Democratic Party better heed Rachel Maddow's warning

[FreakinDJ]

?

Rachel Maddow has been digging beyond the rhetoric of a mass movement on the Democratic side and has a rather stark warning that should be heeded. It is a reality not mentioned likely because lower voter turnout usually bodes well for the more conservative candidate. In the case of Clinton v Sanders, the party's silence is likely probative.

Maddow has been consistently raising concerns about this issue. Roland Martin recently scolded the Democratic Party for not registering millions of voters in Texas, Georgia, and other states with a high percentage of unregistered likely Democratic voters.


"Last time caucuses in Nevada marked the fourth time in a row that Republicans have set a record for voter turnout this year," Rachel Maddow said. "Republicans have voted in four states so far this year and in every single one they have broken the voter turnout record for that state."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/24/1490972/-Democratic-Party-better-heed-Rachel-Maddow-s-warning

Of course Hillary and DWS don't want New Democratic Voters because overwhelmingly they would vote for Bernie

[elleng]

1. DAMN RIGHT!

Would be good if others than hrc and dws would/could take control, if only vis a vis turnout. Remember Howard Dean? He might not be interested now, but some others???

[StrayKat]

33. If we're just throwing out names. . .

I've asked who too without response.

Right now, I wonder if it wouldn't suit Martin O'Malley for a few years. He's probably out of a job right now and it might be a way of maintaining contacts, continuing to increase national recognition, and building monetary support for a future run.

I don't know if she has national ambitions, but Nina Turner lost her state seat and has said she wants to stay in politics. She's a firebrand and I could see her re-kindling some of the party's energy. I also imagine that she would help steer the platform more toward minority and women's issues than it currently is. She's been a champion for voting rights and she also seems to have taken a step away from HRC by throwing Sanders her endorsement.

[elleng]

49. Good thoughts.

Governor O'Malley is an excellent executive/administrator, so those skills could be useful in gathering the many threads necessary in a nationwide voter turnout effort, and other necessary tasks. Nina Turner is FABULOUS, a marvelously smart firebrand. The 2 together could do great work!

[RKP5637]

51. Given the current DNC leadership and actions, Trump will be the clear winner in 2016. The DNC

is lost. This is not a traditional campaign season. ... but IMO they are totally lost in the woods, and taking actions like they were going to run against Jeb Bush. It's stunningly amazing. Divide and conquer within the democratic party is destroying the party from within. People may say I'm a naysayer and depressing, but I'm afraid 2016 is going to be a real shock. People are fed up with the SOS!

[elleng]

53. Unfortunately you're a truthsayer and depressing.

As Rubio said: 'If we are going to nominate someone who 50% of our people can't stand,

we are going to lose.'

Marco Rubio

[RKP5637]

59. Sadly, see #58. The writing is on the wall for what's happening, sadly. n/t

[msongs]

2. nobody's preventing new voters from "overwhelmingly voting for bernie" they are just staying home nt

[FreakinDJ]

3. DNC too busy "Buying Endorsements" with 3rd Way Cash for Hillary to conduct voter drives

We'll see just how winning a strategy it is

[Impedimentus]

6. I wish they'd offer to buy my endorsement ...

but I guess they know how much it's worth

Anyway, they can't buy my vote.

[TIME TO PANIC]

13. Not true.

Sanders had 151,578 votes in the New Hampshire Primary, more than any democratic candidate in the history of primary elections there.

[dreamnightwind]

25. Thanks, +151,578!

It's laughable how they are trying to make low turnout Bernie's fault, totally the opposite of reality.

[TIME TO PANIC]

27. Yep, It's beyond disingenuous.

It's a flat-out lie.

[Adrahil]

45. I don't think it's a matter of it being his fault...

But rather that his large crowds are not translating into heavy voter turnout. One argument FOR Sanders is that he energizes the base and brings out voters. So Far,mthat argument does not seem consistent with results. At least not compared to Obama. And, of course, Sandernistas don't like to hear this, but it undermines his theory for how he is going to get stuff done. As he pointed out on Hardball last night, he's looking to create a political "revolution" where the GOP in Congress enacts his agenda because millions of his followers are demanding it. So far, that looks like it won't happen. We'll know more on Wednesday. Maybe the Bernie Brigades will turn up and change the course of the primary.

[dreamnightwind]

50. Bernie will turn out his wave of people more in the general election

if he gets there.

Obama was campaigning to be the first AA POTUS, which played well to the Democratic demographic in many of the primary states.

What they (Obama and Bernie) have in common is they both get anti-Hillary voters.

