that the ones who are there are out on the extreme-left for people like Sanders and Nader anyway.

than WA. Sanders won one of them (MI) and Clinton won the others by far smaller margins.

See, when someone mentions that 5 states have more delegates than WA, it really isn't a "burn" that 4 of those states have more delegates. It just makes you look like you're flailing for some response, and could not follow the context of the subthread, where someone was claiming WA was a "small" state.

that is no reason for a condescending response

Do you have proof of that other than they didn't vote for Clinton?

perhaps unfortunately.

with only one running center left on the national level



Just where are all these red menaces that Conservative "Democrats" fear are hiding under their beds at night?

Among Capitalist countries even in a parliamentary systems like England there are only a few left parties, the bulk of which are center left.

great perspective.

the graph that used to be posted here everyday showing Clinton much lower in the green section and farther to the left. I haven't seen that in a while, but the one you posted is much more accurate.

As much as I don't like them being abrasive of other members, I had an enlightening exchange once with them. Said poster was aggressively red baiting, and I let them know that I am a socialist and disagreed with the premise that Bernie was one.

At that point the poster sort of outed themselves. They couldn't believe a real unicorn like me even existed- which means they didn't believe their line of attack in the first place.

It's not that they really believe that Hillary is a Lefty...they believe there IS no left, that we are all Republicans with just a little variance in our social issues support.

Those graphs! The graphs that used meaningless data like campaign rhetoric. Can't say I miss those. Thankfully they aren't being put in the pms I occasionally receive.



.

records are very similar - they voted the same 93% of the time.

by all appearences.

--to get up there and speak the truth about issues that so many people know are real, but they are afraid to talk about and have been powerless to do anything about. He's been doing it for years of course--now he has people's attention.

Bernie Sanders gives us a voice........................................................................FINALLY

Did I hear you correctly, or is that wax in my ears?

WHAT fucking extreme left? There is no extreme left in the Us of A.

When in the world were you born?

the middle, you are the fuckers who are extreme right just like the Rwingers.

I responded yesterday to a poster who referred to Bernie's "extreme left supporters" and who also denied, without a shred of evidence, that Bernie would have opposed FDR (of course Bernie models his policies on the New Deal.) Really, these people don't know what the political left is; by European standards, Sanders is a moderate. It just goes to show how many people have drunk the Kool Aid of the conservative, corporate press.

that and wondered what the hell I was alerting about. Anyway, all good now.

Someone has to be. Are you saying there are large numbers of people out there much farther left then you are? People in the USA at this time? And you are offended at being confused with them?

Using that term is an attempt to marginalize us when in fact we stand for all the things the Dem Party is supposed to stand for, before it lost it's way with the DLC and Third Way during Clinton's presidency.

Bernie is not even as far left as FDR. We are FDR Democrats and that, if you remember, is what brought this country around and created the social safety nets we (so far) have in place for the people.

The only people who 'confuse' us with far left are those who are so far right they are fighting for moderate Republican ideas and candidates. I guess when you are so far removed from the base of the party it is difficult to recognize them for what they are. At least if you are being honest. The poster above though, was clearly just playing a game of propaganda and red baiting.

..

And why is it okay for Hillary supporters to disparage voters while constantly red baiting and using race to divide us?

.

The meme will continue to be thrown around continuously because it's far easier than discussing policy.

Last edited Sat Mar 26, 2016, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)

I sincerely do apologize for my original wording

I do not undetstand this 'race' concept... And I would rather you wouldn't try to explain. Thanks.

But that is so utterly offensive, you don't know anything about him/her, yet you say you don't want to hear what that person has to say because it may differ from what you think?

Unfortunately, I see it is quite endemic in USA.

And you haven't seen any racist discourse in this post.

'race' is such.

Race is a term used to define a broad segment of the population by heritage and geographical origin. The term race is a neutral and an objective term that designates ones background. It does not imply any traits, whether positive or negative, nor does it imply any attributes. The term race merely is a way to acknowledge and distinguish one's ancestry. Such does not imply good or bad.

Racism, on the other hand, imparts a negative and hateful attribute or characteristic into the attributes of a certain race.

Respect.

They ignore Native Americans, especially in the Western States.

so I was told (it was hush hush in our family). I think I will have my dna tested because I would be proud to know what tribe I may have some connection with.

in the mix were also hush hush...

where you can be sent a kit, where you swipe your mouth and send it in, then they can send you an analysis of your ancestry. This is very intriguing to me. I think I will do it, just so I know. I want to know, maybe you do too. I don't think we have to worry about hush hush anymore and we can embrace who we are.

It was very interesting to find out my heritage and that I did NOT have Native American blood, like we had always heard. What I did find, though, was a first cousin I never knew I had who is a Berner in Florida.

you found something meaningful for you.

When I saw a pic of my cousin on her FB page, I was shocked at the family resemblance.

or until a replacement has been found.

