Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:14 PM May 2016

The #1 key to the Democratic candidate winning in November is...

...having POC and women solidly behind the candidate. Like it or not, the candidate who fits that description is Clinton. As unpopular as Trump is, I would worry about Democratic turnout if Sanders were to be nominated. That's why I had started the following thread in spite of not being a big fan of Clinton: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511829582.

That's the base. Those are the folks who must buy in, so to speak. Those who are most often mistreated in our society can ill afford to take a chance on a relative unknown.

And for all the talk about "independents," they're a mixed bag. Some who self-identify as 'independents' are vehemently opposed to others who self-identify that way. About half of Tea Party members, for instance, choose to call themselves "independent." Obama lost the overall independent vote in 2012 and even lost the independent vote in nearly every swing state, yet won in an electoral college landslide. Why? I refer you back to the start of this thread.

People can point to hypothetical GE match-up polls all they want, but they are historically misleading. At this juncture, they're basically meaningless, especially when you're talking about a candidate who is - again - relatively unknown (most folks don't follow politics super closely and Sanders is not someone who has been in the spotlight for all that long). If hypothetical GE match-up polls were even remotely reliable, Dukakis would have become POTUS. A GE campaign completely changes the dynamic.

119 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The #1 key to the Democratic candidate winning in November is... (Original Post) Garrett78 May 2016 OP
Because DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #1
'independents'.... HumanityExperiment May 2016 #2
The fact is 'independents' aren't "a voting bloc," as some suggest. Garrett78 May 2016 #3
Ideological purists... HumanityExperiment May 2016 #5
What you call them doesn't jibe with who they are, according to numerous surveys. Garrett78 May 2016 #7
not impresssions... HumanityExperiment May 2016 #9
Check out the surveys. Garrett78 May 2016 #12
gee when you join the party those restrictions all vanish. self-selecting yourself out and then msongs May 2016 #20
WTF... HumanityExperiment May 2016 #23
Thank you firebrand80 May 2016 #10
They don't swing, instead they don't show up. RichVRichV May 2016 #88
And yet. LWolf May 2016 #70
How many Dem-leaning Independents have ever voted for a Republican or third party? RichVRichV May 2016 #86
Some "independents" can be safely be marginalized and discounted CajunBlazer May 2016 #4
I refer you to... HumanityExperiment May 2016 #6
it isn't evil powerful interests which prevent third parties from rising up in this country CajunBlazer May 2016 #28
small percentages?... HumanityExperiment May 2016 #33
Thanks for your response. CajunBlazer May 2016 #61
No misunderstanding at all... HumanityExperiment May 2016 #69
You are a "true believer' - read the book CajunBlazer May 2016 #75
reads like a threat questionseverything May 2016 #77
But the movement didn't work CajunBlazer May 2016 #84
actually we have no idea what the voters believed questionseverything May 2016 #106
Oh, I am sure there grand conspiracies throughout the country.... CajunBlazer May 2016 #107
insults like this..."Typical paranoia from the radical left. '' questionseverything May 2016 #108
Actually the paranoia of the far right and the far left has been well documented.... CajunBlazer May 2016 #109
election theft has been documented too questionseverything May 2016 #111
So you agree that many on the far left are parinoid? CajunBlazer May 2016 #112
alabama questionseverything May 2016 #113
Says one person who may well be lying CajunBlazer May 2016 #114
so i take it you sided with rove over siegleman questionseverything May 2016 #115
Huh? CajunBlazer May 2016 #116
sounds a little sanctimonious to me questionseverything May 2016 #118
Deflection noted... HumanityExperiment May 2016 #78
Your "factual points" were non existant CajunBlazer May 2016 #85
Radicals are leaders! pinebox May 2016 #87
And Bernie Sanders will also go down in history.... CajunBlazer May 2016 #93
As a footnote? pinebox May 2016 #97
The revolution is still born CajunBlazer May 2016 #99
So... HumanityExperiment May 2016 #92
Your revolution was still born... CajunBlazer May 2016 #94
And Bernie Sanders will also go down in history.... CajunBlazer May 2016 #95
nothing to 'get over'.... HumanityExperiment May 2016 #96
You don't know your biology or politics CajunBlazer May 2016 #100
Identity politics should not be offered as a substitute for progressive ideology in the party of FDR Attorney in Texas May 2016 #8
Nobody does identity politics like the GOP. Garrett78 May 2016 #11
"They do it so we should also do it" is weak justification for doing something you know to be wrong Attorney in Texas May 2016 #13
I can't help that that's what you took from my post. Garrett78 May 2016 #15
You mistake the base of the party as being a wedge. Those that dismiss us are self-marginalizing. bettyellen May 2016 #17
The base of the Democratic Party is racially inclusive. I'm not sure what party you're talking about Attorney in Texas May 2016 #22
Women and POC are the largest reliable voting blocks we Dems have. It is time to respect that bettyellen May 2016 #24
You are partly wrong and partly talking nonsense. You are wrong because Democrats are 60% white, 22% Attorney in Texas May 2016 #27
A Pew Research Center study from just a year ago... Garrett78 May 2016 #39
Are you being misleading or are you incapable of interpreting the data you linked? Attorney in Texas May 2016 #44
Nope, you're right, I misinterpreted the data. Garrett78 May 2016 #46
Thanks for clarification. No harm done. Attorney in Texas May 2016 #47
What does do harm, though... Garrett78 May 2016 #52
There can be no doubt that Hillary has regional appeal in the 13 states of the Deep South and that Attorney in Texas May 2016 #57
That's all extremely misleading for a number of reasons. Garrett78 May 2016 #58
Do you think Hillary won New Hampshire Colorado Minnesota Oklahoma Vermont Kansas Nebraska Attorney in Texas May 2016 #60
That's an arbitrary division though. ContinentalOp May 2016 #82
It is not an arbitrary division. The Old South states vote similarly, just as the West Coast states Attorney in Texas May 2016 #98
It's an arbitrary division because it's irrelevant to how voting actually works. ContinentalOp May 2016 #101
So a political party is merely a vehicle for ethnic groups to stab at each other? n/t JPnoodleman May 2016 #89
^^^ This (nt) rbnyc May 2016 #110
Do you really think the large majority of liberal women and POC won't vote for Bernie in the GE? Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #14
I worry that not enough would. I worry that turnout would suffer. Garrett78 May 2016 #16
I agree turnout would suffer...but not by as much, I suspect, as you do. Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #21
Yep, Republican turnout will be extremely high CajunBlazer May 2016 #103
Many are not "feeling" it. I always vote, but would be less enthusiastic with SBS. bettyellen May 2016 #18
Neither do I... tom-servo May 2016 #19
Yep, look at their constituencies based on the 2012 voter demographics. ContinentalOp May 2016 #25
Or here's another way to look at it. ContinentalOp May 2016 #26
What you fail to take into account TM99 May 2016 #59
You're making a lot of assumptions. ContinentalOp May 2016 #63
Your first paragraphs tells me TM99 May 2016 #65
Of course they're Republicans, that's my point. ContinentalOp May 2016 #66
I think the question is... tom-servo May 2016 #41
Not really. Garrett78 May 2016 #42
Kind of irrelevant isn't it? ContinentalOp May 2016 #48
Not if you want the stronger candidate... tom-servo May 2016 #62
Huh? ContinentalOp May 2016 #64
If everyone who would vote for Clinton would also vote for Sanders tom-servo May 2016 #72
Right so you're saying we should let a small minority of voters overturn the will of the majority ContinentalOp May 2016 #73
That's putting a few words in my mouth, but... tom-servo May 2016 #76
Well if she's winning then the party clearly does want it and she's clearly not the weaker candidate ContinentalOp May 2016 #80
Do you know how much of the independent vote she got in those states? tom-servo May 2016 #81
Does it matter? ContinentalOp May 2016 #83
You are saying POC and women will not show up to vote for Bernie in the GE should he win? Autumn May 2016 #29
See post #16. Garrett78 May 2016 #30
Nobody is saying that. ContinentalOp May 2016 #34
Did you miss this from the OP? Autumn May 2016 #35
Yeah I did. ContinentalOp May 2016 #37
I will comment on this, my lousy good for nothing Senator is a SD for Hillary. Autumn May 2016 #67
eh ContinentalOp May 2016 #68
Yep, that's what I wrote. Garrett78 May 2016 #40
That's 2 Keys. GeorgeGist May 2016 #31
Touché Garrett78 May 2016 #32
In 2014, Debbie tried to win without Millennials. How did that work out for you? Betty Karlson May 2016 #36
I'm sure that relates to my OP somehow. Garrett78 May 2016 #38
So you will win on conventional wisdom then? Betty Karlson May 2016 #90
Very good post, but our base, including me, are pretty much solidly Hortensis May 2016 #43
POC and Women are disproportionately affected by a lower minimum wage. Ash_F May 2016 #45
Clinton has proposed raising the minimum wage and has proposed paid maternity leave. ContinentalOp May 2016 #49
Her own words. More recent than those endorsements I think. Ash_F May 2016 #50
Those organizations likely agree with those who think Clinton is more electable. Garrett78 May 2016 #54
Anecdotal, of course - but I am a woman, and not only will I not "unite" behind Hillary, djean111 May 2016 #51
The demographic divide is as great as ever. Garrett78 May 2016 #53
Well, that's really great for her - I would think that all the orders for "unity" would be seen as djean111 May 2016 #55
Remember that DU is not representative of the population at large. Garrett78 May 2016 #56
Here is your problem quaker bill May 2016 #71
So what do you suggest we do at this point? ContinentalOp May 2016 #74
I do not attack Hillary quaker bill May 2016 #91
I think the #1 key is not having the nominee in prison YMMV Kalidurga May 2016 #79
Elizabeth Warren and VP Sanders Reiyuki May 2016 #102
You really are living in a dream world CajunBlazer May 2016 #104
save this post and check back with me mid-July. Reiyuki May 2016 #105
Based on the conventional wisdom of Hillary campaign: Resurrect Reagan. Have him endorse Hillary. CobaltBlue May 2016 #117
Nope! Joob May 2016 #119

