Of course it's because Sanders's supporters don't vote. His biggest, hottest demographic has the poorest voting percentage in the country.

Duh.

Now: "Poor people don't vote." Well they certainly don't vote for you if you never ask them to.

They voted for Secretary Clinton because they believed her and did not believe his pie in the sky nonsense. He has no way to get anything like that through a unfriendly Congress.

It's been 50 years since Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act -- the law prohibiting racial discrimination against voters.

But there is still a voting problem in the United States: Many people who live in poverty just aren't going to the polls.

Less than half of those who made under $20,000 voted in 2012. Meanwhile, voter participation for people who live in households with incomes of more than $75,000 was much higher at 77%.

It's clear that the system is leaving many people out -- especially the poor.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/news/economy/poor-people-voting-rights/

Why the Voting Gap Matters
Who Votes?

After studying 30 years of data at the state level, William Franko, Nathan Kelly and Christopher Witko could not find any year in which low-income voter turnout was higher than high-income voter turnout.7 Recent research by Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels, and Martin Gilens suggests that the super-rich members of the top 1 and .1 percent turned out to vote in 2008 at a whopping 99 percent. This compares to only 49 percent turnout for citizens earning less than $10,000.8 In midterm elections, the voting gap is even more pronounced. In 2010, only 26.7 percent of citizens earning less than $10,000 voted, while 61.6 percent of those making $150,000 voted.9 Voter turnout is heavily biased towards high-income voters.
http://www.demos.org/publication/why-voting-gap-matters


It's odd that you don't know these things.....

... the poor are already economically insecure?

Sanders message is meant for middle aged white males, his core supporters in diverse communities

... both the Sanders and Trump campaigns are fueled by white angst.

do "the Poor®", attend those $30K a plate 'fund raiser' speeches she gives on the campaign trail? Or did Wall St hold her $250K a pop speeches at inner city community centers?

To think that those numbers indicate overwhelming that folks can't vote rather than the more likely folks just don't get around to it.

Yes there's disenfranchisement occurring. In those percentages? Doubtful.

Voting is a responsibility that not enough people take seriously...

are those that were not going to vote regardless if Bernie had not been running?

If so that is great news for Clinton if she ends up with the nomination.

Not exactly true. They tried very hard in South Carolina. But they learned that they couldn't break through Clinton's support there (and while polls show that AA voters there *did* like him once they learned about him, it was not enough to persuade them to change their vote). Once the campaign saw that they couldn't substantially change that dynamic no matter how much in the way of resources they committed to the state, they subsequently decided to primarily allocate resources to where they would likely do more good. So yeah, they did not campaign much in many of the later southern states... because they realized that it wouldn't make enough of a difference.

It appears that even Bernie knows he's lost. Now the only question is whether or not he will get out before the hard feelings get too baked-in.

n/t

They don't happen overnight because not everyone is on board right away.

Idiot media.

She's not exactly a champion of the poor & working class. I wouldn't let any rich talking head on corporate TV tell me which candidate best addresses my needs.

Reid had a whole segment on her Sunday show on "The Poor®". A whole panel actually on "The Poor®"

They talked about "The Poor®" for probably 15 minutes without once mentioning POVERTY, or examining how poverty might play into the issue of why "The Poor®" might not be voting in the numbers of other groups.

Didn't hear a word from Reid or her guests about how "The Poor®" have to work 2 or 3 jobs, if they're lucky enough to even have a job at all, figure out how to get their children safely to and from school, put food on the table ... or any of the other numerous hardships that 'The Poor®" have to deal with that might prevent them from giving researching the Candidates 8 months in advance, going through all the hoops of making sure your registration has been properly processed, and then standing in line for hours to vote for a Dem Candidate, the same level of priority that the DNC seems to think is so 'easy peasy'.

Reid could not care less about "The Poor®" other than as a inscrutable voting block that she can spin against Sanders.

