We always hear about the 3 million+ voters for HRC.
Where did they come from? That is what matters.
During the early votes in the Southern part of the
country Bernie was not known very well, and neither
Thus both of those candidates were not given the
same chance as the overwhelmingly well known
In my view O'Malley was a year too late to become
a well known candidate, and Bernie was 6-8 months
behind as well.
The debates were set up in such a way that not many
dems watched them: One during an important sports
event, the other the Saturday before Christmas. Who
arranged for this???
It made me very angry at the time, that most of the time
during the debates was concentrating on HRC, Bernie was
second, and O'Malley was almost ignored.
Just think for a moment how different these primaries
would have been without HRC. No scandals, no baggage
and a very fair voting choice. I think, under those
circumstances O'Malley may have won, because he offered
new ideas without being called a "socialist".
It makes me sad to see the media and the DNC insisting
on the candidate with the biggest unfavorable ratings,
which would not have happened between the other two.
That we are dismissing the south vote. That will make Sanders the winner.
And here is your post.
Then everything would have been free, tranquil and fair.
Hillary is only winning and getting votes because she's running in the primary.
Is this really what bouys them? If you chain yourself to an anvil, you might drown.
INCLUDING Hawaii, I think you laugh too soon. I agree with the OP. Given that Bernie has come from a 60-80 point deficit to holding her hostage to her ambitions, its remarkable. What is also remarkable that the anointed one has not nailed this shut and won't.
as some kind of backwards people who are so ignorant that we can't keep up with current events or that we are so unsophisticated that we dont know what the issues are. Please don't use us as an excuse as to why your candidate didn't perform better in the primaries. I'm tired of the south being a scapegoat for Bernie's problems.
Why we allow that, I don't know. But damn, the racism I see here is just ridiculous.
It's a long tradition in the south to disrespect outsiders. Bernie is an outsider, fer sure, so there is that.
He might have done a little better if he had.
I guess you missed that? How did you miss that?
Maybe because the media you were tuned to hardly ever even mentioned Bernie? The media I saw was 90% republican, 9% Hillary and 1% Bernie.
Only 13% of South Carolinians voted in the D primary. That means 87% didn't care, or didn't know.
No. VA, Kentucky and other places. The events and news were posted here.
Clinton and Bernie essentially tied in KY. How do you define appeal, enthusiasm and interest?
Those who are inspired and motivated to hear and support Sanders still matter tremendously.
How many people have showed up at Clinton events?
as the smaller, more intimate meet and greet venues.
and you brought up Rock Star rally events. Do you recall his campaign events in 2008 and 2012? Maybe not.
You also seem to be ignoring the Sanders campaign claims that they "didn't try to compete" in those Southern states they lost so badly.
For Hillary, she does better in intimate groups, because voters get to see her more closely. Yes, Bernie was having to work to get name recognition. Hillary is working to get "human being with emotions and not really a calculating conniving insert your misogynistic insult here" recognition.
Each require different strategies in rally presentation and venue choice.
someone campaigning for congress, senate or governor that was unable or unwilling to fill a high school gymnasium during the height of a campaign, in my life. And I've been to political rallies, debates and inaugurals since the 1970s. The first was a debate between Carter and Ford held in a large college hall filled to capacity with many active and engaged people. And now that I think of it the affairs I've attended for Hillary were all unusually small, in 2002 and even an important 2007 event that was an announcement of her upcoming presidential campaign.
.. and get to have interactions with her, then both press covers those and that voter tells their friends "No, I really met her, and she's not like people suggest"...
She was never a born politician in the sense of having the charisma to simply from a distance of thousands of feet make people feel that, and she's dealing with the dehumanizing effects of a smear campaign against her for two decades.
It's a long tradition in the south to disrespect outsiders. Bernie is an outsider, fer sure, so there is that.
The way to disrespect people.
