Bernie's Revolution Is AWOL

[riversedge]

Bernie's Revolution Is AWOL

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pat-garofalo/articles/2016-03-03/bernie-sanders-2016-revolution-needs-higher-turnout-to-win-where-it-counts?src=usn_tw

Sanders needs better turnout numbers if he wants to swing the Democratic race back in his favor.
The Associated Press

March 3, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.

There's a problem with the revolution: It appears to be AWOL.

After former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's super-enough Tuesday, the path to the Democratic 2016 nomination for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is starting to vanish. Clinton is currently ahead by about 200 pledged delegates – 609 to 412, according to FiveThirtyEight's count – and because Democrats dish out delegates proportionally, with no winner-take-all contests, catching up would require Sanders to win some blowouts in delegate-rich states.

A big win would be significantly helped, of course, by Sanders' oft-mentioned "political revolution" materializing in big numbers. The trouble is, so far, it hasn't.

.......................

This is a problem for Sanders on two levels. The first is just the math: Without big wins, he can't catch up on delegates, and there's little reason to think low-turnout, less-than-enthusiastic electorates in big, diverse states will swing toward him when they haven't so far. Indeed, he's trailing by double digits in many of the most delegate-heavy upcoming states: Michigan, North Carolina, Florida and Illinois.

The second issue is perhaps more important, though. Sanders' theory of change is predicated on a mass movement of people previously disconnected from politics. As he said in his victory-ish speech after winning Vermont on Tuesday, "What that revolution is about is bringing millions of millions of people into the political process. Working people who have been so disillusioned, they no longer vote. Young people who have never been involved.".........

[Katashi_itto]

1. More like your post is AWOL.

[Agnosticsherbet]

52. AWOL means "absent without leave.

I see a post up there, so, it isn't absent.

[Katashi_itto]

90. If it misses the mark its also Awol

[Agnosticsherbet]

101. Not according to the dictionary.

And it hit its mark, anyway.

[Katashi_itto]

103. Whatever, I know the various ways we used it in the military and no it doesnt hit the mark.

[bettyellen]

102. that's not what the phrase means by any stretch of the imagination.

[2pooped2pop]

2. If you guys think you have this all wrapped up, why do you keep shit stirring?

Why?

[FloridaBlues]

5. It's called reality. Do the math

What time was that revolution again ?

[Kittycat]

16. Fall in line

Can't you hear the party war drums? The establishment wants us to heel now.

[MillennialDem]

25. Bernie needs to win the remaining 53.8% of delegates. If he loses between now and March 16th

at a 58/42 delegate split he will need to win 59.8% of the remaining delegates after March 16th.

This is absolutely possible albiet unlikely as the states after March 16th favor him.

[2pooped2pop]

58. See shitstirring

It shouldn't be necessary if u were so sure that she's already won. This confirms to me, that you know she is still possibly gonna have that deja vu moment.

[riversedge]

8. Bernie's positive campaign rolls on. cough cough****

You speak of shit stirring???



Damon Bethea Retweeted
Rob Flaherty ‏@Rob_Flaherty 1m1 minute ago

Bernie's positive campaign rolls on.

[JaneyVee]

18. What is he trying to prove?

[riversedge]

22. Not good optics that is for sure--shows a mean-spirited desperation IMHO

[pdsimdars]

60. It's called "vetting"

And that is what happens in what we call "primaries". Learn about it. In our form of government we think people should know the reality of who they are voting for and not be blindly led like sheep.

[JaneyVee]

68. Hillary been vetted from 25 yrs. Bernie not so much.

[indigoth]

86. Actually

If all you're doing is looking back, then clearly senator sanders has been vetted for something like 50 years ... And he's been consistent the entire time ... Unlike Hillary

[artislife]

46. This used to be a poster I admired somewhat

We will run against h all the way to convention. It can only damage her if she looks badly in comparison but then she has made her "hard" choices all along the way.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Meanwhile, corporatism and self-indulgent wars march forward undaunted.

