Clinton has absolutely no chance of involving alienated voters

[eridani]

Even though, granted, 2015 Hillary is a lot better than 2007 Hillary. In 2014, the alienated would be 63% of those eligible to vote. I have been attending Seattle for Sanders meetings, where Democrats are a minority. Most of the people are alienated young people and/or a contingent of the Socialist Alternative crown working on the Kshama Sawant campaign. The Democrats, like me, are retirees who still think that the New Deal was a really great idea. The originator of the group is a 26 year old woman who has never been involved in anything political, just missed being old enough to vote in 2008, has registered but not voted before.

A good chunk of the open mic sessions are devoted to the kids bashing the Democratic Party ("So, you have this great platform that is against corporate trade deals, but only 3 of your 8 congressional members voted againsf fast track, so what good are you, huh, huh?&quot And us old farts point out that it is Democrats in the suburban cities defending the homeless and $15/hour, and that it will be a long time before Socialist Alternative is ready to run anyone for those positions. And so it goes until we get down to practical outreach details. They actually do realize that they need us to show them how to navigate the caucus system.

Not a single one of the non-Democratic crowd will vote for Clinton under any circumstances, no mater how much the rest of us advocate for strategic voting. They'll stay home or vote for someone like Jill Stein. Bernie, on the other hand, can motivate them to work hard.

[postulater]

1. Bernie is the Real Deal!

[Fumesucker]

2. It's much easier to "look under the hood" these days than it used to be

Politicians used to be able to say one thing to one audience and something quite different to another audience and mostly get away with it.

Some of them now try to change their message over time but things like Youtube keep tripping them up with their own words.

[eridani]

4. Also, the Gore "lying about inventing the Internet" and the Kerry swiftboaing

-could not happen this time around. Debunking with a lot of nasty humor would quickly go viral.

[Cosmocat]

22. Lol

Yeah, ok.

Check back when hill or bernie clear the primary ...

If u think the rs wont furiously spin around screaming about flag pins, bengazi or whatever bullshit, the media wont gleefullt follow suit and a good chunk of the stupid in this country go for the ride, you are living in a different realty than the rest of us.

[randys1]

101. The right will make up so many lies, the normal person wont have the energy to fact check

them all.

But their main approach is to just stop Black people and students from voting.

Then to count the votes in such a way that the loser wins.

[Cosmocat]

147. That pretty much sums it up

nm

[sabrina 1]

145. So far, the only people attacking Bernie Sanders have been Democrats.

And that is only going to make voters angry at Dems.

When he wins the primary, THEN Republicans will try to smear him, but it's much harder to do that with someone like Bernie, he doesn't play games with Republicans, he calls them out publicly unlike Dems in the past, see Kerry eg who thought it was better not to fight back.

Gore didn't fight either.

Bernie will FIGHT and people like a fighter.

For some reason Dems seem to think that fighting back isn't the 'proper' thing to do. That is not the case with Sanders, he just tells the truth, he won't hesitate to accuse them of what they are GUILTY OF.

I longed for Dems to do that in the past. The word 'spine' was used a lot airc.

One thing Sanders has is spine. One thing bullies do not have is spine. So when they are actually confronted, they tend to run away.

[Cosmocat]

146. OK

Yes, the seas of republican jackassery and the mass stupidity of the country will part for Bernie ...

On a planet that does not exist.

Bernie is a fighter and the democratic party would be a lot better off if there more than a handful of democrats with his spark, but you are completely drinking your kool aid if you think Rs won't trash him like any other democrat. The reason they haven't really come after him is because they don't view him as a credible threat.

They didn't care much about BHO until it was clear he was going to get past Hill, the turned like dime and went after him like a pack of wolves.

As much as I like him, I can't stand the screaching of so many of his supporters here.

It is fantastical.

He would lose the primary handily if it was today.

But that does not matter because the election is not today.

At the same time, though he has to beat incredible odds just to win the nomination, the media will swoon, republicans will roll over and the democratic party will be something it hasn't been in a quarter century ...

I got news, IF Bernie beats the stupidity to win the nomination, he IS going to get Gored/Kerried/Deaned. The Rs will scream about stupid shit, the media will gleefully parrot it, and the country will go along with it, it just is a matter of how much.

IF he gets past that and becomes POTUS, he is going to face the same worthless ass congress as BHO does ... Absolute resistance from the Rs, a fractured democratic party with everyone looking out for their own asses.

[sabrina 1]

148. I remember words just like yours when I supported Obama 'fantastical, the country

isn't ready, Hillary is established, Obama has no record', and if the primaries had been held at this same point in THAT election, Hillary would have won. But it wasn't, people got to know Obama, he ran a great campaign, grassroots and Social Media beat the old traditional politics.

People wanted new ideas, which really are not that new, just that we don't hear them much from our own party anymore. He ran on a progressive message, polls continue to show that this is what people want, though our party leadership continues to pretend we are a 'center right' nation and they continue to lose what we won for them, both the Senate and the House.

So I'm not really interested in any of the negative attacks on Bernie and his supporters, been there before and was as confident then as I am now, that unless were no longer a democracy, Bernie has as much of a chance as anyone else of winning this election.

People aren't falling for the 'fear' mongering anymore. 'If you vote for the best candidate in the race you will help a Republican win'. Heard that also in 2008.

What angers people more than anything else now, is the constant harassment, and it is harassment of voters who simply don't think that there is only ONE person in this entire country who 'deserves' to win this or any other election.

Two months ago we heard that Bernie's announcement ceremony would be the last exciting thing from his campaign and he was not even a factor in this race.

Two months from now, we will be hearing something different to what we're hearing today as the goal posts will continue to be moved.

I don't understand why people don't just promote their own candidate rather than try so hard to diminish Bernie Sanders. It hasn't worked, it won't work, so it's a waste of time and effort.

I have no doubt that the Republicans will do what they did to Obama when they see Bernie as a direct threat to their candidate.

Obama won anyhow. What makes you think that negative, nasty personal attacks is what the public wants to hear and what they will be influenced by? Let them bring it on, their party is now a minority among the voting public, at only 29% of registered voters. They need more than that even if they got all of it, which they won't, in order to win.

Even republican voters, aside from the Fox contingency, are sick and tired of the distraction created by negative campaigning AND polls show are not happy with the money in politics.

I am confident that if ANYONE can handle the expected nastiness it is Bernie.

Hillary otoh, not at all sure she will be able to handle what they will aim at her.

[Cosmocat]

149. More of the same ...

It is like dealing with the inverse of tea partiers, up is down, down is up ...

Hilllary has taken their shit for a quarter century and keeps coming back.

But, yeah, she might not be able to "handle" what they throw at her.



I have little doubt either can "handle it."

That isn't the point, the point is the stupid that reigns in this country.

That said, I am voting for Bernie DESPITE the fact I want to gouge my eyes out dealing with the victimization, fantastical thinking and general martyrish screeching of his "supporters."

You can keep making it harder to get people to come over or consider how this kind of bullshit isn't helping him ...

[sabrina 1]

152. I'm having no problem getting people to support Bernie. He's the easiest

candidate I've ever volunteered for.

You rail against people because they don't agree with you, then compare them to the Tea Party???

PLEASE do Bernie a favor and all the wonderful people who are currently volunteering for him and doing an incredible job, and continue to support Hillary.

What gets me about Hillary supporters is how if someone dares to disagree with them, and I'm sure those reading here will note, that I disagreed with you on your opinion that Bernie can't handle Republicans WITHOUT comparing you to anyone else.

That does not include all of Hillary's supporters but it does include her surrogates, McCaskill and Gutierrez eg.

THIS is what will lose votes for Hillary because as I said, people are sick to death of the nastiness, the name-calling that does nothing to elevate the political dialogue.

