Bernie Sanders’ Political Revolution Is Off to a Slow Start

[ProudToBeLiberal]

Bernie Sanders’ pitch to Democrats is that all the new voters he'll energize will compel Congress to support the transformative programs they want, like single-payer health care and free college tuition.

“I think what we need, when I talk about a political revolution, is bringing millions and millions of people into the political process in a way that does not exist right now,” the Vermont senator told MSNBC in an interview set to air Thursday.

The first tests are in, and the signs of a revolution at the ballot box are scant. Rather than a surge of the previously disaffected, Democratic turnout was down in the first two states to hold contests in the nomination race—by 28 percent in Iowa and 13 percent in New Hampshire.

In Iowa, 172,000 Democrats took part in the party caucuses. The number in 2008 was 240,000.

In the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, 251,000 Democrats voted. The number in 2008 was 288,000.

In other words, the grassroots enthusiasm, vast small-dollar donations, and massive crowds at Sanders’ rallies so far hasn't translated into historically greater voter turnout for his party.

More at http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-11/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-is-off-to-a-slow-start

[TwilightGardener]

1. Bernie did not get every single vote of every single eligible voter in New Hampshire, it's true.

Therefore you can dismiss the whole thing as a fad.

[TCJ70]

2. Man...

...how bad would it have been without him? Yikes.

[casperthegm]

4. Exactly.

I really don't think Hillary's base is excited. Can't blame Bernie for that.

I will say that it doesn't bode well for Clinton if she gets the nomination. First, her base is not fired up. Second, the gop base can't stand her, which will fire them up. Not a good combo...

[Kip Humphrey]

3. As has already been pointed out, in NH Bernie drew a state record high vote. BLOOMBERG NEWS FAIL!

The revolution is on! Its still not too late to join!

[Gothmog]

5. Sorry, Bernie Sanders. There is zero evidence of your ‘political revolution’ yet

From the Washington Post 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.

[MuseRider]

6. You do realize

that many people in caucus states will register a different party to try to skew the results. I have done it a few times in a large group trying to stop the takeover in my state of the teabaggers. We failed but it is part of a strategy.

[Empowerer]

7. I still don't understand why this revolution had to wait until now to get moving

Where've they been the last 7 years?

[Armstead]

9. You haven't been paying attention

[djean111]

8. Took my grandson up to the little satellite voting office today, here in Florida -

He changed his registration from Independent to Democrat, so he could vote for Bernie in March. The clerk said that they have been swamped with younger people who are registering/changing registration so they can vote for Bernie.

Oh, and none of this sort of talk can possibly make Hillary palatable to me. Shrug.

[politicaljunkie41910]

18. Wow!!! This has to be the first Revolution where your Grandparent has to drive you there.

That's some kind of enthusiasm.

[djean111]

22. Your sarcasm is exactly why being a Hillary supporter is a club that no one I know personally

wants to be a member of. You represent her way of thinking perfectly. Bitter and nasty and old-school.

You went for a cheap, personal shot. Without knowing any background.

I will pass it on. And this sort of thing is why the younger generation would not turn out for Hillary.

[UglyGreed]

10. .

NH in June 2015



NH in February 2016




Slow and steady LOL

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Well, according to those numbers, Hillary isn't exactly attracting voters.

Is she?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

12. Bernie always makes the case that he will get Congress to pass legislation because of his revolution

and turnout. He's doing way less than Barack Obama. President Obama still wasn't able to get through Republican obstructionism. How will Bernie be better than Barack Obama with way less turnout.

[SheenaR]

15. Doing way less than Obama

He received MORE (as in more actual human voters) support than Obama in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Spin away.

Maybe this will be your new thing since your 4 OPs on what would be a win for Hillary didn't pan out so well.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. But, more than Hillary...by a wide margin.

How will Hillary get through Republican obstructionism. Lemme guess. Triangulation? Compromise? At what cost?

[uponit7771]

23. Sanders can do 124132 billion times better than Hillary that's not relevant to the point that its no

... not good enough by himself

[Arugula Latte]

20. Yabbut that's different!

People don't need to vote for The Coronation to proceed.

[Joe the Revelator]

13. Bernie received over 50k more votes this week then Obama did in '08

These articles make no sense.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NH.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Democrats did very very well in 2008

Iowa participation, for example, was off the charts, which was great. Iowa participation this year was 50% higher than it was in 2004 when Democrats didn't do so well. We are building again. There was earlier excitement in 2008 than this year because Obama started out that race with "rock star" status before he even announced. That's been building with Bernie but didn't get there in mainstream media until a few weeks ago. Let's see if excitement and participation keeps growing.

[Bread and Circus]

16. You do understand these numbers are bad sign for Hillary right?

Hillary is our our likely nominee and standard bearer.

It is she who is failing to generate excitement. It is she who needs excitement more than anyone.

Think before you post next time.

[jillan]

17. And yet Bernie got more votes in NH than any other democrat since Kennedy. How do you explain that?

[GeorgeGist]

19. The kind of twisted logic a Republican or 3rd Wayer could love.

[Gothmog]

24. Imagine Bernie Sanders wins the White House. Then what?

Sanders' plans for adopting his proposals depend on these new voters. Here is how Sanders thinks that he will be able to force the GOP to be reasonable http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what

Bernie Sanders has made some very big promises when it comes to his legislative priorities: He says he’ll make college free, pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and institute a generous single-payer national health insurance program. And when he’s asked how he’ll turn these promises into reality, he says that he and his supporters will help bring about a “political revolution.”

That’s a phrase Sanders uses often, but what does he mean by it? Sanders has said that if he wins the presidency, his victory will be accompanied by a “huge increase in voter turnout”—one that he thinks might end Republican control of Congress. But Sanders acknowledges that the House and Senate could, in spite of his best efforts, remain in GOP hands come next January.

Given that likelihood, Sanders offers an alternate means for achieving his political revolution. He says he knows that a Democratic president can’t simply “sit down and negotiate” with Republican leaders and forge a series of compromises. Anyone who's observed the GOP’s behavior over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency would not dispute that, and in any event, no compromise with Republicans would ever lead to single-payer anyway.

So what then? How would a President Sanders get Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to pass any of his big-ticket items? This is the model he proposes:

What we do is you put an issue before Congress, let’s just use free tuition at public colleges and universities, and that vote is going to take place on November 8 ... whatever it may be. We tell millions and millions of people, young people and their parents, there is going to be a vote ... half the people don’t know what’s going on ... but we tell them when the vote is, maybe we welcome a million young people to Washington, D.C. to say hello to their members of Congress. Maybe we have the telephones and the e-mails flying all over the place so that everybody in America will know how their representative is voting. [...]

And then Republicans are going to have to make a decision. Then they’re going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, “You vote against this, you’re out of your job, because we know what’s going on.” So this gets back to what a political revolution is about, is bringing people in touch with the Congress, not having that huge wall. That’s how you bring about change.

The rest of the DK article debunks that concept that Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell could be influenced by these new voters but we never get to this issue and Sanders himself admits that he will not bet elected without this revolution. So far we are not seeing any evidence of this revolution. Again, Sanders's whole campaign is based on this revolution and so it is appropriate to ask where these new voters are?

It is hard for me to take Sanders' proposals seriously including the ones you want to talk about unless and until we see some evidence of this revolution.

Again, where are these millions and millions of new voters?