2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie supporters how do you explain his relatively weak performance in Oregon?
2008 Oregon Primary
Obama 58.52%
Clinton 40.50%
2016 Oregon Primary (est. % in: 83%)
Sanders 55.1%
Clinton 44.9%
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)BootinUp
(47,211 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)All except for Gilliam County, which he lost by one vote 101-100. Seems like a pretty strong night to me. That's my answer
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)its a pretty strong night, but it can't be spun as a sign of going on to win the nomination correct?
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)...the candidate who was hand picked by the party and has had a pretty nice schedule as far as debates, primary sequence, endorsements from party bosses up and down and all over, is having a tough go at sealing the deal against a 74 year old democratic socialist from Vermont who has no establishment endorsements, superpac or favorable media coverage. The fact that he's won as much as he has and continues to do so at such a late stage in the game when someone with her pedigree as a SOS, 2 term senator and wife of a former POTUS should have sewn it up already speaks volumes. That's how I see it.
I try not to play the nasty name calling games or fight provoke here. I just call it like that. He's doing very well with a big chunk of voters and if he'd gotten even half the preferential treatment from the party and the media that HRC has, it would be a different story. I'm a 41 liberal and part of the working poor and Bernie speaks to me and lots of people like me. HRC just doesn't and I don't trust her. I remember the steady racist campaign she ran against Barack in 2008 and I don't think anything has changed. Her team is the "win at all costs" type and it's exactly what I hate about politics.
Will he get the nomination? I'd love it. Who knows? She is under a federal investigation regardless of how much everyone wants to say that it's a RW attack.
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)into another universe. I think his message would be stronger if he didn't raise a ton of doubts about being truthful. It will only make it easy for him to be caricatured. If Oregon only gave him 10 points in a largely uncontested state this thing is over.
At this point I see some danger signs that we could have a weakened party in November. But its not too late for him to start being more realistic about the race, and tone down the hot rhetoric.
The part about racism in 2008 is not worth much mention in my opinion as HRC has good ties with people of color.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)In OR, BS missed his target and his % for PD has increased for the worse. I'll say HRC won the night.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Nevertheless, HRC wins the night.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)and Sanders slightly underperformed the demographics in OR. In short, the performance of both candidates is consistent with Clinton being about 10 points ahead nationally. Of course, based on the NEED TO WIN numbers, Sanders had a devastating night.
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)That's what polling indicated. So winning instead is not a weak performance.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)dinkytron
(568 posts)imagine2015
(2,054 posts)Hillary is suppose to win by huge margins all closed primaries where independent are not allowed to vote.
So what happened in Oregon and Kentucky BootinUp?
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)imagine2015
(2,054 posts)It's now obvious Secretary Clinton will fall several hundred pledged delegates short of what she needs to capture the Democratic Party nomination. She and her supporters did not expect this.
The unpledged super delegates will decide who the Democratic Party will run for President.
They have two months to decide.
If they decide to nominate Clinton that will pave the way for Trump's election.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)She will be WAY ahead in pledged delegates at the convention. Short of the indictment fairy coming, there is NO FUCKING WAY the Super-D's push Bernie ahead, especially the way he's been acting today.
Heck, Sanders just lost one of his Super Delegates.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-17/sanders-quest-for-superdelegates-loses-one-after-virgin-island-official-flips-to-clinton
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)And even under those rules and rigged primary system she was unable to win enough elected delegates to capture the nomination.
Under the Democratic Party rules, which Hillary supports, it is now up to the unpledged super delegates to decide what candidate to nominate.
I didn't know you were opposed to these nomination rules.
How have you expressed your objection to the rules?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But thanks for verifying my suspicions.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)That's too bad.
And if you really want those restrictions why not go all the way and only permit registered Democrats to vote for Democratic candidate for Congress and President?
And why stop there .... don't let people who voted for Bernie in a primary vote for Hillary in the general election and what the hell, ban registered independents from voting for any Democrats period! How bout that?