And people not agreeing with you simply means that your opinion is of no more value, though you appear to think it is, than anyone else's.

Same old same old indeed, Hillary supporters name-calling and angry when people have opinions they don't agree with. I remember it well.

Bernie's supporters across the country are some the best people and I am proud to be working with them for such an incredible candidate. Never saw one of them call anyone names, but then their candidate has set a high standard for everyone.

[Cosmocat]

157. Last go around on this

Because it most certainly is the inverse of dealing with hard core right wingers.

Separated from reality and not capable of an honest discussion, arrogant, dismissive and doing what you claim others are doing.

If you need to square your world by thinking I am some super secret Bernie hater because I lose my patience with the endless bashing of Hillary and the overall disconnect from reality many here like you display, that is on you.

Its off putting to people he needs to have to get past Hill. But, as with many, your self righteousness trumps self reflection on that point.

[sabrina 1]

158. What's off putting to people is first, comparing someone who disagreed with you politely

to the Tea Party, then when they have the gall to respond to that personal attack, you respond with more name calling, this time a comparison to 'hard core right wingers'. AND a charge of 'self righteousness' again, simply because someone doesn't agree with you.

Finally you decide 'this is the last go round' as if there was just one person in this conversation. So again you are wrong, there were two people in the conversation which means that you don't get to decide for both of them.

And YOU are the one who is offended?? And it's everyone else who is the problem.

No one but YOU used the word 'hatred' and since I don't recall ever seeing you before, I wonder how you know so much about ME or why you made the conversation about ME when the conversation was about political candidates for the presidency.

But as I said, same old same old ...

[Scootaloo]

176. You can't really call someone lese self-righteous...

When you're the one calling them a tea partier because you can't answer their points.

Maybe you ought to go look at cat pictures on imagur, calm yourself down a bit.

[Enthusiast]

185. Well said.

[eridani]

167. Remember that Gore and Kerry could only complain to the same MSM who were smearing them

Granted, they didn't seem to want to fight back, but they had no means to do so even if they did.

Remember--

YouTube went online only in 2005
It wasn't until 2006 that Facebook went from being an Ivy League hookup site to a universally accessible form of communication.
Twitter went live only in 2005.
iPhones and Androids were not in use until 2007 and 2008.

And large numbers of younger alienated potential voters get most of their news online, and pay very little attention to MSM.

[sabrina 1]

172. I absolutely agree that Social Media wasn't available to them back then.

However I also recall that Kerry's campaign waited before responding to the Swift Boat liars giving the lies time to spread before they finally responded.

WE were aware of what they were doing, as I remember having seen a post on FR asking to speak to someone about 'info' the poster had. The post was removed when they realized people had seen it but at the time, the Right was using their online sites and Fox and Talk Radio to spread the lies. Dems were behind on that at the time.

Now however, as you point out, most people, especially young people, are getting their news from Social Media and lies do get smacked down a lot more quickly than they did back then.

[SusanaMontana41]

3. I am firmly in Bernie's corner and am in no way a Clintonista. But

her backers have a winning argument — or at least a strong one — IF she gets nominated.

Would we rather have her make Supreme Court appointments or would we prefer one of the nut jobs with R's after their names do it? Look at who Dubya left us with (after he nominated Harriet Miers!). And who his father left us with.

Ugh.

(Nothing is a guarantee. JFK left us with Byron White, and he wasn't so great.)

I'd have to think about that. Long and hard.

[eridani]

5. Sanders supporters who are Democrats are used to strategic voting--

--and will support her for that reason. The alienated absolutely will not.

[SusanaMontana41]

11. I'm not equivocating. Bernie will get the nod. I'm going to work to see that he does. n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

105. The momentum is clearly on Bernie's side. Seeing Hillary's poll numbers crumble this far out does not bode well for her. Go Bernie!

[TM99]

13. That argument though only works on loyal Democratic Party

members who will always vote for the nominee no matter what as long as there is a D after the name.

Less than 35% of Americans are registered Democrats. This number will grow only because of the caucuses and state requirements that will force many of us to do this in order to vote for Sanders in the primary.

But it is expediency and nothing more.

My crowd of political active friends does not include a single registered Democrat. Even my primary partner who was one since she could first vote has left the party behind as it does not represent her. These men and women are Greens, Libertarians, and Independents. Some were once Democrats and others were once Republican. What unites us is our shared dissatisfaction with both parties.

We are the alienated voters. I feel hopeful with Sanders running, and I am willing to work, donate money and time, and GOTV for him. If he loses, no, I won't support Clinton. I and others will either vote third party or not at all.

I expect all the same replies to my thread - yada yada DU ToS.....yada yada SCOTUS.....yada yada. But this is the hard truth that some here will not face. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, do not expect her to win the general.

[Maedhros]

76. Rejection of Hillary is pragmatic, from a long-term goal point-of-view.

If we, the liberal and progressive voters, do not demand that the Democratic Party abandon corporatist, Third Way politics - as embodied by Hillary Clinton, for example - then the Party will not abandon corporatist, Third Way politics. Why should they? If we will give Democratic candidates our votes no matter what, then they will continue to give us the middle finger policy-wise.

I'm tired of getting the middle finger from Democrats.

[HooptieWagon]

106. Absolutely.

The Third Way uses fear and wedge issues to maintain control on behalf of their wealthy sponsors. As long as we are intimidated to vote for Third Way candidates, they will continue to reward their benefactors and stab the rest of us in the back. It's a battered wife syndrome. Reject Third Way candidates, in the primaries and the general. When they lose elections, their corporate sponsorship will dry up.

[Catherina]

192. Absofuckinlutely

If we give them our vote no matter what, what's their incentive to change anything? The party drifts more and more to the right, abandoning workers in favor of rich donors? No thank you. So lots of us are giving them the middle finger back. Don't like it? Then start representing us.

[840high]

91. Same here. I will not

support Clinton. There are lots of us who won't.

[calimary]

159. Fabulous! Then prepare to say hello to another president bush.

Or president walker. Or even president trump.

[840high]

162. You're silly.

[restorefreedom]

187. a vote based on fear

does not advance democracy

we survived 8yrs of cheney at the helm.

he is the most evil, calculating, vile power monger i have ever seen

hard to imagine they could throw worse at us

[dionysus]

190. i don't like hillary, but i will vote for her if it's between her and a crazy ass repuke.

I understand where you are coming from, but with your course of action comes a very heavy price.

you "burn it to the ground and start over" types think that ceding control of the country to the rethugs will cause it to crash and burn sooner... from which the ashes a progressive or socialist utopia will finally emerge, saving us all.

if we get more war, a full blown depression, a country deeply in strife, it's possible that what you want will happen.

it's also equally possible that instead of a democratic socialist institution rising from the ashes, it's a fascist one instead.

or maybe things will have crumbled enough to the point that progressives and tea partiers are fighting in the streets for control.

it's a slippery slope, the "burn it to the ground and start over" mentality. it entails the potential of a lot of pain and suffering by the people...

[eridani]

197. Democrats will agree with you. I am a Dem and a strategic voter--not an alienated one

I'd prefer to be in Drive with Sanders, but will certainly take being in Neutral with Clinton as opposed to hard Reverse with any Repuke. The alienated just do NOT do long term strategy. If they get involved and stay involved, that could change--and Sanders is the one bringing them in.

[Catherina]

193. +1000 n/t

[Divernan]

17. HRC's corporate quid pro quos will be called in on her Supreme Court appts.

As to the Supreme Court argument from Clinton supporters:

Who does not recognize that corporate/Wall Street donations/quid pro quos will come home to roost with a profiteering vengeance on any presidential candidate who has accepted tens of millions of dollars from them in a combination of campaign donations, personal payments for speeches to said candidate and spouse, and "gifts" to said candidate's family "non-profit" organization. Nowhere is this more vital to said corporate interests than in appointments to the Supreme Court.

