2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRobert Reich: Don't Bank on All of Bernie's Supporters Making an Easy Switch to Hillary.
The anti-establishment fury in the election of 2016 may prove greater than supposed.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/robert-reich-dont-bank-all-bernies-supporters-make-easy-switch-hillary
Start Making Sense: Yes, Hillary Could Lose to Trump.
http://www.thenation.com/article/start-making-sense-yes-hillary-could-lose-to-trump/
snot
(10,530 posts)suggestions as to how to do that welcome.
elleng
(130,973 posts)for one thing, and no calling eachother out; recognize fraud DOES take place, and has done.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)I estimate it'll be about 70%, most of those being "hold your nose and vote for what stinks less"
Unfortunately, I don't think Clinton can lose more than 10% of the Sanders voters and still safely count on the Obama 2008 states to go her way.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)have been holding their noses and voting for D most of their lives and Bernie gave them something they hadn't had in long time a candidate they could actually support
sueh
(1,826 posts)It was a dream come true for me when he decided to run.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)a high-quality pollster that night that they were happy to have Hillary as their second choice. It was the upper 70s to another pollster in Vermont. These were "Bernie states."
DU's Bernie faction has a very skewed vision of what is happening. Most Bernie voters are liberals -- not radicals prone to exaggerating differences and denying commonality with other progressives.
The noise here does not at all reflect America's progressive community's comfort level with both Bernie and Hillary.
For that matter, I do not believe the pervasive mood here even reflects the true, average attitude of individuals who support Bernie on DU. People may join the crowd to express angry disappointment now, but don't hold your breath imagining most won't calm down and become more thoughtful between now and November. They will. I have faith in their basic good sense.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but on real life
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)we choose to run with. DU's an urban square where armchair rioters, book club types, and various others intersect, separate, form into groups. Some come to trade ideas, some come to act out negative emotions with others, most to get their viewpoints reinforced by others who feel as they do. Many just sip drinks from the sidelines as they silently observe the scene.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)elleng
(130,973 posts)hrc 'only' won 52% in Connecticut, 56% in Pennsylvania, 60% in Delaware, 63% in Maryland, and 45% in Rhode Island. Those are DEMOCRATIC votes.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&
seekthetruth
(504 posts)I'm a Sanders supporter, and I cannot in good conscience support either party.
It was the fracking issue for me....and the heightened risk of war.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)Independents, no.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)this has been an ugly primary to put it mildly
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)Yes, very ugly on one side.
oasis
(49,389 posts)they create will last for decades.
elleng
(130,973 posts)but the situation of the day, a powerful establishment and strongly held anti-establishment inclinations by both right- and left-wing voters, makes accurate predictions impossible. We cannot expect that REASON will prevail.
oasis
(49,389 posts)primary of HRC in four years. There can be no four year comeback against the Supreme Court should the 3+ vacancies be filled by a GOP president.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)A progressive candidate could only challenge her as a third party candidate in the GE, in which case the Republican most likely wins...no difference.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)for the sole purpose of voting for Bernie go and vote for Hillary? Why would anyone who has serious issues with Hillary's ethics and her vote for the IWR vote for her?
I don't think the GE is gonna go the way that the DNC would like if they are dumb enough to give her the nomination.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I'm not afraid of Trump. He does not want to embarrass himself. I think he'll be more of a democrat than a republican. I may have to eat a lot of crow but I just don't see him as the stupid and crazy guy that he's presented himself to be. Who will vote him? I don't know. Between Trump and Hillary, i really don't know.
elleng
(130,973 posts)but before he/we get there, right-t-buggers + right-disenchanted go for him, left- disenchanted go for Senator Sanders, and 'center,' establishment for hrc. Who wins??? How the heck this works in a state by state ELECTION?
