Make No Mistake, Sandersism Has Defeated Clintonism

[silvershadow]

Make No Mistake, Sandersism Has Defeated Clintonism

05/18/2016 02:23 pm ET |

Seth Abramson
Attorney; Assistant Professor, UNH; Series Editor, Best American Experimental Writing

In 2008, Hillary Clinton — on her way to losing the Democratic nomination — won nine of the final 25 nominating contests. In 2016, she may well — despite being treated as the likely winner of this year’s Democratic primary by the mainstream media — win only seven or eight of the final 25 state primaries and caucuses.

If you’re wondering how Clinton could perform worse in the second half of the election cycle in 2016 than she did in 2008 and still be in a position to win, there’s a good explanation for it that goes beyond the fact that the neck-and-neck Democratic primary race we’ve had for over two months started with a brief but solid run for Clinton. In 2008, both Democratic candidates were sanctioned by Party elders, so super-delegates were free to pick whoever they thought was the stronger candidate without fear of reprisal. In 2016, super-delegates are expected to go with Clinton even if the insurgent Sanders has clearly shown himself, by mid-June, to be the stronger general-election candidate in terms of both head-to-head match-ups with Trump, favorability ratings among independent voters, and performance in the second half of the nominating season.

Super-delegates will fall into line — the thinking goes — not because Clinton is a strong general-election bet, or liked by many people, or a real spokeswoman for the ideology of the Party base, or able to win independents, or nearly the same candidate in May that she was in February, or capable of winning over her current Democratic opposition the way Obama did after the primary in 2008, but because Democrats in Washington have made clear that any super-delegates who back the now-stronger horse in Philadelphia this July — Sanders — will be ostracized from the Party. Fear, then, is what could make Clinton the Democratic nominee even if (a) super-delegates are officially charged with voting for the strongest general-election candidate, and (b) Clinton goes on a historic losing streak in the back half of the primary season election calendar.

But all that’s horse-race nonsense, and won’t matter very much to political historians looking back at this period in American history from the vantage point of, say, 2116.

more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/make-no-mistake-sanderism_b_10008136.html

[RobertEarl]

1. We are the winners

Finally politics moving our way. The real Left is taking over.

[silvershadow]

7. Sure hope so. nt

[boston bean]

2. I LOL'd. nt

[seabeyond]

3. Nu uh.

[Trenzalore]

4. If Donald Trump is elected

History will blame Sanders, because people from the left won't be the ones writing history.

[silvershadow]

6. Not anymore. Unless they erase the internet, which I suppose is a possibility. nt

[sadoldgirl]

10. No, if he gets elected, historians will ask why

the Dems put up such a weak candidate, whose
favorability was so low.

[Trenzalore]

14. Well not to sound too melodramatic

Trump strikes me as the Putin type.

Let that sink in and get back to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. More like Berlusconi

but historians will ask about the weak candidate and that line of enquiry already started.

At this point I will just laugh. I said my piece about this months ago.

[Trenzalore]

40. If the disaster happens

I hope you are right and I am wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Well Putin does not have to deal with the Duma

for many reasons whoever gets elected, will be challenged in congress. I hate the dysfunctional congress, but it will have a good side ironically...

As to the weak candidate, that started months ago, and per usual started abroad, and high level US press... hint not CNN

[TheBlackAdder]

85. Putin has a tiny dink too?

[Vincardog]

11. How could it be Bernie's fault if the establishment Democrats force HRC to be the nominee and

She loses to tRump?

[silvershadow]

13. It won't be. nt

[Trenzalore]

26. Bernie won't be writing history

Donald Trump will be...and he strikes me more Vlad Putin than George W. Bush.

[TheBlackAdder]

86. Those with power and wealth control messaging. The GOP's intense animus towards HRC...

.


Ensures that history will cast her, the campaign, and the DNC in the most unfavorable light possible.


.

[puffy socks]

5. Lmao!

This fool just plucked this out of thin air!

"In 2016, super-delegates are expected to go with Clinton even if the insurgent Sanders has clearly shown himself, by mid-June, to be the stronger general-election candidate in terms of both head-to-head match-ups with Trump, favorability ratings among independent voters, and performance in the second half of the nominating season. "


Perhaps Obama's blackness had a lot to do with the differences in votes? I don't know. But I do know that these reports claiming they know why, with zero research and analysis, are a hoot!