Here's the script, kiddos!

(Corporate input/expectations on Supreme Court appointments)

"Here's the deal. Your supreme court nominations can be soft on social issues. We don't give a fuck if gays marry or women can get abortions. Makes no difference to our profiteering. But by god they better leave Citizens United in place and not approve prosecution of war crimes."

[madokie]

32. You can bet on that too

[tularetom]

61. Thank you for that last paragraph

I needed something to show to all the morons whose only defense of Ms Clinton is:

But, but, but, but…..the Supreme Court!!1!

Like the banks are going to give gazillions of dollars to a presidential candidate who will turn around and appoint justices who are going to issue rulings that take gazillions more dollars away from them.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

23. That's not an argument most voters care about.

Yes, your political junkies know enough to worry about the Supreme Court. Most people on the street don't make the connection or even give a crap about the Supreme Court other than for a week or two after a major decision. And who appointed the 'winning' vote (Kennedy) on marriage equality? Ronald Reagan.

And, I think Clinton would lose against Bush, if he gets the Republican nod. If we get a 'Bush vs Clinton' election, I'm fairly sure we'll see the lowest total number of people bothering to vote in a Presidential election ever. And depressed voting always favours the Republicans.

[sabrina 1]

155. It is because of the SC that I am supporting Bernie. He will

appoint great SC justices and will not even consider anyone who isn't opposed to Citizen's United.

His long excellent record on important issues is enough for me to know we will get the best nominees from him if he is elected.

[shaayecanaan]

6. A very interesting post...

I think Kshama Sawant is brilliant, BTW. No one in Seattle, San Francisco or LA would be looking at getting a $15/hr minimum wage without her.

Where I live, anyone who is even the faintest bit pink has more or less abandoned the Labor Party. They have either gone over to the Greens or to the Socialist Alliance. A lot of gatherings slowly descend into Labor bashing, as you say.

I remain of the belief that there is no way of organising the working class without Labor and the trade union movement, and I still think that those young people would be better off pushing a left wing faction within the Labor party than trying to build one from scratch outside it (something along the lines of Militant Tendency in the UK).

I imagine that the same would hold for the United States, after all the Tea Party has made significant inroads within the Republican Party. There is no fundamental reason why a left wing faction could not win at least some congressional primaries.

[eridani]

7. Over here, we have Progressive Democrats of America, Democratic Socialists of America

--and Democracy for America advocating an inside outside strategy. I don't think you can ignore the institutional resources of Democrats and unions.

[shaayecanaan]

42. you sound knowledgeable...

Why don't these efforts get anywhere, for the most part? Is there branch stacking going on?

[jeff47]

63. The party leadership is dominated by DLC-style politicians

And they actively subvert efforts to move the party left.

Say you get a liberal running against a DLC candidate in a senate race. First, the party leadership will pressure the liberal to drop out or not run.

If that fails, the leadership will bring in famous Democrats to campaign for the DLC candidate during the primary or help the DLC candidate in similar ways.

If that fails and the liberal wins the primary, the leadership will refuse to help the liberal candidate in the general election so that the leadership can prove "liberals can't win". They'll even mount whisper campaigns or do opposition research for the Republicans.

And the leadership is self-reinforcing. You can't get to a high position in the party without their approval. So we're either left with waiting for the leadership to die (they're generally older) or going third party.

The teabaggers got control of the Republican party because the Republican leadership had been using them as useful idiots for a couple generations, and thought they could continue to keep the teabaggers under control. The Democratic leadership realizes they are atop a house of cards, and they will not be able to maintain power if the liberals are allowed into the power structure.

So what's going to happen long term? The Republicans will continue to wander further and further into insanity, and thus whither away. The Democratic party will split. The DLC-style politicians will settle into a right-of-center party around the historical position of the Republicans (think Eisenhower, Nixon). The liberal Democrats will settle into a left-of-center party around the historical position of the Democrats (think FDR). We don't know yet who will keep the name "Democratic party".

This will take a while to shake out.

[cascadiance]

74. It's a good reason to NOT donate to the DCCC and the DSCC...

These arms of the party pretty much put most of their donations to work electing ConservaDems the way they've done for years back since the days that Rahm Emanuel headed the DCCC, and the Dems he pushed pretty much all got pushed out in the 2010 election and subsequently many lost in other elections since then too.

[brooklynite]

99. Want to know where I met Bernie Sanders?

...at a DSCC event for their top dollar donors.

Maybe you should express your concerns to him.

[cascadiance]

102. DCCC is probably worse than DSCC...

and organizations like the DNC were better when Howard Dean was heading it up than now when DWS is in charge of it.

You are better off donating to progressive organizations like the PDA to ensure that your dollars empower real progressives and not just corporocrats!

[HooptieWagon]

107. Yes. Donate to PDA, not the DNC and its affiliates.

[Ed Suspicious]

77. Beautiful rundown. Thanks for this post.

[shaayecanaan]

160. Thanks very much for that reply

again this is a very interesting thread, its not often that you actually learn something on DU.

[eridani]

142. "Branch stacking?" n/t

[shaayecanaan]

161. an australian term

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_stacking

[eridani]

164. I see. Yess, that happens here

In WA State, if a state officeholder leaves office for some reason before the end of the term, Precinct Committee Officers of the same party choose the replacement., which leads to a rush by wannabees to fill empty slots. The good thing is that at least a few hang around after the new candidate is selected.

[cantbeserious]

8. Roger That - Many Citizens See HRC For What She Is - A Patron Of The Oligarchs

eom

[SusanaMontana41]

9. There's that, too.

Yes.

[HFRN]

151. they dont need patrons, they need servents nt

[Le Taz Hot]

10. At our first Fresno for Bernie meeting

one of the local Yellow Dog Democrats got up and announced that if people wanted to vote for Bernie in the primaries they had to be registered Democrats because California has a closed primary system. I had to correct her and re-iterate that California does NOT have a closed primary system and that people can vote for Bernie in the Democratic primary if they are a registered Democrat or are registered No Party Affiliation. There were a lot of new people there and I thought it was important to correct that for exactly the reason you point out -- people who are not Democrats, who hate the Democrats, are not likely to re-register as a Democrat WILL register/re-register as No Party Affiliation.

There is such animosity towards the Democratic party with people who have been paying attention and they are part of the backlash against the corporate takeover of the Democratic Party and THAT happened because the Clintons held the door open for the corporations. These people were willing to sell out an entire nation because they wanted to be president. First her husband, now her.

[SusanaMontana41]

12. All true. n/t

[madokie]

34. All Hillary wants is to be President

whatever it takes is fine with her. We seen that in her last campaign.

She has no vision for us the commoners rather she has visions for those who are giving her all that money. And they don't give two shits for us

[Maedhros]

78. Nicely put! [n/t]

[djean111]

14. Bernie has a LOT of supporters on Reddit.

My grandson says that most of the supporters consider Wall Street runs everything, Bernie is different, Hillary is more of the same, and they do not play team politics. They won't turn out for Hillary.

[liberal N proud]

15. 63% of those eligible to vote?

Where does that come from?

[Martin Eden]

24. Pretty sure that's a reference to eligible voters who stayed home in the 2014 mid terms

37% participation was not a mandate for the GOP -- it was evidence of widespread voter alienation.

Hillary Clinton will not inspire and motivate voters who see establishment candidates as more of the same.

But Bernie can.

[liberal N proud]

25. Assumptions based on desires

Making up propaganda is FOX news job.

