Now that Sanders is a real contender, THIS is why I have objected Clinton's demographic divisiveness

[Armstead]

With the primaries moving into the larger more diverse "battleground states" and Sanders' increasingly apparent ability to actually draw significant numbers of voters, the "electability" meme takes on a different dimension.

It also should cause more on a focus on the candidates' messages, and how that will affect the primaries moving forward and translate in November. Especially if the opponent is the unpredictable Trump, who will be a moving target rather than the usual predictable GOP candidate.

I got slammed on a post a week or so ago about race and otehr social issues and the primaries. But what we are beginning to see happening explains why i said what I said. (IMO, of course) Please understand if you read what is below, that I am NOT saying racial and social issues should be ignored or marginalized. Just that we have to look at them in the context of the General election.

Both Sanders and Clinton are much better candidates and supportive of the interests of minorities including AAs, Latinos, LGBTs, as well as women's rights than Trump or any Republican. The differences between Sanders and Clinton in terms of policies and goals on racial/social/gender issues are non-existent or minor.

And either candidate will be running against the racist, sexist and homophobic GOP.

That' s just a fact. That's why I have continually railed against the divisive demographic marketing by Clinton, and the portrayal of Sanders as having a "problem with....(fill in the blanks)."

There ARE distinctive differences between them on issues of Wealth and Power, and their message and how they believe we should handle issues like healthcare, Wall St. regulation, trade....and generally who calls the shots on policies.

Those issues affect all demographics.

That's what this primary should be about. Competing, and even fighting, over the merits of individual candidates and their actual differences on policies and issues is normal politics.

If Clinton had not tried to capitalize on "identity issues" the primary could be about which candidate has the best policies on THOSE issues.

But by emphasizing the differences among Democrats (and other likely) constituencies, Clinton's campaign has needlessly stirred up demographic resentments, and made it more difficult for all those constituencies to enthusiastically unite in the general behind whichever candidate wins the nomination.

I realize your mileage may vary on which of them is best on those issues.

Let me be biased for a minute. IMO, Sanders has the best chance to EXPAND the pool of Democratic voters in November, because his message is one of Unity among the poor, working and middle classes for their common interests.....Trying to bridge the divides among races and genders and ages to fight together for their mutual interests. A true Big Tent.

But, whichever candidate one supports, artificial polarization on the social issues on which the candidates agree will detract from the necessary ability to come together in the general.

[ibegurpard]

1. it was a disgustingly cynical campaign approach

By Clinton and it's the reason she went from being my second choice...a candidate I could live with...to one that I oppose.

[djean111]

2. One of the memes that seems very ill-considered is the "Bernie is not a real Democrat" meme.

Yeah, it took real Democrats, and the GOP, to give us war and fracking and the TPP and crushing student debt and outsourced jobs and increased H-1B visa, y'all.

And, for a group that fucking well KNOWS it needs Independents - demonizing Bernie for being Independent (yet voting with the Democrats, which is more than can be said for Debbie DINO and the rest of the DINOs, by the way) - seems spectacularly stupid.

In any event, IMO there will be no pivot of enthusiasm (and votes) for Hillary, if she should win the nomination. partly because of issues, partly because she has been very clear that she is so very different than Bernie. Yeah, we know that. Why would we support that?

[Armstead]

4. I don't want Trump, so I will pivot in November

But I totally understand what you are saying. She has to be more careful and not be dissing Bernie or his supporters.

[Coincidence]

20. mostly I think because she has been burning liberal bridges at an unprecedented pace. nt

[Wilms]

3. Clinton is NOT better, or even close, on racial issues.

Poverty is a HUGE driver of racism. Her "stay the course" economic policies will do nothing to starve that vector of tension.

She's Bill Clinton minus a saxophone (though I admit, with just as much hot air blowing).

[KingFlorez]

5. He's still way behind in the delegate count

He'd have to win every remaining state by 11% and considering he barely won Michigan, that's not going to happen. 1% wins aren't going to close the deficit of delegates.

[Armstead]

6. You are missing the point of the OP

[KingFlorez]

9. No, I am not

This is a delegate game and with Sanders being far behind in delegates, it's difficult to see he's a real contender now.

[Armstead]

10. If you want to focus on "winning is all that matters" by whatever means necessary hack politics

then the delegate math is much more important than where either candidate stands on the issues, and how those stances resonate with voters.

And strategically -- and totally hypothetically -- if Sanders becomes stronger in terms of votes but Clinton snatches the nomination based solely on those formulas......Hello President Trump.

[Ken Burch]

23. He's only "far behind" if you count the superdelegates.

There's no good reason to be counting the superdelegates at all at this point.

