Even though it was smart enough to pick Barack Obama.

I realize how much it must have pained you personally to have to point this out.

Vermont doesn't matter. There are some other small parts of the US that are less diverse and also predicable; note that there are more Puerto Ricans in Florida or NY than the entire population of Vermont!

To win in 2016, the base for Democrats will have to include independent women, African Americans, and hispanics. The GOP is counting on white males, Christian conservatives, and low turnout.

As others have pointed out, the GOP base is aging and literally dying off. The hispanic share is growing, which is why the GOP will never have a path to citizenship. Interestingly, the GOP gerrymandering was aimed at a black-white divide, but that won't work over time with a growing immigrant population, so we'll see if state offices don't start falling to a changing population. For example, Allen Grayson may have benefited from an increasing group of immigrants in central Florida.

On CNN this am, there was a long discussion of Fiorina and Hillary in SC. As appealing to hard-core progressives as Bernie is (and I've listened to him for quite some time on Thom Hartman, etc.), he is not even on the radar for large blocks of voters in key purple states. If Bernie really wants to get traction, he needs to get out of small town New England. That may be why the national news still is barely giving Bernie lip service so far.

It matters historically and it matters now. It's been and continues to be a leader on critical issues, from being the first state to ban slavery to being on the forefront of LGBT rights and environmental issues.

Size isn't everything

so it's not in play other than being part of the typical circuit.

The question is whether Bernie can get air time in VA, TX, FL, OH, PA, etc. Just start in the NE and go West and South until you hit water.

Bernie's stump speech needs to resonate with groups that would see him for the first time. That's the question over the next few months.

Hillary talked yesterday in SC - almost entirely on equal pay for women. That is a BIG issue when the majority of college students are now women, single parent families are usually women, and most women (including minority and immigrants) experience pay differential. That's a broad (no pun intended) issue - and goes across independents into some GOP crossovers. It hits unions (teachers and nurses). She is funny, relaxed, and serious about her plans for equal pay. Like it or not, it's smart targeting for limited TV time. Hillary's speech (or parts of it) are repeated on the news because it's of interest to lots of viewers and it's then discussed with union leaders, women's advocates, etc. Free spinning on national TV.

Listen OBJECTIVELY to Bernie's announcement speech and ask yourself if it appeals as well to people on issues of importance to changing demographics. IMHO, Bernie may need a speech writer. I simply want a Democrat to win, and I'm just pointing out that the Vermont audience is not Bernie's target in the long run if he wants national awareness.

that certainly has yet to be demonstrated.

No, a Vermont audience is not anyone's target. It's a done deal. I was simply responding to the larger implications to the claim that Vermont doesn't matter.

Hillary is a focus group, speech written, created candidate. Bernie is not.

Also, in ratio of cows to people, Vermont has the greatest number of dairy cows in the country.

lots of white people, yachts in the background, words like "oligarchy"!! Sorry, no one is going to repeat that on TV or get it to appeal to a larger audience. (I watched it all.)

We all agree that the environment, Wall Street, jobs, etc. are problems. Bernie himself says in the speech that people aren't voting. I don't think that this speech will encourage the ones who are not voting to pay attention to Bernie - they simply won't identify with him or the issues.

The Clinton's have certainly learned how to appeal to a national audience no matter where they come from.

Here's Bernie:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?326214-1/senator-bernie-sanders-ivt-presidential-campaign-announcement

Now watch Hillary's speech in SC yesterday:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?326259-1/hillary-clinton-remarks-columbia-south-carolina

Bernie is talking to a Vermont audience. Hillary is in SC, but she's talking to women all over the US (if not the world). It's not where you come from, but simply being a refined national politician. You can complain about staging and all that, but look who is on TV again the next day!!

To me, that's why Hillary is winning this battle for now.

his campaign in his home state. How many politicians do that?

OTOH, it was stupid to be on national TV with yachts going back and forth in the background, not a single person representing any diversity on the platform, and an angry speech with terms like "revolution" and "oligarchy".

I would think most winning politicians get off to a better start.

The good news is that the national media didn't make a big deal out of it, so he'll get a chance to do better next time.

Cult of personality is alive and well in the U.S. Had he kicked off in the Bronx, people would bitch because he is pandering. And, yes- when they do the same thing to Clinton I don't like it either.

The large number of electoral votes in CA and NY will be going to the Democrat, whoever they are. As a result, CA and NY are not at all important to winning in 2016 - We have already won them.

Instead, we need to win VA. That gets us to 270. Or CO + IA to get to 270. Or OH to get to 270. So no, the demographics of the nation as a whole don't matter in winning the 2016 general election. The demographics of VA does. Or the demographics of CO + IA. And so on.