[RobertEarl]

22. Obama will vote for Bernie

And he will make a favorable impression doing so, even as he beats Hillary again.

[puffy socks]

47. Sure he will.

I suppose he told you that himself , right?

[RobertEarl]

49. His wiseness tells me so

He smashed Hill before by tearing her up and shredding her. Of course she tried to do him in first with all her lies and smears. Obama has her number, and he loves him some Bernie.

[Peace Patriot]

75. That particular paragraph is very fact-based, puffy socks.

Sanders demolishes Trump in all recent national match-up polls. He has been doing so since January but, what is more important, he is doing so NOW, as we head into the summer.

On the other hand, Clinton just squeaks by Trump in recent polls, and actually loses to Trump in one of them.

AND, Clinton's numbers on matters such as trustworthiness and general favorability are in the toilet--almost as bad as Trump's--while Sanders has had consistently high numbers in these kind of polls.

You can argue about polls and polling methods, but it's difficult to argue about such consistent numbers over time and across all polls. Sanders beats Trump by big margins. Clinton might lose to Trump. Sanders is liked and trusted by most people. Clinton is not. Trump is not.

The final point in the paragraph--Sanders' "performance in the second half of the nominating season"--is more open to interpretation and needs more facts: For instance, what is the state of the privately controlled e-voting systems, with no automatic audit, in the southern states? I would guess they are very riggable. Were they rigged for Clinton, or were Clinton's big wins there--giving her a big advantage throughout the primaries--instead a function of massive vote suppression in these Republican-run states? Or were her wins genuine? Or based on those voters never having heard of Bernie Sanders (too early in the primaries--his insurgent campaign unknown)?

To make a comparison between the 1st and 2nd halves of the primaries, we need these and other kinds of facts about the process itself.

Once we were out of this solid red-state region, Sanders has won some, and lost some. He's held his own. In some states, he has had blowout wins. Oregon yesterday was a near blowout (margin of Sanders victory was 12%). This is pretty amazing so late in the primaries, for a candidacy that has been declared dead thousands of times, in a thousand venues. I'd say that the tie in KY and the 12% win in Oregon alone make his "performance in the second half of the nominating season" amazing. They were all trying to push him out. They were all saying he'd run out of money, he was bleeding staffers and now they're saying his supporters are thugs. All lies! He just keeps coming back. He's the comeback kid like Seabiscuit!

I don't know why you call this paragraph "plucked out of thin air." It isn't. Sanders really is the best candidate against Trump, with Sanders great appeal to independent voters, to young voters, to new voters and to old New Deal Democrats like me, and all the environmental and other kinds of activists who support Sanders (and profoundly distrust Clinton). Sanders has great and widespread appeal. He will probably even draw disgruntled Republicans (anti-Trump) and some Trump voters (those with an economic grievance). These latter voters will go out of their way to vote against Clinton, but may vote for Sanders or just stay home, if Sanders is the nominee.

Who does Clinton appeal to? Half the Democratic Party, which is fast becoming a minor party compared to independents (now 40+% of the electorate). Who else?

Sanders has done very well, indeed, in making all of this very clear. He only has to make it through the narrow tunnel of the Clinton-run Democratic Party, into the larger venue of the general election, where all votes matter and not just those of Clinton devotees (a smallish portion of the bigger electorate). If Clinton blockades Sanders with Tammany Hall bully tactics, and Rovian dirty tricks, and rigged voting rolls and really serious lying via the Corrupt Media--all of which, and more, are becoming evident already--it will be our party's loss, and our country's.

[silvershadow]

79. +1

[puffy socks]

83. Polls are worthless

And Sanders has already lost, contrary to the popular fantasies of some Sanders supporters.

[anamnua]

8. Make No Mistake, Sandersism Has Defeated Clintonism

Not where it counts: in the polling booth.

