Sanders finds a new excuse for losing.

[RandySF]

WILMINGTON, Del. — White House hopeful Bernie Sanders said Saturday that many of his losses to Hillary Clinton in Democratic primaries were because “poor people don’t vote.”

The senator from Vermont, who has made fighting income inequality the rallying cry of his campaign, was asked during a taping of NBC’s “Meet the Press” why Clinton had prevailed in 16 of 17 states so far with the highest levels of income inequalilty.

“Well, because poor people don't vote,” Sanders told host Chuck Todd. “I mean, that's just a fact. That's a sad reality of American society.”..........

Sanders has lost Democratic voters with household incomes below $50,000 by 55 percent to 44 percent to Clinton across primaries where network exit polls have been conducted. (He has lost by a wider 21 percentage-point margin among voters with incomes above $100,000, and by 9 points among middle income voters.)




https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/23/sanders-says-he-has-lost-primaries-to-clinton-because-poor-people-dont-vote/

[metroins]

1. You can't blame him

It's likely his advisors telling him this stuff.

I watch Weaver and Devine on TV and they're totally out of touch with reality; especially Weaver. It feels like Rove predicting Romney would win. Not one metric is showing a path forward, but his advisors have to come up with reasons.

Bernies campaigning, he relies on his staff for accurate information and projections.

Plus it's the candidates/campaigns job to GOTV. If a section isn't voting, that's your fault.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Like he was told Hillary said he was not qualified, advisors should get him better info.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. 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/

He was talking about the poor who don't vote, not the ones that did this time.

[Hoyt]

4. Slamming the poor now. Christ.

[Uncle Joe]

5. There is nothing new about poor people voting in lower ratios.

Why poor people still aren't voting

It's been 50 years since Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act -- the law prohibiting racial discrimination against voters.

But there is still a voting problem in the United States: Many people who live in poverty just aren't going to the polls.

Less than half of those who made under $20,000 voted in 2012. Meanwhile, voter participation for people who live in households with incomes of more than $75,000 was much higher at 77%.

It's clear that the system is leaving many people out -- especially the poor. So what is behind such dismal turnout among low-income voters? Here are just a few explanations:



(snip)

Voter ID laws and registering to vote
Missing work
Long lines
Education and political engagement

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/news/economy/poor-people-voting-rights/

More detailed explanations and a video are on the link.

Thanks for the thread, RandySF

[LuvLoogie]

8. Why can't Bernie get the low-income/working/disabled, etc/ poor

to vote for him like they have for Hillary? The poor, that don't vote, don't vote for Hillary either, but she's not losing.

[Uncle Joe]

9. He has

The big difference is class and income.

In 2008, Mrs. Clinton was pummeled among affluent voters. She lost voters earning more than $100,000 by 41 to 19 percent, according to entrance polls.

This time, she won big among voters making more than $100,000 per year, by 55 to 37 percent.

Mrs. Clinton’s strength among affluent voters is partly because of age: Affluent voters tend to be older, and Mrs. Clinton excels among older

But that’s not the whole explanation: Among voters over age 30, she won those making more than $100,000 by a 31-point margin, more than twice her 14-point lead among those making less.

The same story was clear in pre-election polling, both in Iowa and elsewhere.

(snip)

Her strength in affluent suburbs around Des Moines flipped the Des Moines metro area, which went strongly for Mr. Obama in 2008. It probably played a big part in suppressing Mr. Sanders’s margins in college towns like Iowa City, where Mr. Sanders might have been expected to run as well as Mr. Obama or even better, given his tremendous strength among young voters.

Mr. Sanders’s weakness among affluent voters is potentially a bad sign for his chances. In 2008, voters making more than $100,000 a year represented 25 percent of the national electorate but just 19 percent of Iowa caucus-goers, suggesting that the state may be a relatively good one for a candidate, like Mr. Sanders, who does best among less affluent voters. On Super Tuesday, the most liberal states happen to be particularly affluent ones, like Massachusetts, Colorado, Virginia and Minnesota.

But there is a bright side for Mr. Sanders: To some extent, he compensated for his losses among affluent voters by doing best among lower-income voters. He won white voters making less than $50,000 by nine points, 53 to 44 percent. Mr. Obama had lost white voters making less than $50,000 per year by two percentage points in 2008. Mr. Sanders was nearly as competitive as Mr. Obama across rural Iowa. He even won along the border with Nebraska — the relatively conservative, western part of the state that was basically the one place Mrs. Clinton won in 2008.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/upshot/iowas-electoral-breakdown-and-the-democratic-divide.html

[uponit7771]

12. no he hasn't

[Uncle Joe]

14. Yes he has

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/nh/dem

[oberliner]

17. No, he hasn't

Hillary consistently got a higher percentage than Bernie of voters making under $30K per year.

In New York, it was 60-40.

