2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumToday proves Hillary has done a terrible job of wrapping this up!
Much of this country is feeling the Bern!
And will not be happy or excited about Hillary in the GE!
Stay in it till the end Bernie!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)How is that a problem?
brooklynite
(94,581 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)As Harry Enten of 538 wrote in his recap of the day:
Sanders Won More States, But He Lost The Day
We’re about to shutter this live blog, so let’s take a look at how Semi-Super Saturday played out on the Democratic side.
Sanders won Kansas and Nebraska. That’s the good news for him. The bad news is he’s even further from the nomination than he was before the day started: He lost Louisiana, and, in doing so, fell even further behind in the delegate hunt.
Let’s take a look at the math. Sanders won 23 delegates in Kansas to Clinton’s 10. He won — preliminarily — 14 delegates in Nebraska to Clinton’s 11. That’s a margin of 16 delegates.
In losing Louisiana, however, Sanders only claimed 12 delegates to Clinton’s 39.
Combine the three states, and Clinton gained 11 delegates on Sanders.
Now you might be saying, but didn’t we expect Sanders to do poorly in Louisiana? Yes, that’s true. But according to our delegate targets, which takes that into account, Sanders is now 3 delegates further behind the pace he needs to win a majority of pledged delegate than he was at the beginning of the day. Considering he was already running 82 delegates behind his delegate goals, he needs to be exceeding his delegate targets.
Overall, it was actually a bad day for Sanders by the math, even with his two wins.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/louisiana-kansas-kentucky-maine-primaries-presidential-election-2016/
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)until the convention.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The nominee is determined by winning a majority of delegates. The fact is Sanders lost ground today. I think it's important to deal with facts.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)change our vote before the convention. It's not going to happen. We will continue to vote for him and support him until the convention and we shall see how many delegates each candidate has then.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)And it would be highly conceited of me to think I could.
It's just that a lot of folks don't seem to understand the mathematical and demographic realities.
People, particularly young folks, may become demoralized because they were expecting something that won't happen (and was never going to happen). I hope folks will understand that the Sanders campaign is a big picture campaign, and not about winning a particular election. It's about speaking out against corporatization and neoliberalism in hopes of starting the process of moving US politics in a new direction. It's not about individuals (or the Cult of Personality) but about systems. The likes of Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Gore et al. aren't causes but symptoms. I was saying the same thing many months ago, not because I'm pro-Clinton but because it's best to deal with what is and to grasp the big picture. Single elections don't upend systems, but they can start the process.
Matt_R
(456 posts)(and was never going to happen)
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...it was never realistic to expect Sanders to win the nomination. Here's something I wrote back in August of last year:
"...lefties (notice that I don't refer to "The Left"
have to take responsibility. As Bernard Chazelle wrote years ago, "America has lefties but no left." Lefties haven't laid the groundwork for someone like Sanders (or Kucinich before him) to become POTUS. Every 4 (or 8) years lefties (at least those who don't just vote Green) get excited about the most leftish Democrat in the race. However, it's clear that not nearly enough work has gone into establishing a climate that is ripe for such a candidate to be viable. You attend a rally, you post on a message board how great you think the candidate is, you get yourself so worked up that you actually think the (relatively) radical candidate can win...newsflash, the groundwork hasn't been laid. You can't just will the environment into being; you have to create it. And accept that it will likely take a long time. This lack of a persistent effort to create an organized Left, combined with impatience (expecting monumental and instantaneous change without the hard work and necessary disruptions of the social order), means Dems must settle for establishment neoliberals when it comes to the federal level."
In other words, systems don't change overnight or as a result of a single election. An ongoing daily struggle to change the culture is what's needed. Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Gore et al. are not causes, but symptoms. Systems thinking is far more helpful than getting caught up in the Cult of Personality.
As for the 2016 primary, Clinton will win the nomination with ease, but I don't think the Sanders campaign was truly about winning so much as starting the process of altering the direction of US politics.
