Weaver was just asked how did Obama win against Clinton with the same obstacles as Sanders?

[uponit7771]

Obama being an insurgent candidate, running against an establishment person and the similar set of rules that Sanders has been dealing with right now.

Weaver pretty much dodged the question cause they can't answer why Sanders is such a weak candidate.



None one in the Sanders campaign wants to admit the dem base has changed and the power of the DNC electorate is with the Obama coalition and not the coalition Clinton lost with in 08 and the one Sanders is losing with right now.



your take?



tia

[JRLeft]

1. Obama had other corporate dems on his side like Durbin. Obama is a centrist

but more progressive than Hillary. She's a neocon.

[uponit7771]

3. Sanders has dems on his side to right? tia

[JRLeft]

16. Hillary learned from last time and made sure her opponents wouldn't generate enough name

recognition and she got a lot of Democrats to Luke Mitt Romney. "Free Stuff"

Members of this board were outraged by Mitt's comments, but channeled him to attack Bernie with.

[Baobab]

168. Obama was the Hillary of 2008, he was the one with the huge health ****** industry lobby money

him. maybe not publicly, behind the scenes. Money spent on fake bloggers to confuse everybody on what single payer was and wsn't, and pull a bait and switch to prevent single payer.

Paying some huge sum on sock puppets. ($700k a day?)

No way are they spending less on Hillary now.

[TheBlackAdder]

39. I donated & voted for Obama, previously voted for WJC. Obama represented hope and change.

.


In 2008, people rejected pragmatism and had a fresh memory of some of the negatives of WJC's terms.

It seems just like how GOPers have a warmer than normal memory of Ronald Reagan, the same is true of Bill Clinton.


Obama also took advantage of social media, like no other, which was probably the definer to his success.
Now, that is a standard procedure, so there isn't any technological advantage that can be leveraged.


.

[CajunBlazer]

157. I had a similar experience

Except that I contributed to, voted for, and volunteered for the Clinton campaign in the primaries in 2008 and then contributed to, voted for, and volunteered for the Obama campaign during the general election season. My switch was seamless.

[CanadaexPat]

9. Agreed- it was Reid who asked Obama to run.

There's not the same anti-Hillary group.plus it was a more crowded field.

[anotherproletariat]

2. Obama had concrete plans for every item on his agenda. He was able to intelligently articulate

everything he wanted to do once in office. Night and day from Sanders.

[uponit7771]

4. Yeah, I figured that... a podium bird and a greeting with the pope doesn't really count. Weaver...

... could've just said that

[JRLeft]

6. It had more to do with his charisma.

[uponit7771]

13. So he smiled better? Really?

[JRLeft]

19. No, he's a great orator who related to young people.

But he has establishment figures backing him. Bernie didn't he was also backed by Wall Street and Big Pharma.

[uponit7771]

34. What establishment figures backed him when he started, they backed him EVENTUALLY but the ...

... establishment was heavy in favor of Clinton.

[Eric J in MN]

205. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama in January 2008. NT

NT

[uponit7771]

223. at the beginning of his campaign Obama had more endorsements than Clinton!? REALLY?! What is

...this make shit up day for the Sanders camp!?

[imagine2015]

222. Obama was prepared and groomed by the powerful Illinois Democratic Party machine.

[uponit7771]

224. right wing tripe

[Sheepshank]

15. I've been told Bernie has more charisma than Hillary in speeches. Even she admits it

so what Obama had over Bernie, its something Bernie has over Hillary. So that's not it

[uponit7771]

37. +1, they're flailing right now... Fuck Rodd asked a decent question to Weaver and he couldn't addres

... it either.

[Kall]

35. Yeah.

Like campaigning against a private health insurance mandate. Wait, delete, delete.

[anotherproletariat]

42. I can't keep up, are you all against Obama too? Who did you people vote for in the last election?

Or the last couple...

[uponit7771]

97. +1

[Kall]

125. His "concrete plan" obviously wasn't concrete on a core issue like health care.

So I have no idea why you would cite his "concrete plans" as some rationalization on the basis that he was defending them. He later went 180 degrees on his opposition to a private health insurance mandate, which wasn't just a shift in degree, it was a shift in core philosophy, because a mandate to buy for-profit, publicly-traded private health insurance is entrenching the core problem. For a supporter of a Clinton campaign whose health care plan consists of "I'll expand the ACA", you're awfully demanding of the Sanders campaign's single-payer plan, which is twenty times more detailed than anything she's produced.

"I'll expand the ACA" is not a concrete plan that's being defended either. Who will be covered? How will it be covered? How will it be funded? We know that she has no answers for any of these things, she just attacks the person who has provided a plan that does address and answer these questions.

[anotherproletariat]

126. I was drawing attention to the fact that Sanders has no plans, concrete or not. nt

[Kall]

133. Of course he does.

You just breezed past one right there - his single-payer health care plan. It can be witnessed working better than the US health care system in other countries, he's defended it against false attacks that it means "dismantling Medicare" and taking health care from millions, and he included coverage and funding for it. It must bother you that Hillary Clinton has not given you a health care plan, but that's no reason to say that Bernie Sanders hasn't.

[CajunBlazer]

162. Yep, he said he would implemente single-payer health care plan

A pie in the sky plan for which he never addressed how he was going to make it real, except to say that he was going to lead a revolution. (And all this time he never raised on red cent for the Democrat Senate and House candidates to make his dream plausible.)

Why didn't he articulate a plan for passing a single-payer health care plan? Because he had no such plan. Why didn't have a plan? Because he couldn't think on one that would possibably work. It was a pig in a poke and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

[BeyondGeography]

44. Including, and especially, foreign policy, where Sanders is a big zero

Obama ran to Hillary's right on getting Pakistan's say-so to capture bin Laden, which was not only brilliant strategically and the right policy, the thinking that went into it served him well as President. And not just on that issue, obviously. He ran to the left of her on Iran and Cuba, and it all came to pass.

Hillary is tough to beat for a lot of reasons. Showing up for a campaign against her with no original foreign policy thoughts in your head is disqualifying.

[doc03]

5. He couldn't answer that one other than he said Obama ran a great campaign

and he was a great candidate. But I guess it's all rigged this time just to stop Sanders.

[JRLeft]

7. There were far more roadblocks this time. Far less debates and candidates.

[uponit7771]

14. Outside of the number of debates what were the road blocks that were different now than then? tia

[JRLeft]

22. Scroll up.

[uponit7771]

32. Other than an anecdotal "charisma" there's nothing empirical when I scroll up

[JRLeft]

43. Really? The backing of Wall Street, Big Pharma, Monsanto, etc.

TPTB were comfortable with him. The ACA where the public option was eliminated and the government's ability to negotiate with Big Pharma was eliminated. Both funded hid campaign.

[uponit7771]

64. Obama had all of that when he started? No... he didn't and I'm talking about RULES not ...

... anecdotal ascribes to the question

regards

[JRLeft]

77. Actually he did, industry backed him from the beginning, and gave him more money as he gained

name recognition.

[uponit7771]

96. Link and quote on that one, Obama had grass roots money from the beginning seeing he was only

... in congress for 2 years before he ran for president.

There were no big money supporting him from Iowa, mostly after SC... hell, I wasn't on the Obama bus until after SC

I don't know where people are getting this from that Obama just waltzed into office against a nobody.

[JRLeft]

112. He didn't just waltz in but the Third Way talked about him before he ran for Senate.

[uponit7771]

167. JR, Obama did the thing that Sanders couldn't; he EARNED his way into the presidency and now

... that Sanders sees he can't do similar he's whining about it.

The PDs weren't going to pile on to him after he pretty much ignored the "southern states" as Divine said they did...

That was foolish on its face

[dsc]

17. debates yes, candidates not really

Biden dropped out after Iowa, all the rest of the candidates other than Edwards did so before Iowa. It was pretty much a three person race once the voting started. O'Malley did do worse than Edwards but Edwards was out after South Carolina.

[doc03]

57. Bernie has been around Washington for decades if he would have been in the Democratic party

all this time maybe he could have had some of those roadblocks removed. If he was in the Democratic party all this
time he would be one of the senior Democratic Senators. I think the fact that he has so few of his fellow Senators
and Representatives that are willing to endorse him speaks for itself.

[uponit7771]

107. +1, or if he had some proof that his ideals of revolution worked even in his own state he would've..

