I don't see the Sanders' campaign as 'historic' but it's not because of some difference in values

[bigtree]

Last edited Sat Mar 12, 2016, 09:26 PM - Edit history (2)

“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." ― John F. Kennedy


One of the misimpressions of the contest between these two decades-long D.C. political fixtures, expressed by some Sanders supporters, is the characterization of their campaign which has consistently trailed in voter support (both in the polls and at the polls) as a 'movement,' and the Clinton campaign as something inferior, or 'establishment politics.'

The one thing which distinguishes the Clinton support is it's broad base of Democrats, most notably in its attraction to black voters, and Latino voters, as well, in record numbers sometimes exceeding the share Barack Obama received in many contests in 2008.

In fact, the Clinton support is a mirror of the Obama coalition; more exactly, a legacy of those historic candidacies which, by any measure, was the largest 'movement' of motivated, new voters our party has ever experienced. It's no wonder that these same voters are under direct and daily assault by the leading republican contenders.

I raise that point, because the turnout at the polls hasn't measured up to the standard Bernie Sanders, himself, has set for his definition of a political revolution. Not only is there less of a diverse coalition of support for Sanders than Clinton, there's no evidence of any legislative candidate movement to buttress his expectations of some watershed event in American politics...that is, outside of his election.

That's what the Sanders candidacy represents to me, a 'movement' to elect him. Moreover, it has regressed, in my opinion, into an anti-Hillary campaign, with any and all political figures and institutions associating themselves with her candidacy labeled as 'establishment' and targeted as the embodiment of all political evil; never mind that the Sanders campaign would welcome their endorsement in a heartbeat.

The absurdity is that a President Sanders is running to head the 'establishment,' and is more than probably going to recruit most of the political class from previous administrations to manage government. It's just not that apparent to me that this decades-long national legislator has any more clue how to enact his proposals from outside the dreaded Democratic establishment he's running against, than he did as a Senator.

He's opportunistically kept the party at an arms-length when it suited him politically; and embraced our Democratic mantle when it suited his political ambition to be president; essentially an Opportunistic Democrat without any dependable allegiance to judge where he'll set his political sails in the presidency.

Unless I'm missing something, other candidates have run this close to their rival in a Democratic primary before. The campaign is reduced recently to declaring a 2% point win in MI as 'historic' when Sanders merely achieved 4 more delegates than Clinton in that race.

Meanwhile, down South, Hillary was racking up a whopping 66% point win in MS, driven in large part by Obama 'movement' voters. Tell them someone says their aspirations in this election are somehow different from the Sanders folks. Someone should have the audacity to tell them directly they think these voters' 'values' are somehow less than 'revolutionary' in working to advance this accomplished and dedicated woman to a potentially historic presidency.

I think they'd say that someone has forgotten who we're really fighting against in this election.

[revbones]

1. The 2% you claim is really 24%

That's the historic part. Polling had him 22% down. He won by 2%.

[Dems to Win]

2. No, Clinton's support is Not a mirror of the Obama coalition

Obama's coalition included enthusiastic young people of all ethnic groups. Hillary does not have their support.

[bigtree]

3. Post-ABC poll: Clinton leads Trump, aided by Obama coalition

from WaPo:


Post-ABC poll: Clinton leads Trump, aided by Obama coalition

Powered by the same coalition that twice elected Barack Obama, Democrat Hillary Clinton holds a clear lead over Republican Donald Trump in a hypothetical matchup for the November election, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Clinton leads Trump 50 percent to 41 percent among registered voters and has made steady progress against her potential rival over the past six months. Her margin over Trump has increased from three points last September to six points in December to the current nine points.

Clinton is assembling a potentially winning coalition of minorities, women, young voters and voters with college degrees. Trump is chosen by barely one-fifth of nonwhite voters—about the same percentage as Republican Mitt Romney received when he ran against Obama four years ago...

Clinton has a 21-point lead over Trump among women, while Trump has a five-point edge among men. Along educational lines, white voters are sharply divided . Trump carries voters without college degrees by 57 to 33 percent; Clinton wins those with college degrees by 52 to 37 percent.