SC isn't a purple state.

And there are not "key purple states". There is key purple state. Singular, not plural (unless you're going via CO, IA and WV, in which case there are two. Still not several).


You really shouldn't attribute a logical decision to the national media. Sanders has higher support than Fiorina, Jindal, Huckabee and Santorum combined. They've covered all four Republicans quite well, considering their abysmal support in polls.

If you're a Republican, you get coverage. If you might upset the corporatist status quo, the media tries to ignore you as long as possible.

the reference to SC was not as a purple state. It was because SC got coverage on CNN with both Forino and Hillary. I didn't put a stop watch on the minutes, but they seemed to get more coverage than Bernie's trip to SC. Say what you want, but it was the interesting sound bites of the two women that got the attention. In Hillary's case, it led to interviews with folks from other constituencies also. Voters in states that either party might win may be watching CNN.

Do you really want to debate a definition of "purple" states? I guess that plays into your theory of how to get to 270? I think it's a little early for that math projection. You are correct that CA and NY are not in play either.

VA is one of the states with a growing immigrant population, so that's one Democratic candidates need to watch. Maybe someone in VA was watching CNN.

I doubt the media is logical.

And that way is to appeal to the nation as a whole?

It's 9 months until the first primary. A black guy with a funny name didn't get much media coverage either this far from the primary. Then he won.

Polling this early from 2008 said Giuliani would just edge out Clinton. That didn't quite turn out to be remotely accurate. And that's true every single election - W polled poorly early. Bill Clinton polled poorly early. Hell, Reagan's poll numbers were awful early in the campaign.

In fact, early polls are wrong more than 90% of the time. Why make decisions based on something you know will be wrong?


Not really. You base it on the actual results of statewide campaigns in the last election, in this case 2014. It gives you a very rough idea of where the state will end up in 2016. You may be off by 10%, but when the margin is >20% that really doesn't matter - you can still declare the state "red" or "blue" because at worst it's a 10% victory instead of a 20% victory.

Here's an analysis from right after 2014. From a Republican. He goes into detail about why he puts certain states in the "red" or "blue" or "white" column.


It has a much larger, growing DC suburb population. Which is not particularly immigrant-heavy or minority-heavy. But it has shown to be not interested in the status-quo.

The black guy with a funny name gave great speeches, got air time, developed a war chest, and made the most of free opportunities in the media.

You have to admit that Bill Clinton and Obama both got attention for their lighthearted, yet serious speeches. They developed reputations that essentially snowballed and built momentum.

If Bernie can do something parallel, that great!! So far, there's not a hint that he's up to it. Hilary is not quite the speech maker that Bill was, but she doesn't have to compete with history; she only has to compete with whoever is running against her!!

Again, put Bernie's last speech against Hillary (as an example), pretend you are a clueless, independent who identifies with some group (college coed, immigrant family, minority, young parent, working woman, new union member, etc.). Just listen to a few clips of each, like five minutes in the middle. These people don't read opinion columns, care about Benghazi, or understand oligarchies.

There's your 10% or 20% winner in the swing states. Right now, I can't see Bernie winning over Hillary with the appearances I've seen so far. I'll vote for the Democrat, but I would prefer the Democrat wins. I'd really hate to see Jeb in the White House!

That's what he said.

So what? Most states up in the Northern/New England areas of the U.S have a white majority and most of them sway Blue. That doesn't make them bastions or racism. jfc :/

homogeneous state. That smear is as disgusting as it is wrong. That is the point of the op

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that title appeared/appears on breitbart or the WDN ... Just like it didn't take long after the right started calling President Obama "the One" before a certain segment of du started referring to President Obama in messianic terms, or his supporters as worshipers.

Please save yourself some embarrassment and self-delete that dreck.

There is no way Sanders is racist or a problem but some who claim to support him are.

Has Bernie actually been called "racist?" The counterargument I'm seeing is that they're saying "he didn't speak about racial issues enough", and that we're over-reacting and making false claims.

before 1992 vermont was safe republican sate in presidential elections except for LBJ landslide of 1964

the mostly white state voted heavily for obama in 2008 and 2012

attacking vermont to bash bernie is just stupid.

no one is attacking Vermont. As a national target for Presidential candidates, Vermont is not a state that will get much play unless there is some snafu or incident that happens to occur in Vermont. Candidates will visit as part of the routine campaign. They will spend their money and efforts in purple swing states.

No one needs to bash Bernie - I think he's hurting himself at this point.