Matt_R
(456 posts)apologizes for the miss spelling. I did not proofread.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The scenario you are Preaching is one built around a long string of assumptions that not only themselves involve subjective judgement, but are a selection of assumptions that may or may not be complete.
The fact is you have a source you think provides evidence you are correct.
However the same methodology failed to put together an analysis that predicted Donald Trump, didn't it?
What was missing from their worldview that caused the failure?
Bernie supporters are pretty sure we know.
Hillary supporters, like her and her handlers however, don't even recognize the disgust that is engendered by her taking $21,000,000 in speaking fees from the most powerful people in the country as she was generating her run for the White house.
That is only one example of many by her and the machine she represents which leaves her echo chamber unaffected, but causes a visceral reaction in most people that is so strong it twists their face into a grimace whenever they see these actions, hear of them, watch them on the news, read of them or even think of them.
If anyone is demonstrably not understanding something, it isn't Bernie's supporters.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I've read post after post after post that demonstrates a poor understanding of mathematical and demographic realities. And silly memes about how Clinton can only win in "confederate" states (as if it's a bunch of Strom Thurmonds and David Dukes voting in the Democratic primaries), which I addressed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511401642, and here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511416414.
Chances are very good that, in the end, it will be Sanders who will have accumulated most of his delegates in "red" states (as well as a few relatively small blue and purple states).
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That we don't feel make for a valid predictive model.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)What number is "meaningful only because of assumptions?" What number are you talking about?
Today, Clinton gained delegates (and won the popular vote). Simple as that. Nominations are not determined by who wins the most primaries/caucuses, since some states have far more people than do other states. Whoever gets to 2383 delegates is the nominee. Period.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You are touting a model. We reject that model.
It's as simple as that. Period.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I don't understand your argument. Just as the general election is about getting to 270 electoral college votes, the Democratic primary is about getting to 2383 delegates. Is that not the case?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Are you suggesting that Clinton didn't win more delegates on Saturday? Are you suggesting that nominations aren't determined by winning a certain number of delegates? Seriously, I'm confused. What is your argument?
mythology
(9,527 posts)so the model must be wrong because it led to the outcome of Sanders not winning.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)..."weaken her in the eyes of the November voters?"
artislife
(9,497 posts)Hard to get more apple pie than those two states.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Demographically-speaking, those states aren't representative of the overall US population much less the Democratic electorate. Whereas the "red" states that Clinton wins more closely mirror the demographics of the Democratic electorate. That's a trend that is likely to continue as more and more of the most populous states hold their primaries, which is why Clinton is an overwhelming favorite to win the nomination. Sanders is winning a fair number of states, but he's getting crushed in the popular vote.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)You need to look at the census information that shows the demographics for each of those states, and then look at the demographic information for the overall Democratic electorate. You will find that Louisiana is more representative of the Democratic electorate.
This is what I'm talking about when I say far too many people are denying mathematical and demographic realities.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280136363
http://vetsforbernie.org/2016/03/kansas-chooses-bernie-for-president/
The day’s most important takeaway might be Bernie’s win in Kansas. That’s because for the last 50 years Kansas voters have successfully picked the Democratic party’s presidential nominee with 100% accuracy—better than any other state in the nation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511423386
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Again, look up the demographic info.
Or keep believing (falsely) that Nebraska and Kansas are more representative than Louisiana of the overall Democratic electorate.
Your choice.
RichGirl
(4,119 posts)But votes are! That means it's ALL about numbers.
Zambero
(8,964 posts)65,000 votes total. A state is a state however, and to his credit Bernie racked up those two, although adding in the much larger Louisiana vote gave Hillary a 2-1 popular vote margin for the day.
KelleyKramer
(8,969 posts)Not sure about NE, but Kansas had a higher Dem turnout than 2008
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Bernie supporters have been registering lots of new Democrats. I have yet to see any Hillary supporters doing so. And the DNC?? Where the hell are they?