High school students are hit by a high-pressure water jet from a firehose during a peaceful walk in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963. As photographed by Charles Moore, images like this one, printed in Life, inspired international support for the demonstrators
We may joke that the difference between a Yankee and a damn Yankee is the latter moves here.and stays, but you'll never leave a house without an offer of food or drink, people stop on the side of the road to check on stranded drivers, and please and thank you are part of the vocabulary.
And while there are racist rednecks, there are also thriving hippie towns.
I suspect we have a different understanding of what constitutes, "racism."
their democratic voters of ignorance. The point though is
that neither O'Malley nor Bernie were as well known as
HRC, who has been in the public light for at least 25 years.
You must admit that that is somewhat different from
people, who are not well known outside of their state.
Obama had his big introduction at the convention way
before he decided to run, and that helped him a lot.
And I would say that a lot of people (excluding me) have
watched and known about that conman Trump. You don't
think that this fact has any importance with his "success"?
Our candidate has performed very well in the primaries--way better than anyone expected. Furthermore, our candidate draws massive crowds, crowds that HRC could only dream about. No one shows up to her speeches with either numbers or enthusiasm--it's painfully obvious. She has to play small venues so there are no damaging photographs of empty seats.
Just had to set the record straight. Wouldn't want you to be under some kind of illusion.
Playing small venues seemed to work out well for one of the candidates, huh.
What you are misconstruing as preference the public has for your candidate is actually just name-brand awareness. Hillary has been in public life for decades. Running Bernie against Hillary is like running XYZ Toothpaste against Crest.
Despite having that enormous advantage, preference for Hillary drops dramatically in every state when Bernie comes to town. You see this pattern over and over and over again. As soon as people become familiar with Bernie, they drop Hillary like yesterday's leftover soggy sandwich.
I'm a former brand manager, and I can tell you that if my product performed like Hillary when a new introduction (Bernie) came in, I would have been fired, and it wouldn't have taken long. That is a standard across the industry: brand managers do not last if their product loses market share.
There's another element in all this, and that is the voter chicanery that follows HRC wherever she goes, but I won't develop that point any more. I am sure you get the idea.
"Those "massive crowds" didn't do him much good at the voting booth, did they?
Playing small venues seemed to work out well for one of the candidates, huh."
"Just had to set the record straight. Wouldn't want you to be under some kind of illusion. "
Get being part of the minority in beliefs and political affiliation.
"because they never go blue in the GE" while being fine with Bernie's wins in Utah and Alaska ... two states that haven't gone Blue in the last 40 years?
A primary candidate should campaign in areas which might vote for them in the general election.
Is Arkansas going to vote for the D nominee or Trump? The states that Sanders won are swing states which are important to the general election.
Democratic nominee since those states will probably vote Republican? It certainly sounds like you're saying that our votes don't matter.
party the Democrats aren't really helped by the minority vote.
The GE election is not decided by the popular vote but by electoral/state. That is why the "swing" states become so important.
My state is a solid blue state so the Republicans won't spend as much money campaigning in my state as compared to a swing states. The odds of turning my state red are very very slim. Nothing personal. I have Republican friends. They still vote in the GE even though the state will most likely be a blue state. That's just the war things are.
system in the state.
Thanks for the clarification. Lol
Being more popular is not cheating.
Are you only for democracy when your candidate wins?
that O'Malley got what he deserved compared
to a national and international figure?
At least to some...
BTW, my canvassing supports this: every Hillary supporter I encountered in CA said they were voting for Hillary because they wanted a woman president.
I was shocked at the reason for people's support honestly. I thought people were backing her as the more conservative candidate with more experience, too. Or they didn't like Bernie's style. But nope.
At least he offered new ideas, which she did not,
nor has she done so by now.
"Hillary got more votes because more people think she would be a good President" just doesn't seem to be an acceptable explanation for some folks.
The millions and millions of this election was brought to you BY the millions and millions who responded TO Bernie.
