Clinton supporters' newest delusion about Bernie Sanders

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

A number of liberals, perhaps unaccustomed to being on the conservative side of an argument, have been busily convincing themselves that the Sanders insurgency is little more than a coincidence, and does not represent any meaningful advance for the American left. Foremost among them are two political scientists, Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels, who used survey data and their theoretical work to argue that Sanders' ample support resulted from "social identities, symbolic commitments, and partisan loyalties," not actual left-wing ideology.

(snip)

There were some problems with the Achens/Bartels analysis, as Shawn Gude and Matt Karp pointed out. Most glaringly, the survey they used includes a lot of Republicans — about a quarter of the sample. If you restrict the sample to Democrats and Democrat-leaners only, the picture is quite a bit different, and shows Sanders generally to Clinton's left, on average. Sanders Democrats rate income inequality as hugely more important than Clinton Democrats, but they are also to the left on issues of race and gender, ironically.

But on a more fundamental level, it's important to recognize how profoundly elitist the Achens/Bartels theoretical framework is. In their book, they argue that ordinary voters have basically zero control over government policy, because they have no idea what's going on, politically speaking. They don't understand government, they don't understand policy, and they don't have a good grasp on what politicians believe. They vote based on identity and partisanship, and, when given the chance in plebiscites, regularly make ignorant and self-damaging choices.

It should be noted that this bleak picture blows apart just about all traditional political arguments. If all voters are clueless partisan chowderheads then that must include Clinton supporters, whose votes cannot then be invoked as support for fiddly tax credits or anything else, aside from the dumbest herd model of identity politics.

(snip)

What is needed, I think, is a retreat from endless parsing of The Data and a little common sense. Bernie Sanders has been for years the most left-wing member of the Senate, from the second-smallest state in the nation. He ran on extremely aggressive and easy-to-understand left-wing policy. In contrast to the other white man in the race, the young, handsome, and (before the primary started) much more famous Martin O'Malley, Sanders stubbornly embraces one of the most toxic labels in American politics. But he completely blew O'Malley out of the water, and gave Clinton a serious run for her money, on the strength of colossal margins among young people — most of whom have come of political age in the worst economic environment in 80 years.

Surely some of that support is due to raw anti-Clinton animus or other distasteful characteristics, just as some of Clinton's support can be chalked up to a selfish refusal to pay the higher taxes that Sanders' program would require. But anyone who can talk themselves into thinking that his candidacy does not represent a resurgent American left has another thing coming.

http://theweek.com/articles/630456/clinton-supporters-newest-delusion-about-bernie-sanders

This is a good read but I believe the last sentence should read "has another think coming."

[floriduck]

1. Thanks for sharing this, Uncle Joe.

[Uncle Joe]

2. It was my pleasure, floriduck.

[zonkers]

57. Yup big thanks. big kick. to the convention.

[vintx]

3. Damn right. Little by little, ever since the DLC got started, those of us on the left

have become fed up with the BS that the neo-liberals have been serving.

It has now reached critical mass.

[upaloopa]

5. Yea that's why you refused to vote in 2014 and now in 2016. You are a critical mass at Bernie

rallies and on line polls that's about it. Key board warriors get nowhere.


You're the reason the right has taken over so many powerful positions since 2010. "Why should I vote, I have principles, there is nothing for me to vote for."

The revolution was over before it started. You can't manufacture reality, you have to be a part if it!

Show us you are involved like the Tea Party was in 2010. Don't just blow smoke up our asses.

[vintx]

9. I've voted straight ticket Dem since I turned 18 and could vote (for Dukakis)

You might want to check your assumption making abilities cause... yeah.

[upaloopa]

12. One person doesn't make a movement.

Where you here after the mid terms in 2014. Person after person on the left told us why they didn't vote.

[vintx]

15. I joined here in 2013. Was mourning on smirking chimp before that.

And yeah, I was here and I have seen this pattern starting in 2000 when people refused to vote for Gore.

It's not going to go away because Dems keep yelling "SCOTUS!" or republicans run dipshits.

The Democratic party has shifted right and keeps doing so. Maybe this shift will cause it to stop and reverse course. If not then the left sitting out good cop / bad cop routines is not likely to end anytime soon.