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)would you try and get more voters out if you where already the big name that has gotten more free air time than other? This is all about HRC first primary then GE and dam if we have to risk the GE to make sure she is the nominee then we will risk it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Louisiana gained voters, that's great. Kansas gained voters. Nebraska lost a small percentage over 08....nothing like the drop off in NV or Iowa.....
Zambero
(8,964 posts)And that is for BOTH candidates. Granted, kids don't vote, but it puts things in perspective a bit.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Sanders does well in the rest of the country.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...because we're talking about Democratic primaries. Clinton is winning states with greater diversity (states more representative of the overall Democratic electorate) and more people/delegates, which is a trend that is likely to continue. The fact is the "rest of the country" hasn't voted yet (as people on this board keep pointing out), but if the trend continues as it's expected to, this race will become a blowout.
Far more people have voted for Clinton than have voted for Sanders. It's best to deal with what is, with reality.
Marr
(20,317 posts)We'll be talking about the general election. Democrats do not win most of the states that Hillary's shown her strength in, so they don't matter. Some of the states she's proved surprisingly weak in, will be important for her to win a general election.
She is not as nationally electable as Sanders, and that fact is backed up by multiple, credible polls now. Moderate Democrats and the party/business establishment are foisting a candidate through the process who very likely cannot win the general election. Hillary is basically the Romney of this race-- a candidate with narrow appeal, who wouldn't have a chance without the crutches of party insiders, corporate media, and Wall Street cash propping her up.
jmowreader
(50,559 posts)Clinton does well in states with high percentages of minority voters.
Bernie's biggest problem in the primaries? Three of the biggest prizes - California, New York and Illinois - have multi-ethnic populations, and they're blue states.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...are far more diverse than the states Sanders has been winning. Not just the 3 you mentioned but numerous others, including "purple" Florida and "purple" Ohio and "purple" North Carolina. And Michigan. And Maryland. And New Jersey.
The Democratic electorate in Louisiana is more representative of the overall Democratic electorate than the Democratic electorate in Nebraska, Kansas and Maine. So, dismissing the "Deep South" as if it's a bunch of Strom Thurmonds voting in the Democratic primaries is just ridiculous.
jmowreader
(50,559 posts)Another problem for the Sanders brigade: States have been known to switch from red to blue and back. Before Obama won North Carolina in 2008, the state was reliably red in the presidential election...the practice of voting R for president and D for the rest of the ballot is so widespread there the "straight ticket" mark on a NC ballot casts a vote for everyone EXCEPT the president. I know Alabama has gone red the last 25 presidential elections, but you stick Donald Trump at the top of the ballot and our candidate has a real chance. However, if our candidate is Bernie Sanders we've still got a problem - they won't like Trump but they DEFINITELY won't like the Tax Hike King.
Matt_R
(456 posts)Illinois - March 15, 2016
New York - April 19, 2016
California - June 7, 2016
Odd that you listed them backward. Anyway if Sanders wins these three states, can we call him "in the game." Or should Sanders just call it quits at this point.
jmowreader
(50,559 posts)The thing is, Sanders won't win any of them. If African-Americans are voting in very high percentages for Hillary, as they did in Virginia...http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/VA...it is hard to expect he'll win a majority of the AA vote in IL, NY or CA.
If Hillary grinds him into the ground in those three states, as I expect her to, the race WILL be over.
Here's reality: Both the primaries and the general election are decided by indirect methods - primary delegates and GE electors. And the farther we get into the election cycle, the farther behind Sanders gets in his pledged delegate count.
There are 1313 delegates up for grabs in the remaining March primaries. I don't expect Bernie to earn more than 300 of them.
Marr
(20,317 posts)has a deficiency there.
okasha
(11,573 posts)And you can thank your fellow Sanders supporters and Susan Sarandon that Sanders slipped several percentage points between Nevada and Texas. California is where the UFW fought its major battles, and if you think people there have forgotten Dolores Huerta or her heroism, think again.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Oklahoma has 25% minority population California has 26.8% Illinois has 22.5% and NY 29.6%
So of the States you list, OK is less white than Illinois, 1.8% more white than CA and 4.6% more white than NY......not really all that different. That is if you count the Native Americans which many here do not seem to do. That's not cool, by the way.
