Nobody here cared about the supposed rudeness at the debate. The rudeness of NAFTA and pushover sellout corporate dems is all Michigan Democrats have been talking about for years

Also reminding people that your opponent opposed the banker bailout maybe was a bad idea.

"Anybody but Hillary" is a battle cry here. The airwaves were full of it during my commute in.

This victory was the will of the independent voter.

machine politics.

The trade agreements are the most obvious and maybe the worst manifestation of the machine politics.

The concept of free trade that pits workers in the US against workers in Viet Nam and pushes all of them down into a hopeless spiral to subsistence living is the result of machine politics of the worst kind.

Trade should lift working people up. It should lift all people up. But the trade agreements we have do not do that. And I do not think that we can get trade agreements that lift the living standard of everyone with the kind of machine politics funded by the super-rich and the multinational corporate marauders that we now have.

Both the Democratic and Republican grass-roots voters are recognizing this problem and trying to deal with it.

Let's hope that Bernie goes forward to represent the Democratic Party in November because if Hillary is the Democratic candidate, given this "revolt" among voters in both policies, assuming that Trump is the Republican candidate, Hillary cannot win.

She is too much a part of the very machine that voters are rebelling against. And her liberal stances on a lot of social issues are not going to help her.

Trump also likes Planned Parenthood. So that will not differentiate the candidates.

About time the richie riches of the world tasted our daily meal.

The ones I know dont like him, dont like that he would be the oldest person ever to run for president and will be lucky to live until 2020. So we as democrats have a problem if this continues.

.


There are a multitude of factors why HRC does better in the South.


1) Riding Bill Clinton's coattails was a primary exit poll answer.

2) They were comfortable with HRC months before the primaries and did not bother entertain a change.

3) AAs have the second highest voting rate, closely following behind Hispanics.

4) Majority of AA voters are religiously affiliated, and lean Baptist or other Christian variants.

5) Of the AA voters, the majority who do support HRC are over 40, so they are in the stronger representation.

6) Older voters, including Democrats are more conservative that younger voters, and more resistant to change.

And a slew more...


So, while someone can field simplistic reasons why Sanders underperforms, there are a myriad of factors.


.

I'm from the South, and I can say that in general southerners are a stubborn bunch, prone to black-and-white thinking (for or against, friend or enemy). The Clintons have been viewed as heroes of blacks and Democrats for decades (whether true or not). A Vermont senator starts far behind in name recognition, so is viewed with suspicion as "other."

I think Clinton is a likeable and decent person, and that's good enough for people who don't have a big stake in the difference on issues. It's hard for us to come in and say Bernie is so much better.

Also agree with 4)—churches have excellent GOTV efforts, and they are powerful in the Bible Belt.

Yes, Hillary still has an advantage there, but a third is still an awful lot of people who liked him enough to vote for him over Hillary. And it's enough to not automatically give states with heavy minority population to Hillary.

over a Republican. Any Republican, not just Trump. But you forget there's still a huge part of the electorate that aren't POC, and a lot of them could be tempted to vote for Trump. And he wouldn't need an astronomical number of those. A 10% swing would be the difference between a Democratic landslide and a Trump landslide.

Yeah, being against the Wall Street bailout may actually have been a net positive for him in that exchange.

And if we're lucky, big chunks of IL, PA and NY did too.

It's a new ballgame, thanks to you guys getting it right today.

I hope those issues continue to crush her in the Rust Belt.

since these states are actually in play, and could make the difference in hitting 270.

Van Jones kind of (inadvertently?) made this point on CNN last night, discussed at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511449130

This is a people campaign.

People listen to us, then they check out Bernie, and they're sold!

Specifically in the debates, it is a chance for Bernie to communicate, That's why the PTB didn't want debates.

Then, of course, Hillary also communicates and, well, she kinda commits political suicide.

So, yes, the debates mean a lot. With the people on the ground, the debates, and the Bernie fact, it is a solid structure that stands on its own. A three legged table one might say?

