Sanders' real problem isn't the DNC. It's that he isn't getting enough votes

[bigtree]

Jamil Smith ?@JamilSmith
Bernie Sanders's real problem isn't the DNC, @johnastoehr writes. It's that he isn't getting enough votes http://gu.com/p/4hzgh/stw


The American left appears to believe democratic socialist senator Bernie Sanders would be winning the race for the Democratic party’s nomination if not for the sinister machinations of the elite. The party is more liberal than former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the thinking goes, and she represents an era in US politics no longer recognizable today.

That’s wrong, but being wrong is unlikely to make a difference. I fear the American left doesn’t believe in facts so much as a populist stories that are counterproductive to real progress.

Elections are rigged, wrote the estimable DD Guttenplan, The Nation’s editor at large, but “with each primary victory – and each close call – Sanders shows us our own strength.”

The Democratic elite’s dismissal of Sanders reflects a contempt for democratic ideals, said the brilliant Jedediah Purdy in Dissent. According to him, the nomination process has been “a microcosm of the impatience that a certain kind of elite feels for the Sanders campaign”. It is, he said, a “more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger condescension toward democracy”.

Sanders is the future of the Democratic party, wrote Jeet Heer in the New Republic. “Changes in the ideological orientation of the party’s base explain also why Hillary Clinton is struggling despite her political talents and many advantages.” Sanders has crafted an identity that’s “fresher than Clinton’s and better-suited to the moment”.

All this might be convincing if not for the fact that Clinton is winning the popular vote.

I’m aware this is blindingly obvious, but you wouldn’t know it by listening to leftist voices on social media. But it’s true. Clinton is winning more votes than Sanders. The difference is not attributable to her institutional advantage among “superdelegates”, who are elite party members free to support any candidate they wish – it’s down to her popular appeal.

As of March 22, after votes were cast in Arizona, Utah and Idaho, Clinton has earned 1,223 pledged delegates to the convention while Sanders earned 946, a 277-point margin of deficit.

Clinton has won delegates in the fairest way possible. Party rules dictate that delegates are allocated according to the share of the win. This is a break from the past. Primaries used to run on a winner-takes-all system (sometimes called the “unit rule”), in which the candidate who got a majority (or plurality) of votes took all the delegates. The second-place candidate got nothing while the first-place candidate got the votes of the second-place candidate.

In 2016, the candidate in second place gets a percentage of the delegates she earned while the winner does not get delegates she did not earn. This is the case with every primary and caucus in every state. It’s hard to imagine a more meritocratic and thus progressive system.

Clinton earned her delegates with a coalition representative of the demographic changes taking place in the United States. While it is true that Sanders attracted more young voters, and people who normally don’t vote, this alone cannot substantiate the claim that his coalition is the future of the Democratic party. Indeed, if that were the case, then the party’s future is whiter, more affluent and upwardly-mobile than the multiracial coalition it seeks to serve.

Clinton has overwhelmingly won more votes than Sanders among racial minorities and low-income voters. Not only is Clinton winning the popular vote, she is doing so in the fairest way possible: with a coalition of voters that’s as diverse as the United States.

Sanders response to this fact should give American leftists reason to pause. He is looking to the political press to give the impression that winning in caucus states like Utah and Idaho means the people are on his side. If the people appear to be on his side, the thinking goes, then the Democratic party’s “superdelegates” should back him.

In other words, the Democratic socialist candidate hopes to create the illusion of winning in order to sway the very same Democratic elites that his coalition ideologically despises.


read: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/24/hillary-clinton-beating-bernie-sanders-explained-voters-delegates-democratic-party?CMP=share_btn_tw

Maggy ?@Maggyw519 5h5 hours ago
Today Bernie Sanders was busy suing, threatening the DNC, while Hillary was holding a counter terrorism round table.



Jesse Lehrich ?@JesseLehrich 14h14 hours ago
While Trump & Cruz fearmonger, @HillaryClinton is engaging in serious discussions about how we defeat terrorism. WATCH: http://www.msnbc.com/live-online/watch/coming-up-clinton-on-counter-terror-efforts-651634755611 …

[livetohike]

1. But it's so much easier to whine and blame others!

Establishment! Oligarchy! Wall Street! Whine, complain, whine, complain. So bored with him already.

