2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie is 110% right poor people don't vote
But i wouldn't say thats the main reason he's behind in this race. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/bernie-sanders-poor-people-don-t-vote-s-just-fact-n561051
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
kennetha
(3,666 posts)Who blames those he claims he can mobilize for the failures of his revolution.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Analysis is not "blaming."
brush
(53,788 posts)but the poor, if they did vote more would most likely vote for Clinton, just as minorities who are doing better do, so Sanders' analysis is attention-getting but flawed.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The dynamic of brand name politicians is not limited to any demographic. Our politics deals more with the ESPN side of strategy and soap opera.
The Clinton brand (TM) is more familiar. So yeah she's winning in this contest.
But on the real issue that affect poverty, opportunity, healthcare, educational access, etc.....That's what we shold be dealing with.
And, my point was that Sanders was not "blaming" the poor for not voting for him. He was simply explaining one of his problems in terms of campaigning.
brush
(53,788 posts)most other minorities — for Clinton.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I agreed with you, as far as that goes,
But don't misrepresent what Sanders said, or his reasons for saying it.
brush
(53,788 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Without the organizing component that Obama had. Obama was a community organizer and he and his campaign knew how to organize the young adults and other demographics.
They knew how to make sure they were registered to vote.
Sanders' campaign had ZERO organizing efforts in place at the beginning.
Apparently didn't even bother with helping the handicapped caucus goers who supported him.
Just held big rallies and spouted the same stump speech filled with empty promises over and over and over.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There is so much off base there that I don't even know where to begin....
And I know it's useless, because you would refuse to give Sanders (and his supporters) any benefit of the doubt or acknowledge any frame other than Bernie is a bad guy and his supporters are fools.
No circular arguments for me, thanks.
brush
(53,788 posts)The reason I think that is a good question is because I registered voters for the Obama campaigns in '12 and '08 — it's essential if you want to win.
Why haven't we heard a peep about Sanders' get out the vote campaign registering people?
That should be as much a component of his campaign as those rallies.
They should've been working hand-in-hand really — thousands of people at rallies could easily yield quite a number of newly registered voters who most likely would be Sanders voters.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Around here, in my corner of the sticks yes, there have been a lot of volunteers out and about.
Can't speak for anything beyond that.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Income inequality is Bernie's top issue, and it's a good one. But the poor are the very group that Bernie seeks to help.
If they didn't vote in the primaries he's lost, it seems that 1) his message isn't resonating with the poor; and/or 2) it's another sign that the revolution isn't really igniting.
Disappointed that Bernie attributes his losses to the voting habits of the poor. True or not, the comment comes off as self-serving.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Ahnd considering there was a virtual media blackout on him last fall until after New Years, that is especially impressive.
It's not a matter of "not resonating." It's a question of overcoming the lack of visibility on issues, and trying to cut through the noise of Trump and politics as soap opera and pro wrestling.
Were there more time, I think you would have seen a lot more of this kind of response:
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2016/04/8596894/after-public-anguish-bronx-councilman-endorses-sanders-eve-primary
“Bernie represents a special phenomenon in progressive politics. He singularly has made inequality and poverty the focal point of the presidential election — that is his contribution to progressive politics and he’s energizing young people to an extent never seen before,” Torres said, in an interview with POLITICO New York.
Torres, who grew up in public housing in the Bronx, sent a letter to all the presidential candidates last week asking them to tour New York City Public Housing Authority buildings to see a glimpse of what decades of federal divestment has done to the city’s public housing stock.
Torres, a self-described millennial and the youngest member of the City Council, had been torn on his decision for months. In an interview just last week, he described his conundrum, saying, “My heart is with Bernie but my head is with Hillary.”
In the end, it was Sanders’ agenda and commitment to closing the federal funding gap in public housing that won out....
“He’s tapping into something powerful and energizing young people in a way that has not been seen. Whether you are supporting him or opposing him there is no denying the impact that he’s had on progressive politics,” Torres said. “He’s changed the way we talk about politics and made poverty and inequality the centerpiece of the presidential election.”
Torres admits there is a hint of idealism to his endorsement and to Sanders’ campaign, but he does not see it as a sign that a Sanders’ presidency would be hindered by an inability to work across party lines.
“I’ve had the opportunity to interact personally with Bernie and I get the sense he is incredibly communicative and open-minded and he would listen to people. There is an opportunity for elected officials and grass roots activists to shape what he thinks,” Torres said.
The Bronx councilman also heaped praise on Clinton, citing her decades of experience and her record.....
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)But it's not winning.
No Hillary supporter that I know is dismissing the size of Bernie's achievement. He has built the base for a potentially great movement. Now to me, the most important question is how he continues to strengthen the movement to the degree that it lasts and effectively pressures Congress to pass reforms.