.. had a leg up and could show people how it worked instead of just claiming "collective energy" bullshit like he did in the Maddow interview

[highprincipleswork]

8. Clinton is only barely winning with whatever coalition she has. If they keep dumping on the Sanders

side of the party, they are going to be a very weakened half a party.

One cannot divide the Party into the neat coalitions they mention in this article. What can be said is that the Reagan Revolution is now observably over, even in the candidacy of Donald Trump, and if the Democratic Party thinks it will be stronger with post-Reagan 90's style Clintonian triangulation, waffling, and Republican-courting, THEY ARE SORELY MISTAKEN!

The times are calling for a PROGRESSIVE SOLUTION (there, I didn't call it a revolution, you happy?)

I just know that Hillary and the PTB can change their spots enough if it means victory in November and their jobs and a new Democratic Party era that rivals the successes of FDR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[uponit7771]

21. Clinton has 3 million more votes now than Obama had then and FDR had an 80% dem congress in both

... houses where the SoTH can set legislation that was veto proof.

I wish Sanders supporters would learn the rules of a campaign and the US government

[highprincipleswork]

63. Listen friend, we'd have more Democrats in Congress if the Democrats we have didn't act like such

lily-livered hypocrites and Republican wannabees. That's just where it's at. The Clintons and those like them came up with "triangulation" and their own brand of compromise and so forth as a reaction to the success of Ronald Reagan. Have had mixed success with it ever since, as the Democrats go further rightward and the Republicans go even further towards batshit crazy. This is the kind of direction you support?

Clinton supporters are apparently mostly good at being condescending, usually without good cause. We could whip out our relative degrees and areas of knowledge as to history, life, and the workings of the political system, but what a childish game and waste of time.

After all is said and done, we are supposed to be on the same side, though you'd hardly know it. Mostly because the Clintonians will not accept us and diss us. Not because we won't accept you. Funny thing, though. You diss us, and still claim to want the same things.

i really doubt that Hilary has 3 million more votes now than Barack had in 2008. You'd have to show me the stats, because he ended with about 17.5 million, and she's only got about 13 million right now. In any case, if she only wants those and explicitly doesn't want the support of Bernie Sanders' supporters, then she's probably doing just fine. And if she and you enjoy bashing Progressive policies like those Bernie supports, all the while that your candidate borrows from them freely during debates (probably lying out of her teeth) and then you support that hypocrisy and the likely veering to the Right that is going to come, well then I really doh't want to be in the same party as you anyway.

Which is it? Are we going to work on the same team or not?

[uponit7771]

65. or we'd have a congress if Sanders would bring his "revolution" to bear in the past but he didn't

... he just wants to camplaign

[highprincipleswork]

72. If you read any of my posts around here, you'd know that my opinion is that the time is ripe now,

and that is why Bernie has been as successful as he has been.

The time is ripe for a Progressive Solution (or revolution, for those who can handle that word) in direct opposition to the Clintonian triangulation politics that were formulated in response to Ronald Reagan.

There are a number of powerful indicators that the Reagan Revolution is dead, not the least of which is the nomination of Donald Trump.

We cannot afford to keep waffling, dissembling, lying, disappointing our base or large factions of our base. We cannot continue to act like the police state ourselves while voicing against it.

Bernie got into this very reluctantly. He is as surprised as anybody at his success. I'm sure he'd give it over to anybody else in a minute if he thought they'd actually go through with it, including Hillary. He's hanging in to try to make sure the PTB finally get how popular an idea this really is today. Seriously, we are not going back to the 90's no matter what we do, and nobody's really that interested in trying!!!!

[Jitter65]

86. Her coalition will be stronger in the GE against Trump. Bet on it!!! nt

[highprincipleswork]

93. I'm not betting on any such thing. How do I know? I've been a Democrat for over 4o years, and sure

there are many like me.

If she triangulates and goes back to the Right, it's likely I will not vote for her. I certainly won't volunteer for her or donate money. All these things I did for Obama. All these things I would do for Bernie. I am not alone.

But yes, if she embraces Bernie and his supporters, she will have a fine coalition. If not, I think it's foolish, and I have my doubts.

[uponit7771]

103. I'd bet on it, young people aren't going to let jerks like Trump in cause they mad. They're more..

... mature than that as they've shown in the past

[azurnoir]

10. wow on which teevee channel was he just asked that rather leading question? Link it please

[uponit7771]

23. MSNBC, and how was it a leading question? It basically calls Sanders "rigged" calls bullshit

[JRLeft]

31. Why won't MSNBC talk about Net Neutrality, TPP, Monsanto, and

Big Pharma?

Answer that and then ask if it's a credible source.

[uponit7771]

74. JR, what doesn't that have to do with the question at hand? How was it leading? and maybe they don't

... want to talk about it I have no idea

[JCanete]

11. My take? WTF are you talking about? They aren't even close

to the same obstacles. Obama and Clinton's platforms were marginally different. Obama didn't go after the establishment, he courted the establishment. He invited it into his cabinet. He let it police itself. Big money got behind him because they really didn't see much difference between him and Hillary where it mattered to them.

Big money went to bat for Obama. It isn't going to bat for Sanders. We like that. The only reason he'd be getting it is if he were looking out for interests that aren't ours. News flash--but you won't see it in the media--the media is owned by huge corporations too! Not only are these corporations diversified, but they get sponsor dollars from other corporations. Who do you think they are interested in seeing win this election?

Now my opinion of the media doesn't teflon Bernie for me against any possible attack, but attacks like this? Mischaracterizations of the score? Come the fuck on.

[uponit7771]

24. Could you outline what obstacles are different now than then other than the number of debates? tia

[JCanete]

40. I think I did address it but money and media support isn't enough for you? And

why not look to the number of debates as a significant factor. How much has the media done to malign Hillary for her decision to limit them? Not very much, or the DNC would have had little choice but to expand them. I know Bernie wanted more, so how doesn't the reality support my assessment of media complicity?

Wow, 25 debates in 2008? What did we get this year, 8?

[uponit7771]

73. Again, I'm talking about the rules not anecdotal ascribes to what happened in 08

[JCanete]

85. Establishment rules help establishment candidates. Both Obama and Hillary

were establishment candidates. Super-delegates could theoretically support either without pissing off the people they work for, they just had to risk the ire of Hillary herself.

I'm having a hard time seeing what you're trying to say. You're trying to get the Sanders camp to completely own the fact that they are losing, and you definitely want to frame it that way, not as an unprecedented campaign of all small donor support, and when we show you the difference you say, "no, I'm just focusing on the rules being the same."

If we are just focusing on the rules, well they are still very different matters. The people in charge of running the machine are mostly establishment people. Even if it came down to unintentional bias, a bias can be expected in the way rules are interpreted or enforced. Is that a strange concept to you?

[uponit7771]

89. That's bullshit, Obama was in office what? 2 years?... that's not even reality, Obama was an

... insurgent candidate and the SD's were heavy towards Clinton and so where they endorsements in the beginning

[JCanete]

108. If you can get big money support, you are not an insurgent.

Are you intentionally missing the difference? It's absolutely true that Obama was not the anointed one. He wasn't expected to get the voter support he did, but WHEN he got that support, the money was happy to get on board, cuz why rock a boat that's still going to the right destination?

Come the fuck on Uponit. It's not like this conversation hasn't been built upon a couple threads now. I already introduced money and powerful interests as the defining difference. I already claimed that Obama was able to court these interests. I welcome your difference of opinion on my claims, but why entirely skip over them to bring us "obama the insurgent." If he's not transgressing against big money, then no he's not.

[uponit7771]

114. Again, Obama did NOT have that support IN THE BEGINNING of his campaign. He won that support

... after running a competent campaign with different demos fears and wants being addressed.

[JCanete]

139. Where are you drawing the cutoff? Are you claiming that Obama didn't get campaign contributions

of notable size and had no lobbyist support until after he took the primary? I would be surprised if this were the case and it doesn't match my memory, but even if it were, he also didn't have a DNC and media tearing him down in solidarity. This was a safe fight where people could choose their favorite horse. Shit wasn't going to hit the fan the way a Sanders Presidency would make shit hit the fan for the establishment.

[uponit7771]

151. It doesn't matter, Obama did NOT begin with the support he had in the middle of the primary he

... had little to nothing like Sanders.

You guys want to begin in the middle of the primary to support that he was establishment (which is silly to begin with) but facts don't bear that out...