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00,06,22,17,36
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)They don't because I have been told only Young white college bros vote for Sanders. Sure I look white thanks to a Irish-Scottish father but I am mixed Native America and have been told I don't understand what it is to be a minority, maybe I don't but my grandmother sure told me a lot crap she dealt with, and this was only in 1940s people still have instinctive to Native Americans today. Like a crowd of people yelling in Arizona at a Native American bitch about Emigration. Which if you think of it kinda makes sense, if Native American tribes had not welcomed European people with peace and open arms but instead force-ably keep them out they probably as people would be better off.
treestar
(82,383 posts)like Nebraska and Kansas. This particular "critique" is so out there illogical. It is the Democratic primary not the GE. More Nebraskans being Repubs does not mean the Democrats there don't exist and don't get to caucus/vote in primary.
GeoWilliam750
(2,522 posts)That a Democratic candidate never - or almost never wins - In those states that have voted for the Democratic candidate at least once in the last four elections, Hillary is behind, and today changed nothing.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Setting aside the absurdity of dismissing some "red" states but not others (as if the Democratic electorate in those states is *so* drastically different from the Democratic electorate elsewhere), the fact is every primary and caucus impacts the race. Today, Clinton gained in delegates. That's not an opinion, nor is it a reflection of my personal preference. It's simply a fact, a reality. I like to deal with what is, with facts.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The big, liberal states have yet to vote. The Northern states are trending Bernie -- even though most of those that have voted are conservative -- like Nebraska that hasn't vote Democratic in a presidential election since 1964.
Most of the Southern states, and the deepest South Southern states have now voted and they voted for Hillary. But there won't be another Texas. The closest Hillary will come will be maybe New York, maybe Michigan. But her trade policy and that of her husband will hurt her in the rust belt. Her speech about outsourcing that has been going around on the net will hurt her.
We shall see, but it is too early for Hillary supporters to draw any conclusions.
So far the conservative states have been voting.
California, the largest and perhaps most liberal state in the nation does not vote until June 7. We have 546 delegates. I have seen Bernie signs in Los Angeles, but not very many Hillary (no Hillary) ones thus far. I know there are Hillary supporters here. A very, very elderly friend called me to campaign for Hillary, so I know there are some. But they are very rare so far.
I think Bernie will sweep California the way he swept Colorado and for some of the same reasons.
I don't use or want to use marijuana, but we don't prosecute marijuana violations with jail sentences in California. Bernie's willingness to take that substance off the list of prohibited narcotics will probably draw a lot of voters in California. The conflict between practice in California and federal law is disconcerting to voters in our state. So that alone will bring out a lot of liberal voters to Bernie. It's not my issue, personally, but I know it is a huuuuge issue for a lot of other Californians.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)a person on ground in CA will not matter. Because I have seen a trend where people think Minorities across the country are some big hive mind in each group. Latinos in NV and TX are not iron clad same issues as those in CA or NY etc. Too man people have a narrow view.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)As Ms Clinton once famously said, remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)It's pretty clear that far more people would not be happy or excited about Bernie in the GE, according to your reasoning.
Reasoning is a bitch, ain't it?
Logical
(22,457 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)billionaires on your side but we have the People. Your side may buy this election but we are in for the long haul and will eventually drag the DINO's out and give them their walking papers.
This is a class war and those that support Goldman-Sachs profits and ignore the 50,000,000 people living in poverty are on the wrong side.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)care are ready to fight against those that claim to be Democrats but turn their backs on those among us in need. H. Clinton is extremely wealthy and those that worship her and her wealth deserve no respect.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Liberals won in Canada so he's got to fight them somewhere...
grasswire
(50,130 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)Remember, when (actually if) Sanders is elected President he immediately becomes a member of that 1%!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)not become a member just by becoming president unless he takes graft like the Clintons.
