2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary has won 3 of the 4 last contests...
Which candidates supporters do you think are energized?????
The answer is obvious.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)On our side turnout is down 25%+
George II
(67,782 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)The State that the Neo-Democrats Celebrated yesterday as if they won the White House for another 4 years on Saturday --- turn out was an embarrassing 12.51%. Just embarrassing, Republicans are having a field day looking at Neo-Democratic turnout numbers like this.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)maybe that guy washed his hand
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And Bernie 36,000. Roughly.
oh08dem
(339 posts)With the exception of a few weeks during the campaign, it's hard to establish much momentum when you're brow-beaten into submission by the media that you're vote doesn't really count cause they've already anointed Hillary as the nominee.
Fair enough.
If we're not energized to vote for Sanders, then we're definitely not motivated to vote for Clinton in the general... And that's not really something I would be celebrating.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)brooklynite
(94,731 posts)After all, YOU could figure it out, but the others were deceived?
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Democrat turnout is down in every contest.
Republican turnout is breaking records in every contest.
Who do you think is more energized?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)The answer is indeed obvious. You'll find out just how energized we are in November.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)The GOP is trouncing all over the Dems in support.
Wanna try again?
If HRC is the candidate, we lose.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)audit of the results? They wouldn't have shut down a review if she had actually won. And the planned chaos in NV with the help of her good buddy Reid....
NJCher
(35,732 posts)Considering her problem with voter perception of her honesty, she'd have been better off going through with an audit. She also shouldn't have claimed "victory," because it really wasn't much of a victory. It just made her look like somebody with sharp elbows.
Cher
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)I think I read somewhere where so far we have decided 2% of the delegates.
I "get" math. Does anyone else?
Vinca
(50,304 posts)I'd love to know how Hillary is going to "energize" enough people to win.
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)Pointing out what a disaster the other side will be like if they win.
And they'll do the same to us.
This isn't any different than any other election when you get down to it. We have our hope/change moments every now and then, but a good deal of voting against McCain and Palin was fear of what a disaster they'd be combined with jettisoning off what the Bush years were like.
Any of the main three GOP candidates running will offer a ton to work off of.
As much as people would like it to be otherwise, campaigning on what you're going to do and your platform beyond the basics of what the Democratic Party represents doesn't generate enthusiasm.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)People don't care about the cries of doom and gloom with a neo-democratic candidate like Hillary Clinton leading the pack. In their mind, she is the Doom and Gloom.
Fact, the Neo-Democrats will not gain Independents this election as they are voting for Trump, Rubio or even Cruz -- or just sitting at home, or not voting for President. Sanders Progressives are not voting for Hillary Clinton in a General by anywhere near enough numbers for her to win anything.
At least the good thing is Hillary Took South Carolina by 45% --- with an embarrassing 12.51% Turn Out Among Guess Who....Democrats.
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Waiting.....
Vinca
(50,304 posts)In this election the Democrats will REQUIRE Republican voters to win.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Sanders supporters actually vote. yeah they are pissed off and vocal, they just forget to vote. "I am angry I am angry!! Oh I can't vote I got stuff to do."
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)You are acting like you can go it alone without us. She cannot do it without Bernie supporters too, you should know this, but I have read some pretty gloating posts this morning. It's fine to be happy for your candidate, but to be posting stuff to the effect that Bernie sucks and the like is not the way to go.
Super Tuesday will probably be another good day for Hillary because of the coverage Bernie gets and doesn't get. Hillary should be winning with all of the advantages she has over Bernie. He is fighting her name recognition, the corporate media, and the richest, most powerful people and corporations in the world.
The primaries after Tuesday get better for Bernie, but it is an uphill battle. Our best bet to go after a perceived anti-establishment figure like Trump would be Bernie. Hillary is the ESTABLISHMENT!!!
LuvLoogie
(7,034 posts)What Bernie is fighting is his life-long membership in the You're Not Good Enough Party. Hillary has spent her whole career networking and cultivating relationships. It's a national campaign for President. She's done the work. Her supporters gave done the work. Democrats have done the work.
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,034 posts)I like the guy, but he retreated to a cloister in Vermont for the bulk of his career. He does not have the network. And it seems to me that all the resentment of the PTB, the DNC, the MSM, and the "Clinton Machine" is just covering for the fact that a guy, who never considered ever running for President , decides to do so in the Spring of 2015.
And to generate numbers, The Revolution must rely upon Hillary's negatives which are inflated with over twenty years of propaganda from the Right and, more recently, from the Left. She has solid support, in spite of her warts.
But her supporters here have been constantly derided here, since she announced, by those that were begging for Warren to run and, now, back Sanders.
Haven't you noticed the surge of anti-Hillary Hit Trolls that gave joined DU in the last week? So while I have no problem voting for Bernie in spite of the abuse Hillary's supporters endure here, I can't get too worked up about your hurt feelings over victory celebrations.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Everything from the debate schedule to the superdelegates look like a carefully orchestrated attempt by the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz to make it a very easy path to the nomination. She also didn't face much of a competition. Sanders and O'Malley never really attacked her. Strong Democrats like Warren and Biden stayed out of the race.
I hope she enjoyed her easy trek through the primary. Because Donald Trump and the GOP won't be easy on her. They have 2 decades worth of baggage to attack her on, as well as a pending FBI investigation. Democrat turnout is down in a country where the government's establishment on both sides is deeply unpopular. Yet her supporters think she's going to cruise to an easy win in November? Yeah....Good luck.
LuvLoogie
(7,034 posts)over decades. There is nothing easy about running a second national campaign for President.