[KingFlorez]

26. A 200 pledged delegate deficit is fairly far behind

Clinton had less of a pledged delegate deficit in 2008 and still never caught up. And considering that superdelegates are going to support whoever has the pledged delegate count, they do figure into the overall equation since most of them are backing the pledged delegate count leader.

[Ken Burch]

35. If Bernie can establish momentum now with a series of wins

(which is entirely possible)a lot of pressure will come to bear on the superdelegates to at least consider staying uncommitted until the convention.

If we get closer to the convention and nobody has it sewed up yet, the possibility of a Warren draft could look more attractive(a Biden draft, by contrast, would never work...it would look as out-of-touch as the imposition of Humphrey in '68).

And if HRC gets close to a majority but her poll ratings against the ReThugs slip(which could easily happen), she might consider withdrawing. After all, if you go into the convention as the frontrunner but with Mondale-level poll ratings, you'd have to really think about whether it was still WORTH getting nominated and facing the fall campaign in that situation.

[eomer]

15. No, he has to win by about 4% in order to have the most *pledged* delegates.

You're assuming that super delegates will overturn the result of the people's votes. If they do that then Bernie can't win but that's likely true of every primary - there are enough super delegates to likely overturn most primary results if they choose to and vote together.

Bernie's path to win has always been to win the primaries as voted on by the voters and then have the super delegates choose democracy and respect the choice of the people.

[Armstead]

16. yep

[morningfog]

18. Your math is wrong. He needs 54% of the total outstanding delegates.

He does not need to win every state by 11%. That is wrong.

[KingFlorez]

28. You are not understanding

In order to win 54% of the remaining delegates, which would put him over the top, he needs to win the each of the remaining states by a minimum of 11% to reach that goal. Delegates are awarded proportionally and he is behind by over 200 pledged delegates, which means that he needs some fairly big wins to close that gap.

[morningfog]

30. No, you are not understanding.

He does not have to win by 11 percentage points (which I think what you are trying to say) to get 54% of the pledged delegates of that contest.

You are likely including the super delegate count as his mark to overcome, which is an error as well.

[KingFlorez]

33. One more time

I'm trying to explain this to you as best as I can so you can keep up.

First off, 11% and 11 percentage points are the same thing, they are not different, ok? Second, Sanders needs to net some major delegates to overcome the pledged delegate lead. Even without the superdelegtes included, Sanders is behind. Netting 54% of the remaining delegates is steep climb and would require decisive wins in every single state left. Not every state left is going to vote as Vermont or New Hampshire did.

Sanders is in the same position Clinton was in back in 2008; Lots of favorable targets left, but difficult delegate math.

[morningfog]

34. 11 percent and 11 percentage points are not the same.

For example, if HIllary beat Bernie 60% to 40%, she did not beat him by 20 percent. She beat him by twenty points. Twenty percent of 40 is 8.

If Sanders takes most of the remaining 35 contests, with some wins in the 55-60% range as he has been and any loses are narrow, he can close the gap. He certainly has a lot of work and it is uphill and Hillary has the advantage. But, it is not insurmountable and it would not take running the board by 11 percentage points in each contest.

[whereisjustice]

7. Good post but i do not belive Clinton's

Verbiage on social issues. She's dragged along by force of necessity. If she maintained her conservative "me first" philosophy without the cover as a socially aware democrat she might as well just run as a republican. As a moderate republican she could move the Republicans to the left instead of moving democrats to the right. We dont need two parties to the right of center.

And exploiting problems of crime and poverty caused by policies Clinton endorses.. Private prisons, jobs to Mexico and Asia , totally count as right of center.

[highprincipleswork]

8. You said that right. It should be a fair contest to pick the strongest candidate.

[jcgoldie]

11. sorry but no

Appealing to African American voters does not equal "divisiveness" ... one might argue in fact that it is actually inclusiveness.

[Armstead]

12. Attempting to ruin the reputation of a candidate who is supportive is divisive

Clinton certainly had every right to cultivate constituencies with which she is strong. That's politics.

But that's not all she did.

Bernie has been fully supportive of the goals of AA voters all along.

But he was not as well known before the campaign.

The whispering campaign -- and the more blatant -- attempts to portray him as unsympathetic and even somewhat racist and sexist was divisive.

[jcgoldie]

13. Ahhh I gotcha

"Whispering campaign" that does sound nefarious. What a dirty politician. Seriously?

[Armstead]

14. If you want to believe it was all coincidental....I won't convince you othehrwise

But, for example, sending out a Latino surrogate (Castro) in Texas very early in the campaign to say that Sanders has not been supportive of Latinos is not just a whispering campaign.