But Bernie's main draw is to people who feel that the system is completely broken by corporate money (it is), and he will bring out voters who have given up on both parties, in addition to traditional Democratic voters. So will Trump, for that matter, sad as that is to say.

[Adrahil]

56. Honestly, I do not believe that. But that's one reason he's

not my candidate.

[dreamnightwind]

62. You don't believe what?

That he will bring out voters who have given up on both parties? Hardly seems debatable.. We could legitimately disagree about the number he will bring out, but that's a matter of degree not of veracity.

[Adrahil]

65. I do not believe that Sanders would dramatically boost turnout in November if nominated.

I believe turnout would be believe 2008 levels.

But if he is nominated, I will do my part to prove myself wrong.

[dreamnightwind]

67. Fair enough. I sure don't see Hillary driving a large turnout. - eom

[Adrahil]

74. Which is also fair enough.

Good Luck to Bernie in his supporters in this week's contests!

[dreamnightwind]

75. Thanks, we will need it. - eom

[dreamnightwind]

60. self-delete, posted in wrong place

[kristopher]

54. Wow, talk about a reading comprehension problem...

dreamnightwind (4,115 posts)
25. Thanks, +151,578!
It's laughable how they are trying to make low turnout Bernie's fault, totally the opposite of reality.

i'm afraid your post totally fails when read as a response to dreamnightwind's contribution.

Adrihil
One argument FOR Sanders is that he energizes the base and brings out voters. So Far,mthat argument does not seem consistent with results...

[Adrahil]

57. Ah yes, another courteous Sandernista.

We'll see if his millions people demanding stuff make a difference in a few days.

[kristopher]

61. What is more rude than deliberate false framing?

I doubt if anyone would agree with you that pointing out the falsehood is worse manners than putting the falsehood out there.

[Adrahil]

64. I do not believe it is false.

Overall turnout was DOWN from 2008. He won by an historically large margin in NH, but the total number of Dems was still DOWN.
So sure, call it a "falsehood" if you like. I don't care anymore. The facts will remain the facts.

BTW, there is a reasonable chance that Hillary will get the most votes by a democratic candidate EVER in South Carolina tomorrow, despite the fact that overall turnout is likely to be down from 2008. If that happens, will you be talking how Hillary boosts turnout?

[kristopher]

69. Of course you don't.

Objectivity and honest analysis be damned, Hillary do or die.

[Adrahil]

73. Heh.... yeah. Sure. Objectivity.

OBJECTIVELY, the total turnout was down.

But spin however you like.

Have a good night.

[senz]

30. That's right. Bernie made history in NH turnout.

I'm so tired of the disingenuousness.

[TIME TO PANIC]

32. I'm tired of it too.

It's sure been an eye opener, though.

[redruddyred]

38. there was a real grassroots effort here to make that happen

mainers came in across the border to pitch in.

i don't know what it's like in other places.

[leftofcool]

40. Then why didn't he turn out voters in NV?

[TIME TO PANIC]

48. Why didn't Hillary?

It wasn't a blow-out, and from what I've seen, the NV caucus was nothing but confusion and chaos.

[sabrina 1]

15. Wrong, the DNC made sure here in NY eg, that new voters who might want to register to vote for

Sanders couldn't do so if they weren't registered by Oct 9 of last year. Back when no one knew who he was, right before the first debate. Since then there are so many who know him now and would like to register as Dems, but if they are already registered with another party, they cannot.

So no, the leadership of the party does not want new voters unless they are already committed to ONE candidate. That is no way to run a party, a sure way to lose membership.

[kristopher]

55. thank you. Please consider making this a sourced OP. nt

[TIME TO PANIC]

4. This is because there aren't as many democratic candidates.

Not as many people on the ground.

[w4rma]

35. Howard Dean was in charge of the DNC in 2008 and he worked on a 50 state GOTV campaign.

DWS, by contrast, has tried her very best to suppress the Democratic vote and hand Hillary the nomination.

[TIME TO PANIC]

37. Yep, Debbie's ineptitude never ceases to amaze me. n/t

[nc4bo]

5. DNC too busy propping up HRC to be bothered whooping up enthusiasm.

Then again, this seems to be a continuation of the same problem as we had in previous mid-terms.

DNC FAIL.

[Nyan]

7. DWS and Dem establishment would much rather have republican president than president Sanders.

They don't mind low voter turnout.