Sanders started talking about poverty in this campaign, discussing the issues of PEOPLE living in poverty and how the 1% were stealing all the productivity of the 'new economy' and creating a larger class of people in poverty ... Reid complained that Bernie was only talking about "The Poor®" and never talked about what races made up "The Poor®" ... so Bernie mentioned the races of people in poverty ... Reid complained that was equating all Blacks as being "The Poor®" ... so Bernie goes on TV and talks about how people in poverty have issues reacting to the voting processes that seem almost purposely designed to keep people in poverty from being able to vote, what does Reid do? She spends 15 minutes talking about "The Poor®" without actually talking about poverty and the people living in it ... she talks about "The Poor®" as though Bernie were blaming them, instead of talking about there issues.

I'd bet any amount of money that if Bernie were to talk about how people living in poverty had a hard time getting healthy food because large grocery chains do not open stores in neighborhood with high poverty rates, Reid would come on that same day and accuse Sanders of blaming "The Poor® for refusing to buy healthy food".

Reid should be ashamed of herself. "The Poor®" is just a word to her, a political concept that has no other purpose than to be used as a talking point against Bernie for daring to bring up their issues.

...that's one charming aspect of the Sanders support.

That's right, beedle, Ms. Reid has been working as a political journalist since 2000, all in anticipation and preparation for opposing the civil rights icon from Vermont.

I don't know if your effort here is actually advocacy for Sanders, or just an ad hominem, opportune attack on one of the few black political journalists on the air today. I do know that it reeks to high heaven. Par for the course for the DU Sanders support which has dragged more than a handful of progressive icons through the mud in a vain effort to prop up their dubiously revolutionary leader.

is having a whole segment on "The Poor®" without once mentioning a single issue related to poverty.

Not sure what the fuck the color of her skin has to to with that issue ... or are you suggesting that because she is black she is automatically a member of "the Poor®". But you can't be trying to make that inference ... the same inference that caused her head to explode when she thought Sanders made it?

...elevating this career politician above those who would hold him accountable. Pointing out that she happens to be black and progressive, and subject to your ad hominem attack is just an observation about the prevalence of similar attacks on prominent members of the black and civil rights community who dare question the senator from Vermont.

Reid rejects the phony premise about poor people out of hand. It's a specious argument on two important levels. First, there's Sanders' own declaration that poverty disproportionately affects the black community.

Next, there's the reality in the states which have already voted, that Hillary Clinton has garnered the vast majority of the black community's support in this primary, leaving Sanders with a paltry share. To claim that he would have gotten more of a share of those votes if more showed up at the polls is just sophistry.

"happens to be black and progressive" doesn't matter, why did YOU bring it up. I didn't mention it in my original post, what purpose did you have to bring it up? I totally agree that it doesn't matter. She should stand on the merits of her work as a journalist and use "journalistic integrity" as the measure of her worth as a journalist ... which she has failed IMO.

And no where did I say that if more of the Black community showed up that they would have voted for Sanders ... I said Sanders was the one talking about the issue of POVERTY not just using the term "The Poor®" as though it were just a different zip code and had no unique issues. Matter of fact I fully recognize that working to make it easier for those in poverty to have their say in the primaries would indeed help Hillary in terms of vote count (of course, once those in poverty start having their say and learn how quickly their vote is ignored in terms of actual policies addressing their issues, they will soon join the 'revolution' against the establishment that ignores them until voting time rolls around again.)

It was Reid and her ilk, not Sanders that equated race with "The Poor®" by whining that when Sanders talked about poverty he ignored the 'race factor' ... but as soon as he mentioned 'race' Reid lost her mind again.

If you were really interested in Hillary getting the nomination you would be right there demanding that the primary and GE electoral processes were changed to take into account the fact that people living in poverty have better things to do than spend a whole year figuring out the registration process and doing followups to make sure they haven't been wiped from the roles at the last minute, then spending all day in line fighting to verify their right to have their say ... then Hillary would have even more votes from "The Poor®".

Of course I would never expect you and Hillary to actually address POVERTY, that would be counterproductive to her establishment controlled Wall St. strategy, but I am really puzzled why you are so against addressing the voting process to make it easier for your own constituency "The Poor®" to vote for their "natural candidate"?

...who dare question Sanders.

"Reid and her ilk?"

If I thought for a moment the bullshit you're writing about Ms. Reid was some official campaign position, I'd spend time debating your nonsense.