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,705 posts)
1. Because
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:17 PM
May 2016
If hypothetical GE match-up polls were even remotely reliable, Dukakis would have become POTUS. A GE campaign completely changes the dynamic.



 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
2. 'independents'....
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:19 PM
May 2016

or PWOP.... or POI....

people without party

people of ideology

So many DEM party insiders discount or try to marginalize these folks...

This OP is a perfect example of that, this is also a major reason DEM party invoked the SDs within the primary process to prevent grassroots movements from taking over...

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
3. The fact is 'independents' aren't "a voting bloc," as some suggest.
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:34 PM
May 2016

Surveys show that most are actually party loyalists, and some are drastically opposed to others who self-describe in the same way. Again, Tea Party members love the "independent" label. And, yes, they are certainly "of ideology."

The myth isn't that there are 'independents'. The myth is about who they are: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/

Millions will vote for Clinton. Millions will vote for Trump. Millions won't vote for either. Losing the independent vote in 2012 didn't prevent Obama's re-election. He won (in an electoral college landslide) because the base turned out to vote for him.

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
5. Ideological purists...
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:49 PM
May 2016

those that hold stronger ties to ideology are a voting bloc.. what you're leaving out is we only have a two party system within the political process here in USA...

Imagine if we have a multiparty system, which will never happen due to the powerful interests within the two parties to keep any other parties from forming let alone remaining viable...

What you call 'independents' I call more ideologically pure, and it is these folks that party 'loyalists' denigrate or marginalize much to their chagrin

Again I'll point out the SD rule that was DESIGNED by party loyalists to PREVENT another Jimmy Carter situation from ever occurring again within the DEM party... I fully expect GOP to invoke something similar to prevent another Trump situation occurring again after this election cycle

I find it highly ironic that political parties within a democratic republic society to be so adverse to actual democracy within it's very structure

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
7. What you call them doesn't jibe with who they are, according to numerous surveys.
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:52 PM
May 2016

Your impression of independents doesn't reflect the reality, and you aren't alone. Thus the myth.

And the reason I say they don't constitute "a voting bloc" is because there are many on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
9. not impresssions...
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:00 PM
May 2016

reality is ideological purists are voting blocs, their support hinge on the ISSUES presented by candidates hence the term 'independent' as they are INDEPENDENT of political party loyalty, this isn't a 'myth', this is truth

again imagine if we actually had a multi party system... this would shift power away from a party 'team' to a party based upon ideology as they wouldn't hold enough power to block/prevent other parties from forming and developing...

parliamentary system is an example to validate my point about ideology over party...

msongs

(67,199 posts)
20. gee when you join the party those restrictions all vanish. self-selecting yourself out and then
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:26 PM
May 2016

whine and complain is not an effective strategy

firebrand80

(2,760 posts)
10. Thank you
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:00 PM
May 2016

Most Indys lean one way or the other, the universe of voters that could truly "go either way" is actually quite small. It's even smaller when you're talking about swing voters in swing states, because a nobody cares what an Idaho swing voter will do.

I highly doubt that very many Indys that leaned Obama will go for Trump. But I can forsee many McCain/Romney voters sitting out or voting for Hillary.

RichVRichV

(885 posts)
88. They don't swing, instead they don't show up.
Fri May 6, 2016, 01:39 AM
May 2016

Bring a weak candidate to a general election (any general election) and what happens is those Independent voters who lean their way don't bother showing up for them. Many don't vote in that case, some go third party. That's what we risk bringing a candidate who keeps falling in the polls with the Independent voters.


People keep saying when Democrats show up we win. Well guess what, it's all those Democratic leaning Independents who either show up or don't. The Democratic base is pretty reliable.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
70. And yet.
Thu May 5, 2016, 09:19 PM
May 2016
42% identify as independents, 29% as Democrats, 26% as Republicans


http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

That's 13% more than Democrats, and 16% more than Republicans, so while they may not vote as a block, they certainly shouldn't be discounted. And, as your article points out,

Americans' attachment to the two major political parties in recent years is arguably the weakest Gallup has recorded since the advent of its polls. The percentage of U.S. adults identifying as political independents has recently reached levels never seen before. As a result, a new low of 29% of Americans identify as Democrats, and the percentage of Republican identifiers is on the low end of what Gallup has measured historically.

Given that 2016 is a presidential election year, and the percentage of independents usually declines in years when Americans are choosing a president, both parties have an opportunity to win back some of their lost support. But doing so partly depends on how appealing the parties' and their presidential candidates' messages prove to be.

Even if the parties win back some support, they still will probably be competing among an electorate that has a historically high percentage of voters who do not identify with either major party. And the lack of strong attachment to the parties could make candidate-specific factors, as opposed to party loyalty, a greater consideration for voters in choosing a president in this year's election than they have been in past elections.

RichVRichV

(885 posts)
86. How many Dem-leaning Independents have ever voted for a Republican or third party?
Fri May 6, 2016, 01:31 AM
May 2016

How many Rep-leaning Independents have ever voted for a Democrat or third party? Simple saying most Independents lean a specific direction doesn't make them party loyalists as you or Wapo claim, it just means they're more inclined to vote a specific direction. Party loyalists don't go outside the party, they are loyal to the party. The very act of labeling themselves not part of the party means they don't owe loyalty to it.


This year you have a Democrat with with extremely high unfavorability among Independents (right now she is at -42 points with them!) who is extremely well known and hated by a bunch of groups. On the Republican side you virtually have the Republican's worst nightmare as a candidate.


I'm going to bet those 2012 prediction models don't work as you or they expect.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
4. Some "independents" can be safely be marginalized and discounted
Thu May 5, 2016, 02:41 PM
May 2016
Independents come in many different types:

Some are Tea Party and far right social conservative zealots who believe the GOP establishment shouldn't be catering to Hispanics, Blacks and single women.

Some are moderate conservatives who vote fairly consistently for GOP candidates.

Some are true independents who vote for neither party consistently, voting for candidates rather than party affiliation.

Some are registered voters who rarely if ever vote

Some are moderate liberals who vote fairly consistently for Democratic candidates.

Some are very liberal people who think that the Democratic Party is not liberal enough, but never the less vote consistently for Democratic candidates.

Some are far left zealots who have abandoned the Democratic Party and vote for third party candidates consistently unless a particularly liberal Democratic candidates happens to come along.

Some of these independent types must be courted and some can be safely ignored and marginalized.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
28. it isn't evil powerful interests which prevent third parties from rising up in this country
Thu May 5, 2016, 04:10 PM
May 2016

It is our system of government enshrined in the US Constitution.

If you want to live in a country in which multiple parties can flourish, I suggest you move to one with a parliamentary system. It's not going to happen in our winner take all Democracy.

Our system, for better or worse, tends to marginalize the small percentages of voters who are on the far right and far left because they are never needed to form a coalition government when one of the major parties doesn't get enough votes to rule on its own.

There are advantages and disadvantages to our system of government. One disadvantage is that when the two major parties have become highly become highly partisan, their can be gridlock and nothing gets done. On the other hand, one advantage of our system is that those with the most extreme political views rarely have a say in how our government is run. In my mind that is as good thing.

