2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf Hillary is such a great candidate, why isn't she filling
super large venues and stadiums everywhere she goes with thousands upon thousands of her adoring supporters who wait in line sometimes for 8 hours or more just to show their support? It's a legitimate question.
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)Election fraud is clearly a more effective way to win.
mooseprime
(474 posts)when the message is "more of the same"? and, it comes from someone whose words can't be trusted in the first place
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)That's why I support Justin Bieber for president. BIEBER OR BUST!
YouDig
(2,280 posts)ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)because he's a Canadian citizen. Of course the establishment has rigged the system against him because they're scared of our Bieber revolution.
Others say he's too young. Fine, throw away the millennial vote and ignore the stadiums full of Beliebers. See how well you do in the GE if you ignore us.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)It's a conspiracy!
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)BROCK
barrow-wight
(744 posts)Nope. They're all Brock Trolls according to some on here.
I guess the phrase should be Brock in a Sock.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Beyonce.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)2004, and most of yr posts are in 2016?
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)#berniemath! Thanks for your interest though. Flattering!
Arkansas Granny
(31,483 posts)she has managed to get more popular votes, pledged delegates and super delegates than her opponent.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)lancer78
(1,495 posts)she has more pledged and for the moment super delegates.
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)Most folks would rather stay home. She represents a giant step backwards, gee, I don't know why people aren't excited...
Staying home except for that voting part.
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)after the SS Goldman Sachs runs aground on election night come back and tell,me about how her peeps got out and voted...
All the money in the world, all the name recognition and ALL of the party machinery behind here and yet she still struggles to win states after the voters have been told she's inevitable...
Demsrule86
(68,351 posts)Try google.
JFKcrat
(28 posts)If you proportionally adjust caucus wins for a popular vote standard they're basically even. Actually, depending on the chosen methodology, it's either even or Bernie has a lead.
Caucuses, by their nature, are dominated by activists, which tend to be (in our party) more liberal than the voting population. In other words, the numbers can't be extrapolated accurately.
Response to PAMod (Reply #84)
Name removed Message auto-removed
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)metroins
(2,550 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,483 posts)TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)Don't ask me how I know
Arkansas Granny
(31,483 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously. What does the ability to fill stadiums at rallies have to do with winning elections?
His large rallies are in the 20K-30K range. Voting turnout in most primary states is in the hundreds of thousands. (It's lower in the caucus states, which may explain why he's doing better in those.)
jillan
(39,451 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I didn't say "good candidates can't fill big arenas". I said "filling big arenas doesn't make one a good candidate", and thus, "not filling big arenas does not make one a bad candidate".
Clinton's campaign is getting people to the polls, which is the one and only test of a campaign. Rallies can be useful in that, sometimes, but they aren't particularly a sign of a candidate's electoral strength.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Just sayin' . . . . . .
.
rock
(13,218 posts)Clinton has 14 million votes. Bernie has 10 million votes. Maybe rather than concentrating on getting attendees to rallies ... Er, never mind. BSers have real problems with counting.
appalachiablue
(41,053 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)But for example in many states where Bernie won by Yuuuuuge margins, he got no votes because they were caucus states. He won Washington by somehting like 72% to 29%. . and for winning by 40% in a state of 72 million people, he got ZERO votes.
So, that should tell you something about those squishy totals. Doesn't take a big brain to figure that out, so I hope you won't be posting that bull sh*t again.
Response to Recursion (Reply #6)
Autumn Colors This message was self-deleted by its author.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Why do you think that? She's not a particularly good speaker. Even if I had voted for her I doubt I would have gone to a rally.
Let me turn this question around to you: in a state where 1.5 million people turn out for the Democratic primary, why do you seem so convinced that the ability to get 50 thousand people to show up to a rally matters?
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Because:
(1) Bernie fills the stadia over and over again.
(2) The people who attend have friends, who get to be regaled with tales of the big rally.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I mean, ultimately that kind of speaks for itself, right?
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)How do you know how many votes Bernie will get in CA?
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)She did fill up a couple of Wall Street Corporate Auditoriums. And got paid hundreds of thousands to boot!
Hell, Donald Trump probably paid them to attend his weddings.
onecaliberal
(32,486 posts)Ino
(3,366 posts)Ill tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said, Be at my wedding, and she came to my wedding, Trump replied. You know why? She had no choice, because I gave.
