2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum3,154,991
According to Real Clear Politics (and they have no reason to lie), Hillary Clinton has 3,154,991 more voters than Bernie Sanders. Hillary has 12,150,597 while Senator Sanders has 8,995,606 votes.
Sanders has won 17 states. 10 states remain undecided. Hillary has won 23 states. Included among Hillary's states are New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and Texas.
Hillary leads in pledged delegates 1645 to 1318. She leads in superdelegates 520 to 39. She leads in total delegates 2165 to 1357.
It's not undemocratic. Under the rules that both sides are forced to play by, Hillary Clinton is beating Bernie Sanders.
Clinton supporters have been accused of supporting the 1% and worshipping the wealthy and wanting a coronation and a bunch of other bullcrap. Here is irony that should not be lost on Sanders supporters:
1) In 2008, one of the talking points we had was that the Republicans were the party of old white men and that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama represented a more diverse future in American politics. In 2016, you now ask the party to accept that we were just kidding, and that we should elect a very old white guy.
2) You are now asking the party to accept that despite 3,154,991 more voters casting a ballot for Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders, that a backroom deal should be made at the convention to nominate Sanders because he happens to poll better against John Kasich than Hillary Clinton does at the moment.
3) Many of you are now hoping (some less privately than others) that an FBI investigation that sprung from a right wing smear campaign now delivers an indictment against Hillary Clinton. So you accuse Hillary supporters of siding with the 1% while, at the same time, aligning yourselves with Darrell Issa and Trey Gowdy.
Despite all of this, and my misgivings about Sanders at other levels, I repeat my pledge that if he is the party's nominee, he will have my vote in the general election. But stop pedaling this notion that Hillary and Bernie's relative delegate positions are undemocratic. There are 3,154,991 reasons it is democratic.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)will have to adjust the numbers but I know you will not mind doing so. Steady as she goes, sticking to her agenda and not getting rattled by Trump the Rump.
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 01:39 AM - Edit history (1)
msongs
(67,496 posts)Simple Definition of oligarch
: a person who belongs to a small group of people who govern or control a country, business, etc.
merriam-webster
IamMab
(1,359 posts)Outside where? Reality??
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Political concept.
Your dentist is in the top 1%, the one you run into at the store now and then, and, sure, could be considered an oligarch in his own small business. The unmarried RN down the street is in the top 2-3%, not an oligarch unless she's Nurse Rached, by your definition. The principal of the nearest grade school, definitely a dictator and oligarch, except when dealing with her bosses.
That is not what we're talking about when we worry that a small group is destroying democracy and plotting to turn us all into workers helpless to oppose their power. We're talking about oligarchs, the real thing, but especially plutocrats.
Plutocracy: A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
We're talking the top 0.01 to 0.001% of Americans here. People who count their wealth in hundreds of millions and billions. People who will never see most major boulevards wherever they go or notice how rundown they are becoming because they go almost everywhere by private plane, helicopter, and ships. They are driven in limousines from their elite, manicured communities to to private expensive gates and doors at airports, concert halls, government offices, etc, which are maintained only for them.
Do you know we have over 550 billionaires in the U.S. Half of all on the planet? We have tens of thousands who count their wealth in the hundreds of millions. Because they're funneling our national wealth into their pockets, and the most greedy of them are trying very hard to increase their ravaging of our nation, and humbling of its people.
I think some respect for the danger they pose is in order. We're not talking about our dentists here.
oasis
(49,480 posts)get to the task ahead.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,795 posts)Coming from you that means a lot!
w4rma
(31,700 posts)She has more voters because she is benefiting from suppressing Sanders's supporters in close primary states.
Also, Sanders's voters are heavily located in caucus states, but you knew that, right?
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,795 posts)So I know too well.
moriah
(8,311 posts)After McCain secured the Republican nomination, in open primaries Hillary did better than she had before.
