2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy go to a rally, then not vote?
I am not getting that. the rallies weren't anything special. The one I went to (Sacramento Cal Expo, Bonnie Field) was hard to be at (security was especially harsh) and it seemed to me that you really had to want to be there. Not much in the way of music, no fireworks, just Bernie and a two second Danny Glover appearance, yet there were 20K people there. There were countless people registering people to vote at the event and they were doing a very brisk business. The crowd hardly skewed young, seemed a nice cross section of people, with young kids, pre-teens, as well as senior citizens (myself) and all kinds of people.
But now they say that those people, "the young people" that support Bernie at the rallies didn't vote? I don't get it. Going to the event is far more hassle than voting, especially if absentee voting, where you don't even have to turn off the video games to vote.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Just your run-of-the-mill election fraud that is becoming commonplace. Most people choose to ignore it, because we really don't know what to do about it.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)still_one
(92,188 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)Here in Washington state we vote by mail, and since my county added a voting tracker, my vote hasn't counted a single time. So many votes are just thrown away.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)It isn't that the people at the rallies didn't vote. It's that the vast majority of Hillary voters didn't bother going to any rallies.
Jennylynn
(696 posts)The're trying to cover up the 'shenanigans'.
brewens
(13,582 posts)That just wasn't enough to make the youth vote overall very impressive. Most kids didn't go to the rallies either.
The rallies were impressive and Bernie's support is impressive. Given his late start, the media blackout, underhanded tactics by DWS and the DNC, Bernie and his supporters have done very well, so far.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... like vote and register people and drive them to the poles.
Skink
(10,122 posts)We would rather voting be as difficult as possible.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)There are already roughly a zillion accusations of voter fraud. If you allowed people to vote by smartphone, how are you going to ensure that the person voting is the person registered?
Skink
(10,122 posts)TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Skink
(10,122 posts)TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Skink
(10,122 posts)So it doesn't happen
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Intentional ignorance is not a compelling argument. At least try not to be so obvious about it.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Whimsey
(236 posts)I have been voting for over 40 years. I have done it as my civic duty and never expected it to require no effort.
Your attitude is why Bernie lost. It was not worth your time to vote for him!
Skink
(10,122 posts)Other states made it difficult
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)But it is currently as easy if not easier than going to a rally.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Well, much of that kind of talk is just BS, pure and simple, more conventional wisdom about why we must not challenge the decision of our party leaders. But some states have closed primaries, and very strict registration requirements, so it's not easy to vote in the primary.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Regarding earlier states, people who went to the rallies generally voted, but the number of voters is much bigger than rally attendance.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)And no, Bernie had big rallies in IL, OH, and NY and got hammered. Hillary had a much better campaign plan.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...of a year plus 25 days before the general election.
In the 1970s, 4 Supreme Court Justices including Thurgood Marshall thought that was unconstitutional, but 5 conservative Justices thought it was constitutional.
Illinois was close. HRC won by two points.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)NY, as well as most states, want a candidate to receive the votes of those that actually support them, not votes from people that want to tear them down. IL makes no difference if it was 2%. Bernie dropped a boatload of cash and guaranteed a win, same as in OH, and the same as in NY.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)HRC is more popular with older voters, and older voters are more likely to vote absentee.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)Hubby waffled about changing his registration from Green to Dem and finally decided to let it ride, and leave the Presidential slot blank, so as not to cancel out my vote, as he put it. Oh, and he uses mail-in ballots.
He was very glad she won, and led the toast when the results came in. Bernie kind of lost him along the way, and by the time Hillary gave her speech in San Diego, hubby was all in for Hillary.
So make of it what you will. "Older voters" does not mean senile -- maybe we just have more experience.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I suspect that is why Bernie excelled at the caucuses. They are events where you can go with your friends and have fun.
mythology
(9,527 posts)First, maybe they didn't like what they heard, or didn't like it enough to turn out. Yes it's easier in states that have absentee voting, but you still have to make the effort to request it and then send it back. It's got multiple points of failure in that sense. Even for something as simple as returning a Netflix dvd will often take me a couple of days between forgetting to take it with me to work, or forgetting to drop it off on the way in or leaving too late to get it in that day's mail. And that's something I do far more often than voting.
And that's before considering the impact of voting rules in each state. Did somebody need to register as a member of the party, or just to vote? Did they request the correct ballot like in California? Did they actually register on time? Did they think they were registered but it turns out that they weren't?
Secondly, maybe they did vote, but didn't do enough outreach to their friends/family etc. Sanders certainly had bigger rallies than Clinton, but rally size alone isn't necessarily predictive of vote share. The Clinton campaign wasn't trying to have huge rallies as that's clearly not her strong suit as a candidate so comparing rally size when the campaign strategy wasn't the same for both campaigns.
Third, I remember hearing I believe the NPR Politics podcast that the Clinton campaign had what they considered a better follow up approach from campaign to voters to get affirmative commitment and schedule for prospective voters. The Clinton campaign would take voter information about how they intended to vote and then follow up which would help with the issues in my first point.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Why do you HRC people keep this up? Aren't you happy yet?
