Part of the party, and act like someone owes you the job, you WILL NOT be president.

If you're referring to Clinton, you're letting your own bias show.

Trump did tap into something in this counyry. Hillarys campaign and the DNC ingnored it.

Unless the election is stolen. This election was stolen. The supposedly "liberal" Clinton haters need to stop gloating, get over themselves, and accept this one little fact. Else forever remain "liberals" - with the quotes.

The supposed Hillary fans need to stop gloating about popular vote totals and get over themselves and except this one little fact. Else forever remain "liberals" - with the quotes.

Works both ways, except for the fact that I actually know what you have to win to be president.

I'm just stating facts, and turning your own words against you.

Too late.

What is it with you guys?

I like it.

How do win the presidency? 270 EVs.

Popular vote is a vanity contest with no meaning.

it doesn't mean we win the presidency, but it means the fat assed orange creep didn't get more votes. FACT.

Trump, because he played the map.

It's screwed up, but it's FACT!

He won because of Russian interference
He won because of FBI interference.

That you choose to lay this solely at the feet of Hillary Clinton to the absence of any other known FACT is strange.

it coming from a self-proclaimed Liberal on DU, though.

Fancy that.

I have no reason to write bullshit. YOU might, but I, as a paying member of DU for TWELVE YEARS, don't.

down into baby bites.

But your prejudice is noted.

talking past one another.

Seriously, people on Twitter have half the IQ of the number of characters they post. And the only people who pay attention to them are the ones with lower IQs.

People who are prejudiced are the ones with IQ's closer to or under 80 pts. They don't know any better and rely on "feelings" or "belief" and talk about crap they know nothing about other than to pontificate criticisms like half-witted idiots.

Present company excluded, of course.

No use in going back.

But feel free to continue to hang on to every character that Trump puts on there.

mentions like the one this subthread was created for. That's why I have the experience to make the case that your response in that post is exactly what RWers tell me when I mention that Hillary Clinton won the majority of the vote of the Governed and that she's the true president.

They always come back with, "Yeah? But who's going to be inaugurated on January 20?"

And now we come full circle, haven't we? Now I'll do here what I do on Twitter - BLOCK.

Nice chatting with you. Bah!

The number of people Sanders tapped into? It's really hard to make an intellectually honest argument that Clinton losing the general is proof she wasn't the candidate in the Democratic primaries who tapped into the most voters.

Sanders, which this is his own fault and the blame rests squarely with him, conceded the South to Hillary. He didn't really try to win many of the Southern states on Super Tuesday. He pretty much gave her AL, GA, AR, TX and VA. He, also, forfeited the rest of the South including LA, NC, SC, WV and Kentucky.

If he would have put more resources in those states, it could have been a much tighter race for whomever would have won. But again, and I say this as Sanders supporter during the primary, it was a grave strategic mistake and one that rests squarely on his shoulders. Hillary won the primary fair and square, but not because she was riding a wave of popularity, she was just smart enough to capitalize on Bernie's mistakes - and kudos to her for recognizing it and exploiting it.

and then he called them confederate states, along with his supporters who decided those shouldn't really count. Those voters votes didn't mean as much.

You need some new material.

Bernie LOST the primary against hillary by EVERY single metric.

FUCKIN WOW !!!

That's some ..... fuckin wow

She screwed up when she didn't protect the rust belt.

Just like Sanders screwing up the South with a failed strategy, it rests squarely on Hillary's shoulders that she lost three key states.

By your logic, that would make Trump a good candidate. You can't have it both ways and say Bernie was a bad candidate because he lost and Hillary was a good candidate because she lost to a moron.

At least Bernie lost to a candidate with a brain for policy. Hillary can't say the same.

... or Clinton hating.

The other team cheating is not your team losing, fuck all the bullshit

It would defeat the purpose of this thread. So, let's move on.

simply because you dared to have different ideas and not be their chosen one. Last time I checked Hillary Clinton didn't go out killing people's puppies. She just beat Bernie Sanders by convincing more people to vote for her.

Specifics and links, please.

After elections, the base gets lip service at best and Wall St. gets concierge service.