The survey also highlighted a significant generational difference in candidate preferences. Trump and Clinton are virtually tied among voters age 40 and older. But those under age 40 favor Clinton by a nearly 2-to-1 margin...

By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans see Clinton as having the experience to serve in the Oval Office; by an almost 3-to-1 margin, Americans say Trump does not have the experience. On the issues of temperament and personality, 58 percent said Clinton has what it takes to serve effectively as president, while 25 percent think that of Trump.


read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-clinton-leads-trump-aided-by-obama-coalition/2016/03/08/40dd6698-e575-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html

[Nitram]

4. All excellent points, big tree.

I particularly agree with:

1. one thing which distinguishes the Clinton support is it's broad base of Democrats, most notably in its attraction to black voters, and Latino voters

2. turnout at the polls hasn't measured up to the standard Bernie Sanders, himself, has set for his definition of a political revolution

3. Moreover, [the Sanders campaign] has regressed, in my opinion, into an anti-Hillary campaign

4. He's opportunistically kept the party at an arms-length when it suited him politically; and embraced our Democratic mantle when it suited his political ambition to be president

[bigtree]

6. thanks, Nitram

...

[madfloridian]

17. That leaves me with the feeling that the two sides may never come together.

This whole primary has been that way. I hate the racism, I hate their calling us Non-Democrats.

I think it is tragic that Hillary for the 3rd time today used the lie that Bernie did not support the auto-bailout.

Major media has corrected her, but she is still using it.

We may never again be united as a party if this is the way it will be.

[bigtree]

5. »

[H2O Man]

7. Respectfully disagree.

While I disagree with most of the claims that you have made here, I'll start with an easy one. It is an error in thinking to believe that the Clinton coalition is the same as the Obama coalition. That is so easily countered as to make it almost embarrassing to do so. But, let's simply consider two groups: the young, and the progressives.

Surely you are aware that young adults -- a group that actively supported Barack Obama -- is currently supporting Bernie Sanders? The numbers of young adults supporting Hillary Clinton are hardly something to take pride in.

And how about the progressives in the Democratic Party, and Democratic Left? This is a group that overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama. Today, they virtually all support Bernie Sanders.

I could go on. But I respect you, and appreciate that you would attempt to portray Hillary Clinton in a manner that has the potential to make people at least consider viting for Hillary, should she be our party's nominee.

[Nitram]

8. H20 Man, I respectfully disagree and raise you one.

The youth vote was marvelously energized by Obama. It doesn't seem to have been similarly provoked to actually go outdoors and vote, judging by the turnout in MI. If those that did are willing to let the Republican Party win the election, then they never really understood what was is at stake. But I believe they will rise to the occasion whichever candidate wins, in spite of the nihilistic rhetoric we've been hearing on DU of late.

[JonLeibowitz]

14. "It doesn't seem to have been similarly provoked to actually go outdoors and vote [judging by MI]"

Except, not really:

Pollsters underestimated Sanders’s dominance among young voters. Not only did more young voters turn out than expected, but Sanders won 81 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds. A YouGov poll showed him winning 66 percent.1

Pollsters underestimated youth turnout. Voters under 30 made up 19 percent of Democratic primary voters, nearly as large a share as voters 65 or older, according to exit polls. Mitchell Research and Communications, which showed a 37 percentage point Clinton lead in a poll conducted Sunday, found that people younger than 50 would make up less than a quarter of all voters; they made up more than half instead.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/

If the turnout was so much higher than expected as to be a factor in one of the biggest polling errors in recent history, then your hypothesis has a serious flaw.

[bigtree]

9. consider this

64 percent of millennial black voters said they are backing Hillary Clinton

Among Democrats, Clinton leads Sanders 50 percent to 40 percent. Heading into South Carolina, whose Democratic voting electorate is more racially diverse than either Iowa or New Hampshire, Sanders holds a narrow 3-point advantage over Clinton (47 percent to 44 percent) among white voters.

While Sanders has drawn a significant portion of his support from the youngest voting bloc (under the age of 30), just 25 percent of millennial black voters said they are supporting the Vermont senator, compared with 64 percent who said they are backing Clinton. The reverse is true among white millennials, who support Sanders 75 percent to 22 percent.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/2016-poll-who-is-ahead-219312


64 percent of millennial black voters say they are backing Clinton. Just 25 percent of millennial black voters said they are supporting the Vermont senator.