They only had 6 debate scheduled? In 2008 26 where allowed. Now after Sanders says he is running they change the rules so only 6 can happen. Look below for complete list of 2008 copied from Wikipedia. First debate was in April...This time it was in Oct. So no matter who you support in primary you should be pissed off that the DNC did this because DNC basically told people oh you don't need to be informed we know what is best for you.




5.1 April 26, 2007 – Orangeburg, South Carolina, South Carolina State University
5.2 June 3, 2007 - CNN 7:00pm EDT - Goffstown, New Hampshire, Saint Anselm College
5.3 June 28, 2007 - PBS - Washington, D.C., Howard University
5.4 July 12, 2007–Detroit, Michigan
5.5 July 23, 2007 - CNN - Charleston, South Carolina, The Citadel military college
5.6 August 4, 2007 – Chicago, Illinois
5.7 August 7, 2007 – Chicago, Illinois
5.8 August 9, 2007 – Los Angeles, California
5.9 August 19, 2007 – Des Moines, Iowa
5.10 September 9, 2007 – Coral Gables, Florida, University of Miami
5.11 September 12, 2007
5.12 September 20, 2007 – Davenport, Iowa
5.13 September 26, 2007 – Hanover, New Hampshire, Dartmouth College
5.14 October 30, 2007 - NBC 9:00pm EDT - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Drexel University
5.15 November 15, 2007 - CNN - Las Vegas, Nevada
5.16 December 4, 2007 - NPR (radio only) - Des Moines, Iowa
5.17 December 13, 2007 – Johnston, Iowa
5.18 January 5, 2008 - ABC 8:45pm EST - Goffstown, New Hampshire, Saint Anselm College
5.19 January 15, 2008 - MSNBC 6:00pm PST - Las Vegas, Nevada, College of Southern Nevada
5.20 January 21, 2008 - CNN 8:00pm EST - Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
5.21 January 31, 2008 - CNN 5:00pm PDT - Hollywood, California
5.22 February 2, 2008 - MTV 6:00pm EST - MTV Myspace Debate
5.23 February 21, 2008 - CNN 7:00pm CST - Austin, Texas, University of Texas at Austin
5.24 February 26, 2008 - MSNBC 9:00pm EST - Cleveland, Ohio, Cleveland State University
5.25 April 13, 2008 - CNN 8:00pm EDT - Grantham, Pennsylvania, Messiah College
5.26 April 16, 2008 - ABC 8:00pm EDT - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

has a me$$.

You know I went back and re-listened to that part when he said it and he was referring to the conversation he had with the BLM activist.

The poutrage was way over the top.

Glad you re-listened to that. GOOD that some pay attention to FACTS.

The more people hear Bernie, the better they like him and his ideas - they trust him.

The more they hear Clinton, the less they believe/trust/like her.

because her actual polling shows she needed to- and not just for her chances in the fall against media romping GOP demagogues. That is why she is risking making her donors and centrists nervous in finally going left, too late and too disingenuous.

...because she was gambling that it wouldn't matter.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511452880

Last edited Wed Mar 9, 2016, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

TARP/GM lie: they lie because they think it works

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280140157

...she is the one who gave him this opportunity, in a calculated gamble that did not pay off. I posted about this at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511452880

It definitely was the debate that pushed Bernie ahead in Michigan. He was so honest and he told it very straightforward. He made Hillary look like a typical politician giving a speech using all the rehearsed talking points we've heard a thousand times but that her heart wasn't into. Bernie came across as the wise old man that knows exactly what to do and how to get it done. I don't always agree with everything he says, but I do believe he is a good honest man that cares for the average everyday American.

Welcome to DU!

Bernie when he got a chance to say something. I didn't consider Bernie to be rude in the least.

Perhaps it is just me but I find Hillary has one of the most irritating voices I have ever listened to when she is trying to convey her emotion on a topic. I find it extremely difficult to listen to her at her political gatherings or in a debate.

Almost always.

