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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

RBInMaine

(13,570 posts)
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 06:38 AM Mar 2016

So the "revolution" doesn't work in the South?

The sour grapes and twisted logic of some of the Bernie fans are just astounding, even calling Democrats in the South "confederates." My goodness, how "classy."

Good that Bernie won a few very white caucus states and Oklahoma. But he LOST in his own backyard in Massachusetts, lost bigtime in the purple state of Virginia, and lost bigtime in the diverse electorate of the South and Texas. He also lost American Samoa. Hillary will take big diverse states like Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and CA. As of now, Bernie is significantly behind in the delegate count. Hillary has HUGE momentum as the frontrunner coming out of Super Tuesday.

There is little wonder why Nate Silver over at 538 has Hillary as the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination. For all intents and purposes, this is over. There is no real path for Bernie to win.

21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So the "revolution" doesn't work in the South? (Original Post) RBInMaine Mar 2016 OP
not at all. stonecutter357 Mar 2016 #1
but evidently the snide still does in Maine. hobbit709 Mar 2016 #2
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2016 #3
I doubt even ccinamon Mar 2016 #4
Lol rjsquirrel Mar 2016 #5
Corporate Owned Media, basis of VRWC Octafish Mar 2016 #11
Blah blah rjsquirrel Mar 2016 #14
Your thinking is so backward marions ghost Mar 2016 #17
rjsquirrel thinks Don Siegelman belongs behind bars. Octafish Mar 2016 #19
Hmmmm marions ghost Mar 2016 #20
That diversity is a critical requirement to secure the Democratic nomination still_one Mar 2016 #6
And that's the shame of it Cartoonist Mar 2016 #7
Because the status quo is safe and secure. Change is unsettling to many people. hobbit709 Mar 2016 #8
Because the status quo is a brick wall rjsquirrel Mar 2016 #15
In spite of your best wishes for sour grapes, Sanders supporters see the results... MrMickeysMom Mar 2016 #9
The smear of Bernie was effective there but now mmonk Mar 2016 #10
The revolution doesn't work where there are lots of minorities. nt LexVegas Mar 2016 #12
The delegate difference is 2 in MA. Sanders won most of the state counties. Clinton Nanjeanne Mar 2016 #13
Exactly marions ghost Mar 2016 #18
apparently revolutions focussed on elections don't work when folks don't vote DrDan Mar 2016 #16
K&R mcar Mar 2016 #21

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

ccinamon

(1,696 posts)
4. I doubt even
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 07:03 AM
Mar 2016

Bernie knew that the media would do a total black-out for months on him and his campaign....hard to get the word out when the corporate owned, Hillary promoting media has it in for ya.

Taking *ALL* factors into consideration, he has done VERY well.

If he got 10% of the media that Hillary has received since last May, it would be a blow out for Bernie....which is why the Clintons are pulling out all the dirty tricks they can in their effort to win and to keep a muzzle on Bernie and his ideas.

 

rjsquirrel

(4,762 posts)
5. Lol
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 07:09 AM
Mar 2016

That excuse gets old and tired. Blame the media. Blame the voters. But don't concede that your opponent has reasons for her support.

Maybe he should try being a woman former senator and Secretary of State in national level politics for 25 years.

And one could just as well argue had Bernie had the scrutiny Hillary has had he'd be in single digits. Media cuts both ways

Or are you under the impression that all Hilary's "free media" coverage has been nice to her?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
11. Corporate Owned Media, basis of VRWC
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 08:56 AM
Mar 2016

Here's how much of the nation's press were magically transformed from watchdogs into lapdogs:



The Powell Memo (also known as the Powell Manifesto)

The Powell Memo was first published August 23, 1971

Introduction

In 1971, Lewis Powell, then a corporate lawyer and member of the boards of 11 corporations, wrote a memo to his friend Eugene Sydnor, Jr., the Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The memorandum was dated August 23, 1971, two months prior to Powell’s nomination by President Nixon to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Powell Memo did not become available to the public until long after his confirmation to the Court. It was leaked to Jack Anderson, a liberal syndicated columnist, who stirred interest in the document when he cited it as reason to doubt Powell’s legal objectivity. [font color="red"]Anderson cautioned that Powell “might use his position on the Supreme Court to put his ideas into practice…in behalf of business interests.”[/font color]

Though Powell’s memo was not the sole influence, the Chamber and corporate activists took his advice to heart and began building a powerful array of institutions designed to shift public attitudes and beliefs over the course of years and decades. The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration’s “hands-off business” philosophy.

Most notable about these institutions was their focus on education, shifting values, and movement-building — a focus we share, though often with sharply contrasting goals.* (See our endnote for more on this.)