And maybe require some proof of membership in either the Democratic or Republican parties. That's the ticket.
And let's call that democracy.
You do realize that registered Democrats and registered Republican are becoming a shrinking minority of voters. Right?
WhiteTara
(29,732 posts)to vote for Hillary.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)None of them are pledged or required to vote for Bernie or Secretary Clinton.
They are all free agents.
In fact, they are not even required under convention rules to vote for anyone on the 1st or later ballots.
And more than 150 super delegates have not even indicated a preference for either Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders.
So don't count your chickens before they hatch!
We don't know what will happen over the next two months that could end Clinton's second attempt to win the nomination.
Over 200 super delegates abandoned her in 2008 and that could happen again.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)donation.
frylock
(34,825 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)a state which should have favored her demographically?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)BootinUp
(47,211 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)It fits the profile of a Sanders state.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)penumbra
(7 posts)and just vote on name recognition?
It's a nice place to live. But with all the influx of folks not accustomed to "Oregon nice", we'll probably have to shore up our election process against "shenanigans".
It is, for now, a closed primary, so you really can't use your usual tactic of blaming Trump voters, because, you know, they really want Sanders to win.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,919 posts)Once the public is largely convinced, rightly or wrongly, that a contest is essentially over - the person deemed on the losing end begins to fade. That is what typically happens. Continuing to wrack up victories after the race has already been "called" for the other side goes against the grain and shows continuing strength, not weakness. The only thing surprising is that Hillary is still having so much trouble beating back Bernie in so many states after becoming the "all but inevitable" nominee.
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)prior to the Oregon primary.
I am merely pointing out that Bernie is losing steam and he's ignoring the reality.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So why'd Clinton massively fail in the same situation?
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)is anything close to an indication that Bernie can win the nomination since he needed a much bigger win. All the railing against the Party has created an interesting dynamic but still a losing one.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It became obvious that Sanders only had a "winning Powerball"-like chance of securing the nomination a while ago.
But the thing is we aren't voting for Sanders. We're voting to change the direction of the Democratic party. It took the DLC and its offspring about 30 years to get the party to its current, old-school Republican political position. It's going to take more than one election for us to reverse that.
The first step in that change is to break the conventional wisdom that only a conservative Democrat can possibly raise money and compete in elections. Sanders, while not doing well enough to win, has demonstrated that the DLC way is not the only way. If the conventional wisdom was true, he should have been annihilated long ago, instead of winning roughly half of the pledged delegates.
Another step is demonstrating that the party, its institutions and its candidates will have problems when they attempt to do the typical, smoke-filled-room machine politics. Incidents like the NV convention are part of that. Institutions like the NV Democratic party publicly destroying their credibility helps the goal of shifting the direction of the party, since those institutions are the primary barrier to policies that the public already wants.
We are turning the direction of the national party. That was never going to happen in a single election. Just like Goldwater lost but paved the way for the "Reagan Revolution", Sanders is paving the way for the (fill in the future president's name) Revolution.
Now, we could get it done much faster. But far too many people in the Democratic party are terrified of change. Those in power want to keep their money and power. Others are more interested in clinging to what they have for the relatively little time they have left. Those of us who are younger do not have that option. We will be alive to watch Miami be consumed by the ocean, so clinging to the status quo is not going to work for us.
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)When Sanders himself becomes almost a caricature of Bagdhad Bob, and his supporters start looking a little like rioters, do you really think that is going to play well for the movements future growth? I guess we will see, because he shows no sign of really changing what he is doing. I predict we are going to see a greatly demoralized and diminished Bernie faction and many will not vote. I predict that if they were instead energized to vote for the Party in November we would have more strength to do the hard things that we all want.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)To people who only get their information from TV news. AKA, those same people who just want to cling to the status quo a little longer.
They are now a minority of the population. That minority will continue to shrink as time takes its inevitable toll.
Again, you are still only thinking about one election. It is likely that turnout will be pretty bad - Clinton and Trump have the highest unfavorability of any presidential candidates. That's going to hurt turnout, whether or not Sanders supporters are happy.
