(boding mine)
Yet you’re crowing about it far and wide: tweeting national journalists about it, so you can be sure they know what you think and that for you it’s an issue, perhaps hoping that they will then make it a national issue. And then posting here multiple times about Sander’s loss and what a jerk he is for not acknowledging the loss in the manner you’d prefer, all while professing that you “don’t want to gloat or rub it in”.
And then, with your last sentence, you build a nice comfortable straw tu quoque castle.
Noting how total votes cast in the SC primaries compared to the last contested race for both parties…
2016
369,240 total votes cast in the Dem primary,
737,917 total votes cast in the Rep primary
1,107,157 total in both primaries out of 4,625,000 total population* (23.9% of total population voted)
2008
532,468 total votes cast in the Dem primary,
445,677 total votes cast in the Rep primary
978,145 total in both primaries out of 4,529,000 total population* (21.6% of total population voted)
That is a huge increase in voters choosing to vote in the Republican primary in 2016 over 2008. And a noticeable bump in participation rate. Could reflect a few posibilites:
Republicans are more motivated to get out and vote this year
Large numbers of Dem voters chose to vote in the Republican primary this year since they assumed Hillary has it all locked up.
Dem voters stayed home in 2016 figuring Hillary already had the race sewn up.
???
It will be interesting to see how votes in other states stack up. At least for the early states through Super Tuesday there might be a comparison to be made.
*I couldn’t find number of eligible voters. Using total population as best available metric to show increase in voter participation in 2016.
2008 was an interesting year. Bush fatigue, sky high oil prices , housing prices dropping, unemployment rising. Two exciting candidates with broad support.
If you look at my posting history tonight, the first thing I posted was to gently try to steer another Hillary supporter toward the golden rule rather than retribution. And I don’t think I have posted anything trash-talky about the win itself. But I don’t like sore losers or sore winners.
I know to some people, the Clinton campaign may look like the Empire rolling around with a Death Star or whatever, but the reality is that things were looking touch and go there for a while. I was genuinely afraid that she was going to lose. And this is actually the first substantial victory she has gotten. Nevada was OK, but it certainly wasn’t on the scale of New Hampshire. So I think just some good manners and good sportsmanship would have been much appreciated.
You can believe that I was just looking for an excuse to get in a dig at Bernie, but I feel certain in my heart that if he had just given her her due, the usual, expected nod of congratulations on stage, I would not have had anything to complain about tonight.
Wow, I knew it was high in '08 but I hadn’t realized how high.
So, that speech of Hillary’s: impressive! For the first time I can remember, I felt I heard echoes of Bill. I don’t know if that means he helped her with this one more than usual, or if she’s maybe even always helped him with his, or it’s just always a joint/group effort and I haven’t really noticed before. But this must have been the one they worked on for months, the equivalent of Obama’s “Yes We Can” in '08.
What a tricky journey in tone it had to take: from early ebulliance, to acknowledgement of problems we face but then a pivot to ways people can and are solving them in progressive ways; then a very downbeat turn to discussing the tragedy and heartbreak of the BLM moms, and somehow pivoting again to end on “love and kindness”. Masterful. I am not afraid to admit I had tears streaming down my face.
At his Minnesota rally tonight he didn’t mention SC once. I thought the crowd would be a bit more enthusiastic; the younger people were, but like me I think lots of people were there just to see him speak. He had a nice speech but the only new thing I heard was he’d defeat Trump because of love versus hate. He’ll win Minnesota anyway.
That’s very interesting. I remember how nasty the Jerry Brown 1992 campaign after it was clear Bill Clinton was going to be the nominee. I hope we don’t see a repeat, since Sanders holds a senate seat.
I’m having fun thinking of Ted Cruz returning to the Senate after failing to get the nomination. Everything he’s done since his election was part of his Presidential campaign–with no attempt to actually learn how to work with the other Senators. Being surrounded by guys who hate him will just add to his bitterness.
Aside from the more discussed demographic/racial lines there’s a potential problem in the exit polls. They explicitly asked if the next President’s should be generally the same as Obama’s, more liberal, or less liberal. Sanders won 55 to 45 among those that wanted more liberal. That was only 16% of voters though. Clinton over performed her statewide numbers among those that wanted about the same (81 to 19) with no breakout (I assume due to small sample sizes) among the 5% who wanted less liberal. It’s hard to sell a shift further left when 79% of the electorate don’t want that.
Stepping back from the state level, Pew polling is showing that as of 2015 the majority of Democrats still identify as either moderate or conservative (55% total, 38% and 17% respectively.) Despite a trend of more Democrats identifying as liberal (and that being the single largest group) over the last several Presidential election cycles the self identifying liberals aren’t the majority of the Party at this time. Interestingly those most likely to identify as liberal are whites, millennials, and those with post graduate degrees. Basically the Sanders demographics align with the demographics that are most liberal. It appears to be less of a demographic problem than a problem that those other demographics aren’t as liberal as Sanders. Sanders current polling average is around the 42% of all Democrats who identify as liberal. To win he’s got to find a way to get moderate and conservative Democrats to pick him over a more centrist candidate. That’s a tough sell.