[ismnotwasm]

21. Then don't you think down ticket is where to start?

Where to organize all that energetic potential-- elect people like Seattle city council member Kshama Sawant. I am planning on voting for Pramila Jayapal for the Senate seat of retiring liberal Jim McDermott, which is my district. I think Sanders endorsed her.

It might not be important to you, but I will scream "SCOTUS" at the top of my lungs every time--how do you think we even ended up with Citizens United?

[Florencenj2point0]

65. It seems almost hopeless to get through to some people

[JRLeft]

20. You sound like a right winger.

[QC]

77. Always has. n/t

[JRLeft]

78. I know we have right leaning voters on this site.

[insta8er]

29. Unless she is a female, then it is breaking glass ceilings, and earth shattering. No matter what she

stands for...and anyone who disagrees, is called a sexist and or other derogatory words.

[Marr]

37. The absentees have been shown to have been your dear 'moderates' over and over.

Why do you continue to insist it was liberals who failed to show up? Don't you think it's lying if you continually assert a thing you know to be untrue?

[rhett o rick]

99. That's a bunch of anti-Left hate bologna. From my experience in 2014 the Left was out

in force to GOTV. The Left is always very aggressive with their support and we get criticized sometimes for it. It was the so-called centrists that stayed home. I have yet to hear anyone on the Left claiming they are staying home. A lot of them will not support Clinton but they are not staying home. We need down-ticket progressives to win. We must throw out the corporatists from our party.

[CobaltBlue]

80. upaloopa—Neoliberal Democrats are responsible.

And your support of Hillary Clinton, over Bernie Sanders, is encouraging that continuation.

[notadmblnd]

92. "Key board warriors get nowhere."

You appear to be here day in and day out, so I guess you would be the expert on that.

[BobbyDrake]

4. They said the same about Howard Dean. Pardon us if we use the Left's previous inability to show up

as the foundation for legitimate scepticism of their next claim of imminent victory.

[Uncle Joe]

8. Howard Dean won how many primaries and caucuses?

[CobaltBlue]

81. BobbyDrake—Translating your message: “I want my Democratic Party to be a Moderate Republican Party”!

[bigtree]

6. real advances mean actual legislative progress

...and it requires the same numbers of support to advance changes through the legislature.

That effort requires coalition-building. Continuing to define the 'left' apart from whatever is said to be the 'establishment' doesn't get progressives any closer to realizing those ideals and initiatives. This isn't a case where the establishment needs to come begging for support to advance progressive changes, the left still needs to make certain they're not marginalizing their cause in some sort of martyrdom. They need to reach out and coalesce, not just continue the scorched earth nonsense of the campaign.

The blurb is feel-good pablum at a time when a reality check is needed. Every day finds more denizens of the Sanders revolution splitting off to join in the campaign against the republican menace. That would seem to be a perfect place to come together and move forward to the challenges ahead.

[vintx]

10. Are you seriously unaware of Sanders' record of building coalitions?

Wait, strike that.

Why am I even surprised anymore.

[geek tragedy]

13. Sanders's record of building coalitions?

[anigbrowl]

25. Oh tell me how he's the amendment king too.

Everyone in the senate builds coalitions, that's basically their job. I don't see much evidence of Sanders being more effective at it than others. He didn't even build a big team of prominent campaign surrogates. He must have made the decision to run for President at least 2 or 3 years ago but I don't see any network of supporters in Congress or state legislatures or governor's mansions. He had one ally in the Senate and one in the house and they both acknowledged Clinton as the winner weeks ago. Whoopty do.

[Florencenj2point0]

63. But but but He wants a coalition government

he wants to appoint 45 percent of the cabinet positions! Dammit Janet, Shirley he into do that!

[anigbrowl]

64. LOL you're naughty

[JCanete]

43. actual legislative progress can only be had if you have a legislature that wants progress,

and the problem isn't that half of congress doesn't want it, its that two thirds of congress doesn't want it. I'm all for making incremental change to the left, if that were what we've been doing for the last 40 years. Truth in advertising though, would be "Democratic Party...we'll drive you off that cliff, but at least we'll take the scenic route."

