2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJoe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Apparently.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)much thanks to mad floridian
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)Sometimes I believe I may be living in an alternate universe. Excellent Tweet!
dana_b
(11,546 posts)thank you
Dem2
(8,168 posts)Jeb! spent truckloads of money and didn't do nearly as well as Bernie has. Bernie's money raising is very encouraging, but it's also nice knowing that money can't buy an election (though it sure does help.) Bernie is most successful based on his appealing message.
Questions about his viability are likely based on his relative newness as a national figure and his history as an outsider in the Democratic party (independent/socialist); we have few examples to use as a comparison.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)It was handed to him by billionaires. Well, actually, he never saw most of it, it was spent on his behalf by billionaires.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)set money comes attached to a few fat greasy hands. Sanders large amount comes from millions of clenched fists raised in anger.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)The Democratic Party and also the corporate media.
Last weekend there were a bunch of marches (80 comes to mind) all over the country for Bernie and some had thousands of people and not ONE image or mention of it on the news.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)It sucks.
tblue37
(65,487 posts)in the race until we get past the early states where HRC racks up huge leads to the later states where Bernie has a real chance to catch up and maybe surpass her.
In fact, were it not for his huge war chest, Jeb would have been forced to drop out much sooner. Money is, therefore, a necessary *but not sufficient* condition. for a viable run.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)..... I'm sure it happens in some 3rd world dictatorships.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)well it wasn't officially a dictartorhip, money played a role, but not as much as it does in the US
Granted, at this point it probably plays more of a role.
And I consider the US a failed democracy.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)The signs are not so subtle and seem to be tangled up into everything, but these are just the feelings and observations of my 74 year old eyes.
I knew a different country.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and that was 1984... the beginning of the change as it were.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I won't say what I think of the people who sustain it.
Jopin Klobe
(779 posts)... it is ...
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...huge crowds in Texas, for example?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)No one else in those states votes for him. This is obviously a slight exaggeration but the point is that Sanders greatly excites a small segment of the population. The rest of the states just aren't interested.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and by 10 or so in Oklahoma.
Hillary "won" by 1 point in Massachusetts, by well under 5 in Iowa and lost in New Hampshire by 20 points.
Hillary won in the backward Southern states. That's the only place where she has won by large margins. Her best election date is behind her.
Feel the Bern!
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)Minnesotans count too, you know.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)They tend to favor people in the exact position Bernie is in.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)Bernie gets less exposure on the MSM than even you do! He/we are fighting against the most powerful forces in the world who do not want him in the WH because they cannot control him and he wants to attack the root problem. He wants to do away with their ability to buy politicians to maintain their control over our government.
Hillary wants to be TPTB's main tool of control, the funnel of their power and influence, not the President for the people!
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Must be some sort of magic, huh?
But EVERY poll, month after month, he keeps beating them by large margins. . . someone must like him other than those who attend his rallies.
tommcc99
(48 posts)Makes you wonder.
Some states it has translated into votes.
In other states (Iowa and Nevada) the caucus process has been reported as dysfunctional. I know first hand. I caucused in Nevada. May have made difference. May not have
In Massachusetts there was blatant disregard for the rules at the polls. If there was blatant disregard - I wonder what happened that we didn't see. Maybe nothing. But.....
Makes you wonder.
Me, I don't want to wonder about the character of the person I am voting for.
No worries with Senator Sanders.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)Nope, it's too much for people to admit that "their" Queen Hillary would do anything wrong! For those of us who've asked this question over and over, there can only be ONE answer!
AND, for those who think that many millennials aren't voting, it's NOT what I'm seeing. I have 2 voting age grand kids who have really been active and I KNOW they've already voted in FL's upcoming Primary. And I live in a very Red County!
This is the first election that they've really gotten active in and they keep asking me "how can this be?" I told them not to give up, but Hillary WAS CHOSEN even before the Primaries started. The Real Harm being done is that they are having to see how very UN-DEMOCRATIC this process has become. They ARE angry and I can say from what they tell me, THEY WANT to be rid of EACH Party!
Maybe it's time, but it will be very difficult. It's seems we've all got puppet strings attached to us and while so many of us are pulling hard to unwind from the tangle, a pair of sharp scissors will be needed to FREE us from THIS OLIGARCHY!