I knew when I registered Green in New York for the year I lived there (2002-2003) I would be excluded from the Democratic Primary. But NY had a thriving Green Party at the local level, unlike Arkansas where I was born, raised, and now live. I wanted to participate there more, and felt for 2004 my vote was assuredly "anybody but Bush".
I still believe firmly that ranked choice voting is the real Revolution -- it will end the "lesser of two evils" voting strategy in the GE, it would send a message to whichever Party won if a significant number of their voters only put them second....
And personally, I believe the Republican electorate is far more fractured than the Democratic, with far more people voting strategically despite disagreeing with Rethugs on social issues. Evangelicals are in the minority and their primary attempts to run Evangelicals fail. Yet, even "true Conservatives" will have a hard time believing Trump is more than just a famous guy invading their party. Evangelicals are going to see that if he has faith, he certainly only recently got it. If McCain wasn't Conservative enough, the Hair isn't either. Yet most people in this country are far more socially liberal than they were in the 80, or the 2000s. If RCV fractures any party, it will be the GOP.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,795 posts)...but your point about the GOP is spot-on. The Evangelicals know they've been had and that they aren't getting anything substantive; meanwhile, whether they'll admit it or not, the supply siders and tax hawks know that the party positions on abortion and marriage equality are dragging down their message. If they lose this election, I think the Tea Party splits off.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Also worth remembering that Sanders is up a net 150 delegates from caucuses, which can disenfranchise voters. Clinton +370 in primaries.
https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/721117322774192128
She has crushed Senator Sanders in several open primary states. Don't take my word for it. I emboldened them:
The states listed below utilize open primaries/caucuses for presidential nominating contests.[3]
Alabama (Republicans only)
Arkansas
California (Republicans only)
Georgia
Idaho (Democrats only)
Illinois-small win
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri-small win
Montana
North Dakota
Ohio
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah (Democrats only)
Vermont
Virginia
Washington (Democrats only)
Wisconsin
https://ballotpedia.org/Open_primary
Conclusion- the independent variable that affect Senator Sanders' percentage of the vote isn't whether the primary is open or closed but whether the primary electorate is heterogeneous or not.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)of what you want.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)If we had the latter people like the late John Gotti would be in charge. If laws were violated it is incumbent upon the Sanders campaign to pursue it.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,795 posts)If you chose to register independent, you disenfranchised yourself.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Good luck with that methodology.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)...how is that Clinton's problem?
Yeah, things like that can tilt the field against a candidate but basically the election cycle in the US is the same from year to year, Sanders is presumably old, wise, and experienced enough to have been aware of all those factors at the outset and to make plans on how to overcome those weaknesses.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)It's w4rm's claim and I don't know what it's supposed to signify.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)He is now just about dead even with Hillary in national polls. Hillary has money, power, super PACS, name recognition, free media coverage. Bernie has none of that. In fact, up until recently there has been a media blackout on Bernie. There have also been many, many, many voting irregularities that have caused either unintentional or maybe even intentional voter suppression. So is it surprising that Hillary has more votes? No. Is it surprising that Bernie is now almost tied in the national polls when he started out at 3%? No. Whether we like it or not, delegate counts are what decides elections and Bernie is still very close in the delegate count and is poised to do very well in many up coming states.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Indictment of another democrat, is just kind of nauseating.
I would never want such a thing for sanders. If he were winning I'd be less excited than I am about her, but no way in hell would I want him stopped via an indictment.
I'm hoping that most of these people are just right wing trolls who disappear after the primaries
w4rma
(31,700 posts)And no, I'm not a troll, but I'm also not a "New" Democrat.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)That is the epitome of dishonesty.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)It was honest to involve blumenthal when obama had banned him?
It was honest to hide emails.from foia.lawsuits on an unapproved home server?
randome
(34,845 posts)He banned Blumenthal from being on the State Dept. payroll. Maybe because of optics, maybe because of budget, who knows?
And your other question shows your bias because you automatically assume criminality.
