2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum2008: Obama Lost Massachusetts to Hillary By 15% .....but Obama Still Won Nomination
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.htmlGothmog
(145,489 posts)awake
(3,226 posts)Gothmog
(145,489 posts)Sanders has a 2% chance of becoming POTUS according to the free market system http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner If you really believe that Sanders will be the nominee, then open an Irish brokerage account and buy an option agreement. You would get great pricing and will make a ton of money
thereismore
(13,326 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Gothmog
(145,489 posts)There are good reasons why many voters including some African American voters are not supporting Sanders. I believe that one major difference explains one of the big divides between Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters. There is a vast difference in how Sanders supporters and Sanders view President Obama and how other Democrats view President Obama. I admit that I am impressed with the amount accomplished by President Obama in face of the stiff GOP opposition to every one of his proposals and I personally believe that President Obama has been a great President. It seems that this view colors who I am supporting in the primary http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics
On one side of this divide are activists and intellectuals who are ambivalent, disappointed or flat-out frustrated with what Obama has gotten done. They acknowledge what they consider modest achievements -- like helping some of the uninsured and preventing the Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. But they are convinced that the president could have accomplished much more if only hed fought harder for his agenda and been less quick to compromise.
They dwell on the opportunities missed, like the lack of a public option in health care reform or the failure to break up the big banks. They want those things now -- and more. In Sanders, they are hearing a candidate who thinks the same way.
On the other side are partisans and thinkers who consider Obama's achievements substantial, even historic. They acknowledge that his victories were partial and his legislation flawed. This group recognizes that there are still millions of people struggling to find good jobs or pay their medical bills, and that the planet is still on a path to catastrophically high temperatures. But they see in the last seven years major advances in the liberal crusade to bolster economic security for the poor and middle class. They think the progress on climate change is real, and likely to beget more in the future.
It seems that many of the Sanders supporters hold a different view of President Obama which is also a leading reason why Sanders is not exciting many African American voters. Again, it may be difficult for Sanders to appeal to African American voters when one of the premises of his campaign is that Sanders does not think that President Obama is a progressive or a good POTUS.
Again, I am not ashamed to admit that I like President Obama and think that he has accomplished a great deal which is why I do not mind Hillary Clinton promising to continue President Obama's legacy. There are valid reasons why many non-African American democrats (myself included) and many African American Democratic voters are not supporting Sanders.
I personally am proud that President Obama is our POTUS and I do not want to abandon his legacy. This viewpoint explains why many good Democrats are not supporting Sanders including many African American voters. Sanders' legacy in the civil rights movement is nice but does not overcome this concern.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but someone willing to sell our future to international corporations with tpp cannot be considered progressive imo
not to mention obamacare, which all it did was make insurance and pharma even richer, and still many are going without.
Gothmog
(145,489 posts)Sanders is not going to win the support of Democratic voters who think that President Obama has done a good job. President Obama is very popular inside the Democratic Party which explains the results of South Carolina and Super Tuesday. Sanders is losing 84% of the African American vote and that is not likely to change given the Sanders message on President Obama. While I am not African American, Sanders attacks on President Obama did play a role in my vote.
Again, the demographics and the delegate numbers are not in the favor of Sanders. Sanders may appeal to people who hate or do not like President Obama but that is a narrow sliver of the Democratic party.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)the blatant toxicity and destruction of the tpp. but if hillary gets in, they will. of course, it will be too late then.
Gothmog
(145,489 posts)You do know that President Obam is very popular with the vast majority of the Democratic Party? It is hard to be the party's nominee if the bulk of the party disagrees with one of your key positions.
How does Sanders think that he will be the nominee if 84% of African American and two-thirds of Latino voters vote against him? These are two key demographic groups in the party's base.
