2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDemocratic Party better heed Rachel Maddow's warning
?Maddow has been consistently raising concerns about this issue. Roland Martin recently scolded the Democratic Party for not registering millions of voters in Texas, Georgia, and other states with a high percentage of unregistered likely Democratic voters.
"Last time caucuses in Nevada marked the fourth time in a row that Republicans have set a record for voter turnout this year," Rachel Maddow said. "Republicans have voted in four states so far this year and in every single one they have broken the voter turnout record for that state."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/24/1490972/-Democratic-Party-better-heed-Rachel-Maddow-s-warning
Of course Hillary and DWS don't want New Democratic Voters because overwhelmingly they would vote for Bernie
elleng
(131,136 posts)Would be good if others than hrc and dws would/could take control, if only vis a vis turnout. Remember Howard Dean? He might not be interested now, but some others???
StrayKat
(570 posts)I've asked who too without response.
Right now, I wonder if it wouldn't suit Martin O'Malley for a few years. He's probably out of a job right now and it might be a way of maintaining contacts, continuing to increase national recognition, and building monetary support for a future run.
I don't know if she has national ambitions, but Nina Turner lost her state seat and has said she wants to stay in politics. She's a firebrand and I could see her re-kindling some of the party's energy. I also imagine that she would help steer the platform more toward minority and women's issues than it currently is. She's been a champion for voting rights and she also seems to have taken a step away from HRC by throwing Sanders her endorsement.
elleng
(131,136 posts)Governor O'Malley is an excellent executive/administrator, so those skills could be useful in gathering the many threads necessary in a nationwide voter turnout effort, and other necessary tasks. Nina Turner is FABULOUS, a marvelously smart firebrand. The 2 together could do great work!
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)is lost. This is not a traditional campaign season. ... but IMO they are totally lost in the woods, and taking actions like they were going to run against Jeb Bush. It's stunningly amazing. Divide and conquer within the democratic party is destroying the party from within. People may say I'm a naysayer and depressing, but I'm afraid 2016 is going to be a real shock. People are fed up with the SOS!
elleng
(131,136 posts)As Rubio said: 'If we are going to nominate someone who 50% of our people can't stand,
we are going to lose.'
Marco Rubio
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)msongs
(67,453 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)We'll see just how winning a strategy it is
Impedimentus
(898 posts)but I guess they know how much it's worth
Anyway, they can't buy my vote.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Sanders had 151,578 votes in the New Hampshire Primary, more than any democratic candidate in the history of primary elections there.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)It's laughable how they are trying to make low turnout Bernie's fault, totally the opposite of reality.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)It's a flat-out lie.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But rather that his large crowds are not translating into heavy voter turnout. One argument FOR Sanders is that he energizes the base and brings out voters. So Far,mthat argument does not seem consistent with results. At least not compared to Obama. And, of course, Sandernistas don't like to hear this, but it undermines his theory for how he is going to get stuff done. As he pointed out on Hardball last night, he's looking to create a political "revolution" where the GOP in Congress enacts his agenda because millions of his followers are demanding it. So far, that looks like it won't happen. We'll know more on Wednesday. Maybe the Bernie Brigades will turn up and change the course of the primary.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)if he gets there.
Obama was campaigning to be the first AA POTUS, which played well to the Democratic demographic in many of the primary states.
What they (Obama and Bernie) have in common is they both get anti-Hillary voters.
But Bernie's main draw is to people who feel that the system is completely broken by corporate money (it is), and he will bring out voters who have given up on both parties, in addition to traditional Democratic voters. So will Trump, for that matter, sad as that is to say.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)not my candidate.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)That he will bring out voters who have given up on both parties? Hardly seems debatable.. We could legitimately disagree about the number he will bring out, but that's a matter of degree not of veracity.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I believe turnout would be believe 2008 levels.
But if he is nominated, I will do my part to prove myself wrong.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Good Luck to Bernie in his supporters in this week's contests!
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)25. Thanks, +151,578!
It's laughable how they are trying to make low turnout Bernie's fault, totally the opposite of reality.
i'm afraid your post totally fails when read as a response to dreamnightwind's contribution.
One argument FOR Sanders is that he energizes the base and brings out voters. So Far,mthat argument does not seem consistent with results...