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)They have told me that they trust Trump more than they do Hillary. I think that the DNC may have really underestimated the base this time,
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)States with closed primaries disrespect independents. Independents are a lot of people to piss off.
elleng
(130,973 posts)emsimon33
(3,128 posts)And the number will grow exponentially, I fear, if Bernie is not the nominee. It may be the end of the Democratic Party which breaks my heart.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)40 years Democrat... party leadership disgusts me, I'm switching to NPA.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)Most say they will support the Green Party.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It could go from 29% down to 22-23%. It's been on a gradual decline anyway.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)kiva
(4,373 posts)I've registered and voted Dem since 1974 and will switch to unaffiliated if/when Clinton gets the nomination.
pampango
(24,692 posts)It's not just the Democratic primary that they can't vote in. I imagine Trump lost a lot of votes in closed primary states because independents and 'Reagan Democrats' could not vote for him.
Lars39
(26,109 posts)Not sure how that would happen at state level, but independents need an equal chance.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)I was at a organizing meeting for Bernie in California this past weekend. There were twice as many people there as expected, so a large crowd. While waiting for the meeting to start, I asked who would vote for Hillary if she were the nominee and only one older woman raised her hand. When I asked the others why, the behavior of the DNC, the cheating in the primaries, the news blackout, the Super delegates pledging before the primary even started, and Hillary's record were among the reasons given. This was before people from Hillary's super pac put child porn on the most popular Bernie Facebook sites and the camera caught Bernie's votes declining. Most felt that the Democratic Party was no longer interested in their issues and, like the old Republican Party before it went off the rails, was now the Party of the wealthy donors, corporations, and Wall Street. Several even said they were so disgusted with the antics of the Party that they would actively work against Hillary's nomination and others noted that the Party should have thought about the Supreme Court nominees, etc. before they threw the primary.
I was shocked! Simply shocked at the responses. I have heard Joy Reed say that the liberals always come back and vote for the establishment candidate because what else are they going to do. I think, from what I am hearing, that too many people feel so alienated from the Party that they simply do not care what happens. They do not trust Hillary any more than they trust the Republicans. I was really shocked.
elleng
(130,973 posts)it says a lot. Yes, shocking, but not surprising I think.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)I meet high school students who can't even vote yet who are calling and canvassing for Bernie and they save their lunch money and are doing odd jobs to send more. The actions of the DNC and most of the state Democratic Parties will lose a whole generation of potential voters and we will become a party of old farts like the Republican Party. I can not believe how short sighted and arrogant the Party establishment is being. Also, of all the candidates still in the race, Bernie and Trump are the only two who have said that they would not play with or mess with Social Security. When a lot of us old Democratic farts realize this and Bernie is gone, even more Dems may desert!
MADem
(135,425 posts)And that's when the voting age was still 21.
Didn't do either of them much good, either.
Thing is, those kids are now approaching their golden years...and they are STILL DEMOCRATS. Just because their guys didn't win, didn't make them decide "Gosh, I guess I'll support the party of racism, hate, intolerance and oppression of women!"
Anyone who even presents that scenario as a possibility doesn't think much of those high school kids.
smh.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)We have social media now. These young people see the tally of Bernie votes switch right before them. They see the Bernie Facebook pages being taken down due to child porn. They hear Hillary when talking to Rachel Maddow say that she has the votes and that she doesn't need to give Bernie followers anything.
The Democratic Establishment is way under estimating the anger and frustration in the country.
I don't think that they will go to the Republican Party. I think they will go to the Green. They have expressed that it is clear to them that the Democratic Establishment does not want or value them.
It is sad and I hope that you are right, MADem. But I fear the worse for our Party.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Bro Robert needs to realize that a lot of people actually WILL grow up and GET OVER IT.
Of course, he does realize this, because after he meanders around, making dire pronouncements, mentions his "book tour" (Ka-ching, buy my book) and engages in ineffectual foot stomping, he finally comes around to this:
This is just a tantrum as realization dawns, nothing more.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)all we have to do is nothing
MADem
(135,425 posts)You've proudly stated that you are going to stand on the sidelines while history is made.
