No matter how you measure it, Bernie Sanders isn’t winning the Democratic primary

[RandySF]

In fact, by every possible democratic measure, Clinton is winning. She’s winning in states (and territories) won, which isn’t a meaningful margin of victory anyway. She's winning in the popular vote by 2.4 million votes — more than a third more than Sanders has in total. In part that’s because Sanders is winning lower-turnout caucuses, but it’s mostly because he’s winning smaller states. And she’s winning with both types of delegates.

So why is this bewildering? Because it seems like Sanders should be gaining big ground against Clinton — and so “superdelegates” get blamed. Consider two states, though: Oklahoma and North Carolina. Sanders won Oklahoma by 10 points; Clinton won North Carolina by about 13. But Clinton won 14 more delegates than Sanders in North Carolina. He won 4 more than her in Oklahoma. Because Oklahoma is a smaller state, with fewer Democrats. It’s as simple as that. Where Clinton has won big, there have often been a lot of pledged delegates at stake. Where Sanders has won big, there often haven’t.

On the other side, Trump leads with pledged delegates and has a significant edge in terms of raw votes — about 2 million per U.S. Election Atlas’s tally. But he spent the weekend trying to explain away his horrific performance in Colorado by blaming party rules. Trump has a better case for why the process in his party isn’t terribly democratic than does Sanders, but it’s not like he didn’t know the rules going in. Or, at least, that he should have.

Which brings us to another overarching idea that’s worth keeping in mind. It is essential for political campaigns to maintain both a sense of progress and a viable path to victory. To shape how supporters see what’s happening every Tuesday and Saturday.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/11/no-matter-how-you-measure-it-bernie-sanders-isnt-winning-the-democratic-primary/

[Gomez163]

1. But but BERNIE IS GOD

[Buzz Clik]

2. Yes, but Hillary suppressed the vote in AZ, stuffed the ballot boxes in WY, and cheated in OH.

What do you have to say to that, smartypants?

[Thinkingabout]

3. She has the votes, she has the delegates, it is we the people speaking.

[Skink]

4. I might get banned for this but....

Since you are here and want to be saved. I am asking you to go to a rally. There on you tube. You can still be OK. I like Hillary too but Bernie is the choice.

[MoonRiver]

30. 2.4 million people disagree with you. nuff said

[Buddyblazon]

5. Daily affirmation...

with Hillbots.

She's good enough,
She's smart enough,
And gosh darnit...people that don't know politics like her.

[anigbrowl]

6. I much prefer her *because* I know politics...

...also economics and civics and a fair bit of law. My sad experience is that populists have an extremely weak grasp of these subjects.

[kristopher]

21. How do you square that with the state of governance she represents?

Seriously, if you have the foundation you assert, how do you square your support for Hillary with the national situation she is fronting for?

Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page

ABSTRACT
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

The last paragraph of their findings:

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

I don't know if we will get another chance to change things if we wait for them to further consolidate their power. I especially believe that Hillary's court appointees will not be inclined to limit the power of money.

[anigbrowl]

23. A rare reasonable question

I square it in a few different ways (none of which I expect you to agree with, and I won't be offended by that).

a. Pragmatism - I simply do not think Sanders has the political capital or the skills to deliver even a fraction of his agenda. So on the theory that half a loaf is better than no bread even if there are promises of free loaves for everyone, I favor clinton's governance because I think she has a better chance of achieving part of her more limited agenda.

b. Elitism - I'm not a populist and I don't think you necessarily get better policies by appealing to the broadest number of people. In fact I have a very low opinion of people in the aggregate and feel that in crowds a majority of people tend towards being stupid and selfish. I'm extra suspicious of politicians who base their appeal on people power because they always seem to end up appealing to the lowest common denominator and making increasingly ideological arguments.

I am absolutely not a crowd person and while I enjoy rooting for my team at a baseball game or letting it go on a dance floor I can not, do not, and will not suspend my critical faculties to go along with the mood of a crowd in any sort of political context. I am not like most people and I am acutely conscious that in an earlier age I would very likely have been burned at the stake or met some other gruesome fate because I don't automatically pick up on the group mood the way most people do. Populist movements can be just as authoritarian and oppressive as elitist ones and I have no desire to become a victim of a mob so I am never going to support populist candidates. I consider them dangerous from an individual standpoint and from a historical one I can't help noting that the promised universdal equality never ever arrives and is always replaced by an equally oppressive political structure. So anyone purporting to express the will of 'the people' I class as a manipulator and a liar. If you're curious about this opinion rather than merely offended I suggest watching Slavoj Zizek's Pervert's Guide to Ideology to get a feel for my aversion to ideology without having to read a pile of books.