The Wealthy 1% as a group control our government. They make sure that the laws and regulations favor themselves. So are they a horrible group? They as epitomized by the Clintons, just want more and more wealth and power. In the last 40 years they have used their power to increase their wealth by triple while their laws and policies have drained the middle and lower classes.
So why would a Democrat support the super wealthy in lieu of helping those living in poverty? The answer is, good Democrats won't. Sadly some worship wealth and the wealthy.
SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)owns the Corp-Media propaganda machine. It seems you are happy with the status quo.
"The choice is stark, keep living under corporate rule under Hillary and watch things get worse, or go with Bernie and fight TPTB to regain our Representative Democracy!"
SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)He outspent her in SC and MA and still lost.
The millions of people voting for Hillary are not "bought." They just disagree with you. This IS democracy. No need to insult people just because they disagree with you.
I am happy with what President Obama has accomplished. Just like any progressive, I always think the status quo could use improving. Which is why I support Hillary. I think Hillary will do a great job building on Obama's successes and expanding the ACA, giving us affordable childcare and college, building up workers' income and creating more good jobs here in the US.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the millions living in poverty. Ignoring the millions out of work or working in low wage jobs. Happy that we have more children under the age of 1 year die for lack of proper care than any other modern nation. But your god, Goldman-Sachs has big profits and that's what it's all about isn't it? Clinton and Goldman-Sachs won't help those in need and you know it. Sad.
SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)But keep it up. This sort of garbage is driving even more voters to Hillary.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)She will never tax those that she is deeply involved with. She is tough but not on the wealthy only on the 99% In fact this is what BLM thinks about her:
“Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton's efforts to push these policies resulted in the continued destruction of Black communities and the swift growth of our mass incarceration crisis.”
Tell me that you believe that she will do something about the widening wealth inequality, the system that has made her and Bill wealth beyond imagination. They are in the top 1% of the top 1%, and got there in 15 years, that's 10 million dollars a year, from corporations expecting quid pro quo.
This election is important. Don't turn your back on the 50,000,000 living in poverty. Goldman-Sachs doesnt care about them but good Democrats should.
SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)It is simply not true to say she will never tax the 1%.
She opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and she supported a variety of middle-class tax cuts, including tax credits for student loan recipients, and keeping the tax cuts in place for those that make under $250,000 a year. Hillary consistently voted against repealing the estate tax on millionaires, in 2001, 2002, and 2006.
If you really want to know how she will help, it's all on her website at hillaryclinton.com.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)gap. Nothing convincing.
She wasn't progressive when she betrayed the Democratic Party and supported the worst foreign policy mistake in recent history. I say mistake, but actually to all that profited from the IWar, and I suspect she profited indirectly, the war was very profitable.
She is not progressive on these issues:
Strengthening Social Security (e.g., raising the cap)
The job killing "Free Trade" agreements
Fracking for oil company profits over people's water
Help college students afford college (telling them to get a job doesn't cut it)
Making major corps pay their fair share of taxes
Ending the unregulated domestic spying
Drone killing of terrorist "suspects" in foreign lands (100 innocents killed for each suspect)
Reducing the defense budget
Taking a hard stand against torture and indefinite detention.
The militarization of our local police forces.
Ending Prisons for Profits
Legalizing marijuana esp. for medical use.
The need for funding rebuilding our neglected infrastructure.
Single payer health insurance.
Regulation of Wall Street (e.g. reinstate Glass-Steagall)
Breaking up the big bank and media monopolies.
The continuous war in the Middle East
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)to read her policy positions on many of those issues clearly stated on her website. http://hillaryclintonsupporters.com/issues
I would think anyone who claims to care about issues would bother to inform themselves.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Here are examples:
Growth is bullshit. We've had wonderful growth in the last 30 years, but only the wealthy and super wealthy benefited. The rest were stuck paying the taxes. "All boats rise on a rising tide is bullshit. I know personally people whose boats have sunk in the rising tides. Hillary's yacht sure did rise.