I think his announcement speech clearly looked like someone who doesn't appeal to much of the Democratic and independent base for 2016.

Baby boomers retiring for another. The first ones started retiring a few years ago.

Record immigration and minority birth rates - the "white majority" will soon be the "minority".

Gerrymandering is much worse.

Women are the majority in college now, including larger numbers of women in professional positions like law and medicine.

In Florida now, for example, more than 25% in the last census was born outside of the US!! And that's reported - it may be a third.

Those people don't want to attack Wall Street: their retirement funds and union retirements depend on investments. They are against the Robin Hood tax. They want regulation, but not a tax of any kind on transactions.

They want a path to citizenship. That's number one on the list. Bernie barely mentions it. Hillary, Obama, and even Jeb at least recognize the issue.

Women's issue - many revolving around equal pay and health care are a BIG issue for independents. Hillary hits that one hard every chance she gets. Bernie doesn't make it a point of his platform.

Immigrants want an emphasis on international relations - economic plus every other way. They are ok with trade agreements if they are fair, and they come from countries where US corporations and the US government were bullies. They see both sides of trade agreements.

To win over independents that are minority, immigrants, and women - Bernie needs to replace some "economic social justice" content with "international and gender social justice". The Clinton foundation is seen to be doing good work by many independents, and even some of the Christian rightwing. That gets them votes and Hillary mentions it in every speech. Supporting education of women world-wide is a big plus too.

I think that Bernie misses the boat for base voters if he sticks to his last speech.

I don't see the same things you do.

Who are "those people?" You're describing middle class white conservatives.



Now we're on to a very different "they." Here's Bernie's record on immigration reform - seems pretty solid to me:

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Bernie_Sanders_Immigration.htm

http://immigrationimpact.com/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-immigration-policy-track-record/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/07/bernie_sanders_tells_chris_hayes_he_stands_with_obama_and_hillary_on_immigration_executive_action.html



Again, Bernie's record is pretty damned solid:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm



Now this? This I have to just call bullshit on. Standard pro-TPP boilerplate as cranked out by the Center for American Progress. Anyone with critical thinking skills that has examined the plentiful analyses of the TPP knows that it's not about "fair trade agreements", it's about giving leverage to international corporations to bypass regulations.

The fact that you would make this specious argument betrays your agenda.



Bernie supports free college education for everyone, which helps women and minorities tremendously.

Again, dropping the specious "economic v. social justice" talking point tells me you're really not serious in your critique.


Thank you for your "concern."

but I've lived in SC, GA, and Fl for a long time. I met Nixon (as VP) in Charleston in the 60's, Carter and GWB in the 70s, and worked for Richard Riley in the 80's. Recently, Charlie Chris. I've been politically active a long time. I worked to get the 18 year old vote, get us out of Vietnam, and get special education in the schools. Never stopped doing what I could.

I know what voters here seem to vote for...especially the majority who are "independent", but generally liberal thinking people.

Lots of union member teachers and nurses want to protect their retirements. They like protecting SS, but also depend on large investment funds. Taxing transactions is a step backward. I get it. They don't want retirement to "go away" like it did in Detroit, so they don't want any tax (that would only increase) on transactions. Bernie should pay for college, but do it with capital gains or some other way.

Immigration is the number one issue in Florida, Texas, and California. Three of the four largest states! 10-15 million people undocumented - most with some of the family documented and some living "illegally". These are often very liberal voters, and would be solid Democrats if they could become citizens.

Coed women here know Hillary, but mostly haven't heard about Bernie. As they enter the work force, they really want equal pay. Remember that GA and FL never ratified the ERA in the 70's. Women here have not forgotten.

I've listened to Bernie on Thom Hartman for a long time. He's fine on Wall Street, protecting SS, and many issues, but he's not in step with most of the main ideas for the progressives in the South. At least he doesn't express their concerns. They want social justice as a whole, but Bernie's message needs to improve to win voters down here.

is not going to affect your average school teacher.

You may be liberal, but you keep working conservative talking points into your argument.

for example, all state employees here have retirement in a "private" investment fund (managed by Bencor) thanks to Jeb. There are hundreds of millions that are traded daily. Even a small tax would make a huge difference over 20 - 30 years. It's taking hard earned and hard-bargained money away from union employees. If the fund doesn't meet goals, then the legislature (like a couple years ago) take it out of employee's pay checks!!

We've looked into the Bernie proposal, and that's the way it looks here. That's NOT a conservative talking point.

We love the idea of free college (especially me!). A better way to fund it would be a capital gains tax on income over a million or something like that - call it a Romney tax!

is not "attacking" Vermont, or bashing Bernie.