So not being a populist I am somewhat of an elitist by default. Not in the sense that I think some people are inherently better than others or destined to rule, but that the country is better off with people of refined learning and superior ability in charge than if it just adopts whatever policies are most pleasing to the crowd. Of course the downside of this is that people with wealth or inherited power/fame have an inherent advantage, which is unfair. To some extent that's a fact of life and there's not much you can do about it; I spend a lot of time with animals and it's apparent that nature is not very fair either.

On the other hand, education is very much its own reward (even if it is self-administered rather than purchased) insofar as once you know how something works it's much easier to modify it. So for example I laugh when I see supporters of a politician complaining that things like primary contests are rigged because they failed to study the rules of the contest in advance and are then surprised to discover that they operate differently from expected. If you're educated you check that sort of thing in advance and plan for it rather than making assumptions and whining about it afterwards if those assumptions turn out to be wrong. I rarely even post things on forums like DU without fact-checking my assertions first, whereas most people do their fact-checking last. So if you're smart and you're willing to continually work on improving and checking your knowledge, you can go a long way without inheriting any wealth of power.

Of course you have a responsibility to (IMHO to make similar efforts on behalf of people who don't have the same intellectual or educational opportunities by virtue of genetics or childhood poverty or whatever, although it's a thankless job. Myself, I grew up in an abusive environment and never went to college, but I was fortunate enough to learn to read at a young age and these days the resources available for self-education are outstanding.

c. Constitutionalism - I think part of the problems are that the Constitutional underpinnings of American society have not kept up with the advance of technology, and I'm talking about mass media and the telegraph rather than smartphones and USB sticks. There's so much democracy in the US that it's unwieldy and unresponsive, and too much of the legal system is based on adversarial procedural wrangling. I'm the only person I know who reads the entire voter information pamphlet when it lands in the mailbox, and increasingly I think it's a bad idea that everybody gets to vote on everything.

The general public is simply not qualified to elect judges, for example, because most people don't have the inclination or ability to read judicial opinions and so they vote for judges based on stupid criteria like party affiliation or whether they look cuddly or have a name they recognize. Even when the information is put directly into people's hands (in the aforementioned pamphlet) most people don't bother to read it, offering bizarre excuses about not having enough time or something. I actually think that people have to vote for too many different things in the US and that this impedes their ability to become adequately informed and so after a while most of them stop bothering and just vote however they're told, or stop voting altogether. I don't agree with the Tea Party notion of reducing the scope of government (because I am a fan of Hobbes rather than Rousseau and believe people need to be governed because most of them are in fact assholes), but I do think there are too many layers of government and that this makes government institutionally unwieldy and unresponsive. I think the US is in serious need of a constitutional revision for the 21st century because the structures that worked well in the 18th are collapsing under the strain.

This is just the tip of an iceberg. I rarely discuss my philosophical views on DU because many of my opinions are radically different from the norm and for all DU's belief in its own progressivism and so on I find most of the community extremely conservative (small-C conservative in the sense of being unwilling to accept new ideas) and extremely anti-intellectual. Few people are willing or able to entertain unfamiliar ideas even for the purposes of analysis or investigation so in general I don't bother to articulate my philosophical views.

To wrap up, I support Hillary because she best represents my interests and because I think she has the best opportunity to advance the collective interest. The various Republican candidates appal me (for reasons that I hope are obvious) and while I'm very much in favor of the goals articulated by Bernie Sanders (and think he's performing a very valuable service by getting those onto the agenda) my confidence in his ability to deliver on his promises is virtually nil. To people who say you need to have a suitably progressive dream in order to start building a progressive reality, I say you need to turn off the television and do your math homework. The idea that all you have to do is pick the right dream and then wish hard enough and it will come true is a consumerist fantasy that disempowers people and rots our body politic like a cancer. It's good to have a vision of where you'd like to be, but you need to have clear intermediate- and short-term goals as well, and a plan to realize those goals, and a willingness to do a bunch of boring tedious procedural stuff in order to realize those extremely limited goals. Bernie Sanders is well-intentioned and I like him, but ultimately he's not much different from people who who want me to join a church due to their genuine concern about the state of my immortal soul - they really think they have the answer and they really do think that I'll be better off if I buy into it, but they are not the sort of people that I rely on to get anything done because ultimately they would rather hope for miracles than engage with practical problems.