[Maedhros]

29. Yes, seriously. Hillary is a dirty politician.

/bye.

[Ken Burch]

24. If you appeal on YOUR OWN CANDIDATE'S merits...not by lying about the other candidate.

Not by claiming the other candidate doesn't think racism matters when you know perfectly well that he does.

And not by claiming that the movements for social justice and economic justice are at odds with each other, when in fact they intersect more often than not.

[Armstead]

40. Hit nail on head

[Skwmom]

17. I think the racial divisiveness is going to cause a big backlash in the general election if it's

Clinton.

[MisterP]

19. race isn't an issue for her (see her record and reactions to BLM), it's a campaign opportunity

now if it gets her over the victory line, why would someone want to give all that up?

[Armstead]

21. Which finish line, and at what cost?

[MisterP]

22. if you win, the cost doesn't matter: the party can be burned to the ground,

voters stay home in droves, the country will be sold off, and lying is an accepted and enthusiastic part of both programs

they've repeatedly said they don't care about consequences, just that they like the candidate

[mythology]

25. I think you're mischaracterizing what at least some

We're saying.

In the primaries it is a significant electoral problem if you can't get at least a significant portion of the minority vote. Likewise in the Republican party primaries, doing poorly with Christian conservatives is a problem.

That doesn't inherently imply that Sanders can't get minority votes in the general election if he gets there, merely that it's a block to getting to the general.

[Armstead]

27. Sanders was mischaracterized from the beginning

Had not a cloud been deliberatly cast over Bernie from the beginning, I'd have no problem with Clinton's courting of AA voters in a positive way, and letting the chips fall where they may.

But the "Bernie has a problem with..." campaign made it difficult for voters unfamiliar with him to form an objective opinion.And unfortunately that also set a divisive tone that did not have to happen.

[Maedhros]

32. I saw this first-hand with a friend of my son-in-law.

He didn't know who Bernie Sanders was, other than that he'd heard he was bad on racial issues.

Hillary's campaign is 100% responsible for that.

[Vattel]

37. +1,000,000

[Maedhros]

31. The biggest difference between Clinton and Sanders on social issues

is that Hillary views them through the lens of politicking (what position do I need to take to win [insert demographic]?), while Bernie simply believes his positions are the right ones, and says so.

[Vattel]

36. Awesome post. My only only objection

is that I do think there is a significant difference between Bernie and Hillary on the interests of some minorities, and that difference counts in favor of voting for Bernie. Immigrant rights and certain other issues of special concern to many (though not all) Latinos are my pet issues, my ponies, or whatever you want to call them. I see a vast difference between Hillary and Bernie on those issues.

For example, I believe that it is Bernie who has the right ideas about immigration reform. I could go on and on about this, but I will limit myself to just one illustration: Judging from past statements, Hillary's ideal path to citizenship requires paying fines for having illegally crossed the border. That may not seem like a big deal to many American citizens, but to people like me it is deeply offensive as it reflects a horrible prejudice against those who illegally cross borders because doing so is necessary to feed their families. No one deserves to be punished for what any decent person would do, and any decent person would illegally cross a border if that was the only way they could meet the economic needs of their family.

Hillary has consistently shown that she does not have much empathy for the plight of poor immigrants. In an interview she conceded that refugee children from Central America would be safer in the United States, but she said that they should be sent back to the violence they fled anyways! Martin O'Malley called her out on that and good for him. Bigotry against Latinos is alive and well in the Democratic party, and that is why Clinton can get away with that sort of statement.

Clinton, Gutierrez, Correct the Record, and (this hurts me to say so because I love her) even Huerta have been terribly dishonest about Bernie's record on immigration issues. Clinton shamelessly attacks Bernie for voting against "Ted Kennedy's immigration reform bill" as if that bill wasn't full of Republican shit by the time it came to a vote. Because it was polluted by Republican hatred, that bill was in some ways a disaster in terms of the rights of immigrants. It would have separated families, and it would have allowed Latino guest workers to be treated like slaves. It did include a path to citizenship and so I can see why some advocates of immigrant rights supported it. I don't criticize them for that because the trade-off was a tough call. But most people who really care about immigrant rights will also say that opposing that bill was also a very respectable position. I hate the way Clinton has used that vote of Sanders against him.

Sorry for the rant. I got going on it and just couldn't stop.

[Armstead]

38. Well, to be honest, I think Bernie is better on a lot of social issues, but I was....

giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt on those, because of the larger point I was trying to make, that both of them are miles ahead of the GOP.

[Vattel]

39. Fair enough. So long as you don't buy into the abuela crap, I won't complain.