Conservative Blogger
Thursday, April 7, 2016
Arizona college imposes mandatory fee to fund scholarship for illegal immigrants
A private college in Arizona is charging students a fee to fund a
scholarship for illegal immigrants, a controversial move supporters say
gives a hand to those who need it but anti-illegal immigration advocates
call irresponsible.
Prescott College is tacking a $30 annual fee onto its $28,000 annual tuition to establish an annual scholarship for “undocumented” students, as part of a policy first proposed by students and faculty from the undergraduate and Social Justice and Human Rights Master of Arts divisions. While students can opt out of paying the fee, if they do nothing it will be automatically imposed. Backers say it helps reverse what they call Arizona’s reputation as a “national example of discriminatory politics.”
“I am proud that our students take on the role of scholar activists,” said school President John Flicker, adding that the university is committed to “broaden access to higher education for a diverse group of students” and “mobilize its resources towards social justice.”
Making legal residents enrolled at the school pay for illegal immigrants’ education is a slap in the face to a generation already facing its post-college years saddled with enormous debt, said Andrew Kloster, legal Fellow for the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at Heritage Foundation.
“At a time when student loan debt is over $1 trillion it is irresponsible for Prescott College to offer this privilege at the expense of other students,” Kloster said. “While the dollar amount seems small per student, the fee does send a message to potential donors to Prescott College that the administration is less concerned with sound financial management than it is with making a political statement,” Kloster added.
Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, said poor students in the country legally should take precedence.
“It is beyond absurd that this college is going to force all the students to subsidize the education of a student who is in the country illegally,” Vaughan said. “It’s a shame these students and faculty don’t have the same drive to help some of their fellow citizens who can’t afford college and who are forced to compete with illegal workers for job opportunities.”
The program, which likely will be expanded beyond a single scholarship beginning next year, will help celebrate “Coming Out Day,” an annual event hosted by United We Dream in support of undocumented students, the school’s web site said.
Arizona has an estimated 65,000 undocumented high school graduates in the state, with as many as 6,500 pursuing higher education, Prescott College officials said. The college, which has 400 undergraduate students on campus, maintains undocumented students “are not expressly prohibited by law from admission to state colleges and universities” and “no federal statutes require disclosure and proof of immigration status and citizenship for students to enter higher education.”
The new scholarship can go full or part-time undocumented students in undergraduate or graduate programs that demonstrate financial need – even students set for deferred removal action under federal immigration law. Applicants may not be a legal permanent resident and may not possess a green card, visa, or other legal documentation.
Miriel Manning, founder of the Freedom Education Fund and a student in Prescott College’s Social Justice and Human Rights Master of Arts program, said students were inspired by “courageous leadership and organizing of undocumented leaders across the country.”
“Within the current political landscape of Arizona it is critical that Prescott College shows our commitment to education as a human right,” Manning said.
Only one other school in the nation, Chicago’s Loyola University, is known to have a similarly funded scholarship. Students there pay an extra $2.50 to pay for tuition for illegal immigrants.
Prescott College is tacking a $30 annual fee onto its $28,000 annual tuition to establish an annual scholarship for “undocumented” students, as part of a policy first proposed by students and faculty from the undergraduate and Social Justice and Human Rights Master of Arts divisions. While students can opt out of paying the fee, if they do nothing it will be automatically imposed. Backers say it helps reverse what they call Arizona’s reputation as a “national example of discriminatory politics.”
“I am proud that our students take on the role of scholar activists,” said school President John Flicker, adding that the university is committed to “broaden access to higher education for a diverse group of students” and “mobilize its resources towards social justice.”
“It is beyond absurd that this college is going to force all the students to subsidize the education of a student who is in the country illegally,” VaughanSupporters note that illegal immigrants are allowed to attend state and private colleges in Arizona, but in most cases cannot legally work or receive government grants or loans.
- Jessica Vaughan, Center for Immigration Studies
Making legal residents enrolled at the school pay for illegal immigrants’ education is a slap in the face to a generation already facing its post-college years saddled with enormous debt, said Andrew Kloster, legal Fellow for the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at Heritage Foundation.
Related Image
Prescott College President John Flicker is proud his students are supporting illegal immigrant classmates.