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
33. small percentages?...
Thu May 5, 2016, 04:45 PM
May 2016

Bernie isn't garnering 'small percentages', he and his campaign is the epitome of which I post of...

'our system of government enshrined in the US Constitution' wasn't written as a 'two party only' system... it's developed into a two party 'only' system and those two parties reinforce their control and work in unison to squash any other parties from ever developing and maturing


This 'Our system, for better or worse, tends to marginalize the small percentages of voters' exemplifies the very aspect with which HRC and her supporters portrayed Bernie from the get go and are still trying to do, MARGINALIZE http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107122886


Again, SDs were specifically created to prevent 'most extreme political views rarely have a say in how our government is run. In my mind that is as good thing' or as I would call it GRASSROOTS within a private political party... it is the most undemocratic thing within a society based upon democracy I've had the displease of being involved in...

All these replies from HRC supporters continue to reinforce the very aspect Bernie supporters fight against... special interests that fight against the least among us, the 'little guy'...

And posting 'If you want to live in a country in which multiple parties can flourish, I suggest you move to one with a parliamentary system. It's not going to happen in our winner take all Democracy' is so akin to freeper talk it's stunning... "If you don't like it get out"

Thanks for proving my point over and over

Have a day!

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
61. Thanks for your response.
Thu May 5, 2016, 07:45 PM
May 2016

If you think I have proved your points you have total misunderstood mine.

Yes, there are only small percentages of the voters on the far left and the far right and only small percent of the Sanders supporters fall in the far left category. Numerous polls have indicated that only 10% to 13% of voters self identify as very liberal and far left parties such as the Greens normally get less than 2% of the vote. In my view only a small contingent of "true believers" in Sanders' following are part of the far left and fit the description described here http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511904570

Of course our constitution didn't mandate a two party system, but the system mandated by the constituted caused the two party system to perpetuate itself. The reason is that it in our "winner take all system" third parties cannot proper. The reason being anytime a third party gets enough support to challenge the major two parties, it splits the votes of the major party most kin to it ideologically resulting in the win of the other major party. Hence the saying: "Third parties are like bees, when they sting they die".

Down through US History the major parties have lived and died, morphed and changed, but there were always only two major political parties. The first set of two parties was comprised of the Federalists and the Democratic Republican Party. About the time that the Federalists declined, the Democratic Republican Party split into the Jacksonian Democrats (the modern Democratic Party) and the Wigs. When not to many years later the Wigs Party fell apart, the modern Republican Party sprung up to replace it.

That we have always had two major political parties throughout our history is no accident. As a result of our system third parties cannot prosper for long. However, in a parliamentary system multiple parties can prosper because often coalitions of multiple parties are needed to form a government. Even the smallest of parties can gain importance if their few members of parliament are required to form a ruling coalition. My comment was not an invitation to leave the country; I was simply pointing out that your are never have a third party rise to considerable importance without causing its own extinction. If you want to live under a multi party system, you are never going to find it in this country.

I stand by statement that in our system most extreme political views rarely have a say in how our government is run. In my mind that is as good thing. I firmly believe that. Throughout history of the world, the worst governments were the results of extremest political views which were allowed to prevail. In our system of government that will never happen on a national scale, though I will admit it has often happened on a state level. To successfully elect a President in our country, the views of the far right or the far left have to be tamped down by the far more prevalent moderate views for either major party to be successful. This happens in a parliamentary system as well. The voice of the ruling coalition is never the voice of its most radical party.

This far from being undemocratic, it is the very essence of democracy - the majority rules while respecting the rights of the minorities. Since the far right and the far left in this country are minorities, they don't get to rule unless they join with their much more moderate brethren, and to do so they have to agree to moderate political actions. That's way things work in a democracy.

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
69. No misunderstanding at all...
Thu May 5, 2016, 08:59 PM
May 2016

'Sanders supporters fall in the far left category'
This is intellectually dishonest and again with an attempt to marginalize the 9.3 million voters that have cast primary ballots for Bernie COMPARED to the 12.4 million for HRC are those numbers cast for Bernie 'fringe / extreme'? HARDLY...

emo progressive.. WTF? doubling down on attempts to marginalize again?


'Third parties are like bees, when they sting they die' are you kidding me? DEM and GOP are Varroa destructor in your 'bee' example... additional parties don't 'sting themselves to death', DEM and GOP invade and co-opt any party (depending on ideology as to which party invades the new) that even begins to show signs of life...

In your 'examples' it's always been a two party system slugfest, from those two the EVOLUTION from within those two ideology shifts them and can mutate them into something different but still within the context of 'liberal' or 'conservative' on the political spectrum... those two 'sides' never allowing an offshoot to grow

'I stand by statement that in our system most extreme political views rarely have a say in how our government is run. In my mind that is as good thing. I firmly believe that.'
You can 'believe' all you'd like, the power of the pen and assembly of those 'extreme' elements gave us women's suffrage, civil rights, anti-war movement, and on and on... they forced the two parties into issues and ideology they did not want to take on nor support.. HRC is a perfect example of complacency, of small measure moves, don't rock the boat... we would never have gotten to the moon with her and your perspective, we would with Bernie, this is the glaring difference between the two

We are at a global moment between fossil fuels and next gen sources and technology, the first nation to embrace and develop will be the global LEADER with the tech, manufacturing and support. We are also are a global moment on the war aspect, do we stop being the global police force without end and continued loss of 'blood and treasure' or do we step back and out to re-evaluate and assess?

SDs are very undemocratic, it's establishment putting it's two thumbs on the scale before anything is placed to be weighed...
There is no 'respect' given to the 'rights of ideological minorities', SDs were created to prevent another Jimmy Carter situation from ever occurring at convention again...

reviewing your posts I do see your deep partisan slant on things, a too tight embrace of and on establishment perception and talking points. taking that into account I see a bit better the angle and approach on your replies....

Last bit and we're done....
'That's way things work in a democracy'
Is completely incorrect, but I can see why you'd confuse this and attempt to push that 'narrative', it's intellectually dishonest from the context you're trying to craft from your recent reply...

you forget that most of the DEM primaries are closed, let's pretend for a moment that everyone of them was OPEN, and let's say 50/50 were caucus / primary... what happens to your 'That's way things work in a democracy' since we are using this primary and the ideological aspects of the two candidates as 'parties' in your scenario off your reply since that's the context that the OP stated with... follow?

Ok, so tell me who's correct and incorrect, me or you?

which 'party' wins in the more 'democracy' based example I've given?

Bernie or HRC?

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
75. You are a "true believer' - read the book
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:35 PM
May 2016

You are so captivated by your own propaganda that you can't even be intellectually honest with yourself, much less anyone else. You are the personification of the radical left:

You believe yourself to ideologically pure, everyone not like you is by definition is tainted

You and others like you are the only fountains of truth. Everyone is misguided at best.

The establishment is your enemy, the deck is stacked against you

Yet you firmly believe you and your movement will ultimately be victorious against all odds.

Incremental progress towards goal is a cop out to you, its revolution or bust

Well, your chance of a lifetime has passed you by. There is no young socialist with any kind of credentials waiting in the wings ready to pick up the socialist baton when Bernie is no longer on the scene. The revolution is still born.

The Republican party is in total disarray. It will take years if ever to put Humpty Dumpty back together. Many Republicans I've talked to swear they they won't ever vote for Trump; since they can't stand Hillary either they probably won't vote. Polls already indicate the vast numbers of millennials will switch their allegiance to Hillary in the general election. Obama whose favorability ratings are rising steadily will campaign hard for Hillary. Some of you will vote third party or not vote at all, but that's not unusual is it? Bernie is right, this country will not elect Donald Trump.

With any luck at all Hillary will be the President for the next 8 years. She will probably appoint at least 3 new Supreme Court Justices, changing the direction of the court for at least the next 20 years. In all likelihood the Democrats will take control of the Senate and will severely weaken the Republican control of the House. (And don't prattle on how Bernie would have done better; he won't have the chance so nobody will ever know if that is true or not.) With the best politician of our lifetime at her side advising her, Hillary will incrementally push forward progressive programs by beating Congressional Republican's at their own game.

Bottom line: Eight years from now Bernie's movement will be but a footnote in the history books.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
77. reads like a threat
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:52 PM
May 2016

so are you saying hc doesn't share most of bernie's goals?

that healthcare is a basic human right

public paid higher ed

living wages

jobs?

if we have those things the movement will have worked!