And as for other countries?? OMG, the things I hear from a group I belong to should CONCERN us all. It's NOT PRETTY!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)doesn't broadcast such. Those that rely on CNN, ABC or even MSNBC are not hearing about Sen Sanders popularity.
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)He is a great candidate but likely not electable.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Read it.
Then administer.
dchill
(38,532 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)No matter who is elected, Bernie is going to own this country.
Duval
(4,280 posts)And the more others hear, the more will follow and "feel the Bern".
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)What kind of revolution do we want?
I favor a non-violent one.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)You seem to have a knack for good OP's. Thanks! I'm going forward for Bernie!
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)If he's doing so much better than them
But since he's running against Hillary as a Democrat, the election results up to this show clearly that he isn't a viable candidate
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)yuiyoshida
(41,861 posts)gomen na hito ga kirada! (see above)
Beowulf
(761 posts)to win the general election than the nomination, and for Hillary it's much easier to win the nomination than it is the general election. Labeling a candidate as viable depends on what your goal is.
This being the Democratic National Party, I think it's clear what the goal is. The near total absence of state parties and the national party to mount voter registration drives means they want to depress the number of new voters, the kind of voter most likely to support the outside candidate. Keeping the party's registered voters limited to those who have been long time registered Democrats favors the establishment candidate.
But Democrats are not the largest voting block in the country, independents are - maybe as high as 50%. That's why winning the general is a much different challenge than winning the nomination.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)The important thing is to win in the GENERAL ELECTION.
If you want to win the GE then you need the most viable candidate.
Hillary almost always LOSES to the GOP candidates, in every poll, month after month. To win the presidency, she will have to WIN against the GOP candidates.
Bernie, on the other hand, has been WINNING against ALL the GOP candidates by large margins for months.
Now, would you rather have someone who can WIN against the GOP and become the President, or someone who seems to be more popular in her own party, presumably because she has threatened and bribed them?
That is, do you want to WIN the presidency or lose it?
It is a simple concept to wrap your head around . . win or lose?
The polls have been telling you for months now who can win and who will lose.
Simple choice
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)If he can't win the Democratic base then he shouldn't be the representative of the party in the general election
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)To become President you need to run under one of two political parties. Ross Perot is probably the closest person who came to the Presidency in modern times without being part of the Republican or Democratic Party. The Dumpster would have got some traction due to name recognition and money but he wouldn't be where he is without being in the Republican primary. Bernie on the other hand hasn't had the money or name recognition that the Dumpster has yet he has built a movement that had had success.
NJCher
(35,730 posts)Watch for it--almost always with someone whose argument is sketchy, at best.
LOL, "clearly."
Cher
I know but clearly means and Sanders clearly has no shot at becoming the Democratic candidate in the general election.
NJCher
(35,730 posts)"I know what clearly means?"
If you need any more help with the English language, let me know.
Cher
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)he's still not attracting enough voters to win. Why not? How can he still convince enough people to count?
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)When you have TV news and many news sites owned by people that need to keep corruption going and are pushing for a candidate they know will take money to do their bidding. Political Ads are a billion dollar industry that relies on crony capitalism that Clinton is a part of. So they do "news" storys over and over of Clinton Campaign talking points. And this really has a impact on how a majority of people vote. Why do you think that largest supporters of Sanders are people who don't watch Cable news but use internet to get the information. And funny how HRC think that voting is due to Clinton being the more viable candidate. Yea not hard to win a race when everything is stacked in your favor.
FloriTexan
(838 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)K&R
jillan
(39,451 posts)moondust
(20,006 posts)That's in the Bible.
Now finish your gruel and go back to sleep.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Finish your gruel and go back to WORK!
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)The MSM is in the bag for a Trump/Hillary election.
But, that show has been cancelled, and replaced by the new spring program, "Here's Bernie".
(Spoken like the introduction of Johnny Carson by Ed McMahon on the Tonight Show)
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Highway61
(2,568 posts)The idea is to have the last laugh in November!
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... but he doesn't.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)At this point, they couldn't be more obvious. One chains himself to those struggling for basic human rights, the other gets pointers from Kissinger.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)1. Could you raise more money than any Republican opponent...
According to the New York Times from Feb. 20, , Ted Cruz has raised more money than Bernie Sanders
2. Draw larger crowds than any other candidate.
Pop star Justin Bieber draws massive crowds.