Since I disagree with her often, it becomes intolerable.

Can't stand the condescending tone. Or the anger...to me she comes across as angry as well.

But I was worried that it was too late--that not enough people saw those critical points made about NAFTA, et al. Clinton really blew that issue very badly (and also the frakking issue, among others). And worried that there wasn't time for word of mouth. But I'm old--I tend to forget about the internet's incredible new power on time-sensitive matters. (I don't do Twitter, Facebook, all that--haven't figured it out yet.) But the debate DID get out, by just those new media.

Some are also saying that Clinton's auto-bailout lie about Sanders hurt her badly. People just didn't buy it--and Sanders' team was able to get a rebuttal out on the airwaves (and on the internet) really fast. And they do very good ads and messaging--as do many volunteers unconnected to the campaign team.

Also, it may turn out to be important that poor AA voters in places like SC, LA and MS don't get info from the internet--but rather from the corpo-fascist news media--whether because of poverty (simply don't have computers or other devices, or no easy access to them) or conservative culture (it's frowned on by ministers and elders? embedment in a far rightwing, 'christian,' white-run surrounding culture?), so when the Clinton campaign swift-boated Sanders on his early civil rights activism, the truth really didn't get out among those voters in time to expose the lie. They may have been inclined, to begin with, to tie their flag to their leaders who are tied to the Clinton machine, out of self-interest; then to find out that the other candidate was some kind of faker on civil rights--that did it for them. Lack of internet access may be the key. (Tim Black, a black Sanders supporter on The Real News Room--a You Tube broadcast--made this point earlier today: poor internet access in downtrodden southern states. I hadn't figure this out. He had.)

I think we can presume that internet access was good in MI. Sanders did better with AA voters in MI.

Finally, we mustn't underestimate or underplay the Sanders volunteer on the ground precinct walkers and talkers in MI. When I was 16 (1960) THAT was campaigning. THAT was how we won elections. I think it's still true--but that kind of activism has been nearly destroyed by Corporate Democrats like Clinton, who look to the Corporate Rulers for support and I think really DON'T WANT people out in the street talking to each other. They really don't want democracy. And who wants to walk a precinct for Clinton when she can buy a million dollar ad on TV and reach millions more people than the 20 or 30 you might contact in a day of precinct work?

The trouble is that those kind of ads (typical, slick corporate PR ads) have become ineffective--they are too unrelated to most peoples' experience. But meeting a passionate representative of a candidate, who has a REAL message as to your REAL life and urges you to vote, and helps arrange it if you need help, THAT is effective, THAT moves people, gives them hope, and makes them feel like citizens again.

I do so hope that we all become citizens again, and I see it happening--and the Sanders volunteers are making it happen. It gives me such joy!

So it wasn't just the debate. It was many things. 20% to 30% down a week ago, and Sanders wins it! Not by a lot, but that doesn't matter. Nor does the delegate count matter that much right now. All that matters is MOMENTUM and he has it!

Now there will be thousands more volunteers walking precincts, and calling, and donating their $27.

I guess I was commenting more based on my own response. I just felt it in my bones that Bernie was connecting, and he finally had an audience in Michigan who had really suffered from NAFTA and was getting his so called "one-issue" message.

about proposing free, government-run WiFi available in every square foot of U.S. territory via satellite. I can't recall exactly who made the announcement, but wouldn't THAT be a game-changer?

To NOT win Michigan. Her answers on NAFTA and Fracking were unforgivable in this state and that is the bottom line.

She lies so much, she should have lied about that.

Love to say, it just ain't so.

Answer indeed.

time will tell.

The PR would be devastating.

in she'll want to do more debates. I just wonder how Clinton will 'evolve' for the next debate.

It must be true when he says so. No?

She always sounds canned and rehearsed to me.

as now discredited pundits and gatekeepers. Looking at all those "Hillary won" comments in the media it seemed they were all cooking up a unified and shallow message at some dimly lit watering hole in DC.