Believing that your democracy isn't heavily managed is feel-good pablum. Believing that both major parties aren't heavily corrupted by big money is feel-good pablum. Thinking that change would ever occur under those conditions, when you've "chosen" a candidate who has basically promised to change none of it is feel-good pablum.

Nobody can do good work with this congress. the point is making the message main-stream in-spite of the main-stream media. The point is giving a boost to up-and-comers who take this message and run with it, because people are hungry for candidates who aren't' beholden to big money interests, and now they have some idea of what that sounds like.

You're right, the left is always in danger of being marginalized. the machine is waiting to pounce on mistakes, ready to blame you for going too far and hurting your message, because what it really wants is for you to slink quietly away. I think what you want is for the left to slink quietly away, and that's cool if your a center-right dem on principle, just quit pretending you want change of even incremental variety, at least not to the left. It's just so damn disingenuous at this point.

[bigtree]

46. so you set yourself up as a victim

...inventing this antagonist who you say wants the left to 'slink away.'

What I'm actually pointing out is the reality of the success of those your campaign terms 'establishment' gaining majority voter support this primary, and the failure of what you term 'the left' in capturing that support.

You're so busy arguing with your own invented narrative and caricature of me that you're (deliberately?) brushing right past that reality. That mirrors the Sanders campaign's nonsense they were selling about the Clinton campaign and supporters, and their own predictable failure in turning those delusions into voter support.

Why don't you start by recognizing that the Sanders campaign didn't invent progressiveness; doesn't own progressiveness; and supporting Sanders doesn't make you a progressive. Successful progressive politics requires *progress*, not platitudes and self-congratulation for a losing campaign.

[JCanete]

49. Inventing? I know why the left has a hard time garnering support. It's not some mystery, and it has

little to do with the strength of the message. There are absolutely congratulations in order for the campaign. Why do you gloss over the way in which both campaigns were funded, as if getting to where Sanders has the way he has isn't unprecedented. It's way the fuck further than I ever expected him to get when I donated to his campaign. Hell, I thought it a success when he earned that first couple million. Why would you want to denigrate that triumph? He brought an inconvenient message into the spotlight, that nobody at that level of exposure(inspite of how poor that exposure still was)has talked about for decades.

Bernie does not own progressivism, he's just been one of its true advocates for his whole career in politics. It just happened to be that it was his campaign that gained traction. But it isn't about him for us, its about what he stands for. You can tell me we don't own progressivism, but I challenge you to have the courage to define your version of it. Saying you want "progress" is a platitude.

What do you want when it comes to campaign finance reform, prison reform, anti-drug law reform, minimum wage increase, actual regulations on our financial institutions, legislation that curtails predatory lending, college tuition, environmental protections, protectionism tied to human rights...hell what's your list?

It irks me that so many "progressives" want to continue to wrap themselves in the label, talking out of one side of their mouths about how they are voting for the candidate that can most successfully realize liberal idealism, if only incrementally, while talking out of the other about how the left is seriously undermining its own interests, and about how the establishment shouldn't give the left shit. See, I thought you were left? I thought you wanted those same things, you were just being pragmatic about how to get them.

But how would I really know? One of the most consistent traits about the typical pro-Hillary poster on this board, is just how cagey you all are about what you actually believe in, like its an intensely personal matter and to ask is an invasion of privacy. So in frustration, after a year of this, yeah, I"m starting to make accusations about your reasons for being so coy about your issues. My assumptions are simply my best guess based upon having ver poor intel, but nobody wants to offer up more complete information. Why is that?

[bigtree]

85. you know next to nothing about what Hillary supporters believe

...projecting/substituting your own imagination, instead.

It's so confoundedly vile...blocking you.

[JCanete]

87. Not surprising. My point was that you wouldn't tell us what you believe, so I was working off of

imperfect information. I gave you an opportunity to tell me something about what you do believe. Your response was to tell me I don't know next to nothing about what you believe. Brilliant!!!! Now we're really sharing ideas!!!! Even better, you did a hit-and-run post and then blocked me, which in my opinion is just petty, and chicken-shit, no matter which camp you're in.

So why even engage on the primary board if you don't actually want to engage? Why not just stick to the Hillary board where like minded people can stroke each other's realities.