I’ve been seeing a lot of complaints this morning that the Democratic Party is “ignoring its base” by nominating Hillary Clinton. As though it is being done in a smoke-filled back room. The notion that people of color and women don’t get to be considered the Democratic base is laughable, offensive, or both.
OK, you think your narrative has won. It’s not completely over, but the writing is on the wall.
Maybe once again, my home state’s presidential primary is meaningless. Was the race in 2008 the only primary I will ever have voted in that’s actually close enough to count? And it’s going to be because we don’t turn out to make a strong second when we’re not winning yet.
And you get what you asked for. The Democrats will be “just like Reagan, but with gays and colored folks.”
Me, I’m back where I thought I was: Voting hopelessly for Sanders, as an heir to the Great Society, trying to drag the party leftward; while you laugh in my face with your snob friends and talk about how Wall Street is making us all so rich.
And looking at state legislatures and how to change them.
You do realize that you will just push back every progressive economic cause in the country by four years? OK, fine, that’s democracy. We’ll take our time.
Enjoy losing to Trump. But when you come back and tell me that you miscalculated, and we have to be literal Nazis now to win Trump’s base, because you still don’t understand that you need to offer the leftish base something to get leftish turnout, I will beat you with a stick.
THAT SAID,
I still think the strategy of playing for a strong second with a chance at first is worth it. HRC doesn’t get to slam us down after four contests. We have to work harder. We are not there yet, but the future of the progressive movement, and what that means, is tied up in this, unfortunately. I fight on.
I know this isn’t exactly what you meant, but that sums me up pretty well. Remove the religious intolerance, the hatred towards homosexuality and minorities, and the complete obliviousness to economic realities re: taxation and the social safety net and I would be a Republican (and have been in the not-so-distant past).
Also you may want to consider that Reagan won some very big victories, electorally.
Yeah, I mean you forget a lot of Americans just genuinely are not social democrats, a lot of the American Democrats would be Christian Dems in say, Germany, not SD or Green Party.
If “leftish” voters won’t come out to stop a true monster from being elected in Trump, who could very well start dismantling the Great Society, then I don’t really know what to say. That isn’t the fault of the people who plan to vote for Hillary Clinton.
I will say this, as a center-right guy, I wouldn’t support it, but the logical thing for the more socialist leaning Dems would be to start their own version of a Tea Party movement. Maybe even use the Sanders campaign as the rallying cry to start said movement, similar to how the far right essentially used Obama’s election and the passage of Obamacare to fuel the Tea Party. The Tea Party have destroyed Congress as a functioning branch of government, but that being said they did get one thing right–that was a focus on legislative elections and state legislatures. The establishment Republicans had no choice but to listen to the Tea Party’s desire for nonsense like 50 votes to repeal Obamacare, obstructionism and etc when they put dozens of people in the House, a few in the Senate, and helped take several state legislatures.
That sort of movement on the left, where there was a cohesive angry group of Democrats doing the same stuff would give the “movement” more power in Presidential elections. Just look at the Republican party–all the real establishment Republicans are either dead or dying this year (Bush, Kasich, Christie.) The current establishment “guy” is Rubio, one of the most conservative Senators in the Senate, and a guy who was actually elected as part of the “Tea Party” movement. Also look at some of the tax plans and other things promulgated by the “establishment” wing–to a tee they are far more reflective of far right fiscal priorities even than the GOP budgets were when Bush controlled the White House.
Foolsguinea, you seem to have assumed that because I have defended Wall Street that I am rich or affluent. That is not the case. I have a blended family with four kids, two from a previous marriage and two from my current marriage–so in economic terms it’s like my wife and I having three kids. Our household income is below the national median, and not that far above the poverty line. We get by thanks to the help of programs like WIC, the EITC, and Medicaid (CHIP–thanks, Hillary!) for the kids. Until less than five years ago, we also got food stamps. I personally went over a decade without having health insurance until getting a bare-bones plan this year on January 1st.
And we have zero investments in stocks, not even a 401k. Nor is anyone in my family or my wife’s family employed on Wall Street or by any bank or any part of the financial industry. I actually defended Wall Street purely on the merits. You may say that makes me an idiot or a sucker, but it certainly doesn’t make me a corrupt, upscale snob.
ETA: I know Bernheads who actually do envy the tea partiers their success on the right. The problem for them is that the percentage of Democrats who share their views is about half as large as the percentage of Republicans who share hard right viewpoints.
I think calling Obama or Clinton as “just like Reagan but with gays and colored folks” is an absolutely ridiculous point of view that doesn’t come close to representing reality. That may be one reason why its hard to take the far left seriously. They don’t seem to live in the same reality the rest of us do.
Right, not least because Ronald Reagan with gays and people of color is not Ronald Reagan at all. Reagan refused to do anything or even say anything about AIDS, and he started his campaign with racist dogwhistles in Mississippi. Not to mention that his tenure was terrible for blacks economically, while they did very well under Clinton.