Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gothmog

(154,590 posts)
83. The DNC had nothing to do with Sanders being soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino
Sat Dec 31, 2016, 11:50 AM
Dec 2016

voters. Sanders was a very weak candidate who made silly promises that he could never deliver on. Sanders misled his followers by promising that he could win the nomination and force the GOP to agree to unrealistic proposals based on a non-existent revolution. 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

He went on to argue that he's going to win because he'll pile up votes now that the contest has moved out of the Deep South. This is a shorthand version of an argument that Sanders and his allies have been deploying recently in an attempt to downplay Clinton's lead in pledged delegates – "having so many Southern states go first kind of distorts reality" he told Larry Wilmore, host of "The Nightly Show," earlier this week.

There's a lot wrong with this formulation, as Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times this morning. It suggests a world view redolent of former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's toxic pandering to "real America." In Sanders' case, he's saying that red-state Democrats should be discounted because they're too conservative. But that's simply wrong, Krugman notes: Clinton isn't "riding a wave of support from old-fashioned Confederate-flag-waving Dixiecrats," she ran up the score by scoring lopsided victories among black voters ("let's be blunt, the descendants of slaves," he writes).

And the fact that the Deep South is conservative should be irrelevant, given that Sanders argues the principle obstacle to his super progressive agenda is campaign finance corruption rather than, say, ideology. Either he's leading a national movement, as he claims, or he's not.

Thus more broadly, his attempt to delegitimize a swath of voters lays bare a fundamental inconsistency of the Sanders campaign: One of his basic answers about how he's going to accomplish his aims – whether winning the Democratic nod, winning the general election or enacting his agenda – is the forthcoming revolution. His super-ambitious agenda will prove to be achievable substance rather than unicorns-and-rainbows fantasy, he said Thursday night, "when millions of people stand up, fight back and create a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent. That is what the political revolution is about. That is what this campaign is about."

And that's fine: If he can summon the revolution, then more power to him, literally and figuratively. But the Sanders revolution is breaking on the hard realities of math. The revolution will not be televised, the old song goes; but it can be fantasized – and it can be measured, in votes and delegates. And in every calculable respect, it's coming up short. That leaves Sanders to bank on an anti-democratic sleight of hand to secure the nomination. That's not a broad-based revolution; that's a palace coup.

Here's why: Despite Sanders' recent string of victories, there is no sense in which he is winning this race. As The Washington Post's Philip Bump wrote earlier this week:

In fact, by every possible democratic measure, Clinton is winning. She's winning in states (and territories) won, which isn't a meaningful margin of victory anyway. She's winning in the popular vote by 2.4 million votes – more than a third more than Sanders has in total. In part that's because Sanders is winning lower-turnout caucuses, but it's mostly because he's winning smaller states. And she's winning with both types of delegates.

Sanders' revolution was not real which is why he lost the race in the real world. I and many other Democratic voters never took Sanders seriously because I never accepted the premise of his so-called revolution. There was simply no way for Sanders to come close to delivering on his promises in the real world. Sanders never generated his promised revolution and could not deliver on his promises in the real world