All of those rich, white entitled kids flock to go to school in Alaska.

Here are the electoral districts in Alaska:



And here are the locations of the colleges in Alaska:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYGRJwceyAv-EbkXZkF8NR-PxtwppowrsN4t4KXz4J4j-Vi-pV


Please note that there are one or two colleges located in each district, they couldn't sway the vote.


ETA: 539 votes.

I realized that I missed adding that to my post. 539 Votes were cast.

The totality of a state would prefer Sanders to be their nominee than Hillary.

Those will elect higher level delegates, just like every other caucus state.

Actual turnout was in the many thousands. Fire marshals forced some caucuses to move outside: http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-projected-win-alaska-caucus/

That one site has more than 539 votes.

I just went with what Google told me

539 is the number of delegates to the state convention (that's how caucuses work).

Why?

Since when has being assured that you won't die or go bankrupt if you get ill an entitlement? Since when has having affordable state college tuition been an entitlement? Since when has stopping the multinational corporations from getting millions in tax refunds every year an entitlement?

Since when has enjoying the rights and freedoms that the citizens in every other nation enjoy an entitlement?

I suppose those are "legitimate," huh, because they don't have to do with trivial things like health, quality of life, infrastructure, or education.

continue to rob us blind as our country crumbles?

It's a conundrum

is working for you. If all you care about is that your lifestyle is maintained, why WOULDN'T you vote for H->? I imagine she might toss Progressives a bone or two, whatever the minimum she would have to do to stave off a primary challenger in 2020 (if she were up for reelection).

But fundamental, structural change to our political system that would alter the imbalance of corporations' power vs that of the people? I seriously doubt any of the HRC voters are expecting that out of a HRC administration (or even want that).

If she wins, I hope she proves me wrong, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

That seems a pretty firm "they shouldn't be allowed to caucus" sentiment, to me.

The state Republican party was cool with it, and when the initiative passed and became law, they began using the state primary process to allocate their number of delegates to the national convention.

The state Democratic party, however, sued to overturn that voter initiative and won in court. As a result, they were allowed to reinstate their caucus. Many of us were quite displeased, but we still caucus because, to be frank, the party bosses used the court system to take the secret primary vote away from us after we had demanded it. And we had plenty of motivation to show up today (some reports I've seen have turnout 110% ABOVE historic 2008 caucus levels for the state) to support Bernie.

Frankly I suspect that maybe a couple percentage points of Bernie's victory here might be attributable to voters telling the state level party bosses who sued to make us go back to caucuses (we LOVE our vote by mail) to go to hell.

I generally give out of state people the benefit of the doubt on this, as this is local political history. I hope someone from a different state would similarly give me benefit of the doubt and educate me if I expressed ignorance of some unusual quirk of their political system.

The really sad thing is that whole escapade gives the Republicans a talking point about being more (small-d) democratic than the Democrats.

I have, however, spent much of today educating DUers on WHY we (still) have caucuses here.

Oh, and as others have pointed out...with more than 100 delegates, you might have a hard time writing us off as a "small" state. I think we might even have the largest caucus in the Union

Right?

Anything else is just prejudice.

is promising. I said nothing about a person's right to vote. I write very clear posts. You chose to distort my intent.

Well, you've certainly busted my trust.

We went 85% for bernie

..just another group of entitled white college kids voting for Sanders.. err, wait, retirement community? I have no idea how to spin that....

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Washington state and I voted for Bernie!

Go Bernie!!!

Thank you!

But I am the first to admit, although he will do his darndest here, I am not too optimistic about him taking NY.

I would be ecstatic but not going to be surprised if he doesn't.

Back in 2014, Zephyr Teachout was able to give Gov Cuomo a bit of a scare when she challenged him to his re-election, and she got a good number of counties outside of NYC, but NYC is where the party machinations work to the advantage of the DNC candidate. And of course, Hillary has a real home state advantage, SEIU 1199 endorsed her, and the union is strong in NYC area.

The interesting thing is that the Working Families Party had originally encourage Teachout to run, and then turned around and endorsed Cuomo.

But, this time around the WFP has endorsed Bernie, if I'm not mistaken. This might help, but not sure.

Trouble is, our deadline to change party affiliation to Democrat was way back in October of 2015, a full 6 months before our CLOSED primary in April. I know a lot of non-Dem registered voters missed the deadline to switch so they could vote in it, hopefully for Bernie.

So, as always, we are doing our best to get lots of newly minted voters to register and affiliate with the Democratic party. That deadline was this past Friday, March 25. Hope it worked!

Now it's all up to campaigning, and birds tweeting and such!!!

I'd wager that most of the people who showed up to caucus are mainly diehard supporters. Even primaries don't match state population demographics, because when you factor in voting age population and turnout levels you end up with an electorate that includes a lower number of minority voters than the overall population figure. I'd say that the turnout today was mostly white.

but in Alaska many of the districts outside of Anchorage are almost exclusively Native. Even at the Anchorage caucus there was a good mix.