Someone even posted a Feb 22 article!!!

They didn't move to Obama till after SC and it wasn't in droves either

[JCanete]

172. He wasn't on the power brokers hit-list, and he was a comfortable enough fit.

The establishment Dems may have wanted Hillary, probably even moreso because they didn't want her for an enemy, but the money didn't give a shit, and the money started coming in once he became a viable candidate and started making his own friends among the lobbyists who were willing to bet on him. He was definitely charismatic and brilliant and no doubt charmed a lot of fellow congress people and Senators and state politicians, but none would have gone with him had he been overtly threatening to rock the whole system.

I'm still not sure what you're saying I guess. Obama won states like SC for pretty obvious reasons. I'm glad he did, but he presented a choice that people have rarely had, and it didn't take digging deep into economic policy and voting records to grasp it. A no-name handsome black outstanding politician who was already being helped to make a name for himself by the media is going to make an entirely different impression on South Carolina voters than a no-name old white man who the media has already labeled as out of touch with issues of race.

Yes that's right. The media started tearing down Bernie pretty fucking early, just about the time it realized it couldn't ignore him and let him go away. Or were you not paying attention this year? They didn't have a reason to do that to Obama. There was no incentive in it. In fact, he was the new face of the democratic party at the time, already getting tons of media attention before he decided to run, which was why he decided to run. He'd already caught fire. Don't tell me the media didn't have a hand in his success.

And that's to take nothing away from him. Only a man as brilliant and suave as Obama could have navigated all the race baiting and everything else that was thrown at him by the GOP and right-wing media. He earned the adoration he got, but again, if he'd actually run as a liberal without being beholden to big money, we would have seen an entirely different and uniform level of media take-down.

[Skwmom]

12. It isn't the same. Clinton and Obama are in the same branch of the Democratic Party-the Corporatist

Branch.

Clinton does not have Obama's coalition.

[m-lekktor]

20. That's exactly it. the party machine had no problem switching from Hillary to Obama.

They would never get behind Bernie because he would never do their bidding like they knew Obama would and did.

[Skwmom]

30. It was an inner family Corporatist squabble.

[JRLeft]

26. ^ This

[uponit7771]

27. Clinton is winning the same demos Obama won with in 08 and What is different now than then? tia

[Skwmom]

33. Didn't Obama win young voters and Clinton has only received a fraction of Obama's remaining

coalition.

[uponit7771]

45. This is false, Clinton has the support of millennials of color the last I checked but you bring up a

... good point that Clinton has 3 million more votes than Obama had last time and is still winning without the number of youth votes Obama had.

Sanders is that weak of a candidate

[Armstead]

18. You're not making any sense

Much of the Obama coalition was AA's and liberals and young people -- and peope who just preferred him to Clinton.

Saying the"power of the DNC electorate is with the Obama coalition and not the coalition Clinton lost with in 08 and the one Sanders is losing with right now." is just nonsense. What might be described as the Obama coalition today is divided among both candidates in different configurations.

[uponit7771]

29. Makes perfect sense, Sanders calls for "rigged" is bullshit seeing Obama won with the similar set

... of obstacles Sanders has.

Sanders is a weak candidate and didn't bother to capture the same coalition Obama won with

[JCanete]

48. except that you're just saying they were the same obstacles. People are

telling you the difference but you're just repeating yourself and ignoring media collusion and big moneyed interests because they don't fit the narrative you're selling.

By the way, I'm not saying all the media was behind Obama after Hillary. No, they had a bonafide win/win horserace between Obama and Mccain. If they'd gotten Mccain it would have even been better in some ways, because it would have been additional reason/cover for the Democratic party to tac even further right for the sake of "winning" middle America, and the people who were courting the crazies on the right wouldn't even have to pander to liberal interests in the mean-time.

Painting the establishment dem candidate as left of liberal is a favorite tactic and past-time, and it helps to continue our trajectory rightward, even if the powers that be are perfectly content with said candidate.

[uponit7771]

66. I'm talking about RULES and not anechdotal ascribes to the candidates, there are FEW RULE

... differences now than then

Sander isn't a weak candidate with the wrong message for the dem base

[ucrdem]

25. He passed the Animal House exit about a month ago.

He's somewhere in the cornfield now.

[uponit7771]

28. lofl

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. Isn't it funny how quickly the elephant in the room can get stuffed into the closet?

Obama '08 won because he had the support of southern blacks, just like Clinton '16

[BeyondGeography]

53. Your sequencing is way off...Clinton led big among black voters until after the Iowa caucus

If Obama had run a campaign as empty-headed as Sanders, Hillary would have thrashed him in Iowa and that would have been that.

[uponit7771]

75. Very true, forgot about Obama's win in IA ... and Obama didn't lead among blacks until SC

[BeyondGeography]

84. Iowa was everything

Amazing race, too, with the pre-scandal Edwards in the mix. Obama could easily have come in third, which would have scotched everything. People who think he just sauntered his way into the black vote because he's black couldn't be more wrong.

[uponit7771]

92. Yeap, I remember still supporting Clinton till after SC... My wife was still supporting Clinton afte

[ladjf]

56. As simple as that.

[uponit7771]

71. THANK YOU!!! I mentioned that.. the dem base has changed, Sanders chose someone who called Obama

... niggerized last year to stump for him in front of whites in IA and NH and that was a huge turn off to black politico.

Sanders didn't address the boogyman of the dem base until he had to

[merrily]

38. Bullshit. Obama did not have the same obstacles as Sanders. He had different ones, but the PTB of

the Party were in his corner, media raved about him, he took large donations, etc. Another massively false equivalency.

[uponit7771]

47. Like what? I suspect you'll not answer this like the rest of em haven't outside of "charisma"

[merrily]

50. Huh? Did you read my post?

[uponit7771]

58. Yeah, I did... you named NO RULES that were different now than then other than what yoou

... thought about the media etc which played Wright clips wall to wall for nearly 3 months.

So, do you have something CONCRETE in regards to rules etc that are different now than then?

tia

[merrily]

59. Rules? When I read your OP, it said "obstacles."

I didn't understand you were literally talking about state party rules.

[uponit7771]

76. Not anecdotal ones, I don't see what you outlined as obstacales and that's why I'm sticking to rules

... cause those are emperical.

What RULE changes is Sanders dealing with now that Obama didn't deal with then?

tia

[merrily]

79. Do you mean state party rules?

[uponit7771]

88. ALL the rules, state & party...what rules changed that the process is rigged now vs when Obama ran?

[merrily]

90. Is that what weaver was asked? The rules do change, but the question is a red herring.

It's misdirection.

[uponit7771]

98. OK, what RULES changed to make this a rigged system against Sanders vs Obama? Seems like

... Obama had very similar obstacles in the form of state and party rules than Sanders and didn't have 1232134pbu years in congres either.

let me know

[merrily]

99. Why would you imagine I would bother replying to a question that I just described as a red herring

and/or misdirection?

[uponit7771]

101. How is the question a red herring? Sanders is saying the system is stacked against him and it doesnt

... look like it was stacked against person who won without white skin.

So I'm thinking it's a pretty salient question relative to Sanders rhetoric

[merrily]

104. And in your mind, the "system" refers only to Dem Party rules?

[uponit7771]

110. No, of course not but it's an emperical place to start... I don't see how being black and running...

... president in the US is advantage ... its been sorta a trick question but I can't get people to answer just the rules part seeing there were no rules back then that favored Obama at all.

[merrily]

116. Oh, give it a rest. I never said being black was an advantage. To the contrary, I said Obama had

different obstacles than Sanders (all the way back in Reply 38). Obviously racism was one of the things to which I was referring. Inasmuch as I think party rules is misdirection, I disagree that it's a place to start.

Getting just this far has been so tedious, I've lost interest anyway. Have fun.

[uponit7771]

121. I never said you did, my point is Obama had more obstacles one being black

[merrily]

132. No, you just posted to me over and over how you couldn't figure out how being black

was an advantage. I'm now supposed to believe you did that was because you realized I had referred to racism as being an obstacle? However, being black and racism are two different things. Obama got some advantages from being black and some disadvantages from racism. Hard to quantify.

[uponit7771]

152. True, it wasn't a net positive being black in the primary seeing how many white dems were voting

... against him and voting against Clinton for garnering the Obama coalition.