The numbers in Congress just aren't there yet to achieve any of his platform. There is an historic 58 seat Republican majority in the House and that kind of control isn't going to go away any time soon due to extreme gerrymandering by Republicans.
So if Bernie really wants to make a difference, a lot of hard work is ahead, the kind of grassroots organization and messaging needed for real change.
I support the movement. I just don't think that Bernie is the one to get the job done through Congress as president.
Sorry for misspelling your name in my last post. I always read your name as Amstead! 
Armstead
(47,803 posts) 
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)That way we can ensure NO future liberals will apply.
Response to fasttense (Reply #3)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Hillary is more RepubliCON like than Trump. Even Charles Koch is supporting her.
So we have a crazy conservative party and a mildly conservative party but NO liberal party. So, the RepubliCONS have managed to turn Democrats into conservatives.
Response to fasttense (Reply #6)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)And her money from Wall Street to attack a liberal, you're not a liberal.
When you support a candidate who eats at the same trough as republicans, then you are not a liberal.
IF you supported Hillary in any way before 2013 when she was against equal rights for LGBTQ people, and support her stance now, that makes you a flip flopper and panderer. Not a liberal.
If you use terms "I'm not a marxist though" as an argument for not voting for Bernie, you are using a RW argument, and not a liberal one.
If you are for perpetual wars, "Patriot" Act, illegel invasions, support for military juntas, then vote Hillary. But it certainly doesn't make you a liberal.
If you support "Super-predator" remarks on inner city kids (as dog-whistle for black kids), you are not on the side with the AA community, but supports oppressive laws to disenfranchise thjat base.
If you support TPP, like Hillary does, then you are not a liberal.
A liberal is more than an empty term you can pin yourself with at convenience when the substance of the policies you supprt re not liberal.
If you support money in politics, like Citizens United (in which Hillary is utilising to the maximum right now to pay internet trolls to spread her misinformation and run campaigns to contradict each other - anti-gun in Connecticut, and pro-gun in Pennsylvania)
When you demonize fellopw democrats as communists, while supporting RW policies in reality, that makes you a DINO and a republican at heart.
"Commie" Bernie went to the strikers. Capitalist Hillary wines and dines with the people who exploits the workers on strike for profit.
The "purity test" lies in the substance of actual policies supported. Not terms that DINOs are watering down to make it fit the capitalist narrative. (who I presume you would think are better citizens than some poor black kid who deals drugs to make a living in an empoverished neighbourhood).
What kills me, is that people who call themselves Capitalist, are not a part of the capitalist class. They are suckeredn in to vcoting against their own interests in a hope they will be a part of that class. Being a capitalist, means you have extra funds to gamle with on the market, or live off other people's work as a CEO, owner or stock holder.
If you are a wage slave, you are not a Capitalist, but just a small insignifant part that holds the system up, and yourself down. You're nothing but a brick in the wall to keep the fatcats on top happy and content with the tax cuts, their subsidies, their war profiteering and their bailouts that you pay for with your tax dollars. Anyone who works in this system is nothing but a brick in the wall. Bernie seeks to break that wall.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Not inclusive.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)Why not come with something of substance rather than a meme echo?
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)Are they liberal, neoliberal, conservative or neocon?
Why don't you ask yourself that question rather than deflect?
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Let us know when you finally climb down from your mountaintop, gazing down triumphantly upon the unenlightened and pontificating the Truth.
Perhaps on Wednesday?
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)In favor of any of these, or all?
If you are supporting Hillary lock stocked and barrel with this on the resume, makes you not a liberal. It makes you a republican lite. And have no right to call yourself a libera. A term that droves of democrats ran way from in the 80s and 90s and are now trying to hijack under the false banner of liberalism, marginalizing REAL liberals on behalf of war profiteers and Wall Street scammers.
Calling yourself liberal, doesn't make you a liberal.
Talk the talk?
Now walk the walk!
Vote LIBERAL values and not the give away policies that resembles something that both the Koch brothers, Wall Street, and neocon military industrial complex love.
While "liberal" cry their crocodile tears for victims of mass shootings in USA, you shrug at the policies Hillary supported that cost the lives of millions of people.
That's what I call double standards.
Wanna see the consequences of policies you support?
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Not the crazy RepubliCON conservative, but a conservative like Obama. Someone who supports the inequality of the TPP and other "free" trade ridiculousness. But you don't mind if LGBT people get married and serve our country. It doesn't bother you if there are some restrictions against abortion. But let's Not have healthcare for all or fix the income inequality. That's just pie in the sky to you.
Capitalism over all is what you want and it's what Hillary wants and is offering. That you feel is a safe choice.
Listen, there really isn't anything called Marxism. Even Karl Marx said he wasn't a Marxist. It is a purgative term used to make socialism sounds real scary to voters who are afraid to evolve beyond capitalism. Just imagine what the world would be today if everyone had been afraid to evolve beyond feudalism and slavery?
