HRC supporters coming after Bernie Sanders & his party re-vamping suggestions with knives out

Hillary got around 55% of young voters * — but instead of concentrating on those who voted for her it would be more instructive to focus on those who didn’t: 37% of the young said: “Yes, I choose You, Donald !”, and many did not vote in an understandable "A Plague on both your Houses’ fit. **
Had she enthused the same number as Obama did in 2012, that was 60% of the then youth vote: another 5% would have won her the election, not just the popular vote
Of course it was fairly unlikely that the young were succoured on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’s outpourings of bile, that are waved away by the ‘Lies ! All Lies ! folk’. More likely they were bored by a dreary old person full of self-importance and drowning in smug conceit who was in the White House before they were born.
As for Obama’s voters turning to Donald — since Hillary was too much:

*But new information shows that Clinton had a much bigger problem with voters who had supported President Barack Obama in 2012 but backed Trump four years later.

Those Obama-Trump voters, in fact, effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost, according to Matt Canter, a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group’s analysis, about 70 percent of Clinton’s failure to reach Obama’s vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters.

In recent months, Canter and other members of Global Strategy Group have delivered a detailed report of their findings to senators, congressmen, fellow operatives and think tank wonks – all part of an ongoing effort to educate party leaders about what the data says really happened in last year’s election.

“We have to make sure we learn the right lesson from 2016, that we don’t just draw the lesson that makes us feel good at night, make us sleep well at night,” Canter said.*


*Turning out the base, the data suggests, is simply not good enough.

“This idea that Democrats can somehow ignore this constituency and just turn out more of our voters, the math doesn’t work,” Canter said. “We have to do both.”

Democrats are quick to acknowledge that even if voters switching allegiance had been Clinton’s biggest problem, in such a close election she still could have defeated Trump with better turnout. She could have won, for instance, if African-American turnout in Michigan and Florida matched 2012 levels.*
McClatchy DC Bureau — Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost

  • *Though voters ages 18-to-29 skewed liberal, more than a third did not: Fifty-five percent of young voters chose Clinton, down from the 60 percent that backed Obama in 2012, while 37 percent chose President-Elect Donald Trump.

The Atlantic — Dissecting The Youth Vote
*The post-election narrative has been that old white people voted for Donald J Trump and the rest of the country voted for Hillary R Clinton, and this is broadly true; among 18-29-year-olds, Trump earned 37 per cent of the vote to Clinton’s 55 per cent.

But this is also a convenient story - it obscures the awkward fact a lot of young Democrats failed to get out and vote. In 2012, President Obama earned an extra five per cent of the 18-29 vote.

Five per cent of the 18-29 year olds who voted in 2016 is about one million. That stray million didn’t go and vote Republican on Tuesday - they just didn’t vote at all.*

Triple J

When are we going to simply accept the fact that despite her intense will to power, the stretching to grab the bass ring that was her due for having been a reliable, steadfast kingmaker, the powerful well funded political machine she had assembled … she had the political charisma of a wet rag and a campaign that took loads of stuff for granted.

I voted for her but at the end of the day against the the craziest, most unPresidential, debate losing, personally inappropriate candidate to have graced the public stage in decades… she lost.

It wasn’t Comey or right wing hate speech or etc. etc that beat her is was her. She was viscerally unappealing to average people on multiple levels and in the end that made the difference he needed to win.

OK, we can say she should have won, and did poorly. Since that probably cannot have an objective “fer sure”, may we set that aside for a moment? Because, really, wasn’t that already baked in?

I mean, we can’t reasonably say it had no effect, it was on the TV like gangbusters, Shirley couldn’t have had a positive effect. So why should we think it wasn’t the tipping point, even given that the tipping point should not have existed in the first place, due to her poor campaigning? It was closer than it should have been. OK, maybe her fault.

But that doesn’t mean Comey’s actions didn’t have a crucial effect.

If we’re going to go in that direction of “things” that made a tipping point difference then what* didn’t* have an effect? Her lack of charisma, her insane private server decision, the “deplorables” comment, her sketchy history as a political fixer back in Arkansas, her casting aspersions on Bill Clinton’s sexual accusers, people being wary and/or disgusted with the notion of Clinton Round II?

I think by the time Comey’s “wait there’s more” came out 99.99% of people had decided which way they were going to vote. It was a pretty binary black and white policy choice between the two. Looking at Comey’s antics as a serious deciding factor is IMO errant nonsense. And I voted for her.

Hillary supporters (or the ones with real power in the party, anyway) rigged the primaries to shut out the more popular candidate. They are entitled to exactly zero inches of space on the moral high ground, and can promptly shut up about the “Progressive Soul” of the Democratic party.

This bullshit again. Are you aware of how the primaries work? There are FIFTY separate primaries. The DNC has absolutely zilch to do with running them. The STATE PARTY runs them in each state. Your guy was NOT popular enough with Democrats to win the primary. Period. Anyone who still holds out that the primaries were rigged is tipping rational people off that they’re not worth listening to.

I don’t think anybody expected how much energy would come out behind Bernie Bed Hair, I doubt that he did. I think the fundamental idea was to bring his progressive ideas out for a sounding, let the Dems speak.

Hilary is flexible, she would respond. Her positions could be evolved with the correct application of persuasion, understanding, and raw political force. People, in a word. Changing our country is the point, not who’s picture will be on the Wikipedia page.

Bernie was right to run, and right to endorse her when she was chosen. And may the Goddess bless him and hold him close to Her bounteous bosom all the days of his life…

Wow.

Nope. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I don’t see how either of those three links you provided does anything to challenge** jayjay’s ** point that the DNC doesn’t run the individual primaries.

The only way to think those polls are meaningful is to be so divorced from reality that you think that the conditions wouldn’t massively change materially if the fascists were actively campaigning against Bernie Sanders.

So what you’re saying is, these so-called “progressives” are really just privilege-blind misogynistic reactionaries?

Precisely none of that is in any way rooted in reality.

We deal in reality-based statements here, sorry.

They’re also not evidence of wrongdoing.

DWS resigned not because she did anything wrong, but because the shitshow over her from morons who, with zero evidence, insisted that she had done something wrong was making it impossible to get any work done.

This only makes sense if you take the meaning of what jayjay was responding to as a literal fixing of the election, at the polling places, in all 50 states.

I think it was just loose writing to suggest the DNC had their thumb on the scale for Clinton and there is no doubt about that.

Sanders came within an inch of beating her. What might have happened had most of the DNC and superdelegates not been in the bag for Clinton from the get-go?

Nope…no evidence of wrongdoing. Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain.

Oh wait:

Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders Campaign

Or Post #68 in this thread.

And there’s also nothing WRONG with that! Of course the party is going to favor the ACTUAL party member rather than the free-rider who jumped on for publicity and better advertising than he could have gotten by himself. Bernie was a parasite who had NEVER been a member of the party and couldn’t give a flying fuck about getting Democrats elected. Clinton was a party member in fine standing who’d helped the party and her fellow members for decades.

Actually there is.

Wasserman-Schultz does not get to decide if a candidate has been an ACTUAL party member or a free-rider. Those are the rules they set for themselves. She violated those rules.

:rolleyes:

So the DNC bylaws don’t matter or count?

Just jayjay’s feelings?

The naivete of Bernie supporters constantly astounds me.