2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumUh oh. This wasn't supposed to happen.
Sanders cracks Clinton's Nevada firewallLAS VEGAS Hillary Clinton has been on the ground in Nevada since last April. Bernie Sanders only began building up his organization here late in the fall.
But the state thats been touted as Clintons firewall against the Vermont senator in the event he generates any momentum out of the whiter and more liberal states of Iowa and New Hampshire is suddenly looking like its in play, potentially opening another unexpected early state front.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-nevada-217432#ixzz3wWFvXJyQ
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)engaged Democratic volunteers in it at the moment.
And that's a real good thing.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Sanders said that they were heading to NV right after the interview.
Seems his campaign feels they are making headway in the state!
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)high and voter interest even higher.
Could be a real good barometer for the general, too.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)They may be crazy down there, but they aren't stupid.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)big time.
'Would like to see a long-term blue streak at all levels of government in Nevada.
And for a very long time to come.
Volunteers are a good sign for the Democratic party. I'll bet that the volunteer stats for the repugs are not near as good.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)volunteering for the current GOP candidates should probably be locked up in a basement.
I think the blue team has the vibe for 2016.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Don't underestimate Bernie Sanders.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)From the article:
<snip>
In recent days, Sanders has won over some of Clinton's most stalwart supporters in the state. Erin Bilbray, a member of the Democratic National Committee from Nevada who was so loyal to Clinton in 2008 that she refused to support Obama at the convention, has endorsed the Vermont senator.
<snip>
There are several factors suggesting an opening for Sanders to mount a strong challenge to the Democratic frontrunner if he plays his ground game right.
The powerful Culinary Union that represents 60,000 members, multiple sources said, is expected to remain neutral and offer no endorsement until after the caucuses. In 2008, the union backed Obama about three weeks before the caucuses.
Same day registration for Democrats here also means more non-traditional voters can participate in the process if Sanders campaign manages to turn them out on caucus day. To that effect, National Nurses United launched a "Bernie Bus" on Wednesday, making multiple stops in Las Vegas to rally supporters ahead of the Democratic dinner. The bus made stops in front of the Tropicana Las Vegas and the MGM Grand Conference Center to turn out Nevada registered nurses for Sanders.
<snip>
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-nevada-217432#ixzz3wWVIQQIy
Clinton's current dominance in the polls wasn't the focus of the article. The point was that things are falling in such a way that Sanders could neutralize NV as a Clinton firewall, should Clinton actually need NV as a firewall. If Clinton does well enough in IA and NH and SC, she won't need one.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Sounds like wishful thinking.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Long gone are the days where DU was demanding of actual evidence for contentions.
Wishful thinking rules the day.
Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)It's pretty clear you haven't.
Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)This has nothing to do with polling. This has to do with with important and influential supporters in NV (expected to be in Clinton's camp) throwing their support to Sanders. In a Caucus state, that can matter quite a lot.
Sanders isn't required to win NV in order to stop it from being a Clinton firewall. Clinton not winning big is required to stop it from being a firewall. Sanders is making inroads with important support within that state that Clinton thought she could count on. It's likely not enough to stop her from winning the state. But it may stop the win from being the momentum stopper they planned on that state to be.
The whole point may be moot by then, anyway. Clinton may not need a firewall. A prerequisite for this to even matter in the slightest is Sanders having momentum. If she does, NV may not be enough to do what they once thought it could do. That might not matter either.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Its a feeble baseless attempt to persuade readers Bernie is competitive in Nevada.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)If so, then HRC and her supporters have absolutely nothing about which to worry, no?
(Forgive me if I find your trenchant condescension rather amusing...)
Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)The interest is not the content of the article (which they didn't read), but to instead deny what they think the article is about based on the headline.
For them to even care about NV as a firewall means at some level they believe Sanders may well have a lot of momentum heading into the NV Caucus in the first place.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)who are quick to dismiss real evidence favorable to Hillary but believe fantasy stories like this one.
Response to DCBob (Reply #34)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)If I knew you really didn't want to discuss what the article actually said, I wouldn't have wasted my time corrected what I thought at first was an innocent straw man.
Have a great night.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)The only thing I see is one former Hillary supporter switched to Bernie and Bernie's campaign is hiring people and opening some offices. That doesn't mean Bernie is suddenly competitive there. Feeble and baseless as I said before.
Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)I've explained it multiple times. It's really not worth trying to again.
TTFN
Blus4u
(608 posts)The market has been cornered on condescension.