You know it's going to happen. The world is going to have to pull itself out of capitalism because it is destroying the earth and our communities. It will eventually kill us all if we don't change. Why fight the inevitable? Capitalism is a worn out economic model designed in the same vein as feudalism and slavery. Those who evolved capitalism had No Other examples to go by. But we do have other models. We know where the Soviet Union went wrong. We can create a better economic system.
Voting for Hillary is a sad attempt to keep a corrupted economic system in place. It wont work. It will eventually fall.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)She supports TPP, Trump openly talks about how bad our trade deals are
She supports War in Iraq, Trump openly talks about how it is bad
She openly supports rich giving money to influence election, Trump talks bad about it.
She is against Single payer, He has said on many occasion he want to provide medical care for everyone hinting at single payer.
Now who to trust is hard to say because they both lie and flip there views like mad. Hillary is now in PA which is more pro gun than NY and she is not talking about how 2nd amendment is great in her speeches.
Now to mods and other I am not endorsing Trump at all Just stating what he and the HRC have said and answering a question asked.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Most Democrats support TPP. Most republicans oppose it. Bernie will renegotiate NAFTA. Trump will 'rip it up'.
Trump wants to build up the military and 'obliterate' ISIS. Believe he is anti-war if you wish.
Trump is only in favor of one rich guy donating money to one rich guy's campaign.
He "hints" at a lot of things - generally whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.
I am glad that his rhetoric is having an effect on some liberals. I am not defending Hillary since I support Bernie. But no one should think Trump is more liberal or anti-war than any of our candidates, rhetoric notwithstanding.
Glad to hear it. You had me going there for a minute.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)Most people don't pay attention to primaries except when it is close to the time to vote in their state. Hence why Clinton weather-vane just switched from full anti-gun to Annie Oakley mode. So come GE Trump is going to be on left of many of Clinton issues. And we see her defense of that already pooing up where she said we need to look at Trumps past statements. If people do that they are going to look at her record from past and that is not a very liberal past.
TrueDemVA
(250 posts)Hillary flips her views as well, so you can't trust anything either one of them say.
astrophuss42
(290 posts)Is going to make it hard for many to even choose. Esp indys, yikes.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Response to bigdarryl (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)I'm losing...I would be winning...
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)Or is this just some story we are suppose to believe oddly one supporting your view?
brush
(53,788 posts)Let's say we accept Sanders' statement that he's losing because the poor don't vote.
Okay, let's go further with that. Because of the racism and inequities in our system, a good portion of the poor are minorities.
Not many can argue with that, but since when are minorities flocking to vote for Sanders whose primary wins have come mostly from mostly white states?
Nuts.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Lower incomes vote less, but Bernie's not exactly correct, because lower income voters may be more likely to be restricted as having a criminal record, undocumented status, unproven residency, time to go to the polls, and access to registration. If there was universal registration and a path to citizenship - lower income voters might have more access.
Young people don't vote, and they often have lower incomes:
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Sanders loss is not the fault of the poor.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)Disenfranchisement... And a skewed media...
Poor people are more likely to be denied to vote than a upper middle class white person with fake feminist credentials. "Vote for a woman or be labeled as a sexist", and ignore the actual policies that has ruined the lives of countless women and children all over the Middle East as well as back home.
If you are poor, you are more likely to be subject of some form of power abuse sooner or later. You are being punished harder, and viewed upon as a "freeloader", or criminal.
If you are rich, you don't get punished at all. Support of Hillary is support of the Affluenza people against poor people that the rich are using to scare the middle class with.
Hillary has been clever in playing the game George Carlin describes here:
haikugal
(6,476 posts)
Tarc
(10,476 posts)That's the fact that is needling him atm.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)5% of the electorate voted. So it's not just poor people not voting, although I consider that to be a serious issue.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And if you take a moment you can look up stats and see that NY is like that in any and all elections, be they local or national, primary or general. Low, low turnout.
But facts are facts, people making less than 20K a year vote at a rate of 48% while those making 75K vote at a rate of 77%. It's not just the poor, but it is the poor more than others who do not vote.
George II
(67,782 posts)What does his statement yesterday say about how his followers feel about him?
fasttense
(17,301 posts)They are afraid to evolve out of capitalism. But it is going to happen eventually anyway. Capitalism is a corrupt and broken system that will go away, it has to or we will all die.
Voting for Hillary is just another way of keeping a broken system around a little bit longer to make the rich feel better. But it will disappear some day soon.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)As long as people have the means of creating things, people will be willing to pay for it. Money is nothing but a motivator.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)You can have money in a socialist, communist, slavery or feudal economy too.