(Prescott College)
“At a time when student loan debt is over $1 trillion it is irresponsible for Prescott College to offer this privilege at the expense of other students,” Kloster said. “While the dollar amount seems small per student, the fee does send a message to potential donors to Prescott College that the administration is less concerned with sound financial management than it is with making a political statement,” Kloster added.
Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, said poor students in the country legally should take precedence.
“It is beyond absurd that this college is going to force all the students to subsidize the education of a student who is in the country illegally,” Vaughan said. “It’s a shame these students and faculty don’t have the same drive to help some of their fellow citizens who can’t afford college and who are forced to compete with illegal workers for job opportunities.”
The program, which likely will be expanded beyond a single scholarship beginning next year, will help celebrate “Coming Out Day,” an annual event hosted by United We Dream in support of undocumented students, the school’s web site said.
Arizona has an estimated 65,000 undocumented high school graduates in the state, with as many as 6,500 pursuing higher education, Prescott College officials said. The college, which has 400 undergraduate students on campus, maintains undocumented students “are not expressly prohibited by law from admission to state colleges and universities” and “no federal statutes require disclosure and proof of immigration status and citizenship for students to enter higher education.”
The new scholarship can go full or part-time undocumented students in undergraduate or graduate programs that demonstrate financial need – even students set for deferred removal action under federal immigration law. Applicants may not be a legal permanent resident and may not possess a green card, visa, or other legal documentation.
Miriel Manning, founder of the Freedom Education Fund and a student in Prescott College’s Social Justice and Human Rights Master of Arts program, said students were inspired by “courageous leadership and organizing of undocumented leaders across the country.”
“Within the current political landscape of Arizona it is critical that Prescott College shows our commitment to education as a human right,” Manning said.
Only one other school in the nation, Chicago’s Loyola University, is known to have a similarly funded scholarship. Students there pay an extra $2.50 to pay for tuition for illegal immigrants.
Trump's targets after Wisconsin: Cruz, the press, and the establishment
Donald Trump did not take his Wisconsin loss quietly.
True, he stayed off television on a primary night -- which was striking, given how he is so much a part of our daily media diet.
But with his written blast at Ted Cruz, who beat him by 13 points, Trump made clear he is sticking with his street-fighting style heading into New York and other more favorable eastern states.
Gone, for the moment, was talk about Trump giving several sober policy speeches. In its place was the opening salvo against the man he calls “Lyin’ Ted.”
In winning Wisconsin, the statement said, Cruz “was coordinating with his own Super PAC’s (which is illegal) who totally control him. Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet—he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump.”
First, if Trump has proof that the Cruz campaign is breaking the law, he should provide it; that’s a pretty serious charge.
Second, a Trojan horse suggests some kind of secret
invasion. Cruz’s relationship with the party elite is more like a
dysfunctional marriage of convenience. Its members don’t much like him,
but are openly aligning with him—from Mitt Romney to Lindsey Graham—as a
way of stopping Trump.
Spokeswoman Katrina Pierson added that "the Bush people" are running the Cruz campaign, a reference to Neil Bush joining the senator's finance team.
As for “stealing” the nomination from Trump, there is clearly a concerted GOP effort to block him from reaching the magic number of 1,237 and then beat him after the first ballot in Cleveland. Whether that constitutes larceny or an aggressive exploitation of the delegate rules will be the subject of many battles between now and July. But it’s a powerful rhetorical argument for Trump.
If this is a game of momentum, Trump is likely to regain it in such states as New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland, at least if he avoids some of the missteps of the last two weeks. A Monmouth poll shows Trump leading his home state of New York with 52 percent, with John Kasich at 25 percent and Cruz at 17.
But if it’s pure delegate math, Wisconsin did make it a bit harder for Trump to win a first-ballot victory—especially since the Cruz camp seems better organized at delegate hunting and caucus turnout.
With a normal candidate, which Trump most definitely is not, the press would be looking for a staff shakeup. But Trump’s inner circle is quite small, and other than adding such players as convention manager Paul Manafort, it's likely to stay that way. Trump is a gut player. He can’t fire his pollster or media consultant or chief fundraiser because he doesn’t have such people. He will declare rhetorical war on Cruz because that’s what got him this far. And he’ll keep on whacking journalists who he thinks are treating him unfairly.
In that vein, Trump actually took a rather subtle shot on Twitter. Politico had run a piece headlined “Trump’s Campaign in Disarray”—almost an obligatory story when a winning candidate falters.