[Martin Eden]

29. How would you charaterize voter turnout in the 2014 mid terms?

Was it truly a mandate for the Republican Party by the American people, or was it evidence of widespread voter alienation?

Nothing is ever all one thing or the other. People didn't bother voting for a wide range of reasons, but 2014 was a historic low. If you don't think a big chunk of it was a failure by establishment Democratic politicians to inspire and motivate voters -- to convince them their vote meant something -- then YOU are the one whose thinking is based on assumptions and desires.

BTW, you know what you can do with your Fox News propaganda comment.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Mid term participation is always lower than general term participation and dramatically so

[jeff47]

65. And comparing midterm to midterm, 2014 was lower.

Turnout is not a problem that will solve itself. Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters are not good little soldiers that line up to vote for their party.

Democratic candidates need to give voters a reason to vote for them. Reasons to vote against the Republican will not get enough turnout.

With massive dissatisfaction at our political system, a "status-quo" candidate on the Democratic ticket is not going to get high turnout. That's why Clinton is making speeches far to the left of her 2008 positions. The problem is the electorate has been lied to so much by all politicians that speeches don't count for much when there is a track record. "Why didn't you do any of this before?" becomes a problem.

It's why Obama got away with "Hope and Change' while Clinton couldn't. "I haven't been in government long" gave Obama an excuse for not actually causing "Hope and Change" before 2008. Clinton ran as a very experienced candidate whose history did not live up to her speeches.

Clinton is now trying to position herself as a populist in speeches, because that's where the voters are, and where the excitement is. But she's also running as "I've been in government forever". Which makes attempts to move left appear inauthentic. Which will lead to a turnout problem.

[BrotherIvan]

137. Well said

[RufusTFirefly]

26. Candidates for the wealthy and powerful benefit when turnout is low

They have no incentive for inspiring the alienated. In general, alienated voters can be counted on voting against them.

[Martin Eden]

30. An informed & engaged electorate is a threat to the wealthy and powerful

... and to the politicians who serve them.

[RufusTFirefly]

38. Yes. And anyone who goes against the status quo is immediately branded "unelectable."

Ultimately this prophecy becomes self-fulfilling -- thanks to discouraged voters who believe it, the risk-averse and unimaginative who have lost their sense of the possible, and above all, to self-interested propagandists who actively perpetuate it.

[eridani]

134. The numer includes registered voters and those eligible to vote but not registered. n/t

[DanTex]

16. Yes, the Kshama Sawant Socialist Alternative crowd, nobody's ever won anything without them...

Because the radical Seattle hipster vote has decided 15 out of the last 10 presidential elections.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. I guess we lost the anarcho-socialist vote./nt

[HooptieWagon]

39. Rahm, is that you?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. Truth is never contingent on its spokesperson. It is transcendent and universal.

eom

[Ed Suspicious]

80. Right. That's why we are behind Bernie or anyone else willing to carry the flag of

populism.

[shaayecanaan]

44. Nobody's ever gotten a $15 minimum wage without them either

which can be attributed directly to the Kshama sawant crowd, because Christ knows, what the Democratic Party has done for workers in the last generation could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

[eridani]

168. ^^^THIS^^^

Clinton says we have to raise the minimum wage, but the Socialist Alternative and the labor unions actually got it done in Seattle and elsewhere.

[jeff47]

66. How'd the "who cares about the left" plan work in 2010 and 2014? (nt)

[Scootaloo]

178. We could ask Senator Alison Grimes...

Oh wait that's right

[eridani]

135. It's the people who will not register and/or vote that are the problem, not socialists n/t

[Scootaloo]

177. But you'll sure do your best to blame us if Clinton loses the general, won't you?

Funny how you don't need our votes, yet believe we're the only ones to blame when your conservative candidates lose elections.

[artislife]

56. This is a good link

Look who is joining up. Those kids who protested against Wall Street and camped out in all those cities. Bernie isn't just converting voters----he is gathering in people who didn't see themselves represented. This is huge.



http://www.peopleforbernie.com/

We Are People for Bernie

We are activists and organizers trying to build a broad, effective movement for democratic change. We come from different backgrounds, and were inspired by a variety of issues and fights for peace, rights and the planet. Our goal is to establish a government that carries out the will of the people, rather than one that serves to increase the profits of the wealthiest 1% at the expense of the rest of us.

To that end we support Bernie Sanders in his bid to become the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. We stand firmly behind Senator Sanders as the strongest progressive candidate in the race right now. He has consistently demonstrated his long-standing commitment to our values. Sanders is a bold alternative to the status quo.

As a truly progressive candidate for the Democratic Party nomination, Senator Sanders has the chance to inspire millions of Americans with policy proposals that put the interests of the 99% front and center.

Franklin D. Roosevelt called out the “economic royalists” of his day. Senator Sanders is picking up the banner. He answers to “We the People” and not to the corporate and financial sectors. Bernie brings the kind of leadership that is necessary to building a real, living democracy.

The authors of this letter are veteran grassroots organizers of Occupy Wall Street, and are joined by many energized brothers and sisters we have met along the way. In September 2011, our efforts changed the narrative of American politics, helping to focus it on the issues of our time: inequality, surrender to the power of concentrated wealth, the corruption of our democracy by moneyed interests, and the need for solutions as radical as our problems.

We are signing as individuals hoping to kick-start a small ‘d’ democratic movement. People for Bernie won’t be a corporate-style, staff-driven, top-down enterprise with controlled messaging. It will reflect diverse constituencies from a broad range of movements, which in many cases haven’t seen the Democratic Party as a home for their deepest aspirations. It will reflect our commitment to fundamental change, not just a change of faces at the top of the political pyramid. People for Bernie will reflect the urgency of demand among the base for broader and more passionate grassroots political activity.

We call on all other progressive forces to unite behind Sanders so we can have a united front in this important campaign.

Moumita Ahmed
Phillip Anderson - The Albany Project
Betsy Avila - Young Democratic Socialists
Kazembe Balagun - Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung
Brett Banditelli - Occupy Harrisburg
Beth Becker - Occupy DC / McPherson
Nadine Bloch - Nonviolence International, (Ruckus Society)
Joe Brusky - Overpass Light Brigade
Melissa Byrne - Occupy DC-Mcpherson, Project Springboard
Isham Christie - OWS
Heidi Chua - Rosa Luxemburg Foundation
Mary Clinton - OWS
Damien Crisp - OWS, Occupy Sandy
Kelli Daley - OWS
Ethan Earle - Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung
Jackrabbit - Interoccupy
Shana East - Chuy García Campaign, Girl Group Chicago, TRACERS
Rick Echevarria - Changer
Beka Economopoulos - OWS, Not An Alternative
Michelle Esi - OWS Labor
Jodie Evans - Co-founder CODEPINK
Caleb-Michael Files - Sankofa
Kim Fraczek - Environmental activist
Amber Frost - Journalist
Gan Golan - MayDay Space, Movement Net Lab
Priscilla Grim - OWS Media Cleric, occupywallst.nyc
Lane Hall - Overpass Light Brigade
Gabriel Johnson
Aly Johnson-Kurts - Former staff, Teachout-Wu campaign
Howie Klein - Publisher, DownwithTyranny.com
Charles Lenchner - OWS Tech Ops, Ready for Warren co-founder
Joe Libertelli - Co-Founder, Progressive Democrats of America
Angela Linneman
Cecily McMillan - OWS
Lisa Moline - Overpass Light Brigade
Justin Molito - Ready for Bernie
Larry Moskowitz - Left Labor Project
Jesse Myerson - Occupy The Ballots
Ed Ott - Faculty, Murphy Institute/CUNY
Annabel Park - Filmmaker and founder of the Coffee Party
Mark Provost - Us Uncut
Jeff Rae - OWS, Ready for Bernie
Paul Russell - Occupy Faith
Audrey Sasson - OWS, 99 Pickets
Daniel Sieradski - Occupy Judaism
Andrew Smith - Rockaway Wildfire, OWS
Zak Solomon - MayDay Space, Rising Tide NYC
Nadya Stevens
Bhaskar Sunkara - Jacobin Magazine
Maria Svart - Democratic Socialists of America
Diane Sweet - Blogger, OWS, Occupy the Boardroom, Environmentalist
Robel Tekleab - OWS
David Unger - Labor Organizer/Educator
Harry Waisbren - Occupy Network
Stan Williams - OWS
Winnie Wong - OWS, Ready for Warren, Artists for Warren
Tracy Lubbehusen - OWS
Robynne Wardlaw - OWS, Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Gospel Choir
Tim Hjerstad - Founder, Films For Action
Evan Wagner - OWS Tech Ops, OWS Sustainability
Annie Mcshiras - OWS Alt Banking
Michael Gould - Wartofsky Academic and Author of "The Occupiers"
Eve Silber - OWS
Brandon Weber - Upworthy
Ethan Young - Left Labor Project, Portside.org
* organizations listed for identification only