President Trump...Paul Ryan is positively giddy about getting rid of Obamacare...elections have consequences...and those who believe president Trump will usher in single payer by ridding the country of the only health care millions can get will soon see the error of their ways... with the GOP in charge of everything, we will be lucky if we have elections going forward. I think any Democrat has to support the Democratic Party in order to move policy which is why we have elections...to get things done...it is also as a reason to vote mid-term...imagine if Pres. Obama had been supported in 2010...how different things would be...so unless you enjoy the shitshow unleashed by the worst president in my lifetime...who will radically change the courts and affect our Grandkids lives, maybe you should support the party regardless of whether you love, love the nominee or not. There is no Democrat who is not a million times better than any Republican. I would remind you that Sec. Clinton won the popular vote and lost the electoral college by less than 100,000 votes in about six states. I will remind you that uber conservatism bordering on fascism never gives creates a liberal uprising...not only will we get nothing that any progressive could want, but we will lose much progressive policy in place since Roosevelt. Honestly, I don't see how we recover. And those who think this is a good thing are completely delusional and certainly not liberal or progressive. Also, I take issue with your statement about owing anyone a job. Hillary Clinton beat the pants off of Bernie Sanders and that is a fact...he would have been out way before march if not for undemocratic low vote caucuses...and he should have conceded an endorsed way before the convention. The lesson I take from this debacle is to never allow someone who refuses to join the Democratic Party to run as a Democrat in a presidential primary. If said candidate has serious enough disagreements with the party that they can not become a member, he/she should never be permitted to run in a primary because it is convenient for him/her.

which in the case of the Democrats has always been more of a regularly-changing loose aggregation than a single monolithic bloc. At one time a big part of the party's base was blue-collar workers and union members. We don't have them any more.

As for blue collar workers, many are still Democrats. And there are those, of course, who support Democrats but may have been influenced to oppose Clinton, who was victimized by 25+ years of hate.

The "base" consists largely of persons of color and women (many blue collar workers included).

... when it comes to the DNC) that are part of the DNC base that the DNC still has.

The Democrats pretty much lost the Southern white working class that previously supported them in the '60s as the result of the Civil Rights Act and Nixon's "Southern strategy," and at the same time it became the political representative of minorities and women. Since then rural (mostly white) voters have been trending more Republican. It used to be that the GOP was the party of the rich on a micro level - that is, Republicans, even in small towns, were the bankers and the lawyers and the better-off folks in the nice houses up on the hill, while the Democrats were the mechanics and the bus drivers and the union members and the farmers. Now the GOP's base is mostly rural regardless of economic status, while the Democrats are mostly city people, also regardless of economic status. There are a lot of rich Democrats and a lot of poor Republicans. It's really hard to define the "base" any more.

... minority groups hang in there tight

Because of some of the arcane rules pertaining to registering for the Democratic primaries, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people were not able to vote in the primaries for the candidate of their choice. The use of Superdelegates who pledged their support before the first vote was even cast showed that the outcome was rigged from day one. Ironic now how Clinton supporters are complaining about how the electoral college is rigged. So now you know how Bernie supporters felt when he had to start his campaign with a delegate disadvantage at the very outset. However a vast majority of Bernie voters switched to Hillary after she was the nominee and I hope Hillary supporters would have done the same thing if the situation was reversed.

Now it time to stop the circular firing squad and look to the future. We need to broaden the base and follow Garrett 78's suggestions for 2020 so we can nominate a candidate who will appeal to the American people and who the majority will view with ENTHUSIASM, not just tepid acceptance. To paraphrase Obama we have to be "fired up and ready to go"! So we can all vote FOR someone, and not just settle for the lesser of two uninspired choices.

Not sure I like that so much.

Cause all these people criticizing Hillary who voted Bernie in the primary say they voted for Hillary but their compatriots did not.

What does that tell you?

and that's the platform that's closest to Sanders'.

Bern it Down "movement". They were organized "movements" to vote against Clinton. If they couldn't have Bernie, then we couldn't have anyone at all.

Now look what we have. Donald Trump stole Bernie's attacks on Hillary and Democrats and humiliated Bernie's supporters in the process by doing the exact opposite of everything Bernie misled his followers to believe in. It opened the doors for another con man who really had evil intentions.