Early feudalism did NOT have capitalism. Everything belonged to the king and you had to appease the king in order to obtain anything. You had no right to sell you homegrown vegetables or more likely sell shares in your homegrown vegetable business you had slaves working on. You had to ask the king for permission for everything. He also was the one who gave you permission to live on the land and stay in your home. True there probably was some underground capitalism going on but the king could squash it if he didn't like it. There was also slavery going on during feudalism too but the major economic system was feudalism.
Just because we are motivated by money and greed does not mean we have to base an economy on it. Let's pick another vice and base an economy on it. How about gluttony and lust? I'm motivated by hunger let's base our economy on food.
Just because you create things and sell them does NOT make you a capitalist. To be a capitalist you need to be removed from the means of production. That is you can NOT make the thing you sell yourself. If you make it and sell it you are a owner run business. You are practicing Free Enterprise. You are NOT practicing capitalism. Very few small businesses are capitalist enterprises.
To be a capitalist you have to have second hand ownership like with stocks. Or you can use a vast wealth to get more wealth by owning the means of production; NOT by doing the production yourself.
Read some Marx. It explains the difference.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Nearly every employee in the country has some sort of ties to ownership of stock, whether through invedtments or 401k, making everyone a "capitalist".
egalitegirl
(362 posts)The rich in Wall Street got to work for the two hours they work and then go vote for their candidate in NY because the polls had not yet opened when the Stock Market opened which the time of most hectic activity. The polls opened in the middle of the day when the poor people were at work. This is why poor people find it hard to vote.
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)You're just making up excuses now.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Ah, logic! 
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)I'm certainly not rich, but I've always found a way to vote.
Many (not all) states have early voting and an absentee system.
Is this just an excuse? Maybe his so called 'revolution' is not so much one.
I certainly agree with a lot of his stances, but there hasn't been any type of record turnout on the democratic side.
riversedge
(70,242 posts)the poorer segment of society do vote.
PCPrincess
(68 posts)Okay, that being said, I'm not going to waste my time being politically correct: I am poor. I live in an apartment building that accepts Section 8 residents. I am an what you would call an 'outlier'. I am in my very last semester of a six-year stint in college, majoring in computer science. I am very politically active and involved. I came from a large city before ending up here.
Although I am hoping to finally change my financial situation for the better, I've been poor my whole life. My parents were poor, and I've always worked at low-paying jobs until I was able to go back to college. I stopped to produce an awesome young man (my son) along the way....
I've had the pleasure of making friends with, and conversing with, all kinds of people from all races and religious beliefs and non-beliefs. The one thing we all had in common was being poor.
The truth is that the vast majority of really poor people don't vote. Most very poor people don't have college degrees and are not connected to society outside the happenings in their neighborhoods. As I said, these have been 'my people' for a long long time. They are not 'connected' politically because they are stressed and aren't motivated to participate because they know it will change nothing for them. Poor people don't even 'come up' in election campaigns. The 'middle-class' is discussed constantly, but no one was willing to discuss the poor - UNTIL NOW.
I was not one of those people enamored with Obama. He said nothing about the 'poor' either. I must admit I'm still surprised by just how far right he moved after the election however.
This election is the first time I've ever seen a candidate truly speak to ALL of the citizens in this country, including the very large percentage of citizens who are in extreme poverty.
I would like to personally thank each and every person who has given their support to Mr. Sanders, because you truly are voting for more than yourself when you pull the lever. Every vote for Bernie, is a vote that a poor person won't have made. Thank you.
beedle
(1,235 posts)You are correct, 'the poor' is a subject that establishment types are afraid to talk about, evidenced by how fast they moved away from talking about people who are poor and their issues, to 'horse race' issues and who this theoretical 'the poor' group plays on electoral politics.
Just look what happens when someone does start to talk about 'the poor' ... the establishment doesn't actually talk about the poor, instead it does all it can to turn talk of 'the poor' into some kind of 'meta' issue ... 'the poor' is not about 'people', the establishment twists the issue into a fake conversation about who can talk about them, how they affect the 'horse race', the 'hidden agenda' of politicians who mention them ... not an actual word about the policies and how they effect PEOPLE ... it's as though 'the poor' were a bunch of rich trust fund teenagers who don't vote because of their own self absorbed attention to superficial things like sports cars and designer shoes (ignoring that being poor is an exercise in 'self absorbed attention' to surviving the day.) They play it as though there are no known reasons why this 'the poor' group doesn't go out and vote ... "must be their own fault, because obviously there are no barriers to them getting out to vote if they were really politically engaged .. the rich are politically engaged, and they lead busy lives too, so what's wrong with this 'the poor' group?"
-none
(1,884 posts)Maybe we need to start doing things like they do in 3rd World countries and dip a index finger into some ink when we vote.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)...for him.