[Ron Green]

4. This is an entirely expected M$M offering at this stage.

They're just doing what they do, and that's NOT bringing real journalism. We haven't had that from them in years.

[polly7]

6. It's a people's revolution ......... telling that you want it to go away so badly. nt.

[frazzled]

19. The people are expressing their preference

Or do only some people count as the people? There is an ugly presupposition in such comments as yours: that the people who have voted, or will vote, for Hillary Clinton are not part of "the people."

The people of Vermont are not more of the people than the people of South Carolina.

[polly7]

21. No, 'you're' the one dismissing their revolution. Period. nt.

[Agschmid]

27. Could you please post the popular vote as it stands right now?

And yes I'm aware it doesn't include caucus counts.

[polly7]

32. Wtf does dismissing a people's revolution have to do with the popular vote (whatever it is).

You are dismissing all those millions choosing to try to change the current system - a revolution. Saying it's 'AWOL' is a flat out lie - I'm on the internet - I see the tens of thousands gathering for him and for change - they haven't given up. So - it's a lie. Again - period.

[Agschmid]

39. I didn't say it was AWOL, I'm not the OP.

But just in case you hadn't seen it, here is the popular vote:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

And you are correct millions of people are making their voices heard at their polling places and so far their voices are speaking for Hillary Clinton.

[polly7]

40. Couldn't care less. How many states have voted again??

And yes, I'm correct - millions of people are making their voices heard for a revolution - change to a system that is causing the suffering of millions more. What does Clinton's revolution consist of? - or is it just about maintaining the Status Quo?

[Agschmid]

42. Couldn't care less about the popular vote?

Really...

Again... So far millions of people are making their voices heard by getting involved and voting, and so far those voices are speaking for Clinton.

Votes matter.

Yes there is still TONS of time, this could easily shift in the other direction but arguing that the popular vote doesn't is really bad. These people got off their butts, got to their polling location, and voted... That matters.

[polly7]

43. Right. The 'popular vote' has NOTHING to do with a revolution of the people who are

fighting for change.

Never has, never will.

[Agschmid]

44. We "revolt" every fours years through our votes.

[polly7]

48. Ummm, yeah ... no. That's not 'quite' the same thing. nt.

[hack89]

45. So how will the revolution manifest itself if not through the ballot box?

voting is how we change things in America.

[polly7]

50. No shit ........ us too!

The revolution will change the face of how elections are run there - that's what all those donating and attending rallies for are hoping, anyway. Is that what you vote for on your ballot? Is it even on there?

[Agschmid]

51. So people who attend rallies should overrule those who actually vote?

Voting doesn't matter?

[polly7]

59. I didn't say they wouldn't vote.

I said they're gathering, informing, raising money for the cause that is to get big money out of elections and all the other things that are hurting hundreds of millions. That is the 'revolution'. People who've felt no interest or no hope before that change is possible suddenly having a movement to celebrate and work for.

Exciting to watch, no matter what happens!!

[Agschmid]

61. I agree, exciting to watch.

But they need to VOTE!

[hack89]

56. But if the revolution is not voting they can't change things, can they?

all the rallies, organizing, social media mean nothing if they don't vote. Hope means nothing without action.

[polly7]

72. Well you seem to think it's hopeless, thank goodness they don't.

It's so refreshing to see so many energized with the hope of getting corruption and big money out of politics. 'Pay to Play' only benefits those at the top who have it all already - ie. the private-prison profiteers that ruin lives, fracking advocates that poison groundwater for whole regions, health-care insurers who do nothing for millions that can't afford them - basically any corp. with lobbyists and their own politician. Millions who've seen nothing but suffering for themselves or others are yelling loudly against it - they've found a voice in Sanders. It's fantastic to see.

[hack89]

73. Revolutions are hard work that require honest self assessment to changing realities

you have to be able to say "this is not working" before you can find a new and better way. You don't seem willing to do that.

They may have found a voice in Sanders but at the moment they are letting him down. He can't help them if they won't help him.

[polly7]

74. Yes, they are.

And they are saying 'this system is not working'.

It's your opinion they're letting him down. We all have one.