Anyway, maybe somebody in the Hillary camp who is less skittish can answer my question.

[Faux pas]

7. K N R-ed

[eastwestdem]

11. People can argue all they want, the real impact of the Sanders 'revolution' is yet to be seen.

It could still go either way, his movement can easily fizzle at this point, or find a new, younger and more dynamic leader to lead it into the future. We shall see.

[Uncle Joe]

17. I believe Bernie's strong advocacy for selected, younger progressive political leaders at all

levels of government will ensure the movement sprouts new trees until we have a veritable forest.

[eastwestdem]

19. Again, we shall see. nt

[ShrimpPoboy]

14. i guess we'll see over the next few cycles if thats true

But I can't argue that Sanders is farther left than anyone with a real shot at nomination in my lifetime and was widely supported within the party. At the very least it's an indicator of where the party is now, which will hopefully inform the policy choices we see out of Clinton and co. going forward.

[2banon]

16. Thank you, when I read that ridiculous article, it reeked of Party Elitists propaganda

I appreciate your time and labor to post this excellent counter point to that obvious agitprop piece..

I did get suckered into buying into the headline that DWS got replaced that just got posted.

It's an old game, but apparently it's effective enough.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Thank you, 2banon.

Peace to you.

[2banon]

72. And to you my friend..

Thank you for all that you do!

[JRLeft]

22. You're not used to true progressivism, democrats have fed you neoliberal policies dressed up as

progressive policies.

[2banon]

74. talking to me?

preaching to the choir my friend, you're singing my tune on countless posts right here on du.. I'd quibble about how dressed up those policies have been in terms of "progressivism"... But your point remains, this is what the do, in some cases better than others. sometimes it's so obvious, one must be wearing wool veil over the eyes not to see the emperors have no clothes.

[WhiteTara]

23. replacing her with a union rep

isn't good enough?

[hedda_foil]

28. She's still chair of the DNC. She's not the one who runs day to day operations and never has been.

The union guy was appointed to manage coordination between the DNC and Clinton's campaign., taking that out of.DWS's hands. She is still in charge of the convention and party.

[2banon]

73. I know that's what the headlines implied, but as usual headlines mislead

when you continue on with that article, we learn oh. wait. She stays on as head of DNC. Union rep will be handling operations, but does not replace her position, she's not going anywhere until probably as Howard Dean suggest, after Nov.

That's not soon enough for me.

I hope the SEIU Rep can manage to repair/undo damage done, and get down ticket progressives elected. That would be a great outcome..

[WhiteTara]

82. She'll be gone in January. Why not show a little

grace. She has no function except as titular head of the committee and won't be handling much of anything. She has been shunted to the side for removal at an appropriate time. Even Bernie gets extra days and he LOST the primaries.

[2banon]

86. When it's deserved I generally do

I don't know if you managed to catch NPR's Fresh Air with Terry Gross
interview the other day with Ratf**ked author David Daley says that Republicans targeted key state legislative races in 2010 in an effort to control state houses, and, eventually, Congressional redistricting.

Nothing really new except all of the details, of course,

I haven't read it yet, but it seems like something every Democratic Party professional functionary or Politician ought to have used as a primer in this election cycle, perhaps.

Not to late, but the damage done after all the efforts made back in 2006 to 2008 to have been ignored (or undone) seems rather sad to say the least.

[riderinthestorm]

24. K&R! Great article Uncle Joe. Thanks for this. nt

[BootinUp]

26. I hope (we all hope) the resurgent left votes in every election. nt

[uponit7771]

27. The "most left wing" had the least diverse coalition of voters and ignored the "southern states"....

... where his campaign staff admitted openly to not competing in.

TOO bad...

Want to win the DNC then bring a wider swath of PoC or lose... period

[Uncle Joe]

30. The South is the most conservative region of the nation, most resistant to change and the

national corporate media conglomerates; began pushing their Hillary "firewall" frame as Bernie became competitive in the polls of Iowa and New Hampshire in order to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bernie didn't have the resources, time nor name recognition to counter this propaganda offensive.