What I'm going to do is block you (long overdue) and relegate 'beedle' to oblivion (as far as I'm concerned).

things that are not there? Just a thought.

...the poster deflected poorly.

It was interesting, though, how readily the poster sought to denigrate Ms. Reid, positing that she didn't care about poor people. That poster got the response from me they deserved.

my profile:

Gender: Male
Hometown: Maryland

So fucking sick and tired of people using race to shut down discussion.

Just eats you up inside.

She's cool on some issues but not on all. Progressive is as progressive does. You don't just get a "Progressive" card and then everything you do is autimatically progressive and no one can ever speak up about it.

Stop trying to silence people. I don't care what color they are. I'm black too and I will never sell out and sure won't try to defend people when I disagree with their actions.

the poor to vote? The emphasis seemed to be on huge rallies, and were people even registering voters at the rallies, which seemed to be mostly on college campuses — hardly hangouts of the poor.

but in NYS he would have had to start campaigning back in Aug/Sept to get ready for the OCT deadline. Not likely to happen for a brand new anti-establishment campaign in it's first run.

Hopefully if Clinton wins this year and doesn't blow the GE (a likelihood IMO given her rallying power - for the other side) and Sanders wants to primary her because of all the broken promises and stupid wars she will drag America into, he will have a much better strategy ready for getting out the vote despite the Establishment clusterfuck set of hoops put in the way designed to prevent 'certain groups' from participating.

Bit overall, yes, Sanders needs to find a way to take his message to people in poverty without relying on the MSM to do it for him .. first off, they will not do it, they'd rather talk about anything but policies, and second, people in poverty have little time to deal with effort needed to follow a year long primary campaign ... as long as they are too busy to pay attention, the name recognition game will be their biggest deciding factor if they are somehow lucky enough to make it through the registration hell and end up at the polls.

No matter what one uses for excuses, it is telling that Sanders is now losing low-income people.

Last I saw of her she was excusing some homophobic comments by some Obama official with a casual straight person's bias 'oh, we all used to say those things' and I turned her privileged mug off and never went back.

It's either A) Those who voted against him don't really matter, or B) There's some undefined conspiracy against him, or C) Claiming - with no valid suspicion or evidence whatsoever - that the Clinton camp is cheating somehow. It's never about him, or on his responsibility.

In reality, people realize that he's a grandstanding, ineffectual phony. Good at giving speeches, and not much else.

... always their fault

I would say he is actually pretty accurate here. He isn't losing because more people don't vote, he is losing because he can't get more people to the polls.

.... is an indicator or fantasizing mindset in Sanders camp

There, there.

...added to op!

to spout the establishment line. Bernie isn't making excuses at all, and for anyone to say his movement isn't a revolution, wait till (1) June 8th when the primary is completed and Hillary lacks the requisite number of pledged delegates to make the convention moot, (2) the GE (when many if not most Berners will cast a protest vote if Hillary is the nominee), and (3) 2018 and 2020.

The MSM is trying to squash the Bernie movement by minimizing it and talking it down -- but the people engaged in the movement aren't even listening to the MSM. The media and the national party establishment just don't get that; meanwhile, the movement is growing and will eventually overtake and boot them from their precious positions of power..

Bernie will not be President but he can use his popularity to help take back the House if he so chooses.

... let it and it wasn't that important to him.

...can you folks make yourselves any more insignificant to the issues you claim to care about?

I'd like for you folks to explain to us just how you accomplish the Sanders agenda by casting a 'protest vote' in the GE.

If that's not the worst appeal yet, I've not seen it. There's nothing more enabling of the republican opposition than dithering with your vote in the general election. Stop the navel-gazing and do something that will actually make a difference in that election.

People did work to make a difference. They ran a campaign and supported a candidate.

Condescension is not a good trait.

The Sanders revolution has been a bust http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-new-york-primary-213829

Who says she's transparent, but then won't release the transcripts of her sweetheart speeches to her owners on Wall Street.

You can't discuss things without explaining things. Discussion is not parsing and explanations are not excuses or rationalizations. Screw the media blanks and the campaign political minions who use such cute little phrases to stifle actual discourse.