So did Powell’s political views influence his judicial decisions? The evidence is mixed. [font color="red"]Powell did embrace expansion of corporate privilege and wrote the majority opinion in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, a 1978 decision that effectively invented a First Amendment “right” for corporations to influence ballot questions.[/font color] On social issues, he was a moderate, whose votes often surprised his backers.

CONTINUED...

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/



This story continues through today, where we have Chief Justice John Roberts shepherding corporate friendly law through the court, let alone appointing nothing but BFEE-friendly pukes to the FISA Court, and the press working mightily to move on to the next shiny object. Of course, Congress and the Administration do their bit to advance the interests of Corporate America, Wall Street, and War Inc, unchecked by public awareness.
 

rjsquirrel

(4,762 posts)
14. Blah blah
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:15 AM
Mar 2016

That's the media we have. It isn't a public institution. This is conspiracy theory 101.

You can start a television network if you like. But radical anti-business leftism will never win a national election in the US in our lifetimes. Corporate interests are not seen as illegitimate by a large majority of Americans, many of whom are in business themselves. Hey I was a Marxist in college too. You will get tired of wishing for a perfect world eventually.

This is the media landscape Bernie knew he was facing. For his supporters to now blame it for his evident failure to reach the nomination is predictable. I'm sure you think hedge fund guys and Monsanto execs got together to fund Hillary because they were scared of Bernie. Man behind the curtain etc.


He is us. You can change it by convincing enough voters (as Obama did up to a point) to actually come out and vote for you. Yeah the system is corrupt. It was ever thus. You can blame it for failure of leftist electoral politics and be right but you still have the failure.

I'm old enough to remember McGovern. I've been a huge Bernie fan for 20 years. I'm voting for him uselessly in my state primary for the messaging.

But I have always accepted that his winning was very unlikely and understood that life ain't fair. However I think he has made a huge impact and pulled Clintonfar to the left. More to the point I think both he and Drumpf have raised a populist threat (they could win if only they could combine! There's a scary thought although I don't believe Bernie would ever endorse a racist billionaire). The ruling class oligarchy can be made genuinely nervous about the limits of their hegemony and this election is doing that. We won't get a revolution but I admire Bernie for threatening one.

The mainstream media were never going to get behind that though. This is America. We didn't used to be free. We were built in slavery and genocide of native people and exploitation of immigrants. Freedom has always been a far future goal, and it's a mistake to think there's something to be t restored.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
17. Your thinking is so backward
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:20 AM
Mar 2016

--but it does illustrate what we're up against. Thanks for your vote for Bernie.

Clinton has not been "pulled to the left"--this is the biggest untruth out there.

still_one

(92,366 posts)
6. That diversity is a critical requirement to secure the Democratic nomination
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 07:25 AM
Mar 2016

and I would expand it to win the General Election also

Cartoonist

(7,320 posts)
7. And that's the shame of it
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 07:28 AM
Mar 2016

I have yet to read a post saying why it is in anyone's interest to maintain the status quo instead of supporting revolution.

hobbit709

(41,694 posts)
8. Because the status quo is safe and secure. Change is unsettling to many people.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 07:31 AM
Mar 2016

Especially those entrenched in the power structure.

 

rjsquirrel

(4,762 posts)
15. Because the status quo is a brick wall
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:17 AM
Mar 2016

and the revolution is led by people armed with feather dusters.

The idea that the American electoral process could produce a socialist revolution in 2016 is absurd.

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
9. In spite of your best wishes for sour grapes, Sanders supporters see the results...
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 07:35 AM
Mar 2016

... of spinning, spending so much money in advertisement and only to find that Hillary's sweep wasn't was it report predicted to be.

No one who is a serious supporter of Bernie Sanders overlooked the struggle we had in front of us.

MSM who from the beginning who ignores Bernie Sanders
MSM pundits who go along to get along with their corporate board of directors, down-playing Sanders campaign
Caucus rules that allow persons to register their party after they leave
and, let's not for "Bull Horn Bill"


I'd say it's better than predicted. It is no where near over, because the revolution, though not being televised or carried by the water carriers is about all of us, not the power of the Clintons.

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
10. The smear of Bernie was effective there but now
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 07:38 AM
Mar 2016

that is mostly over, we can carry the fight forward.

Nanjeanne

(4,974 posts)
13. The delegate difference is 2 in MA. Sanders won most of the state counties. Clinton
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:04 AM
Mar 2016

Won big in the heavily populated Springfield. Other places were very tight. Others were very pro Sanders. Right now only about 20,000 votes separate them and that will narrow a bit when the additional small counties come in.

It was a good day for Clinton, but winning MA by 1% and by 2 delegates isn't where the gloating of Clinton supporters should be spending their time. Particularly when she won by 15% in 2008 over Obama even after Kennedy endorsed Obama.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»So the "revolution" doesn...