2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton is winning among voters who don’t want Sanders’s revolution
Hillary Clinton bested Bernie Sanders by five points in the Nevada caucuses, and heres a key number from the entrance polls:
In Nevada, more voters wanted to generally continue Barack Obamas policies than wanted to change to more liberal policies by a 50-41 margin. Clinton won among that former group, by 75-22, while Sanders won among the latter group by 77-21.
A pattern is emerging: In Iowa, New Hampshire, and now Nevada, the data suggest that Clinton won overwhelmingly among those voters who want to continue Obamas policies, while Sanders won overwhelmingly among those who want a decisive break from them in a more liberal direction. Theres no way to be sure whether correlation proves causation, of course, but as best as I can determine, most Democratic operatives are now operating from the assumption that this pattern signifies something important.
As I and others have argued, Sanderss candidacy is premised on a serious critique of the Obama years. In his telling, Barack Obama failed to deliver reforms commensurate with the epic scale of our challenges, because he failed to mobilize the grassroots to break oligarchic control of Congress and because establishment Democratic politicians continue to acquiesce in that oligarchic paralysis of our political system in any case, by accepting Wall Street and corporate contributions (and in Clintons case, Wall Street speaking fees)...
We can scrutinize the specifics of Sanderss proposals and bring skepticism to bear on his account of how hed achieve the change he seeks while also acknowledging the force of this core element of Sanderss revolution: His insistence that these broad goals should not be so casually dismissed as self-evidently beyond the spectrum of reasonable political possibilities.
But we are now entering a string of contests in which nonwhite voters will be decisive, and polling has shown that nonwhites think Clinton, not Sanders, is the candidate best equipped to bring needed change to Washington. This is to say that for now, anyway they may disagree with Sanderss depiction of what needed change constitutes, in addition to doubting his ability to deliver. What Sanders has proven beyond any doubt is that a whole lot of Democratic voters agree with both his specific proposals and the broader story he is telling about the urgent need to re-imagine American democracy. But the more prosaic reality may prove to be that not enough of them do.
read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/02/22/hillary-clinton-is-winning-among-voters-who-dont-want-sanderss-revolution/
LisaM
(27,813 posts)I don't think so. It's a problem (and it has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders, Obama had this problem too). The right wing has succeeded in setting a voting narrative that includes people not showing up to the polls, or making it difficult for them to do so. It's not about coming to one primary or one caucus. There are many, many elections in every community ever year (in Seattle we just had out third one since August). I know that the turnout in the November one was absolutely dismal, and while I assume we'll get a decent turnout in November, after that people will lost interest and wait around for someone to inspire them again. I have news: it's not about inspiration. It's about boring candidates, detail-oriented local initiatives, in fact, a process that entails a lot of commitment over a lifetime. Elections aren't crowdfunding or mass mobs. It's not a one and done thing, because when your enthusiasm flags and you don't come to the polls for any reason, someone will swoop in and make an opportunity.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...even with the odds against 'down-ticket' candidates, there's almost no mention of that challenge from the Sanders camp, but, that would seem to be the only avenue to his revolution as president - unless he's going to wait until the improbable chances in the midterms.
On the other hand, Clinton has a ready legislature for her agenda, having already secured the support of so many legislators, including all but two of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Sanders founded.
A revolution should entail more than just electing a candidate. It should include realistic prospects for results on their promises.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)She's called him a wuss on foreign policy, run ads implying he was ill prepared to get the 3 AM phone call, even bad mouthed Obamacare as "free stuff".
But now? She has suddenly declared herself the heir to everything Obama ever did, even the stuff she used to make fun of.
Smart politics, and it may fool those with short memories, at least in the short term. If she gets the nomination, expect Obama to go back under the bus. He ain't that popular with moderate and independent voters, and she knows that, so she'll drop him like a hot potato.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)The status quo is fine for people who don't have to worry about having enough money to keep up with house payments, student loans, medical bills, groceries, car insurance, a bunch of stuff their kids need for school, gas money, and uniforms for work.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I don't always agree with him (TPP, ACA) , but Obama is a very honorable person, and is trying his best to advance liberalism in the best way he thinks he can.
Clinjton? Not so much.
mgmaggiemg
(869 posts)people want evolution not revolution