[PyaarRevolution]

32. If you're serious.

It's because you're comfortable and not suffering economically.

[bravenak]

2. This part:

Sanders response to this fact should give American leftists reason to pause. He is looking to the political press to give the impression that winning in caucus states like Utah and Idaho means the people are on his side. If the people appear to be on his side, the thinking goes, then the Democratic party’s “superdelegates” should back him.

In other words, the democratic socialist candidate hopes to create the illusion of winning in order to sway the very same Democratic elites that his coalition ideologically despises.

is what I see going on all over the place.

[CalvinballPro]

9. Yeah, the whole BS campaign seems to be pinning its hopes on "TEH MOMENTUM!!111" or something. nt

[bravenak]

10. It bores me now

[Chasstev365]

3. You're Right About not Getting Enough Votes!

Because Debbie Wasserman Schultz fixed the rules in favor of HRC and the undemocratic "Super Delegates", clearly Sanders is not getting enough votes!

[DrDan]

4. well, yeah . . . that is a problem. But those national polls . . . and

the big "mo" - all in our favor.

[bigtree]

5. and. unicorns

...

[dchill]

27. And this response gives YOUR thread credibility...

HOW?

[bigtree]

29. I'm going to have the thread notarized this afternoon

...to lend more of an air of credibility to it.

The snarkiness is just a formality.

[dchill]

31. Formal snark, a byproduct of Clinton integrity.

Right?

[bigtree]

34. more of the idiotic, juvenile, 'liar,liar' campaign

...how's that working for ya?

[dchill]

35. More of the defensive, knee-jerk disingenuous ostrich campaign...

Works for me!

[ismnotwasm]

6. Yup

That Hillary is ahead in popular votes is conveniently ignored.

[CalvinballPro]

11. 2008 redux. Clinton is 2008 Obama, Sanders is 2008 Clinton. It's literally that simple. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. From the Comments Section

Or who knows, Bernie can use this (we hope many signatures) to bargain if a particular situation arises. Applying game theory, if the number of pledged delegates are similar towards the end of the primaries process, (and we think its going to be close) and even if Sanders is a bit lower on the count, the super delegates might switch to Bernie if there is a threat that he might go his own way if denied a nomination.

-Cisco Silva


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/24/hillary-clinton-beating-bernie-sanders-explained-voters-delegates-democratic-party?CMP=share_btn_tw#comments

This is straight up strong arming out of The Godfather. My offer, Mr. Silva is nothing:

[sufrommich]

12. Yep. Unbelievable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. My video is my reply.

[tk2kewl]

8. Clinton doesn't have enough votes yet either

And barely half the country has voted... So we shall see.

[CalvinballPro]

14. The shelf-life on "only half of the states have voted" is quickly running out, you know. nt

[tk2kewl]

17. yep...

and 2 of the first 3 of the second half were landslide Sanders victories, while the third was a national disgrace

[CalvinballPro]

22. "Landslides" in low-population caucus states. South Carolina was a real landslide.

And if Bernie needs a 85+% white population to win, you might want to start getting worried, because those locations don't add up to 2383 delegates, or 270 electoral votes either.

[CalvinballPro]

15. Both political fringes, left and right, simply loath the fact that they can't win majority votes.

These are people who inherently hate democracy because they can't always win every time and on every issue.

Sore losers, in other words.

[rock]

16. Duh

Glad to hear you say it.

[forjusticethunders]

18. It really grinds my gears to admit that this is true.

We are NOT LIVING IN REALITY.


The reality is that ideology doesn't win elections, otherwise Dems would never lose. We can talk about the establishment and Third Way until we're blue in the face, and we might even be RIGHT, but being right doesn't always translate into votes. We just bitch and moan and put on our tinfoil hats and go back to our irrelevant leftist enclaves until another "savior" comes along that we'll bitch about because we didn't do anything to

Do you know why a 0.01% plutocrat passed a massive expansion of social democratic governance while welcoming the hatred of the class he was called a traitor to, and a racist Southern Dixiecrat passed the Civil Rights Act? Because we had ACTUAL revolutionaries back then, not whiny little kids trying to simulate revolution without trying to interact with the people who are supposed to be joining them.