When the party gets away with "who else you gonna vote for?", the party blocks any attempts at reform. There's no reason to reform when you can shit on everyone to the left of Eisenhower and still win.
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)or public opinion doesn't indicate support. That is exactly the lesson of the Reagan era, viewed from the right and the left with hard facts, instead of emotions.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There will be elections beyond 2016.
You mean like when an "inevitable" candidate can only win roughly half of the pledged delegates against an old Socialist who has never received national attention before this primary?
Oh, he's also managing to more-or-less keep pace with her fundraising too, even without lavish high-ticket fundraisers.
And this "lesson" has lost us the most legislative seats in our party's history. How many more massive failures would you like to see before reconsidering this "lesson"?
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Bernie is doing very well all things considered.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)for months-his wife was on every show until she stepped in it. The MSM loves to make it look like it's a horserace even tho it's been over for months. All about ratings
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)His air time was measured in seconds.
Vinca
(50,326 posts)You shouldn't compare the Obama election to anything else. It was a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon which is unlikely to ever be repeated. And it sure as hell isn't being repeated by Hillary.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Oh yea, another ground breaking phenomenon - LOL
GO HRC!!!!
frylock
(34,825 posts)Just breaking down barriers left and right!
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)proof it is all over except for the singing.
frylock
(34,825 posts)![](http://3o1vag3go95yqxhrk3yk15pv.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/James-ComeyFBI.jpg)
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)Do you have many more questions I can answer? If so please bring them forth. I haven't all day I need to prepare for Hillary's Cotillion Ball.
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Stand-up.
You should be doing stand up. Seriously.
Eisenhower defeated Stevenson in the 1956 general election by 55-45 ; the history textbooks record it as a "landslide".
LANDSLIDE.
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Sanders supporters generally aren't looking for government jobs or trying to elect the first member of a previously marginalized demographic.
We are trying to change the social and economic dynamics of the society as a whole.
No. Don't worry. I KNOW you don't get it.
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)BootinUp
(47,211 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Oregon was supposed to be where Bernie racked up major delegates and starts hitting those 65% targets he needed to get a majority of pledged delegates. His victory there was pretty weak given that, missing his targets by over 20 points. It's always a matter of perspective. Going in to yesterday, he needed about 65% of the remaining delegates. Now he needs about 68%. He's under-performing his targets.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)The OP said a 10 point win was a poor performance. It is not, regardless of anything.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Enough independents switched in time to give him the win, but not enough to give him a landslide. Oregon shows that Democrats are not that impressed with Sanders.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Closed Primary. Heavily Democratic State. Wide margin of victory for Sanders, less Democratic votes for Hillary than her last Oregon routing.
Smearing Oregon Democrats is not wise. It's part of why she keeps losing here.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)And considering that the race is over for the most part, it isn't surprising that the vote totals are lower. I didn't smear anyone, I was just pointing out that Sanders doesn't perform that well with Democrats.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)on the day preceding and day of the primary? Lot's of energy spent for very little result-such things used to be called "mouse milking"
LonePirate
(13,437 posts)It's hard to ague that the M$M's influence is massive when very few pay much attention to it.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)to the choir?
Tarc
(10,478 posts)Otherwise I'd really like to know how Sanders fell to earth so hard in Oregon.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Bernie won by a large margin in a closed primary, which her supporters previously claimed was impossible. Somehow she lost ground from 08 here. Why do you think that is the case? Where did her 08 voters vanish to? Donald?
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)prior to even securing the nomination is putting the cart far ahead of the horse. The finish line is in November. And the race is not just for the White House. What sort of voters leave down ticket Democrats hanging because all they care about is the top line and they are just going through motions, not really taking part in the process or entire slate of candidates in the Party? How is that a thing to take pride in?
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)"Bernie can't win closed primaries!" ... Wrong!
Hillary got her ass handed to her here. How embarrassing for the presumed nominee to do so poorly this late in the game.