This is why Sanders supporters are not taken seriously. You can't be objective and you cry 'Wolf!' every chance you get.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Obama banned blumenthal and hillary ignored.him and used him against obamas wishes.
Thats dishonest.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)These salivating vultures are NO Democrats.
So true what you say about Sanders. NEVER would I wish such a fate upon him, in spite of my reservations about his fitness to be President.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Other than that over the top, Bernie folks are NOT chomping at the bit for some witch hunt. Just awaiting the inevitable, like everyone else. Will it affect the election, who knows. Bill did OK with his follies and lies, so that many see HRC able to do that, as well, is understandable.
Oh, and the Foundation investigation will bring, gasp, Benghazi!!!!! back in a new way. This is just the latest. But go ahead and play the ostrich card.
Gosh, I forgot "salivating vultures". What a hoot.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Her former campaign manager is in charge of the group that runs the elections, decides who is a registered Democrat, how the debates were scheduled, how the votes are counted, everything. The debates were scheduled in a manner that was supposed to clear the opposition before super Tuesday. She lobbied for Super-delegates before any other candidates announced, and while some might argue that was smart, I say it's small "d" undemocratic. Every action she took was designed to make voting in the Democratic Party Primary irrelevant. That's the epitome of undemocratic.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)uponit7771
(90,371 posts)... her 6 deg of seperation becomes 1 deg, not her fault Sanders pisses everyone off vs making alliances, 3. Those "southern states" shouldn't have matter since Sander campaign said they didn't put too many resources in them
4. It's never Sanders fault of for anything, his gun votes his wall street cfma votes his votes against immigration and his 94 crime bill votes...
NEVER his fault for anything including losing this primary
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,795 posts)Register to vote, and check the box that says "Democratic Party." Her former campaign manager had nothing to do with that.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Who knows where the notification were sent to.
I'm glad you agree with the rest of my post.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,795 posts)Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Would they all have shown up? Would they all have voted for Sanders?
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Nelson told Mother Jones that an evidentiary hearing will be held in the case on April 29. The group is nonpartisan, said Nelson, who noted that there are Republicans among the 700-plus reports of election troubles the group has collected. She added that until there's a full understanding of improperly disqualified ballots, the results of the election are in doubt.
"If that had not happened, would that have changed the outcome of the election?" she asked. "It may have. And so long as that's out there as a question, I think we're looking at some deep fundamental questions about how we conduct our elections systematically, and what it is that we need to do to ensure that we're not left with so severe a level of doubt in that process."
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,795 posts)I never said they were right all the time, either.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Often in the Hillary Clinton Group any post that cites a news source is said to be from: A) a DU'er knowingly and purposefully using a right wing source and B) Immediately repeated by all the Bernie Bros who don't care.(Other Sanders supporters and I ask people not to use RW sources in threads that do, but apparently Clinton supporters prefer not to see that ...in the name of party unity?)
Especially take note of the part that is bold(as in darker than other text) in the body of my post. It is in part a quote from Election Justice USA's
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,795 posts)...except the Nebraska Caucus, which ought to be outlawed.
I've never seen an election without some irregularity somewhere, but by the by, Hillary has simply gotten more votes than Bernie. I realize no one on Bernie's side wants to believe that, but it is the case.
"May have" means "didn't" in this context. If there were fraud or irregularity that led to a 57-43 lead in votes by Hillary (pending the Indiana result, of course), we'd know. We're not talking Bush/Gore margins here.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Again, according to you
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Nobody suggested Mother Jones was a RW source, but your responding as if it was is just an attempt toshame the person who asked you a question you don't want to answer.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Read the post, it is on topic.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)You don't seem to want to admit that if that strategy becomes the norm, there will be no primaries in the future, just money and influence.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,795 posts)Over 57% of the electorate (to-date) isn't buying what you are selling. It's that simple.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)How did she get those votes, states, and delegates? That has been my point from the beginning.
Will Debbie Wasserman Schultz control the general election to make it more favorable for your candidate?