[Maedhros]

12. Maybe not in the polling booth RIGHT NOW, but consider 2018...[n/t]

[puffy socks]

48. I'll believe it when I see it.

This is the pattern thus far for many, many years

Even if we dismantled every barrier to voting, that alone would not change the fact that America has some of the lowest voting rates in the free world. In 2014, only 36 percent of Americans turned out to vote in the midterms -- the second lowest participation rate on record. Youth turnout -- that would be you -- was less than 20 percent. Less than 20 percent. Four out of five did not vote. In 2012, nearly two in three African Americans turned out. And then, in 2014, only two in five turned out. You don’t think that made a difference in terms of the Congress I've got to deal with? And then people are wondering, well, how come Obama hasn’t gotten this done? How come he didn’t get that done? You don’t think that made a difference? What would have happened if you had turned out at 50, 60, 70 percent, all across this country? People try to make this political thing really complicated. Like, what kind of reforms do we need? And how do we need to do that? You know what, just vote. It's math. If you have more votes than the other guy, you get to do what you want. (Laughter.) It's not that complicated.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/obamas-howard-commencement-transcript-222931

[silvershadow]

16. Coast to Coast Irregularities notwithstanding. nt

[Bleacher Creature]

9. The crackpot English professor again???

No thanks.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Whatever gets you through the night

[silvershadow]

80. like this?:

[anotherproletariat]

17. I was getting ready to reply to the title...then realized it was just a huffpo article.

Stopped paying attention to those months ago...

[silvershadow]

19. I stopped paying attention to newcomers to DU months ago. nt

[anotherproletariat]

23. I've learned some of the best lessons from newcomers. It's all about doing your research.

For example, if a presidential candidate promises you things that sound too good to be true, make sure that they have workable plans for implementation before blindly following them.

[silvershadow]

25. I assume all newcomers are Brockbots. It was in the news. You should check it out. nt

[anotherproletariat]

32. Best lesson so far...there are very few absolutes in life. Yes, there may be paid shills out there

but that does not mean that everyone is a shill. Some people may actually just have different thoughts, experiences and beliefs than you. It does happen.

[silvershadow]

36. Yeah, but in the context of this very ugly primary, I assume all who enter in the midst of it

are to be dismissed. And I do.

[mythology]

55. Says the person pushing the idiotic article in your original post

Sanders has lost, accept it. The super delegates didn't switch to Obama because he was acceptable. They switched because he beat Clinton, and they won't switch to Sanders because he lost to Clinton.

That dismissal thing goes both ways.

[Number23]

76. Weren't you the one who posted that California was going 2-1 for Sanders as per the "analysis" from

a 14-year old? http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511946984

Obviously there are some "newcomers" you still pay attention to?

[asuhornets]

18. Do you really believe that?

[silvershadow]

81. I believe he still has a path as long as she is under investigation. I believe, for the good of

country and party, the only patriotic thing he can do is stay in until it is no longer possible to win. A safety mechanism some Democrats apparently have no distinct and actual appreciation for. He is due a great deal of respect for merely running at least as good a campaign as HRC- and that's assuming all their crap is correct. She's in not much better shape delegate-wise, and she has that albatross of an investigation having around her neck.

[asuhornets]

82. ok

[wyldwolf]

20. The Sanders movement has shown itself to comprised of spoiled kids throwing temper tantrums

He'll never be the nominee and his stock among Democrats is dropping fast.

[silvershadow]

21. Nice meme to continue the narrative. This "kid" is 50-some years old. nt

[wyldwolf]

24. these older ones never grew up. Never will.

[silvershadow]

27. Nice meme. The younger ones will never learn. Those who forget history are doomed

to repeat it. Respect your elders has gotten lost in our country.

[wyldwolf]

30. "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." Yep, 'progressives' have either forgotten or...

... never learned the lessons of 1968. Losers.

[silvershadow]

33. You never learned what Union Labor and FDR did for this country. nt

[wyldwolf]

37. Completely irrelevant to the behavior of the destructive force of Sanders and his vile supporters

[silvershadow]

39. Not at all. Which is why you never learned. I am dismissing you now to the trash bin. nt

[wyldwolf]

41. Competely, FDR was a Democrat, unlike Bernie, and would have never tried to burn the party down.

I don't give a rat's ass if you put me on ignore.

[timmymoff]

50. I'm fifty as well

so your kid meme is getting blown out of the water.

[wyldwolf]

52. my 'meme' is sound. Petulant pouting 'progressives' and actually dangerous this go 'round.

Plan on setting any cars on fire in Philly?

[timmymoff]

56. Nope, Just terrible memes

but we do it daily, usually from the conservative wing of the democratic party.