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)We are about moving the party back to where it should be -- serving people instead of corporations. You might not quite get how many millions of Americans are disgusted by the rightward DINO Clintonian push this party has been going through. We are showing that there is large opposition to the corporate Clinton-DWS corrupt way of running the party. We are sending a message. I'm middle aged, but Millennials aren't going to put up with this shit from the Democratic Party. Eventually they'll either succeed in changing its direction or they'll move on and vote for a different party.
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)and the framing of the race and whether that makes any sense.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Poll: Despite Bernie Sanders' Crowds, Hillary Clinton Ahead In Oregon--48-33
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511940218
"Oregon may not be Bernie territory after all
A new poll shows Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump headed toward primary victories next week in Oregon....Oregon is a closed primary so only Democrats allowed to vote in the Democratic primary. That appears to be Bernie's problem."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511948839
So they were predicting Hillary by 15 points because you know, closed primary! What happened? They had Math!!!! They said 'it's computer models!!!' What happened?
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The reasons? Closed primary. What happened to all of that? Where was that 15 point lead that was being claimed all up and over DU?
Lots of this bullshit the last couple of weeks: "Oregon is a closed primary so only Democrats allowed to vote in the Democratic primary. That appears to be Bernie's problem."
So what happened? She lost a closed Primary by a very large margin. She got even fewer votes than she did in 08.
It's perfectly possible to predict she will win the nomination without spewing all that outlandish rhetoric about Oregon. In fact, how much stronger would such predictions look today if they had not been delivered along with all that very clearly incorrect prognostication and smearing of Democrats voting for Bernie?
Why indulge in all of that crap? What's the point?
"Hillary Clinton Ahead In Oregon--48-33"
floriduck
(2,262 posts)Now THATS a sign of one miserably weak front runner.
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)is going to start. Bernie refuses to admit he can't win this nomination.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)In 2008, there were 868,371 registered Democratic voters in Oregon; 73.56% of them voted.
In 2016, there are evidently 2.2 million registered Democrats. Only 36% of them voted.
Despite more than doubling party registration, the number of people who actually voted was down by nearly seventy-seven thousand people from 2008.
What it looks like to me is that in 2008, the favored candidate in Oregon (Obama) was winning overall, and people were energized to come out and help him along that.
In 2016 though, the favored candidate (Sanders) has all but lost, and so that depressed Oregon voter turnout. He still won by ten percentage points, though.
Congratulations to Clinton for gaining on her 2008 Oregon performance by four points though.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)But I think your analysis is correct.
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)How you explain your weak but inevitable candidate?
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)I don't see how it helps him.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)They're satisfied with the support of 50.1% of democrats + Wall Street Billions.
In the words of Steve Martin, "they don't need nothing else"
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)their eye should definitely be on the GE at this point. The primaries last night seem to confirm Sanders isn't going to get the turnaround he needed.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)BootinUp
(47,211 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)is a third way Democratic.
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)BootinUp
(47,211 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)KPN
(15,677 posts)BootinUp
(47,211 posts)You guys are going all out trying to push buttons this morning. It's fun to watch. And even funner to speculate why.
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)Hillary lost by 18 to the front runner in 2008 and by 10 to the "also ran" in 2016.
Relatively weak applies to the Clinton camp in this cycle. We all hope they get their act together.
BootinUp
(47,211 posts)is nothing but an act at this point?
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)Polls had Obama up by 10. so, a 8 point loss btwn polls and results
I think you were looking at pledged and unpledged total.
2016- quite a different story!!!
Clinton was supposed to win by 15, and lost by 12 = a 27 point loss for Clinton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries shows a breakdown of pledged/unpledged
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Democratic_primary_elections,_2008 shows the 10 most recent polls (I used 9, as one looks like a complete outlier) and just the combined PD and SD
Hope that helps
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)![](http://i.imgur.com/d3Vk8zi.jpg)
.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)![](/emoticons/roll.gif)