Well bad on me for sounding like every state he won followed the rule. I take it as an article of faith that there are generally exceptions to any rule, but go ahead and beat up on me for that. Kauai is my favorite vacation spot, been there many times, so I am well aware of the demographics.
Here’s how it breaks down:
Sanders has a very large advantage across the board among 18-24 voters. He has a much smaller advantage among white, 25-34 voters.
In literally every other category Hillary leads, with her biggest advantage being among women over 50. Black. Women. Latino. Age 25+, and 35+ among white voters. Every one. And in most cases it’s by 20 points or more. Sounds pretty much like ‘owning’ to me. And yes, as I’ve said before, barring an act of God or the FBI, she ‘owns’ my vote. There is no one else I’d consider voting for in the general.
There is no point in this thread continuing to go back and forth over whether or not Sanders stated demands amounted to a promise of attempted extortion or not. Those of us who heard it like that heard it like that, those who only heard stump speech, apparently heard that. In any case he has now revised his answer to clearly refusing to answer, which may come off petty and well stupid to me (and indeed raises suspicion that he’d rather have the the GOP win and great harms result than compromise “the movement” in any way) but this now current clear non-answer is not extortion.
But I do wonder if we can get some anecdotes about how much influence a possible Sanders endorsement, or lack thereof, would have …
Clearly there are some Sanders supporters here like the one above, who are planning to not vote for Clinton in the general in the case of Sanders not being the party’s nominee.(Be it Stein, Trump, staying home, whatever.)
To those people: would any endorsement or campaigning by Sanders on her behalf (especially after characterizing her as an establishment candidate bought by Big Money and less than honest during the campaign) impact your choice?
To those strong Sanders supporters who would currently “hold their nose” and vote for Clinton over Trump: would Sanders refusing to endorse her and consequently getting snubbed from speaking time at the convention, make you consider staying home after all?
Anecdotally the real life Sanders supporters I know have scoffed at my concern that Sanders support or lack thereof would impact them in any way. (Most would be “excited” over Sanders and fine with Clinton and are incredulous over the concept of not voting for her in that circumstance.)
Again, I worry about the improbable close election and how a few votes at the right margin in the right state can make or break this country for the next four years with prolonged negative impacts for the whole world … but I admit that sometimes I worry too much.
Really? You’d stay home rather than vote for Sanders over the GOP nominee in that match-up? Sanders would be, IMHO, ineffectual, but not malignant.
This is me. I voted for Sanders in the primary. I don’t expect him to win the nomination, and will be happy (for a certain value of happy) to vote for Clinton in the general. I’d vote for her a hundred times before I voted for any of the Republicans.
That said, Sanders using his strong support in an attempt to extract some movement from Clinton and the Democratic establishment in a leftward direction is not extortion. It’s politics at its most basic.
He already said something similar a week or two ago. Of course he hopes some of the supers switch if he shows he is the better candidate. Why is that a big deal?
There was no extortion. There will be as much political pressure as Sanders can bring. This is as it should be.
Clinton is not a Republican. Those who think she is are ridiculous.
If Trump is elected, real people get hurt. Real people. Not a movement. Not an ideal. People. And lots of the people who voted for him would like it. And lots of others would justify it in order to ease their cognitive dissonance. Those who think it would bring about a progressive utopia don’t seem to have read any history. At all.
Wow. So when Sanders talks about his issues, he’s “extorting” Clinton. When he says that he’ll try to persuade superdelegates to vote for him, he’s “hijacking.”
Forget those penny-ante crimes. Did you see what he did to Clinton in Hawaii? That’s right, he abducted her and murdered her!
The hyperbole is really too much. Sanders is campaigning, he’s not on a crime spree.
The point is, the evidence supports my reading. I’ve explained why, and nobody has rebutted it. If there’s no point in continuing to go back and forth, it’s because the folks who are seeing extortion aren’t actually discussing what Sanders said.
Hell no. I’ve voted in every election, including every primary, since November 1992. Sanders is a good candidate, he’s not a cult leader, despite how certain opponents try to smear him. He can’t tell me how to vote.
I am concerned about other Sanders supporters who might cast their half-a-vote for Trump by staying home or by casting a protest vote. I STRONGLY believe that the best thing to do for these voters is to persuade them, respectfully and courteously, that voting strategically is the wisest thing. I STRONGLY believe that showing them contempt and hostility is the best possible way to lock in their half-a-vote for Trump.
The point was not about this thread, it was about a Chuck Todd televised interview with Sanders. I’m pretty sure there were people watching who weren’t Sanders supporters and had not heard every element in his stumps. Better still, Todd could have asked issue questions, challenged Sanders on subjects that aren’t generally in his stumps, or angles that haven’t been explored. It is kind of an interviewer’s job to draw out new things, yes? The horse-race analysis should be secondary, and can mostly be covered without candidates’ direct input anyway.
It isn’t a big deal; it’s just illustrative of his, and his most devoted supporters’ mindset. The evidence does not support a contention that “he is the better candidate” at this point.
I assume you mean to “him” - and I am neither predicting nor advocating that; I am just mentioning it as something that could happen in one form or another. Take this for what it’s worth, but there are already calls to “primary out” in August Representatives in Washington state that are on record as supporting Clinton unless they vote for Sanders at the convention.
Of course, if it was that easy to “rally the troops,” then it wouldn’t really matter who was President; just get Sanders-friendly Representatives and Senators elected in 2016 and 2018.
If it’s so basic, where is the precedent? One friend of mine tried to argue that Jesse Jackson did something similar in 1988. But looking into it, I found that what Jackson did, which did ruffle some feathers, was to insist on several platform planks of his getting a vote at the convention. They were almost all planks that were to the left of the party at the time and mostly would still be to the left and I’m sure Bernie would approve of them. But all Jackson asked for was an up-or-down vote, and it appears they were all defeated. But his point was that he just wanted them to be presented to be on the record and so on. That is a far, far cry from insisting that Dukakis adopt his agenda in return for uniting in the fall.
But that’s not what the show is. A wonky, issue-based show like that might appeal to some people, the kind of people that watch PBS NewsHour, say. But I would not watch that show, and I doubt Chuck Todd would host it. (Even now, they will do a mid-show “newsy” segment sometimes, on for instance the Brussels bombings, and I fast-forwarded through that until I got to the part where Todd says “but now, back to politics” as though reassuring the politics-junkie audience that they don’t need to flee, that he knows what we are really there for.)
What you seem to be missing is that I am fully convinced that Sanders will not be the nominee. For the umpteenth time, barring an act of God, Hillary will be the candidate. Nor is staying home an option for me. To me it’s the quitter’s way out.
I have also said I would vote for Mickey Mouse before I’d vote for Trump. You figure it out from there.
Sanders is using his demonstrated political base to apply pressure for the things he believes in. This is 100 percent as it should be. Trump is going to do the same if he loses the GOP primary. SlackerInc if you don’t understand this much about politics then really there is no hope for you. I’ll get a pit thread ready for you.