[Historic NY]

83. In other words your list are people that don't vote for the Democratic Party.

[LWolf]

85. I've never voted for the Democratic Party.

I'm a Democrat. I have voted for Democratic candidates, but I've never voted for a party.

Are you trying to say that veteran grassroots OWS organizers don't vote for Democrats?

[artislife]

97. More like people who won't for the big D if Bernie isn't the headliner

This is my point...he is taking from dems and from pools of people who wouldn't vote the mainstream.

[Historic NY]

125. Exactly and declaring it...

good way to alienate Super Delegates and state party chairs.

[eridani]

169. The very people who have lost us so many state legislatures and Congress

Imagine my chagrin.

[Historic NY]

170. I thought it wasn't voting that did that...

[eridani]

175. Yes, and the higher ups don't give a shit about alienated voters. Sanders does n/t

[frylock]

204. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the Super Delegates and state party chairs?

[Agony]

98. Teachout-Wu ran in the Democratic Party primary and took 30% of the vote from a sitting Governor.

they are very much voting Democratic Party.

add..

Chuy Garcia is a Democrat
Warren is a Democrat

You are wrong

[artislife]

132. Here's the link

http://www.seattleforbernie.com/


I got side tracked by the list of groups building a coalition from the other site and thought it would be good to introduce to the discussion of how Bernie is reaching younger, politically active groups who would not be voting for H anyway, anyhow.

[Cryptoad]

19. yea they are all getting in line for their Trump buttons,,,,,,, geeez

enough with the negative attacks on Clinton. you are not helping Bernie!

[Fearless]

21. That's some logic

By showing the differences between Hillary and Bernie you're HURTING Bernie... Gotcha.

[peacebird]

27. I don't see it as an attack on Clinton, more description of what the young alienated voters say

The young alienated voters recognize the deck is stacked in favor of the rich and those corporations that buy political access. They will not play that game. There are many people who will be alienatd and not turn out for a Bush v Clinton election because they will see it as a zero sum game. Status quo.

[TM99]

33. It is not just the young.

It is Gen X'er's as well.

Hell, just about every month we here about another study showing that our generation will never pay our student loans back, that we will never have enough for retirement, and that if there are cuts to Social Security and Medicare, we will be the first generation to be affecting by them.

We need some radical fucking change, and Sanders is the only candidate this go around who can even remotely offer that.

[peacebird]

35. Ah, but I see Gen X as young, LOL, my son is one! :)

Thank you, no offense meant. I think if I continue seeing you guys as young then I can justify NOT seeing myself as 'old'...!

[TM99]

43. That is certainly fair enough.

I now see the Millennials and post Millennials as young.

Part of the hazards of getting older!

[jeff47]

67. You do realize you are not actually forced to vote for one of the major parties, right?

Keep ignoring the problem. We'll just keep stacking up losses.

But hey, what's the worst that can happen? It's not like pissing on the liberals started a war with a million dead, created a massive terrorist organization, completely destabilized an economically-critical region of the planet and blew through trillions of dollars.

[Thinkingabout]

20. What percentage of eligible voters belongs to this group?

[artislife]

57. See post #56 nt

[Thinkingabout]

58. It did not provide the percentage.

[artislife]

60. That is true...but look at who is coming in or not,

There is a Sanderstorm rolling in.

[mmonk]

28. Recommended for the truth.

[azurnoir]

31. Unfortunately for this demographic of potential voters Hillary being

a big name in the party will not help her

[bucolic_frolic]

36. Bernie

If Bernie does not win the nomination, and I don't think he will,

can he move the political spectrum left enough to broaden Democratic
appeal to younger voters especially but all voters as well

or, would Hillary take Bernie as a running mate? I don't think so.

The election may turn on Bernie and Elizabeth Warren appealing to
younger voters to make the best choice

In my mind, campaigning strategically, Sanders and Warren can deliver
4.7 to 7% more votes to the Democratic nominee.

[Maedhros]

79. Bernie's strategy is to win the nomination, not bolster Hillary's effort.

Tricking Progressives into voting for a Third Way Corporatist doesn't really get us ahead.

[bucolic_frolic]

82. If you want to know what doesn't really get you ahead

foul up whoever the Democratic nominee is by turning off progressives
from voting and elect a REPUBLICAN.

Sometimes in politics we don't have perfect choices

It's the lesser of two evils

Pragmatism beats idealism many a day

[Maedhros]

86. I am being pragmatic.

If Progressives continue to throw our votes away on a Democratic nominee that has no intention of pursuing Progressive policies, then we can expect no positive change. Quite the opposite: our "pragmatic" votes for corporatist candidates are interpreted by the Party as support for corporatist policy. The incentive is then for the Party to continue to pursue corporate dollars at the expense of Progressive policy. Following your logic dooms the Party in the long term.

The logic itself is fallacious: "Keep electing more and more corporatist candidates, and somehow Progressive policy will result."

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

[bucolic_frolic]

88. Following your logic

dooms the country in the short term and the long term

You'll get more Scalia's and Alito's on Supreme Courts and all courts

More Gerrymandering

Scott Walker policies everywhere you look

More money in elections with no hope of Congressional action on
anything liberal or moderate

It will be lights out, Tories forever

If that's what you want, boycott moderation because you don't like it

It'll be the country you chose

[Maedhros]

90. The difference between you and I

is that I'm playing to win, and you're playing not to lose.

I'm happy with that.

[bucolic_frolic]

103. Rule #1:

Never lose.

Rule #2: See Rule #1

Lose = game over

High risk strategies rarely win

One cannot gamble with high risk strategies in politics

Look at Greece

Has Nancy Pelosi survived a lifetime in politics and ascended
to the peak of her profession by using a high risk strategy?

Absolutely not. She picks her spots, knows how to hunker down
when not in the majority. Obama plays a long game. Bill Clinton
was popular and successful because he compromised, from the middle.

Fringe platforms and candidates are for the primaries. All parties move
toward the middle in a general election because that's where the voters
are. Radicals lose. McGovern, Goldwater. Only the mainstream, or what
appears to be mainstream, wins in American politics, that's the genius of
our system.

I think mathematicians would call it Game Theory.

Great discussion! There is a time to go for broke. Just beware the downside.

[Maedhros]

109. The bottom line is this:

We need progressive policy, or this country is going to eventually collapse economically or experience bloody revolution. We will not get progressive policy by encouraging the Democratic Party to keep moving to the right - on the contrary, we will get ever more regressive policy. By holding our noses and voting for the lesser evil, we are encouraging them to continue moving right. Therefore, we are ensuring that which we want to avoid: catastrophic failure.

