2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMichael Tomasky warns Bernie to get in line and quit attacking Hillary as she will win.
I find myself increasingly disappointed with many journalists and news moderators who have taken sides so openly in this primary.
Time for Bernie Sanders to Get in Line. Time to ratchet back his attacks on the presumptive nominee.
Does Super Tuesday change anything on the Democratic side? Bernie Sanders got enough wins, and delegates, to keep at it. So that wont changeand I want to say clearly that it should not change. But this is what should change: From here on in, Sanders ought to lay off the attacks on Hillary Clinton, the Goldman Sachs speeches and all the rest. Eventually, hes going to lose. Shes going to win. He can do it in a way that burnishes hi Fs standing in the party hes decided to be a member of and that makes him a pivotally powerful senator during a potential Clinton presidency. Or he can do it in a way that damages her reputation and ultimately his own.
Most of the individual results, for all the hype, dont really mean that much. Sanders won Vermont. Given. Sanders won Minnesota and Colorado, which are both important states, but theyre weird caucuses. Oklahoma was an interesting win, but the black percentage of the vote is small there compared to deep South states, and anyway its as red as a state gets. Wesley Clark won Oklahoma in 2004.
A number of Clintons wins dont really matter much either, again, because theyre red general election states. Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas; who cares how much she won by? Georgia is a slightly different story, because Georgia is inching its way toward purple-dom, and she can at least make Donald Trump spend money there this fall.
Sanders should keep running. He has the money, so why not? He draws the crowds. And his presence keeps Clinton on her toes, keeps her from sail-trimming and tacking back to the center too early. So he should stay in as long as he wants to stay and keep up the pressure on the issues.
Why Michael how very kind of you to say that Bernie can continue on.
But its time to start pulling back on the food fight. Sanders got into this race thinking: Im not gonna win, but Im gonna push this party to the populist-left and put issues on the table that I want to see put on the table. You could tell this way back when he said enough with the damn emails. Then he came oh-so-close in Iowa and rolled in New Hampshire, and thats when he started to think he might actually win this thingto the astonishing extent that he reportedly didnt even write a concession speech in Nevada.
There's more condescending lecturing at the link.
Who does he think he is? Why is he chastising only one candidate?
He is making it sound "okay" for Bernie to continue on...but only if he doesn't say unkind things about the presumptive nominee..
In my opinion that is probably one of the worst ideas Tomasky has come up with ever.
I'm feeling less and less like a member of the party. If our leaders and journalists and online anchors are picking our presumptive nominee....then why bother to vote?
Matariki
(18,775 posts)LOL
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Whenever the right uses someone's record to highlight a perceived "problem... or what they see as a problem" democrats usually band together and call it an "attack." There may be differences between the left and right but when it comes to human behavior... most people are pretty much the same and react the same when on the defensive.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)They know it. Throw a dart, her time as SoS, her lies, campaign money - it doesn't look good when his record is solid, and he stands up for the populist message.
jfern
(5,204 posts)And she gave this as a reason, "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?".
dchill
(38,683 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The 2008 race was down to the wire. In fact, Clinton won the popular vote and just barely lost the nomination on account of superdelegates. Plus, Clinton and Obama were quite similar in terms of policy/ideology.
I've said all along that the purpose of Sanders's campaign is to try to hold the neoliberal Democratic Party establishment accountable, to force them back toward the center if not - gasp! - left of center. But Sanders was never going to be the nominee, and his delegate deficit is only going to increase in the coming weeks. It's not a bad idea for him to focus his attention on the Republicans at this point, while still keeping Clinton on her toes.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)IL, MO, MI, OH, PA, NY, NJ, MD, LA, MS, FL, NC, HI, CA. Plus Washington DC.
And even in those states where Sanders might win, which are typically states with fewer delegates, Clinton will still get a proportion of the delegates.