Peace
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)is what your off-hand dismissal is called. That's cool. We understand.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)For one thing Nevada is not necessarily a prime Hillary state. The states where Hillary will do best are those with high percentage of African American voters which are mostly in the south. Nevada has a relatively low percent of AA voters as compared to the deep south states.
And the idea that Bernie is gaining traction there isn't supported by anything of significance. One Hillary supporter changed to Bernie; Bernie's campaign hired some folks and opened some offices; and a union hasn't decided to support anyone yet.. How has any of that changed the dynamics there?? I suspect the next round of polls will still show Hillary way ahead.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Same day registration in the state, or are they polling just registered Democrats and "likely" voters? If so, me thinks they could have some major blind spots in their polling data.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I suspect a few will be voting for Hillary as well.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Also from the article..
Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)or are you simply ignoring the obvious.
Ciao!
Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)There is nothing in that article that supports "cracking a firewall" in Nevada or anywhere else. Its nonsense.
Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)The fact that you keep prolonging this is odd, but if you'd like to keep kicking the thread, I am happy to reply.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I assume that means you have nothing of substance to offer.
Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)You didn't read them any more that you read the article.
What's left to discuss?
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Not to mention her generally overall racist campaign that year.
Her second biggest problem is that Nevada is largely rural, and she does extremely poorly in rural regions. Obama swept all but the most populated county in 2008. Good chance Bernie could do so again.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)don't you?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,702 posts)View profile
Not to mention her generally overall racist campaign that year
-ieoeja
Here are her Congressional endorsements. Highlighted are her endorsements from the Congressional Black Caucus. Seventy five percent of Caucus members have endorsed her. They seem to have forgiven her:
Current[edit]
Pete Aguilar, CA[93]
Brad Ashford, NE[94]
Karen Bass, CA[95]
Joyce Beatty, OH[96]
Xavier Becerra, CA[22]
Ami Bera, CA[70]
Don Beyer, VA[97]
Suzanne Bonamici, OR[98]
Cory Booker
Madeleine Bordallo, GU Del.[99]
Corrine Brown, FL[100]
Julia Brownley, CA[93]
Cheri Bustos, IL[101]
GK Butterfiled- Chairman
Lois Capps, CA[102]
Michael Capuano, MA[103]
Tony Cardenas, CA[104]
John Carney, DE[61]
André Carson, IN[105]
Matt Cartwright, PA[106]
Kathy Castor, FL[22]
Joaquín Castro, TX[107]
Judy Chu, CA[108]
David Cicilline, RI[109]
Katherine Clark, MA[110]
Yvette Clark, NY[111]
William Lacy Clay, Jr., MO[112]
Emanuel Cleaver, MO[57]
Steve Cohen, TN[113]
Gerry Connolly, VA[114]
John Conyers, MI[115]
Jim Cooper, TN[116]
Joe Courtney, CT[117]
Joseph Crowley, NY[118]
Henry Cuellar, TX[57]
Elijah Cummings, MD[119]
Danny Davis, IL[57]
Diana DeGette, CO[120]
John Delaney, MD[57]
Rosa DeLauro, CT[121]
Suzan DelBene, WA[25]
Ted Deutch, FL[57]
Debbie Dingell, MI[57]
Tammy Duckworth, IL[57]
Donna Edwards, MD[87]
Eliot Engel, NY[122]
Anna Eshoo, CA[93]
Elizabeth Esty, CT[123]
Bill Foster, IL[57]
Lois Frankel, FL[57]
Marcia Fudge, OH[124]
Ruben Gallego, AZ[125]
John Garamendi, CA[126]
Gene Green, TX[57]
Luis Gutiérrez, IL[127]
Janice Hahn, CA[57]
Alcee Hastings, FL[128]
Denny Heck, WA[25]
Brian Higgins, NY[22]
Rubén Hinojosa. TX[22]
Jim Himes, CT[129]
Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC Del.[130]
Mike Honda, CA[131]
Steny Hoyer, Min. Whip, MD[132]
Jared Huffman, CA[133]
Steve Israel, NY[57]
Sheila Jackson Lee, TX[57]
Hakeem Jeffries, NY[134]
Eddie Bernice Johnson, TX[57]