What to do? All those numbers... Talk about "the math"... You can do a LOT of manipulations, depending upon the state controls and DNC effect upon the debates, the media, the so-called, power brokers like Boxer and minions who spin.
The latest atrocity is the way Puerto Rico's electorate has been curtailed for the local and national elections tomorrow. The large numbers brought into this election by Sanders are fodder for those who are in good position to manipulate the elections themselves, ignore the issues, control the MSM and outright spin daily through those who's jobs depend upon it.
It makes you wonder. It makes me NEVER give in to the reactionary powers that be.
They work so hard to deceive because they are scared shitless.
She also scored big wins in Florida and Ohio about a month prior to that.
they wanted to, then watch the debate later on at their leisure. Then nobody would be precluded from watching the debate because of some sporting event taking place at the same time. Why can't someone invent a device that would enable people to do this?
Wins....accept it and move on to keep America safe from trump and elect democratic senators and congress people.
In my very mixed neighborhood people told me
pretty early on:" The party is ramming HRC down
our throat, so what can we do?"
They are not happy about this, but I assume that
they will unhappily go along.
Again, my question to you is where did those
3 million over the top votes come from?
It seems that nobody wants to go into the
details about this. Why not????
They were free to support another candidate. The DNC was not holding their hand in the voting booth.
It's called democracy. Don't like it? Work to fix it.
I can't stand Hillary, but she is winning this race and she'll likely be the nominee.
She's winning by the rules set in place when each candidate announced their intentions. Hillary is doing what is needed to win.
So, saying we have a democracy is probably a bit naive.
Exit polls have been outrageously off as well, but not for the Republicans.
Until we get a transparent and verifiable election system all results are suspect. Even if Bernie were winning I would still be loudly clamoring for changes to our election system. It is a disgrace, and it does not give our "democracy" legitimacy.
I feel there are some irregularities in every election in recent years, but I don't agree it's enough to flip an election.
Who knows. Maybe Obama really didn't win twice.
I believe the pledged delegates were probably much closer than they "legitimately" show currently, but I can not KNOW.
Theses machines are easily hacked or preprogrammed. This is a fact. So, people that talk about our results in a manner that gives them legitimacy allow the system to remain. They are not part of the movement that will be needed to overhaul our system. I do realize this is a very large majority of people. Most fortunate for the status quo who have already taken great strides at delegitimizing exit polling.
When enough of us start saying the system is not legitimate and begin demanding reform we may get it. We will never get it if that never happens.
tell you ?
has not been given credit for what he tried
accomplishments. That's all on him.
I guess Chelsea will be president soon because she's earned her name recognition
Instead of just insulting me. How did Hillary earn her name recognition? Marrying Bill? That's earning it? While I know she worked hard to get bill in the white house, so did lots of others whose names will never be know.
before you posted ?
where did most of those 3 million votes come from?
I am asking for a break down, and most here don't
answer this at all.
Please break down the counts of 3 million more votes
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Democratic Popular Vote http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html
And before you try to claim that the caucus votes would change the results......
The Pinocchio Test
Despite the suspicions of the Sanders supporter, the fact that caucus results are not included in the popular vote tally does not appear to make much of a difference in the final result. Despite overwhelming victories in caucus states such as Washington and Maine, Sanders gains only about 130,000 votes. That means Clinton is ahead by 2.4 million votes, rather than 2.5 million votes. Given rounding and the fact that caucus numbers are only estimates the difference is slight enough that Clintons claim, made before the Wisconsin vote, earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark.
is the single biggest reason he will not win the nomination. He tried, but it was already too late.
I think we have a good chance to see O'Malley in 2024. He would make a good President.
Here are the vote totals by state on RCP:
You can go see for yourself the vote totals and where Clinton got her 3+ million votes.
You may be right, some people are voting for her because of name recognition, some may be voting for her because her husband did a damn good job with the budget--leaving us with a surplus--some people may be voting against Trump by voting for her and, believe it or not, some people just may like her.