[hack89]

75. The only things that matter are votes.

anything else is a deflection from an uncomfortable truth.

[polly7]

77. Again ........... your opinion.

I happen to believe movements and revolutions as big as this (despite obvious attempts to downplay the numbers and enthusiasm) do cause change. In immediate terms, unless there are enough big-money donors who will have their profits lessened a bit and can stop it with their own politicians. It will have long-term effects though, I believe ... no matter what. There are enough young people who've educated themselves that will fight to elect people into office who reflect the kind of gov't they want and deserve.

[hack89]

79. But it is not a big movement

it is not diverse racially, gender wise or by age. It represents a small segment of the voting public. Look at who is not voting for Bernie - it says a lot.

[polly7]

80. OFFS.

I've seen the rallies, the tens of thousands gathering, the lines that go on forever - who do you think you're fooling? I've also read that democratic voting vs. republicans was up - because of Sanders supporters coming out.

You don't say much.

[hack89]

81. In a country of hundreds of millions, tens of thousands is nothing.

remember Paul Rands rallies? How about Howard Deans?

[polly7]

83. PER RALLY. All around the country.

I've seen Clinton's 'gatherings'. Enough fucking said.

[hack89]

84. Yet Clinton is kicking Bernies' ass in the popular voter.

perhaps rallies are not the best metric for determining success?

[polly7]

88. Clinton has the big money backers and those already beholden to a corrupt

system to work with - that kind of influence will always carry a lot of weight. That seems fairly simple to understand? Revolutions have never happened overnight. Sanders wasn't even considered a contender - now he has them running so scared they're pulling out all sorts of really pathetic smears and outright lies against him. I'd say his movement is working. And growing. No need to give up yet, by any means!

[hack89]

91. So Bernie's supporters are not motivated to vote because ...... Clinton?

I thought that was the point of the revolution - to take on politicians like her. Wouldn't smears and lies against Bernie motivate people to vote for Bernie - the revolution, is after all, growing. Why can't it grow and vote at the same time?

[polly7]

92. You're funny.

And so negative.







I'm done with your yammering.

[hack89]

95. Enjoy your revolution.

Peace

[polly7]

97. It's not my revolution. I'm just cheering for all those in it.

A lot of us are up here. Like I said, it's exciting to watch!

[hack89]

82. What do Trumps rallies tell you? Is that a movement as well? nt

[polly7]

85. They tell me that republicans are desperate to pick someone to vote for out of

a group of losers and he's their choice. No, it's not a movement as there is no 'hope' involved like Sanders - just 'hate'.

How low to even compare the two.

[hack89]

87. True there is no real comparison. His supporters vote for him for starters. nt

[polly7]

89. Your attempt to equate the two tells me all I need to know.

Desperation.

[hack89]

93. Trump has done what Bernie failed to do

that should tell you something. Bernie is a much better man. But he seriously misjudged his supporters - they have let him down.

[polly7]

94. Nah, but keep hoping.

[hack89]

96. Only one of them is going to be the nominee of a major political party

and it won't be Bernie. Just something to consider.

[polly7]

98. Ok, now you're just boring. nt.

[Agschmid]

78. Yup.

[2pooped2pop]

62. Could we wait until the rest of the country has a chance to vote before we try to

Declare popular vote winner?

[Agschmid]

65. I'm not trying to declare a winner.

Yes I support a candidate as do you, so I post with a bias as do you. But there certainly isn't a primary winner yet, and I didn't say that there is.

However people need to vote, that's how we revolt in America.

[artislife]

47. It has been noted that we are not to discount votes

from South Carolina while it is perfectly fine for you all to discount votes from New Hampshire.

And then onto the other states.

[frazzled]

49. I have never denigrated the votes from New Hampshire or elsewhere

We're talking about cumulative votes of the people from all the states. Let's see where that lands us in May or even June. But then we need to stop referring to "the people" as the sole province of the Sanders' campaign.

[artislife]

57. So you haven't but run with those who do.

Sanders' people will be felt in November. No matter what they decide to do.