Bernie and his message did much better with younger voters; people under 45 of all races and I do believe that political trend line will only grow as more of them come to power.

[uponit7771]

31. Weaver and Divine admitted not competing in the "southern states" & Sanders lost by over 2 mil votes

... that's not only tacticly stupid but its in NO WAY progressive seeing there are plenty of PV in the "southern states" that are progressive.

Also

No one is going to trust the Sanders standard on what is progressive or not, no one asked him to make the rules so fuck his sanctimonious ass'd standards on who is the progressive or not

Bernie didn't have the resources, time nor name recognition to counter this propaganda offensive.

This is bullshit on a stick, he sure had enough resources to compete in the states that were REDDER than the "southern states" but whiter

No one is stupid on this, he ignored votes from PoC and lost big time...

That's not "progressive" at all

And to end it all...

He said he's fight for every vote... that's was also bullshit seeing that "fight" was MOSTLY in states with less than 10% of voters were PoC

[OnDoutside]

32. He might have lost by more if he had ;)

[uponit7771]

34. lol... that's something to think about... if people heard his message the rejection would've been...

... higher.

anythings possible

I'm leaning on he didn't try for the votes so he didn't get them and lost by just about that margin

Clinton came VERY close in pop vote with Obama because she didn't ignore the southern states... Sanders campaign did a really stupid thing tactically in ignoring the votes of PoC

[OnDoutside]

40. But but, the system was RIIIIIGGGGED !!!

[Uncle Joe]

45. It most certainly is rigged but I don't find that to be amusing.

[uponit7771]

56. I find the notion that the long shot black guy who won in 08 doesn't think the system is rigged but

... the white guy who's been a part of Washington for 124o23n years and knew the rules before going into the game does.

That's what's amusing

[OnDoutside]

67. Correct, and he didn't even compete in the South, but that doesn't count of course.

[Uncle Joe]

33. As I said, Bernie didn't have the time, resources nor name recognition to counter the

national corporate media conglomerate propaganda war against him.

That's just the facts, whether you agree or not, any candidate has to set financial and time priorities based on their strengths and weaknesses, everybody and their mama knew Hillary, Bernie was largely unknown.

The states Bernie did best in were for the most part, lower population states and advertising is much cheaper there.

P.S. This is also why Schultz greatly limited and cynically manipulated the primary debates to when they would least likely be viewed as a means to give Hillary's larger name recognition protection for as long as she could.

[uponit7771]

35. .. and as I said that's bullshit false on its face, he had enough in whiter redder states and didn't

... even try for the red states with a lot of PoC in them.

There was no narrative by anyone that claimed Sanders was anti PoC seeing he got 20 - 30% of his votes from PoC he just decided not to compete for the rest of the votes and that was stupid.

There was no missing demographic for him, that's the basis of tRumps campaign strategy that there's they can garner more angry white folk to vote for them and they can't,

another reason why the logic is fail is Sanders outspent Clinton almost 2 - 1 throughtout this campaign.

Sander was raking in some major cash... he changed elections for ever for doing this...

He just decided NOT to spend it in the "southern states" and I don't think that was progressive at all

[Uncle Joe]

42. No region of the nation is more conservative than the South this holds true among all demographics,

religion is exceptionally strong here.

The corporate media conglomerates most certainly pushed the Hillary "firewall" narrative 24/7 before the first vote was cast in South Carolina, that began as Bernie became competitive in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls.

It's roots could be traced back even farther to last summer when the corporate media conglomerates made issue of Bernie's "problems" with race during the Black Lives Matter protest during his speech out West.

Bernie is from the second smallest state; Vermont and it's heavily white this was turned in to a negative against him for no rational reason.

Hillary didn't have to spend as much, as I stated she had the great advantage of major name recognition furthermore her super-pacs took up some of the slack.

[uponit7771]

54. Again, the redder WHITER states are even more conservative and he spent resources there

... the "firewall" narrative didn't stop him from spending resources in states that were uber conservative and nothing should've have stopped Sanders from fighting for every vote... no narraritve no thought process.

That's a bad excuse or ignoring votes

Sanders problems were of his own making ... PERIOD... not anyone else's. Black folk didn't like Sanders having someone who called Obama a form of nigger stump for him in front of mostly white people in IA and NH...