She also does really well with people of color, something that could have put Sanders over the top if he didn't come across as quasi-bigoted (I'm not saying he is but he certainly comes across that way with his lack of outreach). The fastest growing segment of the voting bloc are Hispanics and Clinton seems to have a lock on the Hispanic vote--probably because they seem to trend more conservative.
There are tons of reasons that Clinton has more popular votes but since it isn't happening inside your personal bubble, you don't get it or want to get it.
To the part of the country that gave us our first African-American president. Can it go any lower?
and not just 3 million, but 3 million MORE than your guy
that's the impression I got, that people had voted before
they'd heard of Bernie, and more than a few were kicking themselves..
There is only ever one winner. The process is intended to test how candidates use their advantages and minimize their disadvantages. This is not equal opportunity employment or ever intended to be. If a candidate can use their skills and assets to create a completely unfair advantage in their favor, then that is exactly what they are supposed to do. This is the nature of the system.
I do not happen to like the way this is coming out, but that does not mean there is something "wrong" about it. This is a game based on "survival of the fittest" rules. Unfortunately even with actual evolution "survival of the fittest" rules will occasionally produce dead end results.
I do not think "socialist" had much to do with it. Only Barack broke into the Clinton hold on the AA vote, and only Barack could have. The primary system is front loaded with a massive portion of the AA vote, and this is intentional. Bernie has done just fine when he has had time to explain what he is about to an audience where the decision has not already been made. The decision in the early southern primaries was largely made a long time ago and only interrupted by Barack temporarily.
For instance, Bernie won 72% of the vote in Washington. There are 7.2 Million people in Washington. Do you know who many votes they added to Bernie's vote total? ZERO!
In all those caucus states that Bernie won by Yuuuuuge margins, he got ZERO votes for them. I think that pretty well explains away those nonsense "3 Million" more votes Hillary supposedly has.
Again, all you have to do is look at the size of their crowds. Hillary's are counted in dozens of people, maybe even hundreds, and Bernie's are in the THOUSANDS. One candidate has inspired the public and one has only inspired the 1%.
That says a lot about why he lost. He didn't prepare.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
So the people that have worked with him for 25 years, and know him best, don't like him much either.
26 states plus DC went for Obama in 2012, giving him the election. (Referred to herein as the Obama States).
23 of the Obama States have had primaries or caucuses thus far (CA, DC, NJ, and NM have not voted yet).
Clinton has won 12 of those contests, Sanders has won 11.
In terms of popular vote, almost 8.5 million of Clinton's popular vote has come from Obama States.
Sanders has picked up a slight more than 7 million votes in the Obama States.
So one-half of Clinton's 3 million vote edge comes in Obama States.
The Obama States won by Clinton represent 172 electoral college votes.
The Obama States won by Sanders represent 83 electoral college votes.
(The four Obama States that have voted yet represent 77 electoral college votes, meaning that if Sanders swept them he still would have won Obama States with fewer electoral votes than Clinton).
The Obama States won by Clinton represent 797 pledged delegates.
The Obama States won by Sanders represent 390 pledged delegates.
Sorry if this doesn't fit your meme.
the Democratic primary electorate there is similar to other southern states (Maryland is a border state).
He got thumped in Pennsylvania and New York.
In a democracy, all votes matter. Not just ones from favored populations.
It's also offensive to say that the campaign was "unfair" because Hillary was more famous than the other candidates, and that she should've just not run in order to give them a "fair" chance.
This may come as a surprise to you, but even Democrats living in the south can read and write and a lot of us have internet.
Quite a bit among my friends at least. I've had several friends tell me they wish they had voted for Bernie instead of Hillary but they just hadn't heard of him at the time of their primary. Most of them only bothered to go vote because of local races and they just picked HRC assuming she was inevitable. The media made sure that was the narrative and they primarily get their news from TV.
Bernard Sanders was not viable in the former and might not be viable in the latter...
So much for the time argument. Best to look elsewhere for your explanation.