2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumwhy was the Wyoming caucus so much closer than other caucuses? Democrats only.
Last edited Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)
You had to register two weeks beforehand to participate.
Reminder that all/substantially all of the delegates to be chosen by the end of this month will be in closed primaries.
Another possible factor: availability of absentee/surrogate ballots for the physically disabled or those who could not attend.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)guess who has that advantage in New York.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)for early/absentee voters is abhorrent to me.
And yes!!! My extreme gratitude for all those Hillary people working hard to GOTV!
IamMab
(1,359 posts)...by some as an example of "election fraud." I've seen it all over DU already.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Which makes no sense.
I have zero use for people who claim to be Dems, yet hate any Dem that isn't one of them.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)block of radicals that flits around the left from party to uninvolved to party to unaffiliated to uninvolved, including the Democratic Party, tossing all who disappoint them (everyone ultimately) under that handy bus and continuing on.
One social scientist summarized a main difference between the far right and far left as that the far right hates everyone who isn't like them while the far left hates "themselves." These are defining characteristics.
We see it in action in those Democratic Party members who leap to blame the party and its ("conservative" liberals for everything wrong with America, and elsewhere.
The "self hate" orientation, of course, isn't just for the American left but for America itself since it is their country. They're the ones who react to every post about troubles in foreign nations with knee-jerk claims that the U.S. is the cause, no local factors allowed to elbow their way onto mental stages permanently taken over by an evil American corporate-government-CIA-military worldview.
We may think we have no use for them, but they know we are doomed if they do not save us. It is their unique ability to see, and despair over, all they are a part of that allows them the special wisdom and virtue others all lack.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Or not!
I don't mind their tendency to shop candidates and parties as much as I mind the fact that way too many seem to lack detailed knowledge about the things they talk about. I've always found the most dangerous people have the least acquaintance with all of the facts.
I liked the look of the last poll that said 75% of Sanders supporters would support Hillary in the GE.
I think we will do fine without all those who don't know, or don't like, the fact that we live in a representative government society.
Nobody gets everything they want all the time, by design. And until we manage to permanently move a huge chunk of the right, leftward, the system will do just fine.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Isn't that fantastic? And I suspect the number is actually significantly higher.
Right on about the inverse relation between knowledge relation and potentially dangerous behavior, but for the more zealous ones which comes first -- the lack of knowledge or the propensity for cultish attachment to a leader that requires denial of information?
As you say, we so don't need those who don't like the reality of representative government! Very fortunately for us, those with that problem are few enough (and incapable of allying for long if at all with others) that they usually lose and end up sidelined for another generation or more. Thousands of posts here alone have made it clear that, when fired up by a leader, some recognize no limits in pursuit of what they want.
You know, it may be that large chunks of the right are moving leftward somewhat right now. They still disapprove of and distrust the left on the whole, but a reliable poll I forgot to copy showed a large majority of conservatives not all that worried about "big government," or whatever the term was -- but in any case an eye-grabbing rejection of 40 years of mass media indoctrination.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)In my opinion the lack of any candidate that can unify them has both led to the rise of Trump, and also to the potential defection of those voters that would rather vote for Hillary, than let The Donald lead their party. There is also a segment that really seems to understand that the Tea Party core of congress collect huge salaries and do nothing for them. Hillary is much more progressive than voters might like, but she doesn't vilify the voters of the right, and has a reputation of working hard and getting things done. Exactly what is needed to keep moving forward.
The only problem I see in making huge progressive progress right now, is the indoctrination of the right for the past two decades (at least) by people like Rush and Glenn Beck. They have frightened a large chunk of their listeners into thinking that life, as we know it, will end if the horrible "liberals" aren't removed from government. I think they are really afraid for their children's futures, due to the asshats spouting trash for ratings. Beck may be a true believer, but I don't think most of the others are. Those frightened and angry voters will be the hardest to move.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)the deep south/Bible Belt. It's pretty easy to sort them out -- hard-core social conservatives such as you worry about are typically smiling and agreeable one-on-one and reserved in mixed groups, but hostile and aggressive behind the backs of people like me. They do run in packs. I chose to back off some involvement in one group because our son was getting a contract with the school district in our small city and we were all worried they would make the connection; if made, they unquestionably would have gone after him. We can't move them, but I'm guessing Trump and Cruz are splitting them -- guessing because after we've been a few years in this county we are merely polite when we meet.