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
84. But the movement didn't work
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:30 AM
May 2016

Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the impossible. The movement didn't work because most of the voters believed she could do what is possible and didn't believe he could do the impossible.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
106. actually we have no idea what the voters believed
Fri May 6, 2016, 03:18 PM
May 2016

we the people do not count the votes and are not allowed to oversee our own elections

her huge delegate lead comes from places like miss, georgia, alabama where there is literally no paper to count,where she out preformed the exit polls (rolls eyes)

and even when there is paper, citizens are not allowed to over see even the audits in a meaningful way (thinking illinois here where citizens found a 70 vote flip on one early voting machine in chicago)

so voters line up and press a button or darken a box and then a machine (owned by 1%ers) spits out( "output&quot and it is taken as fact

<shrugs>

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
107. Oh, I am sure there grand conspiracies throughout the country....
Fri May 6, 2016, 03:51 PM
May 2016

...bent on depriving Sanders of his rightful victory.

Is paranoia pervasive throughout the radical left?

By they way, here in Alabama we are actually in the 21st Century and use marked card ballots inserted into a voting machine to avoid voter fraud. (Believe me, if the Republicans who own in Alabama had fixed the Democratic Primary here, Sanders wouldn't lost to Hillary 10% to 90%. No one I know felt the Bern.)

While voting machines automatically tabulate the voting results without the aid of mischievious humans, the voting cards themselves are available for manual recounts which are performed by teams with representatives from both parties.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
108. insults like this..."Typical paranoia from the radical left. ''
Fri May 6, 2016, 03:57 PM
May 2016

are the sign of a closed mind

read some bradblog and get a clue

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
109. Actually the paranoia of the far right and the far left has been well documented....
Fri May 6, 2016, 04:17 PM
May 2016

By physiologists and political scientists

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
112. So you agree that many on the far left are parinoid?
Sat May 7, 2016, 02:40 PM
May 2016

And you illustrate why you are convinced of a conspiracy theory by referring to one guy's affidavit and some dude's blog?

And from this you are convinced that Sanders was robbed of the nomination by election irregularities in multiple states

Not only do you seem to have that conspiracy theory thing going, but ou also seem to be going through the five stages of grief:

Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance

I can make guesses as to where you are in this process, but only you can make a correct determination.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
113. alabama
Sat May 7, 2016, 03:22 PM
May 2016

On his 'stolen' 2002 election: "I went to bed the winner. The media had been sent home. The pollworkers had been sent home. The party chairmen had been given their copies of the election results. And then after midnight a light went on in the basement of the capitol, the basement of the courthouse, in the sheriff's office, and 5,200 votes that were mine were shifted to my opponent."

http://bradblog.com/?p=6335

if you do not care if our elections are free and fair, that is not on me

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
114. Says one person who may well be lying
Sat May 7, 2016, 04:42 PM
May 2016

Do you believe everything you read on the internet ,or just what you chose to believe?

If it gives you comfort to believe that the entire process was rigged and that is the only reason why your candidate lost - who am I do deny you the comfort you seek.

You might enjoy listening to President Obama's commencement address at Howard University which he delivered today. In one section he was speaking directly to people like you.

Watch: Obama’s full speech to graduates at Howard University

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
116. Huh?
Sat May 7, 2016, 10:45 PM
May 2016


I figured you wouldn't look it up, and you probably wouldn't recognize its relation to you if you did, so I pulled out the paragraph which reminded me of you out of the transcript of President Obama's commencement address at Howard college. It was part of the advice the President gave to the graduates:

And democracy requires compromise, even when you are 100 percent right. This is hard to explain sometimes. You can be completely right, and you still are going to have to engage folks who disagree with you. If you think that the only way forward is to be as uncompromising as possible, you will feel good about yourself, you will enjoy a certain moral purity, but you’re not going to get what you want. And if you don’t get what you want long enough, you will eventually think the whole system is rigged. And that will lead to more cynicism, and less participation, and a downward spiral of more injustice and more anger and more despair. And that's never been the source of our progress. That's how we cheat ourselves of progress.

Obama's full remarks at Howard University commencement ceremony



 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
78. Deflection noted...
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:53 PM
May 2016

Not a single mention or attempt to address any factual point I made, noted

SD point especially...

Ideology will always trump establishment, this has been proven throughout human history regardless of governance or attempts to control...

Folks like me scare the hell outta establishment folks like you, not because of us but of what our ideology does over time within humanity, you can't dictate nor control the pace of ideas and evolution the ideology generates... this is the power of activism and that is the detail that scares ya, you see that immediately in your recent reply

You can post and post and post to the contrary but you're losing, time crushes establishment entities with 100% accuracy, so your eventual loss will occur, it's the 'when' you're trying to control and on that we can take bets... care to wager?

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
85. Your "factual points" were non existant
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:48 AM
May 2016

Only fools and paranoid individuals fear those who are not a threat. Another symptom of the radical left and the radical right (they are more alike than different you know - see the Horseshoe Principle of Political Science) is that they over estimate their own importance.

Those on the radical left and the radical right have been trying to take over this country from the "establishment" for the last 200 years. And they will still be trying unsuccessfully when you are dead and gone. Radicals may call attention to a country's problems, but it is always the more moderate establishment politicians like FDR and LBJ who implement the the necessary changes. Radicals aren't leaders, they are agitators, and they are forever on the outside looking in, feeling locked out by the establishment.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
87. Radicals are leaders!
Fri May 6, 2016, 01:36 AM
May 2016

Who the hell is George Washington? Abraham Lincoln? FDR? Teddy?

Sorry but radicals go down in history!

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
93. And Bernie Sanders will also go down in history....
Fri May 6, 2016, 11:42 AM
May 2016

....as a footnote.

Every one you named, with the possible exception of Lincoln, was a member of the establishment. None were outside of the thinking of the majority of their countrymen of their day, and that includes Lincoln. The abolition movement had been prominent in colonial politics since well before the American revolution and was probably the main bone of contention in the framing of the constitution. Well before 1850 it was The issue in American politics and the majority of the citizens of the US believed that slavery should be abolished. So Lincoln was not out of the mainstream in this regard. The fact that both Washington and FDR were perfectly in line with the prevailing thinking of their times is illustrated by their great popularity.

In addition everyone of of these men was a leader during extraordinarily tumultuous and difficult times for their country. The majority of the people were calling for change. This enabled to them take drastic actions to deal with extraordinary situations. Under ordinary circumstances their actions would probably not have been condoned by the majority of their countrymen.

To compare those men to Bernie Sanders is outrageous on its face, but let's do it anyway. While the men you name were mostly members of the establishment and were perfectly in line with the prevailing thinking of their time, Sanders is quite the opposite. By his own choice he has always been an outsider whose thinking and proposed solutions have always been totally outside of the mainstream.

In addition, while Sanders has made an important issue, income inequality, the centerpiece of his campaign, the condition of the country and it's people is no way compatible to those faced in the times of Washington, Lincoln and FDR. While Sanders was able to raise the interests of many people by pointing out extent of income inequality, the issue pales in comparison to the issues of which lead to the American Revolution, the Civil War, and those where many were out of work and their families near starving.

The bottom line: The REVOLUTION failed because of two reasons: The times weren't ripe for it, and it was lead by a man whose thinking and solutions were outside of the mainstream thinking of his countryman.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
97. As a footnote?
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:12 PM
May 2016

The guy who raised political discussion in an age when people hate politicians and got people involved all over again with passion and conviction will be a footnote?

I think you misunderstood however what it is I said.

I went after your point about how revolutionaries aren't leaders, it actually had nothing to do with Bernie but rather what you stated as a sweeping generalization.

See, I didn't make it about Bernie.

The revolution you think failed? Tell us why a state like California is seeing voter registration explode? You say Bernie's thinking is outside the mainstream yet offer no facts backing up in your assertion which is ironic considering most American's agree with the guy;

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/more-and-more-americans-agree-bernie-sanders-and-not-just-those-who-identify-left

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/12/bernie-sanders-says-americans-back-his-agenda-and-hes-mostly-right/

So you say the revolution is dead. We're only just beginning. You think this is about Bernie? It's a whole lot more than just that. It's about what kind of country we should be.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
99. The revolution is still born
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:52 PM
May 2016

It's was storm full of thunder and cloud lightning, but like many storms it dissipated without producing any fundamental change.

Many Sanders supporters called the Sanders movement a once in a lifetime opportunity for them which would never come again; that's one of the reasons the worked so hard. I agree with them.

Bernie Sanders will return to being a Senator from the very small state of Vermont; he is registered as an independent candidate for his next election. The movement will elect no US Senator and no US Representatives. The "establishments" in both parties will still be charge.