Either way, someone down threat posted how it was harder for Obama cause there were LESS PD's for him than Sanders.

[timlot]

41. Obama ran a hopeful positive campaign. Bernie started out that way

Now he keep seeing these 5 months out poll saying he would beat Trump in the general election hes decided to go in the gutter on Hillary. Its too little to late but since he really isn't a democrat he really doesn't care about damaging our nominee.

[uponit7771]

69. +1

[Surya Gayatri]

119. +100!

Very well said...

[YouDig]

46. It's obvious. Obama was a great candidate with good policies.

Bernie is an angry candidate with policies that don't work.

[uponit7771]

55. Thx, it sounds like podium bird is tellin em things are really rigged

[CrowCityDem]

49. I'm surprised he didn't say Obama had the advantage of being non-white. Sounds his style.

[uponit7771]

60. BINGO!!! That's EXACTLY what I was thinking!! That eventually they'll call Obama's blackness a ...

... advantage

[procon]

51. Weaver also admitted the Obama campaign ran a world class ground game.

While Sanders seems to excel at getting money out of his followers, his campaign has been unprepared and ill equipped to compete with HRC's well oiled machine in every other aspect. When he gets outplayed, when his campaign screws up, or his followers create an embarrassing scene that drags down his whole campaign for days, he shirks responsibility and dodges reporters.

He puts on an act, looking aggrieved and stunned and then launches into the inevitable whiney complaints that he was robbed, blah-blah-blah, everyone is out to get him, blah-blah-blah, the system is rigged, blah-blah-blah. That's not leadership. That's not a presidential temperament. Its the mean old man next door that turns the hose on everyone who walks past his house.

[uponit7771]

61. +1

[Surya Gayatri]

124. +100!

"...he shirks responsibility and dodges reporters.

He puts on an act, looking aggrieved and stunned and then launches into the inevitable whiney complaints that he was robbed, blah-blah-blah..."

[thesquanderer]

52. Reasons Obama was stronger than Sanders (against Clinton)

... Obama is a naturally more charismatic figure (and better speaker) than Sanders

... Obama had a natural extra appeal to AA voters

... Hillary was a less experienced candidate then (i.e. without having been SoS)

... Obama had more institutional support (he was not running as much of an "outsider" candidacy, he had many super delegates behind him, etc.)

[uponit7771]

67. In the beginning the SDs were for Hillary, they moved after Obama won PDs throught the campaign

[thesquanderer]

82. He started picking them up very early on.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/23/uselections2008.barackobama

[uponit7771]

87. That was NOT early on, the SDs were HEAVY in favor of Clinton until the PD count went south for her

... and that article was in end off Feb 08.

Obama did NOT start out with the establishment behind him like Clinton did in 08

But I'm still talking about the RULES...

What rules did Obama have in his favor vs Sanders?

tia

[bahrbearian]

54. Obama had the most Wall Street Money

[uponit7771]

62. Sanders has outspent Clinton this primary nearly 2 to 1 in some areas so money isn't an issue

... with him.

[bahrbearian]

68. Hillary's Supper Pac's aren't spending any money behind the scenes ?

[uponit7771]

78. Not the amount that Sanders has spent, Sanders did prove emperically that the SPs aren't even needed

... and a person who runs an inspiring campaign can gen up all the money they want.

[jg10003]

70. 2008 was a fair contest. Obama was not anointed in September 2007

You cannot compare 2016 to 2008

2008 started with 3 strong candidates; Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. Each had basically the same chance of winning. There was a level playing field.

This year Clinton started the primaries with more advantages then any other non-incumbent in history. In fact, she has had the nearly the same status as an incumbent president running for re-election.

* The entire party establishment supported her, as did the financial and media establishments.
* The primary schedule was changed so that the southern states voted first (in order to prevent a progressive from gaining ground early).
* Hundreds of super-delegates pledged to Clinton months before the primaries began.
* Only 6 debates were scheduled, and those on days when viewership would be low.
* The DNC chairperson is Hillary's loyal servant rather than the impartial umpire that she should be.

The real question is; Why is Clinton having such a hard time winning despite all of her advantages?

[uponit7771]

81. The SDs weren't heavy in favor of Clinton starting out?! Not only that but she had most of the ...

... endorsements, Clinton started out with the establishment in her corner like she did now.

[spinboas]

80. EASY! Obama was a corporate democrat with half the establiment backing him!

[uponit7771]

83. Not in the beginning they establishment switched AFTER the PD count went south for Clinton...

... Obama had basically little establishment support IN THE BEGINNING

[spinboas]

91. He was funded by wall street which is part of the establishment.

[uponit7771]

94. Not at first, that's bullshit on a stick... Obama did not start out with WS money or any of the

... support Sanders has had.

Either way, what RULES were in favor for Obama that's NOT in favor for Sanders?!

[phleshdef]

130. Sanders fundraising story is just an extension of Obama 08

Sanders is breaking records on small donors, records set by Obama.

[deathrind]

95. Let's see...

A candidate that little more then a year ago had zero name recognition even less funding and was behind by double digits in every poll taken at the time from coast to coast has made an actual race of the primary against a candidate with household name recognition, a well organized funding operation, DNC support and previous presidential campaign experience....hmmm

The real question should be why a candidate favored so heavily is still having to campaign for the nomination this late into the primary.

[uponit7771]

100. Your answer doesn't outline any empirical rule changes that make the system "stacked" against him vs

... Obama, seeing 100% of the answers has been pretty anecdotal I'm leaning towards there weren't any RULE changes on the state and party level that makes the system rigged against Sanders just perception.

Sanders has had 230823 years in congress Obama had 2 years ... so if anything Obama had greater obstacles than Sanders...

oh yeah, he was black too

[Fawke Em]

102. Because he didn't have the same obstacles.

The media covered him honestly, he had some corporate friends and some centrist Dem friends.

He was of no threat to the gravy train.

[uponit7771]

105. Oh BULL FUCKIN SHIT!! They ran over 2700 hrs of Wright, it was counted as some of the most

... negative coverage of a candidate in modern history seeing Wright was on every station 24/7 for months.

What corproate friends did Obama START OUT WITH!?

Obama was black, I don't know anyone who's gong to claim that was an advantage at any time

[mythology]

106. Obama put together a viable coalition to win

Sanders didn't.

Additionally Clinton learned from her loss in 2008 and has run a smarter campaign. She kept her edge with black voters, which coupled with women and Hispanic voters has been enough to give her an insurmountable lead. Sanders had the most liberal portion of the base and young voters, but even with the increase in the number of self-identified liberals in the Democratic primary, it wasn't nearly enough to win.

I also think that emphasizing smaller rallies where she can be less forced was a really strong part of her strategy this time. Sanders supporters can mock it all they want as a sign of Clinton's lack of popularity, but Sanders hasn't been able to convert his rallies into votes. It is a bold move to basically turn away from the current popular approach that Obama used so well in 2008 and Trump has used in this cycle of massive rallies that are more like events.

[uponit7771]

111. +1, and Obama didn't have this coalition until after SC.. blacks were strongly in favor of Clinton..

...until after SC.

Obama, who had been in congress only 2 years, won people on with an actionable message instead of just bein angry

[BeyondGeography]

113. The Sanders crowd doesn't realize just how coddled their unvetted man has been

Policies that don't add up. Tax returns that never materialize. No problem! Then he gets one bad day of coverage and it's Alex Jones time.

What a joke.

[uponit7771]

115. +1

[Surya Gayatri]

131. ^^^This!^^^

[Retrograde]

136. +1

The back-and-forth between the Democratic candidates has been mostly civil until recently. Sanders hasn't experienced the decades of attack that Secretary Clinton has put up with (remember Vince Foster? In the 90s I used to wonder where she found the time to bake cookies what with all the people she was supposed to have murdered while she was running drugs in Arkansas.) It's going to take a lot of imagination for the GOP to come up with something new to hit her with. Sanders, though, has been relatively untouched, and, while I will vote for him if he turns out to be the candidate, I don't think he'll make it through a general national campaign without blowing up.

[BeyondGeography]

137. Exactly...Clinton has laid off because she never saw him as a threat

He wasn't. Meantime, the media has focused on her as per usual, as has the GOP. Sanders has been completely under the radar, which is why no one should be impressed with his hypothetical GE numbers.

