2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie missed only 5% of votes while running President. Hillary missed 83.5%.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)votes, not that we're likely to see how Bernie would do if he were to win the primary.
Furthermore, if Bernie were campaigning as heavily as he might he would be traveling a lot farther from D.C. a lot more often than he is.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Bernie has been to LA and Seattle. Does he have to go to Hawai'i and Alaska to make it far enough?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)BUT: When Bernie is out campaigning so often that he can't get back to DC to vote most of the time -- like his competitors -- that'll be an indicator that he's genuinely doing his best to win the primary.
Think about it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is pouring into Hillary's Super Pacs, Bernie has managed to mount a real challenge to a candidate who should have over 80% of the Dem primary vote.
And he's only just begun.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)youceyec
(394 posts)I could have sworn it was 2015???? oh well!
#cds, even liberals are not immune!
Bernin4U
(812 posts)I was using my first iPhone. Friggin Stone Age.
demmiblue
(36,858 posts)Good on Bernie for doing what the people elected him to do.
marble falls
(57,097 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)has the GOP majority put before the members since Sanders started running?
Were the Senators' votes needed in order for their side to prevail? Did absenteeism change the result?
Without actual figures, percentages can sound dire but in fact be meaningless.
Let's see a list of votes missed. Then we can oooh and ahhh--like that's going to make people 'not vote' for a candidate.
People will vote if they like the person, they won't give two squirts about how many Senate votes they missed.
Don't hang your hat on this number being an "influencer."
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)I bet Hillary was there for the votes that mattered to NY and NYC. Those are the people who elected her to work for them. And I believe there were not too many important votes that she missed. Take time to look at what the Senate votes on in the course of a day. Only 5% of votes are critical.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)as you just acknowledged.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Many votes are on amendments that change little. Also, members check to see the vote counts on Bills and if it looks like the numbers insure pass or fail by wide margins, no need to vote.
Bernin4U
(812 posts)"Boss, you know, only 5% of this work is critical."
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Were new poll numbers released?
I wonder what the next DU superiority metric will be?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Were any of those 95% of votes that Bernie cast about Wall street?
But that said, I can separate that from the desperation of this OP.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)the status quo is killing the middle class.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I am supporting the candidate who has her proverbial finger in the dike and represents the best chance to prevent the GOPU from controlling all three branches of government,
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Orrex
(63,213 posts)Since it's generally a non-issue except for the people who already weren't going to vote for a given candidate, I don't expect it to have a big impact, especially since it's ancient history.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)and a 'that is why we support Bernie' kind of moment. Oh yeah, and we will be glad to pass it along to others on the street and on social media.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)I just don't see it getting any traction. It doesn't seem to have hurt Obama in the slightest, for instance.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)wolfie001
(2,240 posts)Would make sense. All's fair in love and war and Presidential campaigning. Your enemy of your enemy is you friend. Of course, that's how we all ended up with Alito and Roberts. But that's a part of history that seems to be missing from the conversation.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)DU was about Talking about Democrats....not getting them elected .....seriously....they think that!
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)attempting to narrow and muddle the distinction from Bush, too many voters weren't appealed to by doing so which added weight to the charge of "not a dimes worth of difference" and failing to motivate turnout in general while also failing to give soft Republican voters a moment's pause which combined to tighten the race which was mixed with all manner of irregularities in Florida and probably other states and a big "non precedent setting" thumb on the scales from the Supreme Court which essentially amounted to a soft coup that resulted in Alita and Roberts but by all means keep trying to edit/delete/really - write history to cover up and absolve the criminal and power hungry activities of the Republicans and the weak to borderline inept campaign out of the Turd Way/DLC handbook.
frylock
(34,825 posts)wolfie001
(2,240 posts)saturnsring
(1,832 posts)hellraiser69
(49 posts)On the so-called "Pension Reform Act of 2014", that is going to cut my rightfully earned pension by 60% and is going to throw hundreds of thousands of seniors into poverty.
Haven't heard a damn word from Hillary or the MSM on this.
thucythucy
(8,067 posts)hellraiser69
(49 posts)Exactly my point the bill called the Multi employer pension act. of 2014 was snuck into the Cromnibus spending bill at the end of last year voiding a 1974 law prohibiting pension plans from reneging on pensions promised for life when we retired. Bernie and most progressive Senators voted against this but of course the Repugs loved it as another way to stick it to union members.