But when the Washington Post reported that Politico co-founder Jim VandeHei and other top executives who clashed with the owners will leave the company soon rather after than after the election, Trump was ready:
“Wow, @Politico is in total disarray with almost everybody quitting. Good news -- bad, dishonest journalists!”
Disarray, it seems, is a charge that can be hurled in both directions.
Click for more Media Buzz
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
True, he stayed off television on a primary night -- which was striking, given how he is so much a part of our daily media diet.
But with his written blast at Ted Cruz, who beat him by 13 points, Trump made clear he is sticking with his street-fighting style heading into New York and other more favorable eastern states.
Gone, for the moment, was talk about Trump giving several sober policy speeches. In its place was the opening salvo against the man he calls “Lyin’ Ted.”
In winning Wisconsin, the statement said, Cruz “was coordinating with his own Super PAC’s (which is illegal) who totally control him. Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet—he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump.”
First, if Trump has proof that the Cruz campaign is breaking the law, he should provide it; that’s a pretty serious charge.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
Spokeswoman Katrina Pierson added that "the Bush people" are running the Cruz campaign, a reference to Neil Bush joining the senator's finance team.
As for “stealing” the nomination from Trump, there is clearly a concerted GOP effort to block him from reaching the magic number of 1,237 and then beat him after the first ballot in Cleveland. Whether that constitutes larceny or an aggressive exploitation of the delegate rules will be the subject of many battles between now and July. But it’s a powerful rhetorical argument for Trump.
If this is a game of momentum, Trump is likely to regain it in such states as New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland, at least if he avoids some of the missteps of the last two weeks. A Monmouth poll shows Trump leading his home state of New York with 52 percent, with John Kasich at 25 percent and Cruz at 17.
But if it’s pure delegate math, Wisconsin did make it a bit harder for Trump to win a first-ballot victory—especially since the Cruz camp seems better organized at delegate hunting and caucus turnout.
With a normal candidate, which Trump most definitely is not, the press would be looking for a staff shakeup. But Trump’s inner circle is quite small, and other than adding such players as convention manager Paul Manafort, it's likely to stay that way. Trump is a gut player. He can’t fire his pollster or media consultant or chief fundraiser because he doesn’t have such people. He will declare rhetorical war on Cruz because that’s what got him this far. And he’ll keep on whacking journalists who he thinks are treating him unfairly.
In that vein, Trump actually took a rather subtle shot on Twitter. Politico had run a piece headlined “Trump’s Campaign in Disarray”—almost an obligatory story when a winning candidate falters.
But when the Washington Post reported that Politico co-founder Jim VandeHei and other top executives who clashed with the owners will leave the company soon rather after than after the election, Trump was ready:
“Wow, @Politico is in total disarray with almost everybody quitting. Good news -- bad, dishonest journalists!”
Disarray, it seems, is a charge that can be hurled in both directions.
Click for more Media Buzz
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
Sanders campaign talks up contested convention, despite long odds
Just a few weeks ago, only the Republicans were talking seriously
about the possibility of a contested presidential convention. Now,
Bernie Sanders’ campaign is ratcheting up predictions that Democrats,
too, could have an open convention in July.
The odds remain stacked against the Vermont senator, no matter what his campaign says. And Hillary Clinton’s campaign is aggressively batting down talk of a Philadelphia free-for-all this summer.
But the Democratic underdog’s recent winning streak – bolstered Tuesday by a decisive victory in the Wisconsin primary – has dashed for now Clinton’s hopes of swiftly sewing up the nomination and pivoting to the general election, certainly not while the springtime cherry blossoms are still on the trees in Washington. The Sanders camp’s bold predictions speak to their hope that they can now drag out the race until July by blunting the front-runner’s pledged delegate gains.
“It will be an open convention, likely with neither candidate having a majority of pledged delegates," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told CNN on Tuesday.
Those predictions were met with a round of reality checks by team Clinton.
Campaign manager Robby Mook blasted out a fundraising memo Tuesday night, as Sanders was rolling to victory in Wisconsin, saying Clinton’s delegate lead “is nearly insurmountable.”
He said the Sanders camp, in pushing for an open
convention, is trying to “flip delegates’ votes, overturning the will of
the voters.”
The big question is what specifically it would take for Clinton to avoid an open convention.