When Sanders retires, he is soon to be 75, there is no young socialist with any kind of credentials in the wings ready to pick up the banner of the Revolution. Even if there were a natural successor, the revolution will go nowhere for the the next eight years of Hillary's Presidency. Hopefully by the time she leaves office there will be far less reasons for a revolution. That would be a good thing for you, me, and everyone else.

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
92. So...
Fri May 6, 2016, 09:00 AM
May 2016

'Only fools and paranoid individuals fear those who are not a threat'
which might you fall under then? Let me explain...

'Those on the radical left and the radical right have been trying to take over this country from the "establishment" for the last 200 years'
you're incorrect, we don't need to 'take over', the very nature of the 'organism', which is humanity, is beholden to evolution and that involves those slight changes or mutations that push that organism to a better and different state of being

Again, SDs were created as an artificial control attempt against folks like us within the DEM party, a pretty powerful reaction from the so called 'establishment' against folks that 'aren't leaders, they are agitators, and they are forever on the outside looking in' don't ya think? If your reply were to be taken with any value then you'd have to explain away SDs and the reason they exist.

You have yet to address SDs once in any of your replies, your continued avoidance is duly noted

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
95. And Bernie Sanders will also go down in history....
Fri May 6, 2016, 11:45 AM
May 2016

....as a footnote.

Every one you named, with the possible exception of Lincoln, was a member of the establishment. None were outside of the thinking of the majority of their countrymen of their day, and that includes Lincoln. The abolition movement had been prominent in colonial politics since well before the American revolution and was probably the main bone of contention in the framing of the constitution. Well before 1850 it was The issue in American politics and the majority of the citizens of the US believed that slavery should be abolished. So Lincoln was not out of the mainstream in this regard. The fact that both Washington and FDR were perfectly in line with the prevailing thinking of their times is illustrated by their great popularity.

In addition everyone of of these men was a leader during extraordinarily tumultuous and difficult times for their country. The majority of the people were calling for change. This enabled to them take drastic actions to deal with extraordinary situations. Under ordinary circumstances their actions would probably not have been condoned by the majority of their countrymen.

To compare those men to Bernie Sanders is outrageous on its face, but let's do it anyway. While the men you name were mostly members of the establishment and were perfectly in line with the prevailing thinking of their time, Sanders is quite the opposite. By his own choice he has always been an outsider whose thinking and proposed solutions have always been totally outside of the mainstream.

In addition, while Sanders has made an important issue, income inequality, the centerpiece of his campaign, the condition of the country and it's people is no way compatible to those faced in the times of Washington, Lincoln and FDR. While Sanders was able to raise the interests of many people by pointing out extent of income inequality, the issue pales in comparison to the issues of which lead to the American Revolution, the Civil War, and those where many were out of work and their families near starving.

The bottom line: The REVOLUTION failed because of two reasons: The times weren't ripe for it, and it was lead by a man whose thinking and solutions were outside of the mainstream thinking of his countryman.

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
96. nothing to 'get over'....
Fri May 6, 2016, 11:48 AM
May 2016

it's basic biology, either you evolve or you die... establishment is by it's very nature static, humanity isn't static the people evolve and 100% of the time every time Establishment gets crushed and new 'establishment' rises

The only thing 'still born' here is your argument... get over it...

have a day!

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
100. You don't know your biology or politics
Fri May 6, 2016, 01:20 PM
May 2016

Many trees, insects, reptiles, and fish like sharks have maintained their present forms for hundreds of millions of years, even when other plants and creatures around them continued to evolve. Their evolution ended when mutants of their species proved to be less successful than their original forms. Plants and animals continue to evolve only when their mutants prove more successful than the original copies in coping with their environments.

In like manner successful political systems are less subject to evolution, or revolution for that matter. Our system has changed over time, but mostly incrementally except at times of great unrest - the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Great Depression. The prevailing position of the general population has moved to the left, and then to the right, and then back again many times like a pendulum, but whenever that pendulum came anywhere close to the extremes it move back again in the opposite direction. There is a self correcting mechanism of no one's making in place. Whenever the voters of our country move the pendulum too far to the left or too far to the right, the dangers of the extremes are revealed to them and they back away. It has happened time and time again and it will continue to happen in the future.

Our political system is not vulnerable to "Revolutions" except at times of great stress and we all have to hope that extremely stressful times are nowhere in our future.

Hopeful our children, our grand children, and their grand children will be dead and gone before there is fertile ground in which a "revolution" can grow and prosper.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
11. Nobody does identity politics like the GOP.
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:06 PM
May 2016

I refer you to this: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-gop-practices-purest-most-obnoxious-identity-politics-ever

Underestimating white (male) privilege and failing to recognize that social injustice is distinct from (while also linked to) economic injustice is no way to bring about a sustainable, comprehensive political revolution. Whether Sanders or his supporters do this or if it's just the perception many have doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that the (bulk of the) base of the Democratic Party, specifically POC and women, isn't willing to risk a relative unknown against an increasingly dangerous Republican Party.

Beware the folks who suggest being "color blind." " target="_blank">



That said, it's certainly a positive thing if Sanders gets to have a say in the party platform. It could be a stepping stone toward systemic change. One can hope.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
17. You mistake the base of the party as being a wedge. Those that dismiss us are self-marginalizing.
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:21 PM
May 2016

Our time is coming, because society is not this gender and color blind place you pretend it is with this "identity" bullshit.
Civil rights being dismissed? Go find another party, because we are not playing that any longer.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
24. Women and POC are the largest reliable voting blocks we Dems have. It is time to respect that
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:32 PM
May 2016

instead of trying to dismiss it as unimportant. Our lives are on the line, so we turn out.

Attorney in Texas

(3,373 posts)
27. You are partly wrong and partly talking nonsense. You are wrong because Democrats are 60% white, 22%
Thu May 5, 2016, 04:03 PM
May 2016

Last edited Thu May 5, 2016, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

black, 13% Hispanic, and 3% Asian and other and undesignated.

You are talking nonsense with respect to women because women make up a majority of all voters and so naturally they make up a majority of Democrat-leaning. However, men also identify 44% as Democrat-leaning and 43% as Republican-leaning. How strongly women identify as Democratic-leaning has as much to do with whether they are married (less Democratic) and have children (less Democratic) or as single and childless (very much more Democratic).

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
39. A Pew Research Center study from just a year ago...
Thu May 5, 2016, 05:37 PM
May 2016

...says 40% of Democrats are white. White males with some college or less make up just 33% of Democrats or Democrat-leaning voters.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

Anyway, my OP doesn't claim having POC and women strongly behind the candidate is the *only* key to winning, but I do firmly believe it's the most important ingredient. Those who have the most at stake, in our white supremacist and patriarchal society, can't afford to take chances.

Attorney in Texas

(3,373 posts)
44. Are you being misleading or are you incapable of interpreting the data you linked?
Thu May 5, 2016, 06:08 PM
May 2016

The data you posted said 40% of whites are Democrats (as opposed to 49% who identify as Republicans). Likewise, the data you link suggests that 33% of white men who have not completed college identify as Democrats (which does not mean white males with some college or less make up just 33% of Democrats).

You see that distinction, right? The same study says 80% of blacks are Democrats, which does not mean that 80% of Democrats are black, agreed?

Either you posted this data in an effort to mislead or you failed to grasp this grade-school-level distinction. Which is it? Please let me know because I can understand a mistake, but if you posted this argument despite knowing that you were being misleading, I need to discount everything you will ever post in the future.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
46. Nope, you're right, I misinterpreted the data.
Thu May 5, 2016, 06:13 PM
May 2016

A silly mistake. Maybe not on par with those who post misleading 2-color maps and promote the Clinton-Dixie meme that was so popular earlier in the campaign, but a mistake nonetheless. It doesn't change how I feel about the OP and everything else I posted in this thread. The key to winning in November is having the core of the base solidly behind the candidate. Those who are mistreated most often in our society must have a strong buy-in.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
52. What does do harm, though...
Thu May 5, 2016, 06:33 PM
May 2016

...is promoting the Clinton-Dixie/Bible Belt meme and simplistic 2-color maps, which was popular early on in this campaign. Talk about misleading. I wrote about those things here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511460282. And here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511559961.

And promoting grand conspiracy theories with no basis in reality. One of many examples was a thread started late Tuesday night claiming there were no headlines about Sanders winning Indiana even though there were headlines about his victory all over the place (every major newspaper, the websites of every television news channel, Yahoo, Politico, HuffPo, etc.).

Attorney in Texas

(3,373 posts)
57. There can be no doubt that Hillary has regional appeal in the 13 states of the Deep South and that
Thu May 5, 2016, 07:02 PM
May 2016

Hillary is not the favorite in the 47 states outside the Deep South.