That had NOTHING to do with the media

Hillary showed up were Sanders didn't, of course she didn't have to spend as much... that goes without saying and name recognition didn't help Clinton in 08.

Bottom line, Sanders lost because of a horrible strategy ...

That was HIS fault.... FULL STOP

[azurnoir]

62. in August of '15 Hillary surrogates were already calling Southern Blacks her firewall against Bernie

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-2016-super-tuesday-firewall-121781

but at least one thing came across Hillary understood exactly why she lost in '08

[uponit7771]

102. Irrelevant and indicates condescension seeing blacks could care less what the Clinton campaign

... called us, we look at the issues period.

Nor should the Sanders campaign care since they were fighting for every vote ...

[noiretextatique]

94. And black folks forgave Hillary

For the shit she pulled in 2008, right?

[uponit7771]

103. Since Obama did ... yes, that's easy... also she stuck around and not just in the senate or SoS...

... she was there in some capacity

[tonyt53]

36. "National corporate media conglomerate propaganda war against him".

What a load of horse shit. Bernie underestimated the role that minorities would play in this primary. He was hammered by the votes in all minority groups. Oh, and those states? You mean the ones that had open caucuses instead of Democrat-only primaries. go ahead and say it. Bernie instead started his campaign on college campuses, where the majority of students are white. He rarely ever ventured outside of those venues. When schools started letting out for the summer, Bernie's campaign tanked. According to his former staffers after the CA loss, they said that Bernie called all the shots including with the checkbook. Seems that Bernie chose not to compete for the black vote in the South.

[Uncle Joe]

44. Bernie never underestimated their role in this primary nor throughout his life, but the

national corporate media conglomerates did their very best to make sure they underestimated him.

Bernie simply didn't have the time, financial resources and name recognition to counter the corporate media conglomerate propaganda offensive, whether you wish to believe that or not.

[tonyt53]

51. Bernie was given a pass by the media. His past would have been the end of him long ago.

[Uncle Joe]

106. "A pass by the media"? the corporate media conglomerates all but blacked out coverage of Bernie

for most all of last year.

They just as Schultz did with her cynical manipulations of the debates wanted to protect Hillary's larger national name recognition for as long as they could.

But when Bernie started pulling close in the polls of Iowa and New Hampshire the corporate media conglomerates switched tactics promoting Hillary's "firewall" non-stop and injecting racial or cultural divisions as a means to divide the electorate.

In virtually every speech Bernie that gave, he promoted unison but the corporate media conglomerates couldn't have that, it posed too much of a threat to their own corporate driven/oligarch self-interests, so their coverage continuously focused on divisions real and imagined.

They damn sure didn't want to cover in a substantive way any of the critical issues that Bernie was bringing up in his speeches.

[uponit7771]

55. I disagree, he understimated the roll PoC issues from the START of the campaign and homogenized them

... into economic ones and even said as much in a 2014 interview with NPR

[noiretextatique]

95. No he didn't as evidenced by the LIBERAL POC

Who voted for him, in and out of the south. He had ZERO chance of winning anywhere in the South, and he knew it.

[uponit7771]

104. which account for ONLY 20 - 30% of his vote...

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Hillary is going to ignore the southern states from here on out.

With the possible exceptions of North and South Carolina and Florida.

Dixie democrats: You've served your purpose.

[Florencenj2point0]

66. Really?

can you post the email she sent you telling you that?

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. it would be stupid to campaign in Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, etc. She's not stupid. n/t

[totodeinhere]

91. If she is far enough ahead that she can afford to spend some time in some red states.

I think that's a good idea. It would help local Democrats and it would set the party up for political gains in those states in the future.

But if it's a tight race which it very well could be then yes, she would need to concentrate on swing states.

[seabeckind]

69. Yep. She needed them for the primary

Not a chance she'll swing those states blue.

And in the swing states she's carrying a lot of baggage.

