2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumUS Uncut: Only Bernie Can Win GE and "Don't ask Bernie Supporters to Go Against Their Core Values"
Tom Cahill | March 19, 2016
Hillary Clinton and her supporters would like to assume that if the former Secretary of State does end up with the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders base will fall in line and vote for Clinton to stop Trump. But they are wrong.
First off, its important to shut down the myth of Clintons inevitability as the eventual general election opponent to Donald Trump. The Democratic presidential primary is only halfway over, and Bernie Sanders has 42 percent of the pledged delegates thus far.
Even the New York Times which has publicly endorsed Clintons campaign and whose public editor called out the paper for showing an obvious pro-Clinton bias in a recent stealth editing job admits Sanders can still end up as the nominee, and they laid out a path for how he could do it. Writing off Sanders chances now and telling his supporters that they have no choice but to unite behind Clinton is premature.
snip
In fact, between 2004 and 2014, the percentage of young voters who identified as independent rather than Democrat jumped from 38 percent to 50 percent. And in all of the states Bernie Sanders has won, and even the states hes lost by considerable margins, like Virginia and Tennessee, hes still managed to capture a wide majority of independents and voters under the age of 35. Its unrealistic to expect these largely independent voters to switch to the Democratic Party and vote for an elite member of the Democratic establishment.
And, lets be honest the entire reason so many Bernie Sanders supporters are so ardently anti-Hillary Clinton might be because of her refusal to strongly oppose the corrupt campaign finance system Bernie rages against.
Clintons top campaign donors include criminal Wall Street banks like Citibank and Goldman Sachs, and corporate-owned media companies like Time Warner and 21st Century Fox.
While Sanders is raising millions of $27 donations from the grassroots, Clinton raised money from Wall Street on at least 31 different occasions between the start of her campaign and the end of February.
Asking the supporters of the anti-Wall Street candidate who rejects Super PACs to suddenly back a pro-Wall Street candidate who embraces the Super PAC system would be asking them to betray their core values.
snip
Hillary Clinton is unable to bring in new blood to the Democratic Party like Bernie Sanders has done. In the last 11 primary contests, 7 states have gone to Clinton and 4 have gone to Sanders. As the below table shows, turnout for all of the states Clinton won is down significantly from 2008, the last time there was a contested Democratic presidential primary. Yet in three of the last four states Bernie Sanders won, turnout was up by as much as 49 percent:
The numbers speak for themselves: The Democratic Party is in for a shellacking if they end up nominating Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders has proven himself to be the one candidate capable of uniting the Democratic Party in his ability to bring in fresh faces, his consistently higher numbers when pitted against Republicans in hypothetical general election matchups, and a message that resonates with future generations.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)The way Bernie won MI was by running really vicious negative ads and driving Dem turnout down and that isn't going to help in November.
amborin
(16,631 posts)thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)according to the chart on the OP, Dem turnout in MI was actually very strong. Is that wrong?
Also curious to know what you consider a vicious negative ad of Bernie's, and whether you think his ads have been more negative than, for example, this:
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)The whole story is that even where total turnout is up, as in MI, Dem turnout is less than GOP turnout. In MI for example Dem turnout was 1,193,169, but GOP turnout was 1,322,742. And that that's been the pattern all year. Here's a spreadsheet of this year's turnout:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_2zR7LlDVUpVs1WM5S_bzeuooOvlVPvJVsEj4MXCOa4/edit#gid=0
And for sheer negativity I don't think Clinton's ad holds a candle to Bernie's:
samson212
(83 posts)Turnout has been higher in the republican primaries because there are more candidates. In fact, 1.2 m voters for 2 candidates looks like a lot better turnout than 1.3 m voters for 5 candidates or whatever.
Also, the spreadsheet you linked is not very helpful. I would expect to see some indication of what proportion of the electorate is registered D/R before I try to draw some conclusions about the meaning of turnout numbers.
Finally, how is that ad negative? It barely even mentions Clinton. It's about trade policy. Trade policy. This ad is completely the opposite of a negative ad, in that it lists the policies that the candidate supports, rather than making (false) claims about what the other candidate has done. Unlike the previously mentioned Clinton ad, which is all about how Bernie didn't support the auto bailout -- a demonstrably false claim.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)Hillary's ad is largely about Bernie,
Bernie's ad is also about Bernie, with no mention of or picture of Hillary.