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)We'll see if his millions people demanding stuff make a difference in a few days.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I doubt if anyone would agree with you that pointing out the falsehood is worse manners than putting the falsehood out there.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Overall turnout was DOWN from 2008. He won by an historically large margin in NH, but the total number of Dems was still DOWN.
So sure, call it a "falsehood" if you like. I don't care anymore. The facts will remain the facts.
BTW, there is a reasonable chance that Hillary will get the most votes by a democratic candidate EVER in South Carolina tomorrow, despite the fact that overall turnout is likely to be down from 2008. If that happens, will you be talking how Hillary boosts turnout?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Objectivity and honest analysis be damned, Hillary do or die.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)OBJECTIVELY, the total turnout was down.
But spin however you like.
Have a good night.
senz
(11,945 posts)I'm so tired of the disingenuousness.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)It's sure been an eye opener, though.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)mainers came in across the border to pitch in.
i don't know what it's like in other places.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)It wasn't a blow-out, and from what I've seen, the NV caucus was nothing but confusion and chaos.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Sanders couldn't do so if they weren't registered by Oct 9 of last year. Back when no one knew who he was, right before the first debate. Since then there are so many who know him now and would like to register as Dems, but if they are already registered with another party, they cannot.
So no, the leadership of the party does not want new voters unless they are already committed to ONE candidate. That is no way to run a party, a sure way to lose membership.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Not as many people on the ground.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)DWS, by contrast, has tried her very best to suppress the Democratic vote and hand Hillary the nomination.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Then again, this seems to be a continuation of the same problem as we had in previous mid-terms.
DNC FAIL.
Nyan
(1,192 posts)They don't mind low voter turnout.
But, if Rachel Maddow wants to talk about democratic voters' low voter turnout, she'd better mention media's complicity in all of this.
The entire country has been watching Trump shit show day in and day out, thanks to corporate media completely normalizing his presence in the race. And they did everything they could to avoid talking about Bernie, and when they did, they made sure that the viewers walk away thinking that "Oh. Bernie Sanders is a fringe candidate. He can't win. Why would I bother voting for someone who can't win anyway?"
It's truly amazing how far he has come with media getting in his way every step of the way. If he wasn't running in 2016, he would have been buried by the media long time ago. Be they 2000, 2004, or 2008.
It might be that this primary is about traditional media vs social media, as much as it is about Bernie vs Hillary.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)going to roll right over them in 2016. It's so sad and pathetic to watch this playing out.
If Trump wins in 2016, the democratic party is going to be out of circulation for a long time. Trump will likely have the presidency, congress and be making SCOTUS appointments while the democrats watch.
FFS DNC and DWS, wake the F up. They will likely be running against a Trump/Christie ticket. They will be singing massive change, and we will be endorsing the establishment. Guess what's going to resonate well with millions of voters and a low democratic turnout.
I have nothing against Hillary and nothing against Bernie. I'm just being realistic in this very unusual campaign season. Old dog tricks are not going to work.
Nyan
(1,192 posts)But you know what? Debbie doesn't care. It doesn't matter to her what happens in GE. Her job is to nominate Hillary. That's why she got that job in the first place.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)millions of Americans are concerned about. He talks a good line. He's a top notch salesman. Hillary on the other hand talks about, in essence, a continuation of how great things are. It's really boiling down to the current establishment vs. 'we the people.' I just don't think the DNC/DWS strategy is going to play well in 2016.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)One candidate.
This is an issue that's bigger than politics.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Generating enthusiasm, and signing up voters. Instead, she's been preoccupied with putting her thumb on the scale and protecting her candidate.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It appears both our candidates need them.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)was not in this race, turnout would be a total disaster. As he becomes known, turnout improves, but with the Corp media making sure to keep Trump and the Establishment candidates front and center, people are only now getting to know Bernie. And if he loses the nomination, all that enthusiasm he is generating, will turn to Congress and ignore the WH race, meaning Trump is likely to be our next president.
Thanks DNC
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)I'll wait.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Sorry I didn't get to it sooner. I had read it a few days ago, but did not bookmark. Had to google it. You're welcome.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)You know, their fucking job?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... since Bernie's revolution hasn't panned out.