Typically moderate traditional conservatives, otoh ,are friends or capable of being friendly and working together. Even if they still firmly disagree about the value of government programs and I'm firmly for big solutions, we can talk genuinely about our concerns, most of which are shared. Not that we talk politics a lot, even among better friends, but we know we can talk and agree, as well as disagree. I've avoided asking people who they may vote for for some while; because they're who they are I know they must be unhappy with what's happening to the GOP.
And one of the keys to getting along in a society still formed by its village background (have to get along for life!) is not revealing very much about any non-mainstream beliefs. I suspect there must be significantly more liberals and progressive conservatives than I realize, or perhaps even they do. LOL.
This is an EXTREMELY conservative county. I am literally the first liberal and my husband the first Jew some have knowingly met. I know that because they were each bemused enough at that thought in this age to say so.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)One guy shows up with several hundred "surrogate" votes... Yeah, I believe this was legit... The methods of chicanery from the other side are endless...
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)They're so damn evil and corrupt that they'll go to great lengths to steal the smallest and least important Democratic primary in the nation in order to gain a delegate or two even though she's ahead by 250 pledged delegates! Makes perfect sense!
riversedge
(70,310 posts)Enjoy
WayneEdH ?@WayneEdH 20h20 hours ago
Bernie gets ZERO Net Delegates in Wyoming!
Plus HRC has +4 superdelegates in WY.
#ImWithHer
hack89
(39,171 posts)that were all mailed to a central location in the preceding weeks? You do know that about a third of those ballots were for Bernie?
athena
(4,187 posts)Most caucuses prevent those who are disabled or elderly, or have three jobs, or have dependents of children to take care of, from voting.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)Shows that when everyone is allowed to vote, Bernie doesn't win by such big margins.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)pnwmom
(108,996 posts)JI7
(89,276 posts)Has been doing a huge push in getting those
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)The HRC campaign really needs to grow their base, but they seem to only be polarizing it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)will vote with Clinton after primary
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)Quite a few of Sanders voters are either crossovers from the republican party or independents who don't necessarily see republicans as any worse than democrats.
As your very own OP argues, that block has a significant impact on the outcome, so why do you dismiss them so quickly now?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)what matters in material terms is what's going to happen in the next 17 days.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)They can't have ONE person bring in 625 surrogate votes. One person one vote.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511692371#top
pnwmom
(108,996 posts)and were the reason Obama won twice.
Are you aware that Romney carried the majority of white voters, both men and women? African American and Latino voters are a key part of the Democratic coalition.
Fickle independents are not.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)That's dangerously short sighted and emblematic of the mediocre Campaign Hillary has been running so far.
Yeah, Bernie's weak with black voters, so he and the campaign are clearly working hard to fix it instead of writing them off. Hillary is weak with independents, crossover voters, and young voters and the strategy to this point seems to be dismissive of them--calling them disloyal, immature, or blindly bigoted in some way. That's a strategy of throwing out the most energized among the voters.
She has been flat or trending down for her whole campaign. How will that bode in the general?
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Most of the independent Sanders voters will stay home or cross over for the Repukes.
Sad, but 100% true.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)A lot of Independents are wingnuts who are ashamed to be associated with the Republican party (can't blame them on that one)
A lot of Independents are leftwingers who hold their noses and vote D in the general election.
And a fair number of them are squishy centrists, have no coherent ideology, or are "I vote the person not the party" types.