It may just be wishful thinking getting in the way of rational thought, but I get the sense that many folks don't grasp basic math, the impact of demographics and how the nominating/delegate process works. Clinton will be the nominee.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)And he can't just win. He has to win *big* in order to cut into Clinton's delegate lead. He can't just win big in states with relatively few delegates, states with relatively few POC. He has to win big in some big states, and that's just not going to happen.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Your attempts to discourage aren't working.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I'm just shocked at the unwillingness to accept reality. Sanders has no path to the nomination at this point. Sorry.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)People on this site keep insisting that he has a path, but nobody seems to be able to map out that path. Where is Sanders going to win? Which states with, say, 100+ delegates is he going to win? Where will his margin of victory be substantial enough to accumulate the number of delegates he needs? Is there any state with a large percentage of POC that Sanders is likely to win?
Saying Sanders has a path doesn't make it so. Others have explained in detail why Clinton has the nomination wrapped up, but nobody can do the same for Sanders.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Most of the states haven't voted yet, and Bernie's worst states are all in the south.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)By the way, quite a few southern states are yet to vote. And many non-southern states with a high percentage of POC are yet to vote.
Clinton is winning states that she lost in 2008 *and* states she won in 2008. It's not enough for Sanders to win states that Clinton won in 2008--he also needs to win a bunch of the states that Clinton lost in 2008, and that's not going to happen. Again, you're underestimating both the impact of demographics and the 200+ delegate lead Clinton now holds.
jfern
(5,204 posts)In the situation where Bernie narrowly wins the nomination, he'll be trailing by quite a bit in delegates at that point. The later states should go better. Also, POC aren't some monolith. For example, Bernie is clearly winning Native Americans.
tech3149
(4,452 posts)I spent 16 years out of state but when I came back home I was scared by how stupid and uninformed my state had become.
The majority will probably vote for Drumph because they don't know any better and their anger is focussed on the easiest target.
Wierdos like me that don't consume corporate media are few and far between so my perspective is definitely skewed.
I hate to say it but I think that come primary time Drumph will clean up and Clinton will be appointed as the only "rational" choice.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Clinton-friendly, as in Clinton will likely win the PA primary. As for the general election, I would be pretty surprised if Trump were to beat Clinton in PA.
artislife
(9,497 posts)She forgets about issues if you don't.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)She also mentioned that Robert F. Kennedy was killed in June, 1968. Yes, she really said it.
Merryland
(1,134 posts)dchill
(38,683 posts)fundraising. I'll give him credit for being smart enough to know that. Problem is, so does the Sanders campaign.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Ron Green
(9,825 posts)aidbo
(2,328 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Fairgo
(1,571 posts)These mooks might want to go find someplace comfortable to rest their angst. It's going to be awhile before the cutting is done.
riversedge
(70,685 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)But he is staying in until Convention. And we are going to follow him all the way there. She needs to "listen" to us as well.
Kall
(615 posts)... because if Bernie doesn't talk about Hillary's $225,000/hour speeches to Goldman Sachs and SuperPAC, self-funding Donald Trump who calls politicians puppets of special interests won't? Does he seem like a guy who just refrains from picking at other candidates' weaknesses out of the goodness of his heart and will leave Hillary alone? He shredded Cruz over a frigging loan from Goldman Sachs.
He's going to have a field day with the Bosnian sniper fire story alone.
moondust
(20,048 posts)Chelsea Clinton is on the Board of Directors of the parent company.
http://iac.com/about/leadership/board-directors/chelsea-clinton
http://iac.com/brand/daily-beast
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)And all the next states favour Sanders... Oopsie!
spooky3
(34,590 posts)MI OH IL NC FL
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)spooky3
(34,590 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)spooky3
(34,590 posts)Sanders. Your comment about 34 states in response to me is not relevant to that factual contention.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)spooky3
(34,590 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)and i never said what you quoted "All the next states favor Sanders"
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Nanjeanne
(5,028 posts)And media crowning of Hillary from the beginning.
Bernie's accomplishments are rarely discussed and if they are, they are minimized. Just see Colorado and Minnesota for proof. Almost 19 points in CO and 23 points in Minnesota. But what you hear is Sanders won his home state of Vermont.
MA is practically even and given how much Clinton won the state in 2008, her small lead now would be a story if media cared.