Which one more resembles the Obama vote, to you?

[H2O Man]

10. I'd hope that

sincere members of the Democratic Party not try to divide us on race. Those attempts were ugly enough in 2008. Hopefully, we can avoid doing that in 2016. I'm confident that President Obama has made this clear enough, so that all Democrats would recognize the wisdom in this.

You don't believe in seeking political advantage bvy splitting people. Right?

[bigtree]

13. It's always interesting to me

...when pointing to race is defended against with accusations of 'dividing' or, in many cases here, called 'race-baiting.'

It's a tactic as old as racism, itself, I imagine. It's a familiar defense which attempts to place the messenger in a position where any and all discussion of race is seen as suspect. It only works in an atmosphere of indifference to the views expressed by blacks and other ethnic groups seeking recognition in one form or the other.

In my case, I've offered nothing more innocuous than a breakdown of racial statistics which show a clear division in support, for whatever reasons, between Clinton and Sanders among black millennials. That division of support has actually driven Hillary's gains in the South and elsewhere, and has been an area where Sanders has struggled to attract the support he's needed to flesh out his people's revolution.

Pointing that out isn't seeking to 'divide' anyone. But if you're going to defend against the notion that Clinton is successfully organizing the Obama coalition, you'd be in error to neglect to highlight where the black support which he energized and registered in record numbers stands today. At the present time, they stand overwhelmingly with Hillary. That's as significant a movement as anything the trailing candidate should be able to credibly claim.

I'd daresay, that abundance of black millennials supporting Hillary could be looked at as a legacy of his presidency, of which she was an integral part.

[madfloridian]

16. The pitting of races against each other should not even exist in this primary.

There is no reason for it. Neither candidate should play that game, but I highly suspect Hillary and surrogates are behind it.

There are 2 things that will cause me to turn independent. One is the continued attacks on Bernie with racist overtones.

The other is acting like he and his supporters are not REAL Democrats.

Hillary is using some very questionable tactics and they are not going to work.

[bigtree]

18. pointing out the racial divide in voter support between candidates

...isn't 'pitting races against each other.'

Calling it that is certainly a tactic which isn't going to stop anyone from pointing out who is fueling Hillary Clinton's formidable lead, most notably in the South.

I'm not responsible for anyone's uncomfortableness in discussing race in this election. I'm not responsible for any of the false and offensive projections you're making about what I've posted.

I will say that it's interesting how oblique this defense of yours is to the very real assaults on blacks and other ethnic groups and individuals in this primary. This important voter base deserves to have their efforts highlighted, especially when that support is so overwhelmingly in favor of one person in this election and is contributing to her consistent and increasing lead over the 'movement' candidate.

[pantsonfire]

20. Do you know of any more sources related to the demographics of millenial voters?

[Arazi]

11. It's a truism that sometimes the best way to make change is from within

I believe that

It's got to start from within by someone and it won't be HRC

[Armstead]

12. If you thinki the country is hunky dory, then Clinton is your candidate

If you think Corporate Monopoilies corrupt Wall St. Banks and politicians who are beholden to them should be running the government and determining policy -- and if you think the US is in great shape as a result, then by all means vote for Clinton.

And if you believe the Democratic Party is stronger than ever, and has had a winning message that has given it a majority in Congress and state governments, then by all means don't change a thing.

Some people think otherwise through.

[bobbobbins01]

15. Math doesn't appear to be your friend.

And neither does history.

[pantsonfire]

19. Both campaigns are historic...

Hillary would be the first woman president and Sanders would be the first Jewish president. The primary numbers are higher then 2012 I believe and running a campaign without a superPAC, that's something. The revolution rhetoric is a bit over the top...to me, it speaks more to the paradigm shift towards the left that's just beginning. New Deal Era, Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush, and Hillary might be the last of it. If you look at Bill Clinton's policies he ran as a centrist to regain all the democratic voters lost in the south (the south wasn't a majority Republican until after the 1970's).

[pantsonfire]

21. Eight unexplained edits....

Why did you edit it so many times?