Give Hillary those 12 of those 13 states which are a good match for her conservative/centrist/Christian-church-going ideology and persona. That is a real victory that counts for about 20% of the country. But look at how Hillary does outside of the 13 states of the Deep South:


SANDERS WON 18 STATES
New Hampshire
Colorado
Minnesota
Oklahoma
Vermon
Kansas
Nebraska
Maine
Michigan
Idaho
Utah
Alaska
Hawaii
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Rhode Island
Indiana

HILLARY WON 12 STATES
Iowa
Nevada
Massachusetts
Illinois
Missouri
Ohio
Arizona
New York
Connecticut
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania



If you look at the contest outside of the Old South, Sanders won 60% of the states, but if you add her 12 states in the Old South to her 12 states outside of the Old South -- as we both agree you MUST -- she's got over 55% of the states.

This is a regionally important factor (not a racial factor, not a gender factor), and a significant data point that Hillary performs worse than Sanders outside of her region and whips his ass within her region.

Without her overwhelming support in the Deep South, Hillary is losing this race. This is an important thing to know.

If Sanders is out nominee, it is important that he strengthen his support in the regions where he is weak and maybe not retool his campaign so much where he's pretty much already on fire.

It is equally important information if Hillary is the nominee because Hillary must be aware that she's not winning this race outside of her region and she should make adjustments to her campaign accordingly.

These are facts. You can put an artificial racial construct on these facts, but that's superfluous and, even if it weren't superfluous, it does not change the fact that Hillary is winning only because of her regional appeal in the Deep South. Hillary needs to know when she is trying to broaden her appeal, she's Democrats' second choice in almost half the states. It is not a racist thing to point this out; it's a demonstrable fact.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
58. That's all extremely misleading for a number of reasons.
Thu May 5, 2016, 07:17 PM
May 2016

I refer you again to the 2 links in my last reply. I address the many flaws inherent in posts like yours.

Attorney in Texas

(3,373 posts)
60. Do you think Hillary won New Hampshire Colorado Minnesota Oklahoma Vermont Kansas Nebraska
Thu May 5, 2016, 07:41 PM
May 2016

Maine Michigan Idaho Utah Alaska Hawaii Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Rhode Island or Indiana?

Do you dispute that she won more consistently and by bigger margins in the Old South as compared to any other region?

Unless you dispute the data or the noticeable geographical clustering of those data points, what is misleading?

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
82. That's an arbitrary division though.
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:18 AM
May 2016

You can just as easily divide the states in ways that look bad for Sanders.

How about only looking at...

States that were blue in 2012:
Clinton won 13: New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois, Wisconsin, Nevada, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Florida

Sanders won 9: Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Colorado

or

States that were red in 2012:
Clinton won 11: North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas

Sanders won 8: Nebraska, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah

or

Swing states:
Clinton won 5: Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Virginia, Florida
Sanders won 2: Colorado, New Hampshire

or

States with 10 or more electoral votes:
Clinton won 15: Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Arizona, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Maryland, Missouri, Wisconsin,
Sanders won 4: Michigan, Washington, Indiana, Minnesota

Ouch. Can't find a much better illustration of the limits of his small state rural support than that last one!

Attorney in Texas

(3,373 posts)
98. It is not an arbitrary division. The Old South states vote similarly, just as the West Coast states
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:14 PM
May 2016

vote similarly, and the Rust Belt states tend to vote similarly, and the North East states tent to vote similarly.

If you want to divide the states between blue 2012 states and red 2012 states, that makes some sense because it shows a certain remote similarity, but Mississippi and Alabama vote much more similarly to one another than, say, Mississippi and Alaska. Considering blue 2012 states and red 2012 states and then further dividing them by voting pattern similarity, shared regional culture and history, shared regional economic interests, etc., you get an even more coherent analysis - which is what I offered you.

Dividing states by whether they are battleground states or not does not provide much useful information because Ohio, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia and Florida have very little in common economically, historically, demographically, culturally, etc. This offers little basis to generalize across the states you purport to group together (i.e., how Florida votes gives you little insight in how New Hampshire is going to vote whereas how the Florida panhandle votes is a pretty damn good indicator of how Alabama is going to vote).

Dividing states by whether they have 10 or more electoral votes is completely meaningless. Texas and California, for example, vote nothing alike. If anything, you could almost use Texas as a negative correlation to how California will vote. That's a useless division.

If you don't recognize that the Old South tends to operate as a solid voting block, your US history teacher should be ashamed.

The Old South is a fairly unique region religiously:



The Old South is a fairly unique region in its slowness to accept LGBT equality:



The Old South is a fairly unique region in its acknowledgement of collective bargaining rights:




The Old South is a fairly unique region both in terms of its historical approach to education and it current approach:





http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PevJxpViUcE/U2mmb0OzPYI/AAAAAAAAHCU/0aWhygBX5gk/s1600/high+school+graduation+rates.png

The Old South is a fairly unique region in terms of its poor access to health care and poor transportation to health care facilities and resulting obesity and diabetes and teen pregnancy:







http://notunlikeresearch.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f1fb8812970b014e89d296b1970d-pi



If you do not believe that the Old South is a unique region with special needs, you are fooling yourself.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
101. It's an arbitrary division because it's irrelevant to how voting actually works.
Fri May 6, 2016, 01:29 PM
May 2016

Those states get to vote in the primary, and their votes count toward the nomination. Separating them out is meaningless.

If your point is that she won a bunch of conservative states then fine, separate out all of the conservative states and only look at blue states. She still wins those. Or look just at the swing states that might actually decide the election. She wins those. Or look at where the majority of people actually live. Large urban population centers in the states with the biggest number of electoral votes. She wins those.

But you want to remove the conservative states that she won, but still count all of the conservative states that Sanders won, and then pretend like that actually says something meaningful about the two candidates? It's nonsense.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
14. Do you really think the large majority of liberal women and POC won't vote for Bernie in the GE?
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:16 PM
May 2016

I don't get that impression at all...

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
16. I worry that not enough would. I worry that turnout would suffer.
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:19 PM
May 2016

I worry that the base wouldn't be solidly enough behind Sanders. I'm not saying Sanders couldn't win. I'm saying I wouldn't feel (nearly) as confident about the Democratic candidate winning.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
21. I agree turnout would suffer...but not by as much, I suspect, as you do.
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:27 PM
May 2016

Black turnout would drop a bit...but I think it would be made up by liberal independents and young voters (who won't show up in large numbers for Hillary). Obviously the Latino turnout will be very high regardless of Democratic candidate...Trump's racist babble assures that.

My biggest turnout issue with Clinton is actually Republican turnout. I see her significantly boosting far-RW turnout. There may be no more hated person in America for many of that crowd.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
103. Yep, Republican turnout will be extremely high
Fri May 6, 2016, 02:26 PM
May 2016

and will be boosted all of the Republican establishment leaders are jumping on the Trump train. They are all so enthusiastic. I guess that when all of my Republican friends say that there is now way they could ever vote for Trump, they are just kidding me.

For those who few who didn't notice

tom-servo

(185 posts)
19. Neither do I...
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:26 PM
May 2016

I think POC and women will vote for the Democratic nominee against Trump no matter who the nominee is.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
25. Yep, look at their constituencies based on the 2012 voter demographics.
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:36 PM
May 2016

The Sanders coalition:
Independents - 29% of voters (50% went to Romney, 45% to Obama)
18-30 year olds - 19% of voters

The Clinton coalition:
Democrats - 38% of voters
Women - 53% of voters
People of color - 28% of voters

This idea that indies and millennials are all that matters doesn't really match the numbers.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
26. Or here's another way to look at it.
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:46 PM
May 2016

18-30 year olds who voted for Obama in 2012 made up 11.4% of the electorate.
30+ year olds who voted for Obama made up 39% of the electorate.

Independents who voted for Obama were 13% of the electorate.
Democrats who voted for Obama were 35% of the electorate.

Men who voted for Obama were 21% of the electorate.
Women were 29%

 

TM99

(8,352 posts)
59. What you fail to take into account
Thu May 5, 2016, 07:29 PM
May 2016

and I see this is tons of threads is that in 2008, the number of registered Democrats was far higher than today.

Today, less than 30% are Democrats, less than 30% are Republicans, and almost 50% are now independents.

Do y'all live under some strange delusion that half of those left leaning independents are just white males?

They are PoC, whites, both genders and orientation.

This is going to be a very different election year and independent will decide it for either the left or the right. Trump IS the independent's choice on the right. Now it is up to the Democrats how to figure out how to deal with their independents. Thus far, they are dismissing them, insulting them, and threatening them that they must vote for 'her' or they are voting for 'him'.