The media was very responsible (or irresponsible) for public opinion in favor of invading Iraq. They are very responsible now for the diminished turnout of Dems and the misconceptions of Sanders policies, background, etc.
Given all that hard work to lessen the impact of what Sanders has accomplished, I'm truly amazed how well he is doing and believe he can build on it.
dragonfly301
(399 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)of the hard fact---Dems ain't "gettin' in line" this time. These Threats/FEAR Worked for decades....I can see how "we" enabled them to believe "herding Dems is easy"- However, they themselves have been Warned, by the "non-voting" electorate repeatedly over the past 3 elections (low turnout=rejection(s) of Status Quo)...we're done.
I find Tomasky's warning both arrogant and amusing.
casperthegm
(643 posts)I don't think the HRC supporters get it. We're not looking to settle for things. If we were good with the way things are, looking past poor decisions, and aiming low, then Clinton would be our candidate.
As a Bernie supporter I plan to redouble my efforts, continue to donate to his campaign, spread his message of honesty and integrity, and call out smears when they are thrown his way. And I will continue to point out Clinton's poor record, comparing it side by side to Sanders. I'm open to engaging in a conversation with any HRC supporter who wants to look at these issues side by side. To steal a phrase from John Paul Jones, "I've not yet begun to fight."
Red Knight
(704 posts)They do not get the Sanders movement.
It's bigger than one election. It is about a movement.
They just don't understand this.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Keep the faith and
WIN! Bernie WIN!
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)So there is no real reason to stop telling the truth
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Revolution until we win!
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)what, about 250 years ago.
welcome to democracy, tomasky.
MSMITH33156
(879 posts)The Democratic Primary has been civil. No one has any right to tell him to drop out. He's not harming Hillary, which is the entire premise for this article. In fact, I'd argue that the more competitive he's been, the better it's been for Hillary Clinton. Not only has she sharpened her message, but the contrast between the substantive debate on the Democratic side and the dick jokes being told on the Republican side is shocking.
Also, let's say he DOES drop out. Hillary will get a little bump, and then blackout. They are already only covering the Democratic primary sparingly, focusing all attention on the Republican circus. These primaries give an opportunity for both candidates and our party to get their message out. If we end this process via a concession now, it might backfire. The Republicans are going to being fighting this out for months and eating up all the bandwidth as it is. If we don't have an active primary going on, our entire party will be out of mind.
He can concede whenever he wants, and campaign as he sees fit. I support Hillary, but Sanders' strong showing has helped the party and both candidates in the long run, regardless of how this turns out.
oasis
(49,664 posts)Time to get together and go after Trump.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Wow. Condescending is right.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Hopefully Bernie won't
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Along with the Hillary shills at DU.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Interesting to note that discussing what Hillary has done in her career, is harming her. Could it possibly be that Hillary has harmed herself by her own actions? There's a reason why she lost to Obama in 2008.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)They don't want Bernie in the race, because they are afraid that he will win!
They fail to look at the polls that tell us that Bernie beats ANY RepubliCLOWN. Hellary does not.
They want us to fall in line, and vote for the Queen. I will never vote for the Queen.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)is having an effect. Her honest/trustworthy numbers have never been lower. Her negatives have never been higher.
Once people learn the truth about her, they shift to Bernie.
Look at what happened in Iowa. Bernie started at 4 percent. The final caucus result was .25 percent between the two. Same thing has happened in many states that Bernie has won, or has come close to winning. He lost in Nevada, but he gained 20 points in the polls in Nevada, in two weeks. That phenomena is real.
Hillary's weakness is that a great deal of her support is soft and very vulnerable. People are not excited about her candidacy. The low voter turnout on our side speaks directly to that.
If Sanders can tout the realities about Hillary Clinton, while attracting voters to his campaign--the risk is that her campaign begins hemorrhaging support.
If Sanders gains momentum and the upper hand again, she's done.
So basically, this fool--is lecturing the Sanders campaign and telling them to NOT do the things that will help Bernie win.
Oh. Ok.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Fuck him and his pissy ass lecture.