I haven't read the actual numbers, but the main argument about how Bernie could win (the primary or the general) is that he'll bring independents and new and disaffected voters.

America deserves to hear our candidates as much as possible because THAT is where Democracy begins.
This 6 debate schedule was nothing but a rigging.

state and we got a TON of Independents and Republicans to crossover for Bernie. We'll see how we do in the remainder of the Rust Belt states that have closed primaries. I'm particularly worried about Ohio (remember 2004?) and Illinois (Rahm Emmanuel is still in charge of Chicago).

She acted like it was a big "got ya" moment, when in reality she was hoping the electorate was not informed enough to know the truth. As part of the electorate, her counting on me to be too dumb to see past the smear really pisses me off. She's counting on voter ignorance. That's what she thinks of us.

She might have won if she'd spent more time here. Bernie's been all over Michigan.

The auto bail-out thing did bug me. I don't see it as a flat-out lie, but it was certainly an attempt to make something complicated appear clear cut. It wasn't fair, to those of us who remember what was going on during that time period. It certainly didn't make me feel negative about Bernie, and it did make me roll my eyes at Hillary. But Bernie already had my vote by then.

She was shoe in and got carried threw the South because people had not clue who Bernie was. Most older people get the news from Cable and the media coverage of Sanders in 2015 was 20 minutes where Hillary had several hundred hours, And Trump had 2x what Clinton did. I did not see much campaigning of here down here in SW. Hopefully the HRC swiftboat like race baiting from SC is starting to not have as deep impact in the North and West states as it did done here in the South. If first thing other Afican Americans in south hear about Sanders where they headlines they ran in the paper here, then I understand why they turned thier back on a white man who was active in Civil Rights movement in 1960s. And on the right side of it too, unlike other people his age who where had more important things to do, like campaign for Goldwater. While Goldwater
Martin Luther King Jr., “Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives aid and comfort to the racists.”

I don't know, irl, a single person who was irritated with Bernie's telling Hillary, in effect, to STFU and quit interrupting. Like most people would do to someone with no manners...

Your opponent doesn't get a massive swing in his favour when you 'win' a debate on the ground just before voting begins.

...thinking Bernie won the debate, big time? and then coming here to DU and all these Hillaryites are naysaying and posting things from the corpo-fascist media about how Hillary won it. I had some self-doubt! Also, didn't the Young Turks blow this one, and say he hadn't done that well? Yeah, I believe they did. I went to bed feeling blue.

I pride myself on being pretty savvy and well-informed. I knew he had won it--I KNEW it, at an intuitive level, not just content which was great--but apparently a lot of other people, including some Bernie supporters, didn't think so. I doubted myself, and I don't even have TV and the excuse that I was brainwashed. They had me going, they did. And I thought he was going to lose MI because (it seems) so few others perceived the debate the way I had.

And then the drumbeat began. Bernie telling a woman to let him finish what he was saying! Oh, the everybody's husband or boyfriend bastard! How dare he do that! How dare he speak when a woman is trying to get her feelings out?! (Gawd, Hillary was so-o-o-o boring, one-tone and long-winded--I was very glad he asserted his right to speak, and I'm a feminist!). And ghetto! GHETTO! = all blacks are poor and wretched! How dare he use the word "ghetto"?! What terrible "gaffes"! What a sexist! What a racist!

At first I was outraged at these stupid, irrelevant and venomous talking points, but then it started to seem funny to me. Humorous. Are they kidding? "Let me finish what I am saying." "Ghetto." THIS is all they have?

But it did take me until yesterday, with Bernie's win in MI, to realize that those things were nothing, but more than this, that those things were SCRIPTED, probably by David Brock, who was sitting in a dark room somewhere with a memo pad and the debate playing, hunting--hunting!--for ANYTHING that could be construed, by any stretch of the imagination, as a gaffe to offend women or blacks.

His immediate purpose was to ORCHESTRATE these two things with the Clinton shills in the corpo-fascist media who would say that she won the debate and Bernie, "once again," offended women and blacks--needed voting groups. That was supposed to blot out all else.

