If Bernie Sanders can rouse enough voters to come to the polls for

[MineralMan]

primary elections in all states, he will have a chance to win the nomination. Primary elections are decided by a minority of registered Democrats, always. If he cannot, however, he will not be the nominee. It is pretty much that simple.

His supporters can help in that effort, or they can hurt that effort. It remains to be seen how that all works out.

Primary voters and caucus goers are a subset of Democrats. There's a solid base of voters who always vote in primary elections, and they're not likely to vote against the conventional wisdom. At this point, a majority of that group of Democrats will vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. It's up to Bernie and his supporters to bring enough other voters to the primaries and caucuses to overcome that group.

Can they do it? We'll see. Can they do it in enough states to generate enough Sanders delegates to prevail at the Convention? It won't be easy. All fifty states contribute delegates, in numbers based on population. Sanders has a tough road ahead to earn the nomination. It's going to take an outstanding positive effort to bring enough voters to the polls in all 50 states to make that happen.

If you're a Sanders supporter, it's already time to start working on primary GOTV efforts in your own state. Unless you're in one of those four February primary/caucus states, the work is needed where you live, and it should start immediately.

[peacebird]

1. We're already busy on the ground in Virginia!

[MineralMan]

2. There you go!

That's what it will take - concerted efforts in all states. Virginia is a Super Tuesday primary, so it's extremely important. Right now, the last polls show Hillary Clinton +50 in VA. That's going to be a tough nut to crack.

[Ron Green]

3. The 2016 presidential election is a test for America, and we may fail it.

The test is whether we can throw off the established Kabuki theater process through which candidates are chosen for us by a ruling group and their cowardly assistants, or else reject this lie and finally hear and act upon the truth: not only the truth about this "electoral" process, but about the nature of political life itself.

The rulers and their media are heavily invested in the established system, and I agree with you that it will take a massive grass roots effort in all, or most, states to pull this off. From what I'm seeing anecdotally this can happen.

But it will take a great effort, and many of those who're supporting Clinton for fuzzy or fearful reasons should take a hard look at 2016 and do the right thing.

[MineralMan]

4. It's not a matter of pass or fail.

It is how we do elections in this country. If you think that is going to change, you're wrong. Unless Sanders can muster enough voters and caucus goers, he will not be the nominee. It's that simple. It's a challenge. Either he and his followers will meet that challenge, or they will not. The voters will decide. What other system do you envision for selecting candidates and election winners?

We could get the big money out of the elections, but the system will remain the same. It would be impossible to change that basic system.

The only way to bring a new face into the equation is for people to support that new face. It happened in 2008. Will it happen in 2016? That's up to the candidates and their supporters. It's that simple.

[Ron Green]

5. To fail the test, by my definition, is to allow the system's

messaging system (the talking heads, the marketers, the "journalists&quot to continue to set the tone of the discussion sufficient to keep voters disengaged, at least in numbers of the recent past.

To pass the test is to do as you describe, and to activate enough people to choose a counter-marketed candidate.

[MineralMan]

6. That's not my definition of failure.

For me, failure would be to elect Republicans to control all three branches of government. We are at risk of doing just that.

For me, that failure would result in irreparable harm to the entire population.

That is why I am a Democrat. That is why I will support the Democratic nominee. Who that nominee is will depend on the voters, actually. If a candidate's supporters can muster enough voters, that candidate will be the nominee. It's a very simple equation.

To do that for a "counter" candidate is going to require an effort that encourages, rather than alienates voters to switch from the easy choice to a different choice. Obama and his supporters did it. Can Sanders and his supporters manage to do it? We'll find out.

I'm a Clinton supporter. If you want me to switch to Sanders, you will have to convince me to do so. If Sanders wins the nomination, I'll be a strong supporter, as I would for any Democratic presidential candidate, but my vote is going to Clinton in my state's precinct caucuses at this point. My choice of whom to support is mine. You want my vote? Don't call me names. Convince me that your favored candidate can win the general election and give me reasons to switch my vote. Trust me; I'm not alone in this.

[Ron Green]

7. Calling yourself a Democrat is no longer sufficient.

In 2016, your chosen candidate represents, in my view, a dangerous non-alternative to a Republican "takeover" of the branches of government. Her demonstrated policy positions and actions, with the help of entertainment-oriented media, convince many people she's a fighter for liberal causes (whatever that means, and for better or worse), while an outsider from the Democratic party has captured the mantle of real transformative, populist action.

Why is this? Perhaps simply calling yourself "a Democrat" and throwing your support to a corrupt and paid-for party structure is to perpetuate that corruption if you cannot reject operatives and candidates of that old system.

I can't convince you to switch your support if you don't accept the tainted nature of today's Democratic Party. If you and many others in your position WERE to switch, Bernie Sanders would be our nominee and would be a stronger one against a Republican for several reasons, all of which are listed in many threads on this site.

More importantly, Sanders' candidacy would give us a chance to "clean house" within the party and reestablish a more honest politics across the country. Telling the truth is a powerful starting point.

[MineralMan]

8. Not sufficient for you, perhaps.

That's of little relevance to me, though. In fact, I'm not concerned in the least. If you can convince enough people that the Democratic Party needs to be transformed, the results of that will become apparent, as people with that viewpoint will become the leaders of the party. We're a long, long way from that. In the meantime, either a Democrat or a Republican will end up being elected in almost all national level races, from congress to the President.

That's the reality, and it represents the real world in which I live. Good luck with your goals. I hope you achieve them. Truly. I am a Democrat. I'm part of the Democratic organization, albeit at a very low level. You want my job? Show up at the precinct caucus for my little precinct and get elected to be chair. Then, you can manage the precinct website and walk the precinct trying to get Democrats to go to the polls and vote. That's what I do.

Good luck with the takeover.

[Ron Green]

10. I ran for office as a Democrat in 2012.

I'm quite familiar with the organization at the state and local levels, and I could tell you some dismaying stories about dishonesty and cowardice within the party. Now perhaps this simply reflects the nature of politics, or even the cravenness of human nature; but I suggest that in 2016 we have the opportunity, even the responsibility, to take the Democratic Party to a new level of truth and accountability by not gently nudging, but decisively wresting it from the grasp of those who are irretrievably mired in the past ways of doing things.

[Avalux]

11. Great post.

You get it, as do so many of us. I hope it's enough to overcome what we're facing, it will be if the young people VOTE.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. That's the case for all candidates. Hillary lost the last Democratic Primary in my State by a goodly

percentage so what is the conventional wisdom on candidates who have run and lost already?
638,790 Democratic primary votes in 2008, 58.52% Obama, 40.50% for Clinton.

[MineralMan]

13. I don't know really.

I think Obama is a special case in many ways. A rare special case.