Keep it up. You and your ilk are driving voters away from Hill.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Orangepeel
(13,933 posts)That's 400,000 votes. Bernie got a million and a half.
There were a lot of people at the rallies, but not enough to win, even if they all did vote (and there were some kids and some non-citizens)
reformist2
(9,841 posts)It's absurd to think every Bernie voter could attend one of his rallies. And it's absurd to think that even though Hillary cannot fill a gymnasium, that she has some sort of "silent majority" out there ready to roll out on election day, like stealth ninjas.
KK9
(81 posts)You are right that not every Bernie supporter attended a rally, I know six Bernie supporters in my life and only one went to a rally. I do believe they voted, however, I know my grown sons did.
On the other hand, there certainly ARE many "stealth ninjas" for Hillary. I'm one and there are two others in my household, and I know many others. You couldn't pay me to go to a political rally.
I think the demographics are key...older voters (I'm one, mid-50s) don't have a lot of time to go to rallies, even if they wanted to. I I have a full-time job, a child still at home, an elderly mother living with me and property and animals to care for. I have time to vote, and always do, but never for a rally. I don't like crowds anyway, so I wouldn't go even if I had nothing else to do. I think many people my age are just done with big, noisy, crowded social scenes that were fun in our 20s.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Bernie must be so proud
msongs
(67,405 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Hekate
(90,674 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)qdouble
(891 posts)It's something to do. Voting and actually being politically involved beyond that is boring and meaningless to a lot of those folks.
still_one
(92,188 posts)some may not like the fact that Hillary has a lot of support. Those who won't accept that will just have to deal with it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2171619
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)Because of the large turnout at Bernie's early rallies, he got the attention of the media, which in turn gave him the exposure he needed to recruit more supporters. However, even if everyone of the people of his rallies had voted, he still would not have won.
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)thought you could just register and then show up and vote, being that this is the worlds shining example of representative Democracy and free elections and all, but WAIT...not so fast bucko. Maybe you checked the "I" box when you only thought you were checking the "D" box, those things are tricky you know. No? Well perhaps you only dreamed you registered because, surprise, you don't seem to be on our list. Hate that you had to stand in line for 16 hours though so let me get you a provisional ballot you can use. Hey, we got any more provisional ballots? I need some over here; ran out again.
jillan
(39,451 posts)over and over and over and over by her supporters?
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Most places with that kind of turnout have large voting populations, and 20,000 doesn't represent a large percentage. Also, people drive a long way to go to those events, some even from neighboring states.
Probably a high percentage of them did vote, but so did far more who went to no rallies at all. It's a mistake to draw conclusions from such events. Enthusiasm is important, but population matters more.
bjo59
(1,166 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)as a social activity, even though they weren't registered to vote (and didn't bother later); some went out of curiosity; some weren't old enough to vote. (Those young kids and preteens you mentioned, as well as middle schoolers and high school students -- they all took up space in the rallies.)
Lots of reasons.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)For every 20k at the rally, I'd guess 5k aren't old enough to vote or aren't eligible to vote in some form or another (felony convictions for example). Also, as already pointed out, the reason why "youngsters" get such a bad "rap" is because they are notoriously fickle when it comes to actually voting. They'll get behind a candidate and idolize them like a rock star but that doesn't mean much if they don't make it to the polls.
The other thing people seem to discount is the fact that since Hillary didn't have huge rallies, that people don't support her. I support her and I've never been to a single rally. I can get all the information I need about her without leaving my house.
Also, as has been mentioned several times but, again, seems to be discounted, is that a lot of Clinton supporters felt they'd be harangued if they publicly stated their support for her, so they stayed silent but did what actually mattered, they voted.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)BUt the same result will play out if action doesn't follow.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)any candidate...and I always vote. TV is good enough for me. But the level of grassroot support and the youth element..and the silly notion that young folk and older folk, as well, just did that to fool some pollsters...I don't think so.
Newsflash. Millenials are not stupid, please pass it on. Probably mostly Boomers singing this song of woe. Many of us remember the Hell No, We Won't Go days and wonder what happened. But then I didn't get into the rioting and such that happened in some places, either. We just hung Richard Nixon in effigy at his alma mater. That felt right.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)popularity and enthusiasm for Bernie.
They will say anything to avoid the obvious conclusion that Bernie was cheated through election fraud. The record breaking red shifts in nearly every state exit poll would be enough to condemn any election in another country. But not in this country where the media is complicit in the cover-up because the candidate being cheated advocates policies that nibble away a little bit of their profits.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)It's not just that our media won't tell them. Most people here are just not interested in serious things. In America, it's all bread and circuses, all the time.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He got, what, 80K people in San Jose or wherever? CA primary turnout was in the millions.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)so it's really not worth going.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)All the attendees at all the Bernie's rally is still a small fraction of voters.
Do you not understand that?
Hillary won fair and square. Please stop this nonsense.
onecaliberal
(32,852 posts)How is a fucking state called with 2 million votes uncounted?
Ford_Prefect
(7,895 posts)Change is not in their interest so the votes for change did not count, nor were they counted.