Trump went on to say that he donated money to the Clinton Foundation, but was disappointed by how it was spent. I didnt know the money would be used on private jets going all over the world, he said.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Are you really second guessing the woman who is kicking Bernie's ass? The better question is why did Bernie do rallies instead of the hard work of retail politics like Hillary.
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)But considering her success I don't understand why it reflects poorly on her. She clearly did the hard work needed to connect with the voters. Bernie didn't.
madokie
(51,076 posts)its not so important of who votes rather who counts those votes
Some shit is going on here and we need to find out what it is
hack89
(39,171 posts)Or just the ones Bernie lost? Don't bother - I think I know the answer.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Fucking A, YES
hack89
(39,171 posts)Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)And excuse me for agreeing with 64% of America that she's not trustworthy!
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)She had them from the very beginning. She's had them since Bill ran for POTUS. It's been Bernie's job to take them away from her from day one, and he's been mighty successful. Some people are just not open to getting involved enough in politics to learn anything new, so they still cling to what they know. He's also gotten young people involved in politics and that's something Hillary can't do. She is not inspirational. She thinks somehow she can rally young people to her if she wins the nomination?
I don't think so. This is her last hurrah. If she doesn't win this time, the future is going to the youth vote.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)to go to fun events like those rallies.
Many Hillary supporters on the other hand are struggling to get by, maybe working two jobs, and have family commitments. These folk don't have the privilege of being able to spare 8 hours to wait on line to get into a political rally.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The contrast with Bernie was that he was actually able to attract significant support from nonwhites.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been able to do, is somehow "racist"?
jillan
(39,451 posts)Every color of the rainbow.
I am a mixed race.
YES your post is very racist.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Asked during a January debate why he trailed Hillary Clinton so badly among minority voters, Senator Bernie Sanders said he would gain ground once those voters became familiar with his track record and agenda on the economy and criminal justice.
Two months later and on the eve of another important primary voting day, Mr. Sanders remains on the wrong side of a yawning gap among African-Americans even as his performance among whites has been impressive.
One important reason for this may be that African-Americans have experienced somewhat more favorable economic trends in recent years. While still worse off than whites, African-Americans have seen their jobless rate fall a little further than whites have, relative to a prerecession average. Furthermore, the decline has been faster for African-Americans in the last year.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/business/economy/why-sanders-trails-clinton-among-minority-voters.html?referer=
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)Hillary's supporters are showing up where it counts: at their voting precincts.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)As much as I heart Hillary, standing in a place listening to a speech is not my idea of time well-spent.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)To find out that the state voting officials shut it down.
Or that your password has been purged and you cannot use the computer anymore!
But of course, if anything like what has happened to us Progressives happened to the Big Foundation/StateDepartment money laundry expert, we would hear about it 24/7.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)Your Bitter Bettys are sharp today.
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)million years wait in line to see anyone at a political rally, even though they are very into politics. However, they would (and did) gladly spend 5K a plate to go see Hillary at a much more civilized fundraiser.
Even for those who don't have the money, many people in the older age groups tend to avoid large crowds and anything involving waiting. I have an uncle (repub...voting for Hillary as the lesser of 2 evils which is good enough for me), who pays me to take his kids to Disney, because he hates lines so much. It's really a demographic thing.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)I guess there are older people who can actually still get inspired for the country, and still have hope for seeing the best happen.
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)I mean, c'mon. Really?
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)It makes the place a whole lot nicer. Only the intelligent people who are really looking for answers and have something to contribute show up on my screen. The others . . . . .buh bye!
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)like GWBush into the Oval Office, Hillary is a shoe-in.
Power to the people. Yeah, right.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)Besides caucuses are, on the whole, much more undemocratic than primaries. Case in point, in Nebraska Bernie won the caucus but a few months later there was a primary which had a bigger turnout than the caucus and Hillary won. I'd argue that if some of these states had primaries instead of caucuses that Hillary would have won some of them.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)any rational person who looks at the way they do it knows that.
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)PufPuf23
(8,688 posts)Otherwise I support Sanders and agree with most of which you say.
Thanks.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Sanders has won fewer primaries (open and closed) than Clinton has won just open primaries. Sanders does really well in low turn out caucuses, but does poorly in primaries unless they have a low percentage of black and Hispanic voters.