[uponit7771]

89. +1, the experienced people understand the difference between GE and Primary while the sore losers

... who ignored the "southern states" act like there's no difference and stay in and repeat revolution over and over again :rolleyes:

[uponit7771]

88. Hopefully, GE != primary... that's what experience will get us... someone who campaigns smart

... instead of just throwing money around wistfully

[harun]

98. +1

[CobaltBlue]

83. uponit7771—Clintons have wooed and suckered bloc-voting black Democrats…

In general elections, they’re only 13 percent of the size of the vote.

In Democratic presidential primaries, they’re about 30 percent. (If they’re more—please correct me.)

With a strong concentration of them in Old Confederacy states, they were plenty more. For example: In Louisiana, they were 62 percent of the size of the vote. Of their share, they cast 84 percent for Hillary Clinton. That was 62 X 0.84 = 52.08 percent—outright carriage of Louisiana before even looking at more racial demographics.

What is not getting mentioned by many is that the young blacks were not as much for Hillary Clinton as older blacks’ support. Older everything supported Hillary Clinton.

The 17–29 voters and the 30–44 voted for Bernie Sanders. Their problem was that they combined for about 40 percent of the 2016 Democatic presidential primaries' nationwide vote. In a general election, they are 50 percent. Had they repped 50 percent of the overall vote—rather than allowing 45–64 and 65+ voters to combine for about 60 percent the size of the vote nationwide—the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination would have been won by Bernie Sanders. Pledged delegates. And then superdelegates.

[uponit7771]

90. Polling showed in "southern states" millienial voters were for HRC along same lines as parents...

... or older voters.

There was an article here just today outlining it was more "identity politics" when it came to Sanders voters... it was mostly young whites voting for him but that could be told from the early polling.

Either way, skipping the "southern states" was foolish at best

Also, please change the title of your response... I'm black... I was not "suckered" at all ..

Sanders had someone who called Obama a form of nigger stump for him in front of mostly white IA and NH and that turned me off from him from the start...

Sayin we were "suckered" is a very negative broad brush upon an ethnicity

[harun]

97. South is a waste of time and money. Bernie did it right.

[wyldwolf]

38. How about this delusion about Bernie Sanders...

... that he'd lose the nomination... oh wait...

[Ferd Berfel]

39. Terrific, and spot on

Thanks UJ - andother great read


If the Right wing of the Democratic Party thinks they can waltz away from the Liberal/Progressive Left, they are kidding themselves. Hell, they are lying to themselves.

[randome]

41. Another "We are strong and intelligent!" article.

When you have to 'convince' people of that sort of thing, you have already lost.

If this is true: "...some of Clinton's support can be chalked up to a selfish refusal to pay the higher taxes..." then so is this: "...some of Sanders' supporters can be chalked up to a selfish desire to get free things."

I don't believe in either of those, except as an infinitesimal minority.

[ucrdem]

60. We are the most righteous leftists since Eddy and Jules . . .

[felix_numinous]

47. What a feat convincing oneself

that Bernie and millions of supporters are deluded, when his platform is about going after CORRUPTION, so IF you or your candidate is NOT GUILTY you should have nothing to worry about! Let him run if you are so confident, relax and chill.

Ignoring all the investigations, leaks, lies, slush funds, shady arms dealings in multiple hot spots around the world, and censoring discussions is not deluded at all, no siree.

We have to get past this point, and I do not want to demonize people I disagree with, I only aim to point out their blind spots, which in this case seem to be rather large. I have them too, which is why I changed my mind on the Clintons, I backed them up for YEARS, until someone gently told me 'You gotta do some research, they are as bad as the Bushes'. I had not been doing much research, internet was brand new, but when NAFTA and dramatic prison population jumped off the page, I began to feel betrayed. It is not a good feeling for anyone, and I completely understand the resistance. I am a very loyal type too.

Cheers, updated a bit

[Uncle Joe]

48. It's a regular Alice in Wonderland.

Cheers, felix_numinous.

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. If Sanders support was about Clinton hate, then why not O'Malley?

Young, good-looking and not a socialist. If the Sanders voters were "clueless partisan chowderheads" motivated by nothing more than Clinton animus, it would have been easier to support O'Malley.

[SusanCalvin]

53. "Write him off" is not a rational response.

There's reasons he came so close.