Bernie comes in as an outsider asking for access to the DNC infrastructure and a debate forum for his thesis. And his supporters want the life-long Democrat who works to build the party to just step aside because she's "damaged goods."
You are sorely mistaken if you think her supporters are going to throw her under that borrowed bus.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,034 posts)More people for Hillary marched to the polls in S.C. on Saturday than Marched for Bernie across the country on Saturday.
A lot of Oligarchs in S.C.
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)Also, this thing where each side claims the other side's supporters are (Fill in the blank). They are, or at least a portion of the supporters for each candidate are.
Enjoy your victory.
LuvLoogie
(7,034 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)The GOP field has a wide range of people that has energized splinter sides to come out and get involved.
Our primary had a lot of lackluster and uninteresting people from the start. And some that you wouldn't really call Democrats either (no, not talking about Bernie). As you saw on DU, the primary here coalesced around two candidates.
It basically cut off bringing out our splinter side and getting them engaged and then having those candidates as they fell away make important endorsements to grow support.
A two-person race for a primary is not engaging for a presidential field because two people cannot run across the country easily enough and generate interest. We needed a dozen engaging candidates from different walks of life to bring out the enthusiasm and engagement.
Just Bernie and Hillary can NOT do that at this stage.
But regardless of which one gets the nom, there will be plenty of people coming out, to vote for the candidate and to vote AGAINST the GOP candidate.
George II
(67,782 posts)ellennelle
(614 posts)a statistical tie is a statistical tie.
this is like calling a game after the 2nd inning.
what is it with you guys?
entitled much?
Gothmog
(145,567 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)Gothmog
(145,567 posts)Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010
The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/
Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.
No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.
Gothmog
(145,567 posts)Polls do lie when such poling is based on bad data and premise. Nate Silver and other are clear that these polls are worthless in part because Sanders had not been vetted. Clinton has been vetted for two decades but the GOP and the press have not paid any attention to Sanders and so these polls are meaningless. Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Watching Sanders at Monday nights Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump or another Republican nominee would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.
The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the socialist label and requested that Sanders define it so that it doesnt concern the rest of us citizens.
Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who dont want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top thats my definition of democratic socialism.
But thats not how Republicans will define socialism and theyll have the dictionary on their side. Theyll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. Theyll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldnt be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists dont win national elections in the United States .
Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases one of the biggest tax hikes in history, as moderator Chris Cuomo put it to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that hypothetically, youre going to pay $5,000 more in taxes, and declared, W e will raise taxes, yes we will. He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that its demagogic to say, oh, youre paying more in taxes.
Well, yes and Trump is a demagogue.
Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government bigger than ever, Sanders didnt quarrel, saying, P eople want to criticize me, okay, and F ine, if thats the criticism, I accept it.
Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.
Match up polls are worthless because the candidates have not been fully vetted. Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)But congrats. I heard from staffers in Nevada there were shenanigans but I'm SC I advise every good Democrat to google Alvin Greene. As far as Clintonites go as much as I oppose what your candidate embodies I emplore you to please stop mass incarceration if she's elected. I'm about issues not candidates. If you have a heart you will fight to end destroying people's lives. There are way more of these than you probably realize.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)This country is completely screwed. While the HRC supporters are jumping up and down about this, it just proves
how screwed we are if we don't elect Bernie. It's seems the only news people in the deep red states can get is from the corporate TV. Idiocrocy should now be officially called the documentary of our time. We all have to get off our asses and get Bernie's message to the people. With these low turnouts, the repubs can get a brick elected and we can forget about the house or the senate. If that happens, it wont take long before we are a full fledged third world country with tpp, healthcare and a decent education basically out the window. I'm not even sure if blue states can survive if we don't get our act together. Lets see how super tuedsday goes. I am hoping it's nothing like yesterday.
laruemtt
(3,992 posts)And Nevada by the disenfranchisement of over half of dems. Not impressive in my book.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)mcar
(42,375 posts)SylviaD
(721 posts)Koinos
(2,792 posts)I can understand perhaps why turnout is low for Clinton, but it appears that turnout is even lower for Sanders.
The revolution has to make it to the ballot box.
The millennials for Sanders should be turning out in record numbers, and they are not.
Maybe this will change, but it won't be Clinton's fault if Sanders supporters don't vote in the primary.
Sanders needs to work on GOTV in the primaries. Or is his support weaker than the big crowds and loud proponents would lead us to believe?
The turnout should be huge, if the "bern" is in fact really taking hold.
ananda
(28,876 posts)And not just the big money interests!
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...it was a real squeaker. And her win in Nevada was weaker than expected. The South Carolina win, of course, was a whopper.
So while you are technically correct, she has won 3 of 4 so far, it does not signify that much. It is still early. We Bernie supporters are painfully aware that Super Tuesday is likely to be less than wonderful for our candidate as well, although we are hoping for enough wins in enough states to keep the contest close. Because after that one, there are some big prizes still to be won or lost, and some of them look good for Bernie -- and anyway, we, like Bernie, intend to fight all the way to the convention.
As for energized voters, where are the numbers? You can snicker all you want that Bernie's voters aren't coming out in droves; but the fact is, Hillary's voters aren't coming out in droves either. We are seeing way fewer voters come out for the Democratic primaries than for the Republican primaries -- never mind as compared to 2008 -- and we should all be very concerned about that.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)If you focus on likely voter polls (drop the polls that survey all adults or all registered voters), the race is tied:
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I know the media put out this baloney that her supporters aren't enthusiastic but I can't wait to vote for her and that's exactly how every Clinton supporter I know feels. And I know a lot of them.