Hank Johnson, GA[135]
Bill Keating, MA[136]
Robin Kelly, IL[137]
Joseph P. Kennedy III, MA[138]
Dan Kildee, MI[57]
Derek Kilmer, WA[57]
Ann Kirkpatrick, AZ[139]
Ann Kuster, NH[140]
Jim Langevin, RI[141]
Rick Larsen, WA[57]
John B. Larson, CT[123]
Brenda Lawrence, MI[142]
Sandy Levin, MI[57]
John Lewis, GA[57]
Ted Lieu, CA[99]
Dave Loebsack, IA[143]
Zoe Lofgren, CA[144]
Nita Lowey, NY[57]
Michelle Lujan Grisham, NM[57]
Stephen F. Lynch, MA[145]
Carolyn Maloney, NY[146]
Sean Patrick Maloney, NY[57]
Doris Matsui, CA[57]
Betty McCollum, MN[147]
Jim McDermott, WA[57]
Jim McGovern, MA[148]
Jerry McNerney, CA[93]
Gregory W. Meeks, NY[149]
Grace Meng, NY[150]
Gwen Moore, WI[151]
Seth Moulton, MA[152]
Patrick Murphy, FL[153]
Jerrold Nadler, NY[154]
Grace Napolitano, CA[155]
Richard Neal, MA[156]
Rick Nolan, MN[157]
Bill Pascrell, NJ[158]
Donald Payne, Jr., NJ[159]
Ed Perlmutter, CO[57]
Scott Peters, CA[22]
Pedro Pierluisi, PR Res. Comm.[160]
Chellie Pingree, ME[57]
Jared Polis, CO[57]
Lucille Roybal-Allard, CA[155]
Charles Rangel, NY[57]
Kathleen Rice, NY[57]
Cedric Richmond, LA[57]
Raul Ruiz, CA[160]
Dutch Ruppersberger, MD[87]
Tim Ryan, OH[57]
Linda Sánchez, CA[161]
Loretta Sanchez, CA[155]
John Sarbanes, MD[87]
Jan Schakowsky, IL[57]
Adam Schiff, CA[57]
Kurt Schrader, OR[116]
Bobby Scott, VA[162]
David Scott, GA[22]
José E. Serrano, NY[163]
Terri Sewell, AL[22]
Brad Sherman, CA[164]
Louise Slaughter, NY[165]
Adam Smith, WA[166]
Jackie Speier, CA[93]
Mark Takai, HI[82]
Mark Takano, CA[70]
Bennie Thompson, MS[167]
Mike Thompson, CA[22]
Dina Titus, NV[168]
Paul Tonko, NY[122]
Niki Tsongas, MA[145]
Chris Van Hollen, MD[169]
Marc Veasey, TX[57]
Nydia Velázquez, NY[57]
Filemon Vela, Jr., TX[170]
Maxine Waters, CA[171]
Bonnie Watson Coleman, NJ[159]
Tim Walz, MN[172]
Frederica Wilson, FL[173]
John Yarmuth, KY[174]
Also, in a recent poll she was leading among African Americans 73-12%:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-maintains-lead-over-sanders-heading-primaries-n490131
Nearly two thirds of Nevada's population lives in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Statistical Area, ergo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas%E2%80%93Paradise,_NV_MSA
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Again, we're in Unskewed polls territory.
As far as Bernistas are concerned:
Scientific polls=bad
Anecdotal experience with Joe from around the block=definitive!
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)It has to do with infrastructure and notable supporters that Clinton thought she had in her corner appear to be endorsing Sanders.
If you are going to ridicule people over a posted article, at least have the common decency to read it past the headline.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)Go, Bernie...GO!!
greiner3
(5,214 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,029 posts)Thanks for the thread, floriduck.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,230 posts)<snip>
There are several factors suggesting an opening for Sanders to mount a strong challenge to the Democratic frontrunner if he plays his ground game right.
The powerful Culinary Union that represents 60,000 members, multiple sources said, is expected to remain neutral and offer no endorsement until after the caucuses. In 2008, the union backed Obama about three weeks before the caucuses.
<snip>
That sounds to me like the union is taking a more favorable approach to HRC than it did eight years ago. How exactly does that "suggest an opening" for Sanders?
So Clinton still maintains a huge lead in the polls, but because some random super delegate likes Sanders, and because he's expending some actual resources in the state - poof! She's in trouble!
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)HRC will win Nevada
Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)It simply said she may not win it big enough for it to be a firewall based on a shift of support from Clinton to Sanders as well as increased infrastructure spending. Being a Caucus state, the right support and the right infrastructure can make a big enough difference to take it from strategic to marginal victory. That's how Obama managed to neutralize the Clinton win there in 2008.