This isn't going to work this year.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
63. You're making a lot of assumptions.
Thu May 5, 2016, 08:04 PM
May 2016

Is the number of registered Democrats today actually lower, or simply the percentage of the total? You're ignoring the fact that in between 2008 and today, the tea party emerged and swelled the ranks of "independent" registered voters with right wing crazies.

Also it's less important imo to look at the total percentage of registered independents vs democrats and more important to look at how many of them actually voted in the last presidential election. In 2012, 29% of voters were registered independents, and 50% of them voted for Romney, only 45% for Obama, and only 5% were third party voters. 38% of voters were democrats, and 92% of them voted for Obama, 7% for Romney, 1% for "other."

So the 45% of indies who voted for Obama only represented 13% of the total electorate in 2012 (45% of 29%). That's a much smaller coalition than people of color or women, let alone registered Democrats.

And don't you think that a large percentage of the independents who voted for Obama in his second term will vote for a member of Obama's cabinet and essentially a continuation of the Obama administration? If they were so disillusioned with Obama and the party they probably wouldn't have voted for his second term. And that was against a pretty milquetoast republican candidate. Fear of Trump is going to turn out left leaning indies far more than opposition to Romney did.

If there is in fact a huge new groundswell of left leaning independent voters who weren't registered as indies in 2012 it probably comes mostly from newly registered young people. That's not to say that they're not important, that they're ideas aren't great, or that we don't need or want them in the party, but at worst they're going to stay home. They're most likely not going to vote for Trump. And again, looking at 2012, the 18-30 demographic was only 19% of the electorate and they went 60-40 for Obama. So young people for Obama were only 11.4% of the electorate.

 

TM99

(8,352 posts)
65. Your first paragraphs tells me
Thu May 5, 2016, 08:07 PM
May 2016

you don't shit.

The Tea Party has won locals, state, and national elections as REPUBLICANS.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
66. Of course they're Republicans, that's my point.
Thu May 5, 2016, 08:14 PM
May 2016

But 41% of Tea Party supporters consider themselves "independents"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-supporters-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/

The increase in voters registered as independents since 2008 is probably in large part due to disaffected Republicans who left the party but still actually vote for people with an R next to their name. They're not going to vote for Sanders or Clinton.

Also for the record I do in fact shit. It sure would be convenient if I didn't have to though!

tom-servo

(185 posts)
41. I think the question is...
Thu May 5, 2016, 05:44 PM
May 2016

...what segment of the population will vote for Clinton but not for Sanders, right?

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
42. Not really.
Thu May 5, 2016, 05:50 PM
May 2016

It's about the key to winning in November, the key to having the best shot at getting to 270 electoral college votes. And I think having POC and women strongly behind the candidate is the #1 key. Not the only key, but the single most important ingredient.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
64. Huh?
Thu May 5, 2016, 08:07 PM
May 2016

You asked what percentage will vote for Clinton but not Sanders. That seems irrelevant considering that Clinton is the presumptive nominee at this point. I don't understand your point. Did you mean what percentage will vote for Sanders and not Clinton?

tom-servo

(185 posts)
72. If everyone who would vote for Clinton would also vote for Sanders
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:06 PM
May 2016

then the independents who would vote only for Sanders make him a stronger candidate. I was asking if you could think of a segment of Clinton voters that would not show up for Sanders. I'm not sure there is one, and unfortunately for Clinton the race isn't over yet.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
73. Right so you're saying we should let a small minority of voters overturn the will of the majority
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:11 PM
May 2016

of the democratic base? Clinton supporters are the real progressives who will support whichever candidate we have to in order to prevent President Trump. On the other hand a certain percentage of Sanders supporters want to hold our party hostage if they don't get their way despite the fact that they're in the losing minority.

tom-servo

(185 posts)
76. That's putting a few words in my mouth, but...
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:42 PM
May 2016

...I am asking if the party really wants to field a weaker and less progressive candidate if at the convention there is only, say, a difference of a 100 delegates.

The independents I'm referring to are the ones that haven't voted in the primaries but will vote in the general election. They aren't members of the party so they can't really hold the party hostage as you suggest, but they will express a preference in the general election regardless of how the democratic party feels about it.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
80. Well if she's winning then the party clearly does want it and she's clearly not the weaker candidate
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:56 PM
May 2016

The current difference in delegates is 321, not 100 and it's incredibly likely that Clinton's lead will grow, not shrink. Obama only had a 102 vote PD lead over Clinton in 2008.

By the way, 23 of the races are open or semi-open primaries and caucuses, so independents certainly can vote in those. And she won 11 out of the 15 open primaries. And if you include all open and semi-open primaries and caucuses, she won 12 of them to Bernie's 8.

And the only swing states with open or semi-open races that have voted are Ohio, Iowa, and Virginia, and she won all three of them.

tom-servo

(185 posts)
81. Do you know how much of the independent vote she got in those states?
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:15 AM
May 2016

Clinton is a household name, so it's not at all clear that because she is winning by ~300 delegates that she is the stronger candidate. I am assuming Senator Sanders is stronger with independents, but I wouldn't mind seeing figures that disprove that.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
83. Does it matter?
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:21 AM
May 2016

He might be stronger with independents, but if she's winning races in open primaries anyway then how does it matter?

I mean the complaint is that independents didn't get to vote, right? But she has won more of the states with open primaries where independents can vote. So that seems like pretty strong proof that she can win without winning more independents. And common sense says at least some of those independents will vote for Clinton in the GE.

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
29. You are saying POC and women will not show up to vote for Bernie in the GE should he win?
Thu May 5, 2016, 04:20 PM
May 2016

And here Hillary supporters are trashing Bernie supporters who will not show up to vote for her. I think all people being equal you all need to shut the fuck up and quit complaining about Bernie supporters doing what you are just fine with women and POC doing. Sitting it out because they don't like the candidate. Hypocritical in my opinion.

As a Latina woman I have been the base for over 40 years and I can ill afford to take a chance on Hillary.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
34. Nobody is saying that.
Thu May 5, 2016, 05:02 PM
May 2016

Clearly a huge majority of Clinton's supporters would show up and vote for Bernie if he were the nominee. But it's looking like she's going to be the nominee. Instead of all of this doom and gloom about independents and millennials, people should be happy that our nominee has a strong base of support from the bigger demographic groups that actually help democrats win elections.

Some people are essentially saying that we should overturn the will of those larger groups of voters in favor of the wishes of independents, because we can take women and people of color for granted, but indies and millennials are threatening to stay home or vote Trump or third party. It's a weird argument to make and not at all democratic or Democratic.

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
35. Did you miss this from the OP?
Thu May 5, 2016, 05:09 PM
May 2016
having POC and women solidly behind the candidate. Like it or not, the candidate who fits that description is Clinton. As unpopular as Trump is, I would worry about Democratic turnout if Sanders were to be nominated.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
37. Yeah I did.
Thu May 5, 2016, 05:14 PM
May 2016

But in general I don't think we're seeing the same level of opposition from Clinton supporters. There don't seem to be huge cries for "anyone but Bernie" or people threatening to pull their support if he wins in quite the same way we're seeing it from the Sanders side. Wouldn't you agree? After all, that's the argument right, that women and people of color can be relied on to vote for either candidate and they're certainly not going to vote for Trump, but we can't say the same about indies and millennials, so we should nominate the candidate who better excites them. Problem is, that candidate is way behind in actual votes, so it's an argument to overturn the will of the voters and the wishes of the strongest and most reliable portion of the Democratic base.

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
67. I will comment on this, my lousy good for nothing Senator is a SD for Hillary.
Thu May 5, 2016, 08:21 PM
May 2016

Bernie won, that guy says he will vote for Hillary no matter that Bernie won. Now give me a break on that Bernie is overturning the will of the voters bullshit. Bennett is willing to "overturn the will of the voters and the wishes of the strongest and most reliable portion of the Democratic base." Every person in my precinct has been a democratic voter for years with the addition of a few young democrats. I was a registered democrat for over 40 years, never voted for anyone other than a democrat in my life,

Overturn the will of the voters is a crap ass bull shit excuse to trash Bernie. Fuck the SDs

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
68. eh
Thu May 5, 2016, 08:52 PM
May 2016

First off I never said that Bernie is overturning the will of the voters, just that the "think of the independents" arguments are kind of meaningless and some of those people are literally asking to overturn the majority of democratic primary voters.