[uponit7771]

142. +1

[forjusticethunders]

135. to be fair, Clinton (well more Bill than Hill) kinda blew it with a few nasty comments

and then they pivoted to white identity politics to try to salvage a chance at winning. Though I wonder if the collapse would have come as fast if it wasn't Obama.

[vi5]

109. It's a different animal altogether...

I can't personally explain it. All I know is that there are about 5 or 6 people I know who have been vehemently and proudly apolitical for all the time I've known them. Hated politics. Obama did nothing for them. They didn't hate him, but true to their apolitical nature they just didn't care either way.

To the number each of them are rabid Sanders supporters. Rabid. I can't explain it at all. Even though I prefer Sanders over Clinton I can't really say he gets me excited in a way that anyone else hasn't before or anything.

It's actually quite strange to me. I'm happy these people are getting political, and I'm happy it ends up being for a very liberal candidate. But ultimately it doesn't really make much sense to me.

[dubyadiprecession]

117. Oh jeff weaver!..Help bernie make it through.. the campaign!..

[bklyncowgirl]

118. In Obama's case Southern black voters voted their ethnicity instead of the Establishment candidate.

Sanders, a northeastern Jew despite a good voting record on Civil Rights issues and youthful activism including at least one arrest for the cause had little chance against Hillary Clinton, a candidate with longstanding ties to this community.

I realize this sounds ugly but I come from NY where ethnic politics is everything.

[uponit7771]

123. AT FIRST? No they did NOT!! Blacks were HEAVY in favor of Clinton, Obama WON people over...

... with concrete plans and a competent campaign.

[bklyncowgirl]

138. Really, you don't think that his bein black had nothing to do with it?

I agree that African Americans were at first in favor of Clinton. That changed when they began to see him as a viable candidate after Iowa AND after Bill Clinton's missteps in Soith Carolina turned many against his wife.

[uponit7771]

149. OK, again... AT FIRST... blacks were for Clinton until after SC... polls were clear

... Obama had it harder because there weren't as many PDs to choose from than Sanders and Clinton have now

Obama had Sanders campaign until after SC, then he garnered the support Sanders wanted and never got

[bklyncowgirl]

158. So you are saying that Obama's race had nothing at all with the shift in African-American support?

Sorry, that does not ring true.

[uponit7771]

160. SHIFT !! He had to earn it along with the establishment ..........Sanders never did and now he's

... whining that the system, that Obama won under, is rigged.

whining

[bklyncowgirl]

165. And I believe that there were a large number of people eager to vote for a viable black candidate.

Yes, Obama had to prove he was viable. I agree with you on that. But I also believe that this same demographic group was less willing to give Sanders a hearing than they were Obama. Older black female voters for various reasons preferred Hillary and that was that. His message of economic justice for all fell flat with s key group for whom the '50s & 60s, the era Sanders hearkened back to had not been the good old days.

[uponit7771]

166. Sanders had someone who called Obama niggerized last year stump for him in front of mostly

... white people in IA and NH.

Sanders began with a big fuck you to those people including an interveiw in 2014 where he said something to the effect that racial issues weren't that important and we should concentrate on economic issues.

That's another big screw you to the boogyman of the non privileged.

He, like a lot of people in the DNC, didn't realize that the dem base had changed and Latinos and Blacks and women were choosing the president and not white males this time.

He totally ignored what Obama did in 08 and he's paid for it.

Obama EMPIRICALLY had it harder than Sanders in 08 because there weren't as many PD's to choose from and had to earn not only the black vote but the support of the establishment.

The black thing wore off pretty quick when he got into office, the left in the DNC hated him quick

[bklyncowgirl]

171. Economic issues matter to everyone.

I believe that was Sanders point--not that racial justice was not important. At any rate you and I are not going to agree on this.

[uponit7771]

177. Not as much with one group than the other, Wall Street is NOT everyones top boogyman and Sanders is

... seeing that factually.

We can have our own opinions but not our own facts, Sanders said "that's not important" when it came to racial issues... I'm not going to try and rewrite his words seeing he was talking about how to gain back working white votes.

[TheKentuckian]

120. Easy, he was a slightly undercover establishment candidate, the establishment was split, and Obama

is a hell of a political talent and campaigner which about zero people argue, even the most racist and regressive TeaPubliKLANS that spit his name like venom and must accompany it with a demand for a birth certificate regardless of context can admit that.

If Sanders is pretty good but just as a political performer, speechifier, and wordsmith Obama is he'd be doing pretty well and holy shit would Clinton be rocking off the meter with all her structural advantages.

Clinton was also far more diligent in laying groundwork to ensure no division in the establishment this time.

The question isn't tough but Weaver has to walk a little softly on Obama, a lot of people have a lot of affection for the man inside the party and is highly respected by most Democrats even by a number who have significant differences with him.
Doesn't make him less establishment fast tracked and supported by some serious heavy hitters both politically and with the money people the whole way that Sanders was not going to be able to tap even if he wanted.

Most know it is true but that intellectual awareness doesn't help with the reflex walls going up so there is no real win in the situation.

It's trap question.
The truth will not set one up for success right now, at least not the whole unvarnished truth. I'm a citizen, civilian at that I can call it the way I see it and in real life not get push back but in the media the likelihood of getting distorted into a silly shit storm is at least 78%.

I'd focus on Obama's once in a generation or so talent (with a little "Oh shucks" quip at Bernie's expense) and inspiring message after a long dark and call it a day. Short and sweet, talk a little bit but say even less.

[uponit7771]

122. He was in the senate for 2 years, that isn't even reality... there's no way someone can call Obama

... an establishment candidate who had the connections and the SDs and the money behind them like Clinton did in 08.

You guys are trying to minimize the effect of the "southern states"... the Obama coalition and it doesn't work out factually

[TheKentuckian]

140. Shit, the fact he was in the Senate so briefly and could have the cache supports my position rather

than undermines it.

You think he gets that Keynote in 2004 if he wasn't embraced by the establishment players?

Preposterous.

[uponit7771]

150. No it doesn't, that's a CT not actual facts based on history. Clinton had the establsihment behind h

... her when the campaign started and they didn't move over to Obama until after SC.

This is why I'm bookmarking and screen printing post, it seems like Sanders camp have really short memories

[TheKentuckian]

173. They both had substantial establishment support, even those folks are not a collective hive mind.

Bookmark whatever you like but you are delusional if you think Obama was this outsider without substantial support of great influence propelled on the fasttrack to the highest political tier in the land on the strength of being a state senator that voted present a lot and a couple years in the Senate, it is absurd.

Clinton had more, even significantly more insider support but not a monopoly. Folks like the Kennedys, Durbin, and Kerry are not nobodies in this party.

It is pretty difficult to get a keynote when you are a nobody state senator looking to move up without some serious insider pull much less a Senator with less than a term.

Bookmark away.

[uponit7771]

174. Not from the start, that is false on its face and not even close to reality. Obama had grass roots..

... money FROM THE START and barely any endorsements or SDs in his camp.

Obama EARNED his establishment support and that didn't come till after SC and didn't even have majority AA support until after SC...

There's no rewriting of history cause its documented

Obama had little congressional experience and was a pure insurgent candidate, he didn't have 30 years in congress acting as if he wasn't part of the Washington establishment.

EMPERICALLY his route was HARDER than Sanders seeing Sanders has more PDs to garner than Obama did in 08

Again, this will soon be forgotten ... people will swear up and down no one called Obama establishment during his 08 prez run.

[TheKentuckian]

202. Tell Tattoo and Mr. Roark I said "hey"

[asuhornets]

127. Sanders is not Obama by a long shot..Obama build bridges Sanders is doing the opposite.

Talking about rigged election when in fact he is just losing..

[JCanete]

183. yes he did, including to the banks. Including to insurance companies. That's why we got what

we got with the Affordable Care Act. The question still remains whether we got anything at all. I'm glad that people aren't barred for insurance because of preexisting conditions. That they ever could be was unconscionable. But in order to get that one thing, Obama had to sacrifice a lot of sheep at the altar of the Insurance industry. The mandatory insurance scam without any pricing caps is just insanely bad. What we're left with is a law that has helped some struggling people, and made other struggling people suffer. Why couldn't we have gotten something better? Because this law was brought to us by the establishment, for the establishment.

Long story short, Obama won some and lost some, and managed to keep his corporate friends happy. That's a good Moderate Presidency right there. In terms of progress, its pretty much a wash. In terms of changing the game ... not at all. Obama left the ball somewhere in the middle right of the field. He drew only passing attention to campaign finance, super pacs and lobbying, and now the game picks up from there, both teams paid for by the same managers. I wonder which way the ball is going to continue to move?