Polling indicates Clinton is crushing Trump and Cruz in the fall. She would lose to Kasich, but so would Sanders. Fortunately, he has zero chance of being their nominee.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Clinton, for starters.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)she's not liberal compared to Bernie Sanders, but Bernie Sanders is the extreme left in Congress.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)She actually dismissed those concerned about the 1st amendment by saying:
Btw, Feinstein, a Clinton backer, recently circulated one such bill which is considered a complete disaster on civil liberties.
So yeah, on domestic policy I think she's a disaster.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)on issues that actually matter to ordinary voters, i.e. job creation, education, labor rights, taxing and spending, she's a liberal
if domestic spying and encryption are your litmus tests for being a liberal, then you'll love Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Domestic Spying is a question of the 4th amendment:
That is, it's the right for unencrypted communications to not be read by the government without a court order
Encryption is a 1st amendment concern:
That is, it is the right for me to choose to encrypt communications so that infringements on the 4th amendment do not cripple my ability to communicate.
They're very different problems but both center around secure communications.
Domestic spying and Encryption are areas where Democrats should excel, but they do not because many elected Democrats are authoritarians like Feinstein. But I'll pick Sanders over Cruz or Paul any day.
By the way, on the topic of government oppression of free speech, Clinton also voted to make it a felony to burn the US flag.
========
On a side-note it is incredibly dismissive to suggest that fundamental questions of free speech and government surveillance don't matter because so-called "ordinary voters" don't vote on them as swing issues as much. Civil liberties do matter, though you apparently disagree. Interesting. I remember when Bush's PATRIOT act was anathema to liberals, but apparently surveillance is now en vogue with the New Democrats.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)ask people in poor urban centers where encryption and drone strikes rank on their issues list.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)...is to say that voters in poor urban areas don't see it as very important?
And your response to the fact that Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of civil liberties is that "poor urban people don't care"? That is beyond fucked up. Discussion of the issues can apparently be refuted by saying poor urban people don't care. wow.
I didn't mention drone strikes. I am talking about respect for civil liberties of American citizens by those hoping to represent them in government. If you don't see that as an important issue then we really don't share the same values at all. And if that's an accurate representation of how the Democratic party thinks, they're breaking their oaths of office to preserve protect and defend the constitution.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)enough bend you wind up getting a break.
Example: France ex post the terror attacks there last year.
spyware, ransomware, hackers, bots, etc are a much bigger risk to most people's privacy than the government is.
yes, there is always the issue of the government misusing that authority. so there need to be safeguards.
as I said, a complex area.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Just as civil rights for minorities are not a "complex issue".
The French terrorists attacks didn't use encryption and warrantless wiretapping would not have prevented the attacks. How would "bending" to allow the government more access have helped? Remember that the French and Belgian law enforcement and intelligence agencies knew the attackers were dangerous and affiliated with jihadists:
Several had dossiers identifying them as radicals. At least five had travelled to fight in Syria and returned to homes in France or Belgium. They were dots on the radar screen but the security services failed to join them up and so overlooked the gathering conspiracy.
What we know is that most of these people came back from Syria and nobody stopped them, said Natalie Goulet, a member of the French senate foreign and defence committee. Whatever the reform that has been implemented [in the intelligence agencies] its not working.
...
Similarly, Sami Amimour, one of the gunmen at the Bataclan, had been detained in October 2012 on suspicion of terrorist links, and had an international arrest warrant out on him after he broke his parole the following year and travelled to Syria. Yet he returned in mid-October 2014, and was able to remain at large until the attacks.
In another embarrassment, Salah Abdeslam, who hired one of the cars used by the attackers and is the brother of one of the terrorists who blew himself up outside the Comptoir Voltaire cafe, was stopped in a vehicle with two other men on the French-Belgian border a few hours after the attack and questioned, but then released.
That represents huge negligence, if that is confirmed, said a former senior MI6 official. It has to be asked why a large scale attack like this, which would have a footprint, was not picked up by the intelligence services.
Speaking in Washington on Monday, the CIA director, John Brennan, blamed the intelligence gaps leading up to the Paris attacks on the increased ability of terrorist networks to communicate without being intercepted by the security services.