Plus Bernie's ad is factual. Clinton's is misleading, intentionally trying to create a false impression. There is nothing misleading about Bernie's ad.
p.s. -- good points about the numbers, too.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)In Florida, a necessary swing state, nearly 2.7 million turned out to vote in the Republican primaries and only 1.6 million in the Democratic.
It's not just because they have more candidates, either. It's because Democrats, while effectively having a choice, don't really think they do. They think the game has been rigged for Clinton and they're quite anemic about voting as a result.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)*That* was an attack ad? In that entire ad, there were only three words that were not about Bernie's position: "While others waffle." That's a vicious attack? And the fact is, Hillary *did* waffle. TPP was the gold standard, then she eventually decided that, as it stands, she doesn't support it. (Which also sounds like, with a few changes, she could support it again.)
It never mentions her by name. The implication is true. It is only 3 words out of the whole ad. You think that can't hold a candle to Clinton's ad for negativity?
Her ad names and pictures Bernie, and the whole point of the ad is to imply that Bernie was against saving the auto industry, which also happens to be a lie. Really, this comparison can't be taken seriously.
As for the numbers, figures vs. Republicans alone don't tell you anything. What percentage of MI voters are Republican, for example? Plus they had four candidates running generating GOTV campaigns, vs. 2 on our side.
Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)Barack Obama and John Edwards didn't file for the ballot because the primary date violated the rules and the delegates were stripped by the DNC.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)tritsofme
(17,325 posts)Republican turnout is up and Democratic turnout is down in the 2016 primary contests so far. That has some Republicans giddy for the fall; heres an example...
But Democrats shouldnt worry. Republicans shouldnt celebrate. As others have pointed out, voter turnout is an indication of the competitiveness of a primary contest, not of what will happen in the general election. The GOP presidential primary is more competitive than the Democratic race.
Indeed, history suggests that there is no relationship between primary turnout and the general election outcome. You can see this on the most basic level by looking at raw turnout in years in which both parties had competitive primaries. There have been six of those years in the modern era: 1976, 1980, 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2008....
So it shouldnt be surprising that Republican turnout is higher than Democratic turnout this year. Hillary Clinton is a commanding front-runner on the Democratic side, while the front-runner on the Republican side has earned only one-third of the vote and less than half the delegates allocated so far. Voters are turning out for the more competitive contest. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/
H2O Man
(73,333 posts)CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)We may not be fanatical about it, but Clinton voters are the ones turning out in droves. Turning out to elect Clinton, preserve Obama's achievements, and continue to build on them going forward.
Republican primary participation can be explained by the previous 19-odd campaigns all running get-out-the-vote operations as primary campaigns have to do. But primary participation has never been shown to reflect the subsequent general election participation, and if it had, I'm sure someone could actually link to an article about it, rather than just implying that it's a fact, because truthiness.
comradebillyboy
(10,119 posts)more delegates and far more VOTES than Sanders. It's really difficult to understand how he is 'the peoples choice'.
Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)If Sanders was bringing so many new fresh faces to the democratic party that he needs to be the nominee wouldn't he be winning?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Sad to tell you this, a vote for Clinton will be a vote for tRump in the general.
Independents don't like her and Millennials don't trust her.
CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)Independents will continue to be as amorphous as always.
brooklynite
(93,873 posts)The argument seems to be "where Bernie wins, turnout increases."
No.
The correct argument is: "where turnout increases, Bernie wins". And I'll accept that. The problem is that, given the fact that Bernie and Hillary are available in EVERY STATE, turnout is not increasing except in rare cases. Why DIDN'T Bernie generate higher turnout in MO, IL, OH, NC, FL, MS.....?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)supporting a candidate that doesn't support the People. Didn't work in 2000 and won't work in 2016.
brooklynite
(93,873 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Your choice is to help the rich or help the poor. The Clintons are the rich.
brooklynite
(93,873 posts)...mistakes like that will mean your campaign tactics are equally flawed.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Make no mistake she has helped her friends in the Prisons For Profits make millions and they paid her hansomly.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that some need so badly. You give up your freedoms and for what? A weak promise of security?
The Aristocracy doesn't love you. They want your resources and that's ok but they also want the resources from those struggling and that's not ok.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)a repug
I hear ya.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)By the way your loyalty to the wealthy will not be noticed. As the Clinton's wealth increases watch the poverty rate increase also.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Sanders? White, men and middle/upper middle.
That is the choice
Oh, and one that gets stuff done, and one that is all talk
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)She supports fracking for profits and says to hell with the water quality of the peons.
Her "Free Trade" positions will kill more jobs in America.
not that you care.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Response to seabeyond (Reply #17)
Name removed Message auto-removed
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Sachs make 100 billion dollars thanks to relaxed regulations, that money comes from the poor and working classes that you can turn your back on.
This is a class war and you side with the Wealthy Ruling Class.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)We keep hearing all this stuff about how smart she is and how much stuff she's gotten done but it's an image put forth by Hillary and her supporters. The piece by Sibel Edmonds yesterday pointed out the three things Hillary cosponsored in the senate, one being naming a park after some guy and the other two equally as unimportant. She didn't take any positions that were at all risky or controversial.
Your whole narrative is a fabrication.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)for women and girls
◾Attorney at the Childrens Defense Fund leveling the playing field for children
◾Director of Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Arkansas School of Law
◾Created Arkansass Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth because she saw a need for educating young children. Bringing HIPPY to Arkansas enabled parents to be their childs first teacher and prepare them for a life of learning.
◾Declared to the United Nations that womens rights are human rights which at the time she said it, was a very big deal
◾Commissioner on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
◾With Chuck Schumer, secured $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center sites redevelopment
◾Played a leading role in creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act
◾Successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health
◾Helped investigate the affects of Gulf War Syndrome of the Veterans afflicted
◾Created the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice
◾Initiated and helped guide the Adoption and Safe Families Act helping in children in foster care move faster in to permanent homes
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Families_+_Children.htm
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)She did nothing for women by "breaking a glass ceiling."
I'd rather break the class ceiling.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)If he isn't winning primaries and collecting delegates, he doesn't get the nomination. Seems the rules were pretty clear going into the nominating contest.
Also, if he is bringing in so many new people...why is he losing?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Propaganda works, that's why the Wealthy are willing to spend so much for it. But you side with the Wealthy so you probably can rationalize supporting the rich and ignoring the poor and working class.
Bullying is when the Conservatives disparage the Left and then demand we vote for Clinton in the General. Intimidation doesn't work on the Left. The hubris of the Wealthy will be their downfall.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and turn there backs on those 50,000,000 living in poverty. If you think that Clinton-Goldman-Sachs care about the poor, you are fooling yourself. How many American children have to go to bed hungry before you figure out that the wealthy and super-wealthy are more interested in gaining more and more wealth?
You must understand that we have a class war. We've been on the losing side for 30 years and you choose to side with those that are winning.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)That is rich.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)are struggling among us. Try to refute that. If you choose to side with the billionaires that are taking the food from the poor to make profits then that's your problem. Clinton isn't a progressive. The Clintons have amassed $150 million dollars for their personal fortune. That seems to be their objective.
It's a class war and you are siding with the wrong side. How many jobs do we lose to Free Trade agreements before you figure it out. Corporations move jobs overseas, we lose jobs and they write Clinton a check. It's not rocket science.
6 American children out of every 1,000 live births die because they are poor. That's worse than all other modern countries. It's because of the greed of the Wealthy 1% that you support. Goldman-Sachs doesn't care about our poor. Why can't you grasp that?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Go sell this to someone who will buy this.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)it should pony up with something we can get behind, such as a substantive, detailed plan to wean the party from corporate money, or to remove health insurers from our health care system and rein in big pharma.
Until that happens (especially getting large corporate donors out of the puppeteering role for Democratic politicians), it's just the kinder face in big money's good cop - bad cop game. We've been played too long, only to see "our" representatives sell us out to suit the whims of the large donors.
LonePirate
(13,386 posts)Primary turnout means next to nothing when it comes to turnout in the general election. See this:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/
Also, no one should believe completely bogus and unsupported statements like this one:
There is absolutely no factual basis for this fear tactic and its sibling theory of these voters siding with Trump.
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)but I will write in Bernie's name or vote for Jill Stein if Bernie isn't the Dem. nominee.
LonePirate
(13,386 posts)Neither Stein or a write-in have any chance of winning so all you doing is removing one vote from the Dem column, which effectively aids the candidate which is the antithesis of everything Bernie stands for. Not much sense in that.
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)and if Hillary can't get enough votes to win, that's HER OWN fault. Maybe she and her shills shouldn't have pulled so many primary/caucus shenanigans. If the only way she gets on the ballot is by LOBBYISTS with superdelegate votes putting her there, then the fault is HERS and the DNCs alone. Not mine.
I'm voting for the person I feel is the best candidate. If there's a large write-in campaign for Bernie, I'll write him in. Otherwise, this lifelong straight-ticket Democratic voter (since age 18 - since 1980) will be voting Green Party (but supporting downticket Dems). My vote is my vote.
Guess what? I'm old and have no children, so whatever happens, happens. I won't vote for a candidate as corrupt as Hillary.
Sorry, but no.
LonePirate
(13,386 posts)I have no idea where you getting this bullshit notion of lobbyists and superdelegates giving her the nomination.
And let's burst this bubble right. There will be no write-in campaign of any significance for Bernie. This is a foolish dream. If he does not win the nomination, he will throw his support to Hillary and instruct his supporters to vote for her. He will not run third party and he will not advocate a write-in campaign. In fact, he will denounce it should it happen.
You are essentially no different than the Nader voters who helped elect Bush in 2000. Is that truly the America you want to live in - one led by Trump? Voting for Stein is the same thing as voting for Trump.
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)I'll be casting my vote as I see fit. Your opinion of me or my vote changes nothing.
"instruct his supporters to vote for her" - lol... I love Bernie but he does not "instruct" or tell me or any of us what to do. He may suggest but that's it.
Aren't you tired of this stuff, Autumn Colors? I am. good thing "ignore" is freely available.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)is what will make sure we have zero chance of winning. It will harm us in the house and senate. She inspires few, only the one's she always had.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)Faux pas
(14,583 posts)hrc's were handed to her. I'm on the side of the working person EVERY TIME.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)By the right wing media machine that will brand him as a communist, paficist coward who turned his back on serving his country....no soccer mom will vote for Bernie once the Rw media focuses on him and his record
Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)Let alone a majority of Americans. I really fail to see what the argument is here. If he was bringing so many new people to the process wouldn't he be winning?
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)Because from what I see, a lot of them WON'T be there for her in the GE.
Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)and I heard them in 2008 when I was campaigning against Hillary and for Obama.
Here is the deal...if you all do sit out, and she still wins. No one has any obligation to listen to you.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)They will vote, but it won't be for Hillary.
Some will write in Bernie's name, some will vote for Jill Stein and other, who are ardently anti-establishment, may go to tRump.
BTW, the threats are neither childish nor idle this year. People are TIRED of the establishment, which is why Bernie, with virtually no coverage from the M$M is even to the point of threatening Clinton.
If you don't believe me, please start looking at social media. Hillary is NOT liked by Independents and Millennials.
#BernieorBust
#BernieorJill
#BernItUporBurnItDown
And... all of those spike and trend at various points.
The left has had it with the party disparaging them.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)been told "vote for Clinton, vote for Clinton" and so they do. Some without really thinking about it.
Now if Bernie wins the nomination, do you think that those Dems WON'T vote for Bernie? Will they vote for the Repub, a third party candidate or not vote? Maybe? Or will a majority of them vote for Bernie anyway because he's the best one on the ballot? So he would bring them AND the indys.
However... independents and the young... we know that they favor Bernie Do you think that the majority will vote for Hillary? There is a strong anti Hillary/anti establishment sentiment out there. I think enough so that she would lose in the GE.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Their actual agendas are nothing alike. "Evolving" for the campaign doesn't count. Assuming Bernie voters will vote for Hillary is delusional. And btw.
Adding Super Delegates in now as if they can't change...
Talk of Hillary already being the nominee...
Saying that Bernie can't win...
Saying that Bernie should drop out...
Talk of unity...
IT IS ALL VOTER SUPPRESSION.
If is to discourage people who haven't voted yet from voting for Sanders.
corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)Isn't it premature to expend so much effort while Bernie still has a chance? There are no guarantees, of course, but Utah looks very good for him.
Why not delve into unity as the convention draws nigh?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)And true.
If Hillary is the nominee, the anemia will kill the Democratic Party.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)Thanks for the thread, amborin.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)and the Clinton campaign.
Facts do provide sunshine.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)she has won more pledged delegates and leads in the popular vote, Sanders supporters are having a sad.