Shhhh. Don't tell Sen. Sanders

[bigtree]

Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 10:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Paul Begala @PaulBegala

Shhhh. Don't tell @SenSanders, but @HillaryClinton beats him among low-income voters by 10 points.

Post Politics @postpolitics
Sanders says he has lost primaries to Clinton because ‘poor people don’t vote’

nytimes.com/interactive
https://t.co/IlrLyc5bhQ

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. Why Are the Poor and Minorities Less Likely to Vote?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/why-are-the-poor-and-minorities-less-likely-to-vote/282896/

[YouDig]

6. This is a big problem, no doubt, but the thing is that both minorities and low income

voters have voted for Clinton more than Sanders, so using it as a reason why he is losing isn't accurate. But I agree, it is an issue that needs to be discussed and addressed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Shh don't tell big tree

And Begala of course, this is a well known issue in the US. And since we are an oligarchy I get it, fully

[That Guy 888]

3. According to network exit polls... oh well "keep catapulting that propaganda" n/t

[bigtree]

4. but we'll just take Sanders' word for it

...polling vs. rhetoric

[That Guy 888]

5. Nah, lets just believe Clinton surrogates like Begalia. What's he been doing since Crossfire tanked?

[dsc]

19. so which is it?

when the results are off from the exit polls we hear that it must be evidence that Hillary stole it, but if the exit polls show her winning then they are propaganda. So which is it? I would really love to know.

[Bonobo]

7. Highly misleading I suspect.

Of course this number includes the puffed out wins in the South.

[KingFlorez]

8. He's lost his mind

I still say he's going to tackle Hillary on stage at the convention.

[Ken Burch]

10. Despite the fact that you have no reason to think he would ever do such a thing?

I realize that, as a conservative, you won't vote for Bernie, but you have no reason to sneer at the guy. He's done nothing to you.

[KingFlorez]

11. First off, I'm not a conservative

I prefer candidates who actually win the liberal counties as opposed to the far off right-wing ones that are quite anti-Obama, but that's another store.

All this "he's taking it to the convention" talk makes it seem like he's planning a seen. He won't actually tackle Hillary (I don't think), but I do think he'll try to start a floor fight and be really loud about it.

And I'll add that when I ran for office that a number of now Sanders supporters try to force me to drop out of a race in deference to a a Republican because they thought I couldn't win in a Republican area. That hardly makes me a conservative.

[Ken Burch]

12. The way to prevent something like that would a negotiated agreement.

I can see something like this:

An agreement that whoever loses will enthusiastically support the nominee in the fall IF:

1) We still have the nominating speeches for each candidate and the roll-call vote, and everyone gets to vote the way they were sent to Philly to vote.

2) Significant Sanders language in the platform, with free votes allowed on some platform proposals on the convention floor; furthermore, a commitment to no post-convention swing to the right on the issues by the nominee(obviously, if Bernie were to come out ahead, significant Clinton language in the platform as an offer in the same spirit).

3) A major commitment to party reform for '20, '24 and beyond(no more superdelegates, closed presidential primaries but with same-day re-registration and also possibly mail-in voting in all states, transparency and openness to the rank-and-file on the part of the DNC, the DCCC, and the DSCC, among other things);

4) A commitment to the nominee and the party agreeing to treat continued, long-term activism for economic and social justice as a valid part of the political process and to constantly listening to and working for change from below, with no imposed demobilization like that that was imposed on the Obama movement after the votes were in in 2008;

Would you object to ANY of that?

[morningfog]

13. I don't get your last paragraph.

Sanders' supporters tied to force you to drop out in deference to a republican because they thought you couldn't win? Against the same republican? That doesn't follow.

What were you running for? What was the outcome?

[griffi94]

26. You ran for office?

That's great.
Now that's activism.

[Ken Burch]

9. Never mind that, as a centrist, HRC can't propose anything that helps the poor.

Her corporate backers won't allow it.

[Lucinda]

14. THAT'S why he thinks they don't vote! They do, just not for him!

[all american girl]

16. That mic just dropped

[uponit7771]

17. +1

[Armstead]

20. Believe it or not he has been addressing that issue for decades

But I realize many people assume that candidates are supposed to just respond with carefully tested soundbites to the news cycle of the day

I am sorry that so many people embrace the cynical shallow nature of politics that prevent any honest discussions outside of the corporate frame

[Senator Tankerbell]

15. Begala is talking about voters

And Sanders is talking about non-voters. They are talking about two different groups I think.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Non Voters are by far the larger of the two groups. NY, less than 1/3 of eligible persons vote at

all. In NYC, the turnout among eligible Democrats was 12%. This means 88% remained non voters.

[NCTraveler]

21. Like the rest of the country, it's a shame they don't vote in higher percentages.

But when they do vote on the dem side, they vote Clinton. Pretty much like many demographics.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. That's NY. Lowest turnout among Blue States, bottom five in the country.

Here in Oregon, everyone votes in higher percentages than in NY. So your 'like the rest of the country' is not accurate at all.

NYC had a turnout of eligible Democratic voters of 12%. 12%. Anyone who can look at NY voter stats and be happy about them is not thinking it all the way through.

[hellofromreddit]

22. That graphic is unrelated to Sanders' comment

He was talking about the rates at which people vote. That graphic is a breakdown of just those who did vote and gives no information at all about whose who don't.

Presenting that exit poll as a counter to Sanders' point is either stupidity or a brazen lie.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. 71% of NY eligibles did not vote at all. 71%.

nt

[oberliner]

25. 94% of eligible voters in Washington state did not vote at all. 94%.

Similar numbers in other states that hold caucuses rather than primaries.

[Eric J in MN]

27. Sanders may have been referring to people with income under $10,000

...who aren't broken out in this year's Exit Polls.

[bigtree]

29. those voters, disproportionately minorities

...have voted overwhelmingly for Clinton and make up most of the voters in many of her blowout primaries..

[Sunlei]

28. I amazed how well he does. He started his campaign so late, to late really but not even close to sin

single digit numbers anywhere. I guess he waited until Biden wasn't running to ramp-up his campaign. If Sanders had a full two years of campaigning, who knows how the primary would have turned out.

I think the competition is good for Mrs. Clinton, she has had to raise-up her game. Even if she wins, she will need to do her very best vs Republicans.

They will spend billions in the general election, they have thousands of medias from radio to bloggers to their own TV station all ready to go.