Brennan said there had been a significant increase in the operational security of a number of these operatives and terrorist networks as they have gone to school on what it is that they need to do in order to keep their activities concealed from the authorities.
The Belgian government has said that terrorist networks in Belgium had begun used the Sony Play Station 4 for its communications, as a way of avoiding surveillance.
Brennan blamed such developments on a number of unauthorised disclosures and a lot of handwringing over the governments role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, and called for intelligence agencies to be given a freer hand in conducting surveillance.
However, François Heisbourg, a former member of a French presidential commission on defence and security, said the biggest problem was not a shortage of information about suspects but a lack of capacity to process that information.
It is less a failure of intelligence than the ability to follow through on the intelligence data, said Heisbourg, now chairman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Geneva Centre for Security Studies. The domestic security service was revamped in 2013 but it is still underfunded and undermanned. It is the process of being reformed but reform only produces fruit over four or five years.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/french-and-belgian-intelligence-knew-paris-attackers-had-jihadi-backgrounds
In New York on Wednesday, the director of the FBI, James Comey, complained that too much of the internet had gone dark. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies both needed faster and better access to communications data, he said.
The stripped down argument is that if you have access to everything, it is easier to keep everyone secure. When there are attacks such as those in Paris, the agencies say they quickly need to search back through data to see who suspects had been talking to, helping to identify the networks and prevent potential other attacks.
French intelligence under scrutiny in wake of Paris attacks
Read more
The problem with this, as with almost every terrorist incident since 9/11, is that the French intelligence agencies already knew at least three of the attackers.
Abelhamid Abaaoud was known as an accomplice of two jihadis killed in Belgium in January. The police had a file on Omar Ismaïl Mostefai even before he travelled to Syria in 2013, while Sami Amimour had been detained in 2012 on suspected terrorist links.
In other words, the failure of the French intelligence agencies is not that they did not have enough data but that they did not act on what they had.
The three could have been the subject of traditional targeted surveillance. While physical surveillance is difficult in terms of staffing, keeping tabs on their communications is less labour-intensive.
Tracking such suspects does not require the collection of the communications data phone records, emails, Facebook postings, chat lines of every French citizen, only the suspects.
One of the key arguments put forward by Comey and earlier in the week by the director of the CIA, John Brennan, is that terrorists have become better at covert communications. But the discarded mobile phone that led police to the St-Denis hideout contained unencrypted text.
One of the biggest failings was not the French intelligence agencies lack of sufficient surveillance powers but the long-running lack of cooperation between European intelligence agencies and reluctance to share information due to fears about leaks. When they do cooperate, the process is slow even over things as simple as translation.
The Iraq government sent warnings to French intelligence about a potential attack that were ignored. Such warnings are regularly received by the agencies struggling to work out which ones reflect a genuine threat.
A more serious omission is the French failure to respond to the Turkish government when it flagged up concern about Mostefai. Added to that is the lack of cooperation between France and Belgium, where some of the attackers were based.
Such failures are where the French and US intelligence agencies should be looking, rather than exploiting the tragedy to make the case for bulk data surveillance.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/19/how-french-intelligence-agencies-failed-before-the-paris-attacks
So we see that John Brennan tried to capitalize on this attack to grant the government more access to our private lives, when the evidence shows that it was a failure in utilizing the information already known. The CIA and NSA actually immediately jumped on the French terror attacks to claim that encryption was at fault, but ultimately it was revealed that they didn't use encryption at all so the US intelligence agencies were simply lying to advance a narrative.
Yes, digital security is a challenging area and has many extra-governmental concerns as you note like spyware, ransomware, and botnets. That does not diminish the need for government to respect civil liberties. They are entirely unrelated problems, but both important in their own right.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Either there is good encryption or there isn't. Whether you call it a government backdoor, or something else, encryption with a hole in it will eventually be broken by others. Maybe criminals or maybe governments like China or Russia. But it will happen.