[DrDan]

7. that is the problem - no one explained that a "political revolution" usually

requires some voting . . . .

[redstateblues]

9. one turnout problem- Spring break

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. Everything about the primary schedule favors conservatives.

Thus the big Clinton lead...

[yardwork]

17. Revolutionaries go on Spring Break?

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. I presume that's a rhetorical question...

...since the answer is so staggeringly obvious.

[Agschmid]

28. They could vote absentee...

It's not that hard.

[yardwork]

34. They'll be in Florida already....

Just thinking out loud here....

[MoonRiver]

37. It is?

[Agschmid]

29. Well we will find out. That's for sure.

[yardwork]

33. I'm thinking that the answer is yes.

Apparently the primary schedule was deliberately timed to coincide with Spring Break, which we are told benefits the conservatives. I can only conclude that the Bernie revolutionaries cant be expected to get out the vote while they're in Daytona.

[MoonRiver]

38. Cause, priorities!

[bigwillq]

10. It's not AWOL; It's strong.

But it may be deceiving: It's not as large in numbers as once thought. But it's a strong and passionate bunch. I think politics needs the Bernie supporters involved in politics. They obviously are fed up with the status quo. I hope they are embraced and, more importantly, I hope they stay active in the process.

[onenote]

15. Agreed. The seeds of change are being planted by his campaign

It does not appear they'll be harvested this election cycle, but if those who have been motivated by his campaign stay active, they can bring about future change.

Revolutions are hard. Evolution is always more likely.

[deutsey]

36. Honestly, I did not believe Sanders would get the nomination

Would I be overjoyed if he does? Of course. I've supported him from afar (I don't live in Vermont) since he first went to DC.

But, come on; the political/economic establishment underlying both parties was going to do everything in its power to prevent that from happening. And they did, from hardly reporting on Sanders early on, to laughing at him as an oddity when they did cover hiim, to scheduling debates for minimum exposure, etc.

And yet he's STILL resonating strongly with a large number of Americans and has given Clinton much more of a challenge than I expected (or that many others seem to have anticipated).

I only wish we had a viable political-party apparatus in this country that was prepared to tap that support and build a real agenda around it.

But we're better off now in terms of advancing a real alternative to the neoliberal shell game that we normally have to settle for.

If he doesn't get the nomination (and as I say, I'll be ecstatic if he somehow does), it will be VERY important that we don't mourn the loss, to paraphrase Joe Hill, but to continue to organize.

[Orsino]

11. It's been catching on...

...but yes, an alarming number of Americans have been AWOL or supporting Trump.

Get aboard for progressive change!

[KingFlorez]

12. That is evident from the turnout numbers

Results so far really disprove that he's a big turnout getter.

[zipplewrath]

41. No voter lists generated

An early criticism of the Sanders campaign was that they were having these huge turnouts at rallies, and no one was collecting voter info. Part of creating these turnouts is a GOTV effort and their campaign didn't appear to be working on one. I suspect that reflects the initial presumption of the campaign that it would be more about influencing the race, than actually winning a nomination. By the time they realized where they were, they had missed a lot of early opportunities. Successful revolutions take ALOT of organization.

[Lizzie Poppet]

13. The Democratic Party's commitment to progressive causes is AWOL.

And that, my friend, is why a revolution is inevitable.

These things take time. Not giving up on Bernie's candidacy until he does (obviously...), but don't ever doubt that what OWS started and Bernie is continuing will take place. Oligarchic dominance of the American political system is an untenable status quo. It's going to go away...but things like Bernie's candidacy can help it do so peacefully.

Is it too much to ask that the Democratic Party be not just a part of that peaceful alternative, but a real player?

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. +1 trillion

[artislife]

54. I have all but given up on this party and the people who support it

They think we have time.

Check back in 5 years.


When I think back 8 years, climate change was a scary thing that was coming in the next 100 years, well--it is a fast moving event.

In the last month, 150.000 penguins died because the ice sheet that connected them to their food source melted/broke away.

They grassskied in the Italian Alps this last winter.

