Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Regarding today's meme about Sarandon. Here's what she was really saying (IMO) [View all]Gothmog
(174,137 posts)3. Sorry, Bernie Sanders. There is zero evidence of your ‘political revolution’ yet
The trouble with the premise of the OP and Sarandon's rather sad comments is that the Sanders revolution is not happening No one has seen any evidence of the so-called Sanders revolution https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/sorry-bernie-sanders-there-is-zero-evidence-of-your-political-revolution-yet/
Bernie Sanders recorded a resounding victory in New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday. He crushed his rival, Hillary Clinton, with no less than 60 percent of the vote. If Sanders hopes not only to win the election but to achieve his ambitious progressive agenda, though, that might not be enough.
To succeed, Sanders might have to drive Americans who don't normally participate to the polls. Unfortunately for him, groups who usually do not vote did not turn out in unusually large numbers in New Hampshire, according to exit polling data.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=
&w=1484
...As for Sanders, he credited his victory to turnout. "Because of a huge voter turnout -- and I say huge -- we won," he said in his speech declaring victory, dropping the "h" in "huge." "We harnessed the energy, and the excitement that the Democratic party will need to succeed in November."
In fact, Sanders won by persuading many habitual Democratic primary voters to support him. With 95 percent of precincts reporting their results as of Wednesday morning, just 241,000 ballots had been cast in the Democratic primary, fewer than the 268,000 projected by New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner last week. Nearly 289,000 voters cast ballots in the state's Democratic primary in 2008.
To be sure, the general election is still seven months away. Ordinary Americans might be paying little attention to the campaign at this point, and if Sanders wins the nomination, he'll have the help of the Democratic Party apparatus in registering new voters. The political revolution hasn't started, though, at least not yet.
To succeed, Sanders might have to drive Americans who don't normally participate to the polls. Unfortunately for him, groups who usually do not vote did not turn out in unusually large numbers in New Hampshire, according to exit polling data.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=
&w=1484
...As for Sanders, he credited his victory to turnout. "Because of a huge voter turnout -- and I say huge -- we won," he said in his speech declaring victory, dropping the "h" in "huge." "We harnessed the energy, and the excitement that the Democratic party will need to succeed in November."
In fact, Sanders won by persuading many habitual Democratic primary voters to support him. With 95 percent of precincts reporting their results as of Wednesday morning, just 241,000 ballots had been cast in the Democratic primary, fewer than the 268,000 projected by New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner last week. Nearly 289,000 voters cast ballots in the state's Democratic primary in 2008.
To be sure, the general election is still seven months away. Ordinary Americans might be paying little attention to the campaign at this point, and if Sanders wins the nomination, he'll have the help of the Democratic Party apparatus in registering new voters. The political revolution hasn't started, though, at least not yet.
Without this revolution, I am not sure how Sanders proposes to advance his unrealistic agenda
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
83 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Regarding today's meme about Sarandon. Here's what she was really saying (IMO) [View all]
Armstead
Mar 2016
OP
Before the inevitable "Saying you aren't sure if you're voting for Clinton is voting for Trump"
JonLeibowitz
Mar 2016
#1
True, saying you're "not sure about voting for Clinton" is not the same thing as voting for Trump.
DanTex
Mar 2016
#7
Trump, on the other hand, would be compelled to nominate Right wing Supreme Court Justices.
Trust Buster
Mar 2016
#2
If Trump were to replace Scalia and Ginsburg, a 6-3 right leaning Court would exist for 25 years.
Trust Buster
Mar 2016
#69
Sorry, Bernie Sanders. There is zero evidence of your ‘political revolution’ yet
Gothmog
Mar 2016
#3
Without these millions and millions of new voters, then Sanders campaign cannot deliver on platform
Gothmog
Mar 2016
#72
Susan Sarandon never said she agreed. She was just echoing what she has seen out in the country.
JonLeibowitz
Mar 2016
#21
If you think things are fine and think they should continue as they have been, fine
Armstead
Mar 2016
#24
Again, the premise of your thread and the Sanders campaign requires millions and millions of voters
Gothmog
Mar 2016
#27
But in a democracy, the majority vote wins and Clinton has 2.5 million more votes
Gothmog
Mar 2016
#35
You are wrong in that you are missing the fact that Sanders' revolution is a flop
Gothmog
Mar 2016
#51
When did she say "that is not a desirable outcome"- Chris tried to get her to disagree....
bettyellen
Mar 2016
#12
That's fine if that's your opinion...but I think the reasons for her opinion should be....
Armstead
Mar 2016
#23
the corruption has always been there, which is why one man alone cannot fix it.
bettyellen
Mar 2016
#49
Maybe they kick Hillary instead of themselves for being so very wrong? I see that happen in the
bettyellen
Mar 2016
#52
Corruption was rampant before Citizens United. I agree about a Constitutional amendment
Armstead
Mar 2016
#57
I agree that Vietnam was horrible, but I don't think we can sum up LBJ's entire legacy based
StevieM
Mar 2016
#79
Congress did all of those good things--though obviously he played a role in it.
geek tragedy
Mar 2016
#80
I agree about Vietnam. But LBJ was a legendary vote getter. And I don't think Congress would have
StevieM
Mar 2016
#81
I've been hearing "It has to get worse before it gets better" for at least 50 years
eridani
Mar 2016
#68
The frustration underlying that cliche still exists...Things keep getting worse
Armstead
Mar 2016
#71