[wyldwolf]

59. So you're planning to set cars on fire in Philly?

[timmymoff]

60. Nope just terrible memes

[wyldwolf]

61. gonna lay down in the road and block traffic? LOL

[timmymoff]

62. Nah, more than likely lay a foundation to finally rid the world of the cockroaches

known as neo liberals, I accept thanks in advance.

[wyldwolf]

63. gonna hold your breath until you turn blue...?

[timmymoff]

64. No i'm good..

I'm just not participating in the coronation. So you better get busy selling Her Corporate Majesty.

[wyldwolf]

65. oh, good. I'm sure the convention will be better without you.

[timmymoff]

67. Oh I was speaking of November

when you really needed us. Sorry for the confusion, you thought I would vote for her? I may vote for a woman as president though.

[wyldwolf]

69. I'll quote Harry Truman

"The greatest achievement was winning without the radicals in the party. I was happy to be elected by a Democratic party that did not depend upon the left-wing."

[timmymoff]

70. radicals are what set the agenda for the future

while the conservatives love to live in the past.

[wyldwolf]

71. Too bad for you Bernie lost months ago. What he's doing is pathetic

[timmymoff]

73. Yea, forcing Hillary to adopt half his platform was really a pathetic move

see how malleable your candidate is for votes? She adopted half his platform and then went and begged republican mega donors for money. She sure is a class act and it's easy to tell whose side she is on. It's all about the Benjamins with her, but don't worry she only sought their money because she is with us. Can I interest you in a bridge?

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. In time you will learn

the author of that piece is correct, but he has the long view. You have the very short view.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Hmm

I wrote this today, this is for the long haul

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511994370

[silvershadow]

31. Thank you. I rec'd it. nt

[jamese777]

35. The Actual Numbers

Primaries' total popular vote as of May 18th
Hillary Clinton: 13,177,734 (55.5%)
Donald Trump: 11,236,652
Bernie Sanders: 10,131,732 (42.7%)

Clinton over Sanders: 3,046,002
Clinton over Trump: 1,941,082

Hillary Clinton: 1,771 pledged delegates
Bernie Sanders: 1,499 pledged delegates

Hillary Clinton: 504 superdelegates
Bernie Sanders: 41 superdelegates

Hillary Clinton: 2,275 total delegates
Bernie Sanders: 1,539 total delegates

Hillary Clinton: 26 contests won
Bernie Sanders: 21 contests won

[silvershadow]

38. The only votes that count are the ones at convention. And popular votes have no bearing.

Never have.

[wyldwolf]

44. And she'll win at the convention too. (like you know ANYTHING about convention rules.)

[jamese777]

84. Popular Votes in Primaries

determine the apportionment of pledged delegates. Why else do you think Hillary Clinton is 272 pledged delegates ahead of Senator Sanders?

[Number23]

78. You should make that post an OP. Shows how the "weaker" candidate is literally mopping the floor

with the "stronger" one in every possible way.

[pmorlan1]

42. Great Read

Thank you for posting.

[silvershadow]

43. You're welcome! nt

[SidDithers]

46. Abramson. LOL...nt

Sid

[The_Casual_Observer]

51. Is this sort of like rock, paper , scissors?

[silvershadow]

53. Yes. Bernie is Rock. Hillary is scissors...(only because she burned her papers-

the damning transcripts- in The Great Chappaqua Fire of 2016 (her fire pit in the backyard of The Clinton Compound).

[The_Casual_Observer]

54. I have to hand it to you, you get an A in conspiracy 101.

[silvershadow]

58. There's that false meme Camp HRC is pushing. Nope, it is a satire. nt

[Tarc]

57. +272 pledged delegates, +3,033,824 votes says otherwise

[PatrickforO]

66. You know what? If the establishment Dems ostracize superdelegates who

support Sanders, then fuck them. We'll start a NEW party.

[trudyco]

68. I think having the FBI investigating you

might have something to do with it, too. Despite an incredible leaning of the MSM towards Clinton, Populism channeled through Sanders has real staying power. I guess everybody in establishment DLC land is afraid of her or hoping for a favor from the mob boss. She's going to owe a LOT of favors.

[Beacool]

72. Ahhh, yes, another column by one of the two Huff sycophants.

Did Goodman have the day off?

[eastwestdem]

74. I love how huffpo thinks that if they say it enough, it will miraculously become true. nt

[CanadaexPat]

77. The owl of Minerva flies at dusk.

[JoePhilly]

87. More "losing is winning" nonsense.