I honestly don't care if we have a woman or a Jewish man for president. I care that we get someone in who is completely aware and ready to DO Something NOW.

[jillan]

23. Does Hillary have 2,383 counted delegates? NO SHE DOES NOT. There are still over 3k delegates up for

grabs....

So what is the purpose of this thread - to get Bernie supporters to defend him and Hillary supporters to tell him to quit?

My goodness, it's as if you do not believe in democracy and in American's right to vote.

[fredamae]

26. An Opinion does not reflect Fact

it Reflects Wishful thinking, imo
The Silent Majority is Still enthused, Donating and working hard.

The Absence of Media and the "illusion" of subtle suggestions imposed by the opposition that Bernies campaign is over-Is delusional, imo.

[RiverLover]

30. $42 million in one month from small donors.

Not awol.

When they try to manipulate US like in this OP article, they could at least -try- to suspend our disbelief.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

113. But not as many voters as Clinton.

Sanders supporters may be enthusiastic, but they're not numerous. And that's what matters.

[Iliyah]

31. I don't like BS' revolution

[pdsimdars]

66. Yea, it reflect the will of the people

something the political system has avoided for decades. But that is pretty unAmerican, since we're supposed to be of, by and FOR the PEOPLE.
Eventually the peoples' will will win out.

[MineralMan]

35. Interesting. In Minnesota, Bernie won.

MN is a caucus state, so it's relatively easy for a small number of participants to affect the results strongly. I chaired my precinct caucus this year. We had a good turnout and Bernie won our presidential preference election.

I was extremely busy with the caucus, so I didn't really have time to talk much with the participants as I normally do. So, I can't say what brought people to the caucus. I saw some new faces there, to be sure, and the turnout of people of color was lower than it was in 2008, as well.

I was mildly surprised at the outcome, but suspect that the caucus system contributed to Bernie's victory here. Sanders supporters are nothing if not enthusiastic, so it wouldn't surprise me if more showed up than Clinton supporters.

As for myself, I was so busy helping people get their votes registered that I actually forgot to vote. Doh!

[RiverLover]

64. That's pretty funny, MM.

I mean, it isn't good, but you still have to laugh.

[MineralMan]

69. I did laugh, after doing a facepalm.

It wouldn't have affected the results, of course, but that's why I went to the caucus. As it turned out, there was nobody there to convene the caucus and run the meeting. Usually someone from the district organization does that. So, as chair of the precinct, I convened the caucus and acted as caucus chair.

It was a very busy couple of hours. Between getting through the agenda, helping people find their correct precinct and keeping an eye on the election process, I never had a second of free time. At 8 PM, when we closed the voting (nobody in line to vote), our two election tellers counted the ballots and we had our vote count. Then, I had to fill out all of the required forms for the delegates to the convention, etc. I didn't realize I hadn't voted until I was on my way out the door.

I wasn't alone, either. On my way out, I talked with another caucus chair who said she had forgotten to vote, too. We both laughed. Caucuses are busy for whoever is in charge of the meeting.

[DrDan]

67. wasn't there a candidate in Iowa who received 0 . . .ZERO votes, yet his campaign chairman

was there chairing a caucus? Seems he made a fairly embarrassing confession.

[MineralMan]

71. In Minnesota, the chair of the caucus meeting

does not have to be a resident of that precinct. If not, then the chair can't vote. Despite being the precinct chair since 2008, I've never actually convened and chaired my precinct's caucus. Usually a volunteer from the District organization handles that, and has received training as a caucus convener and chair.

I haven't had that training, but understand exactly what to do from close observation at caucuses. This year, a lot of precinct chairs had to run their own caucuses.

It's amazing that those caucuses go as smoothly as they do. But, neighbors tend to get along OK and things get done correctly. We had a lot of new caucus-goers, so I had to explain every step in the process carefully. I've done a lot of meeting chairing, though, so it's not something that's new to me. I can even run a formal Roberts' Rules of Order meeting flawlessly, if needed. Fortunately our caucuses are small enough that a less formal format can be followed.