You really have no problem with meaningless predetermined primaries from here on out?
Does the general election have super delegates to schmooze?
Will the media be as friendly to Clinton when she's running against trump?
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,795 posts)It's the same way Bernie Sanders got his votes and delegates.
I would not call all of the primaries meaningless from here on out, but there is every indication that Hillary Clinton will have more than enough delegates to win on the first ballot.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not my favorite party leader, but she represents a very blue district in one of the largest and most politically influential states in America.
The General Election is not the primaries. Primaries are when parties choose their candidates. The General Election doesn't have super delegates, but it also doesn't have caucuses in which the undecided and small candidate voters are browbeaten into supporting someone else. The two are different animals.
The media will not be "friendly" to either candidate. Every passing day from August to November will be filled with dirt and scandal. The series with Kerry Washington will pale by comparison. This is the race the media wanted, and it will be must watch television until November.
Sanders scores well in polls now, but he has not been subjected to unbridled Republican attacks; Hillary has not made a big issue of his age (which the Republicans certainly will); Donald Trump has not chosen to say anything about Jane Sanders (I'll leave that to your imagination); and comparatively little red-baiting has been done. In the event that Bernie Sanders is the nominee, I think we're in for a rough four months.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Sorry, I was apparently unclear. All Democratic Primary elections in the future will favor Clinton's approach in this current primary. If you had a candidate without Clinton's high negative favorable rating, the campaigning would (mostly) be limited to the general election.
From one of my previous posts:
No need, I've seen Clinton surrogates attack her. If Sanders won the primary would they work for Trump? The Clintons have a reputation for vindictiveness.
Actually there has been plenty, at one point that was the only form of coverage that Sanders received in the media.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)uponit7771
(90,371 posts)... Devine "Team Used Car Salesmen" have sold them a good song
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)uponit7771
(90,371 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Especially in contrast to the multimillionaire Clintons, the speaking fees and the Foundation and....
Please, enlighten us all.
Sancho
(9,071 posts)Bernie was given an open door, even though he really didn't deserve to run as a Democrat. He bit the hand that fed him by stealing data, refusing to raise money for other candidates, and attacking the current popular President.
Bernie has been notably ungrateful, and that's one reason that many current office holders and party leaders don't want to endorse him.
Also, major Democratic organizations like unions, social justice groups, and newspapers have carefully analyzed candidates, polls, and records. It has been a virtual sweep that prefer Hillary over Bernie. It's not a CT, but representative scrutiny thinks that Hillary has better positions and a better historical record.
In fact, Bernie has not won a single battle except two Demographic groups: college students who notoriously fail to vote and "Archie Bunkers" who have an interest single issues (like gun control). In every other demographic Hillary is even with Bernie or way ahead (women, immigrants, minority, seniors). That's the Democratic base that Hillary is winning hands-down.
There is no evidence that Bernie should do anything except concede and urge his supporters to get behind the Democratic party for the election. If Bernie doesn't do that, then he is being an ass.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,795 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)just sound deberately uninformed. Hard to let that meme go, I know.
And Bernie was invited to run as a Democrat, because if he did not, the vote would be split and Hillary would lose. Now people are pissy because Bernie has interrupted what was supposed to be a cakewalk of a coronation. 3% to 47% or whatever. If Hillary was such a great candidate, how the fuck did that happen?
The DNC is using Bernie. They figured he would have been a flash in the pan, dropped out before now, and handed over his supporters, his money, and his grassroots organization to Hillary. There is absolutely no scenario where people who figure the establishment means no good for them, and so were uninterested in what they see as the Same Old Shit, getting energized by, and voting for, Hillary.
That is why he was welcomed to run as a Democrat - stop acting like he somehow forced his way in. How would that even be possible?
Sancho
(9,071 posts)Bernie's staff purposefully stole reports from the data. He dropped the suit before he lost.
The DNC has been very nice to Bernie, and he doesn't deserve it. He should drop out, campaign for other down ticket candidates, and quit attacking Obama.