And then, reviewing (in my mind) all that Bernie had said in that debate--and said with firmness and passion as never before--I realized that my response had been right on. He won it! He not only got through to Michigan voters, he told the truth in no uncertain terms to everybody else watching. The truth worked. People HEARD him.

Just to say, even somebody who's paying attention can be fooled, or partially fooled, by these evil tactics.

Let me go a little further with Brock. I also see now more precisely what Brock is doing. He is a master of political assassinations, after all (much like Karl Rove).

He started by identifying Bernie's considerable STRENGTHS: 1) his Iraq War vote and savvy at the time about the consequences of that war; 2) his civil rights record (on the front lines) reflective of his core values; 3) his vehement opposition to "free trade for the rich" agreements; 4) health care "as a right"/medicare for all (on the Dem platform for over 50 years), 5) vigorous defense of women's and gay rights; 6) his appeal to students, not just over student debt, but with real hope for a better future for all, and 7) his being a gentleman, his fairness, his good nature--very appealing qualities.

How to sully or destroy these strengths? That is Brock's game plan. Some of the major items of his plan have already become visible and are in motion (for instance, the photo/John Lewis dirty trick), but others are still obscure and lurking, as to the timing of the assault; the surrogates he will be using; the web pages he will flood with clever trolls and what they will say and when; the headlines he will call upon the corporate media to provide for him, etc. (for instance, I think Sanders' Iraq War vote is next, but the attack will be oblique--because his vote and predictions were SO RIGHT; it will probably be on his CO status during the Vietnam War). (We can't possibly have a peace-minded president. President has to be a warrior in these perilous times, or, at least a warrior groupie.) (Oh dear, that was not nice.) (But it was deserved--Clinton has Henry Kissinger and Robert Kagan (PNAC) for advisers!)

The feminist attack (how dare Bernie speak to HER like that!) was partly to sully him a bit and to help keep the Hillary fem group together, but mostly it was a distraction from NAFTA. How's that, feminists, for being used? (Note: I am a feminist and a 70 year old woman. I know a thing or two about women being used.)

And the ghetto thing is obvious, to use racism itself to sully and destroy Bernie's natural appeal to African Americans. The rebut on "ghetto" has been fast and effective (I mean, Bernie LIVED in a ghetto and lost his grandparents to the Holocaust!), but I'd say Brock has been winning that smear on the whole until now. I do think it's breaking down. More AA's voted for Bernie in MI than was expected. I think that trend will continue, because northern blacks have the internet and many southern blacks don't (for many reasons--but mostly poverty and conservative culture; Tim Black spoke about this yesterday).

One column of Brock's game plan is Sanders' strengths, the other is Hillary's weaknesses. Check off Brock's columns as we go along!

Recommended.

The debate was key.

I believe Hillary's argument about "going after gun manufacturers" hurt her badly here.

There are -lots- of hunters in MI and, to me at least, her position on this issue smells very much like pandering. Partly bexuase she knows damn well that suing gun manufavturers would never stand up legally.

I don't think the gun issue played well for her in Michigan. Lots of hunters there. I noticed she lost the entire UP except for one county.

While many own firearms for hunting a very high percentage own firearms for self defense.

Gun owners realize that allowing the victims of gun violence to sue the firearm manufacturer would end the gun industry in our nation. Most gun owners do not wish this to happen so they will show up to vote against those politicians who support such lawsuits.

Gun owners are a large voting block that can and does often make the difference in a tight election. I don't think it's all that wise to piss them off if your goal is to win your election.

to say, "Excuse me, I'm talking". Every politician, including Hillary 'wags" their finger at the moderate to get their attention. Made up brockshit is what it was.

the debate made all the difference.

And if we were not allowed to defend ourselves when we are interrupted, some of us would never get a word in edgewise. Bernie was absolutely on FIRE and on point!

He is sharper than most people are at 50, that is obvious to anyone who listens to him speak.