Progressives have surrendered our political power to Democratic apparatchiks who demand our loyalty while giving us the finger, policy-wise. I'm tired of throwing away my vote on turncoat Democrats like Obama. The Democratic Party must earn my vote, they are not entitled to it.

If every Progressive demanded accountability from the Democrats, and didn't vote out of fear, then maybe we'd see the Democrats start to make good on their promises. As it is, they know they can say whatever they want during the campaign and instantly renege on it, because they know we don't have a spine.

[bucolic_frolic]

115. How do you achieve this accountability?

Voters have little power. Politicians run with money. No money, no listen.

Ruining what's left of the country in the short run so that you can gain
political power in the long run makes no sense to me.

There will be nothing left worth salvaging.

So stay home and ruin America. The Republicans will love you for it.

[Maedhros]

118. Who said anything about staying home?

I vote in ever election. I will not, however, throw my vote away on a Democrat who will not support policies I agree with and, to the contrary, will support policies I abhor.

I will vote for the candidate that best represents my policy positions. If that's a Democrat, then great! If not, so be it.

How to hold them accountable? Don't vote for them if they don't do what we want. Pretty simple. That's how democracy is supposed to work. If you want to argue that our democracy is irrevocably damaged, and that we should just give up and let money rule our elections, then go for it. I won't agree with you, but shine on you crazy diamond.

[bucolic_frolic]

133. You're not really able to be reasoned with

but I respect your point of view and your right to have that point of view,
however hopeless and counterproductive I perceive it to be. Far be it from
me to intrude on your hard reality.

The arguments may be moot at some point

It's quite possible the long political pendulum has begun to swing the other way

After all it's been 35 years of Reagan and Reagan-Lite

But it's been institutionalized, and made legal, so it's hard to change

Greece had a go at it

Lot of good democracy did them when everything is owed to creditors

[brooklynite]

45. GIven the number of Democrats who WILL vote for Hillary...

....I'll take my chances with continuing to offend people "bashing the Democratic Party".

[frylock]

73. So do you guys need the indy vote or not?

[jeff47]

94. If they win, including winning via the indy vote,

then they will claim they don't need the indy vote.

If they lose, then they will post diatribes about how stupid indy voters are. Whether or not they actually got the indy vote.

Third way can never fail. It can only be failed.

[frylock]

110. nailed it

[eridani]

182. Because of course we can win with 35% of the electorate n/t

[brooklynite]

183. ..plus a share of the moderates (24% liberal, 34% moderate)

Did you forget about those?

[eridani]

184. Did you forget that those are overlapping categories? n/t

[frylock]

205. Of course, you'll be front and center blaming those people when she loses in the GE..

seen it time and again.

[brooklynite]

206. Who would I be blaming when Sanders loses the GE?

[frylock]

207. PUMAs?

[brooklynite]

208. The same PUMAs who caused Obama to lose in 2008?

And would it be annoying to point out that the ONLY "I'll never vote for..." voices are the anti-Hillary people here?

[JaneyVee]

46. Yes they will.

[99Forever]

47. You are absolutely correct.

MOST likely voters I personally know, will not, under any circumstances vote for any Clinton OR Bush in any election, now or ever. That is the most common and oft repeated statement I have heard from the politically active people I know and meet.

[OilemFirchen]

49. Not even George Clinton?

Wow. That is an alienated bunch.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. You're taking me back, brah

[99Forever]

55. I see what you did there.

[Lil Missy]

48. I think she'll do just fine. n/t

[eridani]

136. Really? Explain how she attracts alienated voters, then. n/t

[LWolf]

50. This is real.

A few Clinton supporters on this thread have indicated that "she will do just fine."

It's expected. Those who want a neo-liberal in office don't care to include those who don't, and have worked tirelessly to drive us under the bus.

I think this is what gives Sanders the win in the General Election; he brings so many to the table. Making sure that they all vote in their states' primary is going to be key.

[jeff47]

68. Well, either she wins or those same posters scream "You damn liberals cost us the election".

Centrism can never fail. It can only be failed.

[LWolf]

75. That's the way it always works, isn't it?

[shenmue]

51. Oh boy

[fredamae]

52. Sounds like-starting to look like

Seniors and their grandkids are fully on board with Bernie!
I know that My opinions re: the "New Democrats" is totally in-line with theirs!

Go Bernie!

[artislife]

59. I have a client who is 67

And is a staunch democrat! She got a Christmas card from the Obamas, that's how much money she has donated.

She posted a pro Bernie post on Facebook two days ago. Educators for Bernie. I could have dropped my coffee. Surely, she is the poster child for H.

I will say this again. 6 months ago, my FB feed was a lot of "Who's ready for Hillary?" and now it is all Bernie.

[eridani]

143. Senior and grandkids--true of many issue groups as well as political groups

I think the reason is that the people in the middle are busier with jobs and little kids n/t

[fredamae]

144. I Agree

"Been There and Done That"!

Which is why, now that I am "grandma" I take the time to learn for them....we talk, we debate and make our voting decisions together (Oregon: Vote By Mail IS Wonderful)
I didn't have that time back then. I had three kids
So, I Always voted-but in retrospect..I made some horribly bad choices/decisions simply because I did Not have time to stay current.

[LWolf]

173. I'm working on a slow, gentle

process of becoming aware with my 76 yo mom. Once she makes a choice, she's all wrapped up in convincing herself that it's the best choice EVER, and she doesn't change her mind. She's not even paying attention at this point.

She was, and is, a huge fan of Bill Clinton, and dismisses any criticism of him. Therefore, she's automatically a fan of Hillary Clinton, and at 76, supporting a woman is important to her.

She, though, has really suffered in the economic crash, and at 76 she works to supplement her Social Security. Her other retirement account crashed along with the economy. She is 76, and she is working as a "care giver" for other people: cleaning their houses, running errands, doing laundry, cooking for them...all so she won't lose her home.

She knows she's got a solid place with me at any point, but she's determined not to give up her independence before she has to.

I brought up Bernie casually a few weeks ago; she was talking about an entertainer we both like, and I said that he'd endorsed Sanders. Her eyes got big and she said, "Oh," in great surprise. She just assumed that everybody would want HRC. She doesn't know anything about Sanders. That's changing, though, as I drop information here and there.

Gently, because if she's pushed, she'll push back hard.

Like her daughter, lol.

[fredamae]

174. Nice post

I am a little younger than your mom....
I agree, I want a Woman for POTUS Also.
But, like Any and all other candidates....she must be the correct choice based upon her politics/policies/background/issue positions etc..Not Gender.

[winter is coming]

53. It's not just Clinton. Any status quo nominee is unlikely to pull in alienated voters.

Slapping on a fresh coat of rhetoric isn't going to do the trick.

[Babel_17]

62. Connecting to the lost generations

A lot of groups would just tune the HRC campaign out and not vote for our party in 2016, were HRC leading the ticket. Sanders has the credibility with people who are scrounging to get by. These lost generations can see themselves in a dialogue with Sanders, not so with Clinton.

And it's not that HRC lacks compassion, or a desire to do good by these people. It's just that these voters will see the Clintons as being at a vast remove from their lives. Not so with Sanders, he is engaged with them and their concerns.

I really think that the goose is cooked. Now that Senator Sanders has gone from being an inconsequential candidate to having a chance, and Clinton has gone from being inevitable to collapsing numbers, these lost generations of voters will not accept having the idea of a Sanders presidency yanked away from their hands only to be substituted by the platitudes of Clinton.

Before Sanders, expectations of the voters for change were low enough so that enormous sums spent on GOTV could be counted on to herd these legions of unenthusiastic Democratic voters to the polling places. Not so now.