[hopemountain]

58. it is still a two way street -

and the sanders campaign is working to keep it this way.

here's a good read: https://johnlaurits.com/2016/06/14/what-is-democracy/

an excerpt:

I want to bring this article back to the Greek word –“demos” — from which democracy is derived. Rule by the people — but demos doesn’t necessarily mean “people” in the general, abstract sense of the word (that’s just what the plutocrats, the “wealthy rulers” want you to believe).

Demos means an assembly of people — demos means crowd.

That is the way that the people rule — that is how democracy works. Just look at what Iceland did in April — they gathered a crowd & they forced their corrupt Prime Minister to resign

[ucrdem]

59. No, not new. This has been Sanders' achilles heel since the day he launched in Vermont:

It's been discussed here repeatedly.

[The_Casual_Observer]

61. Bernie who?

[AtomicKitten]

68. The Clinton supporters were really nasty toward then Candidate Obama back in 2008.

It seemed to accelerate as time went on. Their behavior toward their opponent is really no different this time with gratuitous nastiness, fantastical lies, and bitter revenge plots. I have no interest in this internecine warfare. They don't get this is about policy and issues, not a cult of personality like they have going on. Bernie has resuscitated what the Democratic Party once stood for. This primary has shifted the electorate in a big way, and that bodes well for a better America.

k/r

[vintx]

70. Beautifully stated! nt

[CobaltBlue]

84. AtomicKitten—If anything, they encourage me to vote elsewhere.

Such foolish behavior from them. The Clinton surrogates, having right-wing Anita Hill hitman David Brock and their Correct the Record garbage, encourages a freedom from feeling trapped with the two-party duopoly.

I will be interested to find out what a general-election Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton does with Bernie Sanders’ platform. Ignore it—and she will look, at best, like a one-term U.S. president. (I predict she will win Election 2016 in part because Republican nominee Donald Trump is doing a dynamic job of getting defeated…by Donald Trump. I suspect it is deliberate.)

[noiretextatique]

96. And her campaign was nasty too

How soon folks forget.

[farleftlib]

100. Agreed

She fights dirty and then turns around and plays the victim card, it's very off-putting.

In their minds, Bernie should have never gotten out of the starting gate, and they're going
to make him pay for waking people up to the truth. Bernie is with us, all of us, even the ones
who are trying their best to shunt him out the door and into oblivion. It's not going to happen
though. You can't unring a bell!

[anigbrowl]

105. No they weren't, apart from a tiny minority of hyperaggressive posters

I joined DU in 2008 to support Obama and while I had a lot of arguments with Clinton supporters there were only a few who really got my goat, most of whom turned out to be xenophobes willing to buy into rumors about Obama not being a US citizen and so on. They're still over at Hillaryis44.com and nowadays most of them seem to be fawning over Donald Trump and bemoaning the difficulties of being white in America. Boo fucking hoo.

Those people made up only a tiny slice of the pro-Hillary contingent on DU during the 2008 primary season and most of them got tombstoned before Obama even secured the nom.

[Uncle Joe]

107. I agree on all counts.

Peace to you, AtomicKitten.

[NorthCarolina]

75. The largest voting group by far are registered Independents'

making up over 40% of the electorate by themselves. They are not Republicans, and they are apparently not neoliberals either since Clinton couldn't make any inroads into gaining their support. Independents did however fuel the Sanders campaign with record breaking donations for any political campaign in US history. Couple that with a youth coming into their own, and that heavily leans left. What does that seem to indicate to any rational thinking person?

For the establishment, their time is running out. Clinton may well be their last hurrah.

[Agnosticsherbet]

76. You said another Thing coming? Here I am.

[lapucelle]

79. Sanders has had a terrible week.

The blowout in DC, the awkward silence about his gun-friendly voting record, and the loss by all three of the candidates he had endorsed in last night's Democratic primaries in Nevada are the handwriting on the wall.

It has seemed to me from almost the beginning that Sanders was the elitists' candidate. As for herd mentality, I'll say that I see it on the Sanders side. He's a politician with a fairly progressive record, nothing more. Those who have invested him with some sort of mythical purity of purpose have many of us shaking our heads and asking if they're looking at the same politician the rest of us are.

[mia]

93. "The Thing" coming our way...

Japanese style satire... https://m.