And the problem is that good encryption is available. If we mandate some government backdoor, then all we will do is make sure people who aren't technologically savvy won't have encryption.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)It has been shown over and over again that the Democratic candidate must win the Black vote to win the presidency.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)Why on Earth would the black vote want Trump to win?
athena
(4,187 posts)I don't think so. I doubt very much that they would come out in enough numbers to ensure a Bernie win.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)I don't think any voters can be taken for granted, I'm mocking an argument used over and over against Sanders' voters: "Toe the line or you're getting a republican." In fact, that was exactly greek tragedy's logic in response to my question. My comment that you replied to was actually making that point that such an argument won't have much pull among many of Sanders' voters.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)She is losing the base.
dchill
(38,546 posts)"Idolize" and "Elect" are synonyms. No independents needed.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Pretty similar state. Why was Wyoming so much closer?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the Union until women had the right to vote. Utah as about 3 million people, Wyoming has less than 600,000. Not really all that similar.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And is not dominated by Mormons.
Why do you think Wyoming was so much closer than Alaska?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It was much closer.
Don;t get me wrong.... still a commanding victory, but he needs to do a LOT better than that to have chance of winning to primary.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)So Bernie won 56% of Democrats and Hillary won only 44% of Democrats.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)He won other caucuses in the region by 50+ points.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Bernie is fantastic at turning out the Independent vote. It's a pity Hillary can't. Are you surprised that 56% of Wyoming Democrats prefer Bernie over Hillary? That's a 6 pt gain from WI. In WI Bernie tied Hillary with Democrats. Are you surprised that Hillary could only get 44% of DEMOCRATS even with absentee balloting being allowed? WOW. Why do you think Democrats are deserting her? Such a low approval among Democrats and she can't attract Independents. That's not good.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Bernie is very strong with independents. Much moreso than Hillary.
In Wyoming, though, I thought Bernie would do better. I was surprised that it was so close. In the end, it looks like it will be a delegate tie. I was expecting something similar to the bigger margin of victories in other western states.
It will be interesting to see what happens in New York, that's for sure. If Bernie can win there, that will be a game changer.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)That's all that matters in states like Wyoming. Bernie didn't meet his target. Hillary exceeded hers.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Those are Nate's targets FOR the candidates not the candidate's targets. It's his opinion and he hasn't been real good this election, has he? But if you want to rely on him that's certainly ok with me. Did you happen to notice that Bernie improved with Democrats by 6 pts since WI. Remember in WI Hillary and Bernie split the Dem vote 50/50. Not here...56/44. That's worrisome combined with the fact Hillary has shown she can't attract Independents. Not good.
MFM008
(19,820 posts)he still wins, you always want to win. But it wasnt a 75/25 split.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)This amounts to a decent headline, but in reality is a failure for his campaign, as he failed to gain delegates where he needed to
pnwmom
(108,996 posts)Do you know that we almost met the record of caucus participants that was set in 2008?
5.3% of registered voters was the record set that year.
Millions of voters here can't or won't jump the hurdles required to vote in the WA caucus. I looked into this because my son, an out of state college student, didn't qualify for a surrogate affidavit. He was not unusual.
This is why we have three times as many participating in the primary, even though our votes in the primary don't count for a single delegate, no matter who wins. The caucuses are designed to limit turnout. It's built into their DNA.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)I am a staunch opponent of caucuses, and a staunch supporter of early voting, absentee voting, lots of polling places, and automatic voter registration.
In Norway, where I live now, everyone is automatically registered to vote at 18. Norwegians get their voter card in the mail a couple of months before the election. On the card is their polling place, but early voting starts on July 1 - election is in September. You need ID to vote - that's relatively new, after pressure from international election observers. Anything with your name, picture and date of birth is acceptable (driver's licence, passport, credit card etc.) If you live in an institution, one of the employees can verify your identity for you, as they do early voting in nursing homes, hospitals etc. In other words, Norway's system is designed to make it as easy as possible to vote. The American system is the opposite, and I consider that quite shameful.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Even tho I hoped the margins were better I was always cautious for just the reasons the op mentioned. A closed process. These are Democrats voting for Bernie and the advantage Hillary supporters had with absentees won't be as easily available in NY. I don't think there's early voting either but not 100% on that. Also Wyoming is fairly conservative.