But, if Rachel Maddow wants to talk about democratic voters' low voter turnout, she'd better mention media's complicity in all of this.
The entire country has been watching Trump shit show day in and day out, thanks to corporate media completely normalizing his presence in the race. And they did everything they could to avoid talking about Bernie, and when they did, they made sure that the viewers walk away thinking that "Oh. Bernie Sanders is a fringe candidate. He can't win. Why would I bother voting for someone who can't win anyway?"

It's truly amazing how far he has come with media getting in his way every step of the way. If he wasn't running in 2016, he would have been buried by the media long time ago. Be they 2000, 2004, or 2008.
It might be that this primary is about traditional media vs social media, as much as it is about Bernie vs Hillary.

[RKP5637]

58. DWS and the Dem establishment are lost, they have no F'en idea what they are doing. Trump is

going to roll right over them in 2016. It's so sad and pathetic to watch this playing out.

If Trump wins in 2016, the democratic party is going to be out of circulation for a long time. Trump will likely have the presidency, congress and be making SCOTUS appointments while the democrats watch.

FFS DNC and DWS, wake the F up. They will likely be running against a Trump/Christie ticket. They will be singing massive change, and we will be endorsing the establishment. Guess what's going to resonate well with millions of voters and a low democratic turnout.

I have nothing against Hillary and nothing against Bernie. I'm just being realistic in this very unusual campaign season. Old dog tricks are not going to work.

[Nyan]

70. You would think that's plainly obvious.

But you know what? Debbie doesn't care. It doesn't matter to her what happens in GE. Her job is to nominate Hillary. That's why she got that job in the first place.

[RKP5637]

72. It's a shame. Trump is gathering steam and momentum, like it or not, he talks to the core of what

millions of Americans are concerned about. He talks a good line. He's a top notch salesman. Hillary on the other hand talks about, in essence, a continuation of how great things are. It's really boiling down to the current establishment vs. 'we the people.' I just don't think the DNC/DWS strategy is going to play well in 2016.

[Agschmid]

8. The turnout is VERY concerning, but you can't lay it at the feet of only

One candidate.

This is an issue that's bigger than politics.

[HooptieWagon]

10. DWS could have put an effort into showcasing the candidates,

Generating enthusiasm, and signing up voters. Instead, she's been preoccupied with putting her thumb on the scale and protecting her candidate.

[Agschmid]

11. We all should be out there getting new voters...

It appears both our candidates need them.

[sabrina 1]

66. Turnout has been abysmal since 2010 mid terms as people lost faith in the entire system. If Sanders

was not in this race, turnout would be a total disaster. As he becomes known, turnout improves, but with the Corp media making sure to keep Trump and the Establishment candidates front and center, people are only now getting to know Bernie. And if he loses the nomination, all that enthusiasm he is generating, will turn to Congress and ignore the WH race, meaning Trump is likely to be our next president.

Thanks DNC

[Skwmom]

9. She is setting up the latest Clinton spin.

[840high]

29. yep

[Fearless]

12. So where are the DNC voter drives?

I'll wait.

[FreakinDJ]

14. don't hold your breath

[MaggieD]

17. You only had to wait 11 min - see below

Sorry I didn't get to it sooner. I had read it a few days ago, but did not bookmark. Had to google it. You're welcome.

[Fearless]

21. Excuse me... where are the D-N-C voter drives LIKE I SAID.

You know, their fucking job?

[MaggieD]

16. I guess Clinton supporters will have to pick up the slack

.... since Bernie's revolution hasn't panned out.

"Top Democrats allied with Hillary Clinton have quietly formed a $25 million nonprofit organization aimed at boosting the turnout of African American and Latino voters, two constituencies key to her presidential bid.

The group, called Every Citizen Counts, is being advised by Guy Cecil, who also serves as the chief strategist for the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action, as the Associated Press first reported."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/10/clinton-allies-launch-new-nonprofit-group-to-mobilize-african-american-and-latino-voters/

[sabrina 1]

18. Imagine how low the turnout would be if Bernie wasn't in the race?? See the last two

mid terms eg, people are just fed up with the broken promises and they are not allowed to say so without being attacked, so they just leave the party altogether. The Dem part has lost 12% of its membership since 2008. Why IS that?

Now at least Bernie is bringing people into the party. But if he had not run, the turnout would have been lower than the last two mid terms.

[nc4bo]

19. Sabrina, you know that crew doesn't want to talk about that! It's so obvious but

So is the obvious silence from the Party's Establishment on past failed election results.

They know. It's by design I'm sure.

