Unbiased fact - A Bernie candidacy could cost Dems retaking Senate and more, nullifying his agenda

[realmirage]

Headline edited for those neophytes who don't know that a large part of the discussion in the political world is the Dems good chance at retaking the Senate. I also expect much zealotry in their responses, as they will not read the article, but put me on ignore for having the gall to post facts that point out flaws in their "revolution"

This is based on the facts, and should scare the shit out of ALL democrats.

This is the problem with Bernie’s revolution: How one down-ticket election in Wisconsin shows the flaw in his political movement

A far-right judge was elected to Wisconsin's Supreme Court -- partly, it appears, with the help of Bernie voters
- by Gary Legum

Let’s take one last look at Wisconsin, where, I’m told, the Bernie Sanders Revolution scored a decisive electoral victory in this very important state.

“Justice Rebecca Bradley was elected Tuesday to a 10-year seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, defeating state Appeals Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg in a bitter, highly charged race.”

In case you are unfamiliar with this judicial race, here is a quick primer: Rebecca Bradley is a conservative jurist and favorite of Gov. Scott Walker who once served as president of the Milwaukee chapter of the Federalist Society and belongs to the Catholic legal group St. Thomas More Society. (That would be the same group responsible for that spiffy hat deceased Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia wore to President Obama’s first inauguration, which is still probably the least offensive of its actions if you are the type of person who would prefer conservative Catholic theology not be applied to major legal decisions.) And that’s before we get into Bradley’s college writings that, among other things, referred to AIDS patients as “degenerates,” while opining that “homosexual sex kills.”

Kloppenburg was the more liberal candidate, an appeals-court judge who, in her last run for the state supreme court in 2011, refused to take special-interest money. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had encouraged their supporters to turn out to vote for her in Tuesday’s election. At stake was the size of the partisan split on the court, which has been one of the more divisive and bitter fights of the Walker era.

So while the revolution might have scored a large victory for Sanders on Tuesday, there are two important caveats: (1) It did very little in terms of cutting into Clinton’s overall delegate lead. The numbers are still against Sanders for the rest of the race, and “momentum” is an overrated concept in primaries. (2) Wisconsin Republicans might have scored the biggest win of the night by keeping the state Supreme Court ideologically divided in favor of conservatives. This is no small thing in a state that an ultra-conservative governor has spent the last few years turning into the Koch brothers’ wet dream. Bradley’s term is for 10 years, so assuming she serves all of it, she’ll outlast a Sanders or Clinton presidency.

Now, I’m bringing this up because of a small tumult that was circulating on the Internet yesterday. There was some grumbling, based on early exit poll numbers, that indicated a fair number of Sanders voters (and a smaller number of Clinton supporters) went for Bradley. Needless to say, leftists voting for a revanchist conservative is a huge surprise. So how accurate was this claim, and does it tell us anything about the state of the Sanders revolution?

Exit poll breakdowns from Tuesday show that just under 10 percent of Sanders voters cast a ballot for Bradley, while 11.5 percent did not vote in the judicial election at all. Among Clinton voters, just under 4 percent went for Bradley, while just over 4 percent did not vote for either judge at all. Some very rough back-of-the-envelope math based on vote totals says that yes, those votes would have swung the election to Kloppenburg, if about two-thirds of the Bradley- and non-voters had voted for her. (And again, this is very rough math sketched by a guy who had to repeat Algebra.)

So what explains the large numbers of Bradley votes from Sanders supporters? Here are a few possibilities:

The candidates’ names were listed without a letter indicating party affiliation next to them, since the election was officially nonpartisan. In that case, a lot of people might have just punched a name without knowing anything about the candidates.
Wisconsin was an open primary, so some conservatives could have voted for Sanders just to mess with Clinton, then further down marked their ballots for the conservative judge. Mischief-making by partisans is always a danger with open primaries.
This was a general election stuck on a day that was otherwise thought of as a primary, which likely depressed turnout.