This is a great win!
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Which is a group where Bernie runs particularly strong.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)A victory is looking more and more likely. He doesn't need the percentages that Hillary does.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If he wins the state, then all bets are off.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Nothing is for certain.
Both candidate have work to do, definitely true for Bernie.
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)I'm sure we will come back and say IF ONLY we could have won 10-4 in Wyoming
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Hint: He's not winning New York.
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)regarding Bernie's demise.
Hint: Keep it going
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He'll lose by a similar margin in New York, if not worse. And NY is 3X as big as WI in terms of delegates.
He needs to win delegates in NY, not lose them.
Like his chances?
fighting-irish
(75 posts)so yeah, Clinton will win, and Satan will order antifreeze for his car.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Alaska, Hawaii and Maine all have closed caucuses by the way.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in a caucus state.
Point being:
Compare Wyoming to other western caucus states--Alaska, Idaho, Utah--that were open.
He ran up some decent delegate totals on her in those states.
Nada in Wyoming.
Now, in terms of primary voting in big mid-atlantic states, the closed primary will amplify her other advantages.
40% of Sanders voters are not registered Democrats.
Some of those will obviously have registered as Democrats in NY and PA, but a lot won't. Especially in NY, where the rules are specifically crafted to keep people from crossing-over.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If they win between 43.751% and 56.24% they get 7/14
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Regardless of the delegate breakdown, it goes against the "True Democrats back Hillary" narrative.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)How big would he have won Wisconsin if it was a caucus state?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I do think it means claims about inherent advantages for Sanders in the caucus system need to be tempered with that in mind.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in certainly played a role in Laramie county.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)let that stop you on your journey to convince the world that 56-44 is a tie. Also, is the Wyoming caucus process over yet or is there more of the pyramid left to climb?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It's another chance to win delegates that has slipped through his fingers.
he was supposed to win 11 delegates to remain on track to win the nomination.
He fell 4 delegates short of where he wanted to be.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)speech
math
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)unless the conversation is about physics, momentum is almost always a bullshit concept.
if an equities analyst refers to a company as a "momentum stock" they are bullshitting,
when sports announcers talk about "momentum" they are bullshitting--momentum belongs to the team that scored last.
when political pundits talk about momentum, they're acting like sports announcers.
Momentum does help raise money. But so do pushing conspiracy theories and inventing grievances.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)keeps money flowing, volunteers motivated, and voters willing to vote. Sanders clearly has it at the moment as evidenced by closing national and state polls. If he wins in NY, momentum increases and voters who might not have voted for him will do so. Momentum is a psychological component of a political campaign that allows success to breed success.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)if New York were close he wouldn't have tried his hail mary in Rome.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)fighting-irish
(75 posts)No dice.
sweetloukillbot
(11,071 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)sweetloukillbot
(11,071 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)As is the case in Wyoming, for the most part.
earthside
(6,960 posts)That Sanders won the majority of Wyoming Democrats is a profound victory.
Don't let the Hillarians downplay this win -- it is tremendous.
I'm originally from Wyoming; I was once a state committeeman and I worked for the last Democrat ever elected to Congress from that state.
I live in Denver now, but I have a lot of friends and family still living in Wyoming.
Wyoming is very conservative; even the Democrats are conservative.
Most Democrats in Wyoming would be Republicans almost anywhere else in the United States.
So, for a "socialist" like Sen. Sanders to win Wyoming is a pretty big deal.
Bernie Sanders shouldn't have had even a remote chance against a conservative, establishment Democrat like Hillary Clinton.
Casper Star Tribune
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)brooklynite
(94,745 posts)...extra points if you provide actual evidence.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)Unless you make the other unviable it will be a 1-1 delegate split no matter what
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Even if he won by the margins he won in Utah, Washington, or some of the other Western states.