"Top Democrats allied with Hillary Clinton have quietly formed a $25 million nonprofit organization aimed at boosting the turnout of African American and Latino voters, two constituencies key to her presidential bid.
The group, called Every Citizen Counts, is being advised by Guy Cecil, who also serves as the chief strategist for the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action, as the Associated Press first reported."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/10/clinton-allies-launch-new-nonprofit-group-to-mobilize-african-american-and-latino-voters/
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)mid terms eg, people are just fed up with the broken promises and they are not allowed to say so without being attacked, so they just leave the party altogether. The Dem part has lost 12% of its membership since 2008. Why IS that?
Now at least Bernie is bringing people into the party. But if he had not run, the turnout would have been lower than the last two mid terms.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)So is the obvious silence from the Party's Establishment on past failed election results.
They know. It's by design I'm sure.
OZi
(155 posts)There are 2 choices on the Dem side. The media narrative has consistently been "Hillary is inevitable" and has given her coverage second only to Trump. Not much reason for people to worry about showing up there. OTOH, Bernie was mostly ignored by the media until N.H. and since then his coverage has been, "he doesn't have a chance" and "why is he still in this?" Again, not much to stir up people into showing up there either.
Now, I don't mean to sound like I'm just blaming the media, there are other factors too I'm sure, but I can't ignore the impression I'm getting either. Bottom line, there are ONLY 2 candidates this time around and the way the media is handling it comes across as, "Hillary's got this." Maybe, just maybe, if this year there were more choices than "inevitable" vs "unelectable" things would be different on the Dem side.
Contrast the above with what's going on with the Republicans. Trump is a big draw on his own I'm sure. Plus at one time there were what, 15-16 people running? How many made it to Nevada? Ben Carson managed to find his way to Nevada ffs. Beyond the sheer volume of candidates, there has also been a lot of churning and yearning going on on the Republican side to try and find the "establishment" candidate to challenge Trump and the whole thing has been fueling turnout on that side. Republicans being the "out of power" party, their turnout was bound to be inflated anyway.
tl;dr: The media has been wall to wall Trump and trying to find his potential rival and on the Dem side, the message has been; "Don't worry, we really only have 1 candidate anyway." Lot's of activity for Republicans and not much to go on for Dems. Not everyone is a political junky.
californiabernin
(421 posts)There a pacity of enthusiasm for Clinton. Sanders strengthens the party going forward.
I am baffled this seems so little understood.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Have they given up?
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)from caucusing for him in Nevada?
You cant force people to vote.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)The less candidates, the less people on the ground to GOTV. Sanders had a record amount of votes in New Hampshire.
Don't be fooled by corporate media.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The problem in NH sure wasn't the record-setting Sanders turnout now, was it? The precise numbers in these ridiculous caucuses aren't even known - sorry if you have a shift at the appointed time, workers, you're exactly the people who aren't supposed to be voting!
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)justamiddleclasser
(1 post)The name of this site is "DEMOCRATICunderground.com." It is not "INDEPENDENTunderground.com." So when looking at Senator Sanders, it is clear that his participation as a "Democrat" has been totally self serving. Had he not participated in the Democratic Caucuses in Congress, he would have gotten NOTHING - not Chair of the Veterans Committee. Had he not identified as a Democrat less than 10 month ago, he wouldn't have gotten any traction on his candidacy for President. So after about 5 decades in elective office, he sees the light and becomes a DEMOCRAT - NO, it was self-serving, because he's using the Democratic Party to get what he wants, rather than having worked with Democrats for the past 5 decades to make real change.
Also, there is an ugly contradiction in criticizing Clinton for accepting Wall Street money, yet he accepted Harry Reed PAC money - Searchlight Leadership Fund - when he ran for the Senate - where BofA, JP-Morgan, and other banks were integral to the fund. And, he got plenty of union money too.
So, how can you TRUST Sen. Sanders about being committed to this revolution - when he switched from being and "Independent" in EVERY ELECTION HE RAN FOR - until NOW...He should have been created a national "Independent" organization 5 decades ago as he DIDN'T. The change he purports has to be initiated in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY at this time, because as an Independent, you only get a President worse than George W. Bush - just like Ralph Nader's candidacy in 2000 lost the election to Al Gore...who would have won two more states - including Florida had he not run. So, we get Justice Roberts and Alito...great, as a result we got Citizens United...thus we are worse off as we can't even get back to the good policy of the Clinton Gore Administration nor take back the $3 trillion in tax breaks under Dubya...if you don't have the votes in Congress, it won't happen.