BTW, where is the Sanders' revolution? Has anyone seen the millions and millions of new voters promised by Sanders? http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sanders-turnout-revolution-still-hasnt-materialized
If this is starting to sound familiar, theres a very good reason for that. Heading into Super Tuesday, each party has held four nominating contests: the Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primary, Nevada caucuses, and South Carolina primary. In each instance, Democratic turnout has dropped since the partys most recent competitive race.
And in each instance, Republican turnout has broken party records.
Based on the latest available information, Democratic turnout dropped 27% in Iowa, 13% in New Hampshire, 29% in Nevada, and about 30% in South Carolina.
?itok=RYJThlNg
Without the millions and millions of new voters, I have trouble in seeing how Sanders can deliver on his promises.
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
Thats 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 turnoutone 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 cant simply sit down and negotiate with Republican leaders and forge a series of compromises. Anyone who's observed the GOPs behavior over the course of Barack Obamas 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, lets 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 dont know whats 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 theyre going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, You vote against this, youre out of your job, because we know whats 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. Thats 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?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)indys are the largest voting group. its not just about the dems.
hillary would have no better luck getting stuff passed than sanders.
and she will bring out the vote. gops to vote against her
Gothmog
(145,489 posts)Again, Sanders' campaign promises all hinge on this so-called revolution and to date these voters have not shown up. It is my understanding that the reason why Sanders is proposing a number of programs that have no chance of passing and that Sanders is counting on his revolution to force the GOP in congress to be reasonable. The trouble is that there are no signs of this revolution. revolution https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/sorry-bernie-sanders-there-is-zero-evidence-of-your-political-revolution-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.
I live in the real world and I simply do not believe that Sanders' agenda is realistic and the lack of any evidence of a Sanders revolution reinforces my opinion
Please vote for the candidate of your choice for any reason that you deem appropriate. Others are free to vote for the candidate of their choice based on the facts as they see them
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)meanwhile, she seems to be bringing millions of new voters to trump
mythology
(9,527 posts)Those are useful things, but only in as much as it results in voting.
Gothmog
(145,489 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)he had great turnout in nh and vt and we knew he would not do super well in the south. the northern tier, west and midwest could be friendly to him. we will see if turnout matches our hopes
but honestly, without a high turnout, ANY dem is going to have a hard time getting stuff through
beac
(9,992 posts)Gothmog
(145,489 posts)beac
(9,992 posts)If you are talking about the corporate coalition, then that is indeed a way that she is similar to Obama, but it is not a compliment to him or her and one of the things Bernie supporters hope to change about American politics.
Funding aside, Hillary is nothing close to the kind of inspirational campaigner Obama was. IMO, Bernie is closer to Obama on that front.
Gothmog
(145,489 posts)Those groups are important parts of the demographic base of the Democratic Party. Good luck in trying to win the nomination without the support of these two groups.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)noamnety
(20,234 posts)Obama didn't have the sense to drop out at that point.
onenote
(42,747 posts)since after Super Tuesday in 2008, Obama was still leading Clinton in pledged delegates.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)At this point, Sanders would have to win the remaining contests by upwards of 60% to 70%, which doesn't really appear possibly outside of the caucuses, which so far he hasn't hit 60% to 70% in.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)against Hillary last night than Obama did in 2008.
MSNBC is putting up a Democratic delegate count that includes all the superdelegates, including in the states where primaries have not even taken place. They show Clinton with over 1000 delegates versus a little over 400 for Bernie.
book_worm
(15,951 posts)which Bernie isn't.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)and is horrible for Bernie.
Stick a fork in him. He's done.
Sid
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)there was open manipulation with Bill and all and that slow vote count?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)For starters, Obama and Clinton were 2 very similar candidates. Centrist neoliberals backed by the establishment. Obama is younger, more charismatic and represented a golden opportunity to elect the first POC POTUS. Even so, Clinton won the popular vote battle, but Obama won the delegate war.
2016 is completely different, and Clinton is winning the states that she lost in 2008--in addition to winning states that she won in 2008. There is no path to the nomination for Sanders. I'm not a Clinton supporter, but reality is reality.