With all of those caveats, I do think this is one more piece of evidence that Sanders’s theory of political revolution as a model for this election is falling short. The model rests on millions of disaffected and previously un-engaged voters being so energized that they will turn out to vote for change in the form of one Bernie Sanders. But as we have seen throughout the primary season, if raw vote totals are an indicator, this is simply not happening. In Wisconsin, the Republican primary saw about 100,000 more voters than the Democrats. And this is in a state that, while it has taken a hard conservative turn in recent decades, has still voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every general election since 1988.

But even beyond that, there is another point that has always been the flaw in the Sanders model: It does liberals no good to turn out all these voters for a presidential election if they are not going to educate themselves about who else on the ballot they need to vote for.

Let’s say this judicial election had been held in November, with a Sanders ticket inspiring even more voters to come to the polls. The judicial candidates still would not have had party affiliations next to their names due to the allegedly nonpartisan nature of the election. So there is a good chance Rebecca Bradley would still have been elected even if Bernie Sanders won the presidency on the same ballot.

We constantly hear that Democrats have a problem getting voters to come out for midterms, and that this failing has helped lead to the most conservative, wingnuttiest House of Representatives in history, to say nothing of the Senate. So the question of increasing off-year election turnout is an important one. But just showing up every other November won’t be enough if the goal is to increase progressive governance across the board.

In other words, if you’re not paying attention to anything beyond the top of the ticket, you’re doing revolution wrong. Change in our political system takes place only with sustained civic engagement. Such engagement would indeed be revolutionary, but I see no evidence as yet that Sanders’s rhetoric will achieve it.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/07/this_is_the_problem_with_bernies_revolution_how_one_down_ticket_election_in_wisconsin_shows_the_flaw_in_his_political_movement/

[Tiggeroshii]

1. Since when are primaries ever justifiably comparable to general elections? Never.

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Bullshit!

Kloppenburg lost because the Democratic Party didn't put any effort into educating voters. They sure as Hell didn't want to encourage young voters, especially first time voters, to come out because it would hurt HRC. So, the VERY voters that could have helped Kloppenburg didn't know anything about her.

[LonePirate]

10. Isn't it the voters' responsibility to educate themselves on the candidates and issues?

Blaming it on the party is a very lazy and convenient excuse.

[Kelvin Mace]

38. Voter education is a party responsibility

Sure, in a perfect world voters would be just like my wife and I, and sit down with our absentee ballots and research each race. But we are older, understand the importance of down ballot race, and only work a job a piece. Younger people with less experience need to be taught and are kind of pressed on time since they are usually handling school and a job, or multiple jobs.

You do realize the OP is saying that this is the fault of Sander's voters?

[LonePirate]

53. Plenty of people have full time jobs and or families or school and they still educate themselves

Being an informed, responsible voter requires being educated about the people and issues. Adults need to take the initiative and obtain this information. Relying on someone else to give it to them is foolish and frankly, stupid. I cannot give a free pass to anyone who refuses to make sure they are an informed voter.

[truedelphi]

44. So yeah, let's blame the voters, and not the people at the top, who have the Power,

The Money and The Organization, right?

That will work. It has worked for decades upon decades, before this election cycle, and who here thinks that this year is different?

[LonePirate]

48. So the voter is not responsible for making sure they know about the candidates and issues?

The voter needs to take the initiative here and acquire this information. Blaming the people at the top is pure ignorance and laziness.

[realmirage]

54. lonepirate it is rational supporters like you that make me believe in Bernie's revolution

Wish there were more like you here

[truedelphi]

58. I would agree with you if we had a society

Like European Societies based on "Family Capitalism" and not Darwinism Capitalism.

If our society had a manufacturing base, and huge numbers of exports, and lots and lots of worker benefits, including wages that keep up with inflation.

