitly said so, he's a member, he'd know.

And the majority of the board members voting on the endorsement were lobbyists, not congressmen. Doesn't invalidate what Reps. Lewis and Jeffries are saying against Sanders, but I fail to see how that's not relevant context.

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

Lots of pro-Clinton messaging coming in today from the WH or Obama's campaign (that Vox article, Obama's speech in IL about progressives)

I wonder if that's a sign of confidence that Hillary's got this or panic among the Ds that Hillary's tailspinning.

 

[ivysaur12]

Lots of pro-Clinton messaging coming in today from the WH or Obama's campaign (that Vox article, Obama's speech in IL about progressives)

I wonder if that's a sign of confidence that Hillary's got this or panic among the Ds that Hillary's tailspinning.

Probably a little of column a, little of column b.

I agree the donor stuff is sort if irrelevant insofar as that every single PAC takes money from shady people and CBCPAC is no less legitimate in this than any other PAC; although in fairness I also think all PAC endorsement are not particularly legitimate - particularly when they don't poll their members. In the UK I don't actually think it's legal to endorse a party as a union or political affiliate without polling members (although you can do it in your role as board member, just not on behalf of the organization).

Probably right.