Last edited Wed Dec 28, 2016, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)

.


There is a conflict between maintaining the status quo and having established Dems participate in a Primary -and- the allowance of new Democrats up to and during the Primary vote.

It's tough to attract new Democrats when their late participation is met with closed doors.


People say, "Well, they should have registered earlier on."

To that I say, we are a nation of procrastination, late tax returns, late voting, late school paper writing, etc. People assume, right or wrong, that democracy is an open system, without the nuances of 50 state variables at play.

Many states had the ability to attract new Dems into the ranks, whether for Hillary or Bernie, because they were energized by the campaign process. They were turned away in NY and other states because of arcane rules to maintain the political status quo. Which brings me to the second point, that people are energized and engaged with a healthy primary debate process. Their exclusion from the primary process turned away many voters in the fall, since their state's Democratic parties forsook their primary vote.


If we are a party that wants to attract people into the rank in file, there needs to be less restrictive registration.

The premise that faction could creep into the party is an excuse to maintain a tight grip on political elitism and control.

.

our party leadership makes.

Yes, there are states with open primaries (usually because they don't require party declaration at registration) but I would think the people voting in primaries are "the base". In such a case, he got 44% of the base to vote for him. That's not something to be cast aside.

Maybe the main question is: Who is the base?

Until Citizens United is overturned money will be the determining factor in our elections.

It certainly influences elected officials and the policies they push, but it doesn't impact election results nearly as much as many believe. See here: http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/

Some Sanders supporters have no use for the Democratic Party except to exploit it. Their political allegiance is elsewhere.

but Bernie isn't a Democrat. They knew he'd never been part of the party, so why should they? I'm just throwing out possibilities, but I didn't see much positive support from Democrats who had not previously been Democrats.

Bernie certainly had the support of a group of voters who support and champion economic equality. Some were Democrats, some were not. I somehow think that some of those "new" voters who supported him do not necessarily support the party. I've seen no statistics to tell us whether this is true or not, but I've seen evidence of it here and elsewhere.

Bernie stayed in the primary too long. By doing that he raised the hopes of his supporters more than he should have. Sure, Hillary started with the support of the super delegates, but there is no reason to think that if he had actually had more votes that they would not have shifted allegiance to him. Bernie started the primary by vilifying the super delegates and ended by trying to get them to overturn the voters. Hillary got the majority of the regular delegates but Bernie just kept fighting it, which resulted in some of his supporters becoming even more angry at Hillary. They believed all the RW talking points about her. They spread the hate. I don't think we can deny that calling Trump and Hillary "basically the same" had an impact.

I am not painting all Bernie voters with the same brush, but those who didn't vote for Hillary because of Bernie love are at least partially responsible for giving us Trump. I see some of them even now posting that Trump is better than Hillary.

It's not that Democrats want to deny access to the primary to Bernie voters, it's that they want to deny access to those who are not Democrats. If a person doesn't know they're a Democrat six months before their primary, they probably aren't Democrats.

Some people are simply more driven by issues than party affiliation.

It's interesting to observe how this all sorts out. People either expect the Democratic party to embrace the issues voters care about, or they expect voters to fall in line and embrace the objectives of the party. Then they act/vote accordingly.

It's like the ocean. From space the water looks blue, get up close in some places and it looks green, others it looks brown and yet in others it's perfectly clear.

The base shifts every election cycle. In '08 and '12 it was the Obama coalition that was the base. This year it was the Hillary Clinton supporters who were the base. Sometimes the base gets the job done, sometimes it doesn't.

There's a great deal of overlap between the Obama coalition and those who voted for Clinton in the primary.

Compared to Obama she was down among Hispanics, African-Americans and white men.

It's a nice headline, just not based in reality.

Secondly, being down by a few points among Latinos and African Americans in no way counters the point that the Obama Coalition was largely responsible for the votes Clinton received (in both the primary and the general). And in comparison to 2008, though not 2012, Clinton won the Latino vote by a larger margin (38 points instead of 36). She won the black vote by 80 points instead of 87.

Third, white men are not considered part of the Obama Coalition.