But the fact remains that while European nations have allowed their workers to have wage increases above the 150% mark, while our workers are at less than one half on one damn percent, this means most people are too stressed out to do more than keep their head down and try and get to one or both of their jobs.

How dare you call our people lazy!!

We have a regressive tax base, so that we are putting our groceries on credit cards, and meanwhile we are watching the One Percent soak up ever more pieces of the pie.

Also in Europe the media is not totally owned by that same One Percent. The debates in Scandinavian countries have created societies wherein the people understand their Big Bankers screwed them over, and in Iceland, those Big Bankers even went to jail!

And in other nations, there are holidays for elections, so people don't have to extend their lunch hours and try and figure out where they vote.

[LonePirate]

68. At the very least, voters should make a phone call or send an email.

Contact an office or person affiliated with a candidate or party they like and ask a question about what candidates and issues deserve their vote elsewhere on the ballot. If a voter who supported either Bernie or Hillary had contacted one of their offices in Wisconsin and asked about the WI Supreme Court race, I'm confident the representatives for both candidates would have told the voter to support Kloppenburg.

Yes, the Democratic Party in WI should have gotten the word out on Kloppenburg given the nature of the race. Still, the voter must make an effort to educate themselves instead of relying on someone else to do it for them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. So why do candidates bother with rallies

mailers and adds? I mean it is the voter's responsibility right.

[LonePirate]

76. You obviously have conflated candidate promotion and voter education.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. actually I am not, They are part of the same thing

but since you not so artfully smeared me, I consider you to be extremely ignorant. There, we are even.

[realmirage]

21. but but but it's Kloppenburg's fault! Let me ignore the failure of Bernie supporters on this!

Check the facts on Hillary supporters on the downticket vs Bernie supporters

[Kelvin Mace]

32. Again, Sanders supporters skewed young

LOTS of first time voters with NO idea who the players were. HRC supporters skew older and are seasoned voters who know the candidates. The last thing the DNC wanted was to encourage young voters, so they did no voter outreach/education efforts.

[realmirage]

40. Do you also think 9/11 was an inside job?

The conspiracy theorist in us always comes out when we want to avoid certain truths

[Kelvin Mace]

42. No, I don't.

When your side can face the truth that their candidate is a war-monger greatly disliked by the public, drop me a line.

[realmirage]

57. you do realize that your talking points are straight from the Fox News playbook, right?

When faced with a challenge to your world view, retreat to the talking point. Repeat it. It will drown out the voices who are challenging you

[Ned_Devine]

43. I want all the facts on 9/11 and I definitely think there has been a lot of cover up. You?

[realmirage]

61. uh, i think you've said enough

[Ned_Devine]

79. I think you signed up two days ago and are here for no good reason

[revbones]

85. But the OP said it was "based on facts" rofl

I think there should be a "Most ridiculous OP" award, but then they'd sell out of trophies pretty quick.

[glowing]

3. Wait: we have the House or the Senate now, lol

No, I think little Debbie and the DNC has done enough to help lose the houses... It wasn't Bernie. Lol

[msongs]

5. all those precious independents that are so worshipped today didnt bother to vote in midterms nt

[Armstead]

7. How many Democrats did?

[NV Whino]

39. Wait, let me get you a broader brush.

[frylock]

49. Awwhhhh, so now the independants that you're content with locking out..

of the primary process are at fault? How precious.

[realmirage]

18. we don't have them now, but any educated person knows dems have a chance to retake the senate

If you'd thought about it, you'd have realized that what the headline meant

[truedelphi]

35. When even Esquire Magazine, hardly a bastion of "Socialism"

Wants little Debbie gone, it is apparent that the DNC system is not fooling many people any more!

[AgerolanAmerican]

4. Unbiased fact:

my personal speculation is fact and not biased

[Armstead]

6. 2 Points

1) It's a reach to blame sanders for that.

2) A look at that author's articles shows a pattern of similar attacks on Sanders.