The DNC had nothing to do with the fact that Sanders was soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. These voters were smart enough to reject the concept of a silly revolution.
I am very concerned that his so very big movement with so many millions of followers with so much boston bean Dec 2016 #1
What a mean and sad post. Ron Green Dec 2016 #5
Some people will stay salty NWCorona Dec 2016 #7
Sorry to upset you, didn't mean to. boston bean Dec 2016 #8
Sad and mean... sfwriter Dec 2016 #13
How is that "mean and sad"? George II Dec 2016 #44
We all have lingering concerns... Magoo48 Dec 2016 #9
Funny Me. Dec 2016 #27
The GOP even ran ads designed to help Sanders Gothmog Dec 2016 #39
Post removed Post removed Dec 2016 #42
I don't think the word "facts" mean what you think it means. SaschaHM Dec 2016 #43
If you call minimal media coverage of Bernie's campaign, as compared to Hillary's coverage, a "pass," oookkaayyyyy... don't see it myself. InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #54
Minimal Coverage? Me. Dec 2016 #57
I can understand critiquing his coverage, but calling it "minimal" is just insane. SaschaHM Dec 2016 #73
Precisely Me. Dec 2016 #75
In the real world, the DNC did not fix the nomination process Gothmog Dec 2016 #37
Paraphrasing the song: folks believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest. Magoo48 Dec 2016 #47
The DNC had nothing to do with Sanders being soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino Gothmog Dec 2016 #83
They helped her lose in fact...and if we are not careful...we will lose again in 2020. Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #12
+1000 LisaM Dec 2016 #26
They played one of her ads during his portion if I recall...n/t TCJ70 Dec 2016 #30
Did they? I actually do not recall that. LisaM Dec 2016 #31
I went searching as well! Here it is... TCJ70 Dec 2016 #38
Thanks! LisaM Dec 2016 #41
Yes, but the ad makes people feel so good! lapucelle Dec 2016 #29
Nonsense - Many people who supported Bernie in the primary were excellent supporters of HRC in the karynnj Dec 2016 #48
Why would you say that? You ever thought that maybe without all of Bernie's able assistance and support, the election of asswipe tRump would not have been as close as it was?! InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #52
maybe you can ask those people that loved Hillary DonCoquixote Dec 2016 #58
maybe if the DNC chair hadnt been on the wrong side of a law supported by over 70% of Florida voters Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #77
I remember it California_Republic Dec 2016 #2
brilliant, just brilliant jodymarie aimee Dec 2016 #3
If 2016 is remembered for no other reason, it will be the year that Bernie arrived HoneyBadger Dec 2016 #4
Nor like Obama. Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #11
So mad you didn't even read the post you replied to?? sfwriter Dec 2016 #14
Yeah, but two major differences. LisaM Dec 2016 #32
Not to mention Barack Obama didn't leave a portion of Dems hating him in 2004. nt. SaschaHM Dec 2016 #36
I am not mad first of all and I did read it. Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #60
I agree with your analysis Gothmog Dec 2016 #40
Thank you. The DNC is constantly trashed here liquid diamond Dec 2016 #53
That is my feeling. Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #59
The DNC has served the party poorly as evidenced by major losses at the state level. CentralMass Dec 2016 #63
great, and lets have our public face be a Democrat like Gavin Newsom, who supports legal marijuana Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #79
Right..... lapucelle Dec 2016 #33
That was a good one NWCorona Dec 2016 #6
There is nothing happy or hopeful about an election that you lose in the general. Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #10
Including Elizabeth Warren - I hope. Cal33 Dec 2016 #15
Yes, including Elizabeth Warren's. Cal33 Dec 2016 #17
I think we need someone younger...not of the baby boomer years. Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #61
Her heart and mind will remain brighter and more energetic than many of those who Cal33 Dec 2016 #68
I loved that ad. It made me tear up because many of the scenes were from the Vermont Vinca Dec 2016 #16
What a beautiful, positive ad Bayard Dec 2016 #18
I loved this ad. Easily the best one of the season. Tatiana Dec 2016 #19
That's weird. I found it to be sort of alienating as a city dweller that admires diversity and bettyellen Dec 2016 #20
The overwhelming majority of the test group thought it was the best. Sorry you didn't like it. think Dec 2016 #21
Yes I read that. Just felt left out, as my America looks quite different. bettyellen Dec 2016 #23
Agreed. greatauntoftriplets Dec 2016 #81
Your criticism of the ad reminds me of what David Brock said about Bernie when he seen it NWCorona Dec 2016 #22
It's also being fed up with the country being real America crap.... bettyellen Dec 2016 #24
I appreciate the consistency NWCorona Dec 2016 #25
Some of the city scenes were from the city Bernie lives in karynnj Dec 2016 #49
I found the heavy emphasis on farm communities divisive and strange ... bettyellen Dec 2016 #50
What is divisive of farm theses? karynnj Dec 2016 #51
Sure the land is, but not the population. It's a storybook life that hardly exists these days. bettyellen Dec 2016 #64
Ok, but where was a comparable HRC ad showing the diverse people in cities karynnj Dec 2016 #66
I saw uplifting ads that I could relate to from HRC. bettyellen Dec 2016 #69
Same TNProfessor Dec 2016 #74
We're going to have to recapture this sense of hope and possibility as we fight Trump portlander23 Dec 2016 #28
Never saw it. And these are the people criticizing Clintons ad placement. NCTraveler Dec 2016 #34
There were various articles and numbers that quoted Hillary's CentralMass Dec 2016 #35
Did you turn it off when it came on? NWCorona Dec 2016 #55
Just seemed like Boomer nostalgia to me. Starry Messenger Dec 2016 #45
"we randomly assigned a representative sample of 1,000 people to see one of two campaign ads" George II Dec 2016 #46
Oh, what might have been... NeoConsSuck Dec 2016 #56
I agree... jalan48 Dec 2016 #65
Agree! SMC22307 Dec 2016 #67
I loved the ad, and I supported Bernie before Hillary, but I have to admit renate Dec 2016 #62
It made me feel very happy mvd Dec 2016 #70
I love this ad... Yurovsky Dec 2016 #71
It does make you happy and hopeful. azmom Dec 2016 #72
ah fuck..what might have been. PearliePoo2 Dec 2016 #76
it was a great ad. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #78
Definitely the best ad of the campaign Arazi Dec 2016 #80
Cripes! I never saw it before! Buckeye_Democrat Dec 2016 #82
My favorite ad, too, but for the music, not the images. SharonClark Dec 2016 #84
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Ad That Moved People ...»Reply #83