The Obama Coalition was, for the most part, behind Clinton and not Sanders. Young people were the primary exception, but young people from 2008 can't necessarily be classified as young people 8 years later, so it's sort of apples and oranges.

Those same numbers are what seperated Gore from Bush.

That's why they're called the Obama coalition, he brought those numbers back to the party.

The base supported Clinton by a wide margin over Sanders. That's the point.

And, as mentioned previously, Clinton was victimized by 25+ years of hate (not to mention voter suppression, the FBI, etc.). As well as the fact that it's rare for a party to control the White House for more than 2 consecutive terms.

Now, to the question in my OP, how might 2020 produce a viable nominee that speaks strongly against plutocracy while appealing to the Democratic Party base (i.e., winning over a clear majority of POC and women). Sanders didn't. Who could, and how?

to their side.

The base doesn't pick the nominee, the base is the coalition that the nominee puts together.

If you want to pick your horse now, then pick it. As for me, I'll wait and see who decides to run. There's a few people I would like to see run, but they have to come to that conclusion on their own. If it's someone I believe in, then I will help them build a coalition.

The base, for quite some time, has been predominantly POC, women and urban dwellers.

Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino votes. Sanders did not come close to getting enough votes.
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/a-message-for-hardcore-bernie-stans/

electability is a big deal in primaries. People may have been 100% behind Bernie on policy, but afraid to vote for him because they were afraid he'd lose in the general election.

This is something that Trump may have changed.

I think the oppo research on Sanders would have been devastating. And Bloomberg had said he would run if Trump and Sanders were the nominees.

...with a more progressive Democratic Party willing to learn from and bet on a relative outsider.

That was always a long shot, and no one knew this better than Sanders. The time simply looked right, and was right, demonstrably, given his amazing showing in the primaries. Clinton's brand was pervasive, though, better networked over decades and her person/message much more popular. Her win always looked inevitable, except for a few weeks there, maybe.

Yeah, we need a new face, probably, with a similarly progressive message. Given how hard it will be made to vote in 2018 and 2020, this person will have to be a big vote-getter. We may be reduced to running a candidate without a long record of public service, since the billionaires and their media puppets turn experience into a liability.

Mostly, we'll need all hands on deck, and that much may be easy if Trump governs as he has lived--and he cannot change.

...It's divisive rhetoric to be throwing around.

This is a good article that demonstrates that Sanders would have under performed in the general election https://extranewsfeed.com/bernie-sanders-was-on-the-2016-ballot-and-he-underperformed-hillary-clinton-3b561e8cb779#.jbtsa3epl

The oppo research on Sanders would have been devastating.

A Sanders who somehow won the Democratic nomination would have the backing of the party and, presumably, his former opponents.

That's not the electorate we hit November with, so all our wouldas are fantasy.

Sanders never had a chance of being the nominee. Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Sanders did not have the support of the base of the party. There was no way that Sanders would be the nominee unless he could get the support of the Jewish, African American and Latino voters are key elements in the base. The support of mainly white voters are not sufficient for Sanders to be the nominee in the real world.

Second, Sanders was never really running to win. After Super Tuesday, it was clear that Sanders would not be the nominee. Hillary Clinrton had a delegate lead that Sanders could not over come. Sanders was not really running to be the nominee but to get attention

Second, even Sanders admitted that he was running for media coverage and money http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747

If you are rejecting any possibility that he or O'Malley could have been nominated, you are also rejecting any claims about how such a general election would have gone--and there I can agree.

We don't get to know that answer, because the necessary information for a conclusion doesn't exist.

Sanders was so far behind in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday that it was clear then he would not be in the nominee. In the real world math matters. At the end Hillary Clinton had more than four times the lead in pledged delegates compared to the same lead enjoyed by President Obama in 2008. The facts do exist that show that I am correct.The math does support my assertions

Had things been different enough that a Sanders or O'Malley was nominated, it would be because the groups you mentioned hadn't rejected them.

In those timelines, we probably would have seen the Clintons fighting to win them the general, with the backing of most(?) Democrats, and we just can't know what independent voters--or Republicans, for that matter, or the propaganda machine--would have made of them months after the convention.