[redstateblues]

9. Condescension: Hallmark of Sanders supporters

You all have such a superiority complex.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

26. Uh, people that dont know politics tend to say things like

"Bernie or Bust"

[RandySF]

29. And gee golly

She's the next POTUS.

[Bread and Circus]

7. It's been a rigged election from the start... there's no way the powers that be would let him win...

that he is getting this close is a miracle.

Enjoy your "democracy" and the Democratic* Party.

.
.
.
.
.

*democracy not included.

[brooklynite]

8. If only there was a candidate who would CHALLENGE the rigged election...

...not just campaign with platitudes about how bad things are, but challenge in Court all the allegations of cheating that his fanbase has dreamed up.

[Armstead]

14. Yes Sanders should spend all his time testifying instead of campaigning

That'd work

[redstateblues]

10. Bernie came up with a brilliant scheme

poll testing his plan to promise things to a certain part of the electorate he knows he can never deliver. It almost worked.

[DanTex]

12. Conspiracy!

[firebrand80]

19. They moved more people into the Hillary states

centuries in advance.

Damn you, Debbie.

[anigbrowl]

27. Hehe, I'm a big fan of Colin Woodard's American Nations book...

...so in a way I agree. IT's rather sad watching Sanders supporters hail the performance in places like Wyoming as a great victory - sure I don't grudge them the celebration, but in the end land doesn't vote and winning in a state with a relatively small population does not mean that much because small populations = small numbers of delegates.

It's baffling to me that so many self-described lifelong democrats are carried away on a wave of enthusiasm for Sanders when their life experience should by now have awakened them to the fact that elections are won in the places with the greatest number of people. It's like when Democrats win Presidential elections and afterwards outraged Republicans hold up maps showing more of the country to be red than blue and complaining that the result is unfair. Land does not vote, people do, and victories in thinly-populated rural areas just don't count for very much no matter how much the people there might wish otherwise.

[Bread and Circus]

20. I think your overuse of that defense reveals you have nothing of value to say

[kristopher]

22. They've tried, but they may not be able to stop him.

I'll wait until June 8th before I say never.

Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page

(Last paragraph of their findings - K)

...our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

[Gothmog]

11. Clinton's lead in pledged delegates is far greater than President Obama's lead

[Nanjeanne]

13. Then you have nothing to worry about and can now concentrate on all the positive things about HRC

[Armstead]

15. Yes like how she wants to end monopolies and bring Banking back to a more broadly based system

Or how she wants a national minimum wage that is somewhat livable.

Or the needed changes that end the economic unfairness of healthcare, even under Obamacare.

All of those visions for a better world she has.

[Surya Gayatri]

16. Enormous K & R. Thanks for posting.

[LWolf]

17. No matter how you measure it,

Clinton, should she become the nominee, isn't winning in November.

[BreakfastClub]

25. Man, are you going to be disappointed! nt

[anigbrowl]

28. How much money are willing to bet on this claim?

You're not putting up any evidence to support your opinion, so I'm inclined to think it's just a preference rather than the conclusion of a reasoned process. I like betting against people like yourself because I usually win, so could you indicate how much money you're willing to stake on this belief of yours?

[LWolf]

31. Everything I've given to Sanders in 2015 and 2016.

I'll have to do some digging for a total.

If HRC wins, I'll send it to a charity. Perhaps one connected with all the people she's going to drop kick further down the socio-economic ladder should she win.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Then she should have lots of time and energy to explain and correct this truck load of ignorance:"

"It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s and because of both president and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it, and that too is something I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy. It penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, hey, we have to do something about this too." Hillary Clinton, March 2016.

[BreakfastClub]

24. Reality has a Hillary Clinton bias!! nt