Senator Sanders is more idealistic, using his followers...AND NOT REALISTIC...or if he was, he wouldn't admit to it because he would destroy his political message -"ending income inequality," but having no real plan to get there - sorry a plutonic - theoretical concept is NOT A PLAN - meaning a revolution is not a plan. So, in the end, we'll get greater income inequality and maybe that's the real revolution that will occur, but decades later while half our population suffer - but wait - global warming will have destroyed us first.
Unfortunately, he hasn't helped Democrats get elected to make this change...only himself. And, the only way to get the change is to help other candidates - who happened to be almost exclusively Democrats. He needs 60 votes in the Senate and at least 50 more Democrats in the House of Representatives (because just getting the majority won't be enough). He may believe in the trickle down theory...but that's Ronald Reagan...it doesn't work...you have to directly help other candidates...and Senator Clinton has for years - including President Obama, going to dozens of states in 2008, being the principal at scores of rallies, and helping Democrats win...
Also, he's misleading millions of low income wage earners about his single payer plan. As many get health care from their employer - whether it is from a large private employer or government, they LOSE in his plan, as they would then be taxed to get the health care that they now get as part of the total compensation package - IT'S WRONG.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)The Redheaded Guy
(90 posts)She is a Democrat like oil on water.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)I thought Bernie's revolution would pull that secret super 'progressive' majority out of the shadows! You mean they - and the much coveted yet rarely meaningful youth vote - need to have their hands held by Hillary and DWS? And it's now DWS's job to court and register them to vote?
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)... is, that no matter what I think of the Repukes' party, they put effort into the GOTV.
I see way more Republican local meetings being held for candidate discussion. I have personal history in the Democratic machine locally, at the county level, and at the state level.
People have to move BEYOND being sick with "who got in office BECAUSE of the machine. They disgust me to no end...
The GOTV effort HAS to be the faction that is not recognized well. Take home message for us in these places (PA is a swing state, so I consider that I live in one of these places) is to GET ACTIVE and GET INVOLVED! I didn't say local committees, did I?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)that the state with the least dramatic drop was nh, where bernie won huge? also, the other two states are caucuses states, and i hope the problems with caucuses are clear enough that they don't need to be mentioned again.
but kudos to dws and hrc for their fantastic voter suppression efforts. it will cost them the wh...then again, that is ok as long as its not bernie.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I turned the tv machine off when she came on after tweety last night. About two minutes of her shit was all I could take.
I used to love Rachel, what happened???
maybe selling out had something to do with it but who knows it may just be I'm wising up in my old age. Who gives a fuck I sure don't anymore. I'm tired of being lied to by the so called ruling class. simple as that
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)In 08 we had 120,000, in 2016 80,000 to their 75,000. The 'record' they broke in Nevada was not at all 'the voter turnout record for that State' as Rachel claims but merely the voter turnout record for Republicans in those States, one of which is Nevada which has only 3 caucus turnouts to compare, having just started that process in 08.
AxionExcel
(755 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)An unhealthy trend I've noticed with Sanders supporters on DU. That makes for a pretty hard fall somewhere down the line after Hillary secures the nomination.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)It's not the amount of money, just ask Jeb. It's the enthusiasm, just ask Trump. He has spent almost no money and God knows he knows nothing about policy. . .all he has is his enthusiasm.
When you see those long, long lines for Bernie and those huge events with thousands who have to stand outside because the venue won't handle them all. . . that is enthusiasm.
If the Democrats choose to push that down, it is they who are responsible for the low turnout and eventual loss.
olddots
(10,237 posts)to the highest bidder .
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)her all year. For the good of the party she should look at the inevitable she will never win the ge, and should drop out. HRC divides everyone along all lines.
Neon Gods
(222 posts)...a lot of Democrats don't care much which of our candidates wins the nomination. I know a number of people say they like both Bernie and Hillary. They will vote in November, however. I hope the press does make a big deal about our lower turnout in the prinaries. Let everyone believe were apathetic while we sneak up on them with a record turnout.