The complicating factor is the role played by “superdelegates,” party insiders free to support whomever they want. When those delegates and “pledged” delegates awarded via primaries and caucuses are added together, Clinton has a huge 1,748-1,058 delegate lead.
She would need to win just 635 of the remaining delegates – roughly a third -- to get a majority of total delegates, or 2,383, before the convention. Given her record in the primaries so far, that’s hardly a heavy lift.
But when only pledged delegates are counted, Clinton’s lead is narrower, at 1,279-1,027.
Despite Weaver’s comment, Clinton could easily win a majority of them with roughly 43 percent of the remaining pledged delegates.
The Sanders campaign, however, may be setting the bar much higher. If they argue Clinton must win 2,383 pledged delegates to clinch the nomination – in other words, hit a majority of all delegates counting only pledged delegates – she would need more than 60 percent of the remaining pledged field.
Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh said she thinks that’s what the Sanders campaign is saying.
Whether the Democratic National Committee sees it the same way is unclear.
Asked specifically what it would take to avoid an open convention, a DNC official reiterated that 2,383 represents the majority of all delegates, but would not speculate beyond that.
The Sanders campaign is not entirely clear, either, on how an open convention would emerge.
Sanders press secretary Symone D. Sanders told FoxNews.com the campaign is focused on simply winning states, predicting a strong showing in the Wyoming caucuses this weekend, before the race heads next to New York and other delegate-rich territory.
“There is a path to the nomination for us,” she said, adding that they will go to Philadelphia but not elaborating on what exactly might trigger an open convention in their eyes.
So what’s the end-game?
Even if Clinton’s pledged delegate support is a little short, the former secretary of state still has hundreds of superdelegates on her side.
Weaver noted to CNN that the superdelegates “don’t count” until they vote at the convention. But unless the Sanders camp could somehow wrest away huge swaths of that support, the best case scenario for Sanders might be an open convention in name only – where superdelegates put Clinton over the top as soon as the voting begins.
“She’ll use the superdelegates to finish it off if she doesn’t hit that bar [with pledged delegates],” strategist Mary Anne Marsh said.
She, too, described Clinton’s lead as “insurmountable,” and played down the possibility of a contested convention.
“This is more wishful thinking on the part of the Sanders campaign than anything based on facts or math,” she told FoxNews.com, while questioning whether Sanders might try to use his delegates as leverage to extract some wishlist item at the convention.
Mook said in a memo posted on Medium that “the delegate math is on our side.” He noted that even among pledged delegates, Clinton has a sizeable lead, and the upcoming contests pose another challenge for Sanders.
“[W]ith each passing week, it’s becoming increasingly unlikely that Senator Sanders will be able to catch up. In order to do so, Sanders has to win the four remaining delegate-rich primaries — New York, Pennsylvania, California, and New Jersey — with roughly 60 percent of the vote,” Mook said.
Clinton in the meantime is taking a tougher tone toward Sanders, even telling Politico’s Glenn Thrush she’s not sure he’s a real Democrat.
“He’s a relatively new Democrat, and, in fact, I’m not even sure he is one,” she said. “He’s running as one. So I don’t know quite how to characterize him.”
The odds remain stacked against the Vermont senator, no matter what his campaign says. And Hillary Clinton’s campaign is aggressively batting down talk of a Philadelphia free-for-all this summer.
But the Democratic underdog’s recent winning streak – bolstered Tuesday by a decisive victory in the Wisconsin primary – has dashed for now Clinton’s hopes of swiftly sewing up the nomination and pivoting to the general election, certainly not while the springtime cherry blossoms are still on the trees in Washington. The Sanders camp’s bold predictions speak to their hope that they can now drag out the race until July by blunting the front-runner’s pledged delegate gains.
“It will be an open convention, likely with neither candidate having a majority of pledged delegates," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told CNN on Tuesday.
Those predictions were met with a round of reality checks by team Clinton.
Campaign manager Robby Mook blasted out a fundraising memo Tuesday night, as Sanders was rolling to victory in Wisconsin, saying Clinton’s delegate lead “is nearly insurmountable.”
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
The big question is what specifically it would take for Clinton to avoid an open convention.
The complicating factor is the role played by “superdelegates,” party insiders free to support whomever they want. When those delegates and “pledged” delegates awarded via primaries and caucuses are added together, Clinton has a huge 1,748-1,058 delegate lead.