In Michigan, a state won by Sanders, Hillary still won among those low-income voters.

[Uncle Joe]

19. In Virginia Bernie did best with people making less than 50,000

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/primaries/virginia-exit-poll/


In Iowa Bernie did best with people making less than 50,000

In New Hampshire Bernie did best with people making less than 30,000

[oberliner]

20. Hillary beat Bernie 60-40 in VA with people making less than $50K

57-43 for incomes less than $30K and 62-38 for incomes between $30K and $50K.

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/va/dem

You are right about Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Uncle Joe]

21. That was his highest economic demographic percentage in a conservative Southern State.

[oberliner]

23. Virginia is not a conservative southern state

Obama carried the state by 6 points in 2008 and by 4 points in 2012.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Call it what you will, that was Bernie's highest economic demographic.

[oberliner]

25. The governor of Virginia is a Democrat, both Senators from Virginia are Democrats

Three of the last four governors have been Democrats.

Hillary dominated Bernie in every income category, including those making under $50K by a 60-40 margin, as I mentioned.

Hillary generally performs better than Bernie among low-income voters, especially in states with a large African-American population.

Let's look at a state like Ohio.

In Ohio, Bernie did best with those making $100K - $200K. He got 49 percent of those voters. He did worst with those making under $30K. He got 38 percent of those voters.

Or how about Illinois?

In Illinois, Bernie beat Hillary with voters making over $50K and with voters making over $100K, but lost substantially with voters making less than $30K.

[Uncle Joe]

31. Nothing you stated changes my point that people making under 50k was Bernie's strongest economic

demographic in Virginia.

I do wish they did the same exit poll for every state after a caucus or primary to get a better grip, I could only find a few that had exit polls regarding income.

[oberliner]

35. My point is that Hillary is stronger than Bernie with low income voters

Especially in states with high African-American populations.

Remember, the initial question at the top of this little sub-thread:

"Why can't Bernie get the low-income/working/disabled, etc/ poor to vote for him like they have for Hillary?"

The fact that Bernie's strongest economic demographic in Virginia was people making under $50K does not really answer this question, especially in light of the fact that Hillary won that category by a 60-40 margin.

Generally speaking, you must admit, Hillary does better than Bernie with low-income voters.

There are, of course, some states where this is not the case, but that is the general trend.

I am not meaning to cast aspersions on Bernie. I myself am somewhat perplexed as to why Bernie has not been able to do better with these voters, but the facts are the facts.

[Uncle Joe]

36. That could be more a matter of race than economics, remember while Bernie was still largely unkonwn

the corporate media conglomerates established their frame as soon as he became competitive in Iowa.

"Iowa is largely white," "New Hampshire is largely white," Hillary has a racial "firewall" in the South.

This was the corporate media conglomerate's continuous meme, and they played it like a harp.

[oberliner]

37. Let's see what happens on Tuesday

An interesting group of Eastern, Mid-Atlantic states.

[Uncle Joe]

38. Well it is late in the game but perhaps the tide is turning? I certainly hope so.

On a thread by Purveyor.

Country's Oldest African-American Newspaper Endorses Sanders

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders received an endorsement from the country’s oldest African-American newspaper Saturday, ahead of next week's Pennsylvania primary.

"Sanders offers an inspiring message and bold vision for America without the excessive baggage of Clinton, which is why Sanders is our choice for president in the Democratic primary," the editorial from the Philadelphia Tribune read.

The editorial cited Clinton's support of the 1994 crime bill, her use of the term "super predator" to describe black men involved in crime and her paid Wall Street speeches for reasons against endorsing the former secretary of state. And the editorial board said Sanders has always lobbied for the African-American community.

"Since his days as a student at the University of Chicago protesting against segregation in public schools in Chicago and throughout his political career, Sanders has supported policies and programs that would be in the best interest of all Americans and African Americans, specifically," the editorial read.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/277397-countrys-oldest-african-american-newspaper-endorses-sanders

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141426288

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Isn't that the wrong question?

Surely the important question is not the ratio

(fraction of poor people who vote for Bernie) / (fraction of rich people who vote for Bernie)

but

(fraction of poor people who vote for Bernie)/(fraction of poor people who vote for Hillary)

The point is that while poor people may not prefer Hillary to Bernie by as much as richer people do, they still don't like him as much as they like her.

[Uncle Joe]

33. They didn't know him as well. The corporate media conglomerates and Schultz's DNC did their best

to keep it that way for most all of last year.

[obamanut2012]

39. Sorry, that rhetoric has sailed with Virginia

It was purple for many years, and is now Blue.

Time to retire that talking point.

[Uncle Joe]

40. Virginia certainly isn't as conservative as the deep South but it's more conservative than the

Northeast or West Coast.