If Clinton needs a firewall when NV rolls around, that implies Sanders momentum. If Sanders doesn't have momentum, the whole firewall exercise is unnecessary.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)along the way. I expect her to do extremely well
Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)But if she needs a firewall, it may not serve as one because she has to meet or exceed expectations if it is to be one. In the face of the Sanders momentum (that is required for this discussion to even be worth having) she would be fighting that and the erosion and possible erosion of her support that the article describes. Her winning is not the same as the state acting as a political firewall in the face of early Sanders momentum which there may or may not be.
murielm99
(30,617 posts)Ho hum.
jfern
(5,204 posts)"Erin Bilbray, a member of the Democratic National Committee from Nevada who was so loyal to Clinton in 2008 that she refused to support Obama at the convention, has endorsed the Vermont senator"
Just LOL
RandySF
(57,196 posts)Alfresco
(1,698 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)All I see as evidence is Bernie is getting serious about trying to win in Nevada and one former Hillary supporter switched to Bernie. Not exactly "cracking firewall" type stuff to me. I dont get it.
randome
(34,845 posts)Just sayin'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
nxylas
(6,440 posts)A subtle way of pushing the Clinton narrative under the guise of a positive Sanders story.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Thread Winner!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)The article isn't about Sanders winning NV. The article is about inroads being made so that she might not have as big of a win as necessary to stop the Sanders momentum.
If Sanders has no momentum, a firewall is not needed. If he does have momentum, the way things are playing out in NV at the moment indicate that Clinton might not win it by enough to stop said momentum should it exist.
Did anyone read the article or are we just debating headlines now?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)Chances are, based on most polling, Hillary won't need a firewall, so it's probably moot. However, a win isn't just a win. Hillary won in 2008. She did so barely. Despite winning she was unable to stop Obama's momentum.
That's what the article is about. Hence, you aren't debunking anything, you are simply demonstrating that you couldn't be bothered to read anything past the headline. You might find it would be less embarrassing to actually read the posts and linked articles before trying to argue against their content.
Seriously...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)The entire reason for a firewall would presupposes the momentum. It's like insurance.
In the event of Sanders success in the early primaries, NV is supposed to be the Clinton firewall--that is, the place she stops that momentum and turns everything around. As it turns out some support that she thought was squarely in her corner either a> is not, or b> has yet to commit. That makes NV less of a momentum stopper.
The article documents verifiable NV erosion, identifies possible future events, and suggest a larger ground game from Sanders than originally expected. It does not suggest there will be Sanders momentum. It suggests that, if there is, the NV caucuses may not be where it's stopped, if it is stopped.
I really don't know how to explain this any better. Why don't you read the article rather than arguing what you think the title means? Wouldn't that really just be the easier way to go about this?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)or argue in that manner.
Clinton has done the work to build a strong foundation.
We will see how successful she is.
That is about as far as I go with future story telling.
Right here. Right now. Clinton sits at 50% to Sanders what? 27%?
Watching the polls thru out the primary, she has held strong and Sanders has stalled, Imo.
We can create whatever story. I will wait to watch things unfold.
Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)Otherwise you are wasting my time and inconveniencing large quantities of electrons in doing so.
Have a great night.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)I'm here for thoughtful discussion of the article.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)What you are doing is trolling, however.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)So far, out of an abundance of data, none has contradicted the hypothesis.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)hueymahl
(2,403 posts)The speaker originally endorsed Clinton but switched here endorsement to Sanders:
When I hosted Bernie at my house last week, I called friends who I was positive were Clinton supporters only to find out they liked Bernie, but just didnt think he had a chance to win, Bilbray said. Here in Nevada, I think I gave people permission to support what they cared about.
dpatbrown
(368 posts)It's only a matter of time until Sanders is in play in EVERY states. Voters are catching on fast and they like what they are hearing from Sanders. Sanders has only one way to go, as he gets more exposure, and that's up. Unfortunately for Clinton, she has only one way to go, and that's down.
The Clinton campaign and her supporters are very concerned. People are so tired of Wall Street and the banks screwing them. So tired.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)*
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)http://www.scribd.com/doc/294241032/Nevada-Poll-December-28-2015-3
Look at the polling data before saying a state is in play.
If you don't, you look like a fool.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)No one mentioned polling. Re-read the damn article or try reading it once.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)You should delete that comment.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)Did you miss that?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)I've been preaching the same all thread long.
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)I read the article. It claims Nevada is in play. It backs that claim up with no evidence. I gave evidence that contradicts the claim in the article.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Smaller communities, smaller media markets, = less messaging from mass media, and more input from more intimate sources? Just thinking out loud here.