And their attention is reasonably focused enough on Sanders that any dirty pool towards Sanders by the Democratic establishment won't go unnoticed. HRC will actually have to personally overcome the insurgency of Sanders. Sending out her designated advocates hasn't worked so far and it just serves to fire up Sanders supporters and give more positive notice to Sanders as the attempts fall flat.

There will have to be a series of showdowns between Sanders and Clinton. Clinton will have to meet the crowds in a manner close to how Sanders is doing so. Clinton will have to do interviews like Sanders is doing.

There will be a rising expectation for this to happen, and when it finally does both campaigns will rise and fall by how well they engage with the primary voters. This is likely to work out extremely well for Sanders. The pundits and other "serious people" won't be able to dispel from peoples minds what they are seeing and hearing.

#looking forward to it

[canoeist52]

72. Excellent analysis. The game has changed, in that it is a game no longer.

All cards on the table or you lose.

[Babel_17]

96. Huh, you reminded me of the decisive moment from one of my favorite novels, ...

The Player of Games

A tiny bit spoilerish, here's a quote from that moment.

He saw then that he'd been fighting back much as Nicosar might have expected him to, trying to save pieces, to make reasonable, considered,
conservative moves and, in a sense, to ignore the way Nicosar was kicking and slinging his pieces into battle and tearing strips of territory from his
opponent like ribbons of tattered flesh. In a way, Gurgeh had been trying desperately not to play Nicosar; the Emperor was playing a rough, harsh,
dictatorial and frequently inelegant game and had rightly assumed something in the Culture man would simply not want to be a part of it.
Gurgeh started to take stock, sizing up the possibilities while he played a few more inconsequential blocking moves to give himself time to think.
The point of the game was to win; he'd been forgetting that. Nothing else mattered; nothing else hung on the outcome of the game either. The game
was irrelevant, therefore it could be allowed to mean everything, and the only barrier he had to negotiate was that put up by his own feelings.
He had to reply, but how? Become the Culture? Another Empire?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Player_of_Games

[Telcontar]

141. Great book

I'll miss the author.

[snagglepuss]

124. ...it is a game no longer. All cards on the table or you lose.

I never really thought about it but a game is only when some cards are held back, when all the cards are laid out there is no game.

I suppose the notion of people being played is related to this and why people get cynical about politics.

[Smarmie Doofus]

64. Rec. But the bulk.... the vast majority... of the "alienated voters" are not aligned w. socialist...

... political groups ( and probably have only the vaguest of notions of what "socialism" means.)

It is true that they won't come out for the perennial 'vote-for-me-'cause-I'm-swell' candidate that the machine is running against him; but it is not clear to me that Sanders can reach many of them either.

The primaries will tell us much. Yes I know the people I'm talking about generally do not vote in primaries. But if they DO, in any appreciable #s, THIS time ....because of Sanders...... THAT would be an interesting development.

[jeff47]

69. I think you'll find the younger the voter, the more they don't give a shit about a label.

So it really doesn't matter what you think "socialism" means. Because they do not care what "socialism" means to you.

In fact, polling shows the term "socialism" is actually quite popular among younger voters. Because they know they're getting screwed over, and the attack used by the people doing the screwing is "To do otherwise is socialism!!!". That, ironically, makes socialism look good.

[William769]

71. The alienated voter is so miniscule as to who you are referring to, it doesn't matter.

[Maedhros]

81. I don't think it is miniscule.

I know Hillary supporters want to believe so, but evidence exists to contrary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/10/voter-turnout-in-2014-was-the-lowest-since-wwii/

General election voter turnout for the 2014 midterms was the lowest it's been in any election cycle since World War II, according to early projections by the United States Election Project.

Just 36.4 percent of the voting-eligible population cast ballots as of last Tuesday, continuing a steady decline in midterm voter participation that has spanned several decades. The results are dismal, but not surprising -- participation has been dropping since the 1964 election, when voter turnout was at nearly 49 percent.

The last time voter turnout was so low during a midterm cycle was in 1942, when only 33.9 percent of eligible voters cast ballots.

Just over one-third of eligible voters participated in the 2014 election. Two-thirds could then be considered "alienated" - they're obviously not voting, and there are many reasons why. "Because it doesn't matter" probably tops the list.

Bernie gives them hope that voting does matter, and we're seeing that reflected in the huge crowds he's drawing and the excitement he's generating among young potential voters.

[William769]

84. I'm not worried in the least.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110712714

[Maedhros]

87. Meh. The trend across multiple polls show Bernie's support growing and Hillary's shrinking.

This is backed up by Bernie's ability to pull in huge crowds. He's generating real excitement, Hillary is crunching poll numbers.

[William769]

89. Polls have consistently shown Senator Sanders has plateaued.

Not good given the time of the year.



P.S. It's pretty hard to crunch 80%.

[Maedhros]

92. Your understanding of the word "consistent" must differ from mine.

Here is but one inconsistency:

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/15/bernie_sanders_narrows_the_gap_as_hillary_clintons_lead_declines_by_double_digits/

Hillary Clinton’s lead among Democrats is shrinking, dropping nine points since April, according to a new Monmouth University Poll released today.

Clinton still holds an enormous lead over her nearest competitor, Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, with 51 percent of the vote to Sanders’ 17 percent, but just last month, Clinton led 57 percent to 12 percent in the same poll.

Increasingly, Democrats are supportive of a Democratic challenger to Clinton — with 53 percent agreeing that it would “be better if there was an active primary challenge,” up from 48 percent last December. But Clinton continues to have the best favorability ratings among her Democratic rivals — 74 percent favorable to 17 percent unfavorable.

[William769]

93. I will concede Virginia to you though

She is only up by 50 points there!

It's been fun!

Have a nice day.

[Maedhros]

95. Yes - your smilies say so much more than real analysis could.

Go Bernie!

[Babel_17]

100. I'm curious of the poll's sampling of the unemployed and underemployed under 30 crowd

I doubt many of them have land lines in their own name and their cell phone numbers aren't written in stone. Assuming they were likely to stop living and take part in a telephone poll anyway.

METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cellphone July 8-12, 2015, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,011 adults.

It's a lot tougher to poll the mood of a demographic such as that of motivated young primary voters, imo. This is one reason why why newspapers have the phrase "in a surprising upset" ready to use at a moments notice. lol

Polls like these are useful but mainly serve to churn up stories for consumption.

[lunamagica]

154. Huge crowds don'y mean anything

remember Romney?



He was so smug, sure that he would win because of the huge crowds...

[Maedhros]

156. Well, they certainly don't hurt, and they build excitement. [n/t]

[eridani]

181. Did any of them sign up to do voter outreach?

The crowds that Bernie is drawing will.

[eridani]

196. Obama had even bigger crowds, as I recall n/t

[HooptieWagon]

108. No. Independant and third parties registration is way up.

Those are the people who haven't given up on the system, but are disillusioned by the 2 major parties. Then there are those who HAVE given up, and simply aren't registered at all. Combined, this is a very large segment of the population. Bernie is tapping in to that, Hillary would prefer they remain uninvolved.

[eridani]

138. 2014 non-voters were 63% of the eligible population n/t

[randys1]

104. For the life of me why are people at DEMOCRATIC underground who VOW to NOT vote

for the Democratic candidate?

[Le Taz Hot]

111. Correction, they won't vote for Third-Way, corporate

"Democrats." They'll vote for FDR Democrats all day long. Try though you might there is a schism in your beloved party and ignoring it isn't going to make it go away. It's a schism of the party's own making.

[randys1]

112. My beloved party? So you arent a supporter of the Democratic party?

[Le Taz Hot]

113. I support candidates and I support causes.

I am not required to swear fealty to any political party to accomplish those things.