She would need to win just 635 of the remaining delegates – roughly a third -- to get a majority of total delegates, or 2,383, before the convention. Given her record in the primaries so far, that’s hardly a heavy lift.
But when only pledged delegates are counted, Clinton’s lead is narrower, at 1,279-1,027.
Despite Weaver’s comment, Clinton could easily win a majority of them with roughly 43 percent of the remaining pledged delegates.
The Sanders campaign, however, may be setting the bar much higher. If they argue Clinton must win 2,383 pledged delegates to clinch the nomination – in other words, hit a majority of all delegates counting only pledged delegates – she would need more than 60 percent of the remaining pledged field.
Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh said she thinks that’s what the Sanders campaign is saying.
Whether the Democratic National Committee sees it the same way is unclear.
Asked specifically what it would take to avoid an open convention, a DNC official reiterated that 2,383 represents the majority of all delegates, but would not speculate beyond that.
The Sanders campaign is not entirely clear, either, on how an open convention would emerge.
Sanders press secretary Symone D. Sanders told FoxNews.com the campaign is focused on simply winning states, predicting a strong showing in the Wyoming caucuses this weekend, before the race heads next to New York and other delegate-rich territory.
“There is a path to the nomination for us,” she said, adding that they will go to Philadelphia but not elaborating on what exactly might trigger an open convention in their eyes.
So what’s the end-game?
Even if Clinton’s pledged delegate support is a little short, the former secretary of state still has hundreds of superdelegates on her side.
Weaver noted to CNN that the superdelegates “don’t count” until they vote at the convention. But unless the Sanders camp could somehow wrest away huge swaths of that support, the best case scenario for Sanders might be an open convention in name only – where superdelegates put Clinton over the top as soon as the voting begins.
“She’ll use the superdelegates to finish it off if she doesn’t hit that bar [with pledged delegates],” strategist Mary Anne Marsh said.
She, too, described Clinton’s lead as “insurmountable,” and played down the possibility of a contested convention.
“This is more wishful thinking on the part of the Sanders campaign than anything based on facts or math,” she told FoxNews.com, while questioning whether Sanders might try to use his delegates as leverage to extract some wishlist item at the convention.
Mook said in a memo posted on Medium that “the delegate math is on our side.” He noted that even among pledged delegates, Clinton has a sizeable lead, and the upcoming contests pose another challenge for Sanders.
“[W]ith each passing week, it’s becoming increasingly unlikely that Senator Sanders will be able to catch up. In order to do so, Sanders has to win the four remaining delegate-rich primaries — New York, Pennsylvania, California, and New Jersey — with roughly 60 percent of the vote,” Mook said.
Clinton in the meantime is taking a tougher tone toward Sanders, even telling Politico’s Glenn Thrush she’s not sure he’s a real Democrat.
“He’s a relatively new Democrat, and, in fact, I’m not even sure he is one,” she said. “He’s running as one. So I don’t know quite how to characterize him.”
Sanders says Clinton not qualified to be president as war of words escalates in Democratic race
The Democratic presidential race got even uglier Wednesday — pulling
outsiders into the fray — as Sen. Bernie Sanders said his front-running
rival Hillary Clinton was "not qualified" to be president because of
"special-interest" contributions to her super PAC.
"She has been saying lately that she thinks that I am quote-unquote not qualified to be president," Sanders told a crowd of more than 10,000 people at Temple University's Liacouras Center in Philadelphia. "I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special-interest funds."
"I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC," Sanders continued to cheers from his audience. "I don't think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don't think you are qualified if you have supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement which has cost us millions of decent-paying jobs."
Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon responded quickly to Sanders' comment, writing on Twitter: "Hillary Clinton did not say Bernie Sanders was `not qualified.' But he has now -- absurdly -- said it about her. This is a new low."
Indeed, Clinton did not say Sanders was "unqualified" or "not qualified" during a much-quoted interview Wednesday morning on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
In a discussion of an interview with Sanders that appeared in the New York Daily News, Clinton was asked if "Bernie Sanders is qualified and ready to be president of the United States."
She responded, "Well, I think he hadn't done his
homework and he'd been talking for more than a year about doing things
that he obviously hadn't really studied or understood, and that does
raise a lot of questions."
Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said Wednesday evening that Sanders was responding to reports on the CNN and Washington Post websites. A Post story was headlined, "Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president."