The evidence is out there in several states, including California, Arizona and Texas. Even in Washington you have a difference out in Yakima County where the Hispanic voting age population runs 8% behind the overall Hispanic population.

Get the facts, because knowledge is power.

About 200, 000 -- less than 1/10 of that number -- participated in the caucuses.

I would draw any conclusions at all about the breadth and depth of Sanders support in Washington state from the turn out at a caucus in which practically no one but diehard supporters voted.

can barely tolerate Hillary. There is just little to no enthusiasm for her here.

I guess you have a whole helluva a lot of friends and family

Oregon will be next, I live in Oregon, the poster you are lecturing about AK lives in AK.

Yes, fewer people vote in primary cycles than in General Elections, that's always the case. What we see in AK and in WA is that very, very few felt motivated to stand for Hillary while a massive majority came out for Bernie. His supporters were motivated to support rather than snipe at people on the internet about States they have never even visited.

Nothing is more useful to me in persuading voters to support Bernie than the nasty things DU Hillary supporters post. I forward those posts to people to say 'see what her supporters really believe' and tell them how to search DU and they do that. They see all the antisemitism and the ignoring of Native American voters, they see the Reagan praise being glossed over by people who clearly dig Reagan and are clearly ignorant of the times they lived through.

So post some more. Your stuff is great stuff.

A fundraiser in a Mercer Island livingroom isn't campaigning.

She doesn't give a shit about us west coasters and the residents of California are taking notice.

...except MI where he lost minorities 30-70.

that why don't you say that Hillary won with votes from the citizens of the state, why marginalize them by saying she won on the minority vote? Hillary won on the vote of Americans.

--stop the innuendo that Sanders is a racist.

those - aka the states he was asked about, any innuendo is added by you

so, I'm confused by your response

... having at the time which was PRIMARY elections.

so

other than to dismiss the states he lost as GE non winnable states, which is what he did, why bring the point up in the first place?!?!

These are Sanders own words and people can read

The majority of non-white voters in Alaska are Native American, a group Bernie does well with.

In fact, Bernie seems to do well with every demographic except for African-Americans for some reason.

Asians. The assertion was "Sanders has lost every state with minority populations over 20%" and that's false, unless one discounts some minority groups. He's won OK, Hawaii, Alaska all of which are far less white than Illinois or Texas or the US as a whole.

The difference really is among the African-American demographic as opposed to minorities in general.

It would behoove the Sanders campaign to figure out a way to gain more traction among African-American voters because they will need to do much better with that demographic in upcoming contests in order to have the kind of success necessary to win the nomination.

... ALL racial minorities.

Whatever, the OP and others can play like they don't know what people are talking about but the delegate bleed will continue until this improves.

Barack Obama's birthplace. Known as Kenya in Republican circles (that was sarcasm just in case anyone didn't catch it...)

So you are simply not correct in this assertion. Why? Perhaps not counting Native people and Asians? Perhaps just typing things to smear Bernie with?

What you state, it's not true. And it suggests a whole set of biases and knowledge gaps of your own.

Last i heard, Alaska has over 30% minorities.

And they elected to feel the Bern.

All three states he won yesterday were more than 20% nonwhite, including the state in which 73% of residents are minorities.

One of the people in my caucus yesterday spoke eloquently that she was voting for Sanders because of his dedication to the issues facing first peoples. Of the Hillary delegates, 5 of the seven were white men over 60, and the other two were white women.

Yakima county Washington has more Hispanics than non Hispanic whites. He got 76% there.

I'm hearing that he got around 80% in the non-white bush areas of Alaska (ie. mostly Native Alaskans).

And initial reports are that he's winning Hawaii, the least white state in the country. Hawaii is only 23% non Hispanic white.

... those are white Hispanics & white Asians...

Go Bernie!

white voters. My precinct neighborhood demographics are

Population Demographics
Population by Race & Gender View as a Graph
African American 3,884 (17%)
Asian or Pacific Islander 1,570 (7%)
Indian 168 (1%)
Mixed Races 2,278 (10%)
Others 676 (3%)
White 14,119 (62%)
Female 11,756 (52%)
Male 10,939 (48%)

17% AA, and there were fewer than ten AA, in a crowd of over 600. The average age was clearly under 30. I'm in my 50's, and was one of the oldest ones voting.

of all precincts in Washington and every single Alaska district? Amazing.

That is the group of voters that Bernie seems to struggle with.

He does well with other minority groups such as Native Americans (15 percent of the population in Alaska) and Asian-Americans (7 percent of the population in Washington state).

In every state where African-Americans make up 25+ percent of the Democratic electorate, Bernie has done very poorly.

New York, New Jersey and Maryland will be good tests to see if he has improved with this demographic.

I am sure that will be news to them, and the US Census bureau