Honestly most of the American "Left" is just taking up space. They're getting paid high 5/6 figure salaries to do nothing but write about how much the system sucks - something we're all aware of -

Do I like Hillary's positions or politics? Hell no. But does anyone even know what FDR campaigned on? He literally ran on the Ron Paul platform. It was the grassroots, the Socialists and Communists organizing in breadlines and Hoovervilles, that MADE Roosevelt progressive. I don't know if the same can or cannot be done with Hillary, but we better damn well try, because we have a lot of work to do.

[HumanityExperiment]

19. More troll bait...

Usual suspect(s) posting OPs about their continued fear of Bernie marching on in this primary...

Odd that HRC supporters spend all this time and effort on all these OPs trying to push Bernie out of the primary race

[EndElectoral]

21. It is troubling that more time is devoted to this than actually her positives in terms of policy

[bigtree]

23. I have a 'positive' post falling fast in this forum without one reply

...like you care.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511572310

[HumanityExperiment]

25. agreed...

but it goes to the human condition, folks will inherently focus on the thing that they fear or obsess over the most until it's resolved, stops or is conquered

it's hilarious to watch

[bigtree]

24. blocked

[Sheepshank]

20. interesting that you should put it that way

I don't think Trump is blaming the RNC for it's overt suppression of this numerous and apparently yyuuuuggge wins.

[MSMITH33156]

26. She's pretty clearly winning

but popular vote isn't really a metric since they don't really count it in all states.

Pledged delegate counts are more accurate. She's obviously up big there as well, but using popular vote is a little spurious. She's won 57% of the pledged delegates, so yeah, not really a close race thus far. For all the bluster. Bernie will close that up a bit over the next few weeks, then April 19th and 26th will be a disaster for him with several closed primaries in diverse states. And the margin will grow past 57%.

[mmonk]

28. Because no Democrat might believe distortions put out about Sanders

by the DNC if they are unfamiliar with him or his record.

[Surya Gayatri]

30. Massive K & R. Thanks for posting.

[NorthCarolina]

33. People are already starting to check their voter affiliation info

due to the shenanigans in FL and AZ where party affiliation magically transforms into something disqualifying. Amazing happenstance isn't it? Especially since such unfortunate "mistakes" tend to greatly favor establishment candidates on both sides of the political aisle.

[PyaarRevolution]

36. My take.

First off, I think we see something strongly evident in Utah and Idaho, that a comparatively few points more and Bernie would've shut her out from getting any delegates. What do these two states have in common? You might say they're relatively white but I don't think they have a strong DNC influence like DWS encroaching.
The same can't be said for some of the Southern states in terms of the DNC. In terms of Arizona, questionable shit went on that possibly disenfranchised both Hillary AND Bernie voters. I've heard there's suspicion Republicans were behind this stuff.

Now to that person in here who talked about why FDR went Liberal/Socialist, etc. I disagree with you that the base can't win elections but it's also recognizing that base has been fractured severely, even into voting and registering 3rd party or going independent. That's a big thing and we HAVE to recognize these circumstance to realize how it's possible for the base to win.
You want to know the solution for how to address it? There are a few possible ways, both of which may carry some difficulty, the first being a little easier. The first is that in this upcoming election all the Bernie supporters go to the polls, even if they may not vote for Hillary but making sure they vote in real Liberal Democrats like Alan Grayson, Jamie Raskin, etc. That goes for both local/state/federal, seeing the date of the primary and voting before the Presidential election so we have our ducks in a row. As part of this, even if Hillary is the nominee we make sure it's a Supermajority so she can't veto anything positive they want. Hillary only wants debt free education? Tough shit, they will overturn her veto for free college education. Same with legalizing Marijuana and decriminalizing hard drugs, etc., etc.
Another part of this(healing the base) would be passing a law that makes runoff voting mandatory in all national elections then following it up in state and local positions. The ONLY way the Democrats keep that control they've grabbed is by allowing the Greens to get a chance, a loose coalition if you will. I don't mean a literal parliamentary democracy, what I'm saying is we can bring a substantial number of people back to vote(consistently even) by making sure they're not disenfranchised by using runoff voting.
Obviously another substantial thing that would help is preventing voter fraud by BANNING touchscreen voting machines period. They're not reliable, we should just go to paper and stay there.