[OZi]

20. This is becoming a reoccuring theme for me around here.

There are 2 choices on the Dem side. The media narrative has consistently been "Hillary is inevitable" and has given her coverage second only to Trump. Not much reason for people to worry about showing up there. OTOH, Bernie was mostly ignored by the media until N.H. and since then his coverage has been, "he doesn't have a chance" and "why is he still in this?" Again, not much to stir up people into showing up there either.

Now, I don't mean to sound like I'm just blaming the media, there are other factors too I'm sure, but I can't ignore the impression I'm getting either. Bottom line, there are ONLY 2 candidates this time around and the way the media is handling it comes across as, "Hillary's got this." Maybe, just maybe, if this year there were more choices than "inevitable" vs "unelectable" things would be different on the Dem side.

Contrast the above with what's going on with the Republicans. Trump is a big draw on his own I'm sure. Plus at one time there were what, 15-16 people running? How many made it to Nevada? Ben Carson managed to find his way to Nevada ffs. Beyond the sheer volume of candidates, there has also been a lot of churning and yearning going on on the Republican side to try and find the "establishment" candidate to challenge Trump and the whole thing has been fueling turnout on that side. Republicans being the "out of power" party, their turnout was bound to be inflated anyway.


tl;dr: The media has been wall to wall Trump and trying to find his potential rival and on the Dem side, the message has been; "Don't worry, we really only have 1 candidate anyway." Lot's of activity for Republicans and not much to go on for Dems. Not everyone is a political junky.

[californiabernin]

22. Anither reason why Sanders would be the stronger GE candidate.

There a pacity of enthusiasm for Clinton. Sanders strengthens the party going forward.

I am baffled this seems so little understood.

[fun n serious]

23. Why are hey staying home NOW?? This is the time to go VOTE!

Have they given up?

[workinclasszero]

24. Who stopped the Bernie revolution

from caucusing for him in Nevada?

You cant force people to vote.

[TIME TO PANIC]

28. Voter turn out is down because there are less candidates.

The less candidates, the less people on the ground to GOTV. Sanders had a record amount of votes in New Hampshire.

Don't be fooled by corporate media.

[JackRiddler]

26. The irony is that Maddow's contributing to this with her narrative.

The problem in NH sure wasn't the record-setting Sanders turnout now, was it? The precise numbers in these ridiculous caucuses aren't even known - sorry if you have a shift at the appointed time, workers, you're exactly the people who aren't supposed to be voting!

[Skwmom]

31. This is what I say to Mrs. Selective Outrage and her Clinton spin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511342485

[justamiddleclasser]

34. Bernie has only been a Democrat for 10 Months

The name of this site is "DEMOCRATICunderground.com." It is not "INDEPENDENTunderground.com." So when looking at Senator Sanders, it is clear that his participation as a "Democrat" has been totally self serving. Had he not participated in the Democratic Caucuses in Congress, he would have gotten NOTHING - not Chair of the Veterans Committee. Had he not identified as a Democrat less than 10 month ago, he wouldn't have gotten any traction on his candidacy for President. So after about 5 decades in elective office, he sees the light and becomes a DEMOCRAT - NO, it was self-serving, because he's using the Democratic Party to get what he wants, rather than having worked with Democrats for the past 5 decades to make real change.

Also, there is an ugly contradiction in criticizing Clinton for accepting Wall Street money, yet he accepted Harry Reed PAC money - Searchlight Leadership Fund - when he ran for the Senate - where BofA, JP-Morgan, and other banks were integral to the fund. And, he got plenty of union money too.

So, how can you TRUST Sen. Sanders about being committed to this revolution - when he switched from being and "Independent" in EVERY ELECTION HE RAN FOR - until NOW...He should have been created a national "Independent" organization 5 decades ago as he DIDN'T. The change he purports has to be initiated in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY at this time, because as an Independent, you only get a President worse than George W. Bush - just like Ralph Nader's candidacy in 2000 lost the election to Al Gore...who would have won two more states - including Florida had he not run. So, we get Justice Roberts and Alito...great, as a result we got Citizens United...thus we are worse off as we can't even get back to the good policy of the Clinton Gore Administration nor take back the $3 trillion in tax breaks under Dubya...if you don't have the votes in Congress, it won't happen.

Senator Sanders is more idealistic, using his followers...AND NOT REALISTIC...or if he was, he wouldn't admit to it because he would destroy his political message -"ending income inequality," but having no real plan to get there - sorry a plutonic - theoretical concept is NOT A PLAN - meaning a revolution is not a plan. So, in the end, we'll get greater income inequality and maybe that's the real revolution that will occur, but decades later while half our population suffer - but wait - global warming will have destroyed us first.