Jarqui
(10,110 posts)There just aren't enough of them to go around any more.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)that everyone else would cower and shake . .. . .has run out of donors because they're all tapped out. She even stole all that money from the states she was supposedly helping them to raise for their candidates. . . she is so low she had to start begging from GOP donors.
Bernie's having no problem though. And since he gets his money from us, that's who he'll work for. And unless you gave Hillary over a Million, she isn't going to be working for you. Period!
I never understand how people can support someone who works against their own self interests --- just like those poor voters in the south who keep voting in Republicans who just make them poorer, the Democrats are doing the same thing and thinking how clever they are for doing it. Talk about mixed up.
Jarqui
(10,110 posts)having a really tough time warming up to Hillary while between Trump and her, I'd like to believe she would make the better president.
I've asked myself: is it the lying, the flip-flops, the dirty tricks, Republican-lite, selling out to the 1% or her making me feel like she'll go to war? Maybe it's all of that stuff. Or maybe it's as simple as: I simply just can't stand her.
Looks like I'll be holding my nose and dry heaving until November.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts).
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)thx for posting
arcane1
(38,613 posts)He loved Big Brother
(1,257 posts)Grow up. Trump fills stadiums. Is he now suddenly a good candidate?
People flock to the cult of personality. They did it with Obama, they did it with Dean, they do it with Bernie.
Hillary is not a cult of personality. That doesn't reflect on her ability to run the nation.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)all american girl
(1,788 posts)He started off with meeting people in Iowa, in places like my old junior high school gym, talking and meeting a handful of people like my stepdad and BIL. I don't recall Bernie doing much of that. Sometimes actually listening and talking to people means they will make the effort of go vote for you. It seems to be working for Hillary...why change a formula that's working. Bernie's way doesn't seem to be getting him more votes that Hillary.
I know that all you want to do is show how popular Bernie is with his big rallies, in part trying to show how unpopular Hillary is...and it's nothing but a cheap shot...but when all is said and done, she has far more delegates than he does, so it really doesn't matter in the end.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Those who can't inspire the voters means they are not in touch with them. Hillary is WAY out of touch with the people. How can you represent their interests if you don't have a clue about them?
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Mike Nelson
(9,903 posts)...just plain supporters - not the "adoring" kind. Not fans. They vote. They aren't the rally type, most of them...
LenaBaby61
(6,965 posts)I've never cared for huge crowds, but if there are those who want to attend their favorite pols rallies, it's all good. Hillary Clinton received my California primary ballot vote last week via the US Post Office.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)Depaysement
(1,835 posts)She might be able to play Davos though.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)your statement makes no sense when you consider the Hillary groups are smaller, but the number of votes she has is much, much bigger.
Remember, Hillary has more Primary votes than Trump as well....Republicans are NOT losing hedge fund voters...not by a long shot. So your post makes even less sense.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I think you think that crowd always = the same number of votes and the crowds?
oasis
(49,151 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)oasis
(49,151 posts)Hill doesn't do speeches in front of stadiums fill with kids who are not much concerned with policy details. Half of them won't make it to the polls anyway. We already know that.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)oasis
(49,151 posts)and installations across the country for this entire primary season. There's plenty of tv footage of Hillary engaging with with average citizens and factory workers.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Clinton talks to people, Sanders talks at them. He deliberately avoided a retail strategy and opted to go with a less up close approach.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-gambles-choosing-small-events-over-huge-rallies-n575311
Take the New York primary, for example. In the week leading up to the vote, Sanders held three huge events in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx.
Clinton instead focused on retail stops and smaller rallies. On the night of Sanders' Washington Square Park mega-event, Clinton spoke to about 1,000 people at a public housing community center in the Bronx.
Ironically enough, Sanders did not win any of the boroughs in which he held his largest gatherings.
Response to BigBearJohn (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Doesn't have as many delegates, big crowds did not work for him.
apnu
(8,722 posts)Its not her M.O. it is Bernies to a certain degree. In politics if one wants to throw big rallies to show support, they always book venues smaller than the expected crowd size. you can tell Bernie does this because every single one of his rallies has overflow people. This is campaigning 101 stuff.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Not sure that's good.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)power lies.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Says about Hillary and her "Wins"
Oh and the skit is funny as well.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)our sources? okay
Codeine
(25,586 posts)and I have absolutely ZERO interest in attending a rally for her or any other politician.
Seriously -- why? Why on earth would I want to go queue up to see a politician make a speech in a stadium? The whole thing seems dumb.