How about this:
$2,500 tax deduction for parents sending their kids to college. What a joke. That might cover books. And for the rest of this, who will pay? Better believe that Goldman-Sachs won't pay a dime.
Here's more rhetoric:
A "tax credit" means that the taxpayers pick up the difference. If companies share profits, their taxes will be reduced meaning we pick up the difference.
She says she will close "loopholes" for corporations. I bet Goldman-Sachs is getting a good laugh at that. I bet in her speeches she told them she wouldn't turn on them and make them pay their fair share. That's why she gets paid millions. She tells them what they want to hear.
I didn't see what she is going to do about fracking for oil profits destroying our water supplies. Maybe you can help me.
I didn't see where she stands TODAY on the TPP. Where do you stand?
okasha
(11,573 posts)You're no Dolores Huerta.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)or later those fighting for the People will prevail.
okasha
(11,573 posts)or just blowing hot air? Because I don't believe for a second that you're anything but an upper-middle-class white heterosexual male permanently stuck to his keyboard.
Fighting for The People, my ass.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)reaped millions, no tens of millions in a very few years mostly from billionaires and corporations that are expecting quid pro quo.
And she has only hurt the lower classes. She voted for the IWar. I guess you favor that mistake. She supports reducing the New Deal regulations. She supports fracking and free trade.
Tell me why you support her. Because she is tough? Tough on minorities that fill our Prisons For Profits? Maybe because she has a lot of "experience". Experience in looting the lower classes.
Yes I am fighting for The People. I see the ravages every day of the wealthy over the People. Apparently you feel safer hiding behind the wealthy. Shame.
You guys have nothing so you resort to ridicule and that rude emoticon. Too sad that people calling themselves Democrats behave like that. Shame.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Stop gnawing on the scenery.
I'm actually to the left of Bernie, socialist from age 18. Going by what I see here, you're a classic limousine liberal. Pfffttt....
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I am far from comfortable in this economy mess that you apparently are loving. I work every day with people struggling while you worship your Clinton and the super wealthy. Do you think they will give you some some day?
You can't be a socialist and support Clinton that is the worst of the capitalists. Her millions and millions are at the expense of those living on the streets day to day. I see people that have lost their homes and living in their cars. Not that you care. I see people coming to our foodbank that share their couches with the friends so they aren't on the streets. We bag special bags for the homeless that come in that they can use in the woods where they live. We have local churches letting people live in their cars in their parking lots. And all the while the Goldman-Sachs and the Clintons live in their wealth and their followers grovel at their feet. Disgusting. We are currently looking for land that the homeless can pitch their tents while your wealthy gods have their martinis and caviar.
No one deserves ridicule. Not even you.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I'll tell you why you don't ring true. I think you envy Hillary Clinton her wealth.
But props to you for volunteering at a food bank. Back in the late 80's I helped found one that's still running. You have a comfy evening, now. I'm not staying up for your next number.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)of the Wealthy 1%. This is a war. Americans are literally dying due to lack of health care and food. The 99% can't survive another 8 years of the status quo.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I think you need a new handle.
Obama lost a ton of states to Clinton in 2008, and he did pretty good.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Bernie lost by 8 tonight. But after Maine tomorrow, who knows?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)when we are heading toward progressive states and you know what that means.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)None of this should be anywhere near close. She has every advantage from establishment support to previous WH experience to endless amounts of Billionaire cash to a media that only talks about how she's won already.
How is an old "socialist" outsider who gets called "not a Dem" running such a tight race with her?
artislife
(9,497 posts)she is fighting an old "socialist" for New England.
Ha!
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)Well she's not wrapping this up to well as one would expect for the inevitable one.