[asuhornets]

184. Well, being President has always been a thankless job...

[JCanete]

187. Just so you know, in many ways I'm a fan of Obama.

At my most generous I even give him a pass on always starting at the middle with the GOP and then moving right. I think it was a smart calculation at the beginning of his campaign where it seemed like appearing reasonable would force the GOP to not look like racist assholes. The effect of gerrymandering republicans into entrenched seats, and the astroturfed tea-party movement hadn't been fully accounted for by then, so I was as surprised as I imagine the Obama administration was, when this tactic of conciliation didn't work.

That said, I'd been for Edwards because frankly, while he had the smarminess of a used-car salesman(and he may have been one for all I cared), he was the only one saying that you can't compromise with an establishment that has no incentive to compromise. In retrospect he would have been right on that one. But Obama had different challenges, including making the country trust him, and taking away any ammunition the GOP had to making him look like a "hater of America" or vindictive against the south or the white middle class or heh, Christians, or whatever. He picked a tone that served him well.

And that tone made America better. As the first President ever to call for the legalization of Gay Marriage, before, not after it was hugely popular, I would say that he earns a place among our greatest Presidents. But on economics and campaign finance, well, he still dances with the ones that brought him, and he's good at not stepping on any toes.

[asuhornets]

188. I'm not 100% satisfied with Obama either. He was better than any Republican.

[kcjohn1]

128. Easy, Obama was the establishment candidate

Obama raised just as much money from the establishment as did Clinton.

[uponit7771]

144. Someone in congress for 2yrs is establishment?! In that case Sanders is structure !!

and he did NOT have that money when he began his race like Clinton, he was strictly grass root

[phleshdef]

129. Because Obama is a once in a generation political talent.

We won't see anyone that damn good appear again for a long time I fear.

[Retrograde]

134. Obama stayed postive even when he was still a long shot

Obama appeared on the national scene in 2004, before he was a US Senator, when he gave a stirring speech at that year's Democratic convention: he was tapped as a rising star. Even though he had less than 4 years in Washington under his belt, he decided to run in a much strong field - IMO - than we've had this year. Clinton, Richardson (he got my vote in the primary), Edwards (before his fall from grace) were the main opponents. All of them kept their campaigns positive, and focused on fixing the problems of the Bush era. The economy was in a tailspin, there were no apparent plans for the Middle East.

As the campaign went on, there were heated discussions between Clinton and Obama supporters, but IIRC each camp was able to admit that the other candidate did have some virtues. I don't remember as much of the either-or, my-way-or-the-highway rhetoric that's been more common between Clinton and Sanders supporters recently.

And Obama stayed positive under concerted personal attacks the like of which Donald Trump can only envy: he wasn't a real American, he was just a community organizer, he hung around with radicals, his wife hated America, he was part of the corrupt Chicago machine, he was a secret Muslim, and if I searched the DU archives I could probably find posts discussing these and others. Name calling got so bad that at a McCain event the GOP candidate actually told his followers that it was wrong to call Obama unAmerican.

Obama also got former rivals on his team. Bill Clinton's brilliant speech at the 2012 convention reinforced the notion that we're all working for a common good. And that sense of commonality against the possibility of a Trump triumph is what I'm not seeing.

I've been voting for Democrats for over 40 years. I don't think the base has changed much - except to become more inclusive. Obama embraced the diversity - Michelle Obama once said to understand her husband you had to understand Hawai'i, a state more diverse than most. Sanders seems to me to be more a traditional style leader - giving rousing speeches to adoring crowds, but not doing the coalition building and political horse trading Obama was willing to do. Sanders keeps his purity that way (and there were times when I felt Obama was too willing to compromise), but this may be why after all his years in Congress he has so few endorsers.

[uponit7771]

156. Yes, his purity leads to him being cynical

[PragmaticLiberal]

185. Great post. Imo, sums up both Bernie and President Obama nicely.

"Obama embraced the diversity - Michelle Obama once said to understand her husband you had to understand Hawai'i, a state more diverse than most. Sanders seems to me to be more a traditional style leader - giving rousing speeches to adoring crowds, but not doing the coalition building and political horse trading Obama was willing to do. Sanders keeps his purity that way (and there were times when I felt Obama was too willing to compromise), but this may be why after all his years in Congress he has so few endorsers."

[LiberalFighter]

141. There were more automatic delegates in 2008 (852 delegates)

Those 852 delegates were 19.2% of the total 2008 delegates compared to 14.9% in 2016

There were only 3,566 pledged delegates in 2008. That is 485 fewer than in 2016.

Group -- 2008 -- 2016
DNC - -- 428 -- - 434
DPL - - -- 21 -- -- 20
Senate -- 51 -- -- 47
House -- 239 -- - 193
Govs - - - 32 -- -- 21
Adds - - - 81 -- - - 0
Totals -- 852 -- - 715

The 2008 delegates were prior to the sanction against Florida and Michigan.

The odds were more against Obama in 2008 compared to Sanders in 2016.

[uponit7771]

145. ++++++++++++++DING DING DING !! Thread winnah+++++++++++++++++++++

Obama had it harder than Sanders, should be its own OP to stop the whining

[w4rma]

143. Obama didn't have the same obstacles as Sanders. The question's premise is wrong. (nt)

[uponit7771]

146. You're right, emperically Obama had it harder cause the number of PDs... thx

[w4rma]

148. Both Obama and Clinton were backed by Wall Street. (nt)

[uponit7771]

155. Obama had no WS backing at the beginning of his campaign, he earned that after beating Clinton

... in the "southern states".

Blacks were not even backing Obama till AFTER SC...

The meme that they were both back by establishment throughout the campaign is dead on false on its face

[JCanete]

182. no Wall Street backing is different from establishment opposition.

And again, Obama received establishment support right from the start. This was a "meet the new face of the future democratic party" promotional. He looked great for the party. He wasn't dangerous to the party establishment. One place I agree with you is that he wasn't expected to start winning states over Hillary. Maybe if he had been, things wouldn't have gone the way they did, because the brokers within the party might have had something to say about it. But again, he didn't get there without their help, and I think you know this.

[uponit7771]

198. He did NOT ... NOT have the support Clinton had from the beginning, you guys are going further

... into making shit up at this point.

People remember Obama when he started out in a field of 9 other candidates and while he had some backing he didn't have the support and infrastructure Clinton did.

There's no rewriting history here.

Clinton had the support then and now and Obama EARNED not only the black vote which didn't start out with him he earned the establishment trust and didn't do that till after SC and that was slow coming too.

Obama earned what he got in 08, he nearly started out with zilch compared to Clinton

There's NO rewriting history

[JCanete]

199. No, you are making an entirely different argument, one which I didn't disagree with.

Saying by the way, and please fucking admit it, that Obama didn't have the same support as Clinton, is not the same as saying he had no support, or that he had as little support as Sanders. You finally got that far, just go the extra inch and give it up that both Bernie and Obama started from a similar place in respect to the Democratic establishment, because I'm tired of you dancing around the points I'm making that the establishment does not want Sanders, and was perfectly fine with Obama. At least address that point, even to refute it.

[uponit7771]

210. Yes, I agree... they started in a similar place... cept Obama earned votes Sanders ignored the

... "southern states" like weaver and Divine claimed he did.

Obama spoke to the DNC base Sanders completely ignored them

The strategist obviously just made a mistake, said something he didn’t really mean, and reversed course quickly. Today, however, I think Devine slipped up again in a way he’ll soon regret. Mother Jones reported:
“[Hillary Clinton’s] grasp now on the nomination is almost entirely on the basis of victories where Bernie Sanders did not compete,” said senior strategist Tad Devine. “Where we compete with Clinton, where this competition is real, we have a very good chance of beating her in every place that we compete with her.”

Devine named eight states where he said the Sanders campaign did not compete with a big presence on the ground or much on-air advertising: Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, and Arkansas.
According to a report from Business Insider, Devine added, “Essentially, 97% of her delegate lead today comes from those eight states where we did not compete.”

[DCBob]

147. As has been said many many times Sanders is no Obama.

[Bread and Circus]

153. Obama is black.

He is also an amazing politician with a preternatural ability to speak. But fundamentally, he is black and once they thought he could win the John Lewis and the blacks dropped Hillary for Obama. We all saw it in real time. Once he had the progressive white vote and the black vote sewed up, it was over.