VOX
(22,976 posts)I mean, what a loser. The other guys put on such a great show, which is why they really went places.
barrow-wight
(744 posts)Demsrule86
(68,351 posts)It is how it works.
Response to BigBearJohn (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Which is how you win an election.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)campaign trail and they know how to conserve money to fight on to another day.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)People who pay $100,000 to attend a fundraiser probably expect decent food and premium liquor to go with it. That ain't cheap.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)donated $10,000 to Sanders, campaigns cost money.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)I had a dream a couple weeks ago that she won, and in it I felt relieved but not excited. At least, not excited the same way I was in 2008 or 2012. And I probably won't be. To be fair, I knew the night I stood in Times Square watching Obama's victory speech in 2012 that it would be a long time before I felt that way again, because politicians like Obama just don't come along that often.
Hillary is a very intelligent, competent, and tenacious leader who shares many though not all of my progressive ideals, and concerns about her hawkishness aside, I think she will do a good job as president. But she just doesn't inspire me or make me feel what is possible, and I think that's how a lot of people feel. There are a lot of things I admire about her and I have no problem supporting her if she is the nominee. If I could afford the hefty cost of admission, I would be happy to have the chance to meet her in person. But I just don't think I would sit through 2 hours of traffic to drive 20 miles and then stand in a 3-4 hour line to hear her speak like I did the night before the 2008 election.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Demsrule86
(68,351 posts)There has been no fraud...Bernie simply lost to Hillary Clinton. Oh well.
ecstatic
(32,566 posts)strong, and knowledgeable. She's not a natural politician with the charisma and everything else that comes naturally for her husband, president Obama, and even Sanders.
I think she'll fill stadiums once she's president, but not until then. For now, she's won the most important metric: the popular vote.
Demsrule86
(68,351 posts)so sad some of your people didn't do the same...aww.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)JudyM
(29,122 posts)riversedge
(69,722 posts)state to those millions. Why waste money like Bernie does?? Fills Bernie's ego is what is does.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)To turn those big rallies into votes? What is the problem, his campaign has spent lots of money and has not gotten the results.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)I am in many ways the right demographic for Hillary, although i'm a Bernie supporter (50-something, lifelong Dem, upper-middle class). My friends and family are in a similar demographic, and indeed are Hillary supporters, some quite passionately so.
But there's no way I'm going to a rally for Bernie, and there's no way they're going to a rally for Hillary. We're busy people with plenty of access to information (and YouTube), and we've all been around long enough to know that political change doesn't come from filling stadiums full of people (Nuremberg notwithstanding). Rallies mean nothing, change nothing, and are generally a huge pain in the ass to attend (hell, I won't even go see my favorite bands in arenas, and I love music way more than I love politics).
Long story short: I'm too old for that shit. And "too old for that shit" seems to describe the Hillary demographic to a T.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)campaigner. And pragmatic people ( HRC Voters) are usually not driven by emotion but rather logic. BS supporters are much more emotional and fired up, which can be a good thing.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Seems to have worked brilliantly.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Black urban voters how she's all for gun control and then mere days later telling rural white voters how she's all about 2nd amendment rights
Pretty gosh darn hard to make connections like that in a large arena
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)contradictory to 2nd amendment support. But I'm sure you already know that...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)NOT
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)using all of its power and wealth to manipulate the whole process. Brilliant? No, crooked is more like it.
barrow-wight
(744 posts)the voting booths?
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)barrow-wight
(744 posts)Of course that's your answer.
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)barrow-wight
(744 posts)Has you a sad?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)But they will sometimes attend those high dollar fund raiser dinners, like the one Clooney held for her.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Easy question but not a lot of correct answers
You nailed it.
jimw81
(111 posts)Micromangament of campign resources and all politics is local
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Sanders' campaign is a bit more people-powered, and his progressive message is new to many people who would want to see it in person.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)a good plan: as Obama said in his speech: Hillary won the nomination
with experience and good planning. She went after the supper delegates
long before the Primaries started. Hillary and Dem party know how to win
elections.
The people at Sander rallies are lazy, and do not show up to vote, they
don't go to Dem party events, because they cannot be counted on:
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)She changed to an approach more suited (pantsuited?) to her personality. And given that she's easily winning the race, it seems like a good plan. The nomination is won on delegates not rally size.