Saying "Sanders couldn't win the general" is more or less a tautology, and amounts to little more than a neener-neener-he-lost-the-primary.

Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Pretending that this would be different is meaningless. In the real world Sanders could not win in a general election because he lacked the support of Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Ignoring these facts is to ignore the real world.

You can speculate all you want but I like living in the real world

...but most would probably have been behind the Democratic nominee. We can't, though, translate this apparent probability into useful statements about a general that never was.

The Sanders campaign did not appeal to many demographic groups (including the Jewish vote) for a host of reasons. One good reason is that Sanders repeatedly attacked President Obama which alienated a large number of key demographic groups. There is a vast difference in how Sanders supporters and Sanders view President Obama and how other Democrats view President Obama. I admit that I am impressed with the amount accomplished by President Obama in face of the stiff GOP opposition to every one of his proposals and I personally believe that President Obama has been a great President. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics

They preferred a different primary candidate. That has little or nothing to do with whether they would have gotten on board with a different nominee, especially were, say, a Hillary Clinton also doing so.

Your analysis ignores that there were good and valid reasons for voters to reject and vote against Sanders. A large percentage of the Democratic base rejected Sanders in part because his policies were unrealistic and due to Sanders attacks on President Obama. . Sanders proposals are not realistic and would have no chance in the real world where the GOP would block such pie in the sky proposals. Sanders justify his platform by promising a revolution where millions and millions of voters would show up and force the GOP to be reasonable. That revolution exists only in a fantasy world and has not been evident in the real world http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution

....why are people continuing to deny this?

...that she beat someone in the primaries, someone they constantly maligned as not being able to win the general, because it's all they have since she lost to the biggest jackass on Earth.

....could win the nomination. I pointed out that the fact is neither did. Bottom line, that possibility was zero.

I'm presuming neither Clinton nor Sanders will be running in 2020. So, instead of arguing about whether or not Sanders would have beaten Trump, perhaps folks should be thinking about what it would take to produce a nominee in 2020 who speaks out strongly against plutocracy/corporatocracy *and* has the support of the Democratic Party base (and can, of course, pass the inevitable vetting process).

It will need to be someone who gets that not all disparities are rooted in class. Someone who views so-called social justice and so-called economic justice through the lens of a Venn diagram (there is a great deal of overlap and there are also important distinctions). Someone who has a proper appreciation for how historical injustices (both race-based and sex-based) continue to impact the present (to say nothing of ongoing institutionalized racism and sexism), and that even wealthy persons of color often get horribly mistreated based on race. Someone who gets that it's not enough to simply promote policies that help all poor people in the same way to the same extent.

That makes me sad, but it's the one quality that still seems to stymie the billionaires and their surrogates.

Sanders admitted that he was running for media coverage and money http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747

He ran for president, for many reasons, one of which was to bring attention to his plethora of other issues.

He wasn't a celebrity, but he was defeated by one.

No one thought that Sanders had a chance of being the nominee. Sanders ran for media coverage. After Super Tuesday, Clinton had a delegate lead that Sanders could not over come but Sanders continued seeking media coverage well after it was clear that Sanders had been rejected by the base of the party

But reducing that to "he ran as a celebrity" is silly. We know which Democratic candidate has been a tabloid star for decades, and it ain't Sanders. Hillary Clinton was and is a rock-star

He started with little or no chance, grew amazing support, and for a little while looked maybe like a contender. That he tried to gain as much visibility as possible for his issues is not surprising, given the automatic visibility our nominee had always had.

No, he didn't run as a celebrity.

Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Sanders sole source of support were white voters. Sanders did not have the support of the base of the party and was running not to win the nomination but to gain status and money. There was no way for a candidate who was rejected by the base to be the nominee in the real world

Sanders did not run to be the nominee. The fact that you are ignoring Sanders own statements amuses me a great deal

...concerning the need for attention to certain of our issues, and reimagined his candidacy as a sham/scam. You've framed a primary race as a contest in which one candidate is deified and the others "rejected"/hated, as though voters are incapable of shifting support for a general.

Sanders ran for real, on real issues, and the majority of Democratic voters preferred another. No conspiracies required.