[Califonz]

8. This is the dumbest thing I've read on DU since I've been here.

Well, at least before I discovered the ignore feature!

[realmirage]

28. The more fact based, the more you will hate it and have to put on ignore

Bernie supporters' lack of downticket support reveals real flaws in the "revolution." But I know your emotions won't let you ponder that

[HereSince1628]

9. That's a load of moldy Cheez Curds!!!! Btw Hillary was on the ballot, too

It's stupidly disengenuous to blame Sanders for Bradley's election.

The Rs had a bigger turnout than the dems as they were in full STOP TRUMP madness.

Go back and look at the turnouts.

[enlightenment]

11. Caveat, caveat, caveat . . .

but "I think", says the author, that all those things add up to something totally different than logic would suggest.

Then there's that "unbiased" part. In order to be unbiased, an author needs to exhibit even-handed treatment of the 'sides' (in this case, Sanders and Clinton). Taking a look at Legum's Salon articles, he is anything but "unbiased" - not a single negative piece about Hillary and not a single positive piece about Bernie.

Thanks, but no thanks. The article fails both the logic and the bias test.

[realmirage]

19. I like that you ignored the facts about Sanders supporters lack of downticket support vs Hillary's

But a person operating on pure emotion WOULD look only for the perceived flaws in order to drown out what he doesn't want to read

[enlightenment]

86. Actually,

I read the entire piece. I found it lacking in logic and coherency.

[realmirage]

13. I knew no Bernie supporters would actually read the article and absorb the facts

Because if they did, they'd realize that the facts show Bernie supporters don't support the downticket to the degree that Hillary supporters do. That's a FACT pointed to in the article that could hurt dems chances to retake the senate, among other things.

I also realize that the more fact based the challenge is to someone, the more hostile they will be towards it. I expect plenty of ignores from people who don't want to study information and find the truth, but only to let their emotions reign and win at all costs.

[Half-Century Man]

47. Did you see a Wisconsin Ballot?

I did, when I voted for Bernie Sanders and Joanne Kloppenburg.
The only place on the ballot that showed distinction between R's and D's, was in the lists of candidates for POTUS. It was not listed else where.
In neither the Beloit Daily News or the Janesville Gazette, were candidate broken down by Party affiliation (That I saw, I view the BDN daily). I never saw, heard or heard of, any political debate in local broadcast media.

Those who attended political rallies got information, those who didn't lacked information.
FWIW, Part of the opening of the Bernie Sanders office in Beloit covered local campaigns including the State Supreme Court. It was stressed that Kloppenburg was to be promoted. It was to be part of the packet the canvassers were to carry ( I am disabled and can't walk long distances, so to be fair, I didn't see the actual contents of any canvassing package).

[realmirage]

60. So what you are saying is that educating yourself

isn't what a person should be doing. You are saying that someone else should always have to come in and tell you who to vote for? How is it that Hillary supporters more often knew who the D was, and Bernie supporters didn't? Doesn't that concern you? As someone who will vote for Bernie or Hillary, that definitely concerns me.

[Half-Century Man]

73. What I am saying is the tools to educate yourself are hidden away on purpose.

Here in Wisconsin, the bulk of the fault lies with Scat Wanker and his machine.
Part of it lies with the media conglomerates.
Part of it lies with the Democratic Party itself.
It can be traced all the way back to the Powell Memo.
And part of it is the despair that is part of living in a society where you see no chance of forward progress due to forty plus years of every increasing corporate domination. ya know, America.

[hobbit709]

14. Been here two days and you know this for a fact already. We don't have the Senate NOW.

[realmirage]

16. You must be new to politics, or else you'd know that Dems have a chance to retake the Senate

Any person who follows politics would know that's what I was referring to

[Armstead]

37. If Sanders were to get the nomination, and if the Democrats support him....

and they educated people about it as a Democratic Party ticket I am certain people would also vote for the otehr Dems on the ticket

[frylock]

50. They've assimilated quite well.

[Kalidurga]

15. Headline is all lies

Followed by biased speculation.