3. And poll better than all Republican candidates.
What does that even mean?
pangaia
(24,324 posts)The same shit happens in Russia, for one.
Great post, as always.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)YOu know - the DNC
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Maybe we could suppress the news of the poll numbers, but then we have Freedom of the Press here so we couldn't keep them from ourselves or others.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)...and those one million plus popular votes lead!
....and that lead in the delegate count!
....or the lead in many polls for upcoming races in delegate rich states!
If not for them, Bernie would be winning!
He raised the most money!
(wait, I thought the person with the most money was the bad guy..? Money = defacto evil, right?)
But I kid...
treestar
(82,383 posts)Seems like there should be some scrutiny as money is always suspicious here is Bernie Underground.
More than the Republican candidates is not so hard when there are so many of them.
And the crowd sizes matters not one whit. I may not attend a Hillary rally, but I'm voting for her, which matters, not whether I go to a rally!
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)it means I go without something to do it. I bet none of Hillary's people do without to see that she gets the money. No, no,no, not her billionaire and millionaire Wall Street buds. As, a gay activist for decades, I know who is on my side and it surely is not Her Highness, who finally said ok to Marriage Equality AFTER the SCOTUS ruled. She will have us into another war in a heartbeat. No jobs except in the so-called MIC. Screw that.
They_Live
(3,240 posts)One person, One vote, not one dollar, one vote, as creepy goldman sack man wants.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)making some permanent painted yard signs and this one is GREAT. A little long, but sums it up clearly. Had some thoughts about signs for BOTH T-RUMP and HILLARY! Not going away WITHOUT leaving a very strong message about how very much I feel about Hillary. Signs will be wooden and T-RUMP's is easy but haven't figured how negative my Hillary one will be.
Sorry folks, but I have NEVER, EVER in my life felt so negative about any candidate in life! Not giving up on Bernie, but with ALL OF MSM constantly telling EVERYONE he can't win, our GULLIBLE and uninformed electorate may be buying more of Hillary's LIES & total BULL CRAP! Calling me names are of no consequence to me, I simply know what I feel.
It's gotten so difficult to even listen to her voice each time I hear her speak, I simply hit the "mute" button or turn her off completely. It would be nice if I could find some way to accept her, but TRUST is a big thing for me and I DO-NOT-TRUST-HER!
She's already stolen Bernie's message and too many people are under the "illusion" she will abandon her core beliefs and govern that way! AND given all that DWS is doing right now should make everyone take a long hard look at what her real plans are.
It's more than SAD that people of this country will be willing to choose the TWO most UNLIKED candidates to vote for. The Democratic Party will lose all respect so many of us ONCE had for it!
Having to vote for someone you actually dislike and have no faith in JUST TO keep a man who has whipped up too many people that may make the leader back during WWII look so similar is disastrous!
My thoughts go deeper, but it's best not to go further. But, should she prevail... I'm gone!
TBF
(32,090 posts)marew
(1,588 posts)asuhornets
(2,405 posts)You mean meme..Big crowds do not translate to votes. Raising more money does not translate into more votes,
DownriverDem
(6,231 posts)Bernie has to win states to rack up delegates. In 2008 as Obama won states, the superdelegates flipped to him from Hillary. Yesterday there was a picture on FB showing huge crowds for Bernie. The questions was "Why isn't Bernie winning in a landslide?". Simple. Just because you attack large crowds doesn't mean all those folks vote.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)dchill
(38,532 posts)warrprayer
(4,734 posts)Kick and rec!!!
senseandsensibility
(17,130 posts)and truthy, for those of us into such things.
Darb
(2,807 posts)what makes him viable if he cannot beat her?
Darb
(2,807 posts)What does it mean? He's not losing, he's actually ahead?
For him to be "viable" he has to win the nomination. He is losing and it appears he has a tough road.
To me, viability starts with winning the nomination. He wins caucuses mostly and we know what that means.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)He's got to get the nomination to be viable. He is behind, substantially.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)Don't forget that. And you are a blatant partisan. I, on the other hand, would gladly vote for either candidate, because, you see, the other side is fucking lunacy.
eridani
(51,907 posts)I certainly plan to vote for whoever gets the nomination.