Marr
(20,317 posts)political press when he tossed his hat in the ring. They thought he was a joke. They were openly scornful of anyone even wasting their time with a challenge to Hillary. And yet here we are in the middle of primary season, and their 'inevitable', everything-in-her-corner candidate is still clawing for the nomination.
She's weak.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Most primary candidates who become the nominee don't sweep every state, especially in the early part of the race. The one exception was perhaps Kerry, in 2004. And that turned out to be a bad thing for him: a more contested primary would have helped his eventual candidacy.
This primary is unusual in that it began (save Iowa, and that with such minimal traction for O'Malley it didn't matter) with only 2 candidates, rather than winnowing down to two over the early contests. There is Clinton, and there is anti-Clinton. It is my belief that in a primary season that had 5-8 candidates, Sanders would probably have been a fairly marginal figure. His ascent is due in part to his being the only alternative.
Let the contest continue. I think it's good for Clinton (if not for her voice).
Hydra
(14,459 posts)He was running on the same platform as Clinton, except for the insurance mandate, which he wound up doing later anyway. That split the support immediately- if you can't run on differences, you have to run on charisma and ability to connect with the voters.
Clinton was running as the first woman president, and she is still getting a lot of support for that. Obama managed to gain a lead by delivering a message of hope to the people who usually don't vote and daring them to believe.
This cycle is different- Clinton had no other rival from inside the party structure, except the hints of a possible Biden run. No one had the money or support of the party. The Left can always be counted on to support the nominee, no matter how bad. The media has happily carried water for her.
So how did a marginalized (I) Senator from Vermont with red scare labels all over him manage to get this far, with so many ties even wins? He should still be at 5%, and someone else should have been the standard bearer of the non-Clintons, which by rights should be less than 20% of the party.
What happened, do you think?
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I really don't need to explain it again.
DemRace
(28 posts)Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)I agree with you.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)that Hillary is doing a bad job because she is not for the people. Bernie IS for the people! GO BERNIE!!!
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Did he even go to Louisiana at all?
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)He concentrated on the caucus states which was a smart move.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Because fewer people caucus, it's easier for a smaller campaign to get enough caucusers to the caucus than in primaries where more people vote because it's easier. Bernie is winning caucus states (with one exception, NH) and Clinton's winning primaries (one exception - NV).
Better for Clinton to focus on primaries - typically more voters and more delegates. Her goal was to not lose in the delegate count. She met her target.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)To campaign in LA? doesn't that send a message to the residents in LA? Like, " I'm not going to bother with you."
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Bernie's not getting desperate, but he's worried. If he lost those caucus states, the media would have made hay about it. Better to win states where he has an advantage (low turnout and so work the college campuses).
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)my state had a say in the primaries. (Oregon) A blue state but really more purple since only Multnomah CO is liberal.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Not to me anyway. I see Portland as small. Maybe it's the small town feel? 
I've lived here more than 30 years but grew up in Los Angeles.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)2008, the last Democratic contender for the nomination to visit Oregon as candidate was Bobby Kennedy in 1968. 40 years passed without one single campaign stop by any Democrat with a shot at the office. What message were they all sending? 'I'm not going to bother' or 'I'm trying to win an election here'?
Another interesting trivia bit is that RFK in 1968 stopped in Roseburg Oregon and spoke about the need for reasonable gun controls, in 2015 Obama made a sorrowful trip to Roseburg to meet with the victims of a mass shooting.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)I heard the residents did not welcome Obama very well, not sure how true but seems true to me. When I think of Roseburg today, I think about the missing Portland kid... I have a pin signed by Bill Clinton from 2008 when he came to stump for Hillary at the Gresham Highschool....
jillan
(39,451 posts)And she did go to Kansas.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)In NE & KS a total of 41,161 people voted for Sanders.
In LA 221,615 people voted for Hillary.
I think that she's doing pretty well.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Beacool
(30,249 posts) 
Democrats Ascendant
(601 posts)she IS a Dem. Bam!