[kstewart33]

99. MM, you're right about caucuses.

Here in Denver, Bernie was very well organized. At my caucus, my precinct voted overwhelmingly for Clinton, but a few miles down the street at Denver's largest high school, the vote was huge for Bernie.

Turnout was strong so caucuses were crowded, the process went very slowly, and after 1.5 hours there, I was so hopeful that Colorado would switch to a primary next time around. And, the next day, the Secretary of State's office announced that both parties favor a primary so in 2020, that will be the case.

Hope you keep posting. Your thoughts are always interesting.

[MineralMan]

100. There will be a measure introduced in the MN state legislature

this year to switch to primaries. I plan to support it, and hope it is a bipartisan effort. The Republicans want to switch, too. The caucus system is just too outdated to survive, I think. I like the caucus meetings, but it's not a very representative way to do this.

[azurnoir]

104. the win showed that Hillary's racial tactic doesn't work in MN where there was no racial divide

[MineralMan]

105. I'm not really sure what it showed.

I do know what the result was, though. I congratulated Bernie in my Wednesday thread reporting on the caucus. As I have said time and again, I'll be supporting the Democratic candidate for the general election. As it happened, I didn't even have a chance to vote at my own caucus, since I had to chair the meeting. I never had a moment to vote.

So, sad to say, I didn't vote in my own state's primary event. It wouldn't have changed the results significantly, anyway.

We had about the representative number of black voters at my caucus, based on the demographics of the precinct. Lots of Hmong voters, too. I couldn't tell you how any individual voted, of course. It's a secret ballot. I oversaw the ballot counting, though. The result was accurate and carefully double-checked. Three or four random caucus attendees were looking over the election tellers, too, as they counted.

What does it mean? It means that Sanders won in our Democratic caucuses. Congrats to him!

[azurnoir]

106. Bernie won evenly in every district in the state ps I familiar with your caucus area

mine neighbors it and is of very similar makeup

[MineralMan]

108. Yes, he did. Results in my precinct

were close to the statewide average.

Bernie won in Minnesota. Maybe you were even in the same location for your caucus. I don't know.

[azurnoir]

109. Nope I wasn't I'm pretty sure

[NurseJackie]

53. Online Polls! Rallys! Bumper Stickers! Discussion Forums! Twitter! Facebook!

(I guess that wasn't enough.)




Go, Hillary! We love you!

[pdsimdars]

55. Coroporate media and Corporate Clinton campaign spew the corporate line.

I read something interesting. . those states where Hillary won, the Democratic turnout was lower than before and those were Bernie won the turnout was higher. Hmmmm. They sure pick and choose, don't they?

[GeorgeGist]

63. Then Hillary will have an even bigger problem in the GE ...

if you're betting on her to win the nomination.

[lunamagica]

70. I've said it a couple of times, but I'll say it again. Caucuses are undemocratic. They favor the

young, the wealthy, the healthy. People with time to spare.

I wish they would disappear.

[great white snark]

76. You can count on the fringe "Lazy Left" to be loud and that's about it.

Votes are all that matter.

[Billsmile]

107. Colorado Didn't Get The MSM Memo

Heavy turnout for Bernie in Colorado.

"Nearly 122,000 Coloradans caucused for our two presidential candidates, breaking our 2008 turnout record of 120,000," party officials said.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/democrats-report-record-caucus-turnout-in-colorado-for-super-tuesday

[itsrobert]

110. Spring Break! Feel the SunBERN!

Looks like his supporters rather hang out at the beach on vacation spending their parent's' money instead of voting for the revolution.

[Beacool]

111. So far, more people have voted for Hillary than for Sanders.

He has thousands of people at his rallies and is very good at raising funds, but it's not really reflected at the polls. He'll do well in the upcoming caucus states, but Hillary is up in the polls and predicted to win, LA, NC, MI, OH, MS & IL.

[nc4bo]

112. Haha, so AWOL we watched her turn into a bad facsimile of Sanders

Populist messaging and all!

No...not AWOL. ABSORBED.