[uponit7771]

154. He earned the black vote though, just like he earned the establishment support. Sanders earned neith

... neither and is overtly whining over it at this point.

[hrmjustin]

159. Obama is likable, Sanders is not.

[uponit7771]

161. +1, Sanders is looking more and more like someone who's out for himself.

[hrmjustin]

163. Sanders ego is huge.

[JCanete]

189. Please... there are plenty of examples, particularly in congress

of what it looks like to be out for yourself as a politician. decades and decades in congress and still not a millionaire? He sure is shitty at being all out for himself. Decades and decades in congress, and finally getting national name recognition? Has he been trying out different positions like hats until somebody took notice?

This is a particularly disgusting smear on his character that doesn't match the body of evidence.

[MadDAsHell]

164. The Democratic Party nominates only "historic" candidates now.

Being Jewish isn't historic enough compared to race and gender.

[EffieBlack]

169. AND he was black ...

[uponit7771]

170. +1

[Exilednight]

175. President Obama was a household name by the time the first debates aired. he also

Benefited from giving the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

Hillary ram a piss poor 20th century campaign on a 21st century platform in 2008.

The playingfield was against Hillary from the beginning, but that was her own fault.

[uponit7771]

176. This is also false on its face, no he wasn't .. he was known among politicos he was not Donald Trump

... known among the populace and his campaign kick off hardly got any press.

He also had nearly 3 months of Rev Wright press against him, someone counted the hours of Rev Wright segments

There's no rewriting history here, he didn't have establishment support when he started ... most SDs where with Clinton and his money was grass roots.

He also EMPERICALLY had less PDs to choose from than Sanders so his path was harder.

Obama knew were the dem base was and it wasn't in IA or NH even though he did ok in IA.... Obama EARNED the establishment support after SC and didn't earn black support till after SC either.

and he was black !!!

I don't see how Sanders can say anything is rigged when the person who had EMPIRICALLY a harder path won against an establishment candidate WITHOUT the establishment support from the beginning of his campaign

[JCanete]

178. Obama did not have a harder path, "empirically." He had a differently hard path.

No, he wasn't unknown, and the Democratic Party was helping to get him known. And his campaign probably started as a means to make him a household name, which the party had every interest in helping him to achieve, as an up and comer who had the charm, relative youth, good looks and impressive resume and skills.

That he did so well was a surprise to the democratic establishment, but it wasn't in-spite of the democratic establishment. Why are you continuing to try to sell this? Why are you even going to pretend that Bernie could ever actually have gotten establishment support, "if only he'd earned it by winning the states the establishment worked so hard to make sure he didn't win." That's fucking insane man. To the establishment, Bernie is Cancer. You don't let Cancer spread if you can kill it, even if it takes removing a big chunk of tissue once it's identified.

I would really love for you to dispute that point. Please tell me that you don't, at your most intellectually honest with yourself, believe that the establishment did, or would have ever welcomed Sanders with open arms. Sure they had to pretend to welcome him in, but at the time why not? They thought he was mostly benign. Why show your true colors if you don't have to? They hoped he'd get buried early. He didn't. Then they started the treatments.

[uponit7771]

193. This is false on its face, there were LESS PD's in 08 than 16...

[JCanete]

200. you're false on your face! jk, but that's the third time you've posted that.

I don't even know what you mean by pd's. Party Delegates? And if that's what it means, what the fuck does it mean? How does that say anything about what we're talking about?

[Exilednight]

190. it must be nice to forget facts like

1. He gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

2. His announcement was covered by all three major networks, and carried live on CNN and MSNBC.

3. There was a buzz around a guy with the last name Obama in the post 9/11 world.

4. He had establishment types and party insiders like Axelrod and Pete Rouse helping run his political campaign and career.

[uponit7771]

192. 1. Irrelevant, most of the voting public doesn't look at conventions, 2. see 1, 3. see 1 4. He did

... NOT have establishment support at the beginning of his campaign that Clinton had.

Rewriting history doesn't help in this case, Obama didn't have 2323 years in congress that Sanders had and was even less known.

He was also black!!!

[Exilednight]

201. you must not realize that nearly 40 million people saw that speech.

[uponit7771]

216. 40 million != 130 million voting population. Either way, no one serious is claiming Obama had the...

... support that Clinton had, Sanders and Obama both started in similar situation against Clinton except Obama didn't ignore the southern states like Sanders did...

The strategist obviously just made a mistake, said something he didn’t really mean, and reversed course quickly. Today, however, I think Devine slipped up again in a way he’ll soon regret. Mother Jones reported:
“[Hillary Clinton’s] grasp now on the nomination is almost entirely on the basis of victories where Bernie Sanders did not compete,” said senior strategist Tad Devine. “Where we compete with Clinton, where this competition is real, we have a very good chance of beating her in every place that we compete with her.”

Devine named eight states where he said the Sanders campaign did not compete with a big presence on the ground or much on-air advertising: Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, and Arkansas.
According to a report from Business Insider, Devine added, “Essentially, 97% of her delegate lead today comes from those eight states where we did not compete.”

Now he's whining about it and blaming his fucked up strategy on the DNC process...

so privileged

[Exilednight]

218. I guess you don't let being proven wrong get in the way of you beliefs.

You said no one watches those speeches, yet 120million people voted and 40 million watched his speech in 2004.

You said no network carried his announcement, yet all three major networks covered it for their nightly news and CNN and MSNBC carried it live.

You said he had no party insiders supporting him, but then I pointed out Axelrod, Rouche and I forgot to mention Plouffe. That doesn't include DNC insiders who approached him and asked him to run.

Let's not forget the fact that Hillary, in 2008, ran a MySpace AOL chatroom campaign while Obama tan a Twitter Facebook campaign.

Hillary learned from her mistakes and took and put 8 years to good use by copying Obama's playbook and line g up support early from key strategists in the Obama campaign.

Obama also surrounded himself with people who understood delegate map math. Obama also had Super PACs behind him, something Bernie has refused to do.

You're comparing hotdogs to fillet Mignon.

If you don't believe any of those are major differences, then I can't help you with your ignorance.

[uponit7771]

219. No one relative to the support and backing Clinton has and you know I didn't mean "no one" literally

... seeing someone did... good try at syntax but it's a further waste of time

Again, NO SERIOUS PERSON (figuratively speaking, wow... I've got to explain that on DU) is going to make the case that Obama or Sanders had the infrastructure Clinton did cept Obama won and Sanders did not

in part because

Sanders ignored the "southern states" and didn't compete there... Weaver and Divine said this multiple times.

Obama never ignored the Southern States and Earned all the support he got...

Clinton never whined about her getting beat and claiming the system Obama won with against the same infrastructure in Clinton is 'rigged"

[Exilednight]

221. no serious person would say that Sanders had half the infrastructure or

Name recognition that Obama did in 2004. Was Obama an underdog coming out of the gate? Yes, but not by the same margins that Sanders was.

Give Sanders an Axelrod, Rouche and Plouffe team to run his campaign and Sanders would be winning this election.

But live in your beliefs that they started on level playingfields.

[uponit7771]

226. I disagree on factual basis; Sanders had 30 years in congress and is well known among politicos

... on the left ... much more well known than Obama and is more liked by the far left than Obama RIGHT NOW.

Was Obama an underdog coming out of the gate? Yes, but not by the same margins that Sanders was.

OH BULL FUCKIN SHIT... Sanders is white!!!!!!!!!

omfg

Did you read what you typed?

Give Sanders an Axelrod, Rouche and Plouffe team to run his campaign and Sanders would be winning this election.

Cause they wouldn't out right ignore the "southern states" like Sanders team did!?!?

Sanders runs less of a campaign, one that many AA on DUP warned him not to run, than Obama he should NOT be whining about not winning right now.

[AgingAmerican]

179. The DNC wasn't cheating in 2008

That is the difference

[uponit7771]

194. ok, what did they do different now than what they did in 08? tia

[Todays_Illusion]

180. Obama had media coverage as soon as he announced, Sanders was ignored for months.

[uponit7771]

195. Obama did NOT have the media coverage Sanders had when Sanders announced, you guys are now

... just making shit up.

Obama was in a field of what? 8 or nine other people?!

WOW...