He's not welcome, but tolerated. He will soon be a footnote.
djean111
(14,255 posts)All under Debbie DINO. Not Bernie's job to save a Party that is obviously being disassembled.
Keep up the good work, Debbie! This looks deliberate. And not Bernie's fault, nor his job to fix.
Demsrule86
(68,788 posts)The investigation found that four Bernie staffers accessed Hillary data including boots on the ground date over 25 times and saved/copied it. One was fired four were not. He dropped his suit as a result on a Friday...like all pols do in that sort of situation.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)saved the results of those searches on the system.
Maybe that doesn't meet your definition of "steal" but it meets mine -- and many others.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...but focusing on the difference in vote count, in my mind, is Nora's important as the percentages. 57% vs 43%. All along Sanders was discounted as some fringe crazy guy who wouldn't garner more support than his own state. This is clearly not the case and the Democratic Party needs to wake up and see that a significant portion of their constituency identified with Sanders, his message, and his methods.
Demsrule86
(68,788 posts)If he was not being so disagreeable...trying to overturn the will of the voters will negate all the good he as done.
aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)I have turned to the point where I think caucuses are very undemocratic and do not reflect the will of the voters. A state that holds a caucus disenfranchises voters the same way voter suppression, regististration issues, etc., etc., do.
The majority of Sanders wins are in these non-democratic voting states. True, in some of those states, had they held a primary, Sanders popular vote total would be higher. But he also would have very likely lost more states too.
When you compare Sanders and Clinton in just the states that held primaries (a more apples to apples comparison) Clinton's dominance is actually greater.
In realty, while we hold a 50 state contest, Sanders has only won 3 states of serious political influence legitimately.
Wisconsin (Good win)
Michigan (Good win)
New Hampshire (Battle ground state)
Meanwhile Hilary has won:
Pennsylvania (Good win)
Ohio (Battle ground state)
Florida (Battle ground state)
Virginia (Battle ground state)
Arizona (Battle ground state)
North Carolina (Battle ground state)
Illinois
Massachusetts
New York
Texas
Illinois
Missouri
Georgia (Possible battle ground state)
You will notice in the above example I left out most of the southern (majority black vote) states, even though they held primaries and are far more legitimate victories than the ridiculous, voter suppression, low voter turn out caucus states that Sanders usually wins. It is a true test to what really matters to get elected President.
And even under this important example in examining each candidates strength, Hillary DOMINATES.
Bernie Sanders has run a great campaign. But folks, this is not a close race.
artislife
(9,497 posts)We voted practically on each line of the 11 resolutions to the platform. We were still at it at 7pm --6 hours after start time. That seems to be the most democratic way.
We had candidates plead for our votes, we heckled at the ones who tried to rationalize their superdelegate vote for the candidate who was whipped in our caucus.
It was long, hot and no food or open beverages in the gym..but over one thousand people did it. And that was repeated all through the state.
aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)As to how a caucus works.
Whether it's super delegates, pledged delegates, unbound delegates, or caucuses, 2016 has opened a lot of eyes as to how our democracy really works.
artislife
(9,497 posts)before the elected Delegates go to Philly. Sadly, I wasn't chosen. We had over 50 of us vying for 15 slots that would be divided in half by gender.
The first day was about 2.5 hours, the second was also a 7 hour plus event. One caucus in Tacoma was still caucusing at midnight. The school kicked them out and they caucused in the parking lot.
Lots of emotions, the divide here in WA is very deep.
Justice
(7,188 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Gee I just read a post from a Bernie fan claiming Hillary has no popular support!
jcgoldie
(11,657 posts)aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)Democrat or Republican.
She has 3 million more votes than Bernie. And 2 million more votes than Trump.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)And also why Bernie fans haz a sad.
Number23
(24,544 posts)better than this OP.
K&R
snot
(10,549 posts)There is 6 years' age difference between Bernie and Hillary. If Bernie's "old," so is Hillary.