More power to you...but playing "bystander to history" wouldn't be my choice. And I'd be embarrassed to vocalize that POV, too.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)how'd that work out for Dems?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Those candidates were "too far out" for the greater electorate, and that's why they lost. The DNC said "NEVER AGAIN."
But thanks for proving my point while missing it!
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and you forgot WaterGate but I do understand your need to edit history
MADem
(135,425 posts)More background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGovern%E2%80%93Fraser_Commission
Thanks for making it clear that it's pointless wasting any more time speaking with you.
You don't know your own history. And Watergate didn't become a full-blown scandal until much later--you might want to look THAT up, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
smh.
So proud, too!!!
40. Lol will you bolding your next post as you did below ps there was no DNC in '72
View profile
and you forgot WaterGate but I do understand your need to edit history
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)ah ya okay go with that sounds ah plausible
Star Member MADem (126,920 posts)
37. You do realize that 72 is the reason WHY we have Super Delegates?
Those candidates were "too far out" for the greater electorate, and that's why they lost. The DNC said "NEVER AGAIN."
But thanks for proving my point while missing it!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1846845
MADem
(135,425 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee
46. so by DNC you meant the Democratic Nation Convention not the Democratic National Committee
View profile
ah ya okay go with that sounds ah plausible
Star Member MADem (126,920 posts)
37. You do realize that 72 is the reason WHY we have Super Delegates?
Those candidates were "too far out" for the greater electorate, and that's why they lost. The DNC said "NEVER AGAIN."
But thanks for proving my point while missing it!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1846845
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Are you serious?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Democratic_National_Convention
More background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGovern%E2%80%93Fraser_Commission
Thanks for making it clear that it's pointless wasting any more time speaking with you.
You don't know your own history. And Watergate didn't become a full-blown scandal until much later--you might want to look THAT up, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
smh.
So proud, too!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1846877
MADem
(135,425 posts)You need to go back to school.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)claim, and provided you with a link to Watergate history to correct your misunderstanding of that event, too.
Look--you're flailing and failing here. "End of story!" LOL....
elleng
(130,973 posts)than 27 replies-worth of tantrum/shit flailing-fodder. Nothing to see here; keep on walking.
Keep it up.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Those are HIS words...after HIS tantrum-essay, for which, no doubt, he was paid.
smh.
elleng
(130,973 posts)'But 2008 may not be a good guide to the 2016 election, whose most conspicuous feature is furious antipathy to the political establishment.
Outsiders and mavericks are often attractive to an American electorate chronically suspicious of political insiders, but the anti-establishment sentiments unleashed this election year of a different magnitude. The Trump and Sanders candidacies are both dramatic repudiations of politics as usual.
If Hillary Clinton is perceived to have won the Democratic primary because of insider superdelegates and contests closed to independents, it may confirm for hardcore Bernie supporters the systemic political corruption Sanders has been railing against.
Similarly, if the Republican Party ends up nominating someone other than Trump who hasnt attracted nearly the votes than he has, it may be viewed as proof of Trumps argument that the Republican Party is corrupt.
Many Sanders supporters will gravitate to Hillary Clinton nonetheless out of repulsion toward the Republican candidate, especially if its Donald Trump. Likewise, if Trump loses his bid for the nomination, many of his supporters will vote Republican in any event, particularly if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton.
But, unlike previous elections, a good number may simply decide to sit out the election because of their even greater repulsion toward politics as usual and the conviction its rigged by the establishment for its own benefit.
That conviction wasnt present in the 2008 election. It emerged later, starting in the 2008 financial crisis, when the government bailed out the biggest Wall Street banks while letting underwater homeowners drown.
Both the Tea Party movement and Occupy were angry responses Tea Partiers apoplectic about governments role, Occupiers furious with Wall Street two sides of the same coin.
Then came the Supreme Courts 2010 decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, releasing a torrent of big money into American politics. By the 2012 election cycle, forty percent of all campaign contributions came from the richest 0.01 percent of American households.
That was followed by a lopsided economic recovery, most of whose gains have gone to the top. Median family income is still below 2008, adjusted for inflation. And although the official rate of unemployment has fallen dramatically, a smaller percentage of working-age people now have jobs than before the recession.
As a result of all this, many Americans have connected the dots in ways they didnt in 2008.
They see crony capitalism (now a term of opprobrium on both left and the right) in special tax loopholes for the rich, government subsidies and loan guarantees for favored corporations, bankruptcy relief for the wealthy but not for distressed homeowners or student debtors, leniency toward corporations amassing market power but not for workers seeking to increase their bargaining power through unions, and trade deals protecting the intellectual property and assets of American corporations abroad but not the jobs or incomes of American workers.
Last fall, when on book tour in the nations heartland, I kept finding people trying to make up their minds in the upcoming election between Sanders and Trump.
They saw one or the other as their champion: Sanders the political revolutionary whod reclaim power from the privileged few; Trump, the authoritarian strongman whod wrest power back from an establishment thats usurped it.
The people I encountered told me the moneyed interests couldnt buy off Sanders because he wouldnt take their money, and they couldnt buy off Trump because he didnt need their money.
Now, six months later, the political establishment has fought back, and Sanderss prospects for taking the Democratic nomination are dimming. Trump may well win the Republican mantle but not without a brawl.
As I said, I expect most Sanders backers will still support Hillary Clinton if shes the nominee. And even if Trump doesnt get the Republican nod, most of his backers will go with whoever the Republican candidate turns out to be.
But anyone who assumes a wholesale transfer of loyalty from Sanderss supporters to Clinton, or from Trumps to another Republican standard-bearer, may be in for a surprise.
The anti-establishment fury in the election of 2016 may prove greater than supposed.'
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1205892422756685
MADem
(135,425 posts)Click bait article. Short version:
Sanders supporters will be mad (indeed, their anger can be described as "fury" .... but they WILL GET OVER IT.
elleng
(130,973 posts)or from Trumps to another Republican standard-bearer, may be in for a surprise.
The anti-establishment fury in the election of 2016 may prove greater than supposed.
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1205892422756685
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Everything surrounding that key piece is just parsley and shredded lettuce, designed to make the meal look bigger and more appetizing for you.
But the bottom line is here:
As I said, I expect most Sanders backers will still support Hillary Clinton if shes the nominee.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)the day, even he acknowledges that this is the bottom line:
As I said, I expect most Sanders backers will still support Hillary Clinton if shes the nominee.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Yea, she might get most if she's lucky. I don't know how she'll package that with 33% of Independants and make a winning combination, but that's her problem.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Do you think your personal efforts are helpful to gaining support for your candidate? I've been called 'Bro' by so many of your fellow travelers it makes me sick. They are mean people. Some who do that 'Bro' thing have in the past called me and other LGBT 'he/she' repeatedly. It's a name calling cohort and I strongly reject those tactics and methods.
I vote at home, by myself. Public support will not be forthcoming for the Reagan Democrats. I simply will not spend volunteer hours with anti gay jerks who call me 'Bro' or 'he/she' as part of their way of electoral politics. Not going to happen. No money either. Not one dime.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)Too bad the rest of don't deserve it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Response to elleng (Original post)
Post removed
I didn't win! I'm taking my marbles and going home! The political system is corrupt unless my candidate wins because my vote is the only one that should count! My candidate is pure and good and anyone running against him is corrupt! Goodbye democratic party!
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)My minds made up....for sure.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)We NEED a POTUS who tells the TRUTH BEFORE they win! Words are only words HILLARY!
I DO NOT BELIEVE what you're saying now, and YOU WILL NEED to EARN TRUST!
Another word, FAITH in that TRUST is missing too!