[Todays_Illusion]

203. Thanks for your mature response: "just making shit up."

[uponit7771]

209. Mature is facing reality, making shit up isn't facing reality; Sanders had less of an uphill battle

... than Obama seeing Sanders had longer in congress and more PD's to pull and less people to compete against than Obama


and he's whining about the system being rigged.


Sounds privileged at best

[Todays_Illusion]

225. Thanks for the speculation and opinion, You can provide no evidence to support what you call fact.

If it is a fact you can support it.

[uponit7771]

227. That Obama didn't have the media coverage Sanders did when he annouced!? REALLY...

... every freakin station carried Sanders and his rally during the announcement!!

[Todays_Illusion]

230. That is what you are claiming to be a fact nt

[jillan]

181. Bernie Sanders always says that Obama ran a historic campaign. Which he did.

[uponit7771]

196. Sanders has ALSO ran a historic campaign in the category of money raised without support of

... super packs etc

[MineralMan]

186. Personal Charisma. That's how.

A more charismatic candidate could not have been found in 2008.

He simply overpowered both Hillary Clinton and McCain.

That's not in play in 2016. Bernie Sanders has some, but it's an odd sort of charisma that doesn't come with a big smile and a laugh. Instead, it's a sort of gruff, grandfatherly thing. Not in the same league at all.

[cui bono]

191. You really think the Obama coalition is different than the Hillary coalition?

They are both corporate Dems.

If Sanders is such a weak candidate why is he doing so well?

.

[uponit7771]

197. Hopefully not, the Obama coalition is the dem base that Sanders overtly ignored and even

... said that a good portion of them were conservative or came from "southern states".

Obama did NOT start off with the support Clinton had, no where CLOSE

Sanders is losing by 3 million more votes than Clinton lost with 08... relatively speaking he's doing horrible except in most states where there's a less diverse population.

He's doing GREAT with the coalition that Clinton lost with in 08... but some how that's "progressive" :rolleyes:

[Eric J in MN]

206. Bernie Sanders spent a lot of time and money in South Carolina

...and it did him no good.

He didn't ignore the South. He tried to do well in the South and failed.

[uponit7771]

207. That's not what Weaver said on a call link to voice call (link inside)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-j1J2Wo7PtKM3pvNHd5d1pMb0E/view

and what Devine said

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/bernie-sanders-campaign-offers-awkward-take-state-the-race

The strategist obviously just made a mistake, said something he didn’t really mean, and reversed course quickly. Today, however, I think Devine slipped up again in a way he’ll soon regret. Mother Jones reported:
“[Hillary Clinton’s] grasp now on the nomination is almost entirely on the basis of victories where Bernie Sanders did not compete,” said senior strategist Tad Devine. “Where we compete with Clinton, where this competition is real, we have a very good chance of beating her in every place that we compete with her.”

Devine named eight states where he said the Sanders campaign did not compete with a big presence on the ground or much on-air advertising: Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, and Arkansas.
According to a report from Business Insider, Devine added, “Essentially, 97% of her delegate lead today comes from those eight states where we did not compete.”

[Eric J in MN]

211. After their TV ads in South Carolina did nothing

...the Sanders campaign was reluctant to buy TV ads in other southern states.

Sanders continued to do rallies in the South.

[uponit7771]

214. Then my statement rings true, he thought he could bypass the states Obama won and is now whining

... about it.

There's no 'rigged' its his fucked up ass strategy of ignoring the dem base or the new dem base

[cui bono]

239. mmkay...

The way you think progressive is supposed to be used is pretty odd.

You also sound very familiar... lol.

.

[uponit7771]

240. Hopefully, been posting on DU since 03... and progressive is starting to sound like a four

... letter word seeing how Sanders is whining about how he's losing against the same person Obama won against with a similar situation in 08.

whiny

[Eric J in MN]

204. Obama had 25 debates with Clinton; Sanders had 9 debates with her.

In 2008, the Iowa Caucus was in early January when college students were home. This year, the Iowa Caucus was in early February when more college students were away.

[uponit7771]

208. This is false on its face, again.. yaw into making shit up... there were no 25 debates EXCLUSIVELY

... with Clinton alone.

To leave out the exclusively makes the statement sophistry at best.

[Eric J in MN]

212. The debates between Clinton and Sanders

...also weren't 1 on 1 until Martin O'Malley dropped out in February.

[uponit7771]

213. There were also less people running now than in 08, the debates didn't make Sanders ignore the

... Southern States and focus on states that were less diverse.

The strategist obviously just made a mistake, said something he didn’t really mean, and reversed course quickly. Today, however, I think Devine slipped up again in a way he’ll soon regret. Mother Jones reported:
“[Hillary Clinton’s] grasp now on the nomination is almost entirely on the basis of victories where Bernie Sanders did not compete,” said senior strategist Tad Devine. “Where we compete with Clinton, where this competition is real, we have a very good chance of beating her in every place that we compete with her.”

Devine named eight states where he said the Sanders campaign did not compete with a big presence on the ground or much on-air advertising: Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, and Arkansas.
According to a report from Business Insider, Devine added, “Essentially, 97% of her delegate lead today comes from those eight states where we did not compete.”

Obama earned the votes of many demographics in 08 and the establishment no one who's honest is going to claim he started out with anything near the support Clinton did.

Sanders started out in a similar situation but ignored the south and didn't earn the votes for the dem base and now is whining about it

[Eric J in MN]

215. If you had been Sanders' campaign manager

...after his TV ads in South Carolina did nothing, would you have told him to buy TV ads in North Carolina?

[uponit7771]

217. No doubt, I would've told him to get his ass out and pound ground because I know math...

... and know SC is not NC and NC is not GA and GA is not TX etc etc.

Those states were important and just weren't "southern states" that are conservative or some other bullshit ass'd excuse they came up with for ignoring them and thinking the math would've been in their favor.

Sanders treated the "southern states" with the contempt he treated the dem base with and it shows

I also would've known, like many on DU warned, that the AA and Hispanic communities have to be talked to more one on one and not in rallies full of rhetoric that don't communicate that communities issues..

Many AA's on DU here warned and warned and warned and now he's whinging about losing


I would've "fought" for every state... every damn one of them

[imagine2015]

220. Obama was not and obviously is not anti-establishment. He represented one political faction.

And both factions, one led by Hillary and the other led by Obama, represent the rich, not the working class.

And clearly did not face the same identical obstacles as Sanders.

Obama had the backing of major Democratic party machines and officials to challenge Hillary Clinton.

He was a product, prepared and groomed, by the Illinois Democratic machine.

Sanders is not a supporter of either major political faction and does not have their support.

[uponit7771]

229. Bottom line Obama earned the support of the dem base and the establishment while Sanders ignored the

... Southern states (as Divine and Weaver said they did) and now is getting blown out in votes and PDs.

Obama didn't start his campaign with 30 years of congress and political experience

I notice you said same but literally they're both similarly situated in that Clinton had the infrastructure then and now but Obama won then and Sanders is losing now.

Obama didn't outright ignore the "Southern States" like weaver and divine said sanders did

Sanders ran a stupid campaign he should stop whining

[LenaBaby61]

228. June 14th ....

Can't come soon enough for me

[glowing]

231. That's such bullshit!

[uponit7771]

232. I agree, Weavers response was a bunch of bullshit and had not real good reason why Obama, being ...

... similarly situated as Sanders being an underdog, could win against Clinton an establishment candidate and Sanders can not.

It's because Sanders ignored the "southern states" and Obama didn't

Seems simple

[CobaltBlue]

233. uponit7771—Obama had Wall Street’s support.

[uponit7771]

234. At first? really?! link and quote... he earned it cause he ran a kick ass campaign that didn't ignor

... ignore the "southern states" like Sanders did.

Sanders didn't earn shit, he ignored a major demographics in the DNC and is getting his ass kicked for it right now...

He should stop whining about his poorly ran campaign

[CobaltBlue]

235. uponit771—Here is one source.…

@ http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-responsible-for-one-third-of-obamas-campaign-funds-2011-7

[uponit7771]

238. So Obama BEGAN his campaign that way or did he earn it after kicking ass? I see you along

... with the rest of the Sanders crew want to ignore that little fact

[CobaltBlue]

237. uponit7771—Here is another source…

@ http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638u

[uponit7771]

241. Again, Obama started out a long shot and won and he's black... Sanders is whining and sounds

... aweful doing it