Also, she's not a terrible Dem, but rather the LEADING Dem; winning the popular vote and by all other metrics (delegates, acreage, etc.) to boot.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Democrats Ascendant
(601 posts)Been lurking for almost a decade, but only felt like signing up a little while ago. Would post more often, if I had time...
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts) Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The Louisiana Democratic electorate is who gave Clinton a huge margin of victory, not the overall Louisiana electorate that will be voting in November. In these Deep South Democratic primaries, it's not a bunch of Strom Thurmonds and David Dukes casting ballots.
When all is said and done, it will almost certainly be Sanders (and not Clinton) who accumulates more of his delegates in "red" states (along with some blue and purple states with relatively few people).
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)That is something to consider when we choose our candidate in July.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...then this discussion would all be a moot point, because Sanders would win the nomination with ease. But the reality is that the blue and purple states that have not yet voted are, demographically-speaking, more in line with the Deep South than the states Sanders is winning (and is most likely to win going forward).
As I explained here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511401642
And here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511416414
Matt_R
(456 posts)and yet in the 2016 primary there were more democrats voting than republicans. How odd.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)There are actually more registered Democrats than Republicans in Louisiana. Democrats had way more participation in the 2008 LA primary than Republicans did.
Matt_R
(456 posts)
Metric System
(6,048 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)But the delegate count and popular vote margin keeps growing as expected. Given how heavy of a favorite Clinton is in the larger, more diverse states yet to vote, the race is - for all intents and purposes - decided. Sanders lost ground today in spite of winning 2 of 3 contests--that's a pretty bad sign.
dchill
(38,497 posts)Uh huh. Bibbity Bobbitty Boo. It seems we get a whole new "as expected" every time there's a primary/caucus. How do we expect Michigan to go?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...that Clinton would gain delegates, and she did.
Michigan? Well, Clinton's a heavy favorite, of course. As she is in nearly every state with 100+ delegates (i.e., the more populous states).
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That is the message of the day.
It's about changing the heart of America.
What good is it if a Democrat wins in November if we haven't changed the heart of America.
I say that because unless we change the heart of America, no matter who wins in November, we will have the same old, same old right-wing hanky panky that deadlocks progress in our country.
We have to change the heart of America, and then we can change the politics.
My dream is that we elect Sanders in November and then a Democratic Congress in 2018 and on for a long, long time after that.
That's what changing the hearts of Americans would do.
Republicans would go the way of the Model A.
My dream.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bernie is welcome to keep spending his millions on oppo research and unfunny gifs however.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)Top 2012 Donors sig line when we hit the GE vs Trump? I went and looked and a Hillary vs Trump donor link not so pretty for the Queen. But who knows maybe Cruz will get it then their Donor list looks about them same.
chillfactor
(7,576 posts)Hillary did just fine in fact....
Califonz
(465 posts)Looks a lot like a Civil War Confederacy map. 
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)the Old Confederacy' last week when praising HRC's semi-super Tuesday wins...
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I was expecting this.
Logical
(22,457 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)
Logical
(22,457 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)I take back my thank you.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)"Why can't he close the deal?" etc.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and a State that is not part of this cycle's early voting as it was in 08. So of course 'this point in 08' is nothing like 'this point' in 2016. The primary schedule is not the same.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)her campaign forthwith! 
She expanded her lead overall last night. Can Bernie win 60% of ALL remaining pledged delegates? Even in NE, he didn't do that.
Please look at the polls and do the math.
To clarify, I am not asking you to change your primary vote at all. I only ask that you recognize reality.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Jay Mohler
(13 posts)right wing campaign tactics are still viable.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)that those tactics will win her the primary but will most likely cost her the GE. But you know GO DNC and all that.
Response to Gwhittey (Reply #122)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Matt_R
(456 posts)year or anything. GO DNC
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Beacool
(30,249 posts)
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)
Buzz cook
(2,472 posts)nt
Faux pas
(14,681 posts)
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts) 