[Eric J in MN]

6. The Exit Polls don't have a breakdown for income below $10,000. (NT)

NT

[Jitter65]

7. Hmmmm what about all those "poor people" in FL, NC, TN, TX, MS, etc? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Pointing out reality is not blaming

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/news/economy/poor-people-voting-rights/

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2014/11/06/100627/why-young-minority-and-low-income-citizens-dont-vote/

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

http://www.demos.org/publication/why-voting-gap-matters

I could go on, so here is the first page of google

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=low%20income%20votes%20less

You really should look for another faux outrage and line of attack. And yes, this shit is tiresome. And it is also a whistle.

[m-lekktor]

13. Exactly. This has been common knowledge amongst informed people for quite some time. nt

[My Good Babushka]

11. If you don't agree

that poverty is a deterrent to voting, and structural economic inequality throws up barriers for very low-income citizens on election days, then there is an end of it. But many people see the long waits, inhospitable employment that doesn't pay enough or allow time for voting, lack of permanent residency, voter I.D. laws, lack of transportation to polling places, as real challenges to getting a large segment of the population to participate.

[dinkytron]

15. Gee, this obsession with "losers"... why not just vote for Trump. That's

all he talks about.

[Armstead]

16. If you ever bothered to pay attention.....you'd recognize that he is just being honest

The goal of increasing voter participation, and especially giving the disenfranchised reasons to vote with a substantisl agenda has been part of his message for years..

This is not just political spin or making excuses.

Sorry if you can't relate to a politician who actuslly has a consistent set of vales and principles.. And doesn't just speak in carefully tested sound bites

[SidDithers]

18. Well, poor people don't vote for him...nt

Sid

[stonecutter357]

32. +1

[hobbit709]

22. Clintonistas find new poo to fling would be a better title.

[rock]

26. He apparently forgot to complete his sentence with

"for him."

[wyldwolf]

29. He might as well have said, "poor people don't vote and black people do."

[stonecutter357]

30. K&R!

[Sunlei]

34. many different demographics of Americans 'don't vote'. Sanders even said "80% of the young crowd...

Sanders even said, (in another interview)"80% of the youngest crowd don't vote". He has changed that number with his message and campaign.

I don't understand why Ds would be pissed off when Sanders states a fact about our 'never vote' Americans. I don't understand why Ds wouldn't want to find out why that demographic, poor of our society do not vote and try to improve those numbers.

IMO, some voter fraud could come from someone taking advantage of those who 'never vote', registering them and vote by mail for them. In many of these thousands of tiny counties Rs/Ds win or lose by only a couple hundred votes. Sometimes less.

[Gothmog]

41. The Sanders revolution is a flop

[nc4bo]

42. And Clinton, Inc. continues to find new & improved ways of cheating! nt

[Gothmog]

43. Bernie Sanders just accidentally explained why his political revolution has failed

Bernie Sanders just admitted that his so-called revolution is a failure. Sanders was unable to motivate and get poor people to vote which doomed his so-called revolution http://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11497822/sanders-political-revolution-vote

The point of the "political revolution" was that Sanders would change who was turning out to vote

The problem with Sanders saying he's losing because "poor people don't vote," though, is that this wasn't a sad truth that he and his campaign discovered over the last several weeks. It — or rather, the possibility of fixing it — was at the core of his entire theory of winning.

Sanders isn't just running on his policy agenda. He's running on the idea of a "political revolution" that will allow him to accomplish that agenda. The theory of the "political revolution" is that Americans are so eager for free college and Medicare for all that they will not only sweep Bernie Sanders to the White House if he's nominated, but will elect more, and more progressive, Democrats down-ballot will then vote to pass Sanders's agenda through Congress.

Among people who typically vote, these policies aren't that popular. The "political revolution" is only plausible if it's about changing the composition of the electorate: bringing new people to the polls who don't normally vote, even in presidential elections.

But on those grounds, the "political revolution" theory is quite plausible. As Vox's Dylan Matthews pointed out earlier this month, 30 percent of eligible voters aren't registered to vote, or aren't accurately listed in the voter databases that campaigns use. Those voters are basically ignored by candidates. And, just like the nonvoting population as a whole, they're more likely to be poor than voters are — and more likely to support liberal policies on government spending.

A candidate who can figure out how to reach out to that 30 percent of voters could actually make a political revolution happen — or, at least, bring the median American voter to the left.

Bernie Sanders isn't the candidate who can make the "political revolution" happen

It's hard to mobilize that 30 percent of could-be voters, though. And it's pretty clear, at this point, that Sanders hasn't pulled it off.

Sanders hasn't been pulling in remarkable numbers of first-time primary voters. His base looks a lot like the existing progressive wing of the Democratic Party — the people who voted for Howard Dean over John Kerry and Bill Bradley over Al Gore.

The premise of Sanders' so-called revolution is that he would be able to motivate millions and millions of new voters which Sanders has failed to do.