The Democratic race has become noticeably fractious in recent weeks as Sanders has closed the delegate gap with a series of wins over Clinton, capped by Tuesday's convincing victory in the Wisconsin Democratic primary. The Vermont senator's latest victory prompted his campaign manager to predict that the Democratic convention in Philadelphia could become an open contest for the nomination.
“It will be an open convention, likely with neither candidate having a majority of pledged delegates," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told CNN on Tuesday.
In response, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook blasted out a fundraising memo as Sanders was rolling to victory in Wisconsin, saying Clinton’s delegate lead “is nearly insurmountable.”
He said the Sanders camp, in pushing for an open convention, is trying to “flip delegates’ votes, overturning the will of the voters.”
The complicating factor is the role played by “superdelegates,” party insiders free to support whomever they want. When those delegates and “pledged” delegates awarded via primaries and caucuses are added together, Clinton has a huge 1,748-1,058 delegate lead.
She would need to win just 635 of the remaining delegates – roughly a third -- to get a majority of total delegates, or 2,383, before the convention. Given her record in the primaries so far, that’s hardly a heavy lift.
But when only pledged delegates are counted, Clinton’s lead is narrower, at 1,279-1,027.
Despite Weaver’s comment, Clinton could easily win a majority of them with roughly 43 percent of the remaining pledged delegates.
The Sanders campaign, however, may be setting the bar much higher. If they argue Clinton must win 2,383 pledged delegates to clinch the nomination – in other words, hit a majority of all delegates counting only pledged delegates – she would need more than 60 percent of the remaining pledged field.
Asked specifically what it would take to avoid an open convention, a DNC official reiterated that 2,383 represents the majority of all delegates, but would not speculate beyond that.
"She has been saying lately that she thinks that I am quote-unquote not qualified to be president," Sanders told a crowd of more than 10,000 people at Temple University's Liacouras Center in Philadelphia. "I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special-interest funds."
"I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC," Sanders continued to cheers from his audience. "I don't think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don't think you are qualified if you have supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement which has cost us millions of decent-paying jobs."
Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon responded quickly to Sanders' comment, writing on Twitter: "Hillary Clinton did not say Bernie Sanders was `not qualified.' But he has now -- absurdly -- said it about her. This is a new low."
Indeed, Clinton did not say Sanders was "unqualified" or "not qualified" during a much-quoted interview Wednesday morning on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
In a discussion of an interview with Sanders that appeared in the New York Daily News, Clinton was asked if "Bernie Sanders is qualified and ready to be president of the United States."
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said Wednesday evening that Sanders was responding to reports on the CNN and Washington Post websites. A Post story was headlined, "Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president."
The Democratic race has become noticeably fractious in recent weeks as Sanders has closed the delegate gap with a series of wins over Clinton, capped by Tuesday's convincing victory in the Wisconsin Democratic primary. The Vermont senator's latest victory prompted his campaign manager to predict that the Democratic convention in Philadelphia could become an open contest for the nomination.
“It will be an open convention, likely with neither candidate having a majority of pledged delegates," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told CNN on Tuesday.
In response, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook blasted out a fundraising memo as Sanders was rolling to victory in Wisconsin, saying Clinton’s delegate lead “is nearly insurmountable.”
He said the Sanders camp, in pushing for an open convention, is trying to “flip delegates’ votes, overturning the will of the voters.”
The complicating factor is the role played by “superdelegates,” party insiders free to support whomever they want. When those delegates and “pledged” delegates awarded via primaries and caucuses are added together, Clinton has a huge 1,748-1,058 delegate lead.
She would need to win just 635 of the remaining delegates – roughly a third -- to get a majority of total delegates, or 2,383, before the convention. Given her record in the primaries so far, that’s hardly a heavy lift.
But when only pledged delegates are counted, Clinton’s lead is narrower, at 1,279-1,027.
Despite Weaver’s comment, Clinton could easily win a majority of them with roughly 43 percent of the remaining pledged delegates.
The Sanders campaign, however, may be setting the bar much higher. If they argue Clinton must win 2,383 pledged delegates to clinch the nomination – in other words, hit a majority of all delegates counting only pledged delegates – she would need more than 60 percent of the remaining pledged field.
Asked specifically what it would take to avoid an open convention, a DNC official reiterated that 2,383 represents the majority of all delegates, but would not speculate beyond that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