[realmirage]

17. I know considering facts that critique your candidate are painful, but it's the grown up thing to do

[Kalidurga]

20. There were no facts in that peice

Just an outline of shit that happened laced together with opinion on how those things happened.

[realmirage]

24. Look at Bernie supporters failure on the downticket vs Hillary's supporters

Those are the facts that the piece is centered around. Those are the facts you REALLY don't want to look at. But please, let your emotions reign over your intellect

[Kalidurga]

27. Here are a couple of facts

Most people don't think of judges as down ticket votes. Most people pick names that don't sound funny when they know nothing about the people on the ballot. Those are inconvenient facts though for haters.

[realmirage]

33. If this is what you believe, the Bernie revolution is already doomed

The first sentence is bizarre to anyone who understands politics, the second is a non-sequitur

[Kalidurga]

34. It's not what I believe it is what is taught in poli-sci classes

[realmirage]

51. saying "it's taught in poli-sci classes" doesn't make it a fact

research it

[Kalidurga]

55. I am done with you

Posting this crap as fact doesn't make it fact. And it is taught in poli-sci classes and if we can't trust our professors to know what the hell they are talking about then well we might as well not get degrees.

[realmirage]

63. EMPOWER YOURSELF - Professors are fallible like anyone else. Your professor certainly is.

empower yourself by doing your own research

[Kalidurga]

65. ....

[TransitJohn]

22. I think the author got 'wild-eyed histrionic speculation' confused with 'fact'. eom

n/t

[realmirage]

26. you mean the facts cited in the piece that show Bernie supporters' lack of downticket support?

But please, let your emotions shun your willingness to gather new information

[TransitJohn]

59. Emotions?

I'm not following you. Try typing clearly what you are trying to say.

[realmirage]

64. it's written in plain english

[hellofromreddit]

23. Where's the unbiased part?

[realmirage]

25. the failure of berner supporters on the downticket

that's the unbiased part. The numbers, the facts, on bernie supporters' lack of understanding on the importance of the downticket. Read it again, or should I say read it for the first time which you probably did not

[Half-Century Man]

29. At every Bernie event I attended. (1 Milwaukee, 1 Madison, 1 Beloit).

JoAnne Kloppenburg was promoted via flyers. Bradley was vilified in the same flyers.
Local district candidates were promoted or attended.

I met Tom Breau at the opening of the Rock County Bernie office. He is challenging the republican candidate for the 1st District of Wisconsin, most likely Paul Ryan.
http://www.tomb4house.com/
ryan is facing a teabagger in the aug primary. 90% chance ryan wins.
Now imagine ryan losing to someone riding Bernie's coat tails.

[bkkyosemite]

30. Bernie's fault Bernie's fault Bernie's fault NOT!

Constantly on this site grasping at straws to blame him for everything..get real.

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

31. FAIL: This is nothing more than a HRC-campaign Talking Point, and a JOKE!

Bernie being the Nom is the ONLY real chance of taking back the Senate,

because it's all about turnout,

and turnout is all about enthusiasm,

and all the enthusiasm is for Senator Sanders!!!

State that HRC has won have been generally low turnout,

States that Sanders has won have had high turnout (including new voter registrations).

Nice try.

[realmirage]

36. Your reply is a perfect example of what's wrong with the "revolution"

Any grown up must look for the weaknesses in their movement and fix them. Your unwillingness to consider Bernie supporters' lack of understanding of the importance of downticket support is scary. Even if bernie was elected president, this could actually nullify his entire agenda. You don't care about that?

[Trajan]

41. What fucking nonsense ...

The Hillary campaign has become unhinged and desperate ... Sending ... Someone ...

Hillary? ... Is that you? ...