The focus on the super delegates is also fairly meaningless considering that Clinton is winning both pledged delegates and supers. So even if we distributed SDs proportionally based on the results in each state, Clinton would still be winning. Your Senator voting against the choice of his constituents is not really changing anything and is largely symbolic. That being the case, he should probably switch as a show of good will.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
40. Yep, that's what I wrote.
Thu May 5, 2016, 05:40 PM
May 2016

But it doesn't mean I'm "saying POC and women will not show up to vote for Bernie in the GE." You're taking what I wrote (i.e., worry that turnout would suffer to an extent) and turning it into something else entirely. As I told you above, see post #16.

Anyway, I second what ContinentalOp had to say.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
32. Touché
Thu May 5, 2016, 04:44 PM
May 2016

Last edited Thu May 5, 2016, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

I guess by "a key" I just mean the base, particularly those who are most often mistreated historically and at present.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
38. I'm sure that relates to my OP somehow.
Thu May 5, 2016, 05:26 PM
May 2016

Anyway, turnout (among youth or otherwise) in mid-term elections is certainly a big problem, and the party represented in the White House typically suffers the most.

 

Betty Karlson

(7,231 posts)
90. So you will win on conventional wisdom then?
Fri May 6, 2016, 04:40 AM
May 2016

Good luck with that. Might as well replace the donkey for an ostrich.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
43. Very good post, but our base, including me, are pretty much solidly
Thu May 5, 2016, 06:04 PM
May 2016

behind our candidate.

IMO, the key is getting out our other voting blocks in the numbers we need. Hispanics are huge; they are less relatively monolithic a block than the Blacks have fairly successfully organized into, conservatism being a stronger force in their current choice, and we need to fight to get as many of their votes as possible. They won't vote for Trump, but they often just stay home.

We also have a new block we really need to welcome and nurture: Republicans and right-leaning indies who are refusing to vote for Trump and at this point are, or considering to, cross the ballot.

But the other part of her base almost never mentioned is neither POC or women, but un-angry ordinary folk of any and all backgrounds, the ones who want reliable left-ward change but feel more comfortable working within the system to change it. The ones, in fact, who also explain her otherwise unexplained wins in many states. I'm especially aware of that because I'm one of them. We're boring, we don't rally, we don't rage, and we are both older and younger -- the former usually dismissed, the younger a contradiction to the current meme.

I think that most of us don't vote for sex, sexual orientation, religion, or color as an overriding factor. I know that being able to help elect a black man and a woman are gifts of the times to me, they make me happy and hopeful, but they were not and are not such compelling factors that they would pull me in a different direction than otherwise.

But most importantly, I believe from reading about this, most of us are pretty satisfied and hopeful within the context of current political realities. We voted for Obama, are pleased with what he was able to achieve, and want to repeat that move, hoping for much more. How boring is that? Satisfied people relaxing in their homes don't make good visuals or even copy, but all that counts is who's voting. We're voters. We're reliable voters, and we are the largest block in her "base" and thus an extremely important one, whether the media bothers to mention us or not.

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
45. POC and Women are disproportionately affected by a lower minimum wage.
Thu May 5, 2016, 06:11 PM
May 2016

No paid maternity leave; potential new restrictions on abortion under Clinton

I could go on.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
49. Clinton has proposed raising the minimum wage and has proposed paid maternity leave.
Thu May 5, 2016, 06:17 PM
May 2016

"Potential new restrictions on abortion under Clinton"? Please. I think I'll trust the endorsements of NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
50. Her own words. More recent than those endorsements I think.
Thu May 5, 2016, 06:27 PM
May 2016

PS - It's called the fight for 15 not the fight for twelve.

PPS - She thought 60 cents was too high for Haitian garment workers.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
54. Those organizations likely agree with those who think Clinton is more electable.
Thu May 5, 2016, 06:44 PM
May 2016

And they're confident Clinton won't push for anti-women legislation or Supreme Court Justices.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
51. Anecdotal, of course - but I am a woman, and not only will I not "unite" behind Hillary,
Thu May 5, 2016, 06:33 PM
May 2016

but I don't know any other women who will.

Actually, I don't care how you slice and dice demographics - I think depending on demographics, thanks in a great part to the internet, is on its way out.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
53. The demographic divide is as great as ever.
Thu May 5, 2016, 06:41 PM
May 2016
A Deep Dive into Party Affiliation

Your social circle notwithstanding, it's clear that Clinton has the support of a majority of POC and women.
 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
55. Well, that's really great for her - I would think that all the orders for "unity" would be seen as
Thu May 5, 2016, 06:44 PM
May 2016

superfluous and unnecessary, and disappear, any day now. Here's hoping anyway.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
56. Remember that DU is not representative of the population at large.
Thu May 5, 2016, 06:48 PM
May 2016

I don't really care one way or the other about "orders for unity." When November rolls around, Clinton will likely win well over 270 electoral college votes, regardless of what gets posted on DU.

quaker bill

(8,223 posts)
71. Here is your problem
Thu May 5, 2016, 09:40 PM
May 2016

Hillary has generally won big with women over 50 and POC who show up for primaries.

But you are using the Barack Obama model of the electorate here. I was there, and in line at the polls on election day were large numbers of young POC, many just barely of age to vote, waiting in long lines to vote for Barack.

Hillary does not win or even inspire this segment of the population.

John Kerry won POC and Women here by large margins. The problem was that not so many turned out, and there were nearly no young women or POC in the crowds.

In short, Kerry won my county by 2000 votes. 4 years later Barack Obama won POC and Women by similar percentages (a few points better with POC, but in both cases an overwhelming victory margin) However, the youth turnout among women and POC resulted in a margin of 85,000 votes in the same county that both Gore and Kerry had won by 2000 votes, in 2000 and 2004. Now turnout for Barack was not quite as big in 2012, but he still won by 65,000.

Hillary's electorate looks a lot more like Gore and Kerry's. There is your problem. It is the mass, not so much the margins that matter. Any dem can win women and POC by large margins. The question is how many turn out, and if you want big turnout then the place to add mass is in the demos that have a normal low turnout number, young people.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
74. So what do you suggest we do at this point?
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:13 PM
May 2016

The majority of democratic voters apparently disagree with you. So what next? Are you going to stubbornly cling to this idea that Sanders was the better candidate and attack Clinton all the way until election day?

quaker bill

(8,223 posts)
91. I do not attack Hillary
Fri May 6, 2016, 06:35 AM
May 2016

I donated to and worked for Al Gore and John Kerry. I disagreed with the majority of democratic voters about John Kerry (AKA "Mr. Electability" - the war hero who was going to win so easy).

I do not "stubbornly cling" to any notion. I just know that the majority of democratic voters have chosen poorly before, and history bears this out. In short "best candidate" and the "winner" can be two different people, and more often than not this is the result.

I think it is possible for Hillary to win this thing anyway. We have a bonus in that the Republicans have chosen poorly, perhaps much more poorly than usual (for their side, although McCain/Palin was pretty epic). There is a possibility that Hillary can take bigger slice of the center-right vote.

Her staff are calling the Jeb Bush funders even now (they hate Trump more than Hillary goes the theory) which certainly presages a move to press the "center" into formerly GOP territories. Perhaps this will work.

Reiyuki

(96 posts)
102. Elizabeth Warren and VP Sanders
Fri May 6, 2016, 02:08 PM
May 2016

Clinton is almost guaranteed to win the primaries, but the strong disapproval ratings (almost as high as Trumps!) mean the party establishment may start looking for alternatives.

Sanders is likely to come in second at the convention, but if the leadership is not suicidal they will not simply throw him to the curb and jeopardize the huge chunk of Sanders supporters. So they HAVE to keep him onboard, at least as VP.

Which leaves (Elizabeth Warren (or another congresswoman) with Sanders as her VP.


All of the strengths of a female candidate with better looks and none of the baggage.


Don't you think there's some establishment insiders considering this possibility already?

If the Clinton v. Trump matchups turn south over the next month (which I would bet good money on), expect the insiders to start looking into backup plans..

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
104. You really are living in a dream world
Fri May 6, 2016, 02:33 PM
May 2016

But I'm not worried about disturbing you, we couldn't penetrate your dream bubble with a pitchfork.

Reiyuki

(96 posts)
105. save this post and check back with me mid-July.
Fri May 6, 2016, 02:57 PM
May 2016

I may be wrong and it's an outside prediction for sure, but I have done a lot of analysis on the topic and given recent trends I think it's actually fairly likely.

The Democratic leadership is backing her because they feel she has the best chance of winning. Trump has essentially only started running against her since Tuesday (and he has a recent record of destroying republican challengers). He's not likely to hold back any punches like Sanders has been doing.

If the national polls begin to dip against her over the next 4 weeks, the leadership will have to reevaluate their strategy and come up with alternatives.


If I am wrong, I will gladly cede my hat to you sir/

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The #1 key to the Democra...