[randys1]

114. Swear? LOL Thanks for proving my point though.

[Le Taz Hot]

116. You never made a point to prove.

You think everyone should swear undying, unquestioning, blind loyalty to a party that sold us out in the 1990's. I merely disagree. I don't have the ability to put my beliefs and intellect in a Blind Trust hoping that some nefarious, outdated, almost-dead political party is going to act in my best interest. Others have no problem doing it.

[randys1]

117. Yeah, and you can show one post where I said anything REMOTELY close to

this

You think everyone should swear undying, unquestioning, blind loyalty to a party

I will save you time, what I have said a thousand times is I support Bernie

That if Bernie isnt in it, I support Hillary because I dont want GOP killing Women in back alleys and a myriad of other horrors

end
of
story

[Le Taz Hot]

120. Which means you will vote for whatever

candidate the Democrats put up, regardless or ideology and regardless of policy positions which means blind loyalty to a party. Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.

[randys1]

121. No, no, not regardless. What I will do is decide between two candidates, the one on

the right may want to kill Women in back alleys and destroy the environment and stop Black people from voting, and the other wont


for me this is an easy choice

[Le Taz Hot]

123. A president cannot overturn Roe v. Wade

neither can a president overturn the VRA so it's a moot point. If Bernie doesn't win the nomination, I also have an easy choice.

[randys1]

126. Of course they can, by who they appoint to the SC...

[Le Taz Hot]

127. And Hillary would nominate some

corporate-friendly milquetoast candidate whereas Bernie would nominate a true progressive.

[randys1]

128. which is why i donate to bernie and and trying to find a local campaign to join to work for him

still has nothing to do with my point

[Le Taz Hot]

129. It's simple.

You are willing to compromise your ideals, I'm not. That is the point.

[kjones]

150. But what is funny is when unwillingness to compromise gets you further from those ideals.

A lot of people can't afford self-righteousness, that shit's expensive!
While some are enjoying their smugness, others will be suffering for it.

It's "progressive," not "all or nothing."

[Le Taz Hot]

153. And I believe voting for the lesser of two evils

is even more expensive. The Democratic Party can either step up and step away from corporate rule or it can continue to lose party membership. The onus is on the Party, not the on the voters.

[kjones]

171. Isn't the ideal of democracy that the onus is on the voters?

Not voting doesn't really accomplish anything. After all, when
2 out of every 5 voters don't turn up anyway (3 of 5 for midterms),
does anyone even notice?

The goal isn't to push a politician in a direction...or even a party in
a direction. The goal is to push the country in a direction...and all
votes matter for that. After all, hasn't every election just been a matter
of "the lesser of two evils?" Seems like we've managed a fair amount of
change nonetheless.

But, voting is a right...not a privileged or an obligation. So...


My opinion though is that all votes matter...and if voting for the lesser of
two evils makes the greater of the two question it's stances even a little,
then it is a very important vote indeed.

[eridani]

139. The OP was about people who are NOT Democrats n/t

[eridani]

200. Democrats will vote for the nominee. The OP is about people who are too fucking alienated to VOTE--

--let alone think about parties. They wer 63% of the eligible population in 2014.

[TheKentuckian]

119. They don't want the alienated, they'd have to do more than bullshit us as they rob and plunder

They know the snake oil and wedge running won't work on those folks, they would be expected to you know do beneficial things for the people that big money doesn't approve of so better to squabble endlessly about a few percent that rudderlessly bounce around based on who they'd like to have a beer with or who's "turn" they think it is while keeping their own by whipping fear of the other guys.

[DCBob]

122. Its a reasonable point but she could bring them in..

if she can make a case she has a unique perspective on what needs to be done. She has seen it all, done most of it and doesn't really need to prove herself anymore. She can now listen to her "better angels" and perhaps do things no other politician could.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

131. And you know this because..........?

If she wins the nomination, such statements are DEFINITELY NOT going to get alienated voters involved. You might as well just TELL THEM not to bother to get out and vote period. Such statements are ultimately self-defeating IMHO and part of the problem, not the solution.

[eridani]

140. 130+ posts a day later, and not a SINGLE one said--

"Clinton can too attract alienated voters, and here's how."

Citing polls of likely voters and Democrats says nothing whatsoever about how to get the 63% absentees involved. Our problem is so many people not giving a shit, and Bernie is speaking to at least some of them.

(Note: only in fairly large urban areas will some disaffected voters actually affiliate with some third party.)

[eridani]

163. Still <crickets> n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

165. Hillary is gonna get GOP women to cross over. The soccer moms will love her.

[eridani]

166. Maybe the ones over 60. But this has nothing to do with the OP, which was about

ALIENATED voters--you know the 63% who didn't vote in 2014. Clinton soes not have a snowball's chance in hell with them.

[longship]

179. But what about the grey alien voters?

[eridani]

180. A couple of days and ~180 posts later--

--exactly one rational post from a Clinton supporter (thanks McCamy) and it didn't deal with voter alienation. The other options seeming to be claiming that 63% of the eligible voters "isn't many," everything will be fine, and silly snark. Democrats will vote strategically, but the alienated will not vote at all.

"Remain calm! All is well!" --Chip Diller

[nc4bo]

186. I wonder whatvthe stats are on the OWS peeps?

Unaffiliated, more Democratic?

Younger, older?

How many of them would vote for status quo or head straight for Bernie Sanders?

I think I remember OWS had some impressive numbers.

[eridani]

189. OWS trends younger and less likely to be party affiliated

The older ones are more likely to be Democrats, based on my experiences in the Puget Sound area.

[Zorra]

188. Recommend. nt

[eridani]

191. Some alienated voters I have personally met

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251488573

[Catherina]

194. Lol, I didn't realize this was an old thread until now

but I'm grateful you kicked it up because Clinton's camp is pushing a new meme out there that all these alienated voters who normally vote Democrat and won't this time aren't even real.

It's risible nonsense that only proves how terrified they are that there are so many angry voters out there who they thought were long ago cornered into voting for the status quo. And on top of that, they have to deal with a lot of left-leaning independents who normally wouldn't even vote but are energized by Bernie's straight talk.

Oh well. Read the tea leaves and weep.

[beam me up scottie]

195. LOL!

That toon is Hillaryous, thanks for posting it!

[Catherina]

198. It cracks me up too for the total truth

If the DNC insists on this coronation, then the Democratic Party deserves what it gets.

STOP disenfranchising us.

[beam me up scottie]

201. Waiting to see what other dirty tricks they'll use to make it happen.

Be careful what you wish for Dems...

[eridani]

199. I revisitied it because the issue is important. If turnout is like 2014 WE ARE FUCKED!!

Like, totally fucked.

[Catherina]

202. Absolutely. The only chance for a Democratic win is Bernie

He's won over the biggest voting bloc of them all- the millennials, which includes people of color, and I guarantee you that bloc is totally uninterested in Clinton, O'Malley or Biden. Anyone in tune with what's going on in the streets knows this. The people behind keyboards in their comfortable living rooms, not so much.

How ironic to use a chart, the first one, from the DLC for this

[eridani]

203. They might be interested in O'Malley, whose positions I like. However, he lacks fire in the belly

[eridani]

209. Informational kick, because there is so little discussion of how to appeal to--

--eligible voters who stay home. This goes along with decreasing party identification.

Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication



In 2015, for the fifth consecutive year, at least four in 10 U.S. adults identified as political independents. The 42% identifying as independents in 2015 was down slightly from the record 43% in 2014. This elevated percentage of political independents leaves Democratic (29%) and Republican (26%) identification at or near recent low points, with the modest Democratic advantage roughly where it has been over the past five years.