This is why I asked if any of the Hillary supporters on here know her stand on this issue affecting some 400,000 retirees.
jfern
(5,204 posts)She'll give you some sort of triangulation designed to try to please both sides.
Guess us seniors and retirees aren't important to anyone except Bernie.
We get no COLA increase from Social Security and a huge pension cut and none of this seems to matter to HRC.
thucythucy
(8,067 posts)I'll be curious to see if and what the response from the Clinton campaign will be.
hellraiser69
(49 posts)to get any attention from the HRC campaign or the MSM.
Several hundred thousand retirees being forced into poverty through no fault of our own is apparently unimportant to them.
The silence from the Hillary supports on this is deafening.
thucythucy
(8,067 posts)This is definitely important enough to be an OP all on its own. It will definitely get more attention than a single comment in someone else's OP. Just post the information you posted here and see what happens. You'll definitely get a K & R from me, and hopefully others will notice this as well.
I hate how issues like this get ignored, while nonsense about debate moderators and hairstyles and right wing BS gets thrown around like any of that matters.
Anyway, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I definitely want to hear more about it.
Paulie
(8,462 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)What does the asterisk mean?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)the chart shows missed voted 10-13 month's prior to the General Election. Ahem, we are still 12 months away from the 2016 GE. That said, you have a full years' worth of 2008 data on Hillary and 1 month's worth of data on Sanders.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Have you been tested for colorblindness?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I'm wondering if you read the full compliment of the texts and dates in the graph.
The OP is attempting to compare the percentage of 1 month worth of Bernie's missed votes, to other Senators percentage in 12-13 months of missed voted, in an election year.
Your snark really wasn't necessary, but I suspect you don't even know how to turn it off anymore.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The "12-13 months" part is because they do not know how many votes Sanders will miss in the future. Not only looking at one month, as you claim.
Again, look at the graph. It stops for Sanders now. It keeps going for Clinton in 2008. But at this point in the 2008 race, Clinton had missed far more votes than Sanders has missed.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)that snapshot in time is still not relevent to the OP who is trying to use a one month data and compare it to Hillary's 12-13 month data. Bottom line, is that the percentges cited in the OP are misleading and false on it's face.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He isn't using one month data. He's using 24-13-months-from-election-day data for Sanders, and 24-12-months-from-election-day data for Clinton. Because we have not completed the 12th month before this election, so we don't have the data for Sanders yet.
For the 12 versus 13 month comparison to be misleading, you have to pretend 83.5% is very close to 5%. Or that Clinton only started missing large number of votes after month 13, which the graph shows is false.
frylock
(34,825 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Bernin4U
(812 posts)is pretty damn time consuming!
okasha
(11,573 posts)I hadn't heard.
Plenty more time to miss votes unless he drops out before the primaries actually start.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)to recognize it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)That's amazing considering the rest of the pack. Good for him.
tritsofme
(17,379 posts)That's the biggest difference.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Hillary is on the Titanic.
tritsofme
(17,379 posts)He'll probably win Vermont, and collect a few delegates along the way, but he has never had a realistic path to the nomination.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)if you want to uphold other candidates that voted for a war of aggression and subsequently said "I'm sorry" as a contender as the best person to put our nation on the right path I do understand.
Unfortunately I also understand the establishment politics and all the dollars that flow to those candidates, their opinions change with the times and money plays a large role. They are not going to rock the boat the too much.
Sanders has not changed his views for decades, pardon those who do not bow down to the candidates who are not backed by big money.
jfern
(5,204 posts)still_one
(92,209 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)For Bernie Sanders, not so much.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Note that it states "For the 2016 candidates, data only extends until 12 months before the general election." Well, the general election is MORE THAN 12 months away as of today.
Clinton, on the other hand, ran a primary campaign that extended all the way into June of the election yearthe equivalent of 9 extra months of campaigning over the amount Sanders is being vetted on. I doubt this election will go on that long, but let's see how the voting record goes when extended into the next six or nine months, when primary season heats up and is ultimately concluded.
This wins for the stupidest, most misleading graph of the election season. Shame on anyone who capitalized on it.
livetohike
(22,144 posts)and don't look to figure it out. I'm so disgusted with the crap that is being posted trying to make some sort of gotcha against Clinton and show what a saint Bernie is - even if it is totally useless.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Maybe one of us should post an OP saying "Hillary Clinton misses 0% of votes in 2016 election cycle!!!!" I think they'd get that piece of contrivance. And they'd be outraged at its duplicity.
Honestly, I give up.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Go Bernie!
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE