2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIt is amazing "inevitable" hillary is still losing states. This late she should win them all.
Face it, many many people do not like her, do not trust her and do not want her to be the nominee.
Remember, no one knew Bernie. He was not a national political figure known to a lot of people. Sort of like Obama who was not widely known but kicked hills butt.
She has a hard time sealing the deal.
She probably will win in the end, but losing these states is not good news for her.
Thank god the GOP have terrible candidates, because that might be the only reason we in in November with hill running.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)she does.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)an "attack"? Sorry to be the bear of bad news, but she's not very popular with a large chunk of the population. Like it or not that's simply the truth.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Debates were pushed back to the Fall while the Clinton campaign harvested early voting before voters had a chance to get to know Bernie.
Now it's the progressive West Coast's chance to weigh in and our voices are/will be loud and clear.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It must've been rather embarrassing for the site to go 80% for Sanders after he announced
reddread
(6,896 posts)5 to 1
LiberalFighter
(51,085 posts)Nearly every state are either holding their primaries when they normally hold them regardless of presidential years or it is nearly at least 1 month later than they were held in 2008.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)It's amazing how many of them there are and how ungrounded in reality these theories are.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Went to Hillary. Sanders has to win big in all of the other states. Hillary has not shunned any state, I doubt she will start now. Currently she has more votes than Sanders so this says more people likes Hillary than Bernie.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)An unknown when he has been in elected offices three times as long as Hillary?
Logical
(22,457 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)About Hillary since the eighties. I would have thought someone elected to mayor since 1980 and to Congress would be much higher profile than Hillary who was not elected to the Senate in 2000.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Logical
(22,457 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)tokenlib
(4,186 posts)..hope we can prove them wrong.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Hillary kept winning some states until she dropped out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
Logical
(22,457 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The speech, see speeches are good.
EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)I have to wonder how different the results might be if the earliest states were allowed to re-vote today.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Which reminds me: even with a Dem Congress, H. Clinton could not achieve health care reform.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)He's kicked her ass in a lot of states.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)That should be a wake up call for TPTB.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Oklahoma county. 76 of the 77 counties went for Bernie
Logical
(22,457 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)Too bad he has had to deal with a nearly total media blackout.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)To some degree, before the race started, it was considered to be like 2000. Where everyone in power had conceded it was Gore's turn. If anything Bill Bradley looked to be a stronger challenger than any of the people who entered the race against Clinton. Once the votes started, Gore ran the table - winning every state.
Instead, it is fits in the range of contested races. It does not particularly look like any other year. It is not 2008, where Obama and Clinton were always surprisingly neck and neck - after the story being that she was inevitable. It is not as strong and well run a primary fight as Kerry 2004, where he lost 4 states, 2 of which were to favorite sons who had already conceded before those contests.It also isn't 1992, where Clinton got off to a slow start and then needed until June to close the deal. It might be closest to Mondale/Hart 1984 - where Mondale, was the establishment candidate and Hart, at some points gave him a run for his money.
What is unusual is that Bernie has made this a contest to the degree that he has with the entire Democratic power structure against him. This likely caught many pundits and maybe the Clinton campaign by surprise. It is an indication of how strong the dissatisfaction with the status quo really is. I looked at the polling on right direction wrong direction done by Gallup - concerned when people referred to how poor it is. However, looking back it has been pretty poor since the early years in this decade (the beginning of the data I saw.) It might be that we are back to the 1960s mode.
Logical
(22,457 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)It's too early for Sanders to drop out because only half the delegates have been awarded, or it's too late for Clinton to lose because she's inevitable? It can't be both.
But let's say for a moment that you're right. A candidate with a substantial edge in pledged delegates and the popular vote losing in a primary late in the calendar spells disaster. Which is exactly why after losing Pennsylvania on April 22, West Virginia on May 13th and Kentucky on May 20th, Obama was handily defeated by John McCain due to this obvious weakness in his candidacy. And thus we have suffered these last 8 years of the McCain/Palin presidency. Oh wait, that didn't happen at all.
It's almost like winning or losing a state that has a non-representative demographic voting population doesn't actually tell you much because it's not representative of the larger voting population.