He could have potentially swept all the delegates.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)as much as non-Democrats.
dchill
(38,546 posts)I predict that your answer would be wrong.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)I guess there are no "actual democrats".
DCBob
(24,689 posts)The opposite happens all the time.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Trolling or serious either way you're hilarious.
Keep up the jokes.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)You will need more of that when Bernie loses.
bvf
(6,604 posts)That's a bit disturbing.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)completely ignorant of recent American political history or just playing dumb. I won't hazard a guess which it is, but it might benefit you to consider the meaning of "party purity" and its concomitant demands.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Get lost.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Do some research and reconsider the meaning of the post I initially responded to here.
"Get lost"?
Nope. You might not understand how this works.
dchill
(38,546 posts)on DU.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Many Bernie supporters seem incapable of that.
dchill
(38,546 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)dchill
(38,546 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)You are an exception among Bernie supporters.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)left a long time ago when Bill Clinton sold out to corporate interests with the DLC and NAFTA.
Both parties have been shrinking in size as they don't represent the people any more. The GE is decided by independents.
.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Bush the idiot convinced me to become a "real" Democrat.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)"The aide said their "secret sauce" in Wyoming was the state's onerous vote-by-mail rules that required anyone voting by mail to have voted as a Democrat in the 2014 midterms."
So, early voting was WAY in her favor because of this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4e233c/wyoming_caucus_results_megathread/
That is a bit messed up. Democrats we are all about saying "shut up you can't vote in the primaries!"...but then come the main election and we are all like, "shut up and vote you privileged racist sexists!"
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)I did see the one interview with the lady in Wyoming that was the ex DNC chair and she seemed a bit too full of avarice to put something like that past her. I will see if I can find since they gave enough details to locate it...and no one there argued which was a better sign.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)have voted Democratic in the past?
Not sure. Caucuses are generally bullshit, so makes sense that the absentee ballot provision reflects some level of bullshit
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Since they likely don't really exist, they will not be able to show "in body" when the State level caucus convenes in May, and then Bernie's margins will go up. It's the same scenario that played out in MO and AZ. Those have both now been corrected to the Bernie column. WY is IN the Bernie column, but his delegate count will go up once the Hillary surrogates don't show in May. The only real gains they make by playing this is that on the caucus day it is not reported as a blowout and leaves the impression that Hillary held her own. Once the WY caucus is history the tally will be corrected and Bernie will get his delegates.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Let's be clear -- being against the Democratic candidate espousing Republican economic and foreign policy ideas isn't an argument for purity.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)website and compare it to Trump and Cruz.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)She is to the right of the President who described his own economic policies as "mainstream 1980's Republican". I understand that her supporters are perfectly happy with mid-80's Republican thinking, but to argue that Democrats shouldn't be espousing these ideas is anything but a purity argument.
And let's not even get into her PNAC endorsed foreign policy.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)spending and regulations.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Of course
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that conservatives would like.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)Is the luster slipping a bit?
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:50 AM - Edit history (1)
"surrogates" are "no shows". The same happened in NV which flipped to a Bernie win after initially being called for Hillary.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Turn CO Blue
(4,221 posts)You had to be registered as a Democrat for TWO MONTHS before our caucus.
Edited to add: record turnout, higher than 2008.
Response to Turn CO Blue (Reply #112)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)pnwmom
(108,996 posts)They can only be used in very limited circumstances in my state, which is why our caucus turnout, including those who vote by surrogates, is so tiny.
5.3% in 2008 set our all time record.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)so yes, it is reasonable for one person to deliver them to the caucus location. You do realize that Bernie won on aprox 200 of those ballots?
Hillary simply out organized Bernie - they spend a lot of effort distributing absentee ballots to her supporters. Basic GOTV.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Cha
(297,723 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Because, if so, then you're being stupid.
We need Independents.
And they don't want Clinton.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)Those independents will stay home? Or will they vote for the republican nominee? So much for the progressive revolution. It sounds like you're admitting that Sanders' support relies on nonvoters, isolationist former Paulites, and ratfucking republicans.