Sanders ran for media coverage and got it. Again, the facts show that Sanders was on the Sunday talk shows more than any other guest. Sanders ran a campaign that had no chance of wining but did give him media coverage.

His favorite issues did not enjoy the wide familiarity among voters that those of two of his opponents did.

Getting on the Sunday shows a lot didn't make him--or his issues--more famous. This "celebrity" framing is airheaded.

Sanders ran knowing that was not going to be the nominee and was running for media coverage. The fact that Sanders stayed in after Super Tuesday is evidence of Sanders true plans. After Super Tuesday, it was clear that Jewish, African American and Latino voters had rejected Sanders and that without these groups he had no chance of being the nominee. Sanders ignored the math and continued on.

In past races, the candidates who were this far behind dropped out. These candidates were actual members of the Democratic Party and cared about the Democratic Party. The fact that Sanders continued after it was clear under the math that he was not going to be the nominee shows Sanders was not concerned about party but about his media coverage.

Math is important in the real world. Clinton's pledge delegate lead after Super Tuesday was real and was ignore because the math was not something that Sanders supporters wanted to deal with

...but I see no such evidence.

That Sanders knew the deck was stacked against his run doesn't make his run less real. His campaign looked different because it had to be, with no built-in celebrity, with no built-in advantage with delegates, and with a distinct disadvantage in funding. Reducing those things to "he ran as a celebrity" is pretty dumb.

Sanders used his media coverage to become by far the most frequent guest on the Sunday morning show circuit http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-top-list-for-most-appearances-on-2016-sunday-shows-846175811977 Sanders ran for media coverage and got it. To get such coverage, Sanders attacked the Democratic party and helped trump get elected

Not compared to his most prominent opponents.

You can't reduce his presidential run to those terms. It doesn't work, and it's silly to try to fault any candidate for trying to get exposure for real issues.

Sanders was in this race solely for the media coverage. Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters and was eliminated on Super Tuesday. Sanders stayed in the race for media coverage and became a celebrity

Math is a nice concept. Here people counted the number of appearances on the Sunday talk shows. The number of times that a person appears on a Sunday talk show is an event that can be counted. The number of times that Sanders appeared on Sunday talk shows was twice the number of times that the next person.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts or your own math

Deriding Sanders as having run as a celebrity fails when he was up against two genuine celebrities, who didn't need to try to tet on the Sundays shows to be even a tenth as famous.

It doesn't work.

Ignoring facts that you dislike will not make these facts go away. Sanders admitted that he ran to get media coverage and sanders succeeded by being on the Sunday talk shows more than any other person. Sanders appeared more than two times more often compared to the next person.

I love the concept that math is to be ignored. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512671570#post71

Trump and Clinton have been household names for decades, but you have repeatedly tried to peg Sanders as having run as a celebrity. Your math is incomplete.

Sanders ran to increase his media coverage and it worked. Sanders had no chance of being the nominee after Super Tuesday because three key groups in the base of the party soundly rejected Sanders. Again, after Super Tuesday, it was clear to everyone that Sanders would not be the nominee but Sanders stayed in the race to get all of the media coverage.

BTW, how are the books sales going for Sanders. Sanders comments are all coming out while he is trying to sell a book. Sanders is using his media coverage to cash in

Textbook enthusiasm gap...

and conceded and endorsed in a timely manner or better yet never run...we would have President Clinton...and for all of you out there who think you have to have everything you want in a candidate...sit back and enjoy the shitshow that many of you created...personally, I am thankful, I did everything I could to win this election for Hillary...I don't see how those who call themselves progressive (but are not really) and didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, whether they stayed home or what have you, can sleep at night...they betrayed their fellow American and will undoubtedly see much suffering and even the death of those who do not live the entitled life that many of these so-called progressives do. I despise them probably more than the clueless Republican voters.

The base is EVERYONE who voted, period, if you wanna for no good reason shrink that to demographics that voted overwhelmingly for Hillary in the primarythen THAT is the fucking key to losing. Goodness man, what is the point of this thread? Gloating about winning a primary that is ancient history? Congrats okay! Confreakinggrats.