Unfortunately, he hasn't helped Democrats get elected to make this change...only himself. And, the only way to get the change is to help other candidates - who happened to be almost exclusively Democrats. He needs 60 votes in the Senate and at least 50 more Democrats in the House of Representatives (because just getting the majority won't be enough). He may believe in the trickle down theory...but that's Ronald Reagan...it doesn't work...you have to directly help other candidates...and Senator Clinton has for years - including President Obama, going to dozens of states in 2008, being the principal at scores of rallies, and helping Democrats win...

Also, he's misleading millions of low income wage earners about his single payer plan. As many get health care from their employer - whether it is from a large private employer or government, they LOSE in his plan, as they would then be taxed to get the health care that they now get as part of the total compensation package - IT'S WRONG.

[w4rma]

36. Hillary still isn't a "Democrat". She's a carpetbagging Rockefeller Republican. (nt)

[Cobalt Violet]

39. Can't agree more

[The Redheaded Guy]

44. +1000

She is a Democrat like oil on water.

[wyldwolf]

41. wait, what??

I thought Bernie's revolution would pull that secret super 'progressive' majority out of the shadows! You mean they - and the much coveted yet rarely meaningful youth vote - need to have their hands held by Hillary and DWS? And it's now DWS's job to court and register them to vote?

[MrMickeysMom]

42. MY theory about low voter turnout...

... is, that no matter what I think of the Repukes' party, they put effort into the GOTV.

I see way more Republican local meetings being held for candidate discussion. I have personal history in the Democratic machine locally, at the county level, and at the state level.

People have to move BEYOND being sick with "who got in office BECAUSE of the machine. They disgust me to no end...

The GOTV effort HAS to be the faction that is not recognized well. Take home message for us in these places (PA is a swing state, so I consider that I live in one of these places) is to GET ACTIVE and GET INVOLVED! I didn't say local committees, did I?

[restorefreedom]

43. anyone else notice

that the state with the least dramatic drop was nh, where bernie won huge? also, the other two states are caucuses states, and i hope the problems with caucuses are clear enough that they don't need to be mentioned again.

but kudos to dws and hrc for their fantastic voter suppression efforts. it will cost them the wh...then again, that is ok as long as its not bernie.

[madokie]

46. The heck with her and her shilling for HRC

I turned the tv machine off when she came on after tweety last night. About two minutes of her shit was all I could take.

I used to love Rachel, what happened???
maybe selling out had something to do with it but who knows it may just be I'm wising up in my old age. Who gives a fuck I sure don't anymore. I'm tired of being lied to by the so called ruling class. simple as that

[Bluenorthwest]

47. 'Record Breaking' is a term of art. Nevada Republican Caucus 08 had under 35,000 voters '12 was less

In 08 we had 120,000, in 2016 80,000 to their 75,000. The 'record' they broke in Nevada was not at all 'the voter turnout record for that State' as Rachel claims but merely the voter turnout record for Republicans in those States, one of which is Nevada which has only 3 caucus turnouts to compare, having just started that process in 08.

[AxionExcel]

52. Debbie Downer continuing her epic nap...?

[Lil Missy]

63. Notice that since this well-researched issue doesn't favor Bernie, Maddow gets thrown under the bus.

An unhealthy trend I've noticed with Sanders supporters on DU. That makes for a pretty hard fall somewhere down the line after Hillary secures the nomination.

[pdsimdars]

68. They are hiding their light under a bushel

It's not the amount of money, just ask Jeb. It's the enthusiasm, just ask Trump. He has spent almost no money and God knows he knows nothing about policy. . .all he has is his enthusiasm.
When you see those long, long lines for Bernie and those huge events with thousands who have to stand outside because the venue won't handle them all. . . that is enthusiasm.
If the Democrats choose to push that down, it is they who are responsible for the low turnout and eventual loss.

[olddots]

71. another soul sold

to the highest bidder .

[juxtaposed]

76. HRC is the reason voter turn out is so low! Not many like her and the msm have been pushing

her all year. For the good of the party she should look at the inevitable she will never win the ge, and should drop out. HRC divides everyone along all lines.

[Neon Gods]

77. Maybe Dem turnout is low because...

...a lot of Democrats don't care much which of our candidates wins the nomination. I know a number of people say they like both Bernie and Hillary. They will vote in November, however. I hope the press does make a big deal about our lower turnout in the prinaries. Let everyone believe were apathetic while we sneak up on them with a record turnout.