[yourout]

45. Bernie being on the ballot was the only thing that kept it close.

Without him it would have been a 20+ point blowout.

[JudyM]

46. Here's something else you might want to read about : Fair Use rules...

Wholesale copying of an article without permission of the author is generally a violation of copyright law.

That's why we generally limit excerpts to just a few paragraphs here on DU, and then provide the link.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

[DeadLetterOffice]

71. This was bugging me too. Thanks for pointing out! n/t

[Else You Are Mad]

52. Well, thanks for showing us you don't understand what being unbiased means.

But thanks for trying!

[DeadLetterOffice]

72. Or 'fact' versus 'opinion,' apparently. n/t

[Gothmog]

56. Sanders platform would kill down ballot candidates

Sanders is not electable and would kill down ballot candidates. Sanders plan to raise taxes would kill down ballot candidates http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/politics/nancy-pelosi-bernie-sanders-taxes/

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi maintains she isn't taking sides in the Democratic primary for president, but pushed back against Bernie Sanders' pledge that he would raise taxes to pay for his health care plan, saying flatly on Wednesday, "We're not running on any platform of raising taxes."

Speaking at the House Democratic Caucus' annual retreat here, Pelosi sidestepped a question about the growing concerns of fellow Democrats over the impact Sanders could have on 2016 House and Senate races, saying, "I'm very proud of all three of our candidates."
But the top House Democrat didn't mince words when it came to Vermont Senator Sanders' health care proposal, dismissing the notion of a single-payer health care plan, curtly saying, "That's not going to happen."

[realmirage]

67. a reasonable point and one that bernie supporters will never allow themselves to consider

[northernsouthern]

62. So should you pull this thread?

Since Bernie is emailing out to people on who we need to get in to office? Just wondering. Also since Independents are required for any party to win the office, and they overwhelming support Bernie that would mean a Bernie win would be a win in both houses, while a Hillary win would mean a likely gain for the Greenparty and a lower voter turn out for the DNC with little to no crossover from the Independents that the DNC has done their best to toss all of their ballots out?

[Maedhros]

66. Hillary does not inspire voter turnout. Bernie inspires record turnout.

Which is better for Democrats?

Your premise is false.

[realmirage]

69. So how is it Hillary has 2.4 million votes than Bernie?

Please explain

[Maedhros]

74. Bernie is packing in new voters by the thousands.

Those might be handy in the General election.

Hillary wins the "Party before principle" vote, and unfortunately that is a huge chunk of the Democratic rank-and-file. She is not inspiring anybody - look at her unfavorables!

Democrats have always lamented the apathy of young people. We have a candidate that is mobilizing young people in huge numbers! That candidate should be our nominee.

[realmirage]

81. Those are good things

But Bernie hasn't been fully tested in a general election. Will he get the women and minority vote the way Hillary will? Will he collapse like Dukakis? There's more to winning than just extra young voters.

[Maedhros]

87. Neither has Hillary. [n/t]

[The Old Lie]

78. The correct number is zero.

Remember that.

[jmg257]

75. Are you saying it is better if Bernie supporters

do NOT show for the GE...so its a "fact" it's better if he is not the candidate?

Vast amounts of Dems staying home because "10% are ignorant" helps how???

[realmirage]

82. This post is a wake up call for Bernie supporters

to look at the flaws in their movement and fix them. If Bernie gets the nom I will be first in line to vote for him. But he needs to fix some glaring flaws as soon as possible

[jmg257]

84. That's a FAR cry from declaring all the doom you

Predict if sanders is the candidate.

"Facts" and speculation and fear mondering are all quite different.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. As could a Hillary candidacy. Unbiased fact.

Are the Democrats not going to vote for down ticket candidates if Hillary is nominated?

Are the Democrats not going to vote for down ticket candidates if Bernie is nominated?

Are Independents not going to vote for candidates if either is nominated?

[reformist2]

83. A prediction is never a fact.